irrigation - icid webinar icid webinar icid webinar …water delivery per unit irrigation water...

08/06/2017

1

ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar ICID Webinar

Benchmarking, 7 June 2017

Speaker: Dr. Martin Burton (UK)

7 June 2017, 16:30 – 17:30 Hours IST



Why benchmark?

Definition

Processes

Indicators

Case studies

Summary and conclusions

08/06/2017

2



Very simply – To improve performance



“A systematic process for securing continual improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable norms and standards” (Malano and Burton, 2001)

Benchmarking is about change, moving from one position to a better position

Based on early work on comparative performance assessment by IWMI (Molden et al, 1998) and others.

08/06/2017

3



A

B

(a) Performance

before benchmarking

Irrigation and drainage

system

Performance

gap

AB

(b) Performance

after benchmarking

Irrigation and drainage

system

Performance

gap

Gap analysis and

implementation of

action plan



Benchmarking identifies gaps in performance

Benchmarking identifies ways to close the performance gap through diagnostic analysis

Benchmarking sets achievable standards for which to aim – by identifying “best practice”

Important to identify key processes, and then key indicators

Indicators need to be kept simple, easy to use and understand. An increasingly important indicator is productivity per unit of water

Data collection should not be too difficult

08/06/2017

4





Key questions to ask: What are the objectives?

To provide reliable, timely and adequate irrigation supplies to match farmers’ needs.

How is success measured (outputs)? Crop production

Crop quality

Value of production

Productivity of water use

What are the processes that contribute to attainment of the objectives?

Planning; Design; Construction; MOM of I&D system

08/06/2017

5



What is the extent of the BM exercise?

What performance criteria (efficiency, productivity, equity, etc.) should be used?

What indicators are needed?

What data are required?

What are the types and categories of I&D scheme? How can we classify them?

Who will do the benchmarking?



IRRIGATION

SYSTEM

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE

SYSTEM

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM

RURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM

POLITICO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Inputs/outputs to each system

Operation of irrigation facilities1 Agricultural production

Incomes in rural sectorSupply of water to crops

Rural economic development

National development

Other inputs

2

5 5

4 4

6

3 3

2

2

3

4

5

6

1

6

Other inputs

Small and Svendsen, 1992

08/06/2017

6



Benchmarking

Boundary? Borehole

River

Inputs

Crop

production

ApplicationScheduling

Abstraction

Conveyance

Drainage water removal

Processes

Profit

Income

Outputs

Environment

Pollution

Environment

Other uses and usersImpacts



Input indicators Volume of water abstracted (m3, m3/ha)

Process indicators Conveyance efficiency (%) Application efficiency (%) Overall system efficiency (%)

Output indicators Productivity per unit area (kg/ha, $/ha) Productivity per unit water abstracted (kg/ m3,

$/m3)

Impact indicators Groundwater levels Depth and flow rate in river Wider environmental impacts/mitigations

Input

Process

Output

Impact

08/06/2017

7



Irrigation service delivery (i) Operation:

Irrigated area

Volume of irrigation water abstraction

Irrigation water abstracted (total & per unit command or irrigated area)

Irrigation water delivered (total & per unit command or irrigated area)

Relative irrigation water supply (abstraction/demand)

(ii) Maintenance:

Maintenance expenditure per unit area (MU/ha)

Crop production MU – Monetary Unit

Crop yields (kg/ha) and cropping intensity (%)

Value of crop production per unit command area (MU/ha)

Value of crop production per unit water abstracted (MU/m3)

Output per unit irrigation supply (MU/m3)

Output per unit water consumed (MU/m3)



Finance Cost Recovery Ratio

Total MOM expenditure per unit command area (MU/ha)

WUA Organisation WUA membership ratio

WUA Annual General meeting attendance

Environment Water quality (Biological/chemical content)

Minimum flow levels

08/06/2017

8



Important to be consistent in terminology

Recommend using indicator titles that describe the

indicator:

Total annual water abstracted per unit command area (m3/ha)

Total annual water delivered per unit command area (m3/ha)

Total seasonal water delivered per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)

Distinguish between period, location and extent –

annual/seasonal, abstracted/ delivered,

command/irrigated area, etc.

