Measuring Results of Irrigation Development: RIPPA Approach

advertisement
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
Project
A
B
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
C
D
F
E
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVALUATED PROJECTS
% share in total
irrigated 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
Project
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
Assessment
Phase
Action Planning
Phase
Collect & review
project documents
Consult with
project stakeholders
Present findings to
project stakeholders
Clarify project
results framework
Implement
assessment plan
Formulate
action plan
Formulate rapid
assessment plan
Analyze data &
assess performance
Prepare
RIPPA report
TYPICAL RESULTS CHAIN OF
IRRIGATION PROJECTS
INPUTS
• Labor
• Equipment
• Technical
assistance
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
Output
• Construction/
• Operable
rehabilitation of
irrig facilities
• Institutional
development
• Supply of
equipment
irrig system
• Functional water
users groups
• Improved
system O&M
OUTCOME
Outcome
• Increased
irrigated area
• Increased rice
production
• Improved
irrigation service
IMPACT
• 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.
PROBLEM TREE: BHIP-I
ISF collection
target is not
achieved
Cropping
intensity target
is not achieved
Institutional issues
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
Non-compliance
with CCPP
Unlined/very
long MFDs
Incomplete
MFDs/SFDs
Dam not
reservoir type
Defective WD
structures
Damaged canal
structures
Insufficient
water in DS
Degradation of
watershed
Illegal turn-outs
Lack of SFDs
Lands higher
than canal
Weak IA policy
enforcement
Illegal checks/
impoundments
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
Lack of terminal
facilities
Low rainfall
(e.g. El Nino)
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
Sugarcane areas are
excluded from LIPA
Lack of
drainage outlets
Sugar lands are
not irrigated
Siltation of
drainage canal
Sugarcane
farmers are not
IA members
Flooding during
high tides
No control over
crop conversion
ACTION PLAN: BRISRIP
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
•
•
•
•
•
(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
Assist IAs/TSAGs in constructing on-farm facilities
Settle ROW problems
Strengthen IA policy enforcement
Strictly implement WDD schedule
Promote WST
ACTION PLAN TEMPLATE
Issue/Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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.
Thank you!
Dank u wel!
Salamat po!
Download
Related flashcards

Mind-mapping software

26 cards

Extreme programming

17 cards

Create Flashcards