Irrigman 14
Irrigman 14
Irrigman 14
Module 14
Developed by
Andreas P. SAVVA
and
Karen FRENKEN
Water Resources Development and Management Officers
FAO Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern Africa
In collaboration with
Personal SITHOLE, Agricultural Economist Consultant
Simon MADYIWA, Irrigation Engineer Consultant
Tove LILJA, Associate Professional Officer, FAO-SAFR
Harare, 2002
Irrigation manual
ii
Module 14
Contents
List of tables
List of abbreviation
v
vi
1.
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
2.
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
3.
19
19
20
20
4.
23
23
23
24
5.
25
25
30
30
30
31
31
Module 14
iii
Irrigation manual
31
32
REFERENCES
37
APPENDICES
1. Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of activities, outputs, immediate objectives
and goals
2. Examples of questionnaires and checklists
2-1. Questionnaire for plot holders to be used for smallholder irrigation scheme evaluation
2-2. Checklist for scheme level records of the IMC and AEW
Environmental expert
Irrigation engineer
39
iv
Module 14
39
45
45
50
50
51
51
51
51
List of tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
2
4
4
5
14
16
28
28
29
29
30
33
34
35
Module 14
List of abbreviations
AEW
Agritex
B/C
BD
BOND
CI
CP
DAEO
DFID
DU
E
EU
FARMESA
FC
ICID
IDS
IIMI
IMC
IR
IRR
IWMI
M&E
MOV
NPV
O&M
OVI
PM&E
PWP
RDC
SEAGA
SM
SPFS
WUA
Y
vi
Module 14
Chapter 1
Introduction to monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of a programme or a
project or, in our case, an irrigation scheme is important in
order to provide information about how it is performing.
There are four distinct reasons for carring out M&E:
Y
1.1. Definitions
1.1.1. Monitoring
1.1.3. Indicators
Irrigation manual
Profitability
Equity
Table 1
Examples of indicators and related parameters
Indicator
Parameter
Expression
1. Yield Y
Y = H/A (kg/ha)
Harvest H (kg)
Volume of water applied W (m3)
3. Cropping Intensity CI
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Sustainability
Non-agricultural objectives
Water management
Crop production
Environmental management
Module 14
Irrigation manual
Table 2
A logical framework (DFID Model) (Source: DFID, 1997)
Objectives
Goal
Wider problem the project
will help to resolve
Purpose
The immediate impact on
the project area or target
group, i.e. the change or
benefit to be achieved by
the project
Outputs
These are specifically
deliverable results
expected from the project
to attain the purpose
Activities
These are the tasks to be
done to produce the
outputs
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVI)
Means Of Verification
(MOV)
Important
assumptions
Goal
To supergoal external factors
necessary to sustain
objectives in the long run
Purpose to goal
External conditions necessary
if achieved project purpose is
to contribute to reaching
project goal
Output to purpose
Factors out of project control
which, if present, could
restrict progress from outputs
to achieving project purpose
Inputs
This is a summary of the
project budget
Activity to output
Factors out of project control
which, if present, could
restrict progress from
activities to achieving output
Outputs
Diversification of crop
production
Adoption of
recommended input
levels and other
agronomic practices
Inputs/Activities
Selection and training
of farmers in irrigated
crop production
Scheme equipment
installed and tested
Module 14
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVI)
Means Of Verification
(MOV)
No pest outbreak
No electricity cut due
to non-payment by
some irrigators
No engine breakdown
AEW records
Farmer records
Yearly household survey
Seasonal survey by
project management
Important
assumptions
Price of produce
remains high
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Table 4
Conventional versus participatory monitoring and evaluation
Issue
Conventional M&E
Participatory M&E
Externally-defined, mainly
quantitative indicators
Approach
Predetermined
Adaptive
Module 14
Irrigation manual
Technical performance
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Agronomic performance
Financial performance
Socio-economic performance
Managerial performance
Irrigation efficiencies
Crop quality
Cropping intensity
Yield levels
Timeliness of operations
Cost of energy
Cost of water
Prices of produce
Irrigation manual
Guides for the development of indicators for the socioeconomic M&E are:
Y
Asset ownership
Employment creation
Advancement of women
Appropriateness of technology
Conflict resolution
Waterlogging/poor drainage
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Project average
(kg)
National average
(kg)
Increase or decrease
(kg)
Percentage increase
CP
P(1)
A(1)
P(1) - A(1)
100 x [P(1)-A(1)]/A(1)
Crop 1
Crop 2
P(2)
A(2)
P(2) - A(2)
100 x [P(2)-A(2)]/A(2)
Crop N
P(N)
A(N)
P(N) - A(N)
100 x [P(N)-A(N)]/A(N)
IPA
Equation 1
CP = 100 x
Where:
P(N) - A(N)
1
N
A(N)
Where:
CP = Crop production increase or decrease
(percentage)
P
= Number of crops
Equation 2
CI =
Where:
A(C1)
OIE = 100 x
B(C2)
Where:
C(C3)
OIE
AIA
CA
= Cultivable area
CWR
FI
[AP(S1) - AP(S2)]
The above indicator will give the efficiency of the water use
in the peak month. It is desirable to determine it for every
month of the year in order to have an indication of the
variations of the OIE along the year. This indicator will be
particularly relevant when rehabilitation and improvements
works have been undertaken, as the greater physical
efficiency of the system must be reflected in higher values
of OIE.
