PREFACE These guidelines present the approach to be followed in the preparation and implementation of specific types of project which are seen to represent major components of irrigation development in Nepal over the next 10 to 15 years. The guidelines, prepared und-r the DoI Planning and Design Strengthening Project (PDSP), aim to show the approach to particular types of development. They refer to other manuals also prepared under the PDSP, which should be consulted for specific technical details. There are four guidelines in the series, all presented in this single volume. ‘They are: Volume Subject Gl Upgrading of Farmer Built and Operated systens G.2 Shallow Tubewell Development 6.3 Small/Medium Scale Project Developnent G.4 Rehabilitation of Government Schemes The technical manuals and other documents prepared under the PDSP are: General System Planning Survey and Mapping Hydrology and Agro-meteorology Soils and Land Use Sociology and Farmer Participation Groundwater Irrigation Headworks, River Training Works and Sedimentation Distribution Systems, Canals and Canal Structures Drainage Engineering Cost Estimating and Economics Infrastructure Planning Tender Documents and Construction Operation and Maintenance ebb oeloubune EZESEEREEEEEEE GRES h Interim Field Design Manual (Superseded by Manual D.2) Field Design Manual Standard Structures Designs Simulation Model Manual voo 9 Bun“This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Sir M MacDonald & Partners Limited was Commissioned. Sir M MacDonald & Partners, Limited shall not be fable for the consequences of using this document other than for the purpose for which it was commissioned, and any user and any other person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees and will by such use oF reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnity ‘Sit M MacDonald & Partners Limited for all loss or damage resulting therefrom."His Majosty’s Government aC Nepal Ministry of Water Resources Department of Irrigation Planning and Design Strengthening Project United Nations Development Programme (NEP/85)013)/World Bank Design Manuals for Irrigation Projects in Nepal G.1 Upgrading of Farmer Built and Operated Systems February 1990 Sir M MacDonatd & Partners. Lad. in association with MacDonald Agricultural Services Lid and East Consult (P)-LidCONTENTS: This guideline is concerned with the upgrading of existing small and medium sized farmer managed schemes which will continue to be operated and maintained by the beneficiaries, once improved, As such, the principal manual referred to is the Field Design Manual (D.2), since it is assumed that this will generally be used for these types of schemes. The other principal technical manuals are subject specific, and it should not be difficult to find the appropriate manual if further information is required. Page Nr CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1 1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Project stages 2 CHAPTER 2 FARMER PARTICIPATION 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Ensuring Participation 3 2.3 Water Users Organisations 4 2.4 Operation, Maintenance and Management 7 CHAPTER 3 PROBLEMS ON FARMERS' SCHEMES 3.1 Introduction 9 3.2 Problems on Terai Schemes 10 3.3 Problems on Hill Schemes 10 3.4 Managerial Problems on Farmer's Schemes = 12 CHAPTER 4 SOLUTIONS TO TYPICAL PROBLEMS 4.1 General 13 4.2 Possible Solutions 14 4.2.1 General 14 4.2.2 Possible Solutions 14 4.2.3 Lining 19 4.2.4 Covered Canals 20 4.2.5 Retaining Walls 20 4.2.6 Temporary Repairs 21 4.2.7 Other Measures 21 4.3 Approach to Canal Improvements 24 4.4 Incorporation of Existing Systems and Features 22 4.5 Minimising Disruption to Agriculture 23CONTENTS (cont.) Page wr CHAPTER 5 GENERAL APPROACH TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Introduction 25 5.2 Request for Project 25 5.3 Identification 26 5.3.1 Desk Study 26 5.3.2 Field Visit 26 5.3.3 office Work on Return from Site 27 5.3.4 Recommendations 27 5.3.5 Reporting 28 5.4 Feasibility Study and Appraisal 29 5.4.2 Desk Study 30 5.4.2 Preliminary Field visit 30 5.4.3 Field Survey Work 31 5.4.4 Field Data Analysis 32 5.4.5 Outline Design 33 5.4.6 Cost Estimates 33 5.4L? Economic Analysis 34 5.4.8 Recomendations and Reporting 34 5.5 Farmer's Agreement 35 5.6 Survey and Detailed Design 35 5.7 Project Construction 37 5.761 Approach 37 5.7.2 construction Agreement 37 5.7.3 Pre-construction Meeting 38 5.7.4 Construction 39 CHAPTER 6 POST CONSTRUCTION 6.1 Handover 4a 6.2 Agricultural Support Services ar APPENDIX A iiLIST OF TABLES Table Nr Title Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Hills 4.2 Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Terai LIST OF FIGURES Figure Nr Title 1.1 Simplified Project cycle for Improvements to Farmer Built Systems 3.1 ‘Types of Hillside Instability 4.1 Typical system Field sketch 4.2 Field Notes Form for Canal Improvenents 5.1 Approach to Project Implementation Page Nr 1s 18 Following Page Nr 12 22 22 26ADBN AO DoA NGO oaM pec PDSP ABBREVIATIONS: Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal Association Organiser Department of Agriculture Department of Irrigation His Majesty's Government of Nepal Non-Government Organisation Operation and Maintenance Planning & Construction Committee Planning and Design Strengthening Project Water Users' Association Water Users' Group ivCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 2.1 GENERAL This guideline is one of a set of four, intended to assist DoT staff and local consultants in using the design manuals prepared under the Department of Irrigation's “Planning and Design Strengthening Project" (PDSP). The other three guidelines deal with shallow tubewell development, the development of new small and medium scale projects and rehabilitation of governnent schemes. This guideline discusses the approach to upgrading small and medium sized farmer built and operated irrigation systens. smail and medium projects have been defined as follows: Location size (ha) small Mediun Hills < 50 50 to 500 Terai < 500 500 to 5000 These ranges are not intended to provide a rigid definition, and some recognition of scheme complexity is also required. | The types of schemes built and operated by farmers generally use low level technologies. Upgrading works should thus be designed and constructed making use of appropriate materials and techniques. As far as possible, materials should be locally sourced and maximum use should be made of the farmers’ own labour for construction. This will enable farmers to be better able to manage subsequent maintenance work, since materials will be more readily available, and farmers will have received some training in construction techniques. In Tabie 3 of the Field Design Manual, schemes have been classified as “simple” and "intermediate", and standards appropriate to these types of schemes set out. It is envisaged that the "simple" standards will be generally applicable for the types of schemes discussed in this guideline. The remainder of this Chapter discusses the objectives of this guideline. Chapter 2 discusses farmer participation in- the upgrading process, the strengthening of water users organisations and responsibility for operation and maintenance. Chapter 3 reviews typical problems with farmers’ schemes and vhy they need upgrading.Chapter 4 presents possible golutions to typical problems and discusses how to minimise disruption to agriculture during upgrading. Chapter 5 outlines the approach to carrying out identification, selection, appraisal and implementation of these types of projects. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The objective of this guideline is to present the proposed approach to upgrading farmer built and managed irrigation systems. The overall objectives of upgrading farmers‘ schenes include the extension and intensification of irrigated agriculture, by increasing the efficiency of water use, so that crop yields are increased through timely applications of irrigation supplies, and the strengthening of the water users! associations so that water management and operation and maintenance are improved. Since farmers will continue to operate and maintain the schemes, the improvement works should be constructed using appropriate materials and techniques. As far as possible, materials should be locally sourced and maximum use should be made of the farmers’ own lahour. This will enable farmers to be able to better manage maintenance work, since materials will be readily available and farmers will have developed some construction skills. Intervention in existing farmers' schemes must be done with care to avoid the tendency for farmers to become over-dependant on government for assistance with scheme management. Farmers must understand that it is their scheme and they are responsible for its operation and maintenance, The government should be seen as providing technical and financial assistance to help them improve the scheme, on the understanding that this is a "one-off" intervention. 