PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELECTED

SURFACE WATER IRRIGATION SCHEMES OF BADC

PRONAJIT KUMAR DEB

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECNOLOGY

DHAKA

SEPTEMBER, 2011

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELECTED

SURFACE WATER IRRIGATION SCHEMES OF BADC

Submitted by

PRONAJIT KUMAR DEB

Roll No. 040516020 (F)

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

The Degree of Master of Engineering in Water Resources Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECNOLOGY

DHAKA

September, 2011

II

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Md. Sabbir Mostafa Khan,

Professor, Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET for his supervision,

encouragement and valuable guidance throughout the study. It was a great pleasure for the

author to work with him, whose constant guidance helped to conclude the work successfully.

Special heartfelt gratitude is expressed to the member of the Board of Examiners, Dr. M.

Mirjahan, Professor, Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET and Dr. A. F. M.

Saleh, Professor, Institute of Water and Flood Management, BUET for their valuable

comments, constructive suggestions and criticisms regarding the study.

Grateful acknowledgements are expressed to the authority of Bangladesh Agricultural

Development Corporation (BADC) for providing necessary data.

The author is also grateful to Engr. Md. Musthafizur Rahman, Project Director, Innovative

Use of Surface Water Project, BADC, Comilla, Engr. Md. Abdul Gofur, Superintending

Engineer, BADC, Sylhet Circle, Sylhet, Engr. Dhirendra Chandra Debnath, Executive

Engineer, BADC, Sylhet Rezion, Sylhet, Mr. Shankar Datta, General Manager, Palli Bidhyut

Samittee, Sunamgonj and Mr. Hori Kishore Datta, Head of Finance, Kumudini, Khanpur,

Narayangonj for their sincere help and co-operation. Thanks must also be extended to the

field level BADC officials of Sylhet, Sunamgonj, Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar, all members

of working irrigation committee and farmers of selected schemes.

To my beloved parents, sister, wife and little daughter who in their own way inspired me

towards the completion of this work and to achieve higher ideals in life, my sincerest thanks.

The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to his friends and colleagues Engr.

Khaleduzzaman, Deputy General Manager, Palli Bidhyut Samittee-1, Balagonj Zonal Office,

Sylhet, Engr. Md. Sazzad Hossain Bhuiya, Assistant Engineer, BADC, Sylhet Zone, Sylhet

and Engr. Md. Shoukat Ali Akhand, Assistant Engineer, BADC, Dhaka for their continuous

support, encouragement and co-operation at various stages of doing this project work.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT II

TABLE OF CONTENTS III-IV

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES VI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VII

CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Importance of the Study 4

1.3 Participatory Water Management Approach 7

1.4 Objectives 10

CHAPTER – 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Irrigation System in Bangladesh 11

2.2 Previous Studies on the Performance of Different Irrigation

Schemes/Projects in Bangladesh

12

CHAPTER – 3 PROJECT SUMMERY

3.1 Innovative Use of Surface Water Project (IUSWP) (1st phase) 19

3.3.1 General 19

3.3.2 Background of the IUSWP 19

3.3.3 Objectives of the IUSWP 20

3.3.4 Location 21

3.3.5 Topography and General Feature of the Project Area 21

3.3.5.1 North Eastern Region 21

3.3.5.2 The Eastern Hill Region 22

3.3.5.3 Climate and Hydrology 22

3.3.5.4 Agriculture 22

3.3.5.5 Irrigation Practices 22

3.3.5.6 Cropping Intensity 23

3.3.6 Operation and Maintenance 23

3.3.7 Annual Service/Irrigation Charge 23

3.3.8 Institutional Interventions 23

3.3.9 Excavation or Re-excavation of Khals / Nalas/ Hilly Chharas 24

IV

3.3.10 Irrigation Structure 24

3.3.11 Training of Beneficiaries 24

3.3.12 Irrigation Method 24

3.3.13 Participatory Water Management Practice 25

CHAPTER – 4 METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION 27

4.1 Introduction 27

4.2 Performance Evaluation and Indicators 28

4.2.1 Irrigated Area Indicator 28

4.2.2 Crop Production Indicator 28

4.2.3 Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 29

4.2.4 Irrigation Charge Indicator 30

4.2.5 Beneficiary Indicator 30

4.2.6 Irrigation Profitability Indicator 31

4.3 Scheme Selection 31

4.4 Preparation of Questionnaire 33

4.5 Data Collection 33

4.6 Problems Faced during Data Collection 34

CHARTER - 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 36

5.1 General 36

5.2 Performance of the selected LLPs schemes 36

5.2.1 Irrigated Area 36

5.2.2 Crop Production 38

5.2.3. Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 40

5.2.4. Irrigation Charge Indicator 42

5.2.5. Beneficiary Indicator 43

5.2.6. Irrigation Profitability Indicator 44

5.3 Results of the Questionnaire Survey 46

5.4 Sustainability of 5 cusec LLP schemes of BADC 47

CHARTER - 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 49

6.1 Conclusions 49

6.2 Recommendations 51

REFERENCES 52-54

APPENDIX-A 55-57

APPENDIX –B 58-68

V

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No.

Description Page

No.

4.1 Important feature of the selected 5 cusec LLP schemes 32

5.1 Irrigated Area for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year 37

5.2 Crop Production for the 5 Cusec LLP schemes of different year 39

5.3 Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of

different year

41

5.4 Irrigation Profitability (IP) Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of

different year

45

5.5 Summary of significant factors from questionnaire survey 46-47

6.1 Performance of selected schemes during 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 49

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No.

Description Page

No.

1.1 Organogram of the water management organization of the IUSWP of BADC 8

1.2 Organogram of water management organization for project up to 1000 ha

(GPWM 2000) of BWDB

9

1.3 Institutional framework for O&M of small scale projects of LGED 9

4.1 Flowing of Pumping Water on the constructed Irrigation Channel of the Joykalash-Ozanigao-Fatepur Irrigation Scheme of South Sunamgonj Upazilla under Sunamgonj District

35

4.2 Interview of Pump Driver of the Tukergao Irrigation Scheme of Sadar Upazilla under Sylhet District.

35

5.1 Irrigated Area Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year 38

5.2 Crop Production indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year 40

5.3 Irrigation Charge (IC) Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year 42

5.4 Beneficiary Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year 44

VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADP Annual Development Programme

BUET Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology

BADC Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation

BWDB Bangladesh Water Development Board

DAE Department of Agricultural Extension

DLIP Double Lifting Irrigation Project

DTW Deep Tube Well

FCDI Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation

FSL Full Supply Level

GPWM Guidelines for Participatory Water Management

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HYV High Yielding Variety

LGED Local Government Engineering Department

LLP Low Lift Pump

IUSWP Innovative Use of Surface Water Project

MDIP Meghna Dhonagoda Irrigation Project

Mha Million Hectares

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

MOP Manually Operated Pump

MPO Master Plan Organization

MT Metric Ton

NWMP National Water Management Plan

NNIP Narayanganj Norshingdi Irrigation Project

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PWM Participatory Water Management

PRSP Poverty Reeducation Strategic Papers

RWS Relative Water Supply

STW Shallow Tube Well

UIC Upazilla Irrigation Committee

WARPO Water Resources Planning Organization

WMG Water Management Group

WMO Water Management Organization

WIC Working Irrigation Committee

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the research work described in this project, except where specific

references to other investigators are made, is the result of the investigation of the candidate.

Neither this project nor any part thereof has been submitted elsewhere for the award of any

degree or diploma.

Pronajit Kumar Deb Professor Dr. Md. Sabbir Mostafa Khan Student Supervisor

I

ABSTRACT Irrigation by Low Lift Pumps has been practiced in Bangladesh since 1961-62 through Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC). But irrigation by 5 cusec Low Lift Pumps has been practiced in Bangladesh since 1987-88. 100 nos. of 5 cusec Low Lift Pumps brought in Bangladesh to remove the water logging of Dhaka city during the flood of 1988. This water logging programme implemented by BADC. After completion of this programme, this 5 cusec Low Lift Pumps has been experimentally installed in the field for irrigation during 1988-89. Until 1990-91 the responsibility of commissioning, operation and maintence of pumping unit including construction of channels lined with BADC. Subsequently, the beneficiary’s participation was encouraged and responsibilities of operation and maintenance of pumping unit and construction of field channels were transferred to farmers group. BADC looks after seasonal maintenance and provided necessary mechanic and operator services. It also monitors the performance of schemes. Working Irrigation Committee (WIC) pay service charges for 5 cusec Low Lift Pumps. This study has been under taken to evaluate the performance of selected 5-cusec LLPs schemes. A case study was also carried out on fifteen selected schemes at the field level. Analysis of the schemes has been performed using several indicators considering irrigated area, crop production, farmer’s benefit cost ratio, irrigation charge, beneficiary and irrigation profitability aspects. Data were collected by the primary and secondary sources. But in our study, all data were collected by the primary sources except target values. Data relating to the selected schemes and 5 cusec pumping sets under Innovative Use of Surface Project were collected for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 from the field offices and by planned field visits. Questionnaire surveys were carried out to know mainly the farmers’ view from 75 farmers and 25 scheme managers for this study under the 15 selected schemes on the fifteen selected schemes for this study. The average irrigated area indicator is 0.80, crop production indicator is 0.66, farmer’s benefit cost ratio (BCR) is 1.30, irrigation charge indicator is 3.73, beneficiary indicator is 0.56, and irrigation profitability indicator is 3.36. The irrigated area indicator, crop production indicator and farmers’ benefit cost ratio during the study period were satisfactory. Better maintenance of earthen channels and some seepage reduction works along the bank may be the reasons behind this also. Training of additional personnel and improved WIC activities helped them to achieve the better performance. It is evident from the present study that the scheme manager is operating the system like a business making profit in selling water to the farmers. The farmers are being deprived under the current management because they are paying about 3 to 4 times higher irrigation charge to the scheme managers. No scheme managers share the profit with the farmers. For all scheme in fact, marginal and poor farmers have no representative in the management committee or Working Irrigation Committee (WIC). BADC or Upazilla Irrigation Committee has no control upon the management committee or Working Irrigation Committee (WIC) regarding fixation of irrigation charge. A detailed study on technical and economical analysis could be carried out to examine the possibility of implementing more LLPs schemes in other parts of the country with new LLPs where beneficiaries would repay the cost of the pumps during the project life. Management policy can be changed or improved to save the marginal and poor farmers from the water lords.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Bangladesh is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world. The backbone of the

economy of the country is agriculture. The per capita income of the people of this country is

very low. More than 75% peoples live in villages and they are directly or indirectly

dependent upon agriculture.

Once, irrigation of the country was dependent mostly on surface water. Source of surface

water is decreasing at an alarming rate. As a result, pressure is increasing on groundwater.

Excessive withdrawal of groundwater has much harmful effect like spread out of arseconosis,

creation of ecological and environmental imbalance etc. So, it is very essential to develop and

utilize surface water efficiently and to extract groundwater as less as possible, especially from

shallow layer of within 50 meters. At present, only 25% of the total irrigated area in the

country is dependent on surface water. For this reason, this study is proposed for efficient use

of surface water for irrigation.

Bangladesh is a country of vast water resources and consists primarily of a fertile land laid

down by the rivers: the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna. Total land area is 14.6

million hectares and about 8.3 million hectares is cultivable of which 7.56 million hectares is

suitable for irrigation.

At present (2010-11 irrigation season), 873 nos. of 5 cusec pump used in Rabi Season for the

purpose of irrigation which covers about 48,015 hectares cultivable land in Bangladesh

(Source: Dept. of Survey and Monitoring, BADC (MI), Dhaka). MPO study revealed that

0.305 Mha can be irrigated using LLPs which leads to increase of 5% irrigation area at full

development. A total of 375 cumecs flow will be required for the development of 0.305 Mha

by the year 2015. This abstraction capacity is equivalent to 2680 nos. of pumps of 5 cusec

capacity. BADC explored that 5 cusec pumps can be installed in haor areas and other places

as single lifting irrigation equipment. Experience on operation of 5 cusec pumps under

2

BADC has already proven its technical feasibility, socio-economic and environmental

viability. The MPO carried out their study all over the Bangladesh. A twenty five years (190-

2015) irrigation plan has been prepared along with suggestion for installation of 5 cusec

pumps along and around the regional and main rivers. It was considered a primary lifting

irrigation device. While the study of BADC was concentrated to specific areas of Bangladesh

with a view to preparing a project (1989-1985). It does not reflect the actual situation of the

country regarding prospects of 5 cusec pumps.

The agriculture sector plays a vital role in the growth of the country’s economy accounting

for the third of GDP, employing about two third of its labour force. During the last three

decades, agriculture witnessed major structural and technological changes. The HYV

Seed-Fertilizer-irrigation technology has pushed up production but still remained behind the

required growth rate for increasing population. It remains essential for agriculture to have an

accelerated growth, not only to supply the food-stuff to the vast population but also to have

enough jobs for rural population and enough tradable products for the overall economy.

Sustainability of production of HYV remains the principal concern of agricultural production

in recent years. Loss of soil fertility followed by unbalanced use of chemical fertilizer, lack of

adequate quantity of water in some areas as well as their inappropriate conservation cause

divergence between potential and actual output of major agriculture commodities. Major

tasks during the coming years will be to address these issues.

Demand for water arises from in-stream needs, which are more or less static, and abstraction

for water supply and food production, which grow over time. Rice, wheat and fish production

increase as a function of elasticity of demand for the different urban and rural income groups.

According to National water Management Plan (NWMP) (NWMP, 2000), the projected

demand for milled rice is 28.5 million ton and 29.9 million ton against the expected

population of 150 million and 181 million up to the years 2010 and 2025 respectively.

Almost all of its 8.3 million hectares of cultivable land in Bangladesh is already in use. Any

additional crop output can only come from increasing yield or cropping intensity. Methods

that are available to achieve these ends depend heavily on irrigation, particularly, minor

irrigation, which accounts for about 90% of irrigation coverage of the country. During the

coming years the main thrust of agricultural development programme will be increased

irrigation coverage, better water management and variety improvement of rice and wheat.

3

Approximately 4.5 million hectares land is under irrigation in Bangladesh. Of this, Low Lift

Pumps (LLPs) currently serve about 0.65 million hectare, Shallow Tube Wells (STWs) about

2.65 millions hectares, Deep Tube Wells (DTWs) about 0.52 million hectare and other

methods about 0.30 million hectare. Major irrigation projects cover about 0.36 million

hectare. The irrigated area has to be raised to about 5.5 million hectares by the year 2010 to

increase total production. The Government’s overall policy aim for the agricultural sector is

to continue to increase production to ensure food security to all. The National Water Policy

(1999) encourages continued support for agricultural growth through private development of

groundwater and where feasible, with surface water development. For this purpose, the

Government policy is to:

• Encourage and promote continued development of major irrigation without affecting

drinking water supplies;

• Encourage future groundwater development for irrigation by both the public and the

private sector, subject to regulations that may be prescribed by the Government from

time to time;

• Improve resources utilization through conjunctive use of all forms of surface water

and groundwater for irrigation and through various efficiency measures;

• Strengthen crop diversification programmes for efficient water utilizations;

• Address the problem of agricultural chemicals polluting surface water and

groundwater;

• Strengthen systems for monitoring water use, water quality and groundwater recharge.

