Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

GUIDELINES

FOR

BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE

IN THE

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR

IPTRID Secretariat

FAO

Rome, Italy

December 2000

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Summary

These guidelines are supplementary to the concept note entitled: Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector.

The guidelines provide the detailed information required to collect, process and analyse data collected under the benchmarking programme.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements and thanks are extended to those authors and organizations mentioned in the bibliography that have provided assistance in the compilation of these guidelines.

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Contents

Summary

Acknowledgements

Contents

Introduction

Purpose

Context

Categorization of schemes

Data collection and analysis

Data requirements

Data capture

Data units

Data processing and analysis

Partner benchmarking analysis

Partner internal analysis

Comparative analysis

Programme implementation

Data handling framework

Central processing

Data and information exchange

Roles and responsibilities for implementation

Selection of benchmarking partners

Bibliography

APPENDICES

Appendix A1Performance indicators

Appendix A2Protocols for data collection and processing

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of these guidelines is to assist in the process of data identification, collection, entry, processing and analysis for the irrigation and drainage benchmarking exercise.

The intention is that they will be used by those responsible for data collection, processing and analysis within the organization.

Context

These guidelines follow on from the benchmarking concept note prepared in October 2000. It is assumed that the concept note has been read.

The guidelines relate to the second and third stages (Figure 1) identified in the concept note, namely Data Collection and (Data) Analysis.

Figure 1: Stages of the benchmarking process

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Categorization of schemes

So that comparisons may be made between irrigation and drainage schemes they need to be categorized into similar types. There are a variety of ways this can be done. Following are some typical categorization headings:

  • type of control (fixed proportional division, manual control, automatic control);
  • type of management (government agency, private agency, farmer managed);
  • method of allocation and distribution (supply, arranged-demand, demand);
  • climate (humid, arid);
  • predominate crop type (rice, non-rice, subsistence/cash cropping);
  • water availability (abundant, scarce);
  • water source (surface water, groundwater);
  • socio-economic setting (gross domestic product, degree of industrialization, developing /developed nation);
  • size (large, small);
  • location (Asia, Africa, Americas).

In order to group the schemes being benchmarked, background data are required as listed in Table 1 below. This table contains several system descriptors, which must be entered in the corresponding worksheet. Figure 2 shows the spreadsheet proforma for data entry.

Data collection and analysis

Data requirements

In any system, such as an irrigation network, there are:

  • inputs
  • processes
  • outputs, and
  • impacts

In measuring performance we are interested in the efficiency with which we convert inputs to outputs, and the potential impacts that (a) the use of these inputs (resources) might have and (b) that the outputs might have on the wider environment. We are also interested in the efficiency with which the processes convert inputs to outputs.

There are a variety of irrigation domains (or systems) in which we are interested. The Concept Note outlined three that are of primary interest:

  • Service delivery: This domain includes two areas of service provision: (a) the adequacy with which the organization manages the operation of the irrigation delivery system to satisfy the water required by users (system operation), and (b) the efficiency with which the organization uses resources to provide this service (financial performance).
  • Productive efficiency: Measures the efficiency with which irrigated agriculture uses water resources in the production of crops and fibre.
  • Environmental performance: Measures the impacts of irrigated agriculture on land and water resources.

A more detailed discussion on these performance domains can be found in the accompanying document entitled Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector.

Thus the performance indicators that are proposed for use in the benchmarking exercise are linked to these three domains, and their inputs, processes, outputs and impacts.

There are many performance indicators that might be used in this context. For the benchmarking exercise only key performance indicators will be used. These are indicators that, like the share price of a company on the stock exchange, give a usable indication of performance.

An additional factor, which needs to be considered, is the boundaries of the domains that are being benchmarked. The boundaries relate to the physical boundaries and to the depth or detail the indicators are considered. In general, to benchmark the physical boundary there will be a hydraulically independent system. Information will be summarized for the whole system.

The key performance indicators proposed for the benchmarking exercise are presented in Table 2.

