guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation

International Programme for Technology and Research inIrrigation and Drainage

GUIDELINES

FOR

BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE

IN THE

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR

IPTRID SecretariatFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsRome, 2001

Hector MalanoUniversity of Melbourne, Australia

andMartin Burton

ITAD-Water, United Kingdom

The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations or the International Programme for Technologyand Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information productfor educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior writtenpermission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged.Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposesis prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for suchpermission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service,Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected]

© FAO 2001

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or theInternational Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage(IPTRID). Mention of specific companies, their products or brand names does not implyany endorsement by FAO or IPTRID

ISBN 92-5-104618-2

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector iii

Preface

Irrigated agriculture contributes about 40 percent of the global food production. This comes mainly fromabout 260 million hectares of irrigated lands, of which about two thirds are formal irrigation schemes. Manyformal irrigation schemes are performing inefficiently for a number of reasons, among which the poorperformance of irrigation institutions is one. It is this realisation that prompted the World Bank to initiate,among others, action on “Reforming Irrigation Institutions”. The objective of this initiative is “to improve theperformance of irrigation management in projects by increasing the efficiency, transparency and accountabilityof the organisations in charge of providing irrigation services and increase the participation of users and theprivate sector”.

One of the elements of reforming irrigation institutions is benchmarking irrigation and drainage projects withspecial reference to the performance of organisations in charge of providing irrigation services. Benchmarkingmay be defined as the identification and application of organisation specific best practices with the goal ofimproving competitiveness, performance and efficiency. It is a continuous process that involves (a) internalassessment of the organisation, (b) comparing it with the best practices of more successful similar businessesin the market, (c) determining performance gap between current practice and best practice, and (d) selectingbest practices, tailoring them to fit the organisation and implementing them. The cycle of improvement continues.Benchmarking does not substitute other diagnostic and appraisal analyses, but rather complements them.

Upon the request of the World Bank to the Consultative Group of the International Programme for Technologyand Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) in December 1999, a research study to develop guidelinesfor benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector was launched by IPTRID. The study was carried outas a joint initiative of the IPTRID partner institutions, namely, World Bank (WB), Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and theInternational Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and coordinated by the IPTRID Secretariat.

Two International Consultants, Professor Hector Malano, University of Melbourne, Australia and Dr. MartinBurton, Director, ITAD-Water, United Kingdom, were engaged by IPTRID to develop these guidelines inconsultation with the IPTRID partner institutions and the Secretariat. The process began in early 2000 andsince then a number of formal and informal meetings, consultations and discussions have been held.

These guidelines are neither perfect nor final. Rather they represent the beginning of a long and excitingprocess of benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector. Much will be learned during the comingmonths and years when the guidelines will be put to practical test in the field. Revisions will have to be madeand perhaps “customised” versions of the guidelines will have to be prepared for application to irrigation anddrainage schemes, which operate under a broad range of conditions.

We sincerely hope that this publication fills a gap in the knowledge of irrigation management in general andirrigation institution reform in particular. We look forward to receiving responses from those who apply theseguidelines to improve the performance of services to irrigation and drainage schemes.

Arumugam KandiahProgramme Manager, IPTRID

iv

Acknowledgements

This publication is the result of efforts by many people over recent years to develop methodologies forstudying, monitoring and evaluating performance in the irrigation and drainage sector.`

Acknowledgements are due to these people, and in particular to the following who have contributed to thispublication, namely, Rien Bos, International Land Reclamation and Improvement Institute, The Netherlands;Charles Burt, California Polytechnic State University, California, USA; Bill Kingdom, Water and SanitationProgramme, The World Bank, USA; and David Molden, International Water Management Institute, SriLanka. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and encouragement provided by Fernando Gonzalez,Senior Irrigation Adviser, The World Bank, USA and Hans Wolter, Director Land and Water DevelopmentDivision, FAO, Italy.

The authors wish to express their special gratitude to Arum Kandiah, Programme Manager, IPTRID for hisinitiative, support and coordination of the activities from the beginning.

Acknowledgements are due also to the Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID),the Land and Water Research Development Corporation and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australiafor their willingness to share their innovative work on benchmarking a significant number of irrigation anddrainage schemes in the country. It is recommended that their publication, the 1998/99 Australian IrrigationWater Provider Benchmarking Report, be read in conjunction with this publication.

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector v

Contents

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... IV

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1Origins of the benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage sector ............................. 1

What is benchmarking? .................................................................................................................. 1Why is benchmarking needed? ..................................................................................................... 2What should be benchmarked? ..................................................................................................... 2Who does the benchmarking? ....................................................................................................... 3What are the benefits of benchmarking? ..................................................................................... 3What extra tasks and costs does benchmarking involve? ....................................................... 4What is the relationship between benchmarking and performance assessment? ................ 4

BENCHMARKING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 5Benchmarking process ........................................................................................................................ 5Categorization of schemes .................................................................................................................. 6

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 11Data requirements .............................................................................................................................. 11Data capture ........................................................................................................................................ 11Data units ............................................................................................................................................. 13Data processing and analysis ............................................................................................................ 13

Partner benchmarking analysis ................................................................................................... 13Partner internal analysis ............................................................................................................... 13

Comparative analysis ......................................................................................................................... 13

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................................... 17Data handling framework................................................................................................................... 17Central processing ............................................................................................................................. 17

Data and information exchange ................................................................................................... 17Roles and responsibilities for implementation .............................................................................. 18Selection of benchmarking partners ................................................................................................ 19

BIBLIGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX A1 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX A2 - PROTOCOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING ............................................................. 29

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 1

Introduction

ORIGINS OF THE BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE IN THE

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR

In a move to address constraints within the irrigationand drainage sector the World Bank has initiated aProgramme of Institutional Reform in Irrigation andDrainage. This programme has three maincomponents:• Performance indicators and benchmarking• Public and private partnerships• Regulatory framework

As part of the performance indicators andbenchmarking component the World Bank hasrequested assistance from IPTRID to initiate a jointstudy to:• identify simple, but effective and universally

applicable performance indicators forbenchmarking

• formulate and field test a benchmarkingmethodology for the irrigation and drainagesector.

It is envisaged that the set of indicators shouldnot be too data intensive (as this discourageswidespread and regular application of themethodology), nor require special field surveys. Amethodology is required which uses data that areroutinely collected during normal management,operation and maintenance processes. The selectedset of indicators should allow for comparativeanalysis of performance between irrigation anddrainage schemes.

In August 2000 IPTRID convened a 2-dayworkshop in Rome with the aim to:• review experiences on performance indicators

and prospects for benchmarking irrigation anddrainage projects

• recommend a work programme to identifybenchmarking indicators, develop abenchmarking methodology and field test thebenchmarking methodology.

The workshop was attended by 18 professionals,with representatives from the World Bank, IPTRID,FAO, IWMI, ILRI, ICID, national governments,

universities, research establishments andconsultants.

This document is one of the outcomes of theworkshop. The authors have been requested toproduce a set of benchmarking guidelines which:• introduce the concept of benchmarking• outline the processes and procedures involved

in benchmarking• detail the implementation plan and programme

derived from the workshop• generate sufficient interest in the process that

partners from a variety of organisations indifferent countries elect to participate in thebenchmarking programme.

What is benchmarking?

Benchmarking can be defined as:“A systematic process for securing continual

improvement through comparison with relevant andachievable internal or external norms andstandards”.

The overall aim of benchmarking is to improvethe performance of an organisation as measuredagainst its mission and objectives. Benchmarkingimplies comparison – either internally with previousperformance and desired future targets, or externallyagainst similar organisations, or organisationsperforming similar functions. Benchmarking is amanagement tool already in use in both the publicand private sector organisations.

Benchmarking is about change, moving from oneposition to a better position. It is important that:• those responsible within the organisation for the

benchmarking programme have the authority tobring about change;

• the change process is fully integrated within theorganisation’s management processes andprocedures.

Irrigation and drainage are essentially servicesto irrigated agriculture – providing and removingwater to suit the crops’ needs. Thus in the irrigationand drainage sector we are interested in improving

Introduction2

the level of service provision to water users, therebyenabling them to maintain or increase levels ofagricultural production.

In approaching benchmarking for the irrigationand drainage sector there are three characteristicsthat need to be borne in mind:• irrigation and drainage service providers operate

in a natural monopoly environment• irrigation and drainage entails complex and

interacting physical, social, economic, political,technical and environmental processes

• performance of irrigation and drainage schemesis site specific.

Why is benchmarking needed?

Benchmarking originated in the corporate businesssector as a means for companies to gauge, andsubsequently improve, their performance relative tokey competitors. By studying key competitors’outputs, and the processes used to achieve thoseoutputs, many organisations have been able to adoptbest management practices and enhance their ownperformance. In some cases organisations have doneso well that they have, in turn, become theorganisation that others use as a benchmark.

There are many reasons why organisations maybe interested in the benchmarking activity. Theprivate sector is primarily driven by a desire toimprove return on investment or return toshareholders; in the public sector the aim is toimprove the level of service provision. In theirrigation and drainage sector service providers areresponding to a variety of “drivers”, including:• Increasing competition for water, both within the

irrigated agriculture sector, and from othersectors

• Increasing demand on the irrigation sector toproduce more food for growing populations.Coupled with the pressure on available waterresources, this results in the “more crop per drop”initiative promoted by international agenciessuch as the International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) and the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) of the United Nations

• Growing pressure to effect cost savings whilstincreasing the productivity and efficiency ofresource use

• Turnover and privatisation of irrigation anddrainage schemes to water users, leading to moretransparent and accountable (to users)management practices

• Increasing interest by the wider community inproductive and efficient water resource use andthe protection of aquatic environments

• Increasing need for accountability to bothgovernment and water users in respect of waterresource use and price paid for water

Different drivers will apply in different situations,it is important at the outset of a benchmarkingprogramme to identify the key drivers that areforcing change within the irrigation and drainagesector.

What should be benchmarked?

The scope of the benchmarking activity isdetermined by the objectives and scale pursued infinding “best management practices”. In any system,such as an irrigation network, there are:• inputs• processes• outputs, and• impacts

Figure 1 outlines these domains, where theirrigation and drainage domain provides a serviceto the irrigated agriculture domain, leading toagricultural production.

In measuring performance we are interested inthe efficiency with which we convert inputs tooutputs, and the potential impacts that (a) the use ofthese inputs (resources) might have and (b) that theoutputs might have on the wider environment. Weare also interested in the efficiency with which theprocesses convert inputs to outputs.