May need to adapt indicators to the data feasibly

available.



Stage 2: Collect data to match programme

Type of data

Frequency

Location

Who to collect

Collection mechanisms (field measurements, remote sensing,

SMS, web-based data entry, etc.)

Stage 3: Data processing, analysis & reporting

Process data (spreadsheets useful)

Analyse – use graphics, GIS

Report – use graphics

08/06/2017

9



2 2 2 2 22

2 2 2 2 21

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

44

44

5

5

6

6

66

6

6

Canals

Drains

Fields Groundwater



Useful tools- Remote sensing

18

Source: ADB, 2015

08/06/2017

10



Useful tools - GIS

19

Source: ADB, 2015

Canals

No irrigation

Canals

High well

density



Usually the most difficult part.

Based on the findings an Action Plan needs to be

prepared, costed and agreed with key stakeholders.

To implement changes agreement needs to be reached

with the key stakeholders:

Water users

WUAs

I&D agency staff

Politicians

Etc.

08/06/2017

11



Once agreement is reached the Action Plan can be

implemented

Leadership by senior management and key

stakeholders is an important factor in the success of

the Action Plan



The implementation of the action plan needs to be

monitored and evaluated

The key indicators are used to monitor and evaluate

progress

Senior managers and key stakeholders need to be kept

informed of progress

08/06/2017

12



Egypt

Turkey

Australia

Albania

Kyrgyz Republic

India

Maharashtra (Dr Sanjay Belsare to present)

Madhya Pradesh

WUAs

IWMI on-line irrigation benchmarking service

UK



Studied performance on six branch canals

Studied irrigation and drainage systems

Field measurements and farmer interviews

Final report and guidelines produced

08/06/2017

13


Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005

Total seasonal value of crop production per unit

water supply

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Besentw ay Zaw iet Naim El- Baidda Daqalt Sanhour Nesheel

LE

/m3

Irrigation water demand (at field), supply (at BC

intake) and delivery (at mesqa intake)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000


m3/F

ed

dan

Water demand (at f ield) Water supply (at BC intake) Water delivery

Sanhour and Nesheel have high water productivity due to relatively low irrigation water supply


Benchmarking, 7 June 2017December 10, 2005 Page 26

Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


Good

Poor

Reasonable

08/06/2017

14



Description

Un

its

Besen

tway

Zaw

iet

Naim

El-

Baid

da

Daq

alt

San

ho

ur

El

-K

ad

eem

a

Nesh

eel

Irrigation

Total seasonal value of crop production per unit command area

LE/feddan 2,676 2,684 2,935 2,419 2,730 2,886

Total seasonal value of crop production per unit water supply

LE/m3

0.88 0.82 1.28 0.68 2.12 2.62

Total seasonal volume of crop water demand (at field)

m3/feddan 2,236 2,352 2,226 1,828 2,155 2,326

Total seasonal irrigation water supply per unit command area

m3/feddan 3,024 3,289 2,286 3,577 1,285 1,110

Total seasonal irrigation water delivery per unit command area

m3/feddan 1,340 2,037 1,339 1,587 873 N/a

Main system water delivery efficiency % 55.7% 38.1% 41.4% 55.6% 32.1% N/a

Seasonal relative irrigation water supply - 0.60 0.87 0.60 0.87 0.41 N/a

Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit command area

LE/feddan 18.43 18.43 18.43 20.00 20.00 20.00

Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit irrigation water supply

LE/m3

0.012 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.031 0.036

Total seasonal maintenance expenditure for irrigation water delivery per unit command area

LE/feddan

13.47 13.47 13.47 10.00 10.00 10.00

Total annual maintenance expenditure fraction for irrigation water delivery

- 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.50 0.50

Total cost per person employed on water delivery

LE/person 3,902 3,902 3,902 3,750 3,750 3,750

Irrigation command area per unit staff Feddan/ person

393 393 393 375 375 375

Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio - 1.06 1.03 N/a 0.66 0.88 N/a

Drainage

Groundwater level (depth to) m 0.80 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.58 0.95