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Table 1:System descriptors

Code / Descriptor /
Possible options
Location
D1 / Country / –
D2 / Continent
D3 / Scheme name / –
D4 / Latitude
D5 / Longitude
Climate and soils
D6 / Climate /
  • Arid
  • Semi-arid
  • Humid
  • Humid tropics

D7 / Average annual rainfall (mm) / –
D8 / Average annual reference crop potential evapotranspiration, Etc (mm) / –
D9 / Peak daily reference crop potential evapotranspiration, Etc (mm/day)
D10 / Predominant soil type(s) and percentage of total area of each type /
  • Clay
  • Clay loam
  • Loam
  • Silty clay loam
  • Sand

Institutional
D11 / Year first operational
D12 / Type of management /
  • Government agency
  • Private company
  • Joint government/local organization/private
  • Water Users Association/Federation of WUAs

D13 / Agency functions /
  • Irrigation and drainage service
  • Water resources management
  • Reservoir management
  • Flood control
  • Domestic water supply
  • Fisheries
  • Other

D14 / Type of revenue collection /
  • Tax on irrigated area
  • Charge on crop type and area
  • Charge on volume of water delivered charge per irrigation

D15 / Land ownership /
  • Government
  • Private

Socio-economic
D16 / (National) Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
D17 / Farming system /
  • Cash crop
  • Subsistence cropping
  • Mixed cash/subsistence

D18 / Marketing /
  • Government marketing board
  • Private traders
  • Local market
  • Regional/national market

D19 / Pricing /
  • Government controlled prices
  • Local market prices
  • International prices

Water source and availability
D20 / Water source /
  • Storage on river
  • Groundwater
  • Run-of-the river
  • Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater

D21 / Water availability /
  • Abundant
  • Sufficient
  • Water scarcity

D22 / Number and duration of irrigation season(s) / Number of seasons
Number of months per season:
  • Season 1:
  • Season 2:
  • Season 3:

Size
D23 / Commanded (irrigation) area (ha) / –
D24 / Total number of water users supplied / –
D25 / Average farm size (ha) / –
D26 / Average annual irrigated area (ha) / –
D27 / Average annual cropping intensity (%) / –
Infrastructure – Irrigation
D28 / Method of water abstraction /
  • Pumped diversion
  • Gravity diversion
  • Groundwater

D29 / Water delivery infrastructure (length and %) /
  • Open channel
  • Pipelines
  • Lined
  • Unlined

D30 / Type and location of water control equipment / Type:
  • None
  • Fixed proportional division
  • Gated - manual operation
  • Gated - automatic local control
  • Gated – automatic central control
Location:
  • Control structure at main intake only
  • Control structures at primary and secondary level
  • Control structures at primary, secondary and tertiary level.

D31 / Discharge measurement facilities location and type / Location:
  • None
  • Primary canal level
  • Secondary canal level
  • Tertiary canal level
  • Field level
Type:
  • Flow meter
  • Fixed weir or flume
  • Calibrated sections
  • Calibrated gates

Infrastructure – Drainage
D32 / Area service by surface drains (ha) / –
D33 / Type of surface drain /
  • Constructed
  • Natural

D34 / Length of surface drain (km) /
  • Natural
  • Constructed
  • Open
  • Closed

D35 / Area serviced by sub-surface drainage (ha)
D36 / Number of groundwater level measurement sites
Water allocation and distribution
D37 / Type of water distribution /
  • On-demand
  • Arranged-demand
  • Supply orientated

D38 / Frequency of irrigation scheduling at main canal level /
  • Daily
  • Weekly
  • Twice monthly
  • Monthly
  • Seasonally
  • None

D39 / Predominant on-farm irrigation practice /
  • Surface – furrow, basin, border, flood, furrow-in-basin;
  • Overhead – raingun, lateral move, centre pivot
  • Drip/trickle
  • Sub-surface

Cropping
D40 / Main crops each season with percentages of total command area / –

Figure 2:Proforma worksheet for entry of system descriptors

Data capture

To ensure consistency in the comparison of results, organizations joining the benchmarking programme will need to collect the data required for the calculation of the benchmarking indicators according to the specifications and protocols provided in Appendix A2.

Partner organizations will carry out the primary data processing to convert raw data into the format required for input into the benchmarking spreadsheet. This task must be carried out according to the instruction provided.

The spreadsheet workbook provided to benchmarking partners consists of six worksheets containing data in the following categories:

Summary of benchmarking indicators

System descriptors

Irrigation service delivery

Financial performance

Productive efficiency

Environmental performance

Indicator values in the summary worksheet are calculated automatically after the basic data are entered into the appropriate worksheet without user intervention.

Appendix A2 provides for each indicator the definition, measurement specification, processing needs and an example of the data entry spreadsheet.

Two types of indicators can be considered according to the type of data required:

a)Indicators based on primary data

b)Indicators based on secondary data

Some indicators are based on primary data that the organization must collect either as a normal part of its operation or for the specific purpose of benchmarking. Variables such as inflow volumes, revenues collected from water users, and total operation expenditure fall into this category.

Some other indicators rely on the use of secondary data for their calculation. For example, the calculation of evapotranspiration (Etc) relies on climatic data for the location of the irrigation scheme that must be provided in the format specified by the methodology for calculating Etc. This type of data may be collected either by the partner organization itself or an external organization. Wherever data are procured from an external organization special attention must be paid to the data processing methodology. This is particularly important when data auditing is necessary to trace possible calculation errors.

