Irrigation Manual

Module 14

Monitoring the Technical and

Financial Performance
of an Irrigation Scheme

Developed by
Andreas P. SAVVA
and
Karen FRENKEN
Water Resources Development and Management Officers
FAO Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern Africa
In collaboration with
Personal SITHOLE, Agricultural Economist Consultant
Simon MADYIWA, Irrigation Engineer Consultant
Tove LILJA, Associate Professional Officer, FAO-SAFR

Harare, 2002

Irrigation manual

ii

Module 14

Contents
List of tables
List of abbreviation

v
vi

1.

1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8

INTRODUCTION TO MONITORING AND EVALUATION

1.1. Definitions
1.1.1. Monitoring
1.1.2. Evaluation
1.1.3. Indicators
1.1.4. Parameters
1.2. Monitoring and evaluation design and process
1.3. Use of the logical framework
1.4. Participatory monitoring and evaluation
1.5. Why monitor and evaluate smallholder irrigation schemes?
1.6. Development of indicators to monitor the performance of irrigation schemes
1.6.1. Technical performance indicators
1.6.2. Agronomic performance indicators
1.6.3. Financial performance indicators
1.6.4. Socio-economic performance indicators
1.6.5. Environmental and health performance indicators
1.6.6. Managerial performance indicators
1.7. Examples of indicators to monitor the technical and agronomic performance of
smallholder irrigation schemes

2.

MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A SURFACE IRRIGATION SCHEME

2.1. Field topography
2.2. Soil moisture in the field
2.3. Water distribution and application
2.3.1. Stream size and water intake opportunity time
2.3.2. Water distribution uniformity
2.3.3. Irrigation efficiencies

13
13
13
14
14
15
15

3.

MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SCHEME

3.1. Soil moisture in the field
3.2. Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler system
3.3. Irrigation efficiencies

19
19
20
20

4.

MONITORING THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALIZED IRRIGATION SCHEME

4.1. Soil moisture in the field
4.2. Emission uniformity
4.3. Irrigation efficiencies

23
23
23
24

5.

MONITORING THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AN IRRIGATION SCHEME

5.1. Monitoring the financial performance at plot level
5.2. Monitoring the financial performance at scheme level
5.2.1. Irrigators data and records
5.2.2. Irrigation Management Committee (IMC) data and records
5.2.3. Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW) data and records
5.2.4. Experts data and records

25
25
30
30
30
31
31
Module 14

iii

Irrigation manual

5.2.5. External evaluators data and records

5.2.6. Monitoring the financial performance of Mutange irrigation scheme

31
32

REFERENCES

37

APPENDICES
1. Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of activities, outputs, immediate objectives
and goals
2. Examples of questionnaires and checklists
2-1. Questionnaire for plot holders to be used for smallholder irrigation scheme evaluation
2-2. Checklist for scheme level records of the IMC and AEW

Checklist for the IMC

Checklist for the AEW

2-3. Checklist for experts data

Environmental expert

Irrigation engineer

39

iv

Module 14

39
45
45
50
50
51
51
51
51

List of tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Examples of indicators and related parameters

A logical framework (DFID Model)
A logical framework for a smallholder drag-hose irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe
Conventional versus participatory monitoring and evaluation
Guidelines for evaluating soil moisture by feel
Borderstrip water advance and recession data
Gross margin analysis for the tomatoes of farmer Farai
Gross margin analysis for the sweet potatoes of farmer Betty
Gross margin for an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha (200% cropping intensity) at Mutange irrigation scheme
Gross margin for a rainfed area of 3 ha close to Mutange irrigation scheme
Gross margin of Mutange irrigation scheme, total 105 ha (200% cropping intensity)
Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, 7 years into operation (US$)
Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal
of the project (US$)
14. Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal
of the project, taking into consideration a 30% increase in investment, replacement, repairs and
maintenance costs (US$)

2
4
4
5
14
16
28
28
29
29
30
33
34

35

Module 14

List of abbreviations
AEW
Agritex
B/C
BD
BOND
CI
CP
DAEO
DFID
DU
E
EU
FARMESA
FC
ICID
IDS
IIMI
IMC
IR
IRR
IWMI
M&E
MOV
NPV
O&M
OVI
PM&E
PWP
RDC
SEAGA
SM
SPFS
WUA
Y

vi

Agricultural Extension Worker

Department of Agricultural Technical and Extension Services
Benefit/Cost
Bulk Density
British Overseas NGOs for Development
Cropping Intensity
Crop Production
District Agricultural Extension Officer
Department For International Development (UK)
Distribution Uniformity
Efficiency
Emission Uniformity
Farm level applied research methods for East and Southern Africa
Field Capacity
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
Institute of Development Studies
International Irrigation Management Institute (now renamed IWMI)
Irrigation Management Committee
Irrigation Requirement
Internal Rate of Return
International Water Management Institute
Monitoring and Evaluation
Means Of Verification
Net Present Value
Operation and Maintenance
Objectively Verifiable Indicator
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Permanent Wilting Point
Rural District Council
Socio-Economic And Gender Analysis
Soil Moisture
Special Programme for Food Security
Water Users Association
Yield

Module 14

Chapter 1
Introduction to monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of a programme or a
project or, in our case, an irrigation scheme is important in
order to provide information about how it is performing.
There are four distinct reasons for carring out M&E:
Y

To keep track of the progress of development activities

during implementation and to remain alert in case of
shortfalls or deviations from projections to enable them
to be corrected

To determine the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness

of development activities and the impact on the
different stakeholders

To learn lessons for future development planning, in

order to improve the formulation and implementation
of projects and increase their performance

To share progress and results with others

A wealth of literature is available on monitoring, evaluation,

indicators and their parameters. This Module briefly
touches on a few aspects, without pretending to be
exhaustive. Some basic information and definitions related
to M&E are given in Chapter 1. Chapters 2, 3 and 4
concentrate on monitoring the technical performance of
surface, sprinkler and localized irrigation schemes
respectively, while Chapter 5 provides guidance on
monitoring the financial performance of an irrigation
scheme. The reader is referred to Module 1 for checklists
for socio-economic, agro-technical, health and
environmental impact assessment (indicators, potential
negative impacts and possible mitigation measures).

1.1. Definitions
1.1.1. Monitoring

Monitoring is the collection of information and the use of

that information to enable management to assess the
progress of implementation and take timely decisions to
ensure that progress is maintained according to schedule
(Casley and Lury, 1981). Monitoring assesses whether
inputs are being delivered, are being used as intended and
are having the initial effects as planned. Monitoring is an
internal project or scheme activity, an essential part of good
management practice and therefore an integral part of dayto-day management.

The purpose of monitoring is to achieve efficient and

effective project or scheme performance by providing
feedback to the management at all levels. This enables
management to improve operational plans and to take
timely corrective action in case of problems. Monitoring is
a continuous or regular activity.
1.1.2. Evaluation

Evaluation is a process of determining systematically and

objectively the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and
impact of activities in the light of their objectives. It is an
organizational process for improving activities still in
progress and for aiding management in future planning,
programming and decision-making (Casley and Kumar,
1990). Evaluation in the context of rural development
programmes is concerned with the assessment of effects,
benefits or disbenefits and impacts, on the beneficiaries.
Evaluation concerns are: who or which group has benefited
(or has been adversely affected), by how much (compared to
the situation before the activity), in what manner (directly or
indirectly), and why (establishing causal relationships
between activities and results to the extent possible).
While monitoring is a continuous or regular activity,
evaluation is a management task that takes place at critical
times of the life of a project or programme
(FAO/DFID/ICID, undated). Evaluation can be carried out
(FARMESA, 2001):
Y

during project planning (ex-ante): to assess the

potential impact

during project implementation (ongoing): to evaluate

the performance and quality

at completion (ex-post): to determine the successful

completion

some years after completion (impact): to assess its

ultimate impact on development

1.1.3. Indicators

Indicators are a way of measuring progress towards the

achievement of the goal, i.e. the targets or standards to be
met at each stage. They provide an objective basis for
monitoring progress and evaluation of final achievements. A
Module 14

Irrigation manual

good indicator should define the level of achievement,

specifically: how much? (quantity), how well? (quality), by
when? (time). This can be demonstrated in the steps below
(FAO, 1998):
Step 1 : Identify indicator: Small farmers increase rice
yields
Step 2 : Add quantity: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000
women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or less
increase their rice yields by 30%
Step 3 : Add quality: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000
women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or less
increase their rice yields by 30% while maintaining
the same rice quality existing in the 1995 harvest
Step 4 : Specify time: 15 000 men farmers and 15 000
women farmers with land holdings of 2 ha or less
increase their rice yields by 30% between October
1996 and October 1997 while maintaining the
same rice quality existing in the 1995 harvest
One set of indicators needs to be formulated to monitor
and evaluate the process. These indicators could be, for
example, farmers participation rate, amount of credit
repaid, crops grown, training attendance, etc. Another set
of indicators needs to be formulated to monitor and
evaluate the impact of the programme activities. These
indicators could be, for example, yield increase, income
gains, environmental effects, changes in workload, relation
between investment and benefits, etc. A set of indicators
can of course also include both of the above at the same
time.
Indicators should disaggregate the information by gender
and different socio-economic groups. This means that
instead of monitoring the number of farmers, data need to
be gathered on the number of male and the number of
female farmers from the different socio-economic groups
participating. Equally, information on yield increases should

be distinguished on the basis of gender of the household

head, large versus small farmers, etc. The aim of collecting
gender-disaggregated monitoring data is that it may yield
valuable information that can lead to measures to improve
the programme, especially the performance of specific
groups of farmers (FAO, 1998).
Because of the difficulties in collecting information in the
field, and because of the related costs, the number of
indicators should be kept to the minimum required. A few
key indicators should be selected that will adequately fulfill
the objective of assessing the conditions of the scheme and
identifying causes for failure or success. In this Module
some common indicators are given for each type of
performance, from which key indicators can be selected.
1.1.4. Parameters

For the calculation of indicators, a certain number of

parameters have to be measured in the scheme. The choice
of these parameters has to be judicious. They should be
easily measurable and re-measurable, at low cost, preferably
by the farmers themselves. Some examples of indicators
and related parameters are given in Table 1.

1.2. Monitoring and evaluation design and

process
The main purpose of M&E is to ensure that the
programme or project fulfills the stated goals and
objectives within the financial parameters that are set at
the beginning.
The objectives of an irrigation scheme can be grouped into
six categories (IIMI, 1996; Sally, 1995):
Y

Production and productivity

Profitability

Equity

Table 1
Examples of indicators and related parameters
Indicator

Parameter

Expression

1. Yield Y

Harvest per season H (kg)

Area cultivated A (ha)

Y = H/A (kg/ha)

2. Gross or net production per quantity

of water applied PgIr or PnIr

Harvest H (kg)
Volume of water applied W (m3)

PgIr or PnIr = H/W (kg/m3)

3. Cropping Intensity CI

Area harvested per year AH (= sum of

the areas harvested per season) (ha)
Area cultivable CA (ha)

CI = AH/CA x 100 (%)

4. Overall project efficiency Ep

(see Section 1.7 for more detail)

Quantity of water entering the

conveyance canal V (m3)
Net irrigation requirements IRn (m)
Actual irrigated area AIA (ha)

Ep = 100 x (AIA x 10 000 x IRn)/V (%)

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Rational utilization of the resource

Sustainability

Non-agricultural objectives

To these objectives, so-called performance indicators can

be attached. For an irrigation scheme, the values of these
indicators obtained should be compared with reference
values in order to assess the level of performance of the
irrigation scheme. For their calculation, performance
indicators call upon a certain number of parameters that
have to be measured in the scheme (see Section 1.1.4).
In the context of smallholder irrigation schemes, M&E
provides data for efficient design, implementation,
operation and management of the scheme. It allows for
informed decisions to be made by various stakeholders
on:
Y

Operation, maintenance and management of the

scheme

Water management

Crop production

Funding and other support services

Environmental management

From the definitions of monitoring and evaluation given, it

is clear that the more clearly the objectives of a programme
or project have been stated the more precise the
measurement of progress can be. M&E systems must be
designed to reflect the achievement of the project objectives
as expressed in targets to be met over time. Viewing project
objectives as a sequence as shown below will assist in
defining the functions of M&E:
a) Inputs will be provided or activities undertaken that
are necessary to achieve agricultural and/or rural
development.
Example: Inputs may be provided in the form of an
irrigation system and/or advice, that the beneficiaries
are to be encouraged to adopt
b) It is expected that the use of these inputs will result in
outputs by the project beneficiaries.
Example: Outputs in the irrigation project may be
increased crop production, using recommended
agronomic advice
c) These outputs will in turn, generate effects amongst
the target population, which are the immediate
objectives or purpose

Example: The effects will be a change in yield levels

and/or income
d) Finally, these effects will have an impact on the social
and economic life of the community, which is the
long-range objective or goal.
Example: As a result of improved incomes, services may
develop in the area, providing wider income and
employment opportunities.
The process of M&E involves field measurements and
analysis of field data from which recommendations for
improvements can be made. Basically, the main activities
are selection of indicators, data collection and record
keeping, data evaluation, identification of problems and
development of mitigation measures. For optimal
performance, problems should be rectified before negative
implications on performance occur.
The responsibilities for irrigation scheme M&E should be
clear to all parties from the outset. The responsibility
depends on whether an individual farmer, a group of
farmers or the government manages the scheme. It is
recommended that the responsibility for the monitoring
and data collection be designated in by-laws. This is
particularly important where several parties jointly manage
the scheme. Furthermore, the by-law could state the
procedure for the monitoring, such as parameters to be
measured, frequency of data collection, measures to be
taken to rectify potential problems, etc.

1.3. Use of the logical framework

Project design systems such as the logical framework or
log frame allow not only for a viewing of project objectives
as a sequence, but also for defining targets to be met over
time. A log frame looks like a table (or framework) and
aims both to be logical to complete and to present the
information on projects in a concise, logical and
systematic way (BOND, 2001). A log frame summarizes,
for example:
Y

What the project is trying to achieve

How it aims to do this

What is needed to ensure success

Ways of measuring progress

Potential problems along the way

The logical framework can be a basis for project M&E.

Table 2 gives an example of a model of a log frame.