Groundwater salinity Mmhos/cm 2.2 3.0 2.1 2.0 3.2 6.1

Soil salinity Mmhos/cm 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.8 3.9 3.5

Farmer questionnaire

Irrigation problems:

- Very severe Counts - - - - - -

- Severe Counts - - - - 1 3

- Mild Counts 2 7 0 0 18 2

Drainage problems:

- Severe Counts - - - - - -

- Mild Counts - - - 5 - 1

- Little Counts - 1 - 14 1 3

Legend Best value

Critical value

Area of concern

Description

Units

Bes

entw

ay

Zaw

iet N

aim

El-

Bai

dda

Daq

alt

San

hour El

-K

adee

ma

Nes

hee

l

Irrigation

Total seasonal value of crop production per unit command area

LE/feddan 2,676 2,684 2,935 2,419 2,730 2,886

Total seasonal value of crop production per unit water supply

LE/m3

0.88 0.82 1.28 0.68 2.12 2.62

Total seasonal volume of crop water demand (at field)

m3/feddan 2,236 2,352 2,226 1,828 2,155 2,326

Total seasonal irrigation water supply per unit command area

m3/feddan 3,024 3,289 2,286 3,577 1,285 1,110

Total seasonal irrigation water delivery per unit command area

m3/feddan 1,340 2,037 1,339 1,587 873 N/a

Main system water delivery efficiency % 55.7% 38.1% 41.4% 55.6% 32.1% N/a

Seasonal relative irrigation water supply - 0.60 0.87 0.60 0.87 0.41 N/a

Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit command area

LE/feddan 18.43 18.43 18.43 20.00 20.00 20.00

Total seasonal MOM costs for irrigation water delivery per unit irrigation water supply

LE/m3

0.012 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.031 0.036

Total seasonal maintenance expenditure for irrigation water delivery per unit command area

LE/feddan

13.47 13.47 13.47 10.00 10.00 10.00

Total annual maintenance expenditure fraction for irrigation water delivery

- 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.50 0.50

Total cost per person employed on water delivery

LE/person 3,902 3,902 3,902 3,750 3,750 3,750

Irrigation command area per unit staff Feddan/ person

393 393 393 375 375 375

Head:Tail mesqa pumping hours ratio - 1.06 1.03 N/a 0.66 0.88 N/a

Drainage

Groundwater level (depth to) m 0.80 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.58 0.95

Groundwater salinity Mmhos/cm 2.2 3.0 2.1 2.0 3.2 6.1

Soil salinity Mmhos/cm 0.8 0.7 1.1 2.8 3.9 3.5

Farmer questionnaire

Irrigation problems:

- Very severe Counts - - - - - -

- Severe Counts - - - - 1 3

- Mild Counts 2 7 0 0 18 2

Drainage problems:

- Severe Counts - - - - - -

- Mild Counts - - - 5 - 1

- Little Counts - 1 - 14 1 3

Legend Best value

Critical value

Area of concern


Benchmarking, 7 June 2017 Page 28

Total seasonal value of crop

production per unit

command area (LE/ha)

Seasonal value of crop

production per unit water

supply (LE/m3)

Main system water delivery

efficiency (%)

Seasonal relative irrigation

water supply

Equity of water distribution

between head & tail

mesqas

Groundwater levels (m)

Groundwater salinity

(mmhos/cm)

Soil Salinity

El-Baidda

Nesheel, Besentway, Zawiyat

Naem (vegetables)

Nesheel

Sanhour (low water supply)

Besentway

Daqalt (>55%)

Zawiyat Naim & Daqalt

Besentway & Zawiayt Naem

Sanhour (adeq.), Daqalt (poor)

Nesheel (shortage of irrig water)

Zawiyat Naem (critical)

El-Baiada & Besentway

Nesheel (critical)

Zawiyat Naim

Sanhour (critical)

08/06/2017

15



In overall terms Besentway is the best performer:

The production levels per unit area were reasonable.

The conveyance efficiency was high.

The groundwater level was relatively low.

There were very few complaints from farmers.

Daqalt also performed reasonably, though problems

voiced by farmers with the drainage needed to be

resolved.

Lesson 1: “Traffic light” coding can be useful

Lesson 2: Not usually one “best performer” on all

indicators



Data analysed for 5 irrigation schemes (Camak et al,

2004).

