Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

Project Number: 45072-001

Research and Development Technical Assistance (RDTA)
March 2015

Nepal: Innovations for More Food with Less Water

(Financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction)

Prepared by Lahmeyer International in association with Lahmeyer International India,

BETS Consulting Services, Centre for Environment and Development, and Total Management
Services

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and
ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical
assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
Project Number: 45072-001
March 2015

Regional Technical Assistance TA7967-REG

Innovations for More Food with Less Water Task 2

Final Report – Nepal

Prepared by
Lahmeyer International in association with Lahmeyer International India, BETS
Consulting Services, Centre for Environment and Development, and Total Management
Services

Asian Development Bank

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

FINAL REPORT

INNOVATIONS FOR MORE FOOD WITH LESS WATER

TASK 2

RDTA 7967 – REG

MARCH 2015

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of the ADB or the Government
concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. All the views
expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(approximate average value)

Currency Unit – Nepal Taka (NRs)

NRs1.00 = $0.01
$1.00 = NRs100

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank

AES – agro-economic survey
ASC – Agriculture Service Center
AMIS – Agency (government) managed irrigation schemes
APP – Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) 1995-2015
BRCBIP – Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project
CAD – Command Area Development
DADO – District Agriculture Development Office
DAE – Department of Agricultural Extension
DMF – Design and Monitoring Framework
DOI – Department of Irrigation
EA – executing agency
FAO – United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FCDI – flood control, drainage and irrigation
FFS – farmer field school
FGD – focus group discussion
FMIS – farmer managed irrigation schemes
GDP – gross domestic product
GOB – Government of Bangladesh
GOI – Government of India
GON – Government of Nepal
ha – hectare
HVC – high value crop
HYV – high yielding variety
I&D – irrigation and drainage
IE – irrigation efficiency
IMO – Irrigation Management Operator
IMU – Irrigation Management Unit
IMT – Irrigation Management Transfer
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR – Inception Report
ISC – irrigation service charge
ISF – irrigation service fee
KM – kilometer
LLP – low lift pump
MFLW – More Food with Less Water

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

MLD – million liters per day

MOM – management, operation and management
MOWR – Ministry of Water Resources
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
MT – million tons
NASDP – National Agriculture Sector Development Priority (NASDP)
NDVI – normalized difference vegetation index
NGO – non-governmental organization
NR – Nepalese Rupee
NWP – National Water Policy
OFD – on-farm development
OM – operation and maintenance
PIM – participatory irrigation management
POW – productivity of water
PPTA – project preparatory technical assistance
PRA – Participatory rural appraisal
QCBS – quality and cost based selection
RAP – Rapid Appraisal Process
RDTA – Research and Development Technical Assistance
RP – Resettlement Plan
RPA – rapid performance assessment
RRP – Report and Recommendations of the President
SA – social assessment
SAP – Sample Area Profiles
SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SMDP – Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project
SPS – Safeguard Policy Statement
TA – Technical Assistance
ToR – Terms of Reference
UNFCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WUA – Water User Association
WUE – water use efficiency

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Introduction

1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has financed a research and development
technical assistance (RDTA) called Innovations for More Food with Less Water (MFLW)
to support the identification, assessment, and design of new investments for more
sustainable, water-efficient irrigated agriculture in Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

2. The RDTA is divided between two tasks: Task 1 the research and compilation of
international best practices, and Task 2 for the identification of methods for improving
water productivity – growing more food with less water. The RDTA responds directly to
ADB’s Operational Plan for sustainable food security and ADB’s Water Operational Plan
for 2011–2020, which calls for improving the productivity and efficiency of water use
through (i) investing in modern irrigation infrastructure, (ii) adopting enabling policies that
correctly price the opportunity cost of water, and (iii) strengthening institutions for more
efficient and sustainable water management. It is also consistent with the inclusive
growth goal of ADB’s Strategy 2020 and the Water Policy objective of improving and
expanding water service delivery.

3. The Task 2 MFLW studies started in August 2013. The ADB are currently
supporting the Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project (BRBIP) and the Bagmati River
was selected for the MFLW studies to assess the potential for improving the water use
efficiency (WUE) of irrigated agriculture in the upper, middle and lower parts of the basin.
The studies incorporate an examination of the potential for conjunctive surface and
groundwater irrigation in the lower part of the basin.

B. Analytical Tools

4. The study team used the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Rapid Appraisal
Process (RAP). The RAP is a knowledge-based toolkit that is useful for quickly and
systematically collecting, compiling and organizing, and analyzing information about large
canal irrigation systems. The results from the RAP benchmarking have quantified the
performance in terms of the quality of water delivery service at each canal level (hydraulic
layer) including parameters such as physical infrastructure, water control strategies,
communications, maintenance, institutional capacity, and water delivery service, paying
particular attention to important technical and engineering details (the standardized forms
cover over 700 questions/data points). The RAP procedures include a project-level water
balance framework, as well as important accounting information about water use, yields
and economics. The purpose of the benchmarking was to generate a baseline
assessment (i.e. benchmarking), against which future progress may be measured after
investments in modernization. The benchmarking reports contain a detailed overview of
the present operation and management of each system based on field visits and
consultations with the WRD staff and stakeholders.

5. The performance benchmarking has been followed up by technical and institutional

assessments, including for surface and ground water resources, irrigation, agriculture,
institutions and management. The review has incorporated extensive consultations with
stakeholders through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Participatory Rural Appraisals
(PRAs), and Sample Area Profiles (SAPs). Remote sensing was used to complement the
field studies. These findings have been summarized into a comprehensive performance
of irrigation in the Bagmati River Basin, which has been used as the basis of the
irrigation modernization planning for the Bagmati River Basin.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page vi

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

C. Upper and Middle Basin

6. Around 11,500 ha of irrigation have been developed in the upper and middle basin,
consisting of 8,000 ha in the upper basin and 3,500 ha in the middle basin; most of the
schemes are small farmer managed schemes with an average size of around 70 ha.
Irrigation water is adequate during the monsoon period but stream flows rapidly reduce
after the end of the rains, resulting in significantly limited areas of dry season irrigation.

7. Agriculture follows traditional subsistence farming practices, with paddy in summer

followed by wheat/mustard/potato in winter. Farmers also practice mixed farming, including
rearing of cattle. Average land holding size is slightly larger in the middle reach than in the
upper reach. The margins of the traditional crops are low; there is however a growing
demand for vegetables throughout the year, which can provide significantly improved
returns, and private investors are now setting up vegetable production using polyhouses
in the upper basin.

8. The upper basin, which largely lies in Kathmandu Valley, has been a traditionally
highly productive agricultural hub, but has suffered in recent decades from declining
production levels, mainly due to the rapid urbanization in all three districts, as well as
reduced river flows. There are major environmental problems in the Kathmandu Valley,
including lack of drinking water and depletion of the groundwater, lack of environmental
flows and very poor water quality of the streams and rivers in the urban areas. An
integrated approach to water resources management is required; irrigation is the largest
water user and there is a need to balance the irrigation needs with the present severe
environmental problems.

9. For the upper valley with schemes located in the catchments above the urban
areas two different development strategies have been identified:

(i) During the monsoon period irrigation can support groundwater recharge,
especially under Kharif rice. Expansion of the irrigation schemes in selected
parts of the Kathmandu Valley is a potential means to support recharge and
would also increase the production of rice.
(ii) Dry season irrigation on the other hand reduces the base flow in the streams,
which affects water quality in the urban and peri-urban areas; there is no
agreement on environmental flows and 100% of the tributary flow is
abstracted at many of the offtakes. Through increased dry season irrigation
efficiencies (IEs) water abstractions would be reduced, while productivity
improved and environmental flows could be maintained in the tributaries.

10. For the upper and middle basin three investment strategies are proposed.

(i) Rehabilitation and upgrading of canals and structures to improve the

irrigation efficiency.
(ii) Micro irrigation based on using piped distribution, which would abstract
water from the irrigation canals or directly from stream, supplying water by
gravity to the fields directly or linked to sprinkler or drip systems. The canal
distribution would be used for wet season rice.
(iii) Conservation irrigation is designed as a package of actions to provide an
extremely high level of water use efficiency and crop productivity to
conserve dry season water and support wet season recharge with
combined objectives to improve agricultural productivity and to improve the
poor environmental conditions in the parts of the upper basin that run
through the urban areas.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page vii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

11. A preliminary investment proposal for the upper and middle basins to support
modernized irrigation over 5,000 ha is shown below. In the upper basin approximately
2,000 ha of conservation irrigation could be taken up in the critical streams that flow into
the urban and peri-urban areas. In the middle basin, a mix of canal upgrading and micro
irrigation is proposed. Parallel programs of agricultural support, training and awareness
would be included in the investment program. Consultancy and management support
would include engagement of international and national project managers to establish
modern irrigated agriculture in the upper and middle basin.
Investment Plan Upper and Middle Basin

Area Unit Cost Total Cost

Component (ha) ($) ($ million)
1. Irrigation Infrastructure
Upper Basin
Conservation irrigation 2,000 8,500 17.0

Middle Basin
Upgrading of Canal Irrigation 1,500 2,500 3.8
Micro Irrigation 1,500 5,000 7.5
Sub Total Infrastructure 5,000 28.3
2. Agriculture Support 3.0
3. Training and Awareness 0.3
4. Consultancy and Management Support 2.0
5. MOM Budget Support during Implementation 1.0
Sub Total 34.6
Contingencies 3.4
Total Investment 38.0

D. Lower Basin

12. In the lower basin, covering the two districts of Rautahat and Sarlahi, there are
about 90,000 ha of surface water irrigation; the BIP is the largest scheme (48,000 ha). In
addition there are around 70 small and medium irrigation schemes fed from drainage,
springs and minor tributaries, serving about 38,000 ha. Although there is good wet
season availability of surface water, in the dry season irrigation water is in very short
supply, with availabilities at the headworks of the BIP dropping to around 0.15 l/s/ha. The
poor condition of the canals and lack of a systematic allocation system result in many
parts not receiving water; even in the wet season some areas don't receive supplies.
Groundwater is used extensively to meet the deficit; for the BIP it is estimated that
groundwater meets about half the irrigation demand. Cropping intensities with surface
and groundwater sources combined are about 200%. The conditions in the other
irrigation schemes are quite similar to BIP.

13. The benchmarking results for the internal performance indicators at the BIP
presented reflect a poor level of water delivery service and irrigation performance. These
include derelict infrastructure and designs flaws, a lack of sufficient finance for regular
maintenance, institutional weaknesses and management limitations, and serious difficulties
in controlling and measuring water. Improvements in irrigation efficiencies, widespread
crop diversification, and the adoption of modern farm-level water management practices
in the BIP will only be feasible with the successful implementation of a modernization
program to address existing operational constraints by effective water control and monitoring
throughout the system.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page viii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

14. The benchmarking identified very weak levels of institutions and management;
these include seriously inadequate budgets with virtually no contribution from water
users. The BIP represents a special challenge for irrigation modernization efforts; works
have been underway in the scheme for approximately the last 20 years up to the
present,1 but many deficiencies in the system remain. As identified under the RAP, the
design and construction of the irrigation system so far has resulted in a system that is
difficult and cumbersome to operate, with consequences in terms of water delivery
service. The potential for improving the dry season productivity is also severely
constrained by the limitations of surface water supplies.

15. In the lower basin the high total recharge from rainfall, runoff and irrigation return
flows, combined with favorable aquifer conditions, provides high potential for expansion
of groundwater irrigation. Groundwater irrigation is currently practiced largely through the
private sector supported by government subsidies; despite the high potential and
government support and the limitations of surface water irrigation; the groundwater area
is only around 24% of the total cultivable area. Ongoing programs involving subsidies for
pumping have created significant dependencies and have in fact restricted the development
of tubewells. It has been found that poor farmers benefit less from the subsidies than
richer farmers.

16. Groundwater pumping is by diesel pumps and farmers report the high costs of
pumping as a major constraint. Shallow tubewells provide significant financial benefit to
farmers. However, the rate of utilization remains very low. The current approaches to
subsidizing groundwater are not meeting the targeted benefits and new approaches with
lower level of subsidies to distribute benefits to a larger section of society need to be
developed.

17. Four alternative options have been identified and studied for irrigation development
in the lower basin:

(i) Full modernization of the BIP (48,000 ha)

(ii) Conjunctive development of surface water and groundwater (120,000 ha) in
two districts
(iii) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River (122,000 ha)
(iv) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River with conjunctive
groundwater development (244,000 ha) in five districts

1
Since 1987 the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD) has provided several loan packages for CAD works,
construction of irrigation infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the Bagmati barrage. The second SFD loan
(Loan No. 4/343) supported CAD works in the Bhalohia, Gadhaiya and Laxmipur Branch Canal areas,
followed by a third loan (Loan No. 5/465) for the remaining CAD works.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ix

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

18. A summary of the investment options is presented in the table and sections below.
Lower Basin Investment Options ($ million)

Option 1 2 3 4
Sunkoshi
Conjunctive
Full Conjunctive Marin
Surface and
Modernization of Surface and Diversion
Component Groundwater
the BIP Groundwater Project
with (SMDP)
48,000 ha 120,000 ha (SMDP)
244,000 ha
122,000 ha
1. Infrastructure
Modernization Surface Water 89.1 78.5 607.1 480.0
Modernization of Groundwater 21.9 33.6
Power and Electricity Distribution 57.0 200.0 267
Sub Total Infrastructure 89.1 157.5 807.1 780.6
2. Agriculture Support Initiatives 4.8 12.0 12.2 24.4
3. Training And Awareness 0.5 1.2 1.2 2.4
4. Consultancy and Management
Support 12.0 21.5 105.9 103.5
5. MOM Budget Support during
Implementation Period 3.9 4.4 10.0 10.4
Sub Total 110.3 196.5 936.5 921.4
Contingencies 10% 11.0 19.7 93.6 92.1
Total Investment 121.3 216.2 1,030.1 1,013.5
Cost/ha $2,500 $1,800 $6,600 $4,500

1. Option 1 – Full Modernization of the BIP

19. Full modernization, which is designed to improve the management and allocation
of the scarce surface water resources to maximize the irrigated areas during the wet and
dry season. The key proposals for Option 1 include:

(i) The diversions from the main canals will be based on maintaining a
constant target flow rate to match ordered demand for each branch canal
system. The establishment of accurate measurement of canal diversions is
important for the proper management of scarce water resources and each
branch canal headworks will be equipped with a broad crested measuring
weir for this purpose.
(ii) Access to real-time information about flows at key points throughout the
service area will be established through a SCADA/DSS system. A real-time
and coordinated approach to the water distribution management throughout
the project will allow decision-making to occur on a more frequent basis to
support a coordinated approach to water distribution throughout the BIP.
(iii) Existing gated cross regulators structures in the branch, distributary and
secondary canals will be upgraded with long-crested weirs, which will
support stabilization of the canal water levels. The resultant reduction in
fluctuations will allow more stable and measureable deliveries to lower level
canals and direct offtakes.
(iv) New re-regulation reservoirs will be built at strategic locations along
selected branch canals. The regulating reservoirs will serve two functions:
(i) provide good service to upstream users by absorbing excesses and
deficits from flexible operations upstream; and (ii) provide flexibility to
downstream users by having water readily available close to those users,
and being able to absorb any flow reductions into the downstream areas.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page x

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(v) A comprehensive water planning process will be established at the

beginning of every irrigation season. The irrigation plan will be based on a
cropping information and irrigation requirements from the respective WUAs,
which will be reconciled by the Department of Irrigation (DOI) based on
forecasted water availability and tentative delivery schedule. This water
management plan will adjusted as necessary during the irrigation season to
account for current conditions.

2. Option 2 – Conjunctive Surface and Groundwater

20. Option 2 incorporates investment in both surface and ground water irrigation
together with complementary financing of power production and extension of the
electricity grid to supply irrigation tubewells. Option 2 has been designed to overcome
the significant technical, institutional constraints and costs to develop highly efficient
surface water management especially during the dry season with the very low levels of
dry season water availability.

21. Option 2 proposes a limited modernization of the surface water systems; the
investment costs per ha would be lower than Option 1 and would not provide the same
level of surface water efficiency as the full modernization. The shortfalls of surface water
would be met by modernization of the groundwater pumping.

22. During the stakeholder consultations with farmers electrification of the pumps was
identified as a valuable area of support to reduce pumping costs. Electrified pumps are
more efficient than diesel pumps and are cheaper to operate even with unsubsidized
tariffs. Electrification is also a good way to monitor and also control groundwater, should
problems of over abstraction develop. Electrification of pumps is currently not viable due
to low availability as a result of power/load shedding; it is proposed that shortages of
electric power would be mitigated by investment in a 19-MW solar power plant, which
would meet most of the groundwater pumping requirements and would allow a fast
uptake of groundwater irrigation. During the irrigation offseason the power from the plant
would be sold to the grid.

23. The proposal is for the government to continue to provide support to make
groundwater accessible to small farmers. Support for electrification of groundwater
pumping is seen as a more effective support mechanism than the current programs of
subsidizing the procurement of pumps and tubewells. Electrification using prepaid
meters provides power as well as an effective mechanism for electricity charging and
some cost recovery for irrigation management. Subsidized electricity tariffs can help
farmers reduce the pumping costs but these need to set at sustainable levels. The
investment will include provision of support to improve agriculture productivity; this will
help farmers meet payment for electricity at sustainable levels.

24. The broad details of Option 2 include:

(i) The proposed project would cover 120,000 ha in Rautahat and Sarlahi
districts and would include modernization of about 78,000 ha of surface
water irrigation. The project would also benefit through groundwater irrigation
about 42,000 ha currently without surface water irrigation, as well as
supplementary irrigation for about 48,000 ha. The proposed project would
benefit about 80% of the total cultivable area in the two districts.
(ii) Investment in surface water systems would include a limited modernization of
the BIP (48,000 ha) and other selected surface water schemes (30,000 ha).
The limited modernization plan would be designed to maximize the area for
wet season supplementary irrigation, as well as dry season irrigation over

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xi

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

the portion of the command area that can be realistically supplied by

surface water. The shortfall of dry season irrigation would be supplied by
developing improved and modernized groundwater systems. The targets for
surface water efficiency and management would be lower than the Option 1
comprehensive modernization proposal and as a result the capital and
management, operation and maintenance (MOM) costs would also be
lower. The surface water irrigation especially during the wet season would
also play a key role to support groundwater recharge. Cost per hectare for
the limited modernization has been assessed at $1,000, about half that of
the full modernization requirements under Option 1.
(iii) Investment would be provided for modernized groundwater and some
pumped surface water irrigation to around 90,000 ha. Groundwater would
include supplementary groundwater inside the irrigation commands as well
as standalone groundwater in other areas. Groundwater investment would
include new wells (mainly shallow tubewells), cleaning of existing wells,
provision of new electric pumpsets, simple flat hose distribution systems,
and some buried PVC pipe distribution for larger wells.
(iv) Investment in the power distribution network and electrification would
consist of extending the electricity grid over 90,000 ha, including high
tension and low tension lines, transformers, prepaid electric meters etc. To
provide the power a new 19-MW solar power plant would be developed to
provide enough power for the 90,000 ha of electric lift irrigation for both
groundwater and surface water from canals and drains. This would include
both supplementary irrigation as well as standalone irrigation. During the
periods of low demand the solar plant would be able to sell power to the
grid; this is estimated to be about 50% of the annual power produced.

3. Option 3 – Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP)

25. Option 3 is based on the Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP) pre-feasibility
study. The project plan is to divert 77 m3/s (at 80% reliability) from the Sunkoshi River to
the Marin River, a tributary of the Bagmati River; the diversion will leave 10% base flow
in the Sunkoshi River. The water will be diverted at a 180-m long weir in the Sunkoshi
River into a 450-m long headrace canal and 13.2-km headrace power tunnel. The project
has a net head of 57 m, has capacity to develop 36 MW of power, and would potentially
generate 300,000 MW-hr per annum. The investment cost of hydropower part of the
project is estimated at $200 million.

26. The water supplied to the Marin River will feed an additional 77 m 3/s into the BIP
to provide an additional supply for the existing command area and also allow expansion
of the scheme up to a total of 122,000 ha over the five districts of Sarlahi, Rautahat,
Bara, Mahatori and Dhanusa.

27. The development is based on surface water and would include the existing BIP of
48,000 ha as well an extended area of 74,000 ha. The costs of full modernization of the
BIP under Option 1 by the study are estimated to be $1,900 per ha. The expansion area
would incorporate some existing irrigation schemes and also some unirrigated areas and
would require new canalization, command area development and land acquisition. For
the expansion area it is estimated that the development costs based on norms for new
irrigation development would be of the order $7,000 per ha for the irrigation development
component.

28. The long-term sustainable management of the existing surface water irrigation
needs to be addressed as a pre-requisite to developing new surface water irrigation. The

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

current BIP scheme has taken over twenty years to develop and still there remain major
shortfalls in the condition of the system. The allocations and the capacities for MOM are
significantly below the requirements. Currently losses in the very porous soils and water
allocation systems result in major shortfalls in the water available in the lower parts of the
scheme and existing Bagmati supply would provide around 84 m3/s in the critical month;
this would be the equivalent of 0.7 l/s/ha based on 122,000 ha. The crop water balance
with improved management indicates a peak water requirement at the headworks of
around 1.1 l/s/ha. It is estimated that there would remain some requirement of groundwater
to meet the shortfall.

4. Option 4 – Conjunctive Surface and Groundwater Development with

Sunkoshi Water Diversion

29. Option 4 is designed to integrate the longer term Sunkoshi Water Diversion
project (Option 3) with parallel fast track initiatives to develop modernized conjunctive
surface and groundwater in five districts of Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Mahatori and
Dhanusa (Option 2). The total project area would be 244,0002 ha with investment in
182,000 ha in surface water and 140,000 ha in groundwater.

30. The project would be developed in two overlapping stages over 15 years. A two
year planning and design period is estimated for stage 1 and four years for stage 2. The
recharge from the surface water transfer would allow for increased area of groundwater.
The project would include electric pumping of groundwater and lift irrigation with power
from a 19-MW new solar power station and the SMDP hydropower station.

31. Stage 1. Year 1-7: conjunctive surface and groundwater in two districts Sarlahi
and Rautahat. Stage 1 would follow Option 2 above, with a six year implementation
period and would include: (i) investment in limited modernization of surface water
irrigation over 78,000 ha (48,000 ha in BIP and 30,000 ha other irrigation); (ii) first stage
modernization of groundwater (90,000 ha); and (iii) 30-MW solar electric power
generation and expansion of electrical distribution.

32. Stage 2. Year 3-15: this would build on Option 3 and would take about 12 years
to implement. The proposal would include: (i) development of the Sunkoshi Marin
hydropower and diversion; (ii) extension of the BIP (74,000 ha) and 2nd stage
modernization of other irrigation over 30,000 ha; and (iii) 2nd stage modernization of
50,000 ha of groundwater in the three districts of Bara, Rautahat and Dhanusa using ring
fenced power from the hydropower plant.

5. Comparison of Options

33. The estimated requirements and costs presented in this study are preliminary and
more detailed studies are required to be supported by feasibility studies. Four options
have been identified and proposed as below. Further study is required to better define
and evaluate the options.

34. Option 1 is designed to maximize the area and efficiency of surface water
irrigation. The lack of dry season water supply however is a major constraint, which will
limit the potential benefits of the investment and management initiatives. There are
significant institutional, management and financial constraints to achieving high levels of

2
The 244,000 project area includes 182,000ha of surface water and 62,000 ha of stand-alone groundwater.
The project would support 78,000 ha of conjunctive groundwater is already included under the area of
surface water.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xiii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

surface water efficiency. There will be continued requirement for supplementary

groundwater and the high costs of diesel pumping would remain a burden on farmers.

35. Option 2 is designed to exploit the high groundwater potential in the lower basin,
through a planned and integrated management of surface and groundwater to ensure
sustainably and high levels of service delivery. The proposals appear attractive from the
technical, financial and institutional perspectives. The costs are indicative but the
investment costs per ha are 70% of Option 1, also with lower MOM costs per ha. Cost
recovery of the groundwater would be through prepaid meters linked to electricity
consumption. The investment requires investment in solar power, which would be used
to provide reliable day time power for pumping; the sale of surplus solar power of around
$1.3 million/year would help meet the MOM costs of the surface water irrigation. The
costs of groundwater development, including solar power plant, extension of electricity
grid and upgrading/new tubewells are about $900/ha, which compares favorably with
surface water modernization. With electrification the cost of groundwater to farmers
could be approximately halved. For the lower basin with the shallow aquifer, shallow
tubewells with direct access to water on demand and low cost electric pumping has
many advantages over investment in surface water irrigation systems. Further study is
required to assess the requirements for policy and institutional reforms.

36. Option 3 is based on the prefeasibility studies for the SMDP; this is a major
project with implications for both the Bagmati and Sunkoshi Rivers, which needs to be
fully assessed. The development areas of Option 3 only consider surface water and
would support the expansion of the BIP project to the original development area of
122,000 ha, covering the five districts of Sarlahi, Rautahat, Dhanusha, Mahottari and
Bara. The difficulties of sustainable and efficient management of surface water alone,
including cost recovery for MOM in Option 1, would also apply to Option 3. Even with the
water transfer the surface water availability would not meet the dry season water
requirements and there would continue to be a requirement for groundwater.

37. Option 4 combines Options 2 and 3 and would be developed in stages to cover
five other districts. The project is designed to integrate Sunkoshi Water Diversion
Project, which it is estimated would take around 12 years to complete, with parallel fast
track initiatives to develop modernized conjunctive surface and groundwater, including
electric pumping with power from a new solar and the SMDP power plants. Option 4 is a
very large project with a benefit area of around 240,000 ha in five districts.

E. Agriculture Support

38. To provide a rapid improvement in the agricultural systems, it is proposed that

investment be provided towards agricultural support services. The current Department of
Agriculture (DOA) extension resources are critically low, and it is therefore proposed that
agricultural support be provided as a key part of any investment in irrigation
modernization. It is recommended that of about 10% of the investment in infrastructure
would be allocated to agriculture support. The investment in irrigation modernization in
parallel with agriculture support will allow improved yields and increased area to come
under irrigation and a faster uptake of improved agriculture practices.

39. The agricultural support program would be designed to be self-financing and

sustainable after the completion of the investment period; this will be achieved through
the establishment of commercial agriculture activities with start-up cost supported by the
investment. The intention is to offer a nucleus of localized self-financing support services
through PPP, which would be implemented directly by the project or by interacting and
engaging with existing government agriculture programs, commercial agriculture companies,
NGOs and farmer-level producer organizations (which could be linked to the WUAs). It is
envisaged that the agriculture support initiatives would be a mix of a central level unit

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xiv

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

together with decentralized initiatives. It is proposed that the agriculture support program
would include: (i) support for crop storage and marketing systems; (ii) increased
availability of high quality and timely supply of inputs at fair prices; (iii) improved and
more timely supply of inputs at fair prices; (iv) improved quality and availability of training
and extension; and (v) contract farming initiatives.

F. Remote Sensing to Support Improved Irrigation Management

40. Mechanisms to monitor agriculture production spatially need to be developed to

assess the effectiveness of irrigation and the crop responses. This data can be used to
improve identify parts of the scheme that are not fully responding or meeting the
irrigation potentials. From this data actions to improve the irrigation management can be
put in place. Flow measurement especially to the lower level canals is not very accurate
and monitoring of the crop responses to irrigation provides an additional tool to distribute
effectively distribute water.

41. Data on cropping from the government statistics is frequently unreliable and is
based on administrative units, which are not easy to reconcile with the irrigation units.
The data also cannot be used spatially. Field investigations are expensive and are
normally based on small samples. Remote sensing requires fewer inputs in terms of data
and resources, while providing an unbiased overall picture of an entire scheme. Another
major advantage is that time series of satellite data can be used to analyze productivity
and spatial variations that can be used to (i) identify regions that require intervention and
(ii) monitor water needs and crop production near-real time for management purposes.

42. Crop productivity can be expressed in two main ways: (i) as a total biomass (dry
matter) production (POW-biomass) per unit of water, or (ii) as crop yield (POW-crop) per
unit of water. Crop yield is a more detailed irrigation performance parameter for evaluation
purposes and includes data on crop type and production. However it requires significant
field data and groundtruthing, which is a very high cost and slow process. Although
biomass assessment is a less definitive method than crop yield assessment it allows a
significantly simpler, faster and more accurate method to quantify irrigation performance
and provides a simple crop indicator of the crop health, so opening up opportunities for
low cost applications of remote sensing over large areas.

43. The study has demonstrated how low cost easily available medium resolution
satellite imagery with 250-m resolution can be used on a large scale to estimate POW of
water based in dry biomass. The low cost, simplicity and availability of near real time
imagery allows time series of data to be used to analyze crop productivity on a weekly,
monthly, seasonal or annual basis. Near real time information and analysis opens up the
potential to use the remote sensing data on a routine basis to support hands on irrigation
management and improve water allocation systems.

44. The remote sensing based applications can most effectively be sourced through
specialist providers through a subscription, on a regular basis with outputs provided
through the internet. The strength of such a service is that it can be configured as a
‘dashboard’ to meet the specific requirements of the project. Different analyses can be
requested according to the specific needs: either a one off analysis or regular analyses
to provide near real time data over a specific period. The analysis can therefore be
tailored to level of service required, the estimated benefits and the available budget.

45. Outputs from near time analysis could potentially be sent on a weekly basis to
field offices and even gate operators through the internet SMS messages. Different
parameters can be analyzed but water stress is a key parameter, which can be
immediately applied to the water allocation systems. Data could be displayed as maps at
different resolutions or a score of crop productivity for each tertiary of secondary unit.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xv

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

46. The irrigation managers can request different levels data and types of analyses
according to the specific project needs, thus keeping the cost of the services to a
minimum. This use of modern technology allows cloud based high speed servers to
quickly analyze the key satellite information based on real near time data and send quick
user friendly outputs to the irrigation management team (central, field offices and gate
keepers); these can be through the internet or SMS as data or as images. It is
recommended to further investigate the use and cost benefits of such applications to
improve the efficiency of water management and increase the POW in the large scale
schemes in Nepal.

G. Institutions and Management

1. Upper and Middle Basin

47. The current schemes in the upper and middle basin are designed for minimal
maintenance with responsibilities handed over to the WUAs, although the understanding
is that government will support some major repairs. For the small scale schemes PIM
has been more effective and partially meets of the needs of canal irrigation systems.
There are however unresolved maintenance requirements in most of the schemes
inspected which are affecting the scheme efficiencies and are beyond the capacities of
farmers and not within the government resources. Filling this gap in maintenance
responsibilities and resources for the canal systems is a key requirement for meeting the
target for long term WUE.

48. The proposals for micro and conservation irrigation and the development of
commercial farming will require a quantum increase in MOM including technical, social
and financing systems. There is currently very limited capacity of the farmers, the WUA,
DOI or the DOA to take on this role. To meet the gap will require some level of outsourcing
of management activities through PPP; these are described in the proposals for the
lower basin.

2. Lower Basin

49. The clear constraints of a public bureaucracy and the PIM approach to effectively
managing the BIP and other surface water systems can be seen in their poor operational
performance. There is no evidence that again following this same model would be more
successful; if anything, there is evidence that the farmer linkages and social fabric of the
project has become more complex in recent years. Irrigation in the lower basin presents
massive opportunities for agricultural production if efficient and sustainable management
can be developed. Proposals for outsourcing management functions are presented and
reviewed.

50. It is proposed to fill the gap in surface and groundwater management through the
engagement of a third-party service provider. The third party provider, termed an 'Irrigation
Management Operator' or IMO, would be a public private partnership (PPP). This can
boost efficiency in design, contracting, and management; as well as helping to ensure
financial sustainability through cost control, efficiency and MOM cost recovery. For the
large scale irrigation schemes it is in MOM that third-party service providers can have the
greatest impact in improving performance, so raising standards across all functions.

51. For the lower level canal systems, the DOI through the IMO would develop water
service agreements with the WUA. The water service agreements would be contractual,
which would specify the water allocations, MOM responsibilities, and the financial
obligations of both parties. The service agreement would define the penalties for default
of the service agreement conditions.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xvi

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

52. Groundwater is currently meeting around 50% of the irrigation supply inside the
command areas, as well providing the full irrigation requirements in areas of standalone
groundwater irrigation. There is clear potential to expand groundwater use, but this
needs to be developed through a controlled and managed approach incorporating
integrated and sustainable management of the surface and groundwater resources.

53. Currently groundwater irrigation is mainly through small private operators with
diesel pumps; there is no monitoring or control of abstraction. The proposals for
groundwater modernization incorporate electrification and upgrading of tubewells,
including the introduction of prepaid meters, which would provide significant benefits by
avoiding postpaid billing for power. The prepaid meters allow the introduction of
mechanisms to monitor and manage groundwater. Different management models for
groundwater have been identified and include groundwater service agreements,
franchised, leased or direct managed tubewells.

3. Cost recovery for MOM

54. Cost recovery to meet the needs of MOM remains a serious constraint;
government funding for MOM is inadequate and collection of water charges is at a very
low level. From preliminary assessments, it can be seen that maintenance requirements
exceed the current funding and the ongoing and any future investments may not be
sustainable. New initiatives for cost recovery need to be investigated and established; a
key role of the irrigation management operator would be to develop and improve the
mechanisms for MOM cost recovery.

4. Stages in Institutional Development

55. Establishment of sustainable self-financing long term management systems

requires a significant amount of up front work and investment.

56. The implementation can be split into two parts: Stage 1 would be the period of
establishment of effective management systems, with Stage 2 comprising the long-term
arrangements. It is estimated that the Stage 1 establishment phase would require at
least six years. During the initial Stage 1 set-up phase there would minimal revenue and
the and the management and MOM costs would have to be supported as part of the
investment package. Under Stage 1, selected management functions would be contracted
to a private company or consortium with the brief to establish and set up sustainable and
long term management arrangements including establishing systems for cost recovery.

57. At the end of the Stage 1 management would be passed to a long-term management
arrangement; a number of options exist, including: (i) a PPP type management arrangement;
or (ii) the establishment and handover to an autonomous management authority; or (iii) a
hybrid management arrangement that may include some elements of (i) and (ii).

5. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

58. The Bagmati Basin is one of the most water-stressed in Nepal, and management
issues of the basin are complex. The development proposals for irrigation have to be
managed within the overall management of water resources within the basin (as well as
the Koshi Basin if the water transfer is taken up). The proposals for irrigation include the
aspects surface and ground water, environment, groundwater, land use, power
production and distribution, and inter basin water transfer; the proposals also include
requirements for capital and operational financing.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xvii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

59. The irrigation sector is the largest water user and changes in water use can have
significant impacts outside the irrigation sector, which have to be evaluated. Although most
existing government agencies function well enough within normal funding constraints,
there is need for greater coordination and focus on key issues, and elimination of the
overlaps that appear to occur in certain areas. From evaluation of the water management
functions, there are significant gaps within the irrigation sector as well as cross cutting
inter-sector issues; strengthening of IWRM in the Bagmati Basin is a key requirement.

60. The Water and Energy Commission (WEC) was established by the government in
1975. A permanent secretariat of WEC was established in 1981 with the objective of
developing the water and energy resources in an integrated and accelerated manner.
The BRBIP is currently evaluating the scope and potential for a river basin organization
(RBO) to strengthen and work with the WEC to develop institutional capacities for more
effective river management to maximize the economic and social welfare of the river
basin in an equitable and environmentally and financially sustainable manner. It is very
important that adequate resources are allocated to the complex issues of irrigation
planning and management within the planned IWRM organization.

H. Economic and Financial Analysis.

61. Economic and financial analysis has been carried out to assess the viability and
justification of the various options considered for the irrigation development.
(i) For the upper basin, the EIRRs have been assessed based on a typical 50
ha unit. The base case EIRR for upgrading of canal irrigation is 26%, micro
irrigation is 28% and conservation irrigation is 21%.
(ii) For the lower basin, the EIRR of Option 1 has been studied and for the
base case (Option 1) has an EIRR of 24%. The other options have been
assessed relative the base case based on a sensitivity analysis of Option 1;
considering only the irrigation benefits with EIRRs of around 31% for Option
2, less than 17% for Option 3, and around 17% for Option 4.