The main target of the present Government is to accelerate total development through

implementing poverty alleviation programme. Most of the poor, who live in rural areas,

depend upon agricultural activities for their livelihood. To implement poverty alleviation

programme, the most important determinant was the agricultural development in rural areas.

Agricultural development got acceleration through the development of irrigation activities.

This project had been proposed to increase crop production and upgrade socio-economic

condition of the rural people of the project area by supplying adequate irrigation water,

applying on-firm water management (command area development) and construction of

irrigation infrastructure of appropriate local and low cost technology.

4

Objectives of the water sector during the coming years stretching over the period from

2000-2001 will be to alleviate poverty and generate employment opportunities and to fulfill

the need of irrigation for achieving food grain self sufficiency by ensuring year round

sustainable irrigation through conjunctive use of surface and groundwater and thus avoiding

over extraction of groundwater.

In order to achieve the planned objectives in the water sector, the strategy will lay stresses on

maximum utilization of existing facilities through command area development, effective

operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing projects, quick completion of carried-

over projects, balanced use of surface water and groundwater and prevention of salinity

intrusion into rivers and channels. In case of new projects, an integrated basin/sub-basin

planning approach will be followed. Avoidance of conflicts between in stream and off-stream

users of water, delineation of coastal areas for shrimp culture on a scientific basis and zoning

of areas for shrimp cultivation and paddy cultivation, development of data base and

encouraging local participation in project planning, implementation, operation and

maintenance, protection of towns, commercial centers and agricultural lands from erosion of

inland and border rivers including repair and maintenance of existing river bank protection

works will be pursued.

1.2 Importance of the Study

The LLP used for surface water irrigation is the oldest mode of mechanized irrigation

introduction in the country since the late fifties. Over the years it has proved to be the most

cost-effective of all minor irrigation technologies in Bangladesh. It is attractive and

affordable to most investors and provides positive economic returns. In spite of this

contribution of surface water to total irrigated area has steadily declined from 75% in 1979-

80 to 28% in 1996-97, while the contribution of groundwater has increased from 25% to 72%

during the period. The reasons for the stagnation of the area served by surface water may be

attributed to a large extent to the scarcity of surface water in small rivers, canals and beels,

reduction of conveyance capacity of water bodies due to siltation. Additionally, total

privatization of LLP characterized by low command area, poor maintenance, weak on-farm

water management practices and higher wastage of water reduce the usage of surface water.

5

National Water Plan Project Phase-II (1991) proposed the following strategies for

development of surface water:

• Short Term - Develop all regional surface water allocated to agriculture for irrigation

by LLP and Flood Control, Drainage and Irrigation (FCDI) scheme on minor and

broader rivers.

• Medium Term – Develop Main River waters by pumps and improve off takes to

supply to LLPs.

• Long Term – Start studies of major barrages on the Ganges and the Brahmaputra

rivers so that implementation could be started by 1995 and benefits begin to accrue by

2010.Under this schedule, ultimate development could be achieved by about 2020.

The short term strategy of development surface water by LLP and small scale FCDL schemes

has essentially been accomplished. The LLP mode of irrigation has been privatized and it is

reasonable to expect that the private sector will maintain a level of pumping by LLP that is

compatible with navigation and fisheries uses.

Medium term development of surface water was planned for the period up to 2010 and

consists of diversion of stream flow from the main rivers into existing canals. The water is to

be withdrawn or diverted from the main rivers by short gestation schemes including land

based pumps, pontoon mounted floating pumps, excavation and dredging of off-takes. These

schemes will augment the water supply in small rivers and distributaries for expansion of

irrigation from canals by LLPs. The existing network of streams and canals would be used in

to avoid acquisition and dislocation.

Long term plan for development of surface water depends upon major barrages on the

Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers to provide control for both diversion and storage. The

feasibility studies and construction works would take at least 15-20 years to harvest the

benefit of the project.

Groundwater irrigation, especially DTW and STW will be fast reaching saturation with

exhaustion of economic sites and resources. Arsenic contamination is also continuously

posing an increasing threat to the use of groundwater. On the other hand, easily available

6

surface water within the present LLP technology limit is almost exhausted with the fielding

of over 70,000 LLPs. So the future growth of irrigation will depend on the use of main and

regional waters by adopting medium term strategy which consists of withdrawing and

diversion of major river water through pontoon and land based pumps, and making suitable

provisions (through construction of required hydraulic structures) to augment the water

supply in the existing network of streams and canals.

Under the fifth five year plan (1997-2002) strategy, greater emphasis was laid down on

immediate harnessing and use of main and regional river water to augment the supply in the

smaller rivers and canals, and raise the area of surface water irrigation from the existing level

of about 1.25 million hectares to about 1.50 million hectares.

For public irrigation Development, NWMP (2004) proposed to improve performance and

cost recovery of existing public irrigation schemes, to develop regional river systems in

concert with flow augmentation works and to take up some new lower cost major irrigation

schemes where feasible.

Government of Bangladesh has set strategic goals in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

(PRSP) on surface water as, “Expand Utilization of Surface Water” and “Augment Surface

Water Utilization (Retention) in Rivers, Creeks and Khals”. PRSP policy agenda (FY05 -

FY07) has laid down future priorities on “Harness water of all transboundary rivers and

negotiate with upper riparian countries, formulae integrated projects for augmentation of the

Ganges and the Brahmaputra river flow, implement National Water Management Plan

(NWMP), increase utilization of surface water for irrigation and other purpose”. Thus with

due importance to PRSP strategic goals, future priorities and the other strategies/factors

mentioned above, it is necessary to conduct studies on the utilization of surface water.

Keeping the national priority in the perspective and consistent with its new role and old

experience, BADC has been implementing the project, “Innovative Use of Surface Water

Project (IUSWP) (1st Phase)” which was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and the

Planning Commission and was due to start functioning from July 2005 to June 2008. The

main objective of the project is to facilitate additional agricultural production of 11.78

thousand tons of food grains annually through providing irrigation facilities to 4.71 thousand

acres of land. The irrigation system is used in many of the schemes under this project. 25 nos.

7

of 5 cusec LLPs are used for this purpose. So, this project in an important example of sharing

irrigation costs by public and private sectors. There are institutional bodies such as Working

Irrigation Committee (WIC) for smooth operation of the schemes as well as realization of

irrigation charges, creating self-employment opportunity and alleviate poverty for the

Owners/Managers/Operators/Fieldsmen of Irrigation and Agricultural equipments and

farmers by upgrading their skill through training. Based on its achievement, the second phase

of the innovative use of surface water project (IUSWP-II) has been undertaken for

implementation in the period from July 2009 to June 2014.

Experiences during the last decades show that many public irrigation projects in Bangladesh

have failed to achieve their desired goals. Similarly, an irrigation project, which appears to be

viable at starting or during development, may become non-functional in absence of many

acceptable level of performance in the following years. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a

study on the double lifting irrigation schemes of BADC to investigate their performance and

management approach.

1.3 Participatory Water Management Approach

Participatory water management Practice in the selected scheme has been compared with the

Guidelines for Participatory Water Management (GPWM, 2000) and that practiced in the

BWDB and LGED projects.

The organizational chart of the irrigation water management organization of the double lifting

irrigation scheme is shown in Figure 4.29. For comparison, the organizational structure of

water management organization of small-scale projects as proposed by GPWM and that

adopted by the LGED are shown in Figure 4.30 and Figure 4.31, respectively. A guideline for

Participatory Water Management (GPWM, 2000) suggests two tiers (as shown in Figure

4.30) formation of water management organization for project up to 1000 hectares. Water

Management Association (WMA) serves at the apex level of the project/scheme and Water

Management Group (WMG) at the lowest level for each smallest hydrological unit (para or

village). BWDB introduced a slightly different four tiers formation of water management

group in FCDI projects (BWDB, 1999; Mukherjee, 2004) and LGED has introduced two tiers

formation of water management organizations. BADC in its double lifting irrigation project

has introduced two water management organizations as explained in the previous section.

8

According to BWDB and LGED, all people irrespective of gender and of different profession

e.g., farmer’s, fisherman, boatman, landless and other project affected people are eligible to

become members of the water management organization. This is in line landowners and

sharecroppers of the respective area to become the member of the irrigation committees. This

is due to the single purpose of water use i.e., irrigation only.

The GPWM suggests the Water Management Group (WMG) may or may not be registered

but Water Management Association (WMA) are to be registered with the framework of the

Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987.In BWDB, the

rules and regulations are formulated by BWDB and Water Users Organizations (WUOs) with

the provision of modification of it time to time according to necessity. In LGED, Water

Management Co-operative Association (WMCAs) is to be registered under co-operative law

of 1987. In BADC, the Working Irrigation Committees are not registered under co-operative

laws so that their legal basis is weaker. They are only listed by the Upazilla Irrigation

Committees (UIC). Responsibilities in connection with the irrigation activities, irrigation

charge/fee/rent collection including conflict resolution are distributed at different tiers of the

institutional frameworks under different organizations in their own ways.

UIC

UIC : Upazilla Irrigation Committee

WIC : Working Irrigation Committee

BADC

WIC

Benefited Farmers Figure 1.1: Organogram of the water management organization of the IUSWP of BADC.

9

WMA

WMA = Water Management Association

WMG= Water Management Group

WMG WMG WMG

Figure 1.2: Organogram of water management organization for project up to 1000 ha (GPWM 2000) of BWDB.

WMCA = Water Management Cooperative Association EC = Executive Committee

LGI

EC of WMCA

Resposibility

WMCA

Figure 1.3: Institutional framework for O&M of small scale projects of LGED.

LGED

Legislation

10

From the above comparison it is obvious that the BADC irrigation committees as water

management organization are not formal like LGED. The project authority formulates some

guidelines of activities, which do not have legal basis to be strictly followed.

1.4 Objectives

The specific objectives of the present study are:

(a) To evaluate the performance of selected 5 cusec LLPs schemes under the first phase

of the innovative use of surface water project (IUSWP-I) on the basis of technical,

agricultural, socio-economic, institutional and environmental indicators.

(b) To study the operation and maintenance practices of selected 5 cusec LLPs schemes.

11

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Irrigation System in Bangladesh

Irrigation is a precondition for remarkable growth in agriculture in Bangladesh. Accordingly

it has taken an important place in all the past national development initiatives. Agricultural

practices throughout the country were kept alive and motional during dry season through

different mode of irrigation technologies. Among those technological innovations both

traditional and modern system of irrigation exists. Traditional irrigation systems,

characterized by non mechanized indigenous techniques were being used by our farmers for

centuries. On the other hand, modern mechanized irrigation is relatively recent and generally

became significant in the past 30 years. For the historical and institutional reasons, modern

irrigation system has been broadly classified into major and minor systems. Figure 2.1 shows

the irrigation systems in Bangladesh (MPO, 1991).

The major irrigation system consists of primary pumping unit with or without gravity

diversion provision often with a canal distribution network, sometimes included with a

secondary lift by Low Lift Pumps (LLPs). Ti may also include major pumps with necessary

distribution network. Minor irrigation system consists of traditional and modern irrigation

devices with a force mode or suction mode of lifting. Traditional mode of minor irrigation

includes doon, swing basket, rower pump, treadle pump, hand tubewell etc. The suction mode

irrigation includes Shallow Tubewells (STWs), Deep Set Shallow Tubewells (DSSTWs) with

a diesel or electrically operating device and Low Lift Pumps (LLPs). Force mode irrigation

includes only Deep Tubewells (DTW) with a diesel or electrically operating device.

Poor performance of irrigation schemes has been recognized as a major problem in the

agricultural sector of Bangladesh. Consequently, a number of studies have been carried out

since 80s to evaluate the performance of different irrigation projects. In the first part of this

chapter such studies have been reviewed briefly. In the second part, the Innovative Use of

Surface Water Project (IUSWP) has been explained.

12

2.2 Previous Studies on the Performance of Different Irrigation Schemes/Projects in

Bangladesh.

Alam (2000) evaluated the system performance of the Chandpur Irrigation Project in terms of

water balance parameters. Water balance study and performance evaluation was performed

for irrigation seasons of 1996 and 1998. The inputs (irrigation water supply and rainfall),

outputs (crop water use and percolation losses) and storage change were calculated for each

10-day period. The study revealed that irrigation water supply was more adequate in the

irrigation season of 1998 compared to that of 1996. Seasonal average value of relative water

supply was found to be 1.21 in 1996 and 1.08 in 1998. Seasonal project efficiency was

computed as 62% in 1996 and 64.0% in 1998. On the other hand, water delivery performance

was computed as 60.9% in 1996 and 48% in 1998. It was concluded that in the irrigation

season of 1998 substantial improvement of project performance in terms of water adequacy

and efficiency was observed which might be due to rehabilitation works carried out by the

project authority of Chandpur Irrigation Project in 1997.

Alam (2006) carried out a study on the performance of selected double lifting irrigation

schemes of BADC. Keeping the national priority in the perspective and consistent with nits

new rule and old experience, BADC has been implementing the project, ``Expansion of

Irrigation through Utilization of Surface Water by double Lifting (1st Phase)”. The double

lifting system uses floating pumps to divert the flow of perennial sources into smaller rivers,

canals etc. making suitable provision for heading up the water for secondary lifting. The

secondary lifting of irrigation water are performed by smaller capacity LLPs owned by the

farmers. The current study focused on franc evaluation of ten schemes under the Double

Lifting Irrigation Project (DLIP). Five of schemes are fully double lifting, two with partial

double lifting and three without secondary lifting. Their performances were analyzed on the

basis of selected agricultural, socio-economic, technical and institutional indicators. From the

long-term data of the floating pump projects, time variations of performance indicators were

also studied. The area irrigated per cusec of the schemes under consideration has been

increased every year since the inception of double lifting irrigation project. Fully DLIP

floating pump schemes performed better (~28%) with respect to area irrigated per cusec of

water compared to the schemes without secondary lifting. All the schemes produced

increased amount of crop every year from the starting year of the DLIP. The indicator of

additional crop production was above 1.0 in all cases. Apparently, O&M costs of the schemes

13

are increased every year but when discounted values of the costs are compared, this trend is

not obvious. O&M cost is within 5-20% of the value of produce, which is reduced from the

inception year to the following years. The ratio of O&M cost with total value of produce is

almost double in case of double lifting schemes compared to the schemes with no secondary

lifting. The difference is reduced in the subsequent years. The performances of the fully

double lifting schemes are poor in case of realization of irrigation charges. Average irrigation

charge indicator value is about 30% lower than that in the schemes with no secondary lifting.

