The objectives of this study are to identify irrigation management transfer effects on irrigation performance and to benchmark public irrigation schemes and transferred irrigation schemes. In this study, benchmarking performance indicators were applied both on state-managed and transferred irrigation schemes. Based on 1995-2002 data, following results were obtained for performance indicators of state-managed schemes: Water Delivery per Command Area (WDCA): 3547-6500 m3 ha-1 Water Delivery per Irrigated Area (WDIA): 10054-13603 m3 ha-1; Relative Water Supply (RWS): 2.33-3.49; Gross Value of Output for Command Area (GVPCA): 710-1775 $ ha-1; Gross Value of Output for Irrigated Area (GVPIA); 1937-3550 $ ha-1; Gross Value of Output for Irrigation Supply (GVPIS); 0.19-0.31 $ m-3; Gross Value of Output for Water Consumed (GVPWC); 0.55-0.78 $ m-3. For the same period following results were derived in transferred schemes: water delivery per command area: 6431-7933 m3 ha-1; water delivery per irrigated area: 9127-11320 m3 ha-1; relative water supply: 2.05-2.45; gross value of output for command area: 1166-2265 $ ha-1; gross value of output for irrigated area; 1635-3121 $ ha-1; gross value of output for irrigation supply; 0.18-0.31 $ m-3; gross value of output for water consumed; 0.41-0.70 $ m-3. Amount of water used was more than required amounts and performances were low in both schemes. However, irrigation performance was higher in the transferred schemes than state-managed ones. Since water savings were increased by developing a sense of ownership concept during the post-transfer in transferred schemes and more efficient water use was provided.
PDF Abstract XML References Citation
How to cite this article
Increasing population and life standards put a heavy burden over water resources and competition among various sectors for water has increased during the recent years. Irrigation sector has drawn much more attention to provide food supply for constantly increasing populations. An efficient water use is required both to increase the production per unit area and to save water.
Irrigation and drainage sectors are faced with some problems like inefficient water use, poor operation and management of schemes, low returns etc. Poorly managed irrigation can have the opposite effect. Irrigation performance assessment is an important management tool. Performance assessment in irrigation and drainage is the systematic observation, documentation and interpretation of activities related to irrigated agriculture with the objective of continuous improvement (Molden et al., 2007).
Performance of irrigation and drainage systems has to be increased to meet the food demand of increasing population, to produce more crops per drop, to raise the living standards of farmer families. The performance of irrigation and drainage systems has been the subject of many studies for over two decades. Several researchers have studied benchmarking and performance assessment in irrigation and drainage sector Molden and Gates (1990), Makin et al. (1990), Small and Svendsen (1992) Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) and Rao (1993). Molden et al. (1998) carried out one of the first major studies on comparative performance evaluation with 9 indicators in 18 irrigation schemes. Also Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) made a comparative assessment of 15 schemes in 8 countries. Significant researches on benchmarking were carried out at the International Water Management Institute (Perry, 1996; Molden et al., 1998; Kloezen and Garces-Restrepo, 1998; Sakthivadivel et al., 1999). Finally Malano and Burton (2001) developed the basis of framework in benchmarking and assessment in irrigation schemes.
Benchmarking is a performance improvement process. It should identify the gap between current and achievable performances and make changes to get higher performances. Benchmarking can be defined as (Malano and Burton 2001), a systematic process for securing continual improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable internal or external norms and standards. The overall objective of benchmarking is to improve the performance of an organization as measured against its mission and objectives (Malano et al., 2003). The overall aim of benchmarking is to improve the performance of an organization as measured against its mission and objectives. Benchmarking implies comparison-either against similar organizations, or organizations performing similar functions or processes (Malano et al., 2004).
The performance of the irrigation schemes has to be increased due to several reasons. The main reasons are as follows; increasing competition of agricultural sector with the other sectors, increasing food demand, the principle of necessity of more crops per drop, providing water use efficiency, rational water pricing approaches, efficient and economic use of resources in agriculture. It was determined that water user associations and participated management have led to an increase in performance of irrigation systems (Vermillion, 2000). Although it is known as a goal, participated irrigation management is generally a tool to increase irrigation performance. The practice of IMT in Turkey is considered as a successful model for the other countries (Yercan et al., 2004).
