This chapter looks at performance assessment in the context of the day-to-day functioning of irrigation and drainage systems, and showshow performance assessment can be integrated into the managementprocesses of irrigation and drainage systems.
An explanation of service delivery in irrigation and drainage is pro-vided, followed by a brief discussion of the impact that different formu-lations of the physical infrastructure and management structure can haveon service delivery. Approaches are then formulated for operational andstrategic performance assessment of service delivery in these differentcontexts.
A key focus of the chapter is on performance-oriented management,the basic components of which are:
● The specification of the services and the level of service provision bythe irrigation service provider to the water users.
● Agreement between the water users and the irrigation service provideron the rights and responsibilities of the water users, particularly inrelation to payment for services received.
● Procedures for monitoring the services provided and responsibilitiesfulfilled.
● Procedures for evaluating the services provided and the responsibili-ties fulfilled.
The irrigation and drainage service provider is responsible for theabstraction, conveyance and delivery of irrigation water to the waterusers, and removal of drainage water. The specification of the level ofservice to be provided varies, but will generally relate to the reliability,adequacy and timeliness of water delivery and removal. The agreement
between the water users and the service provider can be explicitly orimplicitly stated – explicitly through a signed contract or legal instru-ment (laws, statutes or bylaws), or implicitly through convention or his-torical precedence. As well as the service specification, such agreementsgenerally cover issues of payment for the service provided, and theresponsibility of the user to protect and not misuse the irrigation anddrainage infrastructure.
In many countries the rules and regulations, and the roles, dutiesand responsibilities of the various parties, have been set out in thenational laws related to irrigation and drainage. Such approaches, whichare generalized for a country or region, are being supplemented with ser-vice agreements between the service provider and the water users forspecific systems, providing a more responsive and accountable relation-ship between these two parties.
Service Delivery
Understanding service delivery
Two primary functions of the management of irrigation and drainage sys-tems are the supply of irrigation water and the removal of excess waterto or from specific locations at specific times. The level to which thesefunctions are to be provided has to be specified in quantitative opera-tional service standards. These standards serve to guide the managementactivity, and to provide a base against which the performance of the ser-vice can be assessed.
The level of service provision in irrigation and drainage is defined byMalano and Hofwegen (1999) as:
A set of operational standards set by the irrigation and drainage organizationin consultation with irrigators and the government and other affected partiesto manage an irrigation and drainage system.
In principle, the formal specification of the level of service for anirrigation and drainage system emerges from a consultative processbetween the irrigation and drainage service provider and the water users.In some systems the level of service is clear and explicitly stated, in oth-ers it is not. With the greater participation of water users in the manage-ment processes, the level of service provision is now being moreexplicitly formulated for many systems.
The principal elements of service provision (Fig. 4.1) are:
● The provision of the service.● Payment for the service received.● The service agreement.
The service agreement includes the specifications and conditions thatdetail what service will be provided and what fee the user agrees to pay.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 63
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 63
The specification sets out the services that will be provided, and thestandard to which those services will be provided (for example, the pro-vision of irrigation water within 24 h of receipt of the water user’srequest, or drainage of land within 24 h of heavy rainfall). The condi-tions stipulate the terms under which the service will be provided (forexample, that fees will be paid for irrigation water received or drainagewater removed).
The service agreement generally takes the form of an agreementbetween two parties. In the case of water users’ associations (WUA),the service delivery agreement between the WUA and the water usersis often specified within the statutes and bylaws. Through this processthe water user is aware of their rights (in terms of access to, andreceipt of, water), and responsibilities (payment or contribution inkind – for example, for maintenance), and can hold the serviceprovider responsible for meeting the agreed service standards.Through this process the delivery of irrigation water and/or theremoval of drainage water becomes more transparent and accountable.Performance assessment is a key component of the process in holdingeach party accountable.
The institutional aspects of service delivery form an often unseenbut crucial part of the relationships outlined in Fig. 4.1. Too often theprincipal focus in performance assessment is on the technical aspects(measurement of frequency, rate and duration of water supply), yet theinstitutional aspects, such as the legal framework, management decisionmaking or social attitudes, can fundamentally undermine the properfunctioning of service provision.
Technically strong systems will often fail to deliver if the institu-tional arrangements are inadequate. In contrast, systems with low levels
64 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.1. Interaction of core elements of service delivery (Huppert and Urban, 1998).
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 64
of technology are made to work well in institutionally strong environ-ments (for example, the subak system in Bali or the hill irrigation sys-tems in Nepal).
Performance assessment must therefore take account of qualitative,as well as quantitative aspects of system management. As discussed inChapter 2, such considerations must be taken into account when settingthe boundaries of the performance assessment programme.
Formulating specifications for service delivery
Irrigation and drainage schemes have been developed with many differ-ent objectives. Some schemes have been designed with the primaryobjective of flood protection, with drainage and irrigation a secondaryobjective. Others have been designed for ‘protective irrigation’, provid-ing a minimum level of irrigation supply to protect against drought. Yetothers have been developed as commercial enterprises.
Service specifications describe how services will be delivered tomeet objectives. For example, water may be delivered at fixed intervals.Alternatively, water may be delivered as per user demands. Each type ofservice has various advantages, and associated costs, and may beadapted to local situations. For example, delivery of water on a rota-tional basis may be satisfactory for rice-growing areas, but may not beadequate for vegetable-producing areas, where more flexible waterdeliveries are required. The cost of the rotational service is likely to bemuch cheaper than the on-demand service, which requires more struc-tures for water control and measurement, and generally more intensemanagement.
