monitoring the technical and financial performance of an … · 2021. 2. 8. · some common...

Irrigation ManualModule 14

Monitoring the Technical and Financial Performance

of an Irrigation Scheme

Developed by

Andreas P. SAVVAand

Karen FRENKEN

Water Resources Development and Management Officers

FAO Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern Africa

In collaboration with

Personal SITHOLE, Agricultural Economist Consultant

Simon MADYIWA, Irrigation Engineer Consultant

Tove LILJA, Associate Professional Officer, FAO-SAFR

Harare, 2002

Irrigation manual

ii – Module 14

Module 14 – iii

Contents

List of tables vList of abbreviation vi

1. INTRODUCTION TO MONITORING AND EVALUATION 11.1. Definitions 1

1.1.1. Monitoring 11.1.2. Evaluation 11.1.3. Indicators 11.1.4. Parameters 2

1.2. Monitoring and evaluation design and process 21.3. Use of the logical framework 31.4. Participatory monitoring and evaluation 51.5. Why monitor and evaluate smallholder irrigation schemes? 61.6. Development of indicators to monitor the performance of irrigation schemes 6

1.6.1. Technical performance indicators 71.6.2. Agronomic performance indicators 71.6.3. Financial performance indicators 71.6.4. Socio-economic performance indicators 81.6.5. Environmental and health performance indicators 81.6.6. Managerial performance indicators 8

1.7. Examples of indicators to monitor the technical and agronomic performance of smallholder irrigation schemes 8

2. MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A SURFACE IRRIGATION SCHEME 132.1. Field topography 132.2. Soil moisture in the field 132.3. Water distribution and application 14

2.3.1. Stream size and water intake opportunity time 142.3.2. Water distribution uniformity 152.3.3. Irrigation efficiencies 15

3. MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SCHEME 193.1. Soil moisture in the field 193.2. Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler system 203.3. Irrigation efficiencies 20

4. MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALIZED IRRIGATION SCHEME 234.1. Soil moisture in the field 234.2. Emission uniformity 234.3. Irrigation efficiencies 24

5. MONITORING THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AN IRRIGATION SCHEME 255.1. Monitoring the financial performance at plot level 255.2. Monitoring the financial performance at scheme level 30

5.2.1. Irrigators’ data and records 305.2.2. Irrigation Management Committee (IMC) data and records 305.2.3. Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW) data and records 315.2.4. Experts data and records 31

Irrigation manual

iv – Module 14

5.2.5. External evaluators data and records 315.2.6. Monitoring the financial performance of Mutange irrigation scheme 32

REFERENCES 37

APPENDICES 391. Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of activities, outputs, immediate objectives

and goals 392. Examples of questionnaires and checklists 45

2-1. Questionnaire for plot holders to be used for smallholder irrigation scheme evaluation 452-2. Checklist for scheme level records of the IMC and AEW 50

– Checklist for the IMC 50– Checklist for the AEW 51

2-3. Checklist for experts data 51– Environmental expert 51– Irrigation engineer 51

List of tables

1. Examples of indicators and related parameters 2

2. A logical framework (DFID Model) 4

3. A logical framework for a smallholder drag-hose irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe 4

4. Conventional versus participatory monitoring and evaluation 5

5. Guidelines for evaluating soil moisture by feel 14

6. Borderstrip water advance and recession data 16

7. Gross margin analysis for the tomatoes of farmer Farai 28

8. Gross margin analysis for the sweet potatoes of farmer Betty 28

9. Gross margin for an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha (200% cropping intensity) at Mutange irrigation scheme 29

10. Gross margin for a rainfed area of 3 ha close to Mutange irrigation scheme 29

11. Gross margin of Mutange irrigation scheme, total 105 ha (200% cropping intensity) 30

12. Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, 7 years into operation (US$) 33

13. Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project (US$) 34

14. Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project, taking into consideration a 30% increase in investment, replacement, repairs and maintenance costs (US$) 35

Module 14 – v

vi – Module 14

List of abbreviations

AEW Agricultural Extension Worker

Agritex Department of Agricultural Technical and Extension Services

B/C Benefit/Cost

BD Bulk Density

BOND British Overseas NGOs for Development

CI Cropping Intensity

CP Crop Production

DAEO District Agricultural Extension Officer

DFID Department For International Development (UK)

DU Distribution Uniformity

E Efficiency

EU Emission Uniformity

FARMESA Farm level applied research methods for East and Southern Africa

FC Field Capacity

ICID International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage

IDS Institute of Development Studies

IIMI International Irrigation Management Institute (now renamed IWMI)

IMC Irrigation Management Committee

IR Irrigation Requirement

IRR Internal Rate of Return

IWMI International Water Management Institute

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOV Means Of Verification

NPV Net Present Value

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator

PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

PWP Permanent Wilting Point

RDC Rural District Council

SEAGA Socio-Economic And Gender Analysis

SM Soil Moisture

SPFS Special Programme for Food Security

WUA Water Users Association

Y Yield

Module 14 – 1

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of a programme or aproject or, in our case, an irrigation scheme is important inorder to provide information about how it is performing.There are four distinct reasons for carring out M&E:

To keep track of the progress of development activitiesduring implementation and to remain alert in case ofshortfalls or deviations from projections to enable themto be corrected

To determine the relevance, efficiency and effectivenessof development activities and the impact on thedifferent stakeholders

To learn lessons for future development planning, inorder to improve the formulation and implementationof projects and increase their performance

To share progress and results with others

A wealth of literature is available on monitoring, evaluation,indicators and their parameters. This Module brieflytouches on a few aspects, without pretending to beexhaustive. Some basic information and definitions relatedto M&E are given in Chapter 1. Chapters 2, 3 and 4concentrate on monitoring the technical performance ofsurface, sprinkler and localized irrigation schemesrespectively, while Chapter 5 provides guidance onmonitoring the financial performance of an irrigationscheme. The reader is referred to Module 1 for checklistsfor socio-economic, agro-technical, health andenvironmental impact assessment (indicators, potentialnegative impacts and possible mitigation measures).

1.1. Definitions

1.1.1. Monitoring

Monitoring is the collection of information and the use ofthat information to enable management to assess theprogress of implementation and take timely decisions toensure that progress is maintained according to schedule(Casley and Lury, 1981). Monitoring assesses whetherinputs are being delivered, are being used as intended andare having the initial effects as planned. Monitoring is aninternal project or scheme activity, an essential part of goodmanagement practice and therefore an integral part of day-to-day management.

The purpose of monitoring is to achieve efficient andeffective project or scheme performance by providingfeedback to the management at all levels. This enablesmanagement to improve operational plans and to taketimely corrective action in case of problems. Monitoring isa continuous or regular activity.

1.1.2. Evaluation

Evaluation is a process of determining systematically andobjectively the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness andimpact of activities in the light of their objectives. It is anorganizational process for improving activities still inprogress and for aiding management in future planning,programming and decision-making (Casley and Kumar,1990). Evaluation in the context of rural developmentprogrammes is concerned with the assessment of effects,benefits or disbenefits and impacts, on the beneficiaries.

Evaluation concerns are: who or which group has benefited(or has been adversely affected), by how much (compared tothe situation before the activity), in what manner (directly orindirectly), and why (establishing causal relationshipsbetween activities and results to the extent possible).

While monitoring is a continuous or regular activity,evaluation is a management task that takes place at criticaltimes of the life of a project or programme(FAO/DFID/ICID, undated). Evaluation can be carried out(FARMESA, 2001):

during project planning (ex-ante): to assess thepotential impact

during project implementation (ongoing): to evaluatethe performance and quality

at completion (ex-post): to determine the successfulcompletion

some years after completion (impact): to assess itsultimate impact on development

1.1.3. Indicators

Indicators are a way of measuring progress towards theachievement of the goal, i.e. the targets or standards to bemet at each stage. They provide an objective basis formonitoring progress and evaluation of final achievements. A

Chapter 1Introduction to monitoring and evaluation

good indicator should define the level of achievement,specifically: how much? (quantity), how well? (quality), bywhen? (time). This can be demonstrated in the steps below(FAO, 1998):

Step 1 : Identify indicator: Small farmers increase riceyields

Step 2 : Add quantity: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or lessincrease their rice yields by 30%

Step 3 : Add quality: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or lessincrease their rice yields by 30% while maintainingthe same rice quality existing in the 1995 harvest

Step 4 : Specify time: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or lessincrease their rice yields by 30% between October1996 and October 1997 while maintaining thesame rice quality existing in the 1995 harvest

One set of indicators needs to be formulated to monitorand evaluate the process. These indicators could be, forexample, farmers’ participation rate, amount of creditrepaid, crops grown, training attendance, etc. Another setof indicators needs to be formulated to monitor andevaluate the impact of the programme activities. Theseindicators could be, for example, yield increase, incomegains, environmental effects, changes in workload, relationbetween investment and benefits, etc. A set of indicatorscan of course also include both of the above at the sametime.

Indicators should disaggregate the information by genderand different socio-economic groups. This means thatinstead of monitoring the number of farmers, data need tobe gathered on the number of male and the number offemale farmers from the different socio-economic groupsparticipating. Equally, information on yield increases should

be distinguished on the basis of gender of the householdhead, large versus small farmers, etc. The aim of collectinggender-disaggregated monitoring data is that it may yieldvaluable information that can lead to measures to improvethe programme, especially the performance of specificgroups of farmers (FAO, 1998).

Because of the difficulties in collecting information in thefield, and because of the related costs, the number ofindicators should be kept to the minimum required. A fewkey indicators should be selected that will adequately fulfillthe objective of assessing the conditions of the scheme andidentifying causes for failure or success. In this Modulesome common indicators are given for each type ofperformance, from which key indicators can be selected.

1.1.4. Parameters

For the calculation of indicators, a certain number ofparameters have to be measured in the scheme. The choiceof these parameters has to be judicious. They should beeasily measurable and re-measurable, at low cost, preferablyby the farmers themselves. Some examples of indicatorsand related parameters are given in Table 1.

1.2. Monitoring and evaluation design andprocess

The main purpose of M&E is to ensure that theprogramme or project fulfills the stated goals andobjectives within the financial parameters that are set atthe beginning.

The objectives of an irrigation scheme can be grouped intosix categories (IIMI, 1996; Sally, 1995):

Production and productivity

Profitability

Equity

Irrigation manual

2 – Module 14

Table 1Examples of indicators and related parameters

Indicator Parameter Expression

1. Yield Y – Harvest per season H (kg) Y = H/A (kg/ha)– Area cultivated A (ha)

2. Gross or net production per quantity – Harvest H (kg) PgIr or PnIr = H/W (kg/m3)of water applied PgIr or PnIr – Volume of water applied W (m3)

3. Cropping Intensity CI – Area harvested per year AH (= sum of CI = AH/CA x 100 (%)the areas harvested per season) (ha)

– Area cultivable CA (ha)4. Overall project efficiency Ep – Quantity of water entering the Ep = 100 x (AIA x 10 000 x IRn)/V (%)

(see Section 1.7 for more detail) conveyance canal V (m3)– Net irrigation requirements IRn (m)– Actual irrigated area AIA (ha)

Module 14 – 3

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Rational utilization of the resource

Sustainability

‘Non-agricultural’ objectives

To these objectives, so-called ‘performance indicators’ canbe attached. For an irrigation scheme, the values of theseindicators obtained should be compared with referencevalues in order to assess the level of performance of theirrigation scheme. For their calculation, performanceindicators call upon a certain number of parameters thathave to be measured in the scheme (see Section 1.1.4).

In the context of smallholder irrigation schemes, M&Eprovides data for efficient design, implementation,operation and management of the scheme. It allows forinformed decisions to be made by various stakeholderson:

Operation, maintenance and management of thescheme

Water management

Crop production

Funding and other support services

Environmental management

From the definitions of monitoring and evaluation given, itis clear that the more clearly the objectives of a programmeor project have been stated the more precise themeasurement of progress can be. M&E systems must bedesigned to reflect the achievement of the project objectivesas expressed in targets to be met over time. Viewing projectobjectives as a sequence as shown below will assist indefining the functions of M&E:

a) Inputs will be provided or activities undertaken thatare necessary to achieve agricultural and/or ruraldevelopment.

Example: Inputs may be provided in the form of anirrigation system and/or advice, that the beneficiariesare to be encouraged to adopt

b) It is expected that the use of these inputs will result inoutputs by the project beneficiaries.

Example: Outputs in the irrigation project may beincreased crop production, using recommendedagronomic advice

c) These outputs will in turn, generate effects amongstthe target population, which are the immediateobjectives or purpose

Example: The effects will be a change in yield levelsand/or income

d) Finally, these effects will have an impact on the socialand economic life of the community, which is thelong-range objective or goal.

Example: As a result of improved incomes, services maydevelop in the area, providing wider income andemployment opportunities.

The process of M&E involves field measurements andanalysis of field data from which recommendations forimprovements can be made. Basically, the main activitiesare selection of indicators, data collection and recordkeeping, data evaluation, identification of problems anddevelopment of mitigation measures. For optimalperformance, problems should be rectified before negativeimplications on performance occur.

The responsibilities for irrigation scheme M&E should beclear to all parties from the outset. The responsibilitydepends on whether an individual farmer, a group offarmers or the government manages the scheme. It isrecommended that the responsibility for the monitoringand data collection be designated in by-laws. This isparticularly important where several parties jointly managethe scheme. Furthermore, the by-law could state theprocedure for the monitoring, such as parameters to bemeasured, frequency of data collection, measures to betaken to rectify potential problems, etc.

1.3. Use of the logical framework

Project design systems such as the logical framework orlog frame allow not only for a viewing of project objectivesas a sequence, but also for defining targets to be met overtime. A log frame looks like a table (or framework) andaims both to be logical to complete and to present theinformation on projects in a concise, logical andsystematic way (BOND, 2001). A log frame summarizes,for example:

What the project is trying to achieve

How it aims to do this

What is needed to ensure success

Ways of measuring progress

Potential problems along the way

The logical framework can be a basis for project M&E.Table 2 gives an example of a model of a log frame.

Irrigation manual

4 – Module 14

Table 2A logical framework (DFID Model) (Source: DFID, 1997)

Objectives Objectively Verifiable Means Of Verification ImportantIndicators (OVI) (MOV) assumptions

Goal GoalWider problem the project Quantitative ways of measuring Cost-effective methods and To supergoal external factors will help to resolve qualitative ways of judging timed sources to quantify or necessary to sustain

achievement of goal assess indicators objectives in the long run

Purpose Purpose to goalThe immediate impact on Quantitative ways of measuring Cost-effective methods and External conditions necessarythe project area or target qualitative ways of judging timed sources to quantify or if achieved project purpose is group, i.e. the change or achievement of purpose assess indicators to contribute to reaching benefit to be achieved by project goalthe project

Outputs Output to purposeThese are specifically Quantitative ways of measuring Cost-effective methods and Factors out of project controldeliverable results qualitative ways of judging timed sources to quantify or which, if present, could expected from the project achievement of outputs assess indicators restrict progress from outputsto attain the purpose to achieving project purpose

Activities Inputs Activity to outputThese are the tasks to be This is a summary of the Financial report as agreed Factors out of project control done to produce the project budget in grant agreement which, if present, could outputs restrict progress from

activities to achieving output

An example of a logical framework for a smallholder irrigation scheme is given in Table 3.