Module 14

Irrigation manual

Table 2
A logical framework (DFID Model) (Source: DFID, 1997)
Objectives
Goal
Wider problem the project
will help to resolve
Purpose
The immediate impact on
the project area or target
group, i.e. the change or
benefit to be achieved by
the project
Outputs
These are specifically
deliverable results
expected from the project
to attain the purpose
Activities
These are the tasks to be
done to produce the
outputs

Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVI)

Means Of Verification
(MOV)

Important
assumptions
Goal
To supergoal external factors
necessary to sustain
objectives in the long run

Quantitative ways of measuring

qualitative ways of judging timed
achievement of goal

Cost-effective methods and

sources to quantify or
assess indicators

Quantitative ways of measuring

qualitative ways of judging timed
achievement of purpose

Cost-effective methods and

sources to quantify or
assess indicators

Purpose to goal
External conditions necessary
if achieved project purpose is
to contribute to reaching
project goal

Quantitative ways of measuring

qualitative ways of judging timed
achievement of outputs

Cost-effective methods and

sources to quantify or
assess indicators

Output to purpose
Factors out of project control
which, if present, could
restrict progress from outputs
to achieving project purpose

Inputs
This is a summary of the
project budget

Financial report as agreed

in grant agreement

Activity to output
Factors out of project control
which, if present, could
restrict progress from
activities to achieving output

An example of a logical framework for a smallholder irrigation scheme is given in Table 3.

Table 3
A logical framework for a smallholder drag-hose irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe
Narrative summary
Long-range objective
Improved standard of
living of the irrigators
and the community
around the scheme
Immediate objectives
Increased yields
Increased incomes of
smallholder irrigators

Outputs
Diversification of crop
production
Adoption of
recommended input
levels and other
agronomic practices
Inputs/Activities
Selection and training
of farmers in irrigated
crop production
Scheme equipment
installed and tested

Module 14

Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVI)

Means Of Verification
(MOV)

40% of irrigators have brick

houses with corrugated iron roofs
60% of households can afford
secondary education for their
children

Yearly household survey

Observation

90% of irrigators increase yields

of irrigated crops by 40%
compared to dryland yield levels
Mean agricultural income
per ha increases by 50%

95% of irrigators commit at least

0.4 ha of land to a variety of
crops
60% irrigators adopt the
recommended agro-input
levels

Resident AEW records

Farmer records

No pest outbreak
No electricity cut due
to non-payment by
some irrigators
No engine breakdown

New irrigators trained

Pumping station and pumps
installed
Electricity installed
Pipes, valves, fencing installed
Risers, taps, tripods sprinklers
supplied
Irrigation system fully operational

Agritex Irrigation Branch

reports
Agritex Crops Branch
reports
Baseline survey report

Inflation rate does not

rise beyond 70%
making agro-inputs
unaffordable

AEW records
Farmer records
Yearly household survey
Seasonal survey by
project management

Important
assumptions

Price of produce
remains high

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

In carrying out M&E, it is important that results are

examined sequentially from inputs/activities to outputs to
effects/purposes/immediate objectives to impact/goal, as
shown in the logical framework (working from the lower
end of the table towards the upper end in Tables 2 and 3).
There is little point in attempting to do an evaluation of the
goal unless we can be sure that the purposes that contribute
to it have been achieved. Similarly, at a lower level, there is
little point in examining and critically evaluating outputs
unless we can be sure that the level of inputs and the mix of
activities has been as planned. Each lower-level activity
contributes to the achievement of a higher result and the
achievement at each level should be examined in turn
before moving up to the next highest level. The reason for
preferring a bottom-up approach relates to the cost of
evaluation. The cost is lowest at the bottom and highest at
the top.
Appendix 1 provides an example of indicators to be
monitored and evaluated at activity, output, immediate
objective and goal level respectively for the smallholder
drag-hose sprinkler irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe, for
which the logical framework in Table 2 was established.

1.4. Participatory monitoring and

evaluation
M&E is vital if governments and aid organizations are to
judge whether development efforts have succeeded or
failed. Conventionally, this has involved outside experts
coming in to measure performance against pre-set
indicators, using standardized procedures and tools.
Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) has
emerged because of a recognition of the limitations of this
conventional approach. This shift in thinking has been
prompted by (IDS, 1998):
Y

The surge of interest of participatory appraisal and

planning a set of new approaches that stress the
importance of taking local peoples perspectives into
account

Pressure for greater accountability, especially at a time

of scarce resources

The shift within organizations, particularly in the

private sector, towards reflecting more on their own
experiences, and learning from them

PM&E provides an opportunity for development

organizations to focus better on their ultimate goal of
improving the lives of the poor. By broadening involvement
in identifying and analyzing change, a clearer picture can be
gained of what is really happening on the ground. It allows
people to celebrate successes and learn from failures. For
those involved, it can also be a very empowering process,
since it puts them in charge, helps develop skills, and shows
that their views count.
PM&E differs from conventional monitoring and evaluation
approaches in several important ways, as shown in Table 4
(IDS, 1998).
PM&E is based on four broad principles (IDS, 1998):
Y

Participation, which means opening up the design of the

process to include those most directly affected, and
agreeing to analyze data together

The inclusiveness of PM&E requires negotiation to reach

agreement about what will be monitored or evaluated,
how and when data will be collected and analyzed, what
the data actually mean, and how findings will be shared,
and action taken

This leads to learning which becomes the basis for

subsequent improvement and corrective action

Since the number, role, and skills of stakeholders, the

external environment, and other factors change over
time, flexibility is essential

A wide range of methods and tools have been developed to

carry out PM&E. They are not dealt with in this Module,
instead the reader is referred to more specialized
literature.

Table 4
Conventional versus participatory monitoring and evaluation
Issue

Conventional M&E

Participatory M&E

Who plans and manages

the process

Senior managers, outside experts

Local people, project staff, managers and

other stakeholders, often helped by a facilitator

Role of primary stakeholders

(in our case, the farmers)

Provide information only

Design and adapt the methodology, collect and

analyze data, share findings and link them to
action

How success is measured

Externally-defined, mainly
quantitative indicators

Internally-defined indicators, including more

qualitative judgement

Approach

Predetermined

Adaptive

Module 14

Irrigation manual

1.5. Why monitor and evaluate smallholder

irrigation schemes?
The process of M&E is important to all stakeholders or
interested parties in an irrigation scheme. These include
the irrigators (plot holders), scheme managers (plot
holders, government institutions or both), advisors
(extension officers), creditors and financiers of the scheme,
be they private (including the plot holders themselves),
public or donor agencies. Some of the reasons why M&E is
important to the various stakeholders in smallholder
irrigation schemes are given below.
Y

Irrigators need M&E information to be able to:

Monitor wastage of water and energy and the cost
implications
Appreciate the need to adopt appropriate
agronomic practices and make adjustments in
order to improve their performance
Compare their yields with those of farmers
practicing rainfed cultivation and other irrigators
Gauge whether their yield levels are increasing
Decide whether to change their cropping
programme
Compare their incomes with those of farmers
practicing rainfed cultivation, other irrigators and
their previous incomes under rainfed conditions
Gauge whether they are making profit
Gauge whether their incomes are increasing in
relation to the cost of living
Make an assessment as to whether the scheme is
sustainable
The scheme management needs M&E information to
be able to:
Assess the scheme performance
Assess whether their services are being accepted
and integrated into the farmers production
systems
Assess whether the project is reaching its intended
clients: do rich community leaders dominate the
scheme when, on paper, it was targeted at the poor
in the community?
Assess whether certain groups, such as female
farmers, are accorded the same access as their
male counterparts
Advisors (extension officers) need M&E information to
be able to:
Assess the profitability of the cropping programme
they recommended
Recommend a more profitable cropping
programme
Module 14

Advise on markets for inputs and produce or

outputs
Advise on possible sources of credit
Advise on pricing
Devise an effective training programme for irrigators
Advise on appropriate agronomic practices to meet
certain output targets
Y

Planners and irrigation engineers need M&E

information to be able to:
Better plan future irrigation development
Advise on servicing of equipment, for example if
energy consumption suddenly shoots up
Advise on energy-saving ways of irrigating
Advise on causes of frequent equipment
breakdowns
Get feedback on the ease, or otherwise, of
operation and maintenance of the scheme
Get feedback on water management and efficiency
of water utilization at the scheme
Get feedback on environmental problems affecting
the scheme
Draw lessons for better scheme planning in the
future

Creditors need M&E information to be able to:

Assess credit worthiness of irrigators
Recover their loans

Government departments need M&E information to

be able to decide whether to:
Continue funding the scheme
Fund similar irrigation schemes in future
Supply drought relief to the area
Give specific services such as agricultural extension
and/or credit, etc.

Donor agencies need M&E information to be able to

decide whether to:
Continue funding the scheme
Fund similar irrigation schemes in future
Channel technical support to irrigation institutions
or specific schemes

1.6. Development of indicators to monitor

and evalute the performance of irrigation
schemes
The following six areas of M&E are important for irrigation
schemes:
Y

Technical performance

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Agronomic performance

Pump discharge rate

Financial performance

Distribution uniformity of irrigation water

Socio-economic performance

Environmental and health performance

Condition of equipment, canals, reservoirs and other

structures

Managerial performance

Condition of land grading

Frequency of breakdown and repairs of equipment

Quantity of water used for irrigation

Irrigation efficiencies

To be able to carry out M&E, indicators have to be developed

for each of the six areas. As explained in Section 1.1,
indicators are variables that help to measure changes in a
given situation. They are defined as specific (explicit) and
objectively verifiable measures of changes or results brought
about by an activity. In other words, indicators are designed
to provide a standard against which to measure, assess or
show the progress of an activity against stated targets. The
performance should be linked to pre-project conditions in
order to assess the changes obtained because of the project.
Questions to be asked can be, for example: What were the
yields of maize before the project and what are they now?
What were the living conditions of the farmers before the
project and what are they now? What was the incidence of
malaria in the past and what is it now? For this, baseline
information is required to establish benchmarks with which
the changes can be compared. Changes will also be evaluated
against what was planned as set out in the project document.
As guidance, some of the indicators related to the six areas
of M&E are shown below. Ideally, the indicators are
established and selected together with all stakeholders, as
explained in Section 1.4.
1.6.1. Technical performance indicators

Technical M&E should be carried out periodically in order

to ensure a technically sound and efficient irrigation
scheme. The M&E indicators to be measured depend on
the irrigation system (surface, sprinkler or localized).
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 describe more in detail the monitoring
of the technical performance of surface, sprinkler and
localized irrigation schemes respectively.
Irrigation systems are designed to provide the water to the
crops, that is needed in addition to the effective rainfall and
available groundwater. In other words, irrigation provides
the remaining part of the crops water requirements that
above-mentioned sources cannot provide. The objective
concerning the technical aspects of irrigation is to fulfil the
crops need of water without causing harmful side effects.
Guides for the development of indicators for the technical
M&E are:
Y

Quantity and quality of constructed infrastructure

Energy consumption rate of equipment

1.6.2. Agronomic performance indicators

Guides for the development of indicators for the agronomic

M&E are:
Y

Type of crops grown and area per crop grown

Crop quality

Cropping intensity

Type, quality and quantity of agricultural inputs used

Cultural practices used

Yield levels

Pests and diseases encountered and control measures

Timeliness of operations

1.6.3. Financial performance indicators

When assessing financial performance, financial outlays are

compared with the original cost tables and budgets to
examine whether the financial targets originally agreed upon
have been fulfilled and whether in general the financial
control is satisfactory. An assessment is made also of how cost
over-runs are financed and cost under-runs redeployed.
Chapter 5 describes more in detail the monitoring of the
financial performance of an irrigation scheme.
Guides for the development of indicators for the financial
M&E are:
Y

Cost of energy

Cost of water

Other costs, for example hiring security guard

Cost of repairs and servicing of equipment, canals and

structures (operation & maintenance cost)

Cost of inputs, for example seed, fertilizer, chemicals,

transport

Prices of produce

Marketing costs, for example packaging

Access to credit source, interest rates, etc.

Module 14

Irrigation manual

Gross margin per crop and per area

1.6.6. Managerial performance indicators

Increase in farmers income

Value of Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit/Cost (B/C)

ratio, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) compared to the
value established during project preparation (see
Module 11)

Management and entrepreneurial skills are critical for

success. A common problem is the lack of long-term
thinking. As a result, for example, a frequent mistake is to
unconditionally purchase low-priced equipment and spare
parts. Unfortunately, poor quality and short durability often
characterize such equipment and consequently the repair
and maintenance costs increase, and in the end this lowcost purchase might turn out to be the more costly
alternative in a long-term perspective. Managerial aspects
of smallholder irrigation are discussed in FAO (2000).
When assessing the overall managerial performance,
questions can be asked such as: Are they able to supervise
the scheme activities effectively? Have they established the
necessary linkages with governmental agencies and private
organizations? Are they task-oriented? Are the human and
material resources properly utilized?