Used the IPTRID/FAO Guidelines indicators

Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m3/ha) WDCA

Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m3/ha) WDIA

Annual relative water supply RWS

Total MOM cost per unit area ($/ha) -

Water fee collection performance -

Staffing number per unit area (person/ha) -

Output per unit serviced area (US$/ha) GVPSA

Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) GVPIA

Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m3) GVPIS

Output per unit water consumed(US$/m3) GVPWC

08/06/2017

16



Cro

pp

ing

inte

nsit

y

WD

CA

WD

IA

R

WS

To

tal

MO

M

co

st

per u

nit

area

Wate

r f

ee

co

llecti

on

perfo

rm

an

ce

Sta

ffin

g

nu

mb

ers p

er

un

it a

rea

GV

PS

A

GV

PIA

GV

PIS

GV

PW

C

(%) (m3/ha) (m3/ha) ($/ha) (%) (persons/

ha)

($/ha) ($/ha) ($/m3) ($/m3)

Batman-Silvan

7590 ha (12.8)

Devegecidi 6900

ha (12.2)

Derik-Kumluca

1860 ha (22.6)

Nusaybin Cagdas

6695 ha (23.2)

Cınar-Goksu

3852 ha (17.4)

Notes:

1 No benchmark set for Total MOM costs per unit area as data not available on the relevant target values for each scheme.

Name of

irrigation

scheme

Performance benchmark



Each of the 5 schemes gave the best result for at least

one indicator.

One scheme was identified as the better performer

based on production per unit of land and water

Highlights the difficulty of identifying the “better”

performers.

Lesson 2: Not usually one “best performer” on all

indicators

08/06/2017

17



Started in 1998 by ANCID.

Covered 1.2 million ha, ~47 schemes with 37,000 irrigation farmers.

Crops include rice, maize, vines, cotton, sugar cane, pasture, citrus, vegetables.

Total gross revenue to service providers in 1999/2000 was A$ 228 million (US$171 million).

Used 47 performance indicators: System operation (7 No.)

Environmental management (5 No.)

Business processes (22 No.)

Financial management (13 No.)



Water delivered per unit area

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

Mur

ray

Irrig

atio

n

G-MW

Woo

rinen

Eton

Loga

n

Bundab

erg

Dawso

n

G-MW

Pyr

amid

-Boo

rt

Win

nale

ah

G-MW

She

ppar

ton

G-MW

Roc

hest

er

G-MW

Tor

rum

barr

y

Condam

ine

G-MW

Nya

h

Sunra

ysia

Centr

al Ir

rig. (

SA)

Ord

Rive

r

Dep

th d

eliv

ere

d (m

)

Same types of

system?

Lesson 3: Take care to compare “like with like”.

08/06/2017

18



Second Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project started in 21 Districts in May 2000

Physical rehabilitation with institutional strengthening

Improved standards of service programme (ISOSP) introduced. Key elements: Improved water management

Improved fee collection

Improved maintenance

Improved user participation and ownership

Used a limited set of IPTRID/FAO indicators



Federation Total

command

area (ha)

Area irrigated

during the

season

Irrigation Service

Fees collected

(Lek)

Irrigation Service

Fee collected per

unit area (Lek/ha)

Rank

Albulena 5313 27% 948,000 178 7

Erzeni 4450 24% 847,000 190 5

Peqin-Kavaje 7872 54% 3,028,000 384 2

Naum Panxhi 2128 61% 1,228,000 577 1

Cukas 6022 34% 1,110,000 184 6

Krutje 6577 54% 2,353,000 357 3

Lushnje 3588 55% 855,000 238 4

Myzeqeja 1980 0% 66,000 34 9

Gjanci 55377 44% 757,000 137 8

Lesson 4: Keep it simple: limit the number of key performance indicators.

08/06/2017

19



Lesson 5: Reward good performance!



Benchmarked the performance of 486 WUAs to identify

the better and less well performing schemes. Support

then provided to less well performing schemes.

Data taken from the WUA database. All WUAs required

to submit an annual report to government.

