08/06/2017
1
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Speaker: Dr. Martin Burton (UK)
7 June 2017, 16:30 – 17:30 Hours IST
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Why benchmark?
Definition
Processes
Indicators
Case studies
Summary and conclusions
08/06/2017
2
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Very simply – To improve performance
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
“A systematic process for securing continual improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable norms and standards” (Malano and Burton, 2001)
Benchmarking is about change, moving from one position to a better position
Based on early work on comparative performance assessment by IWMI (Molden et al, 1998) and others.
08/06/2017
3
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
A
B
(a) Performance
before benchmarking
Irrigation and drainage
system
Performance
gap
AB
(b) Performance
after benchmarking
Irrigation and drainage
system
Performance
gap
Gap analysis and
implementation of
action plan
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Benchmarking identifies gaps in performance
Benchmarking identifies ways to close the performance gap through diagnostic analysis
Benchmarking sets achievable standards for which to aim – by identifying “best practice”
Important to identify key processes, and then key indicators
Indicators need to be kept simple, easy to use and understand. An increasingly important indicator is productivity per unit of water
Data collection should not be too difficult
08/06/2017
4
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Key questions to ask: What are the objectives?
To provide reliable, timely and adequate irrigation supplies to match farmers’ needs.
How is success measured (outputs)? Crop production
Crop quality
Value of production
Productivity of water use
What are the processes that contribute to attainment of the objectives?
Planning; Design; Construction; MOM of I&D system
08/06/2017
5
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
What is the extent of the BM exercise?
What performance criteria (efficiency, productivity, equity, etc.) should be used?
What indicators are needed?
What data are required?
What are the types and categories of I&D scheme? How can we classify them?
Who will do the benchmarking?
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
SYSTEM
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM
RURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM
POLITICO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Inputs/outputs to each system
Operation of irrigation facilities1 Agricultural production
Incomes in rural sectorSupply of water to crops
Rural economic development
National development
Other inputs
2
5 5
4 4
6
3 3
2
2
3
4
5
6
1
6
Other inputs
Small and Svendsen, 1992
08/06/2017
6
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Benchmarking
Boundary? Borehole
River
Inputs
Crop
production
ApplicationScheduling
Abstraction
Conveyance
Drainage water removal
Processes
Profit
Income
Outputs
Environment
Pollution
Environment
Other uses and usersImpacts
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Input indicators Volume of water abstracted (m3, m3/ha)
Process indicators Conveyance efficiency (%) Application efficiency (%) Overall system efficiency (%)
Output indicators Productivity per unit area (kg/ha, $/ha) Productivity per unit water abstracted (kg/ m3,
$/m3)
Impact indicators Groundwater levels Depth and flow rate in river Wider environmental impacts/mitigations
Input
Process
Output
Impact
08/06/2017
7
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Irrigation service delivery (i) Operation:
Irrigated area
Volume of irrigation water abstraction
Irrigation water abstracted (total & per unit command or irrigated area)
Irrigation water delivered (total & per unit command or irrigated area)
Relative irrigation water supply (abstraction/demand)
(ii) Maintenance:
Maintenance expenditure per unit area (MU/ha)
Crop production MU – Monetary Unit
Crop yields (kg/ha) and cropping intensity (%)
Value of crop production per unit command area (MU/ha)
Value of crop production per unit water abstracted (MU/m3)
Output per unit irrigation supply (MU/m3)
Output per unit water consumed (MU/m3)
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Finance Cost Recovery Ratio
Total MOM expenditure per unit command area (MU/ha)
WUA Organisation WUA membership ratio
WUA Annual General meeting attendance
Environment Water quality (Biological/chemical content)
Minimum flow levels
08/06/2017
8
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Important to be consistent in terminology
Recommend using indicator titles that describe the
indicator:
Total annual water abstracted per unit command area (m3/ha)
Total annual water delivered per unit command area (m3/ha)
Total seasonal water delivered per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)
Distinguish between period, location and extent –
annual/seasonal, abstracted/ delivered,
command/irrigated area, etc.