AP(S2)
Module 14
Irrigation manual
TC
AIA
Where:
OM = Operation and maintenance costs per ha
TC = Total annual costs incurred in O&M
AIA = Actually irrigated area (ha)
TC
FI
Where:
IFI
FAT
TNF
Where:
AT
10
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
The WUA functions satisfactorily and 80-90% of the water rates are collected
Fully independent
The WUA is established, the water distribution is effected by farmers at tertiary level
but secondary canals and upward are operated by government staff, only minor
maintenance works are carried out by farmers, 65-80% of water rates are collected
Semi-independent
The WUA has been established but acts mainly as a consultative and information
body. Decisions are still made by government officials, 50-65% of water rates are
effectively collected
The WUA has been established on paper but none of its tasks are carried out in practice
Needs justification
Module 14
11
Irrigation manual
12
Module 14
Chapter 2
Monitoring the technical performance of a
surface irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 7, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described. Detailed
theory behind the equations included in this chapter is also
provided in these modules and in FAO (1989). This
chapter will focus on hands-on activities in the M&E
process.
According to FAO (1989), the most common field
measurements to carry out during monitoring and
evaluating surface irrigation systems are:
Y
Field topography
13
Irrigation manual
Table 5
Guidelines for evaluating soil moisture by feel
Texture
Available
Soil
soil
moisture
moisture condition
Moderate coarse
sandy loam;
Fine sandy loam
Medium sandy
clay loam;
Loam; Silt loam
0-25
Dry
25-50
Slightly
moist
50-75
Moist
75-100
Wet
Field
Capacity
(100)
Wet
14
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Equation 8
DU =
x 100
IRn (m3)
W (m3)
Equation 10b
x 100
Ea =
IRn (mm)
W (mm)
x 100
15
Irrigation manual
that the water enters into the bucket at the same position
as it enters the field during normal irrigation. Water
should also be applied on the borderstrips at both sides
next to the test borderstrip in such way that they will act
as buffers. However, if in reality the farmer irrigates only
one border at a time, then no water should be applied to
the borderstrips at both sides. The flow should be timed,
so that the volume can be calculated. The time taken by
the water to advance along the borderstrip length should
be recorded and so should the recession. The infiltration,
i.e. the subsurface profile, should be computed at every
peg. This profile is determined by adding the water depth
on the surface to the profile developed during the
advance phase. Table 6 shows evaluation data of a
borderstrip test and the graph shows the data plotted as
infiltration (column 7) versus distance along the border
(column 1).
Table 6
Borderstrip water advance and recession data
Distance (m)
(1)
Contact time
(min)
(6) = (5) - (3)
Water applied
(mm) *
(7)
07.00
15.20
500
500
102
10
07.30
30
15.30
510
480
99
20
08.15
75
16.00
540
465
96
30
09.00
120
16.45
585
465
96
40
10.00
180
17.34
634
454
94
50
11.10
250
18.38
698
448
94
60
12.15
315
19.43
763
448
94
70
13.20
380
20.24
804
424
90
80
14.30
450
21.30
870
420
90
90
15.45
525
22.35
935
410
88
100
17.00
600
23.50
1010
410
88
16
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Example 1
What is the distribution uniformity in the field for the borderstrip described above?
Using the depths infiltrated at each peg at the downstream quarter end of the field (between 70-100 m approximately
from Table 6), the average depth of water applied at this lower quarter end is:
88 + 88 + 90 + 90
4
= 89 mm
Using Equation 8:
89
DU =
94
x 100 = 94.7%
88
94
x 100 = 93.6%
Example 2
What is the field application efficiency for the borderstrip described above?
Based on Table 6, the average depth of water applied to the field is 94 mm. Therefore the average volume of water
applied to the field is:
94 x 1.75 x 10 = 1 645 m3
The net depth of water IRn that has to be applied to the root zone is 45 mm, which gives the volume of water required
by crops:
1.75 ha x 45 mm x 10 = 787.5 m3
Either Equation 10a or 10b can be used to calculate the application efficiency as follows:
Ea =
787.5
1 645
x 100 = 48%
or
Ea =
45
94
x 100 = 48%
Example 3
What is the field canal efficiency in the borderstrip
irrigation example?
x 100%
65.3
75
x 100 = 87%
Module 14
17
Irrigation manual
Example 5
Equation 12
Ec =
x 100%
Conclusion
Example 4
The measuring device at the outlet of the dam of our
example provides a discharge of 100 l/sec. What is
the conveyance efficiency?