Table 3A logical framework for a smallholder drag-hose irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe

Narrative summary Objectively Verifiable Means Of Verification ImportantIndicators (OVI) (MOV) assumptions

Long-range objective– Improved standard of – 40% of irrigators have brick – Yearly household survey

living of the irrigators houses with corrugated iron roofs – Observationand the community – 60% of households can affordaround the scheme secondary education for their

children

Immediate objectives– Increased yields – 90% of irrigators increase yields – AEW records – Price of produce – Increased incomes of of irrigated crops by 40% – Farmer records remains high

smallholder irrigators compared to dryland yield levels – Yearly household survey– Mean agricultural income – Seasonal survey by

per ha increases by 50% project management

Outputs– Diversification of crop – 95% of irrigators commit at least – Resident AEW records – No pest outbreak

production 0.4 ha of land to a variety of – Farmer records – No electricity cut due – Adoption of crops to non-payment by

recommended input – 60% irrigators adopt the some irrigatorslevels and other recommended agro-input – No engine breakdownagronomic practices levels

Inputs/Activities– Selection and training – New irrigators trained – Agritex Irrigation Branch – Inflation rate does not

of farmers in irrigated – Pumping station and pumps reports rise beyond 70% crop production installed – Agritex Crops Branch making agro-inputs

– Scheme equipment – Electricity installed reports unaffordableinstalled and tested – Pipes, valves, fencing installed – Baseline survey report

– Risers, taps, tripods sprinklers supplied

– Irrigation system fully operational

In carrying out M&E, it is important that results areexamined sequentially from inputs/activities to outputs toeffects/purposes/immediate objectives to impact/goal, asshown in the logical framework (working from the lowerend of the table towards the upper end in Tables 2 and 3).There is little point in attempting to do an evaluation of thegoal unless we can be sure that the purposes that contributeto it have been achieved. Similarly, at a lower level, there islittle point in examining and critically evaluating outputsunless we can be sure that the level of inputs and the mix ofactivities has been as planned. Each lower-level activitycontributes to the achievement of a higher result and theachievement at each level should be examined in turnbefore moving up to the next highest level. The reason forpreferring a bottom-up approach relates to the cost ofevaluation. The cost is lowest at the bottom and highest atthe top.

Appendix 1 provides an example of indicators to bemonitored and evaluated at activity, output, immediateobjective and goal level respectively for the smallholderdrag-hose sprinkler irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe, forwhich the logical framework in Table 2 was established.

1.4. Participatory monitoring andevaluation

M&E is vital if governments and aid organizations are tojudge whether development efforts have succeeded orfailed. Conventionally, this has involved outside expertscoming in to measure performance against pre-setindicators, using standardized procedures and tools.Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) hasemerged because of a recognition of the limitations of thisconventional approach. This shift in thinking has beenprompted by (IDS, 1998):

The surge of interest of participatory appraisal andplanning a set of new approaches that stress theimportance of taking local people’s perspectives intoaccount

Pressure for greater accountability, especially at a timeof scarce resources

The shift within organizations, particularly in theprivate sector, towards reflecting more on their ownexperiences, and learning from them

PM&E provides an opportunity for developmentorganizations to focus better on their ultimate goal ofimproving the lives of the poor. By broadening involvementin identifying and analyzing change, a clearer picture can begained of what is really happening on the ground. It allowspeople to celebrate successes and learn from failures. Forthose involved, it can also be a very empowering process,since it puts them in charge, helps develop skills, and showsthat their views count.

PM&E differs from conventional monitoring and evaluationapproaches in several important ways, as shown in Table 4(IDS, 1998).

PM&E is based on four broad principles (IDS, 1998):

Participation, which means opening up the design of theprocess to include those most directly affected, andagreeing to analyze data together

The inclusiveness of PM&E requires negotiation to reachagreement about what will be monitored or evaluated,how and when data will be collected and analyzed, whatthe data actually mean, and how findings will be shared,and action taken

This leads to learning which becomes the basis forsubsequent improvement and corrective action

Since the number, role, and skills of stakeholders, theexternal environment, and other factors change overtime, flexibility is essential

A wide range of methods and tools have been developed tocarry out PM&E. They are not dealt with in this Module,instead the reader is referred to more specializedliterature.

Module 14 – 5


Table 4Conventional versus participatory monitoring and evaluation

Issue Conventional M&E Participatory M&E

Who plans and manages Senior managers, outside experts Local people, project staff, managers and the process other stakeholders, often helped by a facilitatorRole of ‘primary stakeholders’ Provide information only Design and adapt the methodology, collect and (in our case, the farmers) analyze data, share findings and link them to

actionHow success is measured Externally-defined, mainly Internally-defined indicators, including more

quantitative indicators qualitative judgementApproach Predetermined Adaptive

1.5. Why monitor and evaluate smallholderirrigation schemes?

The process of M&E is important to all stakeholders orinterested parties in an irrigation scheme. These includethe irrigators (plot holders), scheme managers (plotholders, government institutions or both), advisors(extension officers), creditors and financiers of the scheme,be they private (including the plot holders themselves),public or donor agencies. Some of the reasons why M&E isimportant to the various stakeholders in smallholderirrigation schemes are given below.

Irrigators need M&E information to be able to:

– Monitor wastage of water and energy and the costimplications

– Appreciate the need to adopt appropriateagronomic practices and make adjustments inorder to improve their performance

– Compare their yields with those of farmerspracticing rainfed cultivation and other irrigators

– Gauge whether their yield levels are increasing– Decide whether to change their cropping

programme– Compare their incomes with those of farmers

practicing rainfed cultivation, other irrigators andtheir previous incomes under rainfed conditions

– Gauge whether they are making profit– Gauge whether their incomes are increasing in

relation to the cost of living– Make an assessment as to whether the scheme is

sustainable

The scheme management needs M&E information tobe able to:

– Assess the scheme performance– Assess whether their services are being accepted

and integrated into the farmers’ productionsystems

– Assess whether the project is reaching its intendedclients: do rich community leaders dominate thescheme when, on paper, it was targeted at the poorin the community?

– Assess whether certain groups, such as femalefarmers, are accorded the same access as theirmale counterparts

Advisors (extension officers) need M&E information tobe able to:

– Assess the profitability of the cropping programmethey recommended

– Recommend a more profitable croppingprogramme

– Advise on markets for inputs and produce oroutputs

– Advise on possible sources of credit– Advise on pricing– Devise an effective training programme for irrigators– Advise on appropriate agronomic practices to meet

certain output targets

Planners and irrigation engineers need M&Einformation to be able to:

– Better plan future irrigation development– Advise on servicing of equipment, for example if

energy consumption suddenly shoots up– Advise on energy-saving ways of irrigating – Advise on causes of frequent equipment

breakdowns– Get feedback on the ease, or otherwise, of

operation and maintenance of the scheme– Get feedback on water management and efficiency

of water utilization at the scheme– Get feedback on environmental problems affecting

the scheme– Draw lessons for better scheme planning in the

future

Creditors need M&E information to be able to:

– Assess credit worthiness of irrigators– Recover their loans

Government departments need M&E information tobe able to decide whether to:

– Continue funding the scheme– Fund similar irrigation schemes in future– Supply drought relief to the area– Give specific services such as agricultural extension

and/or credit, etc.

Donor agencies need M&E information to be able todecide whether to:

– Continue funding the scheme– Fund similar irrigation schemes in future– Channel technical support to irrigation institutions

or specific schemes

1.6. Development of indicators to monitorand evalute the performance of irrigationschemes

The following six areas of M&E are important for irrigationschemes:

Technical performance

Irrigation manual

6 – Module 14

Agronomic performance

Financial performance

Socio-economic performance

Environmental and health performance

Managerial performance

To be able to carry out M&E, indicators have to be developedfor each of the six areas. As explained in Section 1.1,indicators are variables that help to measure changes in agiven situation. They are defined as specific (explicit) andobjectively verifiable measures of changes or results broughtabout by an activity. In other words, indicators are designedto provide a standard against which to measure, assess orshow the progress of an activity against stated targets. Theperformance should be linked to pre-project conditions inorder to assess the changes obtained because of the project.Questions to be asked can be, for example: What were theyields of maize before the project and what are they now?What were the living conditions of the farmers before theproject and what are they now? What was the incidence ofmalaria in the past and what is it now? For this, baselineinformation is required to establish benchmarks with whichthe changes can be compared. Changes will also be evaluatedagainst what was planned as set out in the project document.

As guidance, some of the indicators related to the six areasof M&E are shown below. Ideally, the indicators areestablished and selected together with all stakeholders, asexplained in Section 1.4.

1.6.1. Technical performance indicators

Technical M&E should be carried out periodically in orderto ensure a technically sound and efficient irrigationscheme. The M&E indicators to be measured depend onthe irrigation system (surface, sprinkler or localized).Chapters 2, 3 and 4 describe more in detail the monitoringof the technical performance of surface, sprinkler andlocalized irrigation schemes respectively.

Irrigation systems are designed to provide the water to thecrops, that is needed in addition to the effective rainfall andavailable groundwater. In other words, irrigation providesthe remaining part of the crops’ water requirements thatabove-mentioned sources cannot provide. The objectiveconcerning the technical aspects of irrigation is to fulfil thecrop’s need of water without causing harmful side effects.

Guides for the development of indicators for the technicalM&E are:

Quantity and quality of constructed infrastructure

Energy consumption rate of equipment

Pump discharge rate

Distribution uniformity of irrigation water

Condition of equipment, canals, reservoirs and otherstructures

Condition of land grading

Frequency of breakdown and repairs of equipment

Quantity of water used for irrigation

Irrigation efficiencies

1.6.2. Agronomic performance indicators

Guides for the development of indicators for the agronomicM&E are:

Type of crops grown and area per crop grown

Crop quality

Cropping intensity

Type, quality and quantity of agricultural inputs used

Cultural practices used

Yield levels

Pests and diseases encountered and control measures

Timeliness of operations

1.6.3. Financial performance indicators

When assessing financial performance, financial outlays arecompared with the original cost tables and budgets toexamine whether the financial targets originally agreed uponhave been fulfilled and whether in general the financialcontrol is satisfactory. An assessment is made also of how costover-runs are financed and cost under-runs redeployed.Chapter 5 describes more in detail the monitoring of thefinancial performance of an irrigation scheme.

Guides for the development of indicators for the financialM&E are:

Cost of energy

Cost of water

Other costs, for example hiring security guard

Cost of repairs and servicing of equipment, canals andstructures (operation & maintenance cost)

Cost of inputs, for example seed, fertilizer, chemicals,transport

Prices of produce

Marketing costs, for example packaging

Access to credit – source, interest rates, etc.

Module 14 – 7


Gross margin per crop and per area

Increase in farmer’s income

Value of Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit/Cost (B/C)ratio, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) compared to thevalue established during project preparation (seeModule 11)

1.6.4. Socio-economic performance indicators

Guides for the development of indicators for the socio-economic M&E are:

Asset ownership

Nutritional status of the family

Change in living conditions

Ability to pay school fees

Employment creation

Advancement of women

Backward and forward linkages

Food security status of the area

Improvement in service provision

Appropriateness of technology

Adoption rate of technology

1.6.5. Environmental and health performanceindicators

Environmental and health factors have an impact on theshort- to long-term performance at field level. Equallyimportant are environmental impacts from irrigationschemes on the external environment and the impact fromexternal factors on the irrigation scheme. Module 1discusses general environmental and health indicators,potential negative impacts and their mitigation measures.

Guides for the development of indicators for theenvironmental and health M&E are:

Changes in water quantity and quality

Changes in soil salinity, alkalinity, sodicity, acidity andfertility

Erosion occurrence (soil loss/accumulation)

Water pollution, for example nitrates in streams

Presence of water-related diseases, such as malaria andbilharzia, and degree of human infestation, in relationto the status before the introduction of irrigation

Waterlogging/poor drainage

1.6.6. Managerial performance indicators

Management and entrepreneurial skills are critical forsuccess. A common problem is the lack of long-termthinking. As a result, for example, a frequent mistake is tounconditionally purchase low-priced equipment and spareparts. Unfortunately, poor quality and short durability oftencharacterize such equipment and consequently the repairand maintenance costs increase, and in the end this low-cost purchase might turn out to be the more costlyalternative in a long-term perspective. Managerial aspectsof smallholder irrigation are discussed in FAO (2000).When assessing the overall managerial performance,questions can be asked such as: Are they able to supervisethe scheme activities effectively? Have they established thenecessary linkages with governmental agencies and privateorganizations? Are they task-oriented? Are the human andmaterial resources properly utilized?

Guides for the development of indicators for themanagerial M&E are:

Management structures, roles, responsibilities andskills

Knowledge management and training at all levels

Conflict resolution

Farmer organization and management ability (self-management)

1.7. Examples of indicators to monitor thetechnical and agronomic performance ofsmallholder irrigation schemes

Within the framework of FAO’s Special Programme forFood Security (SPFS), indicators for monitoring theperformance of smallholder irrigation schemes during thedemonstration phase have been developed. As an example,the ones for measuring the technical and agronomicperformance are copied below (FAO/DFID/ICID,undated).

Objective 1: To intensify and increase agriculturalproduction on irrigated land

1st Indicator: Increase in average production

This indicator will measure the average increase that isbeing obtained in the demonstration phase as compared tothe national averages and/or the production averages in theproject area before the demonstration phase. The requireddata for its application are:

Irrigation manual

8 – Module 14

The average percentage of increase or decrease inproduction (CP) for all the crops is the indicator proposedfor agricultural production:

Equation 1

1

CP = 100 x ∑N P(N) - A(N) N1 A(N)

Where:CP = Crop production increase or decrease

(percentage)P = Project crop production averageA = National crop production averageN = Number of crops

2nd Indicator: Cropping intensity

This indicator will provide an evaluation as to what extentsecond and third crops may take place in a year. Theindicator (CI) is defined as follows:

Equation 2

CI = A(C1) + B(C2) + C(C3)

CA

Where:A(C1) = Total area harvested in the first

seasonB(C2) = Total area harvested in the second

seasonC(C3) = Total area harvested in the third

seasonCA = Cultivable area

3rd Indicator: Increase in planted area

The intensive use of irrigation water is a good indicationthat the change towards an intensive agriculture is takingplace in an effective manner. Therefore, this indicator aimsat evaluating to what extent this change is taking place. Forthis purpose the increase in planted area from one seasonto the next (expressed in percentage) is a relevant indicator(IPA):

Equation 3

IPA = 100 x[AP(S1) - AP(S2)]

AP(S2)

Where: IPA = Increase in planted area (percentage)AP(S1) = Area planted during the current seasonAP(S2) = Area planted during the past season

In humid climates, the water flow available is considerablygreater during the wet season than during the dry season,therefore the AP(S1) and AP(S2) are considerably greaterin the wet season than in the dry season. It is thereforerecommended that the IPA be calculated separately for thewet season and the dry season.

Objective 2: To improve performance of existingschemes through on-farm irrigationtechnology

4th Indicator: Overall irrigation efficiency

Overall irrigation efficiency is a value that varies constantlythrough the year and is affected by the efficiency of theactual water distribution and farmers’ ability to apply watereffectively. Still, it is always a good reference for howefficiently irrigation water is utilized.

The following indicator is proposed:

Equation 4

OIE = 100 x(AIA x 10 000 x CWR)(Fl x 3 600 x 30 x N)

Where:OIE = Overall irrigation efficiency (percentage)AIA = Actually irrigated area during peak

month (ha)CWR = Crop water or net irrigation requirement

for the peak month (mm/month)FI = Average flow of main intake in the peak

month (l/s)N = Number of hours of irrigation per day

The above indicator will give the efficiency of the water usein the peak month. It is desirable to determine it for everymonth of the year in order to have an indication of thevariations of the OIE along the year. This indicator will beparticularly relevant when rehabilitation and improvementsworks have been undertaken, as the greater physicalefficiency of the system must be reflected in higher valuesof OIE.