1.3 PROJECT STAGES Projects may be identified during studies of natural resources and the preparation of regional or national development plans, or may arise from requests from farmers. The former approach is generally applicable to large scale irrigation or multi-purpose projects, while the latter approach forms the basis of the new irrigation policy with respect to small and ‘medium sized projects, whether these are new projects, or projects to improve existing schemes. A simplified project cycle, outlining the general approach to inplementation of these types of projects is shown in Figure 1.1.Figure 1.1 Simplified Project Cycle for Improvements to Farmer Built Systems | Feedback to Potential Project Promotion i | Projects a | Requests rom District Level, | oo , ' { : Project Identification | | Sereening and | incorporation into | Regionaland District ! —4 | ' Programmes | onan Feasibilty St | CL a si | a | | Appraisal for Financingby + i ' _ Regionalapprasalcommitea Ce i | Incorporation into : | Regionaland District [— - | Implementation Programmes Detailed Design and Tender Documents. i : I Gnerepesi Construction and | es | | 1 Operation, Maintenance andManagement Montoragand | be. - Evaluation | e1es.cem | | | | | ToRfor ConsultantsCHAPTER 2 FARMER PARTICIPATION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The chapter considers means of developing farmer participation in the implementation of projects to improve existing farmer puilt schemes, and also discusses how water users organisations can be strengthened. The suggestions should be frequently reviewed to take account of experience gained. One of the fundamental principles of the Government's Working Policy on Irrigation Development is farmer participation in all aspects of system implementation and operation. With respect to improving existing farmers' schemes, this means that tarmers should have an active role in deciding what works are required, should make a contribution (in terms of cash, land and labour) to carrying out the works and should retain responsibility for operation and maintenance of the works, once complete. In most existing farmers' schemes there will already be some form of water users' organisation. On schemes that are requesting assistance, it is likely that these organisations are not fully effective, and an important component of project development will be to assist the farmers in strengthening their organisation. 2.2 ENSURING PARTICIPATION When considering improvements to an existing farmers' scheme it is important to remember that the scheme belongs to the farmers. The request for assistance must originate with the farmers, and the majority of the farmers supplied by the system must support the request. During visits to a scheme, it must be made clear to the farmers that the Government is only prepared to assist them in upgrading the system, if the farmers are prepared to accept a major role in planning and constructing the works and are prepared to contribute in accordance with the terms set out in the Working Policy. The emphasis must be on system ownership, and that the Government will assist with upgrading but will not take over operation and maintenance. During early stages of project implementation, there will be no written agreement with the farmers. However, they must be informed of the Working Policy and their likely obligations if the project is taken up. Verbal agreement that they are prepared to undertake these obligations should be obtained. During subsequent stages, close contact and co-operation shouid be maintained with the farmers. The farmers should help to identify problem areas in the system and assess priorities. as 3designs and costs are developed, these should be discussed with the farmers to ensure thet the proposed works are appropriate to their needs. Close co-operation will ensure that the farmers are prepared to sign a Farmers’ Agreement, to contribute their share of the implementation costs and to retain responsibility for 0 & M. Once a decision has been taken to proceed with the project, an Association Organiser (AO), or other catalytic agent, will generally be assigned to help with the development of the water users' association, and to liaise between government and the farmers. 2.3 WATER USERS ORGANISATIONS organised Water Users Associations (WUAs) have been present in farmer managed irrigation systems in Nepal for many years. Research has shown that many of these associations are highly effective in carrying out the major irrigation tasks such as water allocation, water distribution, labour and resource mobilisation and conflict resolution.’ In these cases, the organisations have been developed by the farmers over a long period of time to cope with the specific irrigation problems faced. The WECS/IIMI action research project in Sindhupalchok has shown that there are many farmers' schemes where WUAs have not. developed to their full potential, and where improvements to the organisation would have a considerable impact on effectiveness of the management of the irrigation system. While each system will have specific organisational problems, and each WUA will need to develop its own solutions, certain principles can be used to assist WUAS to develop their organisational capabilities, It is envisaged that upgrading of the farmer built and operated schemes will be mainly organised between DoI and the WUA. The wuA is an association representing several Water Users' Groups ({wUGs) which are based on the tertiary units. Sometimes it may be more appropriate for the DoI to deal with specific wuGs @irect. This distinction is not made in this guideline so as to avoid obscuring the principles with such detail. The existing WA and the general social arrangements in the project area need to be reviewed to assess the WUA's capabilities and potential. While basic information will have been obtained during the early stages of the project, the first task of the AO appointed to the project will be to make this assessment. While the AO will be a key channel of communication between the Dol and the farmers, the Dol engineering staff also need to address the farmers' needs, and discuss these with them. The AO may find it necessary to recruit a trainee AO from the project area to provide locai knowledge of the social situation. 4aWorking together, they should consider the need to reorganise the WUA and, if such reorganisation is necessary, how this should be done. The existing organisation should not be severely disrupted, and the process of intervention should be gradual and carried out with sensitivity. The approach will differ from scheme to scheme and should be flexible. The following activities are generally necessary. (a) The AO should integrate himself with the community. (b) He should collect information on the membership and functions of the WUGs and WUA. (c) He should assist the WUA in strengthening their organisation, as described later. (a) He should discuss with the farmers the planned rehabilitation and the creation of groups to participate in construction activities. In assisting WUAs to reorganise, local circumstances need to be carefully considered, and the AO should not try to impose a rigid organisational design or operating regime. However, the following principles would often apply: (a) Stronger associations are characterised by higher ratios of leaders to members, and by leadership responsibility being delegated in accordance with the canal system layout. (b) The less authority an association has to handle water and adjudicate disputes, the weaker the association is likely to be. {c) The government should avoid doing things which the community can do for itself, and should only intervene when there are problems with which the community cannot cope. (a) For an effective organisation to develop, there should be predictable rewards and punishments, and these should be clarified. The AO can help to suggest and develop these norms. (e) Adequate control over water needs to be given even to the lowest in the distribution hierarchy, for example tail- enders and the smaller groups. (f) Rules should be developed for all of the major irrigation tasks, such as water allocation, distribution, maintenance and conflict resolution. ‘This is not to suggest that the same rules should be applied to all schemes, but that the rules pertaining to a particular scheme should be well defined. The principles of water allocation, for example, may involve fixed allotments by volume or time, a priority system based on location or cropping, or be based on(g) demands. This needs to be established according to the local conditions and system characteristics. Similarly, the process for conflict resolution