Since the intake of the block was 75 l/sec, this means
that:
Ec =
75
100
x 100 = 75%
Equation 13
Ep = Ec x Eb x Ea
18
Module 14
Chapter 3
Monitoring the technical performance of a
sprinkler irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 8, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described.
Equation 15
Irrigation efficiencies
SMa(v) = SMa(w) x BD
Where:
SMa(v) = Available soil moisture by volume
SMa(w) = Available soil moisture by weight
BD
= Bulk density
19
Irrigation manual
Example 6
From initial soil survey:
Available moisture by weight = 0.085 or 8.5% or 85 mm/m
Available moisture by volume = 0.119 or 11.9%
Bulk density (BD) = 1.4 g/cm3
Desirable depletion = 0.5 or 50%
From soil sampling at monitoring just before irrigation:
Wet weight = 215 grams
Dry weight = 210 grams
What is the soil moisture depletion between two irrigations?
Soil moisture on a weight basis is: SMa(w) =
215 - 210
210
= 0.0238
The soil moisture on a volumetric basis is: SMa(v) = 0.02378 x 1.4 = 0.0333
The depletion is:
0.085 - 0.0238
0.085
= 0.72 or
0.119 - 0.0333
0.119
These results show that the crop is allowed by the farmers to deplete the soil moisture to levels well above the
desirable depletion of 50%. Hence the crop is stressed. A change in the irrigation schedule is needed.
Using the IRn estimates for the particular site, crops and
stage of growth and the amount of water applied per
irrigation, the Ea can be estimated as explained in Section
2.3.3.
20
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Example 7
The average flow of one sprinkler operating at 35 meters head and spaced at 12 m x 12 m was found to be 0.6 m3/hrs.
Irrigation is practiced for 11 hours every 6 days and the corresponding IRn at peak demand is 30 mm. What is the
field application efficiency?
For the 12 x 12 = 144 m2 commanded by one sprinkler:
IRn = 0.030 x 144 = 4.32 m3
The sprinkler will provide 6.6 m3 (0.6 x 11) of water to this area.
Ea =
4.32
6.6
= 0.65 or 65%
While this is within acceptable limits, after comparing it with the design efficiency of 75% it is low.
The design was based on irrigation for 6 days a week to cover the water requirements of 7 days operating for 11
hours per shift. By adjusting the irrigation depth and frequency, what would be the Ea?
IRn = 0.035 x 144 = 5.04 m3
Ea =
5.04
6.6
= 0.76 or 76%
4.32
6
= 0.72 or 72%
Example 8
The sprinkler flow was tested and found to be 0.6 m3/hrs. Over the 10 hour period of irrigation with 100 sprinklers,
the water meter at the pump outlet has shown that 65 m3 of water was pumped. What is the Ed?
Ed =
0.06 x 100
65
= 0.92 or 92%
This indicates that some leaks in the piped network need repairing. Assuming that the Ea estimated earlier was found
to be 0.65, the project efficiency would be:
Ep = 0.65 x 0.92 = 0.6 or 60%
This is relatively low for sprinkler systems. Measures to improve the project efficiency were proposed earlier under
the discussion of Ea and Ed.
Module 14
21
Irrigation manual
22
Module 14
Chapter 4
Monitoring the technical performance of a
localized irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 9, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described.
The most common field measurements to carry out during
monitoring and evaluating localized irrigation systems are:
Y
Emission uniformity
Irrigation efficiencies
q n
qa
Where:
EU = Field test emission uniformity (percentage)
q n
qa
Module 14
23
Irrigation manual
Example 9
A test of the discharge of 48 emitters was carried out in plot of vegetables with the following results:
No. of
emitters
q
lph
No. of
emitters
q
lph
No. of
emitters
q
lph
No. of
emitters
q
lph
2.11
13
2.10
25
2.00
37
2.00
2.01
14
2.14
26
2.10
38
1.98
2.00
15
1.94
27
2.09
39
2.05
2.03
16
1.95
28
1.99
40
2.06
2.12
17
2.00
29
1.95
41
2.00
2.07
18
2.01
30
2.11
42
2.08
2.00
19
1.98
31
2.10
43
2.10
2.15
20
2.01
32
2.08
44
1.98
q n =
qa =
1.95
21
2.00
33
2.10
45
2.07
10
2.02
22
1.96
34
1.99
46
2.08
11
2.05
23
2.10
35
1.96
47
1.99
12
2.12
24
2.00
36
2.10
48
2.00
1.95 + 1.94 + 1.95 + 1.98 + 1.96 + 1.99 + 1.95 + 1.99 + 1.96 + 1.98 + 1.98 + 1.99
12
EU = 100 x
= 2.037 lph
1.968
2.037
= 96.6%
24
Module 14
= 1.968 lph
Chapter 5
Monitoring the financial performance of
an irrigation scheme
Financial and economic viability are central to the planning,
design, implementation, operation, maintenance and
management of an irrigation scheme, as any investor would
expect an acceptable return to their investment, regardless
of whether it is a large or a small scheme or whether it is a
private or public investment. Financial and economic
viability are thus widely used as criteria for project selection
and also as measures of project sustainability. The key
guiding principle is always that of minimizing costs whilst at
the same time maximizing the benefits from the project.