There are a variety of irrigation domains (orsystems) in which we are interested. The three thatare of primary interest are:• Service delivery: This domain includes two areas

of service provision: (a) the adequacy with whichthe organization manages the operation of theirrigation delivery system to satisfy the waterrequired by users (system operation), and (b) theefficiency with which the organization usesresources to provide this service (financialperformance).

• Productive efficiency: Measures the efficiencywith which irrigated agriculture uses waterresources in the production of crops and fibre.

• Environmental performance: Measures theimpacts of irrigated agriculture on land and waterresources.


An additional factor, which needs to beconsidered, is the boundaries of the domains thatare being benchmarked. The boundaries relate tothe physical boundaries and to the depth or detailthe indicators are considered. In general, tobenchmark the physical boundary there will be ahydraulically independent system.

Who does the benchmarking?

Benchmarking can be carried out by a variety oforganisations, including:• private companies• government organisations• regulatory/supervisory organisations• management consultants• independent agencies.

A private company will benchmark itsperformance against other key competitors, agovernment agency might benchmark different unitswithin its organisation, such as hospitals. Aregulatory/supervisory authority (such as agovernment regulatory body) would usebenchmarking to evaluate the performance of a

number of separate entities (such as IrrigationAgencies and Water Users Associations).

In all cases the benchmarking exercise will beinitiated within the organisation and may beexecuted in the main by personnel within theorganisation. In some cases management consultantsmay be called in to provide specialist expertise, oran independent, impartial agency might becommissioned to carry out much of the work.

What are the benefits of benchmarking?

Benchmarking is an important management tool fororganisations that aim to implement a serviceoriented management to their operation.

The benefits of benchmarking to an organisation,if the process is followed correctly, are animprovement in its level of performance. Theperformance improvement is visible in the outputsof the organisation (such as the level of serviceprovided to water users), and in the organisation’sinternal processes.

Benchmarking the activities and processes ofirrigation and drainage organisations can providevaluable insight on how well the organisation isperforming in all areas of service delivery andresource utilisation; and also become an importantelement of the organisation’s accountability to itsshareholders.

In the wider context of irrigation and drainagethe benefits are in more productive and efficient useof resources – land, water, labour, finance andagricultural inputs – leading to more productive andsustainable irrigated agriculture and improvedlivelihoods and well-being of the rural population.In many instances such improvements will have adirect impact on poverty alleviation.

There are a range of beneficiaries to thebenchmarking process:• Water users• Service providers• Government regulatory bodies• Donors and funding agencies

Water users who are paying for irrigation water(and associated management, operation andmaintenance costs) will be interested in ensuringthat best management practices are adopted in orderto minimise costs and optimise level of serviceprovision.

Service providers, whether they be for water,extension advice, inputs, or marketing will beinterested to benchmark their performance in order

Figure 1: Possible benchmarking domains linkedto irrigated agriculture

Introduction4

to improve level of service, minimise costs andmaximise benefits.

Government regulatory bodies can benchmarkdifferent irrigation service providers against bestpractices, either regionally, nationally orinternationally, to drive improvements inperformance.

Donors and funding agencies see benchmarkingas a means to improve standards of performance inthe irrigation and drainage sector, thus making betteruse of investment and contributing to the fight toeradicate poverty and enhance livelihoods. Donorscould use benchmarking as a rational basis forfunding interventions in particular schemes.

What extra tasks and costs does benchmarkinginvolve?

The initial costs, in terms of time and resources,associated with benchmarking need not be high.They relate mainly to the process of data collection,processing and analysis. If sufficient data are notcollected then processes and procedures need to beestablished to collect, process and analyse therequired data. If the appropriate skills to identifythe necessary data, processes and procedures are notavailable within an organisation personnel skilledin benchmarking may need to be employed orexternal assistance may be required.

There may also be costs arising as a consequenceof expenditure required to implement the findingsof the benchmarking analysis, such as purchase ofnew equipment, employment of additional staff, etc.Likewise cost savings may be identified, such ascontracting out work previously done in-house.

An additional cost that needs to be taken intoaccount in the benchmarking process is the time andeffort required by senior management to gainacceptance within the organisation of the need forimprovement and change, and agreement on theactions required to achieve such change. Often thesuccess of the benchmarking activities hinges onthis.

What is the relationship between benchmarkingand performance assessment?

Benchmarking and performance assessment arerelated but different in several ways. Benchmarkingis essentially an externally focused activity. Inbenchmarking the specific aim is to identify keycompetitors/comparable organisations, and find bestmanagement practices for that organisation. Thesethen become standards and/or norms against whichto assess an organisation’s own performance.Performance indicators are specifically identified toenable the comparison, and to monitor progresstowards closing the identified performance gap.Central to the benchmarking process is that theorganisation:• Wants to understand how it is performing relative

to other organisations, or to established standardsand norms; and, crucially

• Is willing and able to implement change withinthe organisation to effect change and bring aboutimprovement in performance.Performance assessment across an organisation

covers a wider range of performance indicators thatare required for day-to-day management. Some ofthese performance indicators will relate to theinternal processes of the organisation and may notbe suitable for use in comparisons with otherorganisations, though they may be invaluable fordiagnostic analysis during the benchmarking processto find the cause of particular levels of performance.In particular, performance assessment is internallyfocused with no reference to the performance ofexternal organisations.


Benchmarking processes and procedures

BENCHMARKING PROCESS

The stages of the benchmarking process are shownin Figure 2 and discussed in more detail below.Sections of these stages are illustrated by referenceto a recent benchmarking study carried out inAustralia (ANCID, 2000).

Stage 1: Identification and planning

Identification and planning is an important startingpoint for benchmarking:• the purpose, drivers and desired outputs of the

benchmarking process• the “customers” – both within and outside the

organisation• what areas of the organisation’s activities are to

be benchmarked• against whom or what is performance to be

benchmarked• indicators of performance• what data is required and how it will be collected

The planning phase of the benchmarking process,like that of many other processes, is one that willdetermine to a large extent the success of thebenchmarking activity. The extent and specificationsof data needed for benchmarking is defined at thisstage. Consistency in the definition of theperformance indicators used for benchmarking isof critical importance to ensure that all the datacollected are comparable.

To facilitate integration and action following theanalysis phase it is important to involve key playersin the benchmarking process at the outset. Thisreduces the resistance to change and makes use ofthe expertise at a variety of levels within theorganisation to facilitate change.

Stage 2: Data collection

The core of any benchmarking exercise is datacollection. In order to enable comparison betweenirrigation and drainage schemes data used forbenchmarking needs to be consistent and

Figure 2: Stages of the benchmarking process

3 Analysis

2 Data

collection

5 Action

6

Monitoring and

evaluation

4 Integration

Benchmarking Process

1 Identification

and planning

Benchmarking processes and procedures6

comparable. This is a crucial aspect that requiresadequate provisions during the identification andplanning phase of the programme.

There are three types of data collection:i. data collected for day-to-day management,

operation and maintenance of the irrigation anddrainage systems

ii. data collected for benchmarking and comparisonwith other systems.

iii. data collected as part of the diagnostic processwithin the benchmarking exercise to identifycauses of performance.

This section is primarily concerned with the datacollection for the benchmarking activity. However,it must be recognised that data collected for the day-to-day operation of the system play a critical role inachieving high performance of service delivery andin helping to interpret the outcomes of thebenchmarking comparison.

A key issue within the irrigation and drainagesector, as mentioned in Part I, is the uniqueness ofeach irrigation and drainage scheme. There aremany variables which influence the performance ofirrigation and drainage schemes, makingcomparative performance difficult. This is one ofthe major challenges to any benchmarking activityin this sector. To be able to group similar types ofsystems for benchmarking purposes it is necessaryto collect background descriptive data on eachscheme. This information includes information suchas the location, climate, water source, type of cropsgrown, irrigated area, average farm size, irrigationmethod, type of management, type of drainage.Further details of the data requirements describingthe irrigation and drainage schemes are provided inTable 1.

Most irrigation and drainage organisationsaround the world are collecting data on variousaspects of their operations. Each organisation,however, is collecting information for its owninternal management processes, and though theremay be some overlap between differentorganisations it is unlikely that there is sufficientdata being collected to undertake a benchmarkingcomparison between organisations. The extent,maturity and accuracy of the data collected also varywidely between organisations.

To enable organisations with different levels ofdata available to participate in the benchmarkinginitiative a range of benchmarking indicators isproposed. The proposed set of indicators requiresa minimal data collection effort that will enable theorganisation to benchmark a wide section of their

management processes against other organisations.It is envisaged that organisations will be able toincorporate a variable number of indicatorsdepending on their current availability ofperformance data. Those with more advancedinformation systems may be able to undertake thebenchmarking activity incorporating most or all ofthese indicators. In fact this list of indicators mustbe viewed by the benchmarking partners as acontinuum of measures in the design of theirbenchmarking plan. This plan often evolvesprogressively with time allowing partners toincorporate new indicators that they may considerrelevant to their operation.

CATEGORIZATION OF SCHEMES

A distinctive feature of irrigation and drainageschemes is their site or region specified nature. Inorder to allow comparisons between irrigation anddrainage schemes they need to be categorised intosimilar types. There are a variety of ways this canbe done.

Following are the categorization headings thatwill be used for benchmarking:• type of control (fixed proportional division,

manual control, automatic control);• type of management (government agency,

private agency, farmer managed);• method of allocation and distribution (supply,

arranged-demand, demand);• climate (humid, arid);• predominate crop type (rice, non-rice,

subsistence/cash cropping);• water availability (abundant, scarce);• water source (surface water, groundwater);• socio-economic setting (gross domestic product,

degree of industrialization, developing /developed nation);

• size (large, small);• location (Asia, Africa, Americas).

In order to group the schemes beingbenchmarked, background data are required as listedin Table 1. This table contains several systemdescriptors, which must be entered in thecorresponding worksheet. Figure 3 shows thespreadsheet proforma for data entry.