1.6.4. Socio-economic performance indicators

Guides for the development of indicators for the socioeconomic M&E are:
Y

Asset ownership

Nutritional status of the family

Change in living conditions

Ability to pay school fees

Employment creation

Advancement of women

Guides for the development of indicators for the

managerial M&E are:

Backward and forward linkages

Food security status of the area

Management structures, roles, responsibilities and

skills

Improvement in service provision

Knowledge management and training at all levels

Appropriateness of technology

Conflict resolution

Adoption rate of technology

Farmer organization and management ability (selfmanagement)

1.6.5. Environmental and health performance

indicators

Environmental and health factors have an impact on the

short- to long-term performance at field level. Equally
important are environmental impacts from irrigation
schemes on the external environment and the impact from
external factors on the irrigation scheme. Module 1
discusses general environmental and health indicators,
potential negative impacts and their mitigation measures.
Guides for the development of indicators for the
environmental and health M&E are:
Y

Changes in water quantity and quality

Changes in soil salinity, alkalinity, sodicity, acidity and

fertility

Erosion occurrence (soil loss/accumulation)

Water pollution, for example nitrates in streams

Presence of water-related diseases, such as malaria and

bilharzia, and degree of human infestation, in relation
to the status before the introduction of irrigation

Waterlogging/poor drainage

Module 14

1.7. Examples of indicators to monitor the

technical and agronomic performance of
smallholder irrigation schemes
Within the framework of FAOs Special Programme for
Food Security (SPFS), indicators for monitoring the
performance of smallholder irrigation schemes during the
demonstration phase have been developed. As an example,
the ones for measuring the technical and agronomic
performance are copied below (FAO/DFID/ICID,
undated).
Objective 1: To intensify and increase agricultural
production on irrigated land

1st Indicator: Increase in average production

This indicator will measure the average increase that is
being obtained in the demonstration phase as compared to
the national averages and/or the production averages in the
project area before the demonstration phase. The required
data for its application are:

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Project average
(kg)

National average
(kg)

Increase or decrease
(kg)

Percentage increase
CP

P(1)

A(1)

P(1) - A(1)

100 x [P(1)-A(1)]/A(1)

Crop 1
Crop 2

P(2)

A(2)

P(2) - A(2)

100 x [P(2)-A(2)]/A(2)

Crop N

P(N)

A(N)

P(N) - A(N)

100 x [P(N)-A(N)]/A(N)

The average percentage of increase or decrease in

production (CP) for all the crops is the indicator proposed
for agricultural production:

IPA

= Increase in planted area (percentage)

AP(S1) = Area planted during the current season

AP(S2) = Area planted during the past season

Equation 1

CP = 100 x

Where:

P(N) - A(N)

1
N

A(N)

Where:
CP = Crop production increase or decrease
(percentage)
P

= Project crop production average

= National crop production average

= Number of crops

In humid climates, the water flow available is considerably

greater during the wet season than during the dry season,
therefore the AP(S1) and AP(S2) are considerably greater
in the wet season than in the dry season. It is therefore
recommended that the IPA be calculated separately for the
wet season and the dry season.
Objective 2: To improve performance of existing
schemes through on-farm irrigation
technology

2nd Indicator: Cropping intensity

4th Indicator: Overall irrigation efficiency

This indicator will provide an evaluation as to what extent

second and third crops may take place in a year. The
indicator (CI) is defined as follows:

Overall irrigation efficiency is a value that varies constantly

through the year and is affected by the efficiency of the
actual water distribution and farmers ability to apply water
effectively. Still, it is always a good reference for how
efficiently irrigation water is utilized.

Equation 2
CI =

A(C1) + B(C2) + C(C3)

CA

The following indicator is proposed:

Equation 4

Where:
A(C1)

= Total area harvested in the first

season

OIE = 100 x

B(C2)

= Total area harvested in the second

season

Where:

C(C3)

= Total area harvested in the third

season

OIE

= Overall irrigation efficiency (percentage)

AIA

CA

= Cultivable area

= Actually irrigated area during peak

month (ha)

CWR

= Crop water or net irrigation requirement

for the peak month (mm/month)

FI

= Average flow of main intake in the peak

month (l/s)

= Number of hours of irrigation per day

3rd Indicator: Increase in planted area

The intensive use of irrigation water is a good indication
that the change towards an intensive agriculture is taking
place in an effective manner. Therefore, this indicator aims
at evaluating to what extent this change is taking place. For
this purpose the increase in planted area from one season
to the next (expressed in percentage) is a relevant indicator
(IPA):
Equation 3
IPA = 100 x

[AP(S1) - AP(S2)]

(AIA x 10 000 x CWR)

(Fl x 3 600 x 30 x N)

The above indicator will give the efficiency of the water use
in the peak month. It is desirable to determine it for every
month of the year in order to have an indication of the
variations of the OIE along the year. This indicator will be
particularly relevant when rehabilitation and improvements
works have been undertaken, as the greater physical
efficiency of the system must be reflected in higher values
of OIE.

AP(S2)

Module 14

Irrigation manual

5th Indicator: Operation and maintenance costs

Operation and maintenance costs referred to the irrigated
hectares are themselves already a good indicator of how
efficiently the financial resources are being utilized:
Equation 5
OM =

TC

7th Indicator: Water use at farm level

AIA

Where:
OM = Operation and maintenance costs per ha
TC = Total annual costs incurred in O&M
AIA = Actually irrigated area (ha)

Once O&M costs have been determined, one can get an

indication of the farmers capacity to pay them by referring
these costs to the farmers income through the following
equation:
Equation 6
IFI = 100 x

TC
FI

Where:
IFI

= Impact of O&M costs in farmers income

(percentage)

TC = Total annual costs incurred in O&M

FI

The apparent simplicity of this indicator is constrained by

the fact that is not so simple to clearly determine whether
or not a farmer has adopted a technology. As the
technological packages will likely be different in each
country or demonstration area the criteria for determining
the adoption by farmers must be developed locally.

= Farmers income (assessed on the bases of

a representative sample)

One important aspect of the demonstration phase is the

efficient application of water at farm level. By this term we
mean that water is applied at suitable intervals (which will
depend on the technology used) and the amounts necessary
to satisfy the crop water requirements. If irrigation water is
not applied with a minimum of technical bases, it is clear
that the intended increases in crop production will not be
reached. Therefore, it is of great importance to document
how irrigation water is applied.
As the number of farmers participating in a scheme can be
relatively large, it will be practically impossible to monitor
the water use by every farmer as this will be time
consuming and costly. The only feasible way will be to do it
on sample bases. The sample should be statistically
representative, but this is again costly when the number of
farmers is large.
For every farmer included in the sample the following
records should be kept:
Y

Number of irrigations, intervals and volumes to be

applied to each crop. This should be calculated
according to the soils characteristics and crop water
requirements. For this purpose the CROPWAT
computer programme is a recommended tool (FAO,
1992) (see also Module 4).

Actual amounts, intervals (dates) and number of

irrigations applied by the farmer concerned should be
recorded. Here again the CROPWAT programme will
be useful not only to keep these records but also to
assess the actual efficiency achieved by the farmer
(Module 4).

Assess how closely the farmers have followed the

recommended irrigation schedule. For this purpose
three variables must be determined:
the relation between the total amount actually
applied and the calculated amount
the relation between the amount of water applied
and calculated for each irrigation
the relation between the number of irrigations
applied and the calculated number

For values of IFI greater than 10%, difficulties can be

expected in the collection of fees.
Objective 3: To demonstrate technologies and
methods of irrigation expansion

6th Indicator: Percentage of farmers that adopted the

irrigation technology
A simple indicator is the percentage of farmers over the
total participants in the demonstration area that have
adopted the technological package:
Equation 7
AT = 100 x

FAT
TNF

Where:
AT

= Farmers that adopted the technology

(percentage)

FAT = Number of farmers that adopted proposed

technology
TNF = Total number of farmers of the
demonstration area

10

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

These three sub-indicators will give a view of how

effectively farmers adhered to the recommended schedule.
However, this is an expensive indicator to determin.

Objective 4: To improve the capacity of staff and

local community for self-management
and develop institutional base for
irrigation expansion

8th Indicator: Farm irrigation efficiency

9th Indicator: Training activities carried out

The determination of the irrigation schedules mentioned

for the 7th indicator implies the application of the farmers
efficiency in applying the irrigation water. The tendency is
often to apply this figure based on empirical or personal
experience. In the field, it can be carried out following
standard procedures (FAO, 1992; other relevant manuals).
It will be useful to determine these efficiencies yearly and
monitor any progress made by farmers. However, as with
the previous indicator it is an expensive indicator to be
determined. More information on irrigation efficiencies is
given in Module 1.

The number of training activities that have been carried out,

the type of activity, its duration and number of participants
should be reported here. The number of participants should
be related to this potential number to have an indication of
what percentage has been covered.

10th Indicator: Self-management

The aim of this indicator will be to assess the degree of selfmanagement that has been achieved. The underlying
assumption is that an effort was made to establish a WUA,
and through the criteria proposed below the degree of selfmanagement is assessed.

The WUA functions satisfactorily and 80-90% of the water rates are collected

Fully independent

The WUA is established, the water distribution is effected by farmers at tertiary level
but secondary canals and upward are operated by government staff, only minor
maintenance works are carried out by farmers, 65-80% of water rates are collected

Semi-independent

The WUA has been established but acts mainly as a consultative and information
body. Decisions are still made by government officials, 50-65% of water rates are
effectively collected

Low degree of independence

The WUA has been established on paper but none of its tasks are carried out in practice

Dependent, it needs explanation

The WUA has not been established

Needs justification

Module 14

11

Irrigation manual

12

Module 14

Chapter 2
Monitoring the technical performance of a
surface irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 7, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described. Detailed
theory behind the equations included in this chapter is also
provided in these modules and in FAO (1989). This
chapter will focus on hands-on activities in the M&E
process.
According to FAO (1989), the most common field
measurements to carry out during monitoring and
evaluating surface irrigation systems are:
Y

Field topography

Soil moisture in the field

Water distribution and application

2.1. Field topography

Topographic surveys should be carried out periodically, on
an annual or bi-annual basis, since the field levels change
because of cultivation practices, especially ploughing.
Periodic (annual or bi-annual) land grading is
recommended for surface irrigation, in order to maintain
the field topography as close as possible to the one in the
original design.
If the land slope has changed significantly or is uneven, it may
affect the uniformity of water application. This could lead to
waterlogging in some areas, for example in depressions, and
to water stress in others. Waterlogging causes drowning of
crop roots, which results in decrease of crop yields. In cases
where the water level reaches the surface it might create
puddles of still-standing water, which form favourable
breeding sites for waterborne diseases. Additionally, the
design irrigation efficiency would be affected negatively and
the estimated water requirements at the planning stage may
no longer be met by the available water resources.
Inappropriate slopes and/or uneven land grades may result in
erosion and render the originally selected stream flow
inappropriate.
Generally, topographic surveys should be carried out on
grid points 20-30 m apart. However, the grid layout
depends on the slope and the uniformity of the land.
Where the land is steep and irregular, the grid points should
be moved closer to each other. Recommended topography
and land slopes are discussed in Module 7.

2.2. Soil moisture in the field

The total available water for plant use in the root zone is
commonly called soil moisture. The available soil moisture
is the difference between field capacity (FC) and
permanent wilting point (PWP) (Module 4). FC is the
maximum water a soil type can hold. PWP is when all the
freely available water is depleted and the soil is dry. When
the water content is close to the FC the plant needs to use
very little energy for the water uptake. The more water
depleted from the soil, the more energy the plant has to
waste for the water uptake, thereby creating a water stress
situation. Some crops are more sensitive to soil moisture
depletion than others or, in other words, they are more
susceptible to water stress than others. Therefore, the
allowable depletion is different for different crops and
different soil types. Allowable soil moisture depletion levels
for different crops are given Module 4.
Having more water in the soil than it can hold (i.e. more
than FC), means that the soil is waterlogged. In a
waterlogged situation the roots are standing in water. This
will damage the plant (except rice), given that the roots not
only need water but also air.
Soil moisture measurements should be taken periodically
during the growing season. The results can be used to
determine when the next irrigation should take place and
what water depth to apply. After irrigation the results can
be used to evaluate whether the correct depth of water was
added to the soil or to assess waterlogging or water stress.
Soil moisture content can be optimized through the
following actions:
Y

Regulation of water application through good irrigation

schedules, in order to avoid either over-watering or
under-watering,

Land levelling to prevent poor distribution uniformity

resulting in water stress in some areas and waterlogging
in others

Installation and maintenance of an adequate drainage

system

Use of lined canals or pipes to prevent seepage

Several soil moisture measurement methods can be

employed. These include soil feel, gravimetric soil moisture
Module 14

13

Irrigation manual

Table 5
Guidelines for evaluating soil moisture by feel
Texture
Available
Soil
soil
moisture
moisture condition

Coarse fine sand;

Loamy fine sand

Moderate coarse
sandy loam;
Fine sandy loam

Medium sandy
clay loam;
Loam; Silt loam

Fine clay loam;

Silty clay loam

0-25

Dry

Loose. Will hold

together if not disturbed.
Loose sand grains on
fingers

Forms a very weak

ball*. Aggregated soil
grains break away
easily from ball

Soil aggregations break

away easily. No moisture
staining on fingers.
Clods crumble with
applied pressure

Soil aggregations easily

separate. Clods are
hard to crumble with
applied pressure

25-50

Slightly
moist

Forms a very weak ball

with well-defined marks.
Light coating of loose
and aggregated sand
grains remains on
fingers

Forms a weak ball

with defined finger
marks. Darkened .
colour. No water
staining on fingers

Forms a weak ball with

rough surfaces. No water
staining on fingers. Few
aggregated soil grains
break away

Forms a weak ball.

Very few soil
aggregations break
away. No water stains.
Clods flatten with
applied pressure

50-75

Moist

Forms a weak ball with

loose and aggregated
sand grains remaining
on fingers. Darkened
colour. Heavy water
staining on fingers.
Will not form into a
ribbon**

Forms a ball with

defined finger marks.
Very light soil water
staining on fingers.
Darkened colour. Will
not slick

Forms a ball. Very light

water staining. Darkened
colour. Pliable. Forms
a weak ribbon between
thumb and forefinger

Forms a smooth ball

with defined finger
marks. Light soil water
staining on fingers.
Ribbons form with
thumb and forefinger
.

75-100

Wet

Forms a weak ball.

Loose and aggregated
sand grains remain on
fingers. Darkened
colour. Heavy water
staining on fingers.
Will not ribbon

Forms a ball with wet

outline left on hand.
Light to medium water
staining on fingers.
Makes a weak ribbon
between thumb and
forefinger

Forms a ball with welldefined finger marks.

Light to heavy soil water
coating on fingers.
Ribbons form

Forms a ball. Uneven

medium to heavy soil
water coating on
fingers. Ribbon forms
easily between thumb
and forefinger

Field
Capacity
(100)

Wet

Forms a weak ball.

Light to heavy soilwater coating on
fingers. Wet outline of
soft ball remains on .
hand

Forms a soft ball. Free

water appears briefly
on surface after
squeezing or shaking.
Medium to heavy soil
water coating on .
fingers

Forms a soft ball. Free

water appears briefly on
soil surface after
squeezing or shaking.
Medium to heavy soil
water coating on
fingers

Forms a soft ball. Free

water appears on soil
surface after
squeezing or shaking.
Thick soil water
coating on fingers.
Slick and sticky

* A ball is formed by squeezing a soil sample firmly in ones hand.

**A ribbon is formed by squeezing soil between ones thumb and forefinger.

determination and the use of the neutron probe (Module

4). The first method is the cheapest, since it does not
require any equipment. It is less accurate than the others,
since it is subjective. However, it is very common among
surface irrigators in the region. This method involves
squeezing a handful of soil and comparing it with general
guidelines provided in Table 5.
If the soil water content is more than the FC of the soil, free
water can be observed in the soil. In this case, there is risk
of waterlogging. Where the soil moisture depletion is more
than for example 50 % (depending on the crop), risk
prevails for water stress.