May need to adapt indicators to the data feasibly
available.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Stage 2: Collect data to match programme
Type of data
Frequency
Location
Who to collect
Collection mechanisms (field measurements, remote sensing,
SMS, web-based data entry, etc.)
Stage 3: Data processing, analysis & reporting
Process data (spreadsheets useful)
Analyse – use graphics, GIS
Report – use graphics
08/06/2017
9
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
2 2 2 2 22
2 2 2 2 21
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
44
44
5
5
6
6
66
6
6
Canals
Drains
Fields Groundwater
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Useful tools- Remote sensing
18
Source: ADB, 2015
08/06/2017
10
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Useful tools - GIS
19
Source: ADB, 2015
Canals
No irrigation
Canals
High well
density
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Usually the most difficult part.
Based on the findings an Action Plan needs to be
prepared, costed and agreed with key stakeholders.
To implement changes agreement needs to be reached
with the key stakeholders:
Water users
WUAs
I&D agency staff
Politicians
Etc.
08/06/2017
11
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Once agreement is reached the Action Plan can be
implemented
Leadership by senior management and key
stakeholders is an important factor in the success of
the Action Plan
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
The implementation of the action plan needs to be
monitored and evaluated
The key indicators are used to monitor and evaluate
progress
Senior managers and key stakeholders need to be kept
informed of progress
08/06/2017
12
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Egypt
Turkey
Australia
Albania
Kyrgyz Republic
India
Maharashtra (Dr Sanjay Belsare to present)
Madhya Pradesh
WUAs
IWMI on-line irrigation benchmarking service
UK
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Studied performance on six branch canals
Studied irrigation and drainage systems
Field measurements and farmer interviews
Final report and guidelines produced
08/06/2017
13
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005
Total seasonal value of crop production per unit
water supply
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Besentw ay Zaw iet Naim El- Baidda Daqalt Sanhour Nesheel
LE
/m3
Irrigation water demand (at field), supply (at BC
intake) and delivery (at mesqa intake)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Besentw ay Zaw iet Naim El- Baidda Daqalt Sanhour Nesheel
m3/F
ed
dan
Water demand (at f ield) Water supply (at BC intake) Water delivery
Sanhour and Nesheel have high water productivity due to relatively low irrigation water supply
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005 Page 26
Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Besentw ay Zaw iet Naim El- Baidda Daqalt Sanhour Nesheel
Good
Poor
Reasonable
08/06/2017
14
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005 Page 27
Description
Un
its
Besen
tway
Zaw
iet
Naim
El-
Baid
da
Daq
alt
San
ho
ur
El
-K
ad
eem
a
Nesh
eel
Irrigation
Total seasonal value of crop production per unit command area
LE/feddan 2,676 2,684 2,935 2,419 2,730 2,886
Total seasonal value of crop production per unit water supply
LE/m3
0.88 0.82 1.28 0.68 2.12 2.62
Total seasonal volume of crop water demand (at field)
m3/feddan 2,236 2,352 2,226 1,828 2,155 2,326
Total seasonal irrigation water supply per unit command area
m3/feddan 3,024 3,289 2,286 3,577 1,285 1,110
Total seasonal irrigation water delivery per unit command area
m3/feddan 1,340 2,037 1,339 1,587 873 N/a
Main system water delivery efficiency % 55.7% 38.1% 41.4% 55.6% 32.1% N/a
Seasonal relative irrigation water supply - 0.60 0.87 0.60 0.87 0.41 N/a
Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit command area
LE/feddan 18.43 18.43 18.43 20.00 20.00 20.00
Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit irrigation water supply
LE/m3
0.012 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.031 0.036
Total seasonal maintenance expenditure for irrigation water delivery per unit command area
LE/feddan
13.47 13.47 13.47 10.00 10.00 10.00
Total annual maintenance expenditure fraction for irrigation water delivery