I. Innovative Approaches

62. In line with objectives of the MFLW study, new innovative approaches are
identified that have application in the Bagmati Basin and other parts of Nepal. Key
innovations include: (i) innovative diagnostics and planning for modernization; (ii) water
conservation irrigation in the upper basin; (iii) gravity micro irrigation in the middle basin;
(iv) option for full modernization of the BIP; (v) option for conjunctive development of
surface and groundwater in the lower basin; (vi) option for development of conjunctive
development with transfer of surface water; (vii) development of commercial agriculture
support; (viii) training and awareness; (ix) outsourcing of management functions and
establishment self-financing IMOs; (x) new WUA management initiatives; (xi) strategies for
groundwater management; (xii) establishing an irrigation coordination committee; (xiii) new
initiatives for financing MOM; and (xiv) remote sensing to support water management.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xviii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1
A. Background of the Study...............................................................................................1
B. Study Design.................................................................................................................1
C. Scope of the Study........................................................................................................2

II. IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL .................................................................................. 4

A. Water Resources and Irrigation ....................................................................................4
1. Rainfall and Evapotranspiration .......................................................................... 4
2. Surface Water ..................................................................................................... 4
3. Groundwater........................................................................................................ 5
4. Irrigation Development ........................................................................................ 5
B. The Institutional and Policy Framework ........................................................................7
1. Policy Framework................................................................................................ 7
2. Irrigation and Water Sector Development Policies ............................................. 8
3. Agriculture Policies.............................................................................................. 9
C. Performance of Irrigation Management ......................................................................10
1. Overview ........................................................................................................... 10
2. Capacities of WUAs .......................................................................................... 11
3. Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) as a Possible Solution ......................... 11
4. Lessons Learned from International Experiences of IMT ................................. 12
5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 13

III. OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE BAGMATI BASIN....................................... 14

A. Introduction .................................................................................................................14
B. Climate ........................................................................................................................14
C. Water Availability and Quality .....................................................................................16
1. Upper Basin....................................................................................................... 16
2. Lower Basin....................................................................................................... 18
D. Agriculture ...................................................................................................................18
1. Fertilizers ........................................................................................................... 20
2. Seed .................................................................................................................. 20
3. Agricultural Credit.............................................................................................. 20
4. Crop Diversity.................................................................................................... 21
5. Agriculture Imports ............................................................................................ 21
6. Transport ........................................................................................................... 22
E. River Basin Management............................................................................................22
1. Overview ........................................................................................................... 22
2. Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project (BRBIP) ......................................... 23
3. Kulekhani Power Project ................................................................................... 24
4. Melamchi River Transfer Project....................................................................... 24
5. Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP) ....................................................... 24
F. Climate Change ..........................................................................................................25

IV. CURRENT IRRIGATION IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BAGMATI ..................................... 27

A. Irrigation Areas............................................................................................................27
B. Upper Bagmati ............................................................................................................27
C. Middle Bagmati ...........................................................................................................29
D. Agriculture in the Upper and Middle Bagmati .............................................................30
E. Summary of Findings of the Consultative Processes .................................................30

V. STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BAGMATI ................................ 32

A. Requirements..............................................................................................................32
1. Upper Bagmati .................................................................................................. 32
2. Middle Bagmati.................................................................................................. 32
B. Agriculture ...................................................................................................................33

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xix

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

C. Groundwater ...............................................................................................................34
D. Agriculture ...................................................................................................................34
E. Aquaculture .................................................................................................................35
F. Investment Options .....................................................................................................36
1. Upgrading of Canal Irrigation ............................................................................ 36
2. Micro Irrigation Systems.................................................................................... 37
3. Water Conservation Irrigation ........................................................................... 38
G. Water and Land Use Management in the Kathmandu Valley.......................................39
1. Land Use Management ..................................................................................... 39
2. Self-Declaration of Land Use ............................................................................ 40
3. Strategy for Water and Land Use Management ............................................... 41
H. Agriculture Support Initiatives .....................................................................................41

VI. PLAN FOR IRRIGATION MODERNIZATION IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BAGMATI
BASIN ...................................................................................................................................... 43
A. Strategies ....................................................................................................................43
1. Upper Basin....................................................................................................... 43
2. Middle Basin...................................................................................................... 43
B. Investment Options .....................................................................................................43
C. Agriculture ...................................................................................................................44
D. Investment Proposal ...................................................................................................45
E. Productivity of Water ...................................................................................................45
F. Institutions ...................................................................................................................46

VII. CURRENT IRRIGATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI BASIN................................................ 47

A. Overview .....................................................................................................................47
B. Bagmati Irrigation Project............................................................................................47
1. Performance Benchmarking of the BIP............................................................. 48
2. Institutions ......................................................................................................... 53
3. Main System...................................................................................................... 53
4. MOM Budgets ................................................................................................... 54
5. Water Users Associations (WUA) ..................................................................... 54
6. Unauthorized Offtakes in the BIP...................................................................... 55
C. Other Surface Water Irrigation ....................................................................................55
D. Groundwater ...............................................................................................................56
1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 56
2. Hydrogeology .................................................................................................... 57
3. Groundwater Levels and Groundwater Flow .................................................... 58
4. Stakeholder Consultation .................................................................................. 59

VIII.LOWER BAGMATI BASIN REMOTE SENSING .................................................................... 61

A. Introduction .................................................................................................................61
B. Application of Remote Sensing Analyses ...................................................................62
C. Productivity of Water in the BIP ..................................................................................63

IX. STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IRRIGATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI BASIN ................ 66
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................66
B. Modernization of the Bagmati Irrigation Project..........................................................68
1. Proposals for Surface Water Management ....................................................... 68
2. Investment Proposals for the Modernization of the BIP.................................... 71
C. Groundwater ...............................................................................................................77
D. Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater.................................................78
1. Overview ........................................................................................................... 78
2. Proposals for Groundwater Development and Management............................ 79
3. Power Situation ................................................................................................. 81
4. Components ...................................................................................................... 81
E. Proposals for Irrigated Agriculture ..............................................................................83
1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 83

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xx

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

2. Strategies to Increase Agriculture Production................................................... 84

3. Investment Support for Agriculture.................................................................... 87
4. Estimated Increment in Yields........................................................................... 88
F. Institutional Proposals .................................................................................................89
1. The BIP Canal System ...................................................................................... 89
2. Joint Irrigation Management.............................................................................. 90
3. Outsourcing of Management Functions ............................................................ 90
G. MOM Cost Recovery...................................................................................................91

X. PLAN FOR IRRIGATION MODERNIZATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI............................ 92

A. Introduction .................................................................................................................92
B. Development Options..................................................................................................92
1. Option 1: Full Modernization of the Bagmati Irrigation Project.......................... 94
2. Option 2: Conjunctive Development of Surface Water and Groundwater ........ 97
3. Option 3: Diversion of Water from the Sunkoshi River ................................... 100
4. Option 4: Conjunctive Surface and Groundwater Development with Sunkoshi
Water Diversion............................................................................................... 101
C. MOM Costs ...............................................................................................................104
D. Summary of Proposals for the Lower Basin .............................................................104
E. Agriculture .................................................................................................................105
F. Productivity of Water .................................................................................................107
G. Institutions and Management....................................................................................107
1. Requirements .................................................................................................. 107
2. Outsourcing of Management Responsibilities................................................. 108
3. Water Service Agreement with the WUAs ...................................................... 108
4. Management Strategies for Groundwater ....................................................... 109
5. Agreements with Groundwater Users ............................................................. 110
6. Management Stages ....................................................................................... 111
7. First Stage Management Contract .................................................................. 112
8. Irrigation Coordination Committee .................................................................. 114
9. Long Term Management Arrangements ......................................................... 114

XI. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS........................................................................... 115

A. Introduction ...............................................................................................................115
B. Upper and Middle Basin............................................................................................115
C. Lower Basin ..............................................................................................................117
D. Risks .........................................................................................................................119
E. Economics Conclusions ............................................................................................119

XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 120

A. Approach...................................................................................................................120
B. Summary Upper Middle Basin ..................................................................................120
1. Findings in the Upper Middle Basin ................................................................ 120
C. Lower Basin ..............................................................................................................122
1. Findings Lower Basin ...................................................................................... 122
2. Proposals for Irrigation Modernization in the Lower Basin.............................. 123
D. Summary of Innovations ...........................................................................................126

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Performance Benchmarking of the Bagmati Irrigation Project

Appendix 2: Water Resources and Irrigation
Appendix 3: Groundwater
Appendix 4: Agriculture
Appendix 5: Institutions
Appendix 6: Remote Sensing
Appendix 7: Stakeholder Consultations

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xxi

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Appendix 8: Sample Area Profiles

Appendix 9: Strategic Plan for Modernization of the BIP
Appendix 10: Economic and Financial Analysis
Appendix 11. Summary of Workshops and Comments

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Average Rainfall and Evapotranspiration (mm) ................................................................4

Figure 2: Main Crops in Nepal..........................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Bagmati River Basin........................................................................................................15
Figure 4: Bagmati River Profile.......................................................................................................16
Figure 5: Average Stream Flows in the Upper Basin .....................................................................17
Figure 6: Average River Flows above the BIP Intake.....................................................................18
Figure 7: Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project ...................................................................................25
Figure 8: Upper Basin Area ............................................................................................................29
Figure 9: Schematic for Water Conservation Irrigation ..................................................................39
Figure 10: Project Layout Map of the Bagmati Irrigation Project....................................................51
Figure 11: Depth to Groundwater ...................................................................................................58
Figure 12: Conceptual N-S Section ................................................................................................59
Figure 13: Histogram Mean NDVI [-] for 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013 (a) and Surface
Area [ha] per NDVI class (b). ......................................................................................64
-1
Figure 14: Results for February 27, 2013: NDVI (a), Mean daily ET [mm day ] (b), Mean
-1 -1 -3
daily Biomass [kg ha day ] (c) and POW - Biomass [kg m ] (d)..............................65
Figure 15: BIP and District Map......................................................................................................82
Figure 16: Option 4 Development Stages ....................................................................................102
Figure 17: Phased Development of the BIP Command Area.......................................................103
Figure 18: Stages to Establish Effective and Sustainable Management......................................112
Figure 19: Proposed Management Structure ...............................................................................113

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of MFLW Analyses .............................................................................................3

Table 2: Water Resources Summary ...............................................................................................5
Table 3: Status of Irrigation Development in Nepal..........................................................................6
Table 4: Water Withdrawals Summary.............................................................................................6
Table 5: Water Indicator Summary...................................................................................................6
Table 6: Water Quality in the Kathmandu Valley............................................................................18
Table 7: Main Cropping Patterns....................................................................................................19
Table 8: DOI Estimated Irrigation Areas in Upper and Middle BRB...............................................27
Table 9: Kathmandu Population and Growth .................................................................................28
Table 10: Costs of Irrigation Options Upper and Middle BRB ........................................................44
Table 11: Investment Plan Upper and Middle Basin ......................................................................45
Table 12: Productivity of Water Upper Middle Basin (50-ha scheme) ...........................................46
Table 13: Land Use in the Lower Bagmati .....................................................................................47
Table 14: BIP Internal Indicators – Canal System..........................................................................49
Table 15: BIP External Indicators ...................................................................................................52
Table 16: BIP Internal Indicators – Budgets, WUAs and Employees.............................................53
Table 17: Status of WUA Formation at Secondary Canal Level ....................................................55
Table 18: Groundwater Development ............................................................................................56
Table 19: Irrigation Setting Lower Bagmati ....................................................................................66
Table 20: Proposed SCADA Sites in the BIP .................................................................................77
Table 21: Scope for Surface and Groundwater Irrigation...............................................................80
Table 22: Comparison of the Profitability of SRI and Paddy ..........................................................84
Table 23: Current and Estimated Future Yields .............................................................................88
Table 24: Current and Estimated Areas with Project Cropping in the BIP .....................................89
Table 25: Current Land Use in the Lower Basin ............................................................................92
Table 26: Irrigation Areas with Each Development Option ............................................................93

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xxii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 27: MFLW Investment Options .............................................................................................94

Table 28: Estimate of the Requirements for Modernization of the BIP ...................................96
Table 29: Modernization Allocations BIP........................................................................................97
Table 30: Future Land Use (ha) Option 2.....................................................................................100
Table 31: Land Use under Option 4 (ha) ......................................................................................102
Table 32: Annual MOM Costs ......................................................................................................104
Table 33: Current and Future Cropping for Different Options ......................................................106
Table 34: Assessment of the Productivity of Water......................................................................107
Table 35: Management Responsibilities ......................................................................................113
Table 36: EIRR and Sensitivity Results Upper/ Middle Basin ......................................................116
Table 37: Summary Costs of Development Options ....................................................................117
Table 38: Lower Basin EIRR and Sensitivity Results...................................................................118
Table 39: Estimated Incremental Income for Farms in the BIP....................................................118
Table 40: Investment Plan Upper and Middle Bagmati ................................................................122
Table 41: Summary of the MFLW Investment Options ($ million)................................................124
Table 42: Summary of MFLW Innovations ...................................................................................126

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xxiii

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page xxiv

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

63. Since 2000, world concerns about the impacts of climate change, increasing
scarcity of water, and, more recently, sharply higher and more volatile international food
prices have grown rapidly. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will play catalytic roles in
assisting Asia to both sustain and enhance food security and adapt to an environment of
increasing scarcity and variability of fresh water supplies. This will require a continuous
stream of new knowledge products and innovative operational approaches to sustainable
water and land management.

64. The More Food with Less Water (MFLW) research and development technical
assistance (RDTA) is funded by the Japan fund for Poverty Relief (JFPR) and the Water
Financing Partnership Facility (WFPF) and is administered by ADB. The impact will be a
more water-efficient and reliable food supply in participating DMCs by 2020, the outcome
will be technically, economically, and environmentally sound technologies and associated
institutional and policy frameworks ready for scaling up in future operations by ADB and
other development partners.

65. The RDTA supports the identification, assessment, and design of new investments
for more sustainable, water-efficient irrigated agriculture in Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

66. The MFLW RDTA is consistent with ADB’s Strategy 2020, which supports
sustainable management of natural resources and investments in water systems and other
essential public services, particularly those that benefit the poor. The TA responds directly
to ADB’s operational plan for sustainable food security and ADB’s water operational plan
for 2011–2020, which call for improving the productivity and efficiency of water use through
(i) investing in modern irrigation infrastructure, (ii) adopting enabling policies that correctly
price the opportunity cost of water, and (iii) strengthening institutions for more efficient and
sustainable management. The Concept Paper3 for the TA was prepared and approved by
ADB in 2011 and the three participating governments in 2012.

B. Study Design

67. The RDTA has been designed in consultation with all three countries and is part
of the on-going assistance provided by ADB. The MFLW RDTA comprises two inter-
related components:

(i) Task 1 is a comprehensive synthesis of state-of-the-art knowledge and international

best practices in water-efficient irrigated agriculture and is being implemented by the
International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Task 1 will identify promising water
saving management and technological interventions, assess key constraints in their
adoption, and suggest necessary policy and institutional interventions that could
facilitate in scaling up the adoption of these interventions within the context of
South Asia, with special emphasis on Bangladesh, India and Nepal. The study
will assess these opportunities for improving water use efficiency at different
spatial scales – plant, field, system, and watershed levels.

3
Technical Assistance Report Innovations for More Food with Less Water. ADB (financed by the Japan
Fund for Poverty Reduction), December 2011.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

(ii) Task 2 involves country studies and capacity building to support the application of
innovative water efficient technologies and management systems in the design
and implementation of ADB investment projects. Following ADB’s quality and
cost based selection (QCBS) process, ADB has engaged the consulting firm
Lahmeyer International GmbH (Lahmeyer) in association with BETS, CED, LII,
and TMS to undertake Task 2.

68. For each case study, the RDTA has prepared scheme-specific options through a
consultative approach, in partnership with local government and non-government
stakeholders. The RDTA has undertaken benchmarking and baseline measurements for a
full crop year, culminating in the establishment of benchmarking systems and development
of proposed intervention packages with pre-feasibility level assessments.

69. The RDTA Concept Paper 2011 defines the impact to be a more water-efficient
and reliable (climate-change resistant) food supply in participating DMCs by 2020.
Performance targets include (i) improved water efficiency in target irrigation systems with
crop yield increases of at least 10% compared to 2012 baselines in irrigation systems
covering at least 100,000 ha and in 50,000 poor farm households; and (ii) financing for
more water-efficient irrigation of $500 million annually in South Asia by 2017. The
outcome will be technically, economically, and environmentally sound technologies and
associated institutional and policy frameworks ready for scaling up in future operations
by ADB and other development partners. A specific outcome is that future ADB
operations will reflect the TA’s recommendations in the design of new ADB projects in
the participating DMCs by 2017.

70. The outputs of the MFLW RDTA (Task 1 and 2) are :

(i) Detailed plans for adoption of locally appropriate innovations in selected

irrigation systems of participating DMCs
(ii) Capacity created to monitor the adoption of new technology and
management impacts on water efficiency and crop productivity
(iii) Outreach of identified innovative models combining technologies, enabling
policies, and expanded institutional frameworks.

71. The Design and Monitoring Framework (DMF) in the Concept Paper comprises
both tasks. Some adjustments to align and distinguish better between the performance
targets and indicators for Task 2 were proposed in the Inception Report for Task 2.4

C. Scope of the Study

72. The MFLW study follows the Terms of Reference (ToR), as well as adjustments
as defined in the Inception Report, and incorporates the analyses described in Table 1.
The Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP) was selected as a pilot project for study under the
MFLW in Nepal, as well as areas in the middle and upper portions of the Bagmati River
Basin. The study has been designed to identify innovative new technologies and
management options that could be developed for irrigation in the Bagmati river basin.
The findings will have application to other schemes in Nepal; irrigation in the lower
Bagmati is representative of much of the irrigation in the Terai, while irrigation in the
middle and upper basin are typical of the hill irrigation schemes.

4
Final Inception Report: Regional Technical Assistance TA7967-REG, Innovations for More Food with Less
Water Task 2. ADB. October 22, 2013.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Table 1: Summary of MFLW Analyses

Nr Analytical Method Description

1 Benchmarking Benchmarking has followed the FAO Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP)
5
approach. The benchmarking has been implemented for the BIP, with
application appropriate to the features to the scheme.

2 Focus Group FGDs have been used as assessments of current farming systems,
Discussions (FGDs) constraints and indicative responses to possible initiatives for
modernization and efficiency initiatives. The FGDs have been used to
develop a broad understanding of the issues and opportunities.

3 Participatory Rural The PRAs have built on the FGDs and consist of more structured and
Appraisal (PRA) detailed consultations with stakeholders. The PRAs allow more detailed
assessments of constraints, issues and responses to possible initiatives
to increase efficiency and productivity, as well assessing fair values for
MOM cost recovery.

4 Remote Sensing Remote sensing has used low cost easily available medium resolution
to assess crop biomass. While the analysis is insufficient to derive crop
areas and yields, the analysis provides an indicative estimate of the
productivity of water (POW), which can be used as a water management
tool.

7 Institutional and Institutional and technical analyses have been carried out to investigate
Technical Analysis in more depth the characteristics for the scheme; the analyses have
included institutional, agricultural, economic, ground and surface water
resources. Selected sample areas have been taken up for more detailed
study and have been presented as Sample Area Profiles (SAPs).

8 Proposals for Preliminary plans to assess options and present proposals to improve
Improved Water water management and agriculture, including proposals for conjunctive
Management use. The plans are based on the data of current water availability, water
allocations and consumptive use and present options for improving
WUE.

9 Preliminary Plans for These consist of more detailed analysis of issues and presentation of
Modernization and preliminary plans to modernize and increase efficiencies. The plans
Efficiency build upon the proposals to improve water management and agriculture
production systems (as described in 8 above). These encompass surface
and groundwater systems, assessment of investments to upgrade and
modernize infrastructure, together with policy and institutional reforms and
development, as well as preliminary economic assessments.

5
Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 1999. Modern Water Control and Management Practices in Irrigation: Impact
on Performance. Water Reports No. 19. FAO, Rome. ISBN 92-5-104282-9. 224 p.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

II. IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL

A. Water Resources and Irrigation

1. Rainfall and Evapotranspiration

73. Rainfall patterns are dominated by the monsoon, which peaks in July; a summary
of the rainfall and evapotranspiration is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Average Rainfall and Evapotranspiration (mm)

Source: Present Study, 2014

2. Surface Water

74. The primary source of water in Nepal is local rainfall, amounting to about 220 km3
per annum, of which about three quarters occurs during the monsoon season from June to
September. About 10% of precipitation in the country falls as snow. There are over 3,200
glaciers, which are highly vulnerable to climate change. The total surface water resources
are estimated to be 210 km3, of which 200 km3 is internally generated (refer to Table 2). In
addition to surface water, a large volume of groundwater is available in the shallow and
deep aquifers for irrigation and domestic water supplies, estimated to be 8.8 km3.6

75. Nepal forms the mountainous upper catchment of four tributaries of the Ganges
River: Mahakali, Karnal, Gandaki and Koshi. There are over 6,000 rivers in the country.
River flows are seasonally highly variable, with less than 10% of the total annual flow
occurring in the dry season (January to March). The constraint on surface water availability
is also exacerbated by relatively low dam storage with a total volume of 84 Mm3, which is
less than 1% of the potential.7 The Bagmati Basin rises in the northern part of the
Kathmandu Valley and is purely a rainfed system with no snow/glacier contribution.

6
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS). 2011. Water Resources of Nepal in the Context of
Climate Change. Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
7 3
Total potential dam storage is estimated to be 138 km (FAO, Aquastat).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

3. Groundwater

76. Groundwater is a vital water source in Nepal for irrigation, domestic, recreational
and industrial uses. Nearly 50% of the country’s population depends solely on groundwater
for their domestic water supply. A majority of people living in the hills and mountain valleys
depends on springs that are the natural discharge from numerous aquifers. However,
unsustainable water management practices and declining watershed development have
contributed to declining groundwater tables and poor water quality with impacts on issues
such human health, land subsidence, reduced river flows and worsening water quality. 8

77. Available information shows that good potential for groundwater extraction exists,
especially in the southern plains (Terai) and inner valleys of the hills and mountainous
regions. Much of the Terai physiographic region and some parts of Siwalik valleys are
shallow or deep aquifers, many of which are suitable for exploitation as sources of irrigation
and drinking water.

78. The annual recharge estimates range from 124 to 685 mm.9 The corresponding
volume of water available for groundwater abstractions is estimated to be between about
5.8 km3 and 12 km3. However, based on the measurements of the seasonal fluctuations
of the water table in shallow tubewells, the groundwater reserve is reported to be about
8.8 km3 annually (refer to Table 2).

Table 2: Water Resources Summary

3
Water Resources km /year
Internally Generated
Surface Water 198
!1
Groundwater 9
Subtotal 207
Externally Generated
Surface Water 12
Groundwater 0
Subtotal 12
Total Renewable Water Resources
Surface Water 210
Groundwater 9
Total 219
Source: FAO Aquastat (various data sources 2000-2009)

4. Irrigation Development

79. At present irrigation water is provided to approximately 1.8 million ha or 44% of

cultivable land in the country. However, dry season supplies are very limited, with about
41% of the irrigated area being supplied with year-round irrigation water. It is estimated
that existing irrigation systems are the basis for approximately 33% of the current
agricultural production of the country (Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Nepal,
2001). The status of irrigation development in the country is shown in

80. Table 3.

8
Department of Water Supply and Sewage. 2011. Uses of Groundwater in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal
9
NENCID. 1999. Report of the National Committee of ICID. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Table 3: Status of Irrigation Development in Nepal

Cultivated Area Irrigable Area Irrigated

Zone '000 ha '000 ha '000 ha % Cultivated
Terai 1,360 1,338 924 68%
Hill 1,054 369 175 17%
Mountain 227 60 51 22%
Total 2,642 1,766 1,150 44%
Source: DOI Statistics 2014.

81. In Nepal there are two broad classifications of irrigation systems: (i) public
systems or agency (government) managed irrigation systems (AMISs), and (ii) farmer-
managed irrigation systems (FMISs). The AMIS are systems developed and managed by
the DOI and include medium to large irrigation systems on the Terai, such as the BIP, as
well as the Sunsari Morang Irrigation Project (65,000 ha) and Sikta Irrigation Project
(34,000 ha). The FMISs are community developed and managed systems, which in many
cases were constructed many years ago; it is estimated that FMISs comprise about 70%
of the total irrigated area.

82. The percentage of irrigated areas receiving irrigation service varies over the
cropping seasons, which in turn depends on the operational status of the irrigation
infrastructure and intensification of management activities deployed to manage water. In
general, in the AMISs coverage of irrigation service for irrigating monsoon paddy varies
between 52 and 77%, while for winter crops it drops to between 20 and 40% of the total
land area. The total annual water withdrawals are of the order of 10 km 3, of which
agriculture accounts for the vast majority (98%), and municipal and industry for less than
3% (refer to Table 4).

Table 4: Water Withdrawals Summary

Quantity
Water Use 3
(Mm /yr) %
Agricultural 9,610 98
Municipal 148 2
Industry 30 0.3
Total 9,787 100%
Source: FAO Aquastat

83. The key indicators for water availability and water stress confirm that Nepal is a
relatively water rich country, with an average annual availability of more than 7,000 m 3
per capita/year (per capita water endowment) and water stress ratio of less than 5%
(ratio of total water demand to total available supply). It is also largely water independent,
with the majority of the resource internally generated, and as a result a dependency ratio
of less than 10% (refer to Table 5).

Table 5: Water Indicator Summary

Indicator Unit Value

3
Falkenmark Indicator m per capita per annum 7,119
Dependency Ratio % 5.7
Water Stress Ratio % 4.7
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

84. However, while Nepal has abundant renewable water resources (more than
2,000 km3) and relatively low water demand (10 km3), water availability for use, both
consumptive (agriculture and people) and non-consumptive (hydropower) is limited by
the extreme seasonal variability. Availability could be improved through the development
of more water storage, construction of dams, and further development of groundwater.
The main crops in Nepal are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Main Crops in Nepal

B. The Institutional and Policy Framework

85. The DOI is the key government agency responsible for the planning, development
and management of irrigation in the entire country. The department has been organized
through its 26 Irrigation Development Divisions, 20 Irrigation Development Sub-divisions, 8
Irrigation Management Divisions, 3 Mechanical Divisions, and 8 Groundwater Field Offices.
The irrigation activities are monitored by regional offices in each of the five development
regions and guided by a central office in Kathmandu. The DOI is equally responsible for
development of new irrigation projects and MOM of developed schemes.

1. Policy Framework

86. Nepal has very recently promulgated the new Irrigation Policy (2013). The policy
outlines the strategies for irrigation development. The policy is designed to promote
effective use of the country’s available water resources to support increased productivity
of agriculture. The policy incorporates: (i) maintenance, effective water management and
new construction of irrigation projects to provide year-round irrigation service; (ii)
conjunctive use of surface and groundwater systems; (iii) balanced irrigation development;
and (iv) organizational improvements and capacity development of staff.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

87. Irrigation in Nepal is currently guided by the Water Resources Act, 1992, the
Water Resources Regulation, 1993, and the Irrigation Regulation, 2000. The main
content of each of these documents is briefly outlined below.

(i) Water Resources Act, 2049 (1992) vests ownership of all the country’s
water resources in the state. It establishes a hierarchy of water needs and
sets the state as the licensor of water use. It also provides for levying a
water charge, as prescribed by the state, to the licensee against the use of
water resources. The Act allows a licensee to make available services from
the use of water resources to any other person based on mutual terms and
conditions and to collect charges for the delivered services. For the water
resources developed by the state, the service charge would be assessed
and realized for the services rendered to water users as prescribed by a
tariff fixation committee. Services to any person can be stopped in case of
non-payment of such charges, unauthorized use of the services, or for any
act that may contravene the predefined terms and conditions. The Act also
empowers the government to make necessary rules on matters relating to
water fees, charges, etc. payable to the state for utilizing water resource
related services.

(ii) Similarly, the Water Resources Regulation, 2050 (1993) delegates the
power to recognize licensed users and to resolve water related disputes at
the district level. It also provides for a “District Water Resources Committee
(DWRC)” in each district, under the chairmanship of Chief District Officer
(CDO) comprising of the Local Development Officer and representatives
from district level Agriculture Development Office, Forest Office, Drinking
Water Office, Irrigation Office, Electricity Project Office, other offices related
to utilization of water resources, and the District Development Committee.

(iii) The Irrigation Regulations, 2056 (2000) emphases on greater collaboration

with water users in all phases of irrigation project development – planning,
construction, and MOM. The strategy of increasing farmers’ participation
has been emphasized, mainly based on the recognition that government
resources alone were inadequate to meet the country's irrigation
development objectives and sustain the management of government
irrigation systems after their completion. The regulations give water users a
legal mandate to form WUAs and have institutionalized the participation of
actual water users in irrigation.

2. Irrigation and Water Sector Development Policies

88. Important documents relating to irrigation and water sector policies in Nepal since
1990 include:

 Master Plan for Irrigation Development in Nepal (1990)

 Water Resources Act (1992)
 Irrigation Policy (1992, 2003, 2013)
 Groundwater Development Strategies (1987/1994)
 Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995)
 Irrigation Rules (2000)
 National Water Strategy (2002)
 Irrigation Policy (2003)
 Irrigation Development Vision (2005) and associated Financial Plan
 National Water Plan (2005)
 New Irrigation Policy MOI (2013)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

 Draft Integrated Water Resources Strategy (2011-WECS)

 Draft Policy on Micro-irrigation (2007-2011)
 National Plans (9th, 10th, 3-year Interim Plans till 2012/13)

89. In summary, these documents emphasize a balanced development of water

resources in Nepal. They have recognized drinking water, irrigation, hydropower and
tourism as important priority areas of water sector development in the country.

90. With regard to irrigation development, the Irrigation Policy (1992) (and its updated
versions in 2003 and 2013), is the most important policy document for irrigated agriculture
development in Nepal. The Irrigation Policy evolved to direct irrigation development and
management in a partnership between WUAs and government agencies. This required
users’ participation is to occur both at the stage of irrigation development and management
of irrigation system after the completion of development. Various modes of participation
between the water users and their associations have been outlined depending upon size
and type of irrigation system, e.g. surface, groundwater and non-conventional irrigation
systems. The newer version of policy is formulated also with the objective of promoting
conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water based irrigation systems along with new
/non-conventional irrigation systems, such as rain water harvesting, pond irrigation,
sprinkler irrigation, drip irrigation and treadle pump irrigation. The irrigation systems
developed so far in the country are limited to run of river systems. To permit year-round
irrigation, it is necessary to develop storage, so that the problem of low flow of rivers during
the winter season can be mitigated to some extent.

91. In summary, these national policy documents envision the intended output from
irrigation development as follows:

(i) To avail round the year irrigation facilities through effective management of
existing water resources
(ii) To develop water users’ institutional capacities for sustainable management
of existing systems
(iii) To enhance knowledge, skills and institutional working capability of technical
human resources, water users and NGOs relating to irrigation development.

92. However, inadequate budgets, lack of proper human resources development and
management, lack of capacity of the users for proper MOM of irrigation systems, and
environmental issues have remained to be the key constraints toward the effective
implementation of these policy documents.

3. Agriculture Policies

93. Nepal has had periodic development plans beginning in 1956; since then, Nepal
has completed ten 5-year plans, and recently two 3-year plans. Besides these, Nepal
has also prepared long term perspective plans, including the Agriculture Perspective Plan
(APP) 1995/96-2014/15 and a priority based policy named as National Agriculture Sector
Development Priority (NASDP) 2010/11-2014/15.

94. The National Agriculture Policy (2004) aims at achieving high and sustainable
economic growth through commercial agriculture system contributing to food security
and poverty reduction. Its main emphasis is on (i) increased agricultural production and
productivity, (ii) making agriculture competitive in regional and world markets through
commercialized agriculture system, and (iii) conserving, promoting and utilizing natural
resources.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

95. The National Agriculture Sector Development Priority (NASDP) (2010/11-2014/15)

identified the key priority areas in agriculture for the medium-term, with the possibility of
attracting support of different development partners working in Nepal. The NASDP has
emphasized broad based agricultural development and food security. Delivery of
demand-led services, promoting participation of the private sector in the areas of their
comparative advantages, has been underlined. The plan stresses the need to diversify
agricultural production on the basis of geographical location and commercialization. It was
demand driven and is designed to increase agricultural productivity through irrigation,
fertilizer use, infrastructure (agricultural roads), and technology.

96. The rate of agricultural growth in the country’s irrigation systems has not kept up
with demands. Once a food grain exporting country, Nepal has turned into net importer of
food grain since the beginning of 1980s (DOI, 1990).10 The country’s population is increasing
at a rate of 1.35% (CBS, 2011),11 while the food production is increasing at a rate of
1.3%. Poor management and unsatisfactory water utilization efficiency of Nepal’s irrigation
systems are in part some of the causes for the dismal performance of the irrigated
agriculture (NPC, 1998).12

C. Performance of Irrigation Management

1. Overview

97. An estimated $1.8 billion has been invested in the irrigation sector from 1956-
2013; only 23% of this amount was funded through the Government’s own resources,
with the remaining 77% of investments funded from external sources. Despite a standing
policy since the mid-1980s to prioritize the rehabilitation and expansion of FMISs
networks, the DOI has invested only about 18% in this area; nearly 56% of funds have
been spent on constructing new irrigation infrastructure. The completed irrigation schemes
rarely meet their targeted production and there is a lack of priority and resources to rectify
this.

98. Despite the large investments for rehabilitation, the performance of medium and
large scale projects remains below their potentials. Water volumes supplied by many
large projects are far below original plans and they consistently have capital cost over-
runs (Shah and Singh, 2001). Some projects such as Bagmati and Babai are reported to
have high unit costs to construct.13 Performance assessments including those done by
the NPC have stated that irrigation development and operation in Nepal is performing
poorly relative to the amount of resources spent in the sector.

99. Self-reinforcing reasons for the poor performance in some large irrigation systems
in Nepal frequently include (i) weak governance framework and enforcement in attaining
effective service delivery; (ii) unrealistic productivity projections in assessing benefit-cost
ratios; (iii) poor system management; (iv) insufficient MOM due to a lack of users’
participation; and (v) an inadequate and shallow understanding of farmers’ priorities. The
institutional arrangements to induce realistic project planning and effective system
management are weak.

10
DOI (1990) ‘Master plan for irrigation development in Nepal, Cycle 2, Main Report’, prepared by Canadian
International Water and Energy Consultants in association with East Consult (P) Ltd, Kathmandu, Nepal.
11
CBS (2011) Population Census of Nepal 2011, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning
Commission Secretariat, Govt. of Nepal.
12
NPC (1997) Concept paper for the ninth plan 1998-2002, (Nawaun yojanako aadharpatra BS 2054-2059,
2054), National Planning Commission Secretariat, HMGN, Nepal.
13
Shah, S. G. and Singh, G. N. 2001. Irrigation Development in Nepal: Investment, Efficiency and Institution.
Winrock International Research Report Series No. 47. Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

100. Programs implemented by government agencies to improve the performance of

some FMISs have also run into difficulties. The Community Managed Irrigated Agriculture
Sector Project (CMIASP)14 was designed to promote inclusive economic growth in rural
areas of the Central and Eastern Development regions as a joint project between the DOI
and DOA. This and many other irrigation projects suffered from early breakdown of the
systems due to lack of cost recovery (ISF collection) and no or minimal maintenance work
being done. In general the farmers did not achieve profitable farming systems and were
reluctant to pay for the ISF or maintenance; agriculture extension was reported to be weak.

101. Growing trends of commercial farming, especially vegetable production have

been observed in some areas. These are mostly concentrated on major road corridors
and pocket of land with good land and access to irrigation. In some areas there are trends of
crop intensification, multiple cropping and increased vegetable production.

2. Capacities of WUAs

102. Modernization and increased WUEs require effective management. Efforts have
been made to get a realistic picture of how WUAs can take on complex management
roles. The strengths and weaknesses of the current management systems in different
scales of irrigation schemes in the country were reviewed and examined.

103. The experience in many FMISs has shown that Nepali farmers can construct,
operate and maintain traditional irrigation systems and through a simple WUA can manage
water effectively with only minimal external support. These successful institutional
structures stand on social capital developed over many years of learning through shared
experiences and are as tangible as physical capital and are not easy to replicate.
However, not all FMISs have been success stories. Some FMISs have been abandoned
by the farmers because of their inability to handle their technical complexity and
environmental issues like river degradation, silt intrusion, etc. On the other hand, the poor
performance of most of the AMISs and the restrictions of budget allocation for proper MOM
of irrigation systems provides a clear indication of the need to involve the farmers more.

104. Various assessments15 have revealed that the WUAs in most AMISs do not
possess the skills and know-how to properly carry out all the functions of large gravity
irrigation systems. Earlier evaluation studies of IMT and the performance of FMISs have
also confirmed that WUAs in Nepal in the prevailing context can manage irrigation
systems of up to about 600 ha on their own. However, they are not capable of handling
complex management tasks of larger systems without external support.

3. Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) as a Possible Solution

105. IMT is the process in which some functions and responsibilities of management,
formerly exercised by a state agency, are transferred to an organization of the users of
the irrigation system. A government may generally undertake IMT with objective to (i)
reduce public expenditures; (ii) improve irrigation performance and generate surplus
production to enhance sustainability of irrigation facilities; (iii) conserve water resources
and reduce resource consumption; (iv) assigned some management responsibilities to
the beneficiaries, which would give more incentives to support MOM. Other potential
benefits of building successful organizations for the local people through IMT are
empowerment, confidence building, forming social capital and reduction of dependency.

14
ADB. 2014. Community Managed Irrigated Agriculture Sector Project. RRP, Manila.
15
Khanal, Puspa Raj. 2003. “Engineering Participation: The Process and Outcomes of Irrigation Management
Transfer in the Terai of Nepal.” Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

106. In line with the irrigation policy, which states that all irrigation systems irrigating
up to 2,000 ha in the Terai and 500 ha in the hills are to be fully transferred to farmers,
the DOI has been carrying out IMTs since 1992. Larger public systems (more than 2,000
ha) are the candidates for PJIMT, where farmers' WUAs and public irrigation management
division share responsibility to operate and maintain their part of the irrigation system. This
means that the WUAs will be responsible to manage, operate and maintain branch canal
level irrigation infrastructure and undertake the associated tasks, and the public irrigation
management division will be responsible for upper level irrigation infrastructure such as
main canal, headwork, etc. Both the partners under a PJIMT sign a service contract,
which will legally define each party's role and responsibility, and also the incentives and
penalties if each party does not comply with the provisions stated in the contract.

4. Lessons Learned from International Experiences of IMT

107. International experiences of IMT have shown mixed results. Although IMT has
succeeded in enhancing involvement of WUAs, consequently resulting in increased
accountability, transparency and responsibility in countries like Mexico and China, in some
countries it has not been able to meet expected objectives. Some IMT programs have
partially reduced the level of government allocations towards the MOM of irrigation
systems, but if such reductions coincide with a decline in the provision of agricultural
support services the results can be counterproductive. Without adequate collection of
water charges from users, irrigation systems that were already financial unsustainable
before IMT can suffer from an even worse MOM situation as the government’s field-level
operations staff withdraw from the project.

108. Although WUAs tend to remain responsible for providing services related to water
distribution, some farmers’ organizations have also started to look into the provision of a
wider range of agricultural services to their members, making the scope of the reform
process more comprehensive. Some governments had high expectations that the private
sector would become involved in the provision of some of these basic support services. It
seems now that these projections were either too optimistic or poorly conceived, and
often the private sector did not or would not react to fill this gap sufficiently.

109. Likewise, the performance of water services in terms of fee collection has been
erratic in different countries. Initially, in a good number of cases, IMT led to significant
increases in the fee collection ratio, but this has not always been sustainable. There are
large variations between irrigation systems within the same country and among countries.
It has not been the “silver bullet” that was originally presented as one of the main reasons
for introducing the reforms. However, the level of cost recovery is higher than before the
transfer.

110. International experiences of IMT have also shown that IMT does not necessarily
lead to increases in cropping intensities or yields (Samad, 2001). There are only a few
documented cases where there appears to be a direct relationship between the reform
and agronomic improvements. These can normally be traced to the efforts of pilot studies
taking advantage of the reform derived interventions. However, in most cases, the link to
improvements in agricultural productivity cannot be easily made. On the other hand,
there is no reference, or case, where significant decreases in agriculture productivity
have been reported.

111. On the positive side, the IMT process has generally led to an improvement in
communication related to the management-related activities of irrigation systems. There
has been an increase in both accountability and responsibility pertaining to the quality of
the service provided, which has enhanced the nature of the relations between users and
managers. While the magnitude of quality improvement cannot be asserted from these
studies, in a few countries at least such a change has been reported. There is ample

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

indication that communication between system management and end users has
increased. This creates a better understanding of the water distribution process and its
requirements, which translates into enhanced satisfaction of the service provided and
received by each party.

5. Conclusions

112. Nepal has been pushing the agenda of irrigation management transfer for more
than two decades. The take-home message from all the experiences in Nepal and
internationally is that the IMT has fallen short on many of the targets. Over time the
social framework in many of the communities has significantly changed and adjusted
approaches are needed to meet the needs of modern irrigation management. Key
findings include:

(i) Although there are examples of successful IMT these tend to be very
community specific and not easy to replicate.
(ii) IMT is not a one off activity; the WUA need a continued level support over
time; this can be reduced depending on the capacities of the WUA, the
social cohesion in the community and the complexity of the scheme.
(iii) IMT appears to be less successful for larger schemes; the joint management
arrangements are especially weak. There appears to be is a poor definition
on the share of responsibilities and no definitive agreement on the level of
irrigation supply the farmers will receive and what are the actions/ penalties
in case of default by either party.
(iv) Provision of the support for the WUA is a skilled activity and must be based
on clear government policy for the WUAs. The current policies and
guidelines need are not adequate and are too generic. The DOI staff do not
have the resources or skilled staff to provide this back up support.
(v) Irrigation management involves people's time and resources; asking
farmers to contribute free time to the challenging commitments of a WUA is
becoming less attractive and conflicts with the parallel requirements of
earning a living. This is especially the case in communities where alternative
earning opportunities now exist. The level of service that can be expected
from a WUA depends on the resources it is allocated.
(vi) IMT appears to have limited impact on agricultural productivity.
Complementary agriculture support is required, especially if the IMT requires
farmer contribution or increased contribution for ISF or maintenance.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

III. OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE BAGMATI BASIN

A. Introduction

113. The Bagmati River watershed covers an area of 3500 km2 and drains out of
Nepal across the Indian state of Bihar to reach the Ganges. It covers eight districts:

(i) Upper Basin: Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur

(ii) Middle Basin: parts of Makwanpur, Kavre and Sindhuli
(iii) Lower Basin: Rautahat and Sarlahi

114. The Bagmati Basin is shown in Figure 3. The basin consists of three main zones:
(i) the upper basin which includes the Kathmandu Valley and the source of the Bagmati
River; (ii) the middle basin, which includes the Mahabharat and Siwalik Ranges; and (iii)
the lower basin, which includes part of the Terai. The profile of the Bagmati River is
shown Figure 4.

115. The terrain of the upper and middle watershed is rugged and comprises of several
steep mountains, except within the Kathmandu Valley region. The catchment incorporates
two physiographic regions: (i) the Siwalik region (450-815 m above MSL, in the southern
part, and (ii) the middle mountain region (highest elevation: 2625 m, in the northern part).
The Kathmandu Valley is an almost circular tectonic basin, some 26 km in diameter. The
valley bottom is composed of the small ridges and elevated flat land and low basins
drained by Bagmati River and its tributaries, the average altitude is 1350 m above msl.

116. The lower basin includes the Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts of the Terai, with the
total area of 125,900 ha and 112,600 ha, respectively. The cultivated area of Sarlahi is
84,678 ha and that of Rautahat is 58,440 ha. Both districts have high productive potential for
cereals, cash crops, tropical fruits and fish production.

B. Climate

117. The climate in the basin varies from sub-tropical in the valleys and foot slopes
through warm temperate at the mid-elevation to cold temperate in the higher altitudes. The
low land (<1,000 m from msl) has a subtropical climate, with mean annual temperatures of
20-30 C. In the warm temperate climate zone (1,000-2,000 m) the temperature range is
10-20 C. In the cold temperate climatic zone (2,000-3,000 m) it is 10-15 C (Sharma et al.,
2006). The mean relative humidity in the basin varies between 63% and 87%. The higher
mountains receive snowfall occasionally during the winter months. Average rainfall is
1600 mm per year with more than 80% of the precipitation occurring during the four
months of June to September.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Figure 3: Bagmati River Basin

Source: Bagmati River Basin Plan 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Figure 4: Bagmati River Profile

Source: Preparation of Water Induced Hazard Maps DWIDP/SILT/ERMC/TECHDA

C. Water Availability and Quality

1. Upper Basin

118. Bagmati is the sacred river in Nepal and in Kathmandu the famous Hindu temple
of Lord Pashupatinath is situated on the bank of this river where hundreds of thousands
devotee come to worship on auspicious days as well as to bathe in Bagmati River at
Karmaiya near the intake of BIP, so maintaining water flow and maintaining good
sanitation of Bagmati River is an important factor.

119. The Bagmati River rises at Bagdwar in the Shivapuri hills about 15 km northeast
of Kathmandu; the main river is fed by around 20 tributaries which originate from different
parts of the valley. Flow records are maintained at Sundarijal near the source of the
Bagmati and at Khokana downstream of Kathmandu Valley; the monthly average flow is
around 19 m3/s with peak flows of up 814 m3/s with the dry season flows decreasing to
less than 0.2 m3/s in the late winter season; this flow is mainly effluent. The flow
distribution is shown in Figure 5.

