GUIDELINES FOR BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE IN THE … · Guidelines for benchmarking performance in...
Transcript of GUIDELINES FOR BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE IN THE … · Guidelines for benchmarking performance in...
International Programme for Technology and Research inIrrigation and Drainage
GUIDELINES
FOR
BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE
IN THE
IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR
IPTRID SecretariatFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsRome, 2001
Hector MalanoUniversity of Melbourne, Australia
andMartin Burton
ITAD-Water, United Kingdom
The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations or the International Programme for Technologyand Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information productfor educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior writtenpermission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged.Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposesis prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for suchpermission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service,Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected]
© FAO 2001
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or theInternational Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage(IPTRID). Mention of specific companies, their products or brand names does not implyany endorsement by FAO or IPTRID
ISBN 92-5-104618-2
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector iii
Preface
Irrigated agriculture contributes about 40 percent of the global food production. This comes mainly fromabout 260 million hectares of irrigated lands, of which about two thirds are formal irrigation schemes. Manyformal irrigation schemes are performing inefficiently for a number of reasons, among which the poorperformance of irrigation institutions is one. It is this realisation that prompted the World Bank to initiate,among others, action on “Reforming Irrigation Institutions”. The objective of this initiative is “to improve theperformance of irrigation management in projects by increasing the efficiency, transparency and accountabilityof the organisations in charge of providing irrigation services and increase the participation of users and theprivate sector”.
One of the elements of reforming irrigation institutions is benchmarking irrigation and drainage projects withspecial reference to the performance of organisations in charge of providing irrigation services. Benchmarkingmay be defined as the identification and application of organisation specific best practices with the goal ofimproving competitiveness, performance and efficiency. It is a continuous process that involves (a) internalassessment of the organisation, (b) comparing it with the best practices of more successful similar businessesin the market, (c) determining performance gap between current practice and best practice, and (d) selectingbest practices, tailoring them to fit the organisation and implementing them. The cycle of improvement continues.Benchmarking does not substitute other diagnostic and appraisal analyses, but rather complements them.
Upon the request of the World Bank to the Consultative Group of the International Programme for Technologyand Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) in December 1999, a research study to develop guidelinesfor benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector was launched by IPTRID. The study was carried outas a joint initiative of the IPTRID partner institutions, namely, World Bank (WB), Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and theInternational Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and coordinated by the IPTRID Secretariat.
Two International Consultants, Professor Hector Malano, University of Melbourne, Australia and Dr. MartinBurton, Director, ITAD-Water, United Kingdom, were engaged by IPTRID to develop these guidelines inconsultation with the IPTRID partner institutions and the Secretariat. The process began in early 2000 andsince then a number of formal and informal meetings, consultations and discussions have been held.
These guidelines are neither perfect nor final. Rather they represent the beginning of a long and excitingprocess of benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector. Much will be learned during the comingmonths and years when the guidelines will be put to practical test in the field. Revisions will have to be madeand perhaps “customised” versions of the guidelines will have to be prepared for application to irrigation anddrainage schemes, which operate under a broad range of conditions.
We sincerely hope that this publication fills a gap in the knowledge of irrigation management in general andirrigation institution reform in particular. We look forward to receiving responses from those who apply theseguidelines to improve the performance of services to irrigation and drainage schemes.
Arumugam KandiahProgramme Manager, IPTRID
iv
Acknowledgements
This publication is the result of efforts by many people over recent years to develop methodologies forstudying, monitoring and evaluating performance in the irrigation and drainage sector.`
Acknowledgements are due to these people, and in particular to the following who have contributed to thispublication, namely, Rien Bos, International Land Reclamation and Improvement Institute, The Netherlands;Charles Burt, California Polytechnic State University, California, USA; Bill Kingdom, Water and SanitationProgramme, The World Bank, USA; and David Molden, International Water Management Institute, SriLanka. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and encouragement provided by Fernando Gonzalez,Senior Irrigation Adviser, The World Bank, USA and Hans Wolter, Director Land and Water DevelopmentDivision, FAO, Italy.
The authors wish to express their special gratitude to Arum Kandiah, Programme Manager, IPTRID for hisinitiative, support and coordination of the activities from the beginning.
Acknowledgements are due also to the Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID),the Land and Water Research Development Corporation and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australiafor their willingness to share their innovative work on benchmarking a significant number of irrigation anddrainage schemes in the country. It is recommended that their publication, the 1998/99 Australian IrrigationWater Provider Benchmarking Report, be read in conjunction with this publication.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector v
Contents
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... IV
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1Origins of the benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage sector ............................. 1
What is benchmarking? .................................................................................................................. 1Why is benchmarking needed? ..................................................................................................... 2What should be benchmarked? ..................................................................................................... 2Who does the benchmarking? ....................................................................................................... 3What are the benefits of benchmarking? ..................................................................................... 3What extra tasks and costs does benchmarking involve? ....................................................... 4What is the relationship between benchmarking and performance assessment? ................ 4
BENCHMARKING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 5Benchmarking process ........................................................................................................................ 5Categorization of schemes .................................................................................................................. 6
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 11Data requirements .............................................................................................................................. 11Data capture ........................................................................................................................................ 11Data units ............................................................................................................................................. 13Data processing and analysis ............................................................................................................ 13
Partner benchmarking analysis ................................................................................................... 13Partner internal analysis ............................................................................................................... 13
Comparative analysis ......................................................................................................................... 13
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................................... 17Data handling framework................................................................................................................... 17Central processing ............................................................................................................................. 17
Data and information exchange ................................................................................................... 17Roles and responsibilities for implementation .............................................................................. 18Selection of benchmarking partners ................................................................................................ 19
BIBLIGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A1 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX A2 - PROTOCOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING ............................................................. 29
vi
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 1
Introduction
ORIGINS OF THE BENCHMARKING INITIATIVE IN THE
IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR
In a move to address constraints within the irrigationand drainage sector the World Bank has initiated aProgramme of Institutional Reform in Irrigation andDrainage. This programme has three maincomponents:• Performance indicators and benchmarking• Public and private partnerships• Regulatory framework
As part of the performance indicators andbenchmarking component the World Bank hasrequested assistance from IPTRID to initiate a jointstudy to:• identify simple, but effective and universally
applicable performance indicators forbenchmarking
• formulate and field test a benchmarkingmethodology for the irrigation and drainagesector.
It is envisaged that the set of indicators shouldnot be too data intensive (as this discourageswidespread and regular application of themethodology), nor require special field surveys. Amethodology is required which uses data that areroutinely collected during normal management,operation and maintenance processes. The selectedset of indicators should allow for comparativeanalysis of performance between irrigation anddrainage schemes.
In August 2000 IPTRID convened a 2-dayworkshop in Rome with the aim to:• review experiences on performance indicators
and prospects for benchmarking irrigation anddrainage projects
• recommend a work programme to identifybenchmarking indicators, develop abenchmarking methodology and field test thebenchmarking methodology.
The workshop was attended by 18 professionals,with representatives from the World Bank, IPTRID,FAO, IWMI, ILRI, ICID, national governments,
universities, research establishments andconsultants.
This document is one of the outcomes of theworkshop. The authors have been requested toproduce a set of benchmarking guidelines which:• introduce the concept of benchmarking• outline the processes and procedures involved
in benchmarking• detail the implementation plan and programme
derived from the workshop• generate sufficient interest in the process that
partners from a variety of organisations indifferent countries elect to participate in thebenchmarking programme.
What is benchmarking?
Benchmarking can be defined as:“A systematic process for securing continual
improvement through comparison with relevant andachievable internal or external norms andstandards”.
The overall aim of benchmarking is to improvethe performance of an organisation as measuredagainst its mission and objectives. Benchmarkingimplies comparison – either internally with previousperformance and desired future targets, or externallyagainst similar organisations, or organisationsperforming similar functions. Benchmarking is amanagement tool already in use in both the publicand private sector organisations.
Benchmarking is about change, moving from oneposition to a better position. It is important that:• those responsible within the organisation for the
benchmarking programme have the authority tobring about change;
• the change process is fully integrated within theorganisation’s management processes andprocedures.
Irrigation and drainage are essentially servicesto irrigated agriculture – providing and removingwater to suit the crops’ needs. Thus in the irrigationand drainage sector we are interested in improving
Introduction2
the level of service provision to water users, therebyenabling them to maintain or increase levels ofagricultural production.
In approaching benchmarking for the irrigationand drainage sector there are three characteristicsthat need to be borne in mind:• irrigation and drainage service providers operate
in a natural monopoly environment• irrigation and drainage entails complex and
interacting physical, social, economic, political,technical and environmental processes
• performance of irrigation and drainage schemesis site specific.
Why is benchmarking needed?
Benchmarking originated in the corporate businesssector as a means for companies to gauge, andsubsequently improve, their performance relative tokey competitors. By studying key competitors’outputs, and the processes used to achieve thoseoutputs, many organisations have been able to adoptbest management practices and enhance their ownperformance. In some cases organisations have doneso well that they have, in turn, become theorganisation that others use as a benchmark.
There are many reasons why organisations maybe interested in the benchmarking activity. Theprivate sector is primarily driven by a desire toimprove return on investment or return toshareholders; in the public sector the aim is toimprove the level of service provision. In theirrigation and drainage sector service providers areresponding to a variety of “drivers”, including:• Increasing competition for water, both within the
irrigated agriculture sector, and from othersectors
• Increasing demand on the irrigation sector toproduce more food for growing populations.Coupled with the pressure on available waterresources, this results in the “more crop per drop”initiative promoted by international agenciessuch as the International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) and the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) of the United Nations
• Growing pressure to effect cost savings whilstincreasing the productivity and efficiency ofresource use
• Turnover and privatisation of irrigation anddrainage schemes to water users, leading to moretransparent and accountable (to users)management practices
• Increasing interest by the wider community inproductive and efficient water resource use andthe protection of aquatic environments
• Increasing need for accountability to bothgovernment and water users in respect of waterresource use and price paid for water
Different drivers will apply in different situations,it is important at the outset of a benchmarkingprogramme to identify the key drivers that areforcing change within the irrigation and drainagesector.
What should be benchmarked?
The scope of the benchmarking activity isdetermined by the objectives and scale pursued infinding “best management practices”. In any system,such as an irrigation network, there are:• inputs• processes• outputs, and• impacts
Figure 1 outlines these domains, where theirrigation and drainage domain provides a serviceto the irrigated agriculture domain, leading toagricultural production.
In measuring performance we are interested inthe efficiency with which we convert inputs tooutputs, and the potential impacts that (a) the use ofthese inputs (resources) might have and (b) that theoutputs might have on the wider environment. Weare also interested in the efficiency with which theprocesses convert inputs to outputs.