- 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total cost per person employed on water delivery
LE/person 3,902 3,902 3,902 3,750 3,750 3,750
Irrigation command area per unit staff Feddan/ person
393 393 393 375 375 375
Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio - 1.06 1.03 N/a 0.66 0.88 N/a
Drainage
Groundwater level (depth to) m 0.80 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.58 0.95
Groundwater salinity Mmhos/cm 2.2 3.0 2.1 2.0 3.2 6.1
Soil salinity Mmhos/cm 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.8 3.9 3.5
Farmer questionnaire
Irrigation problems:
- Very severe Counts - - - - - -
- Severe Counts - - - - 1 3
- Mild Counts 2 7 0 0 18 2
Drainage problems:
- Severe Counts - - - - - -
- Mild Counts - - - 5 - 1
- Little Counts - 1 - 14 1 3
Legend Best value
Critical value
Area of concern
Description
Units
Bes
entw
ay
Zaw
iet N
aim
El-
Bai
dda
Daq
alt
San
hour El
-K
adee
ma
Nes
hee
l
Irrigation
Total seasonal value of crop production per unit command area
LE/feddan 2,676 2,684 2,935 2,419 2,730 2,886
Total seasonal value of crop production per unit water supply
LE/m3
0.88 0.82 1.28 0.68 2.12 2.62
Total seasonal volume of crop water demand (at field)
m3/feddan 2,236 2,352 2,226 1,828 2,155 2,326
Total seasonal irrigation water supply per unit command area
m3/feddan 3,024 3,289 2,286 3,577 1,285 1,110
Total seasonal irrigation water delivery per unit command area
m3/feddan 1,340 2,037 1,339 1,587 873 N/a
Main system water delivery efficiency % 55.7% 38.1% 41.4% 55.6% 32.1% N/a
Seasonal relative irrigation water supply - 0.60 0.87 0.60 0.87 0.41 N/a
Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit command area
LE/feddan 18.43 18.43 18.43 20.00 20.00 20.00
Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit irrigation water supply
LE/m3
0.012 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.031 0.036
Total seasonal maintenance expenditure for irrigation water delivery per unit command area
LE/feddan
13.47 13.47 13.47 10.00 10.00 10.00
Total annual maintenance expenditure fraction for irrigation water delivery
- 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total cost per person employed on water delivery
LE/person 3,902 3,902 3,902 3,750 3,750 3,750
Irrigation command area per unit staff Feddan/ person
393 393 393 375 375 375
Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio - 1.06 1.03 N/a 0.66 0.88 N/a
Drainage
Groundwater level (depth to) m 0.80 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.58 0.95
Groundwater salinity Mmhos/cm 2.2 3.0 2.1 2.0 3.2 6.1
Soil salinity Mmhos/cm 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.8 3.9 3.5
Farmer questionnaire
Irrigation problems:
- Very severe Counts - - - - - -
- Severe Counts - - - - 1 3
- Mild Counts 2 7 0 0 18 2
Drainage problems:
- Severe Counts - - - - - -
- Mild Counts - - - 5 - 1
- Little Counts - 1 - 14 1 3
Legend Best value
Critical value
Area of concern
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017 Page 28
Total seasonal value of crop
production per unit
command area (LE/ha)
Seasonal value of crop
production per unit water
supply (LE/m3)
Main system water delivery
efficiency (%)
Seasonal relative irrigation
water supply
Equity of water distribution
between head & tail
mesqas
Groundwater levels (m)
Groundwater salinity
(mmhos/cm)
Soil Salinity
El-Baidda
Nesheel, Besentway, Zawiyat
Naem (vegetables)
Nesheel
Sanhour (low water supply)
Besentway
Daqalt (>55%)
Zawiyat Naim & Daqalt
Besentway & Zawiayt Naem
Sanhour (adeq.), Daqalt (poor)
Nesheel (shortage of irrig water)
Zawiyat Naem (critical)
El-Baiada & Besentway
Nesheel (critical)
Zawiyat Naim
Sanhour (critical)
08/06/2017
15
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005 Page 29
In overall terms Besentway is the best performer:
The production levels per unit area were reasonable.
The conveyance efficiency was high.
The groundwater level was relatively low.
There were very few complaints from farmers.
Daqalt also performed reasonably, though problems
voiced by farmers with the drainage needed to be
resolved.
Lesson 1: “Traffic light” coding can be useful
Lesson 2: Not usually one “best performer” on all
indicators
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Data analysed for 5 irrigation schemes (Camak et al,
2004).