Currently, agriculture consumes 75% of the total water in Turkey. The growing demand for water by its rapidly increasing population is reducing the amount of water available for use in agriculture. This situation emphasizes the need for optimal water resource management and the economic use of water in agriculture. Due to high water losses, amount of water delivered is significantly higher than needed both in state-managed and transferred irrigation schemes. For that reason, the ratio delivered water to required water at system level was over one and also the delivered water is about 2 or 3 times of that needed. Water loss is the major problem in both schemes at field levels (Cakmak et al., 2003).
The management of irrigation systems, efficient use of water is now often a major goal, as well as production of the crop. Thus, it becomes necessary to quantify the performance of irrigation systems. In this study, performance of public irrigation schemes (state-managed) and transferred schemes were assessed by using the irrigation performance measures and effects of irrigation management transfer were discussed.
There are two government agencies responsible for water and soil resources development and management in Turkey and those are State Hydraulic Works (SHW) and General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS).
SHW is the main investment agency responsible for planning, development and management of water and soil resources. It is therefore responsible for water supply and irrigation and construction and operation of large dams for flood control, irrigation, power generation, water supply and groundwater development. SHW defines the general principles and policies toward irrigation management by either directly taking the responsibility of services about irrigation management with its executive units or transferring the responsibility to the real or judicial personalities (Aküzüm et al., 1997).
GDRS deals with on-farm development and minor irrigation works such as land leveling, land consolidation, sub-surface drainage works and irrigation networks for minor irrigation projects. GDRS also works together with SHW on large irrigation projects and groundwater irrigation cooperatives in small size projects. According to 3202 numbered Law, responsibilities of GDRS related to the water sector are as follows: ensuring the protection, efficient utilization and development of land and water resources; identifying main principles and rules and carrying out work in relation to the construction, repair, maintenance and operation of roads as well as water, electricity and sanitation facilities of villages; providing drinking and domestic water to villages and military garrisons; supplying irrigation water to farms and constructing, improving, expanding and operating irrigation facilities for areas whose irrigation water need does not exceed 500 L sec -1. If it exceeds 500 L sec -1, the responsibility belongs to SHW (Cakmak et al., 2004a).
Transfer of irrigation systems to users started to be initiated at a slow pace in early 1950 s. Only small and isolated schemes with an average annual area of about 2000 ha per year have been gradually transferred to users until 1993. This policy was guided primarily by the concern that it was difficult and uneconomical for SHW to manage such schemes. After 1993, with the persuasions
of the World Bank staffs, SHW started to apply an Accelerated Transfer Program (ATP) without any delay (Table 1). The main objective of the ATP was to alleviate the unsustainable operation and maintenance irrigation schemes and financial burdens on both SHW and government resources (Svendsen and Murray-Rust,2001).
|Results of the SHW s transfer program
|Distribution of transferred irrigation facilities by undertaking associations and agencies (01.11.2003)
The ATP in Turkey has been founded on a downward-reaching link between the SHW and local administrations, rather than through the bottom-up organization of village-level associations of irrigators (Svendsen and Nott, 1999). The ATP is still being successfully implemented (Y ıld ır ım and Cakmak, 2004).
The basic rule followed in transfer of irrigation schemes in Turkey is to transfer only the operation, maintenance and management responsibilities not the ownership of the facilities. Ownership still stays with the state. It can be called that IMT could provide monetary savings for state, enhance the cost effectiveness and increase the productivity of irrigated agriculture in Turkey.
Positive results generally from satisfactory operation and maintenance of transferred schemes were another important contributing factor against the concerns that the systems would rapidly deteriorate after transfer. By the beginning of November 2003, SHW had transferred about 1,799,381 ha irrigation area, which corresponds to over of 90% of the total area developed by SHW (Table 2).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SHW-managed and transferred schemes were taken as material in this study and an evaluation was performed on data of the years 1995-2002. Main characteristics of the irrigation schemes were given in Table 3.
