ARBAMINCH UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF WATER TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF WATER RESOURCE & IRRIGATION ENG’G

Performance Evaluation of Irrigation Systems

By: Demelash Wendemeneh (PhD)
 7. Performance Evaluation of Irrigation Systems
7.1. Introduction
• The exploitation and utilization of water for irrigation require
periodic evaluations of its utility and efficiency B/s;
 as pressure grows on dd of water resources
 concerns increase regarding the sustainability of irrigated
agriculture systems and
 enterprise requires feedback on the management of resources
and the end result in terms of increased output.
 Irrigation has lost much of its glamour as an investment strategy
for developing countries.
 The shortfalls in performance can be cited at almost every level of
the irrigation sector
• In recent years there has been a growing concern that
performance in the context of irrigated agriculture is less than
had been anticipated
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
• At system level, there is disappointment in levels of
cropping intensity, irrigation intensity and yields from
many irrigated areas
• Many farmers have not been able to achieve a more
prosperous and healthy life
• At water distribution level, there are innumerable
references to inequity of water distribution leading to;
 deficit water supplies and loss of production in some
locations
 excess water delivery and development of water logging and
salinity
 water supplies at any given location are often poorly matched
to crop needs, highly variable in both timing and discharge
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Aim of performance assessment
 As suggested by Molden et al. (1998), performance of
irrigation schemes assesed for variety of reasons such as:
 to improve scheme opration
 to assess progress against strategic goales
 to favore performance oreinted managment
 to assess health of the scheme
 to evaluate impacts of intrventions
 to better understand determinants of performance
 to diagoness constraints
 to compiar the performance of the scheme with others
 to compiar the performance of the scheme overtime
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Framework for irrigation performance assessment

 The framework serves is used to define:

 why the performance assessment is needed
 what data are required
 what methods of analysis to be used
 who will use the information provided, etc.
 It is important to guide the work and for stalkholders to
effectively use the outcome
 Performance assesment based on collection, analysis &
interpretation of data related to irrigation managment &
irrigation service delivery purpose
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
Framework for performance assessment of irrigation schemes

.
.
.
Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

.
.
.
Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
. .
. .
. .
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Purpose and scope

• The initial part of formulating a performance

assessment program is to decide on the purpose and
scope of the performance assessment.

• Key issues relate to whom the assessment is for, from

whose point of view, the type of assessment and the
extent/boundaries.

• It is important that adequate time is spent on this part of

the work as it structures the remaining stages.
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Purpose

 As with any project or task, it is essential that the

purpose and objectives of the performance
assessment be defined at the outset/starting.

• There are three levels of objective setting can be

identified:

 Rationale: reason for assessment

 Overall objective: overall aim of the assessment
 Specific objectives: details on how the overall
objective will be achieved
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Example of the rationale & a set of objectives for a performance
assessment program
Rationale: Water management needs to be improved if all farmers within the
scheme are to obtain adequate livelihoods

Overall To identify feasible and sustainable water management practices

objective: which lead to improved crop production and thereby income for
the farming community
Specific i) Monitor water demands and allocations at all control points
objectives: (primary, secondary and tertiary canal intakes)
ii) Analyze current match between water supply and demand,
and identify areas for improvement
iii) Formulate strategy for improvement
iv) Implement strategy
v) Monitor and evaluate impact
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 For whom?
 The performance assessment can be carried out on
behalf of a variety of stakeholders.
 These can be include:
 government
 funding agencies
 irrigation and drainage service providers
 irrigation and drainage system managers
 farmers
 research organizations.
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 From whose point of view?
 The assessment may be carried out on behalf of one
stakeholder or group of stakeholders

• Government may commission a performance

assessment, for example, to be carried out by a
research institute to study the impact of system
performance on farmer livelihoods.

• Farmers might commission a study of the irrigation

service provider in order to ascertain if they are
receiving an adequate return for service fees paid.
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
From whom? From whose point By whom?
 By whom?
of view?
• D/t organizations or
Scheme The scheme Scheme manager &
individuals have
manager management staff
different capabilities
in respect of Government Government Consultant
performance (return on
assessment, and investment
• D/t types of Government Society in general, Government
performance
but specifically regulatory authority
assessment will
water users
require d/t types of
organization or Funding Farmers Consultant
individuals to carry agency (livelihood)
out the assessment.
Scientific The management Research
community of the scheme institution/university
Example
farmers farmers consultant
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 Type
• Small and Svendsen (1992) identify four different
types of performance assessment:

i. Operational: to monitor day-to-day activities

ii. Accountability: to assess responsibilities of mang’t
iii. Intervention: to enhance performance of the scheme
iv. Sustainability: to look at long-term effects
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

 Extent/Boundaries

• The extent of the performance assessment needs to

be identified and the boundaries defined.

