Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
120
Paddy field irrigation systems in Myanmar
Maung Maung Naing4
1. Introduction
Agricultural development is given priority in Myanmar’s socio-economic development as it is seen as essentialin its own right and as the basis of the other sectors of the economy. The agriculture sector contributes43 percent of GDP; 41 percent of export earnings; and employs 63 percent of the labour force.
The population in Myanmar reached 53 million in 2003. It has an annual population growth rate of2.02 percent and it is estimated that it will reach 61 million by 2010 and 86 million by 2025. More and morefood will be necessary for the country’s growing population. Rice is the main food for the people of Myanmarand it is also a principle crop in the agriculture sector. Thus, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MOAI)has laid down the objective to achieve a surplus in paddy production so as to meet the needs of the country.Other objectives are to achieve self-sufficiency in edible oil and to set up the production of exportable pulsesand industrial crops.
In this connection, irrigation plays a major role in the development of Myanmar’s agriculture sector. Smalland medium scale irrigation projects have been constructed throughout the country, especially for year-roundcultivation of paddy and in conjunction with other crops. These irrigation systems can improve the traditionalfarming practices and can adjust to the local hydrological characteristics. Furthermore, they can also contributeto the rural environment, rural life, biodiversity and the recycling of energy functions.
2. Resources
2.1 Potential land for cultivation
The total area of Myanmar is 67.71 million hectares and an area of only about 10 million hectares is cultivatedfor paddy and other crops. Myanmar has great potential to extend its cultivated area with few adverseenvironmental consequences by using cultivable waste lands that still cover about eight million hectares.
2.2 Water
Myanmar has three distinct seasons: the rainy season, the hot (summer) season and the cold (winter) season.Ninety percent of the annual rainfall in different regions of Myanmar is received during the rainy seasonfrom May to October. Precipitation varies countrywide (Table 1).
4 Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Myanmar.
Table 1. Rainfall distribution in Myanmar
Region Annual rainfall (mm)
1. South and western coastal strip 5 000
2. Delta 2 000–3 000
3. North and eastern hilly regions 1 300–3 000
4. Central dry zone 760
Myanmar has an abundance of high potential water resources. The drainage area is spread widely over thecountry endowing it with an annual water volume of 1 082 cubic kilometres flowing in its many rivers. TheAyeyarwady River and its tributaries such as the Chindwin, Mu, Panlaung, Zawgyi, Myitnge, Mone, Man,Salin and the Sittoung River and its distributaries of the Bago and others rivulets mainly contribute water to
121
the agriculture sector, especially for paddy irrigation. In addition, a large potential groundwater resource isfound in the Ayeyarwady River Basin and could be very useful for irrigating agriculture (Table 2).
3. Paddy fields and irrigation systems
Myanmar’s paddy fields can be found mostly in the delta and central dry zone areas (Figure 1). About60 percent of the delta region, including the Ayeyarwady, Bago and Yangon region of Lower Myanmar, iscultivated with rainfed paddy. Irrigated paddy is cultivated mainly in the Mandalay, Sagaing and Magwayregions which are located in the central dry zone of Myanmar.
Table 2. Potential water resources in Myanmar
River basinsSurface water Groundwater
(km3) (%) (km3) (%)
Ayeyarwady River Basin 455.13 42.07 303.42 61.33
Sittoung River Basin 81.15 7.50 28.40 5.74
Other River Basins 545.61 50.43 162.89 32.93
Total 1 081.89 100.00 494.71 100.00
Figure 1. Paddy fields and irrigation systems in the Ayeyarwady and Sittoung River Basins
Different type of irrigation systems and projects were developed mostly along the two major river basins(Figure 1) and are connected to where the paddy field is located. The Irrigation Department, a governmentalorganization established to coordinate the development and management of water resources for irrigation,has constructed about 200 irrigation projects which are of dam, weir and sluice types. A surface water runoffof about 15 460 million cubic metre (MCM) has been stored in the constructed reservoirs and can irrigate anarea of about 1 million hectares (Figure 2).
122
Various groundwater and river pumping projects have been implemented by the Water Resources UtilizationDepartment for crop irrigation and rural drinking water.
4. Water consumption
A total water volume of about 3 200 MCM comprising both surface water (91 percent) and groundwater(9 percent) was used to meet the demand for irrigation, domestic and industrial water supplies (Figure 3).Water consumption is divided among the agriculture sector (89 percent), the domestic sector (10 percent)and the industrial sector (1 percent). Groundwater is mostly used for domestic purposes.
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
18 000
1947
-48
1961
-62
1973
-74
1987
-88
1989
-90
1990
-91
1991
-92
1992
-93
1993
-94
1994
-95
1995
-96
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-200
0
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
Res
ervo
ires
sto
rage
(M
CM
)
Irri
gabl
e ar
ea (
1 00
0 ha
)
Budget Year
Water storage volume in the reservoirs
Irrigable area
Figure 2. Annual progress of water storage in the reservoirs and irrigable area
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
30 000
35 000
Dom
estic
Indu
stri
al
Irri
gatio
n
Tota
l
GroundwaterSurface water
Wat
er v
olum
e (M
CM
)
Sector
Figure 3. Water consumption in the different sectors of Myanmar, 2001
5. Production of crops using the irrigation systems
The irrigation projects in Myanmar mainly supply water for paddy cultivation. Paddy production has beenincreased by dry season paddy cultivation, which has followed rainy season paddy cultivation since 1992.Paddy is currently cultivated under a total area of 6.48 million hectares, comprising 4.86 million hectares inthe rainy season and 1.62 million hectares in the dry season. Supplemental irrigation is supplied for the rainyseason paddy cultivation in the central dry zone, where the rainfall is not sufficient for the crop water
123
requirement. Other upland crops are cultivated there in the dry season also using irrigation. The dry seasonpaddy is mostly cultivated in Lower Myanmar using irrigation. Thus, crop production is being increased bythe irrigation projects. Cultivation of paddy has increased from 4.78 million hectares in 1988 to 6.54 millionhectares in 2003 (Figure 4). The production has also increased from 12.96 million tonnes to 22.79 milliontonnes over the same period. Thus, rice exports have increased to 1 million tonnes in 2004. In accordancewith national planning targets, the sown area of paddy will be expanded to a total area of 7.29 million hectareswith the further expansion of 0.81 million hectares in the rainy season. To generate increasing production ofpaddy, high yielding varieties are being grown, including the introduction of hybrid rice varieties.
Among other upland crops, pulses and oilseed crops are also major crops in Myanmar and they participate inthe main cropping pattern of the irrigation projects along with paddy. Pulses are cultivated for export and thecost of cultivation is relatively inexpensive. As a result of the increasing demand for domestic consumptionand export, the cultivation of pulses has increased substantially from 0.73 million hectares in 1988 to3.31 million hectares in 2003 and the production has also increased from 0.5 million tonnes to 3 milliontonnes over the same period (Figure 5). Around one million tonnes of pulses are now being exported.The major oilseed crops are groundnut, sesame and sunflower and cultivation of these crops increased to2.78 million hectares in 2003.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sow
n ar
ea (
mill
ion
ha)
Prod
uctio
n (m
illio
n to
nne)
Budget Year
Paddy productionPaddy sown area
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1988
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Prod
uctio
n (m
illio
n to
nne)
Sow
n ar
ea (
mill
ion
ha)
Budget Year
Production of pulsesSown area of pulses
Figure 4. Sown area and production of paddy Figure 5. Sown area and production of pulses
6. Operation and maintenance
6.1 Management of the facilities
The Irrigation Department mainly maintains and operates the facilities such as main dams, headworks, maincanals and secondary units. The farmers have to maintain and operate the terminal units such as field ditchesand watercourses.
6.2 Water tariffs
The water tariff in the gravity dam irrigation systems of the Irrigation Department is very cheap for irrigationand it does not recover the cost for the maintenance work. The annual budget for the maintenance and repairof the facilities is mostly paid by the government (Table 3).
However, the water tariff in the river pumping systems of the Water Resources Utilization Department ishigher than that of the dam projects (Table 3). The water prices for paddy cultivation of the dam systems are150 and 300 times less than those of the electric and diesel types of river pumping systems, respectively(Table 4). As a result of the lower water price being less of a burden, the farmers use water without caringabout water shortages or water losses.
124
6.3 Farmer participation and water user associations
Water users associations (WUAs) and water users groups (WUGs) fundamentally play an important role inwater management. However, the functional associations and groups are more useful for implementingirrigation works. WUGs have been established in the projects under the guidelines of the Irrigation Department.These are organized only for terminal units and they do not function well. Integrated systems have beenorganized too, but they do not function well either.
In some of the projects the farmers improve the terminal units such as watercourses and field ditches. Andmaintenance works are performed differently even in the same projects. In the Ngamoeyeik Project, the farmersare all equally involved in creating a maintenance fund when before the irrigation season they meet todetermine and collect maintenance fees based on acreage. That fund is used for their terminal units. In theSwa Chaung Project, farmers have to repair and maintain that portion of the watercourse connected to theirareas. Generally, WUGs and WUAs organized in Myanmar still do not function well and they need to bemodified and good water management needs to be promoted.
6.4 Multipurpose water resources management
In conjunction with paddy irrigation, the isolated and multireservoir system projects have been constructedfor multipurposes: water supply for hydroelectric power generation, domestic use and environmentalconservation. As the project includes multisite reservoirs, different river basins and multiwater user sectors,it becomes a complex system (Table 5). The operation and management of its water supply is also complicated.
Conventional practice is currently adopted for water supply in the simple water resources projects. However,a complex solution for operation and management of the multipurpose and multireservoirs system projects isa major issue for the Irrigation Department and other related agencies. Such a complex solution requires muchgreater engineering and technical sophistication than do traditional and conventional practices. Thus, to beable to achieve efficient water use and good water productivity, the project engineers and water managershave to adopt more appropriate ways for operation and management.
Table 3. Ratio of the maintenance cost of the irrigation facilities betweenthe government and farmers
Budget yearGovernment’s subsidy Farmers’ contribution
(%) (%)
1993 95.24 4.76
1994 96.32 3.68
1996 95.27 4.73
1998 97.28 2.72
1999 97.6 2.40
2000 97.68 2.32
Table 4. Difference of irrigation tariff among the systems (ratio)
Crops Dam systemsRiver pumping systems
(Electric type) (Diesel type)
Paddy 1 150 300
Other crops 1 75 150
125
7. Competition and stress
7.1 Cropping pattern
The agriculture service has proposed a multicropping pattern in the projects to increase productivity and raisefarm and family incomes through improving farming on the basis of irrigation. Different kinds of croppingpatterns, including rainfed and irrigated paddy, rainfed with supplementary irrigation, irrigated upland cropssuch as pulses and oilseed crops, are being cultivated in the projects. The proposed cropping pattern for theNgamoeyeik Project is presented in Table 6 and includes multicrops of different varieties and over differentperiods within the system. Thus, complex adjustment of social, biophysical and economic factors is required.However, the possibilities of water security for these purposes should be considered from the viewpoint ofhydrological characteristics also. If water supply for the other sectors is considered for the multipurposeprojects, such a condition needs to be carefully adjusted in terms of both technical and institutional possibilities.
Table 5. Characteristics of water resources projects in Myanmar
Project type Single/multisite River basin Water supplyOperation andManagement
1) Isolated reservoir Single site same Single purpose Simpleand single purpose
2) Isolated reservoir Single site same Multipurpose Not simpleand multipurpose
3) Multiple-reservoirs Multisite same Multipurpose Complexand multipurpose
4) Multiple-reservoirs Multisite different Multipurpose More complexand multipurpose
Table 6. Proposed cropping patterns and calendar in the Ngamoeyeik Project, Lower Myanmar toincrease farm incomes
Cropping patternCropping calendar
First crop Second crop Third crop
1) rice-food legume-rice Rainy season rice Black gram Dry season rice(130–135 days varieties) (70 days varieties) (130–135 days varieties)mid-May to mid-October mid-September to mid-December to March
November (Relay) (Transplanting)
2) rice-food legume-rice Rainy season rice Black gram Dry season rice(115–120 days varieties) (70 days varieties) (100–105 days varieties)mid-May to mid-September 4th wk September to mid-December to March
1st December (Tillage) (Direct seeding)
3) rice-food Rainy season rice Green gram Sesamelegume-oilseed (115–120 days varieties) (70 days varieties) (70–80 days varieties)
June to mid-October mid-October to December second week January tofirst week April
4) rice-rice Rainy season rice Dry season rice –(130–135 days varieties) (115–120 days varieties)June to October mid-November to March
(Direct seeding)
126
7.2 Labour force
The continuous cultivation of paddy and other crops in Myanmar leads to agriculture labour force shortages.Land preparation, transplanting and harvesting, unlike in a traditional farming system, need to be finished ina short period of time so that the cropping seasons allow year-round cultivation. Thus, the farmers are facedwith labour shortages, especially for these periods and have no time to rest. Only 30 percent of farmers utilizetractors for land preparation.
7.3 Investment
Because of the continuous irrigation for double or triple cropping, the paddy fields are less fertile and morefertilizer has to be used to get a good yield. Thus, most farmers have problems with the high investmentneeded for fertilizers. On the other hand, the rice price always falls when the paddy is harvested. The farmerscannot wait until the price rises again and they have to sell their paddy to be able to invest in the next crop.It is a serious problem, especially for farmers with no off-farm job. To address this, a suitable marketing andtrade system should be introduced for the farmers.
8. New requirements
8.1 Facilities
The downstream irrigation facilities in the existing projects have to be developed to promote agricultureproduction and efficient water uses. The main canals should be rehabilitated for sufficient water supply inthese specific periods when it is required. Off-farm facilities such as watercourses, field ditches, landconsolidation and a proper irrigation and drainage network for farm productivity should also be developed.From the viewpoint of future farm mechanization, a reasonable plot size should be consolidated for workabilityand good water control. At the same time, ecological and environmental aspects also should be consideredtogether with paddy irrigation improvement.
8.2. Technical subjects
Based on traditional and conventional techniques, the operation and management of the facilities must betechnically improved to achieve the objectives of the sectors in the projects. The systems should be closelymonitored and evaluated for future development. The better modified techniques should replace the old ones.
8.3 Institutional subjects
Water user associations, farmer organizations and water user groups should be recognized and modified toestablish well-organized and functional groups. The related sectors should train farmers so that they havebasic knowledge of relevant subjects such as rice sciences, hydraulics and hydrology and other institutionalknowledge.
8.4 Water pricing
To reduce the government’s burden on the operation and maintenance, the participation of farmers should beimproved and irrigation tariffs should be increased up to a reasonable price. Rules, regulations and principlesshould be improved to ensure equitable and efficient water use and allocation.
9. Improvement of water management techniques
The Irrigation Department has implemented the Irrigation Technology Center (ITC) Project (Phase-II) incooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for improvement of water managementto foster better paddy production. The main components are off-farm and on-farm facilities development,monitoring and evaluation processes for operation and distribution planning, and conducting water managementtraining. As for irrigation and drainage development, the model farmlands for intensive and extensive types
127
of farming have been consolidated in the Ngamoeyeik Project, and these demonstrate to the farmers and localstaff how important water management is for better farm productivity.
9.1 Reservoir operation and system water distribution plan
Based on the practice of water distribution and use in the project, the irrigation system has been developedfor more reasonable and efficient operation. A main consideration is to formulate an annual water distributionplan for irrigation, and then to implement this. At the implementation stage, if it is necessary, a periodicallyrevised plan can be used in accordance with the ground conditions such as water availability in the reservoir,canal-wise actual irrigated area, working progress at the planting stage and on-farm level water use. Waterdistribution should be monitored and evaluated throughout the season and all sectors should be involved inthe development work.
9.2. On-farm level water management development
Water management at on-farm level or plot level has a direct relationship with water productivity. To havehigher water productivity a farm needs to have reasonable water operation facilities such as irrigation anddrainage canals and control shutter gates at these canals for water regulation. Two types of model farmlandwere consolidated within the project area to study on-farm level water management development. The firstis an intensive type, and it has an area of 25 ha including nine farmers, and the second is an extensive typewith an area of 134 ha including 38 farmers.
A plot-to-plot traditional irrigation system is demonstrated in the extensive model farmland (Figure 6a). Itincludes only a main drain system for a group of plots or watercourses. However, it has a reasonablewatercourse density for water distribution. According to topographical conditions, watercourses wereconstructed at intervals of 100 m, 200 m, 300 m and 400 m. A modern irrigation system is set up in theintensive model farmland (Figure 6b), and water can be controlled at any depth for any plot whenever it isnecessary. It has a high density of watercourse and drainage canals for water management.
(a) Traditional irrigation system (b) Modern irrigation system
Drainage canalIrrigation canal
Farm
roa
d
Irrigation canal
Drainage canal
Figure 6. On-farm level water distribution systems: (a) Traditional irrigation system, (b) Modernirrigation system
After constructing these model farmlands, water management at on-farm level was studied there in relationto water attainment time, water consumption at the growing stages and for land preparation, farm workability,nature of water use and management by farmers and farmers’ socio-economic situations before and after thefarmland consolidation.
128
9.3 Water management training
Water management training is one of the major components of the training programme of the IrrigationDepartment. Its fundamental aims are to contribute knowledge of irrigation water management to farmers,and to improve the technical skills of engineers and the technical staff of the Irrigation Department in thisfield. This training has been implemented for both on-farm and off-farm level water management development.Fundamental subjects include the setting of irrigation and drainage canals in the land consolidation areas,reservoir operation and distribution planning, operation and management of the facilities, data collection andinformation management, and calculation of the water requirement. The two model farmlands are also usedto help all trainees understand on-farm level water management development. The training courses conductedfor these purposes are here presented in Table 7. A master plan for future training programmes in relation tothis subject is also being considered.
Table 7. Implementation of water management training in ITC of theIrrigation Department (1999–2005 (Up to October))
Training typeNumber of Number of
training courses participants
(1) Farmers 30 903
(2) Irrigation engineers and staff of 19 499Irrigation Department
(3) Seminars 16 914
Total 65 2 316
9.4 Adoption of the techniques
The Irrigation Technology Center of the Irrigation Department is now implementing the extension project(Intermediate Goal Areas Project) for water management improvement in other areas. The techniquesdeveloped in the ITC Project (Phase II) will be adopted and expanded to other areas in one project afteranother. For the purpose, an implementing committee has been formed comprising members of the researchgroups, operation and maintenance engineers and agricultural specialists and extensionists.
10. Others
With the cooperation of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific(UNESCAP) and FAO, the Irrigation Department has launched a programme to develop the Myanmar WaterVision and to coordinate the establishment of a national water coordination agency (NWCA) as an apex bodyresponsible for overall management of water resources of the country in cooperation with both the publicand private sectors. Furthermore, it is planned to establish a national level Myanmar Water ResourcesCommittee (MWRC) and formulate a strategic management plan (SMP) to enhance the application ofintegrated water resources management in the country. In this connection, the Irrigation Department hasproposed the following components of IWRM to be studied in the formulation of the SMP:
principles of water resources development and management;
principles of operation and management;
water allocation among competing uses and users;
water productivity at farm, system, and basin level;
conjunctive use of surface and groundwater;
interactions between irrigation, human health, and the environment;
public involvement; and
capacity building (CB) and human resources development (HRD).
129
After the successful establishment of the MWRC and under the leadership of this committee, the SMP canbe promoted for the sustainable production of rice and other crops together with the harmonious developmentof other sectors as well through improving integrated water resources management and water managementfor paddy field irrigation systems.
Furthermore, the Irrigation Department has a plan to implement a project on “strengthening of farmers’irrigation management” together with the Myanmar Agriculture Services, Water Resources UtilizationDepartment and the Settlement and Land Records Department with the technical assistance of the JapaneseGovernment. It is aimed at reducing the administrative and maintenance costs of the construction of newirrigation projects as well as those of the existing irrigation system. The resources made available from theseadjustments could be utilized in improving the system losses, expanding the area under irrigation, and updatingfarm-level facilities. The farmers will voluntarily form water users associations, irrigation system managementwill be enforced and maintenance and repairs of irrigation facilities will be carried out.
11. Conclusions
Myanmar has abundant water resources which can be used to meet the demand for water of the agricultureand other sectors. Agriculture is a major economic sector of Myanmar and irrigation systems, especiallyrice-based irrigation systems, have been developed to promote agricultural production. These irrigation systemsallow crop production throughout the year as they make available water stored in the reservoirs and irrigationsystems.
Traditional paddy fields need to be developed into a more systematic farm type for application of farmmechanization and good water control in the paddy fields. This can be achieved through land consolidationand improvement of irrigation and drainage at both off-farm and on-farm locations. This development willallow high cropping intensity with the cultivation of the high yielding varieties.
It is urgently necessary to adopt more appropriate ways for generating complex water resources projects inMyanmar to meet the requirements of all sectors. Both technical and institutional measures are required tobe developed to replace traditional and conventional practices, but this should be carried out on the basis ofthe careful consideration of previous experience, making adjustments where necessary.
A reasonable and functional system of water users groups (WUGs) should be newly established or modifiedin conjunction with the local characteristics of the farming communities, including their economy, cultureand the social background of the respective regions in which they are to be found. They can support theadoption of new measures for better water resources management. A reasonable water pricing system alsoshould be implemented to lessen the government’s burden and to promote the farmers’ participation inirrigation. A suitable marketing and trading system for crops and farm products is necessary for the farmers’convenience and to bring them sufficient benefits.
Under the leadership of the Myanmar Water Resources Committee, the irrigation systems can contribute todevelopment of multifunctional roles and the sustainable development of the rural environment.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses his gratitude to the Director General of the Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agricultureand Irrigation, Myanmar for his support, and to the Viet Nam Institute for Water Resources Research (VIWRR),Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam and the FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific for their cooperation.
130
References
Euroconsult & UNDP. 1992. Ye-U Irrigation Support Project: feasibility study for the rehabilitation of the Shweboirrigation system (volume 1), MYA/85/002.
Irrigation Department. 1996. Mu-river basin project (Part-1): Progress report on Kintat diversion dam construction(in Burmese).
Irrigation Department. 2002. Thaphanseik multipurpose dam project: background history (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department. 2003. Study on effective use of drainage water in Shwebo irrigation scheme in Myanmar.
Irrigation Department. 2004a. Outline of the Irrigation Department.
Irrigation Department. 2004b. Report on integrated water resources management in Myanmar.
Irrigation Department. 2005a. Introduction to Irrigation Department (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department (Hydrology branch). 2005b. Water storage development in the reservoirs (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department-ITC Project. 2004. Seminar report on completion of Irrigation Technology Center Project(Phase II), ITC, Irrigation Department.
Irrigation Department-ITC Project. 2005. Technical Book on Ngamoeyeik Irrigation Project, ITC, IrrigationDepartment.
Kyaw San Win, U. 2002. Multifunctional roles in irrigation system, Paper presented paper at the Third World WaterForum (WWF3) Pre-symposium, Japan.
Maung Maung Naing. 2004. Towards participation in adoption of the technical measures for water resourcesmanagement, Myanmar Engineering Society, CAFEO–22 paper 628, 01–09.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2004a. Draft on strategic plan of IWRM in Myanmar, Irrigation Department,MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2004b. Myanmar Agriculture in Brief, MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2005. Myanmar Agriculture in Brief, MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Information. 2002. Facts and figures 2002, MOI, Union of Myanmar.
Myanmar Water Vision Team, Ti Le-Hu & Thierry Facon. 2003. Report on formulation of national water vision toaction (3rd draft), Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Myanmar.
Zaw Win, U. 2004a. Agricultural water resources study in Myanmar: water scarcity variations in Myanmar, MyanmarEngineering Society, CAFEO–22 paper 635, 01–038.
Zaw Win, U. 2004b. Water assessment and water sector profile for Myanmar, Irrigation Department.
131
Development and management of large rice-based irrigation systems:Philippine scenario
Proceso T. Domingo5
Abstract
Current irrigation development in the Philippines stands at 45 percent of the irrigable area and this is shortof the threshold for reaching rice self-sufficiency. The tight financial situation that the government finds itselfin has necessitated pruning the annual irrigation development programme. Programme priority, in fact, hasshifted to system rehabilitation projects with new construction focused on small-investment small-scaleirrigation systems only.
Experience shows that major rehabilitation, although effective in checking system deterioration anddysfunction, fails to improve irrigation performance and services. In response to this experience, the irrigationagency is focused on improving water availability, allocation and regulation as a special part of its irrigationprojects. This innovation is intended to address the principal causes of low cropping intensity: low anddwindling water supply and inequitable and wasteful water distribution.
Part of the advocated irrigation sector reform is the release by the irrigation agency to the irrigators’ associationsof stewardship over sections of public systems. This has the twin objectives of expanding farmers’ participationand downsizing system offices, both sides benefiting from resultant financial rewards. Monetary incentivesreceived by irrigators associations in taking over system management represent the driving force that keepsthem supportive of system policies.
Insufficient collection of irrigation service fees (55±5 percent) keeps funding for system restoration inadequate,resulting in suboptimal maintenance and repairs. Deterioration of water availability and irrigation servicesensues from repetition of such a situation, making farmers more unwilling to pay fees. This leads toa devastating cyclic phenomenon in irrigation operations that mere system restoration cannot break. Onlymajor rehabilitation with an enhanced irrigation package is likely to succeed.
Irrigation modernization in the country has started to move forward alongside the implementation ofinstitutional and policy reforms in the irrigation sector. These reforms are intended to elevate the operatingperformance of the irrigation agency and irrigation systems as essential conditions to the rice self-sufficiencythrust. A particular reform measure adopted is the implementation of a rationalization plan for the irrigationagency that balances irrigation service delivery with agency financial stability.
1. Irrigation development: general description
Construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems and promotion and adoption of improved farming practicesaim to increase annual rice production. Declining water supply, worsening system deterioration and defectivewater control, however, tend to diminish the irrigated area and irrigation services. Financial distress, causedby low revenues, growing workload and expensive materials, requires deferment of system repairs andstretching of project execution.
(a) System performance
Water management, the main task in system management, aims to deliver correct and adequate amounts ofwater at every offtake during the irrigation season. Dwindling and fluctuating water supply and inequitableand wasteful water distribution, attributable to deficient water allocation and regulation, restrict success. Theirrigated area thus pegs at levels much below the service area and makes cropping intensity (135±5 percentper year) much below potential — signifying poor irrigation services.
5 Administrator, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), EDSA, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
132
Besides deficient water availability and distribution, inferior water allocation and severe system deteriorationalso contribute to depressing system functioning. Poor irrigation services dissuade an increasing number offarmers from paying an irrigation service fee (ISF), making collections inadequate for the restoration needs.Radicalized farmers’ behaviour, caused by ISF-delinquent perceived role models and the tricks perpetratedby some system staff, also push up the number of ISF non-payers.
(b) Irrigation contribution
Irrigation systems in the Philippines are rice-based, considering that rice is the local staple, with a few ofsuch systems supplying water to banana plantation canals. At the current low levels of irrigation development(45 percent), rice yields and rain-dependent rice areas, domestic rice production remains short of therequirement. Reducing this rice shortage has been the overriding goal of every banner rice-productionprogramme of the government over decades, but success remains elusive.
Increasing rice yield is the primary goal of the said programmes, with the farmers’ use of improved varieties,correct fertilization and preventive pesticides as the strategies. Priority programme beneficiaries are the irrigatedareas, in view of the perceived dependability of water supply that reduces risks associated with crop-damagingdry spells. Increasing the irrigated area and cropping intensity, however, remains the essential measures forachieving and sustaining rice self-sufficiency for the country.
(c) Irrigation policies
Management (operation, maintenance and repairs) of large rice-based irrigation systems continues as a mandateof the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). As evolved, NIA handles water management at the canal(primary and secondary) level with NIA earmarking the task at the ditch (farm) level to the farmers. Thisprecursor of farmers’ participation necessitated organizing the farmers in every turnout service area (30 to40 ha) into irrigators group, then training them.
Although the rotational irrigation method at the ditch level failed to take off, at the canal level it workedwith the support of the irrigators associations (IAs).6 This show of potential led to the release by NIA to IAsof selected system management tasks like canal maintenance, water management and ISF collection. Financialincentives derived from executing these tasks provided a needed income source for the IAs — a factor thatkeeps the IAs active and useful partners of NIA.
2. Agricultural development: national thrusts
Expanding irrigated area outweighs the combined contribution of adopting improved rice varieties and cropnutrition and protection in increasing rice production. Meagre annual increases in irrigation service area,attributable to the reduced scope of irrigation development programmes to match funding constraints, stallsefforts. Reaching rice self-sufficiency thus continues to be the prime aspiration of the nation and it remainsas such much longer than expected because irrigation development has fallen behind.
(a) Reaching rice self-sufficiency
Domestic banner agricultural development programmes envisage elevating the Philippines from a persistentrice importing country to a rice self-sufficient one. Besides targeting increasing rice yield, expanding irrigatedarea and increasing cropping intensity are the strategies designed to increase rice production. Expanding theirrigated area through construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems remains the more potent initiativein approaching rice self-sufficiency.
Implementation of irrigation projects, however, is constrained by lack of funds, with the number and extentof projects limited by an imposed budget ceiling. Both ongoing foreign-assisted and government-funded
6 IAs cover about 750 hectares, at the initial stage, composed of several irrigators groups and their formation is intended to facilitateresolution of water-related conflicts and enforcement of operating policies and irrigation programmes.
133
projects, in fact, suffer from a trickle of cash support, which results in negative slippage of the implementationperiod. This situation further prolongs the time for reaching rice self-sufficiency because it inhibits efforts toexpand the irrigated area to the known threshold level.
(b) Expanding the irrigated area
Many people both in the rural and urban areas become aware of the importance of irrigation only whendevastating droughts and rice insufficiency crises strike. Under a no-crisis situation, many people becomeoblivious of the necessity for irrigation systems — a factor that exacerbates the effect of the tight financialsituation. Current priorities thus have skewed at less expensive system rehabilitation with new constructionprojects focused only on low-investment small-scale systems.
Past rehabilitation works, however, defied expectations of improved irrigation performance, with irrigatedarea and cropping intensity kept at the same low levels. Proper judgment of the needs (physical, proceduraland social) of and application of innovative measures in system rehabilitation offer hope for a turnaround.Estimated achievable increase in irrigated area out of system rehabilitation would still be short of therequirement to reach the threshold of rice self-sufficiency.
3. Sustainable irrigation: emergent requirements
NIA has embarked on releasing the stewardship over the secondary and tertiary levels of NIA-managed systemsto acquiescent and (what are deemed to be) capable IAs. As a means of enhancing inherent IA capability,NIA earmarks in the said programme only those systems that have undergone or will undergo majorrehabilitation. A foreseeable attribute of the systems that undergo rehabilitation with an improved package isthe reduced incidence of problems of water allocation and distribution.
(a) Protecting system functionality
Income from ISF collections continues to be the main source of funding to meet the costs of operations,maintenance and repairs of the NIA-managed irrigation systems. Such insufficient ISF collections result insuboptimal maintenance and repairs — resulting in worsening of system deterioration and dysfunction. Assystem performance and irrigation services decline, farmers’ willingness to pay ISF likewise declines, triggeringthe onset of a worsening cyclic phenomenon.
With the systems engulfed by the said phenomenon, water availability and irrigated areas shrink, with thefarmers ending up the principal victims of this remiss. This has driven NIA to impose the controversial “nopayment no irrigation” policy, with support from the irrigators groups and IAs, to protect farmers’ interests.Success in the implementation of this policy serves to demonstrate the relevance of organizing and trainingIAs in mustering farmers’ collective action.
(b) Expanding farmers’ participation
Recognizing the need to tap the capability of IAs and to provide an income source for them, NIA encouragesthe IAs to take over system management tasks. Programme implementation already has reached a stagewhereby many IAs have taken over the management responsibility of their respective jurisdictional areasalready. Promotion of irrigation management transfer (IMT) aligns with the national thrusts for farmers’empowerment and a management modality shift for the systems.
IMT renders particular system staff redundant but NIA could not convince the said staff to retire early becauseof the unavailability of funding to offer incentives for them to do so. With the redundant staff continuing toreceive remuneration, the incentive fees received by the IMT-recipient IAs from NIA represent an added costto NIA. As IMT coverage expands, NIA now contemplates two possible scenarios: NIA’s relevance may startto dwindle and irrigation services may start to plunge.
134
(c) Undertaking institutional reform
Compelled by financial difficulties, NIA proposed in 2002 a streamlining plan but lack of funds for personnelretirement incentives stalled implementation. NIA now, along with other agencies in the executive branch ofgovernment, is formulating a rationalization plan aimed at improving service delivery and agency finances.NIA is enthusiastic the plan will be pushed through as the government is working on making available adequatefunds for the retirement incentives.
A consulting firm, engaged through a grant for the preparation of a proposed system rehabilitation project,would formulate policy reforms in the irrigation sector. Financial strengthening of NIA, repair funds forsystems, management improvement of equipment and guidelines enhancement for IMT comprise the concerns.These reforms intend to complement the envisaged enhanced package of system rehabilitation, all aiming atimproving agency and system performance.
4. Irrigation operations: management reform
The negligible effect of major rehabilitation on improving irrigation performance obligated NIA to incorporateinnovations in the rehabilitation scope of the systems. These innovations comprise water supply augmentation,water flow regulation, operating modality shift, repair fund generation, and agency institutional reform.Improving water availability for the irrigation systems and service area represents the foremost input toincreasing irrigated area and improving irrigation services.
(a) Upgrading the development focus
Farmers and NIA staff in irrigation systems that underwent major rehabilitation become frustrated becauseof its failure to improve irrigation services. Inequitable water distribution, shown by water superfluity in theupper section, water deficit in the middle section and water deprivation in the lower section, persists. Majorrehabilitation, via its traditional package, does correct system deterioration and restore functionality but doesnot improve irrigation performance.
Building on this experience, NIA is now focusing on improving water availability and water distribution inits forthcoming construction and rehabilitation projects. Augmenting water supply, through drainage waterreuse and intermediate water storage systems, and improving discharge regulation are the new measures. Anenvisaged innovation is the delivery of flowrates quantified using design-based water allocation, and controlledand measured using appropriate structures.
(b) Tackling emergency repairs
Current levels of ISF rates are just enough to offset the costs of system operation, maintenance and repairsbut the low collection levels cause problems. Resultant limited funding, aggravated by high and rising costsof construction materials and equipment fuel, constrain execution of maintenance and repairs. Trickling anddiminishing government appropriations for repair works have somehow provided relief to NIA, but the currenttight financial situation threatens cessation of the said subsidy.
Floods caused by typhoons often devastate irrigation facilities, many of which are so critical that if not repairedimmediately would imperil standing crops. Widespread and critical system devastation has happened alreadyalmost every year and NIA, in many instances, has had to defer repairs because of lack of funding. To correctsuch an image-damaging situation and to support IMT-recipient IAs, NIA now advocates the establishmentof a fund for emergency system repairs.