Replogle and Merriam (1980) have outlined a useful categorization ofirrigation service delivery schedules based on the three variables of fre-quency, rate and duration (Table 4.1). These three variables are governedby the conveyance systems and control structures. For simple run-of-the-river systems with limited control systems, the frequency that the wateruser receives water is fixed (constant flow), the rate is governed by thedischarge in the river and the duration is also fixed (constant flow). Foran on-demand system, the frequency that the water user receives watercan be varied, as can the rate and the duration. The only possible limita-tion in this case might be on the design capacity of the canal or pipelinesupplying the water.
The full range of irrigation schedules can be defined by these threevariables, ranging from on demand, where the frequency, rate and dura-tion of flow are not limited, through to a constant amount – constant fre-quency schedule, where the frequency, rate and duration are all fixed.An on-demand or limited rate demand schedule is often provided byautomated systems, while arranged or limited rate arranged schedulesare provided by irrigation systems with variable control gates and mea-suring structures, and constant amount – constant frequency schedules
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 65
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 65
are provided by irrigation systems with limited control gates and/orfixed proportional division structures.
Thus, the technical configuration of the irrigation and drainage sys-tem strongly influences the level of service that can be achieved, andtherefore the nature and boundaries of any performance assessment pro-gramme.
Some service specifications are relatively standard, and can beapplied to all irrigation and drainage systems (such as water quality stan-dards, Table 4.2). Other service specifications are more site-specific andhave to be formulated based on the particular circumstances for individ-ual schemes. A comparison of different service specifications for fourirrigation schemes is presented in Table 4.3, showing some of the keyelements considered when setting service specifications, and incorporat-ing the irrigation delivery specifications outlined in Table 4.1.
Finally, it is important to note that objectives change over time inresponse to changing needs of users or society. For example, users maywant the capability to grow higher valued crops, requiring that their sys-tem and associated processes are modernized. Or society may demandthat irrigation uses less water, forcing a new situation on management.Changing of objectives is part of strategic performance assessment, and isdealt with later in the chapter.
66 Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Classification of irrigation schedules (Replogle and Merriam, 1980).
Unlimited: Unlimited and controlled by the user. Limited: Maximum flow rate limited byphysical size of offtake capacity but causing only moderate to negligible problems in on-farmoperation. The applied rate is controlled by the user and may be varied as desired. Arranged:Day or days of water availability are arranged between the irrigation service provider and theuser. Constant: The condition of the rate or duration remains constant as arranged during thespecific irrigation turn. Fixed: The condition is predetermined by the irrigation service provideror the system design.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 66
Applying Performance Assessment to Different Types of Irrigation andDrainage Systems
Overview
One of the differences, and difficulties, with irrigation and drainage incomparison with other service delivery systems, such as electricity andpotable water supply, is the wide variation in the types of irrigation anddrainage systems. The variation is across the board, from the climaticconditions, the type of water source, the water availability, the design ofthe physical infrastructure, the farming system, the social and institu-tional context, the market availability, the local and national economy,etc.
As discussed in the previous section, two key factors affecting irriga-tion and drainage service delivery are the configuration of the physicalinfrastructure and the management processes, both of which effect con-trol over the processes involved.
Figure 4.2 outlines the areas where control needs to be exerted toprovide a reliable, adequate and timely irrigation water supply and effec-tive drainage, and the potential benefits of such control. The manage-ment of the physical infrastructure leads to the provision of water forirrigation and drainage of excess water; this in turn leads to agriculturalcrop production and farmer income, some of which can then be used topay for the service provided. Within the internal processes of the serviceprovider, financial, operation and maintenance control systems arerequired to support the delivery of the service.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 67
Table 4.2. Examples of water quality standards for surface waters (Malano and van Hofwegen,1999).
Parameter Maximum value
General Appearance/odour Water free from visible pollution and smellTemperature <25°CO2 5 mg/lpH 6–9
Nutrients P 0.15 mg/lN 2.2 mg/lChlorophyll 100 �g/lAmmonia 0.02 mg/l
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 69D
eliv
ery
perf
orm
ance
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
serv
ice
Targ
et: 8
6% o
f ord
ers
Targ
et: d
eliv
ery
in fu
ll in
Ta
rget
: del
iver
ies
in
cont
ract
, with
diff
eren
t de
liver
ed o
n da
y re
ques
ted
acco
rdan
ce w
ith a
gree
d ac
cord
ance
with
pub
lishe
d se
rvic
e co
ntra
cts
for
irri
gatio
n sc
hedu
leir
riga
tion
sche
dule
diffe
rent
use
s. T
arge
t: 96
% o
f the
tim
e lo
w
pres
sure
del
iver
ed u
nles
s st
ated
oth
erw
ise
Wat
er c
harg
esFi
xed
+ v
olum
etri
c ch
arge
Vol
umet
ric:
US$
0.02
1/m
3V
olum
etri
c: p
rice
var
ies
for
Bas
ed o
n cr
op ty
pe a
nd
Fixe
d ch
arge
bas
ed o
n gr
avity
, lift
and
pre
ssur
ized
ar
ea ir
riga
ted
deliv
ery
rate
Full
cost
rec
over
y, in
clud
ing
wat
er fr
om U
S$0.
