GUIDELINES
FOR
BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE
IN THE
IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SECTOR
IPTRID Secretariat
FAO
Rome, Italy
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 and thanks are extended to those authors and organizations mentioned in the bibliography that have provided assistance in the compilation of these guidelines.
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.
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
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:
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.
In any system, such as an irrigation network, there are:
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:
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.
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Institutional |
||
|
D11 |
Year first operational |
|
|
D12 |
Type of management |
|
|
D13 |
Agency functions |
|
|
D14 |
Type of revenue collection |
|
|
D15 |
Land ownership |
|
|
Socio-economic |
||
|
D16 |
(National) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) |
|
|
D17 |
Farming system |
|
|
D18 |
Marketing |
|
|
D19 |
Pricing |
|
|
Water source and availability |
||
|
D20 |
Water source |
|
|
D21 |
Water availability |
|
|
D22 |
Number and duration of irrigation season(s) |
Number of seasons Number of months per season:
|
|
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 |
|
|
D29 |
Water delivery infrastructure (length and %) |
|
|
D30 |
Type and location of water control equipment |
Type:
Location:
|
|
D31 |
Discharge measurement facilities location and type |
Location:
Type:
|
|
Infrastructure – Drainage |
||
|
D32 |
Area service by surface drains (ha) |
– |
|
D33 |
Type of surface drain |
|
|
D34 |
Length of surface drain (km) |
|
|
D35 |
Area serviced by sub-surface drainage (ha) |
|
|
D36 |
Number of groundwater level measurement sites |
|
|
Water allocation and distribution |
||
|
D37 |
Type of water distribution |
|
|
D38 |
Frequency of irrigation scheduling at main canal level |
|
|
D39 |
Predominant on-farm irrigation practice |
|
|
Cropping |
||
|
D40 |
Main crops each season with percentages of total command area |
– |
Figure 2: Proforma worksheet for entry of system descriptors
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:
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:
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 Et
c. 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.
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$) the rate and date should be provided in a footnote. If different rates and dates are used for individual calculations the rate and date for each should be shown.
Table 2: List of proposed key performance indicators
|
Domain |
Performance indicator |
Data required |
|
Service delivery performance |
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery (m3/year) |
Total daily measured water delivery to water users |
|
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha) |
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system Total command area service by the irrigation system | |
|
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha) |
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system Total annual irrigated crop area | |
|
Main system water delivery efficiency |
Total daily measured water delivery to water users Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system | |
|
Annual relative water supply |
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system Total daily measured rainfall over irrigated area Total daily/periodic volume of crop water demand, including percolation losses for rice crops | |
|
Annual relative irrigation supply |
Total daily measured water inflow to the irrigation system Total daily/periodic volume of irrigation water demand (crop water demand less excluding effective rainfall), including percolation losses for rice crops | |
|
Water delivery capacity |
Current main canal capacity Peak month irrigation water demand | |
|
Security of entitlement supply |
System water entitlement 10 years minimum water availability flow pattern | |
|
Financial |
Cost recovery ratio |
Total revenues collected from water users Total management, operation and maintenance (MOM) cost |
|
Maintenance cost to revenue ratio |
Total maintenance expenditure Total revenue collected from water users | |
|
Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/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 |