135
Table 1. General information on rice-based irrigation systems in the Philippines
ParameterPhysical scale
<10 000 ha10 000 to
>100 000 ha All sizes100 000 ha
1. Number of systems
a. National irrigation system 183 13 – 196
b. Communal irrigation system 6 702 – – 6 702
c. Private irrigation system 4 001 – – 4 001
Total 10 886 13 10 899
2. Annual water diversion, MCM 31.50
a. % for agriculture water use 100
b. % for domestic water use –
c. % for other water uses –
3. Design irrigation area, ha
a. National irrigation system 453 857 236 382 – 690 239
b. Communal irrigation system 537 304 – – 537 304
c. Private irrigation system 174 200 – – 174 200
Total 1 165 361 236 382 1 401 743
4. Effective irrigation area, ha
a. National irrigation system – – – 140±5%/yr
b. Communal irrigation system – – – 130±5%/yr
c. Private irrigation system – – – 130±5%/yr
Wt. mean 134±5%/yr
5. Irrigation area, % of (3)
a. Rice 100% in WS
b. Vegetable and orchard 5% in DS
c. Other crops (banana) nil
No. of beneficiaries — farmers
a. National irrigation system 434 844
b. Communal irrigation system 301 035
c. Pump irrigation system 134 540
Total 870 419
No. of beneficiaries — city residents No info
Wetland areas supported, ha –
136
Large rice-based irrigation systems in Thailand
Chawee Wongprasittiporn7
1. Background information on large rice-based irrigation systems
In Thailand, most of the agricultural land is paddy field, therefore most irrigation schemes supply water topaddy.
Four of the main large rice-based irrigation systems in Thailand are described below.
1. The Greater Chao Phraya Irrigation Project is in the central plain (1.2 million ha). The irrigationsystem is composed of two storage dams — the Bhumibol Dam and the Sirikit Dam, and two diversiondams — the Chao Phraya Dam and the Naresuan Dam.
2. The Mae Klong Irrigation Project is connected to the Greater Chao Phraya as well. The irrigationsystem is composed of one storage dam — the Wachiralongkorn Dam and one diversion dam.
3. The Phitsanulok Irrigation Project in the upper central plain (104 000 ha). The irrigation system iscomposed of one storage dam — the Sirikit Dam and one diversion dam — the Naresuan Dam. TheNaresuan Dam will divert water to the Phitsanulok Dam and release water downstream to the GreatChao Phraya Irrigation Project.
4. The Pak Panang Irrigation Project in the southern part of Thailand (92 800 ha). The irrigation systemis composed of gate regulators in all mouths of the tributaries of the main Pak Panang River and inthe Pak Panang River there is one main gate regulator near to the river mouth to the sea. There isone emergency canal and a gate and three or four man-made canals to divert flood water to the seaand in the dry season a diversion canal is used as an irrigation canal.
2. Trends of agriculture development and water resources management
On the basis of the national socio-economic development trends, the Royal Irrigation Department reviewedits vision, missions, objectives, and strategies in 2005 to serve the country’s development.
The Department’s vision is articulated as supplying sufficient water to support agricultural production to raisefarmers’ incomes and sustain the economy.
Its missions are:
to develop water resources to their full potential;
to manage water for all water users equitably and in a sustainable manner;
to encourage people’s participation in all levels of water resources development and management;and
to protect against and to mitigate water-related disasters.
Its objectives are:
to develop irrigation sufficiently in agricultural areas; and
to provide a good service to enable farmers to have a good quality of life.
7 Royal Irrigation Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
137
Its strategies are:
to expand the irrigation area;
to promote higher irrigation efficiencies;
to protect against and mitigate water-related disasters;
to encourage people’s participation and public relations; and
to increase efficiency of the water management processes.
Because of the drought crisis of last year, the government has emphasized small scale water resourcesdevelopment countrywide in order to enable all people to have access to water. Therefore, a list of numeroussmall and medium scale projects countrywide has been proposed.
The expansion of the irrigation area will increase the irrigation area over the rainfed area in order to reducethe risks of water shortage for farmers. This will lead to more secure revenue for farmers.
In the existing irrigated area, the policies are aimed at increasing irrigation efficiencies and improving watermanagement. With this strategy, the same amount of water should be utilized for more agricultural production.
Land resources and water resources utilities will be integrated to achieve higher production to serve the largerpopulation and fewer agricultural lands expected in the future. Normally in the dry season or in rainfed areas,farmers migrate to the main cities, but the expansion of irrigation in rainfed area as well as more effectiveuse of water will increase cropping intensities and agricultural labour will be needed throughout the wholeyear.
Moreover, if some existing agricultural lands are provided with irrigation facilities there will be less landinvasion in the forest preserve areas. This will help achieve the country’s environmental conservation goals.
3. New requirements for large rice-based irrigation systems
In recent years, the paddy price has increased (almost double the price of ten years ago in 1995), farmershave responded by increasing the paddy area. This is most obvious in the dry season.
In some irrigation areas farmers have also developed their own water resources such as shallow tube-wellsfor conjunctive water uses which they manage by themselves.
Three crops per year are available in some areas and this indicates that if water is sufficient, farmers willmake more concentrated uses of agricultural land.
As the higher paddy price is a powerful incentive for farmers, their behaviour and practices are also reflectedin irrigation management in some projects in terms of:
less time devoted to canal maintenance;
change in the management of the irrigation supply from continuous flow to rotation flow;
deterioration in the canal shape according to flow pattern changes;
more inequitable sharing of water among head-end and tail-end water users; and
more complaints and disputes from water users.
These changes need to be closely monitored and assessed and water management needs to be adjusted toconform to farmers’ changing practices.
It is necessary for more people to participate in water management in order to catch up with demand andsupply side potentials and constraints and to open up opportunities for consultation between both sides forconcentrated land and water resources use.
138
4. Measures undertaken
The 2005 vision, missions, objectives and strategies mentioned earlier in Section 2, introduced some newfoci in water management to provide good quality services. These are countrywide service delivery based onthe principle of equity and not focusing only on potential irrigated area but also on people’s participation.
4.1 People’s participatory irrigation management (PIM)
Some strategic measures such as the project promoting people’s participatory irrigation management (PIM)were implemented first in the form of pilot projects assisted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Afterthe pilot projects were completed, the Royal Irrigation Department applied the PIM approach to its routinetasks at provincial level using its own annual budget.
In spite of budget limitations, the PIM approach is still practised and there is good consultation betweenirrigators and farmers. Before each irrigation season starts, there will be a meeting of the provincial irrigators,provincial agriculturists and farmers groups in the province. Irrigators will inform the meeting about wateravailability and the irrigation starting date (after canal maintenance), the agriculturists will give informationabout the trend of the agricultural market, and farmers will inform the meeting of their planned crops. Theamount of water, potential planting area, type of crop and marketing will be discussed to fine tune amongneeds, availability and constraints so as to establish the cropping pattern and irrigation schedules. Additionalmeetings will be established in case of a mid-season crisis or significant changes in plans.
These new practices (increasing the level of people’s participation) were implemented one or two years aftercompletion of the ADB supported pilot projects. In the past, farmers got to know about the irrigation scheduleby asking a zone-man in the field. With some projects, there was a notice board nearby the irrigation canalinforming farmers of the irrigation schedules. However, this is one-way communication that allows farmersto receive information but not give information about their needs.
By allowing farmers to participate in water management, complaints and disputes are fewer and farmers canbetter plan their production processes. The direction is moving towards demand-side management using thefull potential of resources, but it still faces some constraints. Equitable land and water resources utilization isdiscussed and encouraged in the participation meeting.
4.2 Conjunctive uses of water
As the price of paddy is high, dry season paddy areas have been much greater than the potential area basedon irrigation water availability. In some areas, three paddy crops were cultivated throughout the whole year.
These three crops are possible because of the large numbers of alternative sources of water, namely privateshallow tubewells, developed by farmers.
In the Phitsanulok Irrigation Project, daily water use in paddy fields was measured. It was found that in thetail-end area where irrigation water is not very reliable, shallow tubewell water accounts for about 80 percentof the water supplied, whereas in the head-end area irrigation water is still the main source of water. Thisaffects the planning of water management and irrigation schedules.
As the water requirement is much higher, irrigation scheduling has changed from continuous flow accordingto design criteria to rotation flow. The operation of cross regulators for abrupt flow changes in rotationschedules causes sliding of earthen canals. The trapezoidal shape of earthen canals has changed to a largeU-shape. Water flow is quite slow and the hydraulics of slow flow complicates irrigation management.
4.3 Water management for development and the environment
At present, under the technical assistance of the Government of Spain, the Royal Irrigation Department isundertaking a study of irrigation improvement for the Phitsanulok Project. The content of the study is toapply an appropriate mathematical hydraulics model to determine the most suitable water management regime.
139
The potential of utilizing groundwater is being studied and the participation of water user groups in watermanagement is also included in the study.
In the south, a large paddy irrigation project — the Pak Panang Project — is a water management systemthat was designed not only to achieve a development target but also to mitigate any adverse impact from theproject. The operation of a set of gate regulators is meant to store fresh water for the dry season, to mitigateflooding in the rainy season, and to protect the agricultural area from salinity intrusion. Later on, additionalstudy was conducted to mitigate some environmental impacts such as water pollution downstream of thegate in the dry season, to allow brackish water to act as a buffer zone between fresh and sea water for thesake of brackish water animals and to divert acidic water from an upstream large acidic swamp out to a by-passcanal to prevent the flow of highly acid water to a fishery site downstream.
Multi-objective water management for large scale paddy fields is the most complicated type of watermanagement in Thailand as the people in the project area have different occupations leading to differencesin water uses. Farmers need fresh water in the dry season for a second paddy crop (dry season paddy) whilefisherman and shrimp ponds need brackish water and want to fully open the regulator gates. To solve thisproblem, the provincial governor, the provincial government agencies concerned with irrigation, fisheries,agriculture, and resource persons from universities, non-government organizations and representatives fromeach district have had continuous meetings to formulate a plan to be agreed by all sectors. The managementalternatives proposed by one of the meetings were taken to create a simulation exercise to predict the resultsand bring them up for discussion at the next meeting. The meeting ended with the agreement that watermanagement will not have adverse impacts on the farmers. The gates of the main regulator will be operatedconforming to the sea water level to enable the brackish water zone to travel up to some control point duringthe wet season to allow the nursing of shrimp in natural water. The other regulators will be operated inconjunction with the main regulators to protect the paddy fields from salinity intrusion.
5. Further options to meet the changing requirements
In the Pak Panang Project, water management now includes socio-environmental considerations. After thenew gate opening was agreed, the people’s participation meeting also recognized the impact of the newchanges, therefore a monitoring team was set up to follow up with a monitoring programme. The place andperiod of monitoring was discussed in the participation meeting. The monitoring team includes members fromall stakeholders such as local people, irrigators, environmental NGOs and staff of universities.
With regard to the conjunctive use of shallow tubewells in the Phitsanulok Irrigation Project, there is nowrecognition of the additional sources of water that are managed by farmers. There are some relevant studiesin the Phitsanulok irrigation area such as the study of GIS of shallow tubewell potential, measurement ofwater level in some representative shallow tubewells, study of water recharge rate to shallow tubewells. Thestudies were undertaken to find out an appropriate water management regime to improve water allocation toserve the demand and to solve the problem of sliding of the earthen canal. In the near future, the watermanagement will be changed to some extent to conform with the current situation.
140
Information on irrigation systems in Thailand
National irrigation management Agency: Royal Irrigation Department
General information on irrigation systems
Physical scale of rice-based<10 000 ha
10 000 to>100 000 ha All scales
irrigation systems 100 000 ha
Number of systems 10 536 85 10 621
Annual water diversion (MCM) 4 787 29 642
% of agriculture water use
% of domestic water use
% of other water use
Designed irrigation area (ha) 2 611 700 2 668 160
Effective irrigation area (ha) 2 611 700 2 668 160
Rice irrigation area (ha)
Vegetable and orchard area (ha)
Other crops irrigation area (ha)
Beneficiaries — farmers
Beneficiaries — city residents
Wetland areas supported (ha)
Information of the largest rice-based irrigation system
Name The Greater Chao Phraya Irrigation Project
Location Central Plain
Construction period 1958–1972
Designed irrigation area 1 200 000
Functional irrigation area 1 200 000
Annual water diversion (MCM) 22 972
% of agriculture water use 80
% of domestic water use
% of other water use
Rice irrigation area (ha)
Vegetable and orchard area (ha)
Other crops irrigation area (ha)
Water supply per ha of irrigated rice field
Output (US$) per m3 of water supply
Beneficiaries — farmers
Beneficiaries — city residents
Wetland areas supported (ha)
141
The development of irrigation systemsfor sustainable agricultural development in Viet Nam
Nguyen Dinh Ninh8
Abstract
Viet Nam has a gross area of 330 991 km2 with a population of about 80 million (2004), a population densityof 242 people/km2. Over 75 percent of Vietnamese people live in rural areas. Agriculture accounted for22 percent of the gross domestic product in 2003.
In recent years, Viet Nam’s economic growth has been stable at the rate of 7.5 percent per year. Growth inagriculture constantly increased at a rate of 4 to 4.5 percent per year. Viet Nam is a major exporter ofagricultural products (rice, coffee, rubber, pepper, cashew etc.). Agricultural development in recent years hasnot only contributed to national income growth, food security and poverty reduction but also has contributedto social stability and environmental protection.
However, the country’s integration into the international economic system has brought many challenges toViet Nam’s agriculture sector. To ensure sustainable agricultural development, issues of markets, pricing,competition of agricultural products and water must be addressed.
Viet Nam is located in the tropical monsoon zone and, potentially, has abundant water resources. Annualrunoff is about 844 billion cubic metres, of which 323 billion cubic metres are generated inside the country,and 521 billion cubic metres are generated from outside the country. Groundwater resources have a dynamicpotential of about 1 500 m3/s. However, water distribution is uneven in both space and time. From 75 to80 percent of annual runoff is concentrated in three to four months of the mid-rainy season and 5 to 8 percentis concentrated in three months of the mid-dry season. Therefore, water shortage, drought and water loggingoften happen in most of areas of the country with serious consequences for farmers. Over the previous decades,water resources development and management have been a serious concern of the state and the people ofViet Nam. Water resources development has contributed significantly to the economic and social developmentof Viet Nam, especially in terms of agricultural production.
In the coming decades, Viet Nam’s economy will undergo a high rate of growth to achieve the country’sgoals of industrialization and modernization, and the population growth of the country will continue to increase,with a forecast of 88 to 89 million people in 2010. Therefore, the demand for water for socio-economicdevelopment in general and for sustainable agriculture in particular will seriously challenge the water sector.This must be met with success.
1. Key water management and development problems and challenges
1.1. Some features of water resources in Viet Nam
Viet Nam is under the influence of two monsoon systems — the northeast and the southwest monsoons.Thus, the rainfall is distributed unevenly both in space and time. The rainy season usually starts in May orJune and finishes in October or November, which normally provides 75 to 80 percent of the entire annualrainfall. The rainfall in the dry season is very low, many areas have no rain for months. As for space,the rainfall distribution is affected by the topography: in some areas, the rainfall may reach up to 3 000 to 5000 mm/year whereas for other areas, the rainfall is as little as 1 000 mm/year.
In the rainy season, the water flow module can be from 60 l/s/km2 to 80 l/s/km2 while in the dry season, thewater flow module is just 10 l/s/km2. As for time, the water flow in the rainy season accounts for 75 to80 percent of the annual water flow. The water flow in the lowest month is just 1 to 2 percent of the total
8 Deputy Director General, Department of Water Sources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Viet Nam.
142
water flow in the year. The difference between the high flow year and the low flow year can be two to threetimes.
According to a national-level survey, the total amount of water which flows in Viet Nam is estimated at about844 billion m3 per year (approximately 271 000 m3/s), including 323 billion m3 from the internal flow ofViet Nam accounting for 37 percent and 521 billion m3 from the external flow.
Besides surface water resources, Viet Nam also has groundwater resources with the total amount of50 to 60 billion m3 (equivalent to 1 513 m3/s). It is estimated that the maximum exploitable capacity is only10 to 12 billion m3.
One of the characteristics of Viet Nam is that drought and water shortages occur every year in different areaswith different degrees of seriousness. In the rainy season, flood and inundation are very common. In recentyears, Viet Nam has been faced with calamities of historical proportions: the drought in 1998 caused greatlosses for the economy, more than three million people lacked water for domestic use; two successive floodsoccurred in the central provinces in November and December 2000 and in 2001; the flood in the MekongDelta this year is the biggest in the last 70 years. At the beginning of 2002, there were serious droughts inthe central highlands, the south central provinces and the Mekong Delta.
Given the facts stated above, Viet Nam’s water resources must be used efficiently and effectively and at thesame time the adverse effects of too much or too little water must be mitigated.
1.2. Achievements of investment in irrigation systems development
1.2.1 Investment achievement of water supply and drainage development
Up to now the country has had 75 large irrigation and drainage schemes, 800 large and medium dams, over3 500 reservoirs with capacity higher than 1 million m3 and heights over 10 m, 5 000 large sluices, and over2 000 big pumping stations and thousands of medium-scale and small-scale water works. All schemes haveirrigated fully 3.3 million hectares and partially over 1 million hectares. They have drained 1.4 million hectares,prevented salt intrusion in 0.77 million hectares and improved 1.6 million hectares of acid sulphate soil. Theyhave also supplied 5 billion m3 of water for domestic and industrial uses. Irrigated areas of paddy, uplandcrops, vegetables and short-term industrial trees have been constantly increased as shown in the diagram below.
In 2000, the water works irrigated 0.718 million hectares of upland crops, vegetables and industrial trees,5.973 million hectares of paddy (of which there were 2.45 million hectares of winter-spring paddy, 1.82 millionhectares of summer-autumn paddy and 1.703 million hectares of late autumn paddy) and drained 1.596 millionhectares of cultivated land.
0
1
2
3
4Series 1
Total capacity of water works
Serv
ice
area
(m
illio
n ha
)
Full irr. Partial irr. Drainage Salt prot. Soil improvement
1.2.2 Investment achievements in flood protection and mitigation
The existing flood protection works systems consist of 5 700 km of river dykes, 2 000 km of sea dykes,23 000 km of embankment rings and thousands of sluices, and hundreds of kilometres of revetment. Thedyke systems are now strengthened, improved to a higher standard for flood protection, especially for theRed, Thai Binh, Ma and Ca Rivers.
143
The Red River dyke system has the designed flood level of 13.4 m at Hanoi and 7.21 m at Pha Lai.In combination with the upstream reservoirs, it can protect against floods of the magnitude of the1971 historical flood. The Ma and Ca dyke systems can protect against overflowing of the magnitudeof historical floods.
The sea dyke system in the north and north central provinces can prevent salt intrusion and reducethe force of sea waves caused by eight and nine degree winds.
The dyke and embankment ring system in the south central provinces and Cuu Long River Delta areable to protect against the annual floods and thus protect the summer-autumn paddy crop.
1.3. Investment benefits of irrigation systems development
1.3.1. Rapid increase and stabilization of the paddy cropped area, yield and production
Because the irrigation water supply was increased and its quality services were improved, the paddy cultivatedarea has increased from year to year in line with cropping pattern changes. In 2000, 7.67 million hectares ofpaddy were cultivated (in 1986 it was 5.68 million ha). Especially, the winter-spring paddy area increased to3 million ha (in 1986 it was 1.8 million ha) and the summer-autumn paddy increased to 2.33 million ha(in 1986 it was 0.9 million ha). The increased paddy area was mostly in the Cuu Long River Delta, from2.58 million ha to 3.97 million ha. The gross food production of the country rapidly increased and stabilizedfrom 16 million tonnes (1986) to 32.5 million tonnes (2000). This was a very great achievement of theagriculture sector. It not only ensured national food security, but over 3 million tonnes of rice were exportedalso with a value over 800 million USD.
1.3.2. Crop diversification development
The food upland crops, for example maize, increased its cultivated area from 460 000 ha (1986) to 700 000 hawith the total production of 1.93 million tonnes. The planted area and production of annual and long termcommercial trees and orchards also increased. Annual average production (1986–2000) was much higher incomparison with the previous five years, for example, groundnut increased 1.64 times, sugarcane increasedthree times, soybean increased 1.67 times, rubber increased five times, coffee increased 2.5 times. The fruittrees such as longan, lichee, rambutan etc. also increased both in terms of planted area and production.In 1995 the planted area was 37 600 ha and 223 000 tonnes were produced, in 2000 the planted area was149 000 ha and 719 000 tonnes were produced.
The agriculture value per hectare of the cultivated land increased from 13.5 million VND/ha (1995) to17.5 million VND/ha (2000), typically, but some places gained over 100 million VND/ha because irrigationand drainage services were good and investment in new varieties and agricultural materials was higher.
1.3.3. Water supply for domestic use and industries
Providing services for domestic and industrial uses is becoming more important in water resourcesdevelopment. Up till now, hundreds of water works have supplied over 5 billion m3 for domestic uses andindustries. The proportion of the rural population supplied with water is increasing, especially in remoteprovinces in mountainous areas and the Cuu Long River Delta (42% of rural population).
1.3.4. Water for fisheries development
Fisheries development, especially in brackish water areas, has had a very high rate of growth. The improvedwater works have ensured fresh water sources for fish farming and facilitated increase of the fish farmingarea in saline and brackish water from 342 000 ha (2000) to 585 000 ha (2001).
1.3.5. Development of solutions for drainage and flood control
The development of solutions for drainage and flood control has brought very big benefits. Tens of millionsof people and millions of hectares of cultivated land within the delta that frequently is threatened by floods
144
have been protected by water works. Loss of people’s lives and property caused by floods and typhoons isnot only much reduced but the ecology, people’s living environment, and sanitation have been improved,diseases have been prevented and economic activities have been maintained also, even when heavy rainsand high flooding occur. This facilitates sustainable socio-economic development.
1.3.6. Contribution of water resources development to social improvement
Water resources development creates good opportunities for increasing land intensity (in the Red River Delta,the land intensity increased from 1.4 up 2.3), creating new jobs for farmers, reducing labour in agriculturalproduction (by using water transport in canals as well as land transport on canal banks), improving habitatarrangements for flood evacuation (especially in the Mekong Delta), improving the living conditions of farmers.Many new economic zones have been established and rapidly developed and are strongly supported by waterresources development to supply water for domestic use and production activities.
1.3.7. Contribution of water resources development to environmental improvement
Water resources development contributes to quality of life and agricultural production, increases groundwaterresources, regulates runoff, increases soil moisture and water supply in the dry season and reduces floodingin the rainy season. In the Mekong Delta, thanks to irrigation and drainage schemes, acid sulphate soils havebeen significantly reduced in terms of affected area and acidity levels. Fresh water irrigated areas have beenincreasingly expanded to make a large zone where there are two or three crops per year instead of only onesummer crop as previously. In the mountainous and midland zones, most of the cultivable lands are on slopesand bare hills and irrigation has changed the water regime in soils in a favourable direction creating betterwater and air regimes in soil and increasing soil fertility. Irrigation has reduced the shifting cultivation practicesof minorities too and has protected the forest ecology and contributed to border security.
The benefits from water resources development are very significant not only in terms of raising people’sincome, but also in terms of other more intangible benefits for communities. There are positive impacts onsociety, the environment, farmers’ lives and rural areas as well as contributing to economic and livelihoodsustainability and improving the cultural life of the people.
1.4. Challenges
1.4.1. The degradation of water resources
Water resources are affected adversely by the destruction of forests, by pollution and by global climate change.Natural disasters, floods, drought, saline intrusion, flooding, tidal waves, pollution of water sources, etc. areincreasing daily and becoming severe enough to cause serious damage to people and property.
1.4.2. Economic growth
With rapid economic growth there will be an increase in the demand for water from various socio-economicsectors. Water conflicts between the various sectors need to be resolved in a way that meets the variousdemands equitably without jeopardizing the country’s socio-economic development objectives and its progresstowards industrialization and modernization.
1.4.3 Increasing population pressure and quality of life
In 1999, the population of the whole country was 76.3 million, with 23.5 percent living in urban areas. It isprojected that in 2050, the population will increase up to 100 million and then stabilize within two or threedecades. Because of the increased population and the improvements in the quality of life, meeting the demandfor water for increased production and for domestic uses will be an enormous challenge and will need to bemet by the effective development and management of national water resources.
145
1.4.4. Conflicts over water rights
Conflicts over transboundary water resources such as the Mekong River and the Red River will likely increaseas downstream riparian states suffer from the actions of upstream riparian states that alter the flow or qualityof the transboundary water resources.
1.4.5. Conflicts between local areas over water rights
Conflicts over water rights especially in interprovincial and interdistrict irrigation systems will arise and willincrease. In order to resolve these conflicts, water resources need to be developed and managed to ensuretheir sustainable exploitation and their equitable allocation.
2. Irrigation systems management and development objectives
2.1. Objective 1: To contribute to the country’s industrialization and modernization programmes.
This requires structures to be prepared so that in 2010 sufficient water will be supplied to all sectors. Out ofa total volume of 95.52 billion m3, the water volume for domestic uses will be 2.06 billion m3; industry —4.85 billion m3; agriculture — 71.91 billion m3; fishery — 9.73 billion m3; and environment — 6.98 billion m3
(and downstream flow in the dry season should be not less than 4 110 m3/s). This will:
ensure full exploitation of 15.8 million ha of land of various types by changing cropping patterns,including 10 million ha of foods crops, 2 million ha of long-term industrial crops, 2 million ha ofshort-term industrial crops, 1 million ha of foodstuff crops and 0.8 million ha of fruit trees of varioustypes, and achieve the production of 36 to 38 million tonnes of safe foods;
ensure water supply for domestic uses, especially for water scarce areas, with specific volumes asfollows: water volume for domestic uses in urban areas — 150 to 200 l/day, in delta rural areas —100 l/day and mountainous rural areas — 80 l/day (so that about 90 percent of people in rural areaswill be able to use water for domestic uses at the national standard); and
ensure development of industrial zones, of aquaculture (0.6 million ha for fresh water aquacultureand 0.8 million ha for brackish water aquaculture), and for tourism services, etc.
2.2. Objective 2: To strengthen investment and the development of technical solutions and enhance protectionagainst and mitigation of natural disasters such as floods:
enhance the technical safety level of the Red River dyke and the Thai Binh River dyke to enableprotection against floods with a design flood level of 13.4 m in Hanoi, 7.21m in Pha Lai; and dykesin the north of the former region No. 4 to protect against historical floods;
strengthen the stability of the sea dyke systems and saline dyke systems in coastal areas to protectfrom storms with eight and ten degree winds and average tidal combination;
arrange a safe place for people in shallow flooded areas in the Mekong River Delta, and ensure safeconditions for people in deep flooded areas; and
ensure safety of structures (including reservoirs, dyke systems, under-dyke sluices, etc.).
2.3. Objective 3: To strengthen national water resources management by establishment of water resourcesmanagement organizations from the central to local levels:
complete legal documents to facilitate water resources management and prevent pollution of watersources to ensure sustainable use of the national water resources and exploitation of hydraulicstructures;
facilitate development of production and water supply for domestic uses;
create a basis for sustainable development; and
strengthen improvement and accomplishment of technologies for construction and management.
146
2.4. Objective 4: To strengthen scientific study capacity, water resources management, construction andplanning design abilities, application of new materials, technologies to construct hydraulic structures,modernization of management facilities, arrangement of capable staff for management and exploitation ofstructures.
3. Strategic implementation solutions
3.1. Strengthening investment in water resources development
3.1.1. Investment for exploitation of water resources
Focus investment on large repair, upgrading and modernization of existing water supply and drainageheadworks systems to strive for full capacity of works, serving polyculture and crop diversification. At thesame time, invest in rehabilitating canals from headworks to on-farm, apply advanced irrigation and drainagetechnology combined with traditional techniques to save water to improve the land, maintain the land, andmaintain the water in sloping land areas. Focus investment on completing works under construction to promptlyserve production activities.
Invest in constructing works that can integrate various water uses, enhance regulation capacity to provideadequate water to serve national economic development and improve environment.
Invest in the development of small works in mountainous areas and remote areas to serve the povertyalleviation programme, settled agriculture and human settlements and ensure sufficient municipal water andenvironmental hygiene for people in these areas.
3.1.2 Investment for flood and natural calamity mitigation and prevention
Strengthen dykes, flood discharge capacity, and flood diversion to actively prevent flooding or limit lossescaused by large natural calamities. The Red River dyke system has to be comprehensively enhanced andstrengthened. The sea dyke system has to be able to protect against nine and ten degree storms. Flood safetyareas have to be established in shallow inundated areas of the Mekong River Delta, and people’s safety hasto be ensured in deeply inundated areas.
Complete the construction of emergency situation promulgation targets for natural calamities and the principlesfor management of emergency situations to assist the Prime Minister to make the right decisions regardingflood diversion and mobilizing human and material resources according to the relevant laws and regulations.
Besides construction measures, forecasting technology and communication systems need to be upgraded tothe lowest level of loss caused by natural disasters. Enhance community awareness to increase activitiesdesigned to prevent or mitigate natural disasters. There is a need to integrate agricultural and forestrydevelopment programmes with natural disaster prevention programmes. Enhance international cooperationand regional cooperation to exchange experiences and strengthen technical assistance capacity.
3.2 Strengthening water resources management and irrigation works
3.2.1 Systematize all relevant legal documentation
It is necessary to systematize all relevant legal documentation and disseminate the Law on Water Resources.This can be achieved through:
setting up a Decree on Guidance on execution of the Law on Water Resources;
setting up a Decree on the penalties for violating the Law on Water Resources;
setting up an Inter-Ministerial Circular to inform the decisions of the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development in terms of process and procedures related to water resources management andthe prevention of the adverse effects of water;
147
revising the Irrigation Works Exploitation and Protection Ordinance, the Dyke Ordinance, and theFlood Prevention Ordinance in accordance with the Law on Water Resources;
making a decision on establishing a specialized inspection agency for water resources;
setting up a Decree on the water price; and
disseminating the Law on Water Resources through the mass media.
3.2.2 Strengthening water resources development planning
Water resources development planning should be the basis for managing the water resources of river basinsand should include:
planning for basins and provinces oriented toward integrated use and sustainable development of riverbasin water resources, as stipulated in the Law on Water Resources;
undertaking an assessment of underground water resources (both quantity and quality);
setting up a water resources management database;
setting up a network of water quality monitoring stations, preventing water pollution and rehabilitatingpolluted and depleted water sources;
undertaking investigation of water use and collection of water using fees; and
carrying out licensing of exploitation, use and waste discharge into water sources.
3.2.3 Consolidation of management arrangements for water resources and hydraulic structures fromthe central to local level
The following measures need to be carried out:
at the central level, clearly define the state management functions on water resources and water servicesmanagement;
at the local level, establish divisions related to water management and hydraulic structures in allprovinces and increase finances and staff to enable the divisions to manage water resources in theirprovinces;
consolidate the National Water Resources Council to advise the government on water resourcesmanagement throughout the country;
establish river basin planning and management boards for big river basins such as the Red RiverBasin, the Dong Nai River Basin and the Mekong River Basin;
strengthen capacity of irrigation and drainage management companies at both management andtechnical levels;
improve management technology, reduce expenses and improve operations mechanism and theeconomic mechanism to serve production and water supply for domestic uses; and
establish and build operation procedures of water users’ groups to effectively use water sources andmanage hydraulic structures well and transfer management of small structures to farmers.
3.3 Strengthening human resources training, promoting research activities and applying
science and technology
3.3.1 Human resources development
Human resources need to be improved by:
developing new training sectors such as rural development, water supply and discharge, coastaltechniques, natural disasters and water resources management, etc.; improving contents of trainingprogrammes by modernizing them but the contents should be specialized, reasonable and professional;
148
strengthening knowledge of natural resources and environmental management, management andexploitation of structures, economic management, etc.
training technical staff, research staff, management staff and skilled workers; and attaching moreimportance to re-training, training postgraduate staff. Focus on training and providing staff for remoteareas and create incentives to encourage them to move to these areas.
It is expected that up to the year 2010, the number of trained staff for each year will be: technicians — 4000, engineers — 2 000, with master’s degree — 100, with doctorate degree — 10; up to the year 2020: 4000 technicians, 2 400 to 2 600 engineers, 120 to 150 masters and 10 to 20 doctors to supply personnel tothe various sectors and local agencies throughout the country.
3.3.2 Promoting science and technology
Speeding up scientific research activities, application of new technologies such as information technology(telereconnaissance, informatics), automation, construction materials, etc. in planning, design, building andmanagement of water resources and structures. The technical safety of structures to be constructed should beensured and they should be economically viable.
3.4. Intensification of international cooperation
Continue expansion of international cooperation in water resources management and hydraulicstructures in all fields — from building institutions and policies to investment in exploitation,management of water resources and hydraulic structures. This could help to optimize funding,experiences, improve management and technical and scientific facilities. Moreover, research andexploitation of international rivers should be coordinated to meet sustainable development requirementsof water resources and national hydraulic works according to the principle of protection ofindependence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and compliance with Viet Nam’s laws and theinternational agreements to which Viet Nam is a party.
Utilize cooperation, support, technology transfer, financial policies of international organizations(World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), etc.) to develop the economy, society, ruralagriculture and water resources.
3.5. Participatory development
Socialize hydraulic activities and water resources management on the basis of a government and publicpartnership for implementation. Concentrate on development of indigenous capacity and encourage foreignand domestic investors to participate in effective exploitation of water resources and the construction ofhydraulic structures and ensure the equitable distribution of benefits.
Intensify education activities through public broadcasting and television programmes and newspapers toprovide necessary information, good models and management experiences. Publicize policies issued by thestate and improve community awareness of them so that people understand that the management of waterresources and hydraulic structures is in the interests of each person as well as each person’s responsibility.
3.6. Completion of mechanisms and policies on water
Investment policy related to construction and upgrading of structures: mobilize funding sources insideand outside the country and ensure that people in the areas contribute towards rehabilitation, upgrading,and reinforcement of canals. Distribution ratio of investment costs is 3/4/4 or 4/4/2 (includinginvestment costs for application of science and technology).
Financial policy on water: regulate contribution rate (or water fees) for water users in order to enhancetheir responsibilities for water use, reduce the state subsidy and create a fund for active operationand maintenance, closely combine construction investment, use and exploitation of water resources,protection against natural disasters and floods with financial contribution of water using households.
149
Community priority policy: combine hydraulic activities with social policies in solving problemsrelated to irrigation, water supply for domestic uses, especially for uplands; contribute to povertyreduction, settlement; mitigate forests destruction.
Socialization of hydraulic structures policy: encourage water users’ participation in planning,construction and management to enhance investment efficiency.
Documents on penalties: provide regulations on penalties for destruction of works, structures, andfor causing pollution of water sources in order to enhance responsibilities of management staff andbenefit people in the basin.
151
Issue papers
153
Performance of large rice-based irrigation systems in Southeast Asia:results and lessons learned from the application of a rapid
appraisal process in an FAO training programme
Thierry Facon1
Summary
The vast and expanding body of literature on the performance of irrigation systems reflects the expandingcircle of specialists, disciplines and stakeholders interested in evaluating the performance of irrigation systems.The selection of a particular set of performance indicators reflects a particular perspective and has a significantinfluence on the specific objectives of system management and improvement. It also has a significant influenceon the details of interventions and the changes considered.
Efforts to improve irrigation performance in Asia have to a large extent concentrated on “irrigation efficiency”and on-farm water management and, more recently, on governance and institutional issues, mostly to improvecost recovery. Aspects related to design and operation of irrigation systems and service delivery have beenneglected and this neglect is also reflected in many irrigation development and rehabilitation programmes.As a result, farmers often have not seen much improvement in the water delivery service provided by thesystems and results in terms of agricultural and economic performance and irrigation efficiency have beendisappointing.
The selection by FAO of the rapid appraisal process (RAP), developed by the Irrigation Training and ResearchCentre of California Polytechnic University, and its further development for FAO and the World Bank, asa methodology for appraisal of conditions and performance of irrigation systems, have been consistent withthe promotion of irrigation modernization understood as “a process of technical and managerial upgrading(as opposed to mere rehabilitation) of irrigation schemes with the objective to improve resource utilization(labour, water, economic resources, environmental resources) and water delivery service to farms” and thepromotion of a service orientation in the irrigation sector.