020/
m3
Cha
rge
not r
elat
ed to
V
olum
e ch
arge
bas
ed o
n as
set r
enew
alto
US$
0.04
0/m
3O
&M
cos
t; do
es n
ot c
over
vo
lum
e de
liver
edG
over
nmen
t sub
sidy
to
full
O&
M c
ost,
cost
G
ross
ave
rage
: co
ver
cost
rec
over
y de
ficit
reco
very
or
asse
t ren
ewal
US$
0.10
/m3 ,
whi
ch
incl
udes
full
cost
rec
over
y an
d as
set r
enew
alPo
ints
of s
uppl
yO
ne p
oint
of d
eliv
ery
per
One
poi
nt o
f sup
ply
per
One
sup
ply
poin
t per
O
ne p
oint
of s
uppl
y (h
ead
poin
t per
con
trac
t hol
der
prop
erty
grou
p of
farm
ers;
farm
ers
of w
ater
cour
se) f
or e
ach
rota
te s
uppl
ygr
oup
of fa
rmer
s W
ater
ord
erin
gO
n de
man
d, s
o no
ord
erin
g Te
leph
one
orde
ring
sys
tem
–
Age
ncy
anno
unce
s an
N
one,
sup
ply-
orie
nted
. ne
cess
ary
4 da
ys’ n
otic
e re
quir
edir
riga
tion
cycl
e, fa
rmer
s Ir
riga
tion
sche
dule
(by
can
requ
est t
ime
and
rota
tion)
is d
raw
n up
by
dura
tion
of d
eliv
ery.
th
e ag
ency
at t
he s
tart
of
Sche
dule
s ar
e th
en d
raw
n th
e se
ason
and
pub
lishe
dup
and
agr
eed
on b
y al
l pa
rtie
sSu
pply
res
tric
tions
In c
ase
of a
wat
er s
hort
age
If de
man
d ex
ceed
s av
aila
ble
Prio
r to
sea
son
any
In c
ase
of a
wat
er
a sy
stem
of w
ater
ord
ers
supp
ly, w
ater
is a
lloca
ted
rest
rict
ions
for
crop
shor
tage
, rot
atio
n sc
hedu
leis
intr
oduc
ed a
nd
equi
tabl
y to
all
cust
omer
s ty
pes
are
anno
unce
d.
is a
djus
ted
to r
educ
e al
loca
tions
are
mad
e in
D
urin
g th
e se
ason
(e
qual
ly) t
he s
uppl
y to
pr
opor
tion
to th
ese
orde
rseq
uita
ble
dist
ribu
tion
each
sec
onda
ry c
anal
be
twee
n pe
rmitt
ed c
rops
Wat
er r
ight
sA
ccor
ding
to th
e co
ntra
cts
Tran
sfer
able
, eith
er
Atta
ched
to la
ndow
ners
hip
Atta
ched
to la
ndow
ners
hip
tem
pora
rily
or
perm
anen
tly
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 69
The level of physical control and measurement built into the irriga-tion and drainage system design has a fundamental impact on the leveland type of operational performance assessment that is: (i) required and(ii) possible. In general, the need for operational performance monitoringincreases as the level of control and measurement increases.
Physical characteristics
Figure 4.3 shows some of the components of different types of irrigationand drainage systems. For gravity flow systems, water is diverted fromthe river into the canal network. Control structures along the way divert,head up and measure the water en route to the farmer’s field.Alternatively, water can be pumped from the river and distributed byopen channels or closed pipe systems. At field level different methods,ranging from furrow to drip, are used to apply the water to the crop.Surface drains are required to remove rainfall and excess irrigationwater, buried drainage systems may be required where the water tablerises towards the soil surface. For groundwater systems water is raisedby pump and may then be distributed by open channels to the fields, orclosed pipe systems.
70 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.2. Components of level of service provision to water users.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:30 Page 70
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 71
Fig.
4.3
.C
ompo
nent
s of
an
irri
gate
d fa
rmin
g sy
stem
.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 71
In the service delivery context the degree of control available at thefollowing points is important:
● Abstraction.● Conveyance and distribution.● Application.● Removal.
The degree of control at the point of abstraction controls the water avail-ability within the system. A system supplied directly from a reservoirwill have a different pattern and reliability of water availability to thatfrom a run-of-the-river system. A run-of-the-river system with a riverweir and gated headworks will have better control over the waterabstraction than a system with a simple diversion channel. Pumpedabstraction from groundwater often provides good control of the irriga-tion water supply.
The type of control (and measurement) structure within the con-veyance and distribution system strongly governs the irrigation schedul-ing that is possible (as discussed earlier), and hence the level of serviceprovision. There is an anomaly here, in that some of the simplest controlsystems, such as the proportional division weirs used in the hill irriga-tion systems in Nepal, can provide some of the most reliable levels ofservice delivery with a fixed frequency, fixed rate and fixed durationsupply. Similarly the Warabandi system used in northern India andPakistan can also provide a reliable level of service delivery based onproportional division of the available water supplies. As one moves tothe more sophisticated systems, with cross-regulation structures, gatesand measuring structures, the potential for more flexibility exists, and, ifmanaged well, facilitates high levels of production by supplying watereither on demand or by arrangement. If managed poorly these systemsenable top-end farmers to capture the available water supplies (bymanipulating the control structures) at the expense of tail-end farmers.The ultimate in control are automated systems, using techniques such asdownstream control based on hydraulic connectivity, or centrally man-aged networks where control structures are regulated via telemetry orlandline communication systems connected to a central computer.
There are a wide variety of application processes, ranging from wildflooding to drip irrigation. The application type will strongly affect theperformance at this level, wild flooding, for example, being generallyless effective and efficient than drip irrigation for controlled applicationof the required quantity of water at the crop root zone. Poor control canresult in over-application and lead to waterlogging and salinization, atwhich point buried drainage systems may be required.
Drains are used both to remove excess water and to control ground-water level, and, as with the irrigation channels, require regular mainte-nance to remain effective.
Measurement of water plays an important part in service delivery;the ability, or inability, to measure water at key points within an irriga-
72 Chapter 4
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 72
tion and drainage network governs the management processes and thelevel of service that can be provided.
Management characteristics
The management type, structure, processes and procedures have a signif-icant impact on service delivery. The design of the physical system setswhat is possible, the management processes make it happen.
Different types of management exist, from systems managed entirelyfrom abstraction to application by government organizations, to systemsmanaged entirely by water users’ associations or a single private com-pany. Under irrigation management transfer (IMT) programmes, anincreasing number of irrigation and drainage systems are being trans-ferred from government agency management to management by waterusers.
The management structure governs the level of control that can beexerted on the system. With a management structure as might be foundon a privately run sugar estate, the general manager has direct controlthrough line management to the field worker applying water to thecrops. With a jointly managed irrigation system, where the governmentagency manages the main canals and the farmers manage within the ter-tiary units, the government agency only has control of the water to thedelivery point at the tertiary intake; the use of water thereafter is underthe control of the farmers.
The processes and procedures used by the management to plan, allo-cate, distribute, monitor and evaluate the irrigation water supply governhow effectively irrigation supply is matched to demand. In some sys-tems, such as the Nepal hill irrigation systems, the processes and proce-dures are very simple. More sophisticated systems, such as theWarabandi system in northern India and Pakistan, regulate the water dis-tribution within the tertiary unit through predetermined time rosters,though the water is delivered to the tertiary unit (watercourse) on a pro-portional division basis. As one gets into manually operated gated con-trol systems the need for defined management processes and proceduresincreases, with decisions needed to be made at regular intervals duringthe irrigation season to determine irrigation water demands and waterallocations at control points. In such systems a fundamental manage-ment process is the adjustment of control structures at regular intervalsto pass the prescribed discharges.
In manually operated systems the breakdown of the managementprocesses often results in unreliable, inadequate and untimely deliveryof irrigation water in relation to the water users’ needs. This breakdowncan be because of poor management procedures, but can also be due tolack of motivation and incentive for management personnel. Automatedirrigation systems are not so reliant on management processes for opera-tion, but do require particular attention being paid to maintenance.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 73
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 73
Implementing Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment
Strategic performance assessment
The basic management cycle in an operational context for an irrigationand drainage system is shown in Fig. 4.4. The overall strategic objectivesfor the system are identified and targets set. These objectives and targetsgenerally apply over a period of several seasons or years, though theirrelevance may be reviewed on an annual basis. The service agreement isgenerally negotiated and agreed between the service provider in a simi-lar pattern, though there may be annual or seasonal adjustments to allowfor variations in climate, planned cropping, etc.
Performance criteria and indicators can then be formulated whichenable the monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of the agreedobjectives and targets, as well as the attainment of the conditions of theservice specification.
Monitoring and evaluation of scheme performance is carried out dur-ing the cropping season or year, and as discussed in Chapter 1 can be ofa strategic (‘Am I doing the right thing?’) or an operational (‘Am I doingthings right?’) nature. Strategic performance assessment is typically doneat longer intervals and looks at criteria of productivity, profitability, sus-tainability and environmental impact. It may also be required inresponse to changes in the external environment, such as is the case withgovernments reducing the funding available for supporting irrigated agri-culture and transferring responsibility for management, operation andmaintenance to water users.
Indicators for strategic performance assessment may differ fromthose used for operational performance monitoring as they are used to
74 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.4. Operational management cycle.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 74
assess changes that may be occurring gradually over time (for example,rise in groundwater levels, salinity or pollution loads).
Operational performance assessment
In order to discuss operational performance assessment it is first neces-sary to outline some basic operational procedures (Fig. 4.5).
Prior to the commencement of the irrigation season, a pre-seasonplan is drawn up covering key aspects of the management, operation ormaintenance of the system. Depending on the type of irrigation anddrainage scheme, this plan covers planned crop areas, estimates of sea-sonal irrigation water demand and availability, maintenance plans, feerecovery estimates, etc. Budgeting and maintenance work programmingare key parts of the planning process. Targets for operational perfor-mance assessment are derived from this pre-season plan.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 75
Fig. 4.5. Irrigation management cycle.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 75
The plan is implemented during the season, with further planningbeing carried out each time period to allocate and schedule irrigationwater based on actual irrigation demands and climatic conditions, andto make adjustments to compensate for unplanned events, such asflooding, canal breaches or emergency maintenance. Operational per-formance assessment carried out during the season supports this plan-ning and adjustment process. The flows in the canal network areregulated in accordance with the implementation schedule and the dis-charges (and for some schemes, the crop areas) monitored as the seasonprogresses.
The performance of the system in relation to the seasonal plan ismonitored during the season, and evaluated at the end of the season. Theevaluation measures the performance against the seasonal plan, but mayalso measure the performance against the strategic objectives.
There is increased demand for transparency and accountability inrelation to water management. It is important, therefore, that the findingsof the performance monitoring and evaluation process are disseminatedto key stakeholders, particularly water users. In schemes that are man-aged by water users’ associations, seasonal performance will be reportedat the annual general meeting. For government agency-run systems, sea-sonal performance results can be published in local newspapers, or dis-played in local government offices.
Examples of the different approaches to operational performanceassessment based on the type of irrigation and drainage system are out-lined in Table 4.4.
Steps in strategic and operational performance assessment
Strategic and operational performance assessment follows the frameworkoutlined in Chapter 2. It contains the following steps:
1. Identification of purpose and extent.2. Selection of performance assessment criteria, indicators and targets.3. Data collection.4. Processing and analysis of data.5. Reporting results.6. Acting on results.
The strategic and operational performance assessment procedures aretied into the day-to-day management procedures for the irrigation sys-tem. In particular, the data collection, processing and analysis proce-dures for performance assessment have to be based on the data collectedand used for the system management, operation and maintenance. Insome cases the data collection, processing and analysis may need to beextended to facilitate better assessment of performance.
76 Chapter 4
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 76
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 77
1. Identification of purpose and extent
The purpose will be to assess the performance of the irrigation anddrainage system in relation to the specifications given in the serviceagreement (or similar specification of objectives and targets). The bound-aries for the irrigation service provider will be the point of abstraction tothe point of delivery to the farmer. If a drainage service is provided, theboundaries will include the drainage network and disposal system. Theperformance assessment is for scheme management, from the perspec-tive of scheme management and farmers (as agreed in the service agree-ment), is carried out by the scheme personnel and is an operational andaccountability type of assessment.
2. Selection of performance assessment criteria, indicators and targets
Performance criteria and indicators are defined based on three consider-ations:
● Service specification and accountability.● Strategic objectives.● Operation and maintenance considerations.
When selecting indicators, consideration is required for how these willbe reported, the cost of collecting the information to put in the indicatorand the message that the indicator is relaying.
● A key set of indicators will be related to water service delivery. If thespecifications call for an arranged schedule, then indicators will bechosen to reflect whether the water request was delivered in the rightamount and on time. If the specification calls for constant amount,constant frequency schedule (proportional delivery), some meansmust be established to ascertain whether flows existed, and whetherthey are being properly divided. In the first case, the delivery perfor-mance ratio, with its average value, and variation over space and time,would be an indicator of delivery performance. In the second case, aproportional dividing structure provides a simple and transparentmeans of dividing water. As long as water is in the canal, it will bedivided. There may not be a need for a formal evaluation of the indi-cator.
A key consideration is accountability. There should be a meansfor both provider and user to ensure that the service is met. Themeasurement and the indicator should provide for this cross-checking. In the first case, a flow measuring device that both partiescan inspect serves the purpose. In the second case, the flow divisionstructure provides a transparent means of assessing whether servicehas been delivered.
● Strategic performance monitoring is typically done at longer intervalsand looks at criteria of productivity, profitability and environmentalsustainability. For example, a strategic monitoring programme may
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 77
78 Chapter 4
Tabl
e 4.
4.Li
nkag
e be
twee
n ty
pe o
f irr
igat
ion
syst
em a
nd o
pera
tiona
l per
form
ance
ass
essm
ent.
Syst
em c
ompo
nent
s fo
r op
erat
ion
Syst
em ty
pe
Tech
-O
pera
tions
O
pera
tiona
l(a
s pe
r Ex
ampl
eC
ontr
olM
easu
ring
nolo
gySt
affin
gO
pera
tiona
lda
ta
perf
orm
ance
Tabl
e 4.
1)D
escr
iptio
nlo
catio
nst
ruct
ures
stru
ctur
esC
ropp
ing
leve
lle
vel
plan
ning
colle
ctio
nas
sess
men
t
Prop
ortio
nal
Wat
er d
istr
ibut
ed in
H
illSi
mpl
e N
one
Arr
ange
Low
Low
Non
eN
one
Mon
itor
stru
ctur
es a
nd
dist
ribu
tion
prop
ortio
n to
ope
ning
ir
riga
tion,
unga
ted
crop
ping
ensu
re n
o bl
ocka
ges.
(C
onst
ant
– us
ed in
hill
irri
gatio
n N
epal
prop
ortio
nal
patte
rnV
olum
e de
liver
ed
amou
nt –
sy
stem
s in
Nep
aldi
visi
on
to m
atch
co
ntro
lled
at d
esig
n st
age
cons
tant
st
ruct
ures
supp
lyby
pro
port
iona
l siz
e of
fr
eque
ncy)
patte
rnop
enin
g. T
he p
rim
ary
obje
ctiv
e is
equ
itabl
edi
stri
butio
n of
ava
ilabl
esu
pplie
sW
ater
dis
trib
utio
n on
W
arab
andi
Adj
usta
ble
Slot
ted
Arr
ange
Med
ium
Low
Med
ium
(to
Lim
ited
The
desi
gn r
equi
res
that
m
ain
syst
em in
sy
stem
,Pr
opor
tiona
lflu
me
on
crop
ping
prep
are
(plo
t and
th
e se
cond
ary
cana
l flow
s pr
opor
tion
to c
ultiv
able
Nor
ther
nM
odul
eta
il of
pa
ttern
to
seas
onal
wat
erco
urse
at d
esig
n di
scha
rge
com
man
d ar
ea (C
CA
).In
dia
and
(APM
) at
seco
ndar
ym
atch
War
aban
dico
mm
and
(Ful
l Sup
ply
Leve
l, FS
L)W
ater
allo
catio
n w
ithin
Paki
stan
wat
erco
urse
cana
lav
erag
esc
hedu
le)
area
s)in
ord
er to
mai
ntai
nte
rtia
ry u
nit
inta
ke.
(dis
trib
utar
y)an
nual
com
man
d ov
er th
e A
PM(w
ater
cour
se) a
lloca
ted
Sim
ple
wat
erC
anal
wat
er le
vels
are
on
a ti
me-
shar
e ba
sis
on/o
ff su
pply
mon
itore
d at
the
head
of
in p
ropo
rtio
n to
the
divi
sion
patte
rnth
e se
cond
ary
cana
l. ar
ea o
f eac
h fa
rmer
’s bo
xes
inFr
eque
ncy
and
dura
tion
ofpl
otfie
ld
supp
ly to
eac
h fa
rmer
mon
ito
red
with
in th
e te
rtia
ryun
it. R
ate
not m
onito
red
Rel
ativ
e cr
op
Wat
er a
lloca
ted
base
d Ea
st Ja
va,
Gat
edR
equi
red
Var
ied
Hig
hH
igh,
Hig
hH
igh
Wee
kly
or 1
0-da
ily
area
met
hod
on fa
ctor
ing
the
crop
In
done
sia
cont
rol
but
plan
ning
of w
ater
(R
estr
icte
dar
ea in
rel
atio
n to
the
stru
ctur
esre
lativ
ely
allo
catio
n ba
sed
on
arra
nged
)cr
op’s
wat
er
low
calc
ulat
ed d
eman
d. If
re
quir
emen
t rel
ativ
e to
sk
illw
ater
sho
rt, r
educ
e su
pply
th
e ba
se c
rop.
Use
d in
le
vels
equa
lly to
all
user
s.
Indo
nesi
a, r
efer
red
to
need
edM
onito
r di
scha
rges
at
as th
e Pa
sten
met
hod
for
O&
Mpr
imar
y, s
econ
dary
and
ter-
tiary
inta
kes,
com
pare
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 78
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 79ac
tual
wat
er d
eliv
ered
with
plan
eac
h w
eek/
10 d
ays.
Equi
tabl
e di
stri
butio
n of
avai
labl
e w
ater
the
prim
ary
obje
ctiv
e, fo
llow
ed b
y se
c-on
dary
obj
ectiv
e of
del
iver
-in
g ad
equa
te s
uppl
ies
(whe
n w
ater
ava
ilabl
e)Li
mite
d ra
te,
Wat
er a
lloca
ted
base
d G
olbo
urn-
Gat
edR
equi
red
Var
ied
Hig
hH
igh
Hig
hH
igh
Reg
ular
dai
ly u
pdat
ing
of
arra
nged
on
cal
cula
tions
of
Mur
ray,
cont
rol
irri
gatio
n w
ater
dem
and
irri
gatio
n w
ater
A
ustr
alia
stru
ctur
esan
d pl
anni
ng o
f wat
er
dem
and
usin
g st
anda
rd
allo
catio
n. W
ater
ca
lcul
atio
n pr
oced
ures
di
stri
bute
d to
mat
ch
such
as
wat
er b
alan
ce
dem
and.
The
pri
mar
y sh
eets
and
clim
atic
ob
ject
ive
is to
mat
ch
data
supp
ly w
ith d
eman
dD
eman
dW
ater
dis
trib
uted
in
Aix
-en-
Aut
omat
edR
equi
red
Var
ied
Ver
yLo
wLo
wH
igh,
Con
tinuo
us m
onito
ring
of
resp
onse
to o
peni
ng o
f Pr
oven
ce,
cont
rol
high
num
ber,
but
wat
er le
vels
and
th
e ou
tlet g
ates
to
Fran
cest
ruct
ures
but
auto
mat
eddi
scha
rges
thro
ugh
farm
shi
gh
auto
mat
ed c
ontr
ol
skill
sy
stem
s. Im
med
iate
le
vels
.re
spon
se to
irri
gatio
nde
man
d. M
onito
r sy
stem
toen
sure
con
trol
sys
tem
s ar
efu
nctio
ning
, and
mon
itor
toen
sure
that
tota
l dem
and
can
be m
atch
ed b
yav
aila
ble
supp
ly a
t wat
erso
urce
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 79
investigate changes in groundwater levels, salinity, pollution loadsand productivity over a period of several years.
● Other types of indicators may be selected to aid operation and mainte-nance procedures. For example, measurements of drainage outflow, orcondition of structures, will help managers to identify possible causesfor the failure to attain specified service levels.
3. Data collection
Maintaining a data collection and monitoring system is necessary to cal-culate indicators and to provide feedback to users. This is the topic ofChapter 6, and will not be discussed in detail here. For the proportionaldivision system, data collection needs of flow rates may be minimal,whereas in the arranged demand system, more information will beneeded about flows as the season progresses. In both cases, financial dataon payments and labour contributions are essential.
4. Processing and analysis of data
Data need to be processed and analysed on a regular basis in order tofeedback into the management loop. In better resourced systems comput-ers are a standard part of performance management systems, for lesswell-resourced systems simple processing and monitoring tools, such asoperational schematic maps, have a key role to play.
Data processing and analysis is a central feature of irrigation manage-ment. In many schemes periodic meetings (weekly, 10-daily, bi-monthly)are held with system managers and staff to: (i) monitor and evaluate per-formance for the previous time period, and (ii) plan the coming timeperiod’s irrigation water allocation and schedule.
Data are collected on the irrigation demands for the coming timeperiod, and at the end of this time period the supply allocated is com-pared with the planned allocation. Simple tabulation of the data assiststhe data processing and analysis. Table 4.5 provides an example wherethe data sheet is used to calculate the discharge allocations for the com-ing time period, and then used at the end of the time period to record theactual deliveries and calculate the performance indicators. Figure 4.6provides a graphical representation of the data, using shading to high-light areas of adequate, over- or under-supply.
80 Chapter 4
Last time period Next time period
PlanningMonitoring
Periodic meeting toreview performanceand prepare schedulefor following timeperiod
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 80
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 81
Tabl
e 4.
5.Ex
ampl
e of
a d
ata
proc
essi
ng a
nd a
naly
sis
form
for
wee
kly
wat
er a
lloca
tions
.
FOR
M 0
4W
ATER
REQ
UES
T, A
LLO
CAT
ION
AN
D A
CTU
AL
SUPP
LY S
UM
MA
RYD
ivis
ion:
Reg
ion
3C
anal
nam
e: B
3 B
ranc
h C
anal
Peri
od: F
rom
22.
7.20
02 to
29.
7.20
02N
ote:
The
se la
st c
olum
ns a
re c
ompl
eted
at t
he e
nd o
f the
per
iod
REQ
UES
TPL
AN
NED
ALL
OC
ATIO
NA
CTU
AL
MO
NIT
OR
ING
Des
ign
Del
iver
yPr
imar
y/C
omm
and
cana
lA
rea
Han
dove
rD
urat
ion
perf
orm
ance
Wat
er U
sers
’ se
cond
ary
area
capa
city
irri
gate
dD
isch
arge
Dur
atio
nD
isch
arge
Dur
atio
ndi
scha
rge
Dis
char
ge(d
ays
orra
tio (a
ctua
l/A
ssoc
iatio
nca
nal
(ha)
(l/s)
(ha)
(l/s)
(h)
(l/s)
(h)
(l/s)
(l/s)
h)pl
anne
d)
Col
.1C
ol.2
Col
.3C
ol.4
Col
.5C
ol.6
Col
.7C
ol.8
Col
.9C
ol.1
0C
ol.1
1C
ol.1
2C
ol.1
1/C
ol.8
B3
1668
2852
236
1282
2412
8224
1282
1273
240.
99C
ane
Gro
veB
3-1
110
132
2066
2466
2464
240.
97B
3-2
9010
818
6024
6024
7024
1.17
B3-
380
9615
5024
5024
6024
1.21
Sub-
tota
l28
0–
5317
524
175
2410
3119
424
1.11
Cra
bwoo
d C
reek
B3-
414
016
817
5624
5624
6024
1.08
B3-
516
720
020
6624
6624
6124
0.92
B3-
612
515
015
5024
5024
6224
1.25
B3-
717
020
420
6824
6824
7024
1.04
Sub-
tota
l60
2–
7223
924
239
2468
925
324
1.06
Fello
wsh
ipB
3-8
102
122
1860
2460
2448
240.
81B
3-9
5060
1550
2450
2453
241.
07B
3-10
240
288
2995
2495
2497
241.
02B
3-11
6578
1446
2446
2452
241.
12Su
b-to
tal
457
–76
251
2425
124
331
250
241.
00G
olde
n G
rove
B3-
1295
114
1860
2460
2454
240.
91B
3-13
5465
1240
2440
2435
240.
88B
3-14
9511
421
7024
7024
5524
0.79
B3-
1585
102
1963
2463
2450
240.
80Su
b-to
tal
329
–70
232
2423
224
019
424
0.84
Tota
l16
68–
271
897
897
891
240.
99
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 81
82 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.6. Example of schematic diagram for operational monitoring of delivery performanceratio (DPR) each time period.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 82
5. Reporting results
Reporting results at regular intervals to stakeholders helps to ensureaccountability and high levels of performance. This is the point whereindicators are useful in providing a communication pathway betweenservice providers, users and other interested parties. The indicators cho-sen reflect what is relevant for that particular context. The indicatorspresented in Chapter 3 form a useful base, but managers may also findother types of indicators useful. For example, the number of complaintsreceived may be an indicator of the quality of service. Another examplewould be the percentage of events when the specifications were not met,or the percentage of time a canal is operational. Financial data and indi-cators, such as the fee collection ratio, are some of the most importantand interesting pieces of information for stakeholders.
Many successful irrigation service providers prepare an annualreport where these indicators are presented. These are widely dissemi-nated to users and other stakeholders. This process of reporting alsohelps to establish accountability, as it provides a check as to whether ornot providers are doing their job. An example of a limited set of indica-tors used annually for monitoring and reporting on the performance ofwater users’ associations is presented in Table 4.6.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 83
Table 4.6. Example of annual performance assessment of WUAs and federations.a ISF, irrigationservice fee.
