MEASURING RESULTS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: THE EVALUATION OF COMPLETED IRRIGATION PROJECTS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Nick BaoyPilipinas Monitoring and Evaluatiuon Society
Email: [email protected]
INTRAC/PSO/PRIA Monitoring & Evaluation ConferenceSoesterberg, The Netherlands
15 June 2011
PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURE SECTOR: A QUICK OVERVIEW
• Total agricultural area : 9.6 million ha (32% of total land area)
• Share of agriculture in GDP: 18%
• Share of agriculture in total employment: 35%
• GVA share of crops in agriculture: 50%
• Total rice production in 2010: 15.8 million mt
• Total rice imports in 2010: 1.8 million mt
PHILIPPINE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: QUICK FACTS
• Total irrigation potential: 3.1 million ha (32% of total arable land)
• Total area served by irrigation: 1.4 million ha
• Share in irrigated area by type of system:
– National systems: 49%
– Communal systems: 39%
– Private systems: 12%
• % of rice produced in irrigated areas: 76%
IRRIGATION PROJECTS EVALUATED
Project Total Area, ha
A - CMIPP 16,879
B - TGISRP 3,218
C - PDDP 7,836
D - BHIP-1 4,140
E - BHIP-2 5,300
F - BRISRIP 11,954
AB
C
D
EF
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVALUATED PROJECTS
Project % share in totalirrigated area
% share in total rice production
A - CMIPP 2.5 0.78
B - TGISRP 0.5 0.15
C - PDDP 1.2 0.11
D - BHIP-1 0.6 0.15
E - BHIP-2 0.8 0.12
F – BRISRIP 1.8 0.47
Total 7.4 1.8
OBJECTIVES OF EVALUATION
• Examine the performance of six completed projects funded by yen loan
• Identify issues that need to be addressed to improve project performance
• Suggest measures to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability
KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS
• Were the projects able to expand the irrigated rice area?
• Were the projects able to increase rice production in target areas?
• Did the projects contribute to the increase in farmers’ income?
Collect & review project documents
Clarify project results framework
Formulate rapid assessment plan
Consult withproject stakeholders
Planning Phase
Assessment Phase
Action Planning Phase
Implementassessment plan
Analyze data &assess performance
Present findings toproject stakeholders
Formulateaction plan
PrepareRIPPA report
RAPID IRRIGATION PROJECT PERFORMANCEASSESSMENT (RIPPA) FRAMEWORK
Output OutcomeACTIVITIESINPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOME IMPACT
• Labor• Equipment• Technical assistance
• Construction/ rehabilitation of irrig facilities• Institutional development• Supply of equipment
• Operable irrig system• Functional water users groups• Improved system O&M
• Increased irrigated area• Increased rice production• Improved irrigation service
• Increased farm income• Improved living standards• Self-sufficiency in rice
TYPICAL RESULTS CHAIN OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS
SOME PARTICIPATORY TOOLS USED IN RIPPA
• Mapping
• Transect walk
• Interviews (focused, group, key informant)
• Structured problem/solution analysis
• Participatory action planning workshop
• Triangulation and cross-checking
KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS
• The projects succeeded in expanding the irrigated rice area.
• The projects increased average rice yields in target areas.
• The projects contributed to the increase in farmers’ income.
• Due to operational issues, most projects failed to achieve cropping intensity targets.
PROBLEM TREE: BHIP-I
Target irrigated area (4,740 ha) not achieved
Insufficient water at Malinao dam
Inefficient water distribution
Water conveyance losses
Some leveled lands remain un-irrigated
Low amount of rainfall
Dam not reservoir type
Degradation of watershed
Non-compliance with CCPP
Unlined/very long MFDs
Incomplete MFDs/SFDs
Insufficient water in DS
ISF collection target is not
achieved
Cropping intensity target is not achieved
Defective WD structures
Weak IA policy enforcement
Illegal turn-outs
Damaged canal structures
Lack of SFDs
Illegal checks/ impoundments
Institutional issues
Lands higher than canal
PROBLEM TREE: BRISRIP
Target irrigated area (11,954 ha) not achieved
Low river discharge
Water can’t reach some areas
Flooding in the downstream
Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA
Degradation of watershed
Low rainfall (e.g. El Nino)
Non-compliance to WDD schedule
ROW problems
Lack of drainage outlets
Sugar lands are not irrigated
Sugarcane farmers are not
IA members
ISF collection target is not
achieved
Cropping intensity target is not achieved
Lack of terminal facilities
Inefficiencies in water mgt
Farmers unable to build ditches
Siltation of drainage canal
Flooding during high tides
Excessive water offtake/diversion
Institutional issues
No control over crop conversion
Weak IA policy enforcement
ISSUE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS(1) Low river discharge arising from degraded watershed & low rainfall
• Coordinate with PENRO re Bago River Watershed Mgt• Promote Water Saving Technology (WST)• Continuous review of CCPP/WDD
(2) Water cannot reach some areas due to lack of terminal facilities and inefficiencies in water management
• Assist IAs/TSAGs in constructing on-farm facilities • Settle ROW problems • Strengthen IA policy enforcement • Strictly implement WDD schedule• Promote WST
(3) Flooding in downstream due to lack of drainage outlets, siltation of drainage channels & tidal flows
• Construct additional drainage outlets/channels• De-silt clogged drainage channels• Build pumping station/check structures for seawater
(4) Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA as farmers do not avail of irrigation service during WS
• Include sugarcane lands in LIPA even if irrigated only during DS• Review ISF collection policy for lands served by project facilities but not availing of irrigation service
ACTION PLAN: BRISRIP
Issue/ProblemPlanned Solution/
Countermeasure
Actions Taken by Concerned Unit
in NIA
Actions Planned in 2011
Actions Planned up to 2012 & beyond
Estimated Budget
Requirement
Budget Source and Status
Expected Results (e.g. Hectares
Developed/Restored)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ACTION PLAN TEMPLATE
SOME INSIGHTS ON RIPPA
• Quick structured method for assessing project outcomes and identifying post-project issues which could feed into periodic and more formal evaluations
• Commitment among stakeholders in addressing
project issues is promoted by participatory evaluation approaches
• Attribution of observed changes/results becomes a challenge in evaluating projects that have long been completed.