A recent series of appraisals of large and medium-scale irrigation systems by FAO and partner nationalirrigation agencies in eight countries in Asia by trainees of national workshops organized under a RegionalIrrigation Modernization Training Programme using RAP shows that system performance and service deliveredto farmers are poor but could be improved significantly with changes in design, operation and managementthat can easily be introduced. The level of chaos (difference between stated policies and actual policies) andof anarchy (subversion of policies) in the appraised systems is high. Lack of discipline and institutional issuescontribute greatly to this situation. However, many of the problems can be traced to: problems in initial design;exporting of design concepts outside of their area of validity; difficulty of controlling and operating the systems;layouts with confused hierarchies; serious flaws in operation strategies; inconsistencies between operatingrules at various levels and between operating rules and farmers’ requirements; changes in farmers’ requirementsnot reflected by changes in system policies; poor quality of water delivery service to farms; and lack offlexibility at all levels. Improving the efficiency of service delivery and the level of service delivered bythese systems will require addressing these issues by identifying and effecting appropriate changes.
Benchmarking is defined as a systematic process for achieving continued improvement in the irrigation sectorthrough comparisons with relevant and achievable internal or external goals, norms, and standards. The overallaim of benchmarking is to improve the performance within an irrigation scheme by measuring its performanceagainst its peers and its own mission and objectives. The benchmarking process should be a continuous seriesof measurement, analysis, and changes to improve the performance of the schemes. The evaluation and analysisstages of the “holistic” benchmarking promoted by the World Bank form three legs of the benchmarking
1 Senior Water Management Officer, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, 30 Phra Athit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.
154
stool: evaluation of technical indicators (both internal and external); appraisal of the system processes;evaluation of service to users and their satisfaction with that service. RAP, which was included as a componentof the “holistic” benchmarking, concentrates on the evaluation of the system processes and the evaluation ofthe service at all levels in the system, from water supply to the scheme to the farm. It also assists in theevaluation of the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID)benchmarking indicators.
For benchmarking to go beyond the measurement and analysis stages, and on to the implementation of changesand improvement stages, there must be significant acceptance by project personnel. The data collection andanalysis are thus incorporated into a training programme that integrally involves local management andoperation and maintenance staff. Staff learn the concepts of modernization and are provided with a toolboxof options. Then they evaluate their own project with RAP. At the end of the training, internal and externalindicators are developed for the project and the local staff develop a priority list for changes in software andhardware based on the internal process and service indicators, which appraise all factors that affect systemperformance and service delivery in a systematic and standardized manner. The purpose of the appraisal is toimprove specific characteristics and levels of service delivery, and to achieve improvement objectives asdefined by the external performance indicators.
It has been argued that RAP cannot be considered as performance benchmarking on the grounds that it focuseson planning investment in modernization of water control infrastructure, requires well-trained and experiencedengineers, does not lend itself to regular application on a large number of schemes and does not usecomparison, over time and between schemes, as the basis for identifying performance gaps and planningimprovements. RAP does use comparison over time and between schemes and assesses all processes ofmanagement and operation as well as hardware and can be and is applied over a large number of schemes. Itcan therefore be a useful and critical component of a national benchmarking programme aiming atimprovement of sectoral performance if used at the inception of the programme, or to evaluate the impact ofimprovement projects. It does require well-trained and experienced engineers; but significant improvementin the sector’s performance in Asia will require well-trained and experienced planners, designers, managersand operators. For this reason, FAO and national irrigation agencies have introduced RAP within a trainingprogramme where trainees appraise their own systems with the support of a team of expert appraisers andtrainers from the central office.
It has been affirmed that the benchmarking process will only be applied where managers “embrace the goalof pursuing best management practices within a service oriented management system” and that this impliesa focus on the quality and cost-effectiveness of service delivery. This is the most original feature and centralmessage of RAP. By appraising service quality at all levels of system management and concentrating on serviceinterfaces between the different levels, RAP facilitates taking into account the objectives and concerns ofmost stakeholders at all levels, from the upper level managers, to the Water Users Associations (WUAs), tothe farmers who receive service from them and provides a common language to discuss performance andsystem objectives. RAP is also a useful addition to asset management methodologies which focus on assetcondition and serviceability.
Future development of the tool will focus on developing additional indicators to better address drainage andwater disposal services, the multiple roles provided by the irrigation systems, including those concerning theenvironment and biodiversity, and water users from sectors other than agriculture, in order to better servemultistakeholder participatory or strategic planning and management processes. RAP has been an effectiveperformance appraisal tool which has been consistent with FAO’s concepts of modernization adopted to thisdate. RAP will evolve as these evolve in the future.
Introduction
The performance of irrigation systems is the subject of a vast and fast expanding body of literature. As thedebate on irrigation and its reputed poor performance intensifies and involves broadening circles ofstakeholders and disciplines, the many different points of view are reflected in new evaluation procedures,methodologies and indicators that focus on the perspectives of their proponents.
155
The use of any particular set of performance indicators is thus the object of a radical critique by some on thegrounds that these reflect the point of view of a dominant group and are, furthermore, based on very dubiousdata sets. For this reason, international institutions are now cooperating on the development of stakeholder-oriented valuation methods and decision-making processes reflecting the multiple roles of and perspectiveson irrigation systems.
Meanwhile, specific indicators, methodologies for their assessment, and their values, continue to be amongthe favorite topics for argument within each discipline, and particularly the indicators related to efficiencyand productivity.
The performance of irrigation systems is therefore a controversial, complex and evolving topic, which is centralto the debate on the future evolution of irrigation systems. The selection of a set of performance indicatorsand how these are assessed is now understood to be non-neutral and to influence to a large extent the objectives,planning and design of interventions meant to improve the performance of the systems, as well as the actionstaken by system managers.
On a more practical level, the understanding of the notion of irrigation efficiency by irrigation engineers andmanagers is very important in shaping investment in the sector. For instance, the estimation of the efficiencyof an irrigation system as the product of the conveyance efficiencies of the successive levels of distributionof an irrigation system and of the on-farm application efficiency, was the foundation for irrigation projectsbased on the reduction of conveyance losses in the conveyance and distribution network, mostly throughcanal lining, and on the improvement of on-farm application efficiency. Although this approach has long beendiscarded by specialists in favour of water accounting/water balance based system efficiency indicators, it isstill widely prevalent in a number of irrigation agencies’ design manuals and continues to be the basis forproject planning and design.
FAO’s promotion of irrigation modernization and the importance of performance assessment
FAO, particularly in Southeast Asia, has concentrated its efforts in recent years on the promotion of themodernization of irrigation systems.
At a regional consultation in Bangkok, 1996 (FAO, 1997), the following definition was proposed for themodernization of irrigation systems:
“Irrigation modernization is a process of technical and managerial upgrading (as opposedto mere rehabilitation) of irrigation schemes with the objective to improve resource utilization(labour, water, economic resources, environmental resources) and the water delivery serviceto farms.”
This definition of the modernization of irrigation systems, which focuses on the provision of water deliveryservice to farmers, on service-oriented management, on the improvement of utilization of all resources, andon modernization as a process of technical and managerial (including institutional) change to meet farmers’evolving service requirements, has been the guiding principle for FAO’s activities in the region and, quitenaturally, for the selection and development of performance appraisal tools and methodologies.
In particular, FAO has been calling for a massive retraining of engineers and managers in irrigation agencies,consulting firms and irrigation service providers in Asia (FAO, 2002) in order to introduce and provideknowledge and ways and means to design, manage and operate irrigation systems economically for improvedperformance and adequate service to farmers as they aspire to improved socio-economic well-being, evolvetoward more commercial forms of agriculture and face the challenges of globalization, the move towardsintegrated water resources management in the river basins, and intensifying competition for water from othersectors.
This emphasis on training and capacity building arose from: i) the results of a large-scale evaluation of theperformance of the introduction on modern water control and management practices carried out for the WorldBank (FAO, 1999), which indicated that the lack of knowledge of proper options was a main reason for the
156
mitigated success of irrigation modernization projects; ii) the disappointing performance of irrigationmanagement transfer and participatory irrigation management projects, which was partly attributed to thefailure of these reforms to improve the service to farmers, and lack of attention to operation, design and othertechnical aspects (Barker and Molle, 2005) of irrigation systems. Intensified and ongoing training programmesfor both professionals in the reformed irrigation agencies and consulting firms who would provide advisoryservices to WUAs, and to the managers of WUAs and the technical staff that they may employ for operationand maintenance of their irrigation schemes, were thus understood as one of the conditions of the sustainedsuccess of the transfer programmes.
An appraisal of initial conditions and performance of the systems to be transferred was estimated to beinstrumental in allowing both a better design and strategic planning of physical improvements together witha definition of the service to be provided both by the irrigation service provider to WUAs and by WUAs totheir members, with indications on ways and means to achieve these service goals and improve them in thefuture.
FAO’s regional training programme on irrigation modernization and benchmarking
FAO has developed over recent years a regional training programme on irrigation modernization. Thisprogramme aims at disseminating modern concepts of service-oriented management of irrigation systems inmember countries with a view to promoting the adoption of effective irrigation modernization strategies insupport of agricultural modernization, improvement of water productivity and integrated water resourcesmanagement. FAO has developed training materials and detailed curricula, as well as specific tools for theappraisal of irrigation systems for benchmarking and the development of appropriate modernization plansfor irrigation systems. The first training workshop under the programme was organized in Thailand in 2000.Since then India (Andhra Pradesh), Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand,Turkmenistan and Viet Nam have had the support of the regional training programme to organize nationaltraining workshops on irrigation modernization and benchmarking. More than 500 engineers and managershave now been trained with support from the programme.
The programme is starting to have an impact in member countries. The Royal Irrigation Department ofThailand is using the tools and methodologies introduced by the programme for the appraisal of projects,and has included the training workshops in its regular training programme. In Viet Nam, a World Bank fundedinvestment project (the Viet Nam Water Resources Assistance Project) has a large irrigation modernizationcomponent based on the concepts introduced through initial training at project preparation stage, which wasinstrumental in the adoption of revised design criteria. The Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) ofMalaysia has included the training programme and its tools in its quality and modernization strategies:proposals for modernization of the rice granary systems of the country now have to be submitted to decision-makers based on modernization plans developed by system managers following their training and the appraisalof their systems with the FAO rapid appraisal process (RAP). RAP has been adopted by the World Bank asone of the three elements of its holistic benchmarking methodology for irrigation systems. In the World Banksourcebook for investment in agricultural water management (World Bank, 2005), the training programme issuggested to agencies wishing to invest in improving operations and maintaining large irrigation systems.
Providing the services needed by the farmers, now and in the future, is a considerable challenge for irrigationplanners and managers. This paper proposes recommendations based on the lessons learned from the FAOtraining programme, focusing on details and aspects of the systems that are not frequently analyzed: theappraisal of the irrigation systems by the programme’s trainees using RAP; their proposals for improvementof the systems; and the use of RAP itself.
157
RAP, the training programme and benchmarking
RAP and why it was selected and introduced
RAP was originally developed by the Irrigation Training and Research Centre of California PolytechnicUniversity in 1996/97 as a diagnostic and evaluation tool for a research programme financed by the WorldBank on the evaluation of the impact of the introduction of modern control and management practices inirrigation on the performance of irrigation systems (FAO, 1999).
The conceptual framework of RAP (see Figure 1) for the analysis of the performance of irrigation systemscan be explained as follows: irrigation systems operate under a set of physical and institutional constraintsand with a certain resource base; the systems are analyzed as a series of management levels, each levelproviding a water delivery service through the system’s internal management and control processes to thenext lower level, from the bulk water supply to the main canals down to the individual farm or field; theservice quality delivered at the interface between the management levels can be appraised in terms of itscomponents (equity, flexibility, reliability) and the accuracy of control and measurement, and depends ona number of factors related to hardware design and management; with the service quality delivered to thefarm and under economic, agronomic constraints, the system and farmers’ management produces results (cropsyields, irrigation intensity, water use efficiency etc.), and symptoms of poor system performance andinstitutional constraints are manifested as social chaos (water thefts, vandalism), poor condition ofinfrastructure, poor cost recovery and weak WUAs.
Results are evaluated and compared among projects through a set of external performance indicators(see Appendix 1 for the list and definition of external performance indicators of RAP), while constraints,factors influencing service quality at different levels, and symptoms are appraised through a series ofstandardized internal process indicators (see Appendix 2 for the list of internal process indicators of RAP,and Appendix 3 for a typical service quality indicator).
The lessons learned from the World Bank’s research project were considered by FAO to be important elementsto be included in the regional irrigation modernization training programme. The RAP framework itself andits indicators were found to be consistent with FAO’s understanding of the modernization of irrigation systemsas reflected in the Bangkok definition of 1996 (see above): RAP was thus adopted as the methodology forperformance appraisal as well as assessment of initial conditions of irrigation systems in its trainingprogramme. After a first version used in the Thailand training workshop, ITRC developed for FAO moreuser-friendly versions of RAP, where the tools for estimating the systems’ water balance were also considerablyexpanded2 (Burt, 2003).
Benchmarking and beyond
Benchmarking is defined in documents of the International Programme for Technology and Research inIrrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) as a systematic process for achieving continued improvement in the irrigationsector through comparisons with relevant and achievable internal or external goals, norms, and standards(IPTRID, 2001). The overall aim of benchmarking is to improve the performance within an irrigation schemeby measuring its performance against its peers and its own mission and objectives. The benchmarking processshould be a continuous series of measurement, analysis, and changes to improve the performance of theschemes.
RAP was later adopted as a component of the “holistic” benchmarking promoted by the World Bank. Theevaluation and analysis stages of the “holistic” benchmarking form three legs of the benchmarking stool:evaluation of technical indicators (both internal and external); appraisal of the system processes; evaluationof service to users and their satisfaction with that service. RAP concentrates on the evaluation of the systemprocesses and the evaluation of the service at all levels in the system, from water supply to the scheme to the
2 The RAP manual and files can be downloaded from the following Website: www.watercontrol.org. It is available in Chinese,English, Indonesian, Russian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese.
158
farm, but also assists in the evaluation of the IPTRID benchmarking indicators, as the successive versions ofRAP took care to use, as far as possible, the same project descriptors and performance indicators as theInternational Benchmarking Programme.3
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of rapid appraisal process (RAP)
RESULTS�Cropping Intensity �Average Crop Yields (Tonne/Ha) �Yield/Unit of Water Consumed �Downstream Environmental Impacts
SYMPTOMS�% Collection of Water Fees �Viability of Water User Associations�Condition of Structures and Canals �Water Theft
SERVICE �Actual Level and Quality of Service Delivered
� −�To Fields� − �From One Level of Canal to Another
FACTORS INFLUENCING SERVICE QUALITY
Hardware DesignTurnout DesignCheck Structure DesignFlow Rate MeasurementCommunications SystemRemote MonitoringAvailability of Spill SitesFlow Rate Control StructuresRegulating Reservoir SitesDensity of Turnouts
Management� Instructions for Operating Check Structures �Frequency of Communication �Maintenance Schedules �Understanding of the Service Concept �Frequency of Making Flow Changes� Quality and Types of Training Programmes �Monitoring and Evaluation by Successive Levels of Management
�Existence of Performance Objectives
CONSTRAINTS
Physical Constraints �Dependability of Water Supply �Adequacy of Water Supply �Availability of Groundwater � Climate� Silt Load in the Water �Geometric Pattern of Fields �Size of Fields �Quality of Seed Varieties �Field Conditions
� −�Land Leveling� −�Appropriate Irrigation Method �� for the Soil Type
Institutional Constraints �Adequacy of Budget� Size of Water User Association �Existence of and Type of Law Enforcement �Purpose and Organizational Structure of WUA
� Destination of Budget �Method of Collecting and Assessing Water Fees
�Ownership of Water and Facilities �Ability to Fire Inept Employees �Staffing Policies, Salaries �Availability of Farm Credit� Crop prices
3 The only difference in the definitions of indicators between RAP and the IPTRID indicators is related to rice. Seepage rates forpaddy rice (percent of water applied to fields that goes below the root zone of the rice) are estimated in RAP if rice is a crop grownin the project. However, contrary to many studies that combine “seepage” together with “evapotranspiration” for rice, to come upwith a combined “consumptive use” or “beneficiary use”, that convention is not used in RAP because such a combination makes itvery difficult to separate ET (which cannot be recirculated or reduced) from seepage water (which can be recirculated via wells ordrains). Furthermore, such a convention ignores the fact that deep percolation is unavoidable for all crops, not just on paddy rice.Therefore, the convention would apply to all crops, not just paddy rice.
159
For benchmarking to go beyond the measurement and analysis stages, however, and on to the implementationof changes and improvement stages, there must be significant acceptance by project personnel, identificationof weaknesses and potential changes, and knowledge of options for change. The data collection and analysisof RAP are thus incorporated into the training programme that integrally involves local management andoperation and maintenance staff. Staff learn the concepts of modernization and are provided with a toolboxof options and then evaluate their own project with RAP. At the end of the training:
1. internal and external indicators are developed for the project; and
2. the local staff define short-, medium- and long-term modernization objectives, described by the externalperformance indicators, and develop a modernization strategy and derive new service objectivesspecifying how to improve specific characteristics of service delivery at specific levels to achievethe modernization objectives. Then, as a final step, they develop a priority list for changes in softwareand hardware based on the internal process and service indicators (which appraise all factors thataffect system performance and service delivery in a systematic and standardized manner) in order toachieve the service objectives.
The external performance indicators (the IPTRID benchmarking indicators are essentially external performanceindicators) allow the comparison of a project’s performance with its peers and to identify possible objectivesin terms of productivity, efficiency, economic and environmental performance, but do not provide assistancein identifying specific changes in processes and hardware to improve performance. This is the essentialcontribution of the internal process indicators.
In the management process for existing irrigation and drainage schemes managed with a service orientationas proposed by Malano and Van Hofwegen (1999), which is essentially a strategic planning and managementprocess for a service organization (see Figure 2), RAP allows the trainees to make an assessment (with thedata that are available) of the context, resource base and constraints of the system, to appraise the existinglevel of service, management and infrastructure, to define a desired level of service corresponding to specificperformance objectives, and to design an initial costed modernization strategy and priority actions related tomanagement upgrade and infrastructure upgrade.
Figure 2. Management process for existing irrigation and drainage schemesmanaged with a service orientation (from Malano and Van Hofwegen, 1999)
Waterrights
Irrigationpolicy
Agriculturalpractices
Crops-soils-climate
Waterresources
Existingmanagement
Existing levelof service
Existinginfrastructure
Desired levelof service
Managementupgrade
Cost of service
Infrastructureupgrade
Consultativeprocess
Training Agreed levelof service
Assetmanagement
strategy
160
The irrigation systems as they were appraised4
Type of systems
All irrigation systems appraised at the regional training programme were large-scale rice-based systems.5
They were typically designed for supplementary irrigation of rice during the rainy season (with the exceptionof Turkmenistan, which is under an arid desert climate). They are under public management undera supply-driven mode. WUAs have been created in a number of countries but they do not play a meaningfulrole in the management of the systems. The systems are generally in a poor condition because of insufficientmaintenance and provide poor service to farmers. Service provided by the main canals to the secondary canalsand command areas is generally unreliable and inequitable, with the exception of Malaysia. Water level controlin the canals is poor and is a main factor in poor service delivery. Some systems had not received support formany years whereas substantial investment had recently been completed or was under way for other systems.
Design standards and control structures
Design standards and operation have not changed in many countries for 20 to 30 years (Plusquellec, 2002).The systems have been generally designed for upstream control, but few are actually operated under pureupstream control. The extreme case is the Dau Tieng system in Southern Viet Nam, which is now operatedunder manual downstream control. Wave travel times in the canals are frequently of the order of one or twodays, and are increased by the operation of the cross-regulators. Buffer storage to increase systemresponsiveness is absent in all systems. Specific flow rates of the canals are calculated for supplementalirrigation, and are therefore quite small, and decrease from the main canals to the lower level canals. Thisdoes not allow flexibility of operations and large variations in flow rates. It is a particular constraint whenfarmers wish to synchronize their farming activities for mechanization and thus need large amounts of waterfor land preparation at the same time.
Cross-regulators are, with a few exceptions, manually operated underflow structures, in combination withunderflow offtakes, and generally very sensitive to fluctuations in water supply. In the Philippines, duckbillweirs have been introduced for water level control. However, most of them have been vandalized as the systemshave large variations in their water supply. During shortage periods, the upstream offtakes receive theirallocation until available flows are depleted and downstream offtakes are shorted. In some cases, offtakesare of the overflow type (Rominj gates in Indonesia), which exacerbates fluctuations of flow rates into theminor canals.
Gates are rarely calibrated. The most common measurement method for flow rates is the orifice formulathrough (non-calibrated) gates. This formula is applied by staff whether the gates actually function assubmerged, free flow orifices or are fully open and function as free-flow or submerged weirs (Andhra PradeshKrishna Western Delta). Other measurement devices have been introduced (broad-crested weirs), but theyare typically poorly designed (too broad) and inaccurate, or submerged. Recirculation of drainage is practisedin a large number of schemes, but none is equipped with buffer or regulating reservoirs.
Near-farm, and on-farm infrastructure is underdeveloped. The introduction of command area developmenton the structured design concept or proportional flow division as an alternative to previous fully-gateddistribution network designs has not been successful. The systems are immediately subverted by the farmers(Sunsari Morang Project, Nepal).
4 A number of technical completion reports of the training workshops organized under FAO’s regional training programme, theprogramme’s training materials and a RAP manual (in several regional and international languages) are available on FAO’s Websitededicated to the modernization of irrigation systems: www.watercontrol.org.5 RAP external performance and internal process indicators for a number of representative systems are presented in Appendix 4(external performance indicators) and Appendix 5 (internal performance indicators). In Appendix 5, the values of the internal indicatorsof the irrigation systems evaluated with RAP under the World Bank study are also presented, so that Southeast Asian systems can becompared with systems in other regions.
161
Operation
Operation follows a standard seasonal schedule that is adjusted on average every week, usually followingqualitative assessments of demand by managers or qualitative requests by farmers. Main structures are operatedtypically three times a day according to a set schedule, very often following instructions from a central officeon gate positions. Although system managers often issue instructions on flow rate targets at each offtake,these are rarely followed and most field operators adjust gates based on water levels in the canals, whichcorrespond to a situation where farmers do not complain but do not in general correspond to a specific flowrate because of the poor condition of the canals. Farmers often operate the gates themselves and operatorsand managers have capitulated to this situation. A typical response to this lack of discipline is the “rotationalsupply”: water levels are raised in canal reaches during “on rotation” periods and lowered during “off rotation”periods.
Development of pumping
Low-cost pumping technology and energy subsidies have allowed farmers to free themselves from theconstraints of poor canal system performance or inadequate scheduling through groundwater pumping, illegalpumping from the canals, water scavenging or subversion of system policies and obtain more reliable orfrequent supply, switch to other crops and more effective on-farm water management strategies and techniques.Conjunctive use is not managed by anyone but usually allows farmers to adopt highly productive farmingsystems. As a result, tailenders may often practise more intensive and diversified farming systems.
Management policies
General management policies are typical of public institutions in the region, with few effective systems forrewarding or sanctioning performance. Field level operators are often very poorly paid and it is difficult formanagement and engineers to control how they actually operate the structures, which often differs from officialrules and policies. How structures are actually managed is often directly responsible for instability of thesystem. In the Sunsari Morang (Nepal) system, main canal operators, when trying to provide a target flowrate into a secondary canal, make an initial setting at the offtake of the secondary canal, then operate thecross-regulator of the main canal to lower or raise the water level in the main canal to adjust the flow rateinto the secondary canal. If they have raised the water level in the main canal too much, they then opena safety structure to divert the “excess” water supply into a drain. This example, although extreme, illustratesthe importance of all details of canal operation and of instructions to operators.
The administrative setup of the operating agency frequently hinders effective operation. In Thailand, theresponsibility for operation of long canals is divided into reaches under the control of different operation andmaintenance projects that follow district boundaries. Although water allocation is officially to each secondarycanal, in practice there is a flow rate target at the interface between each project. As a result, the projectsfocus their energy on disputes on flow rates at these interfaces, operate the cross-regulators as flow controlstructures (which creates water level fluctuations in the main canals), neglect flow rate targets into thesecondary canals (which thus fluctuate wildly), and no specific office is responsible in the case of a waterdeficit in the lower reaches of the main canals. Although project managers already frequently integrate intotheir operation plans water supply to other users (municipalities, industrial customers), none of the projectsappraised has specific environmental targets or goals.
Pre-training ideas for system improvement
Proposals and ideas of the training workshop trainees for improvement of their systems (and project proposalsprepared by local consulting firms) — prior to the training — usually follow a standard menu of rehabilitationfollowing prevailing standard designs, transfer of operation and maintenance costs to farmers, and substantialinvestments in rigid canal lining. The introduction of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)systems and information technology is frequently considered or already at an early stage of introduction.However, details of selection of sensors and of control logic are frequently inadequate and the purpose of theintroduction of SCADA systems to improve performance is unclear. In general, pre-training modernization
162
proposals rarely address management, operation, scheduling and ordering procedures, communication andtraining.
System managers rarely have in place effective monitoring and evaluation systems. When these are in place,they are rarely used for immediate feedback for operation. Flow rates at spills and in drains are not monitoredand managers do not have a proper water balance and estimation of the system’s efficiency (with the exceptionof Malaysia thanks to DID’s national benchmarking programme). There is, however, a gradual shift toperformance-oriented management and the definition of performance indicators (Thailand). However, normsand budget allocations are often uniform nationally, not reflecting the constraints and potentials of projects,which may vary significantly across projects (Philippines). Some projects (Philippines) are piloting demandmanagement with the introduction of volumetric water pricing. However, investment in the upgrading of thesystems has not been geared towards improving control to customer WUAs, and proposed volumetric rates,based on current service fees, are not likely to yield expected water efficiency gains (de Fraiture and Perry,2002, FAO, 2004).
Chaos, anarchy and poor service
In summary, the level of chaos (difference between stated policies and actual policies) and of anarchy(subversion of policies) varies from system to system, but is generally high, particularly at the lower levelsof management. Recent investments following standards or investment strategies (command area development)have poor results in terms of performance, control and service. Although lack of discipline and institutionalissues contribute greatly to this situation, many of the problems can be traced to:
problems in initial design;exporting of design concepts outside of their area of validity;difficulty of controlling and operating the systems;layouts with confused hierarchies;serious flaws in operation strategies and instructions to staff;inconsistencies between operating rules at various levels;inconsistencies between operating rules and farmers’ requirements;changes in farmers’ requirements not reflected by changes in system policies;poor quality of water delivery service to farms;lack of flexibility at all levels;staffing policies; andpoor training of staff at all levels, in particular, poor understanding of unsteady flow hydraulics.
Standard project improvement projects, as reflected in pre-training proposals, usually fail to address theseissues. In this respect, irrigation planners, understood as central agency staff in planning and design branches,and irrigation managers, understood as system level field staff in charge of system operation, are two differentgroups. The former are not necessarily aware of the specific difficulties which managers face every day.Planning and design procedures, as well as terms of reference for consulting firms that are frequently assignedthe tasks of planning and designing system improvements, are typically not centred on the concerns ofmanagers and farmers. Participatory design procedures are progressively being introduced, but they frequentlyfocus on details such as layout of the canal networks or positions of the offtakes, rather than on more general(and more important) issues of service and performance objectives and design criteria.
The challenges
The need for change
Asian large surface irrigation systems suffer from a legacy of poor design, degraded infrastructure and poormanagement and stagnation in the face of rapid transformations of agriculture and pressure on their watersupply. The challenge is to transform these systems from supply-driven to demand-driven responsive systems,improve their financial, environmental, technical and service performance to significantly increase control,
163
reliability, equity and flexibility to allow these systems to adapt to changing or more variable water allocations,enable farmers to boost agricultural and water productivity, be more responsive to market opportunities, andtherefore adopt new and diversified water management practices on their farms. Water-related system-levelobjectives need to be determined case-by-case based on water balances and basin-level considerations on theone hand and agriculture-related service objectives on the other hand.
Climate change combined with competition from other sectors will entail not only increased variations inrainfall and longer dry spells during the growing seasons, but also increased variations in water allocation tothe schemes from season to season, as agriculture will most likely be considered the residual water user afterpriority needs from other sectors have been met. This will call for flexibility in changing operational policiesfrom year to year, and increased participation of farmers in comanagement of the systems.
However, in practise, existing water allocations and their future evolutions are difficult to anticipate forirrigation planners and managers, as the present systems of administrative or de facto allocation are yet toevolve into river basin allocation and rights systems. Furthermore, managers as well as river basin plannersvery rarely have accurate and operational information on irrigation system efficiencies. Although, generally,system achievements in terms of service quality are overestimated by management, system efficiencies areusually underestimated, both by managers and by agency-level planners.
Deficiencies in strategic landscapes for planning result in poor planning
Although, thanks to recent international and national efforts in visioning and strategic processes in the watersector, there is a general notion of the future landscape of agricultural water management, in practise, thesevisions are not sufficiently detailed for planners and managers to visualize the practical changes that wouldbe required to meet future water-related and agriculture-related challenges — the basis of which would bean analysis of services required by farmers in the future. An exception is Malaysia, where strategic thinkingprocesses have been adopted for a relatively long time, and where DID has adopted specific performancetargets and goals both for rice and for water management performance and where system-level, institutional,and farm-level changes are viewed holistically in a transformational modernization process.
Modernization proposals for the irrigation systems that were appraised, prior to the training workshops, usuallyfailed to establish a linkage between system-level objectives and proposals and stated objectives for theintroduction of improved or innovative irrigation technologies at farm level, or between new performanceobjectives and proposed reform of the management and institutional setup. Structured design, proportionalwater division and rotational supply are not compatible with new water saving technologies developed forrice, which require frequent or on-demand irrigation water delivery. Some designs and operation conceptswhich seem to allow rice to reach its yield potential (Japan, Korea, Southern China — melon-on-the-vinedesign concept — (Plusquellec, 2002, Barker and Molle, 2005)) were not represented in the sample of projectsappraised in the regional training programme. They are, however, the object of increased interest from irrigationprofessionals. At the institutional level, the challenge is to develop new frameworks that can manage thecomplexity of the hydrological cycle, the multiple roles of irrigation systems and deliver irrigation and drainageservices to farmers in a responsive, accountable and efficient manner.
Financing all this would require considerable investments whereas rice prices are expected to remain low inthe medium term and present financing arrangements do not cover operation and maintenance costs, let aloneinvestments in upgrading of management capacity and infrastructure. However, increasing climate variabilitymay increase the profitability of irrigation systems by reducing the risk of crop failure. The investmentstrategies of the countries in the region should have clear strategic objectives, whether production objectivesconcentrating on areas with competitive advantage (Malaysia for instance has this strategy) and/or povertyreduction and food security objectives targeting marginal systems.
In these circumstances, it is imperative that increased attention should be paid to the quality and type ofinvestment. At policy level, the challenge is to align and harmonize water and irrigation policies withagricultural and environmental policies and integrate them into overall socio-economic development policies.
164
Response options
Water management response options need to explicitly address scale issues (farm, irrigation system andbasin-level institutions, law, policy and supporting infrastructure). A systems approach is essential to determinewater balance-related objectives and water management strategies to achieve them. These strategies andchanges should aim at improving water control, equity, reliability and flexibility of service to give farmerswater management and crop choices.
Improvement strategies should be supported by strategic planning and management approaches with a serviceorientation (Malano and van Hofwegen, 1999). Participatory planning and design processes would assist infocusing management goals on farmers’ needs. This would require increased decentralization of irrigationbureaucracy towards system managers and farmers’ representative institutions.
Previous irrigation modernization projects have been partly successful at best, but better options and strategiesnow exist. Major options include conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, recirculation of drainage, bufferreservoirs at appropriate levels in the systems, improved design of control structures, investment in drainage,operation and ordering procedures, piping of near-farm delivery, and intensification of irrigation systemmanagement. Feasible and field-tested options exist. The gap is in capacity building of the irrigation professionat large and a critical action is the revision of design standards (FAO, 1998, Plusquellec, 2002, Facon, 2002,2005).
The regional training programme has shown that when irrigation planners and managers are presented withthese options, which they were not aware of, and when, furthermore, they work together in developingproposals based on a detailed appraisal of the systems, they enthusiastically embrace them — the irrigationmodernization plans that trainees prepare at the conclusion of the training workshops differ very significantlyfrom their plans prior to the workshop. These plans include new technical options (in particular, buffer storageis seen as a powerful design feature), propose balanced investment in upgrading the capacity of managementand farmers and in infrastructure, communication and mobility for operation staff; planned investment ininfrastructure focuses much more on control and measurement as a priority. Plans also typically include aspriorities changes in instructions to field staff for operation of control structures, changes in internalorganization, improved procedures for ordering of deliverables, and an initial focus on restoring and improvingwater level control in the upper levels of the systems as prerequisites for further improvements and investmentsin the lower levels.
Information and control technology and software is now robust and available off-the-shelf and costs aredecreasing everyday. Their introduction through careful strategies would make an important contribution.A priority often found in the proposals of the trainees is the remote monitoring of spills, drains, and flowrates at major offtakes as a basis for the establishment of feedback mechanisms, as well as for a betterunderstanding of the water balance of the systems.
A business approach to institutions is the key to the future sustainability of rice-based irrigation systems, inthe sense that institutions should be tailored to deliver specific performance goals in addition to governanceand representation goals, and should generally improve service orientation and accountability, move towardsdecentralized management, and reflect the diversity of stakeholders and water uses. Models of farmers’organizations may need to change towards professionalized institutions that can provide new ranges of deliveryand other services and reduce transaction costs for farmers, as labour costs are increasing and labour andmanagement shortages are to be further expected. Options for overhauling public management institutionsinclude financial autonomy, incorporation, making them more professional, public-private partnerships,privatization and transfer to farmers’ organizations. New promising models are emerging in China and othercountries.
New financial instruments are required to cover not only O&M but also upgrading of management andinfrastructure assets at all levels of agricultural water management, from farm, to users organizations, tosystem-level irrigation service providers and the river basin. Public investment support will still be neededto assist in the transformation of systems and institutions in their transition from present condition towards
165
more agile and performing systems. The observation is that this strategic investment may not be moreexpensive that previous infrastructure rehabilitation or canal lining programmes.
Further work is needed by international and national researchers on interactions between design standards,operation strategies, service level and water pricing. Volumetric delivery/pricing at the tertiary level is anachievable medium-term objective for gated systems provided that they are modernized (Thailand andViet Nam, for example). Systems based on proportional flow division may well limit options to flat-ratearea-based or crop-based irrigation charges if users cannot have control over water deliveries and pre-emptlong-term goals of volumetric water pricing.
Policies and investments in the future need to be rice-aware rather than rice-centric (FAO Regional StrategicFramework, 2005). Aligning water and irrigation strategies and policies with agricultural and environmentalpolicies and overall socio-economic development policies can be facilitated through the dissemination ofstrategic planning and management and more inclusive policy development approaches (ESCAP, 2004).
Conclusions
General conclusion
The challenges faced by irrigation planners, managers and farmers in Asia are numerous and complex.Uncertainties abound, but the uncertainty itself is an important piece of information available for plannersand managers to consider in the decisions they have to take today to face the challenges of tomorrow. Irrigationsystems and their management have to evolve towards flexibility to adapt on a continuous basis to faceincreasing variability in water supply, climate and markets.