��

� ��Code Descriptor Possible options

LocationD1 Country

D2 Continent

D3 Scheme name

D4 Latitude

D5 LongitudeClimate and soilsD6 Climate (select one option) • Arid

• Semi-arid• Humid• Humid tropics

D7 Average annual rainfall (mm)

D8 Average annual reference crop potentialevapotranspiration, Etc (mm)

D9 Peak daily reference crop potentialevapotranspiration, Etc (mm/day)

D10 Predominant soil type(s) and percentage of total areaof each type (select one option)

• Clay• Clay loam• Loam• Silty clay loam• Sand

InstitutionalD11 Year first operational

D12 Type of management (Select one option) • Government agency• Private company• Joint government/local organization/private• Water Users Association/Federation of WUAs

D13 Agency functions (Select one option) • Irrigation and drainage service• Water resources management• Reservoir management• Flood control• Domestic water supply• Fisheries• Other

D14 Type of revenue collection (Select one option) • Tax on irrigated area• Charge on crop type and area• Charge on volume of water delivered charge per

irrigationD15 Land ownership (select one option) • Government

• PrivateSocio-economicD16 (National) Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

D17 Farming system (select one option) • Cash crop• Subsistence cropping• Mixed cash/subsistence

D18 Marketing (Select one option) • Government marketing board• Private traders• Local market• Regional/national market

D19 Pricing (Select one option) • Government controlled prices• Local market prices• International prices

Water source and availabilityD20 Water source (select one option) • Storage on river

• Groundwater• Run-of-the river• Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater

D21 Water availability (Select one option) • Abundant• Sufficient• Water scarcity

D22 Number and duration of irrigation season(s) Number of seasonsNumber of months per season:

• Season 1:• Season 2:• Season 3:


Code Descriptor Possible optionsSizeD23 Commanded (irrigation) area (ha)D24 Total number of water users suppliedD25 Average farm size (ha)D26 Average annual irrigated area (ha)D27 Average annual cropping intensity (%)Infrastructure – IrrigationD28 Method of water abstraction (Select one option) � Pumped diversion

� Gravity diversion� Groundwater

D29 Water delivery infrastructure (length and %) � Open channel� Pipelines� Lined� Unlined

D30 Type and location of water control equipment (Selectone option)

Type:� None� Fixed proportional division� Gated - manual operation� Gated - automatic local control� Gated – automatic central control

Location:� Control structure at main intake only� Control structures at primary and secondary level� Control structures at primary, secondary and tertiary

level.D31 Discharge measurement facilities location and type

(Select one option)Location:

� None� Primary canal level� Secondary canal level� Tertiary canal level� Field level

Type:� Flow meter� Fixed weir or flume� Calibrated sections� Calibrated gates

Infrastructure – DrainageD32 Area service by surface drains (ha)D33 Type of surface drain (Select one option) � Constructed

� NaturalD34 Length of surface drain (km) � Natural

� Constructed� Open� Closed

D35 Area serviced by sub-surface drainage (ha)D36 Number of groundwater level measurement sitesWater allocation and distributionD37 Type of water distribution (Select one option) � On-demand

� Arranged-demand� Supply orientated

D38 Frequency of irrigation scheduling at main canal level(Select one option)

� Daily� Weekly� Twice monthly� Monthly� Seasonally� None

D39 Predominant on-farm irrigation practice (Select oneoption)

� Surface – furrow, basin, border, flood, furrow-in-basin;� Overhead – raingun, lateral move, centre pivot� Drip/trickle� Sub-surface

CroppingD40 Main crops each season with percentages of total

command area� Crop 1:� Crop 2:� Crop 3:� Crop 4:� Crop 5:


Figure 3: Proforma worksheet for entry of system descriptors


Data collection and analysis

DATA REQUIREMENTS

The performance framework adopted for thebenchmarking programme discussed in Introductionincludes the following three domains:

• Service delivery� system operation� financial performance

• Productive efficiency

• Environmental performance

Whilst the quality of irrigation service isimportant and often critical in determining theproductivity of agriculture, there are a number ofother key agricultural processes, inputs and servicesthat contribute to the final product. Thus theperformance indicators that are proposed for use inthe benchmarking exercise are linked to these threedomains, and their inputs, processes, outputs andimpacts.

There are many performance indicators thatmight be used in this context; however for thisbenchmarking exercise only key performanceindicators will be used. These are indicators that,like the share price of a company on the stockexchange, give a usable indication of performance.The key proposed indicators are presented inTable 2. Formulation details for each benchmarkingindicator are provided in Appendix A1.

DATA CAPTURE

To ensure consistency in the comparison of results,organizations joining the benchmarking programmewill need to collect the data required for thecalculation of the benchmarking indicatorsaccording to the specifications and protocolsprovided in Appendix A2.

Partner organizations will carry out the primarydata processing to convert raw data into the formatrequired for input into the benchmarkingspreadsheet. This task must be carried out accordingto the instruction provided.

The spreadsheet workbook provided tobenchmarking partners consists of six worksheetscontaining data in the following categories:• Summary of benchmarking indicators• System descriptors• Irrigation service delivery• Financial performance• Productive efficiency• Environmental performance

Indicator values in the summary worksheet arecalculated automatically after the basic data areentered into the appropriate worksheet without userintervention.

Appendix A2 provides for each indicator thedefinition, measurement specification, processingneeds and an example of the data entry spreadsheet.

Two types of indicators can be consideredaccording to the type of data required:a. Indicators based on primary datab. Indicators based on secondary data

Some indicators are based on primary data thatthe organization must collect either as a normal partof its operation or for the specific purpose ofbenchmarking. Variables such as inflow volumes,revenues collected from water users, and totaloperation expenditure fall into this category.

Some other indicators rely on the use ofsecondary data for their calculation. For example,the calculation of evapotranspiration (Etc) relies onclimatic data for the location of the irrigation schemethat must be provided in the format specified by themethodology for calculating Etc. This type of datamay be collected either by the partner organizationitself or an external organization. Wherever data areprocured from an external organization specialattention must be paid to the data processingmethodology. This is particularly important whendata auditing is necessary to trace possiblecalculation errors.

Data collection and analysis12

Domain Performance indicator Data requiredService deliveryperformance

Total annual volume of irrigation waterdelivery (m3/year)

Total daily measured water delivery to water users

Annual irrigation water delivery per unitcommand area (m3/ha)

Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal command area service by the irrigation system

Annual irrigation water delivery per unitirrigated area (m3/ha)

Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal annual irrigated crop area

Main system water delivery efficiency Total daily measured water delivery to water usersTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system

Annual relative water supply Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal daily measured rainfall over irrigated areaTotal daily/periodic volume of crop water demand, including percolationlosses for rice crops

Annual relative irrigation supply Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal daily/periodic volume of irrigation water demand (crop water demandless excluding effective rainfall), including percolation losses for rice crops

Water delivery capacity Current main canal capacityPeak month irrigation water demand

Security of entitlement supply System water entitlement10 years minimum water availability flow pattern

Financial Cost recovery ratio Total revenues collected from water usersTotal management, operation and maintenance (MOM) cost

Maintenance cost to revenue ratio Total maintenance expenditureTotal revenue collected from water users

Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha) Total management, operation and maintenance expenditureTotal command area serviced by the system

Total cost per person employed on waterdelivery (US$/person)

Total cost of MOM personnelTotal number of MOM personnel employed

Revenue collection performance Total revenues collected from water usersTotal service revenue due

Staffing numbers per unit area (persons/ha) Total number of MOM personnel employedTotal command area serviced by system

Average revenue per cubic metre of irrigationwater supplied (US$/m3)

Total revenues collected from water usersTotal daily measured water delivery to water users

Productiveefficiency

Total gross annual agricultural production(tonnes)

Total tonnage produced under each crop

Total annual value of agricultural production(US$)

Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market price

Output per unit serviced area (US$/ha) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal command area serviced by system

Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal annual irrigated crop area

Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m3) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system

Output per unit water consumed (US$/m3) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal volume of water consumed by the crops (ETc)

Environmentalperformance

Water quality: Salinity (mmhos/cm) Electrical conductivity of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemElectrical conductivity of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system

Water quality: Biological (mg/litre) Biological load of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemBiological load of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system

Water quality: Chemical (mg/litre) Chemical load of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemChemical load of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system

Average depth to watertable (m) Periodic depth measurement to watertableChange in watertable depth over time (m) Periodic depth measurement to watertable over 5 year periodSalt balance (tonnes) Periodic measurement of salt content of irrigation water

Periodic measurement of salt content of drainage water

Table 2: List of proposed key performance indicators


DATA UNITS

In order that the data can be compared acrossdifferent irrigation systems the data should bepresented in the units specified in the data protocolsheets in Appendix A2. Data may be collected andprocessed locally in different units, but should beconverted into the required units before beingentered into the database.

Where currency conversions have been madeinto United States dollars (US$) the rate and dateshould be provided in a footnote. If different ratesand dates are used for individual calculations therate and date for each should be shown.

DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

Partner benchmarking analysis

Much of the data analysis involves compiling ratiosof the data collected to produce the value of therequired performance indicator. This task will beperformed by the spreadsheet template provided.Partner organizations will be responsible forprocessing the raw data collected in conformancewith the protocols outlined in Appendix A2. It isrecognized that past data collected by partnerorganizations may have been collected in a varietyof formats that may not necessarily comply withthese specifications. In such cases, IPTRID willprovide specialized assistance to ensure that dataare processed in a comparable manner.

Partner internal analysis

In some cases the partner organization may wish topursue the data analysis further by using statisticalmethods to analyse internal trends. This type ofanalysis may be especially useful in trying to explaincausative factors of low performance. This mightbe the case, for example, with data on DeliveryPerformance Ratios (DPR) taken at tertiary off takepoints throughout the irrigation network, where theweekly average DPR values might be statisticallyanalysed to obtain seasonal trends or variability(coefficient of variation). Whilst this analysis canbe of considerable (internal) value to the partnerorganization, it is not required for establishing acomparative analysis with other organizations.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The essence of the benchmarking process is toprovide organizations with the ability to comparetheir performance in relation to similar organizationsor similar processes. The comparative analysis willconsist primarily of ranking performance levels forindividual indicators both numerically andgraphically. Table 3 and Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7provide an example of comparative analysis carriedout by the Australian benchmarking programme. Asimilar type of analysis will be carried out in thisprogramme.

Figure 4: Example of comparative plot of irrigation water delivery

Water delivered per unit area

0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.6001.800

Murray

Irrig

ation

Wim

mera-M

allee

Warr

ill

Bunda

berg

Boyn

e Rive

r

Jemalo

ng

G-MW

She

ppar

ton

G-MW

Cent.