120. Dry season flows into the urban areas are severely depleted by irrigation
abstractions by the many small farmer irrigation schemes. Although the irrigation area
has significantly declined over the last 35 years there would appear to be around 8,000
ha of irrigation which is included in the DOI data base of schemes; the area of very small
pockets of irrigation are not really known. At a dry season duty of about 0.25 l/s/ha it is
estimated that the dry season abstractions for irrigation could be around 3 m 3/sec (260
MLD) (assuming non inventoried schemes at 50% of the inventoried). Schemes normally
abstract 100% of the flow at each weir or abstraction point.

121. These streams are also source of water supply for the five municipalities and
villages in the valley who abstract around 70 MLD surface and groundwater. There is a
major shortfall of supply for drinking water with demand projected to double by 2030
when demand could be around 800 MLD. To help support the demand for drinking water
the Melamchi water supply project which will transfer 170 MLD through a tunnel from the
Indrawati River Basin; additional transfers are proposed from other rivers under a Phase
in 2020 (170 MLD) and in 2025 Phase 3 (170 MLD). Even with the transfers there will be
continue to be lack of water for potable water.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

122. ADB is currently designing the 0.85 MCM Dhap Dam in the upper Bagmati River,
which will increase the base flow in the river systems. The same project will also support
the development of 0.2 Mm3 of rooftop storage which will support groundwater. A
planned 60-m high dam will store 8 MCM which is scheduled to be completed by 2020.

123. Urbanization has reduced the cultivated area by around 30% some of which is
irrigated; the reduction in dry season irrigation demand is of some benefit but the loss of
recharge has affected the tributary base flows.

Figure 5: Average Stream Flows in the Upper Basin

Source: Present Study, 2014

124. There is heavy groundwater extraction to meet the domestic as well as

commercial water demands and is the major reason of depletion of the groundwater
table; there is haphazard extraction of groundwater both shallow and deep aquifers in
the valley at present. The department of mines estimates that groundwater abstraction in
2009 is around 70 MLD; the safe abstraction is estimated to be around 15.6 MLD 16. Even
with the Melamchi diversion project the trend of increased groundwater will continue due
to the continued water shortages.

125. The water quality of the Bagmati River in the Kathmandu Valley suffers from poor
water quality, both chemically and bacteriologically. In the dry season especially the
water quality of the river is rapidly declining. Moving downstream, water quality improves
considerably due to air entrainment and oxygenation of the flow as it cascades through
natural rapids and increases in flow, which combined increase the assimilative capacity
of the river. Water quality deteriorates as the Bagmati River enters into central part of
city; after the rivers from south and east meet the Bagmati after Balkhu the quality starts
to improve as summarized in Table 6.

16
JICA 1990.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

126. The water quality of most of the tributaries outside the central part of the valley is
found to be good Irrigation is mainly abstracted upstream of the urban areas and water
quality is not an issue affecting the irrigation; Dry season irrigation in the upper valley is
reducing the base flows into the main river which is affecting the dilution of effluents
water quality; without irrigation the base flows would increase and improve the water
quality.

Table 6: Water Quality in the Kathmandu Valley

Dissolved BOD COD Faecal coliform

Sampling Site Oxygen (mg/liter) (mg/liter) (mg/liter) (MPN)
Sundarijal 8.38 2 20.2 7
Gokarna 8.51 4.5 23.5 --
Gaurighat/Gujeswori 7.56 5.5 28 5×10^2
Tilganga 4.2 35 134.4 5.4×10^6
Sankhamul dovan 2.25 120 268.8 2.2×10^6
Sankhamul ghat 2.55 35 179.2 --
Thapathali 2.15 117.5 694.4 2.2×10^6
Teku Dovan 1.85 80 280 1.1×10^6
Balkhu 2.45 97.5 224 --
Chovar 5.95 42.5 112 1.1×10^6

2. Lower Basin

127. The flows in the lower basin are extremely variable; flows at Pandherodoban
about 1 km upstream of the BIP intake are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Average River Flows above the BIP Intake

128. Groundwater is an important source of supplementary irrigation water both within

and outside the irrigation areas.

D. Agriculture

129. The main cropping patterns in the basin are shown in Table 7.

130. Both irrigated and rainfed rice form the staple crop of the lowland and much of the
mid hill area. Wheat is another important food commodity, both of these crops form a key
part of the rural food requirements.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

131. Maize is the second most important food crop in the hills. This is mainly grown for
family consumption; but surplus production is sold. In the hill areas, millet is another
important food item which is regarded as highly nutritious. The cropping patterns are
dictated by the seasons and the availability of irrigation water. Although rice is the staple
crop during the wet season, there is more diversification of crops in the dry season;
market demand for cash crops including vegetables is influencing the cropping this is
mainly in the areas close to the main roads or urban centers. Sugar is one of the main
cash crops in the lower Bagmati which is supported by the various sugar mills.

Table 7: Main Cropping Patterns

Summer Winter Spring
Lower Basin Irrigated Areas
Rice Wheat Maize
Rice Potato Vegetable
Rice Peas Rice
Rice Lentil Vegetable
Rice Mustard Vegetable
Sugarcane
Mid and Upper Basin Irrigated
Wheat Maize
Rice Potato Maize
Rice Wheat Vegetable
Rice Lentil Vegetable
Rice Vegetable Rice
Non Irrigated and Higher Areas
Maize Millet Blackgram - Fallow
Maize Millet Vegetables
Maize Legumes Potato/Fallow
Maize Ghaiya Vegetables/fallow
Ghaiya Legumes Fallow
Source: Present Study, 2014

132. The agriculture constraints in the Bagmati are similar to much of Nepal and include:

(i) Insufficient water available for irrigation, in particular at the start of the rainy
season/pre-monsoon
(ii) Uncontrolled field to field watering due to lack of field channels
(iii) Lack of capacity building of the water users groups/association to manage
irrigation water
(iv) Inadequate observance by many farmers about the cropping schedule/crop
calendar so as to have timely and enough irrigation water
(v) Lack of applied research regarding suitable cropping patterns/crop rotations
requiring less water
(vi) Lack of proper and practical trainings to the farmers regarding crop
production technologies and irrigation techniques
(vii) Lack of market network and poorly developed road network restricts the
access to the market
(viii) Lack of application of guidelines and criteria for water distribution
(ix) Weak coordination among institutions of irrigation and agriculture in the field
level

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

1. Fertilizers

133. All fertilizers used in Nepal are imported. For many years, fertilizer prices were
subsidized until subsidies were eliminated in 1999 when it was found that subsidies were
actually limiting use due to the restrictions of the government funds to support the
subsidies. Two effects of the subsidy removal have involved (i) an increase in the overall
supply of fertilizers (the declines in formal imports were more than offset by increased
informal imports from India); and (ii) increases in fertilizer prices.

134. Formal fertilizer trade shows a total supply of about 150,000 tons in recent years,
with about 30% imported by the government’s Agricultural Inputs Company Ltd., and
about 70% by private traders. The data show that there has been a rapid increase of
fertilizer supply in Nepal, from 224,000 tons in 1997/98 to 488,000 tons by 2002/03.

2. Seed

135. The seed sector is far from satisfactory. Various studies show although that crop
areas using improved seeds is high; about 80-90% range for cereals and vegetables;
there is serious problem of seed quality. The bulk of the seeds used are farmers’ own
seeds from previous harvests or acquired in the local markets. These may be improved
or high-yielding variety (HYV) seeds at the outset, but after several seasons their quality
degenerates. A key objective must be the replacement of these old “improved” seeds
with fresh “improved” ones.

136. The government policy is one of encouraging private-sector involvement in seed

production and supply, and indeed the private-sector participation is significant both in
the Hills and in the Terai. In parallel the Nepal Seed Corporation (NSC) is an important
source of seeds but supply is far below the targets. The third important source is imports
from India where seeds are also brought in by farmers and small traders across the
porous border at lower prices.

137. The main problem in the seeds sector is the major constraint in the availability of
good quality breeding seeds for multiplication. Capacity in government farms, the only
official source for breeding seeds, is limited by the size of the farm and other resources.17

3. Agricultural Credit

138. The availability of agricultural credit at reasonable rates is an essential requirement

of commercial agricultural production and plays an import role during droughts and other
stress conditions. Access to credit is particularly a problem for low income farmers in view
of their heavy reliance on informal sources of credit characterized by high interest rates.

139. Availability of formal rural credit remains very limited in Nepal despite the presence
of many rural finance institutions (RFIs) and the establishment legal and institutional
frameworks designed to support a substantial expansion of rural credit. The formal rural
finance sector is supervised or registered with Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB or Central Bank of
Nepal). The NRB network is large with over 300 rural branches of commercial banks,
about 600 branches of the government banks; there are also about 30 microfinance
NGOs. In addition, the semi-formal sector comprises government-sponsored rural credit
programs, over 1,500 savings and credit cooperative societies registered under the
Cooperatives Act, and over 50 multispectral NGOs. The informal sector comprises
moneylenders, traders, friends, relatives, as well as thousands of community organizations.
Many NGOs operating microfinance programs also operate outside NRB supervision.

17
Special Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

4. Crop Diversity

140. The diversity of climates and quality soil in the basin open opportunities for a wide
variety crops including cereals, vegetable and fruit. Nepal competes with India and
despite the difficulties and costs of transport many of the fruits and vegetables found in
major markets in Nepal are from India or China.

141. Yields of fruit remain low; apple, pear, peach and plum are important temperate
fruit orchards and are mainly cultivated in the hills and are marketed in large urban
markets. Grapes are not reported in Nepal but Indian grapes are seen in most market
centers. Walnut is the main nut cultivated in Nepal. Despite promising growth in the past
years in the fruit and fruit sectors, the comparative advantage of Nepal’s privileged ecological
location has not yet been turned into competitive advantage as farming practices remain
poor.

142. There are substantial import substitution opportunities as well as opportunities for
export. To meet this objective however requires production, productivity and the quality
of fruits and vegetables to improve. Unlocking the potential requires research, extension
work and development of partnerships between growers, processors and marketing
organizations. Research linkages with countries benefiting from similar agro-ecological
conditions and having successfully developed perennial horticulture crops, particularly
northern Pakistan, would be advantageous.18

143. Better profitability of the farm business is a pre-condition to attract farmers to

increase agricultural production. Improved understanding of the financial viabilities and
marketing constraints of different crops is critical for government policy makers and
extension advisors.

5. Agriculture Imports

144. The continued rise in recent years of the imports of agricultural products to Nepal
is a major concern. Imports are mainly from India, China, Thailand and Indonesia, with
India as the main source of imports. Vegetables are mainly from India (52%), Australia
(14%) Canada (13%). Imports of vegetables to Nepal have more than doubled over the
last ten years. Despite a rise in paddy production, rice imports rose 127% in the first two
months of 2014. Overall Nepal's imported raw and processed agro products increased
30% in 2012/13.

145. Traders attribute the rise in rice imports to the comparatively cheaper price of the
Indian products. The Nepali rice industry is facing stiff competition from Indian rice as the
production costs in India are lower due to government subsidies; Nepali farmers face
problems related to higher costs of inputs, irrigation labor and load-shedding. The Trade
and Export Promotion Center (TEPC) has cited the rise in vegetable imports being due
to increased consumption and stagnant domestic production due to traditional farming
method, lack of vegetables collection centers and cold storage facilities, short supply of
improved seeds and inputs during plantation season, and lack of irrigation facilities,
among others.

146. In a bid to reduce imports of vegetables, officials of TEPC have urged the
government to promote commercial farming, provide high quality seed and fertilizers to
farmers, open sufficient vegetables collection centers across the country, improve supply
chain, provide irrigation facilities, and expand vegetable markets in different cities of the
country. Traders have also urged the government to come up with concrete programs for

18
Special Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

increasing domestic production and reducing dependency on imports. "It has been found
that although many people are involved in vegetables production, they have not been
able to start commercial farming. The government should encourage farmers to start
commercial production of vegetables by providing subsidy on seeds and fertilizers and
opening collection centers in different parts of the country.19

147. Around 25% of the vegetables in the Kathmandu market are reported to be
imported; the high costs of transport in Nepal are reported to be one reason for the relative
advantage of India vegetables. The opportunities for export of off season vegetables from
the cooler areas in the upper basin do not appear to be well exploited.

6. Transport

148. Access to markets is a key requirement for agriculture, especially perishable

vegetables; poor roads and transport is a major constraint for agriculture in the basin.
This is especially the case in the middle Bagmati.

149. The development Kathmandu-Kulekhani-Hetauda Tunnel (KKHT) Highway, which

will link Kathmandu with the Terai, is programmed for construction and will cut the travel
time from Kathmandu to Hetauda from 6-8 hours to 1 hour. This will open up significant
opportunities for marketing of produce from the upper valley to the Terai and India.
Unfortunately the road will not directly benefit the middle basin. The development of
complementary feeder roads to support communication to the communities in the middle
basin would provide a major boost for agriculture. There is a clear need for the government
to take advantage of the new KKHT highway to develop agriculture production systems in
the Bagmati basin. It should however be noted that conversely the highway will also
improve the access of agriculture products imported from India.

E. River Basin Management

1. Overview

150. The Bagmati River Basin holds great economic importance, as it plays a crucial
role in meeting the water supply requirement of the country's capital city and downstream
communities, as well as in sustaining irrigated agriculture in the Kathmandu Valley and
along the basin; the river also has significant religious importance. The rapid and
unplanned expansion of Kathmandu City has put tremendous pressure on the water
resources of the basin. In the absence of appropriate sewage collection and waste water
treatment plants, the river has become the main collector drain. Solid waste deposited on
the river banks also further degrades the river environment. Rapid urbanization has put
tremendous pressure on the valley water supply distribution. During the dry season,
around 80% of the river’s flow is diverted for domestic use, leaving very little flow for
irrigation and other sectors, including for environmental flows. As demand could not be
met from surface water, a large part is now supplied from the groundwater. The quantity
extracted is estimated to be 4 to 5 times higher than the natural recharge, and has
caused the water table to retreat by up to 35 m in only 20 years.20

151. The situation is further aggravated by (i) the conversion of the recharge areas into
residential areas, (ii) lowering river stream and sand mining leading to riverbed deepening,
and (iii) upstream catchment degradation. As it exits the city, the river is “biologically
dead” and comprises heavily polluted sewage water that potentially endangers the
downstream water users' health. Aside from the problems inherited from Kathmandu, the

19
Arjun Parsad Aryal, director of Kalimati Fruits and Vegetable Market Development Board (KFVMDB)
20
ADB Concept Paper, Project Number 43448, Bagmati River Basin Improvement project, January 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

middle reach of the basin, with steep slopes and degraded watersheds, is prone to
severe landslides and floods, which threaten both infrastructure and settlements. These
floods cause increased rural poverty and are the source of heavy sedimentation in the
lower reaches. In the lower reach, where the river enters the Terai plain, frequent floods
and river bank erosion become the main threat to people's livelihoods. The 1993 flood
alone claimed 789 lives, affected 30,200 people and caused tremendous damage to
houses and public infrastructure.

152. Competing and uncontrolled use of water in the basin has an increasing negative
impact on its overall sustainable development. Plans to improve Kathmandu's water supply
from the upper basin water sources were developed without consideration for downstream
users and environmental flow. Flood protection works and irrigation development are also
planned in isolation of other sector requirements; flood protection work has affected some of
the irrigation intakes. Irrigation is primarily small FMISs drawing water to irrigate fields by
conventional methods. Generally field channels are not constructed, so farmers apply
water by conveying from one plot to another.

153. The traditional cropping patterns with irrigation are rice followed by wheat, but with
some production of vegetable cultivation or potatoes. More recently more intensive
farming systems for vegetables and mushrooms are being developed using polyhouses
(polythene covering over bamboo or steel frames). These vary from quite basic systems
using bamboo structures and earth channels, up to modern drip and sprinkler systems.
Water is from the natural water courses, government irrigation systems and shallow
groundwater. These new agricultural initiatives are achieving high levels of production,
good returns to investment and providing employment opportunities.

154. The encroachment of buildings and roads into the agriculture lands is changing the
characteristics of the Valley; although much of the agricultural land is now lost or is too
small or fragmented, there are parts that remain viable productive areas both in the
surrounding valleys and around the settlements in the hills.

2. Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project (BRBIP)

155. ADB is currently supporting the implementation of the BRBIP, which will support
the efforts in developing appropriate legal and institutional frameworks for
operationalizing the IWRM approach and developing a model that can be replicated in
other basins; the project will run from 2014 to 2019. The outputs of the project are:

(i) Systems and capacity for integrated and participatory river basin management
established and include: (i) legal and institutional strengthening for IWRM and
formation of a river basin organization (RBO); (ii) mobilization and awareness
raising of basin stakeholders; (iii) capacity building and technical training for
raising the RBO’s competence; (iv) establishment of a Central Water
Resources Information system including a Decision Support System (DSS)
and an operational water quality monitoring network; and (v) preparation of
a 15-year participatory Integrated River Basin Master Plan.
(ii) River banks environment in urban areas improved and includes: (i) 7.2 km
of river corridor constructed with aesthetic river walls and recreational
amenities; (ii) rehabilitation of two former irrigation regulator structures; (ii)
improving the river channel profile around two cultural sites and stabilizing
temple ghats; (iv) removal and safe disposal of contaminated and
accumulated riverbed material at key sites; (v) riverbank stabilization at
Sundarijal, where existing housing structures are under threat of river bank
erosion; (vi) enhancement and management of the riparian banks (green

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

zones with foot and bicycle paths); and (vii) enhancement and beautification
of the riparian banks (green zones with foot paths and amenities areas.
(iii) Non-structural interventions include: (i) mobilization of local communities for
adopting river stretches for river environment protection which will include
prevention of disposal of solid waste along the stretches; (ii) implementation
of a Communication Strategy Action Plan for awareness raising and
community ownership of the river; and (iii) a Gender Action Plan addressing
gender needs and issues.
(iv) Increased water availability during the dry season and watershed conservation
including: (i) the construction of a dam downstream of the existing Dhap within
the Shivapuri National Park with a storage capacity of 850,000 m3; (ii) detailed
design of a Bagmati Dam, with the potential capacity of 8 million m3; (iii)
installation of rain water harvesting by 2,500 households to provide 45,000 m3
of safe water supply and recharge 135,000 m3 groundwater; and (iv) 12.5 ha
of outward sloping agricultural land prone to soil erosion will be stabilized by
establishing community interventions to increase water retention and
reduce soil erosion.
(v) Flood forecasting and early warning system in the Bagmati River Basin
made functional through the provision of a Flood Forecasting and Warning
System for the Bagmati Basin.

3. Kulekhani Power Project

156. Kulekhani is the only reservoir-type hydroelectric power station in Nepal. Currently
the two power stations (Kulekhani I and II) have an installed capacity of 60 MW and 32
MW respectively, and a third station is under construction. The power station is supplied
from the Kulekhani watershed, which is a sub-catchment of the Bagmati River. This
powerhouse was designed as peaking power station, but it has also been supporting as
emergency standby station. The annual expected energy generation capacity as primary
energy is 165 GWH and 46 GWH as secondary energy. The outfall of the Kulekhani is in
an adjoining catchment to the Bagmati.

4. Melamchi River Transfer Project

157. The Melamchi river transfer will provide an additional 170MLD to the Bagmati
River. This will be largely taken up for drinking water but return flows would enter the
Bagmati River with potential to increase the dry season water availability to the middle
and lower basins.

5. Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP)

158. Sunkoshi-Marin Diversion Project (SMDP) is currently being considered and pre-
feasibility studies have been completed.21 The project would divert 77 m3/s from the
Sunkoshi River to the Marin River, which is a tributary of the Bagmati River. The water
will be diverted at a 180-m long weir in the Sunkoshi River into a 450-m long headrace
canal and 13.2-km head race power tunnel. The project has a net head of 57m and has
capacity to develop 36 MW of hydropower.

159. The water supplied to the Marin River will feed an additional 77 m 3/s into the BIP
diversion weir. The original BIP was conceptualized for 122,000 ha command area. But
due to investment constraints the reservoir and high dam concepts were not executed,

21
Pre-feasibility Study on the Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP) Department of Irrigation Full Bright-
Sitara JV June 2013.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

and present BIP was constructed with a barrage in Bagmati River using the natural river
flows to irrigate a reduced area of 47,700 ha. The additional supply will allow the
expansion of the BIP from the current 47,700 ha to 122,000 ha. The project area is
shown in Figure 7. The prefeasibility studies estimated the total project cost to be about
$440 million, of which the hydropower component is $200 million and the irrigation
component is $240 million. The annual benefits were estimated to $117 million from the
irrigation and $18 million from the irrigation, and the project was shown to have an EIRR
of 17%.

Figure 7: Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project

F. Climate Change

160. Despite improvements in the understanding of regional climate change, there has
been quite limited study of climate changes in the Bagmati Basin. The most recent and
comprehensive study has been carried out by ICIMOD and AIT Bangkok.22 The study
identified that all the stations in the basin reflect an increasing trend in temperature
compared to the base year. The increase in the basin average annual mean of maximum
temperature by 2080 is estimated to be 2.1oC under A2 scenario and 1.5oC under B2.
Both SRES scenarios A2 and B2 show a higher rise of maximum temperature during
summer in all future time periods.

22
Climate Change and Water Resources in the Bagmati Basin Nepal M. S Babel AIT Bangkok, SP BHusal,
Hydro Consult and S.M Wahid ICIMOD 2013.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

161. The study carried out downscaling and calibration and rainfall runoff analyses for
various future rainfall scenarios using the Hadley Centre Coupled Model, version 3
(HadCM3) GCM to capture future trends in the temperature and precipitation. A statistical
downscaling model (SDSM) was employed to improve the resolution. Results show a
higher rise in temperature during summer as compared to winter. Future average annual
basin precipitation may increase under both A2 and B2 SRES scenarios. However, dry
months will mostly be drier and wet months will be wetter under A2 SRES Scenario.

162. The HEC-HMS model was used to analyze the hydrological impact of climate
change in terms of streamflow. The study anticipated that the annual water availability
during all three future time periods will increase under both A2 and B2 SRES scenarios,
indicating that the basin as a whole will be wetter when water accounting is done
annually: an increase of about 10% is estimated by the end of the century. There may
also be a wide variation in seasonal and monthly water availability. Under A2 SRES
scenario, the pre-monsoon water availability may decrease, indicating a worsening
situation of water stress during this critical dry period. However, an increase in the post-
monsoon water availability may relieve the water stress situation to some extent. In
contrast, under B2 SRES scenario, water availability will increase during all three
seasons. Higher water availability during the monsoons under both A2 and B2 SRES
scenarios may worsen the flood situation in the future.

163. The study assessed the spatial variation of climate change impact on water
availability within the basin; a separate analysis was done for the upper and lower parts
of the basin. Under A2 SRES scenario, future annual average water availability will
register negligible changes in the upper part of the basin while the lower part may
witness a noticeable increase. At a seasonal scale, there may be a decrease of pre-
monsoon water availability in both parts, but the decrease may be higher in the upper
part of the basin. There is a definite increase in monsoon water availability for both parts
of the basin, but the lower part has a higher rate of increase. For the post-monsoon
season, the upper part will witness a decrease in future water availability and the lower
part will show the opposite trend. Under B2 SRES scenario, both parts of the basin will
have a noticeable increase in annual water availability in the future, but the increase will
be comparatively higher in the upper part of the basin.

164. The climate change studies indicate increases in temperature and changes in
rainfall and stream flow. The studies indicate there will be a wider variation in the
seasonal and monthly rainfall and flow variations even though the annual water
availability may increase. For preliminary planning no specific actions to adapt to climate
change are considered necessary, and the MFLW objectives of increasing water use
efficiency and improving water management are valid adaptation responses. For the
lower Bagmati the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater provides a higher level of
protection from the variabilities resulting from climate change than using surface water
alone.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

IV. CURRENT IRRIGATION IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BAGMATI

A. Irrigation Areas

165. There is limited data for irrigation schemes in the upper and middle basin. From
the DOI records the estimated areas of irrigation is shown in Table 8. The table only
shows the schemes that have been supported by the DOI and does not include small
traditional schemes; there has been some loss of schemes in recent years due to
urbanization.

Table 8: DOI Estimated Irrigation Areas in Upper and Middle BRB

Zone District Number CCA Sub-total

Upper Kathmandu 45 2,820 7,948
Lalitpur 34 3,049
Bhaktapur 34 2,079
Middle Makwanpur 33 2,380 2,800
Lalitpur 2 105
Sindhuli 2 280
Kavre Palanchowk 1 35
Total 148 10,748 10,748
Source: DOI, 2014

B. Upper Bagmati

166. The upper reach of the Bagmati Basin comprises three districts of Kathmandu
Valley. It is a circular valley surrounded by hills. Earlier it was agriculture land with few
towns distributed throughout valley, concentrating at the center. The valley is supplied by
small streams originating from the hill springs, which meet at different points and exit the
valley as Bagmati River. Since long ago, farmers have dug canals to divert water from
these streams to irrigate paddy fields. These are generally small schemes spread
throughout the valley, ranging in size from a few ha up to 250 ha. Smaller schemes have
been developed and managed by farmers/WUA with minimal government support. Some
farmers have dug open wells, shallow tube wells, and in some cases are using low lift
pumps to lift water from nearby streams. Irrigation is well supported during the wet
season however the stream flows rapidly decline in the dry season there are major
constraints to dry season irrigation with dry season irrigation mainly limited to upper parts
of the schemes.

167. The Kathmandu Valley has traditionally been a highly productive agricultural hub,
but has suffered in recent decades from declining production levels, mainly due to the
rapid urbanization in all the three districts, as well as reduced river flows. Over
exploitation of groundwater for mainly drinking water is a major issue.

168. The DOI has supported the rehabilitation of 93 irrigation schemes by constructing
permanent side intake structures and constructing lined canals with some water
distribution structures. The management responsibility is left to WUA/farmers. District
development committees and DADOs also support rehabilitation and development of
smaller irrigation schemes.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

169. The majority of farmers follow the cereals based traditional subsistence farming
practices: growing paddy in summer followed by wheat/mustard/potato in winter. They
also use to some extent improved seeds and apply fertilizers if they can be sourced.
Farmers are also rear cattle and apply farm yard manure to the fields. The average size
of land holding is small, in the range of about 0.05-0.5 ha. In many places bullocks and
manual labor are still used to till the land but more recently the use of power tillers is
becoming more popular. The soil is fertile and good for growing diverse crops. In some
pockets of the valley farmers are doing intensive cultivation mainly for vegetables; this is in
response to the increased demands of high value crops, including vegetables, mushroom,
fish, and flowers. Production is by owner-farmers and also small businessmen have
started to lease land for outdoor production and polyhouses.

170. Urbanization has been spreading over recent years, reducing the amount of
agriculture land. Population and growth trends are summarized in Table 9. It is noted
that the population growth is higher in the peri-urban areas than in the central urban
area.

Table 9: Kathmandu Population and Growth

Average Annual Population Distribution of

Growth Rate (%) (‘000) Population %
1991- 2001-
Municipality 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011
Kathmandu 4.7 4.0 672 1,007 41 40
Lalitpur 3.4 3.0 163 223 10 9
Bhaktapur 1.6 3.3 72 84 4 3
Kirtipur 2.4 5.0 40 67 2 3
Madhyapur Thimi 4.1 5.7 48 84 3 3
Sub Total (urban) 4.1 3.9 996 1,465 61 58
Kathmandu Valley (peri-urban) 3.8 4.8 649 1,047 39 42
Kathmandu Valley (Total) 4.0 4.3 1,645 2,517 100 100
Sources: 1991, 2001,2011 Population Census data ( CBS1991,2001,2011)
Note: Kathmandu is a metropolitan city, Lalitpur is sub-metropolitan city and Bhaktapur, Kirtipur and
Madhyapur Thimi area municipalities. Peri urban are administratively classed as rural area (VDC).

171. An estimate by the KVDA shows that agriculture land has reduced by about 30%,
from 40,950 ha in 1985 to 27,570 ha in 2000, mainly due to a rise in use of land for other
land use purposes. The rate of urbanization has recently peaked and more recently the
number of land transactions has reduced, indicating likely slower future growth of
urbanization growth. The loss of agriculture land has reduced the levels of agricultural
production, while at the same time demand has increased due to increased population.
To meet the shortfall in the local food balance, there is a need to produce more from less
land through more intensive cultivation. This is possible through increasing the efficiency
and productivity of the irrigation in the upper and middle Bagmati Basin.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

172. The 2013 and 1995 urban areas are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Upper Basin Area

Source: Present Study, 2014

C. Middle Bagmati

173. In the middle reaches of the basin the population densities are much lower. The
middle Bagmati comprises a portion of three districts of Kavre, Sindhuli and Makwanpur. 23
These areas are far from district headquarters and have experienced lower levels of
development. Farming is still the main occupation in the region. The Kokhajor, Kulekhani
and Marin are the three main rivers draining into the Bagmati River. Farmers have
developed small irrigation schemes by diverting water from the tributaries. The DOI has
supported the construction of some new as well as rehabilitation and expansion of
existing irrigated areas.

174. There is enough water in these schemes during summer beginning July onwards;
however, water shortages can occur if the monsoon is delayed, which affects transplanting
in some years. Stream flow after cessation of the monsoon rains in October gradually
decreases in the winter and spring. Winter and spring stream flows drop to levels that are
not adequate for efficiently delivering water based on the current ad-hoc plot to plot and
water distribution systems. There is some potential for groundwater exploitation in the
middle Bagmati, especially in the valleys, including the Phaparbari area of Makawanpur
and Marin area of Sindhuli.

23
Two schemes covering 105ha in Lalitpur are also classed as being in the middle Bagmati.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

D. Agriculture in the Upper and Middle Bagmati

175. Most farmers are following cereals based traditional subsistence farming practice:
growing paddy in summer followed by wheat/mustard/potato in winter, and they also do
mixed farming including rearing of cattle. Farmers normally apply sufficient farm yard
manure and less chemical fertilizers. Average land holding size is slightly more in the
middle reach than in the upper reach. Bullock and manual labor were used to till the land
has been gradually replaced by tractors and power tillers for land preparation. The soil is
pervious and good for growing diverse crops. With the construction of the roads, some
farmers have started to do intensive cultivation of organic vegetables. Due to increased
demands of high value crops, such as vegetables, mushroom, fish, and flowers, and
growing road networks, there exists potential to these enterprises.

176. There is growing demand for vegetables throughout the year in the Kathmandu
urban areas. Tomatoes and mushrooms form an important part of the market and
currently offer some of the best returns. There has been an expansion of private investors
setting up mushroom, tomato and other vegetable production using polyhouses. Some
farmers in Kavresthali VDC of Kathmandu are growing organic tomatoes, which give
higher prices. Mushroom production in polyhouses is a growth area due to the increased
demand for mushrooms partly due to their health benefits. Both oyster and button
mushrooms are available in the market and they fetch high values around NRs150-
250/kg; based on trends of recent years, the demand and consumption of mushrooms is
expected to continue increasing. The levels of production remain quite small with total
sales of mushrooms in the Kalimati wholesale vegetable market of Kathmandu of around
2,600 Mt/year (DOA, 2012), of which only 550 tons (20%) is met by the valley and the
rest is supplied by the surrounding districts. Mushroom production is not without risk and
crop failures are reported but the potential returns are very high.

177. Growing vegetable in the open fields is limited to 3 to 4 months per year whereas
growing tomatoes in polyhouses provides supply to 9 to 10 months in a year with
comparatively higher production per unit area. The polyhouses offer very high levels of
production at very low levels of water use. One advantage of the polyhouse is that it
occupies only a small area of land and allows production of traditional crops on the
remaining part.

E. Summary of Findings of the Consultative Processes

178. Extensive consultations with stakeholders have been conducted in the upper and
middle basin including five Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and five Sample Area
Profiles (SAPs). The main conclusions from the consultative process in the upper and
middle basin include:

(i) The farming systems in the upper and middle basin are similar and farmers
face similar constraints. The middle basin is more remote and the pressures
of urbanization are not present. Access to markets in the middle basin was
seen as a constraint whereas the upper basin had good access to markets.
(ii) Farmers are mainly cultivating traditional crops but they do recognize the
opportunities for growing high value crops specifically vegetables.
(iii) Farmers report constraints in the provision of quality fertilizer and seed and
availability on time. Farmers have problems with the high costs of inputs;
obtaining quality seed is seen as a special problem. The lack of agriculture
credit is considered as a constraint.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

(iv) Farmers in the Koirale Scheme in the upper basin had direct links with the
Panchakanya Cooperative Society (which is helping promote organic
vegetables through women's groups and is demonstrating the use of micro
irrigation for tomatoes in polyhouses).
(v) Some farmers have received agricultural training from the local DADO
through the Agriculture Service Centers (ASCs) but farmers do not have
good understanding of new agriculture technologies. The extension service
was seen as weak and is not easily accessible to many farmers. The ASCs
lack sufficient trained manpower and resources to meet to train farmers in
modern and high production technologies.
(vi) Marketing information was seen to be lacking and not well organized and
farmers do not always get good prices for their products.
(vii) Farm sizes are small and mechanization is difficult. Although some access
to mechanization is now occurring using power tillers and threshers. Farmers
suggested the development of community cooperative farming, which could
be used to support wider commercialization of farming including increased
use of mechanization.
(viii) Water availability drops significantly during the dry season – flows are often
at such low levels that canal operation becomes unviable. (15 l/s/ha is the
indicative minimum for irrigation using field channels).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

V. STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE UPPER AND MIDDLE BAGMATI

A. Requirements

1. Upper Bagmati

179. It is estimated that the urbanization in the Kathmandu Valley has reduced the
arable land in the Kathmandu Valley by about 30%. In parallel, land holdings have
become increasingly fragmented and of reduced size, which has resulted in poor viability
of irrigated farming, partially contributing to strong interest in selling land to developers.

180. The Kathmandu Valley is facing an extreme water crisis in the supply of potable
water, as well as a severe shortage of environmental flows through the urban areas.
There are proposals to augment the supply from the Melamchi River transfer and the
Dhap Dam. Efforts are also being made to reduce the effluent going into the river, but
these will fall short of the long term needs of drinking water and environmental flows.

181. Flow records for the upper basin are maintained at Khokana, downstream of
Kathmandu Valley. The monthly average flow is around 19 m3/s, with the peak daily flow
reaching 814 m3/s and in the dry season flows decreasing to less than 0.2 m3/s.
Currently it is estimated that there is approximately 8,000 ha of dry season irrigation in
the valley, which abstracts of the order of 3m3/s (269 MLD). Current estimates for 2015
dry season drinking water demand is 240 MLD; the existing surface supply and
groundwater can provide about 70 MLD, while the phase 1 Melamchi project will provide
an additional 170 MLD.

182. In the Kathmandu Valley water abstracted for irrigation in the dry season results in
very significant and abrupt reduction of flows in the lower reaches of the tributaries and
the main river running through Kathmandu urban areas. The reduced dry season base
flow results in severely limited capacity to absorb the effluent put into the river and the
river effectively becomes a sewer.

183. Irrigation water is abstracted from small weirs and springs. During the dry
months, at each intake all the water is taken for irrigation, with no or very minimal water
returned to the tributary rivers. The water situation has now come to such a critical stage
that there is now a need to review the role of irrigation, which is the largest water user.
Although wet season irrigation currently supports recharge, dry season abstractions from
the tributaries are affecting the base flows, and there is no provision for environmental
flow.

184. For the Kathmandu Valley the strategy for irrigation management needs to focus
on supporting agriculture production in parallel with initiatives to conserve water and
three key strategies are proposed: (i) develop more intensive irrigation systems to
increase productivity and also reduce dry season water demand; (ii) expand the wet
season irrigation area to increase rice production and increase aquifer recharge; and (iii)
develop water harvesting to support aquifer recharge and improve water supplies.

2. Middle Bagmati

185. The characteristics of the middle Bagmati are quite similar to the upper part.
However, the area does not suffer from the direct and indirect impacts of urbanization
seen in the upper valley. It is observed from DOA data that yields of paddy are
significantly lower in the middle versus upper portions of the basin. Land holding sizes
are slightly higher in the middle Bagmati.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

186. For the middle Bagmati there are minimal conflicting demands of irrigation supply;
however, the dry season water availabilities are limited and improved irrigation efficiencies
will benefit production.

B. Agriculture

187. Traditional subsistence-based farming is not attractive and offers very limited
opportunities, especially for the youth, as a result of which there is exodus of younger
people, resulting in some labor shortages and high prices of labor in the villages. There
is estimated currently to be about 12,000 ha of irrigation in the Kathmandu Valley. These
are simple schemes with low offtake weirs and contour canals feeding terraced fields.
The schemes are traditional FMISs, some of which have benefited from government
support to rehabilitate and upgrade whilst other small schemes are fully funded from
community resources. Water use practices are typically wasteful and could be made
more efficient through modernization through the adoption of improved irrigation
methods. Lack of dry season flows constrains the potentials of many irrigation schemes.

188. There are opportunities and markets for vegetable and other niche crops which
can be grown within the constraints of the limited land and water supplies. Total sales of
tomatoes in the Kalmati market in Kathmandu amount to 235,000 tons per year (DOA
2012), of which only 6% is produced in the valley itself, while 87% is supplied from the
surrounding areas and other districts. 7% is imported from India. Irrigation can be
developed further in places to allow growing a third crop, which could potentially make
significant contributions toward farmers’ livelihoods. There is however potential to
increase agricultural production through new and improved approaches to irrigation and
agriculture in order to meet the food demands of the Valley’s growing population.

189. Irrigation management practices are currently largely the same in both upper and
middle reaches of the basin. Farmers practice traditional cereal-based farming. The
farmers working through WUAs cooperate together to operate and maintain the canals
and individual farmers contribute labor, and in some cases, cash payments. Water is
delivered first to the fields adjoining the head reach field and then passed in sequence
down to the tail reach, although there is generally no formal schedule. Many field
channels have not been constructed and plot to plot irrigation is practiced. This results in
excessive percolation and water losses and often tailenders suffer water shortages,
reducing actual irrigated area. However, there is some understanding and cohesion
among the farmers who make mutual decision to let tailenders also get some share of
the water.

190. Water measurement is not done and there is no data where or how the water is
being used at the field level. Progressive farmers who are growing high value vegetables
for commercial sale are using plastic pipes to convey water and even using sprinkler
irrigation to apply water more efficiently. At many places the gravity head of water is
sufficient to operate small/medium sprinklers and drip irrigation.

191. There are major shortages of irrigation water during dry spring season when crop
water requirements are high; therefore, farmers find it difficult to grow perennial or dry
season crops for the lack of water. Better assured water supply is critical to help motivate
farmers to practice improved farming.

192. During the dry months, however, the base flows rapidly drops and abstraction of
water for irrigation reduces the quantity of water in the tributary rivers resulting in
reduced flushing and dilution of contaminants.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

C. Groundwater

193. Groundwater use for irrigation in the Kathmandu Valley is quite limited. Potable
water accounts for the bulk of drinking water demand. Since the 1980s groundwater
levels have declined at a rate of around 1.7 m per year, with a total decline of over 80 m
in the northern part of the valley. In the central part of the valley the actual decline is not
so clear due to monitoring constraints, but ground subsidence is reported, which implies
significant over abstraction.24 A study by the Nepal Water Conservation Foundation funded
by DFID identifies options for groundwater conservation, including a groundwater dam25
above Gokarna. The study identifies the importance of water resources development and
management to support groundwater sustainability.

194. There has been significant loss of recharge due to the loss of agriculture land
from the expansion of the urban areas. In addition the extent of the surface water
irrigation in the upper valley has been significantly reduced over the last 20 years due to
the urbanization. Surface irrigation during the wet season provides a significant support
to aquifer recharge by diverting water in the streams for spreading the water over the
command area. During the wet season there is surplus stream water and abstraction for
irrigation does not affect downstream conditions to any significant extent.

195. The growth in HVCs requiring dependable water allocation has resulted in some
increase of groundwater use; polyhouses only require minimal water but frequently use
groundwater. The use of groundwater for irrigation in the Kathmandu Valley should be
resisted, especially in the northern part of the valley.