Key indicators used: (weighted, W):

Cropping intensity (%) W=2

Collected ISF per unit command area (KGS/ha) W=3

ISF collection ratio (%) W=1

Maintenance expenditure per unit command area (KGS/ha) W=3

O&M expenditure as percentage of total ISF collected (%) W=1

08/06/2017

20



Lesson 6: Consider “weighting” KPIs if values of

indicators are summed together.

Наи

мен

ов

ан

ие А

ВП

/

WU

A

/WU

A C

od

e N

o.

По

дв

еш

ен

ная

пл

ощ

ад

ь

(га)/

Co

mm

an

d a

rea (

ha)

Cro

pp

ing

in

ten

sit

y (

%)

Co

llecte

d I

SF

per

un

it

co

mm

an

d a

rea (

% o

f ta

rget)

ISF

co

llecti

on

rati

o (

%)

Main

ten

an

ce e

xp

en

dit

ure

per

un

it c

om

man

d a

rea (

%

of

targ

et)

O&

M e

xp

en

dit

ure

as

perc

en

tag

e o

f to

tal

ISF

co

llecte

d (

%)

Cro

pp

ing

in

ten

sit

y (

%)

Co

llecte

d I

SF

per

un

it

co

mm

an

d a

rea (

% o

f ta

rget)

ISF

co

llecti

on

rati

o (

%)

Main

ten

an

ce e

xp

en

dit

ure

per

un

it c

om

man

d a

rea (

%

of

targ

et)

O&

M e

xp

en

dit

ure

as

perc

en

tag

e o

f to

tal

ISF

co

llecte

d (

%)

To

tal

weig

hte

d s

co

re

Ran

kin

g

Weighting 2 3 1 3 1

Kaiyndy 20604 130 48% 94% 621% 81% 90% 95 281 621 242 90 1329 1

Orozaly 70705 1085 96% 89% 313% 72% 88% 192 268 313 217 88 1078 2

Sarbos 70308 1920 96% 68% 214% 80% 77% 192 205 214 240 77 928 3Sary-Kuuray-

Suu 60111 373 100% 57% 253% 83% 50% 200 171 253 250 50 925 4Ak-Moltur-

Suu 70710 1598 93% 60% 198% 78% 63% 186 180 198 235 63 862 5

Jar-Ooz 50314 485 100% 57% 150% 80% 76% 200 172 150 240 76 838 6

Shorolu 70409 1407 100% 51% 129% 77% 86% 200 154 129 231 86 800 7

NAM-Suu 70702 1785 97% 48% 134% 73% 78% 193 143 134 218 78 765 8

Asantay 50204 1700 94% 54% 126% 60% 85% 189 162 126 181 85 743 9

Acha-Tash 70301 3118 99% 48% 129% 72% 71% 199 144 129 215 71 757 10

Key indicators Weightings score



A number of benchmarking initiatives in India:

Maharashtra

Madhya Pradesh

World Bank/INPIM WUA benchmarking web site

08/06/2017

21



Ongoing since 2001-2. Championed by Mr S.V.Sodal,

Secretary (CAD), Irrigation Department (Sodal, 2004;

MWRD, 2008)

Started with selected IPTRID/FAO indicators (10 No.) for

84 schemes (minor, medium and major). Increased to

262 schemes by 2005-6.

Categorized I&D systems – size, water source, type of

control; method of water distribution; water availability.

Lesson 7: Performance assessment and benchmarking

often needs champions to promote it.



Used web-based MIS to monitor and compare

performance of over 150 reservoir-based I&D

schemes.

Benchmarking analysis: 1 MCM stored water is

sufficient to irrigate 200 ha.

This target was set for all schemes.

Irrigated area increased from 0.85 million ha in 2009-10

to 2.91 million ha in 2015-16

Maintenance expenditure increased from Rs112/ha in

2009-10 to Rs820/ha in 2015-16

08/06/2017

22



Source: Julaniya et al, 2016

Lesson 8: Use the KPIs to drive performance

improvement.



Web link: http://wua.aquiferindia.org

Open platform for data sharing for WUAs.

Publications, regulations, training resources.

