Paddy Field Irrigation Systems in Myanmar

Paddy field irrigation systems in Myanmar
Maung Maung Naing4
1. Introduction
Agricultural development is given priority in Myanmars socio-economic development as it is seen as essential
in its own right and as the basis of the other sectors of the economy. The agriculture sector contributes
43 percent of GDP; 41 percent of export earnings; and employs 63 percent of the labour force.
The population in Myanmar reached 53 million in 2003. It has an annual population growth rate of
2.02 percent and it is estimated that it will reach 61 million by 2010 and 86 million by 2025. More and more
food will be necessary for the countrys growing population. Rice is the main food for the people of Myanmar
and it is also a principle crop in the agriculture sector. Thus, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MOAI)
has laid down the objective to achieve a surplus in paddy production so as to meet the needs of the country.
Other objectives are to achieve self-sufficiency in edible oil and to set up the production of exportable pulses
and industrial crops.
In this connection, irrigation plays a major role in the development of Myanmars agriculture sector. Small
and medium scale irrigation projects have been constructed throughout the country, especially for year-round
cultivation of paddy and in conjunction with other crops. These irrigation systems can improve the traditional
farming practices and can adjust to the local hydrological characteristics. Furthermore, they can also contribute
to the rural environment, rural life, biodiversity and the recycling of energy functions.
2. Resources
2.1 Potential land for cultivation
The total area of Myanmar is 67.71 million hectares and an area of only about 10 million hectares is cultivated
for paddy and other crops. Myanmar has great potential to extend its cultivated area with few adverse
environmental consequences by using cultivable waste lands that still cover about eight million hectares.
2.2 Water
Myanmar has three distinct seasons: the rainy season, the hot (summer) season and the cold (winter) season.
Ninety percent of the annual rainfall in different regions of Myanmar is received during the rainy season
from May to October. Precipitation varies countrywide (Table 1).
Table 1. Rainfall distribution in Myanmar
Region
1. South and western coastal strip
Annual rainfall (mm)

5 000
2. Delta
3. North and eastern hilly regions
4. Central dry zone
2 0003 000
1 3003 000
760
Myanmar has an abundance of high potential water resources. The drainage area is spread widely over the
country endowing it with an annual water volume of 1 082 cubic kilometres flowing in its many rivers. The
Ayeyarwady River and its tributaries such as the Chindwin, Mu, Panlaung, Zawgyi, Myitnge, Mone, Man,
Salin and the Sittoung River and its distributaries of the Bago and others rivulets mainly contribute water to
4
Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Myanmar.
120
Table 2. Potential water resources in Myanmar

River basins
Ayeyarwady River Basin
Sittoung River Basin
Other River Basins
Total
Surface water
3
Groundwater
(km )
(%)
(km3)
(%)
455.13
81.15
42.07
7.50
303.42
28.40
61.33
5.74
545.61
1 081.89
50.43
100.00
162.89
494.71
32.93
100.00
the agriculture sector, especially for paddy irrigation. In addition, a large potential groundwater resource is
found in the Ayeyarwady River Basin and could be very useful for irrigating agriculture (Table 2).
3. Paddy fields and irrigation systems

Myanmars paddy fields can be found mostly in the delta and central dry zone areas (Figure 1). About
60 percent of the delta region, including the Ayeyarwady, Bago and Yangon region of Lower Myanmar, is
cultivated with rainfed paddy. Irrigated paddy is cultivated mainly in the Mandalay, Sagaing and Magway
regions which are located in the central dry zone of Myanmar.
Figure 1. Paddy fields and irrigation systems in the Ayeyarwady and Sittoung River Basins
Different type of irrigation systems and projects were developed mostly along the two major river basins
(Figure 1) and are connected to where the paddy field is located. The Irrigation Department, a governmental
organization established to coordinate the development and management of water resources for irrigation,
has constructed about 200 irrigation projects which are of dam, weir and sluice types. A surface water runoff
of about 15 460 million cubic metre (MCM) has been stored in the constructed reservoirs and can irrigate an
area of about 1 million hectares (Figure 2).
121
16 000
14 000
1 000
Irrigable area
12 000
800
10 000
600
8 000
6 000
400
4 000
200
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-2000
Budget Year
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94
1992-93
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
1987-88
1973-74
1961-62
2 000
1947-48
Reservoires storage (MCM)
Water storage volume in the

reservoirs
Irrigable area (1 000 ha)
1 200
18 000
Figure 2. Annual progress of water storage in the reservoirs and irrigable area
Various groundwater and river pumping projects have been implemented by the Water Resources Utilization
Department for crop irrigation and rural drinking water.
4. Water consumption
A total water volume of about 3 200 MCM comprising both surface water (91 percent) and groundwater
(9 percent) was used to meet the demand for irrigation, domestic and industrial water supplies (Figure 3).
Water consumption is divided among the agriculture sector (89 percent), the domestic sector (10 percent)
and the industrial sector (1 percent). Groundwater is mostly used for domestic purposes.
35 000
Water volume (MCM)
30 000
Groundwater
Surface water
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
Total
Irrigation
Industrial
Domestic
5 000
Sector
Figure 3. Water consumption in the different sectors of Myanmar, 2001
5. Production of crops using the irrigation systems

The irrigation projects in Myanmar mainly supply water for paddy cultivation. Paddy production has been
increased by dry season paddy cultivation, which has followed rainy season paddy cultivation since 1992.
Paddy is currently cultivated under a total area of 6.48 million hectares, comprising 4.86 million hectares in
the rainy season and 1.62 million hectares in the dry season. Supplemental irrigation is supplied for the rainy
season paddy cultivation in the central dry zone, where the rainfall is not sufficient for the crop water
122
requirement. Other upland crops are cultivated there in the dry season also using irrigation. The dry season
paddy is mostly cultivated in Lower Myanmar using irrigation. Thus, crop production is being increased by
the irrigation projects. Cultivation of paddy has increased from 4.78 million hectares in 1988 to 6.54 million
hectares in 2003 (Figure 4). The production has also increased from 12.96 million tonnes to 22.79 million
tonnes over the same period. Thus, rice exports have increased to 1 million tonnes in 2004. In accordance
with national planning targets, the sown area of paddy will be expanded to a total area of 7.29 million hectares
with the further expansion of 0.81 million hectares in the rainy season. To generate increasing production of
paddy, high yielding varieties are being grown, including the introduction of hybrid rice varieties.
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
Production of pulses
Sown area of pulses
0.5
0.5
2003
0.0
1988
Budget Year
Figure 4. Sown area and production of paddy
2.0
0.0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2.0
2002
2.5
2001
2.5
2000
Paddy production
Paddy sown area
3.0
1999
3.0
1998
10
3.5
1997
3.5
1996
5
15
Sown area (million ha)
Sown area (million ha)
20
Production (million tonne)
25
Production (million tonne)
Among other upland crops, pulses and oilseed crops are also major crops in Myanmar and they participate in
the main cropping pattern of the irrigation projects along with paddy. Pulses are cultivated for export and the
cost of cultivation is relatively inexpensive. As a result of the increasing demand for domestic consumption
and export, the cultivation of pulses has increased substantially from 0.73 million hectares in 1988 to
3.31 million hectares in 2003 and the production has also increased from 0.5 million tonnes to 3 million
tonnes over the same period (Figure 5). Around one million tonnes of pulses are now being exported.
The major oilseed crops are groundnut, sesame and sunflower and cultivation of these crops increased to
2.78 million hectares in 2003.
Budget Year
Figure 5. Sown area and production of pulses
6. Operation and maintenance

6.1 Management of the facilities
The Irrigation Department mainly maintains and operates the facilities such as main dams, headworks, main
canals and secondary units. The farmers have to maintain and operate the terminal units such as field ditches
and watercourses.
6.2 Water tariffs
The water tariff in the gravity dam irrigation systems of the Irrigation Department is very cheap for irrigation
and it does not recover the cost for the maintenance work. The annual budget for the maintenance and repair
of the facilities is mostly paid by the government (Table 3).
However, the water tariff in the river pumping systems of the Water Resources Utilization Department is
higher than that of the dam projects (Table 3). The water prices for paddy cultivation of the dam systems are
150 and 300 times less than those of the electric and diesel types of river pumping systems, respectively
(Table 4). As a result of the lower water price being less of a burden, the farmers use water without caring
about water shortages or water losses.
123
Table 3. Ratio of the maintenance cost of the irrigation facilities between

the government and farmers
1993
Governments subsidy
(%)
95.24
1994
1996
96.32
95.27
3.68
4.73
1998
1999
2000
97.28
97.6
97.68
2.72
2.40
2.32
Budget year
Farmers contribution
(%)
4.76
Table 4. Difference of irrigation tariff among the systems (ratio)

Crops
Paddy
Other crops
Dam systems
River pumping systems

(Electric type)
(Diesel type)
1
1
150
75
300
150
6.3 Farmer participation and water user associations

Water users associations (WUAs) and water users groups (WUGs) fundamentally play an important role in
water management. However, the functional associations and groups are more useful for implementing
irrigation works. WUGs have been established in the projects under the guidelines of the Irrigation Department.
These are organized only for terminal units and they do not function well. Integrated systems have been
organized too, but they do not function well either.
In some of the projects the farmers improve the terminal units such as watercourses and field ditches. And
maintenance works are performed differently even in the same projects. In the Ngamoeyeik Project, the farmers
are all equally involved in creating a maintenance fund when before the irrigation season they meet to
determine and collect maintenance fees based on acreage. That fund is used for their terminal units. In the
Swa Chaung Project, farmers have to repair and maintain that portion of the watercourse connected to their
areas. Generally, WUGs and WUAs organized in Myanmar still do not function well and they need to be
modified and good water management needs to be promoted.
6.4 Multipurpose water resources management
In conjunction with paddy irrigation, the isolated and multireservoir system projects have been constructed
for multipurposes: water supply for hydroelectric power generation, domestic use and environmental
conservation. As the project includes multisite reservoirs, different river basins and multiwater user sectors,
it becomes a complex system (Table 5). The operation and management of its water supply is also complicated.
Conventional practice is currently adopted for water supply in the simple water resources projects. However,
a complex solution for operation and management of the multipurpose and multireservoirs system projects is
a major issue for the Irrigation Department and other related agencies. Such a complex solution requires much
greater engineering and technical sophistication than do traditional and conventional practices. Thus, to be
able to achieve efficient water use and good water productivity, the project engineers and water managers
have to adopt more appropriate ways for operation and management.
124
Table 5. Characteristics of water resources projects in Myanmar

Project type
Single/multisite
River basin
Water supply
Operation and
Management
1) Isolated reservoir
and single purpose
Single site
same
Single purpose
Simple
2) Isolated reservoir
and multipurpose
Single site
same
Multipurpose
Not simple
3) Multiple-reservoirs
and multipurpose
Multisite
same
Multipurpose
Complex
4) Multiple-reservoirs
and multipurpose
Multisite
different
Multipurpose
More complex
7. Competition and stress

7.1 Cropping pattern
The agriculture service has proposed a multicropping pattern in the projects to increase productivity and raise
farm and family incomes through improving farming on the basis of irrigation. Different kinds of cropping
patterns, including rainfed and irrigated paddy, rainfed with supplementary irrigation, irrigated upland crops
such as pulses and oilseed crops, are being cultivated in the projects. The proposed cropping pattern for the
Ngamoeyeik Project is presented in Table 6 and includes multicrops of different varieties and over different
periods within the system. Thus, complex adjustment of social, biophysical and economic factors is required.
However, the possibilities of water security for these purposes should be considered from the viewpoint of
hydrological characteristics also. If water supply for the other sectors is considered for the multipurpose
projects, such a condition needs to be carefully adjusted in terms of both technical and institutional possibilities.
Table 6. Proposed cropping patterns and calendar in the Ngamoeyeik Project, Lower Myanmar to
increase farm incomes
Cropping pattern
Cropping calendar
First crop
Second crop
Black gram
(70 days varieties)
mid-September to
November (Relay)
Third crop
1) rice-food legume-rice
Rainy season rice

(130135 days varieties)
mid-May to mid-October
2) rice-food legume-rice
Rainy season rice

Black gram
(70 days varieties)
mid-May to mid-September 4th wk September to
1st December (Tillage)
Dry season rice

mid-December to March
(Direct seeding)
3) rice-food
legume-oilseed
Rainy season rice

June to mid-October
Green gram
(70 days varieties)
mid-October to December
Sesame
second week January to
first week April
4) rice-rice
Rainy season rice

June to October
Dry season rice

mid-November to March
(Direct seeding)
125
Dry season rice

mid-December to March
(Transplanting)
7.2 Labour force

The continuous cultivation of paddy and other crops in Myanmar leads to agriculture labour force shortages.
Land preparation, transplanting and harvesting, unlike in a traditional farming system, need to be finished in
a short period of time so that the cropping seasons allow year-round cultivation. Thus, the farmers are faced
with labour shortages, especially for these periods and have no time to rest. Only 30 percent of farmers utilize
tractors for land preparation.
7.3 Investment
Because of the continuous irrigation for double or triple cropping, the paddy fields are less fertile and more
fertilizer has to be used to get a good yield. Thus, most farmers have problems with the high investment
needed for fertilizers. On the other hand, the rice price always falls when the paddy is harvested. The farmers
cannot wait until the price rises again and they have to sell their paddy to be able to invest in the next crop.
It is a serious problem, especially for farmers with no off-farm job. To address this, a suitable marketing and
trade system should be introduced for the farmers.
8. New requirements
8.1 Facilities
The downstream irrigation facilities in the existing projects have to be developed to promote agriculture
production and efficient water uses. The main canals should be rehabilitated for sufficient water supply in
these specific periods when it is required. Off-farm facilities such as watercourses, field ditches, land
consolidation and a proper irrigation and drainage network for farm productivity should also be developed.
From the viewpoint of future farm mechanization, a reasonable plot size should be consolidated for workability
and good water control. At the same time, ecological and environmental aspects also should be considered
together with paddy irrigation improvement.
8.2. Technical subjects
Based on traditional and conventional techniques, the operation and management of the facilities must be
technically improved to achieve the objectives of the sectors in the projects. The systems should be closely
monitored and evaluated for future development. The better modified techniques should replace the old ones.
8.3 Institutional subjects
Water user associations, farmer organizations and water user groups should be recognized and modified to
establish well-organized and functional groups. The related sectors should train farmers so that they have
basic knowledge of relevant subjects such as rice sciences, hydraulics and hydrology and other institutional
knowledge.
8.4 Water pricing
To reduce the governments burden on the operation and maintenance, the participation of farmers should be
improved and irrigation tariffs should be increased up to a reasonable price. Rules, regulations and principles
should be improved to ensure equitable and efficient water use and allocation.
9. Improvement of water management techniques

The Irrigation Department has implemented the Irrigation Technology Center (ITC) Project (Phase-II) in
cooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for improvement of water management
to foster better paddy production. The main components are off-farm and on-farm facilities development,
monitoring and evaluation processes for operation and distribution planning, and conducting water management
training. As for irrigation and drainage development, the model farmlands for intensive and extensive types
126
of farming have been consolidated in the Ngamoeyeik Project, and these demonstrate to the farmers and local
staff how important water management is for better farm productivity.
9.1 Reservoir operation and system water distribution plan
Based on the practice of water distribution and use in the project, the irrigation system has been developed
for more reasonable and efficient operation. A main consideration is to formulate an annual water distribution
plan for irrigation, and then to implement this. At the implementation stage, if it is necessary, a periodically
revised plan can be used in accordance with the ground conditions such as water availability in the reservoir,
canal-wise actual irrigated area, working progress at the planting stage and on-farm level water use. Water
distribution should be monitored and evaluated throughout the season and all sectors should be involved in
the development work.
9.2. On-farm level water management development
Water management at on-farm level or plot level has a direct relationship with water productivity. To have
higher water productivity a farm needs to have reasonable water operation facilities such as irrigation and
drainage canals and control shutter gates at these canals for water regulation. Two types of model farmland
were consolidated within the project area to study on-farm level water management development. The first
is an intensive type, and it has an area of 25 ha including nine farmers, and the second is an extensive type
with an area of 134 ha including 38 farmers.
A plot-to-plot traditional irrigation system is demonstrated in the extensive model farmland (Figure 6a). It
includes only a main drain system for a group of plots or watercourses. However, it has a reasonable
watercourse density for water distribution. According to topographical conditions, watercourses were
constructed at intervals of 100 m, 200 m, 300 m and 400 m. A modern irrigation system is set up in the
intensive model farmland (Figure 6b), and water can be controlled at any depth for any plot whenever it is
necessary. It has a high density of watercourse and drainage canals for water management.
Irrigation canal
Drainage canal
Farm road
Irrigation canal
Drainage canal
(b) Modern irrigation system
(a) Traditional irrigation system
Figure 6. On-farm level water distribution systems: (a) Traditional irrigation system, (b) Modern
irrigation system
After constructing these model farmlands, water management at on-farm level was studied there in relation
to water attainment time, water consumption at the growing stages and for land preparation, farm workability,
nature of water use and management by farmers and farmers socio-economic situations before and after the
farmland consolidation.
127
9.3 Water management training

Water management training is one of the major components of the training programme of the Irrigation
Department. Its fundamental aims are to contribute knowledge of irrigation water management to farmers,
and to improve the technical skills of engineers and the technical staff of the Irrigation Department in this
field. This training has been implemented for both on-farm and off-farm level water management development.
Fundamental subjects include the setting of irrigation and drainage canals in the land consolidation areas,
reservoir operation and distribution planning, operation and management of the facilities, data collection and
information management, and calculation of the water requirement. The two model farmlands are also used
to help all trainees understand on-farm level water management development. The training courses conducted
for these purposes are here presented in Table 7. A master plan for future training programmes in relation to
this subject is also being considered.
Table 7. Implementation of water management training in ITC of the
Irrigation Department (19992005 (Up to October))
Number of
training courses
Training type
Number of
participants
(1) Farmers
30
903
(2) Irrigation engineers and staff of

Irrigation Department
19
499
(3) Seminars
16
914
Total
65
2 316
9.4 Adoption of the techniques

The Irrigation Technology Center of the Irrigation Department is now implementing the extension project
(Intermediate Goal Areas Project) for water management improvement in other areas. The techniques
developed in the ITC Project (Phase II) will be adopted and expanded to other areas in one project after
another. For the purpose, an implementing committee has been formed comprising members of the research
groups, operation and maintenance engineers and agricultural specialists and extensionists.
10. Others
With the cooperation of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP) and FAO, the Irrigation Department has launched a programme to develop the Myanmar Water
Vision and to coordinate the establishment of a national water coordination agency (NWCA) as an apex body
responsible for overall management of water resources of the country in cooperation with both the public
and private sectors. Furthermore, it is planned to establish a national level Myanmar Water Resources
Committee (MWRC) and formulate a strategic management plan (SMP) to enhance the application of
integrated water resources management in the country. In this connection, the Irrigation Department has
proposed the following components of IWRM to be studied in the formulation of the SMP:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
principles of water resources development and management;

principles of operation and management;
water allocation among competing uses and users;
water productivity at farm, system, and basin level;
conjunctive use of surface and groundwater;
interactions between irrigation, human health, and the environment;
public involvement; and
capacity building (CB) and human resources development (HRD).
128
After the successful establishment of the MWRC and under the leadership of this committee, the SMP can
be promoted for the sustainable production of rice and other crops together with the harmonious development
of other sectors as well through improving integrated water resources management and water management
for paddy field irrigation systems.
Furthermore, the Irrigation Department has a plan to implement a project on strengthening of farmers
irrigation management together with the Myanmar Agriculture Services, Water Resources Utilization
Department and the Settlement and Land Records Department with the technical assistance of the Japanese
Government. It is aimed at reducing the administrative and maintenance costs of the construction of new
irrigation projects as well as those of the existing irrigation system. The resources made available from these
adjustments could be utilized in improving the system losses, expanding the area under irrigation, and updating
farm-level facilities. The farmers will voluntarily form water users associations, irrigation system management
will be enforced and maintenance and repairs of irrigation facilities will be carried out.
11. Conclusions
Myanmar has abundant water resources which can be used to meet the demand for water of the agriculture
and other sectors. Agriculture is a major economic sector of Myanmar and irrigation systems, especially
rice-based irrigation systems, have been developed to promote agricultural production. These irrigation systems
allow crop production throughout the year as they make available water stored in the reservoirs and irrigation
systems.
Traditional paddy fields need to be developed into a more systematic farm type for application of farm
mechanization and good water control in the paddy fields. This can be achieved through land consolidation
and improvement of irrigation and drainage at both off-farm and on-farm locations. This development will
allow high cropping intensity with the cultivation of the high yielding varieties.
It is urgently necessary to adopt more appropriate ways for generating complex water resources projects in
Myanmar to meet the requirements of all sectors. Both technical and institutional measures are required to
be developed to replace traditional and conventional practices, but this should be carried out on the basis of
the careful consideration of previous experience, making adjustments where necessary.
A reasonable and functional system of water users groups (WUGs) should be newly established or modified
in conjunction with the local characteristics of the farming communities, including their economy, culture
and the social background of the respective regions in which they are to be found. They can support the
adoption of new measures for better water resources management. A reasonable water pricing system also
should be implemented to lessen the governments burden and to promote the farmers participation in
irrigation. A suitable marketing and trading system for crops and farm products is necessary for the farmers
convenience and to bring them sufficient benefits.
Under the leadership of the Myanmar Water Resources Committee, the irrigation systems can contribute to
development of multifunctional roles and the sustainable development of the rural environment.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses his gratitude to the Director General of the Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture
and Irrigation, Myanmar for his support, and to the Viet Nam Institute for Water Resources Research (VIWRR),
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam and the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific for their cooperation.
129
References
Euroconsult & UNDP. 1992. Ye-U Irrigation Support Project: feasibility study for the rehabilitation of the Shwebo
irrigation system (volume 1), MYA/85/002.
Irrigation Department. 1996. Mu-river basin project (Part-1): Progress report on Kintat diversion dam construction
(in Burmese).
Irrigation Department. 2002. Thaphanseik multipurpose dam project: background history (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department. 2003. Study on effective use of drainage water in Shwebo irrigation scheme in Myanmar.
Irrigation Department. 2004a. Outline of the Irrigation Department.
Irrigation Department. 2004b. Report on integrated water resources management in Myanmar.
Irrigation Department. 2005a. Introduction to Irrigation Department (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department (Hydrology branch). 2005b. Water storage development in the reservoirs (in Burmese).
Irrigation Department-ITC Project. 2004. Seminar report on completion of Irrigation Technology Center Project
(Phase II), ITC, Irrigation Department.
Irrigation Department-ITC Project. 2005. Technical Book on Ngamoeyeik Irrigation Project, ITC, Irrigation
Department.
Kyaw San Win, U. 2002. Multifunctional roles in irrigation system, Paper presented paper at the Third World Water
Forum (WWF3) Pre-symposium, Japan.
Maung Maung Naing. 2004. Towards participation in adoption of the technical measures for water resources
management, Myanmar Engineering Society, CAFEO22 paper 628, 0109.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2004a. Draft on strategic plan of IWRM in Myanmar, Irrigation Department,
MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2004b. Myanmar Agriculture in Brief, MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 2005. Myanmar Agriculture in Brief, MOAI, Myanmar.
Ministry of Information. 2002. Facts and figures 2002, MOI, Union of Myanmar.
Myanmar Water Vision Team, Ti Le-Hu & Thierry Facon. 2003. Report on formulation of national water vision to
action (3rd draft), Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Myanmar.
Zaw Win, U. 2004a. Agricultural water resources study in Myanmar: water scarcity variations in Myanmar, Myanmar
Engineering Society, CAFEO22 paper 635, 01038.
Zaw Win, U. 2004b. Water assessment and water sector profile for Myanmar, Irrigation Department.
130
Development and management of large rice-based irrigation systems:

Philippine scenario
Proceso T. Domingo5
Abstract
Current irrigation development in the Philippines stands at 45 percent of the irrigable area and this is short
of the threshold for reaching rice self-sufficiency. The tight financial situation that the government finds itself
in has necessitated pruning the annual irrigation development programme. Programme priority, in fact, has
shifted to system rehabilitation projects with new construction focused on small-investment small-scale
irrigation systems only.
Experience shows that major rehabilitation, although effective in checking system deterioration and
dysfunction, fails to improve irrigation performance and services. In response to this experience, the irrigation
agency is focused on improving water availability, allocation and regulation as a special part of its irrigation
projects. This innovation is intended to address the principal causes of low cropping intensity: low and
dwindling water supply and inequitable and wasteful water distribution.
Part of the advocated irrigation sector reform is the release by the irrigation agency to the irrigators associations
of stewardship over sections of public systems. This has the twin objectives of expanding farmers participation
and downsizing system offices, both sides benefiting from resultant financial rewards. Monetary incentives
received by irrigators associations in taking over system management represent the driving force that keeps
them supportive of system policies.
Insufficient collection of irrigation service fees (555 percent) keeps funding for system restoration inadequate,
resulting in suboptimal maintenance and repairs. Deterioration of water availability and irrigation services
ensues from repetition of such a situation, making farmers more unwilling to pay fees. This leads to
a devastating cyclic phenomenon in irrigation operations that mere system restoration cannot break. Only
major rehabilitation with an enhanced irrigation package is likely to succeed.
Irrigation modernization in the country has started to move forward alongside the implementation of
institutional and policy reforms in the irrigation sector. These reforms are intended to elevate the operating
performance of the irrigation agency and irrigation systems as essential conditions to the rice self-sufficiency
thrust. A particular reform measure adopted is the implementation of a rationalization plan for the irrigation
agency that balances irrigation service delivery with agency financial stability.
1. Irrigation development: general description

Construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems and promotion and adoption of improved farming practices
aim to increase annual rice production. Declining water supply, worsening system deterioration and defective
water control, however, tend to diminish the irrigated area and irrigation services. Financial distress, caused
by low revenues, growing workload and expensive materials, requires deferment of system repairs and
stretching of project execution.
(a) System performance
Water management, the main task in system management, aims to deliver correct and adequate amounts of
water at every offtake during the irrigation season. Dwindling and fluctuating water supply and inequitable
and wasteful water distribution, attributable to deficient water allocation and regulation, restrict success. The
irrigated area thus pegs at levels much below the service area and makes cropping intensity (1355 percent
per year) much below potential signifying poor irrigation services.
5
Administrator, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), EDSA, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
131
Besides deficient water availability and distribution, inferior water allocation and severe system deterioration
also contribute to depressing system functioning. Poor irrigation services dissuade an increasing number of
farmers from paying an irrigation service fee (ISF), making collections inadequate for the restoration needs.
Radicalized farmers behaviour, caused by ISF-delinquent perceived role models and the tricks perpetrated
by some system staff, also push up the number of ISF non-payers.
(b) Irrigation contribution
Irrigation systems in the Philippines are rice-based, considering that rice is the local staple, with a few of
such systems supplying water to banana plantation canals. At the current low levels of irrigation development
(45 percent), rice yields and rain-dependent rice areas, domestic rice production remains short of the
requirement. Reducing this rice shortage has been the overriding goal of every banner rice-production
programme of the government over decades, but success remains elusive.
Increasing rice yield is the primary goal of the said programmes, with the farmers use of improved varieties,
correct fertilization and preventive pesticides as the strategies. Priority programme beneficiaries are the irrigated
areas, in view of the perceived dependability of water supply that reduces risks associated with crop-damaging
dry spells. Increasing the irrigated area and cropping intensity, however, remains the essential measures for
achieving and sustaining rice self-sufficiency for the country.
(c) Irrigation policies
Management (operation, maintenance and repairs) of large rice-based irrigation systems continues as a mandate
of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). As evolved, NIA handles water management at the canal
(primary and secondary) level with NIA earmarking the task at the ditch (farm) level to the farmers. This
precursor of farmers participation necessitated organizing the farmers in every turnout service area (30 to
40 ha) into irrigators group, then training them.
Although the rotational irrigation method at the ditch level failed to take off, at the canal level it worked
with the support of the irrigators associations (IAs).6 This show of potential led to the release by NIA to IAs
of selected system management tasks like canal maintenance, water management and ISF collection. Financial
incentives derived from executing these tasks provided a needed income source for the IAs a factor that
keeps the IAs active and useful partners of NIA.
2. Agricultural development: national thrusts

Expanding irrigated area outweighs the combined contribution of adopting improved rice varieties and crop
nutrition and protection in increasing rice production. Meagre annual increases in irrigation service area,
attributable to the reduced scope of irrigation development programmes to match funding constraints, stalls
efforts. Reaching rice self-sufficiency thus continues to be the prime aspiration of the nation and it remains
as such much longer than expected because irrigation development has fallen behind.
(a) Reaching rice self-sufficiency
Domestic banner agricultural development programmes envisage elevating the Philippines from a persistent
rice importing country to a rice self-sufficient one. Besides targeting increasing rice yield, expanding irrigated
area and increasing cropping intensity are the strategies designed to increase rice production. Expanding the
irrigated area through construction and rehabilitation of irrigation systems remains the more potent initiative
in approaching rice self-sufficiency.
Implementation of irrigation projects, however, is constrained by lack of funds, with the number and extent
of projects limited by an imposed budget ceiling. Both ongoing foreign-assisted and government-funded
6
IAs cover about 750 hectares, at the initial stage, composed of several irrigators groups and their formation is intended to facilitate
resolution of water-related conflicts and enforcement of operating policies and irrigation programmes.
132
projects, in fact, suffer from a trickle of cash support, which results in negative slippage of the implementation
period. This situation further prolongs the time for reaching rice self-sufficiency because it inhibits efforts to
expand the irrigated area to the known threshold level.
(b) Expanding the irrigated area
Many people both in the rural and urban areas become aware of the importance of irrigation only when
devastating droughts and rice insufficiency crises strike. Under a no-crisis situation, many people become
oblivious of the necessity for irrigation systems a factor that exacerbates the effect of the tight financial
situation. Current priorities thus have skewed at less expensive system rehabilitation with new construction
projects focused only on low-investment small-scale systems.
Past rehabilitation works, however, defied expectations of improved irrigation performance, with irrigated
area and cropping intensity kept at the same low levels. Proper judgment of the needs (physical, procedural
and social) of and application of innovative measures in system rehabilitation offer hope for a turnaround.
Estimated achievable increase in irrigated area out of system rehabilitation would still be short of the
requirement to reach the threshold of rice self-sufficiency.
3. Sustainable irrigation: emergent requirements

NIA has embarked on releasing the stewardship over the secondary and tertiary levels of NIA-managed systems
to acquiescent and (what are deemed to be) capable IAs. As a means of enhancing inherent IA capability,
NIA earmarks in the said programme only those systems that have undergone or will undergo major
rehabilitation. A foreseeable attribute of the systems that undergo rehabilitation with an improved package is
the reduced incidence of problems of water allocation and distribution.
(a) Protecting system functionality
Income from ISF collections continues to be the main source of funding to meet the costs of operations,
maintenance and repairs of the NIA-managed irrigation systems. Such insufficient ISF collections result in
suboptimal maintenance and repairs resulting in worsening of system deterioration and dysfunction. As
system performance and irrigation services decline, farmers willingness to pay ISF likewise declines, triggering
the onset of a worsening cyclic phenomenon.
With the systems engulfed by the said phenomenon, water availability and irrigated areas shrink, with the
farmers ending up the principal victims of this remiss. This has driven NIA to impose the controversial no
payment no irrigation policy, with support from the irrigators groups and IAs, to protect farmers interests.
Success in the implementation of this policy serves to demonstrate the relevance of organizing and training
IAs in mustering farmers collective action.
(b) Expanding farmers participation
Recognizing the need to tap the capability of IAs and to provide an income source for them, NIA encourages
the IAs to take over system management tasks. Programme implementation already has reached a stage
whereby many IAs have taken over the management responsibility of their respective jurisdictional areas
already. Promotion of irrigation management transfer (IMT) aligns with the national thrusts for farmers
empowerment and a management modality shift for the systems.
IMT renders particular system staff redundant but NIA could not convince the said staff to retire early because
of the unavailability of funding to offer incentives for them to do so. With the redundant staff continuing to
receive remuneration, the incentive fees received by the IMT-recipient IAs from NIA represent an added cost
to NIA. As IMT coverage expands, NIA now contemplates two possible scenarios: NIAs relevance may start
to dwindle and irrigation services may start to plunge.
133
(c) Undertaking institutional reform

Compelled by financial difficulties, NIA proposed in 2002 a streamlining plan but lack of funds for personnel
retirement incentives stalled implementation. NIA now, along with other agencies in the executive branch of
government, is formulating a rationalization plan aimed at improving service delivery and agency finances.
NIA is enthusiastic the plan will be pushed through as the government is working on making available adequate
funds for the retirement incentives.
A consulting firm, engaged through a grant for the preparation of a proposed system rehabilitation project,
would formulate policy reforms in the irrigation sector. Financial strengthening of NIA, repair funds for
systems, management improvement of equipment and guidelines enhancement for IMT comprise the concerns.
These reforms intend to complement the envisaged enhanced package of system rehabilitation, all aiming at
improving agency and system performance.
4. Irrigation operations: management reform

The negligible effect of major rehabilitation on improving irrigation performance obligated NIA to incorporate
innovations in the rehabilitation scope of the systems. These innovations comprise water supply augmentation,
water flow regulation, operating modality shift, repair fund generation, and agency institutional reform.
Improving water availability for the irrigation systems and service area represents the foremost input to
increasing irrigated area and improving irrigation services.
(a) Upgrading the development focus
Farmers and NIA staff in irrigation systems that underwent major rehabilitation become frustrated because
of its failure to improve irrigation services. Inequitable water distribution, shown by water superfluity in the
upper section, water deficit in the middle section and water deprivation in the lower section, persists. Major
rehabilitation, via its traditional package, does correct system deterioration and restore functionality but does
not improve irrigation performance.
Building on this experience, NIA is now focusing on improving water availability and water distribution in
its forthcoming construction and rehabilitation projects. Augmenting water supply, through drainage water
reuse and intermediate water storage systems, and improving discharge regulation are the new measures. An
envisaged innovation is the delivery of flowrates quantified using design-based water allocation, and controlled
and measured using appropriate structures.
(b) Tackling emergency repairs
Current levels of ISF rates are just enough to offset the costs of system operation, maintenance and repairs
but the low collection levels cause problems. Resultant limited funding, aggravated by high and rising costs
of construction materials and equipment fuel, constrain execution of maintenance and repairs. Trickling and
diminishing government appropriations for repair works have somehow provided relief to NIA, but the current
tight financial situation threatens cessation of the said subsidy.
Floods caused by typhoons often devastate irrigation facilities, many of which are so critical that if not repaired
immediately would imperil standing crops. Widespread and critical system devastation has happened already
almost every year and NIA, in many instances, has had to defer repairs because of lack of funding. To correct
such an image-damaging situation and to support IMT-recipient IAs, NIA now advocates the establishment
of a fund for emergency system repairs.
134
Table 1. General information on rice-based irrigation systems in the Philippines

Parameter
1. Number of systems
a. National irrigation system
b. Communal irrigation system
c. Private irrigation system
Total
<10 000 ha
Physical scale
10 000 to
>100 000 ha
100 000 ha
All sizes
183
13
196
6 702
4 001
10 886
13
6 702
4 001
10 899
2. Annual water diversion, MCM
31.50
a. % for agriculture water use
100
b. % for domestic water use

c. % for other water uses
3. Design irrigation area, ha
453 857
537 304
236 382
690 239
537 304

Total
174 200
1 165 361
236 382
174 200
1 401 743
4. Effective irrigation area, ha

1405%/yr
1305%/yr
1305%/yr
1345%/yr

Wt. mean
5. Irrigation area, % of (3)
a. Rice
b. Vegetable and orchard
100% in WS
5% in DS
c. Other crops (banana)

No. of beneficiaries farmers
nil

434 844
301 035
c. Pump irrigation system

Total
No. of beneficiaries city residents
134 540
870 419
No info
Wetland areas supported, ha
135
Large rice-based irrigation systems in Thailand

Chawee Wongprasittiporn7
1. Background information on large rice-based irrigation systems