100% realization is observed in the latter case. The reason behind this is the reluctance of the

irrigation committees to pay the charge to the project authorities although they collect the full

charge from the farmers. The financial viability indicator values of the double lifting schemes

are low and may reduce below 1.0. On average, financial viability of double lifting schemes

are 45% lower than the schemes without secondary lifting. Conveyance efficiency of primary

canals of double lifting schemes is about 15% higher than the observed efficiency in other

projects. The proportion of active water users organization, expressed in the users’ stake

indicator is high up to 100% in double lifting schemes (average 77%), whereas in other

schemes, the figure is less than 50%.The performances of the schemes under study are very

good in terms of the beneficiary indicator. The average indicator value is 70% higher in

double lifting schemes than the remaining schemes. When all the indicators are considered

together, the difference of overall performances between the best and the worst schemes is

about 27%. Again, double lifting schemes perform only 11% lower than the schemes without

secondary lifting.

Chowdhury (1988) conducted a research on improvement of water utilization in a double Lift

Irrigation system by taking up a case study on some selected primary pumps under Barisal

Irrigation Project, Phase-1 to identify and document the problems associated with the poor

performance of the pumping units. He also performed an economic analysis to determine the

cost-effectiveness of creek improvement work for water distribution by gravity. The study

revealed that most of the pumps remained under-utilized. Lack of assured water supply in the

creeks. Lack of effective organization to rent the low lift pumps and disinterest of the farmers

were among the reasons for such under-utilization. Considerable water loss and siltation were

observed as the main technical problems constraining adequate water supply to the creeks.

The study recommended re-excavation of creeks under Food for Works Programme as an

economically viable means to ensure gravity diversion the lands and improve the utilization

of the existing facilities.

14

Das (2001) selected a set of performance indicators e.g. adequacy, efficiency, equity and

dependability to evaluate the performance of the Ganges-Kobadak (g-k) project. The study

revealed that the system performed poorly in terms of efficiency and equity but it performed

well in terms of adequacy and dependability of supply. Adequacy of the system was 2.31 and

1.7 for Kharif-I and Kharif-II seasons, respectively but irrigation efficiency was poor (0.56

and 0.60 for Kharif-I and Kharif-II respectively). Equity in water delivery was also found to

be poor (0.63 and 0.76 for Kharif-I and Kharif-II respectively). Dependability of water supply

i.e, the ratio of actual to planned duration of water delivery was 1.20 and 1.06 for Kharif-I

and Kharif-II seasons respectively. Irrigated area performance (1.00) and production

performance (0.89) were quite good during Kharif-II season but these were not satisfactory

(0.67 and 0.78) during the Kharif-I season. Economic performance such as financial viability

(0.55) financial self-sufficiency (0.002) and fee collection performance (0.008) were very

poor. Finally, it was recommended that to keep the irrigation system functioning O&M

allocation as well as water tax collection must be increased.

Das (1992) conducted a research during the dry seasons of 1988-89 to 1991-1992 to evaluate

the impact of improved water distribution system on the performance of Deep Tube well

schemes. In this research, the average conveyance losses were found to be 14% for

compacted earth channel and 0.4% for buried pipe system. it was found that on an average

conveyance loss was 43% lower for compacted earth and 97% lower for buried pipes

compared to traditional system. The average area irrigated per unit of water supplied by

DTWs with improved distribution system was found to be about 11% higher than that of

DTWs with traditional distribution system.

Rahman (1997) studied the performance of floating pump irrigation in Bangladesh. He

selected six schemes and assessed the impact on the basis of four parameters namely, area

irrigated, irrigation cost, number of farmers benefited and yield. In this study the time serious

analysis indicated that the area irrigated per unit of discharge increased by 92% and the

irrigation cost per hectare decreased by 12% due to change in management i.e., due to

introduction of central level and block level management systems. The total number of direct

beneficiaries was found to be increased but the number of farmers benefited per hectare was

decreased by 9%.

15

Rabbani (1981) carried out a study on the Dhaka-Narayanganj-Demra project to determine

the water utilization efficiency. During the drought part (irrigation period), wet part (drainage

period) and for the whole growing season, the water utilization efficiency were computed to

be only 56% and 49% respectively.

Mandal (2000) conducted the performance evaluation of 5 DTWs and 10 DTWs of Rajbari

district using some selected standard indicators such as hydraulic indicators, agricultural

indicators and socio-economic indicators. Results of the analyses showed that delivery

performance ratio of DTWs is 0.93 and that of DTWs is 1.21. The average discharge of both

DTWS and STWs (53.1/sec and 17.1/sec respectively) were greater than the respective

national average (46.1/sec and 12.1/sec). No relationship was found between pump discharge

and command area. But a good correlation was found to exist between the volume of water

lifted and the command area (r2 value is 0.96 for DTW and 0.90 for STW). The slope of the

regression line (command area versus volume) for DTWs was found to be 1.5 times of STWs

which indicated that increase in command area per unit increase in volume of water

withdrawal was more for DTWs compared to STWs. In the unlined portion of the DTW

canal, the average conveyance loss was 6.5m/day and it was 1.4m/day for the lined portion.

In STWs with unlined canals, the average conveyance loss was 4.1m/day. Dependability of

water deliveries of STW and DTW schemes (0.85 and 0.79 respectively) was satisfactory

during 1999-98 Boro season. Agricultural performance, evaluated in terms of irrigated area

performance (0.79 and 0.76 for DTWs and STWs respectively, yield performance (1.16 for

both DTWs and STWs) and production performance (0.92 and 0.87 for DTWs and STWs

respectively) was greater than the national average. Total financial viability of DTW and

STW schemes (3.23 and 3.61respectively) were quite high during 1999-98 Boro season. But

the profitability of farmers was 1.06 and 1.05 for DTWs and STWs, respectively, during the

same period. Fee collection performance was exactly 100%.

Mirja (1991) evaluated the environmental impacts of Chandpur Irrigation Project. Major

areas considered for impact assessment were: fishery, agriculture, livestock, and vector

diseases, diarrhea diseases, irrigation and flood protection, navigation, use of agriculture

inputs, maintenance and embankment stability and institutional settings. The study revealed

that after commissioning of the project, the flood plain fishery reduced drastically but the

closed water fishery increased specially after establishment of hatcheries The project

tremendously benefited the agriculture sector and emerged as a food surplus area

16

immediately after commissioning the project, but later it became a food deficit area due to

decrease in soil fertility. The project area generated environment for vector diseases

especially for malarial growth. Due to drainage congestion in many areas, it caused damages

to the monsoon crops, increasing attack of post and waterweeds. The livestock population

was decreasing due to lack of grazing grounds. Navigation was also hampered.

Mukherjee (2004) carried out a research on four of the LGED small scale FCDI sub-projects

and one medium scale FCDI project of BWDB located in different parts of Bangladesh to

improve the performance by developing Participatory Water Management system. In the

course of making the suggestion for suitable management approach, performance evaluation

considering the agricultural, socio-economic and environmental aspects was performed and

the efficiency constraints were identified. Improper system maintenance and lack of

beneficiary participation were found to be the main reasons behind the less success of the

water schemes. It is revealed that partial decentralization in LGED schemes helps in

sustainable agricultural and overall financial development, but almost in every case the rate

of farmer’s involvement or beneficiary participation in system management was found to be

not satisfactory. Recommendations have been made with high emphasis on peoples’

participation and alternative management model have been suggested to overcome many of

the efficiency constraints for both small and medium scale projects.

An important study carried out by the Department of Water Resources Engineering (DWRE),

BUET (2003) to evaluate the Small-Scale Water Resources Development Sector Project-1

(SSW-1) as implemented by the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED). The

performances of 30 randomly selected sub-projects were assessed based on the key technical

issues, socio-economic outcome of the project, institutional development and sustainability.

The poverty alleviation, gender issue, beneficiaries participation and, efficiency and

effectiveness of training were assessed under this study.

Rana (2004) a study on the impact of participatory water management intervention work in

Narayanganj-Narsingdi irrigation project in terms of technical, institution, agricultural, socio-

economic, financial and economic aspects. The intervention work produced significant

positive results in terms of crop productivity, agricultural returns, household income, supply

and distribution of irrigation water and farmer’s willingness to participate in operation and

maintenance of the project. Hydraulic assessment showed improved overall reliability of the

17

canal systems and the average relative water supply at agricultural plot was higher compared

to pre-intervention condition. Another most positive aspect of the intervention work was that

the coverage of irrigated area was increased significantly from 64.29% to 90.55% resulting

irrigation system performance better. But in institutional improvement, limited success was

achieved. So, a modified Participatory Water Management framework was proposed for

Narayanganj-Narsingdi Irrigation Project with a hope of remarkable success for the

beneficiaries in future from this project.

Rahman (2005) performed a study to evaluate the impact of command area development in

Meghna-Dhonagoda irrigation project taking into consideration of the hydraulic, agricultural,

socio-economic, environmental and institutional aspects. The results of the evaluation study

revealed that Relative Water Supply (RWS) to the field and water level in irrigation canals in

post Command Area Development situation was higher than the pre-Command Area

Development situation and the actual water levels were very close to Full Supply Level

(FSL). This means that overall reliability of the canal system has been improved after

Command Area Development Programme in Meghna-Dhonagoda Irrigation Project (MDIP).

RWS values with an average of 0.93 were achieved during post-Command area Development

programme for Boro rice. Actual irrigated area has been increased by three times compared

to the benchmark year, 1996-97 and irrigated area coverage increased by about

60%.Cropping intensity increased from 200% to 250%.Yield for HYV Boro increased from 4

ton/ha to 4.75 ton/ha. Production of HYV Boro rice was increased by about 3 times compared

to benchmark year. Irrigation fee collection was quite insignificant and only from fee

collection, it is not possible to make the project O & M financially self sustaining. There was

no remarkable environment change for water quality and natural vegetation after Command

Area Development Programme in the MDIP. However, fish production was increased by two

times as compared to the benchmark year. From the institutional aspects, the result of the

evaluation study revealed that though all selected Water Management Groups (WMG) were

registered, their activities in all cases were not satisfactory. The study recommended for

increasing efforts to further improve the interaction between the WMG and BWDB and

collection irrigation fee to make O&M of the project sustainable.

Under BUET-DUT Linkage project phase-111(2006), a coordinated research has been carried

out during 2001-06 in the Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET on

Participatory Water Management (PWM) in Bangladesh. The PMW approach has been

18

applied at Narayangonj-Narsingdi Irrigation Project (NNIP) of Bangladesh, to observe its

performance in terms of technical, agricultural financial and economical, and socio-

institutional aspects. Under the same research project an attempt has been made to evaluate 4

small-scale project of LGED and 3 large-scale project of BWDB externally through a set of

questionnaire survey, extensive field visit and group discussion. Two-tier water management

organization (WMO) comprising 40 water Management Groups (WMGs) at the lowest

tertiary canal level and one Water management Association has been institutionalized in the

NNIP since 2003-04 in order assume the everyday water management of the project from the

BWDB. The objectives for the establishment of PWM approach were to ensure beneficiaries’

participation, self-control of the management, and O&M cost reduction and its effectives use.

As such three seasons data (pre-PWM: 2002-03, post-PWM: 2003-04 and 2004-05) have

been collected in order to evaluate the performance and suggest further modification that

might be necessary for PWM practice. Under this research, a group of technical and

extension staff of BWDB have been engaged, to work with the local beneficiaries in the field

related to irrigation and O&M activities, at the same time help in setting the local institution.

Monitoring the impacts of the PWM approach at NNIP, offered a lesson learning event.

Based on the pilot-scale experience at NNIP and other external/field evaluation of LGED and

BWDB water resources projects, a range of modification of the Guidelines for Participatory

Water Management (GPWM) has been proposed for application under PWM in the water

resources projects of Bangladesh.

19

CHAPTER 3

PROJECT SUMMERY

3.1 Innovative Use of Surface Water Project (IUSWP)

3.1.1 General

The country has to produce about 32 million metric ton of food grains to feed its projected

population of 150 million by the year 2010. The increase in production has to come mostly

from irrigated rice, which is dependent on rapid expansion of irrigation. During this period,

irrigation coverage has to be raised from existing 4.5 million hectares to 5.5 million hectares

and surface water irrigation has to be increased from about 1.25 million hectares to about 1.5

million hectares. Since easily available surface water within the context of present Low Lift

Pump (LLP) technology is almost exhausted with the fielding of over 70,000 LLPs and due to

silting up of small rivers, canals and beels etc, the future growth of surface water irrigation

will depend on the use of water of the regional and main rivers. This would require use of

higher capacity pumps from small rivers and canals to delivered directly in crop field or for

diversion of the water from small rivers to small canals and distributaries and finally

delivered to crop field by gravity system.

3.1.2 Background of the IUSWP

Bangladesh is one of the most over populated country in the world. The backbone of the

economy of the country is agriculture. The per capita income of the people of this country is

very low. More than 75% peoples live in villages and they are directly or indirectly

dependent upon agriculture. For this, the Government has initiated to take up a number of

development project for poverty alleviation through increasing food production and to

improve the socio-economic condition of rural people.

Once, irrigation of the country was dependent mostly on surface water. Source of surface

water is decreasing at an alarming rate. As a result, pressure is increasing on ground water.

20

Excessive withdrawal of ground water has much harmful effect like spread out of

arseconosis, creation of ecological and environmental imbalance etc. So, it is very essential to

develop and utilize surface water efficiently and to extract groundwater as less as possible,

especially from shallow layer of within 50 meters. At present, only 25% of the total irrigated

area in the country is dependent on surface water. For this reason, this study is proposed for

efficient use of surface water for irrigation.

This project has been proposed for the hilly region of the southeastern and northeastern

region of Bangladesh. The project area consists of 42 upazillas of 4 districts Chittagonj,

Cox’s Bazar, Sylhet and Sunamgonj. The total area of these 4 districts is 14054.50 Sq. km.

and population is 1,35,51,134 nos. (Population Census-2001). Total agricultural land of the

project area is 7.50 lack hacters out of which only 2.01 lac hacters of land is under irrigation.

The special potentials of the project area exist of : (i) natural water bodies for storing food

and rain water, (ii) natural tidal khal-nalas where water enter during flow tide and retard

during ebb tide (iii) connecting khal-nalas which carry flowing water from chharas.

Importance has been given to poverty alleviation through human resource development.