Therefore, the need to continuously assess and compare
the benefits accruing from the running and operation of an
irrigation scheme to costs incurred is inevitable, in order to
justify (or not) the continued operation of the scheme and
the initial investment.
Module 11 describes the financial and economic appraisal
of irrigation projects. This Chapter focuses on monitoring
the financial performance at plot and scheme level.
Apart from simple, good financial management and
accounting systems, the cost incurred and benefits accruing
from the operation of an irrigation scheme are also largely
dependant on the technical aspects. For example, frequent
breakdowns of machinery and equipment inevitably result
in increased maintenance costs. It is important, therefore,
that financial monitoring is applied in conjunction with
technical monitoring, as described in the previous chapters,
for the different types of irrigation systems.
For financial monitoring it is important that the indicators
are not only quantified in terms of timing but also that
projections on the anticipated costs of implementing each
of the activities be made. Each activity, therefore, has to be
costed.
Payments in kind
Produce consumed
Module 14
25
Irrigation manual
Agricultural records
Financial records
Dates of harvesting
Amount of crop harvested
Amount of produce consumed
Amount of produce given to others
Amount of produce retained
Dates of marketing
Example 10
Farmers name: Farai
Block 6: Tomatoes
Nursery planting: 16-01-2001
Size of land: 0.04 ha
Land preparation date: 30-01-2001
Transplanting date: 06-02-2001
Variety: Rodade
Quantity of seed: 25g, total US$1.82
Initial fertilizer: Compound D: 10 kg, total US$3.18
Date of top dressing application 10 kg: 16-02-2001
Weeding casual labour: US$0.90
Chemicals: Rogor: 50 ml, total US$1.45
Date start of marketing: 25-04-2001
Transport to the market:
Transport to the market:
Transport to the market:
Marketing:
25-04-2001
09-05-2001
16-05-2001
22-05-2001
24-05-2001
30-05-2001
26
Module 14
US$14.09
US$20.09
US$9.89
2 boxes
101 boxes
42 boxes
3 boxes
22 boxes
1 box
US$9.09
US$122.73
US$157.18
US$13.64
US$87.73
US$3.64
Farm gate
Mbare Market
Mbare Market
Farm gate
Mbare Market
Farm gate
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Example 11
Farmers name: Betty
Block 2: Sweet Potatoes
Land size: 0.04 ha
Land preparation date: 27-11-2000
Quantity of runners: 7 x 50 kg bags
Cost of runners: free
Planting date: 05-12-2000
Fertilizer: Gypsum: 10 kg
Cost of Fertilizer: US$1.82
Date of fertilizer application: 15-12-2000
Weeding date: 07-01-2001
Harvesting date:
28-04-2001:
09-05-2001:
11-05-2001:
15-05-2001:
5
6
3
3
Selling dates:
30-04-2001:
10-05-2001:
11-05-2001:
17-05-2001:
US$40.00
US$49.78
US$7.09
US$24.00
Transport:
US$9.09
US$10.73
US$5.45
Quantity consumed:
x
x
x
x
90 kg bags
50 kg bags
20 litre tins
50 kg bags
US$2.62
US$2.98
US$2.22
4 x 20 litre tins
6 x 20 litre tins
2 x 20 litre tins
US$21.82
100-110 kg
55-60kg
Module 14
27
Irrigation manual
Table 7
Gross margin analysis for the tomatoes of farmer Farai
Description
Unit
Per plot
Per ha
ha
kg
kg
kg
boxes
US$
0.04
0.025
10
10
179
423.13
1
0.625
250
250
4 475
10 578.25
Variable Costs:
Land preparation
Cost of seed
Cost of initial fertilizer
Cost of top dressing
Cost of chemicals
Trellising
String
Hired labour
Transport cost (inputs)
Seasonal loan
Transport cost (of produce to market)
Packing materials (used old boxes)
Total variable costs (2)
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
0
1.82
3.18
3.18
1.45
0
0
0.90
0
0
44.07
0
54.60
0
45.50
79.50
79.50
36.25
0
0
22.50
0
0
1 101.75
0
1 365.00
US$
368.53
9 213.25
Area planted
Amount of seed
Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer
Amount of top dressing fertilizer
Total output
Gross income * (1)
The value per box of the 8 boxes consumed is considered to be equal to the farm gate price per box on 30-05-2001 and has to be added to the value of
produce sold.