needs to be set out. The establishment of effective and sustainable WUAs aiso depends on the staffing and management styles of the local irrigation office. If the office is manned by local people who have a binding relationship with the farmers in the project, then there is a greater possibility that the local organisations will be sustained. The following guidelines may also help AOs in strengthening the organisatio: - the rules or procedures developed must be made known to all the association members; - the rules must be clear and consistent; - the rules must be consistent with local norms; - the rules must be unbiased towards any sub-group; - adhering to the rules should be rewarding to the members; - violators of rules must be quickly identified and dealt with. In cases of violation of the rules or other conflicts, the procedures of investigation must: - be known by all the members; - be clear and consistent; - be un-biased; - be supported by local norms; - be conducted by authorities independent of routine management, During the planning and construction of the improvement works, the farmers should elect a Planning and Construction Committee (PCC) which would typically undertake the following activities: (a) (b) Participate in planning the improvement works and deciding priorities, in collaboration with the DoI representatives. Organise for carrying out the improvements in collaboration with the Dol. For example, scheduling construction activities to minimise impacts on the principal cropping season, establishing farmers' contributions (labour + cash), developing procedures for bidding for works, mobilizinglabour for the works, supervising progress and monitoring expenditures in collaboration with DoI, discussing and coordinating problems arising. 2.4 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT Operation and maintenance (O&M) is the major task to be undertaken by the farmers through their WUA together with the broader aspects of scheme management. [t is clearly important that an effective organisation is developed to undertake this task, so that clear rules and procedures are established at the outset. Clearly, some of these rules and procedures may have to be adopted from those used previously in the area and many may be adapted in the light of subsequent operating experience, but it is important that an appropriate framework is well established before the project is commissioned. By the completion of construction, the WUA should be well established and ready to undertake effective 0 & M. Key menbers will have been trained in running the WA and members of the community will have learnt new skills during construction, which can be used when skilled labour is required for maintenance.CHAPTER 3 PROBLEMS ON FARMERS'S SCHEMES 3.1 INPRODUCTION The area of farmer managed schemes on the Terai is estimated to be of the order of 500,000 ha in some 1700 individual schemes with areas between 50 and 15,000 ha. Most schemes fall in the range 50-5,000 ha and take water from rivers using temporary diversions made of brushwood, boulders and soil. In the hill and mountain districts, farmer managed schemes are estimated to comprise about 200 000 ha. Most of these are categorised as small (< 50 ha). Almost all these schemes are characterised by temporary diversion structures of brushwood, stones and soil, earth channels and few structures. Many farmers' schemes are well managed and would benefit little from technical improvements. However, there is a significant proportion of farmers' schemes that suffer from technical and managerial problems and would benefit from upgrading. The Water and Energy Commission Secretariat has carried out an action research project in the Indrawati river basin in Sindhupalchok. The project identified 21 farmers' schemes covering approximately 600 ha that had under-utilised water and land resources. Improvements, both managerial and technical, to these schemes have led to considerable increases in areas irrigated and crop intensities. There are evidently clear economic benefits in improving farmer managed schemes which are not performing to their full potential. However, prior to assessing how schemes might be improved, an understanding of the reasons for under-performance is required. Poor scheme performance may be due to reasons other than poor scheme infrastructure, although with farmer built systens, irrigation facilities are often rudimentary. Other reasons for poor performance may be: ~ agricultural problems, such as poor soils, poor extension services, poor input supplies, inappropriate farming systems, poor access to markets, etc - poor water distribution, due, for example, te conflict, lack of maintenance, ete Thus while structural improvement measurements may be appropriate in many cases, these will often need to be backed with other measures, if significant improvements in performance are to be achieved. The initial objective in considering a request for upgrading of a farmer managed scheme should therefore be to identify major problems in the existing system and seek appropriate and affordable solutions to dealing with then.3.2 PROBLEMS ON TERAI SCHEMES Physical problems on farmers! schemes in the Terai may include: - Abstraction - siltation - Erosion - Seepage - Canal side slope stability - Cross-drainage - _Imendation from natural drainage channels - Poor local drainage ~ Poor access - Poor or incomplete distribution systems - Illegal offtakes The absence of a permanent diversion structure in the source river often, necessitates considerable effort in maintaining temporary diversions. The quantity of water diverted to the canal is often less than that which could be diverted with a permanent structure. The construction of inappropriate canal slopes resuits in deposition of sediment in canals in some cases and erosion in ethers. High water losses due to seepage are also common, particularly in the head reaches of primary canals. Side slope instability may be due to poor soils, but in the Terai may also be due to a high water table. The absence of structures, particularly cross-drainage structures and escapes, results in damage to canals at times of heavy rainfall. Canals may be inundated by run-off from natural channels and may breach. The lack of road culverts results in access roads being impassable during rains. The lack of access along canals makes operation and maintenance more difficult. The lack of in-field channel systems not only leads to poor distribution but, in winter, necessitates the construction of temporary channels across other farmers' land which can lead to disputes. Illegal offtakes from canals also result in poor system performance and disputes. 3.3 PROBLEMS ON HILL SCHEMES Technical problems on farmer built hill schemes may include: - Abstraction - Seepage - Erosion - siltation - Canal restriction - River encroachment - Cross-drainage channels 10- High flows entering the canal during floods - Bank failure - Land slides - Falling debris - Poor distribution The lack of a permanent or improved diversion structures is one of the most common problems, resulting in substantial maintenance efforts repairing and rebuilding the farmers' diversion works, often several times each year. High water losses along canal lines, particularly near the intake are also common. Dry stone walling is often used to protect and support the canal and considerable volumes of water are lost through the stones. Inappropriate canal slopes have resulted in deposition of sediment in. some canals and erosion in others. In some canals, flow may be restricted by obstructions such as large rocks or fallen debris. Volatile cross-drainage channels are often a problem, and may result in canals being washed out and debris being deposited in them, Frequent damage to canals may also occur from excess water entering the canal at the intake or from streams along the length of the canal. Bank failures, landslips and accumulation of falling debris are generally due to slope instability. Three types of instability commonly affect hill canais: (a) Landslides and overburden creep which affects the whole hillside for large distances above and below the canal and is independent of the influences of the canal and the artificial cut. In such areas, trees have often slipped and the upper part of the tree trunk will be growing vertically while the lower part will be sloping. Sometimes the ground will be fairly broken with little vegetation. (b) Instability of the slope above the canal due to the effect of the canal cut; for existing canals the ground will have often slumped into the canal and there will sometimes be groundwater seepage. (c) Instability below the canal due to steepness and, particularly, excess pore water from the canal itself. In existing canals, areas such as this are usually fairly obvious, the canal size is usually