Performance Improvement through
Benchmarking of Water Resources Projects
in Maharashtra, India-A Case Study
Dr. Sanjay Belsare
Executive Engineer and Associate Professor
Er.Ganesh Vyawahare,
Executive Engineer, MWRDC Aurangabad
1
What Is Benchmarking?
Benchmarking can be defined as a
systematic process for securing continual
improvement through comparison with
relevant
and
achievable
internal
or
external norms and standards.
2
Advantages of Benchmarking
1. Management
a. Evaluation of performance
b. Management of resources (water, manpower,
finances)
c. Policy decisions
2. Service provision
a. Efficiency, transparency and accountability
b. Commitment to excellence
3. Users
a. Develop confidence about service
b. Enhance Agricultural productivity
c. Effective PIM
3
Benchmarking Involves
• 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.
4
Stages of Benchmarking Process
6
Monitoring
and Evaluation
5
Action
1
Identification
And Planning
Benchmarking
Process
2
Data Collection
3
Analysis
4
Integration
5
Characteristics
• 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.
6
Drivers for Benchmarking
• 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.
7
State Water Policy (2003)
The Maharashtra State Water Policy
advocates
use
management
of
tool
benchmarking
for
as
improving
a
the
efficiency, transparency and accountability of
the personnel responsible
for providing
services & seeking participation of users.
8
Objectives
Evaluation and improvement in performance of
• Service Providers (Irrigation Circles)
• Irrigation projects
• Water Users’ Associations
9
Number of Projects Covered
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
10
Who is Managing
• Government of Maharashtra
• Water Resources Department at various levels
of organisation
• GOM has institutionalised the benchmarking
process
• A State level core group is formed.
11
Stakeholder’s Participation
•
Some data required for various performance
indicators is collected from the stakeholders.
•
Benchmarking of WUAs is also being carried
out.
12
Indicators
The indicators are for
a) System Performance
b) Financial Indicators
c) Agricultural Productivity
d) Environmental Aspects
e) Social Aspects
13
Indicators Selected
Sr.
No
Indicator
Objective
System Performance
1
Annual Irrigation Water Supply per To improve Water Use Efficiency
unit Irrigated Area
1a
Annual Area Irrigated per unit of -doWater Supplied
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 To improve productivity of water.
supply
14
Contd..
Financial Indicators
5
6
7
Cost Recovery Ratio
To make the system self sustainable.
O & M Cost per unit Area
To minimise the O & M cost.
8
Revenue per unit of Water
Supplied
To Maximise the revenue. Every drop
of water be used efficiently &
economically.
9
Assessment Recovery Ratio
a) Irrigation
b) Non irrigation
To check whether water charges for
different uses are recovered fully or
not.
O & M Cost per unit water To minimise cost of supply of water.
supplied
15
Contd.
.
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.
16
Presentation of Results
Particulars
No.of
Projects
ICA covered
Reporting
Format
Year
2002
Year
2003
Year
2004
Year
2008
Year
2010
6
84
254
262
1288
24,71,370
24,76,461
26,98,050
Individual
Grouped
projects
by type @
grouped by circle level
type &
region
Grouped
by type &
plan
group of
basin
Grouped
by type &
plan
group of
basin
2,88,000
Individual
projects
12,98,960
17
Annual Irrigation Water Supply Per Unit
Irrigated Area
Indicator I
Major Projects
Annual Irrigation Water Supply per unit Irrigated Area (cum/ha)
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
6000
4000
Highly
Deficit
Deficit
FY Avg
Normal
LY 2008-09
TY 2009-10
StateTar
Surplus
Past Max
TIC Thane
CADA Pune
SIC Sangli
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Nagpur
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Nagpur
UWPC Amravati
AIC Abad
CADA Pune
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Nashik
PIC Pune
AIC Akola
NIC Nanded
YIC Yavatmal
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Abad
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Beed
AIC Akola
NIC Nanded
0
CADA Nashik
2000
CADA Solapur
cum/ha
8000
Abundant
Past Min
18
0.00
Highly
Deficit
FY Avg
LY 2008-09
Deficit
TY 2009-10
State Tar
Normal
Past Max
Surplus
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Pune
SIC Sangli
TIC Thane
CADA Nagpur
PIC Pune
CADA Nashik
CADA Pune
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Nagpur
AIC Akola
UWPC Amravati
CIPC Chandrapur
YIC Yavatmal
AIC Abad
NIC Nanded
CADA Abad
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Nashik
NIC Nanded
CADA Beed
AIC Akola
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Solapur
Ratio
Potential Created and Utilised
Indicator II
Major Projects
Potential Created and Utilised
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Abundant
Past Min
19
0
Highly
Deficit
FY Avg
LY 2008-09
Deficit
TY 2009-10
StateTar
Normal
Past Max
Surplus
TIC Thane
SIC Sangli
CADA Pune
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Nagpur
CADA Nashik