• Two primary boundaries have the dimensions of;

spatial: area or number of schemes covered
temporal: duration of the assessment
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

• The use of the systems approach advocated by Small and

Svendsen (1992) can add to the definition and understanding
of the boundaries and extent of the performance assessment
Program.
Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

Benchmarking – comparative performance against best practice

Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

Identification and costing of measures to close the performance gap

 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d

Design of performance assessment

 The following are key issues to be considered:

 What criteria are to be used?
 What performance indicators are to be used?
 What data are required?
 By whom, how, where and when will the data be collected?
 What is the required form of output expected?
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
 The following definitions are proposed in order to clarify the terms
performance criteria, objectives, performance indicators and targets.

Objective Criteria Performance indicator Target value

Maximize area harvested Productivity Cropping intensity 2052 ha (100%)

Maximize total crop Productivity Total production 7,600 tones
production
Maximize total value of Productivity Total value of production $1,067, 238
agricultural production

Maximize productivity of Productivity Water productivity 0.16 kg/ m3

water value of production per unit 0.023$/ m3
water

Maximize equity of water Equity Area planted/ area 1.0

supply harvested

Delivery performance ratio Standard dev.

< 10%
 Performance Evaluation of IS....Cont’d
Performance assessment at different levels

• Performance assessment can be done at different levels:

 At sector level
 At scheme level
 At main system level
 At on-farm level

• At the sector level when assessing how irrigation & drainage

is performing in comparison with the objectives set for the
sector, and in comparison with other uses of water;
• At this level performance assessment is focused on the
productivity of financial investment in the irrigation and drainage
sector and on the productivity and efficiency of water use.
Performance assessment at different levels…
• At the scheme level when assessing how individual schemes
are performing against their own explicitly or implicitly stated
objectives, or when assessing the performance of different
schemes against themselves;

• At this level performance assessment is focused on the

outputs, outcomes and impacts of the I&D scheme

• At main system level where the performance of the water

delivery service is assessed;

• At this level performance assessment is focused on water

delivery, which will depend on the management, operation and
maintenance processes and procedures of the main system
service provider.
Performance assessment at different levels....

• At the on-farm level the performance is assessed for;

 water delivery,
 water use and
 water application

• At this level performance assessment is focused on;

 water delivery from the tertiary unit intake to the farmers’

field(s), and
 water application by the farmer to the crops in the field
 Performance indicators
• Indicators are used to measure performance of irrigated
farms/schemes

• An indicator describes the level of actual achievement in

respect of one of the objective of irrigation

• Indicators are used to simplify the otherwise complex internal

and external factors affecting the performance of irrigated
agricultural systems.

• Performance is measured through the use of indicators, for

which data are collected and recorded.

• The analysis of the indicators then informs us on the level of

 Performance indicators…..
 Characteristics of indicators:
• Scientific basis: should be based on an empirically quantified,
statistically tested causal model of that part of the irrigation
process it describes.
• The indicator must be quantifiable :The data needed to
quantify the indicator must be available or (measurable)
• Reference to a critical or intended value : relevance and
appropriateness of the critical or intended values and tolerances
can be established for the indicator
• Provision of information : should not be formulated from a
narrow ethical or disciplinary perspective.
• Nature of the indicator: the indicator may describe one specific
activity or may describe the aggregate or transformation of a
group of underlying activities.
• Ease of use and understanding, and cost-effectiveness
should be technically feasible, and easily used by management
staff given their level of skill and motivation.
 Performance indicators…
 Indicators being used are grouped in to four categories:

• Water balance, water service and maintenance: The indicators in

this group refer to the primary function of irrigation and drainage;
the provision of a water service to users.
• Environment: Both irrigation and drainage are man-made
interventions in the environment to facilitate the growth of crops.
The non-intentional (mostly negative) effects of this intervention
are considered in this group.
• Economics. This group contains indicators that quantify crop yield
and the related funds (generated) to manage the system.
• Emerging indicators. This group gives four indicators that contain
parameters which need to be measured by use of satellite remote
sensing. This emerging technology enables very cost-effective
measurement of data.
 Specific indicators for farmers view points
• Adequacy: capacity of an irrigation system to meet demands
of farmers
• Reliability: the quality of irrigation service rather than the
quantity.
 It covers both their liability of discharges or water levels
(stability) and
 their liability of timing of deliveries (predictability)
• Equity: it refers to the fairness of allocation among users,
fixed division systems are particularly effective in meeting
equity objectives based on a percentage share of available
water
• Overall performance indicator: return on investment is could
be used as an indicator
Some performance indicators
Linking performance indicators with data requirement