14

Module 14

2.3. Water distribution and application

2.3.1. Stream size and water intake opportunity time

Inappropriate stream size and water intake opportunity

time can result in problems like erosion, water wastage
and/or water stress. Advance and recession tests should be
carried out periodically in order to ensure the best
combinations of stream size and water intake opportunity
time for the existing furrows, borders or basins, crops and
growing seasons.
Methods for testing infiltration, advance, recession, stream
size and water intake opportunity time are discussed in
detail in Module 7 and briefly in Section 2.3.3 below.

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

2.3.2. Water distribution uniformity

Field application efficiency (Ea)

The most important technical performance indicators of

surface irrigation systems are distribution uniformity and
application efficiency (see Section 2.3.3). Field
measurements of these parameters for a single irrigation
occasion is not sufficient, instead they should be repeated
at times when the soil, crop or operational characteristics
have sufficiently changed to reveal all facets of the irrigation
system.

The objective of irrigation is to fulfil the crops need of

water without causing harmful side effects. Poor field
application efficiency (Ea) or, in other words, excessive
irrigation results in one or several of the following harmful
consequences: water wastage, waterlogged root zones,
increase in soil salinity and increase in pumping costs.

Poor distribution uniformity of the applied water might

lead to waterlogged root zones and increased soil salinity in
some areas and insufficient water supply in others. It can be
rectified by:
Y

Adjusting the stream flow in order to ensure the best

combinations of stream flow for the existing furrows,
borders or basins, crops and growing seasons and
different soil types

Adjusting the land slope through land levelling

Distribution uniformity (DU) indicates the distribution of

water over the field being irrigated. This is a parameter
similar to the Christiansen coefficient used as a measure of
application efficiency. FAO (1989) proposes that the DU
for surface irrigation should be defined as:

The major on-field water losses that occur during water

application are deep percolation below the root zone and
tail-water or runoff. Deep percolation is the water lost
through infiltration of water beyond the root zone depth.
High deep percolation losses cause waterlogging due to
localized rise of the water table. In addition, plant nutrients
and other chemicals of benefit to crops can be leached
beyond the root zone. Depending on the chemicals
leached, groundwater may be contaminated. Runoff is the
water loss that occurs when irrigation water flows over the
surface beyond the irrigated field. Runoff can cause erosion
and increased salinity and siltation in downstream areas,
such as rivers and other hydraulic structures. It can also
cause waterlogging.
Two parameters are required in order to estimate the field
application efficiency Ea:
Y

Estimates of the net irrigation requirement (IRn) for

the particular site and crop stage

The amount of water applied to the field (W)

Equation 8

DU =

average depth of water applied in

the low quarter end of the field x 100
average depth of water applied

It also suggests an absolute distribution uniformity as

being:
Equation 9
DUa =

minimum depth of water applied

average depth of water applied

x 100

Either of these two equations could be used, depending on

the preference of the person carrying out the monitoring.
In view of the extensive soil moisture measurements
required for the assessment of the DU, these tests are done
every few years. An example on assessing distribution
uniformity and application efficiency is given in the
following section.
2.3.3. Irrigation efficiencies

A detailed description of the different types of irrigation

efficiencies (field application, field canal, farm, conveyance,
distribution system, overall) is given in Module 1.

Module 4 provides the means for estimating IRn. The average

volume of water applied to the field can be measured at the
head of the furrow, border or basin. This is the amount of
water discharged by the siphon, spile or other type of turnout
over a given time. When these figures are known, Ea can be
determined using the equations below, where either volumes
or depths of water can be used:
Equation 10a
Ea =

IRn (m3)
W (m3)

Equation 10b
x 100

Ea =

IRn (mm)
W (mm)

x 100

The estimated IRn should correspond to the irrigation

frequency of the particular location, crop and crop stage. Ea
gives an indication of the losses since it shows the fraction
of the water that is applied to the soil root zone, which is
potentially accessible to evaporation and transpiration. It
does not, however, indicate the distribution uniformity or
the adequacy of irrigation.
In the example below, borderstrip irrigation will be used to
illustrate the process of determining the performance
parameters of a surface irrigation system and the causes of
water losses in a block. The following data were collected:
Module 14

15

Irrigation manual

Area of the block under consideration: 1.75 ha

Net irrigation depth IRn: 45 mm

Discharge at the inlet to the field canal from the

conveyance canal: 75 l/sec

Discharge at the head of the borderstrip: 65.3 l/sec

Actual irrigation time in field canal: 7 hours

Since the border was dyked at the end, no runoff

measurements were needed.
Wooden pegs are set out at 10 m intervals along the
length of the borderstrip. Irrigation should be carried out
with the same flow as the farmers use. The flow of water
at the top of the field should be measured using
measuring devices such as flumes and weirs. In the
absence of these, buckets can be used. One should ensure

that the water enters into the bucket at the same position
as it enters the field during normal irrigation. Water
should also be applied on the borderstrips at both sides
next to the test borderstrip in such way that they will act
as buffers. However, if in reality the farmer irrigates only
one border at a time, then no water should be applied to
the borderstrips at both sides. The flow should be timed,
so that the volume can be calculated. The time taken by
the water to advance along the borderstrip length should
be recorded and so should the recession. The infiltration,
i.e. the subsurface profile, should be computed at every
peg. This profile is determined by adding the water depth
on the surface to the profile developed during the
advance phase. Table 6 shows evaluation data of a
borderstrip test and the graph shows the data plotted as
infiltration (column 7) versus distance along the border
(column 1).

Table 6
Borderstrip water advance and recession data

Distance (m)
(1)

Recession time (min)

clock
elapsed
(4)
(5)

Contact time
(min)
(6) = (5) - (3)

Water applied
(mm) *
(7)

07.00

15.20

500

500

102

10

07.30

30

15.30

510

480

99

20

08.15

75

16.00

540

465

96

30

09.00

120

16.45

585

465

96

40

10.00

180

17.34

634

454

94

50

11.10

250

18.38

698

448

94

60

12.15

315

19.43

763

448

94

70

13.20

380

20.24

804

424

90

80

14.30

450

21.30

870

420

90

90

15.45

525

22.35

935

410

88

100

17.00

600

23.50

1010

410

88

Obtained from the graph

16

Advance time (min)

clock
elapsed
(2)
(3)

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Example 1
What is the distribution uniformity in the field for the borderstrip described above?
Using the depths infiltrated at each peg at the downstream quarter end of the field (between 70-100 m approximately
from Table 6), the average depth of water applied at this lower quarter end is:
88 + 88 + 90 + 90
4

= 89 mm

Using Equation 8:
89

DU =

94

x 100 = 94.7%

The absolute distribution uniformity (DUa) is calculated using Equation 9:

DUa =

88
94

x 100 = 93.6%

Example 2
What is the field application efficiency for the borderstrip described above?
Based on Table 6, the average depth of water applied to the field is 94 mm. Therefore the average volume of water
applied to the field is:
94 x 1.75 x 10 = 1 645 m3
The net depth of water IRn that has to be applied to the root zone is 45 mm, which gives the volume of water required
by crops:
1.75 ha x 45 mm x 10 = 787.5 m3
Either Equation 10a or 10b can be used to calculate the application efficiency as follows:
Ea =

787.5
1 645

x 100 = 48%

or

Ea =

45
94

x 100 = 48%

Example 1 and 2 show that this irrigation system has a high

distribution uniformity and a low field application efficiency.
The reason for the high distribution uniformity is that all
points along the border have been more than adequately
irrigated. However, this causes high deep percolation losses.
In order to minimize deep percolation losses, the flow should
either be cut off earlier or reduced. The decision on the
correct flow can be reached once the same test is done using
different stream flows (see Module 7).

The field canal efficiency (Eb) is an indication of the losses

that occur in these canals, from the outlet of the conveyance
canals to the inlet of the field. Eb is defined through the
following equation:
Equation 11
Eb =

water received at the block of fields

Example 3
What is the field canal efficiency in the borderstrip
irrigation example?

Field canal efficiency (Eb)

water received at the field

As will be seen in Example 3, losses are fairly low in field

canals that are concrete-lined and fairly new with only
minor leaks at the joints. However, for unlined canals these
losses can be very high, especially when weeds are present
in the canals. High losses would also be expected for older
lined canals with cracks and weed growth.

The measuring device at the intake to the block

shows a discharge of 75 l/sec for 7 hours. The
measuring device at the field inlet showed a
discharge of 65.3 l/sec.
Thus, the water losses in the canal are (75 - 65.3) =
9.7 l/sec.
Eb =

x 100%

65.3
75

x 100 = 87%

Module 14

17

Irrigation manual

Conveyance efficiency (Ec)

Example 5

Ec is defined through the following equation:

What is the overall irrigation efficiency of our
example?

Equation 12
Ec =

water received at the block

water diverted from the headwork

Ep = 0.75 x 0.87 x 0.48 = 0.31 or 31%

x 100%

Conclusion
Example 4
The measuring device at the outlet of the dam of our
example provides a discharge of 100 l/sec. What is
the conveyance efficiency?
Since the intake of the block was 75 l/sec, this means
that:
Ec =

75
100

x 100 = 75%

Looking at Example 5, it transpires that over two thirds

(69%) of the water is lost in the process of conveyance,
distribution and application. Considering that a major
cost of a scheme is the construction of a dam and that the
greater the area that can be irrigated from the water
stored in the dam the more economically viable the
scheme, these results give the opportunity to consider
various options:
Y

Improve Ea through the selection of a better stream

flow onto the borderstrip

Project efficiency (Ep)

Improve Ea through periodic land grading

This is the overall efficiency of the irrigation scheme:

Improve Eb by sealing the joints of the field canals or

by lining the earthen canals

Improve Ec by lining the conveyance canal

Equation 13
Ep = Ec x Eb x Ea

18

Module 14

Chapter 3
Monitoring the technical performance of a
sprinkler irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 8, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described.

Using the same bulk density (BD) as determined during the

initial soil surveys, the moisture can be expressed on
volumetric basis:

The most common field measurements to carry out during

monitoring and evaluating sprinkler irrigation systems are:

Equation 15

Soil moisture in the field

Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler system

Irrigation efficiencies

SMa(v) = SMa(w) x BD
Where:
SMa(v) = Available soil moisture by volume
SMa(w) = Available soil moisture by weight
BD

3.1. Soil moisture in the field

The importance of soil moisture measurement was
explained in Section 2.2. In sprinkler irrigation schemes,
the soil moisture content can be optimized through the
regulation of water application through appropriate
operation pressure and good irrigation schedules.
Several soil moisture measurement methods can be
employed, as mentioned in Section 2.2, wherein the soil
feel method was described. In this section the gravimetric
soil moisture determination is described. Either of the
other two methods is also applicable to sprinkler irrigation
systems. The objective of this monitoring tool is to establish
whether the replenishment of the soil moisture through
irrigation is adhering to the designed allowable depletion
level.
Through the soils surveys done during the feasibility study
the available moisture (by volume) and the bulk density were
determined (Module 2). At the monitoring stage the soil
moisture content just before irrigation will need to be
determined, for example through the gravimetric method.
For this purpose, a sample of soil of about 100-200 grams is
taken and sealed in an aluminium or stainless steel container.
The sample is weighed in the container and put into an oven
for 24 hours at 105C with the cover of the container
removed. The dry soil and the container are then weighed
again. The difference equals the amount of moisture held in
the soil just before irrigation. The following expression
provides the moisture content in decimal form:
Equation 14
SMa(w) =

wet weight - dry weight

dry weight

= Bulk density

For a clearer picture of the concept of volume percent it is

noteworthy that 1 mm of water over an area of 1 ha
amounts to a volume of water of 10 m3 (= 10-3 x 104).

3.2. Pressure and discharge in the sprinkler

system
One should actually measure the pressure and discharge of
the sprinkler. During sprinkler irrigation design, say the
allowable pressure variation within one hydraulic unit was
established to 20% (see Module 8). Therefore, in the field
one can measure the actual sprinkler operating pressures of
individual sprinklers within a hydraulic unit in order to
determine whether they are conform to this condition. If
not, the sprinklers are not applying water as envisaged in
the design. This may be due to causes such as wear of
different parts of the sprinklers or to the fact that some
farmers may be using other sprinklers than those envisaged
in the design. Moreover, there may be cases where the
sprinklers do not fulfil the manufacturers specifications. In
other cases, the pressure variation may be due to poor
design.
Nozzles erode during operation, predominantly because of
the abrasive action of sand in the water. After a longer time
of operation, nozzles might have been worn to such an
extent that the enlarged openings have lead to pressure
drops and decreased distribution uniformity. Hence,
pressure and discharge tests should be carried out every
second year. Any change in the discharge and pressure of
sprinklers would shift the operation of the pumping unit to
a different point on the performance curve, which may
affect the power requirements. In such a case, the existing
motor would be overloaded and at times burn out.
Module 14

19

Irrigation manual

Example 6
From initial soil survey:
Available moisture by weight = 0.085 or 8.5% or 85 mm/m
Available moisture by volume = 0.119 or 11.9%
Bulk density (BD) = 1.4 g/cm3
Desirable depletion = 0.5 or 50%
From soil sampling at monitoring just before irrigation:
Wet weight = 215 grams
Dry weight = 210 grams
What is the soil moisture depletion between two irrigations?
Soil moisture on a weight basis is: SMa(w) =

215 - 210
210

= 0.0238

The soil moisture on a volumetric basis is: SMa(v) = 0.02378 x 1.4 = 0.0333
The depletion is:

0.085 - 0.0238
0.085

= 0.72 or

0.119 - 0.0333
0.119

= 0.72, which is 72%

These results show that the crop is allowed by the farmers to deplete the soil moisture to levels well above the
desirable depletion of 50%. Hence the crop is stressed. A change in the irrigation schedule is needed.