196. In the middle Bagmati there is some scope for developing shallow open wells or
shallow tubewells for irrigation. Current groundwater use is very low and limited use of
groundwater to supplement the surface water irrigation would help with a move towards
the production of HVC cropping systems

D. Agriculture

197. Experience has frequently shown that farming systems are slow to adapt to the
opportunities of irrigation. Three broad areas of agriculture have been identified, each
with very different characteristics and different requirements:

(i) Mainstream crops are key current crops, which are well understood by
farmers, have reasonably guaranteed returns and are less vulnerable to
market and price fluctuations. Although diversification of cropping opens
opportunities for improved financial returns and would reduce water demand,
the mainstream crops will remain the predominant crops for the foreseeable
future.
(ii) Specialist HVCs offer significant opportunities for increased financial
returns, but they are limited by marketing constraints, variable market prices
and access to credit. One of the main specialist crops is vegetables, which
has the added advantage of reduced water demand. Increasing the areas of
specialist crops can potentially provide high return to the farmers, however
the uptake of specialist crops will be limited by the market constraints and
access to credit. It is proposed to support the expansion of the specialist
crops, which also opens opportunities for improved irrigation technologies,
including pressurized irrigation systems: drip and sprinkler. In the lower

24
Groundwater Management in the Kathmandu Valley Japan Water Agency 2012.
25
Augmenting Groundwater in the Kathmandu Valley, Challenges and Possibilities Nepal Water
Conservation Foundation 2005.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Bagmati groundwater irrigation can be used in conjunction with the surface

water supplies to ensure a high degree of reliability of supply.
(iii) Pilot cropping systems are crop types and cultivation methods that have
been proven experimentally but still have not been taken up into production
at any significant scale. Pilot cropping of most interest to the Bagmati Basin
includes (i) alternative wetting and drying irrigation method for rice, and (ii)
SRI Rice. The alternate wetting and drying systems are appropriate for the
Bagmati due to the quite light soils. There is no reported uptake of SRI in
the BIP.

198. Although there is some scope to strengthen the production of mainstream crops
through rehabilitation of the canals and intake systems, which will allow some increase in
cropped area and yields of mainstream crops – mainly rice and wheat – the main scope
for intervention would however appear to be the development of HVC crops. To meet
this target requires quite significant investment in agriculture technologies as well as
marketing systems.

199. The agriculture technologies are proven and some farms are already making
good return from HVCs using polyhouses and winter/spring vegetables. Although
farmers are taking up seasonal vegetable cultivation, there are now many examples of
businessmen leasing land to build and operate polyhouses to allow crop cultivation
throughout the year. Effective approaches to replication and up-scaling with increased
participation by local farmers needs to be developed. Polyhouses offer very high level of
crop production with very low water use; there is however no recharge from rainwater or
irrigation returns from polyhouses, which is a critical requirement in the Kathmandu Valley.

200. Three levels of irrigation investment have been identified above. The agricultural
support packages would be designed integrated into the irrigation programs:

(i) Support for increasing the yields and returns of mainstream crops.
(ii) Support for the development of more advanced agriculture systems for
HVCs. Parallel agriculture support initiatives would be required to establish
simple agro processing, marketing, and crop storage.
(iii) Support for the development of HVC production in polyhouses.

201. Farmers are keen to become involved in HVC and polyhouse agriculture, but
often lack the necessary knowledge or financial resources. Appropriate financing and
support are required to help entry of smaller landholders into this financially attractive
farming system.

202. The development of the HVCs in the upper and middle portions of the basin is
constrained by the requirement for the development of viable financing and management
models, rather than by the technologies. There are limitations of the capacities and
resources of the agriculture extension department. Although some NGOs are supporting
agriculture and setting up cooperative arrangements, the scope is quite limited. The
current interest from the private sector to invest in agriculture needs to be explored.

E. Aquaculture

203. Fish farming has been identified as a possible opportunity; there are very high
imports of fish into Kathmandu and there are reports of quality issues. Various fish
culture alternatives have been identified, including:

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

(i) Fish ponds in the irrigation schemes. Fish require flowing water, but if the
water is returned to the canal then water consumption is low. In many cases
however water is returned to the drains or river, which is effectively a loss.
(ii) Different species, including carp and tilapia, can be considered in the higher
colder streams with good water quality. There are some possibilities to use
fish ponds inside the irrigation schemes as a form of storage and a means
of supporting groundwater recharge. Fish ponds can only be considered in
water rich schemes, or as wet season only activities.
(iii) Fish ponds using polluted water from the Bagmati River. Fish such as tilapia
can be grown intensively using organic rich water with potentially high
yields. Water would need to be pumped from the river. The effluent from the
planned wastewater treatment plant could be considered for fish culture.
This would be appropriate for a PPP initiative; fish harvested can be used
for poultry and fish feed. The presence of heavy metals may be an issue
and needs to be checked.
(iv) Trout farming is viable in the upper parts of the basin. Trout require flowing
water with an optimum water temperature of 15ºC. However temperatures
of up 20ºC can be accommodated for limited periods. Trout farmed in Nepal
are normally farmed in concrete flumes, but they can be grown with a lower
investment in earth ponds, which opens opportunities for small scale farm
enterprises; an adequate through flow of water is critical.

F. Investment Options

204. In the upper basin there are labor shortages and daily wages are higher. This is
affecting the traditional cropping systems, where crop margins are now very low. There
however remains a very strong preference to grow rice and wheat, mainly for household
consumption. Although there is scope to increase production of the mainstream crops,
the main opportunities would appear to be the development of specialist HVCs. The
market is good, with only quite low percentages of the vegetables in the Kathmandu
markets being sourced from the valley. The upper valley is facing a major water crisis
and investment in irrigation must incorporate initiatives to conserve water.

205. The middle basin region is a more remote rural area of four districts lying away
from large towns. Here local people are more fully engaged in agriculture and urbanization
has yet not initiated. Upgrading existing FMIS and developing new irrigation systems are
therefore needed to uplift these people’s economy. Soils in this area are generally coarse,
so pressurized water application using gravity head of water should be promoted, which
allows irrigating a larger area with less water. Piped and sprinkler systems can open up
new areas where canal irrigation is not feasible. The statistics indicate only 15% of the
cultivated area is irrigated. Over and above investment in irrigation, improving the transport
links would be of significant benefit to agriculture in the middle basin.

206. Three investment options are proposed below.

1. Upgrading of Canal Irrigation

207. Upgrading of existing irrigation systems would include: (i) rehabilitation of

schemes previously supported by the government; and (ii) schemes that have had no
previous support. The upgrading of schemes would focus on the canal systems and
would largely follow the approaches and design standards are already developed by the
DOI however there is scope to improve the designs standards to improve the
sustainability and efficiency of the schemes. Scheme designs should include facilities for

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

incorporating micro irrigation at a later date. Due to the water crisis in the upper valley
scheme upgrading is considered mainly appropriate to middle basin.

2. Micro Irrigation Systems

208. In most schemes the dry season opportunities for irrigation are very much
constrained by the low flows during the winter and early spring period. The current
system of surface water distribution is inefficient due to the high distribution losses.

209. There are now several working examples of micro irrigation being successfully
implemented. Some farmers in the Chayamrangbesi, one of the FGD locations in this
report, are already using small sprinkler systems. Other examples include:

(i) Madanpokhara, Palpa26 Western Nepal: There is no perennial stream to deliver

canal irrigation and farming was done under rainfed conditions, producing low
yields and barely enough for food needs. In 1983, Agriculture Development Bank
of Nepal (ADBN) supported the construction of water harvest tank and sprinkler
irrigation systems fed by small springs. Previously farmers were cultivating
maize-mustard in the sloping upland terraces; recently they started cultivating
tomato, cabbage, cauliflower, cucumber, etc. Presently, there are over 500
sprinkler-user vegetable growers in the village, with 200 ha of vegetable cultivation.
Farmers here are cultivating in plots of 0.05 to 1.50 ha on a commercial basis, with
constructed water-harvesting tanks of around 100-200 m3 lined with Shilapulin
plastic membrane to store water from rainfall, as well as water from spring sources.
There are over 104 plastic lined ponds and farmers are exporting tomatoes and
other vegetables to Delhi and other parts of India; some farmers have started to
construct polyhouses. The farmers have established a Multipurpose Cooperative
as well as an FM radio station that announces daily price of vegetables. This is
now considered to be a model village in the mid-hills.

(ii) Sidhuwa, Dhankutta, eastern Nepal is a small hill village at an altitude of 2,000 m;
the community has established a vegetable marketing cooperative selling
commodities to markets in Nepal and India. Previously farmers used to grow only
one crop of maize / potato in a year. After completion of the road the government
agencies supported construction of rainwater harvest tanks of around 100 to 300 m3
capacity and gravity sprinkler irrigation systems; farmers then started to cultivate
off season winter vegetables – cauliflower, cabbage, radish, peas etc. in summer.
They are growing vegetables as an organic crop. Water is diverted from nearby
spring sources and collected in tanks; water is delivered to pipes for running
sprinkler nozzles under gravity head. There are five water harvesting tanks
irrigating around 160 ha. WUAs exist for all tanks; they take care of water
distribution and maintenance. The soil is highly pervious and the sprinkler
irrigation using gravity pressurized pipes provides significant water savings. Land
holdings are in the range 0.25-1 ha and farmers used to spend $200/ha (NRs
20,000/ha excluding family labor to sell produce of around $4,000 (NRs400,000).
They are using portable sprinklers, moving pipes up and down around the field; for
start-up they needed technical support to select appropriate sprinkler technologies
and to establish improved farming and marketing practices.

210. In the hill areas the big advantage is the potential to use gravity micro irrigation
system systems, including the use of PVC pipe distribution, low pressure sprinklers, drip
and other micro irrigation. Options for water storage can also be considered.

26
Silt Consult et al. 2002, Final report on “Preparation of Non conventional Irrigation Technology Project”
submitted to Department of Irrigation, Kathmandu Nepal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

3. Water Conservation Irrigation

211. Water conservation irrigation is proposed in the water critical parts of the
Kathmandu Valley. Water conservation irrigation would be a package of investments,
with the objectives of (i) expanding the wet season rice area through improved and
extended canalization to support increased production and aquifer recharge, and (ii)
reducing dry season abstractions to allow for environmental flows to be maintained at
abstraction points.

212. Expansion of the wet season irrigation would incorporate upgrading of the canals
systems to increase the wet season irrigation areas for increasing rice production as well
for increasing the quantity of aquifer recharge. Farmers would be required to use
significantly less water in dry months, leaving more water in the stream to support
environmental flows. This will be through the use of water conservation measures below.

(i) To allow for reduced abstraction and also ensure farmer incomes are not
affected, it is proposed to provide 100% use of piped irrigation and polyhouses
during dry season. This would allow farmers to achieve higher returns using
only a fraction of the water by traditional irrigation. Dry season water would be
supplied by water supplied by PVC pipes abstracting water from the canals
or directly from the water source.
(ii) Polyhouses would be provided as a substitute for traditional field irrigation. In
the water conservation areas dry season field irrigation would not be allowed.
Constructing polyhouses on around 10-15% of the land would provide
sufficient area to significantly increase the farmer returns.
(iii) Partial water storage would be provided using PVC lined ponds or other low
cost storage. An 800 m2 polyhouse requires about 300 m3 of water over the
critical months December to January; assuming 30% could supplied by
irrigation top ups, a 200 m2 PVC lined pond would be able to meet the
irrigation needs for each 800 m2 polyhouse. Ponds could be individual per
polyhouse or larger ponds for a group of polyhouses. Rainfall from the
polyhouses would be fed into the recharge ponds, soakaways, PVC lined
ponds or plastic rainwater tanks.
(iv) Wet season unlined recharge ponds would be supported as part of the
investment; these could be used for wet season fish culture.

213. The concept for water conservation and recharge irrigation is shown in

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

214. Figure 9 . The schemes would be designed for gravity using the natural head
from the canals. It is proposed that the water conservation and recharge irrigation should
be focused in the upper basin in the tributaries that feed the Kathmandu urban
conurbation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Figure 9: Schematic for Water Conservation Irrigation

215. Preliminary estimates that for a typical 50 ha scheme could: (i) expand the area
of wet season irrigation by 10% or 5 ha; this could support about 5,000 m 3 aquifer
recharge; (ii) by switching from field irrigation to polyhouses with partial storage, reduce
the dry season water requirements by 40%, which would release about 12.5l/s (1.1 MLD)
of environmental flow for a 50ha scheme; and (iii) increase farmer incomes by $2500/ha
(Rs250,000/ha). It is estimated that polyhouses of around 10-15% of the command area
would be developed. A development of 2,000 ha of conservation irrigation could provide
around 0.5 m3/s or 6.5 Mm3 of environmental flow during the five critical dry season
months.

216. The model for water conservation irrigation needs more study and any investment
must satisfy the criteria of increased recharge and reduced dry season irrigation water use.
The social, environmental, institutional and financing requirements need to be further
studied. The conservation irrigation could be taken up as a PPP.

G. Water and Land Use Management in the Kathmandu Valley

1. Land Use Management

217. Land use management in the Kathmandu Valley is coordinated through the
KVDA. The very large expansion of the Kathmandu urban area over the last 20 years
has largely been unregulated without any effective coordination between the different
sectors. There is currently very limited control on development and although seven land
classes exist; implementation of the zoning and demarcation of land use types is not
working and there are reservations on the long viability to enforce a land use regulations.
Water resources including surface and groundwater resources for potable water, irrigation
and environmental needs are all required for the long term planning of the valley.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

218. Irrigation is a significant water user in the Kathmandu Valley and the future
development and management of irrigation must be coordinated with the development
plan for the valley area. The KVDA is attempting to implement the Land Use Policy (2012),
which has been endorsed by the government but not yet being implemented. Irrigation in
the valley must be developed based on two broad objectives: (i) conservation of surface
and groundwater resources, and (ii) improving the financial returns for farmers.

2. Self-Declaration of Land Use

219. Regulatory approaches to land use are not considered implementable under
current conditions and the government is now looking at alternative approaches.

220. Based on the Land Measurement Act (1963) and the Land Use Policy (2012),
there is provision for declaring land use individually by the land owner, which is
described as 'self-declaration of land zone.' The government proposals by the KVDA that
are still pending ratification include the requirement for individuals to self-declare the
class of their land for a 10-year period, after which a re-declaration would be sought.
Land taxes would be applied according to the class of land declared. Land declared for
development (residential or industrial) would be taxed at higher rates. Land owners who
want to change their land status within the 10-year period would also pay a change of
use tax. In this way land owners would be given some incentive maintain their land for
agriculture through a lower tax level. The KVDA is trying to include the proposal in this
year's fiscal year’s budget so that it becomes law and can be implemented as soon as
possible.

221. The KVDA is also trying to ensure the safety of land development by applying
restrictions to building on land that would have higher risk of environmental impact. Land
with higher risk of seismic, flood, land slip and environmental impacts would be subject
increased level of building control (i.e. increased specifications for buildings with higher
than normal risk). Fully restricting construction in risk zones is not currently seen to be
implementable, but very tough building requirements would be incorporated into any new
development proposed in a high risk zone. The KVDA is trying to maintain at least 40%
of the land in the Valley either as green belts / forest areas or as agriculture land.

222. Investing in irrigation in the valley may not be attractive due to the risk of the land
being converted to non-agricultural use at some stage in the future. The proposals for
self-declaration of land use offer a good base for future investment in irrigation. By
including self-declaration by land owners of agricultural land as a prerequisite for
irrigation investment provides the government some level of security to invest. The 10-
year self-declaration period proposed by the KVDA is however quite short, as irrigation
economic returns are normally assessed over a 25-year life and a longer period for self-
declaration of potential irrigation should be considered.

223. Under the KVDA proposals, land owners wanting to change the land status
during the self-declaration period would pay a penalty. This can provide government
some level of security against loss of investment if farmers were to develop the irrigated
land for industry or residential use at a later stage. In theory the penalty should be equal
to the value of the irrigation investment per unit area.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

3. Strategy for Water and Land Use Management

224. The strategies for irrigation must meet the needs of the farmers as well as the
long term strategies for water and land management, including addressing the overall
water problems in valley. The key requirements should include:

(i) All the irrigation schemes and command areas need to be inventoried using
GIS.
(ii) All irrigation schemes would be required to maintain a percentage of the
total flow as environmental flow; the percentage would vary depending on
the environmental sensitivity of the river.
(iii) All or at least a majority of land owners in each irrigation scheme eligible for
investment support would need to self-declare as agriculture land.
(iv) Irrigation units not self-declaring for agriculture could lose their right to dry
season irrigation supply.
(v) The irrigation investment priorities would be targeted at (i) increasing the area
of wet season irrigation and (ii) increasing the dry season irrigation efficiencies
to allow reduced level of abstraction and maintenance of environmental flows.

H. Agriculture Support Initiatives

225. There is a requirement to provide for parallel support for agriculture. To justify the
high additional investments in irrigation infrastructure requires a significant change in
agriculture practices and a move from traditional low value subsistence crops to cash
crops. The small farmers are under-resourced and the proposed changes will be difficult
to implement without support. It is proposed to provide specific investment support for
simple agro processing, marketing, and crop storage to help bridge the gap.

226. Agriculture support must be sustainable; this would be achieved through the
establishment of commercial activities with start-up costs supported by the investment.
These would be designed to be self-financing after the completion of the project support
period. Soft PPP options need to be investigated.

I. Institutional Strategies

227. Moving the farming systems up from subsistence to semi-commercial levels

involves a major upgrade of the institutional support. The requirements are both for the
irrigation and also the agriculture sectors. The systems are small and scattered, which
requires the WUAs and farmers to be empowered and have the capacities to prepare crop
plans, canal operations, and be able to implement water distribution judiciously accordingly.
Nepal has mixed experiences of the capacities of WUAs taking on management roles; even
with significant training the results have not always been successful. The institutional
analysis confirmed by stakeholder discussions indicate a strongly conservative farming
community that will continue with traditional crops, but who are looking to replicate some
of the success stories of vegetable farmers; some of these are businessmen who lease
farmland. There are major constraints, as the farmers have small land holdings and have
limited or no capital and are quite risk averse. Many farmers now hold outside jobs.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

228. The development of modern irrigation and crop production systems in the many
small irrigation and dispersed farming systems requires development of new thinking and
approaches to develop robust and sustainable management systems that will assure the
success of an irrigation modernization program. The proposed approach is to develop
partnerships to balance the strengths and weaknesses of the various parties. Parameters
to be considered when developing the institutional strategy include the following:

(i) Investments in infrastructure must be complemented by investments in

institutions, management and training.
(ii) Growing and marketing HVCs is a business activity requiring capital, astute
understanding of risk and margins, and a good understanding of markets and
opportunities. Unfortunately, most farmers, government officials, WUAs,
extension officers and consultants do not have these skills.
(iii) Activities in the early years can be financed under the investment program,
but long term post-project sustainability must be identified at the outset.
(iv) Private sector entities are already investing in intensive agriculture which
illustrates the viabilities of HVC systems.
(v) The margins of HVCs are sufficiently good to allow for farmers to source
specialist expertise or outsource parts of the production where they do not
have necessary skills, i.e. marketing information or post-harvest activities.

229. Partnerships with the private sector form a key part of the APP and the
development of advanced irrigation using micro irrigation and polyhouses would be
appropriate through a PPP type of investment. The aim would be to investigate how
technologies, marketing and finance could be supported through private sector (which is
currently lacking) whilst maintaining the land ownership and management with the farmers.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

VI. PLAN FOR IRRIGATION MODERNIZATION IN THE UPPER AND MIDDLE

BAGMATI BASIN

A. Strategies

1. Upper Basin

230. An integrated approach to water resources management is required. Irrigation is

the largest water user and there is a need to balance the irrigation needs with the severe
environmental problems of the Kathmandu Valley, namely poor water quality, lack of
environmental flows and depletion of groundwater.

231. Two different development strategies for the upper valley have been identified:

(i) During the monsoon period irrigation can support groundwater recharge,
especially under Kharif rice. Expansion of the irrigation schemes in selected
parts of the Kathmandu Valley could be a potential means to support
recharge and would also increase the production of rice.

(ii) Dry season irrigation on the other hand reduces the base flow in the
streams, which can affect water quality in the main river; there is no
agreement on environmental flows and 100% of the river flow is abstracted
at most of the offtakes. By increasing the efficiencies of dry season
irrigation, water abstractions can be reduced and environmental flows can
be maintained in the tributaries.

2. Middle Basin

232. Dry season flows are very low; increasing the irrigation efficiencies will allow
larger areas to be cultivated.

233. Shallow groundwater in the valleys in the middle Bagmati Basin offers potential
for production of HVCs and shallow tubewells, or dug wells could be developed to
provide limited but reliable water for vegetables. Yields are low and the use of drip, and
polyhouses could be considered.

B. Investment Options

234. Three different irrigation investments are proposed for upper and middle basin.

(i) Rehabilitation and upgrading of schemes directed at improving the canal

system and structures to improve the irrigation efficiency and water delivery
service of the canal systems.

(ii) Micro irrigation based on using piped distribution, which would abstract
water from the irrigation canals to supply water by gravity to the fields
directly or linked to sprinkler/or drip systems. Preliminary water balance
estimates indicate that introduction of pressure irrigation using sprinkler
could increase the cropping intensity by about 50% from 114% to 165%.
The canals alone could be used for wet season rice with the pipes during
the dry season.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

(iii) Conservation Irrigation is designed to conserve water and support recharge

in the Kathmandu Valley by restricting dry season irrigation polyhouses to
allow for the release of dry season environmental flows to the tributaries.
The conservation irrigation is a package of actions to provide an extremely
high level of water use efficiency and crop productivity, and would
incorporate: (i) rehabilitation of canal systems; (ii) maximizing the areas of
wet season rice to support recharge; (iii) construction of earth ponds to
support recharge and wet season fish culture; (iv) provision of PVC lined
ponds to store water during the dry season; (v) fully piped distribution direct
to each polyhouse; and (iv) development of polyhouses fitted with drip
irrigation. About 15% of the area would be under polyhouses and the
remaining 85% left unirrigated, except during the wet season.

235. The estimated costs of the three different options are summarized in Table 10.
For each option an upgrading of canals would be required.

Table 10: Costs of Irrigation Options Upper and Middle BRB

Costs for Typical 50 ha Unit ($)

Option1 Option 2 Option 3
Area Upgrading Micro Conserv.
1
Item Unit $/ha (ha) canals Irrigation Irrigation
Upgrading canals ha 2,500 50 125,000 125,000 125,000
Micro Irrigation ha 2,500 50 125,000 125,000
Polyhouse ha 22,000 7.5 165,000
Total 125,000 250,000 415,000
Cost per ha 2,500 5,000 8,300
1
Notes Each landowner would be allocated a polyhouse of about 10-15% of the land holding
2
size. A typical 0.5ha landowner would be allocated about 500 m of polyhouse in lieu of dry
season surface irrigation.

236. The scope and scale of the different development options require to be assessed
based on more detailed analysis and costing. A pilot system should be established
before up-scaling. Up to data inventories of all the irrigation need to be prepared using a
GIS spatial database.

237. The conservation irrigation is the most expensive and is designed to provide
support for water conservation and environmental improvement in the Kathmandu Valley.
Potentially the benefits could be significant but it would require significant additional study
to check the viabilities and the environmental benefits that could be achieved. Further
consultation with farmers is required to assess their response and how to achieve the
necessary agreements over dry season water use.

C. Agriculture

238. To provide a rapid improvement in the agricultural systems, it is proposed that

parallel investment be provided for agricultural support, to help support the change from
traditional agriculture to modern farming systems.

239. The agriculture program would closely follow the irrigation program and
appropriate types of agriculture support would be developed to match the technical and
social conditions. The specialist HVC and pilot cropping systems require good access to
timely delivery of irrigation water, which could be surface or groundwater or a combination
of both. Mainstream cropping systems are appropriate where irrigation water availability is
less guaranteed.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 45

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

240. The agricultural support program would be designed to help enable small farmers
to achieve more efficient farming system and introduce crop diversification through
sustainable practices, and develop opportunities for commercial farming, including
partnerships with NGOs, private sector and, potentially, agri-businesses. The intention is to
offer a nucleus of localized self-financing support services, either directly or by interacting
and engaging with existing government and NGOs. Pilot programs would be established
to assess viabilities and provide agriculture support programs before up-scaling in (a)
following phase(s).

241. The program would work with and complement the existing agriculture extension
services and provide technical support to farmers. The program would be based on
optimizing water use, expanding the service area, promoting and facilitating crop
diversification, and increasing cropping intensities and yields. The result of the training
would be to raise farmer incomes. Indirectly this will increase their ability to pay for part of
the MOM costs. The agricultural and training programs would be implemented using in-
house training capacities of the DOA and the DADOs as well as subcontracting to local,
regional and national qualified training institutes and individual specialists.

D. Investment Proposal

242. A preliminary investment proposal for the upper and middle basin is shown in
Table 11. In the upper basin it is proposed that approximately 2,000 ha of conservation
irrigation would be taken up in the critical streams that flow into the urban and peri-urban
areas. In the middle basin a mix of canal upgrading and micro irrigation is proposed.
Parallel programs of agricultural support, training and awareness would be included in
the investment. An amount of $5 million is allocated to consultancy and management
support; this would include engagement of international and national project managers to
establish modern irrigated agriculture in the upper and middle basin.

Table 11: Investment Plan Upper and Middle Basin

Unit Cost Total Cost

Component Area (ha) $/ha $ million
1. Irrigation Infrastructure
Upper Basin
Conservation irrigation 2,000 8500 17.0

Middle Basin
Upgrading of Canal Irrigation 1500 2500 3.8
Micro Irrigation 1500 5000 7.5
Sub Total Infrastructure 5,000 28.3
2. Agriculture Support 3.0
3. Training and Awareness 0.3
4. Consultancy and Management Support 2.0
5. MOM Budget Support during Project Implementation 1.0
6. Total Investment 34.6
Contingencies 10% 3.4
7. Total Investment including contingencies 38.0

E. Productivity of Water

243. The productivity of water based on a typical 50 ha scheme has been assessed
and is shown in Table 12. The table shows the significant potential to increase the
productivity of water through improved irrigation systems and management.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 46

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

Table 12: Productivity of Water Upper Middle Basin (50-ha scheme)

Upgrading
Micro Conservation
Unit Current Canal
Irrigation Irrigation
Systems
1.Total Annual Production
Paddy Tons 192 242 242 187
Non Paddy Tons 345 522 795 850
Total Tons 537 764 1037 1037
2. Total Annual Value of Production
Gross value of production NPR 6,992,000 12,524,000 22,922,000 29,910,000
Gross value of production $ 69,924 125,000 229,000 299,000
3. Volume of Water
3
Total Volume of Water m 1,082,000 725000 603,000 441,000
4. Productivity of Water
Production per unit of
3
irrigation supply kg/m 0.5 1.05 1.72 2.35
% change from current 112% 247% 374%
Output per unit of
3
irrigation supply $/m 0.06 0.17 0.38 0.68
% change from current 167% 488% 949%

F. Institutions

244. The schemes in the upper and middle Bagmati are designed for minimal
maintenance with responsibilities handed over to the WUAs, although the understanding
is that government will support some major repairs. Farmers contribute some labor for
minor repairs, mainly cleaning and small earthworks, but there are unresolved
maintenance requirements in most of the schemes inspected. These are affecting the
scheme efficiencies, are beyond the capacities of farmers and are not within the
government funding resources. Filling this gap in maintenance responsibilities and
resources for the canal systems is a key requirement for meeting the target for long term
WUE and a prerequisite to any future initiatives to introduce pressure irrigation.

245. The proposals for pressurized and conservation irrigation and a move towards
commercial farming will require a quantum increase in MOM, including technical, social
and financing systems. There is currently no capacity within DOI or the DOA to take on
this role. To meet the gap will require some level of outsourcing of management activities
to the private sector through PPP. The proposals for the lower basin are applicable to the
upper and middle basin.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 47

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

VII. CURRENT IRRIGATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI BASIN

A. Overview

246. The lower basin covers two districts and lies in the Terai; the area supports
potentially highly productive agriculture if adequately supported by surface and
groundwater irrigation. The area consists of two districts of Sarlahi and Rautahat; land
use is summarized in Table 13. About 60% of the area is irrigated with surface water
irrigation, of which the Bagmati Irrigation Project provides 53% and other small and
medium irrigation schemes 47%.

247. In the BIP the wet season cropping is a mix of rice (60%) and sugarcane (27%).
Dry season cropping is a mix of wheat (18%), maize (10%), pulses (14%), oil seed
(10%), sugar cane (27%) and vegetables (5%). The overall cropping intensity is about
200% supported by surface water in the upper part, surface and groundwater in the
middle part and groundwater alone in the lower part.

248. Groundwater is an important source of irrigation mainly during the dry season.
There is very limited data on the area of groundwater irrigation, it is estimated however
to be around 34,000 ha or 23% of the cultivable area; some of the groundwater is
supplementary irrigation within the surface water schemes, while some lies outside the
surface water commands and provides standalone irrigation.

Table 13: Land Use in the Lower Bagmati

Class Sarlahi Rautahat Total

Total Land Area (ha) 125,900 112,600 238,500
Cultivable 84,678 58,440 143,118
Irrigated Surface Water 38,382 51,074 89,456
Bagmati Irrigation Project 23,000 24,700 47,700
Other Surface Water Irrigation 15,382 26,374 41,756
Without Surface Irrigation 46,296 7,366 53,662
Estimated Groundwater Irrigation 17,000 17,000 34,000
Source: CRAD, Annual Agricultural Development Program and Statistics Booklet (FY 2012/13)
and Present Study (2014)

B. Bagmati Irrigation Project

249. The BIP Feasibility Study was undertaken by the Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) and implemented with ADB funding in the 1990s.27 It proposed two
development phases as follows: (i) development of 69,000 ha of cultivable land; and (ii)
development of a high dam to generate 140 MW, and increase the command area by
54,000 ha. The high dam proposal has never been implemented and there are no
immediate plans to construct the dam due to resettlement issues in the impoundment area.

250. Without the storage reservoir dry season flows in the river are extremely limited
and the government is looking at alternative options to supplement the flow, including an
inter-basin diversion that would transfer water from the Sun Koshi Basin. The
construction of Bagmati Barrage was started in 1979. Following the completion of the
barrage, in 1987 the irrigation system was developed with a series of loans from the
Saudi Fund, including the construction of main canal, branch canals, tertiary canals with
command area development (CAD) and river training works within the command area,
and also to rehabilitate the barrage that was damaged in the 1993 flood. In 2007 a

27
ADB. 1992. Feasibility Study on Bagmati Command Area Development Project. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., in
association with Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Ltd. Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 48

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

further loan was received from the Saudi Fund for command area development of 13,600
ha in the lower part of the scheme, which currently receives a very unreliable supply; the
work includes construction of silt ejectors, and protection of the command area.

251. Irrigation water is abstracted by gravity to east and west canals, with approximate
flows measured by gauges upstream and downstream of the gates, as well as stage
discharge in the canals; these are occasionally calibrated by the hydrology department.
The operators maintain the design water levels in the canals by rotation of the branch
canals. Since the construction of the scheme, about 4,000 ha of forest land located to
the south of the main canals has been converted to farm land. The canal capacity of
west main canal (WMC) is 48 m3/s, while that of east main canal (EMC) is 32 m3/s.
Based on records for 2011/12 there was full flow 32 m3/s through EMC and 28 m3/s
through WMC for about 2-3 months and then flow is reduced. The dry season irrigation is
delivered from January onwards, delivering about 15-20m3/s, which gradually decreases
until the onset of rainfall.

1. Performance Benchmarking of the BIP

252. The performance benchmarking has utilized key indicators from the FAO RAP to
compile and organize baseline information systematically as part of developing the
formal assessment of the BIP. These benchmarking indicators have allowed examination of
standard measures, such as the adequacy and quality of water supplies in concert with
more ambiguous but essential issues, such as the relative strength of rule enforcement
by the project authorities. The related technical and institutional complexities have been
broken down into simple parameters, which have been used to identify feasible project
alternatives. More detailed information and results from the performance benchmarking
of the BIP is given in Appendix 1.

253. The RAP quantified the performance of the scheme in terms of the quality of
water delivery service at each canal level in the system, including parameters such as
physical infrastructure, water control, communications, maintenance, institutional capacity,
and water delivery service, paying attention to technical and engineering details. The RAP
comprises formalized ranking indicators for characterizing the quality of water delivery
service that is provided by an irrigation project. Key indicators are specified for different
levels of the system – individual field, most downstream point operated by an employee,
second level canals, and main canals. The water delivery service index is a composite of
assigned ratings (on a 0 to 4 scale)28 for flexibility, reliability, equity, and other parameters,
such as the measurement of volumes and control of flow rates, depending on the level of
the system being analyzed. Weighting factors are applied to each sub-indicator rating to
reflect their relative importance in the degree of service within each indicator group.

254. The results of the internal benchmarking indicators for the canal system are
summarized in Table 14. Most of the key indicators reflecting operations and service are
below 2.0. These relatively low values suggest widespread problems, resulting in poor levels
of irrigation performance, particularly those that are associated with operations.

28
Values are assigned to indicators and sub-indicators on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 indicating least desirable and 4
denoting the most desirable. Relative weightings are applied to the sub-indicators to compute each indicator.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 49

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

255. The benchmarking results presented for the internal performance indicators at the
BIP reflect a poor level of water delivery service and irrigation performance. There are
several categories of explanation, including outdated infrastructure and designs flaws, a
lack of sufficient cash-flow for regular maintenance, institutional weaknesses and
management limitations, and serious difficulties in controlling and measuring water as it
is conveyed and distributed to water users. Improvements in irrigation efficiencies,
widespread crop diversification, and the adoption of modern on-farm water management
practices in the BIP will only be possible after the successful implementation of a
modernization program that addresses existing operational constraints with effective
water control and monitoring throughout the system.

Table 14: BIP Internal Indicators – Canal System

Bagmati Irrigation Project Value*

Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (eg, field or farm) 1.0
Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (eg, field or farm) 1.5
Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee 0.8
Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee 1.4
Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals 1.7
Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals 2.8
Social “order” in the canal system operated by paid employees 1.0
Main Canal – East Main Canal
Cross regulator hardware (main canal) 2.7
Turnouts from the main canal 2.2
Regulating reservoirs in the main canal 0.0
Communications for the main canal 2.2
General conditions for the main canal 1.6
Operation of the main canal 1.0
Second-level Canals
Cross regulator hardware (second-level canals) 2.0
Turnouts from the second-level canals 1.5
Regulating reservoirs in the second-level canals 0.0
Communications for the second-level canal 2.1
General conditions for the second-level canals 1.3
Operation of the second-level canals 1.0
Third-level Canals
Cross regulator hardware (third-level canals) 1.3
Turnouts from the third-level canals 2.0
Regulating reservoirs in the third-level canals 0.0
Communications for the third-level canals 2.1
General conditions for the third-level canals 1.1
Operation of the third-level canals 1.0
Source: Present Study, 2014

256. The internal indicators are a measure of the flexibility, reliability, equity and
measurement of the irrigation water supplies at different levels of the canal system. One
can definitely say that the present water delivery service to individual fields is not close to
the degree that would be required for modern farm irrigation methods. A specialized
indicator that ranks the ability of the present water delivery service to support pressurized
irrigation system is 0.3 out of a possible 4.0. Significant progress in the control and
flexibility of the flows at this level should be a high priority for future modernization efforts.
The RAP results indicate that the reliability and equity of farm irrigation deliveries is very
poor. The inflexible nature of canal operations provides little flexibility to farmers, even
though very simple field irrigation techniques still require some level flexibility in order to be
reasonably efficient.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 50

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report– Nepal

257. There is a significant difference between quality of water delivery service as

described in the project office questions and the actual service as assessed by the RAP
indicators. The values given in the office for reliability and equity were particularly
overstated (2.8) compared to the conditions found in the field (1.7). The senior management
of the BIP seem to have a relatively good understanding of the MOM challenges
experienced in the field, so this discrepancy is partly due to the inevitable better
presentation of things that occurs at the beginning of an unfamiliar benchmarking exercise.
However, it is also a reflection of widespread problems that exist in the system compared
to the unintentional focus on areas that receive at least a minimum degree of service. It is
an unspoken, but real acceptance, that tailenders cannot receive the same level of service
as headenders in terms of reliability and equity in canal water supplies.

258. Another point to bear in mind about the internal indicators shown in Table 14 is
that they attempt to reflect the situation more or less across the entire project. Therefore,
two points are relevant. The first is that conditions in some parts of the system are
significantly worse than the indicators appear to show. Second, the RAP indicators for
the BIP are so low that in many cases the distinction between poor and extremely poor
ratings is hard to distinguish meaningfully.

259. Ratings for the quality of water delivery service provided by the DOI at different
levels of the system are progressively worse (e.g. 1.5 at main to secondary canal and
0.8 at the head of the secondary canals), which in part is due to the fact that the DOI only
concentrates on operations at the main and branch level canals. The low service ratings
for the main canal(s) highlight the need for an effective water delivery procedure that
matches actual irrigation demands in the system. The sub-indicator measuring the degree
to which the discharges into the secondary canals were equitable was particularly low
(1.0). One sign of the severe inequity in the project is that crop yields during the Rabi
season are estimated to be about 25% less in the tailend of the canal system vs. the
headend, where water supplies are more readily available.

260. At the level of final deliveries to the individual field outlets, the very low rating for
water delivery service (1.0) is due to the lack of flow measurement (0.0), prevalent
inequities in the amount of available discharge (1.0), and uncertainties in the rotation
schedule (1.0), depending on where an outlet is located within the system.

261. Of particular concern is the low rating for the “social order” indicator (1.0), which
reflects the amount of widespread vandalism and broken structures/equipment (1.0), the
large number of outlets that are unauthorized (0.0), although since these outlets have
been informally sanction by DOI it is difficult to really distinguish between legal and illegal
turnouts, and overall lack of effective control at all levels of the system in terms of
whether discharges are within permissible limits (1.0) that would ensure more equity and
reliability for all water users.

262. The ratings of the indicator for operations at the main canal level is significantly
worse than the indicator for cross regulator hardware (1.0 vs. 2.7) based primarily on the
fact there is a large elevation change across the headworks of branch canals. This
means that fluctuations in water level in the main canal causing variations in the offtaking
discharges is somewhat moderated. There is a significant difference in the cross
regulator hardware ratings between the main canals (2.7) and branch canals (2.0).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 51

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 10: Project Layout Map of the Bagmati Irrigation Project

Source: present study

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 52

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

263. The sluice gates used in the branch and distributary canals are difficult to operate
for maintaining constant upstream water levels, and the current level of maintenance is
inadequate. However, even though some of these gates are relatively well-maintained
and can move relatively easily, the critical point is that the cross regulators in the system
do a poor job of water level control.

264. The general condition of the main canal is relatively poor (1.6); however, this is
still better than relatively worse general conditions present in the branch (1.3) and
distributary canals (1.1). These low ratings reflect a general lack of preventative
maintenance and insufficient resources in terms of maintenance staff and equipment.
The indicators for the offtakes from the branch to distributary canals (1.5) was relatively
low due to inadequate maintenance (1.0) and the fact that functioning of the head gates
of distributary canals (1.5) is difficult in terms of meeting targets for constants flows. The
ratings for communications in the scheme were similar at the main canal, branch canal,
and distributary canal level (2.2, 2.1, and 2.1). The sub-indicator ratings for the main and
branch canals showing the frequency of communications with the next higher level (1.0)
and the lack of remote monitoring of spill points (0.0) were particularly low.

265. The RAP procedures include a project-level water balance framework, as well as
important accounting information about water use, yields and economics. Reasonably
accurate water balance-related estimates are essential for making meaningful decisions
regarding the quantity of water that can be made available for different WUAs/farmers
and other strategic allocation choices. However, the readily available water balance data
from the DOI were incomplete and with such large uncertainties in the estimates that it
was not possible to compute some external indicators related to irrigation performance
with an acceptable level of accuracy. The DOI did not provide adequate datasets for (i)
crop areas, (ii) pumped groundwater, or (iii) main canal releases, and the limited time
available for the benchmarking component of the study did not permit the production or
verification of independent sets of values. Remote sensing may provide an opportunity to
refine the estimates contained herein in order to provide a reasonable range of critical
values such as current crop water use, and projected irrigation demands under different
climatic and management scenarios. But the fact that data was not accessible in order to
produce reasonably accurate benchmarking of the external indicators does give some
indication of the management deficiencies that need be addressed in the future.

266. The external indicators for the BIP are presented in Table 15. These indicators
are based on the IPTRID guidelines for benchmarking,29 supplemented by results of the
RAP.

Table 15: BIP External Indicators

Indicator Value
Cost recovery ratio 0.0
Maintenance cost to revenue ratio 0
Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha/year) 36
Total cost per person employed on water delivery (US$/person) 1,481
Revenue collection performance 0
Staffing numbers per unit area (persons/ha) 0.0075
3
Average revenue per cubic meter of irrigation water supplied (US$/m ) 0
Source: Present Study, 2014

29
Malano, H and M. Burton. 2001. Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage
Sector. IPTRID Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. Rome.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 53

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

2. Institutions

267. The benchmarking gives a very low scoring for the institutions and management
(refer to Table 16). The benchmarking uses a scoring for indicators with a maximum of
4.0.

Table 16: BIP Internal Indicators – Budgets, WUAs and Employees

Indicator Value
Budgets 0.0
Employees 1.6
Water User Associations 0.6
Mobility and size of operations staff 0.0
Computers for billing and record management 0.0
Computers for canal control 0.0
Source: Present Study, 2014

268. The a low indicator for budgets (0.0 out of 4.0 ) reflects the fact that the budget
and resources available for the proper MOM of the project are woefully inadequate and
no fees are collected from water users. From an economic standpoint, the project’s
current state of MOM is not sustainable, and now that the CAD works are nearly finished
it is foreseeable that the condition of the canals and infrastructure will deteriorate even
further than their present unsatisfactory condition.