The main lesson from the FAO regional modernization training programme is a paradox: this challenge isboth underestimated and overestimated. It is underestimated because there has been in the recent past excessivereliance on policy reform, institutional reform, improved control technology, improved management, economicincentives and instruments or on-farm water management as measures that would single-handedly deliverimproved performance or service. The detailed appraisals of the irrigation systems which were investigatedthrough the regional training programme indicate that a complex and articulated mix of changes in all thesefields would be in fact required. It has been underestimated also because the actual performance of the systems,particularly in terms of service delivery, is frequently overestimated.6 The challenge is overestimated becausethere exists a considerable potential for significantly improving system performance and service with theadoption of simple and low-cost measures, provided that an increased focus on all details of operation,management and design is adopted, and that planners and managers are aware of better options that are nowavailable through training and capacity building.
This does not mean that far-ranging and comprehensive reform or substantial investment will not be needed.This means that it is possible to initiate a process of transformational change with immediate benefits tofarmers, in terms of service, and managers, in terms of ease of operation, that will allow the necessary reformagenda and investment programmes to be more strategically focused, achievable in a realistic step-wiseapproach, more easily implemented, acceptable to the various stakeholders and able to adapt to rapidlychanging circumstances.
RAP and benchmarking
It has been argued (Cornish, 2005) that RAP cannot be considered as performance benchmarking on thegrounds that it focuses on planning investment in modernization of water control infrastructure, requireswell-trained and experienced engineers, does not lend itself to regular application on a large number of schemesand does not use comparison, over time and between schemes, as the basis for identifying performance gapsand planning improvements.
6 RAP appraises the level of service as perceived or declared by the systems managers (stated service) and the actual level ofservice as observed in the field investigations (actual service). The ratio of (actual/stated) service indicators is called a “chaos” indicator.A chaos indicator significantly lower than “1” denotes a management structure with poor interest in and knowledge of its performance.
166
In reality, RAP uses comparison over time and between schemes as explained above, assesses all processesof management and operation as well as hardware, can be and is applied over a large number of schemes(Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam). It can therefore be a useful and critical component of a national benchmarkingprogramme aiming at the improvement of sectoral performance if used at the inception of the programmewhen systems managers develop their strategic plans or system upgrading plans, or to evaluate the impact ofimprovement projects, as is the case in Malaysia.
RAP does require well-trained and experienced engineers. Any significant improvement in the sector’sperformance in Asia will require well-trained and experienced planners, designers, managers and operators.For this reason, FAO and national irrigation agencies such as the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailandand the Department of Irrigation and Drainage of Malaysia introduce RAP within a training programme wheretrainees appraise their own systems with the support of a team of expert appraisers and trainers from thecentral office. The experience from the FAO regional training programme is that this support from a coreteam of expert appraisers and trainers, who are also external to the system, is essential for quality control ofRAP.
RAP and service orientation: service orientation of management and assets
Furthermore, it has been affirmed that the benchmarking process will only be applied where managers“embrace the goal of pursuing best management practices within a service oriented management system”and that this implies a focus on the quality and cost-effectiveness of service delivery (Malano, 2004). This isthe most original feature and central message of RAP.
In addition, by appraising service quality at all levels of system management and concentrating on serviceinterfaces between the different levels, RAP facilitates taking into account the objectives and concerns of theoperators at all levels, from the upper-level managers, to the WUAs that may exist in the system, to the farmerswho receive service from them.
In RAP, the focus on control infrastructure (and how it is operated) is viewed from the perspective of servicedelivery, control, operating rules, and management responsiveness. The appraisal of the numerous systemsunder the regional training programme confirms that poor selection and operation of the systems’ controlstructures play a decisive role in system service performance. Decisions on control structures (theirmaintenance, their operation, their replacement) are therefore critical management decisions, as are, moregenerally, decisions on investment in infrastructure upgrade. Poor decisions on infrastructure or sterileinvestment programmes that will not yield desired performance or service improvements are simply poormanagement decisions.
In this respect, RAP, which focuses on quality of control with and interactions between control structures,and on actual operation of these structures, is a useful and critical addition to asset management methodsthat focus on asset serviceability. The notion of serviceability is deemed to be important as:
“ …the serviceability of an asset (that is, its ability to perform its function) is often assumedto be directly related to its condition. But this can be a misleading assumption. In practise,assets very often continue to perform their functions quite satisfactorily even though theircondition has significantly deteriorated.
On the other hand, there are frequent instances when an asset which is generally in excellentcondition is rendered unserviceable by a very minor fault. It is the serviceability thereforewhich dictates the urgency of the work needed to restore the asset to its fully functional state”(IIS-ODA, 1995).
Asset surveys assessing the condition and serviceability of structures are therefore focused on the asset’scondition and needs for repairs or maintenance. However, an asset, such as an offtake, or a measurementdevice, can be brand new and perform poorly because of poor design (a Rominj gate in combination with anundershot cross-regulator for instance, or a measuring flume which is too wide) and any decision that does
167
not lead to the replacement with a different design (Rominj gate) or modification (measuring flume) of theasset will be a poor asset management decision, or of poor operation, and changes in instructions to theoperators will not lead to an improved serviceability of the asset.
RAP as support for decision-making
RAP is not as of itself a decision-making procedure, but a tool to facilitate decision-making.
The array of external performance indicators allows decision-makers to examine the various possible majorobjectives of a modernization process: water balance-related objectives, environmental (limited to water quality,waterlogging, salinity and efficiency) objectives, agricultural production and economic objectives (related toon-farm and resource limitations), economic and financial sustainability objectives, and to a certain extentsocial objectives.
The combination of external and internal indicators also allows a first representation of the interests ofa number of stakeholders: central-level decision-makers, water resource managers, system managers, operatorsand staff at various levels, water users associations and farmers, and, to a limited extent, environmentalistsconcerned with the performance of the systems. Equally importantly, RAP provides a common languagebetween central decision-makers, managers and water users, to examine the present performance of the systemand future performance and change objectives, in terms of service and its characteristics, at all levels ofmanagement.
RAP can therefore be a very valuable input (but not the only one) to multistakeholder decision-making andstrategic planning and management processes.
As the systems are increasingly considered as providing multiple roles and likely to evolve towards multipleuse systems, future development of the tool will focus on developing additional indicators to address drainageand water disposal services better, as well as the multiple roles provided by the irrigation systems. RAP isa performance appraisal tool which is consistent with FAO’s concepts of irrigation modernization adopteduntil now. RAP will evolve as these evolve in the future.
References
Barker, R. & Molle, F. 2005. Evolution of irrigation in South and Southeast Asia. Comprehensive assessment researchreport 5. IWMI, Colombo (available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org).
Burt, C. 2003. Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) and benchmarking explanation and tools (available at http://www.watercontrol.org).
Cornish, G. 2005. Performance benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector, experiences to date and conclusion.HR Wallingford and DFID.
De Fraiture, C. & Perry, C. 2002. Why is irrigation water demand inelastic at low price ranges? Paper presented atthe Conference on Irrigation Water Policies: Micro and Macro Considerations, Agadir, Morocco, 15–17 June2002 (available at (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org).
ESCAP. 2004. Proceedings of the concluding workshop of the regional programme on capacity building in strategicplanning for natural resources management, 2004.
Facon, T. 2002. Downstream of irrigation water pricing: The infrastructure design and operational managementconsiderations. Paper presented at the Conference on Irrigation Water Policies: Micro and Macro Considerations,Agadir, Morocco, 15–17 June 2002 (available at (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org).
Facon, T. 2005. Asian irrigation in transition — service orientation, Institutional aspects and design/operation/infrastructure issues. In Asian irrigation in transition: responding to challenges. Ganesh Shivakoti, D. Vermillion,W. Fung Lam, E. Ostrom, U. Pradhan & R. Yoder, eds. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
FAO. 1997. Modernization of irrigation schemes: past experiences and future options. FAO-RAP 1997/22, Water ReportSeries 12, Bangkok.
168
FAO. 1999. Modern water control and management practices. In Irrigation impact on performance. FAO WaterReports 19 (also available at http://www.watercontrol.org).
FAO. 2002. Investment in Land and Water. FAO-RAP Publication 2002/09, Bangkok.
FAO. 2004. Towards a food-secure Asia and Pacific — regional strategic framework for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok(also available at http://www.fao.org).
IIS-ODA. 1995. Asset management procedures for irrigation schemes — preliminary guidelines for the preparation ofan asset management plan for irrigation infrastructure. Institute of Irrigation Studies, University of Southampton)and Overseas Development Administration, UK.
IPTRID. 2001. Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector. International Programmefor Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Rome (also available at http://www.fao.org).
Malano, H. 2004. Benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector. Position paper. ICID, Task force 4, New Delhi.
Malano, H. & van Hofwegen, P. 1999. Management of irrigation and drainage systems, a service approach. IHEMonograph 3, A.a. Balkema Brookfield, Rotterdam.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the performance of irrigation projects: emergingmodernization procedures and design standards. Bangkok, FAO (available at www.watercontrol.org).
World Bank. 2005. Shaping the future of water for agriculture: a sourcebook for investment in agricultural watermanagement. Washington, DC, The World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Department.
169
Appendix 1. Rapid appraisal procedure external performance indicators
Item description Units
Stated efficiencies
Stated conveyance efficiency of imported canal water (accounts for seepage and spills and %tail-end flows)
Weighted field irrigation efficiency from stated efficiencies %
Areas
Physical area of irrigated cropland in the command area (not including multiple cropping) ha
Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping ha
Cropping intensity in the command area including double cropping none
External sources of water for the command area
Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area (gross at diversion and entry points) MCM
Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area MCM
Effective precipitation to irrigated fields (not including salinity removal) MCM
Net aquifer withdrawal as a result of irrigation in the command area MCM
Total external water supply for the project — including gross ppt and net aquifer withdrawal, MCMbut excluding internal recirculation
Total external irrigation supply for the project MCM
“Internal” water sources
Internal surface water recirculation by farmer or project in command area MCM
Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area MCM
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the command area MCM
Gross total annual volume of project authority irrigation supply MCM
Total groundwater pumped and dedicated to the command area MCM
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the command area, minus net MCMgroundwater withdrawal (this is to avoid double counting. Also, all of net is applied to this term,although some might be applied to farmers)
Estimated total gross internal surface water + groundwater MCM
Irrigation water delivered to users
Internal authority water sources are stated to have a conveyance efficiency of: %
Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users — using stated conveyance efficiency MCM
All other irrigation water to users (surface recirculation plus all well pumping, with stated MCMconveyance efficiencies, using 100% for farmer pumping and farmer surface diversions)
Total irrigation water deliveries to users (external surface irrigation water + internal diversions MCMand pumping water sources), reduced for conveyance efficiencies
Total irrigation water (internal plus external) — just for intermediate value MCM
Overall conveyance efficiency of project authority delivered water %
Net field irrigation requirements
ET of irrigated fields in the command area MCM
ET of irrigation water in the command area (ET - effective precipitation) MCM
Irrigation water needed for salinity control (net) MCM
Irrigation water needed for special practices MCM
Total NET irrigation water requirements (ET - eff. ppt + salt control + special practices) MCM
170
Item description Units
Other key values
Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s) m3/s
Actual peak flow rate of the main canal(s) at diversion point(s) this year m3/s
Peak NET irrigation requirement for field, including any special requirements m3/s
Peak GROSS irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies m3/s
ANNUAL or one-time external indicators for the command area
Peak litres/sec/ha of surface irrigation inflows to canal(s) this year l/s/ha
Relative water supply (RWS) for the irrigated part of the command area (Total external water nonesupply)/(Field ET during growing seasons + water for salt control - effective precipitation)
Annual command area irrigation efficiency [100 x (crop ET + Leaching needs - Effective ppt)/ %(surface irrigation diversions + Net groundwater)]
Field irrigation efficiency (computed) = [crop ET - effective ppt + LR water]/ %[total water delivered to users] x 100
Relative gross canal capacity (RGCC) — (peak monthly net irrigation requirement)/ none(main canal capacity)
Relative actual canal flow (RACF) — (peak monthly net irrigation requirement)/ none(peak main canal flow rate)
Gross annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type M tonnes
Total annual value of agricultural production US$
171
Appendix 2. Rapid appraisal procedure internal process indicators
IndicatorPrimary indicator and sub-indicator name
label
Service and social order
I-1 Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
I-1A Measurement of volumes
I-1B Flexibility
I-1C Reliability
I-1D Apparent equity
I-2 Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
I-2A to I-2B Same sub-indicators as for I–1
I-3 Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system operated bya paid employee
I-3A Number of fields downstream of this point
I-3B Measurement of volumes
I-3C Flexibility
I-3D Reliability
I-3E Apparent equity
I-4 Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee
I-4A to I-4E Same sub-indicators as for I–3
I-5 Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals
I-5A Flexibility
I-5B Reliability
I-5C Equity
I-5D Control of flow rates to the sub-main as stated
I-6 Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals
I-6A to I-6D Same sub-indicators as for I–5
I-7 Social “order” in the canal system operated by paid employees
I-7A Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or at flow rates greater thanallowed
I-7B Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals
I-7C Lack of vandalism of structures
Main canal
I-8 Cross-regulator hardware (main canal)
I-8A Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation
I-8B Level of maintenance of the cross-regulators
I-8C Lack of water level fluctuation
I-8D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level
I-9 Turnouts from the main canal
I-9A Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation
I-9B Level of maintenance
I-9C Flow rate capacities
172
IndicatorPrimary indicator and sub-indicator name
label
I-l0 Regulating reservoirs in the main canal
I-10A Suitability of the number of location(s)
I-10B Effectiveness of operation
I-10C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities
I-10D Maintenance
I-11 Communications for the main canal
I-11A Frequency of communications with the next higher level
I-11B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their customers
I-11C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio
I-11D Frequency of visits by upper-level supervisors to the field
I-11E Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key spill points,including the end of the canal
I-11F Availability of roads along the canal
I-12 General conditions for the main canal
I-12A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks
I-12B General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practised,some seepage may be desired)
I-12C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal
I-12D Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal(for crews and maintenance equipment)
I-13 Operation of the main canal
I-13A How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the operators/observers of this canal level?
I-13B Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual demands
I-13C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators
I-13D How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to the office?
Second-level canals
I-14 to I-19 Same indicators as for main canal
Third-level canals
I-20 to I-25 Same indicators as for main and second-level canals
Budgets, employees, WUAs
I-26 Budgets
I-26A What percentage of the total project (including WUA) O&M is collected as in-kind services,and/or water fees from water users?
I-26B Adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available (from all sources)to sustain adequate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) with the present mode of operation
I-26C Adequacy of spending on modernization of the water delivery operation/structures(as contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation)
I-27 Employees
I-27A Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers (not secretaries anddrivers)
I-27B Availability of written performance rules
173
IndicatorPrimary indicator and sub-indicator name
label
I-27C Power of employees to make decisions
I-27D Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause
I-27E Rewards for exemplary service
I-27F Relative salary of an operator compared to a day labourer
I-28 Water user associations (WUAs)
I-28A Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that participates in waterdistribution
I-28B Actual ability of the strong WUAs to influence real-time water deliveries to the WUA
I-28C Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of its rules
I-28D Legal basis for the WUAs
I-28E Financial strength of WUAs
I-29 Mobility and size of operations staff, based on the ratio of operating staff to the number ofturnouts.
I-30 Computers for billing and record management: The extent to which computers are used forbilling and record management
I-31 Computers for canal control: The extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are usedfor canal control
Special indicators that do not have a 0–4 rating scale
I-35 Turnout density: Number of water users downstream of employee-operated turnouts
I-36 Turnouts/Operator: (Number of turnouts operated by paid employees)/(paid employees)
I-37 Main canal chaos: (actual/stated) overall service by the main canal
I-38 Second-level chaos: (actual/stated) overall service at the most downstream point operated bya paid employee
I-39 Field-level chaos: (actual/stated) overall service to the individual ownership units
174
Appendix 3. Example of rapid appraisal procedure service indicator
No. Primary indicator Sub-indicator Ranking criteria Wt
I–1 Actual waterdelivery serviceto individualownership units(e.g. field or farm)
I–1A Measurement of 4 – Excellent measurement and control devices, properlyvolumes to the operated and recorded.individual units 3 – Reasonable measurement and control devices, average(0–4) operation.
2 – Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flowrates.1 – Reasonable measurement of flow rates, but not ofvolumes.0 – No measurement of volumes or flows.
I–1B Flexibility to the 4 – Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arrangedindividual units by users within a few days.(0–4) 3 – Fixed frequency, rate, or duration, but arranged.
2 – Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches thecrop needs.1 – Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertainschedule.0 – No established rules.
I–1C Reliability to the 4 – Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, andindividual units duration promised. Volume is known.(0–4) 3 – Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally
there are a few days of delay. Volume is known.2 – Water arrives about when it is needed and in thecorrect amounts. Volume is unknown.1 – Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairlyunreliable, but less than 50% of the time.0 – Unreliable frequency, rate, duration, more than 50%of the time, and volume delivered is unknown.
I–1D Apparent equity 4 – All fields throughout the project and within tertiaryto individual units units receive the same type of water delivery service.(0–4) 3 – Areas of the project receive the same amounts of
water, but within an area the service is somewhatinequitable.2 – Areas of the project receive somewhat differentamounts (unintentionally), but within an area it isequitable.1 – There are medium inequities both between areas andwithin areas.0 – There are differences of more than 50% throughoutthe project on a fairly widespread basis.
1
2
4
4
175
Appendix 4. External performance indicators
� �Malaysia Indonesia Viet Nam Philippines Nepal �Pakistan India
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Lodo
yo
Lak
bok
Dau
Tie
ng
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
MA
RII
S
SMIP
Ove
r All
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Kris
hna
Item Description Units
Stated efficiencies
Stated conveyance efficiency of imported canal water (accounts for % 84 61 80 60 57 50 50 60 75 70 80 80 80 70seepage and spills and tail end flows)
Weighted field irrigation efficiency from stated efficiencies % 70 70 89 68 78 75 77 75 68 65 70 74 66 67
Areas
Physical area of irrigated cropland in the command area ha 96�474 23�560 6�888 12 232 18�288 44�000 24�140 43�131 64�000 28�700 215�511 403�103 400�000 201�600(not including multiple cropping)
Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping ha 192�948 44�405 13�776 32�232 33�317 106�300 42�706 82�172 136�040 58�163 56�056 70�163 224�478 300�000
Cropping intensity in the command area including double cropping none 2.00 1.88 2.00 2.64 2 2.42 1.77 1.91 2.13 2.03 0.26 0.17 0.56 1.49
External sources of water for the command area
Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area Mm3 1�155 568 197 280 210 1�104 235 1�728 751 314 1�386 3�718 3�117 2�180(gross at diversion and entry points)
Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area Mm3 1�922 667 167 162 257 774 336 455 1�247 506 395 0 472 1�723
Effective precipitation to irrigated fields (not including salinity removal) Mm3 214 61 17 70 63 213 73 131 193 100 66 0 192 823
Net aquifer withdrawal as a result of irrigation in the command area Mm3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total external water supply for the project — including gross ppt and Mm3 3�077 1�235 365 442 467 1�878 571 2�183 1�998 821 1�781 3�718 3�589 3�903net aquifer withdrawal, but excluding internal recirculation
Total external irrigation supply for the project Mm3 � � � � � � � 1�728 751 314 1�386 3�718 3�117 2�180
“Internal” Water Sources
Internal surface water recirculation by farmer or project in command area Mm3 125 89 0 1 79 276 116 286 137 0 0 0 0 0
Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area Mm3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 24 14 0 0 9 1
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the Mm3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 474 0command area
Gross total annual volume of project authority irrigation supply Mm3 � � � � � � � 2�014 841 314 1�386 3�718 3�591 2�180
Total groundwater pumped and dedicated to the command area Mm3 � � � � � � � 0 24 14 0 0 483 1
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the Mm3 � � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 474 0command area, minus net groundwater withdrawal (this is to avoid doublecounting. Also, all of net is applied to this term, although some might beapplied to farmers)
Estimated total gross internal surface water + groundwater Mm3 125 89 0 5 79 276 116 286 162 14 0 0 483 1
Irrigation water delivered to users�
Internal authority water sources are stated to have a conveyance % 95 87 93 87 86 83 83 60 75 90 80 80 80 80efficiency of:
Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users — using stated Mm3 967 349 158 168 118 552 118 1 037 563 220 1 109 2 974 2 494 1 526conveyance efficiency
All other irrigation water to users (surface recirculation plus all well Mm3 � � � � � � � 172 139 14 0 0 388 1pumping, with stated conveyance efficiencies, using 100% for farmerpumping and farmer surface diversions)
176
Total irrigation water deliveries to users (external surface irrigation Mm3 1 083 426 158 172 186 782 214 1 208 702 234 1 109 2 974 2 882 1 527water + internal diversions and pumping water sources), reduced forconveyance efficiencies
Total irrigation water (internal plus external) — just for intermed. value Mm3 � � � � � � � 2 014 913 328 1 386 3 718 3 601 2 181
Overall conveyance efficiency of project authority delivered water % � � � � � � � 60 75 70 80 80 80 70
Net field irrigation requirements�
ET of irrigated fields in the command area Mm3 481 265 94 166 183 552 226 449 550 277 684 901 2 112 918
ET of irrigation water in the command area (ET - effective precipitation) Mm3 267 204 77 95 120 339 153 318 357 177 617 901 1 921 95
Irrigation water needed for salinity control (net) Mm3 0 0 0 7 6 20 8 6 1 0 63 84 95 0
Irrigation water needed for special practices Mm3 0 0 0 8 5 44 7 49 91 27 17 35 5 450
Total NET irrigation water requirements (ET - eff. ppt + salt control + Mm3 267 204 77 110 130 402 168 372 449 204 696 1 020 2 021 545special practices)
Other key values�
Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s) cms 141 34 14 19 25 90 31 100 60 24.1 105 509 326 216
Actual peak flow rate of the main canal(s) at diversion point(s) this year cms 141 31 13 12 24 87 31 95 60 22.1 79 408 312 135
Peak NET irrigation requirement for field, including any special cms 23 15 4 6 8 25 10 21 35 11.9 57 78 131.1 122requirements
Peak GROSS irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies cms 115 51 10 17 22 99 25 113 74 19.4 113 283 233.7 488
Annual or one-time external Indicators for the command area
Peak litres/sec/ha of surface irrigation inflows to canal(s) this year LPS/ha 1.46 1.30 1.89 0.98 1 1.98 1.28 2.20 0.94 0.77 0.37 1.01 0.78 0.67
Relative water supply (RWS) for the irrigated part of the command area none 12.29 6.14 4.85 4.06 4 4.67 3.40 5.86 4.45 4.02 2.56 3.64 1.78 7.16(Total external water supply)/(Field ET during growing seasons + water forsalt control — Effective precipitation)
Annual command area irrigation efficiency [100 x (crop ET + % 23 36 39 42 60 36 71 22 60 65 50 27 65 25leaching needs - effective ppt)/(surface irrigation diversions +net groundwater)]
Field irrigation efficiency (computed) = [Crop ET - effective ppt + % 25 48 49 68 68 51 78 31 64 87 63 34 70 36LR water]/[total water delivered to users] x 100
Relative gross canal capacity (RGCC) — (peak monthly net irrigation none 0.16 0.44 0.29 0.33 0 0.28 0.32 0.21 0.59 0.49 0.54 0.15 0.40 0.56requirement)/(main canal capacity)
Relative actual canal flow (RACF) — (peak monthly net irrigation none 0.16 0.49 0.31 0.54 0 0.29 0.32 0.22 0.59 0.54 0.72 0.19 0.42 0.90requirement)/(peak main canal flow rate)
Gross annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type M tonnes�
Total annual value of agricultural production US$ 141�957�727 19�944�537 10�917�445 24�596�251 21�378�846 28�772 000 25�382�933 56�199�902 52�680�003 21�614�250 29�928�364 27�420�485 119�967�401 199�184�839
�Malaysia Indonesia Viet Nam Philippines Nepal �Pakistan India
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Lodo
yo
Lak
bok
Dau
Tie
ng
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
MA
RII
S
SMIP
Ove
r All
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Kris
hna
Item Description Units
177
Indi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
Service and social order�
I–1 Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm) � 11.0 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.0 1.06 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.8 2.0 2.4 0.9 1.1 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9 2.2 3.0 2.5 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.8
I–1A Measurement of volumes 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.5 2.5 3.0
I–1B Flexibility 2.0 � 2.0 1.7 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.8 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0
I–1C Reliability 4.0 � 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0
I–1D Apparent equity. 4.0 � 3.3 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5
I–2 Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm) � 11.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 1.32 2.6 1.5 2.5 1.8 0.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0
I–2A Measurement of volumes 1.0 � 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.87 2.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 3.5
I–2B Flexibility 2.0 � 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0
I–2C Reliability 4.0 � 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2 2.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0
I–2D Apparent equity. 4.0 � 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.6 3.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0
I–3 Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system � 17.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 0.9 0.76 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 2.7 2.4 1.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.1 2.9operated by a paid employee
I–3A Number of fields downstream of this point 1.0 � 1.3 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
I–3B Measurement of volumes 4.0 � 0.0 1.8 0.3 1.5 1.0 0.0 0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.5 2.5 3.0
I–3C Flexibility 4.0 � 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 0.6 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0
I–3D Reliability 4.0 � 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.3 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0
I–3E Apparent equity. 4.0 � 3.3 2.7 2.5 3.0 3.0 0.5 1.6 2.0 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.3 3.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5
I–4 Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system � 17.0 2.4 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.8 1.69 2.5 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 3.1 1.5 1.2 3.1 3.1 2.2 2.5 1.8 3.8 3.1 1.7 2.8 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.1operated by a paid employee
I–4A Number of fields downstream of this point 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.54 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
I–4B Measurement of volumes 4.0 � 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 3.5
I–4C Flexibility 4.0 � 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0
I–4D Reliability 4.0 � 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.2 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0
I–4E Apparent equity. 4.0 � 3.7 2.7 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 0.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5
I–5 Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second-level canals � 4.5 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.3 1.3 2.73 1.7 1.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.0 3.0 3.3 1.8 1.7 0.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.9 3.0 2.5 2.7 1.1 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.8
I–5A Flexibility 1.0 � 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 1.5 2.11 0.5 1.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
I–5B Reliability 1.0 � 3.7 3.3 3.5 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.1 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–5C Equity 1.0 � 4.0 3.3 3.3 2.5 3.5 2.0 3 2.8 2.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 3.5 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–5D Control of flow rates to the submain as stated 1.5 � 3.0 1.5 1.9 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.7 1.5 0.3 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.2
I–6 Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second-level canals � 4.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.6 4.0 2.9 2.86 2.5 3.0 3.6 2.3 2.2 1.7 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.4 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.3
I–6A Flexibility 1.0 � 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 2.52 1.7 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0
I–6B Reliability 1.0 � 3.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
I–6C Equity 1.0 � 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.9 3.0 2.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
I–6D Control of flow rates to the submain as stated 1.5 � 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 2.3 3.0 4.0 1.5 2.0 1.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 4.0
Appendix 5: Internal Performance Indicators
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- �Mali DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator Name Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
178
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- Mali �DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–7 Social order in the canal system operated by paid employees � 4.0 2.7 2.9 2.1 2.0 1.5 2.3 1.49 3.2 1.8 1.0 1.3 2.5 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.5 2.5 3.0 2.3 1.8 2.5 3.0 2.3 3.0 3.0
I–7A Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or at flow ratesgreater than allowed 2.0 � 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.55 3.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–7B Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals 1.0 � 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.7 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0
I–7C Lack of vandalism of structures 1.0 � 2.3 2.7 1.8 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.4 3.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0�
�Main canal
I–8 Cross-regulator hardware (main canal) � 7.0 1.5 1.3 2.3 3.1 3.5 1.5 2.04 1.7 1.6 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 3.4 3.3 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 3.1 3.6 2.8 1.6 3.1 3.2 2.8 1.9 2.2
I–8A Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation. This 1.0 � 3.3 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.77 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 4.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5does not mean that the current targets are being met; rather this ratingindicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulators tomeet the targets
I–8B Level of maintenance of the cross-regulators 1.0 � 4.0 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 3.5 3.6 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.0
I–8C Lack of water level fluctuation 3.0 � 0.3 0.0 1.8 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0
I–8D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 2.0 � 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.3 2.7 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0
I–9 Turnouts from the main canal � 3.0 3.6 2.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 2.5 1.95 2.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 3.7 2.7 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 3.2 3.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.8 3.2
I–9A Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not 1.0 � 3.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.5 2.0 2.2 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.5mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates howeasy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to meetthe targets
I–9B Level of maintenance 1.0 � 3.0 2.2 2.8 3.0 2.5 1.5 2.8 2.7 0.7 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
I–9C Flow rate capacities 1.0 � 4.0 1.8 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
I–l0 Regulating reservoirs in the main canal � 6.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–10A Suitability of the number of location(s) 2.0 � 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–10B Effectiveness of operation 2.0 � 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–10C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 1.0 � 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–10D Maintenance 1.0 � 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–11 Communications for the main canal � 11.0 3.2 2.0 2.3 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.79 1.3 1.2 3.8 2.1 2.3 2.2 3.6 2.9 2.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.5 2.7 3.6 2.0 2.9 2.9
I–11A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 2.0 � 3.3 1.3 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.56 0.7 0.7 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0
I–11B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their 2.0 � 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 0.7 1.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0customers
I–11C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio 3.0 � 4.0 2.0 3.4 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 0.3 0.3 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.3 4.0 2.7 2.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.5
I–11D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field 1.0 � 1.7 4.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.4 2.7 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 2.0
I–11E Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) 1.0 � 1.7 0.0 1.3 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.6 0.3 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5at key spill points, including the end of the canal
I–11F Availability of roads along the canal 2.0 � 3.3 2.3 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.6 3.7 2.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
I–12 General conditions for the main canal � 5.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.3 2.4 2.88 2.3 1.3 3.4 1.8 3.4 1.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 3.2 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.3 3.0 2.4 2.2 3.1 2.5
I–12A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 1.0 � 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.3 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.5 3.0
I–12B General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is 1.0 � 4.0 3.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.5practised, some seepage may be desired)
I–12C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 2.0 � 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.5 2.0 2.0 3.3 1.7 1.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 0.7 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.5
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
179
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- �Mali DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–12D Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this 1.0 � 1.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 1.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 0.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0canal (for crews and maintenance equipment)
I–13 Operation of the main canal � 5.0 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 2.8 0.8 3.11 1.6 1.9 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.5 3.3 3.1 0.8 2.4 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.1
I–13A How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback 2.0 � 4.0 2.7 2.8 3.5 2.7 0.0 3.63 1.8 2.2 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.3 3.5 3.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 2.0from the operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals witha mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storagevariations and wave travel times
I–13B Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match 1.0 � 3.1 2.7 2.8 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.66 1.3 0.0 1.3 4.0 4.0 2.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3 2.0 2.0actual demands. This is different from the previous question, because theprevious question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a changehas been made
I–13C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators 1.0 � 4.0 1.3 2.9 3.0 2.7 0.0 2.14 1.9 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.5 4.0 3.5 1.3 2.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.0 4.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.7 2.7 1.3
I–13D How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and 1.0 � 1.3 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.3 1.8 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.3 4.0 4.0 2.7 2.7 1.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 3.0reported to the office? This means one or more persons physically driveall the sections of the canal
�Second level canals
I–14 Cross-regulator hardware (Second-level canals) � 7.0 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.1 3.9 1.8 2.04 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.0 3.4 3.2 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 2.3 3.1 2.6 1.9 1.1 2.1 2.7 1.9 1.8 2.8
I–14A Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation. This 1.0 � 3.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.14 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5does not mean that the current targets are being met; rather this ratingindicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulatorsto meet the targets
I–14B Level of maintenance of the cross-regulators 1.0 � 2.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 1.7 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.3 3.0 3.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0
I–14C Lack of water level fluctuation 3.0 � 0.7 0.7 1.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
I–14D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 2.0 � 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
I–15 Turnouts from the second level canals � 3.0 3.4 2.6 3.0 2.5 2.0 0.8 2.27 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3 3.0 0.8 2.7 2.3 1.8 2.3
I–15A Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does notmean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates howeasy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measure flows tomeet the targets 1.0 � 3.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.2 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0
I–15B Level of maintenance 1.0 � 2.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 3.0
I–15C Flow rate capacities 1.0 � 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0
I–16 Regulating reservoirs in the second level canals � 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–16A Suitability of the number of location(s) 2.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–16B Effectiveness of operation 2.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–16C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–16D Maintenance 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–17 Communications for the second-level canals � 11.0 2.7 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.74 1.4 1.3 2.6 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.4 2.1 0.5 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.8 1.4 1.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 1.4 3.1 2.8
I–17A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 2.0 � 3.3 1.3 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.62 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0
I–17B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their 2.0 � 4.0 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0customers
I–17C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio 3.0 � 1.7 1.0 3.3 2.5 2.0 4.0 3.6 1.0 0.7 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 3.5
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
180
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- Mali �DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–17D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field 1.0 � 3.0 3.7 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.4 1.7 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0
I–17E Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) 1.0 � 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0at key spill points, including the end of the canal
I–17F Availability of roads along the canal 2.0 � 3.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.0 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0
I–18 General conditions for the second-level canals � 5.0 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.98 2.1 1.7 2.6 1.4 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.0 2.5 2.8
I–18A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 1.0 � 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.82 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.5
I–18B General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is 1.0 � 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.3 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 2.0 2.5practised, some seepage may be desired)
I–18C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 2.0 � 3.5 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 3.4 2.3 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 3.0
I–18D Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this 1.0 � 3.0 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 1.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0canal (for crews and maintenance equipment)
I–19 Operation of the second level canals � 5.0 3.4 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.0 1.5 2.66 1.8 1.7 3.1 2.4 2.7 1.3 3.1 3.1 1.3 2.1 0.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 2.3 4.0 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.9 3.5 1.7 2.9 3.3
I–19A How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback 2.0 � 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.7 0.7 2.72 1.3 1.3 4.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 4.0 2.7 1.3 2.7 0.0 2.7 1.3 1.3 2.7 4.0 1.3 4.0 2.7 2.0 4.0 1.3 3.3 2.7from the operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals witha mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storagevariations and wave travel times
I–19B Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match 1.0 � 4.0 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.7 0.7 2.7 1.5 1.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.3 1.3 2.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 4.0 2.7 1.3 2.0 4.0actual demands. This is different from the previous question, because theprevious question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a changehas been made
I–19C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators 1.0 � 3.6 3.6 2.8 3.3 2.7 1.3 2.26 4.0 2.7 2.0 1.3 2.7 4.0 2.0 3.3 1.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.3 2.7 2.7 0.7 2.0 3.3
I–19D How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and 1.0 � 4.0 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.96 1.1 1.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.3 4.0 4.0 2.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0reported to the office? This means one or more persons physically driveall the sections of the canal
�Third-level canals
I–20 Cross-regulator hardware (Third-level canals) � 7.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 � � � 2.13 2.1 0.8 � 1.7 2.3 1.3 � � � 1.7 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.1
I–20A Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation. This 1.0 � 3.7 2.0 3.3 � � � 2.1 4.0 2.0 � 3.0 3.0 2.3 � � � 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0does not mean that the current targets are being met; rather this ratingindicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulatorsto meet the targets
I–20B Level of maintenance of the cross-regulators 1.0 � 3.0 1.3 2.5 � � � 3.0 2.7 1.0 � 1.0 2.0 1.3 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0
I–20C Lack of water level fluctuation 3.0 � 0.7 1.7 1.8 � � � 1.6 0.3 0.0 � 0.0 1.0 0.0 � � � 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–20D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 2.0 � 2.7 2.7 3.3 � � � 1.8 3.7 1.3 � 4.0 4.0 2.7 � � � 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 � � � � � � � � � �
I–21 Turnouts from the third-level canals � 3.0 1.3 2.2 2.8 � � � 2.42 2.3 1.2 � 1.7 2.0 2.2 � � � 0.7 0.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
I–21A Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not 1.0 � 0.0 2.3 2.8 � � � 2.17 3.0 1.7 � 2.0 2.0 2.7 � � � 1.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicateshow easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measureflows to meet the targets
I–21B Level of maintenance 1.0 � 1.3 1.5 2.6 � � � 2.4 2.0 0.7 � 1.0 2.0 2.0 � � � 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
I–21C Flow rate capacities 1.0 � 2.7 2.7 3.0 � � � 2.7 2.0 1.3 � 2.0 2.0 2.0 � � � 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–22 Regulating reservoirs in the third level canals � 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–22A Suitability of the number of location(s) 2.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
181
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- Mali �DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–22B Effectiveness of operation 2.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–22C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–22D Maintenance 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–23 Communications for the third-level canals � 11.0 3.1 1.4 2.3 � � � 2.45 0.6 0.5 � 1.5 2.3 1.3 � � � 0.9 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.9
I–23A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 2.0 � 3.3 2.0 1.0 � � � 2.51 1.0 0.7 � 2.0 4.0 1.7 � � � 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–23B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their 2.0 � 4.0 1.7 2.5 � � � 2.6 0.7 0.7 � 2.0 4.0 1.7 � � � 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0customers
I–23C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio 3.0 � 2.7 0.7 3.5 � � � 3.4 0.3 0.3 � 1.0 1.0 1.0 � � � 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I–23D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field 1.0 � 3.0 3.0 2.5 � � � 3.4 1.3 0.7 � 3.0 4.0 2.7 � � � 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
I–23E Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) 1.0 � 1.3 0.0 0.0 � � � 1.8 0.3 0.0 � 1.0 0.0 0.7 � � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5at key spill points, including the end of the canal
I–23F Availability of roads along the canal 2.0 � 3.3 1.3 2.5 � � � 1.0 0.3 0.3 � 0.5 1.0 0.3 � � � 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I–24 General conditions for the third-level canals � 5.0 3.2 2.4 3.3 � � � 2.79 2.2 2 574.8 � 1.6 2.2 1.8 � � � 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2
I–24A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 1.0 � 2.7 2.7 3.1 � � � 2.56 2.0 1.7 � 2.0 2.0 3.0 � � � 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
I–24B General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is 1.0 � 3.3 2.0 4.0 � � � 3.0 2.0 3.0 � 2.0 2.0 3.0 � � � 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0practised, some seepage may be desired)
I–24C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 2.0 � 3.3 2.0 2.9 � � � 3.0 2.0 1.0 � 1.0 2.0 1.0 � � � 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
I–24D Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this 1.0 � 3.3 3.3 3.5 � � � 2.6 3.0 2.7 � 2.0 3.0 1.0 � � � 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0canal (for crews and maintenance equipment)
I–25 Operation of the third-level canals � 5.0 1.9 2.2 2.8 � � � 2.59 1.6 1.5 � 1.1 2.0 0.5 � � � 1.8 0.0 1.6 0.5 1.9
I–25A How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback 2.0 � 1.8 1.2 2.7 � � � 2.86 1.3 1.8 � 0.0 3.0 0.0 � � � 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7from the operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals witha mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storagevariations and wave travel times
I–25B Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match 1.0 � 0.0 2.2 2.4 � � � 2.08 1.3 0.9 � 1.3 2.0 0.0 � � � 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.3actual demands. This is different from the previous question, because theprevious question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a changehas been made
I–25C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators 1.0 � 3.1 3.6 3.1 � � � 2.46 3.6 2.2 � 1.3 1.0 1.3 � � � 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I–25D How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and 1.0 � 2.7 2.7 2.9 � � � 2.96 0.4 0.9 � 2.7 1.0 1.0 � � � 1.3 0.0 1.3 2.7 2.7reported to the office? This means one or more persons physically driveall the sections of the canal
�Budgets, Employees, WUAs
I–26 Budgets � 5.0 1.3 1.9 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.52 0.9 0.3 2.6 0.4 3.6 0.0 1.6 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 3.0 3.4 2.0 2.2 2.0 3.2 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.4
I–26A What percentage of the total project (including WUA) O&M is collected as 2.0 � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.96 0.0 0.7 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0in-kind services, and/or water fees from water users?