In Thailand, most of the agricultural land is paddy field, therefore most irrigation schemes supply water to
paddy.
Four of the main large rice-based irrigation systems in Thailand are described below.
1. The Greater Chao Phraya Irrigation Project is in the central plain (1.2 million ha). The irrigation
system is composed of two storage dams the Bhumibol Dam and the Sirikit Dam, and two diversion
dams the Chao Phraya Dam and the Naresuan Dam.
2. The Mae Klong Irrigation Project is connected to the Greater Chao Phraya as well. The irrigation
system is composed of one storage dam the Wachiralongkorn Dam and one diversion dam.
3. The Phitsanulok Irrigation Project in the upper central plain (104 000 ha). The irrigation system is
composed of one storage dam the Sirikit Dam and one diversion dam the Naresuan Dam. The
Naresuan Dam will divert water to the Phitsanulok Dam and release water downstream to the Great
Chao Phraya Irrigation Project.
4. The Pak Panang Irrigation Project in the southern part of Thailand (92 800 ha). The irrigation system
is composed of gate regulators in all mouths of the tributaries of the main Pak Panang River and in
the Pak Panang River there is one main gate regulator near to the river mouth to the sea. There is
one emergency canal and a gate and three or four man-made canals to divert flood water to the sea
and in the dry season a diversion canal is used as an irrigation canal.
2. Trends of agriculture development and water resources management

On the basis of the national socio-economic development trends, the Royal Irrigation Department reviewed
its vision, missions, objectives, and strategies in 2005 to serve the countrys development.
The Departments vision is articulated as supplying sufficient water to support agricultural production to raise
farmers incomes and sustain the economy.
Its missions are:
O
O
O
to develop water resources to their full potential;

to manage water for all water users equitably and in a sustainable manner;
to encourage peoples participation in all levels of water resources development and management;
and
to protect against and to mitigate water-related disasters.
Its objectives are:

O
O
to develop irrigation sufficiently in agricultural areas; and

to provide a good service to enable farmers to have a good quality of life.
Royal Irrigation Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
136
Its strategies are:

O
O
O
O
O
to expand the irrigation area;

to promote higher irrigation efficiencies;
to protect against and mitigate water-related disasters;
to encourage peoples participation and public relations; and
to increase efficiency of the water management processes.
Because of the drought crisis of last year, the government has emphasized small scale water resources
development countrywide in order to enable all people to have access to water. Therefore, a list of numerous
small and medium scale projects countrywide has been proposed.
The expansion of the irrigation area will increase the irrigation area over the rainfed area in order to reduce
the risks of water shortage for farmers. This will lead to more secure revenue for farmers.
In the existing irrigated area, the policies are aimed at increasing irrigation efficiencies and improving water
management. With this strategy, the same amount of water should be utilized for more agricultural production.
Land resources and water resources utilities will be integrated to achieve higher production to serve the larger
population and fewer agricultural lands expected in the future. Normally in the dry season or in rainfed areas,
farmers migrate to the main cities, but the expansion of irrigation in rainfed area as well as more effective
use of water will increase cropping intensities and agricultural labour will be needed throughout the whole
year.
Moreover, if some existing agricultural lands are provided with irrigation facilities there will be less land
invasion in the forest preserve areas. This will help achieve the countrys environmental conservation goals.
3. New requirements for large rice-based irrigation systems

In recent years, the paddy price has increased (almost double the price of ten years ago in 1995), farmers
have responded by increasing the paddy area. This is most obvious in the dry season.
In some irrigation areas farmers have also developed their own water resources such as shallow tube-wells
for conjunctive water uses which they manage by themselves.
Three crops per year are available in some areas and this indicates that if water is sufficient, farmers will
make more concentrated uses of agricultural land.
As the higher paddy price is a powerful incentive for farmers, their behaviour and practices are also reflected
in irrigation management in some projects in terms of:
O
O
O
O
O
less time devoted to canal maintenance;

change in the management of the irrigation supply from continuous flow to rotation flow;
deterioration in the canal shape according to flow pattern changes;
more inequitable sharing of water among head-end and tail-end water users; and
more complaints and disputes from water users.
These changes need to be closely monitored and assessed and water management needs to be adjusted to
conform to farmers changing practices.
It is necessary for more people to participate in water management in order to catch up with demand and
supply side potentials and constraints and to open up opportunities for consultation between both sides for
concentrated land and water resources use.
137
4. Measures undertaken
The 2005 vision, missions, objectives and strategies mentioned earlier in Section 2, introduced some new
foci in water management to provide good quality services. These are countrywide service delivery based on
the principle of equity and not focusing only on potential irrigated area but also on peoples participation.
4.1 Peoples participatory irrigation management (PIM)
Some strategic measures such as the project promoting peoples participatory irrigation management (PIM)
were implemented first in the form of pilot projects assisted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). After
the pilot projects were completed, the Royal Irrigation Department applied the PIM approach to its routine
tasks at provincial level using its own annual budget.
In spite of budget limitations, the PIM approach is still practised and there is good consultation between
irrigators and farmers. Before each irrigation season starts, there will be a meeting of the provincial irrigators,
provincial agriculturists and farmers groups in the province. Irrigators will inform the meeting about water
availability and the irrigation starting date (after canal maintenance), the agriculturists will give information
about the trend of the agricultural market, and farmers will inform the meeting of their planned crops. The
amount of water, potential planting area, type of crop and marketing will be discussed to fine tune among
needs, availability and constraints so as to establish the cropping pattern and irrigation schedules. Additional
meetings will be established in case of a mid-season crisis or significant changes in plans.
These new practices (increasing the level of peoples participation) were implemented one or two years after
completion of the ADB supported pilot projects. In the past, farmers got to know about the irrigation schedule
by asking a zone-man in the field. With some projects, there was a notice board nearby the irrigation canal
informing farmers of the irrigation schedules. However, this is one-way communication that allows farmers
to receive information but not give information about their needs.
By allowing farmers to participate in water management, complaints and disputes are fewer and farmers can
better plan their production processes. The direction is moving towards demand-side management using the
full potential of resources, but it still faces some constraints. Equitable land and water resources utilization is
discussed and encouraged in the participation meeting.
4.2 Conjunctive uses of water
As the price of paddy is high, dry season paddy areas have been much greater than the potential area based
on irrigation water availability. In some areas, three paddy crops were cultivated throughout the whole year.
These three crops are possible because of the large numbers of alternative sources of water, namely private
shallow tubewells, developed by farmers.
In the Phitsanulok Irrigation Project, daily water use in paddy fields was measured. It was found that in the
tail-end area where irrigation water is not very reliable, shallow tubewell water accounts for about 80 percent
of the water supplied, whereas in the head-end area irrigation water is still the main source of water. This
affects the planning of water management and irrigation schedules.
As the water requirement is much higher, irrigation scheduling has changed from continuous flow according
to design criteria to rotation flow. The operation of cross regulators for abrupt flow changes in rotation
schedules causes sliding of earthen canals. The trapezoidal shape of earthen canals has changed to a large
U-shape. Water flow is quite slow and the hydraulics of slow flow complicates irrigation management.
4.3 Water management for development and the environment
At present, under the technical assistance of the Government of Spain, the Royal Irrigation Department is
undertaking a study of irrigation improvement for the Phitsanulok Project. The content of the study is to
apply an appropriate mathematical hydraulics model to determine the most suitable water management regime.
138
The potential of utilizing groundwater is being studied and the participation of water user groups in water
management is also included in the study.
In the south, a large paddy irrigation project the Pak Panang Project is a water management system
that was designed not only to achieve a development target but also to mitigate any adverse impact from the
project. The operation of a set of gate regulators is meant to store fresh water for the dry season, to mitigate
flooding in the rainy season, and to protect the agricultural area from salinity intrusion. Later on, additional
study was conducted to mitigate some environmental impacts such as water pollution downstream of the
gate in the dry season, to allow brackish water to act as a buffer zone between fresh and sea water for the
sake of brackish water animals and to divert acidic water from an upstream large acidic swamp out to a by-pass
canal to prevent the flow of highly acid water to a fishery site downstream.
Multi-objective water management for large scale paddy fields is the most complicated type of water
management in Thailand as the people in the project area have different occupations leading to differences
in water uses. Farmers need fresh water in the dry season for a second paddy crop (dry season paddy) while
fisherman and shrimp ponds need brackish water and want to fully open the regulator gates. To solve this
problem, the provincial governor, the provincial government agencies concerned with irrigation, fisheries,
agriculture, and resource persons from universities, non-government organizations and representatives from
each district have had continuous meetings to formulate a plan to be agreed by all sectors. The management
alternatives proposed by one of the meetings were taken to create a simulation exercise to predict the results
and bring them up for discussion at the next meeting. The meeting ended with the agreement that water
management will not have adverse impacts on the farmers. The gates of the main regulator will be operated
conforming to the sea water level to enable the brackish water zone to travel up to some control point during
the wet season to allow the nursing of shrimp in natural water. The other regulators will be operated in
conjunction with the main regulators to protect the paddy fields from salinity intrusion.
5. Further options to meet the changing requirements

In the Pak Panang Project, water management now includes socio-environmental considerations. After the
new gate opening was agreed, the peoples participation meeting also recognized the impact of the new
changes, therefore a monitoring team was set up to follow up with a monitoring programme. The place and
period of monitoring was discussed in the participation meeting. The monitoring team includes members from
all stakeholders such as local people, irrigators, environmental NGOs and staff of universities.
With regard to the conjunctive use of shallow tubewells in the Phitsanulok Irrigation Project, there is now
recognition of the additional sources of water that are managed by farmers. There are some relevant studies
in the Phitsanulok irrigation area such as the study of GIS of shallow tubewell potential, measurement of
water level in some representative shallow tubewells, study of water recharge rate to shallow tubewells. The
studies were undertaken to find out an appropriate water management regime to improve water allocation to
serve the demand and to solve the problem of sliding of the earthen canal. In the near future, the water
management will be changed to some extent to conform with the current situation.
139
Information on irrigation systems in Thailand

National irrigation management Agency: Royal Irrigation Department
General information on irrigation systems
Physical scale of rice-based
irrigation systems
Number of systems
Annual water diversion (MCM)
% of agriculture water use
% of domestic water use
% of other water use
Designed irrigation area (ha)
Effective irrigation area (ha)
Rice irrigation area (ha)
<10 000 ha
10 536
10 000 to
100 000 ha
85
4 787
29 642
2 611 700
2 668 160
2 611 700
2 668 160
>100 000 ha
All scales
10 621
Vegetable and orchard area (ha)

Other crops irrigation area (ha)
Beneficiaries farmers
Beneficiaries city residents
Wetland areas supported (ha)
Information of the largest rice-based irrigation system

Name
The Greater Chao Phraya Irrigation Project

Central Plain
Location
Construction period
Designed irrigation area
Functional irrigation area
19581972
1 200 000
1 200 000
Annual water diversion (MCM)

% of agriculture water use
22 972
80
% of domestic water use

% of other water use
Rice irrigation area (ha)
Vegetable and orchard area (ha)
Other crops irrigation area (ha)
Water supply per ha of irrigated rice field
Output (US$) per m3 of water supply
Beneficiaries farmers
Beneficiaries city residents
Wetland areas supported (ha)
140
The development of irrigation systems

for sustainable agricultural development in Viet Nam
Nguyen Dinh Ninh8
Abstract
Viet Nam has a gross area of 330 991 km2 with a population of about 80 million (2004), a population density
of 242 people/km2. Over 75 percent of Vietnamese people live in rural areas. Agriculture accounted for
22 percent of the gross domestic product in 2003.
In recent years, Viet Nams economic growth has been stable at the rate of 7.5 percent per year. Growth in
agriculture constantly increased at a rate of 4 to 4.5 percent per year. Viet Nam is a major exporter of
agricultural products (rice, coffee, rubber, pepper, cashew etc.). Agricultural development in recent years has
not only contributed to national income growth, food security and poverty reduction but also has contributed
to social stability and environmental protection.
However, the countrys integration into the international economic system has brought many challenges to
Viet Nams agriculture sector. To ensure sustainable agricultural development, issues of markets, pricing,
competition of agricultural products and water must be addressed.
Viet Nam is located in the tropical monsoon zone and, potentially, has abundant water resources. Annual
runoff is about 844 billion cubic metres, of which 323 billion cubic metres are generated inside the country,
and 521 billion cubic metres are generated from outside the country. Groundwater resources have a dynamic
potential of about 1 500 m3/s. However, water distribution is uneven in both space and time. From 75 to
80 percent of annual runoff is concentrated in three to four months of the mid-rainy season and 5 to 8 percent
is concentrated in three months of the mid-dry season. Therefore, water shortage, drought and water logging
often happen in most of areas of the country with serious consequences for farmers. Over the previous decades,
water resources development and management have been a serious concern of the state and the people of
Viet Nam. Water resources development has contributed significantly to the economic and social development
of Viet Nam, especially in terms of agricultural production.
In the coming decades, Viet Nams economy will undergo a high rate of growth to achieve the countrys
goals of industrialization and modernization, and the population growth of the country will continue to increase,
with a forecast of 88 to 89 million people in 2010. Therefore, the demand for water for socio-economic
development in general and for sustainable agriculture in particular will seriously challenge the water sector.
This must be met with success.
1. Key water management and development problems and challenges

1.1. Some features of water resources in Viet Nam
Viet Nam is under the influence of two monsoon systems the northeast and the southwest monsoons.
Thus, the rainfall is distributed unevenly both in space and time. The rainy season usually starts in May or
June and finishes in October or November, which normally provides 75 to 80 percent of the entire annual
rainfall. The rainfall in the dry season is very low, many areas have no rain for months. As for space,
the rainfall distribution is affected by the topography: in some areas, the rainfall may reach up to 3 000 to 5
000 mm/year whereas for other areas, the rainfall is as little as 1 000 mm/year.
In the rainy season, the water flow module can be from 60 l/s/km2 to 80 l/s/km2 while in the dry season, the
water flow module is just 10 l/s/km2. As for time, the water flow in the rainy season accounts for 75 to
80 percent of the annual water flow. The water flow in the lowest month is just 1 to 2 percent of the total
8
Deputy Director General, Department of Water Sources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Viet Nam.
141
water flow in the year. The difference between the high flow year and the low flow year can be two to three
times.
According to a national-level survey, the total amount of water which flows in Viet Nam is estimated at about
844 billion m3 per year (approximately 271 000 m3/s), including 323 billion m3 from the internal flow of
Viet Nam accounting for 37 percent and 521 billion m3 from the external flow.
Besides surface water resources, Viet Nam also has groundwater resources with the total amount of
50 to 60 billion m3 (equivalent to 1 513 m3/s). It is estimated that the maximum exploitable capacity is only
10 to 12 billion m3.
One of the characteristics of Viet Nam is that drought and water shortages occur every year in different areas
with different degrees of seriousness. In the rainy season, flood and inundation are very common. In recent
years, Viet Nam has been faced with calamities of historical proportions: the drought in 1998 caused great
losses for the economy, more than three million people lacked water for domestic use; two successive floods
occurred in the central provinces in November and December 2000 and in 2001; the flood in the Mekong
Delta this year is the biggest in the last 70 years. At the beginning of 2002, there were serious droughts in
the central highlands, the south central provinces and the Mekong Delta.
Given the facts stated above, Viet Nams water resources must be used efficiently and effectively and at the
same time the adverse effects of too much or too little water must be mitigated.
1.2. Achievements of investment in irrigation systems development
1.2.1 Investment achievement of water supply and drainage development
Up to now the country has had 75 large irrigation and drainage schemes, 800 large and medium dams, over
3 500 reservoirs with capacity higher than 1 million m3 and heights over 10 m, 5 000 large sluices, and over
2 000 big pumping stations and thousands of medium-scale and small-scale water works. All schemes have
irrigated fully 3.3 million hectares and partially over 1 million hectares. They have drained 1.4 million hectares,
prevented salt intrusion in 0.77 million hectares and improved 1.6 million hectares of acid sulphate soil. They
have also supplied 5 billion m3 of water for domestic and industrial uses. Irrigated areas of paddy, upland
crops, vegetables and short-term industrial trees have been constantly increased as shown in the diagram below.
In 2000, the water works irrigated 0.718 million hectares of upland crops, vegetables and industrial trees,
5.973 million hectares of paddy (of which there were 2.45 million hectares of winter-spring paddy, 1.82 million
hectares of summer-autumn paddy and 1.703 million hectares of late autumn paddy) and drained 1.596 million
hectares of cultivated land.
Service area (million ha)
Total capacity of water works

4
Series 1
3
2
1
0
Full irr.
Partial irr.
Drainage
Salt prot.
Soil
improvement
1.2.2 Investment achievements in flood protection and mitigation

The existing flood protection works systems consist of 5 700 km of river dykes, 2 000 km of sea dykes,
23 000 km of embankment rings and thousands of sluices, and hundreds of kilometres of revetment. The
dyke systems are now strengthened, improved to a higher standard for flood protection, especially for the
Red, Thai Binh, Ma and Ca Rivers.
142
The Red River dyke system has the designed flood level of 13.4 m at Hanoi and 7.21 m at Pha Lai.
In combination with the upstream reservoirs, it can protect against floods of the magnitude of the
1971 historical flood. The Ma and Ca dyke systems can protect against overflowing of the magnitude
of historical floods.
The sea dyke system in the north and north central provinces can prevent salt intrusion and reduce
the force of sea waves caused by eight and nine degree winds.
The dyke and embankment ring system in the south central provinces and Cuu Long River Delta are
able to protect against the annual floods and thus protect the summer-autumn paddy crop.
1.3. Investment benefits of irrigation systems development

1.3.1. Rapid increase and stabilization of the paddy cropped area, yield and production
Because the irrigation water supply was increased and its quality services were improved, the paddy cultivated
area has increased from year to year in line with cropping pattern changes. In 2000, 7.67 million hectares of
paddy were cultivated (in 1986 it was 5.68 million ha). Especially, the winter-spring paddy area increased to
3 million ha (in 1986 it was 1.8 million ha) and the summer-autumn paddy increased to 2.33 million ha
(in 1986 it was 0.9 million ha). The increased paddy area was mostly in the Cuu Long River Delta, from
2.58 million ha to 3.97 million ha. The gross food production of the country rapidly increased and stabilized
from 16 million tonnes (1986) to 32.5 million tonnes (2000). This was a very great achievement of the
agriculture sector. It not only ensured national food security, but over 3 million tonnes of rice were exported
also with a value over 800 million USD.
1.3.2. Crop diversification development
The food upland crops, for example maize, increased its cultivated area from 460 000 ha (1986) to 700 000 ha
with the total production of 1.93 million tonnes. The planted area and production of annual and long term
commercial trees and orchards also increased. Annual average production (19862000) was much higher in
comparison with the previous five years, for example, groundnut increased 1.64 times, sugarcane increased
three times, soybean increased 1.67 times, rubber increased five times, coffee increased 2.5 times. The fruit
trees such as longan, lichee, rambutan etc. also increased both in terms of planted area and production.
In 1995 the planted area was 37 600 ha and 223 000 tonnes were produced, in 2000 the planted area was
149 000 ha and 719 000 tonnes were produced.
The agriculture value per hectare of the cultivated land increased from 13.5 million VND/ha (1995) to
17.5 million VND/ha (2000), typically, but some places gained over 100 million VND/ha because irrigation
and drainage services were good and investment in new varieties and agricultural materials was higher.
1.3.3. Water supply for domestic use and industries
Providing services for domestic and industrial uses is becoming more important in water resources
development. Up till now, hundreds of water works have supplied over 5 billion m3 for domestic uses and
industries. The proportion of the rural population supplied with water is increasing, especially in remote
provinces in mountainous areas and the Cuu Long River Delta (42% of rural population).
1.3.4. Water for fisheries development
Fisheries development, especially in brackish water areas, has had a very high rate of growth. The improved
water works have ensured fresh water sources for fish farming and facilitated increase of the fish farming
area in saline and brackish water from 342 000 ha (2000) to 585 000 ha (2001).
1.3.5. Development of solutions for drainage and flood control
The development of solutions for drainage and flood control has brought very big benefits. Tens of millions
of people and millions of hectares of cultivated land within the delta that frequently is threatened by floods
143
have been protected by water works. Loss of peoples lives and property caused by floods and typhoons is
not only much reduced but the ecology, peoples living environment, and sanitation have been improved,
diseases have been prevented and economic activities have been maintained also, even when heavy rains
and high flooding occur. This facilitates sustainable socio-economic development.
1.3.6. Contribution of water resources development to social improvement
Water resources development creates good opportunities for increasing land intensity (in the Red River Delta,
the land intensity increased from 1.4 up 2.3), creating new jobs for farmers, reducing labour in agricultural
production (by using water transport in canals as well as land transport on canal banks), improving habitat
arrangements for flood evacuation (especially in the Mekong Delta), improving the living conditions of farmers.
Many new economic zones have been established and rapidly developed and are strongly supported by water
resources development to supply water for domestic use and production activities.
1.3.7. Contribution of water resources development to environmental improvement
Water resources development contributes to quality of life and agricultural production, increases groundwater
resources, regulates runoff, increases soil moisture and water supply in the dry season and reduces flooding
in the rainy season. In the Mekong Delta, thanks to irrigation and drainage schemes, acid sulphate soils have
been significantly reduced in terms of affected area and acidity levels. Fresh water irrigated areas have been
increasingly expanded to make a large zone where there are two or three crops per year instead of only one
summer crop as previously. In the mountainous and midland zones, most of the cultivable lands are on slopes
and bare hills and irrigation has changed the water regime in soils in a favourable direction creating better
water and air regimes in soil and increasing soil fertility. Irrigation has reduced the shifting cultivation practices
of minorities too and has protected the forest ecology and contributed to border security.
The benefits from water resources development are very significant not only in terms of raising peoples
income, but also in terms of other more intangible benefits for communities. There are positive impacts on
society, the environment, farmers lives and rural areas as well as contributing to economic and livelihood
sustainability and improving the cultural life of the people.
1.4. Challenges
1.4.1. The degradation of water resources
Water resources are affected adversely by the destruction of forests, by pollution and by global climate change.
Natural disasters, floods, drought, saline intrusion, flooding, tidal waves, pollution of water sources, etc. are
increasing daily and becoming severe enough to cause serious damage to people and property.
1.4.2. Economic growth
With rapid economic growth there will be an increase in the demand for water from various socio-economic
sectors. Water conflicts between the various sectors need to be resolved in a way that meets the various
demands equitably without jeopardizing the countrys socio-economic development objectives and its progress
towards industrialization and modernization.
1.4.3 Increasing population pressure and quality of life
In 1999, the population of the whole country was 76.3 million, with 23.5 percent living in urban areas. It is
projected that in 2050, the population will increase up to 100 million and then stabilize within two or three
decades. Because of the increased population and the improvements in the quality of life, meeting the demand
for water for increased production and for domestic uses will be an enormous challenge and will need to be
met by the effective development and management of national water resources.
144
1.4.4. Conflicts over water rights

Conflicts over transboundary water resources such as the Mekong River and the Red River will likely increase
as downstream riparian states suffer from the actions of upstream riparian states that alter the flow or quality
of the transboundary water resources.
1.4.5. Conflicts between local areas over water rights
Conflicts over water rights especially in interprovincial and interdistrict irrigation systems will arise and will
increase. In order to resolve these conflicts, water resources need to be developed and managed to ensure
their sustainable exploitation and their equitable allocation.
2. Irrigation systems management and development objectives

2.1. Objective 1: To contribute to the countrys industrialization and modernization programmes.
This requires structures to be prepared so that in 2010 sufficient water will be supplied to all sectors. Out of
a total volume of 95.52 billion m3, the water volume for domestic uses will be 2.06 billion m3; industry
4.85 billion m3; agriculture 71.91 billion m3; fishery 9.73 billion m3; and environment 6.98 billion m3
(and downstream flow in the dry season should be not less than 4 110 m3/s). This will:
O
ensure full exploitation of 15.8 million ha of land of various types by changing cropping patterns,
including 10 million ha of foods crops, 2 million ha of long-term industrial crops, 2 million ha of
short-term industrial crops, 1 million ha of foodstuff crops and 0.8 million ha of fruit trees of various
types, and achieve the production of 36 to 38 million tonnes of safe foods;
ensure water supply for domestic uses, especially for water scarce areas, with specific volumes as
follows: water volume for domestic uses in urban areas 150 to 200 l/day, in delta rural areas
100 l/day and mountainous rural areas 80 l/day (so that about 90 percent of people in rural areas
will be able to use water for domestic uses at the national standard); and
ensure development of industrial zones, of aquaculture (0.6 million ha for fresh water aquaculture
and 0.8 million ha for brackish water aquaculture), and for tourism services, etc.
2.2. Objective 2: To strengthen investment and the development of technical solutions and enhance protection
against and mitigation of natural disasters such as floods:
O
enhance the technical safety level of the Red River dyke and the Thai Binh River dyke to enable
protection against floods with a design flood level of 13.4 m in Hanoi, 7.21m in Pha Lai; and dykes
in the north of the former region No. 4 to protect against historical floods;
strengthen the stability of the sea dyke systems and saline dyke systems in coastal areas to protect
from storms with eight and ten degree winds and average tidal combination;
arrange a safe place for people in shallow flooded areas in the Mekong River Delta, and ensure safe
conditions for people in deep flooded areas; and
ensure safety of structures (including reservoirs, dyke systems, under-dyke sluices, etc.).
2.3. Objective 3: To strengthen national water resources management by establishment of water resources
management organizations from the central to local levels:
O
complete legal documents to facilitate water resources management and prevent pollution of water
sources to ensure sustainable use of the national water resources and exploitation of hydraulic
structures;
facilitate development of production and water supply for domestic uses;
create a basis for sustainable development; and
strengthen improvement and accomplishment of technologies for construction and management.

145
2.4. Objective 4: To strengthen scientific study capacity, water resources management, construction and
planning design abilities, application of new materials, technologies to construct hydraulic structures,
modernization of management facilities, arrangement of capable staff for management and exploitation of
structures.
3. Strategic implementation solutions

3.1. Strengthening investment in water resources development
3.1.1. Investment for exploitation of water resources
Focus investment on large repair, upgrading and modernization of existing water supply and drainage
headworks systems to strive for full capacity of works, serving polyculture and crop diversification. At the
same time, invest in rehabilitating canals from headworks to on-farm, apply advanced irrigation and drainage
technology combined with traditional techniques to save water to improve the land, maintain the land, and
maintain the water in sloping land areas. Focus investment on completing works under construction to promptly
serve production activities.
Invest in constructing works that can integrate various water uses, enhance regulation capacity to provide
adequate water to serve national economic development and improve environment.
Invest in the development of small works in mountainous areas and remote areas to serve the poverty
alleviation programme, settled agriculture and human settlements and ensure sufficient municipal water and
environmental hygiene for people in these areas.
3.1.2 Investment for flood and natural calamity mitigation and prevention
Strengthen dykes, flood discharge capacity, and flood diversion to actively prevent flooding or limit losses
caused by large natural calamities. The Red River dyke system has to be comprehensively enhanced and
strengthened. The sea dyke system has to be able to protect against nine and ten degree storms. Flood safety
areas have to be established in shallow inundated areas of the Mekong River Delta, and peoples safety has
to be ensured in deeply inundated areas.
Complete the construction of emergency situation promulgation targets for natural calamities and the principles
for management of emergency situations to assist the Prime Minister to make the right decisions regarding
flood diversion and mobilizing human and material resources according to the relevant laws and regulations.
Besides construction measures, forecasting technology and communication systems need to be upgraded to
the lowest level of loss caused by natural disasters. Enhance community awareness to increase activities
designed to prevent or mitigate natural disasters. There is a need to integrate agricultural and forestry
development programmes with natural disaster prevention programmes. Enhance international cooperation
and regional cooperation to exchange experiences and strengthen technical assistance capacity.
3.2 Strengthening water resources management and irrigation works
3.2.1 Systematize all relevant legal documentation
It is necessary to systematize all relevant legal documentation and disseminate the Law on Water Resources.
This can be achieved through:
O
setting up a Decree on Guidance on execution of the Law on Water Resources;
setting up a Decree on the penalties for violating the Law on Water Resources;
setting up an Inter-Ministerial Circular to inform the decisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development in terms of process and procedures related to water resources management and
the prevention of the adverse effects of water;
146
revising the Irrigation Works Exploitation and Protection Ordinance, the Dyke Ordinance, and the
Flood Prevention Ordinance in accordance with the Law on Water Resources;
making a decision on establishing a specialized inspection agency for water resources;
setting up a Decree on the water price; and
disseminating the Law on Water Resources through the mass media.
3.2.2 Strengthening water resources development planning

Water resources development planning should be the basis for managing the water resources of river basins
and should include:
O
planning for basins and provinces oriented toward integrated use and sustainable development of river
basin water resources, as stipulated in the Law on Water Resources;
undertaking an assessment of underground water resources (both quantity and quality);
setting up a water resources management database;
setting up a network of water quality monitoring stations, preventing water pollution and rehabilitating
polluted and depleted water sources;
undertaking investigation of water use and collection of water using fees; and
carrying out licensing of exploitation, use and waste discharge into water sources.
3.2.3 Consolidation of management arrangements for water resources and hydraulic structures from
the central to local level
The following measures need to be carried out:
O
at the central level, clearly define the state management functions on water resources and water services
management;
at the local level, establish divisions related to water management and hydraulic structures in all
provinces and increase finances and staff to enable the divisions to manage water resources in their
provinces;
consolidate the National Water Resources Council to advise the government on water resources
management throughout the country;
establish river basin planning and management boards for big river basins such as the Red River
Basin, the Dong Nai River Basin and the Mekong River Basin;
strengthen capacity of irrigation and drainage management companies at both management and
technical levels;
improve management technology, reduce expenses and improve operations mechanism and the
economic mechanism to serve production and water supply for domestic uses; and
establish and build operation procedures of water users groups to effectively use water sources and
manage hydraulic structures well and transfer management of small structures to farmers.
3.3 Strengthening human resources training, promoting research activities and applying
science and technology
3.3.1 Human resources development
Human resources need to be improved by:
O
developing new training sectors such as rural development, water supply and discharge, coastal
techniques, natural disasters and water resources management, etc.; improving contents of training
programmes by modernizing them but the contents should be specialized, reasonable and professional;
147
strengthening knowledge of natural resources and environmental management, management and

exploitation of structures, economic management, etc.
O
training technical staff, research staff, management staff and skilled workers; and attaching more
importance to re-training, training postgraduate staff. Focus on training and providing staff for remote
areas and create incentives to encourage them to move to these areas.
It is expected that up to the year 2010, the number of trained staff for each year will be: technicians 4
000, engineers 2 000, with masters degree 100, with doctorate degree 10; up to the year 2020: 4
000 technicians, 2 400 to 2 600 engineers, 120 to 150 masters and 10 to 20 doctors to supply personnel to
the various sectors and local agencies throughout the country.
3.3.2 Promoting science and technology
Speeding up scientific research activities, application of new technologies such as information technology
(telereconnaissance, informatics), automation, construction materials, etc. in planning, design, building and
management of water resources and structures. The technical safety of structures to be constructed should be
ensured and they should be economically viable.
3.4. Intensification of international cooperation
O
Continue expansion of international cooperation in water resources management and hydraulic

structures in all fields from building institutions and policies to investment in exploitation,
management of water resources and hydraulic structures. This could help to optimize funding,
experiences, improve management and technical and scientific facilities. Moreover, research and
exploitation of international rivers should be coordinated to meet sustainable development requirements
of water resources and national hydraulic works according to the principle of protection of
independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and compliance with Viet Nams laws and the
international agreements to which Viet Nam is a party.
Utilize cooperation, support, technology transfer, financial policies of international organizations

(World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),
Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), etc.) to develop the economy, society, rural
agriculture and water resources.
3.5. Participatory development