Training has been imparted to the owners/ managers/ operators/ field men of irrigation/

agricultural equipment’s on operation, repair and maintenance. The training also imparted to

the farmers on efficient use of irrigation water by applying on farm water management

technology. This helped to increase irrigated area and thereby agricultural production.

With a view to implement the project, the DPP of the project was prepared and submitted to

the Planning Commission. After maintaining all formalities the DPP was approved on 16

February 2006.

3.1.3 Objectives of the IUSWP

a) To grow more food by developing irrigation infrastructure and increasing availability

of surface water by applying modern and local appropriate technology.

21

b) To create self-employment opportunity and alleviate poverty for the Owners/

Managers/ Operators/ fieldsmen of irrigation and Agricultural equipments and

farmers by upgrading their skill through training.

3.1.4 Location

According to approved Project Performa (PP), the project covers 40 upazillas of Chittagonj,

Cox’s Bazar, Sylhet and Sunamgonj districts subject to the condition of availability of surface

water.

3.1.5 Topography and General Feature of the Project Area

The project area is irregularly shaped with varying land elevation. Naturally depressed areas

(haor) are also included in the project area. The general elevation of the agricultural lands

varies from 5.50m to 2.0m with respect to mean sea level. WARPO has divided the country

into eight hydrological regions based on natural features, which are: North West (NW), North

Central (NC), North East (NE), North West (SW). South Central (SC), South East (SE),

Eastern Hills (EH) and River and Estuary (RE). The Project activities are mainly

concentrated in the North Eastern and Eastern Hill region.

3.1.5.1 North Eastern Region

It covers Sylhet, Kishoreganj, Netrokona, Sunamganj, Hobiganj and Moulovi Bazar districts

but the project area covers Sylhet and Sunamganj districts. It has relatively little exploitable

shallow ground water due to aquifer problems but has abundant dry season surface water

resources. Most irrigation is therefore by LLPs rather than STWs. The Principle Rivers of the

project area are Surma, Kushiara and their distributaries like Jadukata Nadi, Chalti Nadi,

Rakti Nadi etc. The region’s dominant feature is 5600 sq. km. haor basin containing 47 major

haors and 6300 beels of which 55% are perennial. There is a threat of flash flooding from the

Indian hills in April-May. Arsenic problem is found in most of the region. Highest numbers

of project pumps (about 40%) are operated in this region.

22

3.1.5.2 The Eastern Hill Region

In addition to the above regions, project pumps are operated in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar

coastal plain which is protected by an exisiting coastal embankment system. There are some

arsenic problems in the northern part of this region. The scope for surface water irrigation is

limited by the low dry season flows out of Chittagong Hill Tracts. About 5% of the project

pumps are operated in the coastal plains of Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar districts.

3.1.5.3 Climate and Hydrology

During the summer, in the northeast regions Sylhet and Sunamganj districts, hot spell extends

from April to May and the mean monthly temperature ranges from 25ºC to 38ºC, whereas

January is the coldest month and the temperature ranges from 8ºC to 15ºC. Sylhet and

Sunamganj district lie in the highest rainfall area of Bangladesh and annual rainfall ranges

from 2500 mm to 5500 mm. The annual rainfall of Chittagang and Cox’s Bazar districts

ranges from 2000 mm to 3000 mm. Maximum rainfall occurs in April to October. Average

wind velocity varies from 3-4 km/hr except coastal region.

3.1.5.4 Agriculture

Agriculture practices in the project area are more or less same as the rest of country. Rice is

the most dominate crop (about 86%), followed by wheat (about 7%) and other crops (about

7%). The main cropping seasons are Kharif-1 (March to July), Kharif-11 (July to December)

and Rabi (November to April) although there is some overlapping between November to

February and harvested between April and May, is the most widely grown crop, absence of

flooding, low humidity and wide variation between day and night temperatures.

3.1.5.5 Irrigation Practices

The project area is potentially rice in both surface and ground water. Low lift Pumps (LLPs)

are used for utilization of surface water from minor rivers, canals, haors and beels from early

sixties. Deep tube wells (DTWs) and shallow tube wells (STWs) are used for ground water

23

abstraction from early seventies. In addition to these, manually operated pumps (MOP) and

traditional devices are also used irrigation purposes at a lower scale.

3.1.5.6 Cropping Intensity

The existing cropping intensity in the project area ranges from 146% to 190%, the average

being 175%. The another objective of the project is to increase rice production through

introduction of HYV rice replacing the local varieties, by providing improved water

management and better crop management practices. With the introduction of the project

activities, the rice cropping has already been intensified and the overall cropping intensity

will also be improved.

3.1.6 Operation and Maintenance

BADC is responsible for procurement and installation of 5 cusec pumping sets whiles the

responsibilities of operation and security lies with the farmers groups. BADC is responsible

for complete routine repair of the pumps to keep those fully ready for operation before

commencement of the irrigation season. For this, BADC bears the requisite expenses along

with spare parts. The Working Irrigation Committee (WIC) bears the expenses of electric bill

and all other maintenance for operation of pumps during the irrigation season in the field.

3.1.7 Annual Service/Irrigation Charge

Annual pump rent of each pumping set is Tk. 15,000.00. Annual irrigation charges are

realized from scheme managers in favor of the Irrigation Committee before fielding of the

pumping sets.

3.1.8 Institutional Interventions

Irrigation Committee is formed in each scheme for smooth operation of the schemes under

the project and fixing up as well as realization of service/irrigation charges. BADC

coordinates the activities of the committee.

24

3.1.9 Excavation or Re-excavation of Khals (Normal and Tidal)/ Nalas/

Hilly Chharas

BADC provides for the development of excavation or re-excavation of Khals (Normal and

Tidal)/ Nalas/ Hilly Chharas facilities to increase the water conservation and distribution

capacity of the exiting canals. Apart from this, BADC extends technical assistance to the

farmers/users to develop the water delivery system, canal improvement and design of

distribution system for the project.

3.1.10 Irrigation Structure

BADC provides for the development of infrastructure facilities and civil works including

construction of cross dams, discharge boxes, lined irrigation canals and auxiliary works to

increase the water conservation and distribution capacity of the exiting canals. Apart from

this, BADC extends technical assistance to the farmers/users to develop the water delivery

system, canal improvement and design of distribution system for the project.

3.1.11 Training of Beneficiaries

BADC imparts training to President, Secretary, Treasurer and other members of the

committees on smooth operation of schemes for 5 working days, drivers and field men on

proper maintenance and operation of 5 cusec pumps for 5 working days also, farmers of

whole schemes on increase of irrigation efficiency and all agricultural technologies for 3

working days.

3.1.12 Irrigation Method

After proper installation of 5 cusec pumps the farmer group or committee constituted to

manage the scheme makes arrangement to operate the pump as per irrigation schedule. The

pump delivers water into a discharge box, which is provided with some sort of energy

dissipation arrangement. From the discharge box, water is delivered to the field by gravity

through field channels. Gravity distribution system is ideal in the schemes where the ground

elevation naturally slopes away from the bank of the river to the field. A careful design of the

25

distribution system enables irrigation of the large area efficiently. For this, contour survey of

the command area, preparation of command area maps and location of primary, secondary

and tertiary distribution field channels are essential. Water is carried to the project area by

existing canal network with required improvement of canals through excavation, bank rising,

head works, etc. For large schemes covering several hundred acres, the command area is

divided into blocks of manageable size, which is served, by feeder canals and internal

channels. For each block one day is earmarked for application of irrigation water in a week

by following rotation system. Irrigation is started from the furthest block. The whole on-farm

water management system is planned using low cost water control structures and compacted

ear then channels and other auxiliary works.

3.2 Participatory Water Management Practice

Participatory Water Management approach has been introduced in the LLP schemes of

BADC but in slightly different form than that of GPWM (2000), BWDB and LGED projects.

In this project, water management irrigation committee (WMIC) is formed. The Upazilla

Irrigation Committee (UIC) is formed by the Upazilla level officers of DAE, BRDB, LGED,

PDB, REB, BWDB and representatives from financial institution as members. The Senior

Sub-Assistant Engineer of BADC is the member secretary, UNO is the Vice President and

Upazilla Chairman is the President of this committee. This committee approves irrigation

schemes, maintains a list of the approved schemes and helps in conflict resolution if such

cases arise. The Working Irrigation Committee (WIC) is formed with a view to smooth

operation, repair and maintenance of 5 cusec pumps to be used. Each comprises of a

President, a Secretary, a Treasurer and 12 members. The President, Secretary, Treasurer and

members of the committee are elected by direct votes of the beneficiary farmers. The

committee maintains proper account of money to be collected for operation of pumps and

keeps the members aware of it. BADC supervises the activities of the committee.

Keeping the national priority in the perspective and consistent with its new role and old

experience, BADC has been implementing the project, “Innovative Use of Surface Water

Project (IUSWP) (1st Phase)” which was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and the

Planning Commission and was due to start functioning from July 2005 to June 2008. The

main objective of the project is to facilitate additional agricultural production of 11.78

26

thousand tons of food grains annually through providing irrigation facilities to 4.71 thousand

acres of land. The irrigation system is used in many of the schemes under this project. 25 nos.

of 5 cusec LLPs are used for this purpose. So, this project in an important example of sharing

irrigation costs by public and private sectors. There are institutional bodies such as Working

Irrigation Committee (WIC) for smooth operation of the schemes as well as realization of

irrigation charges, creating self-employment opportunity and alleviate poverty for the

Owners/Managers/Operators/Fieldsmen of Irrigation and Agricultural equipments and

farmers by upgrading their skill through training. Based on its achievement, the second phase

of the innovative use of surface water project (IUSWP-II) has been undertaken for

implementation in the period from July 2009 to June 2014.

Experiences during the last decades show that many public irrigation projects in Bangladesh

have failed to achieve their desired goals. Similarly, an irrigation project, which appears to be

viable at starting or during development, may become non-functional in absence of many

acceptable level of performance in the following years. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a

study on the double lifting irrigation schemes of BADC to investigate their performance and

management approach.

27

CHARTER 4

METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

4.1 Introduction

For performance evaluation of irrigation schemes, different indicators are used by different

researchers. The project performance indicators can be classified into following five main

groups (Mukherjee, 2004) i.e. technical indicators, agricultural indicators, socio-economic

indicators, institutional indicators and environmental indicators. Technical performance is

investigated by the technical indicators. Agricultural aspects are evaluated by the agricultural

indicators. Socio-economic indicators relate to economic viability, socio viability and

sustainability of the physical environment for irrigation. Institutional indicators measure the

institutional capacity i.e. social capacity of the people and organizations for managing and

sustaining certain system. Environmental indicators are used to measure the environmental

degradations and ecological imbalances. For this study, performance evaluation is carried out

using selected indicators which are described in section 4.2.

It should be mentioned here that there is no agreed universal set of indicators for performance

evaluation of irrigation project. The availability of data and different physical, social and

economic environment influence the selection of indicators (Alam, 2006). However, there are

some indicators, which have been used frequently in different studies. The indicators for the

current study were chosen from various references, which are mentioned during defining

them in section 4.2. The schemes under BADC Innovative Use of Surface Water Project are

not fully developed like FCDI projects or sub-projects implemented by the BWDB and

LGED. So a blend of project implementation and impact indicators could be used. The

selection would essentially examine input, output and impact of the project. The indicators

can be expressed with or without normalization with a target value (Alam, 2006).

28

4.2 Performance Evaluation and Indicators

With a view evaluation the performances of the selected irrigation schemes under this study,

following indicators were used:

i. Irrigated Area Indicator

ii. Crop Production Indicator

iii. Farmer’s Benefit Cost Ratio

iv. Irrigation Charge Indicator

v. Beneficiary Indicator

vi. Irrigation Profitability

4.2.1 Irrigated Area Indicator

The extent area brought under irrigation in a certain scheme is important. Generally every

project has a yearly target to be irrigated. The irrigated area indicator compares area brought

under irrigation with that of the target area set in the project. Innovative Use of Surface Water

Project set a target for irrigated area. Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25 scheme

managers for this study under the 15 selected schemes. This indicator is used for the

assessment of agricultural performance (Zhi, 1989; World Bank 2000; IPTRID-FAO-World

Bank, 2000; Rahman, 2005). Before the implementation of the schemes, all cultivable land

was fallow land of the lack of irrigation during Rabi Season in the study. So, the target and

achieved area was the new potential area of the selected schemes.

Actual area brought under irrigation Irrigated area indicator = (4.1) Target area to be brought under irrigation

4.2.2 Crop Production Indicator

The major goal of an irrigation project is increased amount of crop production. After

implementation of an irrigation scheme it is hoped that yield would be higher than without

project condition. The amount produced in excess of the without project condition is an

29

important factor. The crop production indicator compares actual crop production to that of the

target of crop production. Innovative Use of Surface Water Project set a target for crop

production. Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25 scheme managers for this study

under the 15 selected schemes. The crop production is the excess amount of crop produced

compared to a stipulated non-scheme situation. Before the implementation of the schemes, all

cultivable land was fallow land of the lack of irrigation during Rabi Season. So, the target

and achieved yield was the additional yield of the selected schemes.

Crop produced Crop Production Indicator = (4.2)

Target of crop production

The crop production performance indicator (total crop produced per unit area) has been

referred and used on various instances (e. g., World Bank, 2000; Das, 2001; Mukherjee,

2004; Rahman, 2005) which are also used in this study.

4.2.3 Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

The output price indicator or output indicator is the price of output per unit cropped area

(Molden et al., 1998; World bank, 2000). Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25

scheme managers for this study under the 15 selected schemes. The value of the output or

production can be calculated in terms of local or world prices. The formed is followed in this

study. Total cost of production is an important factor to the farmers and also to the project to

find out net benefit. The farmers benefit cost ratio is calculated here based on the following

equation.

Gross return from produced crop Farmer’s Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = (4.3) Total cost of production

30

4.2.4 Irrigation Charge Indicator

The Irrigation Charge Indicator also called irrigation fee indicator compares realization of

irrigation charges to the irrigation charge assessed (Svendsen, 1992; World bank 2000; Das,

2001; Rahman, 2005). Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25 scheme managers for this

study under the 15 selected schemes.

Irrigation charge realized Irrigation Charge Indicator = (4.4) Irrigation charge assessed

During data collection in this study, it was found that the irrigation charges fixed by the

irrigation committees were fully realized from the farmers in the selected schemes of the

IUSWP project.

4.2.5 Beneficiary Indicator

In a developing country, any investment on irrigation target for large number of beneficiaries

for overall socio-economic uplift of the project area. The beneficiary indicator compares

actual number of farmer’s family benefited to that of the target number of farmer’s family to

be benefited. Innovative Use of Surface Water Project set a target for farmer’s family to be

benefited. Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25 scheme managers for this study under

the 15 selected schemes. This indicator evaluates the socio-economic aspect of performance.