I–26B Adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available 2.0 � 2.0 2.7 1.3 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0(from all sources) to sustain adequate O&M with the present modeof operation
I–26C Adequacy of spending on modernization of the water delivery operation/ 1.0 � 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0structures (as contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation)
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
182
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- Mali �DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–27 Employees � 9.5 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.5 0.79 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.6 1.2 2.6 1.3 1.7 1.7 � 1.3 1.2 2.3 1.9 2.6 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.3 1.6 3.5 2.3
I–27A Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers 1.0 � 3.7 2.3 2.9 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.37 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0(not secretaries and drivers). This should include employees at all levelsof the distribution system, not only those who work in the office
I–27B Availability of written performance rules 1.0 � 3.7 3.5 3.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.8 3.3 1.7 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0
I–27C Power of employees to make decisions 2.5 � 1.3 2.2 1.8 3.5 2.0 0.5 2.2 3.3 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.5
I–27D Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause 2.0 � 2.0 3.0 2.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 1.5
I–27E Rewards for exemplary service 1.0 � 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.2 2.7 0.3 2.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 3.0
I–27F Relative salary of an operator compared to a day laborer 2.0 � 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.6 4.0 3.3 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 � 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0
I–28 WUAs � 6.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.42 2.9 0.7 1.8 2.0 2.9 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.4
I–28A Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that 2.5 � 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.02 4.0 0.3 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0participates in water distribution
I–28B Actual ability of the strong WUAs to influence real-time water deliveries 1.0 � 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0to the WUA.
I–28C Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of 1.0 � 0.0 1.7 0.4 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.4 2.5 0.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 3.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0its rules
I–28D Legal basis for the WUAs 1.0 � 1.6 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0
I–28E Financial strength of WUAs 1.0 � 2.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.8 1.3 0.7 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.8
I–29 Mobility and size of operations staff
� Operation staff mobility and efficiency, based on the ratio of operating staff � � 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0to the number of turnouts
I–30 Computers for billing and record management
� The extent to which computers are used for billing and record management � � 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.7 0.3 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0
I–31 Computers for canal control
� The extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are used for � � 2.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0canal control
�INDICATORS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY COMPUTED
�THESE INDICATORS REQUIRE THE INPUT OF VALUES (0-4) IN EACH OF THE BOXES
I–32 Ability of the present water delivery service to individual fields, to support � 3.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 1.7 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.2 2.8 0.0pressurized irrigation methods
I–32A Measurement and control of volumes to the field4 — Excellent volumetric metering and control; 3.5 — Ability to measure 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 3.0flow rates reasonably well, but not volume. Flow is well-controlled;2.5 — Cannot measure flow, but can control flow rates well;0 — Cannot control the flow rate, even though it can be measured �
I–32B Flexibility to the field4 — Arranged delivery, with frequency, rate and duration promised. All can 1.0 � 0.0 0.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5be varied upon request; 3 — Same as 4, but cannot vary the duration;2 — 2 variables are fixed, but arranged schedule; 0 — Rotation �
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
183
Phi- Mo-Tur-
Malaysia Thailand Indonesia lip- Viet Nam India Nepal Pakistan Iran roc- Mali �DR Colombia Mexicokey
pines co
Indicator NameIndi
cato
r Lab
el
Sum
of w
eigh
ting
fact
ors
MA
DA
KER
IAN
KU
MP
Pena
ng
Mud
a*
Kem
ubu*
Lam
pao*
Nam
Oon
Lodo
yo
Lakb
ok
MA
RII
S**
Dau
Tie
ng
Wes
t Kris
hna
Aud
hra
Prad
esh
Maj
alga
on*
Dan
tiwad
a*
Bha
kra*
SMIP
Nar
ayan
i
Akr
amW
ah
Fule
li-G
uni
Gho
tki
Dez
*
Gui
lan*
Ben
l Am
ir*
Off
ice
du N
iger
*
Rio
Yaq
ul*
Coe
llo*
Sald
ana*
Cup
atitz
io*
Rio
May
o*
Seha
n*
I–32C Reliability to the field4 — Water always arrives as promised, including the appropriate volume; 1.0 � 0.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 3.03 — A few days of delay occasionally occur, but water is still very reliablein rate and duration; 0 — More than a few days delay �
I–33 Changes required to be able to support pressurized irrigation methods � 2.0 0.2 0.5 1.4 2.8 2.0 0.5 0.83 1.7 1.7 0.0 2.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 2.8 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.0 2.8 1.5 3.3 1.5 1.3 3.0 0.0
I–33A Procedures, Management4 — No changes in water ordering, staff training, or mobility; 1.0 � 0.3 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.0 0.5 3.53.5 — Improved training, only. The basic procedures/conditions are just fine,they just are not being implemented to their full extent; 3.0 — Minor changesin water ordering, mobility, training, incentive programmes; 2.0 — Majorchanges in 1 of the above; 1 — Major changes in 2 of the above; 0 — Needto completely revamp or convert almost everything.
I–33B Hardware4 — No changes needed; 3.5 — Only need to repair some of the existing 1.0 � 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.4 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.5structures so that they are workable again.; 3.0 — Improved communications,repair of some existing structures, and a few key new structures (less thanUS$300/ha needed), OR…very little change to existing, but new structuresare needed for water recirculation; 2 — Larger capital expenditures —US$300 to US$600/ha; 1 — Larger capital expenditures needed (up toUS$1�500/ha); 0 — Almost complete reworking of the system is needed
I–34 Sophistication in receiving and using feedback information.This does not need to be automatic. 4 — Continuous feedback and continuous � � 3.0 1.5 1.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 2.5use of information to change inflows, with all key points monitored. Or,minimal feedback is necessary, such as with closed pipe systems;3 — Feedback several times a day and rapid use (within a few hours) of thatinformation, at major points; 2 — Feedback once/day from key points andappropriate use of information within a day; 1 — Weekly feedback andappropriate usage, or once/day feedback but poor usage of the information;0 — No meaningful feedback, or else there is a lot of feedback but no usage
�SPECIAL INDICATORS THAT DO NOT HAVE A 0–4 RATING SCALE
I–35 Turnout density Number of water users downstream of employee-operated � � 15.7 21.7 4.0 � � � 4.4 45.0 83.7 94.0 15.0 150.0 25.0 � � � 100 6 000 30.0 30.0 30.0turnouts
I–36 Turnouts/Operator (number of turnouts operated by paid employees)/ � � 0.6 3.1 1.6 � � � 17.19 1.0 0.8 3.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0(Paid employees)� � �
I–37 Main canal chaos (actual/stated) Overall service by the main canal � � 0.9 0.9 0.9 � � � 0.96 0.7 0.6 0.75 1.10 1.00 0.6 � � � 0.83 0.28 0.48 0.42 0.42
I–38 Second level chaos (actual/stated) Overall Service at the most downstream � � 0.8 1.1 1.1 � � � 0.82 0.5 0.7 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.4 � � � 0.48 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.42point operated by a paid employee
I–39 Field level chaos (actual/stated) Overall service to the individual ownership � � 0.8 0.8 1.0 � � � 0.72 0.7 1.1 0.71 0.90 1.75 0.3 � � � 0.60 0.33 0.55 0.55 0.57units
Notes:
• The values shown in this table are true values of indicators (not weighted values of indicators)
• For the data from series 19 (old version), the project name with * , there are no data for indicators No. I-16, I-20 to I-25 and I-35 to I-39.
• For the MARIIS Project; there is no information on third level canals as the information is on main, second and final delivery levels.
Wei
ghtin
g fa
ctor
Cau
Son
, Cam
Son
184
Some economics aspects of large rice-based projectsin Southeast Asia
Jeremy Berkoff
1. Economics, agriculture and rice production in Southeast Asia
1.1 Introduction
Economics has been defined as the “application of reason to choice” in the use of scarce resources (Green,2003). Two other points can be made by way of introduction (Young, 1996):
First, the objective function in economic analysis is the maximization of human welfare and not ofphysical output. In irrigated agriculture, objectives are too often set in terms of physical quantitiesrather than of enhancing human welfare. Human welfare may well be maximized even when physicalquantities (yields, crop per drop, irrigation efficiency) are below their maximums.
Second, incentives matter. Incentives are not limited to price. Of particular relevance in surfaceirrigation is response to water scarcity: the “hidden hand of scarcity” can be more effective than anyconceivable price mechanism in promoting human welfare. Incentives can also take institutional forms:political power, bureaucratic ambition, professional interest and rent seeking.
The reason for belabouring these perhaps obvious points will, I hope, become clear. I now address in turnissues related to paddy yields, irrigated areas and the modernization of large rice-based irrigation schemes.
1.2 Paddy yields
Yields and incentives. Numerous publications, including those of FAO, the International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the World Bank refer to “a yieldgap” in paddy cultivation. The documentation for the workshop for instance refers to a gap that has beenclosed in East Asia but persists in Southeast Asia. But this observation begs a number of important questions.Why has a yield gap persisted in Southeast Asia but been closed in East Asia? Are Southeast Asian farmers,irrigation officials and research scientists so much less competent than those in East Asia? If average yieldswere to rise by 50 to 100 percent within ten years, what would they do with all that rice? Even if it werepossible to enhance yield potential, would this be reflected in actual yields? Perhaps there are valid reasonswhy yields are what they are. If so, these reasons must be understood before prescribing solutions designedto close the “yield gap”.
Again, this is not to say that physical factors are unimportant: “The maximum yield of a crop is primarilydetermined by its genetic characteristics and how well the crop is adapted to the prevailing environment”(Doorenhos and Kassam, 1986). If total radiation during the growing season is higher in East Asia than inSoutheast Asia then, other things being equal, yields will be higher in East Asia; and if land is irrigated itwill yield more than land that is rainfed under similar environmental conditions. Agricultural research andinvestment expand the range of options open to the individual. Without the green revolution, farmers couldnot adopt high yielding varieties (HYVs) or apply fertilizer profitably. Again, without education, health, roadsetc., farmers would be less well-equipped to exploit their opportunities. But that it is possible to increase riceyields does not necessarily mean that it is always desirable to increase rice yields, nor that in practice riceyields will increase. Yields are the outcome of numerous simultaneous decisions by farmers, consumers,irrigation managers and others, each reacting to the incentives they face in ways that optimize their separateindividual welfares. This does not necessarily maximize physical output.
This point is well illustrated by the history of Mbarali, a small paddy scheme in interior Tanzania (Berkoff,2001b). The Chinese, who built it and operated it for a few years, spared no expense on labour, fertilizer etc.to make it a success. Yields during the first ten years or so were as high as anywhere else in the world and
185
planted area rose steadily to the full potential (about 3 000 ha). But in 1983/84 the project was corporatized,operating subsidies were withdrawn, financial losses became transparent, and yields collapsed since inputscould no longer be afforded. But sales of rice were still guaranteed at fixed prices by the State MillingCorporation (SMC) so the full area was still planted. This guarantee ceased in the early 1990s. Yieldsthen fell further and this time areas also collapsed as markets dried up. Output in 1997/98 was no more than10 percent of the 1980/81 peak.
What makes Mbarali so intriguing is that environmental (i.e. physical) conditions stayed much the same overthe whole period but incentives shifted radically — not once but twice. When the scheme was heavilysubsidized and markets were guaranteed, yields in this small isolated scheme in the depths of Africa were ashigh as anywhere in the world; when subsidies and guarantees were removed, yields fell to a typically lowAfrican smallholder average and areas collapsed. The loss in area was replaced by smallholders exploitingreturn flows so that the total irrigated area remained much the same — it may even have increased. Aneconomist would say that this final outcome has optimized welfare since without subsidies scheme managersand smallholders separately optimize their welfare as they see it. What it certainly has not done is to maximizeyields and output.
Trends in paddy yields in Asian countries. Mbarali if of course atypical and differs greatly from the largerice-based systems of Asia. Nevertheless, it shows with clarity the role of incentives. I believe that incentivesalso help explain why differences in yield persist between countries in Asia and elsewhere: why the “yieldgap, which has been closed in East Asia, still persists in Southeast Asia”. Figure 1 summarizes trends inpaddy yields in six Asian countries: 7
Average yields have risen in all six countries and though the rate of increase varied between andwithin countries, trends were fairly consistently upwards throughout the period.
The order of average yields was fairly steady though Viet Nam fell markedly below Indonesia in thelate 1960s (and below Philippines and Myanmar in the late 1980s) regaining second place in 2001,and Thailand fell below Myanmar and Philippines in the mid-1970s.
Yields in Indonesia surged between 1966 and 1982, in Myanmar between 1976 and 1983, in Chinabetween 1977 and 1983, and in Viet Nam after 1988/89. But yields in the Philippines and Thailandrose more steadily over the period with less noticeable surges.
7 Cambodia, Lao PDR and Malaysia — represented at the regional workshop — are smaller than these countries in terms ofpopulation, irrigated area and rice output. They also have other characteristics that in different ways set them apart. They have thereforebeen excluded from this discussion.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7China
Indonesia
Thailand
Viet Nam
MyanmarPhilippines
Tonn
es/h
a
1961� 1966� 1971� 1976� 1981� 1986� 1991� 1996� 2001
Source: FAOSTAT
Figure 1. Trends in paddy yields six Asian countries, 1961 to 2004 (tonnes/ha)
186
What is going on? 8 Yield trends are influenced both by physical factors and by public policy. All countriesintervene in domestic grain markets in one way or another. Importers often aim for self-sufficiency; exportersmay support local producers and/or promote exports. However, I think there is also something else going onand that this “something” applies to grains generally and not just to rice in Asia (Berkoff, 2005).
Grains are relatively easy to store and preserve so that trade is eminently feasible if the necessary institutionsexist. But grains are also bulky and of low value so that trading costs provide a level of inherent protectionthat is greater than for most other commodities. Within national borders, public policy may distort outcomesbut it is striking how many countries remain marginally self-sufficient, importing in bad years, exporting ingood years. Meanwhile yields continue to rise in most countries and world trade in grains remains some 14to 15 percent of output despite intermittent panics that regions are shifting into chronic deficit (Indonesiaand South Asia in the 1960s, Africa and China more recently).
At least part of the explanation for the stable share of trade in world output lies in feedback loops betweensprices, trading costs and risk. Liberalized markets have become more prevalent over time. 9 Prices in liberalizedmarkets are inherently unstable because of climatic, seasonal and trade-related factors. But in countries thatare marginal traders (i.e. most developing countries) inherent instability is further aggravated by the divergencebetween import and export equivalent prices. If trading costs are 10 percent of the final price, the differencebetween import and export equivalent prices is 20 percent and may be more. If prices switch from import toexport equivalence (e.g. because of a bumper crop) then, other things being equal, farm gate prices will fallby 20 percent and — assuming farm costs are 25 percent of gross returns — net returns by 30 percent. Otherthings may not be equal, but this may still greatly accentuate inherent price instability.
Rich farmers can take risks but most farmers play safe, securing their own needs while limiting exposure torisk and debt. If in a good year prices collapse, adjustments are made the following year — some lose theirland, all reduce their exposure by adjusting input levels and hence yields. The sum of such decisions tends tomaintain average yields at levels that limit imports. Think of it in an equilibrium context. If India achievedChina’s average yields, it would produce unsustainable surpluses, local prices would collapse, and farmincomes would suffer. The government would be pressurized to subsidize exports, as in Europe or the USA,but this could be very costly and world prices would decline further. In effect, this is an accounting issue:substantially higher average yields in India simply cannot work. They must remain below those in Chinabecause otherwise local Indian prices would collapse or farm subsidies would become insupportable. Structuraltraders face prices that are more stable than in marginal traders, being relatively high in importers and relativelylow in exporters. Incentives for fertilizer and other cash inputs are lower in structural exporters than structuralimporters (unless offset, e.g. by price support or fertilizer subsidies) and it is perhaps no coincidence thatstructural exporters in liberalized markets often obtain relatively low yields (wheat in Australia, rice inThailand) while structural importers often obtain relatively high yields (e.g. Egypt).
This is primarily a yield not an area issue since, where possible, farmers plant their full farm, especially iffarm size is small and labour abundant. Planted areas thus remain similar from year to year and the burdenof adjustment falls largely on yields. If yields of some farmers are higher — because they are “good” or“lucky” — those of others must be lower. This not only helps explain differential yields between countriesbut also between rainfed and irrigated yields. The larger the irrigated area, the lower are rainfed yields sothat the overall balance is maintained. This is inequitable since irrigated farmers get subsidies that improvereturns to fertilizer use, whereas rainfed farmers get few subsidies and suffer from many other disadvantages.
8 Since this paper was written, there has been a boom in cereal prices in part because of the expansion in production of grains forfuel. Moreover, concerns about global warming have risen. These factors imply that some statements in the paper need modificationalthough the mechanisms described are still thought to be valid.9 In earlier periods, farmers were often taxed to fund general development or industrial growth. But with falling prices and structuralshifts such approaches have declined. Exchange rates may still be overvalued and other distortions persist but these are as likely toprotect agriculture as to tax it. Thus importers often manage trade or impose tariffs so as to protect farmers and promote self-sufficiency,while exporters subsidize exports through price and/or income support (as in Europe) or by irrigation (as in many countries). Butsubsidies are costly and, on balance, liberalized markets in poor countries have played an increasingly important role in bringingsupply and demand into balance.
187
In other words, yields are a function not just of physical factors (climate, soils, irrigation, farming practicesetc.) and of government policies (tariffs, subsidies, trade controls), but also of country conditions — arableland relative to population, the proportion of arable land under irrigation, the level of incomes etc. Africa ispoor and has much land so (rainfed) yields are low: if they were significantly higher, surpluses would beunmanageable. Irrigated wheat yields in Pakistan Punjab are lower than in Indian Punjab in part becausearable land in Pakistan is almost entirely irrigated whereas irrigation covers a lower share of the total in India.Egypt’s wheat yields are exceptionally high because arable land is limited, water is fully controlled by theHigh Aswan Dam, and the farmer knows he will always get at least the (high) import equivalent price. Yieldsin China are high in part because arable land is limited relative to population, and yields must be higher thanin, say, India to ensure that marginal self-sufficiency is maintained.
As population and incomes rise, local markets expand until cereals become inferior goods. Yields, and henceproduction, rise in response to demand and most countries maintain broad self-sufficiency. If yields rise toofast, surpluses emerge, prices collapse and there is a correction in the following year. If yields fail to risesufficiently, imports mount, price risks decline and farmers respond. This is how markets work, throughfeedback loops and the hidden hand. Stochastic events lead to imports in bad years and exports in good years— trade is the lubricant that balances demand and supply from year to year and meets the needs of structuralimporters. But yield differences persist between countries not just because physical conditions and governmentpolicies and investments differ. They persist also because no other solution is mathematically feasible withoutseriously depressing farm incomes or seriously increasing budget deficits.
The international market in cereals. If correct, this rationale helps explain why most countries remain broadlyself-sufficient in cereals and why the proportion of cereals traded has remained at some 12 to 16 percent ofworld output. Indeed, after rising to a peak of almost 16 percent, this share if anything declined after 1980.This might seem counter-intuitive. Intensifying land and water constraints, rising income disparities, differentialtechnical progress, diet diversification and globalization might be expected to reinforce comparative advantageand have led many at various times to anticipate expanding trade in cereals (IFPRI, 1976; Brown, 1998; IFPRI,2000). Whole industries have relocated for comparable reasons and even in agriculture there has been a hugeincrease in the volume and value of trade. But this has not so far been the case for cereals. It is sometimesargued that if the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations are successful this will stimulate trade incereals as prices rise (USDA, 2001) and underlying comparative advantage is exposed. But, equally, higherprices could stimulate domestic output and reduce the budgetary costs of self-sufficiency. If so, decliningEuropean Union (EU) (and even USA?) exports could be replaced by domestic output rather than importsand the proportion of grains traded might even decline.
Rice is less widely traded than wheat or maize. In 2003, exports accounted for 7 percent of world outputcompared to 22 percent for wheat and wheat flour equivalent, 14 percent for maize and 14.5 percent for allcereals. The share of wheat that is traded has been fairly stable though it has perhaps fallen slightly since1980. The share of maize traded rose steeply in the 1960s and 1970s but has fallen markedly since 1980. Incontrast the share of rice, after consistently falling below 5 percent, has risen since 1990. Dawe argues thatthe stabilization of per capita rice production and rising exports have together helped reduce price variability(Dawe, 2002). Evidence from the past — and from wheat and maize with their more mature markets —implies that the rice trade will remain fairly limited and Dawe argues that governments that have struggledto maintain rice self-sufficiency such as the Philippines might be well-advised, and would be taking fewerrisks, if they moderated these efforts in future (see below).
How is this reflected in Asian paddy yields? I now return to the points made above relating to Asian paddyyields and interpret them in the light of the above arguments. The points are:
the continuing upward trends in paddy yields in most Asian countries;
the relative stability in the order of relative country paddy yields; and
the spurts in yield that have characterized many but not all countries.
188
The last point can be readily explained in terms of liberalization and incentives. Indonesia liberalized its ricemarket after the fall of Sukarno, but in a fairly gradual manner (the National Logistic Agency for FoodDistribution (BULOG) continued to actively intervene); Myanmar introduced green revolution technologiesin the late 1970s in the context of a controlled economy; China liberalized rice markets dramatically in thecontext of the 1978/79 reforms; and Viet Nam liberalized rice markets in 1988/89 under the doi moi policies.In contrast, Philippines and Thailand have always had fairly open market economies and even the advent ofthe green revolution is not reflected in any obvious discontinuity in these two countries. Philippines andIndonesia have been consistent importers; Myanmar and Thailand have been consistent exporters; Viet Nammoved from being a marginal importer to being a consistent exporter in the late 1980s; and China hasconsistently been a marginal exporter. It is striking that net imports have remained a fairly small proportionof output except in the exporters and with the partial exception of the Philippines.
The inclusion of three major rice exporters is in some ways atypical if most countries remain broadlyself-sufficient in cereals. Nevertheless, they illustrate the argument and can be briefly discussed in turn:
China has limited arable land relative to population (though estimates have been adjusted up in thelight of satellite imagery) and about 40 percent is irrigated. Paddy yields are easily the highest of thesix countries (though a third lower than in Egypt). The rate of increase in cereal yields has slowedmarkedly in recent years and this, together with rising population and intensifying water constraints(notably on the North China Plain) has led some to anticipate massive food shortages (Brown, 1998).But despite some ups and downs, there is as yet no evidence of this (though soya imports have risenin response to demands in the livestock subsector). Indeed, rice exports, though small relative to output,were at record levels between 1998 and 2003 and, because of its size, China is now a significantplayer on the world stage. Part of the explanation for continued cereal self-sufficiency no doubt reflectshigher local procurement prices, given intense concerns associated with rural-urban incomedifferentials. But continued self-sufficiency may also reflect the feedback loops discussed above —slackening in yield growth may reflect easing demand growth (there is evidence that cereals are nowinferior goods, at least in urban area) as much as physical constraints (Berkoff, 2003a). Given China’svast size and differing regional conditions, yields can be expected to continue to rise in response todemand and feedback loops. If so, China will continue to maintain broad self-sufficiency and directinterventions to promote yield growth to this extent may be unwarranted.
Indonesia. Arable land relative to population is even lower in Java-Bali than in China. The outerislands have land that has increasingly been exploited though much is ill-suited to paddy. Most ofthe increase in output has been a result of rising yields. The reforms of the mid-1960s led to risingyields though the rate of increase was moderated by public market intervention and the drawn-outneed to restore irrigation systems that had badly deteriorated during Sukarno’s rule. In time, however,harvested area rose by 50 percent, yields rose by 250 percent and production almost quadrupled. Fewobservers in the early 1970s could have imagined that Indonesia would remain broadly self-sufficientin rice in the face of a doubling its population (MMP/HTS, 1971). Net imports as a proportion ofoutput peaked in the disturbed 1960s, and fell to low levels in the 1980s/early 1990s. Since themid-1990s, imports have again risen modestly but remain below 5 percent of output. Average yieldshave risen gradually in recent years and tariffs and other measures have been adopted in an effort tomaintain self-sufficiency. But yields remain below their potential and, though Indonesia might wellbe advised to accept some level of imports, it seems likely that feedback loops will help ensure thatit continues to remain broadly self-sufficient.
Myanmar. Before the Second World War, Myanmar was the rice exporter par excellence. Reclamationof the Irrawaddy delta expanded the deltaic area under rice from 0.2 M ha in 1845, to 2.6 M ha in1900, to almost 4.0 M ha in 1935 (Andrus, 1948). Myanmar has recently tended towards autarchyand, though still exporting rice, has fallen behind its competitors. Nevertheless, yields have risen asa result of the positive introduction by the state of green revolution technologies between 1976 and1981 when the national average yield rose by more than 50 percent and, after reaching some sort ofplateau, yields have again risen more gradually since the mid-1990s. In contrast to most other countries,there has been growth in rice consumption per capita also — from 162 kg in 1970 to 205 kg in 2002
189
— so that rising local demand and government support for some level of exports together may helpexplain the renewed upward trend in paddy yields. Myanmar shares with Thailand and Viet Nama vast characteristic delta and cheap river transport. No one can doubt that, given the rightcircumstances and policies, Myanmar could greatly increase rice exports in the manner of these twocountries (World Bank, 1983).
The Philippines has short rivers, limited reservoir storage and highly variable water supplies. Moreover,the proportion of arable land that is irrigated, though higher than in Indonesia and Malaysia, is lowerthan in China, Thailand or Viet Nam. Given these conditions, the government has struggled to achieverice self-sufficiency. The major instrument adopted has been public control of rice imports, whichinter alia has contributed to domestic prices that are considerably above world levels (World Bank,1992; Dawe, 2002). Partly as a result, yields have risen significantly faster than in, for example,Thailand (there has even been a modest spurt in recent years, see Figure 1) and, though importdependence between 2001 and 2003 was no higher than in the early 1960s, in recent years thePhilippines has typically imported 10 percent or more of its needs. Although the government stillaims for rice self-sufficiency, and yields potentially can continue to increase, it may be better advisedto follow the example of Malaysia and accept greater import dependence, in other words to acceptthe status of a structural rice importer (Dawe, 2002).
Thailand is the classic rice exporter. Even after long-term price declines, it still has a strongcomparative advantage in rice (when world prices were higher, the government skimmed off a majorpart of the surplus via the rice premium for the benefit of national development). Much of CentralThailand goes under water during the monsoon season when cultivation of non-rice crops necessitatesmajor on-farm investment in tillage, earthworks and drainage. Though diversification into high-valuecrops occurs near cities, there remains strong farmer preference for paddy even in the dry season,and the ease and cheapness of river transport is reflected in the succession of rice barges that floatthrough Bangkok for transhipment downstream. Given that Thailand is no longer so dependent onrice exports, Thai policy now allows free trade in rice even if this leads to higher domestic prices.This occurred during the financial crisis in the 1990s when the baht was devalued drastically andretail prices rose by some 50 percent. Dawe argues that this policy change adds significantly to thestability of the world market. Thus, while yields have risen only gradually in response to lowexport-equivalent world price levels, and falling domestic per capita consumption, the impact hasbeen offset by devaluation of the baht and the basic willingness of Thai farmers to grow rice forexport has been sustained (Dawe, 2002).
Viet Nam illustrates how incentives can drive rice yields and production. During the independencewar, imports were more than 10 percent of requirements. Even after the war was won, yields stagnatedand limited imports continued during the years of a fully managed economy. It was only with theadoption of the doi moi policies in the late 1980s that yields took off. Since then, yields have risenrapidly, and in 2003 were second only to China amongst the six countries. Exports come predominantlyfrom the Mekong Delta, which shares characteristics with the deltas of the Irrawaddy and Chao Phraya.Surpluses are much less significant in the more densely populated Red River Delta while other smallerbasins are often in deficit, sharing as they do some of the characteristics of those that predominate inthe Philippines and Indonesia. The continued rapid rise in yields, despite low world export-equivalentprices, no doubt in part — as in Thailand — reflects currency devaluation. But it also may reflectother government interventions in support of exports given their importance to national development— again as in Thailand during an earlier stage of its development.
China, along with South Asian and many other developing countries, will probably remain marginal tradersin cereals. If so, the share of trade in world output will probably remain roughly at the level prevailing since1980. In principle a few countries no doubt should shift from marginal to structural importers (e.g. Philippinesand Indonesia) and a few developed countries should withdraw from exports (e.g. the European Union).According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates, if all trade distortions were to beabolished, world prices of wheat would rise by 18 percent, of rice by 10 percent and of other grains by15 percent, resulting in an annual gain of US$56 billion in world welfare (USDA, 2001). The main benefits
190
would, ironically, accrue to developed countries but they would also go to competitive exporters (in riceespecially Myanmar, Thailand and Viet Nam) and to surplus farmers in countries with liberalized marketregimes. Whether higher world prices would be associated with a rising proportion of output entering worldtrade is uncertain for reasons already discussed.
Irrigated and rainfed yields. Systematic data comparing irrigated and rainfed yields on a country basis arenot readily available. However, Philippines data are available for 1967–89. Yields in National IrrigationSystems (NIS) were higher than irrigated yields as a whole (which also include communal schemes); andirrigated yields in turn were higher than rainfed yields. These patterns are to be expected. More interesting,perhaps, is that trends between irrigated and rainfed yields were also very comparable, at least between 1967and 1989. I cannot prove it, but I suspect that similar results would also characterize other countries as thefeedback loops described earlier affect all farmers simultaneously, whether they cultivate paddy in NIS, incommunal irrigation or under rainfed conditions. Thus, just as average yields have remained relatively constantbetween countries, so have relative irrigated and rainfed yields within countries.
If this is correct, it could have significant implications for irrigation policy (Berkoff, 2001a, Berkoff, 2001b).If average national yields are in part a result of feedback loops between prices, trading costs and risk, thenaverage yields are in part a consequence of broad country conditions, including the proportion of the arablearea that is irrigated. The greater the proportion of arable area that is irrigated, the lower must rainfed yieldsbe if the overall balance is to be maintained. In other words, the decision to invest in new irrigation not onlyincreases yields of benefited farmers, but also tends to depress rainfed yields. The relative impacts on povertyare in part offset by the additional labour opportunities provided and, perhaps, by multiplier effects oftenattributed to irrigation development. These issues are considered further in Section 2. But, before moving tothe evidence to be derived from economic evaluation of irrigation projects something should be said aboutirrigated areas and approaches to irrigation modernization.
1.3 Irrigated areas
The hidden hand of scarcity. Irrigated areas are influenced primarily by physical water availability.Farmers respond to physical scarcity so as to optimize water’s value to them, both in real time and over thelonger-term. Response to scarcity is comparable to response to price, itself a mechanism for allocating(economic) scarcity. Except in fully controlled on-demand systems — the rare exception — water pricing insurface irrigation is impracticable not just because of the administrative and technical problems in hugecomplex systems with innumerable small farmers and variable rainfall and supply, but also because if theyare to play an allocative role, prices would have to be far higher and more variable than is politically feasibleunder most conditions.10 But water pricing is unnecessary if scarcity impinges directly on farmer decisionsas it does in Asian paddy schemes. The stochastic, varying and scarce characteristics of water not only providecontinuous real time incentives for efficient use of the water supplied via the irrigation system but alsolong-term incentives for investment in complementary water sources, notably in re-use and groundwater.