Module 14 – 9


Project average National average Increase or decrease Percentage increase(kg) (kg) (kg) CP

Crop 1 P(1) A(1) P(1) - A(1) 100 x [P(1)-A(1)]/A(1)Crop 2 P(2) A(2) P(2) - A(2) 100 x [P(2)-A(2)]/A(2)Crop N P(N) A(N) P(N) - A(N) 100 x [P(N)-A(N)]/A(N)

5th Indicator: Operation and maintenance costs

Operation and maintenance costs referred to the irrigatedhectares are themselves already a good indicator of howefficiently the financial resources are being utilized:

Equation 5

OM =TCAIA

Where:OM = Operation and maintenance costs per haTC = Total annual costs incurred in O&MAIA = Actually irrigated area (ha)

Once O&M costs have been determined, one can get anindication of the farmers’ capacity to pay them by referringthese costs to the farmers’ income through the followingequation:

Equation 6

IFI = 100 xTCFI

Where:IFI = Impact of O&M costs in farmer’s income

(percentage)TC = Total annual costs incurred in O&MFI = Farmers’ income (assessed on the bases of

a representative sample)

For values of IFI greater than 10%, difficulties can beexpected in the collection of fees.

Objective 3: To demonstrate technologies andmethods of irrigation expansion

6th Indicator: Percentage of farmers that adopted theirrigation technology

A simple indicator is the percentage of farmers over thetotal participants in the demonstration area that haveadopted the technological package:

Equation 7

AT = 100 xFATTNF

Where: AT = Farmers that adopted the technology

(percentage)FAT = Number of farmers that adopted proposed

technologyTNF = Total number of farmers of the

demonstration area

The apparent simplicity of this indicator is constrained bythe fact that is not so simple to clearly determine whetheror not a farmer has adopted a technology. As thetechnological packages will likely be different in eachcountry or demonstration area the criteria for determiningthe adoption by farmers must be developed locally.

7th Indicator: Water use at farm level

One important aspect of the demonstration phase is theefficient application of water at farm level. By this term wemean that water is applied at suitable intervals (which willdepend on the technology used) and the amounts necessaryto satisfy the crop water requirements. If irrigation water isnot applied with a minimum of technical bases, it is clearthat the intended increases in crop production will not bereached. Therefore, it is of great importance to documenthow irrigation water is applied.

As the number of farmers participating in a scheme can berelatively large, it will be practically impossible to monitorthe water use by every farmer as this will be timeconsuming and costly. The only feasible way will be to do iton sample bases. The sample should be statisticallyrepresentative, but this is again costly when the number offarmers is large.

For every farmer included in the sample the followingrecords should be kept:

Number of irrigations, intervals and volumes to beapplied to each crop. This should be calculatedaccording to the soil’s characteristics and crop waterrequirements. For this purpose the CROPWATcomputer programme is a recommended tool (FAO,1992) (see also Module 4).

Actual amounts, intervals (dates) and number ofirrigations applied by the farmer concerned should berecorded. Here again the CROPWAT programme willbe useful not only to keep these records but also toassess the actual efficiency achieved by the farmer(Module 4).

Assess how closely the farmers have followed therecommended irrigation schedule. For this purposethree variables must be determined:– the relation between the total amount actually

applied and the calculated amount– the relation between the amount of water applied

and calculated for each irrigation– the relation between the number of irrigations

applied and the calculated number

Irrigation manual

10 – Module 14

These three sub-indicators will give a view of howeffectively farmers adhered to the recommended schedule.However, this is an expensive indicator to determin.

8th Indicator: Farm irrigation efficiency

The determination of the irrigation schedules mentionedfor the 7th indicator implies the application of the farmer’sefficiency in applying the irrigation water. The tendency isoften to apply this figure based on empirical or personalexperience. In the field, it can be carried out followingstandard procedures (FAO, 1992; other relevant manuals).It will be useful to determine these efficiencies yearly andmonitor any progress made by farmers. However, as withthe previous indicator it is an expensive indicator to bedetermined. More information on irrigation efficiencies isgiven in Module 1.

Objective 4: To improve the capacity of staff andlocal community for self-managementand develop institutional base forirrigation expansion

9th Indicator: Training activities carried out

The number of training activities that have been carried out,the type of activity, its duration and number of participantsshould be reported here. The number of participants shouldbe related to this potential number to have an indication ofwhat percentage has been covered.

10th Indicator: Self-management

The aim of this indicator will be to assess the degree of self-management that has been achieved. The underlyingassumption is that an effort was made to establish a WUA,and through the criteria proposed below the degree of self-management is assessed.

Module 14 – 11


The WUA functions satisfactorily and 80-90% of the water rates are collected Fully independent

The WUA is established, the water distribution is effected by farmers at tertiary level Semi-independentbut secondary canals and upward are operated by government staff, only minor maintenance works are carried out by farmers, 65-80% of water rates are collected

The WUA has been established but acts mainly as a consultative and information Low degree of independencebody. Decisions are still made by government officials, 50-65% of water rates are effectively collected

The WUA has been established on paper but none of its tasks are carried out in practice Dependent, it needs explanation

The WUA has not been established Needs justification

Irrigation manual

12 – Module 14

This chapter should be read together with Module 1 andModule 7, in which the technical parameters and theirrange for optimal performance are described. Detailedtheory behind the equations included in this chapter is alsoprovided in these modules and in FAO (1989). Thischapter will focus on hands-on activities in the M&Eprocess.

According to FAO (1989), the most common fieldmeasurements to carry out during monitoring andevaluating surface irrigation systems are:

Field topography

Soil moisture in the field

Water distribution and application

2.1. Field topography

Topographic surveys should be carried out periodically, onan annual or bi-annual basis, since the field levels changebecause of cultivation practices, especially ploughing.Periodic (annual or bi-annual) land grading isrecommended for surface irrigation, in order to maintainthe field topography as close as possible to the one in theoriginal design.

If the land slope has changed significantly or is uneven, it mayaffect the uniformity of water application. This could lead towaterlogging in some areas, for example in depressions, andto water stress in others. Waterlogging causes drowning ofcrop roots, which results in decrease of crop yields. In caseswhere the water level reaches the surface it might createpuddles of still-standing water, which form favourablebreeding sites for waterborne diseases. Additionally, thedesign irrigation efficiency would be affected negatively andthe estimated water requirements at the planning stage mayno longer be met by the available water resources.Inappropriate slopes and/or uneven land grades may result inerosion and render the originally selected stream flowinappropriate.

Generally, topographic surveys should be carried out ongrid points 20-30 m apart. However, the grid layoutdepends on the slope and the uniformity of the land.Where the land is steep and irregular, the grid points shouldbe moved closer to each other. Recommended topographyand land slopes are discussed in Module 7.

2.2. Soil moisture in the field

The total available water for plant use in the root zone iscommonly called soil moisture. The available soil moistureis the difference between field capacity (FC) andpermanent wilting point (PWP) (Module 4). FC is themaximum water a soil type can hold. PWP is when all thefreely available water is depleted and the soil is ‘dry’. Whenthe water content is close to the FC the plant needs to usevery little energy for the water uptake. The more waterdepleted from the soil, the more energy the plant has towaste for the water uptake, thereby creating a water stresssituation. Some crops are more sensitive to soil moisturedepletion than others or, in other words, they are moresusceptible to water stress than others. Therefore, theallowable depletion is different for different crops anddifferent soil types. Allowable soil moisture depletion levelsfor different crops are given Module 4.

Having more water in the soil than it can hold (i.e. morethan FC), means that the soil is waterlogged. In awaterlogged situation the roots are standing in water. Thiswill damage the plant (except rice), given that the roots notonly need water but also air.

Soil moisture measurements should be taken periodicallyduring the growing season. The results can be used todetermine when the next irrigation should take place andwhat water depth to apply. After irrigation the results canbe used to evaluate whether the correct depth of water wasadded to the soil or to assess waterlogging or water stress.

Soil moisture content can be optimized through thefollowing actions:

Regulation of water application through good irrigationschedules, in order to avoid either over-watering orunder-watering,

Land levelling to prevent poor distribution uniformityresulting in water stress in some areas and waterloggingin others

Installation and maintenance of an adequate drainagesystem

Use of lined canals or pipes to prevent seepage

Several soil moisture measurement methods can beemployed. These include soil feel, gravimetric soil moisture

Module 14 – 13

Chapter 2Monitoring the technical performance of a

surface irrigation scheme

determination and the use of the neutron probe (Module4). The first method is the cheapest, since it does notrequire any equipment. It is less accurate than the others,since it is subjective. However, it is very common amongsurface irrigators in the region. This method involvessqueezing a handful of soil and comparing it with generalguidelines provided in Table 5.

If the soil water content is more than the FC of the soil, freewater can be observed in the soil. In this case, there is riskof waterlogging. Where the soil moisture depletion is morethan for example 50 % (depending on the crop), riskprevails for water stress.

2.3. Water distribution and application

2.3.1. Stream size and water intake opportunity time

Inappropriate stream size and water intake opportunitytime can result in problems like erosion, water wastageand/or water stress. Advance and recession tests should becarried out periodically in order to ensure the bestcombinations of stream size and water intake opportunitytime for the existing furrows, borders or basins, crops andgrowing seasons.

Methods for testing infiltration, advance, recession, streamsize and water intake opportunity time are discussed indetail in Module 7 and briefly in Section 2.3.3 below.

Irrigation manual

14 – Module 14

Table 5Guidelines for evaluating soil moisture by feel

Texture

Available Soil Coarse fine sand; Moderate coarse Medium sandy Fine clay loam;soil moisture Loamy fine sand sandy loam; clay loam; Silty clay loam

moisture condition Fine sandy loam Loam; Silt loam

0-25 Dry Loose. Will hold Forms a very weak Soil aggregations break Soil aggregations easily together if not disturbed. ball*. Aggregated soil away easily. No moisture separate. Clods are Loose sand grains on grains break away staining on fingers. hard to crumble with fingers easily from ball Clods crumble with applied pressure

applied pressure25-50 Slightly Forms a very weak ball Forms a weak ball Forms a weak ball with Forms a weak ball.

moist with well-defined marks. with defined finger rough surfaces. No water Very few soil Light coating of loose marks. Darkened . staining on fingers. Few aggregations break and aggregated sand colour. No water aggregated soil grains away. No water stains. grains remains on staining on fingers break away Clods flatten with fingers applied pressure

50-75 Moist Forms a weak ball with Forms a ball with Forms a ball. Very light Forms a smooth ball loose and aggregated defined finger marks. water staining. Darkened with defined finger sand grains remaining Very light soil water colour. Pliable. Forms marks. Light soil water on fingers. Darkened staining on fingers. a weak ribbon between staining on fingers. colour. Heavy water Darkened colour. Will thumb and forefinger Ribbons form withstaining on fingers. not slick thumb and forefingerWill not form into a ribbon** .

75-100 Wet Forms a weak ball. Forms a ball with wet Forms a ball with well- Forms a ball. UnevenLoose and aggregated outline left on hand. defined finger marks. medium to heavy soil sand grains remain on Light to medium water Light to heavy soil water water coating on fingers. Darkened staining on fingers. coating on fingers. fingers. Ribbon forms colour. Heavy water Makes a weak ribbon Ribbons form easily between thumbstaining on fingers. between thumb and and forefingerWill not ribbon forefinger

Field Wet Forms a weak ball. Forms a soft ball. Free Forms a soft ball. Free Forms a soft ball. Free Capacity Light to heavy soil- water appears briefly water appears briefly on water appears on soil

(100) water coating on on surface after soil surface after surface after fingers. Wet outline of squeezing or shaking. squeezing or shaking. squeezing or shaking.soft ball remains on . Medium to heavy soil Medium to heavy soil Thick soil water hand water coating on . water coating on coating on fingers.

fingers fingers Slick and sticky

* A ‘ball’ is formed by squeezing a soil sample firmly in one’s hand.

**A ‘ribbon’ is formed by squeezing soil between one’s thumb and forefinger.

2.3.2. Water distribution uniformity

The most important technical performance indicators ofsurface irrigation systems are distribution uniformity andapplication efficiency (see Section 2.3.3). Fieldmeasurements of these parameters for a single irrigationoccasion is not sufficient, instead they should be repeatedat times when the soil, crop or operational characteristicshave sufficiently changed to reveal all facets of the irrigationsystem.

Poor distribution uniformity of the applied water mightlead to waterlogged root zones and increased soil salinity insome areas and insufficient water supply in others. It can berectified by:

Adjusting the stream flow in order to ensure the bestcombinations of stream flow for the existing furrows,borders or basins, crops and growing seasons anddifferent soil types

Adjusting the land slope through land levelling

Distribution uniformity (DU) indicates the distribution ofwater over the field being irrigated. This is a parametersimilar to the Christiansen coefficient used as a measure ofapplication efficiency. FAO (1989) proposes that the DUfor surface irrigation should be defined as:

Equation 8

average depth of water applied in

DU = the low quarter end of the field x 100

average depth of water applied

It also suggests an ‘absolute distribution uniformity’ asbeing:

Equation 9

DUa =minimum depth of water applied

x 100average depth of water applied

Either of these two equations could be used, depending onthe preference of the person carrying out the monitoring.In view of the extensive soil moisture measurementsrequired for the assessment of the DU, these tests are doneevery few years. An example on assessing distributionuniformity and application efficiency is given in thefollowing section.

2.3.3. Irrigation efficiencies

A detailed description of the different types of irrigationefficiencies (field application, field canal, farm, conveyance,distribution system, overall) is given in Module 1.

Field application efficiency (Ea)

The objective of irrigation is to fulfil the crop’s need ofwater without causing harmful side effects. Poor fieldapplication efficiency (Ea) or, in other words, excessiveirrigation results in one or several of the following harmfulconsequences: water wastage, waterlogged root zones,increase in soil salinity and increase in pumping costs.

The major on-field water losses that occur during waterapplication are deep percolation below the root zone andtail-water or runoff. Deep percolation is the water lostthrough infiltration of water beyond the root zone depth.High deep percolation losses cause waterlogging due tolocalized rise of the water table. In addition, plant nutrientsand other chemicals of benefit to crops can be leachedbeyond the root zone. Depending on the chemicalsleached, groundwater may be contaminated. Runoff is thewater loss that occurs when irrigation water flows over thesurface beyond the irrigated field. Runoff can cause erosionand increased salinity and siltation in downstream areas,such as rivers and other hydraulic structures. It can alsocause waterlogging.

Two parameters are required in order to estimate the fieldapplication efficiency Ea:

Estimates of the net irrigation requirement (IRn) forthe particular site and crop stage

The amount of water applied to the field (W)

Module 4 provides the means for estimating IRn. The averagevolume of water applied to the field can be measured at thehead of the furrow, border or basin. This is the amount ofwater discharged by the siphon, spile or other type of turnoutover a given time. When these figures are known, Ea can bedetermined using the equations below, where either volumesor depths of water can be used:

Equation 10a Equation 10b

Ea = IRn (m3)

x 100 Ea = IRn (mm)

x 100W (m3) W (mm)

The estimated IRn should correspond to the irrigationfrequency of the particular location, crop and crop stage. Eagives an indication of the losses since it shows the fractionof the water that is applied to the soil root zone, which ispotentially accessible to evaporation and transpiration. Itdoes not, however, indicate the distribution uniformity orthe adequacy of irrigation.

In the example below, borderstrip irrigation will be used toillustrate the process of determining the performanceparameters of a surface irrigation system and the causes ofwater losses in a block. The following data were collected:

Module 14 – 15


Area of the block under consideration: 1.75 ha

Net irrigation depth IRn: 45 mm

Discharge at the inlet to the field canal from theconveyance canal: 75 l/sec

Discharge at the head of the borderstrip: 65.3 l/sec

Actual irrigation time in field canal: 7 hours

Since the border was dyked at the end, no runoffmeasurements were needed.