Socialize hydraulic activities and water resources management on the basis of a government and public
partnership for implementation. Concentrate on development of indigenous capacity and encourage foreign
and domestic investors to participate in effective exploitation of water resources and the construction of
hydraulic structures and ensure the equitable distribution of benefits.
Intensify education activities through public broadcasting and television programmes and newspapers to
provide necessary information, good models and management experiences. Publicize policies issued by the
state and improve community awareness of them so that people understand that the management of water
resources and hydraulic structures is in the interests of each person as well as each persons responsibility.
3.6. Completion of mechanisms and policies on water
O
Investment policy related to construction and upgrading of structures: mobilize funding sources inside
and outside the country and ensure that people in the areas contribute towards rehabilitation, upgrading,
and reinforcement of canals. Distribution ratio of investment costs is 3/4/4 or 4/4/2 (including
investment costs for application of science and technology).
Financial policy on water: regulate contribution rate (or water fees) for water users in order to enhance
their responsibilities for water use, reduce the state subsidy and create a fund for active operation
and maintenance, closely combine construction investment, use and exploitation of water resources,
protection against natural disasters and floods with financial contribution of water using households.
148
Community priority policy: combine hydraulic activities with social policies in solving problems
related to irrigation, water supply for domestic uses, especially for uplands; contribute to poverty
reduction, settlement; mitigate forests destruction.
Socialization of hydraulic structures policy: encourage water users participation in planning,

construction and management to enhance investment efficiency.
Documents on penalties: provide regulations on penalties for destruction of works, structures, and
for causing pollution of water sources in order to enhance responsibilities of management staff and
benefit people in the basin.
149
Issue papers
151
Performance of large rice-based irrigation systems in Southeast Asia:

results and lessons learned from the application of a rapid
appraisal process in an FAO training programme
Thierry Facon1
Summary
The vast and expanding body of literature on the performance of irrigation systems reflects the expanding
circle of specialists, disciplines and stakeholders interested in evaluating the performance of irrigation systems.
The selection of a particular set of performance indicators reflects a particular perspective and has a significant
influence on the specific objectives of system management and improvement. It also has a significant influence
on the details of interventions and the changes considered.
Efforts to improve irrigation performance in Asia have to a large extent concentrated on irrigation efficiency
and on-farm water management and, more recently, on governance and institutional issues, mostly to improve
cost recovery. Aspects related to design and operation of irrigation systems and service delivery have been
neglected and this neglect is also reflected in many irrigation development and rehabilitation programmes.
As a result, farmers often have not seen much improvement in the water delivery service provided by the
systems and results in terms of agricultural and economic performance and irrigation efficiency have been
disappointing.
The selection by FAO of the rapid appraisal process (RAP), developed by the Irrigation Training and Research
Centre of California Polytechnic University, and its further development for FAO and the World Bank, as
a methodology for appraisal of conditions and performance of irrigation systems, have been consistent with
the promotion of irrigation modernization understood as a process of technical and managerial upgrading
(as opposed to mere rehabilitation) of irrigation schemes with the objective to improve resource utilization
(labour, water, economic resources, environmental resources) and water delivery service to farms and the
promotion of a service orientation in the irrigation sector.
A recent series of appraisals of large and medium-scale irrigation systems by FAO and partner national
irrigation agencies in eight countries in Asia by trainees of national workshops organized under a Regional
Irrigation Modernization Training Programme using RAP shows that system performance and service delivered
to farmers are poor but could be improved significantly with changes in design, operation and management
that can easily be introduced. The level of chaos (difference between stated policies and actual policies) and
of anarchy (subversion of policies) in the appraised systems is high. Lack of discipline and institutional issues
contribute greatly to this situation. However, many of the problems can be traced to: problems in initial design;
exporting of design concepts outside of their area of validity; difficulty of controlling and operating the systems;
layouts with confused hierarchies; serious flaws in operation strategies; inconsistencies between operating
rules at various levels and between operating rules and farmers requirements; changes in farmers requirements
not reflected by changes in system policies; poor quality of water delivery service to farms; and lack of
flexibility at all levels. Improving the efficiency of service delivery and the level of service delivered by
these systems will require addressing these issues by identifying and effecting appropriate changes.
Benchmarking is defined as a systematic process for achieving continued improvement in the irrigation sector
through comparisons with relevant and achievable internal or external goals, norms, and standards. The overall
aim of benchmarking is to improve the performance within an irrigation scheme by measuring its performance
against its peers and its own mission and objectives. The benchmarking process should be a continuous series
of measurement, analysis, and changes to improve the performance of the schemes. The evaluation and analysis
stages of the holistic benchmarking promoted by the World Bank form three legs of the benchmarking
1
Senior Water Management Officer, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 30 Phra Athit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.
153
stool: evaluation of technical indicators (both internal and external); appraisal of the system processes;
evaluation of service to users and their satisfaction with that service. RAP, which was included as a component
of the holistic benchmarking, concentrates on the evaluation of the system processes and the evaluation of
the service at all levels in the system, from water supply to the scheme to the farm. It also assists in the
evaluation of the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID)
benchmarking indicators.
For benchmarking to go beyond the measurement and analysis stages, and on to the implementation of changes
and improvement stages, there must be significant acceptance by project personnel. The data collection and
analysis are thus incorporated into a training programme that integrally involves local management and
operation and maintenance staff. Staff learn the concepts of modernization and are provided with a toolbox
of options. Then they evaluate their own project with RAP. At the end of the training, internal and external
indicators are developed for the project and the local staff develop a priority list for changes in software and
hardware based on the internal process and service indicators, which appraise all factors that affect system
performance and service delivery in a systematic and standardized manner. The purpose of the appraisal is to
improve specific characteristics and levels of service delivery, and to achieve improvement objectives as
defined by the external performance indicators.
It has been argued that RAP cannot be considered as performance benchmarking on the grounds that it focuses
on planning investment in modernization of water control infrastructure, requires well-trained and experienced
engineers, does not lend itself to regular application on a large number of schemes and does not use
comparison, over time and between schemes, as the basis for identifying performance gaps and planning
improvements. RAP does use comparison over time and between schemes and assesses all processes of
management and operation as well as hardware and can be and is applied over a large number of schemes. It
can therefore be a useful and critical component of a national benchmarking programme aiming at
improvement of sectoral performance if used at the inception of the programme, or to evaluate the impact of
improvement projects. It does require well-trained and experienced engineers; but significant improvement
in the sectors performance in Asia will require well-trained and experienced planners, designers, managers
and operators. For this reason, FAO and national irrigation agencies have introduced RAP within a training
programme where trainees appraise their own systems with the support of a team of expert appraisers and
trainers from the central office.
It has been affirmed that the benchmarking process will only be applied where managers embrace the goal
of pursuing best management practices within a service oriented management system and that this implies
a focus on the quality and cost-effectiveness of service delivery. This is the most original feature and central
message of RAP. By appraising service quality at all levels of system management and concentrating on service
interfaces between the different levels, RAP facilitates taking into account the objectives and concerns of
most stakeholders at all levels, from the upper level managers, to the Water Users Associations (WUAs), to
the farmers who receive service from them and provides a common language to discuss performance and
system objectives. RAP is also a useful addition to asset management methodologies which focus on asset
condition and serviceability.
Future development of the tool will focus on developing additional indicators to better address drainage and
water disposal services, the multiple roles provided by the irrigation systems, including those concerning the
environment and biodiversity, and water users from sectors other than agriculture, in order to better serve
multistakeholder participatory or strategic planning and management processes. RAP has been an effective
performance appraisal tool which has been consistent with FAOs concepts of modernization adopted to this
date. RAP will evolve as these evolve in the future.
Introduction
The performance of irrigation systems is the subject of a vast and fast expanding body of literature. As the
debate on irrigation and its reputed poor performance intensifies and involves broadening circles of
stakeholders and disciplines, the many different points of view are reflected in new evaluation procedures,
methodologies and indicators that focus on the perspectives of their proponents.
154
The use of any particular set of performance indicators is thus the object of a radical critique by some on the
grounds that these reflect the point of view of a dominant group and are, furthermore, based on very dubious
data sets. For this reason, international institutions are now cooperating on the development of stakeholderoriented valuation methods and decision-making processes reflecting the multiple roles of and perspectives
on irrigation systems.
Meanwhile, specific indicators, methodologies for their assessment, and their values, continue to be among
the favorite topics for argument within each discipline, and particularly the indicators related to efficiency
and productivity.
The performance of irrigation systems is therefore a controversial, complex and evolving topic, which is central
to the debate on the future evolution of irrigation systems. The selection of a set of performance indicators
and how these are assessed is now understood to be non-neutral and to influence to a large extent the objectives,
planning and design of interventions meant to improve the performance of the systems, as well as the actions
taken by system managers.
On a more practical level, the understanding of the notion of irrigation efficiency by irrigation engineers and
managers is very important in shaping investment in the sector. For instance, the estimation of the efficiency
of an irrigation system as the product of the conveyance efficiencies of the successive levels of distribution
of an irrigation system and of the on-farm application efficiency, was the foundation for irrigation projects
based on the reduction of conveyance losses in the conveyance and distribution network, mostly through
canal lining, and on the improvement of on-farm application efficiency. Although this approach has long been
discarded by specialists in favour of water accounting/water balance based system efficiency indicators, it is
still widely prevalent in a number of irrigation agencies design manuals and continues to be the basis for
project planning and design.
FAOs promotion of irrigation modernization and the importance of performance assessment
FAO, particularly in Southeast Asia, has concentrated its efforts in recent years on the promotion of the
modernization of irrigation systems.
At a regional consultation in Bangkok, 1996 (FAO, 1997), the following definition was proposed for the
modernization of irrigation systems:
Irrigation modernization is a process of technical and managerial upgrading (as opposed
to mere rehabilitation) of irrigation schemes with the objective to improve resource utilization
(labour, water, economic resources, environmental resources) and the water delivery service
to farms.
This definition of the modernization of irrigation systems, which focuses on the provision of water delivery
service to farmers, on service-oriented management, on the improvement of utilization of all resources, and
on modernization as a process of technical and managerial (including institutional) change to meet farmers
evolving service requirements, has been the guiding principle for FAOs activities in the region and, quite
naturally, for the selection and development of performance appraisal tools and methodologies.
In particular, FAO has been calling for a massive retraining of engineers and managers in irrigation agencies,
consulting firms and irrigation service providers in Asia (FAO, 2002) in order to introduce and provide
knowledge and ways and means to design, manage and operate irrigation systems economically for improved
performance and adequate service to farmers as they aspire to improved socio-economic well-being, evolve
toward more commercial forms of agriculture and face the challenges of globalization, the move towards
integrated water resources management in the river basins, and intensifying competition for water from other
sectors.
This emphasis on training and capacity building arose from: i) the results of a large-scale evaluation of the
performance of the introduction on modern water control and management practices carried out for the World
Bank (FAO, 1999), which indicated that the lack of knowledge of proper options was a main reason for the
155
mitigated success of irrigation modernization projects; ii) the disappointing performance of irrigation
management transfer and participatory irrigation management projects, which was partly attributed to the
failure of these reforms to improve the service to farmers, and lack of attention to operation, design and other
technical aspects (Barker and Molle, 2005) of irrigation systems. Intensified and ongoing training programmes
for both professionals in the reformed irrigation agencies and consulting firms who would provide advisory
services to WUAs, and to the managers of WUAs and the technical staff that they may employ for operation
and maintenance of their irrigation schemes, were thus understood as one of the conditions of the sustained
success of the transfer programmes.
An appraisal of initial conditions and performance of the systems to be transferred was estimated to be
instrumental in allowing both a better design and strategic planning of physical improvements together with
a definition of the service to be provided both by the irrigation service provider to WUAs and by WUAs to
their members, with indications on ways and means to achieve these service goals and improve them in the
future.
FAOs regional training programme on irrigation modernization and benchmarking
FAO has developed over recent years a regional training programme on irrigation modernization. This
programme aims at disseminating modern concepts of service-oriented management of irrigation systems in
member countries with a view to promoting the adoption of effective irrigation modernization strategies in
support of agricultural modernization, improvement of water productivity and integrated water resources
management. FAO has developed training materials and detailed curricula, as well as specific tools for the
appraisal of irrigation systems for benchmarking and the development of appropriate modernization plans
for irrigation systems. The first training workshop under the programme was organized in Thailand in 2000.
Since then India (Andhra Pradesh), Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand,
Turkmenistan and Viet Nam have had the support of the regional training programme to organize national
training workshops on irrigation modernization and benchmarking. More than 500 engineers and managers
have now been trained with support from the programme.
The programme is starting to have an impact in member countries. The Royal Irrigation Department of
Thailand is using the tools and methodologies introduced by the programme for the appraisal of projects,
and has included the training workshops in its regular training programme. In Viet Nam, a World Bank funded
investment project (the Viet Nam Water Resources Assistance Project) has a large irrigation modernization
component based on the concepts introduced through initial training at project preparation stage, which was
instrumental in the adoption of revised design criteria. The Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) of
Malaysia has included the training programme and its tools in its quality and modernization strategies:
proposals for modernization of the rice granary systems of the country now have to be submitted to decisionmakers based on modernization plans developed by system managers following their training and the appraisal
of their systems with the FAO rapid appraisal process (RAP). RAP has been adopted by the World Bank as
one of the three elements of its holistic benchmarking methodology for irrigation systems. In the World Bank
sourcebook for investment in agricultural water management (World Bank, 2005), the training programme is
suggested to agencies wishing to invest in improving operations and maintaining large irrigation systems.
Providing the services needed by the farmers, now and in the future, is a considerable challenge for irrigation
planners and managers. This paper proposes recommendations based on the lessons learned from the FAO
training programme, focusing on details and aspects of the systems that are not frequently analyzed: the
appraisal of the irrigation systems by the programmes trainees using RAP; their proposals for improvement
of the systems; and the use of RAP itself.
156
RAP, the training programme and benchmarking

RAP and why it was selected and introduced
RAP was originally developed by the Irrigation Training and Research Centre of California Polytechnic
University in 1996/97 as a diagnostic and evaluation tool for a research programme financed by the World
Bank on the evaluation of the impact of the introduction of modern control and management practices in
irrigation on the performance of irrigation systems (FAO, 1999).
The conceptual framework of RAP (see Figure 1) for the analysis of the performance of irrigation systems
can be explained as follows: irrigation systems operate under a set of physical and institutional constraints
and with a certain resource base; the systems are analyzed as a series of management levels, each level
providing a water delivery service through the systems internal management and control processes to the
next lower level, from the bulk water supply to the main canals down to the individual farm or field; the
service quality delivered at the interface between the management levels can be appraised in terms of its
components (equity, flexibility, reliability) and the accuracy of control and measurement, and depends on
a number of factors related to hardware design and management; with the service quality delivered to the
farm and under economic, agronomic constraints, the system and farmers management produces results (crops
yields, irrigation intensity, water use efficiency etc.), and symptoms of poor system performance and
institutional constraints are manifested as social chaos (water thefts, vandalism), poor condition of
infrastructure, poor cost recovery and weak WUAs.
Results are evaluated and compared among projects through a set of external performance indicators
(see Appendix 1 for the list and definition of external performance indicators of RAP), while constraints,
factors influencing service quality at different levels, and symptoms are appraised through a series of
standardized internal process indicators (see Appendix 2 for the list of internal process indicators of RAP,
and Appendix 3 for a typical service quality indicator).
The lessons learned from the World Banks research project were considered by FAO to be important elements
to be included in the regional irrigation modernization training programme. The RAP framework itself and
its indicators were found to be consistent with FAOs understanding of the modernization of irrigation systems
as reflected in the Bangkok definition of 1996 (see above): RAP was thus adopted as the methodology for
performance appraisal as well as assessment of initial conditions of irrigation systems in its training
programme. After a first version used in the Thailand training workshop, ITRC developed for FAO more
user-friendly versions of RAP, where the tools for estimating the systems water balance were also considerably
expanded2 (Burt, 2003).
Benchmarking and beyond
Benchmarking is defined in documents of the International Programme for Technology and Research in
Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) as a systematic process for achieving continued improvement in the irrigation
sector through comparisons with relevant and achievable internal or external goals, norms, and standards
(IPTRID, 2001). The overall aim of benchmarking is to improve the performance within an irrigation scheme
by measuring its performance against its peers and its own mission and objectives. The benchmarking process
should be a continuous series of measurement, analysis, and changes to improve the performance of the
schemes.
RAP was later adopted as a component of the holistic benchmarking promoted by the World Bank. The
evaluation and analysis stages of the holistic benchmarking form three legs of the benchmarking stool:
evaluation of technical indicators (both internal and external); appraisal of the system processes; evaluation
of service to users and their satisfaction with that service. RAP concentrates on the evaluation of the system
processes and the evaluation of the service at all levels in the system, from water supply to the scheme to the
2
The RAP manual and files can be downloaded from the following Website: www.watercontrol.org. It is available in Chinese,
English, Indonesian, Russian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese.
157
O
O
O
O
RESULTS
Cropping Intensity
Average Crop Yields (Tonne/Ha)
Yield/Unit of Water Consumed
Downstream Environmental Impacts
O
O
O
O
SYMPTOMS
% Collection of Water Fees
Viability of Water User Associations
Condition of Structures and Canals
Water Theft
SERVICE
Actual Level and Quality of Service Delivered
To Fields
From One Level of Canal to Another
FACTORS INFLUENCING SERVICE QUALITY

Hardware Design
O Turnout Design
O Check Structure Design
O Flow Rate Measurement
O Communications System
O Remote Monitoring
O Availability of Spill Sites
O Flow Rate Control Structures
O Regulating Reservoir Sites
O Density of Turnouts
Management
Instructions for Operating Check Structures
O Frequency of Communication
O Maintenance Schedules
O Understanding of the Service Concept
O Frequency of Making Flow Changes
O Quality and Types of Training Programmes
O Monitoring and Evaluation by Successive
Levels of Management
O Existence of Performance Objectives
O
CONSTRAINTS
Physical Constraints
Dependability of Water Supply
O Adequacy of Water Supply
O Availability of Groundwater
O Climate
O Silt Load in the Water
O Geometric Pattern of Fields
O Size of Fields
O Quality of Seed Varieties
O Field Conditions
Land Leveling
Appropriate Irrigation Method
for the Soil Type
O
Institutional Constraints
O Adequacy of Budget
O Size of Water User Association
O Existence of and Type of Law Enforcement
O Purpose and Organizational Structure of
WUA
O Destination of Budget
O Method of Collecting and Assessing Water
Fees
O Ownership of Water and Facilities
O Ability to Fire Inept Employees
O Staffing Policies, Salaries
O Availability of Farm Credit
O Crop prices
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of rapid appraisal process (RAP)

farm, but also assists in the evaluation of the IPTRID benchmarking indicators, as the successive versions of
RAP took care to use, as far as possible, the same project descriptors and performance indicators as the
International Benchmarking Programme.3
3
The only difference in the definitions of indicators between RAP and the IPTRID indicators is related to rice. Seepage rates for
paddy rice (percent of water applied to fields that goes below the root zone of the rice) are estimated in RAP if rice is a crop grown
in the project. However, contrary to many studies that combine seepage together with evapotranspiration for rice, to come up
with a combined consumptive use or beneficiary use, that convention is not used in RAP because such a combination makes it
very difficult to separate ET (which cannot be recirculated or reduced) from seepage water (which can be recirculated via wells or
drains). Furthermore, such a convention ignores the fact that deep percolation is unavoidable for all crops, not just on paddy rice.
Therefore, the convention would apply to all crops, not just paddy rice.
158
For benchmarking to go beyond the measurement and analysis stages, however, and on to the implementation
of changes and improvement stages, there must be significant acceptance by project personnel, identification
of weaknesses and potential changes, and knowledge of options for change. The data collection and analysis
of RAP are thus incorporated into the training programme that integrally involves local management and
operation and maintenance staff. Staff learn the concepts of modernization and are provided with a toolbox
of options and then evaluate their own project with RAP. At the end of the training:
1. internal and external indicators are developed for the project; and
2. the local staff define short-, medium- and long-term modernization objectives, described by the external
performance indicators, and develop a modernization strategy and derive new service objectives
specifying how to improve specific characteristics of service delivery at specific levels to achieve
the modernization objectives. Then, as a final step, they develop a priority list for changes in software
and hardware based on the internal process and service indicators (which appraise all factors that
affect system performance and service delivery in a systematic and standardized manner) in order to
achieve the service objectives.
The external performance indicators (the IPTRID benchmarking indicators are essentially external performance
indicators) allow the comparison of a projects performance with its peers and to identify possible objectives
in terms of productivity, efficiency, economic and environmental performance, but do not provide assistance
in identifying specific changes in processes and hardware to improve performance. This is the essential
contribution of the internal process indicators.
In the management process for existing irrigation and drainage schemes managed with a service orientation
as proposed by Malano and Van Hofwegen (1999), which is essentially a strategic planning and management
process for a service organization (see Figure 2), RAP allows the trainees to make an assessment (with the
data that are available) of the context, resource base and constraints of the system, to appraise the existing
level of service, management and infrastructure, to define a desired level of service corresponding to specific
performance objectives, and to design an initial costed modernization strategy and priority actions related to
management upgrade and infrastructure upgrade.
Water
rights
Irrigation
policy
Existing
management
Agricultural
practices
Existing level
of service
Crops-soilsclimate
Water
resources
Existing
infrastructure
Desired level
of service
Management
upgrade
Cost of
service
Infrastructure
upgrade
Consultative
process
Training
Agreed level
of service
Asset
management
strategy
Figure 2. Management process for existing irrigation and drainage schemes

managed with a service orientation (from Malano and Van Hofwegen, 1999)
159
The irrigation systems as they were appraised4

Type of systems
All irrigation systems appraised at the regional training programme were large-scale rice-based systems.5
They were typically designed for supplementary irrigation of rice during the rainy season (with the exception
of Turkmenistan, which is under an arid desert climate). They are under public management under
a supply-driven mode. WUAs have been created in a number of countries but they do not play a meaningful
role in the management of the systems. The systems are generally in a poor condition because of insufficient
maintenance and provide poor service to farmers. Service provided by the main canals to the secondary canals
and command areas is generally unreliable and inequitable, with the exception of Malaysia. Water level control
in the canals is poor and is a main factor in poor service delivery. Some systems had not received support for
many years whereas substantial investment had recently been completed or was under way for other systems.
Design standards and control structures
Design standards and operation have not changed in many countries for 20 to 30 years (Plusquellec, 2002).
The systems have been generally designed for upstream control, but few are actually operated under pure
upstream control. The extreme case is the Dau Tieng system in Southern Viet Nam, which is now operated
under manual downstream control. Wave travel times in the canals are frequently of the order of one or two
days, and are increased by the operation of the cross-regulators. Buffer storage to increase system
responsiveness is absent in all systems. Specific flow rates of the canals are calculated for supplemental
irrigation, and are therefore quite small, and decrease from the main canals to the lower level canals. This
does not allow flexibility of operations and large variations in flow rates. It is a particular constraint when
farmers wish to synchronize their farming activities for mechanization and thus need large amounts of water
for land preparation at the same time.
Cross-regulators are, with a few exceptions, manually operated underflow structures, in combination with
underflow offtakes, and generally very sensitive to fluctuations in water supply. In the Philippines, duckbill
weirs have been introduced for water level control. However, most of them have been vandalized as the systems
have large variations in their water supply. During shortage periods, the upstream offtakes receive their
allocation until available flows are depleted and downstream offtakes are shorted. In some cases, offtakes
are of the overflow type (Rominj gates in Indonesia), which exacerbates fluctuations of flow rates into the
minor canals.
Gates are rarely calibrated. The most common measurement method for flow rates is the orifice formula
through (non-calibrated) gates. This formula is applied by staff whether the gates actually function as
submerged, free flow orifices or are fully open and function as free-flow or submerged weirs (Andhra Pradesh
Krishna Western Delta). Other measurement devices have been introduced (broad-crested weirs), but they
are typically poorly designed (too broad) and inaccurate, or submerged. Recirculation of drainage is practised
in a large number of schemes, but none is equipped with buffer or regulating reservoirs.
Near-farm, and on-farm infrastructure is underdeveloped. The introduction of command area development
on the structured design concept or proportional flow division as an alternative to previous fully-gated
distribution network designs has not been successful. The systems are immediately subverted by the farmers
(Sunsari Morang Project, Nepal).
A number of technical completion reports of the training workshops organized under FAOs regional training programme, the
programmes training materials and a RAP manual (in several regional and international languages) are available on FAOs Website
dedicated to the modernization of irrigation systems: www.watercontrol.org.
5
RAP external performance and internal process indicators for a number of representative systems are presented in Appendix 4
(external performance indicators) and Appendix 5 (internal performance indicators). In Appendix 5, the values of the internal indicators
of the irrigation systems evaluated with RAP under the World Bank study are also presented, so that Southeast Asian systems can be
compared with systems in other regions.
160
Operation
Operation follows a standard seasonal schedule that is adjusted on average every week, usually following
qualitative assessments of demand by managers or qualitative requests by farmers. Main structures are operated
typically three times a day according to a set schedule, very often following instructions from a central office
on gate positions. Although system managers often issue instructions on flow rate targets at each offtake,
these are rarely followed and most field operators adjust gates based on water levels in the canals, which
correspond to a situation where farmers do not complain but do not in general correspond to a specific flow
rate because of the poor condition of the canals. Farmers often operate the gates themselves and operators
and managers have capitulated to this situation. A typical response to this lack of discipline is the rotational
supply: water levels are raised in canal reaches during on rotation periods and lowered during off rotation
periods.
Development of pumping
Low-cost pumping technology and energy subsidies have allowed farmers to free themselves from the
constraints of poor canal system performance or inadequate scheduling through groundwater pumping, illegal
pumping from the canals, water scavenging or subversion of system policies and obtain more reliable or
frequent supply, switch to other crops and more effective on-farm water management strategies and techniques.
Conjunctive use is not managed by anyone but usually allows farmers to adopt highly productive farming
systems. As a result, tailenders may often practise more intensive and diversified farming systems.
Management policies
General management policies are typical of public institutions in the region, with few effective systems for
rewarding or sanctioning performance. Field level operators are often very poorly paid and it is difficult for
management and engineers to control how they actually operate the structures, which often differs from official
rules and policies. How structures are actually managed is often directly responsible for instability of the
system. In the Sunsari Morang (Nepal) system, main canal operators, when trying to provide a target flow
rate into a secondary canal, make an initial setting at the offtake of the secondary canal, then operate the
cross-regulator of the main canal to lower or raise the water level in the main canal to adjust the flow rate
into the secondary canal. If they have raised the water level in the main canal too much, they then open
a safety structure to divert the excess water supply into a drain. This example, although extreme, illustrates
the importance of all details of canal operation and of instructions to operators.
The administrative setup of the operating agency frequently hinders effective operation. In Thailand, the
responsibility for operation of long canals is divided into reaches under the control of different operation and
maintenance projects that follow district boundaries. Although water allocation is officially to each secondary
canal, in practice there is a flow rate target at the interface between each project. As a result, the projects
focus their energy on disputes on flow rates at these interfaces, operate the cross-regulators as flow control
structures (which creates water level fluctuations in the main canals), neglect flow rate targets into the
secondary canals (which thus fluctuate wildly), and no specific office is responsible in the case of a water
deficit in the lower reaches of the main canals. Although project managers already frequently integrate into
their operation plans water supply to other users (municipalities, industrial customers), none of the projects
appraised has specific environmental targets or goals.
Pre-training ideas for system improvement
Proposals and ideas of the training workshop trainees for improvement of their systems (and project proposals
prepared by local consulting firms) prior to the training usually follow a standard menu of rehabilitation
following prevailing standard designs, transfer of operation and maintenance costs to farmers, and substantial
investments in rigid canal lining. The introduction of supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
systems and information technology is frequently considered or already at an early stage of introduction.
However, details of selection of sensors and of control logic are frequently inadequate and the purpose of the
introduction of SCADA systems to improve performance is unclear. In general, pre-training modernization
161
proposals rarely address management, operation, scheduling and ordering procedures, communication and
training.
System managers rarely have in place effective monitoring and evaluation systems. When these are in place,
they are rarely used for immediate feedback for operation. Flow rates at spills and in drains are not monitored
and managers do not have a proper water balance and estimation of the systems efficiency (with the exception
of Malaysia thanks to DIDs national benchmarking programme). There is, however, a gradual shift to
performance-oriented management and the definition of performance indicators (Thailand). However, norms
and budget allocations are often uniform nationally, not reflecting the constraints and potentials of projects,
which may vary significantly across projects (Philippines). Some projects (Philippines) are piloting demand
management with the introduction of volumetric water pricing. However, investment in the upgrading of the
systems has not been geared towards improving control to customer WUAs, and proposed volumetric rates,
based on current service fees, are not likely to yield expected water efficiency gains (de Fraiture and Perry,
2002, FAO, 2004).
Chaos, anarchy and poor service
In summary, the level of chaos (difference between stated policies and actual policies) and of anarchy
(subversion of policies) varies from system to system, but is generally high, particularly at the lower levels
of management. Recent investments following standards or investment strategies (command area development)
have poor results in terms of performance, control and service. Although lack of discipline and institutional
issues contribute greatly to this situation, many of the problems can be traced to:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
problems in initial design;

exporting of design concepts outside of their area of validity;
difficulty of controlling and operating the systems;
layouts with confused hierarchies;
serious flaws in operation strategies and instructions to staff;
inconsistencies between operating rules at various levels;
inconsistencies between operating rules and farmers requirements;
changes in farmers requirements not reflected by changes in system policies;
poor quality of water delivery service to farms;
lack of flexibility at all levels;
staffing policies; and
poor training of staff at all levels, in particular, poor understanding of unsteady flow hydraulics.
Standard project improvement projects, as reflected in pre-training proposals, usually fail to address these
issues. In this respect, irrigation planners, understood as central agency staff in planning and design branches,
and irrigation managers, understood as system level field staff in charge of system operation, are two different
groups. The former are not necessarily aware of the specific difficulties which managers face every day.
Planning and design procedures, as well as terms of reference for consulting firms that are frequently assigned
the tasks of planning and designing system improvements, are typically not centred on the concerns of
managers and farmers. Participatory design procedures are progressively being introduced, but they frequently
focus on details such as layout of the canal networks or positions of the offtakes, rather than on more general
(and more important) issues of service and performance objectives and design criteria.
The challenges
The need for change
Asian large surface irrigation systems suffer from a legacy of poor design, degraded infrastructure and poor
management and stagnation in the face of rapid transformations of agriculture and pressure on their water
supply. The challenge is to transform these systems from supply-driven to demand-driven responsive systems,
improve their financial, environmental, technical and service performance to significantly increase control,
162
reliability, equity and flexibility to allow these systems to adapt to changing or more variable water allocations,
enable farmers to boost agricultural and water productivity, be more responsive to market opportunities, and
therefore adopt new and diversified water management practices on their farms. Water-related system-level
objectives need to be determined case-by-case based on water balances and basin-level considerations on the
one hand and agriculture-related service objectives on the other hand.
Climate change combined with competition from other sectors will entail not only increased variations in
rainfall and longer dry spells during the growing seasons, but also increased variations in water allocation to
the schemes from season to season, as agriculture will most likely be considered the residual water user after
priority needs from other sectors have been met. This will call for flexibility in changing operational policies
from year to year, and increased participation of farmers in comanagement of the systems.
However, in practise, existing water allocations and their future evolutions are difficult to anticipate for
irrigation planners and managers, as the present systems of administrative or de facto allocation are yet to
evolve into river basin allocation and rights systems. Furthermore, managers as well as river basin planners
very rarely have accurate and operational information on irrigation system efficiencies. Although, generally,
system achievements in terms of service quality are overestimated by management, system efficiencies are
usually underestimated, both by managers and by agency-level planners.
Deficiencies in strategic landscapes for planning result in poor planning
Although, thanks to recent international and national efforts in visioning and strategic processes in the water
sector, there is a general notion of the future landscape of agricultural water management, in practise, these
visions are not sufficiently detailed for planners and managers to visualize the practical changes that would
be required to meet future water-related and agriculture-related challenges the basis of which would be
an analysis of services required by farmers in the future. An exception is Malaysia, where strategic thinking
processes have been adopted for a relatively long time, and where DID has adopted specific performance
targets and goals both for rice and for water management performance and where system-level, institutional,
and farm-level changes are viewed holistically in a transformational modernization process.
Modernization proposals for the irrigation systems that were appraised, prior to the training workshops, usually
failed to establish a linkage between system-level objectives and proposals and stated objectives for the
introduction of improved or innovative irrigation technologies at farm level, or between new performance
objectives and proposed reform of the management and institutional setup. Structured design, proportional
water division and rotational supply are not compatible with new water saving technologies developed for
rice, which require frequent or on-demand irrigation water delivery. Some designs and operation concepts
which seem to allow rice to reach its yield potential (Japan, Korea, Southern China melon-on-the-vine
design concept (Plusquellec, 2002, Barker and Molle, 2005)) were not represented in the sample of projects
appraised in the regional training programme. They are, however, the object of increased interest from irrigation
professionals. At the institutional level, the challenge is to develop new frameworks that can manage the
complexity of the hydrological cycle, the multiple roles of irrigation systems and deliver irrigation and drainage
services to farmers in a responsive, accountable and efficient manner.
Financing all this would require considerable investments whereas rice prices are expected to remain low in
the medium term and present financing arrangements do not cover operation and maintenance costs, let alone
investments in upgrading of management capacity and infrastructure. However, increasing climate variability
may increase the profitability of irrigation systems by reducing the risk of crop failure. The investment
strategies of the countries in the region should have clear strategic objectives, whether production objectives
concentrating on areas with competitive advantage (Malaysia for instance has this strategy) and/or poverty
reduction and food security objectives targeting marginal systems.
In these circumstances, it is imperative that increased attention should be paid to the quality and type of
investment. At policy level, the challenge is to align and harmonize water and irrigation policies with
agricultural and environmental policies and integrate them into overall socio-economic development policies.
163
Response options
Water management response options need to explicitly address scale issues (farm, irrigation system and
basin-level institutions, law, policy and supporting infrastructure). A systems approach is essential to determine
water balance-related objectives and water management strategies to achieve them. These strategies and
changes should aim at improving water control, equity, reliability and flexibility of service to give farmers
water management and crop choices.
Improvement strategies should be supported by strategic planning and management approaches with a service
orientation (Malano and van Hofwegen, 1999). Participatory planning and design processes would assist in
focusing management goals on farmers needs. This would require increased decentralization of irrigation
bureaucracy towards system managers and farmers representative institutions.
Previous irrigation modernization projects have been partly successful at best, but better options and strategies
now exist. Major options include conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, recirculation of drainage, buffer
reservoirs at appropriate levels in the systems, improved design of control structures, investment in drainage,
operation and ordering procedures, piping of near-farm delivery, and intensification of irrigation system
management. Feasible and field-tested options exist. The gap is in capacity building of the irrigation profession
at large and a critical action is the revision of design standards (FAO, 1998, Plusquellec, 2002, Facon, 2002,
2005).
The regional training programme has shown that when irrigation planners and managers are presented with
these options, which they were not aware of, and when, furthermore, they work together in developing
proposals based on a detailed appraisal of the systems, they enthusiastically embrace them the irrigation
modernization plans that trainees prepare at the conclusion of the training workshops differ very significantly
from their plans prior to the workshop. These plans include new technical options (in particular, buffer storage
is seen as a powerful design feature), propose balanced investment in upgrading the capacity of management
and farmers and in infrastructure, communication and mobility for operation staff; planned investment in
infrastructure focuses much more on control and measurement as a priority. Plans also typically include as
priorities changes in instructions to field staff for operation of control structures, changes in internal
organization, improved procedures for ordering of deliverables, and an initial focus on restoring and improving
water level control in the upper levels of the systems as prerequisites for further improvements and investments
in the lower levels.
Information and control technology and software is now robust and available off-the-shelf and costs are
decreasing everyday. Their introduction through careful strategies would make an important contribution.
A priority often found in the proposals of the trainees is the remote monitoring of spills, drains, and flow
rates at major offtakes as a basis for the establishment of feedback mechanisms, as well as for a better
understanding of the water balance of the systems.
A business approach to institutions is the key to the future sustainability of rice-based irrigation systems, in
the sense that institutions should be tailored to deliver specific performance goals in addition to governance
and representation goals, and should generally improve service orientation and accountability, move towards
decentralized management, and reflect the diversity of stakeholders and water uses. Models of farmers
organizations may need to change towards professionalized institutions that can provide new ranges of delivery
and other services and reduce transaction costs for farmers, as labour costs are increasing and labour and
management shortages are to be further expected. Options for overhauling public management institutions
include financial autonomy, incorporation, making them more professional, public-private partnerships,
privatization and transfer to farmers organizations. New promising models are emerging in China and other
countries.
New financial instruments are required to cover not only O&M but also upgrading of management and
infrastructure assets at all levels of agricultural water management, from farm, to users organizations, to
system-level irrigation service providers and the river basin. Public investment support will still be needed
to assist in the transformation of systems and institutions in their transition from present condition towards
164
more agile and performing systems. The observation is that this strategic investment may not be more
expensive that previous infrastructure rehabilitation or canal lining programmes.
Further work is needed by international and national researchers on interactions between design standards,
operation strategies, service level and water pricing. Volumetric delivery/pricing at the tertiary level is an
achievable medium-term objective for gated systems provided that they are modernized (Thailand and
Viet Nam, for example). Systems based on proportional flow division may well limit options to flat-rate
area-based or crop-based irrigation charges if users cannot have control over water deliveries and pre-empt
long-term goals of volumetric water pricing.
Policies and investments in the future need to be rice-aware rather than rice-centric (FAO Regional Strategic
Framework, 2005). Aligning water and irrigation strategies and policies with agricultural and environmental
policies and overall socio-economic development policies can be facilitated through the dissemination of
strategic planning and management and more inclusive policy development approaches (ESCAP, 2004).
Conclusions
General conclusion
The challenges faced by irrigation planners, managers and farmers in Asia are numerous and complex.
Uncertainties abound, but the uncertainty itself is an important piece of information available for planners
and managers to consider in the decisions they have to take today to face the challenges of tomorrow. Irrigation
systems and their management have to evolve towards flexibility to adapt on a continuous basis to face
increasing variability in water supply, climate and markets.
The main lesson from the FAO regional modernization training programme is a paradox: this challenge is
both underestimated and overestimated. It is underestimated because there has been in the recent past excessive
reliance on policy reform, institutional reform, improved control technology, improved management, economic
incentives and instruments or on-farm water management as measures that would single-handedly deliver
improved performance or service. The detailed appraisals of the irrigation systems which were investigated
through the regional training programme indicate that a complex and articulated mix of changes in all these
fields would be in fact required. It has been underestimated also because the actual performance of the systems,
particularly in terms of service delivery, is frequently overestimated.6 The challenge is overestimated because
there exists a considerable potential for significantly improving system performance and service with the
adoption of simple and low-cost measures, provided that an increased focus on all details of operation,
management and design is adopted, and that planners and managers are aware of better options that are now
available through training and capacity building.
This does not mean that far-ranging and comprehensive reform or substantial investment will not be needed.
This means that it is possible to initiate a process of transformational change with immediate benefits to
farmers, in terms of service, and managers, in terms of ease of operation, that will allow the necessary reform
agenda and investment programmes to be more strategically focused, achievable in a realistic step-wise
approach, more easily implemented, acceptable to the various stakeholders and able to adapt to rapidly
changing circumstances.
RAP and benchmarking
It has been argued (Cornish, 2005) that RAP cannot be considered as performance benchmarking on the
grounds that it focuses on planning investment in modernization of water control infrastructure, requires
well-trained and experienced engineers, does not lend itself to regular application on a large number of schemes
and does not use comparison, over time and between schemes, as the basis for identifying performance gaps
and planning improvements.
6
RAP appraises the level of service as perceived or declared by the systems managers (stated service) and the actual level of
service as observed in the field investigations (actual service). The ratio of (actual/stated) service indicators is called a chaos indicator.
A chaos indicator significantly lower than 1 denotes a management structure with poor interest in and knowledge of its performance.
165
In reality, RAP uses comparison over time and between schemes as explained above, assesses all processes
of management and operation as well as hardware, can be and is applied over a large number of schemes
(Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam). It can therefore be a useful and critical component of a national benchmarking
programme aiming at the improvement of sectoral performance if used at the inception of the programme
when systems managers develop their strategic plans or system upgrading plans, or to evaluate the impact of
improvement projects, as is the case in Malaysia.
RAP does require well-trained and experienced engineers. Any significant improvement in the sectors
performance in Asia will require well-trained and experienced planners, designers, managers and operators.
For this reason, FAO and national irrigation agencies such as the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand
and the Department of Irrigation and Drainage of Malaysia introduce RAP within a training programme where
trainees appraise their own systems with the support of a team of expert appraisers and trainers from the
central office. The experience from the FAO regional training programme is that this support from a core
team of expert appraisers and trainers, who are also external to the system, is essential for quality control of
RAP.
RAP and service orientation: service orientation of management and assets
Furthermore, it has been affirmed that the benchmarking process will only be applied where managers
embrace the goal of pursuing best management practices within a service oriented management system
and that this implies a focus on the quality and cost-effectiveness of service delivery (Malano, 2004). This is
the most original feature and central message of RAP.
In addition, by appraising service quality at all levels of system management and concentrating on service
interfaces between the different levels, RAP facilitates taking into account the objectives and concerns of the
operators at all levels, from the upper-level managers, to the WUAs that may exist in the system, to the farmers
who receive service from them.
In RAP, the focus on control infrastructure (and how it is operated) is viewed from the perspective of service
delivery, control, operating rules, and management responsiveness. The appraisal of the numerous systems
under the regional training programme confirms that poor selection and operation of the systems control
structures play a decisive role in system service performance. Decisions on control structures (their
maintenance, their operation, their replacement) are therefore critical management decisions, as are, more
generally, decisions on investment in infrastructure upgrade. Poor decisions on infrastructure or sterile
investment programmes that will not yield desired performance or service improvements are simply poor
management decisions.
In this respect, RAP, which focuses on quality of control with and interactions between control structures,
and on actual operation of these structures, is a useful and critical addition to asset management methods
that focus on asset serviceability. The notion of serviceability is deemed to be important as:
the serviceability of an asset (that is, its ability to perform its function) is often assumed
to be directly related to its condition. But this can be a misleading assumption. In practise,
assets very often continue to perform their functions quite satisfactorily even though their
condition has significantly deteriorated.
On the other hand, there are frequent instances when an asset which is generally in excellent
condition is rendered unserviceable by a very minor fault. It is the serviceability therefore
which dictates the urgency of the work needed to restore the asset to its fully functional state
(IIS-ODA, 1995).
Asset surveys assessing the condition and serviceability of structures are therefore focused on the assets
condition and needs for repairs or maintenance. However, an asset, such as an offtake, or a measurement
device, can be brand new and perform poorly because of poor design (a Rominj gate in combination with an
undershot cross-regulator for instance, or a measuring flume which is too wide) and any decision that does
166
not lead to the replacement with a different design (Rominj gate) or modification (measuring flume) of the
asset will be a poor asset management decision, or of poor operation, and changes in instructions to the
operators will not lead to an improved serviceability of the asset.
RAP as support for decision-making
RAP is not as of itself a decision-making procedure, but a tool to facilitate decision-making.
The array of external performance indicators allows decision-makers to examine the various possible major
objectives of a modernization process: water balance-related objectives, environmental (limited to water quality,
waterlogging, salinity and efficiency) objectives, agricultural production and economic objectives (related to
on-farm and resource limitations), economic and financial sustainability objectives, and to a certain extent
social objectives.
The combination of external and internal indicators also allows a first representation of the interests of
a number of stakeholders: central-level decision-makers, water resource managers, system managers, operators
and staff at various levels, water users associations and farmers, and, to a limited extent, environmentalists
concerned with the performance of the systems. Equally importantly, RAP provides a common language
between central decision-makers, managers and water users, to examine the present performance of the system
and future performance and change objectives, in terms of service and its characteristics, at all levels of
management.
RAP can therefore be a very valuable input (but not the only one) to multistakeholder decision-making and
strategic planning and management processes.
As the systems are increasingly considered as providing multiple roles and likely to evolve towards multiple
use systems, future development of the tool will focus on developing additional indicators to address drainage
and water disposal services better, as well as the multiple roles provided by the irrigation systems. RAP is
a performance appraisal tool which is consistent with FAOs concepts of irrigation modernization adopted
until now. RAP will evolve as these evolve in the future.
References
Barker, R. & Molle, F. 2005. Evolution of irrigation in South and Southeast Asia. Comprehensive assessment research
report 5. IWMI, Colombo (available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org).
Burt, C. 2003. Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) and benchmarking explanation and tools (available at http://
www.watercontrol.org).
Cornish, G. 2005. Performance benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector, experiences to date and conclusion.
HR Wallingford and DFID.
De Fraiture, C. & Perry, C. 2002. Why is irrigation water demand inelastic at low price ranges? Paper presented at
the Conference on Irrigation Water Policies: Micro and Macro Considerations, Agadir, Morocco, 1517 June
2002 (available at (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org).
ESCAP. 2004. Proceedings of the concluding workshop of the regional programme on capacity building in strategic
planning for natural resources management, 2004.
Facon, T. 2002. Downstream of irrigation water pricing: The infrastructure design and operational management
considerations. Paper presented at the Conference on Irrigation Water Policies: Micro and Macro Considerations,
Agadir, Morocco, 1517 June 2002 (available at (http://lnweb18.worldbank.org).
Facon, T. 2005. Asian irrigation in transition service orientation, Institutional aspects and design/operation/
infrastructure issues. In Asian irrigation in transition: responding to challenges. Ganesh Shivakoti, D. Vermillion,
W. Fung Lam, E. Ostrom, U. Pradhan & R. Yoder, eds. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
FAO. 1997. Modernization of irrigation schemes: past experiences and future options. FAO-RAP 1997/22, Water Report
Series 12, Bangkok.
167
FAO. 1999. Modern water control and management practices. In Irrigation impact on performance. FAO Water
Reports 19 (also available at http://www.watercontrol.org).
FAO. 2002. Investment in Land and Water. FAO-RAP Publication 2002/09, Bangkok.
FAO. 2004. Towards a food-secure Asia and Pacific regional strategic framework for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok
(also available at http://www.fao.org).
IIS-ODA. 1995. Asset management procedures for irrigation schemes preliminary guidelines for the preparation of
an asset management plan for irrigation infrastructure. Institute of Irrigation Studies, University of Southampton)
and Overseas Development Administration, UK.
IPTRID. 2001. Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector. International Programme
for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Rome (also available at http://www.fao.org).
Malano, H. 2004. Benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector. Position paper. ICID, Task force 4, New Delhi.
Malano, H. & van Hofwegen, P. 1999. Management of irrigation and drainage systems, a service approach. IHE
Monograph 3, A.a. Balkema Brookfield, Rotterdam.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the performance of irrigation projects: emerging
modernization procedures and design standards. Bangkok, FAO (available at www.watercontrol.org).
World Bank. 2005. Shaping the future of water for agriculture: a sourcebook for investment in agricultural water
management. Washington, DC, The World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Department.
168
Appendix 1. Rapid appraisal procedure external performance indicators