Goulbu

rn

G-MW

Mur

ray Vall

ey

G-MW

Nya

h

First

Mildura

Sunlan

ds

Dep

th d

eliver

ed (m)

Data collection and analysis14

Tabl

e 3:

Sel

ectio

n of

dat

a co

llect

ed a

nd a

naly

sed

in A

ustr

alia

n be

nchm

arki

ng e

xerc

ise

(AN

CID

, 200

0)S

chem

ena

me

Irri

gabl

ear

ea ha

Are

air

riga

ted

1998

/99

ha

Irri

gatio

nde

liver

ies

1997

/98

ML

Irri

gatio

nde

liver

ies

1998

/99

ML

Mai

n sy

stem

wat

er d

eliv

ery

effic

ienc

y%

Gro

ssre

venu

es19

98/9

900

0 A

$

Tota

l num

ber

of M

OM

pers

onne

lN

o.

Ave

rage

dept

h to

wat

er-t

able

m

Cos

tre

cove

ryra

tio

Ope

ratin

gco

st/

Rev

enue

%

Mai

nten

ance

cost

/ Rev

enue

%

Tota

l cos

t of

wat

ersu

pply

A$/

ML

Ave

rage

dep

thde

liver

ed to

user

sm

Gro

ssre

venu

e pe

run

it ar

eaA

$/ha

Col

eam

bally

97 0

0068

694

445

673

457

000

81.2

6 53

046

3.3

0.66

50.

10

Jem

alon

g18

334

14 9

4062

795

42 4

2370

.91

522

73.

31.

2352

829

.14

0.28

40.

10

Mur

ray

Irrig

atio

n79

6 76

40

1 04

5 65

81

167

755

79.5

19 1

2512

43.

61.

3729

2814

.50.

000

0.00

Mur

rum

bidg

ee48

0 00

018

0 00

094

9 93

582

3 22

979

.728

225

243

n/a

1.23

2424

32.3

0.45

70.

16

Wes

t Cor

urga

n21

2 00

021

000

84 3

7266

178

87.5

1 92

69

41.

1763

524

.23

0.31

50.

09

Bar

ker-

Bar

amba

h0

8 65

09

285

100

199

3n/

a82

7362

.14

0.10

70.

02

Boy

ne R

iver

03

265

6 41

263

.613

04

n/a

514

22.7

70.

196

0.04

Bun

dabe

rg55

579

59 2

0014

4 35

291

605

100

6 55

037

n/a

2642

64.4

0.15

50.

11

Bur

deki

n R

iver

23 9

8047

846

430

002

375

233

87.4

10 1

0441

428

2321

.24

0.78

40.

21

Con

dam

ine

011

500

58 3

5410

043

36

n/a

2.38

7545

14.3

40.

507

0.04

Daw

son

7 02

17

529

40 0

8914

622

100

153

11n/

a29

027

788

.98

0.19

40.

02

Em

eral

d19

054

23 5

0916

8 76

079

263

98.6

3 66

320

n/a

824

25.0

50.

337

0.16

Eto

n12

000

15 0

0037

711

1 78

943

.880

211

n/a

3271

9.67

0.01

20.

05

Loga

n4

000

3 99

64

072

100

449

4n/

a51

97.4

70.

102

0.11

Low

er M

ary

Riv

er5

110

6 19

020

337

1 92

892

.820

73

n/a

4313

328

3.71

0.03

10.

03

Mar

eeba

-Dim

bula

h15

415

22 1

4011

9 04

472

531

67.1

4 00

426

n/a

2430

38.5

0.32

80.

18

Pio

neer

Val

ley

00

12 1

111

047

100

6 18

94

n/a

1.54

51

459.

410.

000

0.00

Pro

sper

ine

9 00

011

250

1 03

910

01

229

2n/

a3

928

8.95

0.00

90.

11

Sou

th B

urde

kin

27 4

5013

428

67 4

3232

964

411

505

6n/

a0

0.24

50.

11

St G

eorg

e13

084

17 2

8960

697

98 9

8791

.81

654

20n/

a40

3214

.96

0.57

30.

10

War

rill

8 17

08

170

4 98

610

050

35

n/a

5822

120.

550.

061

0.06

Cen

tral I

rrig

. (S

A)

11 0

0011

000

87 0

0094

553

99.1

5 79

723

n/a

1.52

2118

51.2

20.

860

0.53

Gol

den

Hei

gths

738

723

6 02

96

531

100

816

41.

51.

40

0.90

31.

13

Low

er M

urra

y0

056

000

100

09

n/a

0.93

00.

000

0.00

Sun

land

s90

079

46

700

8 25

510

091

85

1.2

1.1

757

89.4

21.

040

1.16


Sche

me

nam

eIrr

igab

lear

ea ha

Are

airr

igat

ed19

98/9

9ha

Irrig

atio

nde

liver

ies

1997

/98

ML

Irrig

atio

nde

liver

ies

1998

/99

ML

Mai

n sy

stem

wat

er d

eliv

ery

effic

ienc

y%

Gro

ssre

venu

es19

98/9

900

0 A

$

Tota

l num

ber

of M

OM

pers

onne

lN

o.

Ave

rage

dept

h to

wat

er-ta

ble

m

Cos

tre

cove

ryra

tio

Ope

ratin

gco

st/

Rev

enue

%

Mai

nten

ance

cost

/ Rev

enue

%

Tota

l cos

t of

wat

ersu

pply

A$/

ML

Ave

rage

dep

thde

liver

ed to

user

sm

Gro

ssre

venu

e pe

run

it ar

eaA

$/ha

Cre

ssy-

Long

ford

4 00

02

000

6 18

23

821

100

207

3n/

a0.

5313

554

102.

070.

191

0.10

Sou

thea

st (T

as)

3 80

01

373

2 49

02

280

100

422

2n/

a0.

2828

350

616.

230.

166

0.31

Win

nale

ah5

967

1 22

64

844

3 48

510

023

62

n/a

2.56

239

1717

3.6

0.28

40.

19

Firs

t Mild

ura

8 05

86

667

51 0

7754

307

814

586

27n/

a1.

220

1567

.17

0.81

50.

69G

-MW

Mur

ray

Val

ley

128

268

81 4

1034

2 61

237

4 51

969

.58

736

463.

11.

2518

1918

.61

0.46

00.

11

G-M

W S

hepp

arto

n82

460

54 1

4021

1 35

217

4 90

466

.54

994

313.

40.

9620

3031

.03

0.32

30.

09G

-MW

Cen

t.G

oulb

urn

172

131

119

592

472

618

410

623

69.6

10 8

3065

2.3

1.07

1927

29.0

70.

343

0.09

G-M

W R

oche

ster

117

066

66 7

3026

3 23

322

5 00

787

.84

930

392.

51.

0822

2027

.60.

337

0.07

G-M

W P

yram

id-

Boo

rt18

6 48

110

9 01

827

7 67

223

0 55

581

.34

716

321.

90.

828

2725

.64

0.21

10.

04

G-M

W T

orru

mba

rry

173

366

130

152

479

173

551

619

72.9

11 4

1881

1.5

1.19

2018

19.2

20.

424

0.09

G-M

W N

yah

1 61

61

035

6 19

66

755

91.1

508

6n/

a1.

2637

1859

.22

0.65

30.

49

G-M

W T

resc

o1

902

884

4 94

65

431

94.3

403

21.

51.

2927

2567

.02

0.61

40.

46

G-M

W W

oorin

en2

804

06

522

6 48

969

540

31.

51.

1117

4584

.30.

000

0.00

Bac

chus

Mar

sh1

834

1 30

04

520

2 68

868

.850

13

n/a

1818

218.

010.

207

0.39

Mac

alis

ter

55 0

0037

387

133

000

138

150

62.3

5 52

531

n/a

1919

37.9

60.

370

0.15

Wer

ribee

3 36

63

010

11 2

129

009

82.7

1 37

07

n/a

1415

156.

90.

299

0.46

Sun

rays

ia10

672

1067

210

2 41

085

278

81.2

11 3

8260

3.1

1.48

2719

91.4

90.

799

1.07

Wim

mer

a-M

alle

e3

100

019

584

17 1

8354

.215

123

72

1.44

1416

110.

70.

000

0.00

Car

narv

on2

000

950

2450

1 40

088

.92

829

16n/

a0.

8862

063

0.63

0.14

72.

98

Ord

Riv

er13

000

13 0

0018

0 00

021

0 00

075

1 60

018

443

425.

481.

615

0.12

Sou

th W

est (

WA

)11

2 00

09

780

81 1

7683

098

71.5

4 07

227

n/a

1.31

2519

32.4

10.

850

0.42

Not

e: A

$1 =

US$

0.55

(200

0 pr

ices

)

��"

��!��

��"��

��#��

:DWHU�GHOLYHU\�HIILFLHQF\

020

4060

80100

120

6RXWK�%XUGHNLQ

%R\QH�5LYHU

*�0:�:RRULQHQ

6RXWK�:HVW��:$�

0XUUXPELGJHH

*�0:�3\UDPLG��

*�0:�5RFKHVWHU

/RZHU�0

DU\�5LYHU

%DUNHU�%DUDPEDK

/RJDQ

*ROGHQ�+HLJWKV

6RXWKHDVW��7DV�

3HUFHQWDJH�GHOLYHUHG

&RVW�UHFRYHU\�UDWLRV

00.5

11.5

2

2.53

&ROHDPEDOO\

%XUGHNLQ�5LYHU/RJDQ

6RXWK�%XUGHNLQ

0DFDOLVWHU

&UHVV\�/RQJIRUG

*�0:�6KHSSDUWRQ

*�0:�:RRULQHQ

-HPDORQJ

*�0:�7UHVFR

:LPPHUD�0DOOHH

&RQGDPLQH

&RVW�5HFRYHU\�5DWLR

*URVV�UHYHQXH�SHU�XQLW�LUULJDWHG�DUHD

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.002000.00

2500.00

3000.00

3500.00

0XUUD\�,UULJDWLRQ

:LPPHUD�0DOOHH

&RQGDPLQH

:DUULOO

:HVW�&RUXUJDQ

-HPDORQJ

%XQGDEHUJ

0DFDOLVWHU

:LQQDOHDK

6RXWK�:

HVW��:$�

&HQWUDO�,UULJ��6$�

6XQODQGV

*URVV�UHYHQXH�SHU�XQLW�LUULJDWHG�DUHD�

�$��KD�


Programme implementation

Table 4: Proposed website map for CentralDatabase and Processing Unit (CDPU)

Item Description

Start-up kit Replica of start-up kit provided topartners on diskette available onWebsite.