Table 8
Gross margin analysis for the sweet potatoes of farmer Betty
Description
Unit
Per plot
Per ha
Area planted
Amount of runners
Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer
Amount of top dressing fertilizer
Total output
Gross income * (1)
ha
kg
kg
kg
kg
US$
0.04
42
0
10
1 377
142.69
1
1 050
0
250
34 425
3 567.25
Variable Costs:
Land preparation cost
Cost of runners
Cost of initial fertilizer
Cost of top dressing
Hired labour
Transport cost (inputs)
Seasonal loan
Transport cost (of produce to market)
Packing materials
Cost of stand plus lunch
Total variable costs (2)
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
0
0
0
1.82
0
0
0
25.27
0
7.82
34.91
0
0
0
45.50
0
0
0
631.75
0
195.50
872.75
US$
107.78
2 694.50
Gross income includes the value of the produce sold (US$120.87) plus the value of the produce consumed (US$21.82).
28
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Energy costs
Water bills
Servicing of equipment
Table 9
Gross margin for an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha (200% cropping intensity) at Mutange irrigation scheme
Crop
Area
(%)
(ha)
Grain maize
40
0.2
193
Sugar beans
40
0.2
255
Groundnuts
20
0.1
149
Wheat
40
0.2
331
Green maize
40
0.2
1 355
Cabbages
20
0.1
705
200
1.0
2 988
Less:
Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2)
105
156
Net income per plot of 0.5 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3)
2 727
Table 10
Gross margin for a rainfed area of 3 ha close to Mutange irrigation scheme
Crop
(%)
Area
(ha)
Grain maize
36.7
1.10
278
Sorghum
5.0
0.15
30
Pearl millet
1.7
0.05
12
Groundnuts
23.3
0.70
379
Cotton
33.3
1.00
-74
100.0
3.00
625
Module 14
29
Irrigation manual
Y
Y
Water bills
Energy bills
Replacement costs
Gross margin for Mutange irrigation scheme, total area 105 ha (200% cropping intensity)
Crop
Area
(%)
(ha)
Grain maize
40
42
40 487
Sugar beans
40
42
53 552
Groundnuts
20
21
31 254
Wheat
40
42
69 567
Green maize
40
42
284 633
Cabbages
20
21
147 953
200
210
627 446
Less:
Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2)
Repair and maintenance costs (3)
Net income whole scheme of 105 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3)
30
Module 14
22 126
32 727
572 592
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
The AEW assigned to the scheme may keep the same data
as the IMC. This is because the AEW is well placed to
communicate the data (should the need arise) to various
stakeholders such as the scheme engineer, planners and
other researchers in the scheme.
Over and above these data, the AEW will keep records of:
Employment creation
Cropping programme
Irrigation scheduling
Advancement of women
Module 14
31
Irrigation manual
Erosion
Waterlogging/drainage problems
The B/C ratio has gone down from 2.48 to 2.09, which
is a decrease of 16%
32
Module 14
1 200 000
37 000
37 000
20
21
Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)
817 632
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 500
42 210
41 500
40 250
35 672
33 000
30 000
(5)
Repairs
and
maintenance
705 072
37 000
19
197 000
37 000
37 000
16
37 000
37 000
15
18
37 000
14
17
37 000
13
90 000
37 000
12
37 000
37 000
10
80 000
37 000
11
37 000
36 600
34 100
35 490
28 782
27 000
27 100
(4)
25 000
1 200 000
(3)
Energy
costs
(2)
(1)
Replacement
costs
Investment
Year
448 223
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
24 000
23 425
21 295
19 359
17 599
16 000
14 545
(6)
Technical
support
774 428
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
(7)
Withoutproject
benefits
Table 12
4 142 355
140 378
140 378
140 378
140 378
140 378
230 378
140 378
140 378
140 378
140 378
220 378
140 378
140 378
140 378
139 113
162 163
130 587
118 931
112 978
106 423
1 236 878
(8)
Total
project
costa
13 739 429
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
627 446
548 352
451 663
(9)
Withproject
benefits
9 597 074
572 091
572 091
572 091
572 091
572 091
482 091
572 091
572 091
572 091
572 091
492 091
572 091
572 091
572 091
573 356
550 306
581 882
508 516
435 375
345 240
-1 236 878
(10)
Net
benefitsb
4 058 993
54 717
61 830
69 868
78 950
89 214
100 812
113 917
128 726
145 461
164 371
185 739
209 885
237 170
268 002
302 842
342 212
386 699
384 824
380 036
4 353 718
(13)
Present
value of
benefitsd
2 112 273
43 936
49 647
56 102
63 395
71 636
68 214
91 472
103 363
116 801
131 985
128 287
168 531
190 440
215 198
243 711
264 322
315 822
311 882
301 736
270 374
-1 094 582
(14)
Present
value of net
benefitse
4 058 993
1 946 719
2.09
30%
4 years
2 112 273
1 946 719
10 781
12 182
13 766
15 556
17 578
32 598
22 445
25 363
28 660
32 386
57 452
41 354
46 730
52 804
59 131
77 890
70 877
72 942
78 299
83 344
1 094 582
(12)
Present
value of
costsc
0.0768
0.0868
0.0981
0.1108
0.1252
0.1415
0.1599
0.1807
0.2042
0.2307
0.2607
0.2946