Data units

In order that the data can be compared across different irrigation systems the data should be presented in the units specified in the data protocol sheets in Appendix A2. Data may be collected and processed locally in different units, but should be converted into the required units before entering into the database.

Where currency conversions have been made into United States dollars (US$) the rate and date should be provided in a footnote. If different rates and dates are used for individual calculations the rate and date for each should be shown.

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Table 2:List of proposed key performance indicators

Domain / Performance indicator / Data required
Service delivery performance / Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery (m3/year) / Total daily measured water delivery to water users
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha) / Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Total command area service by the irrigation system
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha) / Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Total annual irrigated crop area
Main system water delivery efficiency / Total daily measured water delivery to water users
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Annual relative water supply / Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Total daily measured rainfall over irrigated area
Total daily/periodic volume of crop water demand, including percolation losses for rice crops
Annual relative irrigation supply / Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Total daily/periodic volume of irrigation water demand (crop water demand less excluding effective rainfall), including percolation losses for rice crops
Water delivery capacity / Current main canal capacity
Peak month irrigation water demand
Security of entitlement supply / System water entitlement
10 years minimum water availability flow pattern
Financial / Cost recovery ratio / Total revenues collected from water users
Total management, operation and maintenance (MOM) cost
Maintenance cost to revenue ratio / Total maintenance expenditure
Total revenue collected from water users
Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha) / Total management, operation and maintenance expenditure
Total command area serviced by the system
Total cost per person employed on water delivery (US$/person) / Total cost of MOM personnel
Total number of MOM personnel employed
Revenue collection performance / Total revenues collected from water users
Total service revenue due
Staffing numbers per unit area (persons/ha) / Total number of MOM personnel employed
Total command area serviced by system
Average revenue per cubic metre of irrigation water supplied (US$/m3) / Total revenues collected from water users
Total daily measured water delivery to water users
Productive efficiency / Total gross annual agricultural production (tonnes) / Total tonnage produced under each crop
Total annual value of agricultural production (US$) / Total annual tonnage of each crop
Crop market price
Output per unit serviced area (US$/ha) / Total annual tonnage of each crop
Crop market price
Total command area serviced by system
Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) / Total annual tonnage of each crop
Crop market price
Total annual irrigated crop area
Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m3) / Total annual tonnage of each crop
Crop market price
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Output per unit water consumed (US$/m3) / Total annual tonnage of each crop
Crop market price
Total volume of water consumed by the crops (ETc)
Environmental performance / Water quality: Salinity (mmhos/cm) / Electrical conductivity of periodically collected irrigation water samples
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Electrical conductivity of periodically collected drainage water samples
Total daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Water quality: Biological (mg/litre) / Biological load of periodically collected irrigation water samples
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Biological load of periodically collected drainage water samples
Total daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Water quality: Chemical (mg/litre) / Chemical load of periodically collected irrigation water samples
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system
Chemical load of periodically collected drainage water samples
Total daily measured drainage water outflow from the irrigation system
Average depth to watertable (m) / Periodic depth measurement to watertable
Change in watertable depth over time (m) / Periodic depth measurement to watertable over 5 year period
Salt balance (tonnes) / Periodic measurement of salt content of irrigation water
Periodic measurement of salt content of drainage water

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Data processing and analysis

Partner benchmarking analysis

Much of the data analysis involves compiling ratios of the data collected to produce the value of the required performance indicator. This task will be performed by the spreadsheet template provided. Partner organizations will be responsible for processing the raw data collected in conformance with the protocols outlined in Appendix A2. It is recognized that past data collected by partner organizations may have been collected in a variety of formats that may not necessarily comply with these specifications. In such cases, IPTRID will provide specialized assistance to ensure that data are processed in a comparable manner.

Partner internal analysis

In some cases the partner organization may wish to pursue the data analysis further by using statistical methods to analyse internal trends. This type of analysis may be especially useful in trying to explain causative factors of low performance. This might be the case, for example, with data on Delivery Performance Ratios (DPR) taken at tertiary off take points throughout the irrigation network, where the weekly average DPR values might be statistically analysed to obtain seasonal trends or variability (coefficient of variation). Whilst this analysis can be of considerable (internal) value to the partner organization, it is not required for establishing a comparative analysis with other organizations.

Comparative analysis

The essence of the benchmarking process is to provide organizations with the ability to compare their performance in relation to similar organizations or similar processes. The comparative analysis will consist primarily of ranking performance levels for individual indicators both numerically and graphically. Table 3 and Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 provide an example of comparative analysis carried out by the Australian benchmarking programme. A similar type of analysis will be carried out in this programme.