269. The indicator for employees (1.6 out of 4.0) is low due to general issues with the
inadequacy of training, lack of incentives, and low salaries. To a certain extent DOI
employees in the project are empowered to make decisions regarding real-time
operation of the system, but the tools available to them to take effective actions are very
limited. WUAs only exist in a nominal form in the scheme, and those that do exist
(reportedly about 145 have been registered by the DOI at the level of secondary canal)
do not collect irrigation service fees from farmers or have any recognized/ official
responsibilities.

270. There is no officially agreed-upon rate that farmers should pay for irrigation,
although at least one WUA had collected 150 NPR per year ($1.50/yr) from farmers but
abandoned this effort when members complained that other farmers were not paying
such fees. The WUA indicator is very low (0.6 out of 4.0) due to the fact that they have
little ability to influence the real-time management of the system or to rely on outside help
for enforcing rules and policies. WUAs have been organized and trained as a part of
institutional development efforts. However, at present they have only minimal input into the
day-to-day operation of the system. Groups of farmers do have to cooperate in order to
distribute water, especially since farmers themselves have control over most of the canal
system below the distributary canal level, but these interactions occur within the
framework of localized power dynamics and social structures.

271. The ratings for the use of computers for billing/record management (0.0 out of
4.0) and canal control (0.0 out of 4.0) are both quite low and reflect the fact that there is
minimal use of modern information technologies tools for the management of the BIP.

3. Main System

272. The BIP has 44 DOI management staff; headed by a Project Manager. He is
supported by three senior divisional engineers, an under-secretary (admin), 17
engineers, 1 sociologist, 1 accountant and other subordinate staff. Of these 29 staff are
permanent, with 15 staff on contract.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 54

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

273. In addition, there is about 300 field staff including supervisors, gate operators and
watchpersons paid as daily staff. The field staff are taking care of canal MOM on the
direction of engineers and senior divisional engineers. The project operates two
excavators and one loader to desilt the main and branch canals.

274. Field staff work long hours during the canal operation. Although officially under
the guidance of engineers, they frequently have to directly make decisions on water
allocations based on their own assessments and requests from farmers. Water is
delivered from head to tail with almost unlimited supply in the upper reach and tailenders
getting significantly reduced or no supply with long delays.

275. Since the feasibility study about 2,100ha of forest area has been cleared in the
upper part of the scheme, this area mainly in Sarlahi district is now irrigated. During
insurgency period 1996-2006, many direct and ungated outlets from the supply canals
were constructed. In addition, more than 100 farmers having land above the main canal
started using low lift pumps to draw water from the main canal; an estimated 3 m 3/s are
abstracted by pumps. During this period governance at the field level was weak, rules
were broken and illegal water abstraction was practiced. The project officers had limited
power and were not in a position to take action on law breakers.

276. Farmers have now had benefits from the illegal abstraction for around ten years
and it is now difficult now for the BIP officer to take retrospective actions. There is
however pressure from farmers downstream to settle some of these issues to alleviate
water shortages in downstream.

4. MOM Budgets

277. The MOM budget for FY 2012/13 was $0.5 million (NRs50 million) for operation
and $0.77 million (NRs77 million) for maintenance, equivalent to about $17/ha/year,
which is low and below the requirements. For comparison, tubewell water from private
well owners is charged at about $100/ha/year. The project carries out significant
improvement works using the MOM budget, which often results in lack of resources for
maintenance works. There is not adequate prioritization of maintenance works. The
WUA are also minimally involved in the maintenance works.

5. Water Users Associations (WUA)

278. Responsibility for institutional development activities in the project area lies with
the DOI’s BIP project office. The WUAs are formed and registered at the secondary
canal level. Although water users at tertiary level were originally envisaged; these are
however not yet constituted. The original feasibility study also identified the need for
higher level of organization of WUAs at the distributary and branch levels, and for a
federation at the main canal level. But the project has not initiated any efforts in this
direction. Despite a general low level of WUA development there are a few WUAs who are
managing their secondary canals with farmers contributing labor and cash for MOM.

279. The members elected are Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Additional

Secretary, Treasurer and six (6) members. The status of WUA formation at the
secondary canal is shown in the Table 17, which shows quite a high level of registration,
though operational capacities seem quite low. There is provision to allocate $60,000 of
funding for maintenance works to the WUAs for implementation, to which they contribute
an additional 10-15%. The WUAs do various maintenance works, including earthworks
and simple concrete work. Contractors are employed by the DOI to undertake more
complex repairs and maintenance. This allocation, equivalent to $1.5/ha, is only a small
contribution to the full requirements.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 55

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 17: Status of WUA Formation at Secondary Canal Level

Organized Total
No. Name of Canal Registered WUA (Not Registered) Formulated
1 Eastern Main Canal 49 4 53
2 Western Main Canal 97 11 108
3 Total WUA Formation 146 15 161
Source: Annual Progress Report (FY 2011-12), “Consulting services for remaining command area
development works”, by Multi Disciplinary Consultants (P) Ltd, MEH Consultants (P) Ltd, ERMC (P), Ltd &
WELINK Consultants (P) Ltd.

6. Unauthorized Offtakes in the BIP

280. There is also a lack of adequate coordination between the BIP staff and WUAs
in terms of programmed water allocations. Field staff (supervisor, gate operator and field
assistants) are responsible for this according to the BIP. Water management in the
command area needs to be better coordinated between the head reaches and the areas
at the tail ends of canals according to a schedule developed each cropping season in
coordination with main canal operations. The roles and responsibilities of the field assistants
and supervisors should be better coordinated with the actual needs for irrigation water in
their respective command areas. Canal maintenance and construction works should be
adjusted before sowing and after harvesting time in coordination with the WUAs.

281. Since the feasibility study period (1992) about 2,500 ha of forest area in the upper
reach of Sarlahi and Rautahat has been cleared and is now under cultivation.
Farmers have placed outlets in the main canal and are drawing water in an uncontrolled
manner. Also more than 100 farmers having land above the main canal are using low lift
pumps to draw water from the main canal. It is understood these are officially illegal, but
that BIP office is not taking action against them since these developments took place
during insurgency period and there are difficulties in dealing with them retrospectively.
Farmers downstream want actions on these issues to be undertaken to alleviate water
shortage in downstream area due to these uncontrolled water withdrawal.

282. During the insurgency period 1996-2006, governance at field level was weak,
rules were broken and illegal water lifting was practiced. At that period, office staff lacked
power to take action. More recently the management situation has improved and is
achieving benefits.

C. Other Surface Water Irrigation

283. Over and above the Bagmati irrigation project there are around 73 small, medium
and large irrigation schemes in the two districts of Rautahat and Sarlahi. The water is
taken from a mix of sources, including from the Bagmati River, and from other rivers and
springs. These were originally traditional schemes built by farmers but have been
improved since the 1990s with support by the government; about 30% of the area
comprises farmer managed irrigation schemes that have not received DOI assistance,
with about 70% that have received DOI support.

284. Some of the schemes are supported by return flows from the BIP. The estimated
total area of the other surface schemes is about 40,000 ha, with about 25,000ha in
Rautahat and 15,000 ha in Sarlahi. From the inventory of 73 schemes; the average size
is about 600 ha, with 7 schemes greater than 1000 ha (Jhaj, 4,000 ha, Narayani 8,720
ha, Kanakpur 1,979 ha, Aaruwa 1,019 ha, Manusmara I 1,700 ha, Manusmara II 2,300
ha and Sudama 1,110 ha).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 56

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

285. Many of the government supported schemes are in poor condition, with damages
to structures due to poor maintenance. This is especially apparent in that large parts of
the schemes receive no water. Farmers report that the Narayani Irrigation Project
(8,700ha) in Rautahat is not delivering water. The Manusmara I and II as well as Jhaj
Irrigation Systems are also reported damaged with scope for rehabilitation to improve
performance. Many of the schemes existed before BIP was developed and some of the
schemes were abandoned after the BIP started to deliver water. The limited performance
of the BIP, especially during the recent reconstruction program, has resulted in farmers
resorting to the old traditional schemes, or to digging wells or using shallow and deep
tube wells or even treadle pumps: whatever is available.

286. Farmers contribute some labor each year towards the maintenance. However
there is scope for upgrading the schemes, including investigating the potential for linking
some of the schemes. As in the BIP, the dry season flows are low and groundwater
plays a key role during the dry season. Wet season irrigation supplies are adequate and
the schemes support large areas of supplementary irrigation. Sediment is a major
problem during the wet season for the schemes using river sources. These schemes
contribute to the groundwater recharge.

D. Groundwater

1. Introduction

287. Groundwater aquifers in the Terai are highly productive and groundwater use is
expanding through government subsidies of around 80-90% of capital costs for
tubewells/pumps, and 50% electricity subsidies (although most wells due to lack of
reliable electric power are driven by diesel engines). The shallow tubewells are used to
supplement the periods of water shortage of the surface water irrigation and provide the
only irrigation source for parts outside the command. Deep tubewells are quite limited.
The development of tubewells has been supported by a wide number of agencies and
donors. The estimated current area of groundwater is summarized in Table 18.

Table 18: Groundwater Development

Sarlahi Rautahat Total
Area Area Area
Description Number (ha) Number (ha) Number (ha)
Deep Tubewell 20 700 3 100 23 800
Shallow Tubewell 5,500 16,000 5,500 16,000 11,000 32,000
Dug well 300 1,800 30 200 330 2,000
Total 6,000 18,000 6,000 17,000 12,000 35,000
Source: Source: Preparation of ADS, IAWR Assessment Report, May 2012 and current study

288. Shallow tubewells have long been seen as an attractive alternative to surface
irrigation on the Terai. They also play a key role for standalone irrigation in parts outside
the irrigation commands and in meeting the shortfall of surface irrigation where lack of
dry season water and poor water allocations result in water shortages. The government
reintroduced subsidies for tubewells in 2009 but the take-up has not been as much as
expected, because the program lacked the ability and resources to adequately fund the
tubewells. First, many farmers who had previously obtained tubewells through loans felt
their loans should be written off. Secondly, the irregular supply of electricity and increasing
diesel prices have dampened farmer interest in using groundwater, whether the shallow
tubewells are subsidized or not. Thirdly, government has not been able to meet the
demand for timely input and services to complement irrigation. Fourthly, the subsidies do
not help the poorest farmers due to funding shortfall and the fact that medium and large

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 57

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

farmers tend to take advantage of the tubewells. The ADB evaluation study identified
that the shallow tubewells program is viable without capital subsidies.30

2. Hydrogeology

289. The transmissivity of the aquifer is a function of the occurrence of aquifer material
(sand, gravel) and the thickness of layers containing such material. The studies carried out
by GWRDB/UNDP indicate very variable permeability31 depending on the grading and
sorting of aquifer material, with values as high as 400 mD (milliDarcy) in the Bhabar
Formation in gravel layers. Permeability of sand layers in the Gangetic Sediments is
generally less than 50 mD, although locally coarse lenses of gravel may exhibit higher
values. The transmissivity is also variable and values as high as 2000 m2/day are common.
In general the transmissivity is high enough to support large scale groundwater abstraction.

290. Recharge to the aquifer system occurs from both natural and man-made sources
and includes the following:

(i) Recharge from rainfall, comprising the deep percolation through the base of
the root zone of vegetation. Recharge is controlled by the rate of rainfall, the
evapotranspiration of vegetation and the moisture conditions in the root
zone. Recharge may be constrained by the occurrence of low permeability
surface deposits resulting in runoff and ‘rejection’ of surplus recharge when the
water table rises to ground surface during the monsoon period.
(ii) The Bhabar Formation is largely unconfined and allows for most effective
rainfall (rainfall minus evapotranspiration) to percolate to the groundwater
table. Previous estimates by Nippon Koei indicate recharge to be on average
660 mm/year. Recharge to the Gangetic Sediments is not mentioned, but is
potentially as high as that for the Bhabar Formation. Much lower recharge
has been reported for the Gangetic Sediments.
(iii) Direct infiltration occurs in the river beds of the north south running rivers.
The recharge is potentially very high, with actual recharge being constrained
by the ability of the aquifer system to transmit the infiltrated river water to the
east and west. The lateral flow is a function of river level and hydraulic
gradients. No estimates are given in previous reports.
(iv) Recharge also takes place in the form of return flows of surface water
irrigation. This recharge component comprises leakage from the distribution
system and on-field percolation of applied irrigation water to the groundwater
table. This recharge component is a function of the amount of distributed
water within the irrigation canal system and field application and the irrigation
system efficiency values. Irrigation efficiencies for the Lower Bagmati area
are generally low, with an overall efficiency of probably no more than 30%
for the current situation. This implies that that of the annual application of
600 mm of irrigation water, about 420 mm could potentially recharge the
aquifer. As for rainfall recharge, the actual recharge would be less when the
groundwater table rises to ground surface during the monsoon season.

291. Overall, the potential recharge to the Lower Bagmati area is considerable, giving
ample scope for groundwater use for irrigation where aquifer conditions are favorable.

30
Shallow Tubewell Irrigation in Nepal; Impacts of the Community Groundwater Irrigation Sector Project
Impact Evaluation Study ADB 2012
31
Permeability is the capacity of a rock to transmit water measured in mD (miliDarcy) commonly but
imprecisely can be synonymous with hydraulic conductivity.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 58

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

3. Groundwater Levels and Groundwater Flow

292. Figure 11 shows the depth to groundwater table for May 1991 in the BIP area.
The depth does not exceed 4 m in most of the Gangetic Sediments where most irrigation
occurs. The groundwater table surface is thus closely controlled by the surface
elevations and the hydraulic gradient is very similar to the ground surface gradient.

293. Piezometric levels in the deeper parts of the aquifer system are artesian, with
levels several meters above ground surface. This indicates a significant upward hydraulic
gradient and deeper groundwater contributing the groundwater table. The rate of upward
flow is a function of the vertical head difference and the hydraulic resistance of the low
permeability layers within the aquifer sequence. Estimates have not been found in the
earlier reporting.

294. Figure 12 shows a conceptual north to south section with groundwater flow
components superimposed. Annotations in the figure illustrate the different groundwater
flow components, including recharge and spring flows.

Figure 11: Depth to Groundwater

Deep Aquifer>10m
Forest
Area

Artesian
aquifer

Source: GDC, 1994, ‘Reassessment of Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in the Terai’

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 59

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

295. A groundwater reassessment study conducted by Groundwater Development

Consultants (GDC, 1994) stated, “The Terai is underlain by a thick sequence of saturated
detrital sediments (rock particles) of alluvial and colluvial origin, forming some of the
most productive aquifers on the sub-continent.” This study has estimated that the
potential irrigable area for shallow tubewells is about 34,000 ha, and 27,000 ha in Sarlahi
and Rautahat Districts, respectively. The groundwater irrigable areas currently developed
in the two districts were estimated to be about 17,000 ha and 16,000 ha respectively,
thus leaving scope to develop another 17,000 and 11,000 ha.32

296. The Groundwater Resources Development Board (GWRDB) is monitoring water

levels in selected tubewells of sample districts. The depth of water level draw-down in
Sarlahi District shallow is generally less than 2 m in most cases, except in a few wells
where drawdown reached around 5 m. It is reported that at current levels the
groundwater is not being overexploited and there may be potential to improve irrigation
through the development of conjunctive groundwater use and more efficient irrigation
technologies. The levels of groundwater exploitation will be further researched by the
current study.

Figure 12: Conceptual N-S Section

Source: Groundwater Development Consultants

4. Stakeholder Consultation

297. The main conclusions from the consultative process in the lower basin include:

(i) Farmers inside the BIP are mainly following traditional irrigation patterns,
but are however using some improved varieties and chemical fertilizers.
(ii) Similar to the situation in the upper and middle valley, the farmers
commented on the limitations of the government’s agriculture support. The
DADOs and ASCs were considered under resourced and lack training in the
new technologies. There was felt to be a need to strengthen agricultural
support.

32
Re-assessment of the Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in the Terai, Groundwater
Development Consultants. April 1994.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 60

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(iii) Institutionally there is an insufficient link between the BIP project staff and
the District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs) even through both
are involved in agricultural development. Also there is not enough of a
linkage between the WUAs and the extension services.
(iv) The difficulty of competing with cheap imports from India was a recurring
theme. Indian farmers benefit from subsidized inputs and as a result their
production costs are less than for the Nepali farmers. Agricultural products
imported from India are freely available in the markets in Nepal at low prices
that Nepali farmers find difficult to match.
(v) A number of agricultural initiatives have been proposed for the BIP,
including development of fish farming in parts of the area where there is
waterlogging. Seed multiplication was seen to offer good potential. Sugar
cane offers good returns with yields of up to 81 ton/ha, which is a Nepalese
record, and there are processing facilities within the vicinity.
(vi) The PRAs looked in depth at challenges and opportunities associated with
groundwater irrigation. Groundwater irrigation has only developed in any
significant scale in the last 10 to 15 years. The use of groundwater was seen
differently from the surface water: it has a higher operational cost but better
potential to meet critical crop water demands. It is not used to irrigate spring
paddy except as a supplement to surface water, but groundwater is used for
spring vegetables and paddy nursery beds. Tubewell use is quite low and
reported to be about 250 hours per year. Farmers mainly use diesel pumps
and report the problems of operational costs and the expansion of
electrification was seen as important. The competition from cheap Indian
crop imports is particularly felt in groundwater areas due to the high costs of
pumping.
(vii) The lack of tertiary distribution and field channels was seen as a major
constraint to the effectiveness of the irrigation.
(viii) The lack of access to credit is an issue; farmers sometimes have to resort
to selling their standing crop in the field at greatly reduced price.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 61

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

VIII. LOWER BAGMATI BASIN REMOTE SENSING

A. Introduction

298. Satellites measure the reflected, emitted and scattered radiance in small parts of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Radiation is transmitted through the atmospheric windows
in various wavelengths (visible, red-edge, near-infrared, thermal infrared, microwave,
etc.). Since every object on the earth’s surface has its own specific spectral signature,
and the signatures relate to specific properties, the signal across these wavelengths can
be interpreted to generate quantitative information of the land surface (including some
shallow sub-surface characteristics). Different bands of spectral reflectance and spectral
emittance are combined with mathematical algorithms, so that raw pixel data can be
converted into a quantitative information. The key indicators that can be derived from
satellite observations include

 Land use
 Crop type (especially identification of rice and non-rice area)
 Evapotranspiration ET (also evaporation and transpiration separately)
 Biomass production
 Crop yield
 Water productivity or crop water productivity (POW)

299. Mechanisms to monitor agriculture production spatially need to be developed for

assessing the effectiveness of irrigation and the crop responses. This data can be used
to improve identify parts of the scheme that are not fully responding to irrigation, so that
actions to improve the irrigation management can be put in place. Accurate flow
measurement to the lower level canals is not feasible and monitoring of the crop
responses provides an additional tool for irrigation management.

300. Data on cropping is available from the government statistics but due to the very
small land holdings data is frequently unreliable and is based on administrative units,
which are not easy to reconcile with the irrigation units. The long term application of
satellite imagery can provide significant support to plan, monitor and manage the irrigation
schemes by providing accurate data on a spatial basis. The value of satellite imagery is
significantly enhanced when accurate land use, canal and command area and tubewell
data maps are available on GIS. Both crop type and water productivity can be linked to
the information on water supplied by irrigation and tubewell records to monitor and
assess the scheme performance. Once command area maps are developed on the GIS
the remote sensing analysis can be applied to secondary (~1,000 ha) or tertiary blocks
(~100 ha).

301. Satellite imagery can provide quantitative and spatial data on areas of different
types of crop; although it is difficult to differentiate between some crops due to their similar
reflection characteristics, high resolution imagery can differentiate with reasonable accuracy
rice and non-rice crops, which is a key.

302. Crop productivity can be expressed in two main ways: (i) as a total biomass (dry
matter) production (POW-biomass) per unit of water; or (ii) as crop yield (POW-crop) per
unit of water. Crop yield (POW-crop) is a more detailed irrigation performance parameter
for evaluation purposes and includes data on crop type and production. However, it
requires input of significant amounts of field data as well as groundtruthing, including
accurate crop identification maps (and even crop varieties), corresponding growing
period (start and length) and harvest index (HI) information (or crop yield data). Provision
of this data is a very high cost and slow process. Although biomass assessment is less

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 62

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

definitive than crop yield assessment it allows a significantly simpler, faster and more
accurate method to quantify irrigation performance. In terms of developing low cost
applications of remote sensing over large areas, the use of POW measurement using
biomass is considered to have significant potential and has been demonstrated in the
current study as a possible tool to improve agricultural productivity.

B. Application of Remote Sensing Analyses

303. A complete irrigation performance assessment requires field data that is often not
easy or is expensive to obtain. Remote sensing resources and costs also vary considerably
and methodologies need to be developed, which can be applied quickly at low cost over
large areas.

304. The use of high resolution satellite imagery to assess land use, crop types and
yields is now well developed. Use of high resolution (such as rapid eye with 5 m with five
spectoral bands) allows for differentiation of key crops; however it requires implementation
at the peak vegetative stage and requires groundtruthing. The use of high resolution
analysis is limited by the cost of acquiring the imagery and the time required to process the
data, as well as the requirement for good quality groundtruthing information.

305. The main advantage of using low cost remote sensing analyses over traditional
methods is that remote sensing requires fewer inputs in terms of data and resources
while providing an unbiased overall picture of an entire scheme. Another major
advantage is that time series of satellite data can be used to analyze productivity and
spatial variations that can be used to (i) identify regions that require intervention, and (ii)
monitor water needs and crop production in near-real time for management purposes.
For example, an important element of successful operational irrigation systems is to
assess crop production in relation to the shortfall of irrigation water by means of crop
evapotranspiration (actual ET, or water consumption). The water consumption is
commonly derived using crop factors in combination with Penman-Monteith derived ET
data. This approach is based on optimal and uniform (i.e. between fields but also within a
field) crop growth during a season. In practice crop development and health can vary in a
spatial context due to occurrence of different crop varieties and varying conditions, such
as heterogeneity in soil texture, soil compaction and preparation, climate, elevation,
slope and aspect, pest control, nutrients, planting distance, management etc. Therefore
quantitative information derived from remote sensing observations provides a more
accurate estimation of water consumption and biomass production.

306. The study demonstrated the application of low cost remote sensing analyses,
which can constitute a direct tool for irrigation management. The approach has been the
use of low cost easily available medium resolution satellite imagery with 250-m resolution,
which can be used on a large scale to estimate POW of water based on dry biomass. The
process uses this low cost imagery to assess the NVDI profile of the whole scheme. This
information is calibrated through the use of high resolution (30 m) imagery on sample
areas linked with the NVDI data to assess biomass. Using this approach, free or low cost
medium resolution imagery can be sourced over large areas. The low cost and simplicity
of the analysis also allows time series of data to be used for analyzing seasonal or
annual changes. Near real-time information can also be sourced, which opens up the
potential for using the remote sensing data to support hands-on irrigation management
and water allocation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 63

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

307. Satellite remote sensors can quantify the fraction of the photosynthetically active
radiation absorbed by vegetation. Scientists have found that net photosynthesis is
directly related to the magnitude of this portion of radiation. In short, the more a plant is
absorbing visible sunlight (during the growing season), the more it is photosynthesizing
and the more it is being productive. Conversely, the less sunlight the plant absorbs, the
less it is photosynthesizing, and the less it is being productive. The Normalized Difference
Index (NDVI) is an index that assesses the quantity of reflected visible and near infrared
light. Healthy vegetation absorbs most of the light and has a high value of NVDI, while
unhealthy vegetation reflects more light and has lower values. NDVI values can be
averaged over time to establish the "normal" growing conditions for the vegetation in a
given region for a given time of the year. Once the norm has been established it is possible
to characterize the health of the vegetation over a selected area, relative to the norm.

308. From this a simple approach is to use remote sensing directly to measure water
productivity that quantify growth indicators including measurement of actual biomass
production and actual evapotranspiration spatially at the pixel level for an entire command
area. This is significantly easier than assessing the different crop types and yields.

C. Productivity of Water in the BIP

309. This section describes the remote sensing study was conducted to identify trends
in the evolution of irrigated areas and to assess the POW of the BIP during the dry
season (Rabi), which roughly covers the months December to March.

310. The development of irrigated areas in the BIP area over the past 10 years is
determined by a NDVI 5-year time step analysis for the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012
and 2013, respectively. The time series covers the irrigated dry season, with one NDVI
observation every 8-days, and is based on MODIS satellite observations with a spatial
resolution of 250 m. This analysis does not provide information on the POW. This is
assessed in a detailed analysis where the SEBAL algorithm is used to determine the
crop water consumption (ET) and biomass production based on 30-m medium resolution
satellite observations. The SEBAL model relies on visible and thermal infrared satellite
observations and meteorological data.

311. The analysis shows that since 2003/2004 a significant part of the forested area in
the Sarlahi District appears to have been replaced by agriculture. The map of 2003
shows higher NDVI values than the other years. This can be explained when analyzing
the rainfall data for station Ramoli Bairiya. The analysis reveals that there has been
significant more rainfall in the period December 2002 – March 2003 (~140 mm) than in
other years (<30 mm) (source: www.dhm.gov.np). This is also clearly demonstrated in
Figure 13, showing the histogram of the mean NDVI for all 5 years. The peak of the
histogram for the year 2003 is shifted to higher NDVI values. A similar shift can be
observed in 2012, while the years 2004 and 2008 have similar values. This increase in
NDVI values during prolonged rainfall reveals that under normal circumstances of
average rainfall the NDVI values are lower, thus indicating possible water shortage for
agricultural crops. The corresponding areal size (in hectares) per class shows that for all
classes no clear trend (positive or negative) can be observed, indicating that there is no
(significant) change in performance when comparing total areas during the time frame
analyzed.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 64

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 13: Histogram Mean NDVI [-] for 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013 (a) and
Surface Area [ha] per NDVI class (b).

A b
Source: Present Study, 2014

312. For the definition of POW in the region, a snapshot analysis was made to define
water consumption by ET, the related biomass production and derived POW. For this
snapshot the image of February 27 was used because at that date most crops are well
developed. The analysis shows that the areas with the highest NDVI values correspond
with areas identified as most active: the northern part of the Rautahat District, a small
area in the south along one of the irrigation canals (west of Matsari), the north-west of
the Sarlahi District and in the south (west of Salempur and Malangawa). The daily water
consumption varies roughly between 4 and 5 mm and the biomass production is more
than 120 kg/ha. The derived POW for biomass varies between 2.5 and 3.5 kg/m 3; the
higher values correspond to the most active areas. The spatial variation is presented in
Figure 14.

313. The total water consumption of the snapshot amounts to 207,309 m 3, of which
148,601 m3 was consumed by irrigated lands. Because no precipitation was observed on
that day, it can be concluded that this water has been abstracted from a river system or
the groundwater. When comparing this actual water consumption with the potential water
consumption, it can be observed that there has been significant water deficit of 10%,
resulting in loss of productivity and an underestimation of required water resources for
maximized growth and production. In order to quantify the total water consumption and
abstraction, water deficit, biomass/yield production and POW over the growing season,
the use of bi-monthly high resolution monitoring covering the entire growing season is
advisable. With such a system near-real time data and past experiences can be used to
modify and optimize water management based on quantified values of water
consumption (and thus abstraction) and water deficit. Also, biomass production and yield
POW can be monitored, and irrigation can be planned based on the situation in the field.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 65

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 14: Results for February 27, 2013: NDVI (a), Mean daily ET [mm day-1] (b),
Mean daily Biomass [kg ha-1 day-1] (c) and POW - Biomass [kg m-3] (d)

a b

c d

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 66

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

IX. STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR IRRIGATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI BASIN

A. Introduction

314. Planning of irrigation in the Lower Bagmati Basin is complex and requires
examination of the various options, including the conjunctive use of surface and
groundwater. The strategy has incorporated an examination of the surface and groundwater
resources, including the potential to supplement the surface water resources through a
water transfer from the Sunkoshi Marin River. As groundwater involves pumping, it is also
necessary to incorporate assessment of the energy requirements and the potential to
improve the efficiencies and costs of pumping.

315. The plan for modernization and management reforms has to fit the complex
situation of the BIP, and wherever possible, to incorporate the points raised by the
stakeholders. The current irrigation setting is presented in Table 19.

Table 19: Irrigation Setting Lower Bagmati

Parameter Situation Lower Bagmati Points

Area The overall cultivated area is estimated at BIP was originally planned as a
143,000ha, with about 89,000 ha or about larger project of 120,000 ha. Only
60% under surface water irrigation. BIP is the 47,700 ha of the planned area
largest irrigation area, with about 48,000 ha has been developed due to water
of cultivable command area. In addition there constraints.
are around 70 small medium irrigation Planning needs to incorporate
schemes from other tributary rivers and BIP and the other irrigation
springs, which serve about 40,000 ha. schemes over the two districts of
Sarlahi and Rautahat.
Area BIP wet season 48,000 ha all by rainfall and Shortfall of surface water is met
Currently surface water, some parts receive no wet by groundwater. Current cropping
Irrigated season irrigation. Dry season surface water intensity is estimated to be 216%.
irrigation area about 15,000 ha. Capillary action from
Other small and medium irrigation also has groundwater also supports crop
restricted dry season irrigation area. water requirements.
Water BIP: There is currently no wet season supply Currently there is no potential to
Resources constraint but there are constraints to supply increase the quantity of water
lower areas. abstracted from the river during
3
Dry season flows drop to only about 10 m /s, the dry season.
3
with 2 m /s environmental flow; this leaves The Sunkoshi River transfer
3
about 8 m /s for irrigation, or about 0.15 l/s/ha. offers opportunities to increase
3
Overall, groundwater provides about 50% of the dry season flows from 8 m /s
3
the demand. Dry season groundwater covers to 85 m /s. This would allow
about 60% of demand. extension of the BIP to originally
planned area of 120,000 ha.
Water Inadequate and derelict control and Significant investments in canal
Management infrastructure. Tertiary canals and field system improvements are
channels are not constructed. There is no required, including provision of
canal operation plan and no flow improved water control and flow
measurement. measurement. Even with
efficiency improvements, low dry
season water availability limits the
scope for dry season cropping.
Energy The surface water is gravity but groundwater Management of energy is a key
is pumped. Annual energy by groundwater requirement to be incorporated
pumping is about 13,000 MW-h. into the scheme planning.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 67

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Parameter Situation Lower Bagmati Points

MOM Costs MOM currently under-financed and much of Financing of MOM is a critical
the finance is supporting rehabilitation. factor for both surface and
Very high MOM cost of groundwater pumping groundwater irrigation.
is a limiting factor.
Agriculture Current agriculture is diverse. Land holdings Crop yields remain below what
are small and there is a need to increase the could be achieved.
agriculture production potential. Farmers need to develop modern
Agricultural support systems are inefficient. technologies for irrigated
Low cost imports of agriculture products from agriculture to improve returns.
India are affecting financial viability of Irrigated agriculture needs to
Nepal's agriculture. modernize to maintain
competitiveness with Indian
imports.
Groundwater Groundwater pumping from about 12,000 Groundwater is very expensive
open wells and shallow tubewells provides for farmers.
about 40% of the irrigation demand. Financial
costs of pumping costs using diesel are
significantly higher than surface water due to
lower efficiencies and lack of subsidy
Condition of Main canal infrastructure varies; many Full technical assessment of the
Canal structures and parts of canals in poor canal system required. Special
Infrastructure condition. Tertiary canals are largely not attention to repairs to support
existent, also major lack of, and poorly canal operation is required.
constructed, field channels.
DOI Staff 44 management staff supported by 300 field New approaches are required to
staff. increase the MOM capacities.
Low staff capacities, lack of training, This includes increasing the
resources and financial incentives. capacities of existing staff as well
as recruitment of additional staff.
WUAs WUAs established for secondary canals but There are difficulties of the
not tertiary canals. current joint management
The government allocates about $1.5 /ha for arrangements, which need to be
tertiary maintenance, which WUAs reviewed and addressed.
implement and add 15%. Some WUA
contribute funds up to about $1.5/ha
MOM Cost Farmers’ contribution are very limited. Development of improved
Recovery WUE and POW requires
significant increase in the
capacities and resources for
MOM. New approaches and
increased levels of cost
recovery are required.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 68

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

B. Modernization of the Bagmati Irrigation Project

1. Proposals for Surface Water Management

316. The BIP represents a special challenge for irrigation modernization efforts, because
CAD works have been underway in the scheme for approximately the last 20 years.33 As
identified under the RAP and discussed in Appendix 1, the design and construction of
the irrigation system so far has resulted in a system that is difficult and cumbersome to
operate, with consequences in terms of poor water delivery service.

317. The Project Completion Reports34 for the recent SFD-supported CAD works have
drawn attention to the fact that, for example, “the operation of the canal systems is being
carried out on an ad-hoc basis (sic), resulting in inadequate irrigation in the project”.
Further, “the flows in all the canals over the Project are regulated by gates that will make
the rotational operation of the canals more complicated and prone to frequent human
interference.” Problems with poor quality construction have also been pointed out in
these completion reports, which were confirmed by the Consultant’s own site inspections
in the project. Thus, the situation in the BIP is not typical even of rehabilitation projects
where an irrigation system has suffered for years or decades because of poor designs, a
lack of preventative maintenance, and a gradual deterioration in service. At the BIP, some
structures are only a few years old yet they already do not function properly. In addition
they are based on outdated designs and unworkable strategies. New approaches by the
DOI are urgently required.

318. It is also worthwhile to note that the as-built designs did not fully follow the
proposals in the original feasibility study prepared in 1992.35 For example, the operational
concept in the feasibility study was to have a rotational schedule for secondary canals (i.e.
“on” or “off”) with proportional flow dividers in the secondary canals to distribute the water
to sub-secondary canals, while the tertiary canals would have pre-set orifice offtakes. The
distribution of available irrigation water supplies is presently done on a more ad-hoc
basis (as mentioned above) and rotation schedules even occur at the head of the branch
canals during the Rabi season.

319. Within the BIP, operations are presently characterized by the following:

(i) The BIP is an upstream-control, manually-operated gated system with a

run-of-the-river water supply and no storage, which is difficult to operate.
Many structures are in poor condition.
(ii) There are no dedicated flow measurement structures and there is almost no
record-keeping of canal operations.
(iii) Water distribution is mostly on the basis of rotation, with little coordination
between different levels of the canal system, and diversions into the main
canal based on actual irrigation demands.
(iv) There is no updated and accurate inventory of the net irrigated area or water
balance of the scheme including details about crop types and water use.

33
Since 1987 the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD) has provided several loan packages for CAD works,
construction of irrigation infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the Bagmati barrage. The second SFD loan
(Loan No. 4/343) supported CAD works in the Bhalohia, Gadhaiya and Laxmipur Branch Canal areas,
followed by a third loan (Loan No. 5/465) for the remaining CAD works.
34
These quotes are taken from the Project Completion Report (as of July 2012) prepared by the joint
venture of Multi Disciplinary Consultants, MEH Consultants, ERMC and WELINK Consultants for SFD Loan
5/465 – Consulting Services for Remaining Command Area Development Works.
35
ADB. 1992. Feasibility Study on Bagmati Command Area Development Project. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., in
association with Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Ltd. TA No. 1335 Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 69

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(v) There are no facilities to re-regulate canal flows, and water travel times from
the diversion at the barrage are significant.
(vi) There is no effective planning to coordinate the operation of the irrigation
system with agricultural activities.
(vii) The resources available for MOM of the system, both in terms of equipment
and manpower, are woefully inadequate.
(viii) Conjunctive use is practiced in the project due to the unreliable and
inequitable nature of the surface water supplies, which is compounded by the
insufficiency of water supplies during the dry season.
(ix) More areas in the upstream portions of the system (in previously forested
parts) and a large number of unauthorized direct outlets throughout have
been added over time to the project in an uncoordinated and unplanned
manner, which has exacerbated tailender inequities.
(x) Water users do not pay for irrigation service or effectively cooperate with
each other to share limited water supplies.
(xi) The design and construction of the CAD works are substandard, and have
been counter-productive in terms of providing the level of water delivery
service required for achieving institutional development.

a. Expected Results and Benefits

320. The approach to system modernization in the BIP will address objectives for:

(i) Simplified water delivery operation for field operators and managers with limited
water supplies, which can be supplemented through conjunctive use.
(ii) Improved water delivery service throughout the canal system. Main canals
provide better service (improved flexibility and reliability) to the branch canals,
and they in turn provide good service to distributary and secondary canals.

321. A successful irrigation modernization program balances the appropriate

combination of technical upgrades and management sustainability. In the case of the BIP,
the motivation for irrigation modernization is the need for robust and cost-effective
measurement and control of flows diverted from the Bagmati River in order to serve a
much large portion of the command area and set the basis for sustainable cost recovery.
Implementation of the proposed system improvements will achieve:

(i) Better flow rate and volumetric measurement of irrigation water diversions
from the main canals by new broad-crested weirs.
(ii) Better flow control of branch/distributary/secondary canal headworks to
improve the manageability of water that has to be pumped.
(iii) Improved water level control for canal operations that result in more
accurate water deliveries to tertiary canals.
(iv) Enhanced information management for canal management and water use.
(v) Experience gained by DOI staff in specific installation techniques and
operational changes associated with the first set of works that will be useful
in implementing the remaining works.
(vi) Demonstration of the benefits listed above at initial projects sites for future
consideration and endorsement by the project’s stakeholders.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 70

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

b. Strategic Plan and Priorities

322. The scope of work for modernization of the BIP is intended to deal not only with
current issues, but also to put in place a modern system that will benefit irrigators and
help with regional hydrology needs for the next 50 years or longer.

323. Implementation of the system improvements in the BIP need to be supported by

new and improved management capabilities for water managers and field staff. The key
strategies being implemented comprise the following key points:

(i) Operation of the main canal diversions will become be coordinated, in real-
time, with canal demands.
(ii) Unofficial abstractions from the pumped area and small direct outlets need
to be resolved and appropriate control and management measurements
incorporated into the water management planning.
(iii) The control panels at the main canal headworks and the equipment at
existing main canal cross regulators will be refurbished and upgraded.
(iv) Control of diversions from the main canals will be based on maintaining a
constant target flow rate to match ordered demand for each branch canal
system. Each branch canal headworks will be equipped with a broad
crested weir for this purpose.
(v) Real-time information about flows at key points throughout the service area
and information from storage reservoirs.
(vi) Existing gated cross regulators structures in the branch, distributary and
secondary canals will be upgraded with long-crested weirs.
(vii) New re-regulation reservoirs will be built at strategic locations along selected
branch canals. These regulating reservoirs will serve two functions: (a)
absorbing excesses and deficits from flexible operations upstream, and (b)
absorb any flow reductions into the downstream areas.
(viii) Accurate measurement of canal diversions will be established.
(ix) New DSS/SCADA capabilities will facilitate real-time remote monitoring of
conditions throughout the service area.

324. A critical feature of future operations in the BIP will be a comprehensive water
planning process prior to every irrigation season. This planning process will result in a
water management plan that governs all aspects of water deliveries, scheduled
maintenance, and cost recovery (payment amounts and fee collection).

(i) The DOI project office will prepare a plan of forecasted water availability
and tentative delivery schedule, taking into account required maintenance
periods and water use during previous years. This will be communicated to
farmers.
(ii) Prior to the start of the irrigation season(s) based on the estimated water
availability farmers, through their respective WUA, will submit a cropping
and irrigation plan for the upcoming season.
(iii) The project office in close coordination with the WUAs will reconcile the
cropping and irrigation plans with the projected operation of the main canal
system. This may require several iterations, involving extensive dialogue
between WUAs/farmers throughout the entire command area and the DOI.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 71

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(iv) The water management plan will also be updated and adjusted as
necessary during the irrigation season to account for current conditions.
(v) DOI staff will control the distribution of irrigation water in the main canal
system on the basis of an arranged demand schedule. On a daily basis, the
WMU will deliver water to each of the branch/ distributary/ secondary
canals, where it will be measured and recorded on a real-time basis.
(vi) The tertiary canals will be operated by the WUAs acting on behalf of the
farmers, whose primary operational objective is to distribute water equitably
and reliably to each outlet on the basis of the water management plan.

325. A key requirement will be the implementation of a detailed mapping incorporating

existing land use mapping and remote sensing of every irrigated field in the project.

326. The system improvements would generally proceed according to the levels in the
canal system, on the basis that the primary concern is to achieve better control over the
main canals so that they provide good service to the branch canals. Similarly the
improvements in the distributary and secondary canals will facilitate higher levels of
management at the tertiary canals. Therefore, the order of system improvements would
generally follow according to:

(i) Main canal headworks and measurement structures

(ii) Sedimentation basin(s)
(iii) Main canal cross regulators and branch canal head gates
(iv) Branch canal cross regulators and distributary canal head gates
(v) Land leveling and construction of tertiary canals and field channels
(vi) Branch canal re-regulation reservoirs and canal inter-ties
(vii) Distributary canal cross regulators and secondary canal head gates
(viii) Secondary canal cross regulators and tertiary canal head gates
(ix) Repair/replacement of field outlets
(x) SCADA/DSS system (adding remote monitoring capabilities)
(xi) Drainage system rehabilitation, siphon/bridge repairs, etc.