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.
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.
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.
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 |
97 000 |
68 694 |
445 673 |
457 000 |
81.2 |
6 530 |
46 |
3.3 |
0.665 |
0.10 | ||||
|
Jemalong |
18 334 |
14 940 |
62 795 |
42 423 |
70.9 |
1 522 |
7 |
3.3 |
1.23 |
52 |
8 |
29.14 |
0.284 |
0.10 |
|
Murray Irrigation |
796 764 |
0 |
1 045 658 |
1 167 755 |
79.5 |
19 125 |
124 |
3.6 |
1.37 |
29 |
28 |
14.5 |
0.000 |
0.00 |
|
Murrumbidgee |
480 000 |
180 000 |
949 935 |
823 229 |
79.7 |
28 225 |
243 |
n/a |
1.23 |
24 |
24 |
32.3 |
0.457 |
0.16 |
|
West Corurgan |
212 000 |
21 000 |
84 372 |
66 178 |
87.5 |
1 926 |
9 |
4 |
1.17 |
63 |
5 |
24.23 |
0.315 |
0.09 |
|
Barker-Barambah |
0 |
8 650 |
9 285 |
100 |
199 |
3 |
n/a |
82 |
73 |
62.14 |
0.107 |
0.02 | ||
|
Boyne River |
0 |
3 265 |
6 412 |
63.6 |
130 |
4 |
n/a |
5 |
14 |
22.77 |
0.196 |
0.04 | ||
|
Bundaberg |
55 579 |
59 200 |
144 352 |
91 605 |
100 |
6 550 |
37 |
n/a |
26 |
42 |
64.4 |
0.155 |
0.11 | |
|
Burdekin River |
23 980 |
47 846 |
430 002 |
375 233 |
87.4 |
10 104 |
41 |
4 |
28 |
23 |
21.24 |
0.784 |
0.21 | |
|
Condamine |
0 |
11 500 |
58 354 |
100 |
433 |
6 |
n/a |
2.38 |
75 |
45 |
14.34 |
0.507 |
0.04 | |
|
Dawson |
7 021 |
7 529 |
40 089 |
14 622 |
100 |
153 |
11 |
n/a |
290 |
277 |
88.98 |
0.194 |
0.02 | |
|
Emerald |
19 054 |
23 509 |
168 760 |
79 263 |
98.6 |
3 663 |
20 |
n/a |
8 |
24 |
25.05 |
0.337 |
0.16 | |
|
Eton |
12 000 |
15 000 |
37 711 |
1 789 |
43.8 |
802 |
11 |
n/a |
32 |
719.67 |
0.012 |
0.05 | ||
|
Logan |
4 000 |
3 996 |
4 072 |
100 |
449 |
4 |
n/a |
51 |
97.47 |
0.102 |
0.11 | |||
|
Lower Mary River |
5 110 |
6 190 |
20 337 |
1 928 |
92.8 |
207 |
3 |
n/a |
43 |
133 |
283.71 |
0.031 |
0.03 | |
|
Mareeba-Dimbulah |
15 415 |
22 140 |
119 044 |
72 531 |
67.1 |
4 004 |
26 |
n/a |
24 |
30 |
38.5 |
0.328 |
0.18 | |
|
Pioneer Valley |
0 |
0 |
12 111 |
1 047 |
100 |
6 189 |
4 |
n/a |
1.54 |
5 |
1 |
459.41 |
0.000 |
0.00 |
|
Prosperine |
9 000 |
11 250 |
1 039 |
100 |
1 229 |
2 |
n/a |
3 |
9 |
288.95 |
0.009 |
0.11 | ||
|
South Burdekin |
27 450 |
13 428 |
67 432 |
32 964 |
41 |
1 505 |
6 |
n/a |
0 |
0.245 |
0.11 | |||
|
St George |
13 084 |
17 289 |
60 697 |
98 987 |
91.8 |
1 654 |
20 |
n/a |
40 |
32 |
14.96 |
0.573 |
0.10 | |
|
Warrill |
8 170 |
8 170 |
4 986 |
100 |
503 |
5 |
n/a |
58 |
22 |
120.55 |
0.061 |
0.06 | ||
|
Central Irrig. (SA) |
11 000 |
11 000 |
87 000 |
94 553 |
99.1 |
5 797 |
23 |
n/a |
1.52 |
21 |
18 |
51.22 |
0.860 |
0.53 |
|
Golden Heigths |
738 |
723 |
6 029 |
6 531 |
100 |
816 |
4 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
0 |
0.903 |
1.13 | ||
|
Lower Murray |
0 |
0 |
56 000 |
100 |
0 |
9 |
n/a |
0.93 |
0 |
0.000 |
0.00 | |||
|
Sunlands |
900 |
794 |
6 700 |
8 255 |
100 |
918 |
5 |
1.2 |
1.1 |
75 |
7 |
89.42 |
1.040 |
1.16 |
|
Cressy-Longford |
4 000 |
2 000 |
6 182 |
3 821 |
100 |
207 |
3 |
n/a |
0.53 |
135 |
54 |
102.07 |
0.191 |
0.10 |
|
Southeast (Tas) |
3 800 |
1 373 |
2 490 |
2 280 |
100 |
422 |
2 |
n/a |
0.28 |
283 |
50 |
616.23 |
0.166 |
0.31 |
|
Winnaleah |
5 967 |
1 226 |
4 844 |
3 485 |
100 |
236 |
2 |
n/a |
2.56 |
239 |
17 |
173.6 |
0.284 |
0.19 |
|
First Mildura |
8 058 |
6 667 |
51 077 |
54 307 |
81 |
4 586 |
27 |
n/a |
1.2 |
20 |
15 |
67.17 |
0.815 |
0.69 |
|
G-MW Murray Valley |
128 268 |
81 410 |
342 612 |
374 519 |
69.5 |
8 736 |
46 |
3.1 |
1.25 |
18 |
19 |
18.61 |
0.460 |
0.11 |
|
G-MW Shepparton |
82 460 |
54 140 |
211 352 |
174 904 |
66.5 |
4 994 |
31 |
3.4 |
0.96 |
20 |
30 |
31.03 |
0.323 |
0.09 |
|
G-MW Cent. Goulburn |
172 131 |
119 592 |
472 618 |
410 623 |
69.6 |
10 830 |
65 |
2.3 |
1.07 |
19 |
27 |
29.07 |
0.343 |
0.09 |
|
G-MW Rochester |
117 066 |
66 730 |
263 233 |
225 007 |
87.8 |
4 930 |
39 |
2.5 |
1.08 |
22 |
20 |
27.6 |
0.337 |
0.07 |
|
G-MW Pyramid-Boort |
186 481 |
109 018 |
277 672 |
230 555 |
81.3 |
4 716 |
32 |
1.9 |
0.8 |
28 |
27 |
25.64 |
0.211 |
0.04 |
|
G-MW Torrumbarry |
173 366 |
130 152 |
479 173 |
551 619 |
72.9 |
11 418 |
81 |
1.5 |
1.19 |
20 |
18 |
19.22 |
0.424 |
0.09 |
|
G-MW Nyah |
1 616 |
1 035 |
6 196 |
6 755 |
91.1 |
508 |
6 |
n/a |
1.26 |
37 |
18 |
59.22 |
0.653 |
0.49 |
|
G-MW Tresco |
1 902 |
884 |
4 946 |
5 431 |
94.3 |
403 |
2 |
1.5 |
1.29 |
27 |
25 |
67.02 |
0.614 |
0.46 |
|
G-MW Woorinen |
2 804 |
0 |
6 522 |
6 489 |
69 |
540 |
3 |
1.5 |
1.11 |
17 |
45 |
84.3 |
0.000 |
0.00 |
|
Bacchus Marsh |
1 834 |
<