Benchmarking data entry and analysis

Lesson 9: National benchmarking programmes

need a secure hosting site and technical support

http://wua.aquiferindia.org/

08/06/2017

23





IWMI OIBS: Data entry

08/06/2017

24







08/06/2017

25



IWMI OIBS: Data analysis

Lesson 10: International benchmarking can be

problematic; variations may be too great.



Programme to identify key performance indicators

(KPIs) for UK irrigation and develop an on-line

benchmarking tool (Knox et al, 2013).

Benchmarked potato and strawberry growers.

Identified 11 KPIs: system operation (3); agricultural

productivity (2); financial performance (3); and

environmental performance (3).

Web site: http://79.170.40.182/iukdirectory.com/benchmarking/

08/06/2017

26



http://79.170.40.182/iukdirectory.com/benchmarking/



http://79.170.40.182/iukdirectory.com/benchmarking

08/06/2017

27



Ranked potato yield (t/ha) for 25 fields



Irrigation water use efficiency (kg/m3) for maincrop potatoes , 2011

Lesson 11: Benchmarking can identify significant

differences in performance between schemes/users.

08/06/2017

28



Scatter diagram of water applied (mm) and potato crop yield (t/ha), 2011

LOW water applied

HIGH yield

Lesson 12: Simple presentations can get the

message across.



Benchmarking is a valuable tool to compare performance.

Important to identify key processes and be selective about

indicators.

Identify and analyse outputs then use diagnostic analysis to

analyse gaps in performance.

Important to categorize schemes and compare “like with

like”.

The integration phase is the most difficult, putting the

analysis into action is not easy.

Issuing performance scorecards for individual schemes may

be a useful way forward.

Remote sensing, GIS and IT have a valuable role to play.

08/06/2017

29





ADB, 2014. Final Report, Scoping study for a National Water Use Efficiency

Improvement program. Eds. Martin Burton and Amarjit Singh Dhingra. Asian

Development Bank, Manila, May.

Burton, Martin. 2010. Irrigation Management: Principles and Practices, CABI

International, Wallingford, UK.

Cakmak, Belgin, Mevlut Beyribey, Y. Ersoy Yildrim and Suleyman Kodal.

2004. Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from

Turkey. In Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector: A

tool for change. Eds. Malano, H.M., M. Burton and I. Makin, Special Issue:

Benchmarking in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. Irrigation and Drainage

53 (2). New York: Wiley, June

Julaniya, R.S., Manish Singh, M.G. Choubey and Shubhankar Biswas. A

management approach to increased irrigated agriculture are and production in

Madhya Pradesh, India. Paper presented at the Second World Irrigation

Forum (WWF2), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 6-8th November.

Knox, J.W., A. Daccache, T.M. Hess, M. Else, M. Kay, M. Burton, D. Thelwall

and H. Malano. 2013. Benchmarking agricultural watere use and productivity

in key commodity crops: Final Report. Cranfield University, UK, July

08/06/2017

30



Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., de Fraiture, C. and Kloezen, W.

1998. Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems.

Research report 20, International Water Management Institute, Colombo.

MWRD. 2008. Report on benchmarking of irrigation projects in Maharashtra,

2006-7. Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra, India.

March

Sodal, S.V. 2004. Present practices and opportunities for performance

improvement of irrigation schemes in Maharasthra State, India. . In

Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector: A tool for

change. Eds. Malano, H.M., M. Burton and I. Makin, Special Issue:

Benchmarking in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. Irrigation and Drainage

53 (2). New York: Wiley, June

Small, L.E. and M. Svendsen. 1992. A framework for assessing irrigation

performance. IFPRI Working Papers on Irrigation Performance No.1.

International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., August.



World Bank. 2005. Benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage

sector, Egypt: Final Report. Eds. Ahmed Emam Hassan and Martin Burton.

Department of Irrigation/ Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage

Projects/World Bank, Cairo, December.

World Bank. 2005. Benchmarking initiative in the irrigation and drainage

sector, Egypt: Guidelines. Eds. Ahmed Emam Hassan and Martin Burton.

Department of Irrigation/ Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage

Projects/World Bank, Cairo, December.

irrigation - icid webinar icid webinar icid webinar …water delivery per unit irrigation water...

Documents