327. Engaging with farmers to assess the impacts on different farmers and assessing
the farmer response will be a critical part of the detailed modernization planning. An
intensive program of training and awareness would be incorporated into the investment
plan.

2. Investment Proposals for the Modernization of the BIP

328. The following sections outline the proposed system improvements to the BIP
main canals. These system improvements include the civil works and electro-mechanical
works.

(i) Civil works, which includes structural repairs to existing concrete bulkheads,
basins/floors, wing walls, retaining walls, fences, footbridges and structure decks;
replacement and repairs to steel radial and sluice gate assemblies; earthworks
including diversion works; and bank protection repairs.
(ii) Electro-mechanical works (equipment), which includes the replacement and
repair of gate-lifting mechanisms, electric motors and control systems, and
auxiliary equipment.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 72

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

329. In general, the gates and lifting mechanisms at the head regulators and cross
regulators are in fair condition, but require refurbishment in order to remain in reliable
service. In some cases the gate frames and mountings will also have to be replaced.

330. To help ensure that the infrastructure related rehabilitation measures achieve
MOM benefits standardized units should be used. One of the issues identified in the
benchmarking is that CAD works so far have utilized low-quality equipment from different
suppliers, so that the infrastructure hardware is not uniform.

331. Properly designed, constructed and maintained water measurement devices are a
key component of the proposed irrigation modernization improvements in the BIP. Proven
technologies, such as broad-crested weirs at the heads of canals, are recommended. One
of the most important benefits is the ability to place these measurement structures into an
existing control section, thereby greatly reducing the cost of a new measurement device.

332. The broad-crested weir was chosen as a robust and cost-effective device for this
application based on the following characteristics: (i) accurate over the entire range of
flows; (ii) simple, easy to understand readings that are easily verifiable in the field; (iii)
requires no manual adjustments, on-going calibration checks, or excessive maintenance;
and (iv) vandalism resistant. It would also be very straightforward to equip these new
flumes for integration into the proposed SCADA system.

a. Upgrades to Main Canal Control System (Headworks)

333. The control panels at the main canal headworks are in need of rehabilitation/
upgrades. In general, the condition of the existing mechanical equipment is worn out
because it has been in service since 1995. The gates themselves and the mechanical
systems appear to be in good working order.

334. To improve the measurement of water diverted to the main canals new broad-
crested weirs will be installed at suitable sites in the lined channel sections downstream
of the headworks. The proposed rehabilitation works include replacement of the gate
control panels, construction of broad crested weirs (in lined sections of both main
canals), and channel cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

b. Sedimentation Basins

335. Sedimentation is a significant maintenance issue in the BIP. The 1992 feasibility
study included the provision for sediment exclusion facilities at the head of each main
canal, which were never built. The recommended system improvements include
modifications to the intake structures of both main canals and the construction of the
sediment (settling) basins. The intake of the West Main Canal allows considerably more
sediment (bed load) to enter the system than the intake for the East Main Canal on the
opposite side of the barrage. Further detailed design studies, including hydraulic
simulations and possibly physical model tests, should be carried out to check the designs
and conclusions presented in the feasibility study.

336. The Consultant has reviewed the proposed design concepts and endorses the
construction of these new sedimentation basins near the start of each main canal as the
most feasible alternative. These basins will improve sediment removal operations by
trapping silt in a more compact and serviceable location, and improve hydraulic conditions
by reducing the amount of sediment being transferred to the canal system. The
preliminary analysis done for the feasibility study indicated that hydraulic flushing for
sediment disposal would be possible at identified locations (with return flows back to the
Bagmati River).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 73

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

c. Upgrades to Main Canal Cross Regulators

337. The main canal cross regulators are all in need of major rehabilitation/upgrades.
In general, the condition of the existing mechanical equipment is poor, with difficulties to
make manual adjustments for good control of upstream water levels. Works include
concrete repairs to the hydraulic structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting
mechanisms, bank protection works, and channel cleaning around the structure to
remove silt.

d. Re-sectioning of Canal Cross Sections

338. There are limited portions of each main canal that require re-sectioning to restore
the proper hydraulic cross section. Preliminary estimate of the required re-sectioning
length is based on a percentage of the length of the main canal alignments.

e. Spill Structures

339. There are three (3) emergency spill structures in the main canal system, all of
which are non-functional due primarily to broken or missing gate-lifting mechanisms and
lack of measurement devices. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs,
repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, replacement of the mechanical
systems and channel cleaning to remove the heavy accumulation of silt. In addition, each
spill site will be equipped with a remote monitoring unit, to measure canal water level(s),
and provide an alarm to operations staff in the event of emergencies.

f. Branch Canals

340. The headworks of the branch canals consist of single or double manually-
operated sluice gates of varying dimensions and configurations. There are a total of six
(6) branch canals with headworks structures and equipment of varying condition.

341. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, and channel cleaning
around the structure to remove silt.

342. Broad-Crested Weirs for Flow Measurement: Each of the branch canals will be
equipped with a new broad-crested weir for flow measurement. All the broad-crested
weirs would be equipped with staff gauges that read directly in flow units (m 3/s or lps)
making canal operations more transparent.

g. Cross Regulators

343. The cross regulators in the branch canals are manually-operated sluice gate
designs, and in some places they consist of ungated concrete drop structures. The
existing gated cross regulators are difficult (or in many cases impossible) to operate
effectively for good water level control. Flexible canal operations that are responsive to
water users and simple to manage would be achieved by upgrading the existing cross
regulators with long-crested weirs. This long-crested weir consists of concrete walls with
slot for flashboards on top of the crests for fine-tuning of the controlled water level.

344. Long-crested weirs are recommended as the primary water level control device in
branch canals (and lower level canals), because they can be easily constructed, are
simple, and are reliable. They are a cost-effective and inherently safe and reliable
structure. They allow for a simple operation, creating more constant flow rates at field
outlets and offtakes to distributary canals, while at the same time allowing the canal to be

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 74

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

operated more flexibly. Long-crested weirs are used to control the water surface
elevation and are not intended to be used for flow measurement.

345. Justifications for upgrading branch canal cross regulator structures for better
water level control include:

(i) Better water delivery service to distributary canals. The hydraulic head on
those head gates would not vary nearly as much with time.
(ii) Less rodent damage to canal banks. If the water levels are more stable, the
rodents will not have as much opportunity to dig into wet, but unsaturated,
soil.
(iii) Fewer accidental spills; low-risk inherent safety for operations; better worker
safety conditions; safer access to control structures.
(iv) Less frequent adjustments and more efficient use of labor resources.
(v) Ability to operate at higher flow rates. If the water can be maintained at more
stable levels, with a high degree of confidence, then the canals can be
operated with less freeboard – allowing higher flow rates.

346. One important aspect of utilizing long-crested weirs for cross regulators is that all
the field outlets supplied by the branch canals must be gated and must be regulated.
Since the canal water levels will generally be maintained at FSL, it will imperative that
the distribution of water is done in a controlled and planned manner. The new long-
crested weirs will be equipped with at least one sluice gate to (i) allow silt to be flushed
from upstream of the structure, (ii) permit operators to lower the upstream water level
below the design running level of the weir, and (iii) allow the upstream canal reach to be
drained for maintenance purposes (and to avoid standing water in the canal pools when
the system is not being operated). There must be a provision to flush silt and sediments
out from the front of the long-crested weir. The planning of new cross regulator needs to
participative, with prior assessment of current practices and of how the changes in water
levels will affect offtake flows. Awareness programs need to be conducted, so that
farmers understand the design objectives and support the new designs.

h. Regulating Reservoirs

347. Six (6) new re-regulation reservoirs are proposed at strategic locations in the system
along each branch canal. These reservoirs will serve as centralized sources to absorb
changes made to water deliveries based on variable operational demands throughout
the BIP canal system.

348. The regulating reservoirs would be sized to be able to temporarily divert 25% of
the base canal flow (as measured at the offtake from main canal). Each reservoir will
have a storage volume of approximately 250,000 m3, providing of a buffer storage
volume of 125,000 m3 based on handling the inflow of 2.25 m3/s for a period of up to 15
hrs. (Note: the required storage capacity is double the buffer amount because the
reservoirs will normally be operated half-full in order to accommodate both excess and
deficits in the system.)

349. These reservoirs would consolidate all the errors resulting from the excesses or
deficits upstream of these points – allowing flexible canal operations. This will allow the
branch canals to be re-started much further downstream in the system with a controllable
(and measured) flow rate available at short notice and integrated within the reservoir
operations. A buffer provides the opportunity to calmly and effectively re-assess the current
supplies and deliveries, and then re-route flows in an appropriate manner.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 75

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

350. There must always be sufficient area downstream of a regulating reservoir to

utilize the water that is being absorbed temporarily by the reservoir. In general, the
theoretical ideal location for a regulating reservoir would be about 2/3rds of the distance
down the canal. Based on the existing site conditions, it is anticipated that the inlet
structure will be a long-crested weir (gravity inflow) with sluice gate(s), and the outlet
from the reservoir will a pump station with liquid-level control. The major proposed works
for each reservoir include excavation and embankment construction; a long-crested
weir/gated inlet structure; gated outlet or pump station; new flow control gate in the
adjacent branch canal; emergency spill structure (from either the reservoir or the
adjacent canal pool); land acquisition (approximately 15 ha for each site); and electrical
controls and auxiliary systems.

i. Spill Structures

351. Monitoring of canal spills from the branch canals will constitute important
feedback to the field staff about operations. The proposed construction works include a
new weir structure (over-pour) with a sharp metal blade for measurement, and channel
cleaning to remove the heavy accumulation of silt in the end section of the channel(s). In
addition, each spill site will be equipped with a remote monitoring unit, to measure canal
water level(s) and computed flow rate, and to provide an alarm to operations staff in the
event of emergencies.

j. Distributary, Secondary and Tertiary Canals

352. Canal Head Gates and Measurement Structures: The headworks of the distributary,
secondary and tertiary canals consist of manually-operated sluice gates of varying
dimensions and configurations. Restoring these canal head gates to fully operational
condition will be a critical component of the overall modernization program.

353. Accurate measurement of canal flow rates throughout the scheme is an essential
management tool for achieving a reasonable level of performance. The same concept of
having broad-crested weirs at the head of branch and distributary canals will be applied
to the lower level canals. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to
the hydraulic structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, channel
cleaning around the structure to remove silt and the construction of concrete broad-
crested weirs.

354. The cross regulators in the distributary, secondary and tertiary canals are
manually-operated sluice gate designs, and in some places they consist of ungated
concrete drop structures. The existing gated cross regulators are difficult (or in many
cases impossible) to operate effectively for good water level control. Similar to the
recommendation for upgrading the cross regulators in the branch canals, the regulators
in these lower level canals would be upgraded with long-crested weirs.

355. The proposed works to install long-crested weirs in the distributary, secondary
and tertiary canals include construction of concrete walls and floors for the weir, concrete
repairs to the hydraulic structures (if the existing structure is retained for anchoring to the
weir walls), installation of silt flushing gates, dismantling and removal of the existing
sluice gates and metal frames, and channel cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 76

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

k. Tertiary Canal Systems

356. The original program for CAD envisaged the full construction of tertiary canals
and field channels. From the feasibility study the estimated requirements for tertiary
canal are 40 m/ha and for field channel 300 m/ha.36 While construction up to secondary
was by the project, the construction of the tertiary canals and field channels was left to
the farmers as part of their share towards the investment. Little effort was made to
convince and motivate farmers to construct the tertiary channels and consequently
farmers only constructed a small proportion of the tertiaries. Irrigation water is passed from
one plot to another. The BIP has very pervious soil condition, with permeabilities of up to
90 cm/day and a median value of 10 cm/day. Under these conditions the importance of
efficient delivery of water to the field becomes critical.

357. Entrusting responsibility of tertiary construction to WUA is a rational approach,

but to materialize this activity the WUA farmers should be made aware of its importance
and they need some financial support for the construction. The tertiary canals should
include a properly shaped earth canal, simple division boxes and other key structures.

358. For field channels the situation is the same: there are very few field channels and
water currently flows from one plot to another, causing an excessive loss of irrigation,
which can also cause water logging problems. This system also precludes any potential to
introduce new efficient irrigation systems, such as alternate wet and dry irrigation or SRI.

359. A very different situation is found with the fields irrigated by groundwater; farmers
without support have made extensive field channels or have used lay-flat plastic tubing
to make irrigation distribution efficient. For the field channels provision of land can be an
issue, with some farmers opposing the donation of land from fields. This can be largely
avoided by ensuring all field channels follow the field boundaries, so that contribution of
land by each owner is reduced, although the length will be increased. Demonstration of
the benefits is important to help motivate the farmers; however, some provision of budget
is also considered a requirement.

360. Land Leveling: Many of the fields are poorly leveled, which results in a significant
decrease in the irrigation application efficiencies. Typical plots can have a variation of 10-
15 cm, which is a major constraint to paddy but also affects other crops. From experience
in other areas, precision land leveling can contribute to increase field application efficiency
by about 10-15% depending upon the stream size, field size and soil type.

l. Spill Structures

361. Monitoring of canal spills from the distributary and secondary canals will be important
feedback to the watermaster and field staff about operations.

362. The proposed constructions works include a new weir structure (over-pour) with a
sharp metal blade for measurement, and channel cleaning to remove the heavy
accumulation of silt in the end section of the channel(s).

m. Decision Support System and SCADA

363. No remote monitoring system exists to measure and automatically record

discharges and water levels at key points in the BIP; hence optimization of irrigation water
distribution and delivery is limited. The implementation of a Decision Support System
(DSS) is to assist DOI staff in making decisions initially related to optimized water

36
Nippon Koei co. Ltd Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants (P) ltd l ( 1992)
Feasibility study on Bagmati command Area Development Project (TA 1335-Nepal) Main Report Vol-1

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 77

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

allocations. Potentially, incorporation of water quality, land-use and groundwater

management is proposed for the future. Installation of Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) will perform remote monitoring purposes and provide accurate and
timely information about water level and flow data in the canal and the status of the
pumping units. The SCADA system shall be modular based and allow for extension in a
potential later phase, allowing the gathering and management of other types of information,
e.g. GIS imagery, salinity, groundwater levels, and meteorological data. The proposed
SCADA system will improve the reliability and flexibility of water deliveries throughout the
service area.

364. The DSS will be developed as a tool that can help organize the assumptions,
opinions and conclusions of persons about the measures to be taken in such a complex
situation. The DSS will facilitate water management being done in a structured and
efficient way. To achieve this, the DSS is a tool that helps to decide, or rather supports
the discussion on, alternatives in a structured manner. It is also capable of showing the
relative sensitivities of various parameters.

365. The establishment of the BIP DSS will be divided into two phases, whereby
Phase 1 is the setup of an irrigation system management data base. In the subsequent
Phase 2, SCADA communications and networking features will be added in order to
automatically provide real-time data as inputs to the DSS from sites distributed in the
canal system. All the designated remote monitoring sites set up in the field will be
suitably equipped for future communications expansion. The sites tentatively identified
for inclusion in the SCADA system are shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Proposed SCADA Sites in the BIP

†
Site ID Quantity
Bagmati Barrage 1
Main Canal Measurement Structures 2
Branch Canal Head Regulators 6
Branch Canal Spill Structures 6
Regulating Reservoirs 6
†
Note: some sites such as reservoirs may have multiple remote
terminal units (RTUs).
Source: Present Study, 2014.

C. Groundwater

366. The high total recharge from rainfall and irrigation return flows, combined with
favorable aquifer conditions, provides good potential for sustained groundwater use in
most of the lower basin. In most of the area the depth to aquifer layers from which
groundwater can be abstracted is less than 5 m, allowing the use of shallow tubewells
with centrifugal pumps. The choice between shallow dug wells and tubewells will depend
on the lithology of the aquifer material. When coarse materials including gravels and
pebbles are found at shallow depth, dug wells would be more suitable.

367. The groundwater resource development in spatial terms needs to be considered

in the conjunctive use context as described in the next section. The combination of
surface water and highly productive groundwater potentially allows (i) the total cultivable
area within the BIP to be irrigated from the combined surface water and groundwater
resource, and (ii) the area of land not served by the BIP could also be developed to
expand the area of groundwater irrigation. Groundwater storage can play a role in
buffering shortfalls between supply and demand and this is further elaborated in the
following sections.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 78

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

368. Groundwater irrigation in the basin effectively covers the complete districts of
Rautahat and Sarlahi and consists of (i) standalone groundwater irrigation, (ii) groundwater
dominated areas with minimal surface water irrigation, (iii) mix of surface and groundwater
irrigation, and (iv) mainly surface water with limited groundwater.

369. The proposed modernization of the BIP will improve the efficiency of the surface
water irrigation. However due to the very limited surface water availability it is estimated
that there would only be a small reduction in groundwater use. Surface water is an
import into the BIP command area and thus leakage from the distribution system and
deep percolation of applied irrigation at field level will contribute to groundwater
recharge. The recharge can be determined from gross surface water application and the
combined efficiency of the distribution system and the field application. Efficiency factors
will determine the potential recharge from the surface water irrigation system. Actual
recharge may be smaller when high groundwater table conditions constrain the leakage
from the surface water distribution system. Village shallow wells for drinking water
sometimes go dry if the canals are not continuously operated.

370. Groundwater will discharge to natural drainage channels, particularly during the
Kharif season, when groundwater levels are high. There is no quantification of flows in
the drainage channels and so far no knowledge of possible reuse of drainage flow. The
outflow from groundwater to the major springs located at the transition from the Bhabar
Formation to the Gangetic Sediments was already discussed in a previous section on
springs.

D. Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater

1. Overview

371. Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is already practiced in an

informal way throughout the two districts, with the use of groundwater largely controlled
by the availability and reliability of surface water. Problems of water delivery in the
surface water systems have led to the development of groundwater; farmers however
prefer surface water, which is supplied without charge.

372. The surface water modernization in the BIP will have some effects on groundwater
recharge. More efficient canal systems, management and improved field application
efficiencies will reduce infiltration losses. Against this, the increased area under irrigation
would however increase the recharge. It is not at this stage possible to quantify the relative
change; however the irrigation system will continue to provide significant support to
recharge.

373. The ample resource availability of the combined surface water and groundwater
allows for flexibility. Minimizing energy use is an important consideration for the farmer,
who wants to minimize costs. For Government there are considerations of the linkages to
the national energy policy and planning, especially if electric power is used.

374. Table 21 identifies the options and also highlights potential constraints and
opportunities related to different surface and ground water options. The surface and
groundwater option would appear the most flexible and could potentially minimize the
investment required for system improvement. There would be good opportunity for
zoning of water application, making optimum use of existing water supply infrastructure.
Improved water management would be required to avoid any risk of overuse of resource
during lean water years and also to avoid energy use in pumping groundwater. There
would be ample opportunity for using the groundwater more extensively during years (or
time periods) when surface water availability is constrained, thereby making use of the

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 79

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

storage capacity of the groundwater reservoir. Conversely, surface water could be used
more extensively during other years/periods to allow the groundwater reservoir to refill.

375. Consideration may be given to the future development of integrated groundwater

and surface water models, linked with energy optimization tools.

376. The development of groundwater outside the BIP will have lower recharge than
the area inside the Bagmati and would have to rely on natural recharge from the rivers
and rainfall. Continued expansion of the groundwater irrigation may at some stage result
in lowering of the water table below the critical level that can be served by the centrifugal
pumps, in which case a change to submersible pumps and deeper wells may be
required. This change from shallow to deep well pumping system can be accommodated,
and would allow a further expansion of irrigated agriculture, but would require government
support to help farmers with the transition from low cost centrifugal pumps to more
expensive submersible pumps, which, to be efficient, need access to electric power.

377. The maximum area irrigation that can be sustained through irrigation by
centrifugal pumps would need to be assessed using groundwater modeling. Careful
assessment is needed of the implications for farmers and private well owners if water
levels were lowered below that which is suitable for pumping by suction.

378. The potential to increase recharge from the BIP and the other surface water
systems needs to be assessed. During the monsoon when there is surplus water, the
recharge from the surface water irrigation could be increased by expanding the area of
Kharif rice through improving the condition of the canals and water allocations.

2. Proposals for Groundwater Development and Management

379. The extremely productive aquifer in the Lower Bagmati Basin in the districts of
Rautahat and Sarlahi offers good potential for further development of groundwater
irrigation. The scope for surface and groundwater development is shown in Table 21 .

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 80

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 21: Scope for Surface and Groundwater Irrigation

Project
Option Requirement Potential Constraints Opportunities
1. Surface water Requires highly High cost and Improved water
only efficient water resources to meet management to reduce
management efficient MOM. losses.
systems. Insufficient water Crop diversification to
supply during season. less water demanding
Tail enders lose out. crops would reduce
gross water use.
2. Surface water Groundwater can be There are no evident Improved water
and groundwater used to complement water availability management allows for
deficiencies in constraints to this reducing the energy
surface water supply. option, when cost for pumping.
appropriate zoning and Provision of
allocation of ratios of supplementary power
surface water and supplies including solar
groundwater are used, power opens
both in spatial and opportunities for electric
temporal context. pumping.
Energy costs for diesel
pumping comprise a
serious constraint.
3. Groundwater Groundwater only Possible water There are large areas of
only would rely on the availability constraints agricultural land outside
ability of the aquifer on the quantity of the BIP, which currently
system to be abstraction due to use only groundwater.
replenished fully by limitations of recharge, Lowering of GW may
rainfall recharge. particularly during low affect use of suction
rainfall years. pumps.
Groundwater levels A clear development
may fall below the strategy needs to be
suction limit. established based on
Change to electric updated assessment of
submersible pumps the groundwater
maybe required. resource.
Source: Present Study, 2014

380. The expansion and intensification would be best taken up in coordination with the
surface water modernization due to the many advantages of the integrated approach.
The objectives of a conjunctive surface and groundwater program would include:

(i) Increase the yields and productivity of the existing irrigation system(s).
(ii) Expand the extent of sustainable groundwater irrigation.
(iii) Reduce the costs of pumping through improved energy efficiency including
electrification of the pumps.
(iv) Optimize the development and management groundwater in coordination
with private sector.
(v) Develop sustainable groundwater management systems, including effective
monitoring and control systems.

381. The use of surface water alone is not realistic outside the wet season due to the
very low water duties; even with the SMDP water transfer the water duties remain quite
low and some supplementary groundwater will be required.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 81

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

382. Expansion of groundwater is ongoing through private sector wells backed by

government subsidies. There are concerns about the provision of individual subsidies to
farmers for wells and pumps, which creates some dependency, and often the poorer
farmers do not benefit. During the stakeholder consultations electrification of the pumps
was identified as a valuable area of support.

383. The proposal is for the government to continue support for groundwater.
However, there is a need for better targeting of the support initiatives to ensure that long
term efficiency improvements and improved sustainability are achieved. The strategy to
support cheaper power through support for electrification of pump and subsidized power
tariffs is considered an effective alternative to support groundwater irrigation.

3. Power Situation

384. In Nepal hydro-electricity as well as alternate power sources are being developed
simultaneously. Nepal Electricity Authority and government look after small, medium
and large power projects while the AEPC (Alternate Energy Promotion Centre) is looking
after micro-hydro, solar, wind and other forms of energy.

385. The current report of the Task Force for the 20-year hydropower development
plan shows an increase of capacity from 700 MW in 2009 to 2,000 MW by 2014 and
18,000 MW by 2029. This development will go a long way to support the current very
high shortfall of production. As there are likely to be some delays in the development and
to meet the gap, the government is also supporting solar power in different places. Solar
power has some advantages over hydropower due its reliability and production
advantages during the winter /spring period when hydropower potential significantly
reduces. Solar power can be developed relatively quickly.

4. Components

386. Groundwater in the lower basin is mostly through open dug wells and shallow
tubewells, although there are a number of deep tubewells. Three possible groundwater
interventions have been identified.

(i) Improved shallow tubewells: The objective of this program would be to

improve the efficiency of existing tubewells and to develop new improved
ones. The approach would to improve the efficiency of the shallow tubewells
to improve WUE and reduce energy use through selected interventions,
including: land levelling, expanded use of simple plastic hose/PVC pipe
distribution, cleaning of existing wells, and establishment of new properly-
designed casings for new wells. Support to farmers would be provided for
procuring more efficient pumpsets through a replacement program for existing
wells or new pumpsets with more energy efficient engines and pumps.

(ii) Support for Electrification: during discussions with farmers the high cost of
pumping has been identified as a major constraint to more groundwater
development. Farmers struggle with low yields, and increasing productivity
is a key opportunity in order to help offset the costs of pumping. The use of
electric pumps would offer increased efficiency and the attractive
agricultural electricity tariff would make a very significant impact on the
long-term viability of groundwater irrigation in the area. Prepaid meters offer
a cost effective method of cost recovery of electricity and other support
costs. The agriculture sector in Nepal, especially in the Terai region, has to
compete with low cost imports from India that benefit from significant
government support subsidies. With the very poor levels of power generation
and high levels of load shedding, the electrification option is not viable unless

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 82

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

developed in tandem with additional power generation. Nepal is investing

heavily in hydropower. Since most schemes are run-of-the-river, generation is
at its shortest during the dry months, which coincide with peak irrigation
requirements.

(iii) Support for expanding the wet season irrigation to provide supplementary
irrigation and reduce dependency of groundwater pumping. In addition
expanded wet season irrigation can provide groundwater recharge and
support the long term sustainability of groundwater for irrigation and potable
water.

387. Further groundwater abstraction must be closely coordinated with the sustainable
levels of abstraction that can be achieved without lowering the water tables below the
critical 6 m depth, which is the limit for suction abstraction by a centrifugal pump. The
groundwater inside the BIP and irrigated areas irrigated area are supported through
recharge by rainwater, the rivers and irrigation. Outside the surface-water irrigated areas
the aquifers do not benefit directly from the irrigation recharge. The use of electrified
pumps allows the use of submersible pumps, which reduces the impacts of lowering of
the water table.

388. It is proposed that the coordinated management and development of groundwater

be taken up initially in the two districts of Rautahat and Sarlahi. The groundwater
program would work inside the area of the BIP, as well as the irrigated and non-irrigated
areas outside. The district and BIP project boundaries are shown in Figure 15; the
Bagmati River forms the boundary between the two districts.

Figure 15: BIP and District Map

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 83

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

389. The expanded use of groundwater needs to be incorporated into an integrated

program for sustainable groundwater management and development in the lower Bagmati.
The program would require more in-depth studies to assess the viabilities, including:

(i) Collection of data on current groundwater abstractions.

(ii) Groundwater modeling to assess sustainable levels of abstraction in the two
districts of Rautahat and Sarlahi, including assessment of the contribution to
recharge from the BIP and the other smaller surface irrigation schemes.
(iii) Detailed assessment of conjunctive surface and groundwater management
strategies inside the BIP and the other surface water schemes.
(iv) Preparation of a development plan for groundwater, including scenario
assessment of different levels of abstraction, including the implications if the
groundwater were to drop below the limit of surface suction pumps.
(v) Assessment of the implications and possible development models for
shallow and deep tubewells, including the viabilities for the possible
electrification of tubewells.
(vi) Assessment of the viability of supplementary power generation to allow
electric pumping.
(vii) Development of capacities to monitor and manage groundwater abstractions
if issues of over exploitation should occur.
(viii) Assessment of institutional requirements.
(ix) Financing plans for the groundwater and agricultural support packages.

E. Proposals for Irrigated Agriculture

1. Introduction

390. The main potential areas for improving agriculture in the Lower Bagmati Basin
include:

(i) Sugarcane (HYV): Sugarcane is an important crop in the BIP. There are two
sugar mills located in the vicinity, one in each district. The average productivity
of sugarcane in the districts is about 60 tons/ha, which is low: the varieties
are old and do not have high production potential. New varieties with high
production potential should be introduced and promoted in the upper parts
of the BIP. The sugarcane grower/farmer associations offer a potentially
strong organization to build up new initiatives for sugar. Sugar waste can be
used for electricity supply.
(ii) Vegetables are grown in the area and supplied to Kathmandu. Vegetable
production should be promoted and supported in order to generate more
income. The suggested cropping pattern is winter vegetable-summer
vegetable. The new highway between the Terai and Kathmandu will open up
opportunities to improve the marketing of vegetable products.
(iii) Fish Production: There are 750 ponds covering 286 ha in Sarlahi District and
500 ponds covering 470 ha in Rautahat District. The average production is
3.75 tons/ha. Fish production should be promoted and supported. Controls
for water use have to be established, such as ponds only being filled in the
monsoon and ensuring that flow-through water is returned to canal systems.
Some areas of the command that are water logged could be appropriate for
fish ponds.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 84

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(iv) Alternative Wetting and Drying (AWD) and the System of Rice Intensification
(SRI) are climate-smart and agro-ecological methodologies to increase the
productivity of irrigated rice (and, more recently, other crops) by changing the
management of plants, soil, water and nutrients. Using the SRI methodology,
yields can be increased by 20-50% or more, while reducing inputs: seed by
90%, irrigation water by 30-50%, chemical fertilizer by 20-100%, and usually
reduced need for pesticides. For the farmer, SRI brings greater returns to
labor, land and capital. Although water use is less, labor is higher and
initiatives to mechanize, including for weeding, need to be adopted. Access
to reliable water supply is a fundamental requirement and access to
groundwater can be an important requirement. Comparisons of the indicative
production returns of SRI against typical paddy yields are summarized in
Table 22.

Table 22: Comparison of the Profitability of SRI and Paddy

SRI Paddy Paddy Non
Production Unit Irrigated Irrigated irrigated
Main product mt 11.3 3.7 3.2
Straw husk mt 11.4 3.5 3.5
Sales/value NRs '000
Main product 138 45 40
By product 14 4 3
Gross income NRs '000 151 49 43
Variable costs 24 28 27
Fixed costs 1 0 0
Total cost NRs '000 26 29 27
Margin at farm gate NRs '000 126 20 16
mt = metric ton
Source: DOA 2011 (2009/10 prices)

391. Improved mechanisms for supporting the up-scaling of SRI and other HVC need
to be explored. With high potential yields of SRI and other HVC, partnerships with private
sector would appear to offer potential. Farmers could source specialist SRI advice from the
private sector or alternatively could engage private sector SRI contractors to implement the
necessary husbandry. The potential returns from SRI open opportunities for private sector
participation through contract farming, where the private sector could provide the
technology and training, and absorb the main risks in return for a profit share. Secondary
canals could be leased and operated by contract farming organizations.

2. Strategies to Increase Agriculture Production

392. The APP is a 20-year plan that defines the agricultural strategy of the country.
The Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS), which builds on the APP, is approved by
the Ministry of Agriculture but not yet officially endorsed. The main objectives of APP are
to reduce poverty by 35% over a 20-year period, and to increase the rate of growth of
agricultural GDP from the current low level of 3% per annum to about 5%, thereby using
agriculture as the growth engine for the rest of the economy. The government has
established a strategy for implementation of the APP, including two key initiatives: (i) the
development of government-NGO-private-sector partnerships, and (ii) the pocket package
strategy (where pockets of commercially feasible cropping packages will be developed
with parallel provision of a suitable package of technologies).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 85

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

393. Considering the climatic conditions, the following commodities for diversification
have been identified:

 Vegetables: Summer vegetables - lady's finger, squash, beans, tomato, etc.;

Winter vegetables - cauliflower, cabbage, radish, carrot, peas, etc.
 Fruits: Summer fruits - mango, litchi, guava, pineapple; Winter fruits - apple,
walnut, apricot, peach etc.; Citrus fruits - mandarin, orange, lime etc.
 Spices- ginger, turmeric, cardamom, garlic, etc.
 Sugar cane
 Soybean
 Pulses- lentil, gram, pigeon pea, etc.
 Potato
 Chili
 Maize
 Oilseeds - mustard, sunflower, etc.

a. Pocket Areas

394. The use of pocket areas as defined by the APP is the strategy for implementation
as described below.

(i) Within the pocket areas farmers’ groups will be formed, comprising mixed
groups of men and women farmers, and specifically women farmer groups.
(ii) Appropriate measures are required to make the farmers’ groups sustainable.
(iii) Formation of cooperatives and higher-level organizations is encouraged.
(iv) The approach will be demand driven, with the demand coming from the
farmer groups. The research and extension services are provided on the
basis of farmers' needs.
(v) The needs and requirements of the farmers are identified through group
meetings in the pocket area itself.
(vi) The farmers are being encouraged to undertake marketing through
demonstrations, training and workshops.
(vii) Private sector involvement is encouraged in appropriate areas, such as
processing, marketing etc.
(viii) In every potential district, a joint forum for traders and producers is being
encouraged.

395. Over and above the technical and input services, credit services are being made
available to farmers. The whole agricultural system has been divided into two areas, i.e.
food security and commercialization. Crop diversification not only addresses food
security and commercialization, but also makes judicious use of land, water and other
resources. Any commodity which is locally feasible commercially and has higher
comparative advantage can be taken into consideration so that there will be income
growth which contributes to poverty alleviation. Even small and marginal farmers come
into groups and can have a commercial type of farming. In this way the system can be
made economically sustainable, environmentally friendly and ecologically sound.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 86

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

396. As regards the implementation, besides the concerned agencies, there are
different committees at different levels, i.e. district level, regional level, central and
national level. These committees have representations from line agencies, NGOs,
private sector, and farmers, etc. Problems encountered are taken to these committees
and discussed thoroughly to bring out solutions. They also provide guidelines to
implementers and suggestions to policy makers. Crop diversification programs, if
implemented properly, help improve the whole agricultural system.

b. Crop Storage

397. Farmers have limited indigenous storage facility to store grains for home
consumption. The capacity is not enough for storing for sale. This is especially true for
small farmers. After a crop is harvested, there is a need for storing it safely, but because
of the lack of such facilities, as well as need for money in the short term, farmers are
forced to sell immediately, resulting in low crop selling prices. The crop price is therefore
low in the early months after crop harvest but increases gradually later on. There are
significant post-harvest losses associated with traditional grain storage. With the promotion
of improved farming practices for commercial agriculture, the volume of crop produce will
increase and it will necessitate access to improved storage facilities, otherwise farmers
will be forced to sell at lower suppressed prices. Provision of adequate crop storage
facilities is needed to facilitate farmers making better profits from grain production.

398. The government is currently providing support for improving seed storage. The
National Food Corporation has constructed warehouse facilities to store grain for its own
requirements, but does not provide access for farmers. Grain storage warehouse
facilities are needed, including the need to check and control the quality of the grains. To
manage the facility, an organization is needed, which will look after quality service and
profit for its sustenance.

c. Land Leveling

399. Fields should be level in order to attain higher irrigation application efficiencies.
Many of the existing fields are uneven, and since farmers tend to apply the desired depth
of irrigation water even at the high spots, much more water is applied than would be
required for level fields, causing wastage of water. The additional water that is needed to
fill in the depressions, which could amount to around 10% or more water, depending on
the land relief, could be saved in each irrigation application after precision land leveling.
The extra applied water causes leaching of soil nutrients as well as waterlogging
problems, which results in less nutrients being available for crop growth. Although
farmers try to level fields using local equipment, such as scrapers, the government has
not provided specific support for this activity. Precision land leveling has been practiced
in other parts of the world to improve irrigation application efficiency and utilize nutrients
efficiently. A precision land leveler has been introduced in the Terai plains of Nepal.
Farmers are using laser land levelers on a rental basis.

400. Laser land leveling is a cost-effective option for extending irrigation area in the
BIP command, and adjacent fields in Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts. This was preferred
by farmers participating in the FGDs conducted in the Rautahat District.

d. Contract Farming

401. The land holding size of most farmers in BIP and the Sarlahi and Rautahat
Districts is small: on average about 0.5 ha. These lands are also fragmented into
disjointed small pieces, some of which are below 0.1 ha. As a result there is less
likelihood of adopting mechanized farming, which could reduce the cost of cultivation.
Traditional farming based on household labor for subsistence is not attractive, and many

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 87

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

young people are either migrating out of country or out of villages to towns for earning
their livelihood. There is a shortage of labor for farming, and wages have also gone up.
Collective farming through contract farming is an approach to solving this problem in
order to make optimal use of available natural resources.

402. A number of farmers, especially those returning from abroad, have started
commercial farming, jointly growing vegetables, grains, and fodder for livestock, taking
land on lease from absentee farmers and others.
37
403. A “model integrated cooperative farming” farmers’ group has recently started
contract farming, taking 50 ha land on lease from a group of farmers in Maharanijhoda
VDC of Jhapa district of East Nepal. The land owners have joined this group to start
commercial contract farming. At present the group is working as a cooperative and has
contracted with all farmers to pay for the rent of land with a specified yield of paddy
based on the land type. They are practicing improved farming with the support of expert
farmers.

404. To reduce cost of cultivation through mechanized farming and to start commercial
farming, contract farming taking land on lease is an attractive option to farming as a
commercial enterprise, where large scale transactions will take place.

e. Improved Supply of Agricultural Inputs

405. Modern agriculture requires several types of inputs to be applied for producing
high yields: fertilizer, improved seed and pesticides. Mechanization is needed for land
preparation and other cultural operation works. The Agriculture Input Corporation
distributes fertilizers through cooperatives in the district and the National Seed Corporation
distributes seed through cooperatives and retail agro vets. There are agro vets who sell
seed, pesticides and farm equipment. There are over 90,000 farm families involved in
farming operation and they require large amounts of inputs.

406. As each small farmer is operating their farms individually, they buy from retailers,
paying high retail prices for small quantities, and often they do not obtain the required
materials at the required times. A bottle of pesticide is usually too large for a farmer’s
cropped area, so when he buys a bottle a part of the pesticides remains unused.
Similarly all small farmers cannot own tractors and farm equipment just to operate for
few hours in field in a year. They need economic high quality rental services. The
government is promoting farmers’ cooperatives for producing various commodities
including seed and fertilizer. Agricultural input cooperatives are however not popular.

407. To make farming more cost effective and profitable, an enterprise is needed that
will deal with the delivery of these inputs to farmers on time for the associated
operations. A WUA is constituted in each irrigation system as a beneficiary farmers’ social
organization. As these associations are facing difficulties in attaining sustainability, new
ways are being considered to develop these as multi-functional organizations. The WUAs
could also serve the role of distributing agriculture inputs. In the context of small land
holders, this is a way to combine these farms into a larger economic unit.

3. Investment Support for Agriculture

408. The agricultural studies have identified that the current extension systems are
under-resourced, and without supplementary support it is considered that the rate of
uptake of improved cropping would be slow, with some significant impact on the economic
returns of any future investment project. It is proposed that the project investment should

37
personnel communication with Bednidhi Chapagain, coordinator (2014)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 88

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

include provision for providing agricultural services to complement, build on, and
strengthen the existing extension activities. Increasing the financial returns from cropping
is also a key part of the requirement to increase the level of financing for MOM and an
essential requirement for the sustainability of the project investments. About 10% of the
costs of physical investment is proposed for extension.

4. Estimated Increment in Yields

409. The improved availability of surface and ground water will benefit agriculture
through (i) increased cropping intensity, (ii) increased yields, and (iii) some increase in
cropped area.

410. The 'potential yield' is the yield that farmers could reasonably be expected to
achieve with good irrigation and management. Potential yield data has been based on
information collected from the Department of Agriculture; current crop yields are currently
on average about 40% below the potential. For the lower basin a target yield has been
estimated, which is considered achievable under the with-project situation, and has been
used in the economic and financial analysis. Target yields are on average about 20%
below the potential. The yield information is shown in Table 23.