Item description
Units
Stated efficiencies
Stated conveyance efficiency of imported canal water (accounts for seepage and spills and
tail-end flows)
Weighted field irrigation efficiency from stated efficiencies
Areas
Physical area of irrigated cropland in the command area (not including multiple cropping)
ha
Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping
ha
Cropping intensity in the command area including double cropping
none
External sources of water for the command area

Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area (gross at diversion and entry points)
MCM
Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area
MCM
Effective precipitation to irrigated fields (not including salinity removal)
MCM
Net aquifer withdrawal as a result of irrigation in the command area
MCM
Total external water supply for the project including gross ppt and net aquifer withdrawal,
but excluding internal recirculation
MCM
Total external irrigation supply for the project
MCM
Internal water sources

Internal surface water recirculation by farmer or project in command area
MCM
Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area
MCM
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the command area
MCM
Gross total annual volume of project authority irrigation supply
MCM
Total groundwater pumped and dedicated to the command area
MCM
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the command area, minus net
groundwater withdrawal (this is to avoid double counting. Also, all of net is applied to this term,
although some might be applied to farmers)
MCM
Estimated total gross internal surface water + groundwater
MCM
Irrigation water delivered to users

Internal authority water sources are stated to have a conveyance efficiency of:
Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users using stated conveyance efficiency
MCM
All other irrigation water to users (surface recirculation plus all well pumping, with stated
conveyance efficiencies, using 100% for farmer pumping and farmer surface diversions)
MCM
Total irrigation water deliveries to users (external surface irrigation water + internal diversions
and pumping water sources), reduced for conveyance efficiencies
MCM
Total irrigation water (internal plus external) just for intermediate value
MCM
Overall conveyance efficiency of project authority delivered water
Net field irrigation requirements

ET of irrigated fields in the command area
MCM
ET of irrigation water in the command area (ET - effective precipitation)
MCM
Irrigation water needed for salinity control (net)
MCM
Irrigation water needed for special practices
MCM
Total NET irrigation water requirements (ET - eff. ppt + salt control + special practices)
MCM
169
Item description
Units
Other key values

Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s)
m3/s
Actual peak flow rate of the main canal(s) at diversion point(s) this year
m3/s
Peak NET irrigation requirement for field, including any special requirements
m3/s
Peak GROSS irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies
m3/s
ANNUAL or one-time external indicators for the command area

Peak litres/sec/ha of surface irrigation inflows to canal(s) this year
l/s/ha
Relative water supply (RWS) for the irrigated part of the command area (Total external water
supply)/(Field ET during growing seasons + water for salt control - effective precipitation)
none
Annual command area irrigation efficiency [100 x (crop ET + Leaching needs - Effective ppt)/
(surface irrigation diversions + Net groundwater)]
Field irrigation efficiency (computed) = [crop ET - effective ppt + LR water]/

[total water delivered to users] x 100
Relative gross canal capacity (RGCC) (peak monthly net irrigation requirement)/
(main canal capacity)
none
Relative actual canal flow (RACF) (peak monthly net irrigation requirement)/
(peak main canal flow rate)
none
Gross annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type

Total annual value of agricultural production
M tonnes
US$
170
Appendix 2. Rapid appraisal procedure internal process indicators

Indicator
label
Primary indicator and sub-indicator name

Service and social order
I-1
Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
I-1A
Measurement of volumes
I-1B
Flexibility
I-1C
Reliability
I-1D
Apparent equity
I-2
Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
I-2A to I-2B
Same sub-indicators as for I1
I-3
Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system operated by
a paid employee
I-3A
Number of fields downstream of this point
I-3B
I-3C
Flexibility
I-3D
Reliability
I-3E
Apparent equity
I-4
Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee
I-4A to I-4E
I-5
Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals
I-5A
Flexibility
I-5B
Reliability
I-5C
Equity
I-5D
Control of flow rates to the sub-main as stated
I-6
Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals
I-6A to I-6D
I-7
Social order in the canal system operated by paid employees
I-7A
Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or at flow rates greater than
allowed
I-7B
Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals
I-7C
Lack of vandalism of structures

Main canal
I-8
Cross-regulator hardware (main canal)
I-8A
Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation
I-8B
Level of maintenance of the cross-regulators
I-8C
Lack of water level fluctuation
I-8D
Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level
I-9
Turnouts from the main canal
I-9A
Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation
I-9B
Level of maintenance
I-9C
Flow rate capacities
171
Indicator
label
I-l0
Regulating reservoirs in the main canal
I-10A
Suitability of the number of location(s)
I-10B
Effectiveness of operation
I-10C
Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities
I-10D
Maintenance
I-11
Communications for the main canal
I-11A
Frequency of communications with the next higher level
I-11B
Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their customers
I-11C
Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio
I-11D
Frequency of visits by upper-level supervisors to the field
I-11E
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key spill points,
including the end of the canal
I-11F
Availability of roads along the canal
I-12
General conditions for the main canal
I-12A
General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks
I-12B
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practised,

some seepage may be desired)
I-12C
Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal
I-12D
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal
(for crews and maintenance equipment)
I-13
Operation of the main canal
I-13A
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the operators/
observers of this canal level?
I-13B
Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual demands
I-13C
Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators
I-13D
How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to the office?
Second-level canals
I-14 to I-19
Same indicators as for main canal

Third-level canals
I-20 to I-25
Same indicators as for main and second-level canals

Budgets, employees, WUAs
I-26
Budgets
I-26A
What percentage of the total project (including WUA) O&M is collected as in-kind services,
and/or water fees from water users?
I-26B
Adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available (from all sources)
to sustain adequate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) with the present mode of operation
I-26C
Adequacy of spending on modernization of the water delivery operation/structures

(as contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation)
I-27
Employees
I-27A
Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers (not secretaries and
drivers)
I-27B
Availability of written performance rules
172
Indicator
label
I-27C
Power of employees to make decisions
I-27D
Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause
I-27E
Rewards for exemplary service
I-27F
Relative salary of an operator compared to a day labourer
I-28
Water user associations (WUAs)
I-28A
Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that participates in water
distribution
I-28B
Actual ability of the strong WUAs to influence real-time water deliveries to the WUA
I-28C
Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of its rules
I-28D
Legal basis for the WUAs
I-28E
Financial strength of WUAs
I-29
Mobility and size of operations staff, based on the ratio of operating staff to the number of
turnouts.
I-30
Computers for billing and record management: The extent to which computers are used for
billing and record management
I-31
Computers for canal control: The extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are used
for canal control
I-35
I-36
I-37
I-38
I-39
Special indicators that do not have a 04 rating scale

Turnout density: Number of water users downstream of employee-operated turnouts
Turnouts/Operator: (Number of turnouts operated by paid employees)/(paid employees)
Main canal chaos: (actual/stated) overall service by the main canal
Second-level chaos: (actual/stated) overall service at the most downstream point operated by
a paid employee
Field-level chaos: (actual/stated) overall service to the individual ownership units
173
Appendix 3. Example of rapid appraisal procedure service indicator

No.
I1
I1A
I1B
I1C
I1D
Primary indicator
Sub-indicator
Ranking criteria
Wt
Measurement of
volumes to the
individual units
(04)
4 Excellent measurement and control devices, properly

operated and recorded.
3 Reasonable measurement and control devices, average
operation.
2 Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow
rates.
1 Reasonable measurement of flow rates, but not of
volumes.
0 No measurement of volumes or flows.
4 Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged

by users within a few days.
3 Fixed frequency, rate, or duration, but arranged.
2 Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the
crop needs.
1 Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain
schedule.
0 No established rules.
4 Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and

duration promised. Volume is known.
3 Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally
there are a few days of delay. Volume is known.
2 Water arrives about when it is needed and in the
correct amounts. Volume is unknown.
1 Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly
unreliable, but less than 50% of the time.
0 Unreliable frequency, rate, duration, more than 50%
of the time, and volume delivered is unknown.
Apparent equity
4 All fields throughout the project and within tertiary
to individual units units receive the same type of water delivery service.
(04)
3 Areas of the project receive the same amounts of
water, but within an area the service is somewhat
inequitable.
2 Areas of the project receive somewhat different
amounts (unintentionally), but within an area it is
equitable.
1 There are medium inequities both between areas and
within areas.
0 There are differences of more than 50% throughout
the project on a fairly widespread basis.
Actual water
delivery service
to individual
ownership units
(e.g. field or farm)
Flexibility to the
individual units
(04)
Reliability to the
individual units
(04)
174
Appendix 4. External performance indicators
Ghotki
AkramWah
Krishna
India
Fuleli-Guni
Pakistan
Narayani
MARIIS
Dau Tieng
Lakbok
Nepal
SMIP Over All
Philippines
Cau Son, Cam Son
Viet Nam
Lodoyo
Penang
Units
MADA
Item Description
Indonesia
KERIAN KUMP
Malaysia
Stated efficiencies
Stated conveyance efficiency of imported canal water (accounts for
seepage and spills and tail end flows)
84
61
80
60
57
50
50
60
75
70
80
80
80
70
Weighted field irrigation efficiency from stated efficiencies
70
70
89
68
78
75
77
75
68
65
70
74
66
67
ha
96 474
23 560
6 888
12 232
18 288
44 000
24 140
43 131
64 000
28 700
215 511
403 103
400 000
201 600
ha
Areas
Physical area of irrigated cropland in the command area
(not including multiple cropping)
Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping
192 948
44 405
13 776
32 232
33 317
106 300
42 706
82 172
136 040
58 163
56 056
70 163
224 478
300 000
none
2.00
1.88
2.00
2.64
2.42
1.77
1.91
2.13
2.03
0.26
0.17
0.56
1.49
Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area

(gross at diversion and entry points)
Mm3
1 155
568
197
280
210
1 104
235
1 728
751
314
1 386
3 718
3 117
2 180
Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area
Mm3
1 922
667
167
162
257
774
336
455
1 247
506
395
472
1 723
Effective precipitation to irrigated fields (not including salinity removal)
Mm3
214
61
17
70
63
213
73
131
193
100
66
192
823
Net aquifer withdrawal as a result of irrigation in the command area
Mm3
Total external water supply for the project including gross ppt and
net aquifer withdrawal, but excluding internal recirculation
Mm3
3 077
1 235
365
442
467
1 878
571
2 183
1 998
821
1 781
3 718
3 589
3 903
Total external irrigation supply for the project
Mm3
1 728
751
314
1 386
3 718
3 117
2 180
Cropping intensity in the command area including double cropping

External sources of water for the command area
175
Internal Water Sources

Internal surface water recirculation by farmer or project in command area
Mm3
125
89
79
276
116
286
137
Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area
Mm3
24
14
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the

command area
Mm3
474
Gross total annual volume of project authority irrigation supply
Mm3
2 014
841
314
1 386
3 718
3 591
2 180
Total groundwater pumped and dedicated to the command area
Mm3
24
14
483
Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to the

command area, minus net groundwater withdrawal (this is to avoid double
counting. Also, all of net is applied to this term, although some might be
applied to farmers)
Mm3
474
Estimated total gross internal surface water + groundwater
Mm3
125
89
79
276
116
286
162
14
483
95
87
93
87
86
83
83
60
75
90
80
80
80
80
Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users using stated

conveyance efficiency
Mm3
967
349
158
168
118
552
118
1 037
563
220
1 109
2 974
2 494
1 526
All other irrigation water to users (surface recirculation plus all well
pumping, with stated conveyance efficiencies, using 100% for farmer
pumping and farmer surface diversions)
Mm3
172
139
14
388
Irrigation water delivered to users

Internal authority water sources are stated to have a conveyance
efficiency of:
158
172
186
782
214
Ghotki
AkramWah
Krishna
India
Fuleli-Guni
Pakistan
Narayani
SMIP Over All
Nepal
MARIIS
Cau Son, Cam Son
Philippines
Dau Tieng
Mm3
Overall conveyance efficiency of project authority delivered water
426
Lakbok
Total irrigation water (internal plus external) just for intermed. value
1 083
Viet Nam
Lodoyo
Mm3
Penang
Units
Total irrigation water deliveries to users (external surface irrigation

water + internal diversions and pumping water sources), reduced for
conveyance efficiencies
MADA
Item Description
Indonesia
KERIAN KUMP
Malaysia
1 208
702
234
1 109
2 974
2 882
1 527
2 014
913
328
1 386
3 718
3 601
2 181
60
75
70
80
80
80
70
Net field irrigation requirements

ET of irrigated fields in the command area
Mm3
481
265
94
166
183
552
226
449
550
277
684
901
2 112
918
ET of irrigation water in the command area (ET - effective precipitation)
Mm3
267
204
77
95
120
339
153
318
357
177
617
901
1 921
95
Irrigation water needed for salinity control (net)
Mm3
20
63
84
95
Irrigation water needed for special practices
Mm3
44
49
91
27
17
35
450
Total NET irrigation water requirements (ET - eff. ppt + salt control +
special practices)
Mm3
267
204
77
110
130
402
168
372
449
204
696
1 020
2 021
545
Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s)
cms
141
34
14
19
25
90
31
100
60
24.1
105
509
326
216
Actual peak flow rate of the main canal(s) at diversion point(s) this year
cms
141
31
13
12
24
87
31
95
60
22.1
79
408
312
135
Peak NET irrigation requirement for field, including any special

requirements
cms
23
15
25
10
21
35
11.9
57
78
131.1
122
Peak GROSS irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies
cms
115
51
10
17
22
99
25
113
74
19.4
113
283
233.7
488
Other key values
176
Annual or one-time external Indicators for the command area

Peak litres/sec/ha of surface irrigation inflows to canal(s) this year
Relative water supply (RWS) for the irrigated part of the command area
(Total external water supply)/(Field ET during growing seasons + water for
salt control Effective precipitation)
LPS/ha
1.46
1.30
1.89
0.98
1.98
1.28
2.20
0.94
0.77
0.37
1.01
0.78
0.67
none
12.29
6.14
4.85
4.06
4.67
3.40
5.86
4.45
4.02
2.56
3.64
1.78
7.16
Annual command area irrigation efficiency [100 x (crop ET +

leaching needs - effective ppt)/(surface irrigation diversions +
net groundwater)]
23
36
39
42
60
36
71
22
60
65
50
27
65
25
Field irrigation efficiency (computed) = [Crop ET - effective ppt +

LR water]/[total water delivered to users] x 100
25
48
49
68
68
51
78
31
64
87
63
34
70
36
Relative gross canal capacity (RGCC) (peak monthly net irrigation

requirement)/(main canal capacity)
none
0.16
0.44
0.29
0.33
0.28
0.32
0.21
0.59
0.49
0.54
0.15
0.40
0.56
Relative actual canal flow (RACF) (peak monthly net irrigation

requirement)/(peak main canal flow rate)
none
0.16
0.49
0.31
0.54
0.29
0.32
0.22
0.59
0.54
0.72
0.19
0.42
0.90
141 957 727
19 944 537
10 917 445
24 596 251
21 378 846
28 772 000
25 382 933
56 199 902
52 680 003
21 614 250
29 928 364
Gross annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type

Total annual value of agricultural production
M tonnes
US$
27 420 485 119 967 401 199 184 839
Appendix 5: Internal Performance Indicators

Morocco
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
Majalgaon*
Dantiwada*
Bhakra*
SMIP
Narayani
AkramWah
Fuleli-Guni
Ghotki
Dez*
Guilan*
Benl Amir*
Office du Niger*
Rio Yaqul*
Coello*
Saldana*
Cupatitzio*
Rio Mayo*
Sehan*
Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
11.0
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.0
1.06
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.3
0.8
2.0
2.4
0.9
1.1
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
0.9
2.2
3.0
2.5
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.0
2.8
I1A
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.65
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
I1B
Flexibility
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
0.8
1.7
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
I1C
Reliability
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
I1D
Apparent equity.
4.0
3.3
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.6
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
2.5
I2
Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g. field or farm)
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.4
1.32
2.6
1.5
2.5
1.8
0.7
2.5
2.3
2.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
2.8
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
I2A
1.0
0.0
3.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.87
2.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
I2B
Flexibility
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.8
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
I2C
Reliability
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
2.3
1.3
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.7
1.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
I2D
Apparent equity.
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.6
3.3
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
I3
Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system
operated by a paid employee
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.0
0.9
0.76
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.4
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.8
2.7
2.4
1.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
3.1
2.9
I3A
1.0
1.3
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0
3.0
0.69
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
I3B
4.0
0.0
1.8
0.3
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
I3C
Flexibility
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.5
0.6
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
I3D
Reliability
4.0
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
I3E
Apparent equity.
4.0
3.3
2.7
2.5
3.0
3.0
0.5
1.6
2.0
2.7
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.3
3.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
2.5
I4
Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point in the system
operated by a paid employee
2.4
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.8
1.69
2.5
2.2
2.4
1.4
1.4
2.1
1.9
1.6
3.1
1.5
1.2
3.1
3.1
2.2
2.5
1.8
3.8
3.1
1.7
2.8
3.0
2.6
3.1
3.1
I4A
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.0
0.0
3.0
1.54
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
I4B
4.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
I4C
Flexibility
4.0
2.7
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.5
3.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
I4D
Reliability
4.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
4.0
2.2
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
I4E
Apparent equity.
4.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
0.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
2.5
I5
Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second-level canals
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.6
3.3
1.3
2.73
1.7
1.7
2.7
2.5
2.2
1.0
3.0
3.3
1.8
1.7
0.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.9
3.0
2.5
2.7
1.1
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.8
2.8
I5A
Flexibility
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
1.5
2.11
0.5
1.3
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
I5B
Reliability
1.0
3.7
3.3
3.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.1
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I5C
Equity
1.0
4.0
3.3
3.3
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.8
2.7
4.0
3.0
3.0
1.3
3.5
4.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I5D
Control of flow rates to the submain as stated
1.5
3.0
1.5
1.9
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.7
1.5
0.3
2.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
4.0
2.8
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.2
I6
Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second-level canals
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.6
4.0
2.9
2.86
2.5
3.0
3.6
2.3
2.2
1.7
2.9
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.6
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.4
3.3
4.0
4.0
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.6
2.8
3.3
I6A
Flexibility
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
2.0
2.52
1.7
2.3
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
I6B
Reliability
1.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
3.3
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
I6C
Equity
1.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
0.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
I6D
Control of flow rates to the submain as stated
1.5
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.7
2.3
3.0
4.0
1.5
2.0
1.7
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
Indicator Name
Weighting factor
I1
Indicator Label
Cau Son, Cam Son
Turkey
Dau Tieng
Mexico
MARIIS**
Colombia
Lakbok
Mali DR
Lodoyo
Iran
Nam Oon
Pakistan
Lampao*
Nepal
Kemubu*
India
Muda*
Viet Nam
Penang
Philippines
KERIAN KUMP
Indonesia
MADA
Thailand
Sum of weighting factors
Malaysia
Service and social order
11.0
17.0
177
17.0
4.5
4.5
1.5
3.0
I7C
Lack of vandalism of structures
1.0
2.3
2.7
1.8
1.0
Sehan*
2.0
3.0
Rio Mayo*
2.5
3.0
Cupatitzio*
3.0
1.0
Saldana*
2.7
Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals
Coello*
2.0
I7B
Rio Yaqul*
2.5
Office du Niger*
1.3
Benl Amir*
1.0
Guilan*
1.8
Dez*
3.2
Turkey
Ghotki
Cau Son, Cam Son
1.49
Mexico
Fuleli-Guni
Dau Tieng
2.3
Colombia
AkramWah
MARIIS**
1.5
DR
Narayani
Lakbok
2.0
Mali
SMIP
Lodoyo
2.1
Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or at flow rates
greater than allowed
Morocco
Iran
Bhakra*
Nam Oon
2.9
I7A
Pakistan
Dantiwada*
Lampao*
2.7
Social order in the canal system operated by paid employees
Nepal
Majalgaon*
Kemubu*
4.0
I7
India
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
Muda*
Viet Nam
Penang
Philippines
KERIAN KUMP
Indonesia
MADA
Thailand
Indicator Name
Weighting factor
Indicator Label
Malaysia
1.8
2.8
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
0.5
2.5
3.0
2.3
1.8
2.5
3.0
2.3
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.55
3.3
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.7
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.4
3.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
Main canal
178
I8
Cross-regulator hardware (main canal)
1.5
1.3
2.3
3.1
3.5
1.5
2.04
1.7
1.6
2.1
0.9
0.7
0.8
3.4
3.3
2.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
3.1
3.6
2.8
1.6
3.1
3.2
2.8
1.9
2.2
I8A
Ease of cross-regulator operation under the current target operation. This

does not mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating
indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulators to
meet the targets
1.0
7.0
3.3
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.77
2.7
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
4.0
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
I8B
1.0
4.0
2.7
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.7
3.5
3.6
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
3.5
2.0
3.5
3.0
I8C
3.0
0.3
0.0
1.8
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.6
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
4.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
I8D
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
3.3
2.7
4.0
1.0
0.0
0.3
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
I9
Turnouts from the main canal
3.6
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.3
2.5
1.95
2.9
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.7
2.7
1.3
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.8
3.2
3.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.3
3.3
2.3
2.8
3.2
I9A
Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how
easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to meet
the targets
1.0
3.7
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.2
3.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.5
I9B
1.0
3.0
2.2
2.8
3.0
2.5
1.5
2.8
2.7
0.7
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
I9C
1.0
4.0
1.8
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
Il0
Regulating reservoirs in the main canal
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I10A
2.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I10B
2.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I10C
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I10D
Maintenance
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I11
Communications for the main canal
3.2
2.0
2.3
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.79
1.3
1.2
3.8
2.1
2.3
2.2
3.6
2.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.4
1.5
2.7
3.6
2.0
2.9
2.9
I11A
Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr)
2.0
3.3
1.3
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.56
0.7
0.7
4.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
I11B
Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their

customers
2.0
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
0.7
1.3
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
3.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
I11C
3.0
4.0
2.0
3.4
4.0
3.0
4.0
3.6
0.3
0.3
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.3
4.0
2.7
2.5
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
3.5
I11D
Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field
1.0
1.7
4.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.4
2.7
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
I11E
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual)

at key spill points, including the end of the canal
1.0
1.7
0.0
1.3
4.0
3.0
1.0
2.6
0.3
1.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
2.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
I11F
2.0
3.3
2.3
3.3
4.0
3.5
3.0
1.6
3.7
2.7
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
I12
General conditions for the main canal
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.3
2.4
2.88
2.3
1.3
3.4
1.8
3.4
1.7
2.4
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.6
3.2
2.4
3.0
3.1
2.3
3.0
2.4
2.2
3.1
2.5
I12A
1.0
2.7
3.2
3.3
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.6
2.3
0.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.5
3.0
I12B
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is

practised, some seepage may be desired)
1.0
4.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.7
2.7
4.0
2.0
4.0
1.3
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
2.5
I12C
2.0
3.3
2.8
3.3
3.5
2.0
2.0
3.3
1.7
1.0
3.0
1.5
4.0
0.7
3.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
4.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.5
2.5
3.0
6.0
11.0
5.0
5.0
Morocco
SMIP
Narayani
AkramWah
Fuleli-Guni
Ghotki
Dez*
Guilan*
Benl Amir*
Office du Niger*
Rio Yaqul*
Coello*
Saldana*
Cupatitzio*
Rio Mayo*
Sehan*
Turkey
Bhakra*
Mexico
Dantiwada*
Colombia
Majalgaon*
Mali DR
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
Iran
Cau Son, Cam Son
Pakistan
Dau Tieng
3.0
Nepal
MARIIS**
3.0
India
Lakbok
3.3
Viet Nam
Lodoyo
Kemubu*
3.3
Philippines
Nam Oon
Muda*
1.7
Indonesia
Lampao*
Penang
1.0
KERIAN KUMP
Indicator Name
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this
canal (for crews and maintenance equipment)
Thailand
MADA
I12D
Weighting factor
Indicator Label
Malaysia
3.0
3.1
3.0
1.7
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
0.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
I13
Operation of the main canal
3.3
2.7
3.0
3.3
2.8
0.8
3.11
1.6
1.9
2.7
4.0
4.0
1.5
3.3
3.1
0.8
2.4
0.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.3
2.7
2.4
0.5
0.1
1.1
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.1
I13A
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback
from the operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals with
a mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storage
variations and wave travel times
2.0
4.0
2.7
2.8
3.5
2.7
0.0
3.63
1.8
2.2
2.7
4.0
4.0
1.3
3.5
3.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.3
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
2.0
I13B
Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match

actual demands. This is different from the previous question, because the
previous question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change
has been made
1.0
3.1
2.7
2.8
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.66
1.3
0.0
1.3
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.3
2.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
2.0
2.0
I13C
1.0
4.0
1.3
2.9
3.0
2.7
0.0
2.14
1.9
3.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.5
4.0
3.5
1.3
2.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.0
4.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.7
2.7
1.3
I13D
How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and
reported to the office? This means one or more persons physically drive
all the sections of the canal
1.0
1.3
4.0
4.0
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.3
1.8
2.7
4.0
4.0
1.3
4.0
4.0
2.7
2.7
1.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
4.0
4.0
1.3
1.3
0.7
4.0
4.0
2.7
4.0
3.0
Second level canals
179
I14
Cross-regulator hardware (Second-level canals)
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.1
3.9
1.8
2.04
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.1
1.9
1.0
3.4
3.2
0.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1
2.3
3.1
2.6
1.9
1.1
2.1
2.7
1.9
1.8
2.8
I14A

indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulators
to meet the targets
1.0
7.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.14
3.0
2.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
4.0
4.0
0.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
0.5
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
I14B
1.0
2.0
2.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.0
1.7
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.3
3.0
3.5
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
I14C
3.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
I14D
2.0
2.0
3.7
3.3
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.6
1.7
3.3
3.0
2.0
4.0
1.3
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
I15
Turnouts from the second level canals
3.4
2.6
3.0
2.5
2.0
0.8
2.27
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.8
1.8
1.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
3.0
0.8
2.7
2.3
1.8
2.3
I15A
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how
easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to
meet the targets
1.0
3.7
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.2
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
I15B
1.0
2.7
2.2
2.6
3.0
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
1.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.8
3.0
I15C
1.0
4.0
3.0
3.3
2.0
3.0
0.0
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
I16
Regulating reservoirs in the second level canals
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I16A
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I16B
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I16C
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I16D
Maintenance
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I17
Communications for the second-level canals
2.7
1.8
2.3
2.7
2.0
2.3
2.74
1.4
1.3
2.6
2.0
2.6
1.9
2.4
2.1
0.5
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.8
1.4
1.1
2.1
2.7
2.7
1.4
3.1
2.8
I17A
2.0
3.3
1.3
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.62
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
I17B

customers
2.0
4.0
2.7
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
1.7
1.3
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.0
4.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
I17C
3.0
1.7
1.0
3.3
2.5
2.0
4.0
3.6
1.0
0.7
4.0
1.0
3.0
1.3
3.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
3.5
1.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
6.0
11.0
Viet Nam
Morocco
Rio Yaqul*
Coello*
Saldana*
Cupatitzio*
Rio Mayo*
Sehan*
4.0
4.0
2.7
4.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I17F
2.0
I18
General conditions for the second-level canals
I18A
I18B

West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
3.0
0.2
Dau Tieng
2.0
2.4
MARIIS**
1.7
0.0
Lakbok
3.4
0.0
Lodoyo
1.0
2.0
Nam Oon
2.0
0.0
Lampao*
2.0
0.3
Kemubu*
2.5
0.0
Muda*
3.7
1.0
Penang
3.0

KERIAN KUMP
1.0
I17E
Indicator Name
MADA
Weighting factor
I17D
Indicator Label
Office du Niger*
Turkey
Benl Amir*
Mexico
Guilan*
Colombia
Dez*
DR
Ghotki
Mali
Fuleli-Guni
Iran
AkramWah
Pakistan
Narayani
Nepal
SMIP
India
Bhakra*
Philippines
Dantiwada*
Indonesia
Majalgaon*
Thailand
Cau Son, Cam Son
Malaysia
3.3
2.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.8
2.5
2.0
4.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.98
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.4
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
2.6
2.4
2.0
2.9
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.0
2.5
2.8
1.0
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.82
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
3.7
4.0
3.3
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.3
4.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
1.5
4.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
I18C
2.0
3.5
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
3.4
2.3
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
3.0
I18D
1.0
3.0
3.7
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.6
1.3
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
180
I19
Operation of the second level canals
3.4
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.0
1.5
2.66
1.8
1.7
3.1
2.4
2.7
1.3
3.1
3.1
1.3
2.1
0.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
2.3
4.0
2.4
2.7
2.1
2.9
3.5
1.7
2.9
3.3
I19A
2.0
5.0
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.7
0.7
2.72
1.3
1.3
4.0
2.7
2.7
0.0
4.0
2.7
1.3
2.7
0.0
2.7
1.3
1.3
2.7
4.0
1.3
4.0
2.7
2.0
4.0
1.3
3.3
2.7
I19B

has been made
1.0
4.0
2.0
2.5
2.7
2.7
0.7
2.7
1.5
1.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.3
1.3
2.7
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
4.0
1.3
2.0
1.3
4.0
2.7
1.3
2.0
4.0
I19C
1.0
3.6
3.6
2.8
3.3
2.7
1.3
2.26
4.0
2.7
2.0
1.3
2.7
4.0
2.0
3.3
1.3
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.0
4.0
0.0
1.3
2.7
2.7
0.7
2.0
3.3
I19D
1.0
4.0
3.1
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.96
1.1
1.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.3
4.0
4.0
2.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.3
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Third-level canals
I20
Cross-regulator hardware (Third-level canals)
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.13
2.1
0.8
1.7
2.3
1.3
1.7
2.0
1.1
1.6
1.1
I20A

indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross-regulators
to meet the targets
1.0
7.0
3.7
2.0
3.3
2.1
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
I20B
1.0
3.0
1.3
2.5
3.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
I20C
3.0
0.7
1.7
1.8
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I20D
2.0
2.7
2.7
3.3
1.8
3.7
1.3
4.0
4.0
2.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
I21
Turnouts from the third-level canals
1.3
2.2
2.8
2.42
2.3
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.2
0.7
0.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
I21A
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates
how easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and measure
flows to meet the targets
1.0
0.0
2.3
2.8
2.17
3.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.7
1.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I21B
1.0
1.3
1.5
2.6
2.4
2.0
0.7
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
I21C
1.0
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I22
Regulating reservoirs in the third level canals
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I22A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
6.0
2.0
Maintenance
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I23
Communications for the third-level canals
3.1
1.4
2.3
2.45
0.6
0.5
1.5
2.3
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
I23A
2.0
3.3
2.0
1.0
2.51
1.0
0.7
2.0
4.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I23B

customers
2.0
4.0
1.7
2.5
2.6
0.7
0.7
2.0
4.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
I23C
3.0
2.7
0.7
3.5
3.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I23D
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.4
1.3
0.7
3.0
4.0
2.7
4.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
I23E