Partners dataspreadsheet

Individual spreadsheets submitted bypartners’ organizations by e-mail orposted diskette.

Benchmarkinganalysis

The collected data will be tabulated(Table 3) and analysed to produceinformation such as that presented inFigures 3, 4, 5 and 6. In these casesthe data have been processed andranked in ascending order. Eachirrigation scheme can then see whereit is placed relative to other schemes.The use of graphs facilitates theunderstanding of the data. To aid ininterpreting these data the data listedin Table 1 will be made available to allpartner organizations.

Publicationsand documents

Listing of documents and reportsprepared in relation to thebenchmarking programme includingbenchmarking concept paper,guidelines and other relevantpublications.

Discussionforum

Space available for partners wantingto post questions and shareinformation. Functionality must allowother partner organizations or CDPUto answer queries and participate indiscussion.

DATA HANDLING FRAMEWORK

There will be two levels of data handling withinthe benchmarking programme, which will involvethe partner organization itself or a National FocalUnit (NFU) at the country level and the CentralDatabase and Processing Unit (CDPU). Basic datawill be collected and processed by the partnerorganization or the NFU before it is entered intothe benchmarking database according to theprotocols provided in Appendix A2.

The relation between partner organizations orNFU and the CDPU is depicted in Figure 7. Thisstructure is designed to maximize the flexibility ofdata collection and the ability to share data betweenthe partner organizations. It is envisaged that datasharing through the CDPU will subsequentlyencourage “one-to-one” exchange of data andinformation between the partner organizations. TheCDPU will host a Website that will be jointlymaintained by IPTRID and IWMI.

Partner organizations will have two options tocapture data either:a. directly into the tailor-made benchmarking

template via the Internet, orb. into a tailor-made benchmarking template

provided on a computer disk.

Once the data have been entered on the disk thedisk can be uploaded directly via the Internet orposted to the CDPU and will become part of theIPTRID central benchmarking database.

The CDPU will have two functions:a. warehousing benchmarking databases from

partner organizations to enable data sharing; and,b. host software and carry out comparative

performance analysis.

At least in the initial stages of the programme,the CDPU will periodically be required to produceprinted reports, which will be made available tothose benchmarking partners, which may not haveaccess to Internet facilities.

CENTRAL PROCESSING

Data and information exchange

The main aim of the benchmarking programmeis to enable the partner organizations to access dataand information that has been collected andpresented in a comparative format. The CDPU willenable the partner organizations to access individualdatabases submitted by other partner organizationsand present comparative analyses carried out fromthe partners’ spreadsheets. A proposed map of theCentral Benchmarking Website is shown in Table 4.Partner organisations will be able to carry outanalysis and comparison using various criteriaprovided by the system descriptors.

Programme implementation18

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of the benchmarkingprogramme will rely on the establishment of a loosenetwork of partner organizations centrallycoordinated by the IPTRID Programme and assistedby the World Bank, IWMI and ICID.

IPTRID will have overall responsibility forcoordinating and providing support to thebenchmarking partner agencies. It will coordinateand assist the development and implementation ofdata collection by the benchmarking partners andexchange protocols to ensure transportability ofresults between partners. IPTRID in collaborationwith IWMI will also be responsible for establishingand maintaining the Central Database andProcessing Unit whose responsibilities have beenoutlined above. Where necessary, IPTRID willprovide benchmarking partners with specializedassistance for implementation of the programme.

The World Bank will provide overall support forthe programme through IPTRID and directassistance to country agencies when appropriate.

IWMI will develop and manage the database onbehalf of IPTRID, building on their previous

experience with comparative performanceassessment of irrigation and drainage systems.

The ICID will provide general support forprogramme dissemination and advocacy, support topartner organizations and dissemination through aTask Force formed by members of the WorkingGroup on Development and Management ofIrrigation Systems, the Working Group on Irrigationand Drainage Performance as well as nationalcommittees involved in this programme. In caseswhere the partner organization requires assistancewith communication, exchange and transmittal ofdata with the CDPU national committees membersmay be able to assist with this task. ICID NationalCommittee members can also play an important rolefacilitating the exchange of information and datadirectly between partner organizations.

Periodic reviews of the programme will berequired to ensure that the programme remainsflexible and relevant to the benchmarking partners.New performance indicators may need to be addedin the future to ensure that emerging issues inirrigation and drainage are reflected in theprogramme.

Figure 8: Data collection and transmittal framework

PO1PO2

PO3

PO4

PO5

PO6CDPU

IPTRID

Flow of benchmarking data and information between partners and CDPU

Flow of information between partners

PO = Partner organization


SELECTION OF BENCHMARKING PARTNERS

In principle the decision to join the benchmarkinginitiative must be taken by the partner organizationsthemselves. However, benchmarking is a tool ofmanagement to improve the performance of servicedelivery, productivity of agriculture andenvironmental performance; and as such, certaincriteria must be met in order to gain benefits fromthis activity.

Whilst the criteria for selection of partners inthe benchmarking initiative must be flexible, it isdesirable in the initial stages of the programme tominimize the spread of physical and managerialcharacteristics of the participating irrigationschemes. Relevant criteria for the selection ofpartners are considered to be:

Institutional and managerial criteria:

• A government organization, or an organization,which has full authority and control over themanagement, operation and maintenance of theirrigation and/or drainage system(s).

• Organizations that aim to adopt service-orientated management and improve the qualityof water delivery and/or drainage service towater users.

• Clearly identified drivers pushing the need forchange and performance enhancement within thewater resources or irrigation and drainagesector(s).

• Identified key personnel within the organizationwith the authority and drive to introduce andimplement the benchmarking process.

• Irrigation systems where water supplies areplanned, scheduled and monitored.

Physical criteria

• Gravity open channel distribution systemconsisting of at least main and secondary canalssupplying water to individual users or usersgroups.

• Control structures at primary and secondarycanal level.

• Discharge measurement facilities at key locations(either through measuring structures or calibratedsections).

Programme implementation20


Bibligraphy

ANCID 2000. 1998/99. Australian irrigation waterprovider – Benchmarking Report. Victoria,Australia. 68 pp.

ARMCANZ. 1999. The 1997/98. Australian irrigationwater provider benchmarking report. 51 pp.

Abernethy, C.L. 1990. Indicators and criteria of theperformance of irrigation systems. Paper presentedat the FAO Regional Workshop on ImprovedIrrigation System Performance for SustainableAgriculture, Bangkok, Thailand, 22-26 October.

Bottrall, A.F. 1981. Comparative study of themanagement and organization of irrigation projects.World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 458, WorldBank, Washington D.C.

Bos, M.G., Murray-rust, D.H., Merrey, D.J., Johnson,H.G. & Snellen, W.B. 1994. Methodologies forassessing performance of irrigation and drainagemanagement. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Vol.7, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Bos, M.G. & Nugteren, J. 1990. On irrigationefficiencies. 4th edition. ILRI Publication 19,International Institute for land Reclamation andImprovement, Wageningen.

Bos, M.G. 1997. Performance assessment for irrigationand drainage. Irrigation and Drainage Systems,Vol.11, Kluwer Academic Publishers, TheNetherlands.

Burt, C.M. and Styles, S.W. Modern water control andmanagement practices: Impact on performance.Water Report 19, FAO/IPTRID/World Bank,published by Food and Agriculture Organization,Rome.

Dastane, N. D. 1974. Effective rainfall in irrigatedagriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. 61pp, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization,United Nations.

LWRRDC. 1998. Report of the national programme forirrigation R&D benchmarking project. Land &Water Resources Research & DevelopmentCorporation, Canberra, Australia.

Malano, H. & Hofwegen, P.V. 1999. Management ofIrrigation and Drainage Systems: A Service

Approach. IHE Monograph 3. A. A. Balkema. TheNetherlands. 149 pages.

Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use andproductivity. SWIM Paper 1, International IrrigationManagement Institute, Colombo.

Molden, D.J. & Gates, T.K. 1990. Performancemeasures for evaluation of irrigation water deliverysystems. Journal of Irrigation and DrainageEngineering, ASCE, Vol. 116 (6).

Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., deFraiture, C. & Kloezen, W. 1998. Indicators forcomparing performance of irrigated agriculturalsystems. Research report 20, International WaterManagement Institute, Colombo.

Murray-Rust, D.H. & Snellen, W.B. 1993. Irrigationsystem performance assessment and diagnosis. JointIIMI/ILRI/IHEE Publication, InternationalIrrigation Management Institute, Colombo, SriLanka.

Oad, R. & McCornick, P.G. 1989. Methodology forassessing the performance of irrigated agriculture.ICID Bulletin Vol.38, No. 1, InternationalCommission on Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi,India.

Rao, P.S. 1993. Review of selected literature onindicators of irrigation performance. IIMI ResearchPaper No.13, International Irrigation ManagementInstitute, Colombo.

Sakthivadivel, R., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D.J., Perry,C. & Kloezen, W. Indicators of land and waterproductivity in irrigated agriculture. WaterResources Development, Vol. 15, No.1 and 2.

Smith, M. 1990. Introduction to irrigation systemperformance: Comparative analysis of case studies.Paper presented at the FAO Regional Workshop onImproved Irrigation System Performance forSustainable Agriculture, Bangkok, Thailand, 22-26October.

Small, L.E. & Svendsen, M. 1992. A framework forassessing irrigation performance. IFPRI WorkingPapers on Irrigation Performance No.1, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.,August.

Bibliography22

Wolters, W. & Bos, M.G. 1990. Irrigation performanceassessment and irrigation efficiency. 1989 AnnualReport, International Institute for Land Reclamationand Improvement, Wageningen.

Zhi, Mao. 1989. Identification of causes of poorperformance of a typical large-sized irrigationscheme in South China. ODI/IIMI Irrigationmanagement Network Paper 89/1b, OverseasDevelopment Institute, London.


Appendix A1Performance indicators

1 Agriculture year is defined as a 12-month period that begins at the start of a cropping season. If more than one cropping season peryear is practiced in the system, the beginning of year should be as closely aligned as possible to the beginning of the financial year.

SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE

(a) System operationIndicator Definition Data specifications

Total annual volumeof irrigation waterdelivery (MCM)

Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the irrigation/agriculture1 year. Waterusers in this context describe the recipients ofirrigation service, these may include singleirrigators or groups or irrigators organized intowater user groups.

Measured at the interface between the irrigationagency and water users.