Wooden pegs are set out at 10 m intervals along thelength of the borderstrip. Irrigation should be carried outwith the same flow as the farmers use. The flow of waterat the top of the field should be measured usingmeasuring devices such as flumes and weirs. In theabsence of these, buckets can be used. One should ensure

that the water enters into the bucket at the same positionas it enters the field during normal irrigation. Watershould also be applied on the borderstrips at both sidesnext to the test borderstrip in such way that they will actas buffers. However, if in reality the farmer irrigates onlyone border at a time, then no water should be applied tothe borderstrips at both sides. The flow should be timed,so that the volume can be calculated. The time taken bythe water to advance along the borderstrip length shouldbe recorded and so should the recession. The infiltration,i.e. the subsurface profile, should be computed at everypeg. This profile is determined by adding the water depthon the surface to the profile developed during theadvance phase. Table 6 shows evaluation data of aborderstrip test and the graph shows the data plotted asinfiltration (column 7) versus distance along the border(column 1).

Irrigation manual

16 – Module 14

Table 6Borderstrip water advance and recession data

Advance time (min) Recession time (min) Contact time Water applied Distance (m) clock elapsed clock elapsed (min) (mm) *

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) = (5) - (3) (7)

0 07.00 0 15.20 500 500 10210 07.30 30 15.30 510 480 9920 08.15 75 16.00 540 465 9630 09.00 120 16.45 585 465 9640 10.00 180 17.34 634 454 9450 11.10 250 18.38 698 448 9460 12.15 315 19.43 763 448 9470 13.20 380 20.24 804 424 9080 14.30 450 21.30 870 420 9090 15.45 525 22.35 935 410 88

100 17.00 600 23.50 1010 410 88

* Obtained from the graph

Example 1 and 2 show that this irrigation system has a highdistribution uniformity and a low field application efficiency.The reason for the high distribution uniformity is that allpoints along the border have been more than adequatelyirrigated. However, this causes high deep percolation losses.In order to minimize deep percolation losses, the flow shouldeither be cut off earlier or reduced. The decision on thecorrect flow can be reached once the same test is done usingdifferent stream flows (see Module 7).

Field canal efficiency (Eb)

The field canal efficiency (Eb) is an indication of the lossesthat occur in these canals, from the outlet of the conveyancecanals to the inlet of the field. Eb is defined through thefollowing equation:

Equation 11

water received at the fieldEb =

water received at the block of fields x 100%

As will be seen in Example 3, losses are fairly low in fieldcanals that are concrete-lined and fairly new with onlyminor leaks at the joints. However, for unlined canals theselosses can be very high, especially when weeds are presentin the canals. High losses would also be expected for olderlined canals with cracks and weed growth.

Example 3

What is the field canal efficiency in the borderstripirrigation example?

The measuring device at the intake to the blockshows a discharge of 75 l/sec for 7 hours. Themeasuring device at the field inlet showed adischarge of 65.3 l/sec.

Thus, the water losses in the canal are (75 - 65.3) =9.7 l/sec.

Eb =65.3

x 100 = 87%75

Module 14 – 17


Example 1

What is the distribution uniformity in the field for the borderstrip described above?

Using the depths infiltrated at each peg at the downstream quarter end of the field (between 70-100 m approximatelyfrom Table 6), the average depth of water applied at this lower quarter end is:

88 + 88 + 90 + 90 = 89 mm

4

Using Equation 8:

DU =89

x 100 = 94.7%94

The absolute distribution uniformity (DUa) is calculated using Equation 9:

DUa =88 x 100 = 93.6%94

Example 2

What is the field application efficiency for the borderstrip described above?

Based on Table 6, the average depth of water applied to the field is 94 mm. Therefore the average volume of waterapplied to the field is:

94 x 1.75 x 10 = 1 645 m3

The net depth of water IRn that has to be applied to the root zone is 45 mm, which gives the volume of water requiredby crops:

1.75 ha x 45 mm x 10 = 787.5 m3

Either Equation 10a or 10b can be used to calculate the application efficiency as follows:

Ea = 787.5

x 100 = 48% or Ea = 45

x 100 = 48%1 645 94

Conveyance efficiency (Ec)

Ec is defined through the following equation:

Equation 12

water received at the blockEc =

water diverted from the headwork x 100%

Example 4

The measuring device at the outlet of the dam of ourexample provides a discharge of 100 l/sec. What isthe conveyance efficiency?

Since the intake of the block was 75 l/sec, this meansthat:

Ec = 75

x 100 = 75%100

Project efficiency (Ep)

This is the overall efficiency of the irrigation scheme:

Equation 13

Ep = Ec x Eb x Ea

Conclusion

Looking at Example 5, it transpires that over two thirds(69%) of the water is lost in the process of conveyance,distribution and application. Considering that a majorcost of a scheme is the construction of a dam and that thegreater the area that can be irrigated from the waterstored in the dam the more economically viable thescheme, these results give the opportunity to considervarious options:

Improve Ea through the selection of a better streamflow onto the borderstrip

Improve Ea through periodic land grading

Improve Eb by sealing the joints of the field canals orby lining the earthen canals

Improve Ec by lining the conveyance canal

Irrigation manual

18 – Module 14

Example 5

What is the overall irrigation efficiency of ourexample?

Ep = 0.75 x 0.87 x 0.48 = 0.31 or 31%

This chapter should be read together with Module 1 andModule 8, in which the technical parameters and theirrange for optimal performance are described.

The most common field measurements to carry out duringmonitoring and evaluating sprinkler irrigation systems are:


Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler system



The importance of soil moisture measurement wasexplained in Section 2.2. In sprinkler irrigation schemes,the soil moisture content can be optimized through theregulation of water application through appropriateoperation pressure and good irrigation schedules.

Several soil moisture measurement methods can beemployed, as mentioned in Section 2.2, wherein the soilfeel method was described. In this section the gravimetricsoil moisture determination is described. Either of theother two methods is also applicable to sprinkler irrigationsystems. The objective of this monitoring tool is to establishwhether the replenishment of the soil moisture throughirrigation is adhering to the designed allowable depletionlevel.

Through the soils surveys done during the feasibility studythe available moisture (by volume) and the bulk density weredetermined (Module 2). At the monitoring stage the soilmoisture content just before irrigation will need to bedetermined, for example through the gravimetric method.For this purpose, a sample of soil of about 100-200 grams istaken and sealed in an aluminium or stainless steel container.The sample is weighed in the container and put into an ovenfor 24 hours at 105°C with the cover of the containerremoved. The dry soil and the container are then weighedagain. The difference equals the amount of moisture held inthe soil just before irrigation. The following expressionprovides the moisture content in decimal form:

Equation 14

SMa(w) =wet weight - dry weight

dry weight

Using the same bulk density (BD) as determined during theinitial soil surveys, the moisture can be expressed onvolumetric basis:

Equation 15

SMa(v) = SMa(w) x BD

Where:SMa(v) = Available soil moisture by volumeSMa(w) = Available soil moisture by weightBD = Bulk density

For a clearer picture of the concept of volume percent it isnoteworthy that 1 mm of water over an area of 1 haamounts to a volume of water of 10 m3 (= 10-3 x 104).

3.2. Pressure and discharge in the sprinklersystem

One should actually measure the pressure and discharge ofthe sprinkler. During sprinkler irrigation design, say theallowable pressure variation within one hydraulic unit wasestablished to 20% (see Module 8). Therefore, in the fieldone can measure the actual sprinkler operating pressures ofindividual sprinklers within a hydraulic unit in order todetermine whether they are conform to this condition. Ifnot, the sprinklers are not applying water as envisaged inthe design. This may be due to causes such as wear ofdifferent parts of the sprinklers or to the fact that somefarmers may be using other sprinklers than those envisagedin the design. Moreover, there may be cases where thesprinklers do not fulfil the manufacturer’s specifications. Inother cases, the pressure variation may be due to poordesign.

Nozzles erode during operation, predominantly because ofthe abrasive action of sand in the water. After a longer timeof operation, nozzles might have been worn to such anextent that the enlarged openings have lead to pressuredrops and decreased distribution uniformity. Hence,pressure and discharge tests should be carried out everysecond year. Any change in the discharge and pressure ofsprinklers would shift the operation of the pumping unit toa different point on the performance curve, which mayaffect the power requirements. In such a case, the existingmotor would be overloaded and at times burn out.

Module 14 – 19


sprinkler irrigation scheme

In order to avoid these problems, nozzles should be replacedfrom time to time. When surface water is used through thesprinklers, it is recommended that nozzles be replaced everyyear or every other year depending on the degree of wear. Itshould also be ensured that the nozzles conform to thedesign. All farmers should use the sprinklers that werestipulated in the design. In some cases, smallholders aretempted to purchase large size nozzle sprinklers when theyreplace the old ones, due to the fact that they dischargemore water. This, however, leads to pressure drops, in otherwords this leads to poorer water distribution. In some casesthe pressure at which the sprinklers are operating may beeither too high or too low. In those cases one has to correctthe pressure at the pressure-regulating device for that unit orfor the whole irrigation scheme. In addition, one shouldmonitor the quality of water and ensure that efficient O&Mis taken place, such as flushing of the sprinkler pipes (seeModule 8).

After a number of years, the seals of the sprinklers wear outand substantial losses of water occur before the waterreaches the nozzle. Under these circumstances the wornparts should be replaced. This is usually done at the dealer’sworkshop. This also provides the opportunity to overhaulthe sprinkler and also adjust the tension of the spring orreplace the spring.

The nozzle pressure is defined as the pitot-static pressure atthe vena-contracta of the jet from the main (largest) nozzle.It is measured using a pitot tube attached to the pressuregauge. The sprinkler pressure is tested at the beginning, the

middle, and at the end of the hydraulic unit and compliancewith the allowable pressure variation checked. Using abucket, a stop watch, a volumetric cylinder and a short hose(2 m), the flow rate of the sprinkler can also be tested andcompared to the original performance data that wereobtained during the commissioning of the system.Derivations from the original data would give indications onpossible problems to be rectified. It could be that reducedsprinkler pressure and/or discharge is caused bysimultanously operating more sprinklers than the numberenvisaged by the design. Another possibility could be thatthere are leakages in the system, including the sprinkleritself. Laboratory tests can be very useful in establishing thecurrent performance of an average sprinkler brought fromthe field and recommending measures to improve it.

3.3. Irrigation efficiences

The justification for irrigation efficiencies as indicators tomonitor the technical performance, as given in Section 2.3.3for surface irrigation, is also valid for sprinkler irrigation.

Using the IRn estimates for the particular site, crops andstage of growth and the amount of water applied perirrigation, the Ea can be estimated as explained in Section2.3.3.

In the case of sprinkler irrigation, by measuring the flow asdescribed earlier, the average sprinkler flow is calculated.Using this data, the IRn estimates and the duration ofirrigation, the Ea is estimated.

Irrigation manual

20 – Module 14

Example 6

From initial soil survey:

Available moisture by weight = 0.085 or 8.5% or 85 mm/mAvailable moisture by volume = 0.119 or 11.9%Bulk density (BD) = 1.4 g/cm3

Desirable depletion = 0.5 or 50%

From soil sampling at monitoring just before irrigation:

Wet weight = 215 gramsDry weight = 210 grams

What is the soil moisture depletion between two irrigations?

Soil moisture on a weight basis is: SMa(w) = 215 - 210

= 0.0238210

The soil moisture on a volumetric basis is: SMa(v) = 0.02378 x 1.4 = 0.0333

The depletion is: 0.085 - 0.0238

= 0.72 or 0.119 - 0.0333

= 0.72, which is 72%0.085 0.119

These results show that the crop is allowed by the farmers to deplete the soil moisture to levels well above thedesirable depletion of 50%. Hence the crop is stressed. A change in the irrigation schedule is needed.

As far as the Eb, Ec and Ep are concerned, the sameprinciples described in Section 2.3.3 apply here also, aslong as water meters are installed at strategic positions inthe irrigation scheme. However, in view of the costs, inpractice only a main water meter is installed at the pumpoutlet. Hence, a combined Ec and Eb efficiency, called

distribution system efficiency Ed (see Module 1), can beestimated using the reading of the water meter at thebeginning and at the end of an irrigation, the number ofsprinklers in operation, the average sprinkler flow and theduration of irrigation.

Module 14 – 21


Example 7

The average flow of one sprinkler operating at 35 meters head and spaced at 12 m x 12 m was found to be 0.6 m3/hrs.Irrigation is practiced for 11 hours every 6 days and the corresponding IRn at peak demand is 30 mm. What is thefield application efficiency?

For the 12 x 12 = 144 m2 commanded by one sprinkler:

IRn = 0.030 x 144 = 4.32 m3

The sprinkler will provide 6.6 m3 (0.6 x 11) of water to this area.

Ea =4.32

= 0.65 or 65%6.6

While this is within acceptable limits, after comparing it with the design efficiency of 75% it is low.

The design was based on irrigation for 6 days a week to cover the water requirements of 7 days operating for 11hours per shift. By adjusting the irrigation depth and frequency, what would be the Ea?

IRn = 0.035 x 144 = 5.04 m3

Ea = 5.04

= 0.76 or 76%6.6

This will reduce the energy cost by about 14%.

Alternatively the farmers can be requested to operate the system for 10 hours instead of 11 and maintain the 6-dayfrequency.

Ea =4.32

= 0.72 or 72%6

This will result in about a 10% saving on the energy cost.

Example 8

The sprinkler flow was tested and found to be 0.6 m3/hrs. Over the 10 hour period of irrigation with 100 sprinklers,the water meter at the pump outlet has shown that 65 m3 of water was pumped. What is the Ed?

Ed = 0.06 x 100

= 0.92 or 92%65

This indicates that some leaks in the piped network need repairing. Assuming that the Ea estimated earlier was foundto be 0.65, the project efficiency would be:

Ep = 0.65 x 0.92 = 0.6 or 60%

This is relatively low for sprinkler systems. Measures to improve the project efficiency were proposed earlier underthe discussion of Ea and Ed.

Irrigation manual

22 – Module 14

This chapter should be read together with Module 1 andModule 9, in which the technical parameters and theirrange for optimal performance are described.

The most common field measurements to carry out duringmonitoring and evaluating localized irrigation systems are:


Emission uniformity



Localized irrigation systems are known for very frequentapplications of small amounts of water. As a rule, irrigationis practiced at almost no moisture depletion. The frequencyof irrigation for shallow-rooted crops like vegetables isalmost daily and for tree crops it is every 2-3 days.

This very frequent application of small amounts of water,combined with very frequent application of water-solublefertilizers, is the main reason for the higher yields obtainedwith these systems. Ideally, farmers should havetensiometers installed in their fields and irrigate when thetension in the soils reaches 15-30 centibars (see Module 4).However for smallholders, where several crops are grown atthe same time, irrigation schedules based on CROPWATare used. In these cases periodic check of the soil moistureby irrigation technicians and/or extension staff is requiredfor refinement and adjustment of the schedules.

Unfortunately, the methods described in Chapters 2 (soil feelmethod) and 3 (gravimetric method) are not suitable forlocalized irrigation systems in view of the limited wetted areaof the soil and the need to irrigate around field capacity. Forlocalized systems, the quick-probe tensiometers are ideal formeasuring the soil moisture (see Module 4). These areportable tensiometers with a steel probe on the end of whicha small ceramic cap is attached. They can be inserted at theroot zone depth and within 1-2 minutes the soil moisturetension can be read on the vacuum gauge. Periodic checks bythe extension staff using this instrument can help adjust andrefine the irrigation schedule of smallholders.

4.2. Emission uniformity

One major disadvantage of localized irrigation systems isthat they are prone to clogging because of the small size ofthe aperture of the emitters. While means are provided inthe system to remove impurities from the water, not allimpurities are removed. Among the recommendations forthe operation and maintenance of these schemes is theperiodic review of the flow using a flow meter or a watermeter, which is usually installed after the filters, and the useof chemigation to clean the system.