In this study, water delivery and economic performance indicators, proposed for benchmarking performance in irrigation and drainage sector by IPTRID (International Program Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage), were used (Malano and Burton, 2001). Environmental indicators and some of the recommended performance indicators were not considered due to the unavailability of reliable data.
Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage schemes are presented as follows. American dollars were taken as the currency unit to facilitate comparison internationally.
|Characteristics of the SHW-managed and transferred schemes
The total value of agricultural production received by producers is determined at local (domestic) market prices. For international comparison this value is converted into a common measure, the Gross Value of Production (GVP), in which:
|Gross value of production (US$).
|Yield of crop i.
|Area planted to crop i.
|Local prices of crop i.
|Currency exchange rate (US$/unit local currency).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The annual irrigation water delivery values per unit command area (WDCA) in transferred schemes was higher than the ones in SHW-operated schemes (Table 4). The highest value was obtained in 1999 with 7933 m3 ha -1.
However, the annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (WDIA) was higher in SHW-managed schemes than transferred schemes and it was the highest in 1997 (Table 4). The differences between WDCA and WDIA have been increasing due to non-irrigated areas year by year.
During the period 1995-2002, total non-irrigated area increased from 48 to 62% in SHW-managed schemes and from 27 to 33% in transferred schemes (Table 5). Rain-fed agricultural lands constitute a great part in the non-irrigated areas. While the percentage of rainfed agriculture was 17% in SHW-managed irrigation schemes and 7% in transferred irrigation schemes in 1996, these ratios were reached to 23 and 9% in 2002, respectively. The major environmental problems encountered in non-irrigated areas were high water tables and salinity. The activities concerning the environmental impacts of irrigation in Turkey are well-below sufficient. The fallow areas have increased due to increasing post-transfer water fees, increasing agricultural input prices and low purchase prices for cash crops. As a result, farmers have preferred to grow cereals instead.
Relative Water Supply (RWS) rates, calculated based on total irrigation water requirement in the study area, ranged between 2.33-3.49 for SHW-managed schemes and 2.05-2.45 for transferred schemes (Table 4). The data show that there were adequate water supplies available. The relative water supply indicates how well irrigation supply is matched and demand. Based on the total irrigation water requirement, an RWS value of 1 indicates that diverted water was enough for the need; a value less than 1 indicates that diverted water was less than need and a value more than 1 indicates that diverted water was higher than need. The optimum value of the relative water supply is one. RWS for both transferred and SHW-operated irrigations was found to be higher than 1.
|Water Delivery per Unit Command Area (WDCA), Water Delivery per Unit Irrigated Area (WDIA), Relative Water Supply (RWS) for WHS-managed and transferred schemes
|Non-irrigated areas (ha) and the causes in Turkey
Irrigation water withdrawal was normally above the consumption because of loses along the conveyance and distribution lines. Other reasons for excessive withdrawals were improper application of a planned water delivery, unconscious irrigation applications and land-based water pricing application (Cakmak et al., 2004a). Water fees are generally determined based on cultivated-area (with different rates for different crops) for the current year (Cakmak et al., 2003). The collection rates of water fees are generally high in transferred schemes. However, current fee levels may not be high enough to cover the full cost of operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes so a need was arisen to raise the water fees.
According to the results, RWS is lower in transferred schemes than SHW-managed schemes. In other words, the transferred schemes have shown a great success in water use. The transfer of the irrigation schemes caused less water use. Higher RWS values in state-managed schemes were mostly due to bad or improper management practices. While the irrigation efficiency was 37% in SHW-managed schemes, it was 44% in the transferred schemes in the year 2002. It was determined those 3.5 times more water than need was delivered in SHW-managed schemes. Since the area planted increased after transfer, much more Water was Delivered per unit Command Area (WDCA) after transfer than before (Table 4) and actual crop water needs were tried to be applied. IMT is an effective tool in efficient water use.