Total annual volumeof irrigation supply(MCM)

Total annual volume of water diverted orpumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage)

Measured at the diversion point in case of gravitydiversions or at the pump delivery of groundwateror river pumps.

Total annual volumeof water supply(MCM)

Total volume of surface diversions into thescheme and net groundwater abstraction forirrigation, plus total rainfall, excluding anyrecirculating internal drainage within thescheme.

Surface diversions are measured at the diversionpoint and groundwater abstractions are measuredat the pump delivery of groundwater or riverpumps.

Annual irrigationwater supply per unitcommand area(m3/ha)

Total annual volume of irrigation supply

Total command area of the system

Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total command area of the system: The command area is the nominal or design areaprovided with irrigation infrastructure.

Annual irrigationwater supply per unitirrigated area(m3/ha)


Total annual irrigated crop area

Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total annual irrigated crop area: The total irrigated area during the year.

Main system waterdelivery efficiency

Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery

Total annual volume of irrigation water supply

Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this context describethe recipients of irrigation service, these mayinclude single irrigators or groups or irrigatorsorganized into water user groups.Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).

Annual relativewater supply

Total annual volume of water supply

Total annual volume of crop water demand

Total annual volume of water supply: Total volume of surface diversions into the schemeand net groundwater abstraction for irrigation, plustotal rainfall, excluding any recirculating internaldrainage water within the scheme.Total annual volume of crop water demand: Total annual volume of water used by the crop tomeet evapotranspiration demand. For rice,percolation losses must be included.

Appendix A1 - Performance indicators24

Indicator Definition Data specificationsAnnual relativeirrigation supply Total annual volume of irrigation supply

Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand

Total annual volume of irrigation supply:Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand:Total annual volume of irrigation water required bythe crop less effective rainfall. For paddy rice,percolation losses must be included.

Water deliverycapacity

Canal capacity to deliver water at system head

Peak irrigation water consumptive demand

Canal capacity to deliver water at system head:Actual discharge capacity of main canal atdiversion point.Peak irrigation water consumptive demand: The peak crop irrigation water requirement for amonthly period expressed as a flow rate at thehead of the irrigation system.

Submergence ofdrainage outlet

Number of days with submerged outlet Number of days with submerged outlet:Number of days in which the drainage systemdoes not have a free outlet.

Security ofentitlement supply

Irrigation water entitlement and probability ofmeeting entitlement

System water entitlement:The bulk volume or bulk discharge of water towhich the scheme is entitled per annum.Security of supply:The frequency with which the irrigationorganization is capable of supplying theestablished system water entitlements


1 All financial quantities are aggregates for the entire financial year that applies in the system concerned.

(b) Financial indicatorsIndicator Definition Data specifications

Cost recovery ratio

Gross revenue collected1

Total MOM cost

Gross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenancecost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure anddepreciation/renewals.

Maintenance costto revenue ratio Maintenance cost

Gross revenue collected

Maintenance cost: Total expenditure on system maintenanceGross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.

Total MOM costper unit area(US$/ha) Total MOM cost

Total irrigated area serviced by the system

Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenancecost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure anddepreciation/renewals.Total annual irrigated area serviced by the system: The total actual irrigated area during the year.

Total cost perperson employedon water delivery(US$/person)

Total cost of personnel engaged in I&D service

Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service

Total cost of personal engaged in I&D service: Total cost of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service: Total number of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.

Revenuecollectionperformance


Gross revenue invoiced

Gross revenue collected:. Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Gross revenue invoiced: Total revenue due for collection from water usersfor provision of irrigation and drainage services.

Staffing numbersper unit area(Persons/ha)

Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service

Total annual irrigated area serviced by the system

Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service: Total number of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.Total annual irrigated area serviced by thesystem:Total actual irrigated area during the year.

Average revenueper cubic metre ofirrigation watersupplied (US$/m3)



Gross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year or season. Water users in thiscontext describe the recipients of irrigationservice, these may include single irrigators orgroups or irrigators organized into water usergroups.

Total MOM costper unit volumesupplied Total MOM cost


Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigationand drainage service excluding capitalexpenditure and depreciation/renewals.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this contextdescribe the recipients of irrigation service, thesemay include single irrigators or groups orirrigators organized into water user groups.


PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY

Agricultural productivity and economicsIndicator Definition Data specifications

Total gross annualagriculturalproduction(tonnes)

Total annual tonnage of agricultural production bycrop type.

Total annual valueof agriculturalproduction (US$)

Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.

Output per unitcommand area(US$/ha) Total annual value of agricultural production

Total command area of the system

Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total command area of the system: The command area is the nominal or designarea provided with irrigation infrastructure

Output per unitirrigated area(US$/ha)

Total annual value of agricultural production

Total annual irrigated area

Total annual irrigated area: The total actual irrigated area during the year.

Output per unitirrigation delivery(US$/m3)

Total annual value of agricultural production


Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this contextdescribes the recipients of irrigation service, thismay include single irrigators or groups orirrigators organised into water user groups.

Output per unitirrigation supply(US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production


Total annual value of agricultural production:. Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow: Total annual volume of water diverted orpumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage).

Output per unitwater supply(US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production

Total annual volume of water supply

Total annual value of agricultural production:. Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of water supply: Total volume of surface diversions into thescheme and net group water abstractions forirrigation plus total rainfall excluding anyrecirculating internal drainage water within thescheme.

Output per unitcrop waterdemand (US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production

Total annual volume of crop water demand

Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of crop water demand Total volume of water consumed by the crop tomeet evapotranspiration demand. For rice cropsthis includes deep percolation losses.


ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Indicator Definition Data specificationsWater quality: Salinity(dS/m).

Salinity (electrical conductivity) of the irrigation supplyand drainage water.

Water quality: Biological(mg/litre)

Biological load of the irrigation supply and drainagewater expressed as Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD)

Water quality: Chemical(mg/litre).

Chemical load of the irrigation supply and drainagewater expressed as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).

Average depth towatertable (m)

Average annual depth of watertable calculated fromwatertable observations over the irrigation area.

Change in watertabledepth over time (m)

Change in watertable depth over the last five years.

Salt balance (tonnes) Differences in the volume of incoming salt and outgoingsalt.


Appendix A2Protocols for data collection and processing

Data item No.1 Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery

Definition Total volume of water delivered to water users over the year or season. Water users in thiscontext describe the recipients of irrigation service, these may include single irrigators orgroups or irrigators organized into water user groups.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Measurement should occur at the point of interface between the irrigation provider and thewater user(s).

Frequency:

The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should be monitored at least twice daily to ensuresufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoring ofdischarge by electronic monitoring devices.

Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery volume using the actualdelivery time. The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume ofsupply.

Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3)

Data item No.2 Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow

Definition Total annual volume of water diverted or pumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage).

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Inflow will be measured at the diversion point in case of gravity diversions or at the pumpdelivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where there are additional inflowsand/or diversions for any purpose other than irrigation, e.g. urban supply, industrial supply,etc. a mass balance of the net inflow for irrigation must be carried out. Inflows from drainagerecovery must be deducted from the inflow amount whereas catchment inflows must beincluded as irrigation diversions.

Frequency:

The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should normally be monitored at least twice daily toensure sufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoringof discharge by electronic monitoring devices.

Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery using the actual deliverytime.

The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume of supplyconverted into daily volume.

Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3).

Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing30

Data item No.3 Total annual volume of water supply

Definition Total volume of surface diversions into the scheme and net groundwater abstraction forirrigation, plus total effective rainfall, excluding any recirculating internal drainage water within thescheme.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Inflow will be measured at the diversion point in case of gravity diversions or at the pumpdelivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where there are additional inflowsand/or diversions for any purpose other than irrigation, e.g. urban supply, industrial supply,etc. a mass balance of the net inflow for irrigation must be carried out. Inflows from drainagerecovery must be deducted from the inflow amount whereas catchment inflows must beincluded as irrigation diversions. The use of the USDA-SCS model is recommended for thecalculation of effective rainfall.

Frequency:

The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should normally be monitored at least twice daily toensure sufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoringof discharge by electronic monitoring devices.

Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery using the actual deliverytime.

The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume of supplyconverted into daily volume.

Effective rainfall should be calculated at least on a monthly basis using the USDA-SCSmethodology.


Data item No. Submergence of drainage outlet

Definition Number of days in which the drainage system outlet is submerged

Measurement

specifications

Location:

The water level will be measured at the system outlet either in the channel or the collectingsump. In either case the water level in the receiving channel or collecting sump should notbe hither than the invert level of the outlet pipe.

Frequency:

The water level will be monitored on a daily basis in the channel or collecting sump at thedrainage outlet. A minimum period of 6 to 12 hours is required for the outlet to beconsidered submerged.

Processing The total number of days with submerged outlet is the aggregate of days which meet thesubmergence criteria.

Units Expressed in number of days.

Data item No.5 Total command area of the system

Definition The command area is the nominal or design area provided with irrigation infrastructure.

Measurement

specifications

This area is usually derived from the design drawings for the irrigation system. Over timeareas may go out of production due to a variety of factors, including construction of houses,buildings, drainage channels, etc. Adjustments should be made to the command area toallow for this reduction in irrigable area.

Processing The command areas for each tertiary unit are measured and aggregated up for the wholesystem.

Units Expressed in hectares (ha).


Data item No.6 Total annual irrigated crop area

Definition The total irrigated area cropped during the year.

Measurement

specifications

This value is the aggregate result of the total area under cultivation or alternatively the totalarea nominally commanded by the system multiplied by a cropping intensity factor to takeinto account the actual intensity of land utilization during the year.

Processing The area cultivated in each cropping season is the aggregate of the areas planted to eachindividual crop. The annual irrigated area is the aggregate value of the each season’scropped area. These data are usually collected by the irrigation and drainage organizationfor operation and accounting purpose and/or by other related agencies that compileproduction statistics.

Units Expressed in hectares (ha).

Example For instance, if the area commanded by the irrigation system is 10,000 ha and the areascultivated during the year are: wet season 8,000 ha, and dry season 6,000 ha, the total areairrigated by the system is 14,000 ha. The cropping intensity is 1.4.

Data item No.7 Total annual volume of crop water demand

Definition Total annual volume of water used by the crop to meet evapotranspiration demand. For rice,percolation losses must be included.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Crop evapotranspiration will be calculated using the FAO CROPWAT model for the net areaplanted to each crop in the irrigated command area.