A periodic check of the uniformity of water application canalso provide the means of checking the effectiveness ofcleaning the system, so that the delivery of nutrients andwater to the crop is uniformly provided.

A field test of emission uniformity requires a large amountof field data and is a time-consuming process, if the basicequation from Keller and Bliesner (1990) is to be correctlyused:

Equation 15

EU’ = qn’qa

Where:EU’ = Field test emission uniformity (percentage)qn’ = Average rate of discharge of the lowest

one-fourth of the field data emitter discharge reading (lph)

qa = Average discharge rate of all emitters checked in the field (lph)

To simplify matters, it is proposed that indicative values ofEU’ may be obtained if the test is carried out on the first,middle and last laterals of a plot and include the first,middle and last emitter of each lateral. The greater thenumber of emitters tested the better the indicative EU’values can be. To run such a test a can, a volumetric cylinderand a stopwatch are required.

Module 14 – 23


localized irrigation scheme

4.3. Irrigation efficiences

The procedure explained in Section 3.3, for a sprinklerirrigation scheme, should be followed for a localizedirrigation scheme.

Irrigation manual

24 – Module 14

Example 9

A test of the discharge of 48 emitters was carried out in plot of vegetables with the following results:

No. of q No. of q No. of q No. of qemitters lph emitters lph emitters lph emitters lph

1 2.11 13 2.10 25 2.00 37 2.002 2.01 14 2.14 26 2.10 38 1.983 2.00 15 1.94 27 2.09 39 2.054 2.03 16 1.95 28 1.99 40 2.065 2.12 17 2.00 29 1.95 41 2.006 2.07 18 2.01 30 2.11 42 2.087 2.00 19 1.98 31 2.10 43 2.108 2.15 20 2.01 32 2.08 44 1.989 1.95 21 2.00 33 2.10 45 2.07

10 2.02 22 1.96 34 1.99 46 2.0811 2.05 23 2.10 35 1.96 47 1.9912 2.12 24 2.00 36 2.10 48 2.00

qn’ =1.95 + 1.94 + 1.95 + 1.98 + 1.96 + 1.99 + 1.95 + 1.99 + 1.96 + 1.98 + 1.98 + 1.99

= 1.968 lph12

qa =∑(q1 ... qt)

= 2.037 lph48

EU’ = 100 x 1.968

= 96.6%2.037

Financial and economic viability are central to the planning,design, implementation, operation, maintenance andmanagement of an irrigation scheme, as any investor wouldexpect an acceptable return to their investment, regardlessof whether it is a large or a small scheme or whether it is aprivate or public investment. Financial and economicviability are thus widely used as criteria for project selectionand also as measures of project sustainability. The keyguiding principle is always that of minimizing costs whilst atthe same time maximizing the benefits from the project.Therefore, the need to continuously assess and comparethe benefits accruing from the running and operation of anirrigation scheme to costs incurred is inevitable, in order tojustify (or not) the continued operation of the scheme andthe initial investment.

Module 11 describes the financial and economic appraisalof irrigation projects. This Chapter focuses on monitoringthe financial performance at plot and scheme level.

Apart from simple, good financial management andaccounting systems, the cost incurred and benefits accruingfrom the operation of an irrigation scheme are also largelydependant on the technical aspects. For example, frequentbreakdowns of machinery and equipment inevitably resultin increased maintenance costs. It is important, therefore,that financial monitoring is applied in conjunction withtechnical monitoring, as described in the previous chapters,for the different types of irrigation systems.

For financial monitoring it is important that the indicatorsare not only quantified in terms of timing but also thatprojections on the anticipated costs of implementing eachof the activities be made. Each activity, therefore, has to becosted.

5.1. Monitoring the financial performanceat plot level

For irrigators to keep records of their plots, it is importantthat they are trained not only on how to keep records, butalso on how to analyze and use the records for their own

benefit. Only if irrigators benefit from keeping records, willthey keep useful records. Some areas to emphasize duringtraining include the following:

Irrigators should record activities as soon as theyhappen instead of waiting until the end of the season.This is meant to help them not to forget what tookplace

Records should be kept in a logical manner, followingthe sequence in which the farming operations oractivities being recorded take place

The irrigators should keep records in a format thatthey themselves understand best, since they are goingto be the prime users of the records

Recording is a continuous process from the start of theenterprise to the end

Enterprise records, which a farmer ought to keep, includethe records shown on page 26 to be collected for each crop.These data relate to agricultural and financial performanceand will be used to calculate the farm’s gross margins,which is the difference between the total gross income andthe total variable costs for a crop (see Module 11).

It is not necessary for the farmer to record all these items.A farmer will record only those activities, that they havedone on a particular crop. For example, a farmer may notrecord anything about fertilizers if none were used.

Training of irrigators in record-keeping should alsoemphasize the importance of valuing the issues mentionedbelow, since failure to capture such data will make itdifficult for the irrigators to assess their production levelsaccurately:

Payments in kind

Produce consumed

Gifts or donations to relatives, friends and others

Barter exchanges (trading commodities without theuse of money)

Module 14 – 25

Chapter 5Monitoring the financial performance of

an irrigation scheme

Following are two examples of enterprise records kept andpresented by two farmers from Murara irrigation scheme in

Zimbabwe. The records were captured in June 2001.

Irrigation manual

26 – Module 14

Agricultural records Financial records

– Name of the crop planted– Variety of the crop– Dates of land preparation – Cost of land preparation– Dates of planting – Cost of planting– Area planted– Amount of seed used – Cost of seed used– Type and quantity of fertilizer used – Cost of fertilizer used– Pests and diseases encountered– Type and quantity of chemicals used – Cost of chemicals used

– Cost of transport for farmer to buy inputs– Cost of transport of inputs to the farm

– Quantity of hired labour (labour days) – Cost of hired labour– Payments made in kind

– Dates of harvesting– Amount of crop harvested– Amount of produce consumed – Estimate of price of produce consumed– Amount of produce given to others – Estimate of price of produce given to others– Amount of produce retained – Estimate of price of produce retained– Dates of marketing

– Cost of transport to ferry produce to market– Cost of transport for farmer to sell produce– Cost for food, accommodation while marketing– Costof packaging crop for marketing– Cost of hiring stands, entry fees into market, etc.

– Amount of produce sold – Price of produce sold

Example 10

Farmer’s name: FaraiBlock 6: TomatoesNursery planting: 16-01-2001Size of land: 0.04 haLand preparation date: 30-01-2001Transplanting date: 06-02-2001Variety: RodadeQuantity of seed: 25g, total US$1.82Initial fertilizer: Compound D: 10 kg, total US$3.18Date of top dressing application 10 kg: 16-02-2001Weeding – casual labour: US$0.90Chemicals: Rogor: 50 ml, total US$1.45

Date start of marketing: 25-04-2001

Transport to the market: US$14.09Transport to the market: US$20.09Transport to the market: US$9.89

Marketing: 25-04-2001 2 boxes US$9.09 Farm gate09-05-2001 101 boxes US$122.73 Mbare Market16-05-2001 42 boxes US$157.18 Mbare Market22-05-2001 3 boxes US$13.64 Farm gate 24-05-2001 22 boxes US$87.73 Mbare Market30-05-2001 1 box US$3.64 Farm gate

Quantity consumed: 8 boxes

still selling

The above two examples are taken from true farmerrecords. They bring out the importance of standardizingunits of measurement. For example, looking at Example11, it would be difficult to get an estimate of the totalproduction of sweet potato tubers without knowing theweight of a 20 litre tin of sweet potato tubers. From thesame example:

A ‘50 kg’ bag of sweet potato runners means that therunners are in a bag that normally weighs 50 kg whenfull of maize.

A ‘90 kg’ bag of sweet potato tubers means that thetubers are in a bag that normally weighs 90 kg when fullof maize.

It is important for the irrigators to assess, with theassistance of the AEW, the weights of the different units ofmeasurement for the various products used in the scheme.Use of standardized measures will make data comparablebetween farmers as well as usable by outsiders.

For example, the following weights were agreed upon inMurara irrigation scheme in 2000-2001:

A ‘50 kg’ bag sweet potato runners: 5-7 kg

A ‘90 kg’ bag sweet potato tubers: 100-110 kg

A ‘50 kg’ bag sweet potato tubers: 55-60kg

A 20 litre tin of sweet potato tubers: 22kg

Based on the enterprise records given in Example 10, thegross margin budget for the tomato crop of farmer Faraihas been established and is shown in Table 7. The same hasbeen done for the sweet potato crop of farmer Betty, basedon the enterprise records given in Example 11, as shown inTable 8. The figures have also been converted on a hectarebasis in order to allow for comparison between differentcrops, between different farmers and between differentproduction methods (for example with irrigation andwithout irrigation).

Module 14 – 27


Example 11

Farmer’s name: BettyBlock 2: Sweet PotatoesLand size: 0.04 haLand preparation date: 27-11-2000Quantity of runners: 7 x ‘50 kg’ bagsCost of runners: freePlanting date: 05-12-2000Fertilizer: Gypsum: 10 kgCost of Fertilizer: US$1.82Date of fertilizer application: 15-12-2000Weeding date: 07-01-2001

Harvesting date: 28-04-2001: 5 x ‘90 kg’ bags09-05-2001: 6 x ‘50 kg’ bags11-05-2001: 3 x 20 litre tins15-05-2001: 3 x ‘50 kg’ bags

Selling dates: 30-04-2001: US$40.0010-05-2001: US$49.7811-05-2001: US$7.0917-05-2001: US$24.00

Transport: US$9.09US$10.73US$5.45

Mbare Musika: cost of stand plus lunch: US$2.62US$2.98US$2.22

Quantity consumed: 4 x 20 litre tins6 x 20 litre tins2 x 20 litre tins

Value of produce consumed: US$21.82

Based on the above, the average price received per 10 kgbox of tomatoes is equal to US$2.36 (= 423.13/179).According to the enterprise records in Example 10, theprice that farmer Farai got during the selling period variedbetween US$1.22 and US$3.99 at Mbara market per 10 kg

box and between US$3.64 and US$4.55 when selling verysmall quantities at the farm gate. The fluctuation in pricesis due to the general availability of tomatoes on the market:the higher the supply the lower the price.

Irrigation manual

28 – Module 14

Table 7Gross margin analysis for the tomatoes of farmer Farai

Description Unit Per plot Per ha

Area planted ha 0.04 1Amount of seed kg 0.025 0.625Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer kg 10 250Amount of top dressing fertilizer kg 10 250Total output boxes 179 4 475Gross income * (1) US$ 423.13 10 578.25Variable Costs:Land preparation US$ 0 0 Cost of seed US$ 1.82 45.50Cost of initial fertilizer US$ 3.18 79.50Cost of top dressing US$ 3.18 79.50Cost of chemicals US$ 1.45 36.25Trellising US$ 0 0 String US$ 0 0 Hired labour US$ 0.90 22.50Transport cost (inputs) US$ 0 0 Seasonal loan US$ 0 0 Transport cost (of produce to market) US$ 44.07 1 101.75Packing materials (used old boxes) US$ 0 0Total variable costs (2) US$ 54.60 1 365.00Gross Margin (3) = (1) - (2) US$ 368.53 9 213.25

* The value per box of the 8 boxes consumed is considered to be equal to the farm gate price per box on 30-05-2001 and has to be added to the value ofproduce sold.

Table 8Gross margin analysis for the sweet potatoes of farmer Betty

Description Unit Per plot Per ha

Area planted ha 0.04 1Amount of runners kg 42 1 050Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer kg 0 0Amount of top dressing fertilizer kg 10 250Total output kg 1 377 34 425Gross income * (1) US$ 142.69 3 567.25Variable Costs:Land preparation cost US$ 0 0 Cost of runners US$ 0 0 Cost of initial fertilizer US$ 0 0 Cost of top dressing US$ 1.82 45.50Hired labour US$ 0 0 Transport cost (inputs) US$ 0 0 Seasonal loan US$ 0 0 Transport cost (of produce to market) US$ 25.27 631.75Packing materials US$ 0 0 Cost of stand plus lunch US$ 7.82 195.50Total variable costs (2) US$ 34.91 872.75Gross margin (3) = (1) - (2) US$ 107.78 2 694.50

* Gross income includes the value of the produce sold (US$120.87) plus the value of the produce consumed (US$21.82).

Based on the above, the average price received per kg ofsweet potatoes is equal to US$0.10 (= 142.69/1377).According to the enterprise records in Example 11, the pricethat farmer Betty got during the selling period variedbetween US$0.09 and US$0.14 per kg. For the calculationof these prices the bags and tins had to be converted into kg,using the conversion factors given on the previous page.

Besides enterprise data, individual irrigators should alsokeep details of their contribution towards:

Energy costs

Water bills

Repairs to scheme infrastructure

Servicing of equipment

Security guard, etc.

These data, combined with the gross margin analysis, willallow individual plot holders to calculate their irrigationplot net farm income. The incentive for smallholderirrigators to keep good records is for them to be able to getan idea of the profitability of their various enterprises(crops) as well as of the profitability of the whole irrigationplot. It also will help them to get an idea of the profitabilityof irrigated crop production compared to rainfed cropproduction (see below).

These records, which irrigators are keeping primarily fortheir own use, will be useful to other stakeholders in theirrigation scheme as well as to those who may want toknow about the agricultural and financial performance ofthe scheme. Averaging records of a representative sampleof irrigators (or a census of irrigators if the population issmall) will answer questions on agricultural and financialperformance (gross margin per plot or per ha) of thescheme.

Table 9 presents the sort of analysis a farmer could carryout using their enterprise records, including costs ofenergy and repair and maintenance, for their wholeirrigated plot where several crops at the same time aregrowing. One farmer has an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha and thecropping intensity is 200%, which gives a total croppedarea of 1.0 ha per year. In the summer grain maize (0.2ha), sugar beans (0.2 ha) and groundnuts (0.1 ha) arecultivated, while in the winter wheat (0.2 ha), green maize(0.2 ha) and cabbages (0.1 ha) are cultivated.

The farmer is able to compare the income they receivefrom their 0.5 ha irrigated plot with the income from their3.0 ha of rainfed land, which is shown in Table 10. Underrainfed conditions, there are no costs for energy and repairand maintenance.

Module 14 – 29


Table 9Gross margin for an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha (200% cropping intensity) at Mutange irrigation scheme

Crop Area Gross margin (US$)(%) (ha) per area

Grain maize 40 0.2 193Sugar beans 40 0.2 255Groundnuts 20 0.1 149Wheat 40 0.2 331Green maize 40 0.2 1 355Cabbages 20 0.1 705Gross margin (1) 200 1.0 2 988Less:Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2) 105Repair and maintenance costs (3) 156Net income per plot of 0.5 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3) 2 727

Table 10Gross margin for a rainfed area of 3 ha close to Mutange irrigation scheme


Grain maize 36.7 1.10 278Sorghum 5.0 0.15 30Pearl millet 1.7 0.05 12Groundnuts 23.3 0.70 379Cotton 33.3 1.00 -74Total gross margin for 3 ha 100.0 3.00 625

It can be concluded from Tables 9 and 10 that the netincome of the 0.5 ha irrigated area (US$2 727) is over 4times that of the 3.0 ha rainfed area (US$625). Usingenterprise records, farmers can also compare their outputand income per ha with other irrigators.

To assess whether irrigators’ yields and/or incomes haveincreased, the same analyses will have to be repeated yearlyand a comparison made of income per plot and income perha for the different years.