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Pune
PIC Pune
UWPC Amravati
NIC Nanded
AIC Akola
YIC Yavatmal
CIPC Chandrapur
AIC Abad
CADA Nagpur
AIC Akola
CADA Beed
CADA Abad
CADA Nashik
NIC Nanded
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Solapur
Rs/ha
Output Per Unit Irrigated Area
Indicator III
Major Projects
Output per unit Irrigated Area
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Abundant
Past Min
20
0
Highly
Deficit
FYAvg
LY 2008-09
Deficit
TY 2009-10
State Tar
Normal
PastMax
Surplus
TIC Thane
SIC Sangli
CADA Pune
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Nagpur
AIC Abad
CADA Nagpur
CADA Jalgaon
PIC Pune
CADA Nashik
UWPC Amravati
CADA Pune
AIC Akola
CIPC Chandrapur
NIC Nanded
YIC Yavatmal
CADA Abad
CADA Nashik
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Beed
CADA Jalgaon
AIC Akola
NIC Nanded
CADA Solapur
Ratio
Cost Recovery Ratio
Indicator V
Major Projects
Cost Recovery Ratio
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Abundant
PastMin
21
Highly
Deficit
Deficit
Head
Middle
Normal
Tail
Surplus
TIC Thane
SIC Sangli
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Pune
CADA Nagpur
YIC Yavatmal
UWPC Amravati
PIC Pune
NIC Nanded
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Pune
CADA Nashik
CADA Nagpur
CADA Jalgaon
AIC Akola
AIC Abad
NIC Nanded
CADA Nashik
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Beed
CADA Abad
BIPC Buldhana
AIC Akola
CADA Solapur
Ratio
Equity Performance
Indicator XI
Major Projects
Equity Performance
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Abundant
22
Highly Deficit
FY Avg
LY 2008-09
Deficit
TY 2009-10
State Tar
Normal
Past Max
Surplus
TIC Thane
SIC Sangli
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Pune
CADA Nagpur
UWPC Amravati
AIC Abad
CADA Pune
CADA Nashik
PIC Pune
CADA Nagpur
NIC Nanded
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Jalgaon
AIC Akola
YIC Yavatmal
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Nashik
AIC Akola
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Beed
CADA Abad
NIC Nanded
CADA Solapur
Ratio
Assessment Recovery Ratio
Indicator XII -I
Major Projects
Assessment Recovery Ratio (Irrigation)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Abundant
Past Min
23
1500-3000
cum/Ha
Indicator XII-NI
Major Projects
Assessment Recovery Ratio (Non Irrigation)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.20
Highly Deficit
Deficit
15003000
cum/Ha
FY Avg
LY 2008-09
Normal
30008000
cum/Ha
TY 2009-10
State Tar
Surplus
800012000
cum/Ha
Past Max
TIC Thane
SIC Sangli
CADA Pune
CIPC Chandrapur
CADA Nagpur
CIPC Chandrapur
AIC Abad
CADA Pune
PIC Pune
CADA Nashik
CADA Nagpur
UWPC Amravati
CADA Jalgaon
YIC Yavatmal
AIC Akola
NIC Nanded
CADA Abad
AIC Akola
BIPC Buldhana
CADA Jalgaon
CADA Nashik
NIC Nanded
CADA Beed
0.00
CADA Solapur
Ratio
0.40
Abundant
Above
12000
Cum/Ha
Past Min
24
Performance Comparison
For individual indicators
Comparison with
- Self performance
- Other projects in same sub-basin
- Average performance of plan group
- State Target
4/13/2015
25
Targets
Indicator
Type
Target value
I) Annual Irrigation Water Supply per Major &
unit Irrigated Area
Medium
a) Annual Area Irrigated per unit of
Minor
Water Supplied
7692
6667
II) Potential Created and Utilised
All
1
III ) Output per unit Irrigated Area
(@ price level 1998-99 )
Major
Medium
Minor
23000 to 32000
23000 to 40000
16000 to 36000
IV) Output per unit Irrigation water
supply
(@ price level 1998-99 )
Major
Medium
Minor
2.69 to 4.16
2.99 to 5.4
2.4 to 5.4
26
v) Cost Recovery Ratio
All
1
vi) O & M Cost per unit Area
Major
Medium
Minor
1250
1200
1150
vii) O & M Cost per unit
water supplied
Major & Medium
Minor
0.16
0.17
viii) Revenue per unit of
Water Supplied
Major & Medium
Minor
0.18
0.19
27
Indicator
Type
Target value
ix) Assessment Recovery Ratio
a) Irrigation
b) Non irrigation
Major
No target
X) Land Damage Index
All
1
XI) Equity Performance
All
1
28
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
29
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 15th January
Report
Approval to Report
Publication
20th February
22nd March
30
How Are the Results Shared?
•
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.
31
Lessons Learned So Far


Useful management tool
Improvement of Water Use Efficiency

Increase in revenue.

Improvement in overall performance

Step towards self sustainability.
32
Water Use Efficiency
250
Ha/Mcum
200
150
100
50
0
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 201001
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
Year
ISP on Canals
ISP on Wells
33
O & M Cost and Recovery
Rs. Crores
900
800
803
700
709
627
600
500
555
490
400
450
377
300
200
673
745
746
378
333
448
376
453
413
494
416
466
252
195
100
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Year
O&M Expenditure
Recovery
34
Way Forward
 Extending it further to Division and section
level

Comparison with National and International
schemes

Increasing
participation
benchmarking process

of
users
in
Real time collection of data through ICIS
35
THANKs
web site:- www.mahawrd.org & www.mwrdc.org
36