1.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
I23F
2.0
I24
General conditions for the third-level canals
11.0
5.0
3.3
1.3
2.5
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.2
2.4
3.3
2.79
2.2
2 574.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.2
181
I24A
1.0
2.7
2.7
3.1
2.56
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I24B

1.0
3.3
2.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
I24C
2.0
3.3
2.0
2.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
I24D
1.0
3.3
3.3
3.5
2.6
3.0
2.7
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
I25
Operation of the third-level canals
1.9
2.2
2.8
2.59
1.6
1.5
1.1
2.0
0.5
1.8
0.0
1.6
0.5
1.9
I25A
2.0
5.0
1.8
1.2
2.7
2.86
1.3
1.8
0.0
3.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
2.7
0.0
2.7
I25B

has been made
1.0
0.0
2.2
2.4
2.08
1.3
0.9
1.3
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
I25C
1.0
3.1
3.6
3.1
2.46
3.6
2.2
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I25D
1.0
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.96
0.4
0.9
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
2.7
2.7
Turkey
Sehan*
0.0
I22D
Rio Mayo*
0.0
Mexico
Cupatitzio*
0.0
0.0
Saldana*
0.0
0.0
Colombia
Coello*
0.0
0.0
DR
Rio Yaqul*
Ghotki
0.0
0.0
Office du Niger*
Fuleli-Guni
0.0
0.0
Benl Amir*
AkramWah
0.0
0.0
Guilan*
Narayani
0.0
0.0
Dez*
SMIP
0.0
0.0
Bhakra*
0.0
0.0
Dantiwada*
0.0
0.0
Majalgaon*
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
0.0
0.0
MARIIS**
0.0
0.0
Lampao*
0.0
1.0
Kemubu*
0.0
Muda*
2.0
I22C
Weighting factor
Indicator Label
I22B
Indicator Name
Moroc- Mali
co
Iran
Cau Son, Cam Son
Pakistan
Dau Tieng
Nepal
Lakbok
India
Lodoyo
Viet Nam
Nam Oon
Philippines
Penang
Indonesia
KERIAN KUMP
Thailand
MADA
Malaysia
Budgets, Employees, WUAs

I26
Budgets
1.3
1.9
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.9
1.52
0.9
0.3
2.6
0.4
3.6
0.0
1.6
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.4
0.8
3.0
3.4
2.0
2.2
2.0
3.2
3.0
1.0
3.0
3.4
I26A
What percentage of the total project (including WUA) O&M is collected as

in-kind services, and/or water fees from water users?
2.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.96
0.0
0.7
4.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
0.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
I26B
Adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available

(from all sources) to sustain adequate O&M with the present mode
of operation
2.0
2.0
2.7
1.3
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.8
2.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
I26C
Adequacy of spending on modernization of the water delivery operation/

structures (as contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation)
1.0
2.7
4.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.1
2.8
0.3
0.0
3.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Rio Yaqul*
Coello*
2.4
2.5
1.6
1.2
2.6
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.2
2.3
1.9
2.6
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.3
1.6
3.5
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
I27B
Availability of written performance rules
1.0
3.7
3.5
3.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.8
3.3
1.7
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
I27C
Power of employees to make decisions
2.5
1.3
2.2
1.8
3.5
2.0
0.5
2.2
3.3
3.0
2.0
3.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.5
I27D
Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.3
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.5
3.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
1.5
I27E
Rewards for exemplary service
1.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.2
2.7
0.3
2.0
4.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
1.5
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
3.0
I27F
Relative salary of an operator compared to a day laborer
2.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.6
4.0
3.3
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
4.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
I28
WUAs
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.42
2.9
0.7
1.8
2.0
2.9
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.4
I28A
Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that
participates in water distribution
2.5
0.0
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.1
2.02
4.0
0.3
1.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
I28B
Actual ability of the strong WUAs to influence real-time water deliveries

to the WUA.
1.0
0.7
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
I28C
Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of

its rules
1.0
0.0
1.7
0.4
3.0
3.0
2.0
0.4
2.5
0.3
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.7
3.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
I28D
Legal basis for the WUAs
1.0
1.6
0.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
2.7
1.3
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
I28E
Financial strength of WUAs
1.0
2.3
0.3
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.8
1.3
0.7
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.8
I29
Mobility and size of operations staff

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
0.7
0.3
3.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
0.5
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.9
1.7
1.7
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
3.0
2.7
3.0
2.0
2.2
2.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.0
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
3.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
6.5
182
Operation staff mobility and efficiency, based on the ratio of operating staff
to the number of turnouts
I30
Computers for billing and record management

The extent to which computers are used for billing and record management
I31
Sehan*
2.2
2.3
Rio Mayo*
2.0
1.37
Cupatitzio*
2.8
2.0
Saldana*
0.79
2.0
Benl Amir*
Fuleli-Guni
1.5
3.0
Guilan*
AkramWah
1.2
2.9
Dez*
Narayani
1.9
2.3
Ghotki
SMIP
2.0
3.7
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
2.2
1.0
Cau Son, Cam Son
2.5
Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers

(not secretaries and drivers). This should include employees at all levels
of the distribution system, not only those who work in the office
Dau Tieng
9.5
I27A
Indicator Name
MARIIS**
Employees
Weighting factor
I27
Indicator Label
Bhakra*
Turkey
Dantiwada*
Mexico
Majalgaon*
Colombia
Lakbok
DR
Lodoyo
Mali
Office du Niger*
Morocco
Iran
Nam Oon
Pakistan
Lampao*
Nepal
Kemubu*
India
Muda*
Viet Nam
Penang
Philippines
KERIAN KUMP
Indonesia
MADA
Thailand
Malaysia
Computers for canal control

The extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are used for
canal control
INDICATORS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY COMPUTED

THESE INDICATORS REQUIRE THE INPUT OF VALUES (0-4) IN EACH OF THE BOXES
I32
Ability of the present water delivery service to individual fields, to support

pressurized irrigation methods
I32A
Measurement and control of volumes to the field

4 Excellent volumetric metering and control; 3.5 Ability to measure
flow rates reasonably well, but not volume. Flow is well-controlled;
2.5 Cannot measure flow, but can control flow rates well;
0 Cannot control the flow rate, even though it can be measured
I32B
Flexibility to the field

4 Arranged delivery, with frequency, rate and duration promised. All can
be varied upon request; 3 Same as 4, but cannot vary the duration;
2 2 variables are fixed, but arranged schedule; 0 Rotation
3.0
Dau Tieng
Cau Son, Cam Son
West Krishna
Audhra Pradesh
Majalgaon*
Dantiwada*
Bhakra*
SMIP
Narayani
AkramWah
Fuleli-Guni
Ghotki
Dez*
Guilan*
Benl Amir*
Office du Niger*
Rio Yaqul*
Coello*
Saldana*
Cupatitzio*
Rio Mayo*
Mexico
MARIIS**
Colombia
Lakbok
DR
0.0
1.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
0.2
0.5
1.4
2.8
2.0
0.5
0.83
1.7
1.7
0.0
2.0
1.8
0.0
1.5
2.8
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.3
1.0
2.8
1.5
3.3
1.5
1.3
3.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
2.5
1.0
2.5
1.0
3.5
2.0
0.5
3.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.4
2.3
2.3
0.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
1.6
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
0.0
2.5
15.7
21.7
4.0
4.4
45.0
83.7
94.0
15.0 150.0
25.0
100 6 000 30.0
30.0
30.0
0.6
3.1
1.6
17.19
1.0
0.8
3.6
1.0
2.0
Sophistication in receiving and using feedback information.

This does not need to be automatic. 4 Continuous feedback and continuous
use of information to change inflows, with all key points monitored. Or,
minimal feedback is necessary, such as with closed pipe systems;
3 Feedback several times a day and rapid use (within a few hours) of that
information, at major points; 2 Feedback once/day from key points and
appropriate use of information within a day; 1 Weekly feedback and
appropriate usage, or once/day feedback but poor usage of the information;
0 No meaningful feedback, or else there is a lot of feedback but no usage
SPECIAL INDICATORS THAT DO NOT HAVE A 04 RATING SCALE

I35
Turnout density Number of water users downstream of employee-operated

turnouts
I36
Turnouts/Operator (number of turnouts operated by paid employees)/

(Paid employees)
I37
Main canal chaos (actual/stated) Overall service by the main canal
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.96
0.7
0.6
0.75
1.10
I38
Second level chaos (actual/stated) Overall Service at the most downstream

point operated by a paid employee
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.82
0.5
0.7
0.50
1.00
I39
Field level chaos (actual/stated) Overall service to the individual ownership

units
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.72
0.7
1.1
0.71
0.90
1.75
Notes:
The values shown in this table are true values of indicators (not weighted values of indicators)
For the data from series 19 (old version), the project name with * , there are no data for indicators No. I-16, I-20 to I-25 and I-35 to I-39.
For the MARIIS Project; there is no information on third level canals as the information is on main, second and final delivery levels.
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00
0.6
0.83
0.28
0.48
0.42
0.42
0.50
0.4
0.48
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.42
0.3
0.60
0.33
0.55
0.55
0.57
Turkey
Sehan*
Moroc- Mali
co
Iran
Lodoyo
Pakistan
Nam Oon
Nepal
Lampao*
India
Kemubu*
183
I34
Hardware
4 No changes needed; 3.5 Only need to repair some of the existing
structures so that they are workable again.; 3.0 Improved communications,
repair of some existing structures, and a few key new structures (less than
US$300/ha needed), ORvery little change to existing, but new structures
are needed for water recirculation; 2 Larger capital expenditures
US$300 to US$600/ha; 1 Larger capital expenditures needed (up to
US$1 500/ha); 0 Almost complete reworking of the system is needed
Viet Nam
Muda*
I33B
Philippines
Penang
Changes required to be able to support pressurized irrigation methods

Procedures, Management
4 No changes in water ordering, staff training, or mobility;
3.5 Improved training, only. The basic procedures/conditions are just fine,
they just are not being implemented to their full extent; 3.0 Minor changes
in water ordering, mobility, training, incentive programmes; 2.0 Major
changes in 1 of the above; 1 Major changes in 2 of the above; 0 Need
to completely revamp or convert almost everything.
Indonesia
KERIAN KUMP
I33
I33A
Indicator Name
Reliability to the field
4 Water always arrives as promised, including the appropriate volume;
3 A few days of delay occasionally occur, but water is still very reliable
in rate and duration; 0 More than a few days delay
Thailand
MADA
I32C
Weighting factor
Indicator Label
Malaysia
0.0
Some economics aspects of large rice-based projects

in Southeast Asia
Jeremy Berkoff
1. Economics, agriculture and rice production in Southeast Asia

1.1 Introduction
Economics has been defined as the application of reason to choice in the use of scarce resources (Green,
2003). Two other points can be made by way of introduction (Young, 1996):
O
First, the objective function in economic analysis is the maximization of human welfare and not of
physical output. In irrigated agriculture, objectives are too often set in terms of physical quantities
rather than of enhancing human welfare. Human welfare may well be maximized even when physical
quantities (yields, crop per drop, irrigation efficiency) are below their maximums.
Second, incentives matter. Incentives are not limited to price. Of particular relevance in surface
irrigation is response to water scarcity: the hidden hand of scarcity can be more effective than any
conceivable price mechanism in promoting human welfare. Incentives can also take institutional forms:
political power, bureaucratic ambition, professional interest and rent seeking.
The reason for belabouring these perhaps obvious points will, I hope, become clear. I now address in turn
issues related to paddy yields, irrigated areas and the modernization of large rice-based irrigation schemes.
1.2 Paddy yields
Yields and incentives. Numerous publications, including those of FAO, the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the World Bank refer to a yield
gap in paddy cultivation. The documentation for the workshop for instance refers to a gap that has been
closed in East Asia but persists in Southeast Asia. But this observation begs a number of important questions.
Why has a yield gap persisted in Southeast Asia but been closed in East Asia? Are Southeast Asian farmers,
irrigation officials and research scientists so much less competent than those in East Asia? If average yields
were to rise by 50 to 100 percent within ten years, what would they do with all that rice? Even if it were
possible to enhance yield potential, would this be reflected in actual yields? Perhaps there are valid reasons
why yields are what they are. If so, these reasons must be understood before prescribing solutions designed
to close the yield gap.
Again, this is not to say that physical factors are unimportant: The maximum yield of a crop is primarily
determined by its genetic characteristics and how well the crop is adapted to the prevailing environment
(Doorenhos and Kassam, 1986). If total radiation during the growing season is higher in East Asia than in
Southeast Asia then, other things being equal, yields will be higher in East Asia; and if land is irrigated it
will yield more than land that is rainfed under similar environmental conditions. Agricultural research and
investment expand the range of options open to the individual. Without the green revolution, farmers could
not adopt high yielding varieties (HYVs) or apply fertilizer profitably. Again, without education, health, roads
etc., farmers would be less well-equipped to exploit their opportunities. But that it is possible to increase rice
yields does not necessarily mean that it is always desirable to increase rice yields, nor that in practice rice
yields will increase. Yields are the outcome of numerous simultaneous decisions by farmers, consumers,
irrigation managers and others, each reacting to the incentives they face in ways that optimize their separate
individual welfares. This does not necessarily maximize physical output.
This point is well illustrated by the history of Mbarali, a small paddy scheme in interior Tanzania (Berkoff,
2001b). The Chinese, who built it and operated it for a few years, spared no expense on labour, fertilizer etc.
to make it a success. Yields during the first ten years or so were as high as anywhere else in the world and
184
planted area rose steadily to the full potential (about 3 000 ha). But in 1983/84 the project was corporatized,
operating subsidies were withdrawn, financial losses became transparent, and yields collapsed since inputs
could no longer be afforded. But sales of rice were still guaranteed at fixed prices by the State Milling
Corporation (SMC) so the full area was still planted. This guarantee ceased in the early 1990s. Yields
then fell further and this time areas also collapsed as markets dried up. Output in 1997/98 was no more than
10 percent of the 1980/81 peak.
What makes Mbarali so intriguing is that environmental (i.e. physical) conditions stayed much the same over
the whole period but incentives shifted radically not once but twice. When the scheme was heavily
subsidized and markets were guaranteed, yields in this small isolated scheme in the depths of Africa were as
high as anywhere in the world; when subsidies and guarantees were removed, yields fell to a typically low
African smallholder average and areas collapsed. The loss in area was replaced by smallholders exploiting
return flows so that the total irrigated area remained much the same it may even have increased. An
economist would say that this final outcome has optimized welfare since without subsidies scheme managers
and smallholders separately optimize their welfare as they see it. What it certainly has not done is to maximize
yields and output.
Trends in paddy yields in Asian countries. Mbarali if of course atypical and differs greatly from the large
rice-based systems of Asia. Nevertheless, it shows with clarity the role of incentives. I believe that incentives
also help explain why differences in yield persist between countries in Asia and elsewhere: why the yield
gap, which has been closed in East Asia, still persists in Southeast Asia. Figure 1 summarizes trends in
paddy yields in six Asian countries: 7
O
Average yields have risen in all six countries and though the rate of increase varied between and
within countries, trends were fairly consistently upwards throughout the period.
The order of average yields was fairly steady though Viet Nam fell markedly below Indonesia in the
late 1960s (and below Philippines and Myanmar in the late 1980s) regaining second place in 2001,
and Thailand fell below Myanmar and Philippines in the mid-1970s.
Yields in Indonesia surged between 1966 and 1982, in Myanmar between 1976 and 1983, in China
between 1977 and 1983, and in Viet Nam after 1988/89. But yields in the Philippines and Thailand
rose more steadily over the period with less noticeable surges.
7
6
Tonnes/ha
5
4
China
Viet Nam
Indonesia
Myanmar
Philippines
Thailand
3
2
1
0
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Source: FAOSTAT
Figure 1. Trends in paddy yields six Asian countries, 1961 to 2004 (tonnes/ha)
7
Cambodia, Lao PDR and Malaysia represented at the regional workshop are smaller than these countries in terms of
population, irrigated area and rice output. They also have other characteristics that in different ways set them apart. They have therefore
been excluded from this discussion.
185
What is going on? 8 Yield trends are influenced both by physical factors and by public policy. All countries
intervene in domestic grain markets in one way or another. Importers often aim for self-sufficiency; exporters
may support local producers and/or promote exports. However, I think there is also something else going on
and that this something applies to grains generally and not just to rice in Asia (Berkoff, 2005).
Grains are relatively easy to store and preserve so that trade is eminently feasible if the necessary institutions
exist. But grains are also bulky and of low value so that trading costs provide a level of inherent protection
that is greater than for most other commodities. Within national borders, public policy may distort outcomes
but it is striking how many countries remain marginally self-sufficient, importing in bad years, exporting in
good years. Meanwhile yields continue to rise in most countries and world trade in grains remains some 14
to 15 percent of output despite intermittent panics that regions are shifting into chronic deficit (Indonesia
and South Asia in the 1960s, Africa and China more recently).
At least part of the explanation for the stable share of trade in world output lies in feedback loops betweens
prices, trading costs and risk. Liberalized markets have become more prevalent over time. 9 Prices in liberalized
markets are inherently unstable because of climatic, seasonal and trade-related factors. But in countries that
are marginal traders (i.e. most developing countries) inherent instability is further aggravated by the divergence
between import and export equivalent prices. If trading costs are 10 percent of the final price, the difference
between import and export equivalent prices is 20 percent and may be more. If prices switch from import to
export equivalence (e.g. because of a bumper crop) then, other things being equal, farm gate prices will fall
by 20 percent and assuming farm costs are 25 percent of gross returns net returns by 30 percent. Other
things may not be equal, but this may still greatly accentuate inherent price instability.
Rich farmers can take risks but most farmers play safe, securing their own needs while limiting exposure to
risk and debt. If in a good year prices collapse, adjustments are made the following year some lose their
land, all reduce their exposure by adjusting input levels and hence yields. The sum of such decisions tends to
maintain average yields at levels that limit imports. Think of it in an equilibrium context. If India achieved
Chinas average yields, it would produce unsustainable surpluses, local prices would collapse, and farm
incomes would suffer. The government would be pressurized to subsidize exports, as in Europe or the USA,
but this could be very costly and world prices would decline further. In effect, this is an accounting issue:
substantially higher average yields in India simply cannot work. They must remain below those in China
because otherwise local Indian prices would collapse or farm subsidies would become insupportable. Structural
traders face prices that are more stable than in marginal traders, being relatively high in importers and relatively
low in exporters. Incentives for fertilizer and other cash inputs are lower in structural exporters than structural
importers (unless offset, e.g. by price support or fertilizer subsidies) and it is perhaps no coincidence that
structural exporters in liberalized markets often obtain relatively low yields (wheat in Australia, rice in
Thailand) while structural importers often obtain relatively high yields (e.g. Egypt).
This is primarily a yield not an area issue since, where possible, farmers plant their full farm, especially if
farm size is small and labour abundant. Planted areas thus remain similar from year to year and the burden
of adjustment falls largely on yields. If yields of some farmers are higher because they are good or
lucky those of others must be lower. This not only helps explain differential yields between countries
but also between rainfed and irrigated yields. The larger the irrigated area, the lower are rainfed yields so
that the overall balance is maintained. This is inequitable since irrigated farmers get subsidies that improve
returns to fertilizer use, whereas rainfed farmers get few subsidies and suffer from many other disadvantages.
8
Since this paper was written, there has been a boom in cereal prices in part because of the expansion in production of grains for
fuel. Moreover, concerns about global warming have risen. These factors imply that some statements in the paper need modification
although the mechanisms described are still thought to be valid.
9
In earlier periods, farmers were often taxed to fund general development or industrial growth. But with falling prices and structural
shifts such approaches have declined. Exchange rates may still be overvalued and other distortions persist but these are as likely to
protect agriculture as to tax it. Thus importers often manage trade or impose tariffs so as to protect farmers and promote self-sufficiency,
while exporters subsidize exports through price and/or income support (as in Europe) or by irrigation (as in many countries). But
subsidies are costly and, on balance, liberalized markets in poor countries have played an increasingly important role in bringing
supply and demand into balance.
186
In other words, yields are a function not just of physical factors (climate, soils, irrigation, farming practices
etc.) and of government policies (tariffs, subsidies, trade controls), but also of country conditions arable
land relative to population, the proportion of arable land under irrigation, the level of incomes etc. Africa is
poor and has much land so (rainfed) yields are low: if they were significantly higher, surpluses would be
unmanageable. Irrigated wheat yields in Pakistan Punjab are lower than in Indian Punjab in part because
arable land in Pakistan is almost entirely irrigated whereas irrigation covers a lower share of the total in India.
Egypts wheat yields are exceptionally high because arable land is limited, water is fully controlled by the
High Aswan Dam, and the farmer knows he will always get at least the (high) import equivalent price. Yields
in China are high in part because arable land is limited relative to population, and yields must be higher than
in, say, India to ensure that marginal self-sufficiency is maintained.
As population and incomes rise, local markets expand until cereals become inferior goods. Yields, and hence
production, rise in response to demand and most countries maintain broad self-sufficiency. If yields rise too
fast, surpluses emerge, prices collapse and there is a correction in the following year. If yields fail to rise
sufficiently, imports mount, price risks decline and farmers respond. This is how markets work, through
feedback loops and the hidden hand. Stochastic events lead to imports in bad years and exports in good years
trade is the lubricant that balances demand and supply from year to year and meets the needs of structural
importers. But yield differences persist between countries not just because physical conditions and government
policies and investments differ. They persist also because no other solution is mathematically feasible without
seriously depressing farm incomes or seriously increasing budget deficits.
The international market in cereals. If correct, this rationale helps explain why most countries remain broadly
self-sufficient in cereals and why the proportion of cereals traded has remained at some 12 to 16 percent of
world output. Indeed, after rising to a peak of almost 16 percent, this share if anything declined after 1980.
This might seem counter-intuitive. Intensifying land and water constraints, rising income disparities, differential
technical progress, diet diversification and globalization might be expected to reinforce comparative advantage
and have led many at various times to anticipate expanding trade in cereals (IFPRI, 1976; Brown, 1998; IFPRI,
2000). Whole industries have relocated for comparable reasons and even in agriculture there has been a huge
increase in the volume and value of trade. But this has not so far been the case for cereals. It is sometimes
argued that if the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations are successful this will stimulate trade in
cereals as prices rise (USDA, 2001) and underlying comparative advantage is exposed. But, equally, higher
prices could stimulate domestic output and reduce the budgetary costs of self-sufficiency. If so, declining
European Union (EU) (and even USA?) exports could be replaced by domestic output rather than imports
and the proportion of grains traded might even decline.
Rice is less widely traded than wheat or maize. In 2003, exports accounted for 7 percent of world output
compared to 22 percent for wheat and wheat flour equivalent, 14 percent for maize and 14.5 percent for all
cereals. The share of wheat that is traded has been fairly stable though it has perhaps fallen slightly since
1980. The share of maize traded rose steeply in the 1960s and 1970s but has fallen markedly since 1980. In
contrast the share of rice, after consistently falling below 5 percent, has risen since 1990. Dawe argues that
the stabilization of per capita rice production and rising exports have together helped reduce price variability
(Dawe, 2002). Evidence from the past and from wheat and maize with their more mature markets
implies that the rice trade will remain fairly limited and Dawe argues that governments that have struggled
to maintain rice self-sufficiency such as the Philippines might be well-advised, and would be taking fewer
risks, if they moderated these efforts in future (see below).
How is this reflected in Asian paddy yields? I now return to the points made above relating to Asian paddy
yields and interpret them in the light of the above arguments. The points are:
O
the continuing upward trends in paddy yields in most Asian countries;
the relative stability in the order of relative country paddy yields; and
the spurts in yield that have characterized many but not all countries.
187
The last point can be readily explained in terms of liberalization and incentives. Indonesia liberalized its rice
market after the fall of Sukarno, but in a fairly gradual manner (the National Logistic Agency for Food
Distribution (BULOG) continued to actively intervene); Myanmar introduced green revolution technologies
in the late 1970s in the context of a controlled economy; China liberalized rice markets dramatically in the
context of the 1978/79 reforms; and Viet Nam liberalized rice markets in 1988/89 under the doi moi policies.
In contrast, Philippines and Thailand have always had fairly open market economies and even the advent of
the green revolution is not reflected in any obvious discontinuity in these two countries. Philippines and
Indonesia have been consistent importers; Myanmar and Thailand have been consistent exporters; Viet Nam
moved from being a marginal importer to being a consistent exporter in the late 1980s; and China has
consistently been a marginal exporter. It is striking that net imports have remained a fairly small proportion
of output except in the exporters and with the partial exception of the Philippines.
The inclusion of three major rice exporters is in some ways atypical if most countries remain broadly
self-sufficient in cereals. Nevertheless, they illustrate the argument and can be briefly discussed in turn:
O
China has limited arable land relative to population (though estimates have been adjusted up in the
light of satellite imagery) and about 40 percent is irrigated. Paddy yields are easily the highest of the
six countries (though a third lower than in Egypt). The rate of increase in cereal yields has slowed
markedly in recent years and this, together with rising population and intensifying water constraints
(notably on the North China Plain) has led some to anticipate massive food shortages (Brown, 1998).
But despite some ups and downs, there is as yet no evidence of this (though soya imports have risen
in response to demands in the livestock subsector). Indeed, rice exports, though small relative to output,
were at record levels between 1998 and 2003 and, because of its size, China is now a significant
player on the world stage. Part of the explanation for continued cereal self-sufficiency no doubt reflects
higher local procurement prices, given intense concerns associated with rural-urban income
differentials. But continued self-sufficiency may also reflect the feedback loops discussed above
slackening in yield growth may reflect easing demand growth (there is evidence that cereals are now
inferior goods, at least in urban area) as much as physical constraints (Berkoff, 2003a). Given Chinas
vast size and differing regional conditions, yields can be expected to continue to rise in response to
demand and feedback loops. If so, China will continue to maintain broad self-sufficiency and direct
interventions to promote yield growth to this extent may be unwarranted.
Indonesia. Arable land relative to population is even lower in Java-Bali than in China. The outer
islands have land that has increasingly been exploited though much is ill-suited to paddy. Most of
the increase in output has been a result of rising yields. The reforms of the mid-1960s led to rising
yields though the rate of increase was moderated by public market intervention and the drawn-out
need to restore irrigation systems that had badly deteriorated during Sukarnos rule. In time, however,
harvested area rose by 50 percent, yields rose by 250 percent and production almost quadrupled. Few
observers in the early 1970s could have imagined that Indonesia would remain broadly self-sufficient
in rice in the face of a doubling its population (MMP/HTS, 1971). Net imports as a proportion of
output peaked in the disturbed 1960s, and fell to low levels in the 1980s/early 1990s. Since the
mid-1990s, imports have again risen modestly but remain below 5 percent of output. Average yields
have risen gradually in recent years and tariffs and other measures have been adopted in an effort to
maintain self-sufficiency. But yields remain below their potential and, though Indonesia might well
be advised to accept some level of imports, it seems likely that feedback loops will help ensure that
it continues to remain broadly self-sufficient.
Myanmar. Before the Second World War, Myanmar was the rice exporter par excellence. Reclamation
of the Irrawaddy delta expanded the deltaic area under rice from 0.2 M ha in 1845, to 2.6 M ha in
1900, to almost 4.0 M ha in 1935 (Andrus, 1948). Myanmar has recently tended towards autarchy
and, though still exporting rice, has fallen behind its competitors. Nevertheless, yields have risen as
a result of the positive introduction by the state of green revolution technologies between 1976 and
1981 when the national average yield rose by more than 50 percent and, after reaching some sort of
plateau, yields have again risen more gradually since the mid-1990s. In contrast to most other countries,
there has been growth in rice consumption per capita also from 162 kg in 1970 to 205 kg in 2002
188
so that rising local demand and government support for some level of exports together may help
explain the renewed upward trend in paddy yields. Myanmar shares with Thailand and Viet Nam
a vast characteristic delta and cheap river transport. No one can doubt that, given the right
circumstances and policies, Myanmar could greatly increase rice exports in the manner of these two
countries (World Bank, 1983).
O
The Philippines has short rivers, limited reservoir storage and highly variable water supplies. Moreover,
the proportion of arable land that is irrigated, though higher than in Indonesia and Malaysia, is lower
than in China, Thailand or Viet Nam. Given these conditions, the government has struggled to achieve
rice self-sufficiency. The major instrument adopted has been public control of rice imports, which
inter alia has contributed to domestic prices that are considerably above world levels (World Bank,
1992; Dawe, 2002). Partly as a result, yields have risen significantly faster than in, for example,
Thailand (there has even been a modest spurt in recent years, see Figure 1) and, though import
dependence between 2001 and 2003 was no higher than in the early 1960s, in recent years the
Philippines has typically imported 10 percent or more of its needs. Although the government still
aims for rice self-sufficiency, and yields potentially can continue to increase, it may be better advised
to follow the example of Malaysia and accept greater import dependence, in other words to accept
the status of a structural rice importer (Dawe, 2002).
Thailand is the classic rice exporter. Even after long-term price declines, it still has a strong
comparative advantage in rice (when world prices were higher, the government skimmed off a major
part of the surplus via the rice premium for the benefit of national development). Much of Central
Thailand goes under water during the monsoon season when cultivation of non-rice crops necessitates
major on-farm investment in tillage, earthworks and drainage. Though diversification into high-value
crops occurs near cities, there remains strong farmer preference for paddy even in the dry season,
and the ease and cheapness of river transport is reflected in the succession of rice barges that float
through Bangkok for transhipment downstream. Given that Thailand is no longer so dependent on
rice exports, Thai policy now allows free trade in rice even if this leads to higher domestic prices.
This occurred during the financial crisis in the 1990s when the baht was devalued drastically and
retail prices rose by some 50 percent. Dawe argues that this policy change adds significantly to the
stability of the world market. Thus, while yields have risen only gradually in response to low
export-equivalent world price levels, and falling domestic per capita consumption, the impact has
been offset by devaluation of the baht and the basic willingness of Thai farmers to grow rice for
export has been sustained (Dawe, 2002).
Viet Nam illustrates how incentives can drive rice yields and production. During the independence
war, imports were more than 10 percent of requirements. Even after the war was won, yields stagnated
and limited imports continued during the years of a fully managed economy. It was only with the
adoption of the doi moi policies in the late 1980s that yields took off. Since then, yields have risen
rapidly, and in 2003 were second only to China amongst the six countries. Exports come predominantly
from the Mekong Delta, which shares characteristics with the deltas of the Irrawaddy and Chao Phraya.
Surpluses are much less significant in the more densely populated Red River Delta while other smaller
basins are often in deficit, sharing as they do some of the characteristics of those that predominate in
the Philippines and Indonesia. The continued rapid rise in yields, despite low world export-equivalent
prices, no doubt in part as in Thailand reflects currency devaluation. But it also may reflect
other government interventions in support of exports given their importance to national development
again as in Thailand during an earlier stage of its development.
China, along with South Asian and many other developing countries, will probably remain marginal traders
in cereals. If so, the share of trade in world output will probably remain roughly at the level prevailing since
1980. In principle a few countries no doubt should shift from marginal to structural importers (e.g. Philippines
and Indonesia) and a few developed countries should withdraw from exports (e.g. the European Union).
According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates, if all trade distortions were to be
abolished, world prices of wheat would rise by 18 percent, of rice by 10 percent and of other grains by
15 percent, resulting in an annual gain of US$56 billion in world welfare (USDA, 2001). The main benefits
189
would, ironically, accrue to developed countries but they would also go to competitive exporters (in rice
especially Myanmar, Thailand and Viet Nam) and to surplus farmers in countries with liberalized market
regimes. Whether higher world prices would be associated with a rising proportion of output entering world
trade is uncertain for reasons already discussed.
Irrigated and rainfed yields. Systematic data comparing irrigated and rainfed yields on a country basis are
not readily available. However, Philippines data are available for 196789. Yields in National Irrigation
Systems (NIS) were higher than irrigated yields as a whole (which also include communal schemes); and
irrigated yields in turn were higher than rainfed yields. These patterns are to be expected. More interesting,
perhaps, is that trends between irrigated and rainfed yields were also very comparable, at least between 1967
and 1989. I cannot prove it, but I suspect that similar results would also characterize other countries as the
feedback loops described earlier affect all farmers simultaneously, whether they cultivate paddy in NIS, in
communal irrigation or under rainfed conditions. Thus, just as average yields have remained relatively constant
between countries, so have relative irrigated and rainfed yields within countries.
If this is correct, it could have significant implications for irrigation policy (Berkoff, 2001a, Berkoff, 2001b).
If average national yields are in part a result of feedback loops between prices, trading costs and risk, then
average yields are in part a consequence of broad country conditions, including the proportion of the arable
area that is irrigated. The greater the proportion of arable area that is irrigated, the lower must rainfed yields
be if the overall balance is to be maintained. In other words, the decision to invest in new irrigation not only
increases yields of benefited farmers, but also tends to depress rainfed yields. The relative impacts on poverty
are in part offset by the additional labour opportunities provided and, perhaps, by multiplier effects often
attributed to irrigation development. These issues are considered further in Section 2. But, before moving to
the evidence to be derived from economic evaluation of irrigation projects something should be said about
irrigated areas and approaches to irrigation modernization.
1.3 Irrigated areas
The hidden hand of scarcity. Irrigated areas are influenced primarily by physical water availability.
Farmers respond to physical scarcity so as to optimize waters value to them, both in real time and over the
longer-term. Response to scarcity is comparable to response to price, itself a mechanism for allocating
(economic) scarcity. Except in fully controlled on-demand systems the rare exception water pricing in
surface irrigation is impracticable not just because of the administrative and technical problems in huge
complex systems with innumerable small farmers and variable rainfall and supply, but also because if they
are to play an allocative role, prices would have to be far higher and more variable than is politically feasible
under most conditions.10 But water pricing is unnecessary if scarcity impinges directly on farmer decisions
as it does in Asian paddy schemes. The stochastic, varying and scarce characteristics of water not only provide
continuous real time incentives for efficient use of the water supplied via the irrigation system but also
long-term incentives for investment in complementary water sources, notably in re-use and groundwater.
Scarcity is typically built into irrigation systems by design so as to limit infrastructural costs and make full
use of dry season flows. The nature of scarcity varies seasonally and over time:
O
During the wet season, head end users may misuse water and divert more water than is necessary.
This may not matter if there is enough water to go around and tail end users can make use of return
flows. But during peak demand periods, canal capacity restricts diversions and water must be regulated
in the main system if tail end users are not to suffer. However, this is an issue of internal scheme
management rather than lack of overall water endowment. Irrigation efficiency during the wet season
may be low but this is of limited significance since diverted water often comes from (excess) runoff
that has no other alternative human use and flooded paddy is largely indifferent to surplus applications
(though chemical runoff may increase). Paddy irrigation typically uses a lot of water but it often uses
it when it has no alternative uses, indeed when excess supplies can cause flooding lower in the basin.
10
This contrasts strongly with reticulated urban water systems, which are at least in principle usually designed for water
on-demand. Under such conditions, water pricing is often the critical variable if water use is to be constrained.
190
If water has no other economic use is not scarce then wastage is of little concern (other than
perhaps for certain environmental impacts).
O
During the dry season and during dry spells in the rainy season the issue is not one of limited canal
capacity but of limited water supplies. Since canal capacity and irrigated areas are sized for peak
supplies in the wet season, by design they can almost always absorb all the dry season water available.
Estimating shortages based on crop water requirements in practice therefore has little meaning. It
is often better to think of irrigation as user of last resort rather than as requiring a specified allocation
since it can essentially make use of any water that is available. Since at such times water is inherently
scarce, little is wasted and every last drop is utilized (see below).
As a basin develops, design scarcity during the wet season because of limited canal capacity or
the dry season because of inherent lack of water intensifies and scarcity ultimately may become
pervasive. As scarcity impinges, however, paddy systems typically evolve, becoming more efficient
as farmers and scheme managers exploit useful return flows. More generally, a loss at one point flows
back to the river or aquifer and subject to water quality can be recycled downstream. Efficiency
at basin-level is typically much higher than at scheme-level, and it is basin-wide efficiency that is
significant in welfare terms not scheme-level efficiency. Wasteful practices that result in true
(irrecoverable) losses in a water-short basin do occur but this is usually because of flows to sinks
such as a saline aquifer or deficiencies in internal scheme management rather than misuse on-farm.
On the contrary, farmers respond to physical scarcity in ways that optimize the value of water to
them adjusting crops, cropping practices and crop calendars, and developing conjunctive use by
digging wells and installing pumps (e.g. see Loeve et al., 2003 and Molle, 2004).
Asian paddy-based irrigation systems are thus typically much more efficient than commonly supposed. To
repeat, low efficiency in the wet season may not matter. Rainfall and flows in uncontrolled rivers often more
than cover irrigation needs. In the absence of a reservoir, water either flows through the fields to the delta
and sea or through the channels. Much of it cannot be used. It would be pointless to force farmers to be
efficient at such times. Why should they be? Indeed, low physical efficiency may correspond to maximum
welfare since management is simplified, farmers have fewer problems, and the opportunity cost of water is
in any case zero. During the dry season supplies often come largely from reservoir storage and irrigated areas
depend on irrigation efficiency. But then dry season irrigation is typically efficient. Peasant farmers fight for
water if it is scarce. Anyone who visits such schemes in the dry season sees that if action is not taken to
prevent it every last drop is taken even if it dries up the river. Quoting average annual levels of efficiency
can be very misleading.
Furthermore, these are seldom single schemes but a patchwork served by numerous rivers, some controlled
others uncontrolled. Over time they adapt to make best use of rainfall, return flows, uncontrolled supplies
etc. If topography is favourable and rainfall unreliable, small reservoirs are built (melons on the vine in
South China, the tank systems of South India and Sri Lanka). If topography is unsuitable or rainfall is relatively
high, as in the Philippines, Indonesia and most of mainland Southeast Asia, rivers remain uncontrolled and
wet season efficiency is inherently low. One or more larger dams may be built in the context of multipurpose
development. As far as irrigation is concerned, the art of reservoir management is to make best use of
uncontrolled flows and rainfall, conserving as much water as possible for the dry season. But in large complex
systems, with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of small farmers, and dozens if not hundreds of diversion
points, this is no easy task. Much of the time there is too much water. During a dry spell, every farmer begins
to suffer stress at about the same time, and water must be released and conveyed over long distances to each
small farm. By the time it reaches the farm, it may have rained. At a gross level, effective rainfall and
uncontrolled flows may appear sufficient, but paddy farmers need reliable water day-to-day. In systems without
storage, not even this is possible and wet season irrigation efficiency is necessarily low.
Responding to unpredictable rainfall and river flows in large schemes implies there will be some excess
releases. Indeed some waste may be desirable to preserve farmer confidence. Reservoir operations in the dry
season are easier because more predictable. But the swing from water abundance to water scarcity is itself
a major problem that contributes to farmer indiscipline and physical damage as farmers respond to their
191
short-term predicaments. Nevertheless, this does point to a typical weakness in system management. Many
studies, e.g. of Kaudulla in Sri Lanka (HRS, 1985) and Porac-Gomain in the Philippines (HRS, 1989) have
shown that relaxed wet season operations at the expense of restricting dry season irrigated areas, along with
inequitable distribution of main system supplies, can cause welfare losses. Simulation is a straightforward
exercise and can often point to where improved reservoir and main system management can limit avoidable
losses and enhance dry season production.
1.4 Irrigation modernization
Introduction. It is often argued that irrigation schemes operate inefficiently, and that the key to improved
performance lies in technical innovation (Plusquellec, 2002) or economic water pricing (Rosegrant and Cline,
2003) or in a combination of both (Rosegrant et al., 2002). It has been suggested above that large surface
irrigation schemes are in practice more efficient than is commonly supposed and that the role of water pricing
has been greatly over-stated. As for technical issues, it is worth quoting from a leading advocate of technical
modernization:
The shortages of food production projected for the 1990s have been averted because of the
explosive exploitation of groundwater and the many-fold increase in water-saving application
techniques over the last three decades. However, exploitation of aquifers and associated
decline in water quality have been occurring in many parts of the developing and developed
world, particularly in the semi-arid regions no further complacency in addressing the long
due issue of the poor management practices of the large irrigation systems is acceptable.
The failures to understand the links between technical improvements in large surface schemes
and required reforms may exacerbate the problem of water scarcity and threaten food security
in the future. Development of reliable irrigation in surface systems is crucial to realizing the
challenge of irrigation. The magnitude of investments and capacity building in human
resources to achieve this goal is likely underestimated. (Plusquellec, 2002).
Two important points raised by Plusquellec need to be addressed: (i) the potential role of groundwater; and
(ii) implications for surface irrigation modernization.
Groundwater. The growth in groundwater use can be attributed to numerous factors including: subsidies, greater
access to pump equipment and drilling services, the expansion of electricity distribution systems, and the
low price of diesel in some countries. But, as emphasized by Plusquellec, the most important driver has been
the security of supply that wells confer on farmers. Private groundwater is on-demand and fully controlled
by the end user. Subsidies and externalities distort incentives relative to economic outcomes but, this apart,
farmers adopt marginal cost pricing pumping only when the marginal cost to them is justified by their
assessment of marginal returns. So long as water tables are accessible, groundwater can offset all the vagaries
of rainfall and surface supply. It thus confirms a secure water supply on farmers who would otherwise have
to depend on unreliable or rigid supplies from canal systems (Plusquellec op cit.; Berkoff, 1990). Crop
yields tend to be higher (though still necessarily consistent with the general level of national yields, see above)
and groundwater has been the driving force behind diversification into high value crops. Of particular interest
is the role of groundwater within irrigation perimeters. It is hard to envisage a more efficient system than
one that combines otherwise unusable rainfall with reliable surface supplies and access to groundwater. Such
conditions are especially prevalent in the warabandi schemes of Northwest India and Pakistan. But the
generally accepted view is that large irrigation schemes in developing countries are inefficient. And though
large paddy-based systems differ in many respects from the warabandi systems of Northwest India, these
arguments still, to a perhaps lesser degree, apply (see below).
Reasons why irrigation efficiency is higher than commonly supposed have been suggested above. Two further
ideas are introduced here: (i) that rainfall especially in semi-arid areas often cannot be profitably used in the
absence of irrigation; and (ii) that groundwater provides full on-demand irrigation in otherwise rigidly or
even poorly managed systems. No doubt groundwater involves costs that, strictly speaking, would be
unnecessary if surface supplies could be provided on demand. But, as discussed above, water supplies cannot
readily be provided on demand in large systems and the investment and transactions costs would be much
192
higher than the direct costs of groundwater. Moreover, since it is the farmer who decides on how much to
invest and how much to pump, there is a strong case that groundwater use is relatively efficient in economic
terms (subject to the impact of subsidies and externalities).
Plusquellec poses the question: how long can groundwater irrigation last? His view is that the writing is on
the wall. But is it? Recharge will last indefinitely and, to this extent, groundwater will also last. Indeed, surface
irrigation is itself a major source of recharge, adding significantly to natural recharge from rainfall and river
seepage. And, though pumping in excess of recharge is an undoubted fact, recharge itself is still a massive
quantity. As water tables fall, pumping costs rise and in some cases this brings supply and demand into
sustainable balance. In others, vulnerable aquifers may be exhausted or become salinized. If so, farmers become
dependent once again on surface supplies, or revert to rainfed farming, or cease farming altogether (move to
the towns?). How significant this is depends on the economic context, the pace of structural shifts in the
economy, and environmental considerations. Affected farmers will of course suffer but then farmers already
suffer from numerous adverse developments, such as low and falling crop prices, declining farm size,
environmental degradation, and declining incomes relative to urban incomes. Moreover, irrigated farmers
have been heavily subsidized relative to their rainfed counterparts and it is rainfed farmers that have borne
the main burden of structural shifts in the economy.
If feedback loops ensure that most countries remain broadly self-sufficient in cereals, the main issue here is
whether groundwater can continue to support expansion of the high value crops that have been so critical to
agricultural growth or whether surface irrigation also needs to be modernized. FAOSTAT data show that cereal
crops still account for 50 to 60 percent of the total harvested area of all crops and high value irrigated fruit
and vegetable crops for no more than perhaps 5 or 6 percent. Oilseeds, pulses, tree crops and other
non-irrigated commercial crops account for the remainder. Entrepreneurial enterprise typically responds to
opportunities as they emerge, notably in urban areas and increasingly for export. The area under such crops
is thus ultimately constrained by markets rather than by water supply. If so, there is little doubt that there
is adequate groundwater in most countries to support areas under high value crops. The corollary is that
the need for modernization of surface irrigation to meet the demands of high value crops can be (greatly)
over-stated.
There is a case for introducing responsive modernized systems where: irrigation is a residual activity (Israel?
Cyprus?); or accounts for a small share of agriculture (Morocco?); or the benefits of high value exports are
great (Northern Mexico?); or water shortages are extreme (the North China Plain?); or farming is typified by
rich commercial farmers for whom water is a small part of costs (USA? Spain?). In the long-term, such
approaches may become more widely justified. But generalizing the case now for modernization to large,
complex smallholder paddy-based irrigation systems that are more efficient than is commonly supposed and
that will remain predominantly for cultivation of basic grains, risks major financial waste. Forcing technological
innovation has almost invariably failed not because of unreceptive farmers but because of unrealistic
expectations and over-optimism of their promoters. Groundwater under the direct control of individual farmers
will out-compete modernized surface delivery systems in the large majority of cases for the foreseeable future,
and there will be adequate groundwater recharge to more than cover the likely demands for high value crops.
Although this will favour those with access to groundwater, this is how markets work and expensive
modernization would itself be aimed at irrigated farmers who have been relatively favoured over rainfed
farmers in the past.
Surface irrigation. How then should improving surface system management of large-scale Asian paddy-based
schemes be approached? The major opportunities in my view lie in conventional low-cost improvements, in
reservoir operations and in the predictability and reliability of main system management. Reservoir operations
are critical because, under monsoonal conditions, systematic exploitation of effective rainfall and uncontrolled
river flows during the dry season can often increase the water retained for the dry season. Predictability and
reliability are critical because they facilitate informed farmer responses, with regard to groundwater and other
cropping, investment and on-farm decisions.
Under conditions prevailing in large systems, this often implies simplifying operations and management since
unrealistic expectations undermine predictability and reliability. For instance, gate operations at the level of
193
the individual farm or watercourse may be impracticable given social and institutional constraints. Alternatives,
including proportional division and rotational practices, are often preferable, especially if complemented by
local storage and/or private groundwater investments. Such approaches in effect delegate an increased share
of the management to the farmer or farmer group, with farmers required to plan operations in response to
a predictable supply rather than the scheme manager seeking to satisfy detailed crop water requirements of
the farmers. This does not rule out modifying schedules to satisfy the predominant cropping requirements
(i.e. some form or arranged demand schedules), nor does it rule out investing in improved structural controls
and other measures, for instance in level-top canals or surface level control. But it does imply that such
measures should be judged rigorously in terms of the cost, realism and practicality.
Systems differ widely and each must be considered on its merits through the preparation of a practical
operational plan. What might be involved has been set out in a number of past publications; notably those of
the HRS Wallingford for paddy systems (HRS, 1985, HRS, 1989); of Albinson and Perry for the Structured
Design especially in non-paddy systems (Albinson and Perry, 2002); and for all types of system by Horst in
The Dilemmas of Water Division (Horst, 1998). The way ahead has been eloquently described by these various
authors and it is strange that they are referred to so seldom in the large literature on food and the future of
irrigation.
2. What economic evaluations of irrigation projects suggest