Actual nos. of farmer’s family benefited Beneficiary = (4.5) Target nos. of farmer’s family to be benefited

This indicator has been used by Rahman (1997) without normalization with the target value.

31

4.2.6 Irrigation Profitability

The irrigation profitability indicator compares collected irrigation charge from the farmers by

the scheme managers to that of the actual cost of scheme managers. Actual cost = Irrigation

charge from the scheme manager to BADC + Salary of Pump Driver and Line Man + Cost of

construction of main and secondary channels + Electricity Bill + Cost of Oil-fuel, necessary

spare-parts and maintenance and Others. Data were collected from 75 farmers and 25 scheme

managers for this study under the 15 selected schemes. This indicator evaluates the irrigation

profitability performance.

Collected irrigation charge from the farmers by the scheme managers Irrigation profitability = (4.6) Actual cost of scheme managers

4.3 Scheme Selection

The Innovative Use of Surface Water Irrigation Project (IUSWP) activities are distributed

over 4 districts under 6 zones of BADC. For this study, the field survey was conducted in 15

nos. of 5 cusec LLP schemes which are randomly selected from Chittagonj, Cox’s Bazar,

Sylhet and Sunamgonj districts. The schemes are mainly under operation in these four

districts. The selected schemes are: Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS), Monipurihati

Irrigation Scheme (MHIS), Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS), Kazihata Irrigation Scheme

(KIS), Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS), Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS), Muktapur

Irrigation Scheme (MIS), Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS), Mollargao Irrigation

Scheme (MGIS), Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS), Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1),

Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2), Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS), Pohorchada

Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1), Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2), Kalirchhara Irrigation

Scheme (KCIS). Among these, all schemes are fully single lifting. Therefore, the schemes

represented well the Innovative Use of Surface Water Project (IUSWP-I) condition with

respect to number, location and system of water pumping. The single-lifting or no secondary

lifting schemes provided a baseline condition to evaluated relative performance of the

schemes under this project. The details of the schemes are given in Table 4.1.

32

Table: 4.1 Important feature of the selected 5 cusec LLP schemes.

Location of the Schemes Sl.

No.

Name of the Schemes

Mouza Union Upazilla District

Source of Water Mode of

Distribution

1. Horinapati Irrigation

Scheme (HIS)

Horina-

pati

Rongar-

char

Sunamgonj

Sadar

Sunamgonj Surna River Single Lifting

2. Monipurihati Irrigation

Scheme (MHIS)

Akkhai-

nagar

Suloka-

bad

Bishawam-

bharpur

Sunamgonj Chalti River Single Lifting

3. Jibonpur Irrigation

Scheme (JIS)

Jibon-

pur

Dohalia Doarabazar Sunamgonj Surna River Single Lifting

4. Kazihata Irrigation

Scheme (KIS)

Kazi-

hata

Chhatak Chhatak Sunamgonj Kakura River Single Lifting

5. Chandpur Irrigation

Scheme (CIS)

Chand-

pur

Jamal-

gonj

Jamalgonj Sunamgonj Surma River Single Lifting

6. Baurbag Irrigation

Scheme (BIS)

Baur-

bag

Jainta-

pur

Jaintapur Sylhet Naya Gang Single Lifting

7. Muktapur Irrigation

Scheme (MIS)

Mukta-

pur

Jainta-

pur

Jaintapur Sylhet Naya Gang Single Lifting

8. Kendrihaor Irrigation

Scheme (KHIS)

Kendri Jainta-

pur

Jaintapur Sylhet Kendri Haor Single Lifting

9. Mollargao Irrigation

Scheme (MGIS)

Tilok

Chanpur

Moghal-

gao

Sylhet

Sadar

Sylhet Surna River Single Lifting

10. Lavlo Irrigation

Scheme-1 (LIS-1)

Adam-

nagar

Hinguli Miresharai Chittagonj Feni River Single Lifting

11. Lavlo Irrigation

Scheme-2 (LIS-2)

Purba

Hinguli

Hinguli Miresharai Chittagonj Hinguli River Single Lifting

12. Hizrabill Irrigation

Scheme (HBIS)

Manik-

pur

Kanchan-

nagar

Fatikchhari Chittagonj Raktichari

Chara

Single Lifting

13. Pohorchada Irrigation

Scheme-1 (PIS-1)

Boroi-

tali

Boroi-

tali

Chokoria Cox’s

Bazar

Sonai Chari

Khal

Single Lifting

14. Pohorchada Irrigation

Scheme-2 (PIS-2)

Boroi-

tali

Boroi-

tali

Chokoria Cox’s

Bazar

Sonai Chari

Khal

Single Lifting

15. Kalirchhara Irrigation

Scheme (KCIS)

Eidgah Eidgah Cox’s Bazar

Sadar

Cox’s

Bazar

Bak khali River Single Lifting

33

4.4 Preparation of Questionnaire

A questionnaire is prepared according to the objectives of the study. This is shown in

Appendix-A. The following information is collected through interviewing the farmers and

scheme managers involved in agriculture. The questionnaire included the following

information of the years of Robi (Boro) season of 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.

(i) Name and Address of the farmers and scheme managers.

(ii) Target and actual area brought under irrigation.

(iii) Target and actual additional crop produced.

(iv) Gross Return from produced crop.

(v) Irrigation charge realized and assessed.

(vi) Target and actual nos. of farmers family to be benefited.

(vii) Cost of Seedling, Bed Preparation, Transplanting, Fertilizer, Pesticides, weeding,

Irrigation Charges, Crop Cutting costs & others of farmers.

(viii) Total operating hours, amount and price of oil and fuel for pump, cost of repair and

maintenance, Cost of Electricity bill, Repair & Maintenance, salary of pump operator

and field man, making earthen channel with related works, transportation & others of

scheme managers.

4.5 Data Collection and Analysis

Generally data were collected by the primary and secondary sources. But in our study, all

data were collected by the primary sources except target values. Data were collected by the

personal contact individually from the farmers and the scheme managers for this study. The

respondents were asked questions and the answers supplied by them were recorded directly in

the data sheets. Before taking interview the whole academic purpose of the study was clearly

explained to the respondents. Data relating to the selected schemes and 5 cusec pumping sets

under Innovative Use of Surface Project were collected for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and

2009-10 from the field offices and by planned field visits. Questionnaire surveys were carried

out to know mainly the farmers’ view from 75 farmers and 25 scheme managers for this

study under the 15 selected schemes on the fifteen selected schemes for this study.

34

To overcome errors in the field survey, all possible measures were taken. After completion of

each interview, each data sheet was checked and verified to make sure that the answer to each

item had been properly recorded. If there were any items which were overlooked or

contradictory, the respondents were again interviewed for relevant corrections. Adequate

measures were taken to make the information reliable and accurate. A part of the collected

data for the 15 selected 5 cusec LLP schemes under the IUSWP are listed in appendix B.

4.6 Problems Faced during Data Collection The researcher had to face certain difficulties in collecting data from the field. Since the

respondents had no previous idea about such a study, they were apprehensive about the

purpose of the study. However, with the help of the labour supervisor on whom the

respondents had confidence, the researcher could convince the respondents that the purpose

of the survey was purely academic and the answers would be kept secret, then they agreed to

cooperate.

35

Figure 4.1: Flowing of Pumping Water on the constructed Irrigation Channel of the

Joykalash-Ozanigao-Fatepur Irrigation Scheme of South Sunamgonj Upazilla under

Sunamgonj District.

Figure 4.2: Interview of Pump Driver of the Tukergao Irrigation Scheme of

Sadar Upazilla under Sylhet District.

36

CHARTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 5.1 General The results and Discussions are presented in this chapter from the analysis of collected data

of the fifteen selected schemes. First, the performances of schemes are evaluated for the

Innovative Use of Surface water Project (IUSWP) period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 in Rabi

(Boro) Season. Among the fifteen selected schemes, information for all scheme are available

for shorter duration. Performance evaluation of the schemes have been carried out on the

basis irrigated area, crop production, farmer’s benefit cost ratio, irrigation charge, beneficiary

and irrigation profitability involved in the schemes.

5.2 Performance of the selected LLPs schemes

5.2.1 Irrigated Area

Year-wise irrigated area for fifteen 5 cusec schemes are shown in the table 5.2. It indicates a

gradual rise of it for each scheme in three consecutive years. Significant rise of irrigated area

occurred for the all schemes in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.

The schemes attained the highest irrigated area in the year 2009-10. The average area of the

schemes during three consecutive years is 48.33 ha. In the year 2007-08, irrigated area is less

than 48.33 ha except Lavo-2 and Poharchada-1. In the year 2008-09, irrigated area is greater

than 48.33 ha except Kazihata. In the year 2009-10, irrigated area is greater than 48.33 ha.

37

Table 5.1: Irrigated Area of the selected schemes of different year.

Irrigated Area (ha.) Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target for

Irrigated

area (ha.)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Average Irrigated

Area for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 75 45 60 65

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 50 30 45 45

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 70 45 60 65

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 75 50 55 60

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 30 50 50

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 60 40 50 50

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 50 35 40 45

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 75 50 60 60

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 60 45 50 55

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 60 40 50 50

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 55 50 45 45

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 60 40 50 55

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 60 50 55 55

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 55 40 45 45

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 50 35 45 45

48.33

Year-wise irrigated area indicator for each scheme has been calculated (Equation 4.1) and the

results are shown in the figure 5.2 shows a gradual rise of indicator for each scheme.

Significant rise of irrigated area indicator value occurred for the all schemes in the year 2008-

09 and 2009-10. Experience from previous years, training of additional personnel and

improved WMG activities helped them to achieve the better performance.

The schemes attained the highest irrigated area indicator value in the year 2009-10. The

average value of the schemes is 0.80. In the year 2007-08, irrigated area indicator value is

less than 0.80 except Lavo-2 and Poharchada-1. In the year 2008-09, irrigated area indicator

value is greater than 0.80 except Kazihata. In the year 2009-10, irrigated area indicator value

is greater than 0.80. During the study period, the indicator value of less than 1.0 except

Chandpur.

Better performance of the Chandpur irrigation scheme was observed during the previous

period attaining the highest value of indicator in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Bad

performance of the Lavlo-2 irrigation scheme was observed in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10,

38

it decreased compared to that of the year 2007-08. However, the indicator value was always

above 0.80.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sl. No. of the Name of the 5 Cusec LLP schemes .

Irri

ga

ted

Are

a I

nd

ica

tor

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Average

Average of 3 years

Figure 5.1 : Irrigated Area Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year.

The Figure shows the lowest value (<0.80) of irrigated area indicator in the years 2007-08

except Lavo-2 and Poharchada-1, the highest value (>0.80) of indicator in the year 2008-09

except Kazihata and the highest value (>0.80) of indicator in the year 2009-10. It is observed

that irrigated area value is the lowest at the starting year of a new project. This may be due to

the delay in starting or mobilizing new project activities.

5.2.2 Crop Production

In our study, the irrigated areas of the selected schemes were fallow land before the

implementation of the project. So, the crop production was the total yield in our study. The

crop production per hectare of the selected schemes increased gradually during the study

39

years. The yield or crop production per scheme for fifteen 5 cusec schemes is shown in the

table 5.2. It indicates a gradual rise of it for each scheme in three consecutive years.

Significant rise of production occurred for the all schemes in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.

When considering average of all the selected schemes, yield per scheme was 198.38 mt.

Three years average values of Harinapati, Jibonpur, Kazihata, Kendrihaor, Mollargao,

Hizrabill and Pohorchada-1 schemes were higher than that value (i.e. 198.38 mt).

Table 5.2: Crop Production of the selected schemes of different year.

Crop Production (mt) Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target for crop produced

(mt) 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Average CP (mt)

for 3 years 01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 375 168.75 240 292.5

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 250 112.5 180 202.5

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 350 168.75 240 292.5

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 375 187.5 220 270

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 250 112.5 200 225

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 300 150 200 225

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 250 131.25 160 202.5

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 375 187.5 240 270

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 300 168.75 200 247.5

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 300 150 200 225

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 275 187.5 180 202.5

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 300 150 200 247.5

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 300 187.5 220 247.5

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 275 150 180 202.5

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 250 131.25 168.75 202.5

198.38

The schemes attained the highest production in the year 2009-10. In the year 2007-08, crop

production per scheme is less than that value except Lavo-2 and Poharchada-1. In the year

2008-09, crop production per scheme is greater than that value except Kazihata. In the year

2009-10, crop production per scheme is greater than that value.

Year-wise crop production indicator for each scheme has been calculated (Equation 4.2) and

the results are shown in the figure 5.2.

40

.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sl. No. of the Name of the 5 Cusec LLP schemes .

Cro

p P

rod

ucti

on

In

dic

ato

r

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Average

Average of 3 years

Figure 5.2 : Crop Production indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year.

Each scheme attained the highest crop production indicator value in the year 2009-10. The

average value of the all selected schemes was 0.66. In the year 2007-08, crop production

indicator values for each scheme were lower than that value (i.e. 0.66) except Lavo-2. In the

year 2008-09, crop production indicator values for each scheme were higher than or equal to

that value except Horinapati, Kazihata, Muktapur, Kendrihaor, Lavlo-2 and Pohorchada-2. In

the year 2009-10, crop production indicator values for each scheme were higher than that

value.

5.2.3 Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio

In our study, year-wise Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio per scheme has been calculated

(Equation 4.3) and the results are shown in the table 5.3 shows that the output price indicators

per scheme of the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 were less than that of the year 2009-10. On the

41

other hand, the output price indicators per scheme of the year 2007-08 were less than or equal

to that of the year 2008-09 except Horinapati, Monipurihati, Jibonpur and Kazihata irrigation

schemes.

Farmers cost of production includes the cost of irrigation and costs of other items e.g., land

preparation, transplanting, seeds, fertilizer, insecticides, harvesting etc. Cost of irrigation was

known from the available data set. For the other costs, information was collected during

questionnaire survey and an average value of BCR was obtained 1.30.

In the year 2007-08, the indicator values were equal to or lower than the average value of

selected schemes except Horinapati, Monipurihati, Jibonpur, Kazihata and Chandpur. In the

year 2008-09, the indicator values were also lower than the average value of selected

schemes except Horinapati, Monipurihati, Jibonpur, Kazihata and Chandpur. In the year

2009-10, the indicator values were higher than the average value of selected schemes except

Poharchada-1, Poharchada-2 and Kalirchara.

Table 5.3: Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the selected schemes.

Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Average BCR per Scheme

Average BCR for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 1.31 1.32 1.50 1.37

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 1.31 1.32 1.49 1.37

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 1.30 1.32 1.50 1.37

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 1.34 1.35 1.54 1.41

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 1.31 1.31 1.50 1.37

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 1.27 1.27 1.46 1.33

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 1.28 1.27 1.45 1.33

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 1.28 1.27 1.45 1.33

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 1.28 1.27 1.46 1.33

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 1.20 1.19 1.35 1.24

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 1.20 1.19 1.35 1.24

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 1.21 1.20 1.35 1.25

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 1.15 1.11 1.24 1.16

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 1.17 1.10 1.25 1.17

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 1.17 1.11 1.25 1.17

1.30

42

During the study period, farmers benefit cost ratio varied from 1.10 to 1.54 in the schemes.

BCR was 1.10 of the Poharchada irrigation scheme-2 in the year 2008-09 and 1.54 was

Kazihata irrigation schemes in the year 2009-10. If the BCR value was more than 1.0, then

the selected schemes would be sustainable.

5.2.4 Irrigation Charge Indicator

In the study, year-wise irrigation charge indicator for each scheme has been calculated

(Equation 4.4) and the results are shown in the figure 5.3. During the study period, irrigation

charge indicator varied from 2.33 to 5.50 in the schemes. The highest performance of the

irrigation charge indicator is 5.50 in the Baurbag Irrigation Scheme during the year 2007-08

and the lowest performance of the irrigation charge indicator is 2.33 in the Kazihata Irrigation

Scheme during the year 2009-10.

.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sl. No. of the Name of the 5 Cusec LLP schemes .

Irri

ga

tio

n C

ha

rge

(I

C)

Ind

ica

tor

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Average

Average of 3 years

Figure 5.3: Irrigation Charge (IC) Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year.

43

The average value of indicator of selected schemes was 3.73 during the study period. In the

year 2007-08, the indicator values were higher than the average value of selected schemes

except Monipurihati, Jibonpur, Muktapur, Kendrihaor, Mullargao, Lavlo-2 and Hizrabill. In

the year 2008-09, the indicator values were also lower than the average value of selected

schemes except Kazihata, Kendrihaor, Mollargao, Lavlo-1, Phorchada-1 and Poharchada-2.

In the year 2009-10, the indicator values were higher than the average value of selected

schemes except Monipurihati, Jibonpur, Kazihata, Muktapur and Hizrabill.

The average value of irrigation charge of the selected schemes was 3.73. However, the

working irrigation committee found out that sometimes the farmers held the cash taka in hand

without paying irrigation charge to bear other expenses. If the irrigation charge indicator was

greater than 2.0, then the selected schemes would be sustainable.

5.2.5 Beneficiary Indicator

Year wise beneficiary indicators for each scheme have been calculated (Equation 4.5) and are

shown in the figure 5.4. It may be mentioned here that target 3055 numbers of farmer’s

family were considered to be benefited as a target of all selected schemes during three

consecutive years. As a result of study, 1505, 1810 and 1875 nos. of farmer’s family were

benefited of all selected schemes during the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10

respectively. It was observed gradual increase of beneficiary farmer’s family.

The average value of beneficiary indicator for selected schemes was 0.56 during the study

period. In the year 2007-08, the indicator values were lower than the average value of

selected schemes except Lavlo-2 and Pohorchada-1. In the year 2008-09, the indicator values

were equal to or higher than the average value of selected schemes except Horinapati,

Kazihata, Muktapur and Kendrihaor. In the year 2009-10, the indicator values were equal to

or higher than the average value of selected schemes except Kazihata and Kendrihaor.

44

.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sl. No. of the Name of the 5 Cusec LLP schemes .

Be

ne

ficia

ry I

nd

ica

tor

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Average

Average of 3 years

Figure 5.4: Beneficiary Indicator for the 5 cusec LLP schemes of different year.

The poor marginal farmers have got the benefit directly from the schemes especially for

irrigation to increase crop production. So, these schemes have been contributed much to

poverty alleviation for the poor of the project area and their poverty has already been reduced

significantly.

5.2.6 Irrigation Profitability

Year wise irrigation profitability indicators for each scheme have been calculated (Equation

4.6) and are shown in the table 5.4.

The average value of irrigation profitability indicator for selected schemes was 3.36 during

the study period. In the year 2007-08, the indicator values were lower than the average value

45

of selected schemes except Horinapati, Jibonpur, Kazihata, Kendrihaor, Mollargao, Lavlo-2

and Pohorchada-1. In the year 2008-09, the indicator values were higher than the average

value of selected schemes except Monipurihati, Muktapur, Mollargao, Lavlo-1, Lavlo-2,

Pohorchada-2 and Kalirchhara. In the year 2009-10, the indicator values were lower than the

average value of selected schemes except Horinapati, Jibonpur, Kazihata, Kendrihaor,

Mollargao, Hizrabil and Pohorchada-1.

Table 5.4: Irrigation Profitability Indicator of the selected schemes of different year.

Irrigation Profitability (BI) Sl. No.

Name of the selected schemes 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Average IP per

Scheme

Average IP

for 3 years 01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 3.42 3.72 3.85 3.66

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 2.83 3.35 3.27 3.15

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 3.41 3.66 3.82 3.63

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 3.57 3.58 3.61 3.59

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 2.78 3.40 3.32 3.17

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 3.18 3.43 3.32 3.31

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 2.96 3.04 3.20 3.07

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 3.60 3.60 3.50 3.57

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 3.38 3.32 3.43 3.38

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 3.16 3.34 3.30 3.27

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 3.64 3.20 3.17 3.34

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 3.22 3.43 3.46 3.37

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 3.59 3.57 3.52 3.56

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 3.15 3.27 3.20 3.21

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 2.99 3.24 3.27 3.17

3.36

It is evident from the present study that the scheme manager is operating the system like a

business making profit in selling water to the farmers. The farmers are being deprived under

the current management because they are paying about 3 to 4 times higher irrigation charge

to the scheme managers. No scheme managers share the profit with the farmers. For all

scheme in fact, marginal and poor farmers have no representative in the management

committee or Working Irrigation Committee (WIC). BADC or Upazilla Irrigation Committee

has no control upon the management committee or Working Irrigation Committee (WIC)

regarding fixation of irrigation charge.

46

5.3 Results of the Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire survey included a set of questions (Appendix A) to find out mainly the

farmers view of the project. Some salient points are summarized in the table 5.5. It is obvious

from the survey result that the farmers are getting benefit from the electrified 5 cusec LLPs

schemes because of the utilization of surface water although they expressed concern about

the activities of working irrigation committees. Consequently, activities of WIC executive

including irrigation charge collection from the farmers and its expenditure are not very much

transparent. It appears that in most cases the revenue collected in excess of O&M cost is not

spent for the purpose of the scheme rather it is consumed by the WIC. For this reason, they

are found to impose higher irrigation charges to the farmers to maximize WIC’s own benefit.

This is obvious that larger farmers take the opportunity to maximize benefits. The opinion of

including representatives from the BADC in the working irrigation committees is also

expressed by many of the respondents. This indicates the necessity of establishing formal

water management organization in the schemes.

Table 5.5: Summary of significant factors from questionnaire survey.

Questions Option Response as percentage

Yes 0 Any water logging problem caused by the scheme? No 100 Yes 0 Did the scheme cause reduction of land fertility? No 100 Yes 0 Did the scheme cause the change of employment status? No 100 Yes 0 Did the scheme cause increase of pests and diseases? No 100 Yes 0 Did the scheme hamper fish culture? No 100 Yes 100 Did the irrigation committees from through election? No 0 Yes 46 No 48

Are you satisfied with the activities of the irrigation committees?

Abstention 6 Yes 80 No 20

Should BADC representative be included in the irrigation

committees? Abstention 0

47

Questions Option Response as percentage

Yes 35 No 65

Should female representative be included in the irrigation

committees? Abstention 0 Yes 20 No 70

Did you benefit for Demonstration Farm Installation?

Abstention 10 Yes 50 No 20

Is the profit money used for development of schemes?

Abstention 30 Yes 85 Is the per capita income increased for development of schemes? No 15 Yes 0 No 92

Is the profit money distributed among the farmers?

Abstention 8 Yes 75 No 10

Is the profit money consumed by the PIC?

Abstention 15 Yes 100 Are the electrified pumps useful for the schemes? No 0 Yes 100 Are the lined irrigation channels essential for the scheme? No 0 Yes 85 Do you get technical support from BADC? No 15 Yes 75 Are the conflicts resolved by irrigation committees? No 25 Yes 55 No 45

Are the conflicts resolved by irrigation committees with the help of

BADC? Abstention 0 Yes 15 Are the conflicts resolved by the Upazilla Irrigation Committee? No 85

Although environmental indicators were not included in the present study, the results from

the questionnaire survey indicates that due to implementation of the schemes no negative

impact has been observed relating to water logging, increase of pest, diseases and fish

culture.

5.4 Sustainability of 5 cusec LLP schemes of BADC

A sustainable irrigation system is one that will continue to generate agricultural projects at

reasonable costs into the future and ensure that environment is itself maintained so that it can

sustain the communities that depend upon it. Therefore two types of sustainability criteria

would be examined for an irrigation project : economic and financial sustainability (ADB,

48

2001; Cullen, 2004) Detailed economic analysis and environmental impact assessment were

not included under the scope of current study but evaluation of some selected indicator values

related to the schemes. Consequently, the sustainability of the IUSWP is discussed here based

on the relevant indicators only.

BADC is responsible for procurement and installation of 5 cusec pumping sets whiles the

responsibilities of operation and security lies with the farmers groups. BADC is responsible

for complete routine repair of the pumps to keep those fully ready for operation before

commencement of the irrigation season. For this, BADC bears the requisite expenses along

with spare parts. The Working Irrigation Committee (WIC) bears the expenses of electric bill

and all other maintenance for operation of pumps during the irrigation season in the field.

From the discussion in the previous sections, it is obvious that the IUSWP provides net

benefit to the farmers. This indicates, within the present arrangement, where primary pumps

are provided by BADC, the project is self-sustaining i.e., O&M cost are recovered by the

revenue earned from the farmers. Again, in the farmers points of view, farming is profitable

business (B/C>1.0 as in Figure 5.4) although the irrigation committees are charging higher

Committees finds their involvement in the project as profitable business.

However, the BADC Innovative Use of Surface Water Project is a highly subsidized project

of the Government of Bangladesh. The pumps were procured by the BADC and the yearly

maintenance works are also carried out by BADC. These expenses were not considered in the

financial indicators discussed in the previous section. The pump rent, if realized, covers only

yearly routine maintenance cost of BADC. The present data shows (Figure 5.4) the farmers

benefit cost ratio is higher than 1.0. This ratio could be increased if formal water users’

organization is formed and the profit of the irrigation committees is minimized. All these

indicate that Innovative Use of Surface Water Project has the potential to be financially

sustainable if only the technical support of BADC is provided it the water users’

organization.

49

CHAPTER 6

CONOLUTION AND RECOMMENATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

The performances of 15 selected schemes under Innovative Use of Surface Water Project

(IUSWP) are assessed based on six indicators. The following conclusions can be made from

the present study. From table 6.1,

Table 6.1: Performance of selected schemes during 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Sl. No. Performance Indicators Average value

1. Irrigated Area 0.80

2. Crop Production 0.66

3. Farmers’ Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.30

4. Irrigation Charge 3.73

5. Beneficiary Indicator 0.56

6. Irrigation Profitability Indicator 3.36

• The average irrigated area indicator is 0.80. The lowest value is observed (<0.80) of

irrigated area indicator in the years 2007-08 except Lavo-2 and Poharchada-1, the

highest value is observed (>0.80) of indicator in the year 2008-09 except Kazihata and

the highest value is observed (>0.80) of indicator in the year 2009-10. It is observed

that irrigated area value is the lowest at the starting year of a new project. This may be

due to the delay in starting or mobilizing new project activities.

• The average crop production indicator is 0.66. In the year 2007-08, crop production

indicator values for each scheme are lower than that value (i.e. 0.66) except Lavo-2.

In the year 2008-09, crop production indicator values for each scheme are higher than

or equal to that value except Horinapati, Kazihata, Muktapur, Kendrihaor, Lavlo-2

and Pohorchada-2. In the year 2009-10, crop production indicator values for each

scheme are higher than that value.

• The average farmers’ benefit cost ratio is 1.30. The farmers benefit cost ratio varied

from 1.10 to 1.54 in the schemes. BCR is 1.10 of the Poharchada irrigation scheme-2

50

in the year 2008-09 and 1.54 is Kazihata irrigation schemes in the year 2009-10. If the

BCR value is more than 1.0, then the selected schemes will be sustainable.

• The average value of irrigation charge of the selected schemes is 3.73. However, the

working irrigation committee found out that sometimes the farmers held the cash taka

in hand without paying irrigation charge to bear other expenses. If the irrigation

charge indicator is greater than 2.0, then the selected schemes would be sustainable.

• The average value of beneficiary indicator for selected schemes is 0.56.

• The average value of Irrigation Profitability indicator for selected schemes is 3.36.

It is evident from the present study that the scheme managers are operating of working

irrigation committee the system like a business making profit in selling water to the farmers.

But the farmers are being deprived under the current management because they are paying

about 3 to 4 times higher irrigation charge to the scheme manager of the working irrigation

committee. Scheme manager does not share the profit with the farmers. For all scheme in

fact, marginal and poor farmers have no representative in the working irrigation committee.

BADC or Upazilla Irrigation Committee has no control working irrigation committee

regarding fixation of irrigation charge. Therefore, following conclusions have been made

from the results of the present study.

(a) Evaluated the performance of selected 5-cusec LLPs schemes of BADC under the first

phase of the innovative use of surface water project (IUSWP) on the basis of irrigated

area, crop production, farmer’s benefit cost ratio, irrigation charge, beneficiary and

irrigation profitability indicators. Experience from operation of 5 cusec LLPs by BADC

found that 5 cusec LLP unit should be limited for single lifting; it is feasible to install 5

cusec LLPs for gravity irrigation. There is no secondary lifting;

(b) Present operation and maintenance policy of the selected 5-cusec LLPs schemes are

found successful. (c) Policy made an opportunity to build up the local leadership at the same time creating

local water lords. (d) Scheme managers found to be more benefited while marginal and poor farmers were

deprived under the management policy. (e) Field level water management in terms of timely water supply found to be improved. (f) Infrastructure development i.e. construction of discharge box and lined irrigation channels

found to be improved.

51

6.2 Recommendations

The present study has provided valuable information on the performance of selected 5 cusec

LLPs schemes of BADC including its various indicators i.e. irrigated area, crop production,

farmer’s benefit cost ratio, irrigation charge, beneficiary and irrigation profitability indicators

and operation and maintenance. In the context of the present study, following

recommendations are made:

i) A Pilot study can be undertaken to implement improved participatory water

management approach, e.g. following Guidelines of participatory Water Management

(GPWM, 2000) in selected schemes and to monitor the performances. This should

address multipurpose uses of water and multi stakeholder approach in water

management.

ii) A detailed study on technical and economical analysis could be carried out to examine

the possibility of implementing more LLPs schemes in other parts of the country with

new LLPs where beneficiaries would repay the cost of the pumps during the project

life.

iii) Management policy can be changed or improved to save the marginal and poor

farmers from the water lords.