1

Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector

Table 3:Selection of data collected and analysed in Australian benchmarking exercise (ANCID, 2000)

Scheme
name / Irrigable area
ha / Area irrigated
1998/99
ha / Irrigation deliveries
1997/98
ML / Irrigation deliveries
1998/99
ML / Main system water delivery efficiency
% / Gross revenues
1998/99
000 A$ / Total number of MOM personnel
No. / Average depth to water-table
m / Cost recovery ratio / Operating cost/ Revenue
% / Maintenance cost/ Revenue
% / Total cost of water supply
A$/ML / Average depth delivered to users
m / Gross revenue per unit area
A$/ha
Coleambally / 97000 / 68694 / 445673 / 457000 / 81.2 / 6530 / 46 / 3.3 / 0.665 / 0.10
Jemalong / 18334 / 14940 / 62795 / 42423 / 70.9 / 1522 / 7 / 3.3 / 1.23 / 52 / 8 / 29.14 / 0.284 / 0.10
Murray Irrigation / 796764 / 0 / 1045658 / 1167755 / 79.5 / 19125 / 124 / 3.6 / 1.37 / 29 / 28 / 14.5 / 0.000 / 0.00
Murrumbidgee / 480000 / 180000 / 949935 / 823229 / 79.7 / 28225 / 243 / n/a / 1.23 / 24 / 24 / 32.3 / 0.457 / 0.16
West Corurgan / 212000 / 21000 / 84372 / 66178 / 87.5 / 1926 / 9 / 4 / 1.17 / 63 / 5 / 24.23 / 0.315 / 0.09
Barker-Barambah / 0 / 8650 / 9285 / 100 / 199 / 3 / n/a / 82 / 73 / 62.14 / 0.107 / 0.02
Boyne River / 0 / 3265 / 6412 / 63.6 / 130 / 4 / n/a / 5 / 14 / 22.77 / 0.196 / 0.04
Bundaberg / 55579 / 59200 / 144352 / 91605 / 100 / 6550 / 37 / n/a / 26 / 42 / 64.4 / 0.155 / 0.11
Burdekin River / 23980 / 47846 / 430002 / 375233 / 87.4 / 10104 / 41 / 4 / 28 / 23 / 21.24 / 0.784 / 0.21
Condamine / 0 / 11500 / 58354 / 100 / 433 / 6 / n/a / 2.38 / 75 / 45 / 14.34 / 0.507 / 0.04
Dawson / 7021 / 7529 / 40089 / 14622 / 100 / 153 / 11 / n/a / 290 / 277 / 88.98 / 0.194 / 0.02
Emerald / 19054 / 23509 / 168760 / 79263 / 98.6 / 3663 / 20 / n/a / 8 / 24 / 25.05 / 0.337 / 0.16
Eton / 12000 / 15000 / 37711 / 1789 / 43.8 / 802 / 11 / n/a / 32 / 719.67 / 0.012 / 0.05
Logan / 4000 / 3996 / 4072 / 100 / 449 / 4 / n/a / 51 / 97.47 / 0.102 / 0.11
Lower Mary River / 5110 / 6190 / 20337 / 1928 / 92.8 / 207 / 3 / n/a / 43 / 133 / 283.71 / 0.031 / 0.03
Mareeba-Dimbulah / 15415 / 22140 / 119044 / 72531 / 67.1 / 4004 / 26 / n/a / 24 / 30 / 38.5 / 0.328 / 0.18
Pioneer Valley / 0 / 0 / 12111 / 1047 / 100 / 6189 / 4 / n/a / 1.54 / 5 / 1 / 459.41 / 0.000 / 0.00
Prosperine / 9000 / 11250 / 1039 / 100 / 1229 / 2 / n/a / 3 / 9 / 288.95 / 0.009 / 0.11
South Burdekin / 27450 / 13428 / 67432 / 32964 / 41 / 1505 / 6 / n/a / 0 / 0.245 / 0.11
St George / 13084 / 17289 / 60697 / 98987 / 91.8 / 1654 / 20 / n/a / 40 / 32 / 14.96 / 0.573 / 0.10
Warrill / 8170 / 8170 / 4986 / 100 / 503 / 5 / n/a / 58 / 22 / 120.55 / 0.061 / 0.06
