1

2

Benchmarking can be defined as

a systematic process for securing

continual improvement through

comparison with relevant and

achievable internal or external

norms and standards.

3

1. Managementa. Evaluation of performanceb. Management of resources (water,

manpower, finances)c. Policy decisions 2. Service provisiona. Efficiency, transparency and

accountabilityb. Commitment to excellence3. Usersa. Develop confidence about serviceb. Enhance Agricultural productivityc. Effective PIM

4

• Internal assessment of project.

• Comparison with the best performing project.

• Determining performance gap between

current practice and best practice.

• Selecting best practices and implementing

them.

5

6 Monitoring

and Evaluation

1Identification And Planning

2Data Collection

3Analysis

5 Action

4Integration

Benchmarking

Process

6

• Irrigation and drainage service providers operate in a natural monopoly environment.

• Irrigation and drainage entails complex and interacting physical, social, economic, political,

technical and environmental processes.

• Performance of irrigation and drainage schemes is site specific.

7

• Increasing water scarcity & competition between various sectors of water use.

• Need to improve the productivity of water in the agriculture sector (Rs/m3)

• Need to achieve financial sustainability of irrigation schemes & phase out State subsidy.

• Need to promote participatory management of schemes by the users.

• Need to establish a basis of accountability of the service providers.

8

The Maharashtra State Water

Policy advocates use of benchmarking

as a management tool for improving

the efficiency, transparency and

accountability of the personnel

responsible for providing services &

seeking participation of users.

9

Evaluation and improvement in

performance of

•Service Providers (Irrigation Circles)

•Irrigation projects

•Water Users’ Associations

10

Year Major Medium Minor Total Indicators

2000-01 6 - - 6 15

2001-02 30 26 28 84 10

2002-03 49 142 61 254 11

2003-04 49 144 69 262 12

2004-05 49 144 69 262 12

2008-09 48 145 69 262 12

2009-10 50 166 1052 1288 12

11

• Government of Maharashtra

• Water Resources Department at various levels of organisation

• GOM has institutionalised the benchmarking process

• A State level core group is formed.

12

• Some data required for various

performance indicators is collected

from the stakeholders.

• Benchmarking of WUAs is also being

carried out.

13

The indicators are for

a) System Performance

b) Financial Indicators

c) Agricultural Productivity

d) Environmental Aspects

e) Social Aspects

14

Sr.No

Indicator Objective

System Performance

1 Annual Irrigation Water Supply per unit Irrigated Area

To improve Water Use Efficiency

1a Annual Area Irrigated per unit of Water Supplied

-do-

2 Potential Created and Utilised To improve utilisation of potential developed

Agricultural Productivity

3 Output per unit Irrigated Area To Improve irrigated agricultural production

4 Output per unit Irrigation water supply

To improve productivity of water.

15

Financial Indicators

5 Cost Recovery Ratio To make the system self sustainable.

6 O & M Cost per unit Area

To minimise the O & M cost.

7 O & M Cost per unit water supplied

To minimise cost of supply of water.

8 Revenue per unit of Water Supplied

To Maximise the revenue. Every drop of water be used efficiently & economically.

9 Assessment Recovery Ratio

a) Irrigationb) Non irrigation

To check whether water charges for different uses are recovered fully or not.

16

Environmental Aspects

10 Land Damage Index To monitor land damage due to excess use of water & to adopt measures for reclamation of land.

Social Aspects

11 Equity Performance To ensure equity in distribution of water to head, middle & tail reach farmers.

17

Particulars

Year2002

Year2003

Year2004

Year2008

Year 2010

No.of Projects

6 84 254 262 1288

ICA covered

2,88,000 12,98,960 24,71,370

24,76,461

26,98,050

Reporting Format

Individual projects

Individual projects grouped by type & region

Grouped by type @ circle level

Grouped by type & plan group of basin

Grouped by type & plan group of basin

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

04/19/23

Performance Comparison

25

For individual indicators

Comparison with

- Self performance

- Other projects in same sub-basin

- Average performance of plan group

- State Target

TargetsIndicator Type Target value

I) Annual Irrigation Water Supply per unit Irrigated Area

a) Annual Area Irrigated per unit of Water Supplied

Major & MediumMinor

76926667

II) Potential Created and Utilised All 1

III ) Output per unit Irrigated Area (@ price level 1998-99 )

MajorMediumMinor

23000 to 3200023000 to 4000016000 to 36000

IV) Output per unit Irrigation water supply (@ price level 1998-99 )

MajorMediumMinor

2.69 to 4.162.99 to 5.42.4 to 5.4

26

v) Cost Recovery Ratio All 1

vi) O & M Cost per unit Area

MajorMediumMinor

125012001150

vii) O & M Cost per unit water supplied

Major & MediumMinor

0.160.17

viii) Revenue per unit of Water Supplied

Major & MediumMinor

0.180.19

27

Indicator Type Target value

ix) Assessment Recovery Ratio

a) Irrigationb) Non irrigation

Major No target

X) Land Damage Index All 1

XI) Equity Performance All 1

28

29

Coupling of benchmarking with water auditing Water Audit

• Water accounting & audit for all projects is now

compulsory.

• Profarmas are prescribed for maintaining water account

• Annual Water Account to be submitted to MWRDC

• Three Water Auditing Cells in MWRDC

• Manual for water auditing

• Annual inspection of divisions for verification

30

Calendar of Activities

Activity Scheduled Date

Submission of Water Accounts 14th August

Communication of Remarks 31st October

Compliance of remarks 30th November

Consolidation of data and Draft Report

15th January

Approval to Report 20th February

Publication 22nd March

How Are the Results Shared?

31

• Annual benchmarking report and water audit reports are published

• Report is available on websites (www.mahawrd.org & www.mwrdc.org)

• Circle wise results are discussed in meetings among water providers.

• State, Regional seminars / workshops are conducted.

• Reports are circulated to NGOs working in the field of public awareness about water use.

32

Useful management tool

Improvement of Water Use Efficiency

Increase in revenue.

Improvement in overall performance

Step towards self sustainability.

Water Use Efficiency

33

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Year

Ha/M

cu

m

ISP on CanalsISP on Wells

O & M Cost and Recovery

34

490450

377333

376453

416466

555

709745

195252

377 378448

413

494

627673

803746

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Year

Rs.

Cro

res

O&M Expenditure Recovery

35

Extending it further to Division and section level

Comparison with National and International schemes

Increasing participation of users in benchmarking process

Real time collection of data through ICIS

36

THANKs web site:- www.mahawrd.org & www.mwrdc.org