5.2. Monitoring the financial performanceat scheme level

Sources of data for monitoring the financial performance atscheme level include the following:

Enterprise records kept by individual irrigators (thesame records as used in Section 5.1)

Scheme records kept by the Irrigation ManagementCommittee (IMC)

Scheme records kept by the Agricultural ExtensionWorker (AEW)

Data collected by experts at specific intervals

Data collected by an evaluation team assigned the taskof evaluating the scheme

A questionnaire for smallholder irrigation schemeevaluation and non-exhaustive checklists for IMC, AEWand experts data, which can be used as guidance forcollecting data, are attached in Appendix 2.

5.2.1. Irrigators’ data and records

Taking a sample of irrigators’ agricultural and financialrecords (or a census if the population is small), as

presented in Section 5.1, will allow for conclusions aboutscheme-level performance. Table 11 presents the result ofthe analysis that can be done at scheme level. The figuresfor the areas per cultivated per crop have been calculatedby adding up the figures of the individual farmers. Whencomparing the enterprise records kept by the individualirrigators, conclusions about seed rates, fertilizer levels perha for various crops (i.e. adoption rates) can be madeabout irrigators and so can conclusions be made aboutyields and incomes. Scheme level analysis can be carriedout by the AEW for the scheme and/or by an externalevaluation team.

5.2.2. Irrigation Management Committee (IMC) dataand records

In a scheme where irrigators have the responsibility ofmanaging scheme affairs, the IMC will keep records ofscheme level costs and responsibilities. Scheme level costskept by the IMC include:

Water bills

Energy bills

Repair and servicing costs

Security guard cost

Replacement costs

Levies (for example subscription fees to irrigationassociations, etc.)

These scheme records (fixed costs) will allow for thecalculation of scheme costs per hectare. Individual farmersmay keep a record of their individual contributions to thesecosts as well as repairs and other costs relating to theirplots. This will allow for calculation of irrigation profit perplot (see Section 5.1).

Irrigation manual

30 – Module 14

Table 11Gross margin for Mutange irrigation scheme, total area 105 ha (200% cropping intensity)


Grain maize 40 42 40 487Sugar beans 40 42 53 552Groundnuts 20 21 31 254Wheat 40 42 69 567Green maize 40 42 284 633Cabbages 20 21 147 953Gross margin (1) 200 210 627 446Less:Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2) 22 126Repair and maintenance costs (3) 32 727Net income whole scheme of 105 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3) 572 592

The IMC should also keep other records, like frequency ofbreakdown of equipment. Monitoring the breakdownfrequency, for example engine breakdown, will allow fordecisions to be made on whether, for example, a newengine should be bought.

The IMC also needs to keep records on the energyconsumption rate. Monitoring the energy consumptionrate will allow for early detection of problems. A suddenrise in the rate of energy consumption may indicate that theequipment needs servicing. Servicing equipment in timemay prevent costly repairs following equipmentbreakdown. Records of power failure, where nationalelectricity supply is available, should also be kept.

The IMC may also keep other non-financial records suchas, for example:

List of plot holders

Gender disaggregation of plot holders

List of IMC post bearers

Gender disaggregation of IMC post bearers

These data can be updated as and when the need arises.They will be useful in monitoring issues such asadvancement of women, for example whether, over time,women access irrigation plots in their own right or holdleadership positions.

5.2.3. Agricultural Extension Worker (AEW) data andrecords

The AEW assigned to the scheme may keep the same dataas the IMC. This is because the AEW is well placed tocommunicate the data (should the need arise) to variousstakeholders such as the scheme engineer, planners andother researchers in the scheme.

Over and above these data, the AEW will keep records of:

Crops grown in the scheme

Total area per crop

Cropping programme

Recommended agronomic practices

Condition of the irrigation infrastructure

Irrigation scheduling

Details of courses run for committees and farmers andattendance

Courses attended by the AEW

Problems encountered, such as disease outbreaks,conflicts, etc.

5.2.4. Experts data and records

Some data, which may have financial implications, will haveto be collected by experts, since they are difficult orimpossible for farmers to collect. Such data include technicalperformance data such as discharge rate, the assessment ofcondition of equipment, and irrigation infrastructure.

The discharge rate can be taken at the commissioning of thescheme. Monitoring the discharge rate on a regular basis,for example yearly, will allow for decisions to be made onwhether equipment should be kept as it is, or whether itshould be serviced or replaced altogether. Estimating thevolumes of water used can be the means for estimating theefficiency of the scheme. Checking the condition of theequipment regularly will allow for early detection of wornparts.

Some of the environmental performance data, such as soilpH and water pollution, will also need to be measuredregularly, for example yearly, throughout the life of thescheme in order to detect whether there are any changes insoil and water quality as a result of the scheme.

5.2.5. External evaluators data and records

A team of outsiders working closely with the stakeholdersin the scheme can carry out a survey among irrigators justbefore they start irrigating their new plots (baseline study).Thereafter, mid-term evaluation, ex-post evaluation (atcompletion of the project) and impact evaluation (someyears after completion) missions should be undertaken.The missions do not need to be carried out by the sameteam. For example, a mid-term and ex-post evaluation maybe commissioned by a donor agency using its own staff.

Issues to be covered in a formal survey include:

Asset ownership by irrigators

Nutritional status of the family

Ability to pay school fees

Employment creation

Food security status

Disease incidence among irrigating households and thesurrounding community

Farmer organization and management ability

The external evaluating team may also have informaldiscussions with various stakeholders and makeobservations to cover issues such as:

Advancement of women

Backward and forward linkages with the scheme

Module 14 – 31


Food security status of the area

Appropriateness of the technology, for example treadlepumps to women

Erosion

Waterlogging/drainage problems

The external evaluating team may also use agricultural andfinancial data from a sample of farmers and scheme-leveldata from IMC to cover issues such as:

Financial viability of scheme

Change in irrigators’ yields and/or incomes

5.2.6. Monitoring the financial performance ofMutange irrigation scheme

Table 12 shows the financial analysis of Mutange irrigationscheme seven years into operation. These figures then canbe compared with the figures in Table 13, which show thefinancial analysis prepared during the financial andeconomic appraisal of the project (Module 11). The actualdata on costs and benefits collected over a period of sixyears are used to re-appraise the scheme. This is done inorder to determine whether the scheme is still financiallyviable or deserves support only on social, political or foodsecurity grounds. In order to be able to compare Tables 12and 13, and to be able to re-assess the NPV, B/C ratio andthe IRR (see below), it was assumed that after the 7th yearof operation (= 8th year after construction) until the endof the 20th year of operation, the costs would be the sameas those of the 7th year. The discount rate has beenestimated at 13% instead of the 12% that was used duringthe appraisal of the project.

Indicators to measure the viability of a project are the NetPresent Value (NPV), the Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio and theInternal Rate of Return (IRR). For a detailed description ofthese indicators and their calculation the reader is referredto Module 11. Suffice it to say here, that the higher thevalues of these parameters the more viable the project is. Inany case the NPV should be greater than 0, the B/C ratiogreater than 1 and the IRR should be greater than thediscount rate. Table 12 shows that this is the case for theproject 7 years into operation; so it continues to be viable.However, when comparing these figures with the onescalculated during appraisal (Table 13), they all have gonedown:

The NPV has gone down from US$2 608 425 toUS$2 112 273, which is a decrease of 19%

The B/C ratio has gone down from 2.48 to 2.09, whichis a decrease of 16%

The IRR has gone down from 42% to 30%, which is adecrease of 29%

When, however, comparing Table 12 with Table 14, whichduring the financial and economic appraisal had alreadytaken into consideration price increases due to inflation,the difference is much less. In this case:

The NPV has gone down from US$2 236 154 toUS$2 112 273, which is a decrease of 6%

The B/C ratio has gone up from 2.05 to 2.09, which isa increase of 2%

The IRR has gone down from 33% to 30%, which is adecrease of 9%

Irrigation manual

32 – Module 14

Tabl

e 12

Fina

ncia

l ana

lysi

s of

Mut

ange

irrig

atio

n sc

hem

e, 7

yea

rs in

to o

pera

tion

(US$

)

Year

Inve

stm

ent

Rep

lace

men

tEn

ergy

Rep

airs

Te

chni

cal

With

out-

Tota

l W

ith-

Net

Dis

coun

tPr

esen

t Pr

esen

t Pr

esen

t co

sts

cost

san

dsu

ppor

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tbe

nefit

sbfa

ctor

va

lue

ofva

lue

ofva

lue

of n

et

mai

nten

ance

bene

fits

cost

abe

nefit

s(1

3%)

cost

scbe

nefit

sdbe

nefit

se

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

11

200

000

36 8

781

236

878

0-1

236

878

0.88

501

094

582

0-1

094

582

225

000

30 0

0014

545

36 8

7810

6 42

345

1 66

334

5 24

00.

7831

83 3

444

353

718

270

374

327

100

33 0

0016

000

36 8

7811

2 97

854

8 35

243

5 37

50.

6931

78 2

9938

0 03

630

1 73

64

28 7

8235

672

17 5

9936

878

118

931

627

446

508

516

0.61

3372

942

384

824

311

882

534

100

40 2

5019

359

36 8

7813

0 58

771

2 46

958

1 88

20.

5428

70 8

7738

6 69

931

5 82

26

27 0

0035

490

41 5

0021

295

36 8

7816

2 16

371

2 46

955

0 30

60.

4803

77 8

9034

2 21

226

4 32

27

36 6

0042

210

23 4

2536

878

139

113

712

469

573

356

0.42

5159

131

302

842

243

711

837

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

3762

52 8

0426

8 00

221

5 19

89

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.33

2946

730

237

170

190

440

1037

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

2946

41 3

5420

9 88

516

8 53

111

80 0

0037

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7822

0 37

871

2 46

949

2 09

10.

2607

57 4

5218

5 73

912

8 28

712

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.23

0732

386

164

371

131

985

1337

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

2042

28 6

6014

5 46

111

6 80

114

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.18

0725

363

128

726

103

363

1537

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

1599

22 4

4511

3 91

791

472

1690

000

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

230

378

712

469

482

091

0.14

1532

598

100

812

68 2

1417

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.12

5217

578

89 2

1471

636

1837

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

1108

15 5

5678

950

63 3

9519

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.09

8113

766

69 8

6856

102

2037

000

42 5

0024

000

36 8

7814

0 37

871

2 46

957

2 09

10.

0868

12 1

8261

830

49 6

4721

37 0

0042

500

24 0

0036

878

140

378

712

469

572

091

0.07

6810

781

54 7

1743

936

1 20

0 00

019

7 00

070

5 07

281

7 63

244

8 22

377

4 42

84

142

355

13 7

39 4

299

597

074

71

946

719

4 05

8 99

32

112

273

aTo

tal p

roje

ct c

osts

(8) =

(7) +

(6) +

(5) +

(4) +

(3) +

(2)

bN

et b

enef

its (1

0) =

(9) -

(8)

Net

Pre

sent

Val

ue (N

PV) a

t 13%

:2

112

273

cPr

esen

t val

ue o

f cos

ts (1

2) =

(8) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its:

4 05

8 99

3d

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its (1

3) =

(9) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of c

osts

:1

946

719

ePr

esen

t val

ue o

f net

ben

efits

(14)

= (1

0) x

(11)

Ben

efit/

Cos

t (B

/C) r

atio

:2.

09In

tern

al R

ate

of R

etur

n (IR

R):

30%

Payb

ack

perio

d:4

year

s

Module 14 – 33


Tabl

e 13

Fina

ncia

l ana

lysi

s of

Mut

ange

irrig

atio

n sc

hem

e, a

s es

tabl

ishe

d du

ring

the

finan

cial

and

eco

nom

ic a

ppra

isal

of t

he p

roje

ct (U

S$)

Year

Inve

stm

ent

Rep

lace

men

tEn

ergy

Rep

airs

Te

chni

cal

With

out-

Tota

l W

ith-

Net

Dis

coun

tPr

esen

t Pr

esen

t Pr

esen

t co

sts

cost

san

dsu

ppor

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tbe

nefit

sbfa

ctor

va

lue

ofva

lue

ofva

lue

of n

et

mai

nten

ance

bene

fits

cost

abe

nefit

s(1

3%)

cost

scbe

nefit

sdbe

nefit

se

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

11

090

909

36 8

781

127

787

0-1

127

787

0.89

291

007

001

0-1

007

001

222

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

645

1 66

334

5 38

70.

7972

84 7

2336

0 06

627

5 34

33

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

548

352

442

077

0.71

1875

647

390

317

314

670

422

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

662

7 44

652

1 17

10.

6355

67 5

3839

8 74

233

1 20

45

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.56

7460

301

404

255

343

954

624

936

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

131

212

712

469

581

257

0.50

6666

472

360

937

294

465

722

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

4523

48 0

6832

2 25

027

4 18

18

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.40

3942

925

287

766

244

841

922

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

3606

38 3

2325

6 91

621

8 59

310

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.32

2034

221

229

415

195

194

1177

097

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

183

373

712

469

529

096

0.28

7552

720

204

835

152

115

1222

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

2567

27 2

8118

2 89

115

5 61

013

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.22

9224

358

163

298

138

939

1422

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

2046

21 7

4414

5 77

112

4 02

715

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.18

2719

417

130

168

110

751

1684

456

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

190

732

712

469

521

737

0.16

3131

108

116

204

85 0

9517

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.14

5615

474

103

735

88 2

6218

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.13

0013

816

92 6

2178

805

1922

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

1161

12 3

3982

718

70 3

7920

22 1

2632

727

14 5

4536

878

106

276

712

469

606

193

0.10

3711

021

73 8

8362

862

2122

126

32 7

2714

545

36 8

7810

6 27

671

2 46

960

6 19

30.

0926

9 84

165

975

56 1

331

090

909

186

489

442

520

654

540

290

900

774

428

3 43

9 78

613

739

429

10 2

99 6

431

764

335

4 37

2 76

02

608

425

aTo

tal p

roje

ct c

osts

(8) =

(7) +

(6) +

(5) +

(4) +

(3) +

(2)

bN

et b

enef

its (1

0) =

(9) -

(8)

Net

Pre

sent

Val

ue (N

PV) a

t 13%

:2

608

425

cPr

esen

t val

ue o

f cos

ts (1

2) =

(8) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its:

4 37

2 76

0d

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its (1

3) =

(9) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of c

osts

:1

764

335

ePr

esen

t val

ue o

f net

ben

efits

(14)

= (1

0) x

(11)

Ben

efit/

Cos

t (B

/C) r

atio

:2.

48In

tern

al R

ate

of R

etur

n (IR

R):

42%

Payb

ack

perio

d:4

year

s

Irrigation manual

34 – Module 14

Tabl

e 14

Fina

ncia

l ana

lysi

s of

Mut

ange

irrig

atio

n sc

hem

e, a

s es

tabl

ishe

d du

ring

the

finan

cial

and

eco

nom

ic a

ppra

isal

of t

he p

roje

ct, t

akin

g in

to c

onsi

dera

tion

a 30

% in

crea

sein

inve

stm

ent,

repl

acem

ent,

repa

irs a

nd m

aint

enan

ce c

osts

(US$

)

Year

Inve

stm

ent

Rep

lace

men

tEn

ergy

Rep

airs

Te

chni

cal

With

out-

Tota

l W

ith-

Net

Dis

coun

tPr

esen

t Pr

esen

t Pr

esen

t co

sts

cost

san

dsu

ppor

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tpr

ojec

tbe

nefit

sbfa

ctor

va

lue

ofva

lue

ofva

lue

of n

et

mai

nten

ance

bene

fits

cost

abe

nefit

s(1

3%)

cost

scbe

nefit

sdbe

nefit

se

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

11

418

182

00

036

878

1 45

5 05

90

-1 4

55 0

590.

8929

1 29

9 22

20

-1 2

99 2

222

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

451

663

335

569

0.79

7292

550

360

066

267

516

322

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

454

8 35

243

2 25

90.

7118

82 6

3539

0 31

730

7 68

24

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

627

446

511

352

0.63

5573

777

398

742

324

965

522

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

5674

65 8

7240

4 25

533

8 38

36

32 4

1722

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7814

8 51

071

2 46

956

3 95

80.

5066

75 2

3536

0 93

728

5 70

17

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.45

2352

509

322

250

269

740

822

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

4039

46 8

9028

7 76

624

0 87

69

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.36

0641

863

256

916

215

053

1022

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

3220

37 3

8222

9 41

519

2 03

311

100

226

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

216

320

712

469

496

149

0.28

7562

192

204

835

142

643

1222

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

2567

29 8

0118

2 89

115

3 08

913

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.22

9226

609

163

298

136

689

1422

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

2046

23 7

5314

5 77

112

2 01

815

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.18

2721

210

130

168

108

958

1610

9 79

322

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7822

5 88

671

2 46

948

6 58

20.

1631

36 8

4211

6 20

479

362

1722

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

1456

16 9

0310

3 73

586

832

1822

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

1300

15 0

9292

621

77 5

2919

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.11

6113

478

82 7

1869

239

2022

126

42 5

4514

545

36 8

7811

6 09

471

2 46

959

6 37

50.

1037

12 0

3973

883

61 8

4421

22 1

2642

545

14 5

4536

878

116

094

712

469

596

375

0.09

2610

750

65 9

7555

224

Tota

l1

418

182

242

436

442

520

850

902

290

900

774

428

4 01

9 36

713

739

429

9 72

0 06

12

136

607

4 37

2 76

02

236

154

aTo

tal p

roje

ct c

osts

(8) =

(7) +

(6) +

(5) +

(4) +

(3) +

(2)

bN

et b

enef

its (1

0) =

(9) -

(8)

Net

Pre

sent

Val

ue (N

PV) a

t 13%

:2

236

154

cPr

esen

t val

ue o

f cos

ts (1

2) =

(8) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its:

4 37

2 76

0d

Pres

ent v

alue

of b

enef

its (1

3) =

(9) x

(11)

Pres

ent v

alue

of c

osts

:2

136

607

ePr

esen

t val

ue o

f net

ben

efits

(14)

= (1

0) x

(11)

Ben

efit/

Cos

t (B

/C) r

atio

:2.

05In

tern

al R

ate

of R

etur

n (IR

R):

33%

Payb

ack

perio

d:5

year

s

Module 14 – 35


Irrigation manual

36 – Module 14

Beaudoux, E., de Crombrugghe, G., Douxchamps, F., Gueneau, M. and Nieuwkerk, M. 1992. Supporting development actionfrom identification to evaluation. Macmillan Education Ltd.

BOND. 2001. Beginner’s guide to logical framework analysis. BOND Guidance notes series 1.

Casley, D.J. and Kumar K. 1990. Project monitoring and evaluation in agriculture. London.

Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1981. A handbook on monitoring and evaluation of agriculture and rural development projects. World Bank.

Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1989. Data collection in developing countries. Oxford University Press.

DFID. 1997. Guidelines on humanitarian assistance.

FAO. 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 45.Developed by: Walker, W.R. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1992. CROPWAT: A computer programme for irrigation planning and management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage PaperNo. 46. Prepared by: Smith, M. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1998. SEAGA Sector Guide Irrigation. Socioeconomic and gender analysis programme. Prepared by: Eva Jordans. Rome,Italy.

FAO SAFR. 2000. Socio-economic impact of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe: Case studies of ten irrigation schemes. Harare,Zimbabwe.

FAO/DFID/ICID. Undated. Guidelines for water management and irrigation development. Prepared by: Field, W.P and Collier, F.W.HR Wallington Ltd, Institute of Hydrology.

FARMESA. 2001. Farming systems approach to technology development and transfer: a source book. Prepared by: Matata, J.B,Anandajayasekeram, P, Kiriro, T.N, Wandera, E.O. and Dixon, J. Harare, Zimbabwe.

IDS. 1998. Participatory monitoring & evaluation: learning from change. Policy briefing. Issue 12, November 1998.

IIMI. 1996. Méthodologie d’évaluation des performances et de diagnostic des systèmes irrigués. Projet Management de l’irrigation auBurkina Faso. Novembre 1996.

Sally, H. 1995. Performance assessment of rice irrigation in the Sahel: major indicators and preliminary results from Burkina Faso and Niger.Paper presented at Workshop on irrigated rice in the Sahel: prospects for sustainable development, 27-31 March1995.

United Nations ACC Task Force on Rural Development Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation. 1984. Guiding principles for thedesign and use of monitoring and evaluation in rural development projects and programmes. Rome.

Module 14 – 37

References

Irrigation manual

38 – Module 14

Example of a drag-hose sprinkler irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe, following the logical framework of Table 2

Module 14 – 39

Appendix 1Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of

activities, outputs, immediate objectives and goals

INPU

TS/A

CTI

VITI

ES: S

elec

tion

and

trai

ning

of n

ew ir

rigat

ors

and

inst

alla

tion

of e

quip

men

t

Area

of

Spec

ific

data

or i

nfor

mat

ion

Sour

ce o

f M

etho

d of

col

lect

ion

Who

use

s th

is

Use

of in

form

atio

nCo

mm

ents

indi

cato

rs(in

dica

tors

)in

form

atio

nan

d fre

quen

cyin

form

atio

n

Sele

ctio

nN

umbe

r of f

arm

ers

sele

cted

AEW

Part

of s

elec

tion

Agrit

ex, R

DC

Agrit

ex &

RD

C w

ant t

o kn

ow

Agrit

ex c

an c

arry

out

the

base

line

– Fe

mal

es, m

ales

RD

CC

omm

ittee

Fund

ing

wha

t sor

t of t

rain

ing

is re

quire

d su

rvey

thro

ugh

one

of it

s un

its to

–

Agric

ultu

ral t

rain

ing,

for e

xam

ple

Agen

cyby

new

irrig

ator

s so

as

to

prov

ide

the

data

Mas

ter f

arm

eror

gani

ze th

e co

urse

s.–

Farm

ing

expe

rienc

eBa

selin

e su

rvey

Surv

ey o

f new

–

Aver

age

age

irrig

ator

s on

ce a

t Fu

ndin

g Ag

ency

wan

ts to

kno

wFu

ndin

g Ag

ency

–As

set o

wne

rshi

p, fo

r exa

mpl

e st

art o

f the

sch

eme

whe

ther

pro

ject

ben

efic

iarie

s ca

n en

gage

a re

sear

cher

to d

oeq

uipm

ent a

nd d

raft

pow

erfa

ll w

ithin

its

prio

rity

area

eg.

th

e su

rvey

and

ana

lysi

s to

– C

rops

gro

wn

curre

ntly

und

er d

ryla

ndw

omen

farm

ers,

the

poor

, etc

.pr

ovid

e th

e da

ta

Trai

ning

Cou

rses

run

for i

rriga

tors

AEW

Con

tain

ed in

mon

thly

Ag

ritex

– Ke

ep tr

ack

of c

ours

es ru

n AE

W’s

repo

rt to

DAE

O c

ould

be

–Ty

pes

of c

ours

esre

port

to D

AEO

for i

rriga

tors

copi

ed to

Fun

ding

Age

ncy

–D

ates

Fund

ing

– Ke

ep tr

ack

of o

utpu

t rel

ated

–

Atte

ndan

ce –

men

, wom

enAg

ency

to fu

nds

disb

urse

d

Irrig

atio

n –

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

rate

of

IMC

Take

met

er re

adin

g Irr

igat

ors,

–

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

rate

R

egul

ar m

onito

ring

of th

ese

equi

pmen

t sy

stem

wee

kly

Fund

ing

dete

rmin

es s

ize

of th

e

indi

cato

rs is

requ

ired

inst

alle

d, te

sted

Ag

ency

,sc

hem

e en

ergy

bill

and

perfo

rmin

g –

Dis

char

ge ra

teEx

perts

Test

s an

d ph

ysic

al

Agrit

ex–

Any

chan

ge in

dis

char

ge

as e

xpec

ted

chec

k on

equ

ipm

ent a

tra

te g

ives

adv

ance

war

ning

–

Con

ditio

n of

equ

ipm

ent

Expe

rtsin

augu

ratio

n of

sch

eme

abou

t pro

blem

s ei

ther

at t

he

and

then

eve

ry 6

mon

ths

wat

er s

ourc

e or

with

the

equi

pmen

t–

Uni

form

ity o

f irri

gatio

nFa

rmer

s &

AEW

Obs

erva

tion

wee

kly

–Fr

eque

nt b

reak

dow

n af

fect

s th

e re

pair

bill,

als

o re

sults

in

–Fr

eque

ncy

of b

reak

dow

nIM

C &

AEW

IMC

& A

EW re

cord

s pe

riods

of n

on- i

rriga

tion

of a

ll br

eakd

owns

and

–

Any

dete

riora

tion

in th

e re

pairs

whe

n th

ey o

ccur

cond

ition

of e

quip

men

t may

m

ean

• i

mm

inen

t bre

akdo

wn

• n

eed

for r

ehab

ilitat

ion,

etc

.

Irrigation manual

40 – Module 14

OU

TPU

TS: I

ncre

ased

div

ersi

ty in

to h

igh-

inco

me

crop

s an

d ad

optio

n of

app

ropr

iate

agr

onom

ic p

ract

ices

Area

of

Spec

ific

data

or i

nfor

mat

ion

Sour

ce o

f M

etho

d of

col

lect

ion

Who

use

s th

is

Use

of in

form

atio

nCo

mm

ents

indi

cato

rs(in

dica

tors

)in

form

atio

nan

d fre

quen

cyin

form

atio

n

Div

ersi

fy c

rop

Num

ber o

f irri

gato

rs g

row

ing

and

Indi

vidu

al fa

rmer

Farm

er k

eeps

reco

rd o

f Fa

rmer

To b

e ab

le to

est

imat

e to

tal

Also

com

pare

farm

er re

cord

s w

ithpr

oduc

tion

area

und

er:

reco

rds

each

cro

p af

ter e

very

pr

oduc

tion

and

orga

nize

for

wha

t far

mer

s us

ed to

gro

w u

nder

–G

reen

mai

zeop

erat

ion

pack

agin

g, tr

ansp

ort a

nd s

ellin

gdr

ylan

d as

det

aile

d in

the

–G

roun

dnut

sba

selin

e st

udy

–Iri

sh p

otat

oes

AEW

reco

rds

AEW

may

reco

rd a

s

Agrit

exTo

be

able

to h

elp

farm

ers

look

–Su

gar b

eans

they

vis

it an

d ob

serv

e fo

r mar

kets

, neg

otia

te p

rices

, etc

.Tr

aini

ng o

f irri

gato

rs o

n re

cord

–Le

af v

eget

able

sea

ch p

lot a

t lea

st o

nce

keep

ing

is im

porta

nt b

efor

e –

Gre

en p

eppe

rsa

mon

thFu

ndin

g To

mak

e a

prel

imin

ary

they

can

be

expe

cted

to k

eep

–Pe

asAg

ency

asse

ssm

ent o

f whe

ther

the

reco

rds

–Et

c.pr

ojec

t obj

ectiv

e is

like

ly to

be

achi

eved

Adop

tion

of

Cro

p va

rietie

s gr

own

Farm

er re

cord

s–

Farm

er re

cord

s as

Fa

rmer

This

dat

a w

ill he

lp h

im /

her t

o C

ompa

re d

ata

from

farm

er

appr

opria

te

–Av

erag

e se

ed ra

te p

er h

a pe

r cro

pso

on a

s th

ey a

re

budg

et fo

r the

sam

e cr

op n

ext

reco

rds

with

info

rmat

ion

on w

hat

agro

nom

ic

thro

ugh

with

a

seas

onth

e AE

W re

com

men

dspr

actic

espa

rticu

lar o

pera

tion

Type

and

ave

rage

qua

ntity

of t

op

Agrit

ex A

EW–

AEW

sum

mar

izes

a

Agrit

exTo

ass

ess

whe

ther

farm

ers

The

proj

ect m

onito

ring

syst

emdr

essi

ng fe

rtiliz

er u

sed

per c

rop

sam

ple

of ir

rigat

ors’

ne

ed fu

rther

trai

ning

on

coul

d be

des

igne

d in

suc

h a

way

reco

rds

for o

ne o

f the

ir ag

rono

my

that

the

AEW

’s re

port

to D

AEO

Cul

tura

l pra

ctic

es u

sed

to c

ontro

l m

onth

ly re

ports

to

is c

opie

d to

Fun

ding

Age

ncy

pest

s an

d di

seas

es p

er c

rop

DAE

OAn

eva

luat

ion

of a

dopt

ion

rate

Type

and

ave

rage

qua

ntity

of

by a

n ex

tern

al te

am w

ill gi

vepe

stic

ide

used

per

cro

pan

obj

ectiv

e as

sess

men

t of

adop

tion

rate

Tim

elin

ess

of o

pera

tions

Exte

rnal

–

Adop

tion

surv

ey o

nce

Fund

ing

To m

ake

a pr

elim

inar

y ev

alua

tion

team

ever

y ye

ar o

r jus

t Ag

ency

asse

ssm

ent o

f whe

ther

the

mid

way

into

the

proj

ect o

bjec

tives

are

like

ly to

im

plem

enta

tion

be a

chie

ved

Module 14 – 41


Irrigation manual

42 – Module 14

IMM

EDIA

TE O

BJE

CTI

VE: I

ncre

ased

yie

lds

and

inco

mes

in a

n en

viro

nmen

tally

sus

tain

able

way

Area

of

Spec

ific

data

or i

nfor

mat

ion

Sour

ce o

f M

etho

d of

col

lect

ion

Who

use

s th

is

Use

of in

form

atio

nCo

mm

ents

indi

cato

rs(in

dica

tors

)in

form

atio

nan

d fre

quen

cyin

form

atio

n

Incr

ease

d Av

erag

e yi

elds

per

ha

for

Indi

vidu

al fa

rmer

–

AEW

sum

mar

izes

a s

ampl

eFa

rmer

Wan

ts to

com

pare

with

pas

t Ag

ritex

can

car

ry o

ut a

n en

d-of

-yi

elds

each

of t

he c

rops

in th

e

reco

rds

of a

rea

of ir

rigat

ors’

reco

rds

for o

nepe

rform

ance

. Wan

ts to

find

a

term

eva

luat

ion

of th

e sc

hem

esc

hem

e fo

r suc

cess

ive

and

outp

ut o

f of

his

mon

thly

repo

rts to

m

arke

t. W

ants

to o

rgan

ize

thro

ugh

one

of it

s un

its to

pro

vide

seas

ons

each

cro

pD

AEO

tra

nspo

rt. W

ants

to e

stim

ate

the

data

inco

me

Agrit

ex A

EW–

Exte

rnal

eva

luat

ion

team

may

Ag

ritex

To h

elp

farm

ers

find

a m

arke

t.

also

sum

mar

ize

a sa

mpl

e of

To

hel

p fa

rmer

s im

prov

e on

irr

igat

ors’

reco

rds

to m

ake

its

past

per

form

ance

own

inde

pend

ent a

sses

smen

t Fu

ndin

g Fu

ndin

g Ag

ency

may

eng

age

a on

ce e

very

yea

r or j

ust m

idw

ayAg

ency

To a

sses

s to

wha

t ext

ent p

roje

ct

rese

arch

er to

do

the

anal

ysis

to

into

the

impl

emen

tatio

n ob

ject

ives

are

bei

ng m

etpr

ovid

e th

e da

ta

Incr

ease

d G

ross

mar

gin

per c

rop

Indi

vidu

al fa

rmer

–

AEW

ana

lyse

s a

sam

ple

of

Farm

erTo

com

pare

with

pas

t Ag

ritex

can

car

ry o

ut a

n en

d-of

-in

com

es o

f en

terp

rise

reco

rds

irrig

ator

s’ re

cord

s to

get

ave

rage

pe

rform

ance

To d

ecid

e w

heth

er

term

eva

luat

ion

of th

e sc

hem

eirr

igat

ors

Aver

age

net i

rriga

tion

prof

it gr

oss

mar

gins

less

fixe

d co

sts

to re

mai

n in

the

sche

me

or s

eek

thro

ugh

one

of it

s un

its to

pro

vide

per i

rriga

tor

Sche

me

leve

l cos

ts

(Net

irrig

atio

n in

com

e) fo

r one

al

tern

ativ

e em

ploy

men

tth

e da

taof

ele

ctric

ity, w

ater

, of

thei

r mon

thly

repo

rts to

re

pairs

, etc

.D

AEO

Agrit

exTo

ass

ist f

arm

ers

mak

e de

cisi

ons

on fa

vour

able

mar

kets

for i

nput

sFu

ndin

g Ag

ency

may

eng

age

a –

Exte

rnal

eva

luat

ion

team

may

an

d pr

oduc

e.re

sear

cher

to d

o th

e an

alys

is to

also

ana

lyze

a s

ampl

e of

pr

ovid

e th

e da

tairr

igat

ors’

reco

rds

to m

ake

its

Fund

ing

To a

sses

s to

wha

t ext

ent p

roje

ct

own

inde

pend

ent a

sses

smen

t Ag

ency

obje

ctiv

es a

re b

eing

met

once

eve

ry y

ear o

r jus

t mid

way

into

the

impl

emen

tatio

n To

ass

ess

irrig

ator

s’ a

bilit

y C

redi

tor

serv

ice

loan

s

Viab

ility

NPV

Farm

er re

cord

s,

Cal

cula

ted

usin

g fa

rmer

reco

rds,

D

onor

age

ncy

–To

gau

ge w

heth

er th

e sc

hem

eAg

ritex

can

car

ry o

ut a

n en

d-of

-IR

Rsc

hem

e le

vel

sche

me

leve

l rec

ords

and

is

stil

l via

ble

term

eva

luat

ion

of th

e sc

hem

ePa

y ba

ck p

erio

dre

cord

s, in

vest

men

t in

vest

men

t cos

t rec

ords

–To

dec

ided

whe

ther

the

thro

ugh

one

of it

s un

its to

pro

vide

co

st re

cord

ssc

hem

e is

sus

tain

able

the

data

Cal

cula

ted

ever

y 5

year

s or

so

to

–To

dec

ide

whe

ther

to

see

whe

ther

the

sche

me

is s

till

reha

bilit

ate

the

sche

me

viab

le–

To d

ecid

e w

heth

er to

fund

a

sim

ilar s

chem

e or

a d

iffer

ent

proj

ect a

ltoge

ther

in fu

ture

Cre

dito

rTo

gau

ge w

heth

er th

e sc

hem

e Fu

ndin

g Ag

ency

may

eng

age

aw

ill m

anag

e to

ser

vice

its

loan

sre

sear

cher

to d

o th

e an

alys

is to

Agrit

exTo

dec

ide

whe

ther

the

sche

me

is p

rovi

de th

e da

taw

orth

the

inve

stm

ent i

n m

an-

pow

er, t

rain

ing

of ir

rigat

ors,

etc

.

Tech

nica

l So

il m

oist

ure

in fi

eld

Expe

rts–

Fiel

d m

easu

rem

ent

Farm

er,

To g

auge

tech

nica

l per

form

ance

an

d en

viro

n-Ag

ritex

, an

d im

prov

em

enta

l Pr

essu

re a

nd d

isch

arge

in

Expe

rts–

Fiel

d m

easu

rem

ent

Fund

ing

sust

aina

bility

sprin

kler

sys

tem

agen

cy

Irrig

atio

n ef

ficie

ncie

sEx

perts

–Fi

eld

mea

sure

men

t

Soil

pH /

salin

itySo

il sa

mpl

es–

Labo

rato

ry s

oil t

ests

by

–

Agrit

ex a

nd

–To

gau

ge s

usta

inab

ility

of

expe

rts e

very

3 y

ears

Don

or A

genc

yth

e sc

hem

eEr

osio

nIrr

igat

ors,

AEW

and

–

Obs

erva

tion

year

ly–

Don

or

–To

fund

cor

rect

ive

mea

sure

sou

tsid

ers

Agen

cyW

ater

pol

lutio

nW

ater

sam

ple

from

–

Labo

rato

ry te

st fo

r nitr

ate

Agrit

exTo

spe

arhe

ad re

habi

litat

ion

stre

amev

ery

3 ye

ars

of a

ffect

ed a

reas

Wat

erlo

ggin

g / p

oor d

rain

age

Irrig

ator

s, A

EW

–O

bser

vatio

n ye

arly

Hum

an d

isea

se in

cide

nce:

Loca

l clin

ic re

cord

sAc

cess

to c

linic

reco

rds

once

Lo

cal h

ealth

Lo

cal h

ealth

cen

ter m

ay w

ant t

o –

Mal

aria

a

year

wor

ker

put t

oget

her a

trai

ning

pro

gram

me

– Bi

lhar

zia

Fund

ing

to c

urb

spre

ad o

f dis

ease

Surv

ey o

f irri

gato

rsSu

rvey

onc

e ev

ery

year

or j

ust

Agen

cyFu

ndin

g Ag

ency

may

onl

y w

ant

mid

way

into

the

impl

emen

tatio

n irr

igat

ors

to b

e as

soci

ated

with

‘env

iron-

men

t frie

ndly

’ sch

eme

Irrig

ator

s m

ay w

ant t

o ta

ke p

reca

utio

ns to

pr

even

t the

spr

ead

of d

isea

ses

Module 14 – 43


GO

AL:

To

impr

ove

the

stan

dard

of l

ivin

g of

the

irrig

ator

s an

d th

e co

mm

unity

aro

und

the

sche

me

Area

of

Spec

ific

data

or i

nfor

mat

ion

Sour

ce o

f M

etho

d of

col

lect

ion

Who

use

s th

is

Use

of in

form

atio

nCo

mm

ents

indi

cato

rs(in

dica

tors

)in

form

atio

nan

d fre

quen

cyin

form

atio

n

Impr

oved

–

Cha

nge

in q

uant

ity a

nd q

ualit

y of

ass

ets

Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erva

tion

Agrit

ex a

ndD

ecid

e w

heth

er to

inve

st in

a

Fund

ing

Agen

cy c

an e

ngag

e a

stan

dard

of

–C

hang

e in

qua

lity

of h

ousi

ngFu

ndin

g si

mila

r sch

eme

or a

diff

eren

t re

sear

cher

to d

o th

e su

rvey

, mid

way

livin

g of

–

Cha

nge

in c

loth

ing

qual

itySu

rvey

of

Surv

ey 4

-5 y

ears

afte

r Ag

ency

proj

ect a

ltoge

ther

in fu

ture

into

the

impl

emen

tatio

n as

wel

l as

irrig

ator

s–

Impr

oved

acc

ess

to e

duca

tion

irrig

ator

s by

im

plem

enta

tion

whe

n ju

st b

efor

e th

e en

d of

the

fund

ing

–Im

prov

emen

t in

diet

exte

rnal

th

e sc

hem

e is

sup

pose

d Po

litic

al

To h

ighl

ight

the

achi

evem

ents

–

Cha

nge

in ro

le o

f wom

en in

the

sche

me

eval

uatio

nto

be

oper

atin

g at

full

lead

ers

of th

e go

vern

men

t of t

he d

ayAg

ritex

can

car

ry o

ut a

mid

term

te

ampo

tent

ial

and

end-

of-te

rm e

valu

atio

n of

the

sche

me

thro

ugh

one

of it

s un

its

Impr

oved

–

Cha

nge

in q

uant

ity a

nd q

ualit

y of

O

bser

vatio

n O

bser

vatio

n 4-

5 ye

ars

Fund

ing

Dec

ide

whe

ther

to in

vest

in a

st

anda

rd o

f ac

cess

road

sby

ext

erna

l af

ter i

mpl

emen

tatio

n Ag

ency

and

sim

ilar s

chem

e or

a d

iffer

ent

livin

g of

the

–Be

tter a

cces

s to

ser

vice

s su

ch a

s ev

alua

tion

whe

n th

e sc

hem

e is

po

litic

al

proj

ect a

ltoge

ther

in fu

ture

com

mun

ity

shop

s, c

redi

t fac

ilitie

s, m

arke

ts e

tc.

team

supp

osed

to b

e op

erat

ing

lead

ers

arou

nd th

e at

full

pote

ntia

lTo

hig

hlig

ht th

e ac

hiev

emen

ts

sche

me

of th

e go

vern

men

t of t

he d

ay

Irrigation manual

44 – Module 14

1. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PLOT HOLDERS TO BE USED FOR SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION SCHEME EVALUATION

Identification details

Name of interviewer:

Date of interview:

Name of irrigation scheme:

District:

Province:

Name of registered plot holder:

Sex: Male: Female:

Marital status: Married

Single

Widowed

Divorced

Separated

Age of registered plot holder:

Level of education of registered plot holder (years):

Agronomic and financial performance

1. When did you join the irrigation scheme?

2. Plot size (state units):

3. Total area under irrigation (state units):

Module 14 – 45

Appendix 2Examples of questionnaires and checklists

4. Please give details relating to crops you grew in your irrigation plot in 2001 in the table belowa

Crop name:Variety Area planted (ha) Cost of land preparationManure:– Amount of manure– Cost of manureBasal or initial fertilizer:– Type– Quantity (kg) – Cost Seed:– Quantity (kg)– CostFertilizer for top dressing: – Type– Quantity (kg) – Cost Pesticides:– Type 1– Type 2– Type 3– Total cost of pesticidesCost of transport of inputs to farmCasual labour cost:– Land preparation– Weeding– Harvesting– Other casual labour costTotal output producedTotal quantity consumedTotal quantity given awayMarkets:– Market 1– Market 2 – Market 3 Total quantity sold Average priceCost of transport of produce to marketCost of transport of farmer (fares)Other marketing costs

a This table will be completed using farmer records.

5. Crop pests and diseases encountered:

6. What items did you repair/replace in your own plot in year 2001?

Item repaired/ replaced Date Cost

1. 2.3.

Irrigation manual

46 – Module 14

7. What were your contributions towards electricity, water and other bills (for example security) in year 2001?

Type of bill Amount paid Period covered

Electricity billWater billOther (specify)

8. What items were replaced at scheme level in 2001?

Item repaired/ replaced Your (individual farmer) contribution to cost

1. 2.3.

9a. Did you borrow any money for crop production on your plot in the scheme in year 2001?

Yes No

9b. If yes, please give details of the loan below

Amount Source of funds Terms of loan Amount repaid

Social performance

10. Indicate who in your household makes decisions and/or does the following activities related to your plot in the scheme.

Activity Who makes decisions on activity? Who performs the activity?

PloughingPlantingBuying of inputsWeeding Fertilizer applicationChemical applicationHarvestingMarketingIrrigating crops

11. Who decides on how irrigation money is spent? Explain.

12. Asset ownership

Assets Number

Ox-drawn ploughCultivatorPlanterScotch cartWheel barrowHarrowHoe Knapsack sprayerIrrigation pumpTractorOther (specify)

Module 14 – 47


13. Livestock ownership

Livestock Who owns them? Number

CattleDraft cattleDonkeyGoatsSheepPoultryRabbitsPigsBee hivesFish pondsOther (specify)

14. Household items owned

Item Number

RadioSolar panelTelevisionPhoneFridgeSewing machineKnitting machineCarBicycleMotor bikeStoveSofaChairs TableBedWardrobeHeadboardDressing tableKitchen unit

15. Quality of main house (circle the number)

1) Brick under tile2) Brick under thatch3) Brick under asbestos4) Brick under corrugated iron5) Pole and dagga under thatch

Irrigation manual

48 – Module 14

16. How many times a week does your household consume the following?

Food Items Times per week

BeansMeatFresh vegetablesChickenMilkEggsPotatoesMufushwaOthers (specify)

17a. Are all your school going age children at school? Yes No

17b. If some are not at school state the reasons:

17c. If yes, is it boarding or day?

18a. Number of people in respondent’s household:

18b. Household members breakdown by age

Number Number of permanent residentsAge Female Male Female Male

0 - 5 years6 - 10 years

11 - 18 years19 and above

19. How many people did you employ in 2001 as:

a) Casual labour number of men: number of women:b) Permanent labour number of men: number of women:

20a. What are the advantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?

20b. What are the disadvantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?

Technical performance

21a. Is the equipment easy to operate? Elaborate.

21b. Is the equipment easy to maintain? Elaborate.

22a. What is the condition of the canals (any leakage)?

Module 14 – 49


22b. What is the condition of the reservoir (any leakage)?

22c. What is the condition of the sprinklers (do they give all the same jet)?

23. Is water ponding on your plot?

24. Do all farmers receive the same amount of water?

25. Do you have an irrigation schedule?

Environmental performance

26. Do you have any erosion problems? Elaborate.

27a. Do you have problems with nutrient mining or are there any visible soil changes since you started using the scheme?

Yes No

27b. If yes, explain.

28a. Do you have problems with waterlogging/drainage? Yes No

28b. If yes, explain how big is the area affected?

29. How many members of your family suffered from the following diseases in year 2001:

Disease Number

MalariaBilharziaDiarrhoeaKwashiokor

2. CHECKLIST FOR SCHEME-LEVEL RECORDS OF THE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC) AND THEAGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKER (AEW)

2.1. Checklist for the IMC

• Size of scheme• Total area under irrigation• List of irrigators (gender disaggregated)• List of IMC members (name, post, sex)• Details of other scheme committees• Minutes/records of IMC meetings• Details of scheme savings account(s)• Details of scheme levies• Schedule of maintenance fee payment• Energy consumption/meter reading• Energy (i.e. electricity or fuel) bills and payment schedule• Water consumption/meter reading

Irrigation manual

50 – Module 14

• Water bills and payment schedule• Details of breakdowns, repair and maintenance work undertaken in the scheme and costs associated with this• Weights of different units of measurement for each crop used in the scheme• Number of toilets in the scheme• Copy of constitution and scheme by-laws• Record of IMC courses attended• Records of field days organized• Irrigation schedule• Record of health checks by Department of Health for bilharzia snails

2.2. Checklist for the AEW

Over and above the IMC records the AEW must also keep the following records:• Crops grown in the scheme• Total area per crop• Cropping programme• Recommended agronomic practices• Details of courses run for committees and farmers and attendance• Courses attended by the AEW• Problems encountered-disease outbreaks, conflicts, etc.

3. CHECKLIST FOR EXPERTS DATA

3.1. Environmental expert

Environmental experts should assess/measure on a yearly basis the following:• Soil pH• Soil salinity, area affected, damage to crops, estimate of yield reduction• Stream nitrate/chemical content• Salinity in wells• Erosion problems• Drainage problems• Condition of slope of all the plots• Whether scheme causes water to pond (in fields, drains, main canal, field canals, structures, tanks may cause extra

hazards for malaria and/or bilharzia

3.2. Irrigation engineer

The irrigation engineer should assess and advise on a regular basis on the following:• Condition of irrigation equipment and irrigation infrastructure• Uniformity of irrigation• Amount of water used• Irrigation efficiency• Energy consumption• Discharge rate

Module 14 – 51


Irrigation manual

52 – Module 14

monitoring the technical and financial performance of an … · 2021. 2. 8. · some common...

Documents