In order to avoid these problems, nozzles should be replaced

from time to time. When surface water is used through the
sprinklers, it is recommended that nozzles be replaced every
year or every other year depending on the degree of wear. It
should also be ensured that the nozzles conform to the
design. All farmers should use the sprinklers that were
stipulated in the design. In some cases, smallholders are
tempted to purchase large size nozzle sprinklers when they
replace the old ones, due to the fact that they discharge
more water. This, however, leads to pressure drops, in other
words this leads to poorer water distribution. In some cases
the pressure at which the sprinklers are operating may be
either too high or too low. In those cases one has to correct
the pressure at the pressure-regulating device for that unit or
for the whole irrigation scheme. In addition, one should
monitor the quality of water and ensure that efficient O&M
is taken place, such as flushing of the sprinkler pipes (see
Module 8).

middle, and at the end of the hydraulic unit and compliance

with the allowable pressure variation checked. Using a
bucket, a stop watch, a volumetric cylinder and a short hose
(2 m), the flow rate of the sprinkler can also be tested and
compared to the original performance data that were
obtained during the commissioning of the system.
Derivations from the original data would give indications on
possible problems to be rectified. It could be that reduced
sprinkler pressure and/or discharge is caused by
simultanously operating more sprinklers than the number
envisaged by the design. Another possibility could be that
there are leakages in the system, including the sprinkler
itself. Laboratory tests can be very useful in establishing the
current performance of an average sprinkler brought from
the field and recommending measures to improve it.

3.3. Irrigation efficiences

The justification for irrigation efficiencies as indicators to
monitor the technical performance, as given in Section 2.3.3
for surface irrigation, is also valid for sprinkler irrigation.

After a number of years, the seals of the sprinklers wear out

and substantial losses of water occur before the water
reaches the nozzle. Under these circumstances the worn
parts should be replaced. This is usually done at the dealers
workshop. This also provides the opportunity to overhaul
the sprinkler and also adjust the tension of the spring or
replace the spring.

Using the IRn estimates for the particular site, crops and
stage of growth and the amount of water applied per
irrigation, the Ea can be estimated as explained in Section
2.3.3.

The nozzle pressure is defined as the pitot-static pressure at

the vena-contracta of the jet from the main (largest) nozzle.
It is measured using a pitot tube attached to the pressure
gauge. The sprinkler pressure is tested at the beginning, the

In the case of sprinkler irrigation, by measuring the flow as

described earlier, the average sprinkler flow is calculated.
Using this data, the IRn estimates and the duration of
irrigation, the Ea is estimated.

20

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

As far as the Eb, Ec and Ep are concerned, the same

principles described in Section 2.3.3 apply here also, as
long as water meters are installed at strategic positions in
the irrigation scheme. However, in view of the costs, in
practice only a main water meter is installed at the pump
outlet. Hence, a combined Ec and Eb efficiency, called

distribution system efficiency Ed (see Module 1), can be

estimated using the reading of the water meter at the
beginning and at the end of an irrigation, the number of
sprinklers in operation, the average sprinkler flow and the
duration of irrigation.

Example 7
The average flow of one sprinkler operating at 35 meters head and spaced at 12 m x 12 m was found to be 0.6 m3/hrs.
Irrigation is practiced for 11 hours every 6 days and the corresponding IRn at peak demand is 30 mm. What is the
field application efficiency?
For the 12 x 12 = 144 m2 commanded by one sprinkler:
IRn = 0.030 x 144 = 4.32 m3
The sprinkler will provide 6.6 m3 (0.6 x 11) of water to this area.
Ea =

4.32
6.6

= 0.65 or 65%

While this is within acceptable limits, after comparing it with the design efficiency of 75% it is low.
The design was based on irrigation for 6 days a week to cover the water requirements of 7 days operating for 11
hours per shift. By adjusting the irrigation depth and frequency, what would be the Ea?
IRn = 0.035 x 144 = 5.04 m3
Ea =

5.04
6.6

= 0.76 or 76%

This will reduce the energy cost by about 14%.

Alternatively the farmers can be requested to operate the system for 10 hours instead of 11 and maintain the 6-day
frequency.
Ea =

4.32
6

= 0.72 or 72%

This will result in about a 10% saving on the energy cost.

Example 8
The sprinkler flow was tested and found to be 0.6 m3/hrs. Over the 10 hour period of irrigation with 100 sprinklers,
the water meter at the pump outlet has shown that 65 m3 of water was pumped. What is the Ed?
Ed =

0.06 x 100
65

= 0.92 or 92%

This indicates that some leaks in the piped network need repairing. Assuming that the Ea estimated earlier was found
to be 0.65, the project efficiency would be:
Ep = 0.65 x 0.92 = 0.6 or 60%
This is relatively low for sprinkler systems. Measures to improve the project efficiency were proposed earlier under
the discussion of Ea and Ed.

Module 14

21

Irrigation manual

22

Module 14

Chapter 4
Monitoring the technical performance of a
localized irrigation scheme
This chapter should be read together with Module 1 and
Module 9, in which the technical parameters and their
range for optimal performance are described.
The most common field measurements to carry out during
monitoring and evaluating localized irrigation systems are:
Y

Soil moisture in the field

Emission uniformity

Irrigation efficiencies

4.1. Soil moisture in the field

Localized irrigation systems are known for very frequent
applications of small amounts of water. As a rule, irrigation
is practiced at almost no moisture depletion. The frequency
of irrigation for shallow-rooted crops like vegetables is
almost daily and for tree crops it is every 2-3 days.
This very frequent application of small amounts of water,
combined with very frequent application of water-soluble
fertilizers, is the main reason for the higher yields obtained
with these systems. Ideally, farmers should have
tensiometers installed in their fields and irrigate when the
tension in the soils reaches 15-30 centibars (see Module 4).
However for smallholders, where several crops are grown at
the same time, irrigation schedules based on CROPWAT
are used. In these cases periodic check of the soil moisture
by irrigation technicians and/or extension staff is required
for refinement and adjustment of the schedules.
Unfortunately, the methods described in Chapters 2 (soil feel
method) and 3 (gravimetric method) are not suitable for
localized irrigation systems in view of the limited wetted area
of the soil and the need to irrigate around field capacity. For
localized systems, the quick-probe tensiometers are ideal for
measuring the soil moisture (see Module 4). These are
portable tensiometers with a steel probe on the end of which
a small ceramic cap is attached. They can be inserted at the
root zone depth and within 1-2 minutes the soil moisture
tension can be read on the vacuum gauge. Periodic checks by
the extension staff using this instrument can help adjust and
refine the irrigation schedule of smallholders.

4.2. Emission uniformity

One major disadvantage of localized irrigation systems is
that they are prone to clogging because of the small size of
the aperture of the emitters. While means are provided in
the system to remove impurities from the water, not all
impurities are removed. Among the recommendations for
the operation and maintenance of these schemes is the
periodic review of the flow using a flow meter or a water
meter, which is usually installed after the filters, and the use
of chemigation to clean the system.
A periodic check of the uniformity of water application can
also provide the means of checking the effectiveness of
cleaning the system, so that the delivery of nutrients and
water to the crop is uniformly provided.
A field test of emission uniformity requires a large amount
of field data and is a time-consuming process, if the basic
equation from Keller and Bliesner (1990) is to be correctly
used:
Equation 15
EU =

q n
qa

Where:
EU = Field test emission uniformity (percentage)
q n

= Average rate of discharge of the lowest

one-fourth of the field data emitter
discharge reading (lph)

qa

= Average discharge rate of all emitters

checked in the field (lph)

To simplify matters, it is proposed that indicative values of

EU may be obtained if the test is carried out on the first,
middle and last laterals of a plot and include the first,
middle and last emitter of each lateral. The greater the
number of emitters tested the better the indicative EU
values can be. To run such a test a can, a volumetric cylinder
and a stopwatch are required.

Module 14

23

Irrigation manual

Example 9
A test of the discharge of 48 emitters was carried out in plot of vegetables with the following results:
No. of
emitters

q
lph

No. of
emitters

q
lph

No. of
emitters

q
lph

No. of
emitters

q
lph

2.11

13

2.10

25

2.00

37

2.00

2.01

14

2.14

26

2.10

38

1.98

2.00

15

1.94

27

2.09

39

2.05

2.03

16

1.95

28

1.99

40

2.06

2.12

17

2.00

29

1.95

41

2.00

2.07

18

2.01

30

2.11

42

2.08

2.00

19

1.98

31

2.10

43

2.10

2.15

20

2.01

32

2.08

44

1.98

q n =

qa =

1.95

21

2.00

33

2.10

45

2.07

10

2.02

22

1.96

34

1.99

46

2.08

11

2.05

23

2.10

35

1.96

47

1.99

12

2.12

24

2.00

36

2.10

48

2.00

1.95 + 1.94 + 1.95 + 1.98 + 1.96 + 1.99 + 1.95 + 1.99 + 1.96 + 1.98 + 1.98 + 1.99
12

(q1 ... qt)

48

EU = 100 x

= 2.037 lph

1.968
2.037

= 96.6%

4.3. Irrigation efficiences

The procedure explained in Section 3.3, for a sprinkler
irrigation scheme, should be followed for a localized
irrigation scheme.

24

Module 14

= 1.968 lph

Chapter 5
Monitoring the financial performance of
an irrigation scheme
Financial and economic viability are central to the planning,
design, implementation, operation, maintenance and
management of an irrigation scheme, as any investor would
expect an acceptable return to their investment, regardless
of whether it is a large or a small scheme or whether it is a
private or public investment. Financial and economic
viability are thus widely used as criteria for project selection
and also as measures of project sustainability. The key
guiding principle is always that of minimizing costs whilst at
the same time maximizing the benefits from the project.
Therefore, the need to continuously assess and compare
the benefits accruing from the running and operation of an
irrigation scheme to costs incurred is inevitable, in order to
justify (or not) the continued operation of the scheme and
the initial investment.
Module 11 describes the financial and economic appraisal
of irrigation projects. This Chapter focuses on monitoring
the financial performance at plot and scheme level.
Apart from simple, good financial management and
accounting systems, the cost incurred and benefits accruing
from the operation of an irrigation scheme are also largely
dependant on the technical aspects. For example, frequent
breakdowns of machinery and equipment inevitably result
in increased maintenance costs. It is important, therefore,
that financial monitoring is applied in conjunction with
technical monitoring, as described in the previous chapters,
for the different types of irrigation systems.
For financial monitoring it is important that the indicators
are not only quantified in terms of timing but also that
projections on the anticipated costs of implementing each
of the activities be made. Each activity, therefore, has to be
costed.

5.1. Monitoring the financial performance

at plot level
For irrigators to keep records of their plots, it is important
that they are trained not only on how to keep records, but
also on how to analyze and use the records for their own

benefit. Only if irrigators benefit from keeping records, will

they keep useful records. Some areas to emphasize during
training include the following:
Y

Irrigators should record activities as soon as they

happen instead of waiting until the end of the season.
This is meant to help them not to forget what took
place

Records should be kept in a logical manner, following

the sequence in which the farming operations or
activities being recorded take place

The irrigators should keep records in a format that

they themselves understand best, since they are going
to be the prime users of the records

Recording is a continuous process from the start of the

enterprise to the end

Enterprise records, which a farmer ought to keep, include

the records shown on page 26 to be collected for each crop.
These data relate to agricultural and financial performance
and will be used to calculate the farms gross margins,
which is the difference between the total gross income and
the total variable costs for a crop (see Module 11).
It is not necessary for the farmer to record all these items.
A farmer will record only those activities, that they have
done on a particular crop. For example, a farmer may not
record anything about fertilizers if none were used.
Training of irrigators in record-keeping should also
emphasize the importance of valuing the issues mentioned
below, since failure to capture such data will make it
difficult for the irrigators to assess their production levels
accurately:
Y

Payments in kind

Produce consumed

Gifts or donations to relatives, friends and others

Barter exchanges (trading commodities without the

use of money)

Module 14

25

Irrigation manual

Agricultural records

Financial records

Name of the crop planted

Variety of the crop
Dates of land preparation
Dates of planting
Area planted
Amount of seed used
Type and quantity of fertilizer used
Pests and diseases encountered
Type and quantity of chemicals used

Quantity of hired labour (labour days)

Dates of harvesting
Amount of crop harvested
Amount of produce consumed
Amount of produce given to others
Amount of produce retained
Dates of marketing

Amount of produce sold

Following are two examples of enterprise records kept and

presented by two farmers from Murara irrigation scheme in

Cost of land preparation

Cost of planting

Cost of seed used

Cost of fertilizer used

Cost of chemicals used

Cost of transport for farmer to buy inputs
Cost of transport of inputs to the farm
Cost of hired labour
Payments made in kind

Estimate of price of produce consumed

Estimate of price of produce given to others
Estimate of price of produce retained

Cost of transport to ferry produce to market

Cost of transport for farmer to sell produce
Cost for food, accommodation while marketing
Costof packaging crop for marketing
Cost of hiring stands, entry fees into market, etc.
Price of produce sold

Zimbabwe. The records were captured in June 2001.

Example 10
Farmers name: Farai
Block 6: Tomatoes
Nursery planting: 16-01-2001
Size of land: 0.04 ha
Land preparation date: 30-01-2001
Transplanting date: 06-02-2001
Variety: Rodade
Quantity of seed: 25g, total US$1.82
Initial fertilizer: Compound D: 10 kg, total US$3.18
Date of top dressing application 10 kg: 16-02-2001
Weeding casual labour: US$0.90
Chemicals: Rogor: 50 ml, total US$1.45
Date start of marketing: 25-04-2001
Transport to the market:
Transport to the market:
Transport to the market:
Marketing:

25-04-2001
09-05-2001
16-05-2001
22-05-2001
24-05-2001
30-05-2001

Quantity consumed: 8 boxes

still selling

26

Module 14

US$14.09
US$20.09
US$9.89
2 boxes
101 boxes
42 boxes
3 boxes
22 boxes
1 box

US$9.09
US$122.73
US$157.18
US$13.64
US$87.73
US$3.64

Farm gate
Mbare Market
Mbare Market
Farm gate
Mbare Market
Farm gate

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Example 11
Farmers name: Betty
Block 2: Sweet Potatoes
Land size: 0.04 ha
Land preparation date: 27-11-2000
Quantity of runners: 7 x 50 kg bags
Cost of runners: free
Planting date: 05-12-2000
Fertilizer: Gypsum: 10 kg
Cost of Fertilizer: US$1.82
Date of fertilizer application: 15-12-2000
Weeding date: 07-01-2001
Harvesting date:

28-04-2001:
09-05-2001:
11-05-2001:
15-05-2001:

5
6
3
3

Selling dates:

30-04-2001:
10-05-2001:
11-05-2001:
17-05-2001:

US$40.00
US$49.78
US$7.09
US$24.00

Transport:

US$9.09
US$10.73
US$5.45

Mbare Musika: cost of stand plus lunch:

Quantity consumed:

x
x
x
x

90 kg bags
50 kg bags
20 litre tins
50 kg bags

US$2.62
US$2.98
US$2.22

4 x 20 litre tins
6 x 20 litre tins
2 x 20 litre tins

Value of produce consumed:

US$21.82

The above two examples are taken from true farmer

records. They bring out the importance of standardizing
units of measurement. For example, looking at Example
11, it would be difficult to get an estimate of the total
production of sweet potato tubers without knowing the
weight of a 20 litre tin of sweet potato tubers. From the
same example:
Y

A 50 kg bag of sweet potato runners means that the

runners are in a bag that normally weighs 50 kg when
full of maize.
A 90 kg bag of sweet potato tubers means that the
tubers are in a bag that normally weighs 90 kg when full
of maize.