0.3329
0.3762
0.4251
0.4803
0.5428
0.6133
0.6931
0.7831
0.8850
(11)
Discount
factor
(13%)
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Module 14
33
34
Module 14
1 090 909
22 126
22 126
20
21
Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)
654 540
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
32 727
(5)
Repairs
and
maintenance
442 520
22 126
19
186 489
22 126
18
22 126
16
22 126
22 126
15
84 456
22 126
17
22 126
14
11
13
22 126
22 126
10
22 126
22 126
12
22 126
77 097
22 126
22 126
22 126
22 126
24 936
22 126
(4)
1 090 909
(3)
Energy
costs
22 126
(2)
(1)
Replacement
costs
Investment
Year
290 900
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
(6)
Technical
support
774 428
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
(7)
Withoutproject
benefits
3 439 786
106 276
106 276
106 276
106 276
106 276
190 732
106 276
106 276
106 276
106 276
183 373
106 276
106 276
106 276
106 276
131 212
106 276
106 276
106 276
106 276
1 127 787
(8)
Total
project
costa
13 739 429
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
627 446
548 352
451 663
(9)
Withproject
benefits
10 299 643
606 193
606 193
606 193
606 193
606 193
521 737
606 193
606 193
606 193
606 193
529 096
606 193
606 193
606 193
606 193
581 257
606 193
521 171
442 077
345 387
-1 127 787
(10)
Net
benefitsb
4 372 760
65 975
73 883
82 718
92 621
103 735
116 204
130 168
145 771
163 298
182 891
204 835
229 415
256 916
287 766
322 250
360 937
404 255
398 742
390 317
360 066
(13)
Present
value of
benefitsd
2 608 425
56 133
62 862
70 379
78 805
88 262
85 095
110 751
124 027
138 939
155 610
152 115
195 194
218 593
244 841
274 181
294 465
343 954
331 204
314 670
275 343
-1 007 001
(14)
Present
value of net
benefitse
2.48
42%
4 years
4 372 760
1 764 335
2 608 425
1 764 335
9 841
11 021
12 339
13 816
15 474
31 108
19 417
21 744
24 358
27 281
52 720
34 221
38 323
42 925
48 068
66 472
60 301
67 538
75 647
84 723
1 007 001
(12)
Present
value of
costsc
0.0926
0.1037
0.1161
0.1300
0.1456
0.1631
0.1827
0.2046
0.2292
0.2567
0.2875
0.3220
0.3606
0.4039
0.4523
0.5066
0.5674
0.6355
0.7118
0.7972
0.8929
(11)
Discount
factor
(13%)
Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project (US$)
Table 13
Irrigation manual
1 418 182
712 469
13 739 429
9 720 061
596 375
596 375
596 375
596 375
596 375
486 582
596 375
596 375
596 375
596 375
496 149
596 375
596 375
596 375
596 375
563 958
596 375
511 352
432 259
335 569
-1 455 059
(10)
Net
benefitsb
4 372 760
2 136 607
2 236 154
55 224
61 844
69 239
77 529
86 832
79 362
108 958
122 018
136 689
153 089
142 643
192 033
215 053
240 876
269 740
285 701
338 383
324 965
307 682
267 516
-1 299 222
(14)
Present
value of net
benefitse
2 236 154
4 372 760
65 975
73 883
82 718
92 621
103 735
116 204
130 168
145 771
163 298
182 891
204 835
229 415
256 916
287 766
322 250
360 937
404 255
398 742
390 317
360 066
(13)
Present
value of
benefitsd
2 136 607
10 750
12 039
13 478
15 092
16 903
36 842
21 210
23 753
26 609
29 801
62 192
37 382
41 863
46 890
52 509
75 235
65 872
73 777
82 635
92 550
1 299 222
(12)
Present
value of
costsc
0.0926
0.1037
0.1161
0.1300
0.1456
0.1631
0.1827
0.2046
0.2292
0.2567
0.2875
0.3220
0.3606
0.4039
0.4523
0.5066
0.5674
0.6355
0.7118
0.7972
0.8929
(11)
Discount
factor
(13%)
Module 14
35
5 years
Payback period:
116 094
4 019 367
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
712 469
627 446
548 352
451 663
(9)
Withproject
benefits
2.05
36 878
774 428
116 094
116 094
116 094
116 094
225 886
116 094
116 094
116 094
116 094
216 320
116 094
116 094
116 094
116 094
148 510
116 094
116 094
116 094
116 094
1 455 059
(8)
Total
project
costa
33%
14 545
290 900
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
36 878
(7)
Withoutproject
benefits
850 902
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
14 545
(6)
Technical
support
Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)
42 545
22 126
442 520
21
Total
42 545
22 126
20
42 545
42 545
22 126
42 545
22 126
242 436
42 545
42 545
19
16
18
22 126
22 126
15
42 545
22 126
22 126
14
42 545
42 545
42 545
17
22 126
13
109 793
22 126
12
22 126
100 226
11
42 545
42 545
22 126
22 126
10
42 545
22 126
42 545
42 545
22 126
42 545
42 545
42 545
22 126
22 126
32 417
22 126
42 545
(5)
Repairs
and
maintenance
22 126
(4)
1 418 182
(3)
Energy
costs
22 126
(2)
(1)
Replacement
costs
Investment
Year
Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project, taking into consideration a 30% increase
in investment, replacement, repairs and maintenance costs (US$)
Table 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Irrigation manual
36
Module 14
References
Beaudoux, E., de Crombrugghe, G., Douxchamps, F., Gueneau, M. and Nieuwkerk, M. 1992. Supporting development action
from identification to evaluation. Macmillan Education Ltd.