Table 23: Current and Estimated Future Yields

Yield (T/ha) Yield % below potential

Nr Crop Current Potential Target Current Target
A Rice
Spring Paddy 4.2 5 4.9 16 2
Spring Paddy-SRI NA 12 11.5 4
Early Paddy 3.5 5 4.7 30 6
Monsoon Paddy 4.8 9.8 6 51 39
B Wheat 2.7 5 3.7 46 26
C Maize
Winter Maize 5.1 9 6.5 43 28
Spring Maize 2.7 4.5 3.5 40 22
D Sugarcane 60 86 75 30 13
E Pulses 1 2 1.5 50 25
F Oil seeds 0.9 2 1.5 55 25
G Potato 15 36 25 58 31
H Vegetables
Winter Vegetables 16 30 25 47 17
Spring Vegetables 12 25 21 52 16
Summer Vegetables 13 25 22 48 12
I Fish Ponds 3 6 4.4 50 27
Source: Present Study, 2014

411. Current cropping intensity in the BIP is 216% and it is estimated that cropping
intensities could increase to 234%. The estimated current and future areas of crops for
BIP are summarized in Table 24. Four different development options have been assessed.
The irrigation areas are different for each option; however, it has been assumed that the
ratio of each crop would be the same as in the BIP.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 89

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 24: Current and Estimated Areas with Project Cropping in the BIP

Nr Crop Current Area (ha) Future Area

R K1 K2 Total % R K1 K2 Total %

A Rice
1 Spring Paddy 500 500 1% 500 500 1%
2 Spring Paddy-SRI - - 0% 2,500 2,500 5%
3 Early Paddy 10,000 10,000 21% 10,000 10,000 21%
4 Monsoon Paddy 22,000 22,000 46% 20,000 20,000 42%
B Wheat 9,000 9,000 19% 9,000 9,000 19%
C. Maize - 0% - 0%
1 Winter Maize 2,300 2,300 5% 3,100 3,100 6%
2 Spring Maize 2,300 2,300 5% 2,500 2,500 5%
D Sugarcane 13,000 13,000 13,000 39,000 82% 14,000 14,000 14,000 42,000 88%
E Pulses 6,500 6,500 14% 6,500 6,500 14%
F Oil seeds 4,600 4,600 10% 4,600 4,600 10%
G Potato 2,300 2,300 5% 3,400 3,400 7%
H Vegetables - 0% - 0%
1 Winter Vegetables 2,300 2,300 5% 3,200 3,200 7%
2 Spring Vegetables 100 100 0% 900 900 2%
3 Summer Vegetables 2,300 2,300 5% 3,400 3,400 7%
I Fish Ponds (New) - 0% 10 10 0%
40,000 15,900 47,300 103,200 43,800 20,400 47,410 111,610
84% 33% 99% 216% 216% 92% 43% 99% 234% 234%

Source: Present Study, 2014

F. Institutional Proposals

1. The BIP Canal System

412. The BIP consists of three main levels of canal system38 as described below. To
simplify the nomenclature three levels of canals are provided.

Level 1: Main canals running east and west from the barrage, with each main canal
serving about 20,000 ha. Level 1 would include the barrage.
Level 2.1: Branch canals, each serving between 4,000 ha and 15,000 ha. There are six
branch canals.
Level 2.2: Distributary canals, each about 2000 ha
Level 3.1: Secondary Canals, typically 100-600 ha
Level 3.2: Tertiary Canals, typically about 20-40 ha
Level 3.3: Field channels serving about 5-10 ha

413. Each level has very different conditions and varying MOM requirements. For
instance, there are direct offtakes from the main and branch canals serving less than 40 ha.

414. Currently the split of responsibilities between the DOI staff at the BIP and the
WUAs is not well-defined. The WUAs currently take some responsibilities at Level 3.
Government staff are under-resourced and from the stakeholder discussions it would
appear that the WUAs with additional resources could manage Levels 3.1 to 3.3. The
development of the WUA has currently focused on the establishment of secondary canal
Water User Associations (Level 3.1), which typically serve 100 to 600 ha.

38
The naming and description of the canals does not quite follow the normal classes of primary, secondary,
tertiary so the concept of Level 1, 2 and 3 is proposed. The exact requirements of each level can be defined
and incorporated into the management plan.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 90

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

2. Joint Irrigation Management

415. Managing an irrigation system of the size of the BIP by current DOI staffing alone is
not viable. To meet needs such as this, the government has, since 1988, been implementing
PJIMT for large scale schemes, including Kamala (25,000ha), Chandranahar (10,500 ha)
Banganga (6,200 ha) Khageri (3,900 ha) Mansumari I and II (5,200 ha) Kankai (8,700 ha),
Sitagunj branch of Sunsari Morang (8,000 ha), Block 8 of Narayani Irrigation Project, the
Mahakali Irrigation Project and some others. There is, however, no definitive monitoring
and evaluation of the success of the transfer to these projects.

416. Under the existing policy, the management of the BIP would be a candidate for
PJIMT, where farmers' WUAs and DOI management divisions share responsibility to
operate and maintain their part of the irrigation system. This means that the WUAs would
be responsible to manage, operate and maintain branch canal level irrigation infrastructure
and associate tasks and the public irrigation management division would be responsible
for upper level irrigation infrastructure, such as main canal, headworks etc.

417. Whether a PJIMT arrangement would have the capacity to operate effectively and
maintain the BIP is uncertain. In the initial stages significant levels of external support will
be required, which could be reduced in scope over time, but there may be a requirement
for some form of external support for a long period and possibly on a permanent basis to
meet the inherent limitations of the system and the WUAs.

418. Transferring the lower level responsibilities to the WUA would release some
resources for the project staff to implement more effectively MOM of the barrage and the
main canals. To improve the performance of the Level 3 canals in itself requires major
institutional change and reorganization. The WUA organizations should be reorganized
based on improved procedures. The farmers need to be motivated through training and
awareness campaigns of the potentials of irrigation management. Financial support for
tertiary canal and field channel construction would need to be provided.

419. The project staff currently do not have the resources or skills to organize an
effective IMT program, which requires an intensive process of institutional strengthening
and reform. Support for this critical activity will need to be outsourced to the private
sector or an NGO. Over the initial period the resources for this external support would be
significant, although over time they could be reduced, but probably not removed.

3. Outsourcing of Management Functions

420. In some cases, and for some functions, the needed management capacity and
level of skills can be effectively provided through outsourcing of these functions. The
irrigation in the lower Bagmati presents massive opportunities for agriculture production if
efficient and sustainable management can be developed. It is considered that the
management functions should encompass the surface water and groundwater irrigation.

421. There are alternative approaches that need to be evaluated. There is good scope
for management arrangements that could be complementary to the PJIMT. An irrigation
manager would be able to source specialist expertise to meet the technical requirements,
as well as supporting the social institutional framework of the WUAs and the DOI
management.

422. Outsourcing of selected management functions could boost efficiency in design,

contracting, and management, helping to ensure financial sustainability through cost
control and efficiency. For the large scale irrigation schemes it is in MOM that third-party
service providers working closely with government and water users can potentially have
the greatest impact in improving performance, raising standards across all functions.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 91

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

423. It will be critically important to determine how a third party service provider could
recover the shortfall of costs of MOM. Unlike toll roads, airports, or urban water supply
systems with significant financial returns, irrigation in Nepal exists primarily to support
poor and marginal farmers. A third-party operator would have flexibility to source
expertise and scope to engage skilled and experienced personnel to effectively manage
the irrigation systems. The operator would also have flexibility to source finance for cost
recovery over and above the ISF. It is recommended that the management of water
resources incorporates both surface and groundwater.

G. MOM Cost Recovery

424. The funding requirements for MOM at all levels need to be sufficient for the
project to be sustainable. Currently MOM funding is significantly below the requirements
and new initiatives for cost recovery need to be developed. Cost recovery would remain
on an area basis by type of crop. Volumetric allocations are proposed down to secondary
canals, for operational purposes, but water fees paid by farmers would be based on
area, season and crop type. Considerations include:

(i) The transaction costs and complexity of basing water fees on volumetric
deliveries to individual outlets are too great to be practicable.
(ii) Initially farmers would pay a fee per crop season as per the current
charging system.
(iii) Farmers would pay a fixed amount for a certain number of “typical” irrigations,
and then pay an additional, higher, amount for extra irrigations. Likewise,
higher water user crops would have a higher per hectare water price. This
increases the complexity and overheads of fee collection.

425. The current levels of the official ISF are unrealistically low and currently account
for only 4% of the current MOM expenditure for the BIP; the ISF has to be brought more
in line with the actual MOM costs. To achieve efficient and sustainable management it is
estimated that the overall budgets for MOM will have to double from the current levels.
This would have to be achieved gradually as the benefits of the irrigation modernization
program and reformed management are reflected in improved production.

426. The general perception is that the ISF is the only source of revenue earnings.
There are, however, other potential sources of revenue generation that need to be
considered such as:

(i) Development of agricultural support activities that can potentially generate

revenue. There is a real need for agricultural support and there are good
opportunities for agriculture to provide support and also generate revenue.
(ii) Tree plantations on any available government land, and along the river
bank should be encouraged.
(iii) Leasing out of the unused facilities within the project boundaries (e.g. extra
office buildings) could provide revenues.

427. For pumped irrigation using electricity (both groundwater and lift irrigation) the
use of prepaid meters provides a very simple and transparent system to pay for the
power and irrigation management costs.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 92

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

X. PLAN FOR IRRIGATION MODERNIZATION IN THE LOWER BAGMATI

A. Introduction

428. The lower Bagmati Basin offers a high potential for sustainable modernized
irrigated agriculture. There have been several irrigation programs over the last 20 years,
but agriculture in the area remains well short of its potential. Over and above the good
soils and a well-motivated farming community, the area has good opportunities to
provide year round access to irrigation through groundwater and surface water.

429. Current surface water irrigation is provided through the BIP. The current land use
in the two districts that form the lower Bagmati area are summarized in Table 25.
Groundwater is used as supplementary irrigation inside the command areas and also for
stand-alone irrigation outside the command areas.

Table 25: Current Land Use in the Lower Basin

Class Sarlahi Rautahat Total

1. Total Land Area (ha) 126,000 113,000 239,000
2. Cultivable 85,000 58,000 143,000
3. Surface Water Bagmati Irrigation Project 25,000 23,000 48,000
4. Other Surface Water Irrigation 14,000 25,000 39,000
5. Without surface Irrigation 46,000 10,000 56,000
6 Groundwater irrigation (conjunctive
SW/GW and stand-alone GW) 17,000 17,000 34,000
Source: CRAD, Annual Agricultural Development Program and Statistics Booklet (FY 2012/13)
and Present Study (2013)

B. Development Options

430. The study has examined both the surface water and groundwater resources and
has discussed extensively the current issues and potentials with government and non-
government stakeholders. From these, four broad options have been identified;

(i) Full modernization of the BIP (48,000 ha)

(ii) Conjunctive development of surface water and groundwater (120,000 ha) in
two districts
(iii) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River (122,000 ha)
(iv) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River, with conjunctive
groundwater development (244,000 ha) in five districts

431. The estimated irrigation areas under each option are summarized in Table 26.

432. The preliminary estimates of the investment costs for the four options are shown
in Table 27 and described in the following sections.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 93

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 26: Irrigation Areas with Each Development Option

Option 3: Option 4:
Sunkoshi Conjunctive
Option 1: Option 2: Marin Surface and
Full Conjunctive Diversion Groundwater
Modernization Surface and Project with
2 3
Component of the BIP Groundwater (SMDP) (SMDP)
Surface Water
Full Modernization of BIP 48,000 48,000 48,000
Limited Modernization of
BIP 48,000
Limited Modernization of
Other Irrigation 30,000 60,000
Extension of the BIP 74,000 74,000
Sub Total Surface Water 48,000 78,000 122,000 182,000
Groundwater
Modernized Conjunctive
Surface and Groundwater 48,000 78,000
Modernized Standalone
Groundwater 42,000 62,000
Sub Total Groundwater 90,000 - 140,000
1
Total Development Area 48,000 120,000 122,000 244,000

Notes to Table 26:

1. Development area includes surface water and standalone but excludes conjunctive surface and
groundwater, which is already included under surface water.
2 Estimated that 60% of surface water irrigation areas would be provided with supplementary
groundwater irrigation and 75% of the unirrigated areas in Sarlahi and Rautahat could be taken up for
groundwater.
3 Groundwater irrigation as option 2 in two districts. In the three additional districts supplementary
groundwater irrigation would be provided in 20% of the irrigated areas and 30% of the unirrigated areas.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 94

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 27: MFLW Investment Options

Option 2 Option 3: Sunkoshi Option 4: Conjunctive

Option 1 Full
Conjunctive Surface Marin Diversion Surface and
Modernization of the
and Groundwater Project (SMDP) Groundwater with
BIP 48,000ha
120,000ha 122,000ha (SMDP) 244,000ha
Nr Component
Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha ($)
million) ($) million) ($) million) ($) /2 million) /2
I INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
1 Surface Water
1.1 Full Modernization of BIP 48,000ha 89.1 1,860 89.1 1,860
1.2 Limited Modernization of BIP
48,000ha 48.5 1,010 48.5 1,010
1.3 Rehabilitation and upgrading of other
irrigation 30.0 1,000 60.0 1,000
1.4 Extension of the BIP 74,000ha 1/ 518.0 7,000 364.1 4,900
2 Modernization of Groundwater 21.9 240 33.6 240
3 Electrification
1.1 19 MW Solar Power Station 39.0 430 39.0 430
1.2 Upgrading and Extension of the
electricity grid 18.0 200 28.0 200
1.3 Hydropower Plant 36MW 200.0 200.0
Sub Total Physical Investments 89.1 1,900 157.5 1,300 807.1 5,000 773.2 2,300
AGRICULTURE SUPPORT
II INTIATIVES 4.8 100 12.0 100 12.2 100 24.4 100
III TRAINING AND AWARENESS 0.5 10 1.2 10 1.2 10 2.4 10
CONSULTANCY AND MANAGEMENT
IV SUPPORT
1 Planning feasibility studies and design 2.8 59 5.1 43 24.6 202 24.0 197
2 Supervision of construction 4.5 93 7.9 66 40.4 331 38.7 317
Management Support over investment
3 period 4.7 98 8.5 71 41.0 98 39.9 98
Sub Total Consultancy and
Management 12.0 21.5 105.9 102.5
OM BUDGET SUPPORT DURING
V IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 3.9 82 4.4 37 10.0 82 10.4 43
TOTAL INVESTMENT (exc
contingencies) 110.3 196.5 936.5 913.0
Contingencies 10% 11.0 19.7 93.6 91.3
TOTAL INVESTMENT 121.3 2,500 216.2 1,800 1,030.1 6,600 1,004.3 4,500
Notes
1/ Costs per ha exclude the costs of the hydropower development
2/ Costs of extension of the BIP have not been fully assessed-new irrigation development is expensive and based on norms a figure of
$7000/ha has been estimated for full modernization. Option 4 which incorporates conjunctive grounwater use would require lower levels of
investment and a 30% lower investment has been estimated at $4900/ha

1. Option 1: Full Modernization of the Bagmati Irrigation Project

433. A preliminary plan for modernizing the BIP has been prepared based on the
performance benchmarking and follow-up studies. The full modernization proposal is
designed to (i) improve the management and allocation of the scarce surface water
resources to maximize the irrigated areas during the wet and dry season; (ii) develop
effective and sustainable maintenance and monitoring programs; and (iii) establish
effective systems for full cost recovery. The estimated investment cost for this option is
$89 million, which is equivalent to around $1,900 per ha. To achieve the targeted
objectives, the full modernization proposal needs to be supported by a high level of
management and controls to ensure that the dry season water is efficiently managed; the
estimated MOM costs of the full modernization would be around $80 per ha, which is
significantly higher than current allocations of about $40 per ha. Option 1 does not
include any investment or management initiatives for groundwater.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 95

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

434. Even with improved surface water management, the shortages of dry season
surface water would remain an inextricable issue and there would be a requirement for
the continued use of groundwater for about 40% of the demand. Groundwater is
currently not efficient and the high costs – around $120 per ha/ year of pumping using
diesel pumps – result in farmers minimizing the use groundwater.

435. Option 1 has some issues for further consideration including: (i) the difficulties of
achieving equitable water allocations (tail enders always lose out); (ii) the continued
heavy costs to farmers from groundwater; and (iii) the difficulties of establishing and
financing efficient MOM. The estimated costs for the full modernization of the BIP have
been estimated based on preliminary costs for typical works.

436. A lower cost proposal for a limited modernization has also been assessed and
costed. This would not meet the level of efficiency, as the full modernization and the
surface water benefits would be lower. However, the system would have lower MOM
requirements. The limited modernization would largely focus on rehabilitation and
upgrading of the existing infrastructure, but it would not incorporate some of the proposals
for full modernization, including the regulating reservoirs and the installation of long crested
weirs. This would make the water allocations more difficult due to fluctuating water
levels. The estimated costs of 'full and limited modernization' are presented in

437. Table 28 and Table 29.

438. There are some ongoing and planned investments under the current loan and
another proposed loan from the Saudi Development Fund (SDF). These works have not
been incorporated into the investment assessments shown below. The works to be
funded under the SDF include:

 An ongoing contract for CAD works for about 1,000 ha of Bhalohiya tail reach.
 Some canal lining of western main canals, including Bhalohiya, Bagi and
Bahuri branch canals.
 Major works for river training
 Construction of a sedimentation basin for the west main canal. (It is reported
that the East Main Canal has insufficient head for a sedimentation basin).
 Rehabilitation of damaged secondary and tertiary canals.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 96

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 28: Estimate of the Requirements for Modernization of the BIP

Option 2
Option 1: Proposal for Costs Costs
Proposal for Full Limited Option 1 Option 2
No. Item Modernization Modernization ($ million) ($ million)
1 Main canal Broad crested weirs proposed Reduced 1.5 0.7
headworks and downstream of headworks. requirements
measurement Replacement of gate control
structures panels, channel cleaning around
structure.
2 Sedimentation Two settlement basins proposed As per Option 1 2.0 2.0
basin(s) to reduce sediment entering the
canal system. The West Main
Canal (WMC) sediment basin is
planned for construction in 2014.
3 Main canal cross Repairs to structures, Increased repair 5.5 5.5
regulators and repair/replacement of gates an instead of
branch canal head lifting mechanisms, bank replacement
gates protection
4 Re-sectioning of Limited re-sectioning to restore As per Option 1 6.5 6.5
canal cross proper hydraulic cross sections
sections
5 Repairs to spill Repair/replacement of gates and Simplified 3.0 3.0
structures lifting mechanisms. Concrete repairs no
repairs. Remote monitoring and remote sensing
alarm system.
6 Branch canal cross Restoring head gates to fully Slightly reduced 1.3 0.2
regulators and operating condition. Concrete scope
distributary canal repairs to structure.
head gates
7 Branch canal re- For enhanced operational Not proposed 6.2
regulation flexibility
reservoirs and inter-
ties
8 Distributary canal Repairs/replacement of existing Repair of 2.9 0.4
cross regulators and structures; long crested weirs structures no
secondary canal long crested
head gates weirs
9 Secondary canal Repairs/replacement of existing Increased repair 27.7 2.6
cross regulators and structures. Installation long vs. replacement.
tertiary canal head crested weirs No long crested
gates weirs.
10 Repair/replacement Repairs/replacement of existing Reduced scope 12.0 12.0
of field outlets structures from Option 1
11 Drainage system Repairs/replacement of existing As per Option 1 4.7 4.7
rehabilitation, structures and channel
siphon/bridge cleaning/re-sectioning
repairs, etc.
12 Repairs to tertiary Re-sectioning of tertiary canals As per Option 1 10.0 10.0
canals and field and construction of field
channels, land channels
leveling
13 Development of a Real time monitoring of Not proposed 0.5
SCADA/DSS conditions throughout the
system (adding service area
remote monitoring)
14 Land Acquisition Land acquisition for regulation Reduced req. as 5.4
reservoirs and other balancing
requirements reservoirs not in
Option 2
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 97

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 29: Modernization Allocations BIP

Option 1: Option 2:
Full Limited
Modernization Modernization
47,700 ha 47,700 ha
Location $ million
East Main Canal 6.3 5.8
West Main Canal 7.7 7.3
Branch Canals 2.2 1.1
Distributary Canals 4.1 1.7
Secondary Canals 24.0 3.7
Sub-Secondary Canals 6.4 1.5
Tertiary Canals (incl. field channels field outlets 21.6 21.6
Regulation Reservoirs 6.2 0.0
Drainage System 4.5 4.5
Bridges and Culverts 0.2 0.2
SCADA System 0.5 0.0
Land Acquisition and Resettlement 5.4 0.0
Total 89.1 47.5
Cost per hectare 1,868 997

2. Option 2: Conjunctive Development of Surface Water and

Groundwater

a. Introduction

439. Option 2 is an integrated plan to invest in conjunctive surface and groundwater.

Under Option 2 surface water would play a key role in meeting wet season demand, as
well as supporting aquifer recharge. During the dry season surface water would support
irrigation over part of the command within the limitations of supply. A modernized and
expanded groundwater system would be developed to fill in the shortfall of surface water,
as well as providing standalone irrigation in the areas without surface water supply.

440. Despite the very good aquifer conditions, constraints of surface water and
considerable government subsidies for shallow tubewells, the uptake and use of
tubewells is still limited: only about 24% of the cultivated area in the two districts is
currently supplied by groundwater.

441. Studies indicate that the poor access and reliability of electric power and the high
cost of diesel pumping are key reasons why the use and expansion of groundwater has
been less than the potential.39 The benefits of electric pumping are significant, including
reduced operational costs (due to higher efficiencies as well as the subsidized tariff),
reduced logistics to supply fuel, ease of operation and simplified mechanisms for cost
recovery.

442. Electric power is currently not sufficiently reliable to support pumping for
irrigation. Nepal is embarking on a major increase in power and in time it is estimated
the power situation would gradually improve. Provision of reliable electric energy will no
doubt develop in time and when this occurs it is considered very likely that there will be a
significant uptake of electric pumping of groundwater.

443. To overcome this constraint the option of developing electric supply specifically
for groundwater has been assessed. This requires creation of additional power capacity,

39
ADB 2013 Impact Evaluation Shallow Tubewell Irrigation in Nepal Impacts of the Community Groundwater
Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 98

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

management and upgrading and extension of power network. Options for power include
solar power, power from bio-fuels, or oil. There are also opportunities for using sugar
waste to generate power. Although setting up electricity generation and distribution is a
high cost, the capital and MOM costs per hectare compare favorably with the very high
costs of civil works to modernize the surface water canal systems.

444. The incorporation of power generation into the scheme design allows a fast
uptake up of groundwater irrigation. Power generation can be sold during the off-season
and can provide a valuable source of revenue to support the cost associated with MOM
of the irrigation systems. Solar power is an attractive option and provides power during
the key dry season months when generation of hydro-power is at their lowest levels.
Solar power has high capital but low MOM costs, which is appropriate for small holder
irrigation, where MOM revenues are constrained.

445. Stand-alone solar pumps and panels avoid the need for expanding the grid but
require costly variable speed motors (the pumps are in fact more expensive than the
panels). Over a year the irrigation demand would use less than 50% of the potential
power produced. A central solar power plant is a more attractive option, as the surplus
energy during the irrigation off-season can be sold to the grid. A combined solar-grid
supply can be developed, where grid supply can be used to complement the solar when
demand exceeds supply and the solar power can be sold to the grid if solar supply
exceeds demand. Management of solar power is simpler than mechanical generation,
and security of the panels is significantly higher with a centralized unit.

446. Solar power costs have significantly reduced over recent years and may continue
to reduce: the panel costs are now below $1,000/kw (DC power)40. Currently to make the
necessary financial returns from solar power investments at of 12% would be required to
sell power at a tariff of around $0.12/kW-hr. Access to low cost finance can significantly
improve the viability of solar power. At a financial return of 4% the tariff would be
0.09/kW-hr. Currently the purchase tariffs for power produced by small hydro-power
schemes during the wet season are $0.048/kW-hr (NRs.4.8/kW-hr) and dry season
$0.084/kW-hr. Solar power would appear to be competitive with hydro-power during the
dry season but less competitive in the wet season. The government’s policy is to develop
solar power in parallel with hydro-power.

447. By using the power to pump groundwater and support modern agriculture
significant value is added to the power investment. Investment costs for modernizing and
expanding groundwater use including solar power plant, extension of electricity grid and
upgrading/new tubewells, amounting to about $900/ha. This compares favorably with the
very high costs of surface water modernization, which are around $1,000-$1,900/ha.

448. For the lower basin the benefits of surface water modernization are constrained
by the dry season water availability. Providing electric power generation and modernized
groundwater systems opens opportunities for highly dependable irrigation supply at
viable costs. The use of pre-paid meters avoids the problems of billing for power
consumed, which can help ensure the long term sustainability of the investments.

40
Due to losses only about 66% of the DC power from the panels can be used for pumping; energy is
effectively limited to 8 hours per day. Daily insolation varies during the year; dry season average values
2
October to May at Simara Airport are 3.7 kw-h/m /day (October to April) and Wet Season (May to
2
September 4.4 kw-h/m /day).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 99

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

b. Proposals for Option 2

449. Option 2 involves investment in surface and groundwater irrigation, as well as

electrification of tubewells. The broad details of Option 2 include:

(i) The proposal would support irrigation modernization over 120,000 ha in

Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts and would include modernization of 78,000
ha of surface water irrigation, as well groundwater irrigation over 90,000 ha.
The proposed project would benefit about 80% of the total cultivable area in
the two districts.
(ii) Investment in surface water would include a limited modernization program of
the BIP (48,000 ha) and other selected surface irrigation schemes (30,000
ha). The limited modernization would be designed to maximize the area for
wet season supplementary irrigation as well as dry season irrigation of a
portion of the command area within the limitations of dry season water
availability. The shortfall of dry season surface irrigation would be met by
groundwater.
(iii) The limited modernization would involve significantly lower investments than
the full modernization, with unit costs of around $1,000/ha. The surface water
efficiencies would be lower than Option 1. Surface water irrigation, especially
during the wet season, would also play a key role to support recharge.
(iv) Investment in groundwater would be provided to 90,000 ha. This would
include upgrading of the existing 34,000 ha of groundwater and new
groundwater development over 56,000 ha. About 70% would be conjunctive
groundwater inside the irrigation commands, with 30% as standalone
groundwater. Groundwater investment would include new wells (mainly
shallow tubewells), cleaning of existing wells, new electric pumpsets, simple
flat hose distribution pipes, and buried distribution pipelines for larger wells and
pre-paid meters. The electrification of the tubewells would significantly reduce
the pumping costs from about $130 per ha using diesel to around $50 per
ha using electric power. The investment costs in groundwater excluding
electrification would be around $240/ha. Investment in groundwater would
also have a drainage function in the lower lying land; surface water irrigation
can potentially lead to waterlogging.
(v) Parallel investment in the power generation and extending the electricity
distribution network is a key part of the plan. To provide the additional
power a 19-MW (AC power) solar power plant would be established to
provide enough power for the 90,000 ha of electric lift groundwater. The low
voltage direct current (DC) from the panels would be converted into
alternating current (AC) and the voltage boosted by transformers for delivery
onto the transmission lines. A 19MW solar power plant (AC power) could
provide about 50,000 MW-hrs of energy per year, of which the irrigation
demand would be around 50%. The surplus power would be sold to the grid.
The investment costs in power and electrification would be about $500 per
ha. The value of power sold to the grid would be approximately $1.4 million
per year, which could be used to support the MOM costs of the combined
scheme as well as provide a fund for replacement of the solar panels after
about 20 years. The electrical distribution network would be extended to
connect to around 9,000 groundwater wells and some lift irrigation to irrigate
about 90,000 ha; the electrical distribution would include high tension and
low tension lines transformers, electric prepaid meters etc. The solar plant
would require about 60 ha of land; this would be best located on low value
less productive land.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 100

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

450. The land use under option 2 is summarized in Table 30.

Table 30: Future Land Use (ha) Option 2

Class Sarlahi Rautahat Total

Total Land Area (ha) 126,000 113,000 239,000
Cultivable Area 85,000 58,000 143,000
Bagmati Irrigation Project 25,000 23,000 48,000
Other Irrigation 14,000 25,000 39,000
Without surface Irrigation 46,000 10,000 56,000
Groundwater irrigation
(conjunctive SW/GW and stand-
alone GW) 45,000 45,000 90,000
Source: Present Study, 2014

3. Option 3: Diversion of Water from the Sunkoshi River

451. Option 3 is based on the Sunkoshi Marin Diversion Project (SMDP) project pre-
feasibility study. The project will divert 77 m3/s (at 80% reliability) from the Sunkoshi
River to the Marin River, which is a tributary of the Bagmati River; the diversion will leave
10% base flow in the Sunkoshi River. The water will be diverted at a 180-m long weir in
the Sunkoshi River into a 450-m long headrace canal and 13.2-km head race power
tunnel. The project has a net head of 57 m and has capacity to develop 36 MW of power
and would potentially generate 300,000 MW-hr per annum. The investment cost of the
hydropower component is estimated at $200 million.

452. The water supplied to the Marin River will feed an additional 77 m 3/s into the BIP
to provide an additional supply for the existing command area, and also allow expansion
of the scheme up to a total of 122,000 ha over the five districts of Sarlahi, Rautahat,
Bara, Mahatori and Dhanusa. The overall cost of the project is estimated by the SMDP to
be $440 million. The cost of the irrigation component as estimated by the SMDP study at
$240 million, equivalent to $1,960/ha, appears low.

453. The SMDP project is a major project and it is not possible to comment fully on the
study based on the available data. The following observations are presented:

(i) The development is based on surface water and would include the existing
BIP of 47,000 ha as well an extended area of new irrigation over 74,300 ha.
The costs of full modernization of the BIP under Option 1 are estimated to
be $1,900 per ha. The expansion area would incorporate some existing
irrigation schemes and also some unirrigated areas. The investment will
require new canalization, command area development and land acquisition.
For the expansion area based on the norms of irrigation development it is
estimated that the development cost would be around $7,000 per ha.
(ii) The long-term sustainable management of the existing surface water
irrigation needs to be addressed as a pre-requisite to developing new
surface water irrigation. The current BIP scheme has taken over twenty
years to develop and there still remain major shortfalls in the condition of
the system. The allocations and the capacities for MOM are significantly
below the requirements. Currently losses in the very porous soils and water
allocation systems result in major shortfalls in the water available in the
lower parts of the scheme.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 101

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(iii) The SMDP and existing Bagmati supply would provide around 84 m 3/s in
the critical months; this would provide 0.7 l/s/ha based on 122,000 ha. The
crop water balance with improved management indicates a peak water
requirement at the headworks of around 1.1 l/s/ha. It is estimated that there
would remain some requirement for groundwater to meet the shortfall.

4. Option 4: Conjunctive Surface and Groundwater Development with

Sunkoshi Water Diversion.

454. Option 4 is based on conjunctive surface and groundwater development over the
five districts of Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, Mahatori and Dhanusa. The project is designed
to integrate the longer term Sunkoshi Water Diversion project, with parallel fast track
initiatives to develop modernized conjunctive surface and groundwater, including electric
pumping with power from a new solar and the SMDP power plants. The project would be
developed in two stages over 15 years; the stages would overlap. A two year planning
and design period is estimated for Stage 1 and four years for Stage 2. The recharge from
the surface water transfer would allow for increased area of groundwater in the three
districts of Bara, Mahotari and Dhanusa; it is estimated 50,000 ha of modernized
groundwater could be developed in these three districts.41

Stage 1 Years 1-7: Conjunctive surface and groundwater in 2 districts: Stage 1

would follow Option 2 above with a six year implementation period and
would include (i) investment in limited modernization of surface water
irrigation over 87,000 ha (47,700 ha in BIP and 30,000 ha other irrigation);
(ii) first stage modernization of groundwater (90,000 ha); and (iii) 30-
MW solar electric power generation and associated distribution.

Stage 2 Years 3-15: This would build on Option 4 and would take about 12 years
to implement. The proposal would include: (i) development of the
Sunkoshi Marin hydropower and diversion; (ii) extension of the BIP
(74,300 ha) and 2nd stage modernization of other irrigation (30,000 ha);
and (iii) 2nd stage modernization of 50,000 ha of groundwater in the
three districts of Bara, Rautahat and Dhanusa using ring fenced
electric power from the hydropower plant.

455. The proposed project stages are summarized in Figure 16.

41
In the three districts of Bara, Mahotari and Dhanusa with the water transfer there would be 150,000 ha of
surface water irrigation and 64,000 ha of unirrigated land. It is estimated that modernized groundwater
systems could be developed over 20% of the irrigated areas and 30% of the unirrigated areas, which
would provide a potential area of modernized groundwater in the three districts of around 49,000 ha.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 102

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 16: Option 4 Development Stages

Activity Year
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Limited modernization BIP 47,700 ha

Limited modernization Other Irrigation 30,000ha

Construction 30 MW Solar Power Plant

Upgrading Electrictity Grid (Stage 1)

Modernization of Groundwater (Stage 1) 90,000ha

Construction of Sunkoshi River Diversion

Construction Sunkoshi Hydro 36MW Power Plant

Extension of the BIP 74,000ha

Modernization of Groundwater (Stage 2) 90,000ha
Note
Planning & Design
Implementation

456. The land use under Option 4 is shown in Table 31. The expansion of the BIP
would benefit irrigated and non-irrigated land. The phased development of the BIP
command area from the feasibility study is shown in Figure 17. The SMDP transfer
would allow expansion to the 122,000 ha identified in the original feasibility study.
Groundwater would provide supplementary irrigation inside the command areas as well
as standalone irrigation outside the irrigated areas; a total of 139,000 ha of modernized
groundwater has been estimated.

Table 31: Land Use under Option 4 (ha)

Class/ Districts Sarlahi Rautahat Bara Mahotari Dhanusa Total

Total Land Area 126,000 113,000 130,000 100,000 119,000 587,000
Cultivable Land Area 85,000 58,000 70,000 67,000 77,000 357,000
Surface Water BIP 25,000 23,000 48,000
Expanded BIP with SMDP
Transfer 13,000 3,000 9,000 32,000 7,000 75,000
Other Surface Water
Irrigation 7,000 23,000 44,000 10,000 38,000 122,000
Without Surface Irrigation 40,000 9,000 7,000 26,000 31,000 113,000
Modernized groundwater
(Conjunctive & Standalone) 45,000 45,000 15,000 16,000 18,000 139,000
Note: Expansion of the BIP would benefit both currently irrigated and non-irrigated land; a 50:50 split has
been assumed.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 103

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 17: Phased Development of the BIP Command Area

Source: Bagmati Feasibility Study

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 104

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

C. MOM Costs

457. The annual MOM costs are summarized in Table 32. These MOM costs include
the costs of the surface and groundwater systems.

Table 32: Annual MOM Costs

Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Conjunctive
Conjunctive
Full Sunkoshi Marin Surface and
Bagmati Irrigation Surface and
Modernization Diversion Project Groundwater
Project 48,000ha Groundwater
Component of BIP 48,000ha (SMDP) 122,000ha and SMDP
120,000ha
244,000ha
Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha Total ($ Cost/ha
million) ($) million) ($) million) ($) million) ($) million) ($)

Surface Water
Management & Operations Costs 0.5 10 0.7 15 0.9 12 1.8 15 2.2 12
Maintenance of Main Canals 0.8 17 1.8 38 2.0 26 4.6 38 4.7 26
WUA Management Costs 0.1 2 0.3 6 0.3 4 0.7 6 0.7 4
Maintenance of Tertiary Canals 0.1 3 1.1 23 1.2 15 2.8 23 2.7 15
Total Surface Water 1.5 31 3.9 82 4.4 56 10.0 82 10.4 57

Ground Water
Diesel Pump 2.3 120 1.7 120 2.9 120
Electric Pump 4.5 50 7.0 50
Total Groundwater 2.3 120 1.7 120 4.5 50 2.9 120 7.0 50

Total OM Costs 3.8 79 5.7 118 8.9 74 12.9 106 17.4 71

D. Summary of Proposals for the Lower Basin

458. The estimated costs are preliminary and more detailed studies are required to be
supported at the feasibility study stage. The key points relating to the four options are
discussed below.

(i) Option 1 is designed to maximize the area and efficiency of surface water
irrigation; there is no provision for groundwater support. The lack of dry
season water supply is however a major constraint, which will limit the
potential benefits of the investment and management initiatives. The study
has identified significant institutional, management and financial constraints,
which are likely to raise the levels of management required to achieve the
targeted levels of productivity. There will remain significant requirement for
groundwater and the costs of diesel pumping would remain a burden on
farmers.
(ii) Option 2 is designed to exploit the high groundwater potential in the lower
basin. Through a planned and integrated management of surface and
groundwater the irrigation can be developed sustainably, and potentially
provides a very high level of service delivery. The proposals appear attractive
from the technical, financial and institutional perspectives. The costs are
indicative, but the investment costs per ha are 70% of Option 1, with MOM
costs also being lower. Cost recovery of the groundwater would be through
prepaid meters linked to electricity consumption. The investment would
need to include solar power, which would be used to provide reliable day
time power for pumping; the sale of surplus solar power of around $1.3
million/year would help meet about 15% of the MOM costs. The costs of
groundwater development, including solar power plant, extension of

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 105

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

electricity grid and upgrading/new tubewells, are about $900/ha, which

compares favorably with surface water modernization. With electrification,
the operational costs to farmers of groundwater would reduce by about
60%. For the lower basin with the shallow aquifer, the shallow tubewells,
with direct access to water on demand and low cost electric pumping, have
many advantages over investing in and effectively operating surface canal
distribution systems. Further study is required to assess the requirements
for policy and institutional reforms.
(iii) Option 3 is based on prefeasibility studies for the SMDP; this is a major
project with implications for both the Bagmati and Sunkoshi Rivers, which
needs to be fully assessed. Option 3 considers that only surface water
would support the expansion of the BIP project to the original development
area of 122,000 ha covering five district of Sarlahi, Rautahat, Dhanusha
Mahottari Bara. The difficulties of sustainable and efficient management of
surface water alone, including cost recovery for MOM in Option 1, would
also apply to Option 3. Even with the water transfer, the surface water
availability would not meet the dry season water requirements and there
would continue to be a requirement for groundwater.
(iv) Option 4 combines Options 2 and 3 in stages to include 3 other districts.
The project is designed to integrate the longer term Sunkoshi Water
Diversion project with parallel fast track initiatives to develop a modernized
conjunctive surface and groundwater system, including electric pumping
with power from a new solar plant and the SMDP power plants. Option 4 is
a very large project with a benefit area of around 240,000 ha.

E. Agriculture

459. The lower Basin with improved irrigation has significant potential to become one
of the main production areas of Nepal for export as well as domestic consumption. The
proposed new international airport and improved road links between the central Terai
and Kathmandu will benefit the agriculture markets.

460. To provide a rapid improvement in the agricultural systems, it is proposed that

parallel investment be provided towards agricultural support services. Many agriculture
programs have failed due to heavy subsidies, which has been unsustainable in the long
term. The current DOA extension staff are under-resourced and new approaches are
required. The agricultural support program is a key part of any investment in irrigation
infrastructures and it is proposed that around 10% of the investment in infrastructure be
allocated to agriculture support. The program would be designed to be sustainable after
the completion of the investment period. This will be achieved through the establishment of
commercial activities, with startup costs supported by the investment, and establishment of
self-financing after the end of the project period. The investment in agriculture support
would be directed agricultural PPP programs.

461. During the project investment period financial support would be used as seed
money to fund the agriculture start up activities; revenue generated would be put aside
into a ring fenced agriculture support fund. At the end of the project investment period
the support fund would be used as capital to continue with the agriculture program on a
long term sustainable basis. The investment in irrigation modernization as well as the
agriculture support will allow an increased area to come under irrigation as well as
improving yields; the agriculture support would be designed to provide a faster uptake of
improved agricultural returns. For the study it has been assumed that the percentage mix
of crops for all options would be the same for each option; the current and future
cropping for each option is summarized in Table 33.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 106

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 33: Current and Future Cropping for Different Options

Crop % Option and CCA
Nr Crop Current Future Current Option1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
% % 48,000 48,000 120,000 122,000 244,000
Crop Areas (ha)
A Rice
1 Spring Paddy 1% 1% 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000
2 Spring Paddy-SRI 0% 5% - 3,000 6,000 6,000 13,000
3 Early Paddy 21% 21% 10,000 10,000 25,000 26,000 51,000
4 Monsoon Paddy 46% 42% 22,000 20,000 50,000 51,000 102,000
B Wheat 19% 19% 9,000 9,000 23,000 23,000 46,000
C. Maize 0% 0% - - - - -
1 Winter Maize 5% 6% 2,000 3,000 8,000 8,000 16,000
2 Spring Maize 5% 5% 2,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 13,000
D Sugarcane 82% 88% 39,000 42,000 106,000 107,000 215,000
E Pulses 14% 14% 7,000 7,000 16,000 17,000 33,000
F Oil seeds 10% 10% 5,000 5,000 12,000 12,000 24,000
G Potato 5% 7% 2,000 3,000 9,000 9,000 17,000
H Vegetables 0% 0% - - - - -
1 Winter Vegetables 5% 7% 2,000 3,000 8,000 8,000 16,000
2 Spring Vegetables 0% 2% - 1,000 2,000 2,000 5,000
3 Summer Vegetables 5% 7% 2,000 3,000 9,000 9,000 17,000
I Fish Ponds (New) 0% 0% - - - - -
216% 234% 102,500 113,000 281,000 285,000 571,000

462. The intention is to offer a nucleus of localized self-financing support services,

through private sector organizations (including NGOs), which would interact and
engaging with existing government agriculture programs and farmer level producer
organizations (which could be linked to the WUAs). It is envisaged that the agriculture
support initiatives would be a mix of a central level unit together with decentralized PPP
initiatives. It is proposed that the agriculture support program would be set up and
established with financial support for initial investment covering start-up costs. Long term
sustainability would be ensured by reinvesting the investment returns into follow-on
programs. Some of the returns from the investment in agriculture could be used to
support the costs of MOM of the irrigation.