restricted and has been temporarily stabilised by bamboo or boulders, while continuing seepage through or over the canal banks usually only worsens the situation. In some instances, a river or stream below the canal line could be threatening the canal line stability. The three types of instability are illustrated in Figure 3.1. With instability of a.the first kind, it is very important that the canal does not aggravate the situation by intreducing problems of the second and third kind as well. 3.4 MANAGERIAL PROBLEMS ON FARMER'S SCHEMES The WECS project in the Indrawati basin identified the need for improvements in management in many of the farmers’ schemes in the area. The water users' associations on these schemes were often rudimentary, with ad hoc arrangements for maintenance. In some cases, canals were only operating in the dry season since it has proved difficult to maintain the system during the monsoon. Often, the technical problems on those schemes were relatively minor, and could have been overcome by a strong organisation. A feature of many successful farmer managed irrigation schemes is that they.require large amounts of farmer labour to obtain and ensure the water supply. Where this situation exists, the head reach farmers cannot take more than their fair share of the water and deprive tail-enders, since they are dependent on the assistance of the tail-enders to maintain the system. In these schemes, water sharing tends to be more equitable and strong organisations develop to handle operation and maintenance, When carrying out studies on existing farmers’ schemes with a view to including them in the development programme, special attention should be paid to the water users’ associations. The wWUAs should be reviewed to assess their effectiveness and capabilities and to determine whether improvements are required. Where necessary, leader farmers should be taken on visits to successfully managed farmers' schemes to discuss with the farmers their organisational framework and procedures. 12Figure 3.1 Types of Hillside Instability {a) Landslides, Overburden Creep | / Whole hillside unstable oF deep stice (b) Local Stip Caused by Canal -Runoft/seepage (©) Instability Below Ganat Line ‘Temporary support Seepage trom canal Shallow slip later developing “to deeper stip | i | ‘avra.cenCHAPTER 4 SOLUTIONS TO TYPICAL PROBLEMS 4.1 GENERAL Many farmer built schemes can usefully be improved. while visiting these schemes, it is generally not difficult to identify problem areas where intervention would improve the schemes* performance. What is more difficult is deciding what improvements should be made, ranking them in order of priority and whether these improvements are worth doing, i.e. what the benefits of the improvements are going to be compared to the costs. Typical benefits might include: - saving in farmers' labour from having to rebuild, desilt or repair canal sections and structures (including headworks) 7 - increase in yields of crops in existing command area due to better water supplies; - expansion of command area, due to savings in water lost through seepage or through better abstraction. In many schenes, farmers will request a permanent headworks. In practice, it is always likely to be difficult to justify the construction of any works in the river (given the costs) except for large schemes, and improvements would probably be limited to upgrading of the intake structure and provision of sediment trapping works, as appropriate. Most rivers are so volatile, that for small/medium schemes, it is probably best to divert water in the traditional ways, which are low cost and flexible, even if large amounts of labour are required annually. In deciding the level of intervention in existing schemes, there are two approaches: (i) To try to assess the benefits of particular remedial measures, and then to set the costs against these. The problems with this are in associating the benefits with particular remedial work and in assessing the total benefits in the first instance. (4i) To set an expenditure limit (NRs/ha) for improvenents generally, and to identify what works can be done for this amount. This may mean identifying and costing certain improvements, and, assuming they cannot .all be done, agreeing with the farmers which will be implemented and @eveloping a list of priorities. In most cases, the latter is likely to be a more pragmatic approach, although the expenditure limits would ideally be set in relation to the potential benefits. 134-2 POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 462.2 General Abstraction of water from rivers can be a major problem on both bill and Terai schemes and it is generally costly to provide permanent river control and intake works to accomplish this successfully. The justification for provision of river control works will often depend on the relative sizes of the river and the offtaking canal. It would generally be expected that river control works would be more viable for a large canal taking off from a smal] river, than for a small canal taking off from a large river. Intake improvements, including the provision of intake flow control and sediment settling basins, will generally be more easily justified. on hill irrigation schemes, many problems are associated with the primary canal. In many cases, the flow is restricted or excess losses occur at several locations which affect the whole canal. The improvement works should aim to allow the full design discharge to be carried along the whole length or as far as is required. Each problem area should be examined and possible solutions to the problems developed. On certain canals, the assistance of a geotechnical engineer may be essential to identify and solve major problems due to instability. Most of the canals in schemes to be upgraded will have been operating for several years and the effects of canal construction on stability should already have become apparent. If the improvement works are carried out sensitively, further disturbance to the hillside can be limited or avoided. On Terai schemes, the principal problems relate to siltation, poor distripution, erosion and inundation. There are often several approaches to dealing with these problems, and the most appropriate will need to be selected for each situation. Ae2.2 Possible solutions Tables 4.1 and 4.2 present possible solutions to some of the typical problems. Two types of solutions are identified - temporary ones where the problem needs to be rapidly addressed to prevent further deterioration, and permanent solutions. Apart from the provision of structures, solutions can be divided into five main types: (a) Lining (b) Covered canals (c) Retaining walls (d) Temporary solutions (e) Reafforestation and grassing 14Table 4.1 Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Hills Problem 1 La 13 14 Stability Small slide area above canal line, Smail slide area at and below canal line. Shide over covered canal section. Major slide across canal line. Canal problems Seepage from canal bed. Seepage through downslope bank. Runoff from above canal line. ‘Temporary Repair Assess reason for slide. Excavate out debris. Batter banks, return. Drainage. Assess reason for slide. Plastic pipes. Temporary flume, Plastic lining. Drainage. Assess reason for slide. Excavate debris and check structure. Assess reason for slide. Excavate out if possible. Check how major the slide is. Drainage. ‘Temporary crossing. Plastic lining, Clay puddle banks. Plastic lining. Clay puddle banks. Temporary drainage channels. as Permanent Repair Batter or berm banks and turf, Covered canal. Uphill side retaining wall. Reafforestation. Catch drains. Canal lining to reduce seepage. Retaining wall (masonry or gabion/dry stone masonry with canal lining). Turfing of banks, Repairs and lengthening if required. Covered canal. Uphill side retaining wall. Realignment. Reafforestation. Masonry lining. Repair and strengthen banks. Line canal. Catch drains. Drains under canal, Dry stone pitching on uphill side. Use of bari cultivation ab- ove canal.Table 4.1 (cont.) Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Hills Problem 24 Siltation in canal 2.5 Erosion of canal bed 2.6 Erosion of canal banks: 2.7 Slumping of canal bed and banks. 28 Overtopping of canai banks. 2.9 IMegal water abstraction by cutting banks. 2.10 Encroachment by river below canal line. 2.11 High flows entering the cana! during floods. 