52

REFERENCES:

Alam, A.K.M.B., 2000. Water Balance Study and Performance Evaluation of a Lift Irrigation

System, M. Engineering Project Report, Department of Water Resources Engineering,

BUET.

Alam, M.S., 2006. A study on the performance of selected double lifting irrigation schemes

of BADC, M. Engineering Project Report, Department of Water Resources Engineering,

BUET.

BABC, 2011. Minor Irrigation Survey Report 2010-11, MOA, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

BADC, 2008. Project Completion Report (PCR) of Innovative Use of Surface Water Project,

MOA, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Bhuiyan, M.A., Mukharjee, N., and Mostert, E., (2006). Assessing Performance of

Participatory Water Management in Bangladesh Through Field Survey and Pilot Experiment

to Propose a Rational Management Practice. BUET-DUT Linkage Project Phase III Report.

BUET, BIDS, and WL │ delft hydraulics, 2003. Final Report, External Evaluation of Small-

Scale Water Resources Development Sector Project-I, LGED.

BUET-DUT Linkage Project Phase III, 2006. Research Project 4: Developed and

Decentralized Water Management of Irrigation, Drainage and Flood Control Systems, Final

Technical Report.

Das, R.K., 1992. Evaluation of the Impact of Improved Water Management Practices on the

Performance of Deep Tubewell Irrigation System, M. Engineering Project Report,

Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET.

Das, S.C., 2001. Performance Evaluation of Irrigation Water Delivery System of Ganges-

Kobadak (G-K) Project, M. Sc. Engineering Thesis, Department of Water Resources

Engineering, BUET.

53

Faruquee, R., and Choudhury, U.A., 1996. Improving Water Resources Management in

Bangladesh, World Bank Report.

IPTRID-FAO-World Bank, 2000. Working Group on Performance Indicators and

Benchmarking; Benchmarking for Irrigation Systems: Concept Note on Experiences and

Possibilities. M. Sc. Engineering Thesis, Department of Water Resources Engineering,

BUET.

Khan, H.R., and Romm, J., 1978. Some Issues in Water Resources Management in

Bangladesh, The Ford foundation Report.

Mandal, M.S., 2000. Performance Evaluation of Some Selected Deep and Shallow Tubewells

in Irrigation Development, M. Sc. Engineering Thesis, Department of Water Resources

Engineering, BUET.

MPO, 1991. National Water Plan Project Phase-II, Ministry of Water Resources, Dhaka,

Bangladesh.

Mirja, M.M.Q., 1991. A Case Study of Chandpur Irrigation Project, M. Sc. Engineering

Thesis, Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET.

Molden, D., Sakthivadival, R., Perry, J., Fraiture, and Kolezen, H., 1998. Indicators for

Comparing Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems, IWMI.

Mukherjee, N., 2004. Improving the Performance of Small and Medium Scale Water Sector

Project through Participatory Water Management, M. Sc. Engineering Thesis, Department of

Water Resources Engineering, BUET.

Mustafa, M.G., and Sharmin, 2010. A term paper of Climate Change Implications for

Fisheries and Aquaculture in Bangladesh, IWFM, BUET.

NWMP, 2001. National Water Management Plan, Water Resources Planning Organization,

Ministry of Water Resources, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

54

Rabbani, M.G., 1981. A case Study of Dhaka-Narayanganj-Demra Project, M. Sc.

Engineering Thesis, Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET.

Rahman, M.F., 1997. A study of Floating Pump Irrigation in Bangladesh, M. Engineering

Project Report, Department of Water Resources Engineering, BUET.

Rahman, M.M., 2005. Impact Evaluation of Command Area Development in Meghna-

Dhonagoda Irrigation Project, M. Engineering Project Report, Department of Water

Resources Engineering, BUET.

Rana, M.S., 2004. A Study on Participatory Water Management in Narayanganj-Norshingdi

Irrigation Project, M. Engineering Project Report, Department of Water Resources

Engineering, BUET.

Samad, M., and Vermillion, D., 1999. Assessment of Participatory Management of Irrigation

Schemes in Srilanka: Partial Reforms, Partial Benefits, International Water Management

Institute (IWMI) Report, Srilanka.

World Bank, 2000. Performance Indicators: Agriculture, Annex 5 - Project Performance

Indicators for the Irrigation and Drainage Sub-Sector.

Zhi, M., 1989. Identification of Causes of Poor Performances of a Typical Large Sized

Irrigation Scheme in South China, Asian Regional Symposium on the Modernization and

Rehabilitation of Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Philippines.

APPENDIX – A

(Questionnaire)

APPENDIX – B

(APPENDIXES)

55

Appendix-A

Questionnaire Name of Scheme:

Location:

1. Do you have any land under this scheme?

Yes No

2. If yes, how much land you have?

............................................ decimal.

3. Are you directly involved in cultivation?

Yes No

4. How often do you get irrigation water?

(i) In time

(ii) Irregularly

(iii) Not at all

5. Who is responsible for distribution of water by rotation in the field?

(i) Pump operator

(ii) Field man

(iii) Farmers

6. How the irrigation charge is realized?

(i)............................. taka per hectare.

(ii)............................ mounds crop per hectare.

7. Is the expenditure of the money collected from the farmers transparent?

Yes No

56

8. How the benefit from the scheme is utilized?

a. Construction of hydraulic/irrigation structure

b. Construction of linkage road

c. Distribution among the farmers

d. Distribution among the members of the Working Irrigation Committee

e. Kept reserved for flood rehabilitation

9. How many Irrigation Committees do you have?

One Two More

10. The Irrigation committees are formed

a. Through election

b. Through selection

c. Nominated by BADC.

11. Are you satisfy with the activities of the irrigation committees?

Yes No

12. Should BADC representative be included in the irrigation committees?

Yes No

13. Should female representative be included in the irrigation committees?

Yes No

14. Did install the Irrigation Demonstration Farm useful for the scheme?

Yes No

15. What type of structure do you need more for your scheme?

a. Discharge box

b. Pucca/lined irrigation channel

c. Both

57

16. Compared to previous irrigation schemes.

a. Conflicts among the farmers increased

b. Conflicts among the farmers decreased

17. How the conflict is resolved?

a) Through irrigation committees

b) Through irrigation committees with the help of BADC

c) With the help of Upazilla administration

18. Is there any one or more of the following bad effects occurred due to implementation

of the scheme/project?

a) Water logging of land

b) Reduction of fertility

c) Increase of pests and diseases

d) Fish culture hampered

19. Is the technical support available from BADC?

Yes No

20. How much is the agricultural cost (except irrigation charge) per hectare?

Taka.......................................................

21. Are you benefited from this scheme/project?

Yes No

22. Should this scheme/project be continued?

Yes No

23. How much is the income before the implementation of project?

Taka.......................................................

24. How much money pay to scheme after irrigation season as a charge per hectare?

Taka.......................................................

58

Appendix B-1: Irrigated Area (IA) Indicator of the selected schemes for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Sl.

No. Name of the selected schemes

Target for

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated Area

Indicator

Target for

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated Area

Indicator

Target for

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated

area (ha.)

Irrigated Area

Indicator

Average IA Indicator per

Scheme

Average IA

Indicator for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 75 45 0.6 75 60 0.8 75 65 0.87 0.75

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 50 30 0.6 50 45 0.9 50 45 0.9 0.8

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 70 45 0.64 70 60 0.85 70 65 0.92 0.80

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 75 50 0.67 75 55 0.73 75 60 0.8 0.73

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 30 0.6 50 50 1 50 50 1 0.86

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 60 40 0.67 60 50 0.83 60 50 0.83 0.77

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 50 35 0.7 50 40 0.8 50 45 0.9 0.8

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 75 50 0.67 75 60 0.8 75 60 0.8 0.75

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 60 45 0.75 60 50 0.83 60 55 0.91 0.83

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 60 40 0.67 60 50 0.83 60 50 0.83 0.77

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 55 50 0.91 55 45 0.82 55 45 0.81 0.84

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 60 40 0.67 60 50 0.83 60 55 0.91 0.80

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 60 50 0.83 60 55 0.91 60 55 0.91 0.88

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 55 40 0.73 55 45 0.82 55 45 0.82 0.75

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 50 35 0.7 50 45 0.9 50 45 0.9 0.8

0.80

59

Appendix B-2: Crop Production (CP) Indicator of the selected schemes for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Sl.

No. Name of the selected schemes Target for

crop produced

(Mt.)

Crop produced

(Mt.)

Crop Production Indicator

Target for crop

produced (Mt.)

Crop produced

(Mt.)

Crop Production Indicator

Target for crop

produced (Mt.)

Crop produced

(Mt.)

Crop Production Indicator

Average CP

Indicator per

Scheme

Average CP

Indicator for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 375 168.75 0.45 375 240 0.64 375 292.5 0.78 0.62

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 250 112.5 0.45 250 180 0.72 250 202.5 0.81 0.66

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 350 168.75 0.48 350 240 0.68 350 292.5 0.83 0.66

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 375 187.5 0.5 375 220 0.58 375 270 0.72 0.60

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 250 112.5 0.45 250 200 0.8 250 225 0.9 0.71

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 300 150 0.5 300 200 0.66 300 225 0.75 0.63

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 250 131.25 0.52 250 160 0.64 250 202.5 0.81 0.65

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 375 187.5 0.5 375 240 0.64 375 270 0.72 0.62

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 300 168.75 0.56 300 200 0.66 300 247.5 0.82 0.68

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 300 150 0.5 300 200 0.66 300 225 0.75 0.63

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 275 187.5 0.68 275 180 0.65 275 202.5 0.73 0.69

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 300 150 0.5 300 200 0.66 300 247.5 0.82 0.66

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 300 187.5 0.62 300 220 0.73 300 247.5 0.82 0.72

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 275 150 0.54 275 180 0.65 275 202.5 0.73 0.64

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 250 131.25 0.52 250 168.75 0.67 250 202.5 0.81 0.67

0.66

60

Appendix B-3.1: Farmer’s Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the selected schemes for 2007-08

Total cost of production per ha (Lac Tk.) Gross return from produced crop

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Irrigated Area (ha.) Seed-

Ling costs

Bed Prepara- tion & Trans- planting costs

Fertilizer, Pestisides & others

Irrigation charges

Crop Cutting

costs

Total Cost per ha

(Lac Tk.)

Total cost of

production per Scheme (Lac Tk.)

Crop Produced

(m.t)

Value of Crop

(Lac Tk.)

Benefit Cost Ratio

(BCR)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 45 0.021 0.11 0.1678 0.0725 0.129 0.5003 22.5135 168.75 29.53125 1.31

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 30 0.021 0.11 0.1678 0.0695 0.129 0.4973 14.919 112.5 19.6875 1.31

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 45 0.021 0.11 0.1678 0.075 0.129 0.5028 22.626 168.75 29.53125 1.30

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 50 0.021 0.11 0.1678 0.060 0.129 0.4878 24.39 187.5 32.8125 1.34

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 30 0.021 0.11 0.1678 0.0725 0.129 0.5003 15.009 112.5 19.6875 1.31

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 40 0.0215 0.115 0.17 0.0715 0.135 0.513 20.52 150 26.25 1.27

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 35 0.0215 0.115 0.17 0.0685 0.135 0.51 17.85 131.25 22.96875 1.28

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 50 0.0215 0.115 0.17 0.0695 0.135 0.511 25.55 187.5 32.8125 1.28

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 45 0.0215 0.115 0.17 0.069 0.135 0.5105 22.9725 168.75 29.53125 1.28

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 40 0.022 0.125 0.18 0.077 0.14 0.544 21.76 150 26.25 1.20

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 50 0.022 0.125 0.18 0.078 0.14 0.545 27.25 187.5 32.8125 1.20

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 40 0.022 0.125 0.18 0.075 0.14 0.542 21.68 150 26.25 1.21

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 50 0.021 0.1275 0.185 0.0775 0.155 0.566 28.3 187.5 32.8125 1.15

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 40 0.021 0.1275 0.185 0.068 0.155 0.5565 22.26 150 26.25 1.17

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 35 0.021 0.1275 0.185 0.069 0.155 0.5575 19.5125 131.25 22.96875 1.17

61

Appendix B-3.2: Farmer’s Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the selected schemes for 2008-09

Total cost of production per ha (Lac Tk.) Gross return from produced crop

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Irrigated Area (ha.) Seed-

Ling costs

Bed Prepara- tion & Trans- planting costs

Fertilizer, Pestisides & others

Irrigation charges

Crop Cutting costs

Total Cost per ha

(Lac Tk.)

Total cost of

production per Scheme (Lac Tk.)

Crop Produced

(m.t)

Value of Crop

(Lac Tk.)

Benefit Cost Ratio

(BCR)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 60 0.0215 0.125 0.11784 0.0685 0.15 0.48284 28.9704 240 38.4 1.32

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 45 0.0215 0.125 0.11784 0.0695 0.15 0.48384 21.7728 180 28.8 1.32

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 60 0.0215 0.125 0.11784 0.069 0.15 0.48334 29.0004 240 38.4 1.32

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 55 0.0215 0.125 0.11784 0.058 0.15 0.47234 25.9787 220 35.2 1.35

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 0.0215 0.125 0.11784 0.0715 0.15 0.48584 24.292 200 32 1.31

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 50 0.0215 0.135 0.1213 0.0685 0.155 0.5013 25.065 200 32 1.27

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 40 0.0215 0.135 0.1213 0.0685 0.155 0.5013 20.052 160 25.6 1.27

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 60 0.0215 0.135 0.1213 0.0695 0.155 0.5023 30.138 240 38.4 1.27

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 50 0.0215 0.135 0.1213 0.069 0.155 0.5018 25.09 200 32 1.27

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 50 0.022 0.145 0.1298 0.0755 0.165 0.5373 26.865 200 32 1.19

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 45 0.022 0.145 0.1298 0.0725 0.165 0.5343 24.0435 180 28.8 1.19

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 50 0.022 0.145 0.1298 0.0715 0.165 0.5333 26.665 200 32 1.20

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 55 0.0221 0.1475 0.1550 0.0685 0.181 0.5741 31.5755 220 35.2 1.11

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 45 0.0221 0.1475 0.1550 0.0725 0.181 0.5781 26.0145 180 28.8 1.10

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 45 0.0221 0.1475 0.1550 0.0675 0.181 0.5731 25.7895 180 28.8 1.11

62

Appendix B-3.3: Farmer’s Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the selected schemes for 2009-10

Total cost of production per ha (Lac Tk.) Gross return from produced crop

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Irrigated Area (ha.) Seed-

Ling costs

Bed Prepara- tion & Trans- planting costs

Fertilizer, Pestisides & others

Irrigation charges

Crop Cutting

costs

Total Cost per ha

(Lac Tk.)