2.1 Introduction
The most readily available data on the economic performance of irrigation projects are those of the completion,
audit and impact assessment reports carried out by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. The
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and others have also undertaken numerous performance
assessments. However, I have limited the data set to World Bank reports, notably the 1994 OED report which
covers all irrigation projects funded by the World Bank until that date, and to impact assessment reports of
major rice-based projects in Asia (Berkoff, 2001a, Berkoff, 2002). The 1994 OED report is comprehensive
and, though it is dated and suffers from deficiencies discussed below, it is a valuable, indeed unique, database.
And the impact assessment reports consulted are particularly appropriate for the present workshop.
2.2 Economic rates of return
Table 1 summarizes economic rates of return (ERRs) for World Bank-supported irrigation projects from the
1994 OED review. Of 340 majority irrigation projects approved between 1948 and 1993, 208 had been
evaluated (that is had a completion, audit or impact report). The table distinguishes between completion
and audit reports, compiled by the recipient country and World Bank respectively when the loan closes, and
impact assessment reports undertaken by OED typically after about five years of actual operations. Table 1
also includes results for four major Asian paddy-based systems included in a 1996 OED impact report.
Table 2 indicates that from appraisal to completion to impact, ERRs successively tended to decline and in
the case of projects included in the 1996 report fell to very low levels. Moreover, even at impact, benefits
remain uncertain given that project life is typically taken to be 20 to 30 years. Furthermore, the World Bank
supported at most 10 percent of irrigation investment in developing countries. As there is a prima facie case
that World Bank projects perform above average (they are externally monitored, better financed and less open
to implementation delays), Table 1 may overstate performance of all irrigation.
Despite these results, OED concluded that irrigation had generally performed satisfactorily. This is partly
because the 1994 Review did not distinguish between impact, completion and audit results, adopting the results
of the most recent report available (which explains the question marks in Table 1). However, this is not the
full story. The OED review made no attempt to update rates of return of individual projects, simply accepting
the results from each report at its disposal. This is not surprising updating the results in 204 reports with
actual data would have been a monumental task. More surprisingly, given that the reports fell over a range
of years the earliest impact assessment date from 1979, the last from 1990, while completion/audit reports
dated over a longer period there was no assessment of impacts of more recent trends. Such an assessment
is attempted below. Two main assumptions determine benefits: future crop prices and incremental crop output.
194
Table 1. ERRs at appraisal, completion and impact assessment: OED review

Appraisal
Impact
assessment
Completion/Audit
OED Review: (1994)

Gravity
Pump
103 projects
48 projects
21 percent
25 percent
14 percent
19 percent
37 projects
13 projects
7 projects
19 percent
19 percent
17 percent
13 percent
?
?
?
12 percent
6 percent
Mixed/not-known
Gravity
Pump
?
?
OED impact study 1996

Lam Pao
Thailand
26 percent
12 percent
10 percent
Maeklong
Kinda
Thailand
Myanmar
35 percent
21 percent
8 percent
14 percent
4 percent
7 percent
Dau Tieng
Viet Nam
17 percent
5 percent/7 percent
4 percent
Source: OED, 1994 and OED, 1996.
2.3 World grain prices

Table 2 compares World Bank grain price projections made at various times with subsequent actual prices.
Despite in most cases adjusting projections down with each successive forecast (but not interestingly for rice)
the Bank failed to keep pace with actual declines. In September 1987, for instance, the Bank anticipated
a rice price in 2000 of US$315 per tonne, in November 1994 a price of US$332 per tonne and in November
1998 a price of US$296 per tonne, whereas the actual price was US$187 per tonne (all prices at 1990 price
levels). If ERRs were to be re-estimated based on actual 2000 prices rather than the earlier OED projections,
it is doubtful whether more than a handful of projects would have remained viable. Since 2000, grain prices
have stabilized and in the case of wheat recovered from the low levels of the 1990s. Even so, grain prices
are well below levels in the 1970s and 1980s let alone levels prior to 1970. More recent World Bank projections
(World Bank, 2005a, 2005b) suggest that prices will remain low, at least in the short term.
Table 2. World Bank grain price projections and actual prices: 1990 prices
Sept.
1987
Projections made in:

November
November
1994
1998
Actual prices2
2000
2000
2005
2000
2005
2010
1970
1980
1990
1995
20001
315
1553
143
332
150
121
369
153
125
296
120
102
277
140
107
267
128
100
504
219
233
571
240
174
271
136
109
268
148
103
209
117
92
Relative to Projections made in Sept. 1987

Rice: Thai 5 percent
100
105
117
94
88
85
160
181
86
85
66
Wheat: US HRW
Maize: US-2 Yellow
77
71
90
75
83
70
141
163
155
122
87
76
95
72
75
64
US$/tonne 1990 prices

Rice: Thai 5 percent
Wheat: US HRW
Maize: US-2 Yellow
100
100
97
85
99
87
Actual prices in 2000 at current US$ per tonnes were: rice 202.4, wheat (US HRW) 114.1, maize 88.5.
Actual prices in 1990 prices based on G-5 MUV Index: 1985 68.61: 1990 100, 2000 97.3.
3
The 1987 projections were for Canadian wheat (CWRS). Its price is converted to US HRW using a ratio of 1:0.76.
Sources: World Bank Commodity Price Forecasts September 1987, November 1994 and November 1998.
World Bank Commodity Price Data (Pink Sheets) March 2001 and July 2005c.
World Bank Development Report 2004 for MUV Indices.
2
195
If the WTO negotiations are successful, there will no doubt be upward pressure on prices. USDA analysis
has suggested that if all distortions on trade were removed, then world wheat prices would rise by about
18 percent, rice prices by 10 percent and prices for other grains by 15 percent (USDA, 2001). Others anticipate
further declines given past trends, technical change (e.g. the impact of GM crops) and developed country
trade policies. A more sophisticated analysis would also need to incorporate shifting exchange rates and dollar
values. Whatever the details, it seems most unlikely that grain prices will return to the levels anticipated in
the 1980s and 1990s and, if so, all future irrigation projects will need to reflect real price levels that are low
in historical terms.11
2.4 Incremental production
The OED Review failed to analyze yields in any detail, concluding only that with production targets would
on the whole be met. However, most schemes with impact reports (i.e. for which actual data were available)
fell short of production targets and in the case of four Asian projects for which detailed data are available
(Table 3) the shortfall in yields was drastic. Again, impact estimates were more pessimistic than those at
appraisal, completion and audit.12
Table 3. Yields and production, evaluation and appraisal estimates: four Southeast Asian projects
With yields: tonnes per ha
At appraisal
At impact assessment
With
production
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Impact estimate
as % of appraisal
estimate1
Lam Pao: Thailand

Maeklong: Thailand
3.8
3.5
4.0
4.2
3.0
3.9
3.0
3.9
73%
48%
Kinda: Myanmar
Dau Tieng: Viet Nam
Weighted Average
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.6
4.4
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
40%
47%
n.a.
It has not been possible to reproduce these production estimates from the area and yield data given in the report.
Source: OED, 1996.
Over-optimism also affects incremental crop areas. As argued above, irrigation is more efficient in economic
terms than is commonly supposed since farmers fight for water when it is scarce and little water is wasted
when it has value. The corollary is that there is less potential for efficiency increases than often assumed,
especially in appraisal reports for rehabilitation and modernization projects that are justified in terms of current
inefficiency. Optimistic efficiency assumptions are reflected in optimistic projections of irrigated areas
(Table 4). Again, completion and audit reports often retain appraisal assumptions but impact reports adjust
expectations downwards. For the four Asian projects, areas at impact were no more than 67 percent of appraisal
targets and in the Philippines, based on additional actual data, expected increases were even less.
If incremental yields and incremental irrigated areas are both exaggerated, then incremental production will
be exaggerated by a cumulative amount. Moreover, incremental irrigated areas and cropping intensities are
a good indication of direct water use assumptions. Data on this are available but are more difficult to
summarize. Nevertheless in my judgement they also would confirm that efficiency targets often have been
over-stated and often by very considerable amounts.
11
The pressure on prices as a result of cultivation of grains for fuel purposes and other factors imply that this paragraph needs
some modification.
12
Furthermore, OED failed in either report to discuss issues related to incremental production, which is the key to estimating benefits.
If average national yields rise faster than expected, then incremental production will be less even if with yield targets are met. This
can be illustrated well by data from the Philippines though these data have been excluded for lack of space.
196
Table 4. Irrigated areas at appraisal, completion/audit and impact assessment

No. of
schemes
Average project
area: ha
Average cropped
area: ha
Evaluation as
% of appraisal
Cropping
intensity: %
Appraisal Evaluation Appraisal Evaluation Proj. area Crop. area Evaluation Appraisal
OED Review (1994)
Impact
20
60 592
50 743
81 938
65 975
84
81
135
130
Completion/Audit1
111
75 830
80 368
118 856
129 829
106
109
169
175
Completion/Audit2
51
86 230
86 991
n.a.
n.a.
101
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Completion/Audit3
1 827 000 1 804 000
n.a.
n.a.
99
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
OED Impact Study 1996
Lam Pao
49 000
49 500
78 400
74 250
101
95
160
150
Maeklong
66 000
39 500
132 000
63 200
60
48
200
160
Kinda
79 000
71 000
126 400
83 070
90
66
160
117
Dau Tieng
72 000
45 000
162 720
112 500
63
69
226
250
Weighted Average
86 100
51 250
12 880
83 255
77
67
188
162
Projects for which data are available for expected project and cropped areas at full development (111 schemes).
Projects for which data are available only for expected project areas.
3
Six large rehabilitation/modernization-type programmes that in many ways are atypical.
4
It has not been possible to reproduce the production data from the area and yield data provided in the report.
Source: OED, 1994 and OED, 1996.
2
2.5 The bias in project appraisal

If price and incremental output projections have fallen well short even of the revised estimates included in
completion and impact assessment reports, then the true ERR of many, if not most, irrigation projects when
recalculated based on actual data would be found to be well below appraisal estimates, and in many cases
far below. And this is before allowing for cost over-runs, implementation delays and environmental
externalities. Evidence on cost over-runs and implementation delays are provided in the OED report. They
are not analyzed here since the emphasis has been on benefits, but adjusting for these alone would reduce
ERRs significantly below the original appraisal estimates.
What explains this bias in project appraisal? The answer in my judgement lies primarily in the fact that surface
irrigation still lies largely in the public sector and the institutional incentives for going ahead with a project
often outweigh any doubts associated with the economic analysis:
O
The political dynamics invariably favour a project going ahead. Irrigation is so obviously a good
thing who can be against it?
As we have seen, economic analysis is inherently uncertain and unstable. Over-optimistic assumptions
are difficult to refute, and unwitting optimism is widespread.
The self-interest of beneficiary farmers who do not have to pay is obvious. So are those of an Irrigation
Department with incentives for justifying an irrigation investment programme. Similar incentives
influence irrigation staff in lending agencies, and the contractors and consultants employed to evaluate
and construct irrigation projects. Programming and finance ministries that serve a broader national
interest often restrain irrigation expenditures but are seldom able to fully prevent it.
Above all, being funded largely from the national budget, there is ultimately no real financial
accountability. Surface irrigation has been heavily subsidized. Even groundwater is typically subsidized
in real terms through electricity prices or other subsidies, and seldom if ever bears the externality
costs associated with falling water tables. Or else groundwater develops in symbiosis with public
surface irrigation that itself has been heavily subsidized (e.g. where tube wells exploit aquifers
recharged by surface losses as in North China and much of the Indian subcontinent).
197
Surface irrigation is unusual among productive enterprises in that public construction and ownership is rarely
questioned. No doubt irrigation is often classified as infrastructure but it is also analogous to industry and it
is many years since most governments thought they were qualified to pick winners in industry. Yet governments
still pick winners in irrigation. Socialist states had a straightforward planning rationale for investments in
basic industry, a rationale that held for decades because accounting practices and prices hid what was really
going on. Well that still seems to happen in irrigation, even in countries that in most other respects are
characterized by active market economies. Irrigation potential is typically expressed in terms of physical
potential whether the water and land resources are available. If they are, plans are developed to exploit
these resources so as to satisfy food requirements, promote regional and rural development, tackle poverty
or for some other reason.
These arguments may have merit. Markets are not everything and governments should intervene if a wider
development, national security, poverty-alleviation, job-creation and/or rural-urban balance purpose is served
(Berkoff, 2003b). But in practice the best projects were built first when the best sites were available, when
water was abundant, when groundwater was much less developed, when real grain prices were (much) higher,
when international trade was more risky, and when economies were simpler and much less diversified.
Irrigation projects in earlier times often served important national objectives and were in many cases
undoubtedly justified in economic terms. But many more recent projects have simply not been worthwhile.
Just because there is water and land does not mean that they must be exploited, yet this is how many irrigation
plans continue to be prepared. And countries that continue to devote large sums to irrigation, as was the case
in regard to heavy industry in the Soviet Union before it collapsed, often remain unaware of the true costs
and subsidies involved.
Nowhere, even in developed countries, has surface irrigation borne anything like its full direct costs, let alone
its opportunity and externality costs. In developed countries, water charges may cover a part of capital costs
in addition to operation and management (O&M), but in developing countries agencies struggle to recover
O&M costs. Yet surface irrigation supply is a very capital-intensive enterprise and O&M costs typically account
for no more than 10 to 20 percent of discounted (present value) costs. The fact that the farmer will not (cannot)
pay more than a fraction of project costs is ultimately attributable to the fact that these costs simply cannot
be justified by the benefits he receives. If he had to pay full costs, he would be worse off than he was in the
first place. If a market for irrigation schemes had been feasible, then the true equilibrium price would have
been many times the typical irrigation water charge and much existing irrigation would never have been built.
In due course, of course, the subsidies that have been provided are incorporated in the land price in which
case it becomes essentially impossible and indeed inequitable to recover full costs. Those who benefited
from the subsidies in the first place can rest assured that the windfall gains they obtained by selling land will
remain theirs.
Moreover, analysts are too often subject to pressures from the client or their bosses it is far easier to say
yes than no. No doubt this applies in other sectors but the economic analysis of irrigation is particularly unstable
and uncertain. Incremental production represents the difference between two large hypothetical future flows
(production with and production without) that depend on a host of assumptions that cannot be readily validated
and for which no one is ultimately accountable. If crop prices, or incremental yields, or irrigation efficiencies,
or cropping patterns are adjusted even modestly, the impact on the ERR can be surprisingly large. And who
is to say the assumptions are wrong? Moreover, as was shown above, notably for Mbarali, in physical terms,
production almost everywhere undoubtedly could increase, often substantially, whether under irrigated or
rainfed conditions. Wheat yields in the United Kingdom, for instance, are the highest in the world even though
they entirely rainfed. No doubt rainfall is relatively favourable and technologies are advanced. But without
the subsidies under the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), how many United Kingdom
farmers could make a profit using these same technologies? Not many wheat would no doubt still be
grown if all protection and subsidies were withdrawn and it was profitable relative to the alternatives, but
patterns of input use and hence yields would be very different. The same goes for irrigation. Yields and irrigated
areas are a reflection of the incentive structures prevailing in the country concerned and the potential for
improvements is typically greatly over-stated.
198
3. Concluding remarks
The paper began with two propositions: first, that the objective function of economic analysis is maximization
of human welfare and not the maximization of physical output and second, that incentives matter. Within
this framework, Section 1 aimed to throw light on the general evolution of agriculture and rice production. It
concluded that average paddy yields in any particular country are at least in part determined by feedback
loops between prices, trading costs and risk, and that these processes limit opportunities for augmenting yields.
Differential average yields between countries thus reflect real factors, and the assumption that it is possible
to close an apparent yield gap between East Asia and Southeast Asia is to this extent illusory. With respect
to irrigation, it argued that the hidden hand of scarcity provides incentives that contribute to levels of water
use efficiency in large surface systems in Asia that are much greater than commonly supposed and, again,
that the potential for improved irrigation performance in large paddy-based schemes may have been greatly
over-stated. Moreover, surface irrigation will invariably be out-competed by groundwater in respect of high
value cropping. Such schemes will necessarily continue to be devoted primarily to the production of basic
grains. It follows from these arguments that expensive modernization of large irrigation schemes is usually
both unnecessary and uneconomic, and risks major financial misallocation. Section 2 summarized evidence
drawn from World Bank reports that generally confirm these conclusions, showing that the economic returns
from irrigation projects have been greatly overstated taking into account the evidence on actual crop prices
and agricultural outcomes.
References
Albinson B., & Perry, C.J. 2002. Fundamentals of smallholder irrigation: the structured system concept. Research
Report 58, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Andrus, J.R. 1948. Burmese economic life. The American Council, Institute of Pacific Affairs, Calcutta.
Berkoff D.J.W. 1990. Irrigation management on the Indo-Gangetic plain. World Bank Technical Paper No. 129,
Washington, DC.
Berkoff, J. 2001a. Irrigation, grain markets and the poor. Presentation to ICID British Chapter, 21 February.
Berkoff, J. 2001b. World Bank water strategy: some suggestions related to agriculture and irrigation. Mimeo, Draft,
7 May.
Berkoff, J. 2002. Economic evaluation: why is it so often unsatisfactory and does it matter? (with reference to the
irrigation sector). Paper presented to the International Consulting Economists Association (ICEA) on 19 June.
Berkoff, J. 2003a. China: the south-north water transfer project is it justified? Water Policy 5:128.
Berkoff, J. 2003b. Prospects for irrigated agriculture: has the international consensus got it right? Paper presented at
the Alternative Water Forum held at Bradford University, 12 May.
Berkoff, J. 2005. Memo addressed to MNA region of the World Bank, 19 September 2005, mimeo.
Brown, L. 1998. Chinas water shortage could shake world food security. World Watch, July/August.
Dawe D. 2002. The changing structure of the world rice market, 1950-2000. Food Policy, Vol. 27(4): 355370.
Doorenhos J., & Kassam, A.H. 1986. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Rome.
Green, C. 2003. Handbook of water economics: principles and practice. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
Horst, Lucas. 1998. The dilemmas of water division, considerations and criteria for irrigation system design. 138 pp.,
International Water Management Institute.
HRS. 1985. Irrigation water management at Kaudulla, Sri Lanka. Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, Report
No OD 70, July.
HRS. 1989. Performance assessment of the Porac River irrigation system. Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford,
Asian Regional Symposium on the Modernization and Rehabilitation of Irrigation and Drainage Schemes,
Development Academy of The Philippines, 1315 February.
IFPRI. 1976. Meeting food needs in the developing world: the location and magnitude of the task in the next decade.
Washington, DC. Research report No. 1, February.
199
MMP/HTS. 1971. Kali Progo Basin study. Consultancy Study undertaken by Hunting Technical Services and Sir M.
MacDonald & Partners, under assignment by ODA, October.
Molle, F. 2004. Technical and institutional responses to basin closure in the Chao Phraya River Basin, Thailand. Water
International 29(1): 7080.
NIA. Undated. Performance evaluation of national irrigation systems. NIA databases (mimeo).
OED. 1994. A review of World Bank experience in irrigation. Report No. 13676, 2 Vols. Operations Evaluation
Department, Washington, DC.
OED. 1996. Irrigation O&M and system performance in Southeast Asia: an OED impact study. Report No. 15824,
Operations Evaluation Department, Washington, DC.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. Is the daunting challenge of irrigation achievable? Irrigation and Drainage 51: 185198.
Rosegrant M.W, Ximing Cai & Cline, S.A. 2002. World water and food to 2025: dealing with scarcity. Washington,
DC.
Rosegrant M.W. & Cline, S. 2003. The politics and economics of water pricing in developing countries (mimeo).
Third World Water Forum. 2003. Water, food and environment. Session Report, Kyoto, 20 March.
USDA. 2001. Agricultural policy reform in the WTO the road ahead. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 802. Ed. Mary E. Burfisher.
Van Hofwegen, P. & Svendsen, M. 2000. A vision of water for food and rural development. Prepared for the World
Water Forum, Paris.
World Bank. 1983. Burma: irrigation sector review. Report No. 4644-BA, South Asia Projects Department, Washington,
DC.
World Bank. 1987. Commodity price forecasts. September, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1992. Philippines: irrigated agriculture sector review. Report No. 9848-PH, 2 Volumes, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
World Bank.1994. Commodity price forecasts. November, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1998. Commodity price forecasts. November, Washingon, DC.
World Bank. 2001. Commodity price data: (Pink Sheets), March, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005c. Commodity price data: (Pink Sheets), July, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005a. 2004 World development report. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2005b. Prospects for the Global Economy: 2006, Washington, DC.
World Water Commission. 2000. World water vision a water secure world: vision for water, life, and the environment.
Report of the World Water Commission, World Water Council.
Young, R.A. 1996. Water economics. In Mays L. (ed.) Handbook of Water Resources. New York, McGraw-Hill.
200
Irrigation systems water savings: technical, economic

and institutional issues
Shahbaz Khan13
Abstract
Irrigated agriculture makes up over 70 percent of Australias consumptive water use. With the water resources
in irrigation areas being close to fully allocated, or even over-allocated in some catchments, there is an
increased competition for water. In the Murray Darling Basin it is hardly possible to withdraw more water
from existing resources. It is generally accepted that there will be less water available for irrigated agriculture
in the future and the only way to provide enough water for irrigation will be to use the available resource
more efficiently at both farm and catchment scales. Water for the environment or new irrigation developments
need to be resourced through irrigation water savings at the farm and system levels. However, water savings
from one part of the system may lead to higher water use in another part of the system and the overall
improvement may be negligible.
Some measures that may improve the water productivity in agriculture are canal lining, irrigation scheduling,
high-tech irrigation technologies, improved cropping patterns and conversion to crops with higher economic
returns. The key to achieving real and substantial water savings lies in the assessment and hydrologic ranking
of water-saving options in a whole of the system context. This paper describes results of a major water use
efficiency study in the Murrumbidgee Valley, Australia. Benefits of a systems approach are summarized through
a hydrologic and economic evaluation of water-saving interventions at the field, irrigation area and catchment
levels. Supply and demand theory is used to explore how to internalize the social costs created by irrigation
activity and saving of associated losses that burden the local and regional environment.
A market-based approach which utilizes a water leasing and preferential right to access saved water is
argued to take advantage of the market mechanisms for the preservation of the environment. Private-public
investment for efficient water supplies which can account for third party impacts needs to be established
to promote investment in water-saving technologies. This will help provide secure saved water supplies
for water efficient irrigation and the environment especially during periods of drought because of real
water savings from fixed system losses.
1. Introduction
As elsewhere in the world, Australias irrigation systems suffer from problems associated with losses in storage
and conveyance, on-farm losses and variable water use efficiency. In the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) it is
widely accepted that 25 percent of diversions for irrigation are lost during conveyance in rivers, 15 percent
are lost from canals and 24 percent lost on farm, meaning that only 36 percent of irrigation water is actually
delivered to plants. Such losses are not atypical across the world (Table 1). The data in Table 1 for the
Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) do not include river conveyance losses and indicate on-farm losses
better than the overall MDB average (Khan et al., 2004a). However, given that the world will need to feed
1.5 to 2 billion extra people by 2025, there has to be scope to reduce water conveyance losses and increase
irrigation efficiency both in Australia and internationally.
In recent years, there has been a growing concern in Australia regarding the impact that major diversions of
water for irrigation are having on the environment. This is creating further economic competition for water
along with demands from urban and industrial users. Given that rural water users (predominantly irrigation)
account for over 70 percent of Australias total water use, a figure similar to that in most Southeast Asian
13
Charles Sturt University and CSIRO Land and Water, School of Science and Technology Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW
2678, Australia, Shahbaz.khan@csiro.au
201
Table 1. Surface water irrigation efficiency in three irrigation systems