There are a variety of irrigation domains (orsystems) in which we are interested. The three thatare of primary interest are:• Service delivery: This domain includes two areas
of service provision: (a) the adequacy with whichthe organization manages the operation of theirrigation delivery system to satisfy the waterrequired by users (system operation), and (b) theefficiency with which the organization usesresources to provide this service (financialperformance).
• Productive efficiency: Measures the efficiencywith which irrigated agriculture uses waterresources in the production of crops and fibre.
• Environmental performance: Measures theimpacts of irrigated agriculture on land and waterresources.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 3
An additional factor, which needs to beconsidered, is the boundaries of the domains thatare being benchmarked. The boundaries relate tothe physical boundaries and to the depth or detailthe indicators are considered. In general, tobenchmark the physical boundary there will be ahydraulically independent system.
Who does the benchmarking?
Benchmarking can be carried out by a variety oforganisations, including:• private companies• government organisations• regulatory/supervisory organisations• management consultants• independent agencies.
A private company will benchmark itsperformance against other key competitors, agovernment agency might benchmark different unitswithin its organisation, such as hospitals. Aregulatory/supervisory authority (such as agovernment regulatory body) would usebenchmarking to evaluate the performance of a
number of separate entities (such as IrrigationAgencies and Water Users Associations).
In all cases the benchmarking exercise will beinitiated within the organisation and may beexecuted in the main by personnel within theorganisation. In some cases management consultantsmay be called in to provide specialist expertise, oran independent, impartial agency might becommissioned to carry out much of the work.
What are the benefits of benchmarking?
Benchmarking is an important management tool fororganisations that aim to implement a serviceoriented management to their operation.
The benefits of benchmarking to an organisation,if the process is followed correctly, are animprovement in its level of performance. Theperformance improvement is visible in the outputsof the organisation (such as the level of serviceprovided to water users), and in the organisation’sinternal processes.
Benchmarking the activities and processes ofirrigation and drainage organisations can providevaluable insight on how well the organisation isperforming in all areas of service delivery andresource utilisation; and also become an importantelement of the organisation’s accountability to itsshareholders.
In the wider context of irrigation and drainagethe benefits are in more productive and efficient useof resources – land, water, labour, finance andagricultural inputs – leading to more productive andsustainable irrigated agriculture and improvedlivelihoods and well-being of the rural population.In many instances such improvements will have adirect impact on poverty alleviation.
There are a range of beneficiaries to thebenchmarking process:• Water users• Service providers• Government regulatory bodies• Donors and funding agencies
Water users who are paying for irrigation water(and associated management, operation andmaintenance costs) will be interested in ensuringthat best management practices are adopted in orderto minimise costs and optimise level of serviceprovision.
Service providers, whether they be for water,extension advice, inputs, or marketing will beinterested to benchmark their performance in order
Figure 1: Possible benchmarking domains linkedto irrigated agriculture
Introduction4
to improve level of service, minimise costs andmaximise benefits.
Government regulatory bodies can benchmarkdifferent irrigation service providers against bestpractices, either regionally, nationally orinternationally, to drive improvements inperformance.
Donors and funding agencies see benchmarkingas a means to improve standards of performance inthe irrigation and drainage sector, thus making betteruse of investment and contributing to the fight toeradicate poverty and enhance livelihoods. Donorscould use benchmarking as a rational basis forfunding interventions in particular schemes.
What extra tasks and costs does benchmarkinginvolve?
The initial costs, in terms of time and resources,associated with benchmarking need not be high.They relate mainly to the process of data collection,processing and analysis. If sufficient data are notcollected then processes and procedures need to beestablished to collect, process and analyse therequired data. If the appropriate skills to identifythe necessary data, processes and procedures are notavailable within an organisation personnel skilledin benchmarking may need to be employed orexternal assistance may be required.
There may also be costs arising as a consequenceof expenditure required to implement the findingsof the benchmarking analysis, such as purchase ofnew equipment, employment of additional staff, etc.Likewise cost savings may be identified, such ascontracting out work previously done in-house.
An additional cost that needs to be taken intoaccount in the benchmarking process is the time andeffort required by senior management to gainacceptance within the organisation of the need forimprovement and change, and agreement on theactions required to achieve such change. Often thesuccess of the benchmarking activities hinges onthis.
What is the relationship between benchmarkingand performance assessment?
Benchmarking and performance assessment arerelated but different in several ways. Benchmarkingis essentially an externally focused activity. Inbenchmarking the specific aim is to identify keycompetitors/comparable organisations, and find bestmanagement practices for that organisation. Thesethen become standards and/or norms against whichto assess an organisation’s own performance.Performance indicators are specifically identified toenable the comparison, and to monitor progresstowards closing the identified performance gap.Central to the benchmarking process is that theorganisation:• Wants to understand how it is performing relative
to other organisations, or to established standardsand norms; and, crucially
• Is willing and able to implement change withinthe organisation to effect change and bring aboutimprovement in performance.Performance assessment across an organisation
covers a wider range of performance indicators thatare required for day-to-day management. Some ofthese performance indicators will relate to theinternal processes of the organisation and may notbe suitable for use in comparisons with otherorganisations, though they may be invaluable fordiagnostic analysis during the benchmarking processto find the cause of particular levels of performance.In particular, performance assessment is internallyfocused with no reference to the performance ofexternal organisations.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 5
Benchmarking processes and procedures
BENCHMARKING PROCESS
The stages of the benchmarking process are shownin Figure 2 and discussed in more detail below.Sections of these stages are illustrated by referenceto a recent benchmarking study carried out inAustralia (ANCID, 2000).
Stage 1: Identification and planning
Identification and planning is an important startingpoint for benchmarking:• the purpose, drivers and desired outputs of the
benchmarking process• the “customers” – both within and outside the
organisation• what areas of the organisation’s activities are to
be benchmarked• against whom or what is performance to be
benchmarked• indicators of performance• what data is required and how it will be collected
The planning phase of the benchmarking process,like that of many other processes, is one that willdetermine to a large extent the success of thebenchmarking activity. The extent and specificationsof data needed for benchmarking is defined at thisstage. Consistency in the definition of theperformance indicators used for benchmarking isof critical importance to ensure that all the datacollected are comparable.
To facilitate integration and action following theanalysis phase it is important to involve key playersin the benchmarking process at the outset. Thisreduces the resistance to change and makes use ofthe expertise at a variety of levels within theorganisation to facilitate change.
Stage 2: Data collection
The core of any benchmarking exercise is datacollection. In order to enable comparison betweenirrigation and drainage schemes data used forbenchmarking needs to be consistent and
Figure 2: Stages of the benchmarking process
3 Analysis
2 Data
collection
5 Action
6
Monitoring and
evaluation
4 Integration
Benchmarking Process
1 Identification
and planning
Benchmarking processes and procedures6
comparable. This is a crucial aspect that requiresadequate provisions during the identification andplanning phase of the programme.
There are three types of data collection:i. data collected for day-to-day management,
operation and maintenance of the irrigation anddrainage systems
ii. data collected for benchmarking and comparisonwith other systems.
iii. data collected as part of the diagnostic processwithin the benchmarking exercise to identifycauses of performance.
This section is primarily concerned with the datacollection for the benchmarking activity. However,it must be recognised that data collected for the day-to-day operation of the system play a critical role inachieving high performance of service delivery andin helping to interpret the outcomes of thebenchmarking comparison.
A key issue within the irrigation and drainagesector, as mentioned in Part I, is the uniqueness ofeach irrigation and drainage scheme. There aremany variables which influence the performance ofirrigation and drainage schemes, makingcomparative performance difficult. This is one ofthe major challenges to any benchmarking activityin this sector. To be able to group similar types ofsystems for benchmarking purposes it is necessaryto collect background descriptive data on eachscheme. This information includes information suchas the location, climate, water source, type of cropsgrown, irrigated area, average farm size, irrigationmethod, type of management, type of drainage.Further details of the data requirements describingthe irrigation and drainage schemes are provided inTable 1.
Most irrigation and drainage organisationsaround the world are collecting data on variousaspects of their operations. Each organisation,however, is collecting information for its owninternal management processes, and though theremay be some overlap between differentorganisations it is unlikely that there is sufficientdata being collected to undertake a benchmarkingcomparison between organisations. The extent,maturity and accuracy of the data collected also varywidely between organisations.
To enable organisations with different levels ofdata available to participate in the benchmarkinginitiative a range of benchmarking indicators isproposed. The proposed set of indicators requiresa minimal data collection effort that will enable theorganisation to benchmark a wide section of their
management processes against other organisations.It is envisaged that organisations will be able toincorporate a variable number of indicatorsdepending on their current availability ofperformance data. Those with more advancedinformation systems may be able to undertake thebenchmarking activity incorporating most or all ofthese indicators. In fact this list of indicators mustbe viewed by the benchmarking partners as acontinuum of measures in the design of theirbenchmarking plan. This plan often evolvesprogressively with time allowing partners toincorporate new indicators that they may considerrelevant to their operation.
CATEGORIZATION OF SCHEMES
A distinctive feature of irrigation and drainageschemes is their site or region specified nature. Inorder to allow comparisons between irrigation anddrainage schemes they need to be categorised intosimilar types. There are a variety of ways this canbe done.
Following are the categorization headings thatwill be used for benchmarking:• type of control (fixed proportional division,
manual control, automatic control);• type of management (government agency,
private agency, farmer managed);• method of allocation and distribution (supply,
arranged-demand, demand);• climate (humid, arid);• predominate crop type (rice, non-rice,
subsistence/cash cropping);• water availability (abundant, scarce);• water source (surface water, groundwater);• socio-economic setting (gross domestic product,
degree of industrialization, developing /developed nation);
• size (large, small);• location (Asia, Africa, Americas).
In order to group the schemes beingbenchmarked, background data are required as listedin Table 1. This table contains several systemdescriptors, which must be entered in thecorresponding worksheet. Figure 3 shows thespreadsheet proforma for data entry.