Total cost of

production per Scheme (Lac Tk.)

Crop Produced

(m.t)

Value of Crop (Lac Tk.)

Benefit Cost Ratio

(BCR)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 65 0.0243 0.1204 0.11784 0.0675 0.1492 0.47924 31.1506 292.5 46.8 1.50

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 45 0.0243 0.1204 0.11784 0.069 0.1492 0.48074 21.6333 202.5 32.4 1.49

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 65 0.0243 0.1204 0.11784 0.068 0.1492 0.47974 31.1831 292.5 46.8 1.50

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 60 0.0243 0.1204 0.11784 0.055 0.1492 0.46674 28.0044 270 43.2 1.54

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 0.0243 0.1204 0.11784 0.0665 0.1492 0.47824 23.912 225 36 1.50

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 50 0.0252 0.1251 0.1213 0.065 0.1550 0.4916 24.58 225 36 1.46

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 45 0.0252 0.1251 0.1213 0.068 0.1550 0.4946 22.257 202.5 32.4 1.45

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 60 0.0252 0.1251 0.1213 0.0675 0.1550 0.4941 29.646 270 43.2 1.45

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 55 0.0252 0.1251 0.1213 0.066 0.1550 0.4926 27.093 247.5 39.6 1.46

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 50 0.0265 0.1375 0.1298 0.072 0.1675 0.5333 26.665 225 36 1.35

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 45 0.0265 0.1375 0.1298 0.070 0.1675 0.5313 23.9085 202.5 32.4 1.35

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 55 0.0265 0.1375 0.1298 0.069 0.1675 0.5303 29.1665 247.5 39.6 1.35

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 55 0.02575 0.1412 0.1550 0.0725 0.1850 0.57945 31.86975 247.5 39.6 1.24

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 45 0.02575 0.1412 0.1550 0.0685 0.1850 0.57545 25.89525 202.5 32.4 1.25

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 45 0.02575 0.1412 0.1550 0.066 0.1850 0.57295 25.78275 202.5 32.4 1.25

63

Appendix B-4: Irrigation Charge (IC) Indicator of the selected schemes for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Irrigation

charge realized per

ha ( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation charge due

per ha ( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation Charge

Indicator

Irrigation charge

realized per ha

( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation charge due

per ha ( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation Charge

Indicator

Irrigation charge

realized per ha

( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation charge due

per ha ( Lac Tk.)

Irrigation Charge

Indicator

Average IC

Indicator per

Scheme

Average IC

Indicator

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 0.06 0.0125 4.8 0.0505 0.018 2.80 0.0565 0.011 5.13 4.24

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 0.0545 0.015 3.63 0.0525 0.017 3.08 0.051 0.018 2.83 3.18

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 0.057 0.018 3.16 0.0525 0.0165 3.18 0.051 0.017 3.0 3.11

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 0.048 0.012 4.0 0.046 0.012 3.83 0.0385 0.0165 2.33 3.38

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 0.0575 0.015 3.83 0.053 0.0185 2.86 0.0545 0.012 4.54 3.74

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 0.0605 0.011 5.5 0.053 0.0155 3.41 0.0525 0.0125 4.2 4.37

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 0.0505 0.018 2.80 0.052 0.0165 3.15 0.053 0.015 3.53 3.16

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 0.0525 0.017 3.08 0.056 0.0135 4.14 0.0495 0.018 2.75 3.32

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 0.0525 0.0165 3.18 0.0545 0.0145 3.75 0.054 0.012 4.5 3.81

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 0.065 0.012 5.41 0.062 0.0135 4.59 0.057 0.015 3.8 4.60

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 0.0595 0.0185 3.21 0.056 0.0165 3.39 0.059 0.011 5.36 3.99

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 0.0585 0.0165 3.54 0.054 0.0175 3.08 0.051 0.018 2.83 3.15

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 0.064 0.0135 4.74 0.055 0.0135 4.07 0.0555 0.017 3.26 4.02

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 0.054 0.014 3.85 0.06 0.0125 4.8 0.052 0.0165 3.15 3.93

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 0.0555 0.0135 4.11 0.0505 0.017 2.97 0.054 0.012 4.5 3.86

3.73

64

Appendix B-5: Beneficiary Indicator of the selected schemes for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target of Benefit of Farmers Family (Nos.)

Benefited Farmer’s Family (Nos.)

Beneficiary Indicator per

Scheme

Target of Benefit of Farmers Family (Nos.)

Benefited Farmer’s Family (Nos.)

Beneficiary Indicator per

Scheme

Target of Benefit of Farmers Family (Nos.)

Benefited Farmer’s Family (Nos.)

Beneficiary Indicator per

Scheme

Average Beneficiary

Indicator Per scheme

Average Beneficiary

Indicator for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 225 90 0.4 225 120 0.53 225 130 0.58 0.50

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 150 60 0.4 150 90 0.6 150 90 0.6 0.53

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 210 90 0.42 210 120 0.57 210 130 0.61 0.53

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 225 100 0.44 225 110 0.49 225 120 0.53 0.48

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 150 60 0.4 150 100 0.67 150 100 0.67 0.58

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 180 80 0.44 180 100 0.56 180 100 0.56 0.52

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 150 70 0.47 150 80 0.53 150 90 0.6 0.53

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 225 100 0.44 225 120 0.53 225 120 0.53 0.5

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 180 90 0.5 180 100 0.56 180 110 0.61 0.55

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 240 120 0.5 240 150 0.62 240 150 0.62 0.58

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 220 150 0.68 220 135 0.61 220 135 0.61 0.63

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 240 120 0.5 240 150 0.62 240 165 0.68 0.6

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 240 150 0.62 240 165 0.68 240 165 0.68 0.66

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 220 120 0.54 220 135 0.61 220 135 0.61 0.58

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 200 105 0.52 200 135 0.67 200 135 0.67 0.62

0.56

Total = 3055 1505 - 3055 1810 - 3055 1875 - - -

65

Appendix B-6.1: Total actual cost of scheme managers of the selected schemes for 2007-08

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target for

Irrigated Area (ha.)

Irrigated Area (ha.)

To pay from the scheme

manager to BADC (Tk.)

Total Consumed

Unit

Rate (Tk./ Unit)

Total Cost of

Electricity (Tk.)

Cost of necessary

spare-parts, maintenance and Oil-Fuel

(Tk.)

Salary of Operator

and Field man (Tk.)

Cost of construction of main and secondary channels

(Tk.)

Transpor- tation

Cost and Others (Tk.)

Total cost of

scheme managers

(Tk.)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 75 45 15000.00 7800 2.80 21840 16140 21520 33750 2250 110500

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 50 30 15000.00 6550 2.80 18340 13560 18080 22500 1500 88980

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 70 45 15000.00 7850 2.80 21980 16230 21640 33750 2250 110850

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 75 50 15000.00 8200 2.80 22960 16965 22620 37500 2500 117545

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 30 15000.00 6750 2.80 18900 13965 18620 22500 1500 90485

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 60 40 15000.00 7650 2.80 21420 15825 21100 30000 2000 105345

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 50 35 15000.00 7350 2.80 20580 15210 20280 26250 1750 99070

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 75 50 15000.00 8050 2.80 22540 16650 22200 37500 2500 116390

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 60 45 15000.00 7950 2.80 22260 16440 21920 33750 2250 111620

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 60 40 15000.00 7750 2.80 21700 16035 21380 30000 2000 106115

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 55 50 15000.00 7900 2.80 22120 16335 21780 37500 2500 115235

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 60 40 15000.00 7500 2.80 21000 15510 20680 30000 2000 104190

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 60 50 15000.00 8100 2.80 22680 16755 22340 37500 2500 116775

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 55 40 15000.00 7800 2.80 21840 16140 21520 30000 2000 106500

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 50 35 15000.00 7250 2.80 20300 15000 20000 26250 1750 98300

66

Appendix B-6.2: Total actual cost of scheme managers of the selected schemes for 2008-09

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target for

Irrigated Area (ha.)

Irrigated Area (ha.)

To pay from the scheme

manager to BADC (Tk.)

Total Consumed

Unit

Rate (Tk./ Unit)

Total Cost of

Electricity (Tk.)

Cost of necessary

spare-parts, maintenance and Oil-Fuel

(Tk.)

Salary of Operator and Field man (Tk.)

Cost of construction of main and secondary channels

(Tk.)

Transpor- tation

Cost and Others (Tk.)

Total cost of scheme

managers (Tk.)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 75 60 15000.00 9500 2.80 26600 19650 26200 45000 3000 135450

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 50 45 15000.00 8100 2.80 22680 16755 22340 33750 2250 112775

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 70 60 15000.00 9750 2.80 27300 20160 26880 45000 3000 137340

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 75 55 15000.00 9150 2.80 25620 18930 25240 41250 2750 128790

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 50 15000.00 8950 2.80 25060 18510 24680 37500 2500 123250

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 60 50 15000.00 8800 2.80 24640 18195 24260 37500 2500 122095

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 50 40 15000.00 8300 2.80 23240 17160 22880 30000 2000 110280

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 75 60 15000.00 10050 2.80 28140 20790 27720 45000 3000 139650

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 60 50 15000.00 9350 2.80 26180 19335 25780 37500 2500 126295

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 60 50 15000.00 9275 2.80 25970 19185 25580 37500 2500 125735

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 55 45 15000.00 8775 2.80 24570 18150 24200 33750 2250 117920

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 60 50 15000.00 8825 2.80 24710 18255 24340 37500 2500 122305

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 60 55 15000.00 9200 2.80 25760 19020 25360 41250 2750 129140

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 55 45 15000.00 8425 2.80 23590 17430 23240 33750 2250 115260

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 50 45 15000.00 8575 2.80 24010 17730 23640 33750 2250 116380

67

Appendix B-6.3: Total actual cost of scheme managers of the selected schemes for 2009-10

Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Target for

Irrigated Area (ha.)

Irrigated Area (ha.)

To pay from the scheme manager to BADC

(Tk.)

Total Consumed

Unit

Rate (Tk./ Unit)

Total Cost of

Electricity (Tk.)

Cost of necessary

spare-parts, maintenance and Oil-Fuel

(Tk.)

Salary of Operator and Field man (Tk.)

Cost of construction of main and secondary channels

(Tk.)

Transpor- tation

Cost and Others (Tk.)

Total cost of scheme

managers (Tk.)

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 75 65 15000.00 9800 2.8 27440 20265 27020 48750 3250 141725

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 50 45 15000.00 8450 2.8 23660 17475 23300 33750 2250 115435

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 70 65 15000.00 9950 2.8 27860 20580 27440 48750 3250 142880

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 75 60 15000.00 10025 2.8 28070 20730 27640 45000 3000 139440

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 50 50 15000.00 9350 2.8 26180 19335 25780 37500 2500 126295

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 60 50 15000.00 9375 2.8 26250 19395 25860 37500 2500 126505

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 50 45 15000.00 8775 2.8 24570 18150 24200 33750 2250 117920

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 75 60 15000.00 10575 2.8 29610 21870 29160 45000 3000 143640

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 60 55 15000.00 9875 2.8 27650 20430 27240 41250 2750 134320

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 60 50 15000.00 9425 2.8 26390 19500 26000 37500 2500 126890

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 55 45 15000.00 8925 2.8 24990 18465 24620 33750 2250 119075

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 60 55 15000.00 9725 2.8 27230 20115 26820 41250 2750 133165

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 60 55 15000.00 9475 2.8 26530 19590 26120 41250 2750 131240

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 55 45 15000.00 8775 2.8 24570 18150 24200 33750 2250 117920

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 50 45 15000.00 8425 2.8 23590 17430 23240 33750 2250 115260

68

Appendix B-6.4: Irrigation Profitability Indicator of the selected schemes for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sl.

No.

Name of the selected schemes Collected Irrigation Charge From

Farmers (Tk.)

Total cost of scheme managers

(Tk.)

Irrigation Profitability

Indicator

Collected Irrigation Charge From

Farmers (Tk.)

Total cost of scheme managers

(Tk.)

Irrigation Profitability

Indicator

Collected Irrigation Charge From

Farmers (Tk.)

Total cost of scheme managers

(Tk.)

Irrigation Profitability

(IP) Indicator

Average IP

Indicator per

Scheme

Average IP

Indicator for 3 years

01 Horinapati Irrigation Scheme (HIS) 378000 110500 3.42 504000 135450 3.72 546000 141725 3.85 3.66

02 Monipurihati Irrigation Scheme (MHIS) 252000 88980 2.83 378000 112775 3.35 378000 115435 3.27 3.15

03 Jibonpur Irrigation Scheme (JIS) 378000 110850 3.41 504000 137340 3.66 546000 142880 3.82 3.63

04 Kazihata Irrigation Scheme (KIS) 420000 117545 3.57 462000 128790 3.58 504000 139440 3.61 3.59

05 Chandpur Irrigation Scheme (CIS) 252000 90485 2.78 420000 123250 3.40 420000 126295 3.32 3.17

06 Baurbag Irrigation Scheme (BIS) 336000 105345 3.18 420000 122095 3.43 420000 126505 3.32 3.31

07 Muktapur Irrigation Scheme (MIS) 294000 99070 2.96 336000 110280 3.04 378000 117920 3.20 3.07

08 Kendrihaor Irrigation Scheme (KHIS) 420000 116390 3.60 504000 139650 3.60 504000 143640 3.50 3.57

09 Mollargao Irrigation Scheme (MGIS) 378000 111620 3.38 420000 126295 3.32 462000 134320 3.43 3.38

10 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-1 (LIS-1) 336000 106115 3.16 420000 125735 3.34 420000 126890 3.30 3.27

11 Lavlo Irrigation Scheme-2 (LIS-2) 420000 115235 3.64 378000 117920 3.20 378000 119075 3.17 3.34

12 Hizrabill Irrigation Scheme (HBIS) 336000 104190 3.22 420000 122305 3.43 462000 133165 3.46 3.37

13 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-1 (PIS-1) 420000 116775 3.59 462000 129140 3.57 462000 131240 3.52 3.56

14 Pohorchada Irrigation Scheme-2 (PIS-2) 336000 106500 3.15 378000 115260 3.27 378000 117920 3.20 3.21

15 Kalirchhara Irrigation Scheme (KCIS) 294000 98300 2.99 378000 116380 3.24 378000 115260 3.27 3.17

3.36