Used the IPTRID/FAO Guidelines indicators
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha) WDCA
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha) WDIA
Annual relative water supply RWS
Total MOM cost per unit area ($/ha) -
Water fee collection performance -
Staffing number per unit area (person/ha) -
Output per unit serviced area (US$/ha) GVPSA
Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) GVPIA
Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m3) GVPIS
Output per unit water consumed(US$/m3) GVPWC
08/06/2017
16
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Cro
pp
ing
inte
nsit
y
WD
CA
WD
IA
R
WS
To
tal
MO
M
co
st
per u
nit
area
Wate
r f
ee
co
llecti
on
perfo
rm
an
ce
Sta
ffin
g
nu
mb
ers p
er
un
it a
rea
GV
PS
A
GV
PIA
GV
PIS
GV
PW
C
(%) (m3/ha) (m3/ha) ($/ha) (%) (persons/
ha)
($/ha) ($/ha) ($/m3) ($/m3)
Batman-Silvan
7590 ha (12.8)
Devegecidi 6900
ha (12.2)
Derik-Kumluca
1860 ha (22.6)
Nusaybin Cagdas
6695 ha (23.2)
Cınar-Goksu
3852 ha (17.4)
Notes:
1 No benchmark set for Total MOM costs per unit area as data not available on the relevant target values for each scheme.
Name of
irrigation
scheme
Performance benchmark
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Each of the 5 schemes gave the best result for at least
one indicator.
One scheme was identified as the better performer
based on production per unit of land and water
Highlights the difficulty of identifying the “better”
performers.
Lesson 2: Not usually one “best performer” on all
indicators
08/06/2017
17
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Started in 1998 by ANCID.
Covered 1.2 million ha, ~47 schemes with 37,000 irrigation farmers.
Crops include rice, maize, vines, cotton, sugar cane, pasture, citrus, vegetables.
Total gross revenue to service providers in 1999/2000 was A$ 228 million (US$171 million).
Used 47 performance indicators: System operation (7 No.)
Environmental management (5 No.)
Business processes (22 No.)
Financial management (13 No.)
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Water delivered per unit area
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
Mur
ray
Irrig
atio
n
G-MW
Woo
rinen
Eton
Loga
n
Bundab
erg
Dawso
n
G-MW
Pyr
amid
-Boo
rt
Win
nale
ah
G-MW
She
ppar
ton
G-MW
Roc
hest
er
G-MW
Tor
rum
barr
y
Condam
ine
G-MW
Nya
h
Sunra
ysia
Centr
al Ir
rig. (
SA)
Ord
Rive
r
Dep
th d
eliv
ere
d (m
)
Same types of
system?
Lesson 3: Take care to compare “like with like”.
08/06/2017
18
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Second Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project started in 21 Districts in May 2000
Physical rehabilitation with institutional strengthening
Improved standards of service programme (ISOSP) introduced. Key elements: Improved water management
Improved fee collection
Improved maintenance
Improved user participation and ownership
Used a limited set of IPTRID/FAO indicators
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Federation Total
command
area (ha)
Area irrigated
during the
season
Irrigation Service
Fees collected
(Lek)
Irrigation Service
Fee collected per
unit area (Lek/ha)
Rank
Albulena 5313 27% 948,000 178 7
Erzeni 4450 24% 847,000 190 5
Peqin-Kavaje 7872 54% 3,028,000 384 2
Naum Panxhi 2128 61% 1,228,000 577 1
Cukas 6022 34% 1,110,000 184 6
Krutje 6577 54% 2,353,000 357 3
Lushnje 3588 55% 855,000 238 4
Myzeqeja 1980 0% 66,000 34 9
Gjanci 55377 44% 757,000 137 8
Lesson 4: Keep it simple: limit the number of key performance indicators.
08/06/2017
19
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Lesson 5: Reward good performance!
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Benchmarked the performance of 486 WUAs to identify
the better and less well performing schemes. Support
then provided to less well performing schemes.
Data taken from the WUA database. All WUAs required
to submit an annual report to government.