2.12 Cross-drains washing out or silting up canal. Temporary Repair Excavate out. Close canal during river floods Dump rock. Batter banks Plastic lining. Removal of material on banks excavated from canal. Bank repairs and strengthening. Bamboo pipe. Temporary gabion work. 16 Permanent Repair New operating procedures. Desilting basin. Canal Lining. Flatten canal stopes by introducing falls, Ie at a crossing or washing place, provide structure. Canal lining. Stone protection. Wall at base of bank. Canal realignment, Catch drains, Outlet bank support. Additional escapes or overtopping sections. Additional improved cross-drainage works. Removal of constricting sections. Parallel canal from nearest offtake, River waining. Gate and/or orifice control at intake site. ‘Cross-drainage structure. Controlled injet and escape if siltation not a problem. ‘Check dams in cross-drain.Table 4.1 (cont.) Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Hitls Problem 2.13 Poor distribution 2.14 Inadequate capacity 2.15 Abstraction. 2.16 Canal obstructed by large boulder, 2.17 Canal restricted because of steep rock face. 2.38 Canal round long spurs and rock outcrops. ‘Temporary Repair Remove boulder. Cut ledge and form. Form channel on rock ledge. Half-tunnel. Cutoff using deep cut, covered canal or tunnel. 17 Permanent Repair New operating procedures. Regulating /distribution structures. Reshape/regrade canal. Improve intake and/or diversion. Detours around boulders should be avoided as they are likely to lead to seepage and instability. Rock cutting unavoidable. Such diversions should be investigated during the survey stage.Table 4.2 Possible Solutions for Canal Improvements in the Terai Problem ‘Temporary Permanent ‘Solution Solution Siltation Clean out canal. Settling basin. Close canal during Vortex tubes. floods. Intake remodelling. Seepage : Lining. Erosion Brushwood protection Flatter longitudinal slopes Groynes. Provide falls. Hard surface lining. Bend protection. Cross-drainage - Cross-drainage structures. Re-routing, Inundation by Clear channe} Protect canal banks. natural drainage Provide flood banks. channels Regrade/reshape natural channel. Drains to rapidly remove inundation water. Bank stability Repair gullies/holes. ‘Surface water drains and/or dowla to prevent gullying. Flatten side slopes if due to high groundwater. ‘Turfing of banks. Poor distribution Change operating Adopt new distribution procedures. methods. Modify distribution structures. New cross-regulation, New outlets. Abstraction : Modify intake/diversion works. Supplement flows with tubewells. 18Table 4.2 (cont.) Possible Sotutions for Canal Improvements in the Terai Problem Temporary Permanent Solution Solution IMegal abstrac- Close offtake. Additional capacity and tions by cutting permanent structures. banks Close offtake permanently. Canal bank overtopping Gated/orifice control at due to river floods intake. Spillways in canal head teach, Local drainage Improve natural drainage and provide new drains. 4.2.3 Lining There are many different types of canal lining suited to cana? improvements, Selection of the most appropriate type should be based on: - the nature of the problem; - costs of available alternatives. Problems that may require lining are: seepage (8); erosion (E); weak banks (B) Recommended uses of the different lining types are given below: Type use Hills Terai Masonry 8, E, B S, E, B Dry stone pitching E, (B) E, (B) Stone slabs E EB Plastic/menbranes Ss s In-situ concrete Ss, E S, E Concrete blocks (8), E {S), B, B Earth lining/clay puddling § : 8 Brick lining E, (B) E, (B) Note 1 if material available. The technical merits of different types of lining are presented in Section 12.7.3 of the Field Design Manual. If uphill seepage 19is a problem, small drains should be provided under the lining. In some head reaches where the canal is lower than the rice fields, uplift has damaged linings. Either some form of block lining should be used or a pressure relief system included. 4.2.4 covered Canals Covered canals are used where local slips have occurred and covered and blocked the canals. Sometimes they are also necessary in deep cut sections and in the head reach of canals. The various types of covered canal are: (a) Conerete or Stone Slab Cover (b) Slabs over Masonry or Plastered Dry stone Lining (c) Pipes (a) other Solutions (eg, mass conerete or masonry arches and reinforced concrete barrels) Design of covered canals is presented in Section 12.7.4 of the Field Design Manual. 4.2.5 Retaining walls Walls are typically up to 5 m height and various types of retaining wall are used, eg, (a) Masonry (b) Masonry with Dry Stone Panels (e) Concrete Retaining Walls (a) Dry Stone Walls (e) Gabion walls (£) Gabions and Dry Stone walling rhe technical details are provided in Section 12.7.5, and the approach to structurat design in Section 15.7 of the Field Design Manual. Filters should be provided to the back of all.retaining walls where there is no likelihood of reverse flow. If reverse flow is likely (i.e. flow into the retained soil), the wall must be designed to resist full hydrostatic pressure. For gabions, a filter mst be provided to prevent erosion of the retained soils through the voids in the gabion. The design of filters is described in Sections 12.7,5 and 15.7 of the Field Design Manual. 204.2.6 Temporary Repairs ‘temporary repairs may be typically required where the canal needs to be quickly repaired, prior to more permanent repairs. The types of solutions proposed for temporary xepairs may also be relevant where permanent repairs are impractical, eg, across deep slide areas where a flexible canal is required which will need to be realigned and rebuilt at intervals. In the latter case, it must be accepted that repairs will be required at regular intervals. In both situations, is important that seepage from the canal does not increase instability. Typical solutions are: (a) Plastic lining, protected by stone pitching or GI sheets (») Flumed channel made from wooden frames with a lining of wooden boards covered with plastic, GI sheets, HDP pipes or oil drums. (c) Bank Support using bamboo "piles". 4.2.7 other Measures Reafforestation and grassing of banks and slopes is a cheap method of improving stability, often in conjunction with other approaches. it is important that bushes and trees are protected from grazing animals (especially goats} and are not felled for firewood. On the Dharan-Dhankuta road project, Cynoden Dactylon (Bermuda variety) grass was used for stabilising banks and bamboo was used for stabilising bunds. 4.3 APPROACH TO CANAL IMPROVEMENTS A general approach to deciding what improvements should be carried out is presented below. The principal difficulty is in assessing the benefits of improvements, so that the expenditures can be commensurate, (a) Meet with the farmers and discuss with them how they see the problems and what their priorities for problem resolution are. Make a list. (bb) Walk along the primary canal from the intake to the command area identifying problem areas (eg, abstraction difficulties, high seepage, slips, erosion, siltation, cross-drains, bank failures, restrictions on cross-section, ‘road crossings, etc.) and noting possible solutions. Do this with a group of the farmers so that they can point out the problems they have identified. Discuss with the farmers how they would tackle the problems. Use field sketches (Figure 4.1) and the field notes form (Figure 4.2) to record the system details. Make sketches of problem areas, structures and take 21photographs for future reference. Find out from the farmers typical labour and material inputs used to maintain/rebuild the canal each year. (¢) Walk through the command area with the farmers, identifying problems (as above, plus problems of distribution, illegal abstractions, flooding, etc.) and noting possible solutions. Discuss with the farmers how they would tackle the problems. (a) Prepare a complete schedule of improvement works. (e) Prepare outline (sketch) designs and estimate the costs of improvements. (£) Attempt to assess the benefits of the improvements in terms of: - increase in yields due to better water supply: - increase in cropped area, if feasible; - saving in labour and materiais for rebuilding and maintenance; - any others. (g) Assess priorities for improvements in conjunction with the farmers and prepare a ranking list showing the priorities and the costs. If it is possible to associate particular benefits with particular improvements, do so (increased water supply may be entirely due to canal lining, or improvements at the intake, saving in labour may be due to several reasons). In many cases, the priority measures will be self- evident. (h) Where practicable, assess from a comparison of benefits and costs which of the improvements can be justified, and would make best use of the funds available. A simple benefit-cost ratio approach would generally be adequate for this type of crude ranking. (i) Carry out survey work required for priority improvements and prepare feasibility level designs and cost estimates for inclusion in the report, together with the assessment of benefits. 