“Scarcity” is typically built into irrigation systems by design so as to limit infrastructural costs and make fulluse of dry season flows. The nature of scarcity varies seasonally and over time:
During the wet season, head end users may misuse water and divert more water than is necessary.This may not matter if there is enough water to go around and tail end users can make use of returnflows. But during peak demand periods, canal capacity restricts diversions and water must be regulatedin the main system if tail end users are not to suffer. However, this is an issue of internal schememanagement rather than lack of overall water endowment. Irrigation efficiency during the wet seasonmay be low but this is of limited significance since diverted water often comes from (excess) runoffthat has no other alternative human use and flooded paddy is largely indifferent to surplus applications(though chemical runoff may increase). Paddy irrigation typically uses a lot of water but it often usesit when it has no alternative uses, indeed when excess supplies can cause flooding lower in the basin.
10 This contrasts strongly with reticulated urban water systems, which are — at least in principle — usually designed for wateron-demand. Under such conditions, water pricing is often the critical variable if water use is to be constrained.
191
If water has no other economic use — is not scarce — then wastage is of little concern (other thanperhaps for certain environmental impacts).
During the dry season and during dry spells in the rainy season the issue is not one of limited canalcapacity but of limited water supplies. Since canal capacity and irrigated areas are sized for peaksupplies in the wet season, by design they can almost always absorb all the dry season water available.Estimating “shortages” based on crop water requirements in practice therefore has little meaning. Itis often better to think of irrigation as “user of last resort” rather than as requiring a specified allocationsince it can essentially make use of any water that is available. Since at such times water is inherentlyscarce, little is wasted and every last drop is utilized (see below).
As a basin develops, design scarcity — during the wet season because of limited canal capacity orthe dry season because of inherent lack of water — intensifies and scarcity ultimately may becomepervasive. As scarcity impinges, however, paddy systems typically evolve, becoming more “efficient”as farmers and scheme managers exploit useful return flows. More generally, a loss at one point flowsback to the river or aquifer and — subject to water quality — can be recycled downstream. Efficiencyat basin-level is typically much higher than at scheme-level, and it is basin-wide efficiency that issignificant in welfare terms not scheme-level efficiency. Wasteful practices that result in true(irrecoverable) losses in a water-short basin do occur but this is usually because of flows to sinkssuch as a saline aquifer or deficiencies in internal scheme management rather than misuse on-farm.On the contrary, farmers respond to physical scarcity in ways that optimize the value of water tothem — adjusting crops, cropping practices and crop calendars, and developing conjunctive use bydigging wells and installing pumps (e.g. see Loeve et al., 2003 and Molle, 2004).
Asian paddy-based irrigation systems are thus typically much more efficient than commonly supposed. Torepeat, low efficiency in the wet season may not matter. Rainfall and flows in uncontrolled rivers often morethan cover irrigation needs. In the absence of a reservoir, water either flows through the fields to the deltaand sea or through the channels. Much of it cannot be used. It would be pointless to force farmers to be“efficient” at such times. Why should they be? Indeed, low physical efficiency may correspond to maximumwelfare since management is simplified, farmers have fewer problems, and the opportunity cost of water isin any case zero. During the dry season supplies often come largely from reservoir storage and irrigated areasdepend on irrigation efficiency. But then dry season irrigation is typically efficient. Peasant farmers fight forwater if it is scarce. Anyone who visits such schemes in the dry season sees that — if action is not taken toprevent it — every last drop is taken even if it dries up the river. Quoting average annual levels of “efficiency”can be very misleading.
Furthermore, these are seldom single schemes but a patchwork served by numerous rivers, some controlledothers uncontrolled. Over time they adapt to make best use of rainfall, return flows, uncontrolled suppliesetc. If topography is favourable and rainfall unreliable, small reservoirs are built (“melons on the vine” inSouth China, the tank systems of South India and Sri Lanka). If topography is unsuitable or rainfall is relativelyhigh, as in the Philippines, Indonesia and most of mainland Southeast Asia, rivers remain uncontrolled andwet season efficiency is inherently low. One or more larger dams may be built in the context of multipurposedevelopment. As far as irrigation is concerned, the art of reservoir management is to make best use ofuncontrolled flows and rainfall, conserving as much water as possible for the dry season. But in large complexsystems, with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of small farmers, and dozens if not hundreds of diversionpoints, this is no easy task. Much of the time there is too much water. During a dry spell, every farmer beginsto suffer stress at about the same time, and water must be released and conveyed over long distances to eachsmall farm. By the time it reaches the farm, it may have rained. At a gross level, effective rainfall anduncontrolled flows may appear sufficient, but paddy farmers need reliable water day-to-day. In systems withoutstorage, not even this is possible and wet season irrigation efficiency is necessarily low.
Responding to unpredictable rainfall and river flows in large schemes implies there will be some excessreleases. Indeed some waste may be desirable to preserve farmer confidence. Reservoir operations in the dryseason are easier because more predictable. But the swing from water abundance to water scarcity is itselfa major problem that contributes to farmer indiscipline and physical damage as farmers respond to their
192
short-term predicaments. Nevertheless, this does point to a typical weakness in system management. Manystudies, e.g. of Kaudulla in Sri Lanka (HRS, 1985) and Porac-Gomain in the Philippines (HRS, 1989) haveshown that relaxed wet season operations at the expense of restricting dry season irrigated areas, along withinequitable distribution of main system supplies, can cause welfare losses. Simulation is a straightforwardexercise and can often point to where improved reservoir and main system management can limit avoidablelosses and enhance dry season production.
1.4 Irrigation modernization
Introduction. It is often argued that irrigation schemes operate inefficiently, and that the key to improvedperformance lies in technical innovation (Plusquellec, 2002) or economic water pricing (Rosegrant and Cline,2003) or in a combination of both (Rosegrant et al., 2002). It has been suggested above that large surfaceirrigation schemes are in practice more efficient than is commonly supposed and that the role of water pricinghas been greatly over-stated. As for technical issues, it is worth quoting from a leading advocate of technicalmodernization:
“The shortages of food production projected for the 1990s have been averted because of theexplosive exploitation of groundwater and the many-fold increase in water-saving applicationtechniques over the last three decades. However, exploitation of aquifers and associateddecline in water quality have been occurring in many parts of the developing and developedworld, particularly in the semi-arid regions … no further complacency in addressing the longdue issue of the poor management practices of the large irrigation systems is acceptable.The failures to understand the links between technical improvements in large surface schemesand required reforms may exacerbate the problem of water scarcity and threaten food securityin the future. Development of reliable irrigation in surface systems is crucial to realizing thechallenge of irrigation. The magnitude of investments and capacity building in humanresources to achieve this goal is likely underestimated.” (Plusquellec, 2002).
Two important points raised by Plusquellec need to be addressed: (i) the potential role of groundwater; and(ii) implications for surface irrigation modernization.
Groundwater. The growth in groundwater use can be attributed to numerous factors including: subsidies, greateraccess to pump equipment and drilling services, the expansion of electricity distribution systems, and thelow price of diesel in some countries. But, as emphasized by Plusquellec, the most important driver has beenthe security of supply that wells confer on farmers. Private groundwater is on-demand and fully controlledby the end user. Subsidies and externalities distort incentives relative to “economic” outcomes but, this apart,farmers adopt marginal cost pricing — pumping only when the marginal cost to them is justified by theirassessment of marginal returns. So long as water tables are accessible, groundwater can offset all the vagariesof rainfall and surface supply. It thus confirms “a secure water supply on farmers who would otherwise haveto depend on unreliable or rigid supplies from canal systems” (Plusquellec op cit.; Berkoff, 1990). Cropyields tend to be higher (though still necessarily consistent with the general level of national yields, see above)and groundwater has been the driving force behind diversification into high value crops. Of particular interestis the role of groundwater within irrigation perimeters. It is hard to envisage a more efficient system thanone that combines otherwise unusable rainfall with reliable surface supplies and access to groundwater. Suchconditions are especially prevalent in the warabandi schemes of Northwest India and Pakistan. But thegenerally accepted view is that large irrigation schemes in developing countries are inefficient. And thoughlarge paddy-based systems differ in many respects from the warabandi systems of Northwest India, thesearguments still, to a perhaps lesser degree, apply (see below).
Reasons why irrigation efficiency is higher than commonly supposed have been suggested above. Two furtherideas are introduced here: (i) that rainfall especially in semi-arid areas often cannot be profitably used in theabsence of irrigation; and (ii) that groundwater provides full on-demand irrigation in otherwise rigidly oreven poorly managed systems. No doubt groundwater involves costs that, strictly speaking, would beunnecessary if surface supplies could be provided on demand. But, as discussed above, water supplies cannotreadily be provided on demand in large systems and the investment and transactions costs would be much
193
higher than the direct costs of groundwater. Moreover, since it is the farmer who decides on how much toinvest and how much to pump, there is a strong case that groundwater use is relatively efficient in economicterms (subject to the impact of subsidies and externalities).
Plusquellec poses the question: how long can groundwater irrigation last? His view is that the writing is onthe wall. But is it? Recharge will last indefinitely and, to this extent, groundwater will also last. Indeed, surfaceirrigation is itself a major source of recharge, adding significantly to natural recharge from rainfall and riverseepage. And, though pumping in excess of recharge is an undoubted fact, recharge itself is still a massivequantity. As water tables fall, pumping costs rise and in some cases this brings supply and demand intosustainable balance. In others, vulnerable aquifers may be exhausted or become salinized. If so, farmers becomedependent once again on surface supplies, or revert to rainfed farming, or cease farming altogether (move tothe towns?). How significant this is depends on the economic context, the pace of structural shifts in theeconomy, and environmental considerations. Affected farmers will of course suffer but then farmers alreadysuffer from numerous adverse developments, such as low and falling crop prices, declining farm size,environmental degradation, and declining incomes relative to urban incomes. Moreover, irrigated farmershave been heavily subsidized relative to their rainfed counterparts and it is rainfed farmers that have bornethe main burden of structural shifts in the economy.
If feedback loops ensure that most countries remain broadly self-sufficient in cereals, the main issue here iswhether groundwater can continue to support expansion of the high value crops that have been so critical toagricultural growth or whether surface irrigation also needs to be modernized. FAOSTAT data show that cerealcrops still account for 50 to 60 percent of the total harvested area of all crops and high value irrigated fruitand vegetable crops for no more than perhaps 5 or 6 percent. Oilseeds, pulses, tree crops and othernon-irrigated commercial crops account for the remainder. Entrepreneurial enterprise typically responds toopportunities as they emerge, notably in urban areas and increasingly for export. The area under such cropsis thus ultimately constrained by markets rather than by water supply. If so, there is little doubt that thereis adequate groundwater in most countries to support areas under high value crops. The corollary is thatthe need for modernization of surface irrigation to meet the demands of high value crops can be (greatly)over-stated.
There is a case for introducing responsive modernized systems where: irrigation is a residual activity (Israel?Cyprus?); or accounts for a small share of agriculture (Morocco?); or the benefits of high value exports aregreat (Northern Mexico?); or water shortages are extreme (the North China Plain?); or farming is typified byrich commercial farmers for whom water is a small part of costs (USA? Spain?). In the long-term, suchapproaches may become more widely justified. But generalizing the case now for modernization to large,complex smallholder paddy-based irrigation systems that are more efficient than is commonly supposed andthat will remain predominantly for cultivation of basic grains, risks major financial waste. Forcing technologicalinnovation has almost invariably failed not because of unreceptive farmers but because of unrealisticexpectations and over-optimism of their promoters. Groundwater under the direct control of individual farmerswill out-compete modernized surface delivery systems in the large majority of cases for the foreseeable future,and there will be adequate groundwater recharge to more than cover the likely demands for high value crops.Although this will favour those with access to groundwater, this is how markets work and expensivemodernization would itself be aimed at irrigated farmers who have been relatively favoured over rainfedfarmers in the past.
Surface irrigation. How then should improving surface system management of large-scale Asian paddy-basedschemes be approached? The major opportunities in my view lie in conventional low-cost improvements, inreservoir operations and in the predictability and reliability of main system management. Reservoir operationsare critical because, under monsoonal conditions, systematic exploitation of effective rainfall and uncontrolledriver flows during the dry season can often increase the water retained for the dry season. Predictability andreliability are critical because they facilitate informed farmer responses, with regard to groundwater and othercropping, investment and on-farm decisions.
Under conditions prevailing in large systems, this often implies simplifying operations and management sinceunrealistic expectations undermine predictability and reliability. For instance, gate operations at the level of
194
the individual farm or watercourse may be impracticable given social and institutional constraints. Alternatives,including proportional division and rotational practices, are often preferable, especially if complemented bylocal storage and/or private groundwater investments. Such approaches in effect delegate an increased shareof the management to the farmer or farmer group, with farmers required to plan operations in response toa predictable supply rather than the scheme manager seeking to satisfy detailed crop water requirements ofthe farmers. This does not rule out modifying schedules to satisfy the predominant cropping requirements(i.e. some form or arranged demand schedules), nor does it rule out investing in improved structural controlsand other measures, for instance in level-top canals or surface level control. But it does imply that suchmeasures should be judged rigorously in terms of the cost, realism and practicality.
Systems differ widely and each must be considered on its merits through the preparation of a practicaloperational plan. What might be involved has been set out in a number of past publications; notably those ofthe HRS Wallingford for paddy systems (HRS, 1985, HRS, 1989); of Albinson and Perry for the “StructuredDesign” especially in non-paddy systems (Albinson and Perry, 2002); and for all types of system by Horst inThe Dilemmas of Water Division (Horst, 1998). The way ahead has been eloquently described by these variousauthors and it is strange that they are referred to so seldom in the large literature on food and the future ofirrigation.
2. What economic evaluations of irrigation projects suggest
2.1 Introduction
The most readily available data on the economic performance of irrigation projects are those of the completion,audit and impact assessment reports carried out by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. TheInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI) and others have also undertaken numerous performanceassessments. However, I have limited the data set to World Bank reports, notably the 1994 OED report whichcovers all irrigation projects funded by the World Bank until that date, and to impact assessment reports ofmajor rice-based projects in Asia (Berkoff, 2001a, Berkoff, 2002). The 1994 OED report is comprehensiveand, though it is dated and suffers from deficiencies discussed below, it is a valuable, indeed unique, database.And the impact assessment reports consulted are particularly appropriate for the present workshop.
2.2 Economic rates of return
Table 1 summarizes economic rates of return (ERRs) for World Bank-supported irrigation projects from the1994 OED review. Of 340 majority irrigation projects approved between 1948 and 1993, 208 had been“evaluated” (that is had a completion, audit or impact report). The table distinguishes between completionand audit reports, compiled by the recipient country and World Bank respectively when the loan closes, andimpact assessment reports undertaken by OED typically after about five years of actual operations. Table 1also includes results for four major Asian paddy-based systems included in a 1996 OED impact report.Table 2 indicates that from appraisal to completion to impact, ERRs successively tended to decline and inthe case of projects included in the 1996 report fell to very low levels. Moreover, even at impact, benefitsremain uncertain given that project life is typically taken to be 20 to 30 years. Furthermore, the World Banksupported at most 10 percent of irrigation investment in developing countries. As there is a prima facie casethat World Bank projects perform above average (they are externally monitored, better financed and less opento implementation delays), Table 1 may overstate performance of all irrigation.
Despite these results, OED concluded that irrigation had generally performed satisfactorily. This is partlybecause the 1994 Review did not distinguish between impact, completion and audit results, adopting the resultsof the most recent report available (which explains the question marks in Table 1). However, this is not thefull story. The OED review made no attempt to update rates of return of individual projects, simply acceptingthe results from each report at its disposal. This is not surprising — updating the results in 204 reports withactual data would have been a monumental task. More surprisingly, given that the reports fell over a rangeof years — the earliest impact assessment date from 1979, the last from 1990, while completion/audit reportsdated over a longer period — there was no assessment of impacts of more recent trends. Such an assessmentis attempted below. Two main assumptions determine benefits: future crop prices and incremental crop output.
195
2.3 World grain prices
Table 2 compares World Bank grain price projections made at various times with subsequent actual prices.Despite in most cases adjusting projections down with each successive forecast (but not interestingly for rice)the Bank failed to keep pace with actual declines. In September 1987, for instance, the Bank anticipateda rice price in 2000 of US$315 per tonne, in November 1994 a price of US$332 per tonne and in November1998 a price of US$296 per tonne, whereas the actual price was US$187 per tonne (all prices at 1990 pricelevels). If ERRs were to be re-estimated based on actual 2000 prices rather than the earlier OED projections,it is doubtful whether more than a handful of projects would have remained viable. Since 2000, grain priceshave stabilized and in the case of wheat recovered from the low levels of the 1990s. Even so, grain pricesare well below levels in the 1970s and 1980s let alone levels prior to 1970. More recent World Bank projections(World Bank, 2005a, 2005b) suggest that prices will remain low, at least in the short term.
Table 1. ERRs at appraisal, completion and impact assessment: OED review
Appraisal Completion/AuditImpact
assessment
OED Review: (1994)
Gravity 103 projects 21 percent 14 percent ?
Pump 48 projects 25 percent 19 percent ?
Mixed/not-known 37 projects 19 percent 13 percent ?
Gravity 13 projects 19 percent ? 12 percent
Pump 7 projects 17 percent ? 6 percent
OED impact study 1996
Lam Pao Thailand 26 percent 12 percent 10 percent
Maeklong Thailand 35 percent 8 percent 4 percent
Kinda Myanmar 21 percent 14 percent 7 percent
Dau Tieng Viet Nam 17 percent 5 percent/7 percent 4 percent
Source: OED, 1994 and OED, 1996.
Table 2. World Bank grain price projections and actual prices: 1990 prices
Projections made in:
Sept. November November Actual prices2
1987 1994 1998
2000 2000 2005 2000 2005 2010 1970 1980 1990 1995 20001
US$/tonne 1990 prices
Rice: Thai 5 percent 315 332 369 296 277 267 504 571 271 268 209
Wheat: US HRW 1553 150 153 120 140 128 219 240 136 148 117
Maize: US-2 Yellow 143 121 125 102 107 100 233 174 109 103 92
Relative to Projections made in Sept. 1987
Rice: Thai 5 percent 100 105 117 94 88 85 160 181 86 85 66
Wheat: US HRW 100 97 99 77 90 83 141 155 87 95 75
Maize: US-2 Yellow 100 85 87 71 75 70 163 122 76 72 641 Actual prices in 2000 at current US$ per tonnes were: rice — 202.4, wheat (US HRW) — 114.1, maize — 88.5.2 Actual prices in 1990 prices based on G-5 MUV Index: 1985 — 68.61: 1990 — 100, 2000 — 97.3.3 The 1987 projections were for Canadian wheat (CWRS). Its price is converted to US HRW using a ratio of 1:0.76.Sources: World Bank Commodity Price Forecasts September 1987, November 1994 and November 1998.
World Bank Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheets) March 2001 and July 2005c.World Bank Development Report 2004 for MUV Indices.
196
If the WTO negotiations are successful, there will no doubt be upward pressure on prices. USDA analysishas suggested that if all distortions on trade were removed, then world wheat prices would rise by about18 percent, rice prices by 10 percent and prices for other grains by 15 percent (USDA, 2001). Others anticipatefurther declines given past trends, technical change (e.g. the impact of GM crops) and developed countrytrade policies. A more sophisticated analysis would also need to incorporate shifting exchange rates and dollarvalues. Whatever the details, it seems most unlikely that grain prices will return to the levels anticipated inthe 1980s and 1990s and, if so, all future irrigation projects will need to reflect real price levels that are lowin historical terms.11
2.4 Incremental production
The OED Review failed to analyze yields in any detail, concluding only that with production targets wouldon the whole be met. However, most schemes with impact reports (i.e. for which actual data were available)fell short of production targets and in the case of four Asian projects for which detailed data are available(Table 3) the shortfall in yields was drastic. Again, impact estimates were more pessimistic than those atappraisal, completion and audit.12
11 The pressure on prices as a result of cultivation of grains for fuel purposes and other factors imply that this paragraph needssome modification.12 Furthermore, OED failed in either report to discuss issues related to incremental production, which is the key to estimating benefits.If average national yields rise faster than expected, then incremental production will be less even if with yield targets are met. Thiscan be illustrated well by data from the Philippines though these data have been excluded for lack of space.
Table 3. Yields and production, evaluation and appraisal estimates: four Southeast Asian projects
“With” yields: tonnes per ha
At appraisal At impact assessment
Impact estimateWet season Dry season Wet season Dry season as % of appraisal
estimate1
Lam Pao: Thailand 3.8 4.0 3.0 3.0 73%
Maeklong: Thailand 3.5 4.2 3.9 3.9 48%
Kinda: Myanmar 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.1 40%
Dau Tieng: Viet Nam 3.8 4.4 3.6 3.2 47%
Weighted Average 3.8 4.1 3.5 3.3 n.a.
1 It has not been possible to reproduce these production estimates from the area and yield data given in the report.Source: OED, 1996.
“With”production
Over-optimism also affects incremental crop areas. As argued above, irrigation is more efficient in economicterms than is commonly supposed since farmers fight for water when it is scarce and little water is wastedwhen it has value. The corollary is that there is less potential for efficiency increases than often assumed,especially in appraisal reports for rehabilitation and modernization projects that are justified in terms of current“inefficiency”. Optimistic efficiency assumptions are reflected in optimistic projections of irrigated areas(Table 4). Again, completion and audit reports often retain appraisal assumptions but impact reports adjustexpectations downwards. For the four Asian projects, areas at impact were no more than 67 percent of appraisaltargets and in the Philippines, based on additional actual data, expected increases were even less.
If incremental yields and incremental irrigated areas are both exaggerated, then incremental production willbe exaggerated by a cumulative amount. Moreover, incremental irrigated areas and cropping intensities area good indication of direct water use assumptions. Data on this are available but are more difficult tosummarize. Nevertheless in my judgement they also would confirm that efficiency targets often have beenover-stated and often by very considerable amounts.
197
2.5 The bias in project appraisal
If price and incremental output projections have fallen well short even of the revised estimates included incompletion and impact assessment reports, then the true ERR of many, if not most, irrigation projects whenrecalculated based on actual data would be found to be well below appraisal estimates, and in many casesfar below. And this is before allowing for cost over-runs, implementation delays and environmentalexternalities. Evidence on cost over-runs and implementation delays are provided in the OED report. Theyare not analyzed here since the emphasis has been on benefits, but adjusting for these alone would reduceERRs significantly below the original appraisal estimates.
What explains this bias in project appraisal? The answer in my judgement lies primarily in the fact that surfaceirrigation still lies largely in the public sector and the institutional incentives for going ahead with a projectoften outweigh any doubts associated with the economic analysis:
The political dynamics invariably favour a project going ahead. Irrigation is so obviously a goodthing — who can be against it?
As we have seen, economic analysis is inherently uncertain and unstable. Over-optimistic assumptionsare difficult to refute, and unwitting optimism is widespread.
The self-interest of beneficiary farmers who do not have to pay is obvious. So are those of an IrrigationDepartment with incentives for justifying an irrigation investment programme. Similar incentivesinfluence irrigation staff in lending agencies, and the contractors and consultants employed to evaluateand construct irrigation projects. Programming and finance ministries that serve a broader nationalinterest often restrain irrigation expenditures but are seldom able to fully prevent it.
Above all, being funded largely from the national budget, there is ultimately no real financialaccountability. Surface irrigation has been heavily subsidized. Even groundwater is typically subsidizedin real terms through electricity prices or other subsidies, and seldom if ever bears the externalitycosts associated with falling water tables. Or else groundwater develops in symbiosis with publicsurface irrigation that itself has been heavily subsidized (e.g. where tube wells exploit aquifersrecharged by surface losses as in North China and much of the Indian subcontinent).
Table 4. Irrigated areas at appraisal, completion/audit and impact assessment
No. ofAverage project Average cropped Evaluation as Cropping
schemesarea: ha area: ha % of appraisal intensity: %
Appraisal Evaluation Appraisal Evaluation Proj. area Crop. area Evaluation Appraisal
OED Review (1994)
Impact 20 60 592 50 743 81 938 65 975 84 81 135 130
Completion/Audit1 111 75 830 80 368 118 856 129 829 106 109 169 175
Completion/Audit2 51 86 230 86 991 n.a. n.a. 101 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Completion/Audit3 6 1 827 000 1 804 000 n.a. n.a. 99 n.a. n.a. n.a.
OED Impact Study 19964
Lam Pao 1 49 000 49 500 78 400 74 250 101 95 160 150
Maeklong 1 66 000 39 500 132 000 63 200 60 48 200 160
Kinda 1 79 000 71 000 126 400 83 070 90 66 160 117
Dau Tieng 1 72 000 45 000 162 720 112 500 63 69 226 250
Weighted Average 4 86 100 51 250 12 880 83 255 77 67 188 162
1 Projects for which data are available for expected project and cropped areas at full development (111 schemes).2 Projects for which data are available only for expected project areas.3 Six large rehabilitation/modernization-type programmes that in many ways are atypical.4 It has not been possible to reproduce the production data from the area and yield data provided in the report.Source: OED, 1994 and OED, 1996.
198
Surface irrigation is unusual among productive enterprises in that public construction and ownership is rarelyquestioned. No doubt irrigation is often classified as infrastructure but it is also analogous to industry and itis many years since most governments thought they were qualified to pick winners in industry. Yet governmentsstill pick winners in irrigation. Socialist states had a straightforward planning rationale for investments inbasic industry, a rationale that held for decades because accounting practices and prices hid what was reallygoing on. Well that still seems to happen in irrigation, even in countries that in most other respects arecharacterized by active market economies. Irrigation potential is typically expressed in terms of physicalpotential — whether the water and land resources are available. If they are, plans are developed to exploitthese resources so as to satisfy food requirements, promote regional and rural development, tackle povertyor for some other reason.
These arguments may have merit. Markets are not everything and governments should intervene if a widerdevelopment, national security, poverty-alleviation, job-creation and/or rural-urban balance purpose is served(Berkoff, 2003b). But in practice the best projects were built first when the best sites were available, whenwater was abundant, when groundwater was much less developed, when real grain prices were (much) higher,when international trade was more risky, and when economies were simpler and much less diversified.Irrigation projects in earlier times often served important national objectives and were in many casesundoubtedly justified in economic terms. But many more recent projects have simply not been worthwhile.Just because there is water and land does not mean that they must be exploited, yet this is how many irrigationplans continue to be prepared. And countries that continue to devote large sums to irrigation, as was the casein regard to heavy industry in the Soviet Union before it collapsed, often remain unaware of the true costsand subsidies involved.
Nowhere, even in developed countries, has surface irrigation borne anything like its full direct costs, let aloneits opportunity and externality costs. In developed countries, water charges may cover a part of capital costsin addition to operation and management (O&M), but in developing countries agencies struggle to recoverO&M costs. Yet surface irrigation supply is a very capital-intensive enterprise and O&M costs typically accountfor no more than 10 to 20 percent of discounted (present value) costs. The fact that the farmer will not (cannot)pay more than a fraction of project costs is ultimately attributable to the fact that these costs simply cannotbe justified by the benefits he receives. If he had to pay full costs, he would be worse off than he was in thefirst place. If a market for irrigation schemes had been feasible, then the true equilibrium price would havebeen many times the typical irrigation water charge and much existing irrigation would never have been built.In due course, of course, the subsidies that have been provided are incorporated in the land price in whichcase it becomes essentially impossible — and indeed inequitable — to recover full costs. Those who benefitedfrom the subsidies in the first place can rest assured that the windfall gains they obtained by selling land willremain theirs.
Moreover, analysts are too often subject to pressures from the client or their bosses — it is far easier to sayyes than no. No doubt this applies in other sectors but the economic analysis of irrigation is particularly unstableand uncertain. Incremental production represents the difference between two large hypothetical future flows(production with and production without) that depend on a host of assumptions that cannot be readily validatedand for which no one is ultimately accountable. If crop prices, or incremental yields, or irrigation efficiencies,or cropping patterns are adjusted even modestly, the impact on the ERR can be surprisingly large. And whois to say the assumptions are wrong? Moreover, as was shown above, notably for Mbarali, in physical terms,production almost everywhere undoubtedly could increase, often substantially, whether under irrigated orrainfed conditions. Wheat yields in the United Kingdom, for instance, are the highest in the world even thoughthey entirely rainfed. No doubt rainfall is relatively favourable and technologies are advanced. But withoutthe subsidies under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), how many United Kingdomfarmers could make a profit using these same technologies? Not many — wheat would no doubt still begrown if all protection and subsidies were withdrawn and it was profitable relative to the alternatives, butpatterns of input use and hence yields would be very different. The same goes for irrigation. Yields and irrigatedareas are a reflection of the incentive structures prevailing in the country concerned and the potential forimprovements is typically greatly over-stated.
199
3. Concluding remarks
The paper began with two propositions: first, that the objective function of economic analysis is maximizationof human welfare and not the maximization of physical output and second, that incentives matter. Withinthis framework, Section 1 aimed to throw light on the general evolution of agriculture and rice production. Itconcluded that average paddy yields in any particular country are at least in part determined by feedbackloops between prices, trading costs and risk, and that these processes limit opportunities for augmenting yields.Differential average yields between countries thus reflect real factors, and the assumption that it is possibleto close an apparent “yield gap” between East Asia and Southeast Asia is to this extent illusory. With respectto irrigation, it argued that “the hidden hand of scarcity” provides incentives that contribute to levels of wateruse efficiency in large surface systems in Asia that are much greater than commonly supposed and, again,that the potential for improved irrigation performance in large paddy-based schemes may have been greatlyover-stated. Moreover, surface irrigation will invariably be out-competed by groundwater in respect of highvalue cropping. Such schemes will necessarily continue to be devoted primarily to the production of basicgrains. It follows from these arguments that expensive modernization of large irrigation schemes is usuallyboth unnecessary and uneconomic, and risks major financial misallocation. Section 2 summarized evidencedrawn from World Bank reports that generally confirm these conclusions, showing that the economic returnsfrom irrigation projects have been greatly overstated taking into account the evidence on actual crop pricesand agricultural outcomes.
References
Albinson B., & Perry, C.J. 2002. Fundamentals of smallholder irrigation: the structured system concept. ResearchReport 58, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Andrus, J.R. 1948. Burmese economic life. The American Council, Institute of Pacific Affairs, Calcutta.
Berkoff D.J.W. 1990. Irrigation management on the Indo-Gangetic plain. World Bank Technical Paper No. 129,Washington, DC.
Berkoff, J. 2001a. Irrigation, grain markets and the poor. Presentation to ICID British Chapter, 21 February.
Berkoff, J. 2001b. World Bank water strategy: some suggestions related to agriculture and irrigation. Mimeo, Draft,7 May.
Berkoff, J. 2002. Economic evaluation: why is it so often unsatisfactory and does it matter? (with reference to theirrigation sector). Paper presented to the International Consulting Economists’ Association (ICEA) on 19 June.
Berkoff, J. 2003a. China: the south-north water transfer project — is it justified? Water Policy 5:1–28.
Berkoff, J. 2003b. Prospects for irrigated agriculture: has the international consensus got it right? Paper presented atthe Alternative Water Forum held at Bradford University, 1–2 May.
Berkoff, J. 2005. Memo addressed to MNA region of the World Bank, 19 September 2005, mimeo.
Brown, L. 1998. China’s water shortage could shake world food security. World Watch, July/August.
Dawe D. 2002. The changing structure of the world rice market, 1950-2000. Food Policy, Vol. 27(4): 355–370.
Doorenhos J., & Kassam, A.H. 1986. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Rome.
Green, C. 2003. Handbook of water economics: principles and practice. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Horst, Lucas. 1998. The dilemmas of water division, considerations and criteria for irrigation system design. 138 pp.,International Water Management Institute.
HRS. 1985. Irrigation water management at Kaudulla, Sri Lanka. Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, ReportNo OD 70, July.
HRS. 1989. Performance assessment of the Porac River irrigation system. Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford,Asian Regional Symposium on the Modernization and Rehabilitation of Irrigation and Drainage Schemes,Development Academy of The Philippines, 13–15 February.
IFPRI. 1976. Meeting food needs in the developing world: the location and magnitude of the task in the next decade.Washington, DC. Research report No. 1, February.
200
MMP/HTS. 1971. Kali Progo Basin study. Consultancy Study undertaken by Hunting Technical Services and Sir M.MacDonald & Partners, under assignment by ODA, October.
Molle, F. 2004. Technical and institutional responses to basin closure in the Chao Phraya River Basin, Thailand. WaterInternational 29(1): 70–80.
NIA. Undated. Performance evaluation of national irrigation systems. NIA databases (mimeo).
OED. 1994. A review of World Bank experience in irrigation. Report No. 13676, 2 Vols. Operations EvaluationDepartment, Washington, DC.
OED. 1996. Irrigation O&M and system performance in Southeast Asia: an OED impact study. Report No. 15824,Operations Evaluation Department, Washington, DC.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. Is the daunting challenge of irrigation achievable? Irrigation and Drainage 51: 185—198.
Rosegrant M.W, Ximing Cai & Cline, S.A. 2002. World water and food to 2025: dealing with scarcity. Washington,DC.
Rosegrant M.W. & Cline, S. 2003. The politics and economics of water pricing in developing countries (mimeo).
Third World Water Forum. 2003. Water, food and environment. Session Report, Kyoto, 20 March.
USDA. 2001. Agricultural policy reform in the WTO — the road ahead. Market and Trade Economics Division, EconomicResearch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 802. Ed. Mary E. Burfisher.
Van Hofwegen, P. & Svendsen, M. 2000. A vision of water for food and rural development. Prepared for the WorldWater Forum, Paris.
World Bank. 1983. Burma: irrigation sector review. Report No. 4644-BA, South Asia Projects Department, Washington,DC.
World Bank. 1987. Commodity price forecasts. September, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1992. Philippines: irrigated agriculture sector review. Report No. 9848-PH, 2 Volumes, World Bank,Washington, DC.
World Bank.1994. Commodity price forecasts. November, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1998. Commodity price forecasts. November, Washingon, DC.
World Bank. 2001. Commodity price data: (Pink Sheets), March, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005c. Commodity price data: (Pink Sheets), July, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005a. 2004 World development report. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005b. Prospects for the Global Economy: 2006, Washington, DC.
World Water Commission. 2000. World water vision — a water secure world: vision for water, life, and the environment.Report of the World Water Commission, World Water Council.
Young, R.A. 1996. Water economics. In Mays L. (ed.) Handbook of Water Resources. New York, McGraw-Hill.
201
Irrigation systems water savings: technical, economicand institutional issues
Shahbaz Khan13
Abstract
Irrigated agriculture makes up over 70 percent of Australia’s consumptive water use. With the water resourcesin irrigation areas being close to fully allocated, or even over-allocated in some catchments, there is anincreased competition for water. In the Murray Darling Basin it is hardly possible to withdraw more waterfrom existing resources. It is generally accepted that there will be less water available for irrigated agriculturein the future and the only way to provide enough water for irrigation will be to use the available resourcemore efficiently at both farm and catchment scales. Water for the environment or new irrigation developmentsneed to be resourced through irrigation water savings at the farm and system levels. However, water savingsfrom one part of the system may lead to higher water use in another part of the system and the overallimprovement may be negligible.
Some measures that may improve the water productivity in agriculture are canal lining, irrigation scheduling,high-tech irrigation technologies, improved cropping patterns and conversion to crops with higher economicreturns. The key to achieving “real” and substantial water savings lies in the assessment and hydrologic rankingof water-saving options in a “whole of the system” context. This paper describes results of a major water useefficiency study in the Murrumbidgee Valley, Australia. Benefits of a systems approach are summarized througha hydrologic and economic evaluation of water-saving interventions at the field, irrigation area and catchmentlevels. Supply and demand theory is used to explore how to internalize the social costs created by irrigationactivity and saving of associated losses that burden the local and regional environment.