Key indicators used: (weighted, W):
Cropping intensity (%) W=2
Collected ISF per unit command area (KGS/ha) W=3
ISF collection ratio (%) W=1
Maintenance expenditure per unit command area (KGS/ha) W=3
O&M expenditure as percentage of total ISF collected (%) W=1
08/06/2017
20
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Lesson 6: Consider “weighting” KPIs if values of
indicators are summed together.
Наи
мен
ов
ан
ие А
ВП
/
WU
A
/WU
A C
od
e N
o.
По
дв
еш
ен
ная
пл
ощ
ад
ь
(га)/
Co
mm
an
d a
rea (
ha)
Cro
pp
ing
in
ten
sit
y (
%)
Co
llecte
d I
SF
per
un
it
co
mm
an
d a
rea (
% o
f ta
rget)
ISF
co
llecti
on
rati
o (
%)
Main
ten
an
ce e
xp
en
dit
ure
per
un
it c
om
man
d a
rea (
%
of
targ
et)
O&
M e
xp
en
dit
ure
as
perc
en
tag
e o
f to
tal
ISF
co
llecte
d (
%)
Cro
pp
ing
in
ten
sit
y (
%)
Co
llecte
d I
SF
per
un
it
co
mm
an
d a
rea (
% o
f ta
rget)
ISF
co
llecti
on
rati
o (
%)
Main
ten
an
ce e
xp
en
dit
ure
per
un
it c
om
man
d a
rea (
%
of
targ
et)
O&
M e
xp
en
dit
ure
as
perc
en
tag
e o
f to
tal
ISF
co
llecte
d (
%)
To
tal
weig
hte
d s
co
re
Ran
kin
g
Weighting 2 3 1 3 1
Kaiyndy 20604 130 48% 94% 621% 81% 90% 95 281 621 242 90 1329 1
Orozaly 70705 1085 96% 89% 313% 72% 88% 192 268 313 217 88 1078 2
Sarbos 70308 1920 96% 68% 214% 80% 77% 192 205 214 240 77 928 3Sary-Kuuray-
Suu 60111 373 100% 57% 253% 83% 50% 200 171 253 250 50 925 4Ak-Moltur-
Suu 70710 1598 93% 60% 198% 78% 63% 186 180 198 235 63 862 5
Jar-Ooz 50314 485 100% 57% 150% 80% 76% 200 172 150 240 76 838 6
Shorolu 70409 1407 100% 51% 129% 77% 86% 200 154 129 231 86 800 7
NAM-Suu 70702 1785 97% 48% 134% 73% 78% 193 143 134 218 78 765 8
Asantay 50204 1700 94% 54% 126% 60% 85% 189 162 126 181 85 743 9
Acha-Tash 70301 3118 99% 48% 129% 72% 71% 199 144 129 215 71 757 10
Key indicators Weightings score
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
A number of benchmarking initiatives in India:
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
World Bank/INPIM WUA benchmarking web site
08/06/2017
21
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Ongoing since 2001-2. Championed by Mr S.V.Sodal,
Secretary (CAD), Irrigation Department (Sodal, 2004;
MWRD, 2008)
Started with selected IPTRID/FAO indicators (10 No.) for
84 schemes (minor, medium and major). Increased to
262 schemes by 2005-6.
Categorized I&D systems – size, water source, type of
control; method of water distribution; water availability.
Lesson 7: Performance assessment and benchmarking
often needs champions to promote it.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Used web-based MIS to monitor and compare
performance of over 150 reservoir-based I&D
schemes.
Benchmarking analysis: 1 MCM stored water is
sufficient to irrigate 200 ha.
This target was set for all schemes.
Irrigated area increased from 0.85 million ha in 2009-10
to 2.91 million ha in 2015-16
Maintenance expenditure increased from Rs112/ha in
2009-10 to Rs820/ha in 2015-16
08/06/2017
22
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Source: Julaniya et al, 2016
Lesson 8: Use the KPIs to drive performance
improvement.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Web link: http://wua.aquiferindia.org
Open platform for data sharing for WUAs.
Publications, regulations, training resources.