������������ ����������������������������������������������������� �
� ������������������������Code Descriptor Possible options
LocationD1 Country
D2 Continent
D3 Scheme name
D4 Latitude
D5 LongitudeClimate and soilsD6 Climate (select one option) • Arid
• Semi-arid• Humid• Humid tropics
D7 Average annual rainfall (mm)
D8 Average annual reference crop potentialevapotranspiration, Etc (mm)
D9 Peak daily reference crop potentialevapotranspiration, Etc (mm/day)
D10 Predominant soil type(s) and percentage of total areaof each type (select one option)
• Clay• Clay loam• Loam• Silty clay loam• Sand
InstitutionalD11 Year first operational
D12 Type of management (Select one option) • Government agency• Private company• Joint government/local organization/private• Water Users Association/Federation of WUAs
D13 Agency functions (Select one option) • Irrigation and drainage service• Water resources management• Reservoir management• Flood control• Domestic water supply• Fisheries• Other
D14 Type of revenue collection (Select one option) • Tax on irrigated area• Charge on crop type and area• Charge on volume of water delivered charge per
irrigationD15 Land ownership (select one option) • Government
• PrivateSocio-economicD16 (National) Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
D17 Farming system (select one option) • Cash crop• Subsistence cropping• Mixed cash/subsistence
D18 Marketing (Select one option) • Government marketing board• Private traders• Local market• Regional/national market
D19 Pricing (Select one option) • Government controlled prices• Local market prices• International prices
Water source and availabilityD20 Water source (select one option) • Storage on river
• Groundwater• Run-of-the river• Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater
D21 Water availability (Select one option) • Abundant• Sufficient• Water scarcity
D22 Number and duration of irrigation season(s) Number of seasonsNumber of months per season:
• Season 1:• Season 2:• Season 3:
Benchmarking processes and procedures8
Code Descriptor Possible optionsSizeD23 Commanded (irrigation) area (ha)D24 Total number of water users suppliedD25 Average farm size (ha)D26 Average annual irrigated area (ha)D27 Average annual cropping intensity (%)Infrastructure – IrrigationD28 Method of water abstraction (Select one option) � Pumped diversion
� Gravity diversion� Groundwater
D29 Water delivery infrastructure (length and %) � Open channel� Pipelines� Lined� Unlined
D30 Type and location of water control equipment (Selectone option)
Type:� None� Fixed proportional division� Gated - manual operation� Gated - automatic local control� Gated – automatic central control
Location:� Control structure at main intake only� Control structures at primary and secondary level� Control structures at primary, secondary and tertiary
level.D31 Discharge measurement facilities location and type
(Select one option)Location:
� None� Primary canal level� Secondary canal level� Tertiary canal level� Field level
Type:� Flow meter� Fixed weir or flume� Calibrated sections� Calibrated gates
Infrastructure – DrainageD32 Area service by surface drains (ha)D33 Type of surface drain (Select one option) � Constructed
� NaturalD34 Length of surface drain (km) � Natural
� Constructed� Open� Closed
D35 Area serviced by sub-surface drainage (ha)D36 Number of groundwater level measurement sitesWater allocation and distributionD37 Type of water distribution (Select one option) � On-demand
� Arranged-demand� Supply orientated
D38 Frequency of irrigation scheduling at main canal level(Select one option)
� Daily� Weekly� Twice monthly� Monthly� Seasonally� None
D39 Predominant on-farm irrigation practice (Select oneoption)
� Surface – furrow, basin, border, flood, furrow-in-basin;� Overhead – raingun, lateral move, centre pivot� Drip/trickle� Sub-surface
CroppingD40 Main crops each season with percentages of total
command area� Crop 1:� Crop 2:� Crop 3:� Crop 4:� Crop 5:
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 9
Figure 3: Proforma worksheet for entry of system descriptors
Benchmarking processes and procedures10
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 11
Data collection and analysis
DATA REQUIREMENTS
The performance framework adopted for thebenchmarking programme discussed in Introductionincludes the following three domains:
• Service delivery� system operation� financial performance
• Productive efficiency
• Environmental performance
Whilst the quality of irrigation service isimportant and often critical in determining theproductivity of agriculture, there are a number ofother key agricultural processes, inputs and servicesthat contribute to the final product. Thus theperformance indicators that are proposed for use inthe benchmarking exercise are linked to these threedomains, and their inputs, processes, outputs andimpacts.
There are many performance indicators thatmight be used in this context; however for thisbenchmarking exercise only key performanceindicators will be used. These are indicators that,like the share price of a company on the stockexchange, give a usable indication of performance.The key proposed indicators are presented inTable 2. Formulation details for each benchmarkingindicator are provided in Appendix A1.
DATA CAPTURE
To ensure consistency in the comparison of results,organizations joining the benchmarking programmewill need to collect the data required for thecalculation of the benchmarking indicatorsaccording to the specifications and protocolsprovided in Appendix A2.
Partner organizations will carry out the primarydata processing to convert raw data into the formatrequired for input into the benchmarkingspreadsheet. This task must be carried out accordingto the instruction provided.
The spreadsheet workbook provided tobenchmarking partners consists of six worksheetscontaining data in the following categories:• Summary of benchmarking indicators• System descriptors• Irrigation service delivery• Financial performance• Productive efficiency• Environmental performance
Indicator values in the summary worksheet arecalculated automatically after the basic data areentered into the appropriate worksheet without userintervention.
Appendix A2 provides for each indicator thedefinition, measurement specification, processingneeds and an example of the data entry spreadsheet.
Two types of indicators can be consideredaccording to the type of data required:a. Indicators based on primary datab. Indicators based on secondary data
Some indicators are based on primary data thatthe organization must collect either as a normal partof its operation or for the specific purpose ofbenchmarking. Variables such as inflow volumes,revenues collected from water users, and totaloperation expenditure fall into this category.
Some other indicators rely on the use ofsecondary data for their calculation. For example,the calculation of evapotranspiration (Etc) relies onclimatic data for the location of the irrigation schemethat must be provided in the format specified by themethodology for calculating Etc. This type of datamay be collected either by the partner organizationitself or an external organization. Wherever data areprocured from an external organization specialattention must be paid to the data processingmethodology. This is particularly important whendata auditing is necessary to trace possiblecalculation errors.
Data collection and analysis12
Domain Performance indicator Data requiredService deliveryperformance
Total annual volume of irrigation waterdelivery (m3/year)
Total daily measured water delivery to water users
Annual irrigation water delivery per unitcommand area (m3/ha)
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal command area service by the irrigation system
Annual irrigation water delivery per unitirrigated area (m3/ha)
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal annual irrigated crop area
Main system water delivery efficiency Total daily measured water delivery to water usersTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Annual relative water supply Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal daily measured rainfall over irrigated areaTotal daily/periodic volume of crop water demand, including percolationlosses for rice crops
Annual relative irrigation supply Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemTotal daily/periodic volume of irrigation water demand (crop water demandless excluding effective rainfall), including percolation losses for rice crops
Water delivery capacity Current main canal capacityPeak month irrigation water demand
Security of entitlement supply System water entitlement10 years minimum water availability flow pattern
Financial Cost recovery ratio Total revenues collected from water usersTotal management, operation and maintenance (MOM) cost
Maintenance cost to revenue ratio Total maintenance expenditureTotal revenue collected from water users
Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha) Total management, operation and maintenance expenditureTotal command area serviced by the system
Total cost per person employed on waterdelivery (US$/person)
Total cost of MOM personnelTotal number of MOM personnel employed
Revenue collection performance Total revenues collected from water usersTotal service revenue due
Staffing numbers per unit area (persons/ha) Total number of MOM personnel employedTotal command area serviced by system
Average revenue per cubic metre of irrigationwater supplied (US$/m3)
Total revenues collected from water usersTotal daily measured water delivery to water users
Productiveefficiency
Total gross annual agricultural production(tonnes)
Total tonnage produced under each crop
Total annual value of agricultural production(US$)
Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market price
Output per unit serviced area (US$/ha) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal command area serviced by system
Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal annual irrigated crop area
Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m3) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Output per unit water consumed (US$/m3) Total annual tonnage of each cropCrop market priceTotal volume of water consumed by the crops (ETc)
Environmentalperformance
Water quality: Salinity (mmhos/cm) Electrical conductivity of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemElectrical conductivity of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Water quality: Biological (mg/litre) Biological load of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemBiological load of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Water quality: Chemical (mg/litre) Chemical load of periodically collected irrigation water samplesTotal daily measured water inflow to the irrigation systemChemical load of periodically collected drainage water samplesTotal daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Average depth to watertable (m) Periodic depth measurement to watertableChange in watertable depth over time (m) Periodic depth measurement to watertable over 5 year periodSalt balance (tonnes) Periodic measurement of salt content of irrigation water
Periodic measurement of salt content of drainage water
Table 2: List of proposed key performance indicators
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 13
DATA UNITS
In order that the data can be compared acrossdifferent irrigation systems the data should bepresented in the units specified in the data protocolsheets in Appendix A2. Data may be collected andprocessed locally in different units, but should beconverted into the required units before beingentered into the database.
Where currency conversions have been madeinto United States dollars (US$) the rate and dateshould be provided in a footnote. If different ratesand dates are used for individual calculations therate and date for each should be shown.
DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
Partner benchmarking analysis
Much of the data analysis involves compiling ratiosof the data collected to produce the value of therequired performance indicator. This task will beperformed by the spreadsheet template provided.Partner organizations will be responsible forprocessing the raw data collected in conformancewith the protocols outlined in Appendix A2. It isrecognized that past data collected by partnerorganizations may have been collected in a varietyof formats that may not necessarily comply withthese specifications. In such cases, IPTRID willprovide specialized assistance to ensure that dataare processed in a comparable manner.
Partner internal analysis
In some cases the partner organization may wish topursue the data analysis further by using statisticalmethods to analyse internal trends. This type ofanalysis may be especially useful in trying to explaincausative factors of low performance. This mightbe the case, for example, with data on DeliveryPerformance Ratios (DPR) taken at tertiary off takepoints throughout the irrigation network, where theweekly average DPR values might be statisticallyanalysed to obtain seasonal trends or variability(coefficient of variation). Whilst this analysis canbe of considerable (internal) value to the partnerorganization, it is not required for establishing acomparative analysis with other organizations.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
The essence of the benchmarking process is toprovide organizations with the ability to comparetheir performance in relation to similar organizationsor similar processes. The comparative analysis willconsist primarily of ranking performance levels forindividual indicators both numerically andgraphically. Table 3 and Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7provide an example of comparative analysis carriedout by the Australian benchmarking programme. Asimilar type of analysis will be carried out in thisprogramme.
Figure 4: Example of comparative plot of irrigation water delivery
Water delivered per unit area
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.6001.800
Murray
Irrig
ation
Wim
mera-M
allee
Warr
ill
Bunda
berg
Boyn
e Rive
r
Jemalo
ng
G-MW
She
ppar
ton
G-MW
Cent.
Goulbu
rn
G-MW
Mur
ray Vall
ey
G-MW
Nya
h
First
Mildura
Sunlan
ds
Dep
th d
eliver
ed (m)
Data collection and analysis14
Tabl
e 3:
Sel
ectio
n of
dat
a co
llect
ed a
nd a
naly
sed
in A
ustr
alia
n be
nchm
arki
ng e
xerc
ise
(AN
CID
, 200
0)S
chem
ena
me
Irri
gabl
ear
ea ha
Are
air
riga
ted
1998
/99
ha
Irri
gatio
nde
liver
ies
1997
/98
ML
Irri
gatio
nde
liver
ies
1998
/99
ML
Mai
n sy
stem
wat
er d
eliv
ery
effic
ienc
y%
Gro
ssre
venu
es19
98/9
900
0 A
$
Tota
l num
ber
of M
OM
pers
onne
lN
o.
Ave
rage
dept
h to
wat
er-t
able
m
Cos
tre
cove
ryra
tio
Ope
ratin
gco
st/
Rev
enue
%
Mai
nten
ance
cost
/ Rev
enue
%
Tota
l cos
t of
wat
ersu
pply
A$/
ML
Ave
rage
dep
thde
liver
ed to
user
sm
Gro
ssre
venu
e pe
run
it ar
eaA
$/ha
Col
eam
bally
97 0
0068
694
445
673
457
000
81.2
6 53
046
3.3
0.66
50.
10
Jem
alon
g18
334
14 9
4062
795
42 4
2370
.91
522
73.
31.
2352
829
.14
0.28
40.
10
Mur
ray
Irrig
atio
n79
6 76
40
1 04
5 65
81
167
755
79.5
19 1
2512
43.
61.
3729
2814
.50.
000
0.00
Mur
rum
bidg
ee48
0 00
018
0 00
094
9 93
582
3 22
979
.728
225
243
n/a
1.23
2424
32.3
0.45
70.
16
Wes
t Cor
urga
n21
2 00
021
000
84 3
7266
178
87.5
1 92
69
41.
1763
524
.23
0.31
50.
09
Bar
ker-
Bar
amba
h0
8 65
09
285
100
199
3n/
a82
7362
.14
0.10
70.
02
Boy
ne R
iver
03
265
6 41
263
.613
04
n/a
514
22.7
70.
196
0.04
Bun
dabe
rg55
579
59 2
0014
4 35
291
605
100
6 55
037
n/a
2642
64.4
0.15
50.
11
Bur
deki
n R
iver
23 9
8047
846
430
002
375
233
87.4
10 1
0441
428
2321
.24
0.78
40.
21
Con
dam
ine
011
500
58 3
5410
043
36
n/a
2.38
7545
14.3
40.
507
0.04
Daw
son
7 02
17
529
40 0
8914
622
100
153
11n/
a29
027
788
.98
0.19
40.
02
Em
eral
d19
054
23 5
0916
8 76
079
263
98.6
3 66
320
n/a
824
25.0
50.
337
0.16
Eto
n12
000
15 0
0037
711
1 78
943
.880
211
n/a
3271
9.67
0.01
20.
05
Loga
n4
000
3 99
64
072
100
449
4n/
a51
97.4
70.
102
0.11
Low
er M
ary
Riv
er5
110
6 19
020
337
1 92
892
.820
73
n/a
4313
328
3.71
0.03
10.
03
Mar
eeba
-Dim
bula
h15
415
22 1
4011
9 04
472
531
67.1
4 00
426
n/a
2430
38.5
0.32
80.
18
Pio
neer
Val
ley
00
12 1
111
047
100
6 18
94
n/a
1.54
51
459.
410.
000
0.00
Pro
sper
ine
9 00
011
250
1 03
910
01
229
2n/
a3
928
8.95
0.00
90.
11
Sou
th B
urde
kin
27 4
5013
428
67 4
3232
964
411
505
6n/
a0
0.24
50.
11
St G
eorg
e13
084
17 2
8960
697
98 9
8791
.81
654
20n/
a40
3214
.96
0.57
30.
10
War
rill
8 17
08
170
4 98
610
050
35
n/a
5822
120.
550.
061
0.06
Cen
tral I
rrig
. (S
A)
11 0
0011
000
87 0
0094
553
99.1
5 79
723
n/a
1.52
2118
51.2
20.
860
0.53
Gol
den
Hei
gths
738
723
6 02
96
531
100
816
41.
51.
40
0.90
31.
13
Low
er M
urra
y0
056
000
100
09
n/a
0.93
00.
000
0.00
Sun
land
s90
079
46
700
8 25
510
091
85
1.2
1.1
757
89.4
21.
040
1.16
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 15
Sche
me
nam
eIrr
igab
lear
ea ha
Are
airr
igat
ed19
98/9
9ha
Irrig
atio
nde
liver
ies
1997
/98
ML
Irrig
atio
nde
liver
ies
1998
/99
ML
Mai
n sy
stem
wat
er d
eliv
ery
effic
ienc
y%
Gro
ssre
venu
es19
98/9
900
0 A
$
Tota
l num
ber
of M
OM
pers
onne
lN
o.
Ave
rage
dept
h to
wat
er-ta
ble
m
Cos
tre
cove
ryra
tio
Ope
ratin
gco
st/
Rev
enue
%
Mai
nten
ance
cost
/ Rev
enue
%
Tota
l cos
t of
wat
ersu
pply
A$/
ML
Ave
rage
dep
thde
liver
ed to
user
sm
Gro
ssre
venu
e pe
run
it ar
eaA
$/ha
Cre
ssy-
Long
ford
4 00
02
000
6 18
23
821
100
207
3n/
a0.
5313
554
102.
070.
191
0.10
Sou
thea
st (T
as)
3 80
01
373
2 49
02
280
100
422
2n/
a0.
2828
350
616.
230.
166
0.31
Win
nale
ah5
967
1 22
64
844
3 48
510
023
62
n/a
2.56
239
1717
3.6
0.28
40.
19
Firs
t Mild
ura
8 05
86
667
51 0
7754
307
814
586
27n/
a1.
220
1567
.17
0.81
50.
69G
-MW
Mur
ray
Val
ley
128
268
81 4
1034
2 61
237
4 51
969
.58
736
463.
11.
2518
1918
.61
0.46
00.
11
G-M
W S
hepp
arto
n82
460
54 1
4021
1 35
217
4 90
466
.54
994
313.
40.
9620
3031
.03
0.32
30.
09G
-MW
Cen
t.G
oulb
urn
172
131
119
592
472
618
410
623
69.6
10 8
3065
2.3
1.07
1927
29.0
70.
343
0.09
G-M
W R
oche
ster
117
066
66 7
3026
3 23
322
5 00
787
.84
930
392.
51.
0822
2027
.60.
337
0.07
G-M
W P
yram
id-
Boo
rt18
6 48
110
9 01
827
7 67
223
0 55
581
.34
716
321.
90.
828
2725
.64
0.21
10.
04
G-M
W T
orru
mba
rry
173
366
130
152
479
173
551
619
72.9
11 4
1881
1.5
1.19
2018
19.2
20.
424
0.09
G-M
W N
yah
1 61
61
035
6 19
66
755
91.1
508
6n/
a1.
2637
1859
.22
0.65
30.
49
G-M
W T
resc
o1
902
884
4 94
65
431
94.3
403
21.
51.
2927
2567
.02
0.61
40.
46
G-M
W W
oorin
en2
804
06
522
6 48
969
540
31.
51.
1117
4584
.30.
000
0.00
Bac
chus
Mar
sh1
834
1 30
04
520
2 68
868
.850
13
n/a
1818
218.
010.
207
0.39
Mac
alis
ter
55 0
0037
387
133
000
138
150
62.3
5 52
531
n/a
1919
37.9
60.
370
0.15
Wer
ribee
3 36
63
010
11 2
129
009
82.7
1 37
07
n/a
1415
156.
90.
299
0.46
Sun
rays
ia10
672
1067
210
2 41
085
278
81.2
11 3
8260
3.1
1.48
2719
91.4
90.
799
1.07
Wim
mer
a-M
alle
e3
100
019
584
17 1
8354
.215
123
72
1.44
1416
110.
70.
000
0.00
Car
narv
on2
000
950
2450
1 40
088
.92
829
16n/
a0.
8862
063
0.63
0.14
72.
98
Ord
Riv
er13
000
13 0
0018
0 00
021
0 00
075
1 60
018
443
425.
481.
615
0.12
Sou
th W
est (
WA
)11
2 00
09
780
81 1
7683
098
71.5
4 07
227
n/a
1.31
2519
32.4
10.
850
0.42
Not
e: A
$1 =
US$
0.55
(200
0 pr
ices
)
��������������������������"
�������!������������������� ������� ���� � ������������������������
�������"������������������� ������� ������������������������� ������� ������
�������#������������������� ������� ������� ������������ ���
:DWHU�GHOLYHU\�HIILFLHQF\
020
4060
80100
120
6RXWK�%XUGHNLQ
%R\QH�5LYHU
*�0:�:RRULQHQ
6RXWK�:HVW��:$�
0XUUXPELGJHH
*�0:�3\UDPLG����
*�0:�5RFKHVWHU
/RZHU�0
DU\�5LYHU
%DUNHU�%DUDPEDK
/RJDQ
*ROGHQ�+HLJWKV
6RXWKHDVW��7DV�
3HUFHQWDJH�GHOLYHUHG
&RVW�UHFRYHU\�UDWLRV
00.5
11.5
2
2.53
&ROHDPEDOO\
%XUGHNLQ�5LYHU/RJDQ
6RXWK�%XUGHNLQ
0DFDOLVWHU
&UHVV\�/RQJIRUG
*�0:�6KHSSDUWRQ
*�0:�:RRULQHQ
-HPDORQJ
*�0:�7UHVFR
:LPPHUD�0DOOHH
&RQGDPLQH
&RVW�5HFRYHU\�5DWLR
*URVV�UHYHQXH�SHU�XQLW�LUULJDWHG�DUHD
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.002000.00
2500.00
3000.00
3500.00
0XUUD\�,UULJDWLRQ
:LPPHUD�0DOOHH
&RQGDPLQH
:DUULOO
:HVW�&RUXUJDQ
-HPDORQJ
%XQGDEHUJ
0DFDOLVWHU
:LQQDOHDK
6RXWK�:
HVW��:$�
&HQWUDO�,UULJ���6$�
6XQODQGV
*URVV�UHYHQXH�SHU�XQLW�LUULJDWHG�DUHD�
�$��KD�
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 17
Programme implementation
Table 4: Proposed website map for CentralDatabase and Processing Unit (CDPU)
Item Description
Start-up kit Replica of start-up kit provided topartners on diskette available onWebsite.
Partners dataspreadsheet
Individual spreadsheets submitted bypartners’ organizations by e-mail orposted diskette.
Benchmarkinganalysis
The collected data will be tabulated(Table 3) and analysed to produceinformation such as that presented inFigures 3, 4, 5 and 6. In these casesthe data have been processed andranked in ascending order. Eachirrigation scheme can then see whereit is placed relative to other schemes.The use of graphs facilitates theunderstanding of the data. To aid ininterpreting these data the data listedin Table 1 will be made available to allpartner organizations.
Publicationsand documents
Listing of documents and reportsprepared in relation to thebenchmarking programme includingbenchmarking concept paper,guidelines and other relevantpublications.