It is important for the irrigators to assess, with the

assistance of the AEW, the weights of the different units of
measurement for the various products used in the scheme.
Use of standardized measures will make data comparable
between farmers as well as usable by outsiders.

For example, the following weights were agreed upon in

Murara irrigation scheme in 2000-2001:
Y

A 50 kg bag sweet potato runners: 5-7 kg

A 90 kg bag sweet potato tubers:

100-110 kg

A 50 kg bag sweet potato tubers:

55-60kg

A 20 litre tin of sweet potato tubers: 22kg

Based on the enterprise records given in Example 10, the

gross margin budget for the tomato crop of farmer Farai
has been established and is shown in Table 7. The same has
been done for the sweet potato crop of farmer Betty, based
on the enterprise records given in Example 11, as shown in
Table 8. The figures have also been converted on a hectare
basis in order to allow for comparison between different
crops, between different farmers and between different
production methods (for example with irrigation and
without irrigation).

Module 14

27

Irrigation manual

Table 7
Gross margin analysis for the tomatoes of farmer Farai
Description

Unit

Per plot

Per ha

ha
kg
kg
kg
boxes
US$

0.04
0.025
10
10
179
423.13

1
0.625
250
250
4 475
10 578.25

Variable Costs:
Land preparation
Cost of seed
Cost of initial fertilizer
Cost of top dressing
Cost of chemicals
Trellising
String
Hired labour
Transport cost (inputs)
Seasonal loan
Transport cost (of produce to market)
Packing materials (used old boxes)
Total variable costs (2)

US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$

0
1.82
3.18
3.18
1.45
0
0
0.90
0
0
44.07
0
54.60

0
45.50
79.50
79.50
36.25
0
0
22.50
0
0
1 101.75
0
1 365.00

Gross Margin (3) = (1) - (2)

US$

368.53

9 213.25

Area planted
Amount of seed
Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer
Amount of top dressing fertilizer
Total output
Gross income * (1)

The value per box of the 8 boxes consumed is considered to be equal to the farm gate price per box on 30-05-2001 and has to be added to the value of
produce sold.

Based on the above, the average price received per 10 kg

box of tomatoes is equal to US$2.36 (= 423.13/179).
According to the enterprise records in Example 10, the
price that farmer Farai got during the selling period varied
between US$1.22 and US$3.99 at Mbara market per 10 kg

box and between US$3.64 and US$4.55 when selling very

small quantities at the farm gate. The fluctuation in prices
is due to the general availability of tomatoes on the market:
the higher the supply the lower the price.

Table 8
Gross margin analysis for the sweet potatoes of farmer Betty

Description

Unit

Per plot

Per ha

Area planted
Amount of runners
Amount of basal (initial) fertilizer
Amount of top dressing fertilizer
Total output
Gross income * (1)

ha
kg
kg
kg
kg
US$

0.04
42
0
10
1 377
142.69

1
1 050
0
250
34 425
3 567.25

Variable Costs:
Land preparation cost
Cost of runners
Cost of initial fertilizer
Cost of top dressing
Hired labour
Transport cost (inputs)
Seasonal loan
Transport cost (of produce to market)
Packing materials
Cost of stand plus lunch
Total variable costs (2)

US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$
US$

0
0
0
1.82
0
0
0
25.27
0
7.82
34.91

0
0
0
45.50
0
0
0
631.75
0
195.50
872.75

Gross margin (3) = (1) - (2)

US$

107.78

2 694.50

Gross income includes the value of the produce sold (US$120.87) plus the value of the produce consumed (US$21.82).

28

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

These records, which irrigators are keeping primarily for

their own use, will be useful to other stakeholders in the
irrigation scheme as well as to those who may want to
know about the agricultural and financial performance of
the scheme. Averaging records of a representative sample
of irrigators (or a census of irrigators if the population is
small) will answer questions on agricultural and financial
performance (gross margin per plot or per ha) of the
scheme.

Based on the above, the average price received per kg of

sweet potatoes is equal to US$0.10 (= 142.69/1377).
According to the enterprise records in Example 11, the price
that farmer Betty got during the selling period varied
between US$0.09 and US$0.14 per kg. For the calculation
of these prices the bags and tins had to be converted into kg,
using the conversion factors given on the previous page.
Besides enterprise data, individual irrigators should also
keep details of their contribution towards:
Y

Energy costs

Water bills

Repairs to scheme infrastructure

Servicing of equipment

Security guard, etc.

Table 9 presents the sort of analysis a farmer could carry

out using their enterprise records, including costs of
energy and repair and maintenance, for their whole
irrigated plot where several crops at the same time are
growing. One farmer has an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha and the
cropping intensity is 200%, which gives a total cropped
area of 1.0 ha per year. In the summer grain maize (0.2
ha), sugar beans (0.2 ha) and groundnuts (0.1 ha) are
cultivated, while in the winter wheat (0.2 ha), green maize
(0.2 ha) and cabbages (0.1 ha) are cultivated.

These data, combined with the gross margin analysis, will

allow individual plot holders to calculate their irrigation
plot net farm income. The incentive for smallholder
irrigators to keep good records is for them to be able to get
an idea of the profitability of their various enterprises
(crops) as well as of the profitability of the whole irrigation
plot. It also will help them to get an idea of the profitability
of irrigated crop production compared to rainfed crop
production (see below).

The farmer is able to compare the income they receive

from their 0.5 ha irrigated plot with the income from their
3.0 ha of rainfed land, which is shown in Table 10. Under
rainfed conditions, there are no costs for energy and repair
and maintenance.

Table 9
Gross margin for an irrigated plot of 0.5 ha (200% cropping intensity) at Mutange irrigation scheme
Crop

Area
(%)

(ha)

Gross margin (US$)

per area

Grain maize

40

0.2

193

Sugar beans

40

0.2

255

Groundnuts

20

0.1

149

Wheat

40

0.2

331

Green maize

40

0.2

1 355

Cabbages

20

0.1

705

Gross margin (1)

200

1.0

2 988

Less:
Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2)

105

Repair and maintenance costs (3)

156

Net income per plot of 0.5 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3)

2 727

Table 10
Gross margin for a rainfed area of 3 ha close to Mutange irrigation scheme
Crop
(%)

Area
(ha)

Gross margin (US$)

per area

Grain maize

36.7

1.10

278

Sorghum

5.0

0.15

30

Pearl millet

1.7

0.05

12

Groundnuts

23.3

0.70

379

Cotton

33.3

1.00

-74

Total gross margin for 3 ha

100.0

3.00

625

Module 14

29

Irrigation manual

It can be concluded from Tables 9 and 10 that the net

income of the 0.5 ha irrigated area (US$2 727) is over 4
times that of the 3.0 ha rainfed area (US$625). Using
enterprise records, farmers can also compare their output
and income per ha with other irrigators.

presented in Section 5.1, will allow for conclusions about

scheme-level performance. Table 11 presents the result of
the analysis that can be done at scheme level. The figures
for the areas per cultivated per crop have been calculated
by adding up the figures of the individual farmers. When
comparing the enterprise records kept by the individual
irrigators, conclusions about seed rates, fertilizer levels per
ha for various crops (i.e. adoption rates) can be made
about irrigators and so can conclusions be made about
yields and incomes. Scheme level analysis can be carried
out by the AEW for the scheme and/or by an external
evaluation team.

To assess whether irrigators yields and/or incomes have

increased, the same analyses will have to be repeated yearly
and a comparison made of income per plot and income per
ha for the different years.

5.2. Monitoring the financial performance

at scheme level

5.2.2. Irrigation Management Committee (IMC) data

and records

Sources of data for monitoring the financial performance at

scheme level include the following:
Y

Enterprise records kept by individual irrigators (the

same records as used in Section 5.1)

Scheme records kept by the Irrigation Management

Committee (IMC)

Scheme records kept by the Agricultural Extension

Worker (AEW)

Y
Y

In a scheme where irrigators have the responsibility of

managing scheme affairs, the IMC will keep records of
scheme level costs and responsibilities. Scheme level costs
kept by the IMC include:
Y

Water bills

Energy bills

Data collected by experts at specific intervals

Repair and servicing costs

Data collected by an evaluation team assigned the task

of evaluating the scheme

Security guard cost

Replacement costs

A questionnaire for smallholder irrigation scheme

evaluation and non-exhaustive checklists for IMC, AEW
and experts data, which can be used as guidance for
collecting data, are attached in Appendix 2.

Levies (for example subscription fees to irrigation

associations, etc.)

These scheme records (fixed costs) will allow for the

calculation of scheme costs per hectare. Individual farmers
may keep a record of their individual contributions to these
costs as well as repairs and other costs relating to their
plots. This will allow for calculation of irrigation profit per
plot (see Section 5.1).

5.2.1. Irrigators data and records

Taking a sample of irrigators agricultural and financial

records (or a census if the population is small), as
Table 11

Gross margin for Mutange irrigation scheme, total area 105 ha (200% cropping intensity)
Crop

Area
(%)

(ha)

Gross margin (US$)

per area

Grain maize

40

42

40 487

Sugar beans

40

42

53 552

Groundnuts

20

21

31 254

Wheat

40

42

69 567

Green maize

40

42

284 633

Cabbages

20

21

147 953

Gross margin (1)

200

210

627 446

Less:
Energy costs for drag-hose sprinkler (2)
Repair and maintenance costs (3)
Net income whole scheme of 105 ha with 200% cropping intensity (4) = (1) - (2) - (3)

30

Module 14

22 126
32 727
572 592

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

The IMC should also keep other records, like frequency of

breakdown of equipment. Monitoring the breakdown
frequency, for example engine breakdown, will allow for
decisions to be made on whether, for example, a new
engine should be bought.
The IMC also needs to keep records on the energy
consumption rate. Monitoring the energy consumption
rate will allow for early detection of problems. A sudden
rise in the rate of energy consumption may indicate that the
equipment needs servicing. Servicing equipment in time
may prevent costly repairs following equipment
breakdown. Records of power failure, where national
electricity supply is available, should also be kept.
The IMC may also keep other non-financial records such
as, for example:
Y

List of plot holders

Gender disaggregation of plot holders

List of IMC post bearers

Gender disaggregation of IMC post bearers

These data can be updated as and when the need arises.

They will be useful in monitoring issues such as
advancement of women, for example whether, over time,
women access irrigation plots in their own right or hold
leadership positions.
5.2.3. Agricultural Extension Worker (AEW) data and
records

The AEW assigned to the scheme may keep the same data
as the IMC. This is because the AEW is well placed to
communicate the data (should the need arise) to various
stakeholders such as the scheme engineer, planners and
other researchers in the scheme.
Over and above these data, the AEW will keep records of:

5.2.4. Experts data and records

Some data, which may have financial implications, will have

to be collected by experts, since they are difficult or
impossible for farmers to collect. Such data include technical
performance data such as discharge rate, the assessment of
condition of equipment, and irrigation infrastructure.
The discharge rate can be taken at the commissioning of the
scheme. Monitoring the discharge rate on a regular basis,
for example yearly, will allow for decisions to be made on
whether equipment should be kept as it is, or whether it
should be serviced or replaced altogether. Estimating the
volumes of water used can be the means for estimating the
efficiency of the scheme. Checking the condition of the
equipment regularly will allow for early detection of worn
parts.
Some of the environmental performance data, such as soil
pH and water pollution, will also need to be measured
regularly, for example yearly, throughout the life of the
scheme in order to detect whether there are any changes in
soil and water quality as a result of the scheme.
5.2.5. External evaluators data and records

A team of outsiders working closely with the stakeholders

in the scheme can carry out a survey among irrigators just
before they start irrigating their new plots (baseline study).
Thereafter, mid-term evaluation, ex-post evaluation (at
completion of the project) and impact evaluation (some
years after completion) missions should be undertaken.
The missions do not need to be carried out by the same
team. For example, a mid-term and ex-post evaluation may
be commissioned by a donor agency using its own staff.
Issues to be covered in a formal survey include:
Y

Asset ownership by irrigators

Nutritional status of the family

Crops grown in the scheme

Ability to pay school fees

Total area per crop

Employment creation

Cropping programme

Food security status

Recommended agronomic practices

Condition of the irrigation infrastructure

Disease incidence among irrigating households and the

surrounding community

Irrigation scheduling

Farmer organization and management ability

Details of courses run for committees and farmers and

attendance

Courses attended by the AEW

The external evaluating team may also have informal

discussions with various stakeholders and make
observations to cover issues such as:

Problems encountered, such as disease outbreaks,

conflicts, etc.