Central Irrig. (SA) / 11000 / 11000 / 87000 / 94553 / 99.1 / 5797 / 23 / n/a / 1.52 / 21 / 18 / 51.22 / 0.860 / 0.53
Golden Heigths / 738 / 723 / 6029 / 6531 / 100 / 816 / 4 / 1.5 / 1.4 / 0 / 0.903 / 1.13
Lower Murray / 0 / 0 / 56000 / 100 / 0 / 9 / n/a / 0.93 / 0 / 0.000 / 0.00
Sunlands / 900 / 794 / 6700 / 8255 / 100 / 918 / 5 / 1.2 / 1.1 / 75 / 7 / 89.42 / 1.040 / 1.16
Cressy-Longford / 4000 / 2000 / 6182 / 3821 / 100 / 207 / 3 / n/a / 0.53 / 135 / 54 / 102.07 / 0.191 / 0.10
Southeast (Tas) / 3800 / 1373 / 2490 / 2280 / 100 / 422 / 2 / n/a / 0.28 / 283 / 50 / 616.23 / 0.166 / 0.31
Winnaleah / 5967 / 1226 / 4844 / 3485 / 100 / 236 / 2 / n/a / 2.56 / 239 / 17 / 173.6 / 0.284 / 0.19
First Mildura / 8058 / 6667 / 51077 / 54307 / 81 / 4586 / 27 / n/a / 1.2 / 20 / 15 / 67.17 / 0.815 / 0.69
G-MW Murray Valley / 128268 / 81410 / 342612 / 374519 / 69.5 / 8736 / 46 / 3.1 / 1.25 / 18 / 19 / 18.61 / 0.460 / 0.11
G-MW Shepparton / 82460 / 54140 / 211352 / 174904 / 66.5 / 4994 / 31 / 3.4 / 0.96 / 20 / 30 / 31.03 / 0.323 / 0.09
G-MW Cent. Goulburn / 172131 / 119592 / 472618 / 410623 / 69.6 / 10830 / 65 / 2.3 / 1.07 / 19 / 27 / 29.07 / 0.343 / 0.09
G-MW Rochester / 117066 / 66730 / 263233 / 225007 / 87.8 / 4930 / 39 / 2.5 / 1.08 / 22 / 20 / 27.6 / 0.337 / 0.07
G-MW Pyramid-Boort / 186481 / 109018 / 277672 / 230555 / 81.3 / 4716 / 32 / 1.9 / 0.8 / 28 / 27 / 25.64 / 0.211 / 0.04
G-MW Torrumbarry / 173366 / 130152 / 479173 / 551619 / 72.9 / 11418 / 81 / 1.5 / 1.19 / 20 / 18 / 19.22 / 0.424 / 0.09
G-MW Nyah / 1616 / 1035 / 6196 / 6755 / 91.1 / 508 / 6 / n/a / 1.26 / 37 / 18 / 59.22 / 0.653 / 0.49
G-MW Tresco / 1902 / 884 / 4946 / 5431 / 94.3 / 403 / 2 / 1.5 / 1.29 / 27 / 25 / 67.02 / 0.614 / 0.46
G-MW Woorinen / 2804 / 0 / 6522 / 6489 / 69 / 540 / 3 / 1.5 / 1.11 / 17 / 45 / 84.3 / 0.000 / 0.00
Bacchus Marsh / 1834 / 1300 / 4520 / 2688 / 68.8 / 501 / 3 / n/a / 18 / 18 / 218.01 / 0.207 / 0.39
Macalister / 55000 / 37387 / 133000 / 138150 / 62.3 / 5525 / 31 / n/a / 19 / 19 / 37.96 / 0.370 / 0.15
Werribee / 3366 / 3010 / 11212 / 9009 / 82.7 / 1370 / 7 / n/a / 14 / 15 / 156.9 / 0.299 / 0.46
Sunraysia / 10672 / 10672 / 102410 / 85278 / 81.2 / 11382 / 60 / 3.1 / 1.48 / 27 / 19 / 91.49 / 0.799 / 1.07
Wimmera-Mallee / 3100 / 0 / 19584 / 17183 / 54.2 / 15123 / 7 / 2 / 1.44 / 14 / 16 / 110.7 / 0.000 / 0.00
Carnarvon / 2000 / 950 / 2450 / 1400 / 88.9 / 2829 / 16 / n/a / 0.88 / 62 / 0 / 630.63 / 0.147 / 2.98
Ord River / 13000 / 13000 / 180000 / 210000 / 75 / 1600 / 18 / 4 / 43 / 42 / 5.48 / 1.615 / 0.12
South West (WA) / 112000 / 9780 / 81176 / 83098 / 71.5 / 4072 / 27 / n/a / 1.31 / 25 / 19 / 32.41 / 0.850 / 0.42

Note: A$1 = US$0.55 (2000 prices)