Discussionforum
Space available for partners wantingto post questions and shareinformation. Functionality must allowother partner organizations or CDPUto answer queries and participate indiscussion.
DATA HANDLING FRAMEWORK
There will be two levels of data handling withinthe benchmarking programme, which will involvethe partner organization itself or a National FocalUnit (NFU) at the country level and the CentralDatabase and Processing Unit (CDPU). Basic datawill be collected and processed by the partnerorganization or the NFU before it is entered intothe benchmarking database according to theprotocols provided in Appendix A2.
The relation between partner organizations orNFU and the CDPU is depicted in Figure 7. Thisstructure is designed to maximize the flexibility ofdata collection and the ability to share data betweenthe partner organizations. It is envisaged that datasharing through the CDPU will subsequentlyencourage “one-to-one” exchange of data andinformation between the partner organizations. TheCDPU will host a Website that will be jointlymaintained by IPTRID and IWMI.
Partner organizations will have two options tocapture data either:a. directly into the tailor-made benchmarking
template via the Internet, orb. into a tailor-made benchmarking template
provided on a computer disk.
Once the data have been entered on the disk thedisk can be uploaded directly via the Internet orposted to the CDPU and will become part of theIPTRID central benchmarking database.
The CDPU will have two functions:a. warehousing benchmarking databases from
partner organizations to enable data sharing; and,b. host software and carry out comparative
performance analysis.
At least in the initial stages of the programme,the CDPU will periodically be required to produceprinted reports, which will be made available tothose benchmarking partners, which may not haveaccess to Internet facilities.
CENTRAL PROCESSING
Data and information exchange
The main aim of the benchmarking programmeis to enable the partner organizations to access dataand information that has been collected andpresented in a comparative format. The CDPU willenable the partner organizations to access individualdatabases submitted by other partner organizationsand present comparative analyses carried out fromthe partners’ spreadsheets. A proposed map of theCentral Benchmarking Website is shown in Table 4.Partner organisations will be able to carry outanalysis and comparison using various criteriaprovided by the system descriptors.
Programme implementation18
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the benchmarkingprogramme will rely on the establishment of a loosenetwork of partner organizations centrallycoordinated by the IPTRID Programme and assistedby the World Bank, IWMI and ICID.
IPTRID will have overall responsibility forcoordinating and providing support to thebenchmarking partner agencies. It will coordinateand assist the development and implementation ofdata collection by the benchmarking partners andexchange protocols to ensure transportability ofresults between partners. IPTRID in collaborationwith IWMI will also be responsible for establishingand maintaining the Central Database andProcessing Unit whose responsibilities have beenoutlined above. Where necessary, IPTRID willprovide benchmarking partners with specializedassistance for implementation of the programme.
The World Bank will provide overall support forthe programme through IPTRID and directassistance to country agencies when appropriate.
IWMI will develop and manage the database onbehalf of IPTRID, building on their previous
experience with comparative performanceassessment of irrigation and drainage systems.
The ICID will provide general support forprogramme dissemination and advocacy, support topartner organizations and dissemination through aTask Force formed by members of the WorkingGroup on Development and Management ofIrrigation Systems, the Working Group on Irrigationand Drainage Performance as well as nationalcommittees involved in this programme. In caseswhere the partner organization requires assistancewith communication, exchange and transmittal ofdata with the CDPU national committees membersmay be able to assist with this task. ICID NationalCommittee members can also play an important rolefacilitating the exchange of information and datadirectly between partner organizations.
Periodic reviews of the programme will berequired to ensure that the programme remainsflexible and relevant to the benchmarking partners.New performance indicators may need to be addedin the future to ensure that emerging issues inirrigation and drainage are reflected in theprogramme.
Figure 8: Data collection and transmittal framework
PO1PO2
PO3
PO4
PO5
PO6CDPU
IPTRID
Flow of benchmarking data and information between partners and CDPU
Flow of information between partners
PO = Partner organization
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 19
SELECTION OF BENCHMARKING PARTNERS
In principle the decision to join the benchmarkinginitiative must be taken by the partner organizationsthemselves. However, benchmarking is a tool ofmanagement to improve the performance of servicedelivery, productivity of agriculture andenvironmental performance; and as such, certaincriteria must be met in order to gain benefits fromthis activity.
Whilst the criteria for selection of partners inthe benchmarking initiative must be flexible, it isdesirable in the initial stages of the programme tominimize the spread of physical and managerialcharacteristics of the participating irrigationschemes. Relevant criteria for the selection ofpartners are considered to be:
Institutional and managerial criteria:
• A government organization, or an organization,which has full authority and control over themanagement, operation and maintenance of theirrigation and/or drainage system(s).
• Organizations that aim to adopt service-orientated management and improve the qualityof water delivery and/or drainage service towater users.
• Clearly identified drivers pushing the need forchange and performance enhancement within thewater resources or irrigation and drainagesector(s).
• Identified key personnel within the organizationwith the authority and drive to introduce andimplement the benchmarking process.
• Irrigation systems where water supplies areplanned, scheduled and monitored.
Physical criteria
• Gravity open channel distribution systemconsisting of at least main and secondary canalssupplying water to individual users or usersgroups.
• Control structures at primary and secondarycanal level.
• Discharge measurement facilities at key locations(either through measuring structures or calibratedsections).
Programme implementation20
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 21
Bibligraphy
ANCID 2000. 1998/99. Australian irrigation waterprovider – Benchmarking Report. Victoria,Australia. 68 pp.
ARMCANZ. 1999. The 1997/98. Australian irrigationwater provider benchmarking report. 51 pp.
Abernethy, C.L. 1990. Indicators and criteria of theperformance of irrigation systems. Paper presentedat the FAO Regional Workshop on ImprovedIrrigation System Performance for SustainableAgriculture, Bangkok, Thailand, 22-26 October.
Bottrall, A.F. 1981. Comparative study of themanagement and organization of irrigation projects.World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 458, WorldBank, Washington D.C.
Bos, M.G., Murray-rust, D.H., Merrey, D.J., Johnson,H.G. & Snellen, W.B. 1994. Methodologies forassessing performance of irrigation and drainagemanagement. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Vol.7, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
Bos, M.G. & Nugteren, J. 1990. On irrigationefficiencies. 4th edition. ILRI Publication 19,International Institute for land Reclamation andImprovement, Wageningen.
Bos, M.G. 1997. Performance assessment for irrigationand drainage. Irrigation and Drainage Systems,Vol.11, Kluwer Academic Publishers, TheNetherlands.
Burt, C.M. and Styles, S.W. Modern water control andmanagement practices: Impact on performance.Water Report 19, FAO/IPTRID/World Bank,published by Food and Agriculture Organization,Rome.
Dastane, N. D. 1974. Effective rainfall in irrigatedagriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. 61pp, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization,United Nations.
LWRRDC. 1998. Report of the national programme forirrigation R&D benchmarking project. Land &Water Resources Research & DevelopmentCorporation, Canberra, Australia.
Malano, H. & Hofwegen, P.V. 1999. Management ofIrrigation and Drainage Systems: A Service
Approach. IHE Monograph 3. A. A. Balkema. TheNetherlands. 149 pages.
Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use andproductivity. SWIM Paper 1, International IrrigationManagement Institute, Colombo.
Molden, D.J. & Gates, T.K. 1990. Performancemeasures for evaluation of irrigation water deliverysystems. Journal of Irrigation and DrainageEngineering, ASCE, Vol. 116 (6).
Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., deFraiture, C. & Kloezen, W. 1998. Indicators forcomparing performance of irrigated agriculturalsystems. Research report 20, International WaterManagement Institute, Colombo.
Murray-Rust, D.H. & Snellen, W.B. 1993. Irrigationsystem performance assessment and diagnosis. JointIIMI/ILRI/IHEE Publication, InternationalIrrigation Management Institute, Colombo, SriLanka.
Oad, R. & McCornick, P.G. 1989. Methodology forassessing the performance of irrigated agriculture.ICID Bulletin Vol.38, No. 1, InternationalCommission on Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi,India.
Rao, P.S. 1993. Review of selected literature onindicators of irrigation performance. IIMI ResearchPaper No.13, International Irrigation ManagementInstitute, Colombo.
Sakthivadivel, R., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D.J., Perry,C. & Kloezen, W. Indicators of land and waterproductivity in irrigated agriculture. WaterResources Development, Vol. 15, No.1 and 2.
Smith, M. 1990. Introduction to irrigation systemperformance: Comparative analysis of case studies.Paper presented at the FAO Regional Workshop onImproved Irrigation System Performance forSustainable Agriculture, Bangkok, Thailand, 22-26October.
Small, L.E. & Svendsen, M. 1992. A framework forassessing irrigation performance. IFPRI WorkingPapers on Irrigation Performance No.1, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.,August.
Bibliography22
Wolters, W. & Bos, M.G. 1990. Irrigation performanceassessment and irrigation efficiency. 1989 AnnualReport, International Institute for Land Reclamationand Improvement, Wageningen.
Zhi, Mao. 1989. Identification of causes of poorperformance of a typical large-sized irrigationscheme in South China. ODI/IIMI Irrigationmanagement Network Paper 89/1b, OverseasDevelopment Institute, London.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 23
Appendix A1Performance indicators
1 Agriculture year is defined as a 12-month period that begins at the start of a cropping season. If more than one cropping season peryear is practiced in the system, the beginning of year should be as closely aligned as possible to the beginning of the financial year.
SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE
(a) System operationIndicator Definition Data specifications
Total annual volumeof irrigation waterdelivery (MCM)
Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the irrigation/agriculture1 year. Waterusers in this context describe the recipients ofirrigation service, these may include singleirrigators or groups or irrigators organized intowater user groups.
Measured at the interface between the irrigationagency and water users.
Total annual volumeof irrigation supply(MCM)
Total annual volume of water diverted orpumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage)
Measured at the diversion point in case of gravitydiversions or at the pump delivery of groundwateror river pumps.
Total annual volumeof water supply(MCM)
Total volume of surface diversions into thescheme and net groundwater abstraction forirrigation, plus total rainfall, excluding anyrecirculating internal drainage within thescheme.
Surface diversions are measured at the diversionpoint and groundwater abstractions are measuredat the pump delivery of groundwater or riverpumps.
Annual irrigationwater supply per unitcommand area(m3/ha)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply
Total command area of the system
Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total command area of the system: The command area is the nominal or design areaprovided with irrigation infrastructure.
Annual irrigationwater supply per unitirrigated area(m3/ha)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply
Total annual irrigated crop area
Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total annual irrigated crop area: The total irrigated area during the year.
Main system waterdelivery efficiency
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery
Total annual volume of irrigation water supply
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this context describethe recipients of irrigation service, these mayinclude single irrigators or groups or irrigatorsorganized into water user groups.Total annual volume of irrigation supply: Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).