BOND. 2001. Beginners guide to logical framework analysis. BOND Guidance notes series 1.
Casley, D.J. and Kumar K. 1990. Project monitoring and evaluation in agriculture. London.
Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1981. A handbook on monitoring and evaluation of agriculture and rural development projects. World Bank.
Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1989. Data collection in developing countries. Oxford University Press.
DFID. 1997. Guidelines on humanitarian assistance.
FAO. 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 45.
Developed by: Walker, W.R. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1992. CROPWAT: A computer programme for irrigation planning and management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 46. Prepared by: Smith, M. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1998. SEAGA Sector Guide Irrigation. Socioeconomic and gender analysis programme. Prepared by: Eva Jordans. Rome,
Italy.
FAO SAFR. 2000. Socio-economic impact of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe: Case studies of ten irrigation schemes. Harare,
Zimbabwe.
FAO/DFID/ICID. Undated. Guidelines for water management and irrigation development. Prepared by: Field, W.P and Collier, F.W.
HR Wallington Ltd, Institute of Hydrology.
FARMESA. 2001. Farming systems approach to technology development and transfer: a source book. Prepared by: Matata, J.B,
Anandajayasekeram, P, Kiriro, T.N, Wandera, E.O. and Dixon, J. Harare, Zimbabwe.
IDS. 1998. Participatory monitoring & evaluation: learning from change. Policy briefing. Issue 12, November 1998.
IIMI. 1996. Mthodologie dvaluation des performances et de diagnostic des systmes irrigus. Projet Management de lirrigation au
Burkina Faso. Novembre 1996.
Sally, H. 1995. Performance assessment of rice irrigation in the Sahel: major indicators and preliminary results from Burkina Faso and Niger.
Paper presented at Workshop on irrigated rice in the Sahel: prospects for sustainable development, 27-31 March
1995.
United Nations ACC Task Force on Rural Development Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation. 1984. Guiding principles for the
design and use of monitoring and evaluation in rural development projects and programmes. Rome.
Module 14
37
Irrigation manual
38
Module 14
Appendix 1
Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of
activities, outputs, immediate objectives and goals
Example of a drag-hose sprinkler irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe, following the logical framework of Table 2
Module 14
39
40
Module 14
IMC
Experts
Experts
Discharge rate
Condition of equipment
Uniformity of irrigation
Frequency of breakdown
Training
Irrigation
equipment
installed, tested
and performing
as expected
AEW
Selection
Source of
information
Area of
indicators
Observation weekly
Contained in monthly
report to DAEO
Survey of new
irrigators once at
start of the scheme
Part of selection
Committee
Method of collection
and frequency
Irrigators,
Funding
Agency,
Agritex
Funding
Agency
Agritex
Agritex, RDC
Funding
Agency
Funding Agency
can engage a researcher to do
the survey and analysis to
provide the data
Comments
Irrigation manual
Timeliness of operations
External
evaluation team
Agritex AEW
Funding
Agency
Agritex
Farmer
Funding
Agency
Comments
To make a preliminary
assessment of whether the
project objectives are likely to
be achieved
Farmer records as
Farmer
soon as they are
through with a
particular operation
AEW summarizes a
Agritex
sample of irrigators
records for one of their
monthly reports to
DAEO
AEW records
Adoption of
appropriate
agronomic
practices
Method of collection
and frequency
Individual farmer
records
Diversify crop
production
Source of
information
Area of
indicators
OUTPUTS: Increased diversity into high-income crops and adoption of appropriate agronomic practices
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Module 14
41
42
Module 14
Viability
NPV
IRR
Pay back period
Farmer records,
scheme level
records, investment
cost records
Individual farmer
enterprise records
Agritex
Creditor
Donor agency
Funding
Agency
Agritex
Comments
Farmer
Agritex AEW
Increased
incomes of
irrigators
Increased
yields
Method of collection
and frequency
Individual farmer
records of area
and output of
each crop
Area of
indicators
Survey of irrigators
Erosion
Water pollution
Soil samples
Soil pH / salinity
Field measurement
Field measurement
Experts
Experts
Field measurement
Experts
Irrigation efficiencies
Technical
Soil moisture in field
and environmental
Pressure and discharge in
sustainability sprinkler system
Local health
worker
Funding
Agency
irrigators
Agritex and
Donor Agency
Donor
Agency
Agritex
Farmer,
Agritex,
Funding
agency
To spearhead rehabilitation
of affected areas
To gauge sustainability of
the scheme
To fund corrective measures
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Module 14
43
44
Improved
standard of
living of
irrigators
Improved
standard of
living of the
community
around the
scheme
Area of
indicators
Module 14
Survey of
irrigators by
external
evaluation
team
Observation
by external
evaluation
team
Observation
Method of collection
and frequency
Observation
Source of
information
Political
leaders
Funding
Agency and
political
leaders
Agritex and
Funding
Agency
GOAL: To improve the standard of living of the irrigators and the community around the scheme
Comments
Irrigation manual
Appendix 2
Examples of questionnaires and checklists
1.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PLOT HOLDERS TO BE USED FOR SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION SCHEME EVALUATION
Identification details
Name of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Name of irrigation scheme:
District:
Province:
Name of registered plot holder:
Sex:
Male:
Marital status:
Female:
Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
2.