Advancement of women

Backward and forward linkages with the scheme

Module 14

31

Irrigation manual

Food security status of the area

Appropriateness of the technology, for example treadle

pumps to women

Erosion

Waterlogging/drainage problems

The external evaluating team may also use agricultural and

financial data from a sample of farmers and scheme-level
data from IMC to cover issues such as:
Y

Financial viability of scheme

Change in irrigators yields and/or incomes

Indicators to measure the viability of a project are the Net

Present Value (NPV), the Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio and the
Internal Rate of Return (IRR). For a detailed description of
these indicators and their calculation the reader is referred
to Module 11. Suffice it to say here, that the higher the
values of these parameters the more viable the project is. In
any case the NPV should be greater than 0, the B/C ratio
greater than 1 and the IRR should be greater than the
discount rate. Table 12 shows that this is the case for the
project 7 years into operation; so it continues to be viable.
However, when comparing these figures with the ones
calculated during appraisal (Table 13), they all have gone
down:

5.2.6. Monitoring the financial performance of

Mutange irrigation scheme

The NPV has gone down from US$2 608 425 to

US$2 112 273, which is a decrease of 19%

Table 12 shows the financial analysis of Mutange irrigation

scheme seven years into operation. These figures then can
be compared with the figures in Table 13, which show the
financial analysis prepared during the financial and
economic appraisal of the project (Module 11). The actual
data on costs and benefits collected over a period of six
years are used to re-appraise the scheme. This is done in
order to determine whether the scheme is still financially
viable or deserves support only on social, political or food
security grounds. In order to be able to compare Tables 12
and 13, and to be able to re-assess the NPV, B/C ratio and
the IRR (see below), it was assumed that after the 7th year
of operation (= 8th year after construction) until the end
of the 20th year of operation, the costs would be the same
as those of the 7th year. The discount rate has been
estimated at 13% instead of the 12% that was used during
the appraisal of the project.

The B/C ratio has gone down from 2.48 to 2.09, which
is a decrease of 16%

The IRR has gone down from 42% to 30%, which is a

decrease of 29%

32

Module 14

When, however, comparing Table 12 with Table 14, which

during the financial and economic appraisal had already
taken into consideration price increases due to inflation,
the difference is much less. In this case:
Y

The NPV has gone down from US$2 236 154 to

US$2 112 273, which is a decrease of 6%

The B/C ratio has gone up from 2.05 to 2.09, which is

a increase of 2%

The IRR has gone down from 33% to 30%, which is a

decrease of 9%

1 200 000

37 000

37 000

20

21

Present value of costs (12) = (8) x (11)

Present value of benefits (13) = (9) x (11)

Present value of net benefits (14) = (10) x (11)

Net benefits (10) = (9) - (8)

Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)

817 632

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 500

42 210

41 500

40 250

35 672

33 000

30 000

(5)

Repairs
and
maintenance

705 072

37 000

19

197 000

37 000

37 000

16

37 000

37 000

15

18

37 000

14

17

37 000

13

90 000

37 000

12

37 000

37 000

10

80 000

37 000

11

37 000

36 600

34 100

35 490

28 782

27 000

27 100

(4)

25 000

1 200 000

(3)

Energy
costs

(2)

(1)

Replacement
costs

Investment

Year

448 223

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

24 000

23 425

21 295

19 359

17 599

16 000

14 545

(6)

Technical
support

774 428

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

(7)

Withoutproject
benefits

Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, 7 years into operation (US$)

Table 12

4 142 355

140 378

140 378

140 378

140 378

140 378

230 378

140 378

140 378

140 378

140 378

220 378

140 378

140 378

140 378

139 113

162 163

130 587

118 931

112 978

106 423

1 236 878

(8)

Total
project
costa

13 739 429

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

627 446

548 352

451 663

(9)

Withproject
benefits

9 597 074

572 091

572 091

572 091

572 091

572 091

482 091

572 091

572 091

572 091

572 091

492 091

572 091

572 091

572 091

573 356

550 306

581 882

508 516

435 375

345 240

-1 236 878

(10)

Net
benefitsb

4 058 993

54 717

61 830

69 868

78 950

89 214

100 812

113 917

128 726

145 461

164 371

185 739

209 885

237 170

268 002

302 842

342 212

386 699

384 824

380 036

4 353 718

(13)

Present
value of
benefitsd

2 112 273

43 936

49 647

56 102

63 395

71 636

68 214

91 472

103 363

116 801

131 985

128 287

168 531

190 440

215 198

243 711

264 322

315 822

311 882

301 736

270 374

-1 094 582

(14)

Present
value of net
benefitse

4 058 993
1 946 719
2.09
30%
4 years

Present value of benefits:

Present value of costs:
Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio:
Internal Rate of Return (IRR):
Payback period:

2 112 273

1 946 719

10 781

12 182

13 766

15 556

17 578

32 598

22 445

25 363

28 660

32 386

57 452

41 354

46 730

52 804

59 131

77 890

70 877

72 942

78 299

83 344

1 094 582

(12)

Present
value of
costsc

Net Present Value (NPV) at 13%:

0.0768

0.0868

0.0981

0.1108

0.1252

0.1415

0.1599

0.1807

0.2042

0.2307

0.2607

0.2946

0.3329

0.3762

0.4251

0.4803

0.5428

0.6133

0.6931

0.7831

0.8850

(11)

Discount
factor
(13%)

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Module 14

33

34

Module 14

1 090 909

22 126

22 126

20

21

Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)

Net benefits (10) = (9) - (8)

Present value of costs (12) = (8) x (11)

Present value of benefits (13) = (9) x (11)

Present value of net benefits (14) = (10) x (11)

654 540

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

32 727

(5)

Repairs
and
maintenance

442 520

22 126

19

186 489

22 126

18

22 126

16

22 126

22 126

15

84 456

22 126

17

22 126

14

11

13

22 126

22 126

10

22 126

22 126

12

22 126

77 097

22 126

22 126

22 126

22 126

24 936

22 126

(4)

1 090 909

(3)

Energy
costs

22 126

(2)

(1)

Replacement
costs

Investment

Year

290 900

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

(6)

Technical
support

774 428

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

(7)

Withoutproject
benefits

3 439 786

106 276

106 276

106 276

106 276

106 276

190 732

106 276

106 276

106 276

106 276

183 373

106 276

106 276

106 276

106 276

131 212

106 276

106 276

106 276

106 276

1 127 787

(8)

Total
project
costa

13 739 429

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

627 446

548 352

451 663

(9)

Withproject
benefits

10 299 643

606 193

606 193

606 193

606 193

606 193

521 737

606 193

606 193

606 193

606 193

529 096

606 193

606 193

606 193

606 193

581 257

606 193

521 171

442 077

345 387

-1 127 787

(10)

Net
benefitsb

4 372 760

65 975

73 883

82 718

92 621

103 735

116 204

130 168

145 771

163 298

182 891

204 835

229 415

256 916

287 766

322 250

360 937

404 255

398 742

390 317

360 066

(13)

Present
value of
benefitsd

2 608 425

56 133

62 862

70 379

78 805

88 262

85 095

110 751

124 027

138 939

155 610

152 115

195 194

218 593

244 841

274 181

294 465

343 954

331 204

314 670

275 343

-1 007 001

(14)

Present
value of net
benefitse

2.48
42%
4 years

Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio:

Payback period:

Present value of costs:

Internal Rate of Return (IRR):

4 372 760
1 764 335

Present value of benefits:

2 608 425

1 764 335

9 841

11 021

12 339

13 816

15 474

31 108

19 417

21 744

24 358

27 281

52 720

34 221

38 323

42 925

48 068

66 472

60 301

67 538

75 647

84 723

1 007 001

(12)

Present
value of
costsc

Net Present Value (NPV) at 13%:

0.0926

0.1037

0.1161

0.1300

0.1456

0.1631

0.1827

0.2046

0.2292

0.2567

0.2875

0.3220

0.3606

0.4039

0.4523

0.5066

0.5674

0.6355

0.7118

0.7972

0.8929

(11)

Discount
factor
(13%)

Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project (US$)

Table 13
Irrigation manual

1 418 182

712 469
13 739 429

9 720 061

596 375

596 375

596 375

596 375

596 375

486 582

596 375

596 375

596 375

596 375

496 149

596 375

596 375

596 375

596 375

563 958

596 375

511 352

432 259

335 569

-1 455 059

(10)

Net
benefitsb

4 372 760
2 136 607

Present value of costs:

2 236 154

55 224

61 844

69 239

77 529

86 832

79 362

108 958

122 018

136 689

153 089

142 643

192 033

215 053

240 876

269 740

285 701

338 383

324 965

307 682

267 516

-1 299 222

(14)

Present
value of net
benefitse

2 236 154

4 372 760

65 975

73 883

82 718

92 621

103 735

116 204

130 168

145 771

163 298

182 891

204 835

229 415

256 916

287 766

322 250

360 937

404 255

398 742

390 317

360 066

(13)

Present
value of
benefitsd

Present value of benefits:

2 136 607

10 750

12 039

13 478

15 092

16 903

36 842

21 210

23 753

26 609

29 801

62 192

37 382

41 863

46 890

52 509

75 235

65 872

73 777

82 635

92 550

1 299 222

(12)

Present
value of
costsc

Net Present Value (NPV) at 13%:

0.0926

0.1037

0.1161

0.1300

0.1456

0.1631

0.1827

0.2046

0.2292

0.2567

0.2875

0.3220

0.3606

0.4039

0.4523

0.5066

0.5674

0.6355

0.7118

0.7972

0.8929

(11)

Discount
factor
(13%)

Module 14

35

5 years

Payback period:

Present value of net benefits (14) = (10) x (11)

116 094
4 019 367

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

712 469

627 446

548 352

451 663

(9)

Withproject
benefits

2.05

Present value of benefits (13) = (9) x (11)

36 878
774 428

116 094

116 094

116 094

116 094

225 886

116 094

116 094

116 094

116 094

216 320

116 094

116 094

116 094

116 094

148 510

116 094

116 094

116 094

116 094

1 455 059

(8)

Total
project
costa

33%

Present value of costs (12) = (8) x (11)

14 545
290 900

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

36 878

(7)

Withoutproject
benefits

Internal Rate of Return (IRR):

Net benefits (10) = (9) - (8)

850 902

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

14 545

(6)

Technical
support

Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio:

Total project costs (8) = (7) + (6) + (5) + (4) + (3) + (2)

42 545

22 126

442 520

21

Total

42 545

22 126

20

42 545

42 545

22 126

42 545

22 126

242 436

42 545
42 545

19

16

18

22 126

22 126

15

42 545

22 126

22 126

14

42 545

42 545

42 545

17

22 126

13

109 793

22 126

12

22 126

100 226

11

42 545

42 545

22 126

22 126

10

42 545

22 126

42 545

42 545

22 126

42 545

42 545

42 545

22 126

22 126

32 417

22 126

42 545

(5)

Repairs
and
maintenance

22 126

(4)

1 418 182

(3)

Energy
costs

22 126

(2)

(1)

Replacement
costs

Investment

Year

Financial analysis of Mutange irrigation scheme, as established during the financial and economic appraisal of the project, taking into consideration a 30% increase
in investment, replacement, repairs and maintenance costs (US$)

Table 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Irrigation manual

36

Module 14

References

Beaudoux, E., de Crombrugghe, G., Douxchamps, F., Gueneau, M. and Nieuwkerk, M. 1992. Supporting development action
from identification to evaluation. Macmillan Education Ltd.
BOND. 2001. Beginners guide to logical framework analysis. BOND Guidance notes series 1.
Casley, D.J. and Kumar K. 1990. Project monitoring and evaluation in agriculture. London.
Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1981. A handbook on monitoring and evaluation of agriculture and rural development projects. World Bank.
Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1989. Data collection in developing countries. Oxford University Press.
DFID. 1997. Guidelines on humanitarian assistance.
FAO. 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 45.
Developed by: Walker, W.R. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1992. CROPWAT: A computer programme for irrigation planning and management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 46. Prepared by: Smith, M. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1998. SEAGA Sector Guide Irrigation. Socioeconomic and gender analysis programme. Prepared by: Eva Jordans. Rome,
Italy.
FAO SAFR. 2000. Socio-economic impact of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe: Case studies of ten irrigation schemes. Harare,
Zimbabwe.
FAO/DFID/ICID. Undated. Guidelines for water management and irrigation development. Prepared by: Field, W.P and Collier, F.W.
HR Wallington Ltd, Institute of Hydrology.
FARMESA. 2001. Farming systems approach to technology development and transfer: a source book. Prepared by: Matata, J.B,
Anandajayasekeram, P, Kiriro, T.N, Wandera, E.O. and Dixon, J. Harare, Zimbabwe.
IDS. 1998. Participatory monitoring & evaluation: learning from change. Policy briefing. Issue 12, November 1998.
IIMI. 1996. Mthodologie dvaluation des performances et de diagnostic des systmes irrigus. Projet Management de lirrigation au
Burkina Faso. Novembre 1996.
Sally, H. 1995. Performance assessment of rice irrigation in the Sahel: major indicators and preliminary results from Burkina Faso and Niger.
Paper presented at Workshop on irrigated rice in the Sahel: prospects for sustainable development, 27-31 March
1995.
United Nations ACC Task Force on Rural Development Panel on Monitoring and Evaluation. 1984. Guiding principles for the
design and use of monitoring and evaluation in rural development projects and programmes. Rome.

Module 14

37

Irrigation manual

38

Module 14

Appendix 1
Examples of indicators used for monitoring and evaluation of
activities, outputs, immediate objectives and goals
Example of a drag-hose sprinkler irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe, following the logical framework of Table 2

Module 14

39

40

Module 14

IMC

Experts
Experts

Farmers & AEW

IMC & AEW

Courses run for irrigators

Types of courses
Dates
Attendance men, women

Energy consumption rate of

system

Discharge rate

Condition of equipment

Uniformity of irrigation

Frequency of breakdown

Training

Irrigation
equipment
installed, tested
and performing
as expected

AEW

Number of farmers selected

AEW
Females, males
RDC
Agricultural training, for example
Master farmer
Farming experience
Baseline survey
Average age
Asset ownership, for example
equipment and draft power
Crops grown currently under dryland

Selection

Source of
information

Specific data or information

(indicators)

Area of
indicators

IMC & AEW records

of all breakdowns and
repairs when they occur

Observation weekly

Tests and physical

check on equipment at
inauguration of scheme
and then every 6 months

Take meter reading

weekly

Contained in monthly
report to DAEO

Survey of new
irrigators once at
start of the scheme

Part of selection
Committee

Method of collection
and frequency

INPUTS/ACTIVITIES: Selection and training of new irrigators and installation of equipment

Irrigators,
Funding
Agency,
Agritex

Funding
Agency

Agritex

Agritex, RDC
Funding
Agency

Energy consumption rate

determines size of the
scheme energy bill
Any change in discharge
rate gives advance warning
about problems either at the
water source or with the
equipment
Frequent breakdown affects
the repair bill, also results in
periods of non- irrigation
Any deterioration in the
condition of equipment may
mean
imminent breakdown
need for rehabilitation, etc.

Keep track of courses run

for irrigators
Keep track of output related
to funds disbursed

Funding Agency wants to know

whether project beneficiaries
fall within its priority area eg.
women farmers, the poor, etc.