A market-based approach which utilizes a “water leasing” and “preferential right to access saved water” isargued to take advantage of the market mechanisms for the preservation of the environment. Private-publicinvestment for “efficient” water supplies which can account for third party impacts needs to be establishedto promote investment in water-saving technologies. This will help provide secure “saved water supplies”for “water efficient irrigation and the environment” especially during periods of drought because of realwater savings from “fixed system losses”.
1. Introduction
As elsewhere in the world, Australia’s irrigation systems suffer from problems associated with losses in storageand conveyance, on-farm losses and variable water use efficiency. In the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) it iswidely accepted that 25 percent of diversions for irrigation are lost during conveyance in rivers, 15 percentare lost from canals and 24 percent lost on farm, meaning that only 36 percent of irrigation water is actuallydelivered to plants. Such losses are not atypical across the world (Table 1). The data in Table 1 for theMurrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) do not include river conveyance losses and indicate on-farm lossesbetter than the overall MDB average (Khan et al., 2004a). However, given that the world will need to feed1.5 to 2 billion extra people by 2025, there has to be scope to reduce water conveyance losses and increaseirrigation efficiency both in Australia and internationally.
In recent years, there has been a growing concern in Australia regarding the impact that major diversions ofwater for irrigation are having on the environment. This is creating further “economic” competition for wateralong with demands from urban and industrial users. Given that rural water users (predominantly irrigation)account for over 70 percent of Australia’s total water use, a figure similar to that in most Southeast Asian
13 Charles Sturt University and CSIRO Land and Water, School of Science and Technology Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW2678, Australia, [email protected]
202
countries, and given increasing physical scarcity of the resource because of climate change and otherenvironmental factors it is not surprising that pressure is increasing on irrigators to increase water use efficiencyand to achieve “true water savings” by conserving water otherwise lost through non-beneficial evaporationor seepage to saline aquifers.
The key to achieving “real” and substantial water savings lies in the technical, economic and institutionalassessment of water-saving options in a “whole of the system” context.
Figure 1 shows the water cycle in an irrigated catchment at different spatial scales. Key intervention pointsfor improving the sustainability of irrigation systems and achieving water savings are shown with numbersin circles. These intervention points are set out below:
1. volume and regime of water extraction from river, water rights definition, trading and regulation ofuse of water rights, improved distribution and control of water delivery to farm to reduce conveyancelosses;
2. volume and regime of water extraction from groundwater, extraction must be matched by catchmentand river recharge, improved delivery to farm by reducing conveyance losses;
3. volume and regime of subsurface drainage, improved management to reduce leaching and drainageto groundwater, reduction of salt load to groundwater through soil storage, improved interception ofsubsurface drainage water and re-use through bioconcentration and extraction, salt managementschemes for subsurface drainage and groundwater;
4. reduced water extraction through greater water use efficiency on farm by reducing deep percolationand evaporation losses;
5. improved management of surface water drainage, improved re-use, reduction of contaminants;
6. land use management to control water yield and amount of salt and pollutants to rivers andgroundwater; and
7. adaptive irrigation management under climatic variability and change scenarios. Better weather andclimate forecasts will help reduce the rainfall rejection and end of system escape losses.
This paper describes technical, economic and institutional aspects of water use efficiency studies focusingon intervention points 1 to 5 (Figure 1) for catchments in Australia. Modelling approaches aimed atextrapolating the impact of water savings on the basin and country level food security and water balance areprovided given by Khan et al. (2005c and d).
Table 1. Surface water irrigation efficiency in three irrigation systems
Key indicators Liuyuankou, ChinaRechna Doab,
MIA, AustraliaPakistan
Area (ha) 40 724 2 970 000 156 605
Losses from supply system % 35 41 12
Field losses % 18 15 11
Net surface water available to crops (%) 46 32 77
203
2. Technical issues
It is imperative to save water to achieve higher productivity per unit of water consumed and to provide waterfor the environment. However, lower commodity prices do not allow investment in higher technologies becauseof government subsidies and international market competition.
Technical options for more efficient use of available water supply for irrigation include:
adopting on-farm water saving methods (from soil water monitoring to pressurized irrigation systems)to improve water productivity;
reducing conveyance losses in the water delivery systems through canal lining and piping;
matching water-saving investments with higher value cropping systems; and
removing salinity constraints from farm to regional levels through efficient leaching of soils andpromoting sustainable multiple use of water.
The relative economic and environmental merits of adopting these alternative water-saving options on theoverall water saving and water productivity at the irrigation system or catchment levels are largely unknownbecause of a lack of integration of existing data sets; therefore it is imperative to start identifying and fillingin vital gaps. As part of the Pratt Water Study (Pratt Water Group, 2005) in the Murrumbidgee Catchment,a targeted data-gathering, modelling and integration approach (Khan et al., 2005 a and b) was adopted toevaluate alternative technologies for reducing over 300 GL on-farm and off-farm losses within the Coleamballyand the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Areas.
Figure 1. Schematic of irrigated catchments with key points of intervention in circles
WETLAND
5 1
2
3
6
DAM
7
4
CLIMATE VARIABILITY & CHANGE
RAINFALL
DRYLANDCATCHMENTLAND USE
GROUNDWATER
RIVERESTUARYCOASTALWATERS
IRRIGATION REGION
204
a. Systems approach
Water-saving options at the catchment level
To identify “true” water-saving options it is important to adopt a systems approach for accounting all surfacewater and groundwater use, losses and interactions at the catchment, irrigation area and farm levels. An exampleof a system’s water balance for the Murrumbidgee Catchment level is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Systems water balance at the Murrumbidgee Catchment level
This analysis has shown unaccounted losses of greater than 300 GL (1 GL = 1 MCM) in some of the riverreaches (Khan et al., 2004c) which could lead to real water savings and better environmental managementby investments in catchment management infrastructure.
Water-saving options at the irrigation area level
A similar systems approach at the irrigation area level provides indications of water savings at the whole ofthe irrigation area level. An irrigation system’s water balance for the Coleambally Irrigation Area (CIA) isgiven in Figure 3, which provides a possible water use efficiency scenario for the CIA (using 2000 to 2001water allocations). The water use efficiency at various points within the system is expressed in terms of waterdelivered versus the water supplied and net water use through evapotranspiration and the tonnes/GL of produce.Key water use efficiency indicators for the CIA show that irrigation efficiency in terms of root zone storageto the water diverted from the source is 70 percent. Unless there is an investment in irrigation infrastructureto improve measuring, monitoring and reducing losses this efficiency indicator will remain low. The overallwater use efficiency of the CIA is 77 percent because of capillary water use by the crops. In terms of productionefficiency the CIA is 343 tonnes/GL. Further analysis of the whole of the CIA water savings shows(Khan et al., 2004c) that it is possible to increase economic water use efficiency from $A91 000/GL to $A97500/GL and total water use efficiency from 77 percent to 84 percent under the current cropping and irrigationregimes.
205
b. Targeted water savings
Increasing on-farm water productivity
The current state of water use and water productivity in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) is depictedby Table 2 and this provides an overview of the net crop water requirements (NCWR), current irrigationlevels and yields in the MIA. In all cases (except for Lucerne) NCWR are well below the maximum reportedirrigation application levels. There are major differences between minimum and maximum crop yields, aswell as overall amounts of water consumed and the net crop water requirements. This data clearly illustratesthat there is a potential to increase farm profitability at a range of levels which include:
better matching of soils and groundwater conditions with cropping systems;
improving irrigation efficiency by 1 to 5 ML/ha; and
increasing crop yields by 20 to 50 percent by removing the management, nutrient and salinityconstraints.
Considering a range of soil, water and groundwater conditions Khan et al. (2004b) concluded that on-farmirrigation technology conversions can provide potential water savings ranging from 0.1 to 2.2 ML/ha fordifferent broad acre crops (Figure 3), for example, 1.0 to 2.0 ML/ha for flood to sprinkler and 2.0 to 3.0 ML/hafrom flood to drip irrigation for citrus, 1.0 to 1.5 ML/ha from flood to sprinkler and up to 4.0 ML/ha fromflood to drip irrigation for vineyards, and 0.5 to 1.0 ML/ha for vegetables. Modelling simulations showwater-saving potential of 7 percent for maize, 15 percent for soybean, 17 percent for wheat, 35 percent forbarley, 17 percent for sunflower and 38 percent for faba bean, if on-farm surface irrigation methods can bereplaced with pressurized irrigation systems.
Based on recent work by Khan et al. (2004b) the potential savings for converting from good surface water topressurized irrigation systems (travelling irrigators or centre pivots or equivalent) are shown in Table 2.
Figure 3. Base case water use efficiency of the CIA
= 80%
= 94%
= 92%
= 70%
Water Use Efficiency
= 77%
Water Productivity
= 343 t/GL
= 91 000$/GL
15 GL
5 GL
310 GL
59 GL
34 GL
GroundwaterIrrigation
Surface Water Irrigation CIA-BASE
Surface andGroundwater
Drainage
ConveyanceEfficiency
Farm Efficiency
GroundwaterStorage
Regional Groundwater Flow
Field Efficiency
Fallow ET
EffectiveRainfall Economic
Return Shallow
GroundwaterCapillary Uptake
IrrigationEfficiency
On-FarmStorage
AbatementCost ($/ML)
Conveyance losses�Evaporation�Seepage�Operational losses�Leakages
Distribution Losses� Evaporation � Seepage� Operational losses� Leakages
� Shallow pumping�� Tile drains� Evaporation Basins� SBC
Application Losses�off-target�Evaporation�deep percolation�non recycled surface runoff
Root zone storage (435 GL)
Water Source (620 GL)
Farm Edge (494 GL)
Water Source (615 GL)
Field Edge (464 GL)
Farm Edge (494 GL)
Root zone storage (715 GL)
Field Edge (774 GL)Profit (86 112 213$)
Water Supply (945 GL)
Yield (324 401 t)
Water Supply (945 GL)
ETactual (736 GL)
Water Supply (945 GL)
206
Table 2. Net crop water requirements (NCWR), reported water use and yields in the MIA (2000/2001reported crop areas are used)
CropNCWR Reported irrigation† (ML/ha) Reported yield (t/ha)
(ML) (ML/ha) Median Low High Median Low High
Rice 46 120 506 562 11.0 14.0 12.0 16.0 9.5 6.0 12.0
Wheat 39 215 111 835 2.9 2.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 7.0
Oats 2 896 7 512 2.6 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 2.0 6.0
Barley 3 034 8 615 2.8 2.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.5 7.0
Maize 2 924 18 813 6.4 8.5 6.0 12.0 9.5 6.0 15.0
Canola 2 685 4 643 1.7 2.5 1.0 4.0 2.5 1.8 3.0
Soybean 2 881 18 383 6.4 8.0 6.0 9.0 2.6 1.5 3.8
Summer Pasture 3 929 45 154 11.5 7.5 7.5 8.0
Winter Pasture 24 184 50 403 2.1 5.5 5.5 6.0
Lucerne (Uncut) 2 468 43 291 17.5 10.0 7.0 14.0 7.3 5.0 15.0
Vines 13 635 77 508 5.7 5.0 3.0 7.5 15.0 9.0 25.0
Citrus 8 700 68 861 7.9 7.0 4.5 10.0 38.0 20.0 60.0
Stone Fruit 934 9 071 9.7 9.0 7.5 12.0 18.0 15.0 20.0
Winter Veg.* 1 500 921 0.6 5.0 4.0 6.0 60.0 50.0 70.0
Summer Veg.** 1 500 8 906 5.9 7.0 6.0 10.0 90.0 60.0 120.0
Lucerne (Cut) 0 0
Total 156 605 980 477‡
‡ Reported gross diversions for 2000/01 are 1 048 000 ML and on-farm deliveries are 857 000 ML.* Irrigation requirement and yield is for onion. For salad crops (lettuce) the irrigation requirement is from 2.0 to 4.0 and yield isfrom 30.0 to 40.** Irrigation requirement and yield is for tomato. For melons the irrigation requirement is from 4.0 to 7.0 and yield is from 30.0 to40.0.† Reported irrigations levels are subject to adjustment for measurement error — e.g. 14 percent accepted underestimation by theDethridge wheels.Sources of information: NSW Dept. of Ag. (2003), Beecher et al. (1995), MDBC (1997) , MIA and D LWMP WG (1997).
Croparea (ha)
Table 3. Water use and savings (ML/ha) for selected crops under different irrigation technologies
Surface Sprinkler Water savings
High Low Average High Low Average High Low Average
Maize 10.6 4.3 8.3 9.2 4.0 7.7 1.4 0.3 0.6
Soybean 6.6 3.6 5.4 5.6 3.2 4.6 1.0 0.4 0.8
Wheat 4.2 0.5 2.4 2.8 0.5 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.4
Barley 4.3 0.7 1.7 2.4 0.7 1.1 1.9 0.0 0.6
Sunflower 7.0 3.5 4.6 4.8 3.1 3.8 2.2 0.4 0.8
Faba beans 4.9 1.5 3.2 3.3 1.4 2.0 1.6 0.1 1.2
Irrigation methodML/ha
Measuring and managing water losses from supply channels
The study used a combination of geophysics and in situ measurement methods aimed at identifying seepagehotspots and the extent of overall water losses. In the Murrumbidgee catchment, seepage measurements weremade over 700 km of channels. Both sides of the selected channels were surveyed using EM31 metres. Thesemetres use electromagnetic induction to measure the average electrical conductivity of the soil from the surfaceto a depth of six metres. This average reading is known as “apparent conductivity”. This EM method provideda quick way of gathering a large amount of data without any ground intrusion, but is susceptible to interferencefrom electrical or magnetic interference. Low conductivities indicate potential seepage sites.
207
Once the EM31 surveys were completed, maps were prepared from the EM imaging data using GPS basedlocations. These maps helped to identify the parts of channels where higher seepage rates were occurring.Doppler flow metres were then used to measure inflow and outflow of hotspot reaches of channels tocross-validate losses from channels. At the high seepage sites Idaho seepage metres were used to quantifyseepage rates. In this method a cylindrical bell is pushed into the bottom of side of a channel and is connectedby tubing to a reservoir and gauge located on the water surface. As water seeps from the bell, the change inpressure in the reservoir is measured by the gauge.
EM31, Idaho seepage metre and groundwater lithology and quality data from a MODFLOW model wereused to “train” an artificial neural network (ANN) model (Khan et al., 2004c). Once trained, the networkcan be used for predicting seepage rates in channels.
Study of on-farm conveyance losses on nine farms shows that seepage losses vary from 1 to 4 percent of thetotal water supplied which can be more than 60 ML/yr (equivalent to 4 percent loss) for a studied farm.
Seepage losses computed for over 700 km length of channels in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area show thatseepage losses are over 40 000 ML/yr and evaporation losses are over 12 500 ML/yr. The total losses ingiven channel reaches vary widely and can be from 1 to 30 percent of the water supplies and from 0.2 to 9percent per km length.
Canal lining and piping options were considered for saving conveyance losses from channels.
Ladder of water savings
The possible on- and off-farm water savings can be summarized in the form of steps of a ladder of increasingon-farm and off-farm water savings (Figure 4) and water benefits. It is important to recognize that some stepsare a prerequisite for the next water use efficiency level. For example, to realize on-farm water savings it iscrucial to implement soil and groundwater and flow monitoring programmes, to ensure irrigation levels arebeing matched with the crop water requirement, at the same time considering conversion to high-tech irrigation.Similarly, for realizing off-farm water-saving options it is vital to know how much water is being deliveredin space and time before piping/lining of channels. It is important to reduce the conveyance difference andnarrow the wide gap between the gross diversions from rivers to deliveries on-farm by installing state-of-the-art monitoring and delivery systems as a part of the modern irrigation infrastructure.
Figure 4. Ladder of possible water savings in an irrigation area
Sealing of leaky channels
100 to 200 GL
20 to 50 GL
15 to 70 GL
10 to 50 GL
Enhanced production and environm
ental benefits at local, regional and national levels
Promotion of w
ater efficient comm
unity
Reduced accessions to w
atertable. Reduce salinity
Reduced accessions to w
atertable. Reduce salinity
Water Saved
Reduced accessionsto w
atertable
Match dem
and w
ith supply
Env.
Benefit
0.1 to 2.2 ML/ha
2.0 to 4.0 ML/ha
Reduced subsurface drainageR
educed surface drainage
0.1 to 3 ML/ha
1 to 4% of supply
0.1 to 0.4 ML/ha
0.3 to 2.5 ML/ha
Reduced subsurface drainageR
educed surface drainage
Reduced accessions to w
atertable. Reduce salinity
Reduced accessions to w
atertable. Reduce salinity
Water Saved
Reduced accessionsto w
atertable
Reduced surface runoff + access
to watertable
Env.
Benefit
Increasing water benefits
Incr
easi
ng in
vest
men
t
10 to 30% increase in water security
$50 to > $200/ML rechargereduction in abatement cost
Converting floodto drip
Converting floodto sprinkler
Lining on-farmchannels
Laser leveling
Irrigation flowmonitoring
Soil + groundwater monitoring
On-Farm WaterSaving Option
On-farm
Provision ofenvironmentaleco-services
Incentives forefficient water
users
Reducingevaporation losses
Piping of channels
Sealing ofleaky channels
Investment inmonitoring +
delivery
Off-Farm WaterSaving Option
Off-farm
208
3. Economic issues
To target on-farm and regional water savings it is hypothesized that the marginal costs for saving irrigationwater will increase with the volume of water saved and there is a possibility to formulate irrigationwater-saving cost curves for traditional or alternative different irrigation technologies to help shift thesecost curves to lower costs as illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows a simplified schematic of the marginalcosts (MC) and benefits (MB) for the current cropping systems. X represents the current viable levels ofwater savings that can be shifted to the right through the low-cost alternative technology.
Figure 5. Cost–benefit curves for water-saving technologies
Optimal Level of Savings
X?
Cost of Saving WaterWith Current Technology
Total ML Saved (ML)
MB
, MC
($/
ML
)
300 000
1 000+
20
Returns on current cropsReturns on current crops
AlternativeTechnology
For Saving Water
The economic analysis of on-farm conversions to save a ML of water increases with the total savings is shownin Figure 6. Typical capital costs to save a ML of water vary from less than $A2000/ML to over $A7000/MLdepending on soil type, crop and irrigation technologies used.
Break-even analysis (not presented here) shows that the break-even years for conversion from flood to thepressurized irrigation systems are too long (greater than 15 years). There is a need to reduce the break-evenperiod by considering leasing of water for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixedperiod of five to ten years after which the water can be returned back to the farmer and the government canthen lease the next lot of water from another group of farmers. This will help remove barriers to the adoptionof irrigation technologies by moving farmers and irrigation area to the next step of the irrigation efficiencyladder, reducing local and regional environmental impacts and securing water for better ecological futures.
The economic analysis of alternative water-saving technologies for channels shows that the cost of savinga ML of water increases with the total savings, as shown in Figure 7. Typical capital costs to save 1 ML ofwater vary from less than $A500/ML to over $A4000/ML depending on losses per unit length and the seepagereduction method used.
In Australia there is wide feeling that water savings that cost more than $A1000/ML are not viable. Thebreak-even analysis of different channel lining materials by Khan et al (2004b) shows that the price of savedwater on an annual basis needs to be from $A30 to over $A200 to break-even within the design life of theproject. This investment can be achieved in two ways: either by using the saved water on higher value cropsor by including saving costs as part of the overall water supply charges with a proportionate cost sharingarrangement. For example, water delivery charges will increase by $A5 to $A15/ML/season to provide water
209
Figure 6. Capital investment and total water savings by high-tech irrigation technologies in MIA
Cap
ital C
ost (
$/M
L)
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
Subsurface Drip
Lateral Move
Central Pivot (towed)
Central Pivot (fixed)
Total Water Saving (ML)
� 0� 10 000� 20 000� 30 000� 40 000� 50 000� 60 000� 70 000� 80 000� 90 000
Figure 7. Capital investment curves for saving seepage losses
0
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
4 500
Cap
ital C
ost (
$/M
L)
Save
d
� 0� 8 000� 16 000� 24 000� 32 000� 40 000
BentoniteRice Hull AshWater Sludge
Total (ML) Saved
210
more efficiently (the current water delivery charges are less than $A20/ML/season). This will reduce waterlogging and salinity abatement costs also (current estimate for water logging and salinity abatement are $A10to $A200/ML or recharge/yr). The proportional cost to be paid by the farmer may be less than discussed hereif it can be shared with the wider environmental beneficiaries. There is a need to promote a water efficientculture through a “preferential rights of access” by providing better level of security to farmers and irrigationinvesting in water-saving technologies.
4. Institutional issues
Who saves and who owns the water losses
One of the key impediments to achieving real water savings is the issue of ownership of losses and how toreallocate on-farm and off-farm water savings. In New South Wales, conveyance losses are collectively“owned” by the farmers through the privatized irrigation companies through a conveyance allowance. Forexample, there is a provision in the Murrumbidgee Water Sharing Plan (Department of Land and WaterConservation, 2003) for a conveyance access component for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Company up to243 000 ML to make up for the transmission loss in water accounting (Clauses 26 and 40). Similarly, farmersare given water entitlements irrespective of the actual crop water use. This water entitlement is used to irrigatecrops and results in evaporation and deep percolation losses. If farmers invest in new technologies to savewater losses they may like to increase their area of production or sell the saved water in the open market.
Institutional complications are caused by the common pool nature of the irrigation supply infrastructure anddeep drainage below the root zone. This may lead to lack of collective action. Managing irrigation systemsrequires coordinating actions of many users sharing the same resources of water and irrigation infrastructure.Users receiving the direct benefit are likely to ignore the effect of their actions on the common pool whenpursuing their self-interest, therefore this “tragedy of the commons” is likely to place environmentalsustainability of surface and groundwater and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure resources at risk.
To explore the reasons for the lack of action by farmers and irrigation companies reference is made to thelong break-even years (greater than 15 years) to achieve net profit from investment for conversion from floodto the pressurized irrigation systems in the case of the Murrumbidgee Catchment. Farmers also have a lackof interest in permanently giving up their water entitlements in exchange for capital incentives for newtechnology because of the uncertainty arising from current and proposed water reforms.
There may be a possibility to reduce the break-even period by considering private-public investment modelsfor “leasing of water” for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixed period of five toten years after which the water can be returned back to the “owner” and government can then lease the nextlot of water from another group of farmers. This will help remove barriers to the adoption of irrigationtechnologies by moving farmers and irrigation area to the next step of the irrigation efficiency ladder, reducinglocal and regional environmental impacts and securing water for better ecological futures.
A business case for achieving water savings at the farm, regional and basin level has already been establishedby the Pratt Water Feasibility Study in the Murrumbidgee Catchment which asks for a uniform national waterefficiency and environmental regulatory framework using the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG)framework (Pratt Water Group, 2005).
Recently the Australian Government initiated a National Water Commission (NWC) to drive the reforms faster.At the water distribution and on-farm level, the focus of reform and research is on the identification andreduction of leakage and water losses, the determination of water benefits and improved water accounts(the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), for example has a $A20 millionFlagship Project focusing on these and related water issues), improved efficiency of water delivery systemsincluding the change over from gravity-fed to pressurized delivery systems and more optimal design ofirrigation requirement and delivery to the root zone, as well as on the development of market-based instrumentsto facilitate improved natural resource management. However, there are still major differences in productivityacross farms, so considerably more effort is also required at identifying the biophysical, management practiceand social reasons behind this variability in order to get all enterprises working more productively.
211
5. Conclusions and way forward
In order to achieve true water savings a systems approach is necessary to target “real water-savings” and toremove technical, economic and institutional barriers.
A systems approach adopted in the Murrumbidgee Catchment showed accounted losses greater than 300 GLcan be saved (Khan et al., 2004b and c). The on-farm and off-farm water-saving costs vary from less than$A50/ML to well over $A5000/ML. Such investments can be possible either by using the saved water onhigher values crops or by including saving costs as part of the overall water supply charges with a proportionatecost sharing arrangement. There is a need to reduce the break-even period by considering “leasing of water”for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixed period of five to ten years after which thewater can be returned back to the “owner” and government can then lease the next lot of water from anothergroup of farmers.
If the water-saving technologies are considered on their own; costs involved will discourage substantialinvestments by the individual farmers and irrigation companies. This is mainly because the irrigation supplysystems represent a shared and jointly owned common pool resource. There is a possibility of inaction amonglocal, regional and national actors leading to market failure and the classic tragedy of the commons. Institutionalreforms aimed at minimizing the risk of market failure driven by the tragedy of the commons are required tosecure a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
Because of lower commodity prices farmers and irrigation companies on their own will be unable to achievewater savings. Unless water-saving costs and benefits are shared by all players in a catchment the “real watersavings” are not possible. Private-public investment models aimed at providing “preferential access rights”to those who save water by investing in water-saving technologies may be one of the possible ways forward.
Acknowledgments
Data inputs from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, NSW Department of Primary Industriesand Irrigation Companies are acknowledged. Funding support from the ACIAR, Pratt Water Group andCSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship is appreciated.
References
Beecher, G., McLeod, G.D., Pritchard, K.E. & Russell, K. 1995. Final report, benchmarks and best managementpractices for irrigated cropping industries in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin, NRMS I 5045.
Department of Land and Water Conservation. 2003. Water sharing plan for the Murrumbidgee regulated river watersource 2003 Order.
Khan S., Rana T. & Blackwell, J. 2004a. Can irrigation be sustainable? Proceedings of the 4th International CropScience Conference. Brisbane — New directions for a diverse planet. 4th International Crop Science Conference.26 September — 1 October 2004 (available at http://www.regional.org.au).
Khan S., Rana T., Beddek R., Blackwell J., Paydar Z. & Carroll, J. 2004b. Whole of catchment water and saltbalance to identify potential water-saving options in the Murrumbidgee catchment. Pratt Water Group — WaterEfficiency Feasibility Project (available at http://www.napswq.gov.au).
Khan S., Akbar S., Rana T., Abbas A., Robinson D., Dassanayke D., Hirsi I., Blackwell J., Xevi, E. & Carmichael, A.2004c. Hydrologic economic ranking of water-saving options Murrumbidgee Valley. Report to Pratt Water Group— Water Efficiency Feasibility Project (available at http://www.napswq.gov.au).
Khan, S., Akbar, S., Rana, T., Abbas, A., Robinson, D., Paydar, Z., Dassanayke, D., Hirsi, I., Blackwell, J.,Xevi, E. & Carmichael, A. 2005a. Off-and on-farm savings of irrigation water. Murrumbidgee Valley waterefficiency feasibility project. Water for a healthy country flagship report, 16 pp., CSIRO, Canberra, (available athttp://www.cmis.csiro.au).
212
Khan, S., Rana, T., Beddek, R., Blackwell, J., Paydar, Z. & Carroll, J. 2005b. Whole-of-catchment water and saltbalance. Identifying potential water saving and management options in the Murrumbidgee catchment. Water fora Healthy Country report, 16 pp., CSIRO, Canberra, (available at http://www.cmis.csiro.au).
Khan S., Mu J., Hu Y., Rana T. & Zhanyi, G. 2005c. Systems approaches to achieve real water savings in Australiaand China. 19th International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, 10–18 September 2005, Beijing, China.
Khan S. Mu J., Jamnani M.A., Hafeez, M. & Zhanyi, G. 2005d. Modeling country water futures using food securityand environmental sustainability approaches. Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the Modelling and SimulationSociety of Australia and New Zealand. 12–15 December 2005.
MIA & Districts Land and Water Management Plan Working Group. 1997. MIA & districts and water managementplan, Griffith.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC). 1997. Inland agriculture, best management practices and benchmarkingstudy. Inland Agriculture Pty. Ltd. in association with Hutchins Agronomic Services, Darlington Point.
NSW Dept. of Agriculture. 2003. Murrumbidgee Catchment irrigation profile. Written and compiled by Meredith Hopeand Marcus Wright.
Pratt Water Group. 2005. The business of saving water. Report of the Murrumbidgee Valley Water Efficiency FeasibilityProject. Report prepared under the Pratt Water Murrumbidgee Project — a collaborative venture funded jointlyby the NSW and Commonwealth Governments under the National Action Plan for Salinity & Water Quality, andby Pratt Water Ltd.
213
The evolution of canal control from an operator perspective
Herve Plusquellec14
The adoption of modern technologies for the operation of medium and large surface irrigation systems hasbeen slow in most developing countries and especially in rice-based systems despite the advantages of thesetechnologies. No engineer uses a ruler or a typewriter any more in the region. Yet most irrigation canals areoperated using century-old technology. There are many reasons for that situation, among them:
the perception by the irrigation community during the last 20 years that the main causes of the poorperformance of irrigation projects were related to deficiencies in management and related institutionalproblems rather than technology of irrigation;
many irrigation agencies cling to outdated standards and often resist changes proposed by externalexperts;
most consulting firms have no contractual motivation and financial incentives to introduce newconcepts and control equipment;
a number of pilot projects for technology transfer have failed in the past;
appropriate design is much more complicated than most engineers, administrators and donors assume;and
designers are rarely confronted with the consequences of how their designs function once they areinstalled.
Most civil engineers are well trained in structural engineering and construction techniques, but not in thepractical and theoretical aspects of unsteady flow hydraulics that are the norm in most irrigation systems.They are also unfamiliar with the constraints of the end user, i.e. on-farm irrigation management requirements.
There is now some evidence that the achievements of the institutional and policy reforms with a main focuson participatory management (reforms of irrigation agencies and integrated water management supported bydonors in many countries) are far below the expected benefits. It is now recognized that physical changesand reforms have to be closely linked to provide the expected benefits in terms of water saving, increasedefficiency and higher agricultural productivity. This is particularly valid for rice-based systems in SoutheastAsia.
Many irrigation systems in this region have been designed for rice cultivation during the monsoon seasonwhen water efficiency is not a major concern. Canals were designed to operate at or near full supply with noconsideration for operation at less than this. These systems cannot be operated efficiently as they are, whateverthe type of management. The results are excessive releases of water during the wet season and lower thanexpected dry season cultivation. For example, dry season irrigation was introduced in the lower Chao PhrayaBasin in Thailand in the late 1960s and extended to the entire area in just a few years, leading to frequentshortages of water in the basin. Crop diversification, which is highly encouraged by governments, donorsand agronomic researchers, requires a management system based on frequent irrigation and low applicationscontrasting with the continuous flow application commonly used in the region.
Most of the irrigation systems in the region have been designed for manual local operation and equippedwith undershot gates. (Figure 1) These systems are known to be the most difficult systems to operate becauseof the large number of gates to operate and the frequency of adjustments — at least three to four daily —required to provide a reliable service to the users (Figure 2).
Overoptimistic assumptions on system efficiency have been adopted by consulting firms at the feasibilitystage. Overall project efficiencies adopted for donor-supported projects in the region were 50 percent or above.
14 Consultant, Former World Bank Irrigation Adviser.
214
Audit and impact evaluation studies carried out years after completion indicated that the efficiencies ofrice-based canal systems in the region rarely exceed 35 percent. The high design values cannot be achievedwith the physical control infrastructure in place. In some projects, water lost in the upper parts of the projectis re-captured through pumping from the drainage system by the users downstream, increasing the overallefficiency of the project area to a value close to or above the design value (Figure 3). However, that practicehas a high cost for the downstream users, and it limits their potential productivity because of the unreliabilityof their source of water.
Figure 1. Thailand, Mae Khlong Project: Poorlyunderstood operation of constant head orifice(CHO)
Figure 2. Iran, Duruzan Project: Manualoperation of a gated cross-regulator
Figure 3. Viet Nam: Re-use of drainage water bythe basket method
Figure 4. Nepal: Traditional irrigation systemsusing the principle of proportional distributionthrough flow dividers
Figure 5. Pakistan, Northwest Frontier Province,Lower Swat Project: Modern flow dividers
Figure 6. California: Cross-regulator equippedwith flashboard
215
This paper describes how the technology of water control has evolved over the years and discusses theadvantages and disadvantages of the modern technologies for application in the context of rice-based irrigationsystems.
Evolution of canal control
Traditional small and medium scale irrigation systems have been built by groups of farmers in many countriesaround the world. Management and construction of these systems are based, generally, on well-establishedwater rights. In the absence of upstream seasonal regulation of water resources, the natural diverted flowwas shared between subgroups of farmers through flow dividers, whatever the incoming flow (Figures 4and 5).
Local manual control
With the construction of large reservoirs, the scale of irrigation systems took a wider dimension and themanagement of the water resources became an issue. Irrigation systems built before the mid-1950s were mostlyequipped with simple flashboard devices to regulate the water level at judicious points and the offtakes wereequipped with simple sliding gates. Most of the irrigation schemes in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia,built in the 1920s and still operated with that control equipment, are now undergoing a modernization processusing the most advanced equipment (Figure 6).
Because the handling of the boards is risky and time consuming, they were replaced progressively by undershotsliding or radial gates. This change was progress from a mechanical point of view but has the hydraulicdisadvantage of increasing the sensitivity of operation of the canal systems. This change was made in theirrigation systems of Indonesia concurrently with the replacement of simple offtakes by overshot type gates(Figure 7). That arrangement of undershot regulators with overshot offtakes is the worst combination sincethe systems are now highly sensitive to any change of incoming flow.
Local manual control takes into account only local status data, whereas optimum operation requires knowledgeof the status over a wider area. No operator can be expected to master the interaction between all the parametersof a complex system. Other shortcomings of manual control are the degree of dedication and motivation ofthe operating staff and their ability to resist pressure from the farmers and the accessibility of the controlsites in all-weather conditions.
Automatic hydraulically operated gates
The difficulty of operation of a manually operated system encouraged the development of automatichydraulically operated gates. Modern automatic control of gates may have begun in the 1920s whenautomatically-controlled leak gates, (known as Danaidean gates) were installed on the main canals of theTurlok irrigation project in California and on the San Carlos Project in Arizona. The Turlok gates built ofhardwood are still in operation nearly 100 years after their installation (Figure 8). A similar gate was installedin the Red River Delta in Viet Nam in the 1930s. A French company developed a series of float operatedgates to maintain upstream (AMIL) or downstream constant flow (AVIO and AVIS) in the late 1930s(Figure 9). These gates were widely used in the Mediterranean countries (Italy, the Middle East, North Africa,Spain) and elsewhere on a smaller scale. The company also developed modular devices to solve the technicalproblem of delivering a constant flow from a canal to another one of lower order or from a canal to users,despite the variations of upstream water level (Figure 10).
Concurrently, automatic flap gates were developed in the Netherlands to maintain an upstream constant waterlevel (Figure 11). The design of flap gates has been revised recently by ITRC from California (Figure 12).
Passive concrete structures, known as long crested weirs, have been developed to limit the variations ofupstream water level by increasing the length of the weir. These passive structures do not meet the definition
216
Figure 7. Undershot gate in Indonesia Figure 8. Turlok gate built of hardwood
Figure 9. Automatic float-operated upstreamcontrol level gates
Figure 10. Morocco, Doukkala Project: Modulardistributors providing nearly constant flows
Figure 11. Dominican Republic: Automatic flapgate providing controlling upstream level
Figure 12. California: Combination of automaticITRC flap gates and overflow section
of automation.15 They are designed to limit the variations of upstream level and their designs are highlyversatile. They have been designed either in V or W shape, oriented upstream or downstream, alone or incombination with under-shot gates (Figures 13 and 14).
15 “Canal automation … refers to a closed loop in which a gate or pump changes its position/setting in response to a water level,flow rate, or pressure because that level/rate/pressure is different from the intended target value. Closed loop means that the action isperformed without any human intervention. The automation may be performed through hydraulic, electrical, electronic, ora combination of these means.” (Burt and Piao, 2002, p. 1).