Benchmarking data entry and analysis
Lesson 9: National benchmarking programmes
need a secure hosting site and technical support
08/06/2017
23
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
IWMI OIBS: Data entry
08/06/2017
24
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
IWMI OIBS: Data entry
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
IWMI OIBS: Data entry
08/06/2017
25
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
IWMI OIBS: Data analysis
Lesson 10: International benchmarking can be
problematic; variations may be too great.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Programme to identify key performance indicators
(KPIs) for UK irrigation and develop an on-line
benchmarking tool (Knox et al, 2013).
Benchmarked potato and strawberry growers.
Identified 11 KPIs: system operation (3); agricultural
productivity (2); financial performance (3); and
environmental performance (3).
Web site: http://79.170.40.182/iukdirectory.com/benchmarking/
08/06/2017
26
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
http://79.170.40.182/iukdirectory.com/benchmarking/
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
08/06/2017
27
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Ranked potato yield (t/ha) for 25 fields
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Irrigation water use efficiency (kg/m3) for maincrop potatoes , 2011
Lesson 11: Benchmarking can identify significant
differences in performance between schemes/users.
08/06/2017
28
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Scatter diagram of water applied (mm) and potato crop yield (t/ha), 2011
LOW water applied
HIGH yield
Lesson 12: Simple presentations can get the
message across.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Benchmarking is a valuable tool to compare performance.
Important to identify key processes and be selective about
indicators.
Identify and analyse outputs then use diagnostic analysis to
analyse gaps in performance.
Important to categorize schemes and compare “like with
like”.
The integration phase is the most difficult, putting the
analysis into action is not easy.
Issuing performance scorecards for individual schemes may
be a useful way forward.
Remote sensing, GIS and IT have a valuable role to play.
08/06/2017
29
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
ADB, 2014. Final Report, Scoping study for a National Water Use Efficiency
Improvement program. Eds. Martin Burton and Amarjit Singh Dhingra. Asian
Development Bank, Manila, May.
Burton, Martin. 2010. Irrigation Management: Principles and Practices, CABI
International, Wallingford, UK.
Cakmak, Belgin, Mevlut Beyribey, Y. Ersoy Yildrim and Suleyman Kodal.
2004. Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from
Turkey. In Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector: A
tool for change. Eds. Malano, H.M., M. Burton and I. Makin, Special Issue:
Benchmarking in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. Irrigation and Drainage
53 (2). New York: Wiley, June
Julaniya, R.S., Manish Singh, M.G. Choubey and Shubhankar Biswas. A
management approach to increased irrigated agriculture are and production in
Madhya Pradesh, India. Paper presented at the Second World Irrigation
Forum (WWF2), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 6-8th November.
Knox, J.W., A. Daccache, T.M. Hess, M. Else, M. Kay, M. Burton, D. Thelwall
and H. Malano. 2013. Benchmarking agricultural watere use and productivity
in key commodity crops: Final Report. Cranfield University, UK, July
08/06/2017
30
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., de Fraiture, C. and Kloezen, W.
1998. Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems.
Research report 20, International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
MWRD. 2008. Report on benchmarking of irrigation projects in Maharashtra,
2006-7. Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra, India.
March
Sodal, S.V. 2004. Present practices and opportunities for performance
improvement of irrigation schemes in Maharasthra State, India. . In
Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector: A tool for
change. Eds. Malano, H.M., M. Burton and I. Makin, Special Issue:
Benchmarking in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. Irrigation and Drainage
53 (2). New York: Wiley, June
Small, L.E. and M. Svendsen. 1992. A framework for assessing irrigation
performance. IFPRI Working Papers on Irrigation Performance No.1.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., August.
ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar
Benchmarking, 7 June 2017
World Bank. 2005. Benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage
sector, Egypt: Final Report. Eds. Ahmed Emam Hassan and Martin Burton.
Department of Irrigation/ Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage
Projects/World Bank, Cairo, December.
World Bank. 2005. Benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage
sector, Egypt: Guidelines. Eds. Ahmed Emam Hassan and Martin Burton.
Department of Irrigation/ Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage
Projects/World Bank, Cairo, December.