Frequency:

The preferred Etc calculation period is daily. In situations where daily data are not availablethe shortest possible interval is to be used. The calculation of Etc will include the entiregrowing season from planting to harvest.

Processing The total annual volume of water consumed by all crops grown in the system is theweighted sum of the water consumed by individual crops as follows:

��

cropsiic xAEtcVEt

Where:

Vetc = Total volume of water consumed by crops (m3)

Etci = Evapotranspiration from crop i, from planting to harvest (m3)

Ai = Area planted to crop i.

For rice crops the average percolation rate will be multiplied by the crop area and growthperiod to obtain the total percolation volume.

Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3)


Data item No.8 Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand

Definition Total annual volume of irrigation water required by the crop less effective rainfall. For paddyrice, percolation losses must be included.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Crop evapotranspiration will be calculated using the FAO CROPWAT model for the net areaplanted to each crop in the irrigated command area. Estimation of effective rainfall may proveto be difficult in some circumstances. There are a variety of methods included in CROPWATfor estimating effective rainfall (Dastane, 1974). The use of the USDA-SCS model isrecommended.

Frequency:

The preferred Etc calculation period is daily. In situations where daily data are not availablethe shortest possible interval is to be used. The calculation of Etc will include the entiregrowing season from planting to harvest.

Processing The total annual volume of water consumed by all crops grown in the system is the weightedsum of the water consumed by individual crops as follows:

VETNet = ? (Etci - Re)Ai

where:

VETNet = Total volume of water consumed by crops less effective rainfall (m3)

i = Crop type

Etci = Evapotranspiration from crop i from planting to harvest (m3)

Re = Effective rainfall over crop area from planting to harvest (m3)

Ai = Area planted to crop i. (ha)

For rice crops the average percolation rate will be multiplied by the crop area and growthperiod to obtain the total percolation volume.


Data item No.9 Canal capacity to deliver water at system head

Definition Actual discharge capacity of main canal at diversion point.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Discharge capacity must be determined at the system head assuming canal freeboardaccording to canal design specifications.

If not yet available, it can be determined using any accepted flow measuring techniqueincluding: flow metering, measuring flumes and control sections.

Frequency

Needs to be determined annually at the start of the irrigation season.

Processing

Units Expressed in cubic metres per second (m3/s))

Data item No.10 Peak irrigation water consumptive demand

Definition The peak crop irrigation water requirement for a monthly period expressed as a flow rate atthe head of the irrigation system.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

The calculation is based on the maximum monthly crop water requirement in the system. Thefield, distribution and main system conveyance efficiency must be used to index this value tothe head of the system. For paddy rice the peak requirement may occur during the landpreparation stage.

Frequency:

Calculated each season.

Processing The maximum monthly crop water requirement should be available from the calculation ofcrop water requirements for the entire system. The main system delivery efficiency must becalculated according to the definition provided in Appendix A1.

Units Expressed in cubic metres per second (m3/s).

��

Data item No.11 System water entitlement

Definition The bulk volume or bulk discharge of water to which the scheme is entitled per annum.

Measurement

specifications

The bulk water entitlement may be defined in terms of an average volume entitlement ordischarge entitlement or as a variable quantity related to the availability of water resourceseach year. A volume entitlement is more common in regulated systems whereas a dischargeentitlement is more common in run-of-the-river systems. If a security level is attached to thisvalue, this must be entered in the security of supply cell in the data spreadsheet.

Units Expressed in m3 (volume) or m3/s (discharge).

Data item No.12 Security of supply

Definition The frequency with which the irrigation organization is capable of supplying the established systemwater entitlements.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Water entitlements will be specified at the delivery point. For individual water users this is thetotal amount of water available to the farm or per unit area. For user groups this is the amountof water available at the point where the user group becomes responsible for distribution ofwater. In situations where only a bulk entitlement is defined at the system inlet, this can beconverted into user entitlement by using the appropriate main system water deliveryefficiency.

Frequency:

This entitlement is usually only specified once, but in some localities it is specified annually.

Processing Two quantities are required to specify the security of supply: (a) The volume of waterentitlement and (b) the associated level of exceedence probability.

Units Percentage of years that the water right can be guaranteed to be available.

Data item No.13 Gross revenue collected

Definition Total revenues collected from payment of services by water users.

Measurement

specifications

This item includes all the revenues (cash and in-kind) received by the irrigation or drainageservice provider as payment for water supply and disposal, and other services using theagency’s infrastructure. Where drainage charges are levied separately these must beincluded in the calculation.

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. Where services are charged on a differentbasis, e.g. seasonal, bi-annually, etc. the partial figures must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.

Payment made in kind must be converted into monetary terms, either using local marketprices for the in-kind commodity, or at rates stipulated in the service agreement.

Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.

Data item No.14 Total MOM cost

Definition Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure and depreciation/renewals.

Measurement

specifications

This item includes all costs involved in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.Typically these include:

o Bulk water fee

o Staff cost

o Operation cost (e.g. electricity for operation of plant and equipment and watersupply)

o Maintenance cost

o Overheads (include administrative expenses, insurances, taxes, etc.)

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All costs items must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.



Data item No.15 Maintenance cost

Definition Total expenditure on system maintenance

Measurement

specifications

This item includes all the costs associated with maintenance of the irrigation and drainageinfrastructure either carried out by the organization or by external contractors. It should notinclude major repairs or rehabilitation work.

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All maintenance costs items must beaggregated annually according to the financial calendar of the organization.


Data item No.16 Total cost of personnel engaged in I&D service

Definition Total cost of personnel employed in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.

Measurement

specifications

This item includes the cost of all personnel employed by the organization includingcontractors and contract employees engaged in the administration, management andoperation.

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All personnel cost items must be aggregatedannually according to the financial calendar of the organization.


Data item No.17 Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service

Definition Total number of personnel employed in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.

Measurement

specifications

This item includes all personnel employed by the service provider including contractors andcontract employees engaged in the management, operation and maintenance. It must beexpressed in Equivalent Full Time (EFT) units.

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All personnel must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization and expressed in EFT units.

Units Expressed in Equivalent Full Time units. The time of part-time or seasonally employedpersonnel should be converted to the equivalent full time employment based on the proportionof full time worked.

Example Full time weekly hours: 38 hours EFT = 1.0Employee working 19 hrs part-time per week EFT = 0.5

Data item No.18 Gross revenue invoiced

Definition Total revenue due for collection from water users for provision of irrigation and drainageservices.

Measurement

specifications

This item includes all fees levied (cash and in-kind) by the service provider in payment forwater supply and other services provided by the irrigation and drainage infrastructure. Wheredrainage charges are levied separately these must be included in the calculation.

Processing A single annual value is required for this item. Where services are charged on a differentbasis, e.g. seasonal, bi-annually, etc. the partial figures must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.

Payment to be made in kind must be converted into monetary terms, either using localmarket prices for the in-kind commodity, or at rates stipulated in the service agreement.



Data item No.19 Gross annual agricultural production

Definition Total annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type.

Measurement

Specifications

Total tonnage of utilizable production obtained from each crop.

Processing Records normally compiled by the irrigation and drainage organization or related agriculturalorganizations are adequate for this purpose.

Units Expressed in metric tonnes (t).

Data item No.20 Total annual value of agricultural production

Definition Total annual value of agricultural production received by producers.

Measurement

specifications

The total value of agricultural production received by producers is determined at local(domestic) market prices. For international comparison this value will be converted into acommon measure as described below.

Processing The total gross value of production is calculated as follows:

MUPYAGVPcrops

iii ��

�

�

��

�

��

Where:

Yi= yield of crop i,

Ai= Area planted to crop i,

Pi= local price of crop I,

MU = currency exchange rate (USUS$/unit local currency)


Data item No.21 .Water quality: Salinity

Definition Salinity (electrical conductivity) of the irrigation supply and drainage water

Measurement

specifications

Location:

The salinity of irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case of gravitydiversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where thereare additional inflows these should be monitored separately.

The salinity of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flows leave theirrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake, etc.

Frequency:

The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desired frequencyof measurement. Weekly or monthly readings are typically used.

Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of irrigation supply water ordrainage water occurring during the measuring period.

Units Expressed in micro mhos per centimetre (mmhos/cm).


Data item No.22 Water quality: Biological

Definition Biological load of the irrigation supply and drainage water expressed as Biochemical OxygenDemand (BOD)

Measurement

specifications

Location:

The biological load of the irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.

The biological load of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flowsleave the irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake,etc.

Frequency:


Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of supply water or drainage wateroccurred during the measuring period.

Units Expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/litre).

Data item No.23 Water quality: Chemical load

Definition Chemical load of the irrigation supply and drainage water expressed as Chemical OxygenDemand (COD).

Measurement

specifications

Location:

The chemical load of the irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.

The chemical load of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flows leavethe irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake, etc.

Frequency:


Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of supply water or drainage wateroccurred during the measuring period.

Units Expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/litre).

Data item No.24 Average depth to watertable

Definition Average annual depth of watertable calculated from watertable observations over the irrigationarea.

Measurement

specifications

Location:

Watertable depth must be monitored by a network of piezometers distributed over thecommanded area in sufficient density to enable the delineation of contour lines of watertabledepth. The installation of piezometers must follow the standard guidelines described in FAOIrrigation and Drainage Paper No.38 Drainage Design Factors.

Frequency:

Watertable levels are typically monitored on a monthly basis.

Processing Individual readings will be average over the 12-month period to produce a single valuerequired for this item.

Units Expressed in metres (m).


Data item No.25 Change in watertable depth over time

Definition Change in watertable depth over the last five years.

Measurement

specifications

The calculation of this item is based on the measurement of depth to watertable.

Processing Change in watertable depth is calculated as the difference between watertable depth over afive-year period.

Units Expressed in metres (m).

Data item No.26 Salt balance

Definition Differences in the volume of incoming salt and outgoing salt.

Measurement

specifications

Incoming salt: Total amount of salt entering the irrigation area through the water supplysystem. The salinity of irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.

Outgoing salt: The total amount of salt that leaves the irrigation area through the irrigationsupply and drainage system. The salinity of drainage water will be measured at the pointwhere drainage flows leave the irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body ofwater, e.g. river, lake, etc. Additional salt outgoings may occur where irrigation water leavesthe system through outfalls or is diverted for other uses.

Processing The annual incoming and outgoing amounts of salt will be the aggregate of the individualreadings collected for each individual period. This may vary in length according to waterquality practices although daily readings are preferred.

Units Expressed in metric tonnes (t).


SUMMARY OF BENCHMARKING INDICATORS

Indicator

Irrigation service delivery - System operation

Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery (m3/year)Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha)Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)Annual main system water delivery efficiency Annual relative water supplyAnnual relative irrigation supplyWater delivery capacitySecurity of entitlement supply

Irrigation service delivery - Financial indicators

Cost recovery ratioMaintenance cost to revenue ratioTotal MOM cost per unit area ($/ha)Total cost per person employed on water delivery ($/person)Revenue collection performanceStaffing numbers per unit area (Persons/ha)Average revenue per MCM of irrigation water supplied ($/m3)

Productive EfficiencyGross annual agricultural production (tonnes)Total annual value of agricultural output ($)Output per unit serviced area ($/ha)Output per unit irrigated area ($/ha)Output per unit irrigation supply ($/m3)Output per unit water consumed ($/m3)

Environmental PerformanceWater quality: Salinity (irrigation water, mmhos/cm)) Water qulaity: Salinity (drainage water, mmhos/cm)Water quality: Biological (irrigation water, mg/litre)Water quality: Biological (drainage water, mg/litre)Water quality: Chemical (irrigation water, mg/litre)Water qulaity: Chemical (drainage water, mg/litre)Average depth to watertable (m)Change in watertable depth over time (m)Salt balance (tonnes)


IPTRID-BM-DataSheets.xlsmab 26.10.2000

Irrigation service delivery

Code Description Units Data Indicator(s) used forentry

Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow m3Main system water delivery efficiency

Relative irrigation supply

Total command area serviced by the system ha

Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area

Total annual irrigated crop area ha

Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area

Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery m3Main system water delivery efficiency

Total annual volume of total water supply m3Relative water supply

Relative water supply

Total annual volume of crop water demand m3Relative water supply

Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand m3Relative irrigation supply

Total annual rainfall m3Relative water supply


Total annual effective rainfall m3Relative irrigation supply

Total annual deep percolation losses (rice crops only) m3Relative water supply


Canal capacity to deliver water at system head m3/sWater delivery capacity

Peak irrigation water consumptive demand m3/sWater delivery capacity

System water entitlementm3/s or

m3 Water entitlement

Security of supply (Probability of exceedence) %Security of supply (%)

10-year minimumwater availability pattern Security of supply


IPT

RID

-BM

-Dat

aShe

ets.

xls

mab

26.

10.2

000

Bas

ic d

escr

ipto

rs o

f ir

rig

atio

n a

nd

dra

inag

e sc

hem

e

Co

de

Des

crip

tor

Un

its

Dat

aP

oss

ible

op

tio

ns

entr

y

Lo

cati

on

Cou

ntry

Con

tinen

t

Sch

eme

nam

e

Latit

ude

Long

itude

Clim

ate

and

so

ils

Clim

ate

Arid

Sem

i-arid

Hum

idH

umid

trop

ics

Ave

rage

ann

ual r

ainf

all

mm

Ave

rage

ann

ual r

efer

ence

cro

p po

tent

ial

evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n, E

To

mm

Pea

kdai

ly r

efer

ence

cro

p po

tent

ial

evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n, E

To

mm

/day

Pre

dom

inan

t soi

l typ

e(s)

Cla

yC

lay

loam

Loam

Silt

y cl

ay lo

am

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Yea

r fir

st o

pera

tiona

l

Typ

e of

man

agem

ent

Gov

ernm

ent a

genc

yP

rivat

e co

mpa

ny

Join

t Gov

ernm

ent/

loca

l org

anis

atio

n/

priv

ate

Wat

er U

sers

A

ssoc

iatio

n

Age

ncy

func

tions

Irrig

atio

n an

d dr

aina

ge s

ervi

ceW

ater

res

ourc

es

man

agem

ent

Res

ervo

ir m

anag

emen

tF

lood

con

trol

Typ

e of

rev

enue

col

lect

ion

Tax

on

irrig

ated

are

aC

harg

e on

cro

p ty

pe a

nd a

rea

Cha

rge

on v

olum

e of

wat

er d

eliv

ered

Cha

rge

per

irrig

atio

n by

are

a

Land

ow

ners

hip

Gov

ernm

ent o

wne

dP

rivat

e ow

ners

hip

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

(Nat

iona

l) G

ross

Dom

estic

pro

duct

(G

DP

)

Far

min

g sy

stem

Cas

h cr

oppi

ngS

ubsi

sten

ce

crop

ping

Mix

ed c

ash

and

subs

iste

nce

crop

ping

Wat

er s

ou

rce

and

ava

ilab

ility

Wat

er s

ourc

eR

iver

res

ervo

irR

un-o

f-riv

erG

roun

dwat

er

Con

junc

tive

use

surf

ace

and

g’w

ater


Wat

er a

vaila

bilit

yA

bund

ant

Suf

ficie

ntS

carc

eV

ery

scar

ce

Dur

atio

n of

irrig

atio

n se

ason

mth

sM

onth

s/ye

ar

Siz

e

Com

man

ded

area

ha

Tot

al n

umbe

r of

wat

er u

sers

sup

plie

dN

o.

Ave

rage

farm

siz

eha

Ave

rage

ann

ual i

rrig

ated

are

aha

Ave

rage

ann

ual c

ropp

ing

inte

nsity

%

Infr

astr

uct

ure

- Ir

rig

atio

n

Met

hod

of w

ater

abs

trac

tion

Gra

vity

div

ersi

onLi

ft pu

mp

Gro

undw

ater

Wat

er d

eliv

ery

infr

astr

uctu

re:

- L

ined

cha

nnel

km

- U

nlin

ed c

hann

elkm

- P

iped

cha

nnel

km

Typ

e of

wat

er c

ontr

ol e

quip

men

tN

one

Str

uctu

res

at

inta

ke o

nly

Str

uctu

res

at

pim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y le

vel

Str

uctu

res

at

prim

ary,

se

cond

ary

and

tert

iary

Dis

char

ge m

easu

rem

ent f

acili

ties

Prim

ary

cana

l lev

elS

econ

dary

can

al

leve

lT

ertia

ry le

vel

Fie

ld le

vel

Dra

inag

e

Are

a se

rvic

ed b

y su

rfac

e dr

ains

ha

Typ

e of

sur

face

dra

inC

onst

ruct

edN

atur

al

Leng

th o

f sur

face

dra

inkm

Are

a se

rvic

ed b

y su

b-se

rvic

e dr

aina

ge

Num

ber

of g

roun

dwat

er m

easu

rem

ent s

ites

No.

Wat

er a

lloca

tio

n a

nd

dis

trib

uti

on

Typ

e of

wat

er d

istr

ibut

ion

On-

dem

and

Arr

ange

d-de

man

dS

uppl

y or

ient

ated

Fre

quen

cy o

f irr

igat

ion

sche

dulin

g at

mai

n ca

nal l

evel

Dai

lyW

eekl

yT

wic

e m

onth

yT

hric

e m

onth

lyP

redo

min

ant o

n-fa

rm ir

rigat

ion

prac

tices

and

pe

rcen

tage

:S

urfa

ce -

furr

owS

urfa

ce -

Bas

inS

urfa

ce -

Bor

der

strip

Sur

face

- F

urro

w-

in-b

asin

1. 2. 3. Cro

pp

ing

Mai

n cr

ops

and

perc

enta

ges;

Cro

p%

tot

al a

rea

1. 2. 3.


IPTR

ID-B

M-D

ataS

heet

s.xl

s

mab

26.

10.2

000 Fi

nanc

ial

Cod

eD

escr

iptio

nU

nits

Dat

aIn

dica

tor(

s) u

sed

for

entr

y

Nam

e of

mon

etar

y un

its (M

Us)

Num

ber o

f MU

s to

1 U

S$

Gro

ss re

venu

e co

llect

edM

UC

ost r

ecov

ery

ratio

Mai

nten

ance

ex

pend

iture

to

reve

nue

ratio

Rev

enue

co

llect

ion

perfo

rman

ce

Ave

rage

re

venu

e pe

r un

it di

scha

rge

Tota

l MO

M c

ost

MU

Cos

t rec

over

y ra

tio

Mai

nten

ance

cos

tM

U

Mai

nten

ance

ex

pend

iture

to

reve

nue

ratio

Tota

l cos

t of p

erso

nnel

eng

aged

in I&

D s

ervi

ceM

U

Tota

l cos

t per

w

ater

del

iver

y pe

rson

nel

Tota

l num

ber o

f per

sonn

el e

ngag

ed in

I&D

se

rvic

eN

o.

Tota

l cos

t per

w

ater

del

iver

y pe

rson

nel

Sta

ffing

nu

mbe

rs p

er

unit

area

Gro

ss re

venu

e in

voic

edM

U

Rev

enue

co

llect

ion

perfo

rman

ce


IPT

RID

-BM

-Da

taS

he

ets

.xls

ma

b

26

.10

.20

00 Pro

du

cti

ve e

ffic

ien

cy

Co

de

Descri

pti

on

Un

its

Data

Un

its

Data

Un

its

Data

Un

its

en

try

en

try

en

try

Tota

l gro

ss a

gricultura

l pro

duction

and v

alu

e (

by c

rop):

1.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

2.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

3.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

4.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

5.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

6.

ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

Su

bto

tal:

00

1ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

2ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

3ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

4ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

5ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

6ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

Su

bto

tal:

00

1ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

2ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

3ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

4ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

5ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

6ha

Tonnes

MU

/Tonne

MU

Su

bto

tal:

00

To

tals

00

Ind

icato

r(s)

used

fo

r:

Gro

ss

agricultura

l pro

duction

Tota

l valu

e o

f agricultura

l pro

duction

Tota

l valu

e o

f agricultura

l pro

duction

Outp

ut per

unit

com

mand a

rea

Outp

ut per

unit

cro

pped a

rea

Are

a

Seaso

n I

Seaso

n II

Seaso

n III

Mark

et

pri

ce

Pro

du

cti

on

Val


IPTRID-BM-DataSheets.xlsmab 26.10.2000

Environmental performance

Code Description Units Dataentry

Water quality: Salinity of irrigation water mmhos/cmSalinity of drainage water mmhos/cmBiological quality of irrigation water BODBiological quality of drainage water BODChemical quality of irrigation water CODChemical quality of drainage water COD

Waterlogging & salinisationAverage depth to water table mChange in water table depth over time mSalt balance metric tonnes

guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation

Documents