Agritex & RDC want to know

what sort of training is required
by new irrigators so as to
organize the courses.

Who uses this Use of information

information

Regular monitoring of these

indicators is required

AEWs report to DAEO could be

copied to Funding Agency

Funding Agency
can engage a researcher to do
the survey and analysis to
provide the data

Agritex can carry out the baseline

survey through one of its units to
provide the data

Comments

Irrigation manual

Timeliness of operations

Type and average quantity of

pesticide used per crop

Cultural practices used to control

pests and diseases per crop

Type and average quantity of top

dressing fertilizer used per crop

Crop varieties grown

Farmer records
Average seed rate per ha per crop

External
evaluation team

Agritex AEW

Funding
Agency

Agritex

Farmer

Adoption survey once

every year or just
midway into the
implementation

Funding
Agency

Also compare farmer records with

what farmers used to grow under
dryland as detailed in the
baseline study

Comments

To make a preliminary
assessment of whether the
project objectives are likely to
be achieved

To assess whether farmers

need further training on
agronomy

This data will help him / her to

budget for the same crop next
season

An evaluation of adoption rate

by an external team will give
an objective assessment of
adoption rate

The project monitoring system

could be designed in such a way
that the AEWs report to DAEO
is copied to Funding Agency

Compare data from farmer

records with information on what
the AEW recommends

To be able to help farmers look

for markets, negotiate prices, etc. Training of irrigators on record
keeping is important before
To make a preliminary
they can be expected to keep
assessment of whether the
records
project objective is likely to be
achieved

To be able to estimate total

production and organize for
packaging, transport and selling

Who uses this Use of information

information

Farmer records as
Farmer
soon as they are
through with a
particular operation
AEW summarizes a
Agritex
sample of irrigators
records for one of their
monthly reports to
DAEO

AEW may record as

they visit and observe
each plot at least once
a month

AEW records

Adoption of
appropriate
agronomic
practices

Farmer keeps record of

each crop after every
operation

Method of collection
and frequency

Individual farmer
records

Number of irrigators growing and

area under:
Green maize
Groundnuts
Irish potatoes
Sugar beans
Leaf vegetables
Green peppers
Peas
Etc.

Diversify crop
production

Source of
information

Specific data or information

(indicators)

Area of
indicators

OUTPUTS: Increased diversity into high-income crops and adoption of appropriate agronomic practices

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Module 14

41

42

Module 14

Viability

NPV
IRR
Pay back period

Average net irrigation profit

per irrigator

Gross margin per crop

Farmer records,
scheme level
records, investment
cost records

Scheme level costs

of electricity, water,
repairs, etc.

Individual farmer
enterprise records

Calculated every 5 years or so to

see whether the scheme is still
viable

Calculated using farmer records,

scheme level records and
investment cost records

Agritex

Creditor

Donor agency

External evaluation team may

also analyze a sample of
irrigators records to make its
Funding
own independent assessment Agency
once every year or just midway
into the implementation
Creditor

Agritex can carry out an end-ofterm evaluation of the scheme

through one of its units to provide
the data

To gauge whether the scheme

is still viable
To decided whether the
scheme is sustainable
To decide whether to
rehabilitate the scheme
To decide whether to fund a
similar scheme or a different
project altogether in future
To gauge whether the scheme
will manage to service its loans
To decide whether the scheme is
worth the investment in manpower, training of irrigators, etc.

To assess irrigators ability

service loans

Funding Agency may engage a

researcher to do the analysis to
provide the data

Agritex can carry out an end-ofterm evaluation of the scheme

through one of its units to provide
the data

To assist farmers make decisions

on favourable markets for inputs Funding Agency may engage a
and produce.
researcher to do the analysis to
provide the data
To assess to what extent project
objectives are being met

To compare with past

performanceTo decide whether
to remain in the scheme or seek
alternative employment

Funding Agency may engage a

To assess to what extent project researcher to do the analysis to
objectives are being met
provide the data

Funding
Agency

Agritex

Wants to compare with past

performance. Wants to find a
market. Wants to organize
transport. Wants to estimate
income
To help farmers find a market.
To help farmers improve on
past performance

Agritex can carry out an end-ofterm evaluation of the scheme

through one of its units to provide
the data

Comments

Farmer

Who uses this Use of information

information

AEW analyses a sample of

Farmer
irrigators records to get average
gross margins less fixed costs
(Net irrigation income) for one
of their monthly reports to
DAEO
Agritex

External evaluation team may

also summarize a sample of
irrigators records to make its
own independent assessment
once every year or just midway
into the implementation

Agritex AEW

Increased
incomes of
irrigators

AEW summarizes a sample

of irrigators records for one
of his monthly reports to
DAEO

Average yields per ha for

each of the crops in the
scheme for successive
seasons

Increased
yields

Method of collection
and frequency

Individual farmer
records of area
and output of
each crop

Specific data or information Source of

(indicators)
information

Area of
indicators

IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE: Increased yields and incomes in an environmentally sustainable way

Irrigation manual

Human disease incidence:

Malaria
Bilharzia

Waterlogging / poor drainage

Access to clinic records once
a year
Survey once every year or just
midway into the implementation

Survey of irrigators

Laboratory test for nitrate

every 3 years
Observation yearly

Laboratory soil tests by

experts every 3 years
Observation yearly

Local clinic records

Irrigators, AEW and

outsiders
Water sample from
stream
Irrigators, AEW

Erosion

Water pollution

Soil samples

Soil pH / salinity

Field measurement

Field measurement

Experts

Experts

Field measurement

Experts

Irrigation efficiencies

Technical
Soil moisture in field
and environmental
Pressure and discharge in
sustainability sprinkler system

Local health
worker
Funding
Agency
irrigators

Agritex and
Donor Agency
Donor
Agency
Agritex

Farmer,
Agritex,
Funding
agency

Local health center may want to

put together a training programme
to curb spread of disease
Funding Agency may only want
to be associated with environment friendly scheme Irrigators
may want to take precautions to
prevent the spread of diseases

To spearhead rehabilitation
of affected areas

To gauge sustainability of
the scheme
To fund corrective measures

To gauge technical performance

and improve

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Module 14

43

44

Change in quantity and quality of

access roads
Better access to services such as
shops, credit facilities, markets etc.

Improved
standard of
living of
irrigators

Improved
standard of
living of the
community
around the
scheme

Change in quantity and quality of assets

Change in quality of housing
Change in clothing quality
Improved access to education
Improvement in diet
Change in role of women in the scheme

Specific data or information

(indicators)

Area of
indicators

Module 14

Observation 4-5 years

after implementation
when the scheme is
supposed to be operating
at full potential

Survey 4-5 years after

implementation when
the scheme is supposed
to be operating at full
potential

Survey of
irrigators by
external
evaluation
team
Observation
by external
evaluation
team

Observation

Method of collection
and frequency

Observation

Source of
information

To highlight the achievements

of the government of the day

Decide whether to invest in a

similar scheme or a different
project altogether in future

To highlight the achievements

of the government of the day

Political
leaders

Funding
Agency and
political
leaders

Decide whether to invest in a

similar scheme or a different
project altogether in future

Agritex and
Funding
Agency

Who uses this Use of information

information

GOAL: To improve the standard of living of the irrigators and the community around the scheme

Agritex can carry out a mid term

and end-of-term evaluation of the
scheme through one of its units

Funding Agency can engage a

researcher to do the survey, midway
into the implementation as well as
just before the end of the funding

Comments

Irrigation manual

Appendix 2
Examples of questionnaires and checklists
1.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PLOT HOLDERS TO BE USED FOR SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION SCHEME EVALUATION

Identification details
Name of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Name of irrigation scheme:
District:
Province:
Name of registered plot holder:
Sex:

Male:

Marital status:

Female:
Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Separated

Age of registered plot holder:

Level of education of registered plot holder (years):
Agronomic and financial performance
1.

When did you join the irrigation scheme?

2.

Plot size (state units):

3.

Total area under irrigation (state units):

Module 14

45

Irrigation manual

Please give details relating to crops you grew in your irrigation plot in 2001 in the table belowa

4.

Crop name:
Variety
Area planted (ha)
Cost of land preparation
Manure:
Amount of manure
Cost of manure
Basal or initial fertilizer:
Type
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Seed:
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Fertilizer for top dressing:
Type
Quantity (kg)
Cost
Pesticides:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Total cost of pesticides
Cost of transport of inputs to farm
Casual labour cost:
Land preparation
Weeding
Harvesting
Other casual labour cost
Total output produced
Total quantity consumed
Total quantity given away
Markets:
Market 1
Market 2
Market 3
Total quantity sold
Average price
Cost of transport of produce to market
Cost of transport of farmer (fares)
Other marketing costs
a

This table will be completed using farmer records.

5.

Crop pests and diseases encountered:

6.

What items did you repair/replace in your own plot in year 2001?

Item repaired/ replaced

1.
2.
3.

46

Module 14

Date

Cost

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

7.

What were your contributions towards electricity, water and other bills (for example security) in year 2001?

Type of bill

Amount paid

Period covered

Electricity bill
Water bill
Other (specify)
8.

What items were replaced at scheme level in 2001?

Item repaired/ replaced

Your (individual farmer) contribution to cost

1.
2.
3.
9a. Did you borrow any money for crop production on your plot in the scheme in year 2001?
Yes

No

9b. If yes, please give details of the loan below

Amount

Source of funds

Terms of loan

Amount repaid

Social performance
10. Indicate who in your household makes decisions and/or does the following activities related to your plot in the scheme.
Activity

Who makes decisions on activity?

Who performs the activity?

Ploughing
Planting
Buying of inputs
Weeding
Fertilizer application
Chemical application
Harvesting
Marketing
Irrigating crops
11.

Who decides on how irrigation money is spent? Explain.

12. Asset ownership

Assets

Number

Ox-drawn plough
Cultivator
Planter
Scotch cart
Wheel barrow
Harrow
Hoe
Knapsack sprayer
Irrigation pump
Tractor
Other (specify)

Module 14

47

Irrigation manual

13. Livestock ownership

Livestock

Who owns them?

Cattle
Draft cattle
Donkey
Goats
Sheep
Poultry
Rabbits
Pigs
Bee hives
Fish ponds
Other (specify)
14. Household items owned
Item

Number

Radio
Solar panel
Television
Phone
Fridge
Sewing machine
Knitting machine
Car
Bicycle
Motor bike
Stove
Sofa
Chairs
Table
Bed
Wardrobe
Headboard
Dressing table
Kitchen unit
15. Quality of main house (circle the number)
1) Brick under tile
2) Brick under thatch
3) Brick under asbestos
4) Brick under corrugated iron
5) Pole and dagga under thatch

48

Module 14

Number

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

16. How many times a week does your household consume the following?
Food Items

Times per week

Beans
Meat
Fresh vegetables
Chicken
Milk
Eggs
Potatoes
Mufushwa
Others (specify)
17a. Are all your school going age children at school?

Yes

No

17b. If some are not at school state the reasons:

17c. If yes, is it boarding or day?

18a. Number of people in respondents household:
18b. Household members breakdown by age
Number
Age

Female

Number of permanent residents

Male

Female

Male

0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 18 years
19 and above
19. How many people did you employ in 2001 as:
a)

Casual labour

number of men:

number of women:

b)

Permanent labour

number of men:

number of women:

20a. What are the advantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?

20b. What are the disadvantages of the irrigation technology that you are using?

Technical performance
21a. Is the equipment easy to operate? Elaborate.

21b. Is the equipment easy to maintain? Elaborate.

22a. What is the condition of the canals (any leakage)?

Module 14

49

Irrigation manual

22b. What is the condition of the reservoir (any leakage)?

22c. What is the condition of the sprinklers (do they give all the same jet)?

23. Is water ponding on your plot?

24. Do all farmers receive the same amount of water?
25. Do you have an irrigation schedule?
Environmental performance
26. Do you have any erosion problems? Elaborate.

27a. Do you have problems with nutrient mining or are there any visible soil changes since you started using the scheme?
Yes

No

27b. If yes, explain.

28a. Do you have problems with waterlogging/drainage?

Yes

No

28b. If yes, explain how big is the area affected?

29. How many members of your family suffered from the following diseases in year 2001:
Disease

Number

Malaria
Bilharzia
Diarrhoea
Kwashiokor

2.

CHECKLIST FOR SCHEME-LEVEL RECORDS OF THE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC) AND THE
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKER (AEW)

2.1. Checklist for the IMC

Size of scheme

Total area under irrigation

List of irrigators (gender disaggregated)

List of IMC members (name, post, sex)

Details of other scheme committees

Minutes/records of IMC meetings

Details of scheme savings account(s)

Details of scheme levies

Schedule of maintenance fee payment

Energy consumption/meter reading

Energy (i.e. electricity or fuel) bills and payment schedule

Water consumption/meter reading

50

Module 14

Module 14: Monitoring the technical and financial performance of an irrigation scheme

Water bills and payment schedule

Details of breakdowns, repair and maintenance work undertaken in the scheme and costs associated with this

Weights of different units of measurement for each crop used in the scheme

Number of toilets in the scheme

Copy of constitution and scheme by-laws

Record of IMC courses attended

Records of field days organized

Irrigation schedule

Record of health checks by Department of Health for bilharzia snails

2.2. Checklist for the AEW

Over and above the IMC records the AEW must also keep the following records:

Crops grown in the scheme

Total area per crop

Cropping programme

Recommended agronomic practices

Details of courses run for committees and farmers and attendance

Courses attended by the AEW

Problems encountered-disease outbreaks, conflicts, etc.

3.

CHECKLIST FOR EXPERTS DATA

3.1. Environmental expert

Environmental experts should assess/measure on a yearly basis the following:

Soil pH

Soil salinity, area affected, damage to crops, estimate of yield reduction

Stream nitrate/chemical content

Salinity in wells

Erosion problems

Drainage problems

Condition of slope of all the plots

Whether scheme causes water to pond (in fields, drains, main canal, field canals, structures, tanks may cause extra
hazards for malaria and/or bilharzia

3.2. Irrigation engineer

The irrigation engineer should assess and advise on a regular basis on the following:

Condition of irrigation equipment and irrigation infrastructure

Uniformity of irrigation

Amount of water used

Irrigation efficiency

Energy consumption

Discharge rate

Module 14

51

Irrigation manual

52

Module 14