CASE STUDY ON IRRIGATION PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

There has been considerable controversy in the recent past over the desirability and
efficiency of irrigation projects. The proponents of irrigation projects have pointed out
that implementation of such projects not only increase the total food production of an
area when compared to rainfed agriculture but also significantly improves the reliability
of the production process by ensuring proper water control. It has been estimated that
even though only about 20% of the world's agricultural land is irrigated at present, this
accounts for 40% of the global agricultural production. In addition, irrigation provides the
basis for a better and more diversified choice of cropping patterns and growing of high
value crops, which otherwise may not have been possible. The water control structures
built for large-scale irrigation projects often also simultaneously generate hydroelectric
power and control floods, which further add to the national economic development
process. Since globally irrigation is the largest consumer of water (about 80% of all water
used), and hydropower generation does not consume any water, these two are
compatible uses of water.
On the negative side, opponents have claimed intense disappointments with the results
of irrigation projects during the past two decades, due to high costs of projects, cost and
time overruns, poor management, nonrealization of full planned benefits, adverse
environmental and health impacts, and exacerbation of differences of the existing social
and economic distribution of assets among the farmers.
An important reason as to why irrigation projects are currently generating simultaneously
both extreme optimism and pessimism is due to the absence of regular monitoring and
evaluation processes that can clearly and unambiguously identify the impacts of the
projects.

Monitoring and evaluation have received much lip service in the present decade, but have
seldom been carried out properly and effectively. Indeed besides some rhetoric, one
would be hard-pressed to identify a single irrigated agriculture development project that
has been monitored and evaluated
properly and regularly, and where the results of monitoring and evaluation are used to
improve the management of irrigation projects in order to ensure that the expected
benefits do accrue within the planned time horizon. The present state-of-the-art review
is based on the writer's experience as an advisor to 17 developed and developing
countries and all major international organizations involved with irrigation.
In the context of the present paper, monitoring may be defined as continuous or periodic
surveillance over the implementation of the necessary irrigated agricultural activities,
including their various components. It is used to ensure that work schedules, input
deliveries, targetted outputs, and other required actions are progressing according to the
plan. Since the primary purpose of monitoring is to achieve efficient and effective project
performance, it should be considered an integral part of the management information
system, and thus should be a regular internal activity. Evaluation may be defined as a
process that determines systematically and objectively to the extent possible, the impact,
effectiveness, and relevance of project activities in terms of their objectives. There are
two points worth making here. First, evaluation can broadly be divided into two broad
categories: ongoing and periodic. Ongoing evaluation is a continuing activity and is used
to examine whether any changes are necessary for the operation and management of a
project to ensure that its performance is satisfactory and the overal objectives can be
achieved. For example, it is possible that in certain cases the assumptions underlying the
irrigation design may have been inappropriate such that the farmers are not receiving
their expected share of water. If through the monitoring and evaluation process this or
similar types of problems can be identified, the question arises what measures can be
taken to rectify such problems.
In contrast to ongoing evaluation, periodic evaluation is carried out after longer time
intervals, e.g., every five years. Periodic evaluation generally deals with achievement of
socioeconomic objectives, which may not show any discernible or significant change over
a shorter period of time of one
year or so.
The second point is with reference to the base with which project impacts or changes can
be compared. Vary often reliable socioeconomic data on preproject conditions in
developing countries do not exist. Furthermore, project objectives as originally outlined
may be fuzzy, inaccurate, or may not be
sufficiently quantitative for evaluation purposes. Many times objectives may require
redefinition or sharpening of focus in the light of experience gained since a project was
initiated. Thus, for evaluation purposes, blind adherence to initially stipulated objectives
may be counter-productive.
It can be persuasively argued that if the existing performance patterns of irrigated
agriculture projects in achieving their objectives are to be improved significantly, it is
essential to ensure that monitoring and evaluation become an integral component of the
management process in order first to determine their achievement levels and then to
identify what adjustments and Correctives actions may be necessary to ensure that the
future stream of benefits accrue in time to the appropriate target groups.
Some form of monitoring and evaluation is always done for irrigation projects. For
example, most project authorities monitor the flow rates in the main irrigation canals, but
they may not have corresponding data on watercourses. Often losses occurring in
watercourses are not known, and if such losses are higher than designed values, reliability
of water availability to the farmers at the tail of watercourses declines significantly. In
addition to certain irrigation factors like flow rates, some agricultural aspects such as crop
yields may be monitored, but even these may not be monitored on a regular basis. When
one moves from physical factors to socioeconomic factors, the status of monitoring and
evaluation gets even worse. One would indeed be hardpressed to identify one single
irrigated agriculture project where its impacts on the lifestyles of the intended
beneficiaries have been evaluated at regular intervals.
Regular and reliable evaluation of irrigated agriculture projects, however, is not an easy
task under the best of circumstances. There are methodological problems that need to
be resolved in order to find a cost-effective and reliable approach that can be used for
the evaluation of a specific project within the resources and expertise available. Even
when methodological problems can be resolved, there are other important barriers like
institutional inertia, and sometimes even downright opposition, that have to be
effectively overcome before a serious evaluation can be undertaken that could be a part
of the management process.

Discussion;
1. What are the issues or problems solved by the irrigation project
2. Why Monitoring and evaluating the irrigation project
3. On the basis of reviews of irrigation projects in many countries, it is clear
that no one is satisfied with the present status. Why?