3.
Module 14
45
Irrigation manual
Please give details relating to crops you grew in your irrigation plot in 2001 in the table belowa
4.
Crop name:
Variety
Area planted (ha)
Cost of land preparation
Manure:
Amount of manure
Cost of manure
Basal or initial fertilizer:
Type
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Seed:
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Fertilizer for top dressing:
Type
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Pesticides:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Total cost of pesticides
Cost of transport of inputs to farm
Casual labour cost:
Land preparation
Weeding
Harvesting
Other casual labour cost
Total output produced
Total quantity consumed
Total quantity given away
Markets:
Market 1
Market 2
Market 3
Total quantity sold
Average price
Cost of transport of produce to market
Cost of transport of farmer (fares)
Other marketing costs
a
5.
6.
What items did you repair/replace in your own plot in year 2001?
46
Module 14
Date
Cost
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
7.
What were your contributions towards electricity, water and other bills (for example security) in year 2001?
Type of bill
Amount paid
Period covered
Electricity bill
Water bill
Other (specify)
8.
1.
2.
3.
9a. Did you borrow any money for crop production on your plot in the scheme in year 2001?
Yes
No
Source of funds
Terms of loan
Amount repaid
Social performance
10. Indicate who in your household makes decisions and/or does the following activities related to your plot in the scheme.
Activity
Ploughing
Planting
Buying of inputs
Weeding
Fertilizer application
Chemical application
Harvesting
Marketing
Irrigating crops
11.
Number
Ox-drawn plough
Cultivator
Planter
Scotch cart
Wheel barrow
Harrow
Hoe
Knapsack sprayer
Irrigation pump
Tractor
Other (specify)
Module 14
47
Irrigation manual
Cattle
Draft cattle
Donkey
Goats
Sheep
Poultry
Rabbits
Pigs
Bee hives
Fish ponds
Other (specify)
14. Household items owned
Item
Number
Radio
Solar panel
Television
Phone
Fridge
Sewing machine
Knitting machine
Car
Bicycle
Motor bike
Stove
Sofa
Chairs
Table
Bed
Wardrobe
Headboard
Dressing table
Kitchen unit
15. Quality of main house (circle the number)
1) Brick under tile
2) Brick under thatch
3) Brick under asbestos
4) Brick under corrugated iron
5) Pole and dagga under thatch
48
Module 14
Number
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
16. How many times a week does your household consume the following?
Food Items
Beans
Meat
Fresh vegetables
Chicken
Milk
Eggs
Potatoes
Mufushwa
Others (specify)
17a. Are all your school going age children at school?
Yes
No
Female
Female
Male
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 18 years
19 and above
19. How many people did you employ in 2001 as:
a)
Casual labour
number of men:
number of women:
b)
Permanent labour
number of men:
number of women:
20a. What are the advantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?
20b. What are the disadvantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?
Technical performance
21a. Is the equipment easy to operate? Elaborate.
Module 14
49
Irrigation manual
22c. What is the condition of the sprinklers (do they give all the same jet)?
27a. Do you have problems with nutrient mining or are there any visible soil changes since you started using the scheme?
Yes
No
Yes
No
29. How many members of your family suffered from the following diseases in year 2001:
Disease
Number
Malaria
Bilharzia
Diarrhoea
Kwashiokor
2.
CHECKLIST FOR SCHEME-LEVEL RECORDS OF THE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC) AND THE
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKER (AEW)
Size of scheme
50
Module 14
Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme
Details of breakdowns, repair and maintenance work undertaken in the scheme and costs associated with this
Weights of different units of measurement for each crop used in the scheme
Irrigation schedule
Cropping programme
3.
Soil pH
Salinity in wells
Erosion problems
Drainage problems
Whether scheme causes water to pond (in fields, drains, main canal, field canals, structures, tanks may cause extra
hazards for malaria and/or bilharzia
Uniformity of irrigation
Irrigation efficiency
Energy consumption
Discharge rate
Module 14
51
Irrigation manual
52
Module 14