Key indicators
Area (ha)
Liuyuankou, China
40 724
Rechna Doab,
Pakistan
2 970 000
MIA, Australia
156 605
Losses from supply system %

Field losses %
35
18
41
15
12
11
Net surface water available to crops (%)
46
32
77
countries, and given increasing physical scarcity of the resource because of climate change and other
environmental factors it is not surprising that pressure is increasing on irrigators to increase water use efficiency
and to achieve true water savings by conserving water otherwise lost through non-beneficial evaporation
or seepage to saline aquifers.
The key to achieving real and substantial water savings lies in the technical, economic and institutional
assessment of water-saving options in a whole of the system context.
Figure 1 shows the water cycle in an irrigated catchment at different spatial scales. Key intervention points
for improving the sustainability of irrigation systems and achieving water savings are shown with numbers
in circles. These intervention points are set out below:
1. volume and regime of water extraction from river, water rights definition, trading and regulation of
use of water rights, improved distribution and control of water delivery to farm to reduce conveyance
losses;
2. volume and regime of water extraction from groundwater, extraction must be matched by catchment
and river recharge, improved delivery to farm by reducing conveyance losses;
3. volume and regime of subsurface drainage, improved management to reduce leaching and drainage
to groundwater, reduction of salt load to groundwater through soil storage, improved interception of
subsurface drainage water and re-use through bioconcentration and extraction, salt management
schemes for subsurface drainage and groundwater;
4. reduced water extraction through greater water use efficiency on farm by reducing deep percolation
and evaporation losses;
5. improved management of surface water drainage, improved re-use, reduction of contaminants;
6. land use management to control water yield and amount of salt and pollutants to rivers and
groundwater; and
7. adaptive irrigation management under climatic variability and change scenarios. Better weather and
climate forecasts will help reduce the rainfall rejection and end of system escape losses.
This paper describes technical, economic and institutional aspects of water use efficiency studies focusing
on intervention points 1 to 5 (Figure 1) for catchments in Australia. Modelling approaches aimed at
extrapolating the impact of water savings on the basin and country level food security and water balance are
provided given by Khan et al. (2005c and d).
202
CLIMATE VARIABILITY & CHANGE

IRRIGATION REGION
RAINFALL
DRYLAND
CATCHMENT
LAND USE
6
2
GROUNDWATER
DAM
3
1
5
COASTAL
WATERS
7
WETLAND
ESTUARY
RIVER
Figure 1. Schematic of irrigated catchments with key points of intervention in circles
2. Technical issues
It is imperative to save water to achieve higher productivity per unit of water consumed and to provide water
for the environment. However, lower commodity prices do not allow investment in higher technologies because
of government subsidies and international market competition.
Technical options for more efficient use of available water supply for irrigation include:
O
adopting on-farm water saving methods (from soil water monitoring to pressurized irrigation systems)
to improve water productivity;
reducing conveyance losses in the water delivery systems through canal lining and piping;
matching water-saving investments with higher value cropping systems; and
removing salinity constraints from farm to regional levels through efficient leaching of soils and
promoting sustainable multiple use of water.
The relative economic and environmental merits of adopting these alternative water-saving options on the
overall water saving and water productivity at the irrigation system or catchment levels are largely unknown
because of a lack of integration of existing data sets; therefore it is imperative to start identifying and filling
in vital gaps. As part of the Pratt Water Study (Pratt Water Group, 2005) in the Murrumbidgee Catchment,
a targeted data-gathering, modelling and integration approach (Khan et al., 2005 a and b) was adopted to
evaluate alternative technologies for reducing over 300 GL on-farm and off-farm losses within the Coleambally
and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Areas.
203
a. Systems approach
Water-saving options at the catchment level
To identify true water-saving options it is important to adopt a systems approach for accounting all surface
water and groundwater use, losses and interactions at the catchment, irrigation area and farm levels. An example
of a systems water balance for the Murrumbidgee Catchment level is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Systems water balance at the Murrumbidgee Catchment level

This analysis has shown unaccounted losses of greater than 300 GL (1 GL = 1 MCM) in some of the river
reaches (Khan et al., 2004c) which could lead to real water savings and better environmental management
by investments in catchment management infrastructure.
Water-saving options at the irrigation area level
A similar systems approach at the irrigation area level provides indications of water savings at the whole of
the irrigation area level. An irrigation systems water balance for the Coleambally Irrigation Area (CIA) is
given in Figure 3, which provides a possible water use efficiency scenario for the CIA (using 2000 to 2001
water allocations). The water use efficiency at various points within the system is expressed in terms of water
delivered versus the water supplied and net water use through evapotranspiration and the tonnes/GL of produce.
Key water use efficiency indicators for the CIA show that irrigation efficiency in terms of root zone storage
to the water diverted from the source is 70 percent. Unless there is an investment in irrigation infrastructure
to improve measuring, monitoring and reducing losses this efficiency indicator will remain low. The overall
water use efficiency of the CIA is 77 percent because of capillary water use by the crops. In terms of production
efficiency the CIA is 343 tonnes/GL. Further analysis of the whole of the CIA water savings shows
(Khan et al., 2004c) that it is possible to increase economic water use efficiency from $A91 000/GL to $A97
500/GL and total water use efficiency from 77 percent to 84 percent under the current cropping and irrigation
regimes.
204
Surface Water
Irrigation
Groundwater
Irrigation
CIA-BASE
Conveyance losses
O
Farm Edge (494 GL)
= 80%
Water Source (615 GL)
O
O
O
Evaporation
Seepage
Operational losses
Leakages
Root zone storage (435 GL)
Conveyance
Efficiency
Water Source (620 GL)
= 94%
O
O
O
5 GL
Yield (324 401 t)
O
O
O
= 343 t/GL
Water
Productivity
Application Losses
= 92%
= 77%
Water Use
Efficiency
Water Supply (945 GL)
On-Farm
Storage
Effective
Rainfall
Irrigation
Efficiency
Evaporation
Seepage
Operational losses
Leakages
Farm Efficiency
Root zone storage (715 GL)

Field Edge (774 GL)
ETactual (736 GL)

Distribution Losses
Field Edge (464 GL)
Farm Edge (494 GL)
= 70%
Profit (86 112 213$)
off-target
Evaporation
deep percolation
non recycled surface runoff
= 91 000$/GL
Shallow
Groundwater
Capillary Uptake
310 GL
Field Efficiency
Economic
Return
59 GL
15 GL
Fallow ET
O
O
Groundwater
Storage
O
O
Shallow pumping
Tile drains
Evaporation Basins
SBC
34 GL
Surface and
Groundwater
Drainage
Regional
Groundwater Flow
Abatement
Cost ($/ML)
Figure 3. Base case water use efficiency of the CIA

b. Targeted water savings
Increasing on-farm water productivity
The current state of water use and water productivity in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA) is depicted
by Table 2 and this provides an overview of the net crop water requirements (NCWR), current irrigation
levels and yields in the MIA. In all cases (except for Lucerne) NCWR are well below the maximum reported
irrigation application levels. There are major differences between minimum and maximum crop yields, as
well as overall amounts of water consumed and the net crop water requirements. This data clearly illustrates
that there is a potential to increase farm profitability at a range of levels which include:
O
better matching of soils and groundwater conditions with cropping systems;
improving irrigation efficiency by 1 to 5 ML/ha; and
increasing crop yields by 20 to 50 percent by removing the management, nutrient and salinity
constraints.
Considering a range of soil, water and groundwater conditions Khan et al. (2004b) concluded that on-farm
irrigation technology conversions can provide potential water savings ranging from 0.1 to 2.2 ML/ha for
different broad acre crops (Figure 3), for example, 1.0 to 2.0 ML/ha for flood to sprinkler and 2.0 to 3.0 ML/ha
from flood to drip irrigation for citrus, 1.0 to 1.5 ML/ha from flood to sprinkler and up to 4.0 ML/ha from
flood to drip irrigation for vineyards, and 0.5 to 1.0 ML/ha for vegetables. Modelling simulations show
water-saving potential of 7 percent for maize, 15 percent for soybean, 17 percent for wheat, 35 percent for
barley, 17 percent for sunflower and 38 percent for faba bean, if on-farm surface irrigation methods can be
replaced with pressurized irrigation systems.
Based on recent work by Khan et al. (2004b) the potential savings for converting from good surface water to
pressurized irrigation systems (travelling irrigators or centre pivots or equivalent) are shown in Table 2.
205
Table 2. Net crop water requirements (NCWR), reported water use and yields in the MIA (2000/2001
reported crop areas are used)
Crop
Crop
area (ha)
Reported irrigation (ML/ha)
NCWR
(ML)
(ML/ha) Median
Low
High
Reported yield (t/ha)

Median
Low
High
Rice
Wheat
46 120
39 215
506 562
111 835
11.0
2.9
14.0
2.0
12.0
1.0
16.0
3.0
9.5
5.0
6.0
3.0
12.0
7.0
Oats
Barley
Maize
2 896
3 034
2 924
7 512
8 615
18 813
2.6
2.8
6.4
2.0
2.0
8.5
1.0
1.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
12.0
3.5
5.0
9.5
2.0
2.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
15.0
Canola
Soybean
2 685
2 881
4 643
18 383
1.7
6.4
2.5
8.0
1.0
6.0
4.0
9.0
2.5
2.6
1.8
1.5
3.0
3.8
Summer Pasture
Winter Pasture
3 929
24 184
45 154
50 403
11.5
2.1
7.5
5.5
7.5
5.5
8.0
6.0
Lucerne (Uncut)
Vines
Citrus
2 468
13 635
8 700
43 291
77 508
68 861
17.5
5.7
7.9
10.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
3.0
4.5
14.0
7.5
10.0
7.3
15.0
38.0
5.0
9.0
20.0
15.0
25.0
60.0
934
1 500
9 071
921
9.7
0.6
9.0
5.0
7.5
4.0
12.0
6.0
18.0
60.0
15.0
50.0
20.0
70.0
1 500
8 906
0
0
156 605 980 477
5.9
7.0
6.0
10.0
90.0
60.0
120.0
Stone Fruit
Winter Veg.*
Summer Veg.**
Lucerne (Cut)
Total
Reported gross diversions for 2000/01 are 1 048 000 ML and on-farm deliveries are 857 000 ML.
* Irrigation requirement and yield is for onion. For salad crops (lettuce) the irrigation requirement is from 2.0 to 4.0 and yield is
from 30.0 to 40.
** Irrigation requirement and yield is for tomato. For melons the irrigation requirement is from 4.0 to 7.0 and yield is from 30.0 to
40.0.
Reported irrigations levels are subject to adjustment for measurement error e.g. 14 percent accepted underestimation by the
Dethridge wheels.
Sources of information: NSW Dept. of Ag. (2003), Beecher et al. (1995), MDBC (1997) , MIA and D LWMP WG (1997).
Table 3. Water use and savings (ML/ha) for selected crops under different irrigation technologies
Surface
Low
Average
Sprinkler
Low
Average
Water savings
High
Low
Average
Irrigation method
ML/ha
High
Maize
Soybean
Wheat
10.6
6.6
4.2
4.3
3.6
0.5
8.3
5.4
2.4
9.2
5.6
2.8
4.0
3.2
0.5
7.7
4.6
2.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.4
Barley
Sunflower
4.3
7.0
0.7
3.5
1.7
4.6
2.4
4.8
0.7
3.1
1.1
3.8
1.9
2.2
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
Faba beans
4.9
1.5
3.2
3.3
1.4
2.0
1.6
0.1
1.2
High
Measuring and managing water losses from supply channels

The study used a combination of geophysics and in situ measurement methods aimed at identifying seepage
hotspots and the extent of overall water losses. In the Murrumbidgee catchment, seepage measurements were
made over 700 km of channels. Both sides of the selected channels were surveyed using EM31 metres. These
metres use electromagnetic induction to measure the average electrical conductivity of the soil from the surface
to a depth of six metres. This average reading is known as apparent conductivity. This EM method provided
a quick way of gathering a large amount of data without any ground intrusion, but is susceptible to interference
from electrical or magnetic interference. Low conductivities indicate potential seepage sites.
206
Once the EM31 surveys were completed, maps were prepared from the EM imaging data using GPS based
locations. These maps helped to identify the parts of channels where higher seepage rates were occurring.
Doppler flow metres were then used to measure inflow and outflow of hotspot reaches of channels to
cross-validate losses from channels. At the high seepage sites Idaho seepage metres were used to quantify
seepage rates. In this method a cylindrical bell is pushed into the bottom of side of a channel and is connected
by tubing to a reservoir and gauge located on the water surface. As water seeps from the bell, the change in
pressure in the reservoir is measured by the gauge.
EM31, Idaho seepage metre and groundwater lithology and quality data from a MODFLOW model were
used to train an artificial neural network (ANN) model (Khan et al., 2004c). Once trained, the network
can be used for predicting seepage rates in channels.
Study of on-farm conveyance losses on nine farms shows that seepage losses vary from 1 to 4 percent of the
total water supplied which can be more than 60 ML/yr (equivalent to 4 percent loss) for a studied farm.
Seepage losses computed for over 700 km length of channels in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area show that
seepage losses are over 40 000 ML/yr and evaporation losses are over 12 500 ML/yr. The total losses in
given channel reaches vary widely and can be from 1 to 30 percent of the water supplies and from 0.2 to 9
percent per km length.
Canal lining and piping options were considered for saving conveyance losses from channels.
Ladder of water savings
The possible on- and off-farm water savings can be summarized in the form of steps of a ladder of increasing
on-farm and off-farm water savings (Figure 4) and water benefits. It is important to recognize that some steps
are a prerequisite for the next water use efficiency level. For example, to realize on-farm water savings it is
crucial to implement soil and groundwater and flow monitoring programmes, to ensure irrigation levels are
being matched with the crop water requirement, at the same time considering conversion to high-tech irrigation.
Similarly, for realizing off-farm water-saving options it is vital to know how much water is being delivered
in space and time before piping/lining of channels. It is important to reduce the conveyance difference and
narrow the wide gap between the gross diversions from rivers to deliveries on-farm by installing state-ofthe-art monitoring and delivery systems as a part of the modern irrigation infrastructure.
$50 to > $200/ML recharge
reduction in abatement cost
Laser leveling
0.3 to 2.5 ML/ha
0.1 to 3 ML/ha
Soil + groundwater
monitoring
Water Saved
On-Farm Water
Saving Option
v.
En efit
Ben
On-farm
nv
est
me
nt
gi
sin
rea
Inc
Figure 4. Ladder of possible water savings in an irrigation area
fits
ene
b
ter
gw
Inc
in
eas
Reduced subsurface drainage

Reduced surface drainage
0.1 to 0.4 ML/ha
Irrigation flow
monitoring
207
Reduced accessions to
watertable. Reduce salinity
Lining on-farm
channels
Off-farm
v.
En efit
Ben
1 to 4% of supply
Reduced accessions
to watertable
Off-Farm Water
Saving Option
0.1 to 2.2 ML/ha

Converting flood
to sprinkler
Reduced surface
runoff + access
to watertable
Water Saved
Match demand
with supply
100 to 200 GL
Investment in
monitoring +
delivery
Reduced accessions
to watertable
10 to 50 GL
Sealing of
Sealing
leaky channels
15 to 70 GL
Piping of
channels
20 to 50 GL
Reducing
evaporation losses
Converting flood
to drip
Reduced subsurface drainage

Reduced surface drainage
Incentives for
efficient water
users
Promotion of water efficient community
10 to 30% increase
in water security
2.0 to 4.0 ML/ha
Enhanced production and environmental benefits

at local, regional and national levels
Provision of
environmental
eco-services
3. Economic issues
To target on-farm and regional water savings it is hypothesized that the marginal costs for saving irrigation
water will increase with the volume of water saved and there is a possibility to formulate irrigation
water-saving cost curves for traditional or alternative different irrigation technologies to help shift these
cost curves to lower costs as illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows a simplified schematic of the marginal
costs (MC) and benefits (MB) for the current cropping systems. X represents the current viable levels of
water savings that can be shifted to the right through the low-cost alternative technology.
Optimal Level of Savings

1 000+
Cost of Saving Water
With Current Technology
MB, MC ($/ML)
Returns on current crops
Alternative
Technology
For Saving Water
20
300 000
X?
Total ML Saved (ML)
Figure 5. Costbenefit curves for water-saving technologies

The economic analysis of on-farm conversions to save a ML of water increases with the total savings is shown
in Figure 6. Typical capital costs to save a ML of water vary from less than $A2000/ML to over $A7000/ML
depending on soil type, crop and irrigation technologies used.
Break-even analysis (not presented here) shows that the break-even years for conversion from flood to the
pressurized irrigation systems are too long (greater than 15 years). There is a need to reduce the break-even
period by considering leasing of water for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixed
period of five to ten years after which the water can be returned back to the farmer and the government can
then lease the next lot of water from another group of farmers. This will help remove barriers to the adoption
of irrigation technologies by moving farmers and irrigation area to the next step of the irrigation efficiency
ladder, reducing local and regional environmental impacts and securing water for better ecological futures.
The economic analysis of alternative water-saving technologies for channels shows that the cost of saving
a ML of water increases with the total savings, as shown in Figure 7. Typical capital costs to save 1 ML of
water vary from less than $A500/ML to over $A4000/ML depending on losses per unit length and the seepage
reduction method used.
In Australia there is wide feeling that water savings that cost more than $A1000/ML are not viable. The
break-even analysis of different channel lining materials by Khan et al (2004b) shows that the price of saved
water on an annual basis needs to be from $A30 to over $A200 to break-even within the design life of the
project. This investment can be achieved in two ways: either by using the saved water on higher value crops
or by including saving costs as part of the overall water supply charges with a proportionate cost sharing
arrangement. For example, water delivery charges will increase by $A5 to $A15/ML/season to provide water
208
7 000
6 000
Capital Cost ($/ML)
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
Subsurface Drip
Lateral Move
1 000
Central Pivot (towed)

Central Pivot (fixed)
0
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
Total Water Saving (ML)
Figure 6. Capital investment and total water savings by high-tech irrigation technologies in MIA
4 500
Capital Cost ($/ML) Saved
4 000
Bentonite
Rice Hull Ash
Water Sludge
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
0
8 000
16 000
24 000
Total (ML) Saved
Figure 7. Capital investment curves for saving seepage losses
209
32 000
40 000
more efficiently (the current water delivery charges are less than $A20/ML/season). This will reduce water
logging and salinity abatement costs also (current estimate for water logging and salinity abatement are $A10
to $A200/ML or recharge/yr). The proportional cost to be paid by the farmer may be less than discussed here
if it can be shared with the wider environmental beneficiaries. There is a need to promote a water efficient
culture through a preferential rights of access by providing better level of security to farmers and irrigation
investing in water-saving technologies.
4. Institutional issues
Who saves and who owns the water losses
One of the key impediments to achieving real water savings is the issue of ownership of losses and how to
reallocate on-farm and off-farm water savings. In New South Wales, conveyance losses are collectively
owned by the farmers through the privatized irrigation companies through a conveyance allowance. For
example, there is a provision in the Murrumbidgee Water Sharing Plan (Department of Land and Water
Conservation, 2003) for a conveyance access component for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Company up to
243 000 ML to make up for the transmission loss in water accounting (Clauses 26 and 40). Similarly, farmers
are given water entitlements irrespective of the actual crop water use. This water entitlement is used to irrigate
crops and results in evaporation and deep percolation losses. If farmers invest in new technologies to save
water losses they may like to increase their area of production or sell the saved water in the open market.
Institutional complications are caused by the common pool nature of the irrigation supply infrastructure and
deep drainage below the root zone. This may lead to lack of collective action. Managing irrigation systems
requires coordinating actions of many users sharing the same resources of water and irrigation infrastructure.
Users receiving the direct benefit are likely to ignore the effect of their actions on the common pool when
pursuing their self-interest, therefore this tragedy of the commons is likely to place environmental
sustainability of surface and groundwater and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure resources at risk.
To explore the reasons for the lack of action by farmers and irrigation companies reference is made to the
long break-even years (greater than 15 years) to achieve net profit from investment for conversion from flood
to the pressurized irrigation systems in the case of the Murrumbidgee Catchment. Farmers also have a lack
of interest in permanently giving up their water entitlements in exchange for capital incentives for new
technology because of the uncertainty arising from current and proposed water reforms.
There may be a possibility to reduce the break-even period by considering private-public investment models
for leasing of water for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixed period of five to
ten years after which the water can be returned back to the owner and government can then lease the next
lot of water from another group of farmers. This will help remove barriers to the adoption of irrigation
technologies by moving farmers and irrigation area to the next step of the irrigation efficiency ladder, reducing
local and regional environmental impacts and securing water for better ecological futures.
A business case for achieving water savings at the farm, regional and basin level has already been established
by the Pratt Water Feasibility Study in the Murrumbidgee Catchment which asks for a uniform national water
efficiency and environmental regulatory framework using the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG)
framework (Pratt Water Group, 2005).
Recently the Australian Government initiated a National Water Commission (NWC) to drive the reforms faster.
At the water distribution and on-farm level, the focus of reform and research is on the identification and
reduction of leakage and water losses, the determination of water benefits and improved water accounts
(the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), for example has a $A20 million
Flagship Project focusing on these and related water issues), improved efficiency of water delivery systems
including the change over from gravity-fed to pressurized delivery systems and more optimal design of
irrigation requirement and delivery to the root zone, as well as on the development of market-based instruments
to facilitate improved natural resource management. However, there are still major differences in productivity
across farms, so considerably more effort is also required at identifying the biophysical, management practice
and social reasons behind this variability in order to get all enterprises working more productively.
210
5. Conclusions and way forward

In order to achieve true water savings a systems approach is necessary to target real water-savings and to
remove technical, economic and institutional barriers.
A systems approach adopted in the Murrumbidgee Catchment showed accounted losses greater than 300 GL
can be saved (Khan et al., 2004b and c). The on-farm and off-farm water-saving costs vary from less than
$A50/ML to well over $A5000/ML. Such investments can be possible either by using the saved water on
higher values crops or by including saving costs as part of the overall water supply charges with a proportionate
cost sharing arrangement. There is a need to reduce the break-even period by considering leasing of water
for the environment from farmers at around $A300/ML for a fixed period of five to ten years after which the
water can be returned back to the owner and government can then lease the next lot of water from another
group of farmers.
If the water-saving technologies are considered on their own; costs involved will discourage substantial
investments by the individual farmers and irrigation companies. This is mainly because the irrigation supply
systems represent a shared and jointly owned common pool resource. There is a possibility of inaction among
local, regional and national actors leading to market failure and the classic tragedy of the commons. Institutional
reforms aimed at minimizing the risk of market failure driven by the tragedy of the commons are required to
secure a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
Because of lower commodity prices farmers and irrigation companies on their own will be unable to achieve
water savings. Unless water-saving costs and benefits are shared by all players in a catchment the real water
savings are not possible. Private-public investment models aimed at providing preferential access rights
to those who save water by investing in water-saving technologies may be one of the possible ways forward.
Acknowledgments
Data inputs from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, NSW Department of Primary Industries
and Irrigation Companies are acknowledged. Funding support from the ACIAR, Pratt Water Group and
CSIROs Water for a Healthy Country Flagship is appreciated.
References
Beecher, G., McLeod, G.D., Pritchard, K.E. & Russell, K. 1995. Final report, benchmarks and best management
practices for irrigated cropping industries in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin, NRMS I 5045.
Department of Land and Water Conservation. 2003. Water sharing plan for the Murrumbidgee regulated river water
source 2003 Order.
Khan S., Rana T. & Blackwell, J. 2004a. Can irrigation be sustainable? Proceedings of the 4th International Crop
Science Conference. Brisbane New directions for a diverse planet. 4th International Crop Science Conference.
26 September 1 October 2004 (available at http://www.regional.org.au).
Khan S., Rana T., Beddek R., Blackwell J., Paydar Z. & Carroll, J. 2004b. Whole of catchment water and salt
balance to identify potential water-saving options in the Murrumbidgee catchment. Pratt Water Group Water
Efficiency Feasibility Project (available at http://www.napswq.gov.au).
Khan S., Akbar S., Rana T., Abbas A., Robinson D., Dassanayke D., Hirsi I., Blackwell J., Xevi, E. & Carmichael, A.
2004c. Hydrologic economic ranking of water-saving options Murrumbidgee Valley. Report to Pratt Water Group
Water Efficiency Feasibility Project (available at http://www.napswq.gov.au).
Khan, S., Akbar, S., Rana, T., Abbas, A., Robinson, D., Paydar, Z., Dassanayke, D., Hirsi, I., Blackwell, J.,
Xevi, E. & Carmichael, A. 2005a. Off-and on-farm savings of irrigation water. Murrumbidgee Valley water
efficiency feasibility project. Water for a healthy country flagship report, 16 pp., CSIRO, Canberra, (available at
http://www.cmis.csiro.au).
211
Khan, S., Rana, T., Beddek, R., Blackwell, J., Paydar, Z. & Carroll, J. 2005b. Whole-of-catchment water and salt
balance. Identifying potential water saving and management options in the Murrumbidgee catchment. Water for
a Healthy Country report, 16 pp., CSIRO, Canberra, (available at http://www.cmis.csiro.au).
Khan S., Mu J., Hu Y., Rana T. & Zhanyi, G. 2005c. Systems approaches to achieve real water savings in Australia
and China. 19th International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, 1018 September 2005, Beijing, China.
Khan S. Mu J., Jamnani M.A., Hafeez, M. & Zhanyi, G. 2005d. Modeling country water futures using food security
and environmental sustainability approaches. Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the Modelling and Simulation
Society of Australia and New Zealand. 1215 December 2005.
MIA & Districts Land and Water Management Plan Working Group. 1997. MIA & districts and water management
plan, Griffith.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC). 1997. Inland agriculture, best management practices and benchmarking
study. Inland Agriculture Pty. Ltd. in association with Hutchins Agronomic Services, Darlington Point.
NSW Dept. of Agriculture. 2003. Murrumbidgee Catchment irrigation profile. Written and compiled by Meredith Hope
and Marcus Wright.
Pratt Water Group. 2005. The business of saving water. Report of the Murrumbidgee Valley Water Efficiency Feasibility
Project. Report prepared under the Pratt Water Murrumbidgee Project a collaborative venture funded jointly
by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments under the National Action Plan for Salinity & Water Quality, and
by Pratt Water Ltd.
212
The evolution of canal control from an operator perspective

Herve Plusquellec14
The adoption of modern technologies for the operation of medium and large surface irrigation systems has
been slow in most developing countries and especially in rice-based systems despite the advantages of these
technologies. No engineer uses a ruler or a typewriter any more in the region. Yet most irrigation canals are
operated using century-old technology. There are many reasons for that situation, among them:
O
the perception by the irrigation community during the last 20 years that the main causes of the poor
performance of irrigation projects were related to deficiencies in management and related institutional
problems rather than technology of irrigation;
many irrigation agencies cling to outdated standards and often resist changes proposed by external
experts;
most consulting firms have no contractual motivation and financial incentives to introduce new
concepts and control equipment;
a number of pilot projects for technology transfer have failed in the past;
appropriate design is much more complicated than most engineers, administrators and donors assume;
and
designers are rarely confronted with the consequences of how their designs function once they are
installed.
Most civil engineers are well trained in structural engineering and construction techniques, but not in the
practical and theoretical aspects of unsteady flow hydraulics that are the norm in most irrigation systems.
They are also unfamiliar with the constraints of the end user, i.e. on-farm irrigation management requirements.
There is now some evidence that the achievements of the institutional and policy reforms with a main focus
on participatory management (reforms of irrigation agencies and integrated water management supported by
donors in many countries) are far below the expected benefits. It is now recognized that physical changes
and reforms have to be closely linked to provide the expected benefits in terms of water saving, increased
efficiency and higher agricultural productivity. This is particularly valid for rice-based systems in Southeast
Asia.
Many irrigation systems in this region have been designed for rice cultivation during the monsoon season
when water efficiency is not a major concern. Canals were designed to operate at or near full supply with no
consideration for operation at less than this. These systems cannot be operated efficiently as they are, whatever
the type of management. The results are excessive releases of water during the wet season and lower than
expected dry season cultivation. For example, dry season irrigation was introduced in the lower Chao Phraya
Basin in Thailand in the late 1960s and extended to the entire area in just a few years, leading to frequent
shortages of water in the basin. Crop diversification, which is highly encouraged by governments, donors
and agronomic researchers, requires a management system based on frequent irrigation and low applications
contrasting with the continuous flow application commonly used in the region.
Most of the irrigation systems in the region have been designed for manual local operation and equipped
with undershot gates. (Figure 1) These systems are known to be the most difficult systems to operate because
of the large number of gates to operate and the frequency of adjustments at least three to four daily
required to provide a reliable service to the users (Figure 2).
Overoptimistic assumptions on system efficiency have been adopted by consulting firms at the feasibility
stage. Overall project efficiencies adopted for donor-supported projects in the region were 50 percent or above.
14
Consultant, Former World Bank Irrigation Adviser.
213
Audit and impact evaluation studies carried out years after completion indicated that the efficiencies of
rice-based canal systems in the region rarely exceed 35 percent. The high design values cannot be achieved
with the physical control infrastructure in place. In some projects, water lost in the upper parts of the project
is re-captured through pumping from the drainage system by the users downstream, increasing the overall
efficiency of the project area to a value close to or above the design value (Figure 3). However, that practice
has a high cost for the downstream users, and it limits their potential productivity because of the unreliability
of their source of water.
Figure 1. Thailand, Mae Khlong Project: Poorly

understood operation of constant head orifice
(CHO)
Figure 2. Iran, Duruzan Project: Manual

operation of a gated cross-regulator
Figure 3. Viet Nam: Re-use of drainage water by Figure 4. Nepal: Traditional irrigation systems
the basket method
using the principle of proportional distribution
through flow dividers
Figure 5. Pakistan, Northwest Frontier Province, Figure 6. California: Cross-regulator equipped

Lower Swat Project: Modern flow dividers
with flashboard
214
This paper describes how the technology of water control has evolved over the years and discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of the modern technologies for application in the context of rice-based irrigation
systems.
Evolution of canal control

Traditional small and medium scale irrigation systems have been built by groups of farmers in many countries
around the world. Management and construction of these systems are based, generally, on well-established
water rights. In the absence of upstream seasonal regulation of water resources, the natural diverted flow
was shared between subgroups of farmers through flow dividers, whatever the incoming flow (Figures 4
and 5).
Local manual control

With the construction of large reservoirs, the scale of irrigation systems took a wider dimension and the
management of the water resources became an issue. Irrigation systems built before the mid-1950s were mostly
equipped with simple flashboard devices to regulate the water level at judicious points and the offtakes were
equipped with simple sliding gates. Most of the irrigation schemes in the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia,
built in the 1920s and still operated with that control equipment, are now undergoing a modernization process
using the most advanced equipment (Figure 6).
Because the handling of the boards is risky and time consuming, they were replaced progressively by undershot
sliding or radial gates. This change was progress from a mechanical point of view but has the hydraulic
disadvantage of increasing the sensitivity of operation of the canal systems. This change was made in the
irrigation systems of Indonesia concurrently with the replacement of simple offtakes by overshot type gates
(Figure 7). That arrangement of undershot regulators with overshot offtakes is the worst combination since
the systems are now highly sensitive to any change of incoming flow.
Local manual control takes into account only local status data, whereas optimum operation requires knowledge
of the status over a wider area. No operator can be expected to master the interaction between all the parameters
of a complex system. Other shortcomings of manual control are the degree of dedication and motivation of
the operating staff and their ability to resist pressure from the farmers and the accessibility of the control
sites in all-weather conditions.
Automatic hydraulically operated gates

The difficulty of operation of a manually operated system encouraged the development of automatic
hydraulically operated gates. Modern automatic control of gates may have begun in the 1920s when
automatically-controlled leak gates, (known as Danaidean gates) were installed on the main canals of the
Turlok irrigation project in California and on the San Carlos Project in Arizona. The Turlok gates built of
hardwood are still in operation nearly 100 years after their installation (Figure 8). A similar gate was installed
in the Red River Delta in Viet Nam in the 1930s. A French company developed a series of float operated
gates to maintain upstream (AMIL) or downstream constant flow (AVIO and AVIS) in the late 1930s
(Figure 9). These gates were widely used in the Mediterranean countries (Italy, the Middle East, North Africa,
Spain) and elsewhere on a smaller scale. The company also developed modular devices to solve the technical
problem of delivering a constant flow from a canal to another one of lower order or from a canal to users,
despite the variations of upstream water level (Figure 10).
Concurrently, automatic flap gates were developed in the Netherlands to maintain an upstream constant water
level (Figure 11). The design of flap gates has been revised recently by ITRC from California (Figure 12).
Passive concrete structures, known as long crested weirs, have been developed to limit the variations of
upstream water level by increasing the length of the weir. These passive structures do not meet the definition
215
Figure 7. Undershot gate in Indonesia
Figure 8. Turlok gate built of hardwood
Figure 9. Automatic float-operated upstream

control level gates
Figure 10. Morocco, Doukkala Project: Modular

distributors providing nearly constant flows
Figure 11. Dominican Republic: Automatic flap

gate providing controlling upstream level
Figure 12. California: Combination of automatic

ITRC flap gates and overflow section
of automation.15 They are designed to limit the variations of upstream level and their designs are highly
versatile. They have been designed either in V or W shape, oriented upstream or downstream, alone or in
combination with under-shot gates (Figures 13 and 14).
15
Canal automation refers to a closed loop in which a gate or pump changes its position/setting in response to a water level,
flow rate, or pressure because that level/rate/pressure is different from the intended target value. Closed loop means that the action is
performed without any human intervention. The automation may be performed through hydraulic, electrical, electronic, or
a combination of these means. (Burt and Piao, 2002, p. 1).
216
The development of hydraulic gates has considerably simplified the operation of canal irrigation systems
and reduced the labour costs. The only adjustments of the gates are the openings and closings of the modular
offtakes. However, there are some limitations. The two possible canal control logics with local automatic
hydraulic control are upstream and local downstream control. Upstream control requires the preparation of
an elaborate irrigation scheduling based either on the individual farm orders or on considerable field data
and meteorological data collected by the operator and estimates of efficiency and time of transmission. The
latter is used in most countries in the region. Downstream control eliminates the need to prepare an irrigation
schedule, but its application is limited by the slope of the existing canals and the feasibility of raising banks
of canals to convert them to level top canals (Figure 15).
Upstream control is the standard canal control logic in South Asia. Operational losses estimated at about 5 to
10 percent of the flow diverted into a canal under upstream control are needed to provide a reliable service
to the downstream area because of the uncertainty in some hydraulic parameters, and unexpected changes in
irrigation requirements. These losses are inherent to upstream control. Some schemes in South Asia or
elsewhere have no operational losses but most of the time irrigation water is not delivered to the tail end
users. Some additions to the infrastructure of existing systems can reduce operational losses, such as
construction of compensation reservoirs and interceptor canals. This is an important component of the strategy
of modernization in the western United States.
Figure 13. Sri Lanka: Simple long-crested weir

regulator
Figure 14. California, Turlok irrigation district:

Double long crested weir
Figure 15. Principle of upstream and

downstream level control
Figure 16. Malaysia, Kemubu Project: A perfect

example of a composite regulator a long crested
section associated with two gates used for silt
control and large variations of flow
217
A feature of the local hydraulic control is that the target level is set once the gates are installed (in contrast to
gates under local controllers, as discussed in the next section). Some operators consider this as a drawback.
The cost of the float-operated gates is high compared to conventional gates because of the weight of steel
needed for the construction of the float, the counterweights, the leaf gates and other elements. However,
a simple investment cost comparison is not acceptable. Cost of operation and water saving should be included
in a costbenefit analysis.
Hydraulic regulation was adopted during the planning and design of the Kemubu Project in Malaysia in the
1970s and still operates satisfactorily (Figure 16). That design would have been a correct option for some of
the new large-scale projects implemented in the region, such as the Lam Pao, Nam Moon in Northeast Thailand
or in the Mae Khlong Basin.
The modernization of existing irrigation systems using hydraulic automation has some limitations. Downstream
control with level top canals is not feasible where canals are too steep (Figure 17). Use of modular distributors
requires hydraulic head not always available in flat rice-based areas. Flap gates cannot operate if submerged
downstream.
Local controllers
The above hydraulic canal control technologies developed by European countries were not adopted in the
USA, possibly because of the difficulty of adapting them to the constraints of existing systems. The design
standards of the Bureau of Reclamation, widely introduced in the region in the 1960s, are based essentially
on the use of manually operated undershot gates. Canal automation developed in the USA with the advent of
electronics and progress in telecommunications. The first applications of local controllers occurred in the
western USA in the late-1950s. These installations were electromechanical gate controllers to maintain
a constant upstream water level at cross-regulator (Figures 18 and 19). In the 1960s, attempts were made to
maintain the water level downstream from the structure through local automatic control. Since the water level
sensors were distant from the control gate and, in most cases, upstream of the next control gate,
communications were required (Figure 20). Local downstream controllers required better control logic to
deal with the time lag between the gate and the sensor. Eventually, electronics replaced the electromechanical
equipment (Figures 21, 22 and 23) in the form of programmable logic controllers or PLC. There are now
many successful applications of local controllers. Applications include mainly control of flow at offtakes and
control of local upstream water levels. There are many fewer applications to downstream local or remote
water levels because flow disturbances in individual pools, which could cause instabilities in control, are
difficult to eliminate.
Local automatic control alone, whether it is activated by hydraulic or electronic action, has the operational
disadvantage that the field conditions are not continuously known by the headquarters unless a reporting system
by field staff is established. However, this is cumbersome and hazardous in the case of an emergency.
Centralized monitoring and control

The advent of high capacity computers and progress in communications in the 1970s opened the door for
centralized control of large canal irrigation systems in which a number of remote sites are linked through
a central control centre.
Some of the applications in the USA and France are well known. In the USA, the large conveyance canals
for interbasin water transfer, the California Aqueduct and the Central Arizona Project, are operated under
remote monitoring and remote manual control.
Supervisory control consists of bringing system-wide information from remote sites to a single master station.
Supervisory monitoring can give a water master the power to see his whole project without leaving his office.
Supervisory control consisting of changing the target points of local controllers empowers a water master to
make rapid coordinated changes at key structures. Supervisory control was implemented in the 1970s at several
218
Figure 17. Iran, Guilan Project: A double long

crested weir on the main canal with a 100 m3/s
capacity
Figure 18. California, Friant-Kern Canal:

A Littleman controller of the lateral canal offtake
in the background
Figure 19. Details of Littleman controller:

An outdated electromechanical technology
Figure 20. Schematic of distant downstream

control
Figure 21. SCADA site: Electronic controller
Figure 22. Canada, Alberta: Automatic control of

an overshot gate
irrigation systems, such as the Salt River Project (Figure 25) and the Coachella Irrigation District. With further
advances in equipment, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) has now spread to a number of
irrigation districts in the western States, such as the Turlok Irrigation District, the Imperial Irrigation District
and many others.
The increased capacity of computers in the 1970s made it possible to develop simulation models to study
channels under unsteady flow conditions. The well-known dynamic regulation of the Canal de Provence
219
providing irrigation water and raw domestic supply to a large area in Southern France is based on a large
simulation model and a predictive method of water demand (Figures 26, 27 and 28). Dynamic control was
adopted for the King Abdullah canal in Jordan and for the Majalgaon canal project in Maharashtra State,
India. Implementation of dynamic control is still under implementation in the Narmada Project in India.
Few centralized projects or SCADA projects have been implemented in developing countries and many of
them have failed for various reasons. The most critical phase in an automation project is implementation: the
Figure 23. California, Yuma Irrigation District:

SCADA site with local controller
Figure 24. Schematic of a canal under supervisory

control
Figure 25. Arizona, Salt River Project: SCADA

master station with manual setting of site target
conditions
Figure 26. France, Canal de Provence: Central

control of the SCP system under dynamic
regulation
Figure 27. Canal de Provence: Real time display Figure 28. Morocco, Office du Haouz,
of the conditions of the canal and reservoir system Marrakech: Central control of the Haouz canal
220
transition from design to implementation, which includes the integration of hardware and software components,
installation and testing. Shortcomings in electronic/communications based automation are possible at all stages:
design, implementation and operation, control algorithm limitation, poor integration of components,
malfunctioning of equipment, lack of training of operation staff, lack of spare parts and poor maintenance.
The problem of simulation is more challenging than earlier thought. The complexities of going from an
algorithm to actual implementation in the field should not be underestimated.
The right social environment is also essential for implementation of automation, as risk of vandalism could
preclude the adoption of any advanced technology. In developing countries, it is strongly recommended to
start with simple automation or SCADA projects and to expand progressively.
Breakthroughs in canal control technology

Despite the advances in technology, the design, implementation and operation of local controllers, SCADA
and automated centralized control has been the domain of a few researchers and automation experts until
recently. The industry is now developing friendly user canal control equipment. For example, a company
from Australia has addressed the shortcomings in electronic based automation by developing integrated control
equipment in a single set including an overshot gate, level and gate position sensors, motor, battery and solar
panel, electronics with software (Figure 29). This equipment is easy to install. Its operation through a keypad
and a liquid crystal display is user-friendly. The keypad is used to navigate between various menus (remote
or local control) and control parameters (flow, upstream or downstream level control) and set point entry
screens. These gates can be used under local control, remote control from a central office or integrated in
a total channel control (TCC). These gates are also installed at farm outlets providing a much more accurate
measurement of delivered volumes than the old Dethridge wheel (10 percent). After a few years of piloting,
the technology is now being applied extensively in Australia to modernize the 80-year-old systems mostly
operated with flashboards (Figure 30). Its application is now spreading to irrigation districts in the western
USA (Turlok and Imperial Valley Districts) (Figure 31). TCC combined with interactive voice response
(IVR) to place farmer orders and the new generation of gates provides an integrated package to move from
century-old to twenty-first century technology. Its success however is based on the absence of vandalism.
Conclusions and recommendations
The performance of rice-based irrigation systems in Southeast Asia is constrained by deficiencies in both
management and physical infrastructure. The existing schemes often designed for full supply or without
operation in mind cannot be operated efficiently. Experience indicates that substantial progress in performance
can be achieved only if both aspects are addressed.
O
There is no technology that is suitable in all situations to improve the performance of existing irrigation
systems. Several considerations have to be made during planning and design of the modernization
process: the technical level of the staff and farmers, the social environment and the risk of vandalism,
the conditions of the existing hydraulic infrastructure, the source and level of financing. However,
the large variety of logics, software and equipment available gives the flexibility to allow design of
an optimum system that takes into account all the conditions of a particular project.
Design should be done with operation in mind. Operation should not be dependent on repetitive
measurements of water levels and flows. Operational procedures should be understood by the operation
staff, not necessarily the design process.
Maximum use of hydraulic control technology should be made to limit the number of key sites where
SCADA would be needed.
Simple modifications to the infrastructure, such as the construction of long-crested wing sections to
undershot structures, or the construction of interceptor canals could provide substantial benefits in
operation.
221
There are two potential disadvantages, which need to be considered at the early stages of a modernization
process:
O
In some areas, vandalism is widespread. Some automatic water control devices are highly vulnerable
to vandalism because they can be used or sold, for example solar panels and antenna. In some cases,
vandalism reflects nothing more than the dissatisfaction of the users with the present service
(Figure 32).
A basic feature of automation is the ability to vary the discharge. This may increase the risk of
deposition in irrigation canals conveying water with a high sediment load. That constraint limits the
application of automation to irrigation districts in the Indus Basin and the Yellow River Basin.
Figure 29. Australia: A RUBICON gate in the

factory ready for site transportation
Figure 31. California, Imperial Irrigation

District: A cross-regulator equipped with three
RUBICON gates
Figure 30. Australia, Murray Darling Basin:

A cross-regulator equipped with two RUBICON
gates
Figure 32. Mexico, Mayo Irrigation District:

Vandalized long crested weirs, most likely because
the basic principle of upstream control operation
by excess was not applied
Reference
Burt, C.M. & Piao, X. 2002. Advances in PLC-based canal automations. Paper presented at the July 912, 2002 USCID
conference on benchmarking irrigation system performance using water measurement and water balances. San
Luis Obispo, CA. ITRC Paper No. P02-001 (available at http://www.itrc.org).
222
Sustainability in times of change evolving irrigation institutions

to meet changing demands
Ian W. Makin16
Abstract
Irrigation has played, and will continue to play, an important role in securing the food supply for the rapidly
expanding population of the world. However, the irrigation sector must increasingly develop approaches to
the design and implementation of management and infrastructure that can provide flexible and responsive
services to the agricultural sector. The need for greater consideration of the impacts of agricultural development
on the broader environment and the impacts on the livelihood systems of the communities in the vicinity
will increasingly constrain the freedom of action available when designing interventions, particularly in the
irrigated agriculture sector.
A major shift in thinking is required to move away from a distinction between the development and operational
phases in the life cycle of an irrigation system. Instead, irrigated agriculture should assume that irrigation
schemes are in both phases at all times, after initial completion of infrastructure development. The development
plan for each scheme must focus on achieving the strategic goals set for the sector, and the surrounding
community. This places irrigation schemes in the broader river basin and socio-economic contexts, whereby
decisions on investment in the irrigation system are considered not only in terms of the improvements in
system performance but also in terms of their contribution to improving livelihoods and minimizing
environmental degradation.
Although interventions made at various times in the management of water for agriculture are done to achieve
sustainable increases in production, in reality sustainability is achieved by continuous changes in management
and infrastructure designs. It is by being flexible and responding to changing conditions and opportunities
that agricultural production can be maintained and rural livelihoods can be sustained and improved. In many
cases the interventions are, in themselves, not sustainable, but rather are a stepping stone that helps the
transition from one form of management to another.
Introduction
Management of enterprises, whether public or private sector, must operate keeping in mind that change is
the only constant. Irrigation is a major undertaking, whether for an individual farmer diverting water from
a small stream to irrigate a few hundred square metres; or for a government irrigation department mobilizing
international financing to develop or modernize a system serving many hundreds of farm households. Across
the full spectrum of irrigation systems the challenges of adapting irrigation to the vagaries of the weather,
pest and weed infestations, labour availability and dynamic markets are apparent to everyone involved.
There is widespread recognition that government bureaucracies are not the most well suited to manage in
situations that require flexible and adaptive responses to changing conditions. Centrally financed irrigation
departments have found it increasingly difficult to sustain the recurrent expenditures required for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and are faced with a strong reluctance on the part of farmers to pay governments
for, what is often, a service not well matched with farming requirements. Lack of funds, poorly motivated
staff in O&M departments, and growing demands from farming communities for improved services have
encouraged governments to seek to restructure irrigation service providers through some form of management
transfer. Vermillion and Sagardoy (1999) identify three forms, summarized in Figure 1, noting that
decentralization provides water users with little management control and little improvement in irrigation
service. Irrigation transfer on the other hand provides greater authority to the water users, with increased
responsibility for decision-making and funding the costs of O&M.
16
Water Resources Engineer, Mekong Agriculture and Natural Environment Division, Asian Development Bank. The views expressed
in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank.
223
Low
High
Style of Management Reform
Decentralization
Government
management
role
Participatory irrigation
management
Farmers
management
roles
Irrigation management transfer
Distribution of management control
Figure 1. Illustration of distribution of management control with style of management

transformation
Changes in the relationship between users of irrigation systems and government officials have proceeded in
many developing countries over the past 20 years, and especially through the 1990s. These changes have
often been called management transfer, expressing the idea that some, or perhaps all, of the attributes of
management, such as operational decision-making, acquisition and application of resources, maintenance,
and in some cases ownership and responsibility for improvement of the facilities themselves, are moved from
the sphere of government officials to that of the local community.
New organizations have often had to be promoted among water-user communities but, although that aspect
of the change has received relatively high levels of attention, organizational development by itself is not
enough. Some countries, which have given high prominence to the promotion of new organizations of
irrigators, have experienced disappointment with subsequent results. The new organizations are in many cases
reported to have low effectiveness, and have difficulty in attracting the efforts and active support of their
communities. New organizations are frequently described as somewhat illusory or existing only on paper.
There are probably many reasons for this. One possible reason is that the planning of irrigation systems, and
of rehabilitation and upgrading of older systems, is frequently performed in a top-down, technocratic way,
and is not sufficiently influenced by the views of the users. Probably, a traditional view of the relationship
that should exist between the users and the officials responsible for technical management carries over into
the newer generation of organizational and institutional development projects.
Plusquellec (2002) reminds us that one conclusion from the E-mail conference on Participatory Irrigation
Management (JulyOctober 2001) was the importance of matching the management capacity of the irrigation
service provider with the infrastructure available for water distribution. Furthermore, it is essential that these
components are capable of providing the service the water users require. And, although the theme of the
current conference is rice-based irrigation, it is increasingly clear that the future of irrigated agriculture will
include increased demands for flexibility of service and increasingly differentiated demands for diversified
crops. How the distribution technology and management institutions in the large rice-based irrigation systems
of Southeast Asia will evolve to meet these challenges, in the face of changing economies, increasing
globalization of markets, climate change and the changing aspirations of rural communities, is a critical
question.
224
Gazing into a crystal ball

A prediction of how irrigation institutions will evolve to meet the challenges of the future is inevitably clouded
with the uncertainty of the unknown. However, if we consider the trends of recent years and if we make
some pragmatic assumptions about the nature of farming communities, we may have the basis to predict the
form that irrigated agriculture may evolve towards over the next 20 years.
Competition for water for uses other than agriculture will continue to increase in many river basins. As the
urban centres grow and industrial economies become more dominant in the region, agriculture will form
a smaller percentage of the national economy and water will be diverted to other uses. However, in the majority
of cases the impact on water available for agricultural production may be minimized by improvements in
irrigation efficiency through the adoption of improved technology and techniques. However, the demands
for high standards of water quality may place greater restrictions on agricultural water use to reduce the impacts
of non-point pollution from fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide applications. In many cases the use of these
inputs in the region remains low; however, increases in commercial farming enterprises can be expected to
result in increasing use of these inputs. Furthermore, lifestyle changes in urban centres can be expected to
create greater awareness of, and demands for access to, wetlands and forests. These ecosystems are water
users of the same magnitude as agricultural systems, and will also compete for land allocations.
Where opportunities to move out of agriculture to other employment exist, rural people, particularly the young
and better educated, are moving to take up these jobs. Timmer (2005) argues that preparing people to take
up non-farm employment is the strongest justification for investment in rural health and education in the
effort to eradicate rural poverty. Discussions with farmer families in many parts of the region will rarely
elicit the ambition to see their children engaged in agriculture; it is simply work that is too hard and too
unrewarding, even though there is often recognition that life is not easy outside the farm. There are already
signs that the average age of farmers is increasing, and the size of the average farming unit in irrigation schemes
is also growing, either through land acquisition or through rental to larger scale growers. The economies of
scale that these larger units provide is leading to increased farm mechanization. These trends can be expected
to continue, resulting in fewer farmers, operating increasingly commercial agricultural enterprises.
Timmer (2005) identifies another transformation which has happened in the region, but has been largely
unrecognized, in the expansion of vertically linked supply chains from farm through to retail outlets supplying
expanding urban populations with food. These supply chains are dominated by the retail supermarkets with
demands for high-quality produce meeting international standards of hygiene. The expansion of membership
of the World Trade Organization is opening the markets of the region to producers everywhere. For the local
producers to retain their share of the local market they will have to meet the quality, supply and price standards
of the retail markets. However, success in the local market will increasingly mean these products will also
meet international standards and thus open new global markets for the producers.
To service these commercialized irrigated farms the irrigation service provider (ISP) will be expected to provide
reliable and responsive services in return for payment of an irrigation service fee (ISF). The larger farmers
may invest part of the farm unit to provide local storage of water to protect their investment in higher value
food crops, i.e. not staple foods such as rice, from variations in irrigation supply.
In brief, rice will continue to be the dominant staple crop; however, we should expect that some of the
rice-based large irrigation systems will change over the next 10 to 20 years to have few farmers operating
larger farm units with a broader mix of crops supplying vertically linked market chains through rural
agro-processing centres. These transformations will happen where transport and communication infrastructure
has opened up the rural landscape and linked the producer centres to the consumers in the towns and cities
of the region and beyond.
In other schemes, where transport and communication remain less well developed, irrigation schemes will
continue to be the producers of staple grains for consumption and trade. The challenge for irrigation institutions
will remain to deliver reliable irrigation services to large numbers of small farmer units, probably best achieved
through the water user associations responsible for the full O&M costs of the schemes that supply their farms.
225
However, in these systems a greater proportion of the O&M costs will be met through contributions of labour
rather than through formal ISF payments.
ADB water policy and future irrigation institutions

The Asian Development Bank water policy (ADB, 2003) seeks to promote the achievement of higher irrigation
efficiencies in the context of river basins, through optimization of the performance of irrigation and drainage
systems. The policy recognizes:
O
O
O
the need to shift toward service oriented modes of operation of irrigation and drainage systems;
the importance of modernization of irrigation and drainage systems; and
the need to involve users in the modernization and operational processes.
The ADB water policy identifies the need to phase out subsidies for O&M of public irrigation and drainage
systems; and the need to establish virtuous cycles of investment, user charges, and O&M by autonomous
and accountable service agencies, with user representation. These will be essential to the establishment of
modernized irrigation and drainage systems. The phased turnover of responsibilities for distribution system
operation and maintenance to farmer groups is expected to improve system sustainability.
For the schemes where larger farms have evolved and diversified cropping for vertically integrated markets
is established, the ISP is likely to become a responsive client driven organization employing professional
irrigation operations staff using modern command and control infrastructure as envisaged in the ADB water
policy. Irrigation scheduling may become largely on-demand, although local on-farm storage may reduce
the need for this level of sophistication. The ISP is likely to be owned by the water users with water user
and river basin representation through a formal governance structure able to set policy; whereas routine O&M
is implemented by the ISP.
The ADB water policy also records the need to identify and protect the collective and individual rights and
responsibilities of water users (including poor and marginal farmers at the tail end of irrigation systems),
service providers, and public agencies. The vision of possible transformation of large-scale irrigation above
gives additional stress to this objective of the water policy. It is the poor and marginalized that are often the
least able to participate in the opportunities such transformations present. Where smallholder agriculture
remains the dominant farming system, the ISP will need to balance the demands of more commercial operators
with the need to provide a reliable service to all stakeholders.
One characteristic that will emerge in future irrigation institutions will be the adoption of asset management
plans for irrigation and drainage system maintenance planning. These techniques will supplant the use of
available annual maintenance funds to, nominally, maintain the system in the design conditions, and
a proportion of the funds will be set aside each year for incremental replacement of infrastructure to enable
the adoption of different management strategies; examples may include:
O
O
O
changing from open channels to pipelines to reduce seepage looses;

encouraging farmers to adopt higher technology application systems to reduce water use; and
introduction of automated control of remote structures to improve service delivery to users.
Under traditional management by centralized bureaucracies, such changes would require a specific, often
externally financed project. However, setting a goal of reducing water use by some specified amount over
a specified time allows system managers to prioritize the investments to achieve these goals through better
targeted maintenance and replacement planning. Where external funds become available these can be included
in the long-term plans without disrupting the management strategy. A consistent strategy gives the irrigation
system users greater confidence than is sometimes the case with the current decision-making norms that the
interventions are being made for their benefit. Through transparent decision-making in the allocation of
available funds to maintenance of the system, users are more likely to be willing to pay ISF, further
strengthening the virtuous cycle envisioned in the ADB water policy.
226
Conclusions
As new irrigation institutions emerge to manage irrigation schemes, a major shift in thinking is required to
move away from a distinction between the development and operational phases of a schemes life cycle (Makin,
2002). Instead, the irrigated agriculture sector should assume that all irrigation schemes are in both phases at
all times after initial completion of the infrastructure. The development plan for each scheme must focus on
achieving the strategic goals set for the sector, and the surrounding community. This places the irrigation
scheme in the broader river basin and socio-economic contexts, whereby decisions on investment in the
irrigation system are considered not only in terms of the improvements in system performance, but also in
terms of the contribution to improving livelihoods and minimizing environmental degradation.
Sustainable irrigation and drainage system operations will involve:
1. developing strategic management goals for the short- and medium-term planning of interventions to
address short- and medium-term management objectives, and responding flexibly to changing
circumstances in the medium-term system managers and sector planners will need to keep in mind
the wider socio-economic scene to ensure that interventions continue to address priority issues;
2. shifting from a focus on short-term operations and maintenance planning to development of asset
management plans focused on achieving given levels of water economy and productivity over the
planning horizon of 10 to 20 years;
3. using asset management plans to integrate recurrent and project budgets to achieve the strategic
development goals through incremental development; and
4. recognizing that sustainable increases in irrigation performance involve multiple partners in the
government and private sectors and in civil society. Irrigation must play a responsible part in the use
and protection of natural resources, most specifically land and water.
To achieve these goals will require the involvement of water users, civil society and river basin regulatory
authorities in the irrigation institutions that set the policy objectives for individual schemes. To deliver effective
irrigation and drainage services to water users in large irrigation systems, whether growing staple foods such
as rice and other grains or higher value diversified crops, will require professional irrigation service providers
to operate and maintain the delivery system. These adaptations to the institutions currently managing irrigation
services will go a long way to answering the observation (Molden and Makin, 1996) that both infrastructure
and institutional changes are required. Three basic elements: water rights, infrastructure, and management
institutions must be integrated and balanced in the design of both infrastructure and institutions. The
combination of management and infrastructure must match with the desired level of water delivery service.
Adequate institutional capacity of the irrigation agency, the local ISP organization and water users must be
in place to manage the designed infrastructure.
References
ADB. 2003. Water for all. The water policy of the Asian Development Bank. Manila.
Makin, I.W. 2002. Sustainable Irrigation Development. In Proceedings of Asian Productivity Organization workshop.
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Molden, D.J. & Makin, I.W. 1996. Institutional change in support of modernization and management transfer. In
Proceedings of FAO expert consultation on modernization of irrigation schemes: past experiences and future
options. FAO, Bangkok.
Plusqullec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the performance of irrigation projects. Emerging
modernization procedures and design standards. FAO, Bangkok.
Timmer, C. 2005. Agriculture and pro-poor growth: An Asian perspective. Centre for Global Development. Working
Paper No. 63 Washington, DC.
Vermillion, D.L. & Sagardoy, J.A. 1999. Transfer of irrigation management services. Guidelines. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 58, Rome.
227
Annexes
229
ANNEX I. Workshop Programme

Wednesday, 26 October 2005
08.0008.30
Session 1:
7th Floor
Grand
Ballroom
Registration (7th Floor)

Opening
Chair: Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation

System Management Officer, FAO
Rapporteur: Nguyen Tung Phong, VIWRR
08.3008.50
Introduction to the workshop
Thierry Facon,
Senior Water Management Officer, FAO
08.5009.10
Introduction of participants
09.1009.20
Opening speech
Dr Nguyen Dinh Ninh, Vice-Director,

Irrigation Department, MARD
09.2009.30
Opening speech
Dr Thai Lai, Director General,

Department of Water Resources
Management, MONRE
09.3010.00
Overview of large-scale irrigation systems in

Southeast Asia
Zhijun Chen,
Water Resources Development and
Conservation Officer, FAO
10.0010.15
Coffee Break
Session 2
7th Floor
Grand
Ballroom
Trends and challenges affecting large rice-based

irrigation systems in Southeast Asia: water
resources, agriculture and trade, socio-economic
development, environment
Chair: Dr Thai Lai,

Director General, Department of Water
Resources Management, MONRE
Rapporteur: Mr Thierry Facon
10.1510.45
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in

Agriculture: Rice, water and livelihoods chapter
Bas Bouman,
International Rice Research Institute
10.4511.15
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in

Agriculture: Rice, water and irrigation chapter
Hugh Turral,
International Water Management Institute
11.1511.45
Key trends affecting agricultural water resources

management in Southeast Asia
David Dawe,
Senior Food Systems Economist, FAO
11.4512.15
Governance, environment and livelihoods
John Dore, International Union for the

Conservation of Nature
12.1513.00
Plenary debate
13.0014.00
Lunch
Session 3:
5th floor
Country strategies, programmes and goals
Chair: Dr Andrew Noble, IWMI

Rapporteur: Zhijun Chen, FAO
14.0014.20
Viet Nam
Nguyen Dinh Ninh
14.2014.40
Indonesia
Dwi Kristianto, A. Tommy M. Sitompul
14.4015.00
Philippines
Proceso T. Domingo
15.0015.20
Malaysia
Mohd Abdul Nassir Bin Bidin
15.2015.40
Coffee Break
15.4016.00
Thailand
Chawee Wongprasittiporn
16.0016.20
Cambodia
Chann Sinath
16.2016.40
Laos
Phalasack Pheddara
16.4017.00
Myanmar
Maung Maung Naing
17.0018.00
Plenary debate
231
18.0018.30
Side Event (Plenary)

Irrigation Canal Operation FAO proposal for
a manual for Professionals
19.3021.00
Welcome dinner
Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation System

Management Officer, FAO
Thursday, 27 October 2005

Session 4:
5th floor
Identification of main drivers of change, typology

of large rice-based irrigation systems and likely
scenario for evolution
Chair: Peter McCornick,

Director for Asia, IWMI
Rapporteur: Jippe Hoogeveen,
Water Resources Officer, FAO
08.0008.15
Introduction
Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation systems

management Officer, FAO
08.1508.35
Present performance of large rice-based irrigation

systems
Thierry Facon, Senior Water Management

Officer, FAO
08.3508.55
Economics
Jeremy Berkoff
08.5509.15
Water saving
Shahbaz Khan, CSIRO
09.1509.35
Technology
Herv Plusquellec
09.3509.55
Institutions
Ian Makin, ADB
09.5510.20
Coffee break
10.2012.30
Breakout Group A
(Renault/Chen)
12.3013.30
Lunch
Session 5
Breakout Group B
(Barker/Khan)
Breakout Group C
(Tuong/Noble)
Field trip to the Dautieng/Cu Chi irrigation system
13.3014.30
Travel from Windsor Plaza hotel to Cu Chi
14.3015.00
Brief introduction on Dau Tieng system and operation

& maintenance of IMC
Mr Thanh, Deputy Director of Dau Tieng

IMC and
Mr Xuan, Director of Cu Chi IMC
15.0015.30
Questions by participants
Chair: Mr Ninh, MARD

Rapporteur: Mr Anh, VIWRR
15.3017.00
Thematic visit Group 1:

Operation and design:
modernization
17.0018.00
Travel from Cu Chi to Windsor Plaza Hotel
19.0021.00
Party, debriefing and debate on the Dautieng/

Cu Chi irrigation system

Evolution of agricultural water
demand and farming systems

Environment and biodiversity
Friday, 28 October 2005

Session 6:
5th floor
Synthesis of session 4. Present performance,

drivers of change and likely scenario for evolution
of large rice-based irrigation systems
Chair: Donny Azdan

Rapporteur: Madhusudan Bhattarai
08.0008.30
Presentation of findings and conclusions of session 4
Daniel Renault, FAO
08.3009.00
Plenary debate
Session 7:
5th floor
09.0010.30
Implications of scenarios on service and

performance objectives, management, institutions,
design and operation, financing and multiple roles
Breakout
Group D: Service,
roles and uses and
performance
objectives
(Bouman/Chen)
Breakout
Group E:
Management and
institutions
(Makin/Turral)
Chair: Mr Proceso T. Domingo

Rapporteur: Jippe Hoogeveen
Breakout
Group F: Design
and operation
(Plusquel/
Freeman)
232
Breakout
Group G:
financing
(Dawe/Facon)
Breakout
Group H:
New LS systems
(Dore/Bhattarai)
10.3010.45
Coffee break
10.4511.15
Intermediate discussion of group discussions
11.1513.00
Breakout
Group D: Service,
roles and uses and
performance
objectives
13.0014.00
Lunch
14.0015.00
Presentation of Group outputs
15.0015.30
Plenary debate
15.3015.45
Coffee break
Session 8:
5th floor
Breakout
Group E:
Management and
institutions
By rapporteurs of Groups D, E, F and G
Breakout
Group F: Design
and operation
Breakout
Group G:
financing
Breakout
Group H:
By rapporteurs of Groups D, E, F and G
Re-assessment of the likely evolution scenario and

identification of strategies, opportunities, priority
actions and possible initiatives for regional
collaboration
Chair: Mr Cuong Pham Hung

Rapporteur: Mohd Abdul Nassir Bin Bidin
15.4516.00
Presentation of questionnaire on previous

recommendations
Zhijun Chen, Water Resources

Development and Conservation Officer,
FAO
16.0016.45
Breakout Group D Breakout Group E Breakout Group F Breakout Group G Breakout Group H
16.4517.20
Presentation and discussion of Group Outputs
Session 9:
5th floor
Main conclusions and recommendations
Chair: Mr Jiravat Ratisoontorn

Rapporteur: Dr Hoanh Chu Thai, IWMI
17.2018.10
Presentation of main conclusions and

recommendations
Thierry Facon, Senior Water Management

Officer, FAO
18.1018.20
Concluding remarks
Mr Anh, Director, VIWRR
18.2018.30
Concluding remarks
Daniel Renault, Senior Irrigation System

Management Officer, FAO
233
ANNEX II: List of Participants

No. Title
Name
E-mail
Organization
Country
Mr
Herve Louis Paul

Plusquellec
plusquel@earthlink.net
Mr
Beau James Freeman
bfreeman@calpoly.edu
ITRC
Dr
Sundari Ramakrishna
sundari@wetlands.org.my
Wetlands International
Dr
Godaliyadde Gedara
Ariyarathna Godaliyadda
ggagodaliyadda@yahoo.com
Dr
Randolph Barker
brandy84332@yahoo.com
Cornell University/IWMI
Dr
Bas Antonius
Maria Bouman
b.bouman@cgiar.org
International Rice
Research Institute
Cuong Pham Hung
Cphamhung@worldbank.org
World Bank Country

Office
Viet Nam
Viet Nam
Sri Lanka
Mr
Doan Doan Tuan
doantuan@hotmail.com
Centre for Participatory

Irrigation Management,
VIWRR
Mr
Jeremy Berkoff
jeremyberkoff@mac.com
Independent Consultant
Proceso T. Domingo
administrator@nia.gov.ph
National Irrigation
Administration
Philippines
10
11
Dr
Donny Azdan
dmazdan@bappenas.go.id
BAPPENAS
Indonesia
12
Mr
Phonechaleun Nonthaxay
wrcc@laotel.com
Water Resources
Coordination Committee
Lao PDR
13
Mr
Phalasack Pheddara
phalasack@hotmail.com
Department of Irrigation
Lao PDR
14
Dr
Andrew Noble
a.noble@cgiar.org;
iwmi-sea@cgiar.org
IWMI SEA
15
Dr
Hoanh Chu Thai
C.Hoanh@cgiar.org
IWMI SEA
16
Mr
Jiravat Ratisoontorn
jiravat_r@hotmail.com
DWR
17
Mr
David Dawe
david.dawe@fao.org
FAO
18
Mr
Minh Cao Tuan
minh@mrcmekong.org
MRC
19
Mr
Hiroshi Okudaira
okudaira@mrcmekong.org
MRC
20
Mr
Nguyen Tuan Anh
icd@netnam.vn
VIWRR
21
Mr
John Dore
johndore@iucnt.org
IUCN
22
Ms
Chawee Wongprasittiporn chawee_w@yahoo.com
RID
Thailand
23
Dr
Dong Bin
dongbinh@public.wh.hb.cn
Wuhan Univeristy
China
Shahbaz Khan
shahbaz.khan@csiro.au
CSIRO Land and Water
Australia
24
Thailand
Viet Nam
25
Mr
Mohd Abdul Nassir

Bin Bidin
nassirbidin@water.gov.my
Ministry of Agriculture
and Agro-based Industry
Malaysia
26
Dr
Maung Maung Naing
ditc-irr@myanmar.com.mm,
socom-irr@myanmar.com.mm
Myanmar
27
Dr
Hugh Turral
h.turral@cgiar.org
IWMI
28
Dr
Roberto Clemente
clemente@ait.ac.th
AIT
29
Mr
Nguyen Dinh Ninh
Ninhnd.tl@mard.gov.vn
MARD
30
Mr
Madhusudan Bhattarai
madhu.mwbp@iucnlao.org
IUCN
234
Viet Nam
No. Title
Name
E-mail
Organization
Country
31
Mr
To Phoc Tuong
t.tuong@cgiar.org
IRRI
32
Dr
Nguyen Thai Lai
ntlai1@vnn.vn
Department of Water
Resources Management
Viet Nam
33
Mr
Dwi Kristianto
krist_edu@yahoo.com
Ministry of Public Works
Indonesia
34
Mr
Adolf Tommy M.
Sitompul
adolftmstpl@yahoo.com
BAPPENAS
Indonesia
35
Mr
Peter McCornick
p.mccornick@cgiar.org
IWMI
36
Mr
Chann Sinath
sinath@online.com.kh
MOWRAM
37
Mr
Ian Makin
imakin@adb.org
ADB
38
Dr
Buapun Promphakping
buapun@kku.ac.th
Khonkaen University
Thailand
39
Mr
Nguyen Tung Phong
ntphong44@hotmail.com
VIWRR
Viet Nam
40
Mr
Le Quang Anh
aba_anh@yahoo.com
VIWRR
Viet Nam
41
Mr
Son Nguyen Quynh
sonnq171@gmail.com
VIWRR
Viet Nam
42
Mr
Thierry Facon
thierry.facon@fao.org
FAO
43
Mr
David Renault
david.renault@fao.org
FAO
44
Mr
Jippe Hoogeveen
jippe.hoogeveen@fao.org
FAO
45
Dr
Zhijun Chen
zhijun.chen@fao.org
FAO
46
Ms
Sirijit Sangunurai
sirijit.sangunurai@fao.org
FAO
235
Cambodia
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON
THE FUTURE OF
LARGE RICE-BASED
IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA
Co-sponsored by
Evaluation Study of Paddy Irrigation
Under Monsoon Regime (ESPIM) Project
funded by the Government of Japan
Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

2628 October 2005
236

Paddy Field Irrigation Systems in Myanmar

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Paddy Field Irrigation Systems in Myanmar

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Paddy field irrigation systems in Myanmar

Maung Maung Naing4

Annual rainfall (mm)

Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Myanmar.

Table 2. Potential water resources in Myanmar

3. Paddy fields and irrigation systems

Reservoires storage (MCM)

Water storage volume in the

Irrigable area (1 000 ha)

Water volume (MCM)

Figure 3. Water consumption in the different sectors of Myanmar, 2001

5. Production of crops using the irrigation systems

Figure 4. Sown area and production of paddy

Sown area (million ha)

Sown area (million ha)

Production (million tonne)

Production (million tonne)

Figure 5. Sown area and production of pulses

6. Operation and maintenance

Table 3. Ratio of the maintenance cost of the irrigation facilities between

Table 4. Difference of irrigation tariff among the systems (ratio)

River pumping systems

6.3 Farmer participation and water user associations

Table 5. Characteristics of water resources projects in Myanmar

7. Competition and stress

Rainy season rice

Rainy season rice

Dry season rice

Rainy season rice

Rainy season rice

Dry season rice

Dry season rice

7.2 Labour force

9. Improvement of water management techniques

(a) Traditional irrigation system

9.3 Water management training

(2) Irrigation engineers and staff of

9.4 Adoption of the techniques

principles of water resources development and management;

Development and management of large rice-based irrigation systems:

1. Irrigation development: general description

2. Agricultural development: national thrusts

3. Sustainable irrigation: emergent requirements

(c) Undertaking institutional reform

4. Irrigation operations: management reform

Table 1. General information on rice-based irrigation systems in the Philippines

2. Annual water diversion, MCM

a. % for agriculture water use

b. % for domestic water use

c. Private irrigation system

4. Effective irrigation area, ha

c. Private irrigation system

c. Other crops (banana)

a. National irrigation system

c. Pump irrigation system

Wetland areas supported, ha

Large rice-based irrigation systems in Thailand

1. Background information on large rice-based irrigation systems

2. Trends of agriculture development and water resources management

to develop water resources to their full potential;

Its objectives are:

to develop irrigation sufficiently in agricultural areas; and

Royal Irrigation Department, Bangkok, Thailand.

Its strategies are: