Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT.: Management reforms are considered one of the best alternatives in increasing efficiency Of the
irrigation systems. Transfer of day-to-day operation and maintenance to farmers is not a new concept. However due to lags, even now it is a hot issue in developing countries. In this context of growing argument about the transfer of management of public irrigation systems to the Water Users Group, this paper examines the comparative performance of farmer-managed and agency-managed irrigation systems. In this paper irrigation water management is considered as one of the activities of the irrigation scheme. Three phases of irrigation water management namely planning, operation and evaluation are identified. A framework for the performance assessment of irrigation water management in heterogeneous irrigation schemes is proposed in this paper, based on earlier studies made in this direction. The paper presents three types of allocate measures (productivity, equity and reliability) and five types of scheduling measures (adequacy, flexibility, sustainability, social impact and efficiency), together with the methodologies for estimating these for the scheme as a whole during different phases of irrigation water management.This paper recommends a specific set of indicators for measuring performance. Although the primary focus is on the management of canal systems for agricultural production, the paper also discusses indicators that can be used for assessing longer term performance, including physical, economic and social sustainability. Finally, the paper highlights the crucial importance of strategic, as well as operational management performance..
KEY WORDS: adequacy, equity, irrigation water management, performance assessment, productivity,
Reliability, sustainability, social impact.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Developing countries have made huge investments in infrastructure for irrigation in the form of irrigation schemes over the last half century, realizing its importance for food production for the growing population. This investment, together with improved crop production technologies such as use of fertilizers, hybrid varieties, plant protection techniques, etc. has enabled many countries to move towards achieving selfsufficiency in food production. Nevertheless there is also a perception that many irrigation schemes do not perform up to expectations or achieve the goals. Therefore the issue of equity was not addressed.A set of comparative performance indicators is defined, which relates outputs from irrigated agriculture to the major inputs of water, land, and finance. five indicators are presented with the objective of providing a means of comparing performance across irrigation systems. These indicators require a limited amount of data that are generally available and readily analyzed with respect to farmers participation. Results of application of the indicators at irrigation systems are presented and large differences in performance among systems are shown. In spite of uncertainties in estimation of indicators, the large differences discerned by the indicators justify the approach taken.Previous studies that used the multi field type of model Sritharan et al. 1988 and Shyam et al. 1994_ produced the allocation plans and water delivery schedules for each allocation unit or field for optimum productivity. These studies discussed or estimated the performance measure of equity for the optimum allocation plan, as they obtained the distribution of the resources by allocation unit. Therefore the methodologies included in these models fall in the second category of methodologies, which optimizeproductivity while addressing the issue of equity. However these models did not aim for optimization or maximization of the equity. The models which are of simulation in nature such as reported by Keller _1987_, Jian _1990_, and Steiner and Walter _1992_ estimated the equity for the given land and water resources allocation plan or for specified crop areas and the water distribution rule. But these models did not attempt to optimize productivity or equity.
II.
Performance assessment has been an integral part of irrigation since man first started harnessing water to improve crop production. The consequences of failing to monitor performance have also been known for many centuries: The twentieth century has seen a massive growth in irrigation. About 35% of all food grown is
www.ijesi.org
35 | Page
www.ijesi.org
36 | Page
Fig1: Nested System Network The purpose of defining this nested set of systems is that it allows the actions of a manager at one level to be placed in the context of the next higher level if irrigation delivery does not match the requirements of farmers who are responding to irrigation as part of a wider set of agricultural tasks, then performance will suffer. It also provides a clear way of splitting up objectives into constituent groups that reflect the purpose of that system: this avoids the common pitfall of trying to meet too many different objectives simultaneously. Three types of performance measures: process measures that refer to the processes internal to a system that lead to the ultimate outputs from that system, output measures that describe the quality and quantity of the outputs at the point where they become inputs into the next higher system, and impact measures that refer to the impact of these outputs on the wider environment. The distinction is useful because it helps us to understand that performance means different things to different people. Until the context in which a particular number or value is used has been defined, the scope for confusion and misunderstanding will remain large. Characteristics of performance measures Abernethy (1989) pointed out that performance indicators should provide irrigation managers with the answer to the following three questions. 1. Does the quantity of water provided meet the growth needs of the crops planted in a given season? 2. How fair is the water distribution among multiple users of the delivery system? 3. Does the water delivery timing match the growth needs of the crop and expectation of the farmers?
General features of performance indicators Monitoring is essential in providing the basic data used for performance assessment, but in its raw form it is merely data. A true performance indicator includes both an actual value and a target value that enables the user to quickly assess the amount of deviation and a standard that allows the manager to determine if the
www.ijesi.org
37 | Page
This measure enables a manager to determine the extent to which water is delivered
www.ijesi.org
38 | Page
www.ijesi.org
39 | Page
www.ijesi.org
40 | Page
www.ijesi.org
41 | Page
III.
CONCLUSION
Irrigation water management in irrigation schemes is complex due to their heterogeneity. Three phases of irrigation water management namely planning, operation and evaluation were identified. Previous studies on the performance assessment of irrigation scheme have provided the conceptual framework for performance measurement. This has been extended in this paper for the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of performance during every phase of irrigation water management. Two types of performance measures were proposed in this paper: the allocative type comprising productivity and equity; and the scheduling type comprising adequacy (excess), reliability, flexibility, sustainability and efficiency. These performance measures are described with different attributes in this paper. The methodologies to estimate these measures explained in this paper provide the irrigation authorities with the information on the performance of irrigation water management in the scheme, their management capability, the response of the irrigation water management to variations in climatological, physical and management aspects and insight to improve the performance during different phases of irrigation water management. Although the primary focus is on the management of canal systems for agricultural production, we have also discussed indicators that can be used for assessing longer term performance, including physical, economic and social sustainability. Finally, the paper has highlighted the crucial importance of strategic as well as operational management performance. It is unlikely that in any single evaluation there will be sufficient time or resources to assess all aspects of performance simultaneously.
REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Abernethy, C.L. 1984. Indicators of the performance of irrigation water distribution systems. Symposium on the Performance Evaluation of Irrigation Systems, 23rd November, 1989, IIMI, Colombia, Sri Lanka. Abernethy, C.L. 1986. Performance Measurement in Canal Water management: A Discussion. ODI-IIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper 86/2d, pp. 25. Abernethy, C.L. 1989. Performance criteria for irrigation systems. In J.R. Rydzewski and K. Ward (Eds.) Proceedings on International Conference on Irrigation Theory and Practice, University of Southampton, UK, 1215 September, 1989. Bos M.G., Wolters W., Drovandi A. & Morabito J.A. 1991. The Viejo Retamo secondary canal Performance evaluation case study: Mendoza, Argentina. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 5: 77-88. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. _1998_. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Food and agricultural organization irrigation and drainage paper 56, United Nations, Rome, Italy. Doorenbos, J., and Pruitt, W. O. _1984_. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Food and agricultural organization irrigation and drainage paper 24, United Nations, Rome, Italy.
www.ijesi.org
42 | Page