monitoring the technical and financial performance …programmes is concerned with the assessment of...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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:
Soil moisture in the field
Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler system
Irrigation efficiencies
3.1. Soil moisture in the field
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
Chapter 3Monitoring the technical performance of a
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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:
Soil moisture in the field
Emission uniformity
Irrigation efficiencies
4.1. Soil moisture in the field
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
Chapter 4Monitoring the technical performance of a
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Crop Area Gross margin (US$)(%) (ha) per area
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)
Crop Area Gross margin (US$)(%) (ha) per area
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
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
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Irrigation manual
52 – Module 14