Annual relativewater supply
Total annual volume of water supply
Total annual volume of crop water demand
Total annual volume of water supply: Total volume of surface diversions into the schemeand net groundwater abstraction for irrigation, plustotal rainfall, excluding any recirculating internaldrainage water within the scheme.Total annual volume of crop water demand: Total annual volume of water used by the crop tomeet evapotranspiration demand. For rice,percolation losses must be included.
Appendix A1 - Performance indicators24
Indicator Definition Data specificationsAnnual relativeirrigation supply Total annual volume of irrigation supply
Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand
Total annual volume of irrigation supply:Total annual volume of water diverted or pumpedfor irrigation (not including diversion of internaldrainage).Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand:Total annual volume of irrigation water required bythe crop less effective rainfall. For paddy rice,percolation losses must be included.
Water deliverycapacity
Canal capacity to deliver water at system head
Peak irrigation water consumptive demand
Canal capacity to deliver water at system head:Actual discharge capacity of main canal atdiversion point.Peak irrigation water consumptive demand: The peak crop irrigation water requirement for amonthly period expressed as a flow rate at thehead of the irrigation system.
Submergence ofdrainage outlet
Number of days with submerged outlet Number of days with submerged outlet:Number of days in which the drainage systemdoes not have a free outlet.
Security ofentitlement supply
Irrigation water entitlement and probability ofmeeting entitlement
System water entitlement:The bulk volume or bulk discharge of water towhich the scheme is entitled per annum.Security of supply:The frequency with which the irrigationorganization is capable of supplying theestablished system water entitlements
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 25
1 All financial quantities are aggregates for the entire financial year that applies in the system concerned.
(b) Financial indicatorsIndicator Definition Data specifications
Cost recovery ratio
Gross revenue collected1
Total MOM cost
Gross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenancecost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure anddepreciation/renewals.
Maintenance costto revenue ratio Maintenance cost
Gross revenue collected
Maintenance cost: Total expenditure on system maintenanceGross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.
Total MOM costper unit area(US$/ha) Total MOM cost
Total irrigated area serviced by the system
Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenancecost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure anddepreciation/renewals.Total annual irrigated area serviced by the system: The total actual irrigated area during the year.
Total cost perperson employedon water delivery(US$/person)
Total cost of personnel engaged in I&D service
Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service
Total cost of personal engaged in I&D service: Total cost of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service: Total number of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.
Revenuecollectionperformance
Gross revenue collected
Gross revenue invoiced
Gross revenue collected:. Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Gross revenue invoiced: Total revenue due for collection from water usersfor provision of irrigation and drainage services.
Staffing numbersper unit area(Persons/ha)
Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service
Total annual irrigated area serviced by the system
Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service: Total number of personnel employed in theprovision of the irrigation and drainage service.Total annual irrigated area serviced by thesystem:Total actual irrigated area during the year.
Average revenueper cubic metre ofirrigation watersupplied (US$/m3)
Gross revenue collected
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery
Gross revenue collected: Total revenues collected from payment ofservices by water users.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year or season. Water users in thiscontext describe the recipients of irrigationservice, these may include single irrigators orgroups or irrigators organized into water usergroups.
Total MOM costper unit volumesupplied Total MOM cost
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery
Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigationand drainage service excluding capitalexpenditure and depreciation/renewals.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this contextdescribe the recipients of irrigation service, thesemay include single irrigators or groups orirrigators organized into water user groups.
Appendix A1 - Performance indicators26
PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY
Agricultural productivity and economicsIndicator Definition Data specifications
Total gross annualagriculturalproduction(tonnes)
Total annual tonnage of agricultural production bycrop type.
Total annual valueof agriculturalproduction (US$)
Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.
Output per unitcommand area(US$/ha) Total annual value of agricultural production
Total command area of the system
Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total command area of the system: The command area is the nominal or designarea provided with irrigation infrastructure
Output per unitirrigated area(US$/ha)
Total annual value of agricultural production
Total annual irrigated area
Total annual irrigated area: The total actual irrigated area during the year.
Output per unitirrigation delivery(US$/m3)
Total annual value of agricultural production
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery
Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery: Total volume of water delivered to water usersover the year. Water users in this contextdescribes the recipients of irrigation service, thismay include single irrigators or groups orirrigators organised into water user groups.
Output per unitirrigation supply(US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production
Total annual volume of irrigation supply
Total annual value of agricultural production:. Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow: Total annual volume of water diverted orpumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage).
Output per unitwater supply(US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production
Total annual volume of water supply
Total annual value of agricultural production:. Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of water supply: Total volume of surface diversions into thescheme and net group water abstractions forirrigation plus total rainfall excluding anyrecirculating internal drainage water within thescheme.
Output per unitcrop waterdemand (US$/m3) Total annual value of agricultural production
Total annual volume of crop water demand
Total annual value of agricultural production: Total annual value of agricultural productionreceived by producers.Total annual volume of crop water demand Total volume of water consumed by the crop tomeet evapotranspiration demand. For rice cropsthis includes deep percolation losses.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 27
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Indicator Definition Data specificationsWater quality: Salinity(dS/m).
Salinity (electrical conductivity) of the irrigation supplyand drainage water.
Water quality: Biological(mg/litre)
Biological load of the irrigation supply and drainagewater expressed as Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD)
Water quality: Chemical(mg/litre).
Chemical load of the irrigation supply and drainagewater expressed as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).
Average depth towatertable (m)
Average annual depth of watertable calculated fromwatertable observations over the irrigation area.
Change in watertabledepth over time (m)
Change in watertable depth over the last five years.
Salt balance (tonnes) Differences in the volume of incoming salt and outgoingsalt.
Appendix A1 - Performance indicators28
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 29
Appendix A2Protocols for data collection and processing
Data item No.1 Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery
Definition Total volume of water delivered to water users over the year or season. Water users in thiscontext describe the recipients of irrigation service, these may include single irrigators orgroups or irrigators organized into water user groups.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Measurement should occur at the point of interface between the irrigation provider and thewater user(s).
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should be monitored at least twice daily to ensuresufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoring ofdischarge by electronic monitoring devices.
Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery volume using the actualdelivery time. The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume ofsupply.
Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3)
Data item No.2 Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow
Definition Total annual volume of water diverted or pumped for irrigation (not including diversion ofinternal drainage).
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Inflow will be measured at the diversion point in case of gravity diversions or at the pumpdelivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where there are additional inflowsand/or diversions for any purpose other than irrigation, e.g. urban supply, industrial supply,etc. a mass balance of the net inflow for irrigation must be carried out. Inflows from drainagerecovery must be deducted from the inflow amount whereas catchment inflows must beincluded as irrigation diversions.
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should normally be monitored at least twice daily toensure sufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoringof discharge by electronic monitoring devices.
Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery using the actual deliverytime.
The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume of supplyconverted into daily volume.
Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3).
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing30
Data item No.3 Total annual volume of water supply
Definition Total volume of surface diversions into the scheme and net groundwater abstraction forirrigation, plus total effective rainfall, excluding any recirculating internal drainage water within thescheme.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Inflow will be measured at the diversion point in case of gravity diversions or at the pumpdelivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where there are additional inflowsand/or diversions for any purpose other than irrigation, e.g. urban supply, industrial supply,etc. a mass balance of the net inflow for irrigation must be carried out. Inflows from drainagerecovery must be deducted from the inflow amount whereas catchment inflows must beincluded as irrigation diversions. The use of the USDA-SCS model is recommended for thecalculation of effective rainfall.
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desiredfrequency of measurement. Discharge should normally be monitored at least twice daily toensure sufficient accuracy. The best accuracy can be obtained from continuous monitoringof discharge by electronic monitoring devices.
Processing Daily average discharges must be converted into daily delivery using the actual deliverytime.
The total volume of water delivered is the aggregate result of daily volume of supplyconverted into daily volume.
Effective rainfall should be calculated at least on a monthly basis using the USDA-SCSmethodology.
Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3).
Data item No. Submergence of drainage outlet
Definition Number of days in which the drainage system outlet is submerged
Measurement
specifications
Location:
The water level will be measured at the system outlet either in the channel or the collectingsump. In either case the water level in the receiving channel or collecting sump should notbe hither than the invert level of the outlet pipe.
Frequency:
The water level will be monitored on a daily basis in the channel or collecting sump at thedrainage outlet. A minimum period of 6 to 12 hours is required for the outlet to beconsidered submerged.
Processing The total number of days with submerged outlet is the aggregate of days which meet thesubmergence criteria.
Units Expressed in number of days.
Data item No.5 Total command area of the system
Definition The command area is the nominal or design area provided with irrigation infrastructure.
Measurement
specifications
This area is usually derived from the design drawings for the irrigation system. Over timeareas may go out of production due to a variety of factors, including construction of houses,buildings, drainage channels, etc. Adjustments should be made to the command area toallow for this reduction in irrigable area.
Processing The command areas for each tertiary unit are measured and aggregated up for the wholesystem.
Units Expressed in hectares (ha).
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 31
Data item No.6 Total annual irrigated crop area
Definition The total irrigated area cropped during the year.
Measurement
specifications
This value is the aggregate result of the total area under cultivation or alternatively the totalarea nominally commanded by the system multiplied by a cropping intensity factor to takeinto account the actual intensity of land utilization during the year.
Processing The area cultivated in each cropping season is the aggregate of the areas planted to eachindividual crop. The annual irrigated area is the aggregate value of the each season’scropped area. These data are usually collected by the irrigation and drainage organizationfor operation and accounting purpose and/or by other related agencies that compileproduction statistics.
Units Expressed in hectares (ha).
Example For instance, if the area commanded by the irrigation system is 10,000 ha and the areascultivated during the year are: wet season 8,000 ha, and dry season 6,000 ha, the total areairrigated by the system is 14,000 ha. The cropping intensity is 1.4.
Data item No.7 Total annual volume of crop water demand
Definition Total annual volume of water used by the crop to meet evapotranspiration demand. For rice,percolation losses must be included.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Crop evapotranspiration will be calculated using the FAO CROPWAT model for the net areaplanted to each crop in the irrigated command area.
Frequency:
The preferred Etc calculation period is daily. In situations where daily data are not availablethe shortest possible interval is to be used. The calculation of Etc will include the entiregrowing season from planting to harvest.
Processing The total annual volume of water consumed by all crops grown in the system is theweighted sum of the water consumed by individual crops as follows:
��
cropsiic xAEtcVEt
Where:
Vetc = Total volume of water consumed by crops (m3)
Etci = Evapotranspiration from crop i, from planting to harvest (m3)
Ai = Area planted to crop i.
For rice crops the average percolation rate will be multiplied by the crop area and growthperiod to obtain the total percolation volume.
Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3)
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing32
Data item No.8 Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand
Definition Total annual volume of irrigation water required by the crop less effective rainfall. For paddyrice, percolation losses must be included.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Crop evapotranspiration will be calculated using the FAO CROPWAT model for the net areaplanted to each crop in the irrigated command area. Estimation of effective rainfall may proveto be difficult in some circumstances. There are a variety of methods included in CROPWATfor estimating effective rainfall (Dastane, 1974). The use of the USDA-SCS model isrecommended.
Frequency:
The preferred Etc calculation period is daily. In situations where daily data are not availablethe shortest possible interval is to be used. The calculation of Etc will include the entiregrowing season from planting to harvest.
Processing The total annual volume of water consumed by all crops grown in the system is the weightedsum of the water consumed by individual crops as follows:
VETNet = ? (Etci - Re)Ai
where:
VETNet = Total volume of water consumed by crops less effective rainfall (m3)
i = Crop type
Etci = Evapotranspiration from crop i from planting to harvest (m3)
Re = Effective rainfall over crop area from planting to harvest (m3)
Ai = Area planted to crop i. (ha)
For rice crops the average percolation rate will be multiplied by the crop area and growthperiod to obtain the total percolation volume.
Units Expressed in cubic metres (m3).
Data item No.9 Canal capacity to deliver water at system head
Definition Actual discharge capacity of main canal at diversion point.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Discharge capacity must be determined at the system head assuming canal freeboardaccording to canal design specifications.
If not yet available, it can be determined using any accepted flow measuring techniqueincluding: flow metering, measuring flumes and control sections.
Frequency
Needs to be determined annually at the start of the irrigation season.
Processing
Units Expressed in cubic metres per second (m3/s))
Data item No.10 Peak irrigation water consumptive demand
Definition The peak crop irrigation water requirement for a monthly period expressed as a flow rate atthe head of the irrigation system.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
The calculation is based on the maximum monthly crop water requirement in the system. Thefield, distribution and main system conveyance efficiency must be used to index this value tothe head of the system. For paddy rice the peak requirement may occur during the landpreparation stage.
Frequency:
Calculated each season.
Processing The maximum monthly crop water requirement should be available from the calculation ofcrop water requirements for the entire system. The main system delivery efficiency must becalculated according to the definition provided in Appendix A1.
Units Expressed in cubic metres per second (m3/s).
������������ ����������������������������������������������������� ��
Data item No.11 System water entitlement
Definition The bulk volume or bulk discharge of water to which the scheme is entitled per annum.
Measurement
specifications
The bulk water entitlement may be defined in terms of an average volume entitlement ordischarge entitlement or as a variable quantity related to the availability of water resourceseach year. A volume entitlement is more common in regulated systems whereas a dischargeentitlement is more common in run-of-the-river systems. If a security level is attached to thisvalue, this must be entered in the security of supply cell in the data spreadsheet.
Units Expressed in m3 (volume) or m3/s (discharge).
Data item No.12 Security of supply
Definition The frequency with which the irrigation organization is capable of supplying the established systemwater entitlements.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Water entitlements will be specified at the delivery point. For individual water users this is thetotal amount of water available to the farm or per unit area. For user groups this is the amountof water available at the point where the user group becomes responsible for distribution ofwater. In situations where only a bulk entitlement is defined at the system inlet, this can beconverted into user entitlement by using the appropriate main system water deliveryefficiency.
Frequency:
This entitlement is usually only specified once, but in some localities it is specified annually.
Processing Two quantities are required to specify the security of supply: (a) The volume of waterentitlement and (b) the associated level of exceedence probability.
Units Percentage of years that the water right can be guaranteed to be available.
Data item No.13 Gross revenue collected
Definition Total revenues collected from payment of services by water users.
Measurement
specifications
This item includes all the revenues (cash and in-kind) received by the irrigation or drainageservice provider as payment for water supply and disposal, and other services using theagency’s infrastructure. Where drainage charges are levied separately these must beincluded in the calculation.
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. Where services are charged on a differentbasis, e.g. seasonal, bi-annually, etc. the partial figures must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.
Payment made in kind must be converted into monetary terms, either using local marketprices for the in-kind commodity, or at rates stipulated in the service agreement.
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Data item No.14 Total MOM cost
Definition Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigation and drainageservice excluding capital expenditure and depreciation/renewals.
Measurement
specifications
This item includes all costs involved in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.Typically these include:
o Bulk water fee
o Staff cost
o Operation cost (e.g. electricity for operation of plant and equipment and watersupply)
o Maintenance cost
o Overheads (include administrative expenses, insurances, taxes, etc.)
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All costs items must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing34
Data item No.15 Maintenance cost
Definition Total expenditure on system maintenance
Measurement
specifications
This item includes all the costs associated with maintenance of the irrigation and drainageinfrastructure either carried out by the organization or by external contractors. It should notinclude major repairs or rehabilitation work.
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All maintenance costs items must beaggregated annually according to the financial calendar of the organization.
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Data item No.16 Total cost of personnel engaged in I&D service
Definition Total cost of personnel employed in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.
Measurement
specifications
This item includes the cost of all personnel employed by the organization includingcontractors and contract employees engaged in the administration, management andoperation.
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All personnel cost items must be aggregatedannually according to the financial calendar of the organization.
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Data item No.17 Total number of personnel engaged in I&D service
Definition Total number of personnel employed in the provision of the irrigation and drainage service.
Measurement
specifications
This item includes all personnel employed by the service provider including contractors andcontract employees engaged in the management, operation and maintenance. It must beexpressed in Equivalent Full Time (EFT) units.
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. All personnel must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization and expressed in EFT units.
Units Expressed in Equivalent Full Time units. The time of part-time or seasonally employedpersonnel should be converted to the equivalent full time employment based on the proportionof full time worked.
Example Full time weekly hours: 38 hours EFT = 1.0Employee working 19 hrs part-time per week EFT = 0.5
Data item No.18 Gross revenue invoiced
Definition Total revenue due for collection from water users for provision of irrigation and drainageservices.
Measurement
specifications
This item includes all fees levied (cash and in-kind) by the service provider in payment forwater supply and other services provided by the irrigation and drainage infrastructure. Wheredrainage charges are levied separately these must be included in the calculation.
Processing A single annual value is required for this item. Where services are charged on a differentbasis, e.g. seasonal, bi-annually, etc. the partial figures must be aggregated annuallyaccording to the financial calendar of the organization.
Payment to be made in kind must be converted into monetary terms, either using localmarket prices for the in-kind commodity, or at rates stipulated in the service agreement.
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 35
Data item No.19 Gross annual agricultural production
Definition Total annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type.
Measurement
Specifications
Total tonnage of utilizable production obtained from each crop.
Processing Records normally compiled by the irrigation and drainage organization or related agriculturalorganizations are adequate for this purpose.
Units Expressed in metric tonnes (t).
Data item No.20 Total annual value of agricultural production
Definition Total annual value of agricultural production received by producers.
Measurement
specifications
The total value of agricultural production received by producers is determined at local(domestic) market prices. For international comparison this value will be converted into acommon measure as described below.
Processing The total gross value of production is calculated as follows:
MUPYAGVPcrops
iii ��
�
�
��
�
�� �
Where:
Yi= yield of crop i,
Ai= Area planted to crop i,
Pi= local price of crop I,
MU = currency exchange rate (USUS$/unit local currency)
Units Expressed in United States dollars (US$). The exchange rate and date must be shown whenconverting from the local currency.
Data item No.21 .Water quality: Salinity
Definition Salinity (electrical conductivity) of the irrigation supply and drainage water
Measurement
specifications
Location:
The salinity of irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case of gravitydiversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations where thereare additional inflows these should be monitored separately.
The salinity of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flows leave theirrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake, etc.
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desired frequencyof measurement. Weekly or monthly readings are typically used.
Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of irrigation supply water ordrainage water occurring during the measuring period.
Units Expressed in micro mhos per centimetre (mmhos/cm).
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing36
Data item No.22 Water quality: Biological
Definition Biological load of the irrigation supply and drainage water expressed as Biochemical OxygenDemand (BOD)
Measurement
specifications
Location:
The biological load of the irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.
The biological load of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flowsleave the irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake,etc.
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desired frequencyof measurement. Weekly or monthly readings are typically used.
Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of supply water or drainage wateroccurred during the measuring period.
Units Expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/litre).
Data item No.23 Water quality: Chemical load
Definition Chemical load of the irrigation supply and drainage water expressed as Chemical OxygenDemand (COD).
Measurement
specifications
Location:
The chemical load of the irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.
The chemical load of drainage water will be measured at the point where drainage flows leavethe irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body of water, e.g. river, lake, etc.
Frequency:
The magnitude and frequency of fluctuation in discharge will determine the desired frequencyof measurement. Weekly or monthly readings are typically used.
Processing A single value of the parameters is necessary each year. Weekly or monthly readings must beconverted into weighted average according to the volume of supply water or drainage wateroccurred during the measuring period.
Units Expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/litre).
Data item No.24 Average depth to watertable
Definition Average annual depth of watertable calculated from watertable observations over the irrigationarea.
Measurement
specifications
Location:
Watertable depth must be monitored by a network of piezometers distributed over thecommanded area in sufficient density to enable the delineation of contour lines of watertabledepth. The installation of piezometers must follow the standard guidelines described in FAOIrrigation and Drainage Paper No.38 Drainage Design Factors.
Frequency:
Watertable levels are typically monitored on a monthly basis.
Processing Individual readings will be average over the 12-month period to produce a single valuerequired for this item.
Units Expressed in metres (m).
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 37
Data item No.25 Change in watertable depth over time
Definition Change in watertable depth over the last five years.
Measurement
specifications
The calculation of this item is based on the measurement of depth to watertable.
Processing Change in watertable depth is calculated as the difference between watertable depth over afive-year period.
Units Expressed in metres (m).
Data item No.26 Salt balance
Definition Differences in the volume of incoming salt and outgoing salt.
Measurement
specifications
Incoming salt: Total amount of salt entering the irrigation area through the water supplysystem. The salinity of irrigation inflow will be measured at the diversion point in the case ofgravity diversions or at the pump delivery of groundwater or river pumps. In situations wherethere are additional inflows these should be monitored separately.
Outgoing salt: The total amount of salt that leaves the irrigation area through the irrigationsupply and drainage system. The salinity of drainage water will be measured at the pointwhere drainage flows leave the irrigation scheme or just before entering a receiving body ofwater, e.g. river, lake, etc. Additional salt outgoings may occur where irrigation water leavesthe system through outfalls or is diverted for other uses.
Processing The annual incoming and outgoing amounts of salt will be the aggregate of the individualreadings collected for each individual period. This may vary in length according to waterquality practices although daily readings are preferred.
Units Expressed in metric tonnes (t).
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing38
SUMMARY OF BENCHMARKING INDICATORS
Indicator
Irrigation service delivery - System operation
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery (m3/year)Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha)Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)Annual main system water delivery efficiency Annual relative water supplyAnnual relative irrigation supplyWater delivery capacitySecurity of entitlement supply
Irrigation service delivery - Financial indicators
Cost recovery ratioMaintenance cost to revenue ratioTotal MOM cost per unit area ($/ha)Total cost per person employed on water delivery ($/person)Revenue collection performanceStaffing numbers per unit area (Persons/ha)Average revenue per MCM of irrigation water supplied ($/m3)
Productive EfficiencyGross annual agricultural production (tonnes)Total annual value of agricultural output ($)Output per unit serviced area ($/ha)Output per unit irrigated area ($/ha)Output per unit irrigation supply ($/m3)Output per unit water consumed ($/m3)
Environmental PerformanceWater quality: Salinity (irrigation water, mmhos/cm)) Water qulaity: Salinity (drainage water, mmhos/cm)Water quality: Biological (irrigation water, mg/litre)Water quality: Biological (drainage water, mg/litre)Water quality: Chemical (irrigation water, mg/litre)Water qulaity: Chemical (drainage water, mg/litre)Average depth to watertable (m)Change in watertable depth over time (m)Salt balance (tonnes)
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 39
IPTRID-BM-DataSheets.xlsmab 26.10.2000
Irrigation service delivery
Code Description Units Data Indicator(s) used forentry
Total annual volume of irrigation water inflow m3Main system water delivery efficiency
Relative irrigation supply
Total command area serviced by the system ha
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area
Total annual irrigated crop area ha
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery m3Main system water delivery efficiency
Total annual volume of total water supply m3Relative water supply
Relative water supply
Total annual volume of crop water demand m3Relative water supply
Total annual volume of crop irrigation demand m3Relative irrigation supply
Total annual rainfall m3Relative water supply
Relative irrigation supply
Total annual effective rainfall m3Relative irrigation supply
Total annual deep percolation losses (rice crops only) m3Relative water supply
Relative irrigation supply
Canal capacity to deliver water at system head m3/sWater delivery capacity
Peak irrigation water consumptive demand m3/sWater delivery capacity
System water entitlementm3/s or
m3 Water entitlement
Security of supply (Probability of exceedence) %Security of supply (%)
10-year minimumwater availability pattern Security of supply
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing40
IPT
RID
-BM
-Dat
aShe
ets.
xls
mab
26.
10.2
000
Bas
ic d
escr
ipto
rs o
f ir
rig
atio
n a
nd
dra
inag
e sc
hem
e
Co
de
Des
crip
tor
Un
its
Dat
aP
oss
ible
op
tio
ns
entr
y
Lo
cati
on
Cou
ntry
Con
tinen
t
Sch
eme
nam
e
Latit
ude
Long
itude
Clim
ate
and
so
ils
Clim
ate
Arid
Sem
i-arid
Hum
idH
umid
trop
ics
Ave
rage
ann
ual r
ainf
all
mm
Ave
rage
ann
ual r
efer
ence
cro
p po
tent
ial
evap
otra
nspi
ratio
n, E
To
mm
Pea
kdai
ly r
efer
ence
cro
p po
tent
ial
evap
otra
nspi
ratio
n, E
To
mm
/day
Pre
dom
inan
t soi
l typ
e(s)
Cla
yC
lay
loam
Loam
Silt
y cl
ay lo
am
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Yea
r fir
st o
pera
tiona
l
Typ
e of
man
agem
ent
Gov
ernm
ent a
genc
yP
rivat
e co
mpa
ny
Join
t Gov
ernm
ent/
loca
l org
anis
atio
n/
priv
ate
Wat
er U
sers
A
ssoc
iatio
n
Age
ncy
func
tions
Irrig
atio
n an
d dr
aina
ge s
ervi
ceW
ater
res
ourc
es
man
agem
ent
Res
ervo
ir m
anag
emen
tF
lood
con
trol
Typ
e of
rev
enue
col
lect
ion
Tax
on
irrig
ated
are
aC
harg
e on
cro
p ty
pe a
nd a
rea
Cha
rge
on v
olum
e of
wat
er d
eliv
ered
Cha
rge
per
irrig
atio
n by
are
a
Land
ow
ners
hip
Gov
ernm
ent o
wne
dP
rivat
e ow
ners
hip
So
cio
-eco
no
mic
(Nat
iona
l) G
ross
Dom
estic
pro
duct
(G
DP
)
Far
min
g sy
stem
Cas
h cr
oppi
ngS
ubsi
sten
ce
crop
ping
Mix
ed c
ash
and
subs
iste
nce
crop
ping
Wat
er s
ou
rce
and
ava
ilab
ility
Wat
er s
ourc
eR
iver
res
ervo
irR
un-o
f-riv
erG
roun
dwat
er
Con
junc
tive
use
surf
ace
and
g’w
ater
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 41
Wat
er a
vaila
bilit
yA
bund
ant
Suf
ficie
ntS
carc
eV
ery
scar
ce
Dur
atio
n of
irrig
atio
n se
ason
mth
sM
onth
s/ye
ar
Siz
e
Com
man
ded
area
ha
Tot
al n
umbe
r of
wat
er u
sers
sup
plie
dN
o.
Ave
rage
farm
siz
eha
Ave
rage
ann
ual i
rrig
ated
are
aha
Ave
rage
ann
ual c
ropp
ing
inte
nsity
%
Infr
astr
uct
ure
- Ir
rig
atio
n
Met
hod
of w
ater
abs
trac
tion
Gra
vity
div
ersi
onLi
ft pu
mp
Gro
undw
ater
Wat
er d
eliv
ery
infr
astr
uctu
re:
- L
ined
cha
nnel
km
- U
nlin
ed c
hann
elkm
- P
iped
cha
nnel
km
Typ
e of
wat
er c
ontr
ol e
quip
men
tN
one
Str
uctu
res
at
inta
ke o
nly
Str
uctu
res
at
pim
ary
and
seco
ndar
y le
vel
Str
uctu
res
at
prim
ary,
se
cond
ary
and
tert
iary
Dis
char
ge m
easu
rem
ent f
acili
ties
Prim
ary
cana
l lev
elS
econ
dary
can
al
leve
lT
ertia
ry le
vel
Fie
ld le
vel
Dra
inag
e
Are
a se
rvic
ed b
y su
rfac
e dr
ains
ha
Typ
e of
sur
face
dra
inC
onst
ruct
edN
atur
al
Leng
th o
f sur
face
dra
inkm
Are
a se
rvic
ed b
y su
b-se
rvic
e dr
aina
ge
Num
ber
of g
roun
dwat
er m
easu
rem
ent s
ites
No.
Wat
er a
lloca
tio
n a
nd
dis
trib
uti
on
Typ
e of
wat
er d
istr
ibut
ion
On-
dem
and
Arr
ange
d-de
man
dS
uppl
y or
ient
ated
Fre
quen
cy o
f irr
igat
ion
sche
dulin
g at
mai
n ca
nal l
evel
Dai
lyW
eekl
yT
wic
e m
onth
yT
hric
e m
onth
lyP
redo
min
ant o
n-fa
rm ir
rigat
ion
prac
tices
and
pe
rcen
tage
:S
urfa
ce -
furr
owS
urfa
ce -
Bas
inS
urfa
ce -
Bor
der
strip
Sur
face
- F
urro
w-
in-b
asin
1. 2. 3. Cro
pp
ing
Mai
n cr
ops
and
perc
enta
ges;
Cro
p%
tot
al a
rea
1. 2. 3.
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing42
IPTR
ID-B
M-D
ataS
heet
s.xl
s
mab
26.
10.2
000 Fi
nanc
ial
Cod
eD
escr
iptio
nU
nits
Dat
aIn
dica
tor(
s) u
sed
for
entr
y
Nam
e of
mon
etar
y un
its (M
Us)
Num
ber o
f MU
s to
1 U
S$
Gro
ss re
venu
e co
llect
edM
UC
ost r
ecov
ery
ratio
Mai
nten
ance
ex
pend
iture
to
reve
nue
ratio
Rev
enue
co
llect
ion
perfo
rman
ce
Ave
rage
re
venu
e pe
r un
it di
scha
rge
Tota
l MO
M c
ost
MU
Cos
t rec
over
y ra
tio
Mai
nten
ance
cos
tM
U
Mai
nten
ance
ex
pend
iture
to
reve
nue
ratio
Tota
l cos
t of p
erso
nnel
eng
aged
in I&
D s
ervi
ceM
U
Tota
l cos
t per
w
ater
del
iver
y pe
rson
nel
Tota
l num
ber o
f per
sonn
el e
ngag
ed in
I&D
se
rvic
eN
o.
Tota
l cos
t per
w
ater
del
iver
y pe
rson
nel
Sta
ffing
nu
mbe
rs p
er
unit
area
Gro
ss re
venu
e in
voic
edM
U
Rev
enue
co
llect
ion
perfo
rman
ce
Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector 43
IPT
RID
-BM
-Da
taS
he
ets
.xls
ma
b
26
.10
.20
00 Pro
du
cti
ve e
ffic
ien
cy
Co
de
Descri
pti
on
Un
its
Data
Un
its
Data
Un
its
Data
Un
its
en
try
en
try
en
try
Tota
l gro
ss a
gricultura
l pro
duction
and v
alu
e (
by c
rop):
1.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
2.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
3.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
4.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
5.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
6.
ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
Su
bto
tal:
00
1ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
2ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
3ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
4ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
5ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
6ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
Su
bto
tal:
00
1ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
2ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
3ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
4ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
5ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
6ha
Tonnes
MU
/Tonne
MU
Su
bto
tal:
00
To
tals
00
Ind
icato
r(s)
used
fo
r:
Gro
ss
agricultura
l pro
duction
Tota
l valu
e o
f agricultura
l pro
duction
Tota
l valu
e o
f agricultura
l pro
duction
Outp
ut per
unit
com
mand a
rea
Outp
ut per
unit
cro
pped a
rea
Are
a
Seaso
n I
Seaso
n II
Seaso
n III
Mark
et
pri
ce
Pro
du
cti
on
Val
Appendix A2 - Protocols for data collection and processing44
IPTRID-BM-DataSheets.xlsmab 26.10.2000
Environmental performance
Code Description Units Dataentry
Water quality: Salinity of irrigation water mmhos/cmSalinity of drainage water mmhos/cmBiological quality of irrigation water BODBiological quality of drainage water BODChemical quality of irrigation water CODChemical quality of drainage water COD
Waterlogging & salinisationAverage depth to water table mChange in water table depth over time mSalt balance metric tonnes