4.4 INCORPORATION OF EXISTING SYSTEMS AND FEATURES The main aim of system upgrading should be the removal of specific problems, while minimising disturbance. As such, existing canal lines and sections should be retained wherever possible. In most cases, canal lines will have stabilised over the years since construction and, as far as possible, they should be left 22Figure 4.1 Typical System Field Sketch | | ha / 2 Chainpur | = KHOLA i — t 9 Rocky 150 Level crossing Lined canal from 150 to 450 50 ‘0 Lover 4 crossing th AL 950-1 andalide 4 COMMANO AREA 1, 20ha — COMMAND AREA 2, 15 ha To Terhathum \ cecson ZZ ‘To Gasantapur Aqueduer-” COMMAND AREA 3, 10 ha Knaish Lengtns from pacing along the canal, in metres, | (1Fe1 GEMFigure 4.2 Field Notes Form for Canal tmprovements HOM, pesodoig wompuog Bunsrg adh MON _pasodoig wompuog Bunses uw sda, seuIONNg aBeueyD serene Aq. pakaaing oo aN ye8Ug S@ION Pied jeueD Arepucoes/AreUs (syueq ‘pul) eun ued srpoloig womeaIeyey PUE Tewenorduut APMIS AyQ'sROY * youeg, woolorgundisturbed. Where desilting or bank raising or strengthening is required, care should be taken not to cause instability by over- excavating or damaging vegetation through careless dumping of spoil. In the command areas, distribution canal lines are generally already well established. The farmers will be familiar with their present layout and from where each field obtains water. Unless there is a major problem with water distribution, it will generally be preferable to retain existing alignments to limit problems of land acquisition and confusion over water sources. Many farmer-built systems have only rudimentary structures, typically made of dry stone walling, logs, brushwood, earth, etc. Where structures do exist, and are in good condition, they should be incorporated into the improved system, where they are adequate for the purpose and compatible with the proposed upgrading. In many cases, the judicious application to the structure of a smail amount of cement mortar masonry, for example, may be highly beneficial. +5 MINIMISING DISRUPTION TO AGRICULTURE An important consideration when planning the upgrading of an irrigation system is how disruption to water supplies can be minimised. Usually, the most important crop to the farmers is the monsoon paddy and, in nearly all cases, canals must be operational at this time. Construction works can be difficult to carry out during the monsoon and most construction activities will stop. This means that construction activities and system operation for the principal crop do not have to be in conflict. In planning construction activities, it should thus be assumed that the canal system should be fuily operational from the beginning of July to the end of October. This assumption should be confirmed with the farmers. The requirement for irrigation supplies during the dry season from November through to June will vary considerabiy from system to system. Some systems may not be operational during this period or only operational for part of the period, while others will have a high irrigation requirement at certain times. Where irrigation supplies are presently being used during the dry season, every effort should be wade to try to maintain these supplies. Most farmers are subsistence farmers and are dependent on their crops for basic food supplies. It is thus essential to avoid serious disruption to agricultural production, when at all possible. In all cases, the farmers must be consulted and agreement reached on canai closures; the times when irrigation supplies are essential and how these flows can be sustained: and when farmers could provide labour for construction. 23Careful planning and phasing of works should be carried out to ensure that the system is capable of carrying the required supplies at the appropriate time. If water needs to be delivered at certain times during the construction period, consideration should be given to provision of temporary diversions around structures or works that are incomplete. In many cases, since works will be associated with particular problem areas, it should be possible to pian the works so that they can be carried out during canal closures. Major works should carried out during the longer closures while minor works and preparatory works can often be undertaken during short closures or when the canal is operating. 24CHAPTER 5 GENERAL APPROACH TO PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter discusses the approach to identification, appraisal, design and construction of improvenents to existing farmer managed irrigation schemes. The procedure follows that summarised in Figure 1.1; details are shown in Figure 5.1. The identification of a project would generally follow a request for assistance from a group of farmers, and will require a visit to the scheme to collect sufficient data to enable a decision to be made on whether to proceed with a study or not. Projects thus identified will need to be screened and ranked to select those which are most likely to result in a favourable outcome when studied at feasibility level. Project appraisal will follow the feasibility study and will be carried out by a regional appraisal committee. The appraisal will involve a careful review of the study to ensure thet a project is technically, economically and institutionally viable. Once a project has been approved for implementation, an agreement. setting out respective obligations will need to be signed by the farmers and DoI. Designs and final cost estimates can then be prepared and the improvements carried out using appropriate means, which may often be through petty contracts or by direct labour provided by the farmers. As a precursor to project identification, a promotional exercise may be necessary. The objectives of this are to make farmers aware that Government is prepared to assist with irrigation development, and to advise them how to proceed with making a request. 5.2 REQUEST FOR PROJECT current policy dictates that small and medium sized projects should only be undertaken if the farmer beneficiaries specifically request assistance, whether this is for a new scheme or for improvements to an existing scheme. To ensure that requests are presented in the same format and supply the minimum requisite information, a project request form has been developed. This is presented in the Appendix B of the Field Design Manual. District offices will need to be active in promoting projects, and copies of the project request form should be circulated by those offices to the village panchayats, together with an explanation of the current irrigation policy and the procedures involved in requesting and developing a project. 25When a completed form requesting assistance is returned to the irrigation office, the proposed project should be given a reference number. This number should be of the form XYZ/ABC, where XYZ is the district code number and ABC the project number. District code numbers are set out in Appendix N of the Field Design Manual. Project numbers will be allocated sequentially. The location of the project should be marked on a large-scale nap ef the district, together with the reference number. The map should also have a key, listing all of the proposed projects in the district and giving reference numbers, names, panchayats, command areas and status: request (R), identification (I), feasibility (F), design (D), construction (c), operating (0) or not accepted (rejected/postponed) (N). A file should be opened for each project and all information relating to that project should be put in that file. 5.3 IDENTIFICATION Project identification essentially involves a rapid appraisal of the project to assess whether it is worth studying at feasibility jevel. An assistant engineer and senior overseer from the district irrigation office should make a short visit to the project site and make this assessment. Ideally, the engineer and overseer should attend to several requests for projects in one part of the district at the same time. This will help to conserve resources, and also affords the opportunity for direct comparison of different requests, which may help to assess which projects should be given a high priority. The identification is carried out in the following stages: - desk study - field visit - office work on return - project recommendations - reporting The approach in carrying out the identification study is set out briefly below. Additional technical details are set out in chapter 3 of the Field Design Manual. 5.3.2 Desk study Prior to visiting the site, the project location should be identified on the 1:50 000 scale topographic maps and aerial photographs. Previous reports or information relating to the project, if any, should be reviewed. A message should be sent to the panchayat a few days before the field visit, so that farmers can be informed. 