217
The development of hydraulic gates has considerably simplified the operation of canal irrigation systemsand reduced the labour costs. The only adjustments of the gates are the openings and closings of the modularofftakes. However, there are some limitations. The two possible canal control logics with local automatichydraulic control are upstream and local downstream control. Upstream control requires the preparation ofan elaborate irrigation scheduling based either on the individual farm orders or on considerable field dataand meteorological data collected by the operator and estimates of efficiency and time of transmission. Thelatter is used in most countries in the region. Downstream control eliminates the need to prepare an irrigationschedule, but its application is limited by the slope of the existing canals and the feasibility of raising banksof canals to convert them to level top canals (Figure 15).
Upstream control is the standard canal control logic in South Asia. Operational losses estimated at about 5 to10 percent of the flow diverted into a canal under upstream control are needed to provide a reliable serviceto the downstream area because of the uncertainty in some hydraulic parameters, and unexpected changes inirrigation requirements. These losses are inherent to upstream control. Some schemes in South Asia orelsewhere have no operational losses but most of the time irrigation water is not delivered to the tail endusers. Some additions to the infrastructure of existing systems can reduce operational losses, such asconstruction of compensation reservoirs and interceptor canals. This is an important component of the strategyof modernization in the western United States.
Figure 13. Sri Lanka: Simple long-crested weirregulator
Figure 14. California, Turlok irrigation district:Double long crested weir
Figure 15. Principle of upstream anddownstream level control
Figure 16. Malaysia, Kemubu Project: A perfectexample of a composite regulator — a long crestedsection associated with two gates used for siltcontrol and large variations of flow
218
A feature of the local hydraulic control is that the target level is set once the gates are installed (in contrast togates under local controllers, as discussed in the next section). Some operators consider this as a drawback.The cost of the float-operated gates is high compared to conventional gates because of the weight of steelneeded for the construction of the float, the counterweights, the leaf gates and other elements. However,a simple investment cost comparison is not acceptable. Cost of operation and water saving should be includedin a cost–benefit analysis.
Hydraulic regulation was adopted during the planning and design of the Kemubu Project in Malaysia in the1970s and still operates satisfactorily (Figure 16). That design would have been a correct option for some ofthe new large-scale projects implemented in the region, such as the Lam Pao, Nam Moon in Northeast Thailandor in the Mae Khlong Basin.
The modernization of existing irrigation systems using hydraulic automation has some limitations. Downstreamcontrol with level top canals is not feasible where canals are too steep (Figure 17). Use of modular distributorsrequires hydraulic head not always available in flat rice-based areas. Flap gates cannot operate if submergeddownstream.
Local controllers
The above hydraulic canal control technologies developed by European countries were not adopted in theUSA, possibly because of the difficulty of adapting them to the constraints of existing systems. The designstandards of the Bureau of Reclamation, widely introduced in the region in the 1960s, are based essentiallyon the use of manually operated undershot gates. Canal automation developed in the USA with the advent ofelectronics and progress in telecommunications. The first applications of local controllers occurred in thewestern USA in the late-1950s. These installations were electromechanical gate controllers to maintaina constant upstream water level at cross-regulator (Figures 18 and 19). In the 1960s, attempts were made tomaintain the water level downstream from the structure through local automatic control. Since the water levelsensors were distant from the control gate and, in most cases, upstream of the next control gate,communications were required (Figure 20). Local downstream controllers required better control logic todeal with the time lag between the gate and the sensor. Eventually, electronics replaced the electromechanicalequipment (Figures 21, 22 and 23) in the form of programmable logic controllers or PLC. There are nowmany successful applications of local controllers. Applications include mainly control of flow at offtakes andcontrol of local upstream water levels. There are many fewer applications to downstream local or remotewater levels because flow disturbances in individual pools, which could cause instabilities in control, aredifficult to eliminate.
Local automatic control alone, whether it is activated by hydraulic or electronic action, has the operationaldisadvantage that the field conditions are not continuously known by the headquarters unless a reporting systemby field staff is established. However, this is cumbersome and hazardous in the case of an emergency.
Centralized monitoring and control
The advent of high capacity computers and progress in communications in the 1970s opened the door forcentralized control of large canal irrigation systems in which a number of remote sites are linked througha central control centre.
Some of the applications in the USA and France are well known. In the USA, the large conveyance canalsfor interbasin water transfer, the California Aqueduct and the Central Arizona Project, are operated underremote monitoring and remote manual control.
Supervisory control consists of bringing system-wide information from remote sites to a single master station.Supervisory monitoring can give a water master the power to see his whole project without leaving his office.Supervisory control consisting of changing the target points of local controllers empowers a water master tomake rapid coordinated changes at key structures. Supervisory control was implemented in the 1970s at several
219
Figure 17. Iran, Guilan Project: A double longcrested weir on the main canal with a 100 m3/scapacity
Figure 18. California, Friant-Kern Canal:A Littleman controller of the lateral canal offtakein the background
Figure 19. Details of Littleman controller:An outdated electromechanical technology
Figure 20. Schematic of distant downstreamcontrol
Figure 21. SCADA site: Electronic controller Figure 22. Canada, Alberta: Automatic control ofan overshot gate
irrigation systems, such as the Salt River Project (Figure 25) and the Coachella Irrigation District. With furtheradvances in equipment, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) has now spread to a number ofirrigation districts in the western States, such as the Turlok Irrigation District, the Imperial Irrigation Districtand many others.
The increased capacity of computers in the 1970s made it possible to develop simulation models to studychannels under unsteady flow conditions. The well-known dynamic regulation of the Canal de Provence
220
Figure 23. California, Yuma Irrigation District:SCADA site with local controller
Figure 24. Schematic of a canal under supervisorycontrol
Figure 25. Arizona, Salt River Project: SCADAmaster station with manual setting of site targetconditions
Figure 26. France, Canal de Provence: Centralcontrol of the SCP system under dynamicregulation
Figure 27. Canal de Provence: Real time displayof the conditions of the canal and reservoir system
Figure 28. Morocco, Office du Haouz,Marrakech: Central control of the Haouz canal
providing irrigation water and raw domestic supply to a large area in Southern France is based on a largesimulation model and a predictive method of water demand (Figures 26, 27 and 28). Dynamic control wasadopted for the King Abdullah canal in Jordan and for the Majalgaon canal project in Maharashtra State,India. Implementation of dynamic control is still under implementation in the Narmada Project in India.
Few centralized projects or SCADA projects have been implemented in developing countries and many ofthem have failed for various reasons. The most critical phase in an automation project is implementation: the
221
transition from design to implementation, which includes the integration of hardware and software components,installation and testing. Shortcomings in electronic/communications based automation are possible at all stages:design, implementation and operation, control algorithm limitation, poor integration of components,malfunctioning of equipment, lack of training of operation staff, lack of spare parts and poor maintenance.The problem of simulation is more challenging than earlier thought. The complexities of going from analgorithm to actual implementation in the field should not be underestimated.
The right social environment is also essential for implementation of automation, as risk of vandalism couldpreclude the adoption of any advanced technology. In developing countries, it is strongly recommended tostart with simple automation or SCADA projects and to expand progressively.
Breakthroughs in canal control technology
Despite the advances in technology, the design, implementation and operation of local controllers, SCADAand automated centralized control has been the domain of a few researchers and automation experts untilrecently. The industry is now developing friendly user canal control equipment. For example, a companyfrom Australia has addressed the shortcomings in electronic based automation by developing integrated controlequipment in a single set including an overshot gate, level and gate position sensors, motor, battery and solarpanel, electronics with software (Figure 29). This equipment is easy to install. Its operation through a keypadand a liquid crystal display is user-friendly. The keypad is used to navigate between various menus (remoteor local control) and control parameters (flow, upstream or downstream level control) and set point entryscreens. These gates can be used under local control, remote control from a central office or integrated ina “total channel control” (TCC). These gates are also installed at farm outlets providing a much more accuratemeasurement of delivered volumes than the old Dethridge wheel (10 percent). After a few years of piloting,the technology is now being applied extensively in Australia to modernize the 80-year-old systems mostlyoperated with flashboards (Figure 30). Its application is now spreading to irrigation districts in the westernUSA (Turlok and Imperial Valley Districts) (Figure 31). TCC combined with interactive voice response(IVR) to place farmer orders and the new generation of gates provides an integrated package to move fromcentury-old to twenty-first century technology. Its success however is based on the absence of vandalism.
Conclusions and recommendations
The performance of rice-based irrigation systems in Southeast Asia is constrained by deficiencies in bothmanagement and physical infrastructure. The existing schemes often designed for full supply or withoutoperation in mind cannot be operated efficiently. Experience indicates that substantial progress in performancecan be achieved only if both aspects are addressed.
There is no technology that is suitable in all situations to improve the performance of existing irrigationsystems. Several considerations have to be made during planning and design of the modernizationprocess: the technical level of the staff and farmers, the social environment and the risk of vandalism,the conditions of the existing hydraulic infrastructure, the source and level of financing. However,the large variety of logics, software and equipment available gives the flexibility to allow design ofan optimum system that takes into account all the conditions of a particular project.
Design should be done with operation in mind. Operation should not be dependent on repetitivemeasurements of water levels and flows. Operational procedures should be understood by the operationstaff, not necessarily the design process.
Maximum use of hydraulic control technology should be made to limit the number of key sites whereSCADA would be needed.
Simple modifications to the infrastructure, such as the construction of long-crested wing sections toundershot structures, or the construction of interceptor canals could provide substantial benefits inoperation.
222
There are two potential disadvantages, which need to be considered at the early stages of a modernizationprocess:
In some areas, vandalism is widespread. Some automatic water control devices are highly vulnerableto vandalism because they can be used or sold, for example solar panels and antenna. In some cases,vandalism reflects nothing more than the dissatisfaction of the users with the present service(Figure 32).
A basic feature of automation is the ability to vary the discharge. This may increase the risk ofdeposition in irrigation canals conveying water with a high sediment load. That constraint limits theapplication of automation to irrigation districts in the Indus Basin and the Yellow River Basin.
Figure 29. Australia: A RUBICON gate in thefactory ready for site transportation
Figure 30. Australia, Murray Darling Basin:A cross-regulator equipped with two RUBICONgates
Figure 31. California, Imperial IrrigationDistrict: A cross-regulator equipped with threeRUBICON gates
Figure 32. Mexico, Mayo Irrigation District:Vandalized long crested weirs, most likely becausethe basic principle of upstream control operationby excess was not applied
Reference
Burt, C.M. & Piao, X. 2002. Advances in PLC-based canal automations. Paper presented at the July 9–12, 2002 USCIDconference on benchmarking irrigation system performance using water measurement and water balances. SanLuis Obispo, CA. ITRC Paper No. P02-001 (available at http://www.itrc.org).
223
Sustainability in times of change — evolving irrigation institutionsto meet changing demands
Ian W. Makin16
Abstract
Irrigation has played, and will continue to play, an important role in securing the food supply for the rapidlyexpanding population of the world. However, the irrigation sector must increasingly develop approaches tothe design and implementation of management and infrastructure that can provide flexible and responsiveservices to the agricultural sector. The need for greater consideration of the impacts of agricultural developmenton the broader environment and the impacts on the livelihood systems of the communities in the vicinitywill increasingly constrain the freedom of action available when designing interventions, particularly in theirrigated agriculture sector.
A major shift in thinking is required to move away from a distinction between the development and operationalphases in the life cycle of an irrigation system. Instead, irrigated agriculture should assume that irrigationschemes are in both phases at all times, after initial completion of infrastructure development. The developmentplan for each scheme must focus on achieving the strategic goals set for the sector, and the surroundingcommunity. This places irrigation schemes in the broader river basin and socio-economic contexts, wherebydecisions on investment in the irrigation system are considered not only in terms of the improvements insystem performance but also in terms of their contribution to improving livelihoods and minimizingenvironmental degradation.
Although interventions made at various times in the management of water for agriculture are done to achievesustainable increases in production, in reality sustainability is achieved by continuous changes in managementand infrastructure designs. It is by being flexible and responding to changing conditions and opportunitiesthat agricultural production can be maintained and rural livelihoods can be sustained and improved. In manycases the interventions are, in themselves, not sustainable, but rather are a stepping stone that helps thetransition from one form of management to another.
Introduction
Management of enterprises, whether public or private sector, must operate keeping in mind that change isthe only constant. Irrigation is a major undertaking, whether for an individual farmer diverting water froma small stream to irrigate a few hundred square metres; or for a government irrigation department mobilizinginternational financing to develop or modernize a system serving many hundreds of farm households. Acrossthe full spectrum of irrigation systems the challenges of adapting irrigation to the vagaries of the weather,pest and weed infestations, labour availability and dynamic markets are apparent to everyone involved.
There is widespread recognition that government bureaucracies are not the most well suited to manage insituations that require flexible and adaptive responses to changing conditions. Centrally financed irrigationdepartments have found it increasingly difficult to sustain the recurrent expenditures required for operationand maintenance (O&M) and are faced with a strong reluctance on the part of farmers to pay governmentsfor, what is often, a service not well matched with farming requirements. Lack of funds, poorly motivatedstaff in O&M departments, and growing demands from farming communities for improved services haveencouraged governments to seek to restructure irrigation service providers through some form of managementtransfer. Vermillion and Sagardoy (1999) identify three forms, summarized in Figure 1, noting thatdecentralization provides water users with little management control and little improvement in irrigationservice. Irrigation transfer on the other hand provides greater authority to the water users, with increasedresponsibility for decision-making and funding the costs of O&M.
16 Water Resources Engineer, Mekong Agriculture and Natural Environment Division, Asian Development Bank. The views expressedin this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank.
224
Changes in the relationship between users of irrigation systems and government officials have proceeded inmany developing countries over the past 20 years, and especially through the 1990s. These changes haveoften been called “management transfer”, expressing the idea that some, or perhaps all, of the attributes ofmanagement, such as operational decision-making, acquisition and application of resources, maintenance,and in some cases ownership and responsibility for improvement of the facilities themselves, are moved fromthe sphere of government officials to that of the local community.
New organizations have often had to be promoted among water-user communities but, although that aspectof the change has received relatively high levels of attention, organizational development by itself is notenough. Some countries, which have given high prominence to the promotion of new organizations ofirrigators, have experienced disappointment with subsequent results. The new organizations are in many casesreported to have low effectiveness, and have difficulty in attracting the efforts and active support of theircommunities. New organizations are frequently described as somewhat illusory or “existing only on paper.”
There are probably many reasons for this. One possible reason is that the planning of irrigation systems, andof rehabilitation and upgrading of older systems, is frequently performed in a top-down, technocratic way,and is not sufficiently influenced by the views of the users. Probably, a traditional view of the relationshipthat should exist between the users and the officials responsible for technical management carries over intothe newer generation of organizational and institutional development projects.
Plusquellec (2002) reminds us that one conclusion from the E-mail conference on Participatory IrrigationManagement (July–October 2001) was the importance of matching the management capacity of the irrigationservice provider with the infrastructure available for water distribution. Furthermore, it is essential that thesecomponents are capable of providing the service the water users require. And, although the theme of thecurrent conference is rice-based irrigation, it is increasingly clear that the future of irrigated agriculture willinclude increased demands for flexibility of service and increasingly differentiated demands for diversifiedcrops. How the distribution technology and management institutions in the large rice-based irrigation systemsof Southeast Asia will evolve to meet these challenges, in the face of changing economies, increasingglobalization of markets, climate change and the changing aspirations of rural communities, is a criticalquestion.
Figure 1. Illustration of distribution of management control with style of managementtransformation
Decentralization
Irrigation management transfer
Low High
Styl
e of
Man
agem
ent R
efor
m
Distribution of management control
Governmentmanagementrole
Farmersmanagementroles
Participatory irrigationmanagement
225
Gazing into a crystal ball
A prediction of how irrigation institutions will evolve to meet the challenges of the future is inevitably cloudedwith the uncertainty of the unknown. However, if we consider the trends of recent years and if we makesome pragmatic assumptions about the nature of farming communities, we may have the basis to predict theform that irrigated agriculture may evolve towards over the next 20 years.
Competition for water for uses other than agriculture will continue to increase in many river basins. As theurban centres grow and industrial economies become more dominant in the region, agriculture will forma smaller percentage of the national economy and water will be diverted to other uses. However, in the majorityof cases the impact on water available for agricultural production may be minimized by improvements inirrigation efficiency through the adoption of improved technology and techniques. However, the demandsfor high standards of water quality may place greater restrictions on agricultural water use to reduce the impactsof non-point pollution from fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide applications. In many cases the use of theseinputs in the region remains low; however, increases in commercial farming enterprises can be expected toresult in increasing use of these inputs. Furthermore, lifestyle changes in urban centres can be expected tocreate greater awareness of, and demands for access to, wetlands and forests. These ecosystems are waterusers of the same magnitude as agricultural systems, and will also compete for land allocations.
Where opportunities to move out of agriculture to other employment exist, rural people, particularly the youngand better educated, are moving to take up these jobs. Timmer (2005) argues that preparing people to takeup non-farm employment is the strongest justification for investment in rural health and education in theeffort to eradicate rural poverty. Discussions with farmer families in many parts of the region will rarelyelicit the ambition to see their children engaged in agriculture; it is simply work that is too hard and toounrewarding, even though there is often recognition that life is not easy outside the farm. There are alreadysigns that the average age of farmers is increasing, and the size of the average farming unit in irrigation schemesis also growing, either through land acquisition or through rental to larger scale growers. The economies ofscale that these larger units provide is leading to increased farm mechanization. These trends can be expectedto continue, resulting in fewer farmers, operating increasingly commercial agricultural enterprises.
Timmer (2005) identifies another transformation which has happened in the region, but has been largelyunrecognized, in the expansion of vertically linked supply chains from farm through to retail outlets supplyingexpanding urban populations with food. These supply chains are dominated by the retail supermarkets withdemands for high-quality produce meeting international standards of hygiene. The expansion of membershipof the World Trade Organization is opening the markets of the region to producers everywhere. For the localproducers to retain their share of the local market they will have to meet the quality, supply and price standardsof the retail markets. However, success in the local market will increasingly mean these products will alsomeet international standards and thus open new global markets for the producers.
To service these commercialized irrigated farms the irrigation service provider (ISP) will be expected to providereliable and responsive services in return for payment of an irrigation service fee (ISF). The larger farmersmay invest part of the farm unit to provide local storage of water to protect their investment in higher valuefood crops, i.e. not staple foods such as rice, from variations in irrigation supply.
In brief, rice will continue to be the dominant staple crop; however, we should expect that some of therice-based large irrigation systems will change over the next 10 to 20 years to have few farmers operatinglarger farm units with a broader mix of crops supplying vertically linked market chains through ruralagro-processing centres. These transformations will happen where transport and communication infrastructurehas opened up the rural landscape and linked the producer centres to the consumers in the towns and citiesof the region and beyond.
In other schemes, where transport and communication remain less well developed, irrigation schemes willcontinue to be the producers of staple grains for consumption and trade. The challenge for irrigation institutionswill remain to deliver reliable irrigation services to large numbers of small farmer units, probably best achievedthrough the water user associations responsible for the full O&M costs of the schemes that supply their farms.
226
However, in these systems a greater proportion of the O&M costs will be met through contributions of labourrather than through formal ISF payments.
ADB water policy and future irrigation institutions
The Asian Development Bank water policy (ADB, 2003) seeks to promote the achievement of higher irrigationefficiencies in the context of river basins, through optimization of the performance of irrigation and drainagesystems. The policy recognizes:
the need to shift toward service oriented modes of operation of irrigation and drainage systems;
the importance of modernization of irrigation and drainage systems; and
the need to involve users in the modernization and operational processes.
The ADB water policy identifies the need to phase out subsidies for O&M of public irrigation and drainagesystems; and the need to establish virtuous cycles of investment, user charges, and O&M by autonomousand accountable service agencies, with user representation. These will be essential to the establishment ofmodernized irrigation and drainage systems. The phased turnover of responsibilities for distribution systemoperation and maintenance to farmer groups is expected to improve system sustainability.
For the schemes where larger farms have evolved and diversified cropping for vertically integrated marketsis established, the ISP is likely to become a responsive client driven organization employing professionalirrigation operations staff using modern command and control infrastructure as envisaged in the ADB waterpolicy. Irrigation scheduling may become largely “on-demand”, although local on-farm storage may reducethe need for this level of sophistication. The ISP is likely to be “owned” by the water users with water userand river basin representation through a formal governance structure able to set policy; whereas routine O&Mis implemented by the ISP.
The ADB water policy also records the need to identify and protect the collective and individual rights andresponsibilities of water users (including poor and marginal farmers at the tail end of irrigation systems),service providers, and public agencies. The vision of possible transformation of large-scale irrigation abovegives additional stress to this objective of the water policy. It is the poor and marginalized that are often theleast able to participate in the opportunities such transformations present. Where smallholder agricultureremains the dominant farming system, the ISP will need to balance the demands of more commercial operatorswith the need to provide a reliable service to all stakeholders.
One characteristic that will emerge in future irrigation institutions will be the adoption of asset managementplans for irrigation and drainage system maintenance planning. These techniques will supplant the use ofavailable annual maintenance funds to, nominally, maintain the system in the design conditions, anda proportion of the funds will be set aside each year for incremental replacement of infrastructure to enablethe adoption of different management strategies; examples may include:
changing from open channels to pipelines to reduce seepage looses;
encouraging farmers to adopt higher technology application systems to reduce water use; and
introduction of automated control of remote structures to improve service delivery to users.
Under traditional management by centralized bureaucracies, such changes would require a specific, oftenexternally financed project. However, setting a goal of reducing water use by some specified amount overa specified time allows system managers to prioritize the investments to achieve these goals through bettertargeted maintenance and replacement planning. Where external funds become available these can be includedin the long-term plans without disrupting the management strategy. A consistent strategy gives the irrigationsystem users greater confidence than is sometimes the case with the current decision-making norms that theinterventions are being made for their benefit. Through transparent decision-making in the allocation ofavailable funds to maintenance of the system, users are more likely to be willing to pay ISF, furtherstrengthening the virtuous cycle envisioned in the ADB water policy.
227
Conclusions
As new irrigation institutions emerge to manage irrigation schemes, a major shift in thinking is required tomove away from a distinction between the development and operational phases of a scheme’s life cycle (Makin,2002). Instead, the irrigated agriculture sector should assume that all irrigation schemes are in both phases atall times after initial completion of the infrastructure. The development plan for each scheme must focus onachieving the strategic goals set for the sector, and the surrounding community. This places the irrigationscheme in the broader river basin and socio-economic contexts, whereby decisions on investment in theirrigation system are considered not only in terms of the improvements in system performance, but also interms of the contribution to improving livelihoods and minimizing environmental degradation.
Sustainable irrigation and drainage system operations will involve:
1. developing strategic management goals for the short- and medium-term planning of interventions toaddress short- and medium-term management objectives, and responding flexibly to changingcircumstances in the medium-term — system managers and sector planners will need to keep in mindthe wider socio-economic scene to ensure that interventions continue to address priority issues;
2. shifting from a focus on short-term operations and maintenance planning to development of assetmanagement plans focused on achieving given levels of water economy and productivity over theplanning horizon of 10 to 20 years;
3. using asset management plans to integrate recurrent and project budgets to achieve the strategicdevelopment goals through incremental development; and
4. recognizing that sustainable increases in irrigation performance involve multiple partners in thegovernment and private sectors and in civil society. Irrigation must play a responsible part in the useand protection of natural resources, most specifically land and water.
To achieve these goals will require the involvement of water users, civil society and river basin regulatoryauthorities in the irrigation institutions that set the policy objectives for individual schemes. To deliver effectiveirrigation and drainage services to water users in large irrigation systems, whether growing staple foods suchas rice and other grains or higher value diversified crops, will require professional irrigation service providersto operate and maintain the delivery system. These adaptations to the institutions currently managing irrigationservices will go a long way to answering the observation (Molden and Makin, 1996) that both infrastructureand institutional changes are required. Three basic elements: water rights, infrastructure, and managementinstitutions must be integrated and balanced in the design of both infrastructure and institutions. Thecombination of management and infrastructure must match with the desired level of water delivery service.Adequate institutional capacity of the irrigation agency, the local ISP organization and water users must bein place to manage the designed infrastructure.
References
ADB. 2003. Water for all. The water policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila.
Makin, I.W. 2002. Sustainable Irrigation Development. In Proceedings of Asian Productivity Organization workshop.Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Molden, D.J. & Makin, I.W. 1996. Institutional change in support of modernization and management transfer. InProceedings of FAO expert consultation on modernization of irrigation schemes: past experiences and futureoptions. FAO, Bangkok.
Plusqullec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the performance of irrigation projects. Emergingmodernization procedures and design standards. FAO, Bangkok.
Timmer, C. 2005. Agriculture and pro-poor growth: An Asian perspective. Centre for Global Development. WorkingPaper No. 63 Washington, DC.
Vermillion, D.L. & Sagardoy, J.A. 1999. Transfer of irrigation management services. Guidelines. FAO Irrigation andDrainage Paper 58, Rome.
229
Annexes
231
ANNEX I. Workshop Programme
Wednesday, 26 October 2005
08.00–08.30 Registration (7th Floor)
Session 1: Opening Chair: Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation7th Floor System Management Officer, FAOGrand Rapporteur: Nguyen Tung Phong, VIWRRBallroom
08.30–08.50 Introduction to the workshop Thierry Facon,Senior Water Management Officer, FAO
08.50–09.10 Introduction of participants
09.10–09.20 Opening speech Dr Nguyen Dinh Ninh, Vice-Director,Irrigation Department, MARD
09.20–09.30 Opening speech Dr Thai Lai, Director General,Department of Water ResourcesManagement, MONRE
09.30–10.00 Overview of large-scale irrigation systems in Zhijun Chen,Southeast Asia Water Resources Development and
Conservation Officer, FAO
10.00–10.15 Coffee Break�
Session 2 Trends and challenges affecting large rice-based Chair: Dr Thai Lai,7th Floor irrigation systems in Southeast Asia: water Director General, Department of WaterGrand resources, agriculture and trade, socio-economic Resources Management, MONREBallroom development, environment Rapporteur: Mr Thierry Facon
10.15–10.45 Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Bas Bouman,Agriculture: Rice, water and livelihoods chapter International Rice Research Institute
10.45–11.15 Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Hugh Turral,Agriculture: Rice, water and irrigation chapter International Water Management Institute
11.15–11.45 Key trends affecting agricultural water resources David Dawe,management in Southeast Asia Senior Food Systems Economist, FAO
11.45–12.15 Governance, environment and livelihoods John Dore, International Union for theConservation of Nature
12.15–13.00 Plenary debate
13.00–14.00 Lunch
Session 3: Country strategies, programmes and goals Chair: Dr Andrew Noble, IWMI5th floor Rapporteur: Zhijun Chen, FAO
14.00–14.20 Viet Nam Nguyen Dinh Ninh
14.20–14.40 Indonesia Dwi Kristianto, A. Tommy M. Sitompul
14.40–15.00 Philippines Proceso T. Domingo
15.00–15.20 Malaysia Mohd Abdul Nassir Bin Bidin
15.20–15.40 Coffee Break
15.40–16.00 Thailand Chawee Wongprasittiporn
16.00–16.20 Cambodia Chann Sinath
16.20–16.40 Laos Phalasack Pheddara
16.40–17.00 Myanmar Maung Maung Naing
17.00–18.00 Plenary debate
232
18.00–18.30 Side Event (Plenary) Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation SystemIrrigation Canal Operation FAO proposal for Management Officer, FAOa manual for Professionals
� 19.30–21.00 Welcome dinner
Thursday, 27 October 2005
Session 4: Identification of main drivers of change, typology Chair: Peter McCornick,5th floor of large rice-based irrigation systems and likely Director for Asia, IWMI
scenario for evolution Rapporteur:�Jippe Hoogeveen,Water Resources Officer, FAO
08.00–08.15 Introduction Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation systemsmanagement Officer, FAO
08.15–08.35 Present performance of large rice-based irrigation Thierry Facon, Senior Water Managementsystems Officer, FAO
08.35–08.55 Economics Jeremy Berkoff
08.55–09.15 Water saving Shahbaz Khan, CSIRO
09.15–09.35 Technology Hervé Plusquellec
09.35–09.55 Institutions Ian Makin, ADB
09.55–10.20 Coffee break�
10.20–12.30 Breakout Group A Breakout Group B Breakout Group C(Renault/Chen) (Barker/Khan) (Tuong/Noble)
12.30–13.30 Lunch�
Session 5 Field trip to the Dautieng/Cu Chi irrigation system
13.30–14.30 Travel from Windsor Plaza hotel to Cu Chi
14.30–15.00 Brief introduction on Dau Tieng system and operation Mr Thanh, Deputy Director of Dau Tieng& maintenance of IMC IMC and
Mr Xuan, Director of Cu Chi IMC
15.00–15.30 Questions by participants Chair: Mr Ninh, MARDRapporteur: Mr Anh, VIWRR
15.30–17.00 Thematic visit Group 1: Thematic visit Group 2: Thematic visit Group 3:Operation and design: Evolution of agricultural water Environment and biodiversitymodernization demand and farming systems
17.00–18.00 Travel from Cu Chi to Windsor Plaza Hotel
19.00–21.00 Party, debriefing and debate on the Dautieng/Cu Chi irrigation system �
Friday, 28 October 2005
Session 6: Synthesis of session 4. Present performance, Chair: Donny Azdan5th floor drivers of change and likely scenario for evolution Rapporteur: Madhusudan Bhattarai
of large rice-based irrigation systems
08.00–08.30 Presentation of findings and conclusions of session 4 Daniel Renault, FAO
08.30–09.00 Plenary debate�
Session 7: Implications of scenarios on service and Chair: Mr Proceso T. Domingo5th floor performance objectives, management, institutions, Rapporteur: Jippe Hoogeveen
design and operation, financing and multiple roles
09.00–10.30 Breakout Breakout Breakout Breakout BreakoutGroup D: Service, Group E: Group F: Design Group G: Group H:roles and uses and Management and and operation financing New LS systemsperformance institutions (Plusquel/ (Dawe/Facon) (Dore/Bhattarai)objectives (Makin/Turral) Freeman)(Bouman/Chen)
233
10.30–10.45 Coffee break�
10.45–11.15 Intermediate discussion of group discussions By rapporteurs of Groups D, E, F and G
11.15–13.00 Breakout Breakout Breakout Breakout BreakoutGroup D: Service, Group E: Group F: Design Group G: Group H:roles and uses and Management and and operation financingperformance institutionsobjectives
13.00–14.00 Lunch
14.00–15.00 Presentation of Group outputs By rapporteurs of Groups D, E, F and G
15.00–15.30 Plenary debate�
15.30–15.45 Coffee break�
Session 8: Re-assessment of the likely evolution scenario and Chair: Mr Cuong Pham Hung5th floor identification of strategies, opportunities, priority Rapporteur:�Mohd Abdul Nassir Bin Bidin
actions and possible initiatives for regionalcollaboration
15.45–16.00 Presentation of questionnaire on previous Zhijun Chen, Water Resourcesrecommendations Development and Conservation Officer,
FAO
16.00–16.45 Breakout Group D Breakout Group E Breakout Group F Breakout Group G Breakout Group H
16.45–17.20 Presentation and discussion of Group Outputs
Session 9: Main conclusions and recommendations Chair: Mr Jiravat Ratisoontorn5th floor Rapporteur: Dr Hoanh Chu Thai, IWMI
17.20–18.10 Presentation of main conclusions and Thierry Facon, Senior Water Managementrecommendations Officer, FAO�
18.10–18.20 Concluding remarks Mr Anh, Director, VIWRR
18.20–18.30 Concluding remarks Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation SystemManagement Officer, FAO
234
ANNEX II: List of Participants
No. Title Name� E-mail Organization Country
1 Mr Herve Louis Paul [email protected] � �
2 Mr Beau James Freeman [email protected] ITRC �
3 Dr Sundari Ramakrishna [email protected] Wetlands International �
4 Dr Godaliyadde Gedara [email protected] Irrigation Department Sri LankaAriyarathna Godaliyadda
5 Dr Randolph Barker [email protected] Cornell University/IWMI �
6 Dr Bas Antonius [email protected] International RiceMaria Bouman Research Institute �
7 � Cuong Pham Hung [email protected] World Bank Country Viet NamOffice
8 Mr Doan Doan Tuan [email protected] Centre for Participatory Viet NamIrrigation Management,VIWRR
9 Mr Jeremy Berkoff [email protected] Independent Consultant �
10 � Proceso T. Domingo [email protected] National Irrigation PhilippinesAdministration
11 Dr Donny Azdan [email protected] BAPPENAS Indonesia
12 Mr Phonechaleun Nonthaxay [email protected] Water Resources Lao PDRCoordination Committee
13 Mr Phalasack Pheddara [email protected] Department of Irrigation Lao PDR
14 Dr Andrew Noble [email protected]; IWMI [email protected] �
15 Dr Hoanh Chu Thai [email protected] IWMI SEA �
16 Mr Jiravat Ratisoontorn [email protected] DWR Thailand
17 Mr David Dawe [email protected] FAO �
18 Mr� Minh Cao Tuan [email protected] MRC �
19 Mr� Hiroshi Okudaira [email protected] MRC �
20 Mr Nguyen Tuan Anh [email protected] VIWRR Viet Nam
21 Mr� John Dore [email protected] IUCN �
22 Ms Chawee Wongprasittiporn [email protected] RID Thailand
23 Dr Dong Bin [email protected] Wuhan Univeristy China
24 � Shahbaz Khan [email protected] CSIRO Land and Water Australia
25 Mr Mohd Abdul Nassir [email protected] Ministry of Agriculture MalaysiaBin Bidin and Agro-based Industry
26 Dr Maung Maung Naing [email protected], Irrigation Department [email protected]
27 Dr Hugh Turral [email protected] IWMI �
28 Dr Roberto Clemente [email protected] AIT �
29 Mr Nguyen Dinh Ninh [email protected] MARD Viet Nam
30 Mr Madhusudan Bhattarai [email protected] IUCN �
235
31 Mr� To Phoc Tuong [email protected] IRRI �
32 Dr Nguyen Thai Lai [email protected] Department of Water Viet NamResources Management
33 Mr� Dwi Kristianto [email protected] Ministry of Public Works Indonesia
34 Mr� Adolf Tommy M. [email protected] BAPPENAS IndonesiaSitompul
35 Mr Peter McCornick [email protected] IWMI �
36 Mr Chann Sinath [email protected] MOWRAM Cambodia
37 Mr Ian Makin [email protected] ADB �
38 Dr Buapun Promphakping [email protected] Khonkaen University Thailand
39 Mr Nguyen Tung Phong [email protected] VIWRR Viet Nam
40 Mr Le Quang Anh [email protected] VIWRR Viet Nam
41 Mr Son Nguyen Quynh [email protected] VIWRR Viet Nam
42 Mr Thierry Facon [email protected] FAO �
43 Mr David Renault [email protected] FAO �
44 Mr Jippe Hoogeveen [email protected] FAO �
45 Dr Zhijun Chen [email protected] FAO �
46 Ms Sirijit Sangunurai [email protected] FAO
No. Title Name� E-mail Organization Country
236
Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam26–28 October 2005
PROCEEDINGS OF THEREGIONAL WORKSHOP ON
THE FUTURE OF
LARGE RICE-BASED
IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA
Co-sponsored byEvaluation Study of Paddy IrrigationUnder Monsoon Regime (ESPIM) Projectfunded by the Government of Japan