No. Indicator Definition Scoring Score
1. WUA membership Total number of WUA members 2 = >50%ratio Total number of irrigators in service area 1 = 25–50%
0 = <25%
2. Annual general Annual general meeting held 2 = Yesmeetings 0 = No
3. Annual general Number of WUA members attending AGM 2 = >50%meeting attendance Total number of WUA members 1 = 30–50%
0 = <30%
4. Administrative Number of meetings held during the year 2 = >5council meetings (January–December) 1 = 1–5held 0 = 0
5. Administrative Number of elections for members of 2 = Yescouncil elections administrative council held in last 2 years 0 = No
6. Women members of Number of women members of 2 = 1 or moreadministrative council administrative council 0 = None
7. Employment of Accountant employed and duration 2 = Yes, >4 monthsaccountant of employment 1 = Yes, <4 months
0 = None
8. Area managed by Total gross area serviced by the system 2 = <250 haWater Masters Number of Water Masters employed by WUA 1 = >250 ha
0 = No Water Masters
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 83
No. Indicator Definition Scoring Score
9. ISF collection per Total ISF collected 2 = >25 $/hahectare of gross Total gross area serviced by the system 1 = 15–25 $/haservice area (GSA) 0 = <15 $/ha
10. ISF collection as Total ISF collected 2 = >90%percent of target Target total annual ISF 1 = 60–90%
0 = <60%
11. ISF collection per Total ISF collected 2 = >20 $/hahectare irrigated Total annual irrigated crop area 1 = 15–20 $/ha
0 = <15 $/ha
12. Financial audit of Level of approval of WUA financial affairs 2 = Accounts approvedWUA by independent auditors 1 = No audit undertaken
0 = Accounts qualified/rejected
13. Area transferred to Area transferred to WUA 2 = 100%WUA Total gross area serviced by the system 1 = 50–99%
0 = <50%
14. Annual maintenance Extent of annual maintenance planning, 2 = Inspection planning costing and implementation undertaken and detailed
Note: The inspection plan must be reviewed plan producedand scored by the monitoring personnel 1 = Maintenance plan
produced, no proper inspection0 = No plan produced
15. Degree of flow Level of flow measurement at the head of 2 = Full measurementmeasurement the system (either primary canal or record
secondary canals) 1 = Some water measurement0 = No measurement
16. Maintenance Maintenance cost 2 = >15 $/haexpenditure per Total gross area serviced by the system 1 = 6–15 $/haunit GSA 0 = <6 $/ha
17. Maintenance Maintenance expenditure 2 = >70%expenditure to Gross revenue collected 1 = 40–70%revenue ratio 0 = <40%
18. First irrigation Total annual recorded (first) irrigation crop area 2 = >50%crop area ratio Total gross area serviced by the system 1 = 30–50%(of GSA) 0 = <30%
19. Crop audit Reported area of first irrigation 2 = >90%correction factor Crop area measured from crop area audit survey 1 = 75–90%
0 = <75%
WUA total score Sum of scores for performance indicators 2 = >321 = 20–320 = <20
a Assessment of the federation is made through analysis of the performance of the individual WUAs makingup the federation.
84 Chapter 4
Table 4.6. Continued.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 84
6. Taking action
The most important reason to do the assessment is to take action whenneeded. When flows are not being delivered according to target, someaction is necessary. This may be a simple adjustment, or it may be morecomplicated, requiring diagnostic analysis (discussed in Chapter 5).
The potential action that can be taken is shown in Fig. 4.7. If opera-tional targets are not met, diagnostic analysis is used to identify thecauses and action taken, where feasible, to address these causes. If iden-tified causes for not attaining the operational targets cannot be removed,it may be necessary to alter the target levels in the service agreement.Even if operational targets are met, it is advisable to question whetherthey require review. An example would be where operational targets arenot being met due to low levels of motivation by field staff. The solutionmight be increased salaries and/or performance-related pay, but becausethey are in government service salaries are strictly graded, and perfor-mance-related pay not acceptable. In such circumstances it may be nec-essary to downgrade the expectations in the service agreement. Apossible feasible solution identified during the diagnostic analysis mightbe to hand over the system to water users.
Operational and Strategic Performance Assessment 85
Fig. 4.7. Procedure for taking action following strategic and operational performanceassessment.
04IDPA4 7/3/05 14:31 Page 85
A similar process can be followed if strategic targets are not met,using diagnostic analysis to understand why performance targets are notbeing met. If identified causes of low performance cannot be resolved,then the strategic objectives may need to be reviewed. An examplewould be where the groundwater level is rising to within the root zone ofthe crop. The diagnostic analysis might identify a number of potentialsolutions, some of them feasible, some of them not. Buried pipes couldbe a solution, but might be too expensive, whereas better water manage-ment practices might provide a cost-effective and feasible solution.
References
Huppert, W. and Urban, K. (1998) Analysing Service Provision: Instruments forDevelopment Cooperation Illustrated by Examples from Irrigation. GTZ pub-lication no. 263. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit(GTZ), GmbH, Eschborn, Germany.
Malano, H.M. and van Hofwegen, P.J.M. (1999) Management of Irrigation andDrainage Systems – a Service Approach. IHE monograph no. 3. A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Replogle, J.A. and Merriam, J.L. (1980) Scheduling and management of irrigationwater delivery systems. In: Irrigation – Challenges of the 80s. AmericanSociety of Agricultural Engineers, Second National Irrigation Symposium,Nebraska, 20–23 October, pp. 112–126.