Degirmenci (2001), found relative water supplies as 0.91-7.15 for irrigation schemes transferred to Water User Association in 1998. Cakmak et al. (2004b), assessed benchmarking irrigation performance for the years between 1996 and 2000 in irrigation schemes of SHW 10th Region. The RWS values were determined as 1.65-2.57. It implies that excessive water use was the main problem of irrigation sector in Turkey.
|Gross value of output for command area, irrigated area, irrigation supply and water consumed
GVPCA for SHW-managed schemes ranged between 710-1775 $ ha -1. GVPCA values have decreased recently with a decrease in the command area of SHW-managed schemes. In transferred schemes, the highest was GVPCA 2265 $ ha -1 in 1997 and the lowest was 1166 $ ha -1 in 1995. The variability in the output per unit service area might be due to the variation in the cropping patterns (Table 6).
GVPIA ranged between 1635-3550 $ ha -1 and SHW-managed schemes had the highest value with 3550 $ ha -1 while transferred schemes had a value of 3121 $ ha -1 in 1997. Also the highest values of the GVPIS and GVPWC were obtained in 1997. The causes of different annual values for both SHW-managed schemes and transferred schemes were due to the change in cropping pattern and change of crop prices in local markets.
Degirmenci et al. (2003) assessed irrigation system performance of 12 irrigation schemes in Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) for 1997-2001 years. They determined the GVPCA, GVPIA, GVPIS and GVPWC values as 308-5771 and 1223-9436 $ ha -1, 0.12-2.16 and 0.45-2.92 $ m -3, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, performance assessment of public irrigation schemes (SHW-managed) and transferred schemes were made based on seven benchmarking performance indicators for the years 1995-2002 in order to determine how IMT affected the performance of the schemes and give some suggestions for better management of water resources.
IMT had significant positive impacts on water utilization, including increased responsibility, equitable and reliable water delivery and irrigation efficiency. It has been found that in general there was sufficient water available for all schemes so the RWS values are more than 1 in all.
The performance of the schemes were not at desired levels possibly because of inappropriate management, high water table, salinity and alkalinity, inadequate maintenance and repair activities, socio-economic and other factors. The main objective of irrigation is to apply water to the root zone at the required time, amount and quality. Although more water than the requirement is applied to all schemes, output per unit land and water is relatively low. This situation indicates that there is a great need to develop and implement effective water management policies.
In this study, the transferred schemes were found to be more successful than SHW-managed schemes on water use. This outlines the post-transfer successful management practices in Turkish irrigation schemes. Effective water management practices, proper water pricing, operation and maintenance practices increased the performance of transferred schemes.
- Akuzum, T., S. Kodal and B. ve Cakmak, 1997. Irrigation Management in GAP. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 13: 547-560.
- Cakmak, B., M. Beyribey and S. Kodal, 2003. Irrigation water pricing in WUAs Turkey. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 20: 113-124.
- Cakmak, B., O.I. Unver and T. Akuzum, 2004. Agricultural water use in Turkey. Water Int., 29: 257-264.
- Cakmak, B., M. Beyribey, Y.E. Yildirim and S. Kodal, 2004. Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from Turkey. Irrigation Drainage, 53: 155-164.
- Degirmenci, H., H. Buyukcangaz and H. Kuscu, 2003. Assessment of irrigation schemes with comparative indicates in the Southeastern anatolia project. Turk. J. Agric. For., 27: 293-303.
- Malano, H., M. Burton and I. Makin, 2004. Benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector: A tool for change: Irrigation and drainage. J. Int. Comm. Irrig. Drain., 53: 119-133.
- Molden, D.J. and T.K. Gates, 1990. Performance measures for evaluation of irrigation water delivery systems. J. Irrigat. Drainage Eng. ASCE, 116: 804-823.
- Sakthivadivel, R., C. de Fraiture, D.J. Modeln, C. Perry and W. Kloezen, 1999. Indicators of land and water productivity in irrigated agriculture. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 15: 161-179.
- Yercan, M., F. Dorsan and M.A. Ul, 2004. Comparative analysis of performance criteria in irrigation schemes: A case study of Gediz River Basin in Turkey. Agric. Water Manag., 66: 256-266.