5.3.2 Field Visit The field visit for each scheme will typically last one or two days, and will include: 26Figure 5.1 Approach to Project Implementation I Request for Project Identification | i * Desk Study i | sFeldvisi : “Appraisal 1 1 “Recommendations | *Repoting f ny i | Feasibility Study & Appraisal | * Desk Study i : *Reconnaisance Field Visit * Survey *Field Oata Analysis : * Outline Design | * Cost Estimates ! *Economic Analysis i * Recommendations & Reporting | | Farmers’ Agreement : | Survey & Detaifed Design * Additional Detailed Survey 1 *Detailed Designs * Specifications \ * Conditions of Contract i “Tender Documents * Cost Estimates | | Construction i Construction Agreement| | *Pre-construction Meeting *Construction i by contractor ! -bybeneficiaries Post Construction *Handover * Commissioning * Operation, Maintenance & Management * Agricultural Support Services * Monitoring & Evahuation ‘e1Fs1 oem.(a) An initial meeting with the farmers to gain an overview of the project and make arrangements for inspection. (6) A joint inspection of the scheme with the farmers covering the intake site, primary canal line, command area, distribution system, and any groundwater wells, A Project. Identification Questionnaire has been prepared and is given in Appendix D of the Field Design Manual. This would be completed during this inspection. The main scheme problems would be identified and possible solutions considered. The farmers should point out their principal concerns and should be invited to offer their solutions. (c) A concluding meeting with farmers where the information obtained would be reviewed. At this meeting, the proposed project should be discussed with the farmers and the improvement works ranked in order of priority, as seen by the farmers. Essential works should be identified and agreed. The obligations of the farmers under current irrigation policy should be explained. The nature and purpose of the visit should be stated, along with the fact that the visit is no guarantee of Government assistance. 563.3 Office Work on Return from Site On return to the office, the data collected has to be analysed before a final decision can be taken on the project. The command areas, reliable water supplies, irrigation demands, etc should all be broadly assessed, as outlined in Chapter 3 of the Field Design Manual, to assess whether the scheme can be reliably irrigated. The proposed upgrading works, and their ranking, should be reviewed and broadly assessed for technical viability. Typical improvements might includ > provision or modification of an intake; - provision of a sediment settling trap; ~ provision of escapes; - lecal realignment of canals (horizontally and vertically) ~ selective lining of canals, for seepage or stability reasons; - replacement of ary stone canal walls with masonry walls; - provision of cross-drainage works; - provision of distribution structures; - local slope stabilisation; A view will need to be taken on whether the project appears technically viable. The analysis is only intended to enable a decision to be made on whether it is worth proceeding with further studies. As such, it need not be elaborate. 5.3.4 Recommendations A decision should be made on the future action to be taken. The scheme may either be rejected or it may be studied at feasibility 27level. Discussions should be held with the supervising divisional engineer to clarify any outstanding matters and agree the recommendation, Project selected for further study should comply with the following general criteria: - the request for the project should be a genuine demand from the majority of the farmer beneficiaries; - the project should appear to be technically feasible: - the soils in the project area should be suitable for surface irrigation; 7 the project area should have reasonable access to markets and agricultural support services, particularly credit ana extension services. - where the existing project area is to be expanded, the existing Water Users Association should be willing to include the farmers from the extension area; and - the farmers should be willing to enter into an agreement. with the Government, through their WUA, regarding their participation in ,and obligations for, the planning and construction of improvements and for the operation and maintenance of the project. The decision reached should be communicated to the farmers. If rejected, the farmers should be told why. Reasons why a project might be rejected include: - lack of general farmer support - long primary canal line with serious instability or cross~drainage problems major problems at intake sites - poor soils or other agricultural problems - little likelihood of improvements in productivity 5.3.5 Reporting A brief report should be prepared at the end of the identification process. Typical contents of the report would include: - project summary sheet - Completed questionnaire - relevant maps, plans and sketches - relevant calculations (eg, water balance) reasons for rejection or acceptance of the project list of outstanding matters to be reviewed at feasibility level including any options to be considered copy of the letter to the farmers on the decision taken 28The report should be kept in the project file. A copy of the report should be sent to the regional or central office, as appropriate. Whe report should include a recommendation as to who should carry out the feasibility study (DoI staff, consultants or NGOs), and what priority it should have. For small improvement projects that appear to be clearly beneficial and of low cost, the report should recommend a simplified feasibility study. The assessment of priorities may be done conpletely subjectively, or using a subjective marking system, where a set of main criteria are each allocated a mark, and the sum totalled to develop an overall ranking. It is unlikely that this approach will develop a structured list, but it should help to identify good and bad schemes. Inevitably, there will be a large number of schemes which are neither good nor bad, and between which there is little to choose. Examples of the subjective assessment and marking system approaches are included in Appendix A. High priority projects would be those which would be expected to give the greatest benefit for the least cost. Reasons for assigning a high priority might include: - good farmer response ~ strong existing water users! association - good water supply for crops all year round - good potential for increased production ~ good soils in command area ~ relatively minor, easily tackled technical problens - good access - proximity to markets and support services Terms of reference will need to be prepared and, if the works are to be carried out by consultants, proposals will need to be invited. 5.4 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND APPRAISAL The feasibility study will be the main input to the project appraisal which will be carried out by the Regional appraisal Committee. It is at this stage that a commitment to implement the project is made, or the project is rejected. Thus the feasibility study must provide an accurate assessment of the proposed project, particularly its technical, economic and institutional viabilities, and its costs and benefits. The technical approach to conducting a feasibility study is set out in Chapter 4 of the Field Design Manual. The following stages are envisaged: - desk study + preliminary fiela@ visit - field survey work + field data analysis 29- outline design - cost estimates - economic analysis - project recommendations - reporting Bead Desk study The desk study comprises a review of the work carried out at the project identification stage. Two aspects in particular need to be checked: - outstanding matters to be studied - possible alternatives Due to the brief nature of the identification study, there may be @ number of outstanding points that need to be addressed during the feasibility stuay. For improvement schemes, apart from the general upgrading works which may have been ‘identified, there may also be major intervention options that should be examined, eg? ~ extension of command area - combining several schemes - revision of canal alignment - revision of intake site caution is needed when considering combining schemes: consequent larger canals may cause hillside instability or give rise to water allocation conflicts. Combining two WUAs may also cause problens. Unless there are serious instability problems which engineering cannct overcome, it will be preferable to retain existing canals prior to visiting the site, major intervention options of this type should be examined. Many can be eliminated by studying maps and aerial photographs, and only the principal options need to be studied in the field. A message should be sent to the farmers, a few days in advance, to inform them of the proposed visit. 