Transcript Measuring Results of Irrigation Development: RIPPA Approach
MEASURING RESULTS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT: THE EVALUATION OF COMPLETED IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Nick Baoy Pilipinas Monitoring and Evaluatiuon Society
Email: [email protected]
INTRAC/PSO/PRIA Monitoring & Evaluation Conference Soesterberg, 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
C B A F E D Project
A - CMIPP B - TGISRP C - PDDP D - BHIP-1 E - BHIP-2 F - BRISRIP
Total Area, ha
16,879 3,218 7,836 4,140 5,300 11,954
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVALUATED PROJECTS
Project
A - CMIPP B - TGISRP C - PDDP D - BHIP-1 E - BHIP-2 F – BRISRIP
Total % share in total irrigated area
2.5
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.8
1.8
7.4
% share in total rice production
0.78
0.15
0.11
0.15
0.12
0.47
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?
RAPID IRRIGATION PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (RIPPA) FRAMEWORK
Planning Phase Collect & review project documents Clarify project results framework Formulate rapid assessment plan Assessment Phase Consult with project stakeholders Implement assessment plan Analyze data & assess performance Action Planning Phase Present findings to project stakeholders Formulate action plan Prepare RIPPA report
TYPICAL RESULTS CHAIN OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS
INPUTS
• • • Labor Equipment Technical assistance
ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS Output OUTCOME Outcome IMPACT
• • • 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
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.
Institutional issues
PROBLEM TREE: BHIP-I
ISF collection target is not achieved Cropping intensity target is not achieved Target irrigated area (4,740 ha) not achieved Insufficient water at Malinao dam Low amount of rainfall Dam not reservoir type Degradation of watershed Inefficient water distribution Non-compliance with CCPP Defective WD structures Illegal turn-outs Weak IA policy enforcement Water conveyance losses Unlined/very long MFDs Damaged canal structures Lack of SFDs Illegal checks/ impoundments Some leveled lands remain un-irrigated Incomplete MFDs/SFDs Insufficient water in DS Lands higher than canal
PROBLEM TREE: BRISRIP
ISF collection target is not achieved Cropping intensity target is not achieved Institutional issues Target irrigated area (11,954 ha) not achieved Low river discharge Water can’t reach some areas Degradation of watershed Low rainfall (e.g. El Nino) Lack of terminal facilities ROW problems Inefficiencies in water mgt Non-compliance to WDD schedule Farmers unable to build ditches Excessive water offtake/diversion Weak IA policy enforcement Flooding in the downstream Lack of drainage outlets Siltation of drainage canal Flooding during high tides Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA Sugar lands are not irrigated Sugarcane farmers are not IA members No control over crop conversion
ACTION PLAN: BRISRIP ISSUE (1) Low river discharge arising from degraded watershed & low rainfall (2) Water cannot reach some areas due to lack of terminal facilities and inefficiencies in water management (3) Flooding in downstream due to lack of drainage outlets, siltation of drainage channels & tidal flows (4) Sugarcane areas are excluded from LIPA as farmers do not avail of irrigation service during WS RECOMMENDED ACTIONS • • • • • • • • Coordinate with PENRO re Bago River Watershed Mgt Promote Water Saving Technology (WST) Continuous review of CCPP/WDD Assist IAs/TSAGs in constructing on-farm facilities Settle ROW problems Strengthen IA policy enforcement Strictly implement WDD schedule Promote WST • • • Construct additional drainage outlets/channels De-silt clogged drainage channels Build pumping station/check structures for seawater • • 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 TEMPLATE 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 8 9 10
Issue/Problem Planned 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 )
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.