5.4.2 Preliminary Field Visit vhe vreliminary field visit has three main aims: + to review the project options ~ to compile the basic data required for the study ~ to plan the survey work The field visit will typically last three to four days, depending on the complexity of the project. ‘The visit would be conducted by an assistant engineer and senior overseer, if the study is being undertaken by Dol. The feasibility study questionnaire given in Appendix G of the Field Design Manual should be completed during this visit to provide basic scheme data. 30The visit should include: (a) An initial meeting with the farmers to make arrangements for scheme inspection. (b) An examination of principal options. (c) An joint inspection with the farmers of the existing scheme including intake, primary canal line, command area and distribution system. ‘Thé feasibility study questionnaire should be completed during this inspection and field survey work planned, The findings of the identification report should be reviewed, and the problems and possible solutions further discussed with the farners. (4) A concluding meeting with farmers where the information gathered is reviewed. The obligations of the farmers under current irrigation policy should be restated at this meeting. The primary aims of the improvements should be to address problem areas where technical or financial inputs are required to improve the overall scheme, and to strengthen the famners' WUA to enable it to handle operation and maintenance more effectively. In most cases there will be no need to remodel the system, and this should be avoided as far as possible. Ideally, projects which are non-viable should be rejected at the identification stage, but if major technical or social problems are encountered during the preliminary field visit, the project should be rejected outright, before the field survey is conducted, or that a lower priority is awarded, and attention focused on other projects. 5.4.3 Field survey Work For improvement projects the survey work may include: - establishment of benchmarks - intake site survey - current metering at the intake site - canal line survey (long sections and cross-sections, as appropriate); - ‘major structures site surveys (eg, cross-drainage works) - command area survey (for larger schemes) - geotechnical surveys of problem areas (eg, slips along canal route) - site investigations where necessary Survey work should generally concentrate on identified problem areas and not all of the above would be needed in every case. However, surveys of complete canal long profiles, cross-sections and salient structural dimensions and levels may be required where improvements are being considered so that hydraulic controls in the canal can be identified. Benchmarks should be established at the sites identified as problem areas, but site surveys can be to a1a local datum, unless major canal line rehabilitation is required. Similarly, traverses are unlikely te be required, unless major yealignments are being considered. Detailed topographic surveys of the command area will not be necessary, except in scheme extension areas or unless there are problems of command. The extent of the survey work will need to be appropriate to the requirements of the study. The benefits of conducting the survey to detailed design standards to reduce future survey needs should pe assessed. In some cases (e.g., establishing benchmark system) it is clearly appropriate to adopt a thorough approach. A map of the existing layout should also be prepared. At a minimum, this should show: - the sources of water - primary and secondary canals - offtakes to tertiary canals - the commanded areas (including any proposed extensions) ~ major structures - major dvainage ways, particularly cross-drainages The map can be prepared as a sketch overlay to existing topographic mapping or aerial photography. Methods of conducting survey work are set out in Chapter 7 of the Fiel@ Design Manual. 5.4.4 Field Data analysis on return to the office, the data collected has to be analysed. Attention will need to be given to: - the project water balance, particularly if extensions to the existing system are being proposed, or where increased cropping intensities are being considered; ~ the suitability of the scils in the project area, and any proposed extensions, for irrigation, particularly if soils are light (highly permeable) and rice is the main crop; - the technical feasibility of the proposed improvements, the costs and benefits of these, and the priorities; - access limitations, materials availabilities and costs, labour availabilities and costs; - the availability of farm inputs (fertilizers, ete) and proximity of markets for produce; - the status of the existing mUA's and the farmers! general enthusiasm for the project;- socio-economic issues (eg, ethnic groupings, tenancy status, migration, success of previous projects) S468 Outline Design The outline design for a feasibility study for improvement schemes should not be over-complicated. The objective is to include enough detail to enable a realistic estimate of costs to be made. The designs are not intended for carrying out construction, and additional work will be required at the design stage for this. The technical approach to carrying out various hydraulic and structural design work is set out in Chapters 8 to 15 of the Field Design Manual. For canals, routes, capacities, slopes, levels and dimensions need to be drawn up for both the existing system and for the improvements. The works to be carried out should be marked on the system plan. The priority of the works shoud be indicated. For the intake and major structures, outline designs should be prepared. Sketches of other typical structures should be drawn up, where possible using standard designs. The design considerations outlined in Section 5.6 are also valid at feasibility study level, although the design work carried out during the study will omy be to outiine standard. 5.4.6 Cost Estimates The method of cost estimating should be appropriate to feasibility studies. In general, the costs are primarily needed for the economic analysis (which has many approximations in the estimation of benefits), to give an indication te the farmers of the likely costs of the project, and for forward budgeting. For the survey and design stage, where an engineer's construction estimate is the aim, a more rigorous method of estimating will be required. Where the standard structures designs (Manual D.3) are used, quideline quantities will be available for the upper and lower limits of application, and these can be interpolated for the structure sizes selected. However, for improvement projects, most items are likely to be of a special nature since they ave concerned with specific problem areas and these will need to be costed individually. The estimated cost of the works, including appropriate contingencies, should be compared against the cost ceiling eriteria set out in Section 5.4.8 below. Should the cost of the proposed works exceed the ceiling figures, decisions will need to be made on which should be retained in the project, and which left out. 338.467 Economic Analysis The project economic analysis should be carried out using the benefit matrix method, as set out in Appendix L of the Field Design Manual. The economic rate of return used in the method is 10%. Benefits will be based on the incremental value of future crop production achieved through the improvements. It may be valid to allow additional benefits due to savings in labour, previously used for regular rebuilding of works. 5.4.8 Recommendations and Reporting Following completion of the analyses, a report should be prepared which makes a recommendation on the future of the project. Discussions should be held with the supervising Senior Divisional Engineer to clarify any outstanding matters and agree the recommendation. The project may proceed to the design and construction,stage or it may be rejected. The decision reached should be communicated to the farmers. If rejected, the reasons should be stated. In order for a project to proceed to the design and construction stage, it must be institutionally, technically and economically viable. The scheme should be appraised for its compliance with the following criteria: (a) Institutional Feasibility - the project should be based on genuine demand from the majority of the farmer beneficiaries - the farmers must be willing to enter into a written agreement and must have signed a provisional agreement - the project area should nave access to markets and agricultural support services, particularly credit facilities and extension services (b) Technical Feasibility - the project should be technically feasible in relation to the scheme standard ~ the soils should be suitable for surface irrigation of the proposed crops - there should be no serious soil erosion or other environmental problems (c) Economic Feasibility - the economic internal rate of return of the project should be 10% or more 34