463. Preliminary proposals for the business models would include:

(i) Investment in crop storage and marketing systems. This would allow farmers
improved opportunities to obtain improved returns for their crops. Farmers
could rent storage space, or could sell their products to the IMO, who would
then resell the produce at improved market prices. The proposal is to invest
in storage facilities as well rehabilitating and/or leasing other existing
facilities and go-downs.
(ii) Provision of improved and timely supply of quality inputs at fair prices
(iii) Improved quality and availability of training and extension. Training would
initially be financed through the project, but would gradually develop models
of self-financing, including sponsorship by suppliers, farmer contribution and
sales of products.
(iv) Financially viable contract farming initiatives, including supporting start-up
of pilot cropping systems and SRI
(v) Investment in precision land leveling equipment to improve water efficiency

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 107

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

F. Productivity of Water

464. An assessment of the productivity of water under the different options is

summarized in Table 34. The levels of production by weight are quite high due to the
large areas of sugarcane.

Table 34: Assessment of the Productivity of Water

Unit Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

1.Total Annual Production
Paddy Million tons 0.144 0.199 0.499 0.507 1.014
Non-paddy Million tons 2.511 3.510 8.774 8.920 17.840
Total Million tons 2.655 3.709 9.272 9.427 18.854
2. Total Annual Value of Production
Gross value of NPR.
production million 11,385 14,923 37,308 37,929 75,859
Gross value of $ million
production 114 149 373 379 757
3. Volume of Water
3
Surface water BIP Mm 1,023 1,023 1,023 4,676 4,676
3
Surface water other Mm 639 1,279
3
Groundwater BIP Mm 294 291 291 323 329
3
Groundwater other Mm
irrigation 182 364
3
Groundwater standalone Mm 582 859
Total volume of water 1,317 1,314 2,717 4,999 7,507
4. Productivity of Water
Production per unit of
3
irrigation supply kg/m 2.0 2.8 3.4 1.9 2.5
% Change from current 40% 70% -5% 25%
Output per unit of
3
irrigation supply $/m 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.10
% Change from current 31% 58% -12% 17%

G. Institutions and Management

1. Requirements

465. In the BIP the current PJIMT arrangements are largely not meeting the requirements
of efficient MOM and financial resources are also inadequate. The development of
modernization and increased efficiencies will require significantly strengthened management
and financing. Integration of surface and groundwater management will also require new
management approaches.

466. The clear constraints of a public bureaucracy and the PIM to manage the BIP and
other surface water irrigation effectively can be seen in the poor operational performance.
There is no evidence that again following this model would be more successful; if anything
there is evidence that the farmer linkages and social fabric of the project has become more
complex in recent years.

467. Although PIM has made impressive strides in some places, in general the
handover of MOM responsibilities has proved to be disappointing; it has been found that
the management tasks are beyond the capacity of both the government as well as the

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 108

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

farmers of the parts handed over. The joint management responsibilities are also poorly
defined, with no provision for actions if one or both parties do not meet their obligations.

468. Groundwater is currently meeting around 45% of the irrigation supply needs
inside the command areas, as well providing the full irrigation requirements for areas of
standalone groundwater irrigation. There is role scope for expanding groundwater use,
but this needs to be developed through a controlled and managed approach incorporating
integrated and sustainable management of the surface and groundwater resources.

469. There is very limited support for agriculture and the full benefits of investment in
irrigation are unlikely to be realized without an upgrade and new approaches to the
agriculture support. The long term sustainable management of the lower basin requires
the establishment of an integrated development program, which would encompass the
BIP, other surface irrigation and groundwater irrigation. Initially the program would work
in the two districts of Sarlahi and Rautahat but this would be expanded to three
additional districts if Option 4 is taken up.

2. Outsourcing of Management Responsibilities

470. The irrigation in the lower basin presents massive opportunities for agriculture
production if efficient and sustainable management can be developed. The functions of
MOM should encompass both surface water and groundwater irrigation, agriculture
support, cost recovery and power supply.

471. Current management resources are inadequate and the significant gap in the
needed management capacity and level of skills can be most effectively provided
through the engagement of a third-party service provider. The third party management
through a public private partnership (PPP) can boost efficiency in design, contracting,
and management, helping to ensure financial sustainability through cost control and
efficiency. For the large scale irrigation schemes it is in MOM that third-party service
providers can have the greatest impact in improving performance, raising standards
across all functions.

472. A third party operator IMO would have flexibility to source expertise and scope to
engage skilled and experienced personnel to effectively manage the surface irrigation
systems as well as develop and put in place the proposals for modernization and
management of groundwater. The operator would also have more flexibility and
resources to manage cost recovery for MOM, this would include development of effective
mechanisms to source finance for the ISF as well as other supplementary funding.

473. The IMO as a third-party service provider working closely with government and
water users offers the greatest impact in improving performance, raising standards
across all functions. Through a well-planned program with support from all parties a PPP
initiative could fast track sustainable management systems. Selected existing project
staff could be recruited to the IMO on secondment.

3. Water Service Agreement with the WUAs

474. The transfer of irrigation responsibilities to the WUA has been much weakened by
the poor definition of the responsibilities between the project as the service provider of
the main canal systems and the WUA for the lower canal systems.

475. The concept of a service agreement is that of a contractual arrangement between

an irrigation service provider (in this case DOI through the IMO) and water users defining
the roles and responsibilities of each, and specifying how the service will be provided.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 109

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Effectively this should be a formal legal contract with binding obligations and penalties
between the DOI and each WUA (each about 100 to 500 ha).

476. For each unit to be transferred to the WUA a service agreement would be
prepared, which would specify the water allocations, MOM responsibilities, and the
financial responsibilities of both parties. The service agreement would define the penalties
for default of the service agreement conditions. For serious default by the WUA, the DOI
would have the authority to suspend some or all the responsibilities of the WUA would
either and take on direct management functions or reassign them to a third party, either
on a temporary or long-term basis.

477. To improve the performance of the Level 3 canals requires major institutional
change and reorganization, as well as a strong level of management and support and
control. Without this higher level of support and control it is considered that WUAs alone
are insufficient to provide the high levels of management required. The project staff
currently do not have the resources or skills to organize an effective IMT program, which
requires special skills and an intensive program of institutional strengthening and reform.
Support for this critical activity will need to be outsourced to an organization with the
appropriate experience and skills. Over the initial period the requirements for this external
support would be intensive, but in time they could be reduced. Consideration should be
given to extending the remit of the WUA to include management of groundwater.

4. Management Strategies for Groundwater

478. The development proposals for conjunctive surface and groundwater in the lower
basin will require the development of mechanisms for monitoring and management, to
ensure that the levels of abstractions are kept within the sustainable yields of the aquifers.
There are many examples in South Asia where uncontrolled groundwater abstractions have
led to major groundwater and environmental problems, and the irrigation development of the
lower Bagmati basin must avoid this situation. The requirement is to develop effective
conjunctive management and controls of the surface and groundwater irrigation.

479. Currently groundwater irrigation is mainly through small private operators with
diesel pumps; there is no licensing, monitoring or control of abstraction. The proposals
for groundwater modernization incorporate electrification and modernization of tubewells,
which would provide significant benefits to farmers and must also allow the introduction
of mechanisms to monitor and manage groundwater.

480. The payment of electricity through prepaid meters simplifies the collection of
payments for energy consumed, as well allowing for recovery of management costs,
including contributions for surface water irrigation which will play a key role to support
groundwater recharge. Financial support to private tubewell owners for modernizing the
tubewells, pumps and motors could also be recovered through the prepaid meters.
Actual tariff levels would follow the government standard tariffs, and energy and cost
savings through the introduction of modern and efficient electric motors and tubewells
would be significant.

481. Prepaid meters, originally developed for electricity supply, have been extended to
potable water and are now becoming increasingly used worldwide for irrigation. A
prepaid meter allows for pay-as-you-go for electricity energy. A prepaid card is inserted
into the prepaid meter, which starts the pump; the card is debited according to the KW-hr
of energy consumed. Farmers can top up their cards at local stores or vending agents;
the system is similar to prepaid mobile phone.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 110

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

482. The prepaid meters offer many advantages, including:

(i) Reduction in the administration of providing electricity, as there are no

arrears to collect and manage, no meters to read, no meter readers to pay,
no billing administration and collection of overheads: the users can control
their budget to use as much as they can afford.
(ii) No requirement for deposits or connection fees, since the electricity consumed
is based on pre-payment for electricity.
(iii) No reconnection charges; with prepaid meters the electricity is always paid,
and there is no need to disconnect and reconnect.
(iv) Water users can easily monitor, measure and hence manage their electricity
usage and spend as much as they can afford and budget. This creates a
greater awareness and control of costs. It also totally avoids any bill
complaints on usage. Studies in Bangladesh indicate up to 30% reduction in
water use where water is charged volumetrically.
(v) Significant energy and water conservation, as electrical consumption is
reduced when users can monitor their own usage. This reduces the load on
the grid through reduction of peak demand. Also the built-in arrears
management provides an effective way to manage customers in arrears
without having to cut them off from the grid.
(vi) Prepaid meters can be programmed to apply different tariff levels, depending
on energy use, time of day or year of usage (for example lower tariffs could
be applied for off peak energy use).
(vii) Groundwater abstraction levels can be kept within sustainable levels;
groundwater quotas can be controlled by adjusting the energy tariffs if users
exceed the sustainable quota.
(viii) The system is transparent and, since there are no cash payments involved
except for pre-loading the card, offers a high level of freedom from corruption
or theft of money. The prepaid meters eliminate any “rent seeking” from
private pump owners and operators or corruption or loss of funds.

5. Agreements with Groundwater Users

483. Four management models are considered to be appropriate for the pumped
irrigation (groundwater and surface water lift irrigation) in the lower basin.

(i) Groundwater service agreements with individual tubewell owners, which

would set out the responsibilities and tariff levels. Financial support would
be provided to electrify and modernize the tubewells; costs could be
recovered over time through the prepaid meters. Tubewell owners would
pay for power through prepaid cards and would make their own financial
arrangements for water sold to neighboring farmers. Ownership of the
equipment would be by the tubewell owner(s).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 111

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(ii) Franchised42 tubewells, where a tubewell owner or farmer group is provided

support for electrification and modernization of tubewells, including provision
of a prepaid meter. The franchisee would sell water to water users, who would
purchase prepaid cards at tariffs agreed by the franchising organization. The
tubewell owner would pay the electricity charges as well as a percentage of the
fees to the franchising organization. Financial support for start-up could be
provided with cost recovery through the prepaid meter. Ownership of the
equipment would be the tubewell owner(s).
(iii) Leased tubewells would operate similarly to the franchised tubewells, but
the ownership of the assets would be by the Government. A lease fee
would be included in the tariff charged through the prepaid meter.
(iv) Direct management of tubewells and pumped irrigation through a private sector
or autonomous irrigation authority. Electrified and modernized tubewells would
be managed through a central authority, which would provide an all-inclusive
package of surface and ground water management. Tubewell and lift
equipment would be owned and managed by the authority, with costs
recovered from farmers through the prepaid meters.43

484. The most appropriate approach needs to be further researched. For the
groundwater from shallow tubewells a more decentralized approach through water service
agreements or franchised tubewells may be more appropriate; for deep tubewells with high
investment costs a lease or direct management model maybe more appropriate. A mix of
models can be considered. For each model a groundwater quota would be set to ensure
pumping is within the sustainable levels; the prepaid meters can be programmed to
increase the tariff if groundwater users exceed the quota. Quotas would be assessed by
groundwater modeling studies.

485. A strong parent management organization is required. It is proposed that the

groundwater irrigation systems be developed through outsourcing of the management
responsibilities to the private sector, e.g. using an IMO as described below. It is also
proposed that the WUAs would be given an increased remit to support the management
of both surface and groundwater.

6. Management Stages

486. Initiation and establishment of sustainable self-financing long term management

systems requires a significant amount of up-front work and investment prior to the
systems being ready for long term and sustainable management.

42
A franchise is an arrangement where one party (the franchiser) grants another party (the franchisee) the
right to provide goods or services according to certain specifications. The franchisee usually pays a one-time
franchise fee plus a percentage of sales revenue as a royalty, and gains (i) tried and tested products; (ii) high
specification equipment; (iii) detailed procedures in running and promoting the business; (iv) training; and (v)
ongoing help in promoting and upgrading of the products. The franchiser gains rapid expansion of business
and earnings at minimum capital outlay.
43
This model was adopted by the Barind Multipurpose Development Authority (BMDA) in Bangladesh, which
is an autonomous authority reporting to the Ministry of Agriculture in Bangladesh. The authority was
established in 1992 and now covers 600,000 ha in 16 districts in the north west of Bangladesh. Most of the
irrigation is from deep tubewells of around 20-30 ha, and also some lift irrigation from drains and rivers. A
significant feature of the BMDA operation is the pre-payment, by farmers, for irrigation water using (i) prepaid
coupons, which are handed over to the pump operator prior to the delivery of water; and (ii) cards that are
credited electronically and used by the farmers to operate pumps for the delivery of a required amount of
water. All the assets, including tubewells, pumps and pipes, are owned by the authority. The BMDA
purchases bulk power from the power companies at a reduced tariff and sells on the power to farmers at a
margin through a retail tariff.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 112

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

487. The approach can be split into two Stages: Stage 1 would be the period of
establishment, with Stage 2 covering the long-term arrangements. It is estimated that the
Stage 1 establishment phase would require at least five years. During the initial Stage 1
set-up phase there would minimal revenue and the management and MOM costs would
have to be supported as part of the investment package.

488. Under Stage 1 selected management functions would be contracted to a private

company or consortium with the brief to establish and set up sustainable and long term
management arrangements, including establishing systems for cost recovery. At the end
of the Stage 1, management would be passed to a long-term arrangement; a number of
options exist, including (i) a PPP-type management arrangement; (ii) the establishment
and handover to an autonomous management authority; or (iii) a hybrid management
arrangement that may include some elements of (i) and (ii).

489. The management contract would provide a first stage towards establishing
effective and sustainable management. The concept is shown in Figure 18 below.

Figure 18: Stages to Establish Effective and Sustainable Management

7. First Stage Management Contract

490. To improve and rationalize the management operation and maintenance of the
irrigation in the lower basin it is proposed that a third party IMO be contracted through a
management contract44 by the DOI to develop and manage the surface and groundwater
irrigation. The DOI would effectively maintain the role as the contracting authority, with
the overall project managed through the Project Director to be appointed by the DOI. The
BIP barrage and main canals would be managed by DOI; lower level irrigation
management would be contracted to the IMO through a performance based management
contract.

491. The proposed the management structure is shown in Figure 19 below

44
A management contract is where a private operator is contracted to provide management services and
does not require any contribution to the investment (capital cost). The public authority would normally pay
for the services of the private operator however some or all of the charges can be offset by collection of
water charges. The management fees paid to the operator can be paid according to performance
indicators. The main function of the private is MOM but it can also be involved in functions such as
design and construction supervision of the investment works. The ownership of the assets remains with
government and the operator acts as a service provider

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 113

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Figure 19: Proposed Management Structure

492. The proposed irrigation responsibilities are described in Table 35.

Table 35: Management Responsibilities

Level Description Responsibilities
Surface Water
BIP barrage and east west main canals DOI under the direction of the BIP
each serving about 20,000 ha. Project Director. Management
1
support would be provided by the
IMO.
Branch canals each serving about 4,000 IMO
ha to 15,000 ha. There are six branch
2
canals.
Distributary canals, each about 2,000 ha
Secondary Canals, typically 100-600 ha Assigned to the IMO, who will
Tertiary Canals, typically about 20-40 ha manage the lower level irrigation
3
Field channels serving about 5-10 ha canals through water service
agreements with the WUA.
Groundwater
Small shallow tubewells ~5 ha, Pumped irrigation would be managed
Deep tubewells ~20-30 ha through a mix of groundwater service
Pumped irrigation from canals, drains and agreements, franchise agreements
rivers. and directly management.

493. For these options an IMO would be engaged to develop efficient and sustainable
management practices. To ensure long-term financial viability, commercial operations
would be developed, facilitating adequate levels of financing; this would include
collection of ISCs as well as other cost recovery activities designed to help meet the
shortfall in financing of MOM. It is envisaged that financial sustainable agriculture
support activities would complement the irrigation management activities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 114

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

494. Staff would be given attractive terms of employment, including supplementary

payment according to the results obtained based on key performance indicators. The
management operator would be allowed to engage staff according to the requirements;
non-performing staff would be released. Key DOI and other government staff with
appropriate skills could be seconded to the irrigation operator.

8. Irrigation Coordination Committee

495. To facilitate the coordination of the needs of different stakeholders there is a need
for an Irrigation Coordination Committee (ICC). This committee would be established
under the chairmanship of the Project Director. Members of the ICC would include
representatives from the offices of the local government, DAE, law enforcement, the
WUAs, and representatives of groundwater users.

496. In general, the ICC will deal with field implementation issues that arise related to
conflicts, safeguards, security, and more general concerns about the performance of the
implementing parties, including the setting of the irrigation service charges. The ICC’s
tasks will include reviewing the annual work plans and independent monitoring of the
MOM of the system. The ICC would support the resolution of disputes, and act as a
consultative body relating to the allocation of MOM funds.

9. Long Term Management Arrangements

497. The first stage 'Irrigation Management Contract’ is designed to be implemented

for a fixed period to ensure that the new management and modernization models are
effectively established. Once these are in fully place the management structure would
change to meet the long term management requirements.

498. Two broad management models have been identified as possible management
arrangements that could be applied to meet the needs of providing long term highly
efficient and sustainable management of irrigation for the BIP:

(i) Through a PPP arrangement, where the irrigation assets for all or part of
the scheme would be leased to a private sector operator. The lease would
be competitive and would be awarded to the bidder who achieved the
highest level of managerial and technical expertise together with the
financially most reasonable price to operate the system. Ownership of the
assets would remain with the Government. Typically the lease could be for
15 years, after which the contract would be renegotiated. The operator
would be responsible to manage sustainable cost recovery systems.

(ii) The establishment of an ‘Autonomous Integrated Irrigation Authority’ with

the remit to achieve an efficient, sustainable and self-financed irrigation
management. The authority would be required to operate on a commercial
basis through self-financing, and would operate very similar to the private
sector option. The infrastructure assets would be transferred to the new
authority, who would be responsible for MOM, including establishment of
adequate levels of cost recovery to meet the long-term and sustainable
needs of highly efficient operation and maintenance. The constitution of the
new authority would be developed and agreed with Government to allow the
necessary levels of autonomy and flexibility for implementing long term
effective management. Highly qualified staff would be recruited from the
government and private sector through a competitive selection process.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 115

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

XI. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

499. A financial and economic analysis of the different MFLW options was undertaken
with the objective of preparing a preliminary assessment of the viabilities of different
development strategies. The analysis has looked separately at the two parts of the basin.

500. The economic analysis uses first quarter of 2014 constant prices. The exchange
rate used is NRs100 = $1.00 (January 2014 rate) and the discount rate is 12%. The
project life is 21 years. The analysis uses the world price numéraire. Economic prices
exclude taxes. A standard conversion factor of 0.97 has been used to adjust financial
prices. A shadow wage rate factor of 0.80 has been applied to unskilled wage rates to
reflect the relative abundance of unskilled labor, although in some locations at some
times of year this may under-value unskilled labor due to the seasonal migration of labor
for work in other parts of Nepal or in India.

501. Financial prices for inputs and outputs have been based on consultant’s field
surveys of recent local farm gate and market prices, supplemented by government
publication of crop budgets for some major commodities for the project districts.
Economic prices for traded inputs and outputs (rice, wheat, maize, sugarcane and
chemical fertilizers) have been estimated from World Bank Commodity Price Projection
in January 2014.

502. In all of the analyses the only quantifiable benefits are the increases in
agricultural crops resulting from the improvement in the irrigation system and limited
agricultural support provided to the beneficiaries. These have been based on the
average crop budgets referring to published crop data for the districts in the project area
as well as on information provided by farmers in focus group discussions during field
investigations by the consultant’s team. More assured water supplies for irrigation will
enhance yields, since crops will be much less subject to water stress, but anticipated
yield increases for crops do not exceed 20%, except for SRI rice, which can still be
considered an innovative intervention. Yield increases reflect mainly the impact of
irrigation water plus limited support to address some major agricultural production issues
that emerged during focus group discussion with the stakeholders in the project area.
The financial prices used in the crop budgets are based on prices currently applied in the
project area. The daily wage rates for labor are the rates currently paid for farm labor in
the project area.

B. Upper and Middle Basin

503. In the upper and middle Basin a model 50-ha project area is considered for the
analysis. Three different interventions have been considered.

(i) A simple upgrading of farmer managed irrigation scheme

(ii) Introduction of gravity pressurized irrigation with sprinklers
(iii) Development of polyhouses based on 100m2 units

504. With the project, the model project area of both the simple upgrade and
pressurized irrigation of upper and middle Bagmati Basin will be benefiting from more
reliable supplementary irrigation during the monsoon season and during most of the dry
season, depending upon the availability of discharge. These effects will lead to increases
in both the cropping intensity and the crop yields.

505. The revenue gained from polyhouse farming is observed to be substantially

higher, with yields up to 80 tons/ha for tomatoes and 20 tons/ha for leafy vegetables.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 116

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

506. The EIRRs for the three intervention models are given in Table 36, together with
sensitivity results for several key variables. The result shows that all three models
provide high rate of returns. The base case EIRRs for FMIS Upgrade (50-ha model
project) and Micro Irrigation (50-ha model project) are 26% and 28% respectively. Both
the Upgrade and Micro Irrigation models would be implemented in existing irrigation
systems. This additional investment will realize benefits from previous investments that
are effectively sunk costs, which makes the projects economically attractive. The
sensitivity indicators show that investments are still viable against all the tested adverse
situations on the key sensitivity variables.

507. Conservation irrigation using piped water supply and polyhouse intervention
model is also observed to be feasible in the base case. The base case EIRR of this
model is 21%, showing that farmers may find it attractive for adoption provided they are
given sufficient support. The sensitivity indicators on this model however show some risk
on two key indicators: delay in benefit realization and a combined case of reduction on
anticipated benefits together with increase in investment cost. The returns drop sharply
on these situations to below the threshold level of return. The polyhouse model is
designed to support water conservation in the Kathmandu Valley and there would be
significant environmental benefits, which have not been quantified.

Table 36: EIRR and Sensitivity Results Upper/ Middle Basin

Switching
EIRR B/C NPV Value
(%) Ratio (NRs million) (%)
Upper and Middle Bagmati – Upgrade
Base case 26 2.5 11.8
Capital costs +25% 21 1.6 8.9 +100
All benefits -25% 20 1.5 5.8 -49
Benefit delay 5 yr 18 1.5 5.7 12
Costs +25%;
15 1.2 2.9
Benefits -25%
Upper and Middle Bagmati – Micro Irrigation
Base case 28 1.8 19.1
Capital costs +25% 23 1.1 15.6 +121
All benefits -25% 23 1.1 11.5 -15
Benefit delay 5 yr 20 1.0 11.3 57
Costs +25%;
18 0.8 7.5
Benefits -25%
Upper and Middle Bagmati – Conservation Irrigation including Polyhouse
Base case 21 1.8 19.1
Capital costs +25% 17 1.1 13.0 +77
All benefits -25% 11 1.1 2.4 -28
Benefit delay 5 yr 10 1.0 (1.3) 4
Costs +25%;
9 0.8 (3.8)
Benefits -25%
Source: Present Study, 2014

508. The three models will increase employment. The model generating most
employment is the polyhouse intervention model, which requires 1,000 additional labor
days in one hectare of the farm business activity. The requirements in the upgrade and
pressure models are both about 100 additional labor days per hectare.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 117

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

C. Lower Basin

509. In the lower Bagmati Basin four possible interventions have been identified, as
summarized in

510. Table 37: Summary Costs of Development Options. The sensitivity cases are
shown in Table 38.

Table 37: Summary Costs of Development Options

MOM Relevant
Area Total Cost Cost Costs Sensitivity
(ha) ($ million) ($/ha) ($/ha/yr) Case
1. Full Modernization of the
48,000 121 2,500 118 Base case
BIP
2. Conjunctive Development
Capital costs
of Surface Water and 120,000 216 1,800 74
minus 25%
Groundwater
3. Surface Water Diversion
Capital costs
of Water from the 122,000 1030 6,600 106
plus 50%
Sunkoshi River
4. Conjunctive groundwater
Capital costs
Development with SMDP 244,000 1004 4,500 71
plus 50%
Diversion Project
Source: Present Study, 2014

511. The economic analysis has focused on Option 1. The other options are complex
and include power generation costs and benefits. They require a more in-depth analysis.
The sensitivity analysis of Option 1 can however provide some pointers to the likely
benefits of the other options. The without and with project cropping patterns and yields
are considered to be the same for all the options.

512. Option 1, the full modernization of BIP, is a surface water only investment based
on rehabilitation and upgrading to achieve high levels of efficiency. In the with project
situation in the lower basin area, the overall cropping intensity is expected to go up 175%
from the existing situation cropping intensity of 158%. Through modernization of BIP and
with improved water management system and agricultural support systems, there will be
a substantial increase of high value vegetable crop areas, including potato and sugarcane.
In addition, adoption of SRI rice in about 2,500 ha will bring substantial benefit for the
project. With these efforts crop yields are also expected to increase by some 5 to 20
percent. An agricultural support program has been incorporated into the investment to
support the increase in productivity. The transition from the present to the future cropping
pattern is assumed to occur over 5 years from the start of the intervention.

513. The EIRRs for Option 1 are given in Table 38, including sensitivity testing for
several key variables. The full upgrading of BIP model provides a base case EIRR of
24.4%, which still looks quite attractive for investment. The sensitivity test indicators
show that the project is fairly stable and would continue to provide returns over the
threshold level against any of the anticipated adverse situation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 118

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 38: Lower Basin EIRR and Sensitivity Results

EIRR B/C NPV Switching
Case Sensitivity Case (%) Ratio (NRs. million) Value (%)
1 Base case 24 2.2 8.1
2 Capital costs +25% 20 1.4 6.2 +105
3 Capital costs +50% 17 1.2 4.2 +105
4 Capital costs -25% 31 2.3 10.1 +105
5 All benefits -25% 18 1.3 3.3 -42
6 Benefit delay 16 1.3 3.2 9
7 Costs +25%; Benefits -25% 14 1.0 1.4
Source: Present Study, 2014

514. Option 1 has estimated capital costs of $2,500/ha. For Option 2 the capital costs
at $1,800/ha: about 25% lower than Option 1. The MOM costs per ha are also lower than
Option 1 and this would boost the economic return with low cost access to water
throughout the year and the superior water allocation potential of groundwater. The costs
and benefits for Option 2 have not been specifically quantified but the lower investment
and operational costs suggest that for sensitivity case 4 – Capital costs minus 25% – an
EIRR of 31% might be achieved.

515. For Option 3 the capital costs for the irrigation development are estimated to be
about $3,900/ha, about 50% higher than for Option 1. Despite the increased surface
water, there would however remain some dependency on groundwater, which, with
diesel pumps is expensive for the farmers. The benefits per ha would be about the same
as Option 1 but lower than Option 2. The implementation period of Option 3 would be
significantly higher than for Option 1. Case 3 sensitivity is based on an increase of capital
costs of 50% and has an EIRR of 17%.

516. For Option 4 the capital costs per hectare are about 50% above the base case,
with MOM costs lower than the base case. Case 3 sensitivity would appear to be
relevant and an EIRR of around 17% might be expected.

517. Financial benefits: The estimated incremental income that will accrue to
households in four of these investment models areas are given in Table 39. The
amounts shown are for the average farm sizes of the command area since the same
cropping pattern is applied in the analysis for the whole of each command area. The
incremental incomes accruing to different sizes of farms are directly proportional to the
area cultivated.

Table 39: Estimated Incremental Income for Farms in the BIP

Annual Cropped Financial Return
Description CCA (ha) Area (ha) (NRs)
47,700
Total W/O 75,200 5,755,960,041
Total W/P 83,450 7,626,363,390
Incremental Benefit 1,870,403,349
Incremental NRs/ha 39,212
Source: Present Study, 2014

518. In BIP Full Modernization project area (command area 47,700 ha) the realization
of additional agricultural production is worth 252,000 tons per year. Of this amount, the
share of incremental food grain production is 41,000 ton and that for potato, vegetables
and other cash crops (mainly the sugarcane) are 27,000 tons, 49,000 tons and 135,000
tons, respectively. Here the incremental return from cash crops, namely the sugarcane,
is quite dominant.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 119

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

519. Apart from the additional incremental production in the command area all of the
investment models, they would also generate additional labor employment opportunities
for the beneficiaries from increased farm-business activities. The BIP modernization
would generate 1.6 million incremental employment days or about 30 days per hectare.

D. Risks

520. Some risks to the economic outcome of the model projects are observed. There
are risks associated with the cropping pattern adoption by farmers under the new
irrigated regime and with their ability properly to establish and manage the equitable
distribution and use of the available water. The agricultural and institutional support that
is embedded with physical upgrading need to match properly in terms of timeliness and
progress. Furthermore, if farmers continue to grow predominantly traditional cereals
without any diversification this might also place the outcome of the subprojects at risk.

521. Another risk factor could be associated with the lack of proper management of
labor supply in farming business. Presently farming business is considered to be not very
attractive for many young people. They seem to more attracted towards migration to Gulf
countries and elsewhere. This results for many families in reduced interest or ability to
undertake more labor intensive irrigated cultivation on their land, or even to cultivate the
land at all. The impact would be the same as if the potential command areas were not
fully developed, and would jeopardize the economic outcomes of the projects.

E. Economics Conclusions

522. All investment models examined under this study for the upper, middle and lower
basin are observed to be economically viable. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the
conservation/polyhouse intervention model is more risky and this option may produce
lower returns in some adverse situations. The other three models are less sensitive to
such adverse situations. The economic assessment has counted only the readily
quantifiable benefits and has not considered the benefits that will accrue in the longer term
from other interventions, such as agricultural and poverty alleviation programs etc. The
polyhouse interventions in the upper basin are designed to support water conservation;
these benefits have been not quantified in the analysis.

523. The successful implementation of projects would need to incorporate both the
physical improvements and the non-physical programs, such as institutional, water
management and agricultural interventions, coordinated so as to minimize risks to
project operations, benefits and long term sustainability.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 120

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Approach
524. The MFLW study has conducted an assessment of current irrigation in the
Bagmati Basin. The study has been conducted in three parts:

(i) Part 1: Assessment and Benchmarking, which have been based on the
FAO RAP, complemented by extensive consultations with stakeholders and
detailed examination of sample areas. Remote sensing of the BIP has also
been carried out.
(ii) Part 2: Institutional and Technical Studies. These have built on Part 1 and
have included an assessment of the requirements for the upgrading and
modernization of the irrigation in the three parts of the river basin, including
surface water, groundwater, agriculture and institutions. The studies have
also looked at the energy needs for groundwater.
(iii) Part 3: Planning for Modernization, which has included preliminary costing
and packaging of the various options, agriculture and institutional planning,
as well as an initial economic and financial analysis.

B. Summary Upper Middle Basin

1. Findings in the Upper Middle Basin

525. Around 11,500 ha of irrigation have been developed in the upper and middle
Bagmati Basin, consisting of around 8,000 ha in the upper basin and 3,500 ha in the
middle basin. Most of the schemes are small, with an average size of around 70 ha.
Irrigation water is adequate during the monsoon period, but stream flows rapidly reduce
after the end of the rains.

526. The upper basin lies largely in the Kathmandu Valley. Traditionally the area has
been a highly productive agricultural hub, but it has suffered in recent decades from
declining production levels, mainly due to rapid urbanization in all the three districts, as
well as reduced river flows. Over-exploitation of groundwater for drinking is a major
issue. Most farmers cultivate cereals based traditional subsistence farming practice,
growing paddy in summer followed by wheat/mustard/potato in winter. They also practice
mixed farming, including rearing of cattle. Average land holding size is slightly higher in
the middle reach than in the upper reach. The margins of the traditional crops are low.
There is a growing demand for vegetables throughout the year in the Kathmandu Valley.
Tomatoes and mushrooms form an important part of the market demand and currently
offer some of the best returns. There has been an expansion of private investors setting
up mushroom and tomato production using polyhouses.

527. In the upper basin an integrated approach to water resources management is

required. Irrigation is the largest water user and there is a need to balance the irrigation
needs with the severe environmental problems of the Kathmandu Valley. These include
poor water quality, lack of environmental flows and depletion of groundwater. Two
different development strategies for the upper valley have been identified:

(i) During the monsoon period irrigation can support groundwater recharge,
especially under Kharif rice. Expansion of the wet season irrigation in
selected parts of the Kathmandu Valley could be a potential means to
support recharge, and would also increase the production of rice.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 121

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(ii) Dry season irrigation on the other hand reduces the base flow in the
streams, which can affect water quality in the main river. There is no
agreement on environmental flows and 100% of the dry season river flow is
abstracted at many of the offtakes. By increasing the efficiencies of dry
season irrigation, water abstractions can be reduced and environmental
flows can be maintained in the tributaries.

528. Three investment options have been identified:

(i) Rehabilitation and upgrading of schemes is directed at improving the canal

system and infrastructure to improve the irrigation efficiency and water
delivery service of the canal systems.
(ii) Pressurized irrigation based on using piped distribution, which would
abstract water from the irrigation canals to supply water by gravity to the
fields directly or linked to sprinkler/or drip systems. The canals alone could
be used for wet season rice.
(iii) Conservation irrigation is designed to conserve dry season water and
support wet season recharge. The conservation irrigation as a package of
actions to be applied in the Kathmandu Valley to provide an extremely high
level of water use efficiency and crop productivity to save water and to allow
increased environmental flow in the tributary schemes. Conservation
irrigation would incorporate (i) rehabilitation of canal systems; (ii) maximizing
the areas of wet season rice to support recharge; (iii) construction of earth
ponds to support recharge and wet season fish culture; (iv) provision of PVC
lined ponds to store water during the dry season; (v) fully piped distribution
direct to each polyhouse; and (iv) development of polyhouses fitted with drip
irrigation. About 15% of the area would be under polyhouses and the
remaining 85% left unirrigated, except during the wet season.

529. Institutions: The schemes in the upper and middle Bagmati are designed for
minimal maintenance, with responsibilities handed over to the WUAs, although the
understanding is that government will support some major repairs. Farmers contribute
some labor for minor repairs, mainly cleaning and small earthworks, but there are
unresolved maintenance requirements in most of the schemes inspected. These are
affecting the scheme efficiencies, are beyond the capacities of farmers and not within the
government’s funding resources. Filling this gap in maintenance responsibilities and
resources for the canal systems is a key requirement for meeting the target for long-term
WUE and a prerequisite to any future initiatives to introduce pressure irrigation.

530. The proposals for micro and conservation irrigation and a move towards
commercial farming will require a quantum increase in MOM, including technical, social
and financing systems. There is currently no capacity within DOI or the DOA to take on
this role. To meet the gap will require some level of outsourcing of management
activities. These are described in the proposal for the lower basin.

531. A preliminary investment proposal for the upper and middle basin is shown in
Table 40. In the upper basin approximately 2,000 ha of conservation irrigation could be
taken up in the critical streams that flow into the urban and peri-urban areas. Other
streams could be developed for micro-irrigation. In the middle basin a mix of canal
upgrading and micro-irrigation is proposed. Parallel programs of agricultural support,
training and awareness would be included in the investment. The project will require
consultancy and management support. This would include engagement of international
and national project managers to establish modern irrigated agriculture in the upper and
middle basins.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 122

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Table 40: Investment Plan Upper and Middle Bagmati

Unit Cost Total Cost

Component Area (ha) ($) ($ million)
1. Irrigation Infrastructure
Upper Basin
Conservation irrigation 2,000 8500 17.0

Middle Basin
Upgrading of Canal Irrigation 1500 2500 3.8
Micro Irrigation 1500 5000 7.5
Sub Total Infrastructure 5,000 28.3
2. Agriculture Support 3.0
3. Training and Awareness 0.3
4. Consultancy and Management Support 2.0
5. MOM Budget Support during Project Implementation 1.0
Sub Total 34.6
Contingencies 3.4
Total Investment 38.0

C. Lower Basin

1. Findings Lower Basin

532. Irrigation in the lower Bagmati Basin is a mix of surface and groundwater. The
main findings include:

(i) The lower basin encompasses the current BIP area as well as other surface
water irrigation within the two districts of Rautahat and Sarlahi.
(ii) There is about 90,000 ha of surface water irrigation in the lower basin. The
BIP is the largest scheme (47,700 ha) there are also around seventy small
and medium irrigation schemes serving about 38,800 ha. Around 34,000 ha
are supplied by groundwater, both supplementary groundwater within the
irrigation commands and standalone groundwater. Although there is good
availability of surface water irrigation in the wet season, dry season
irrigation supplies are very limited, with availabilities in the BIP dropping to
around 0.15 l/s/ha. The poor condition of the canals and lack of a
systematic allocation system result in many parts not receiving water. Even
in the wet season some areas receive no supplies.
(iii) Groundwater is used to meet the deficit. For the BIP about half the water
demand is met by groundwater; current cropping intensities are about
200%.
(iv) The groundwater aquifer is very productive and there are high levels of
recharge from rainfall, runoff and irrigation. Despite significant government
support for groundwater usage, the level of groundwater development
remains well below the potential. Pumping is by diesel pumps and farmers
report the high costs of pumping as a major constraint. Shallow tubewells
provide significant financial benefit to farmers. However the rate of utilization
remains very low. The current approaches to subsidized groundwater are not
achieving the targeted benefits and new approaches with appropriate levels
of subsidies to distribute benefits to a larger section of society need to be
developed.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 123

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

(v) The benchmarking results for the internal performance indicators at the BIP
reflect a poor level of water delivery service and irrigation performance.
These include outdated infrastructure and designs flaws, a lack of sufficient
finance for regular maintenance, institutional weaknesses and management
limitations, and serious difficulties in controlling and measuring water.
Improvements in irrigation efficiencies, widespread crop diversification, and
the adoption of modern on-farm water management practices in the BIP will
only be possible after the successful implementation of a modernization
program that addresses existing operational constraints with effective water
control and monitoring throughout the system.
(vi) The benchmarking identified the very weak levels of institutions and
management; these include severely inadequate budgets, with virtually no
contribution from water users.

2. Proposals for Irrigation Modernization in the Lower Basin

533. The BIP represents a special challenge for irrigation modernization efforts. Works
have been underway in the scheme for approximately the last 20 years45 and many
deficiencies remain. As identified during the RAP, the design and construction of the
irrigation system so far has resulted in a system that is difficult and cumbersome to
operate, with consequences in terms of poor water delivery service. The potential for
improving the dry season productivity is also severely constrained by the limitations of
dry season surface water supply.

534. In the lower basin the high total recharge from rainfall, runoff and irrigation return
flows, combined with favorable aquifer conditions, provides high potential for expansion
of groundwater irrigation.

535. Two proposals for surface water modernization have been studied:

(i) Full modernization, which is designed to improve the management and

allocation of the scarce surface water resources to maximize the irrigated
areas during the wet and dry season.
(ii) Limited modernization, which is a lower cost option that would not provide
the same level of water efficiency as the full modernization and would have
lower levels of benefits. The proposal is that the shortfall of surface water
under limited modernization would be met by investment and modernization
of supplies from groundwater.

536. During the stakeholder consultations with farmers electrification of the pumps was
identified as a valuable area of support to reduce pumping costs. Electrified pumps are
more efficient than diesel pumps and are cheaper to operate, even with unsubsidized
tariffs. Electrification is also a good way to monitor and also control groundwater, and to
ensure that abstraction is kept within sustainable levels. Electrification is currently not
viable due to the low availability of power and consequent high levels of load shedding. It
is proposed that shortages of electric power would be mitigated by investment in a 19-
MW solar power plant, which would allow a fast uptake of groundwater irrigation and
would meet most of the groundwater pumping requirements. During the irrigation off-
season the power from the plant would be sold to the grid.

45
Since 1987 the SFD has provided several loan packages for CAD works, construction of irrigation
infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the Bagmati Barrage. The second SFD loan (Loan No. 4/343)
supported CAD works in the Bhalohia, Gadhaiya and Laxmipur Branch Canal areas, followed by a third loan
(Loan No. 5/465) for the remaining CAD works.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 124

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

537. It is proposed that the government should continue support for groundwater and
provide facilities to make groundwater accessible to small farmers. This is best achieved
through electrification using prepaid meters to facilitate cost recovery. Subsidized
electricity tariffs can help farmers reduce the pumping costs, but these need to be set at
sustainable levels; provision of support to improve agricultural productivity is required to
meet realistic levels of payment for energy.

538. Agriculture support will be a part of the investment program. The program will be
designed to be sustainable after the completion of the investment period through the
establishment of commercial activities, with start-up costs supported by the investment,
which would be self-financing after the end of the project period. The investment in
agriculture support would be directed towards PPP initiatives.

539. The government is currently studying the feasibility of transferring surface water
from the Sunkoshi River to the Bagmati River (SMDP). This would provide an opportunity
to expand significantly the area of surface water irrigation. The project would also
generate hydropower.

540. There are various options for irrigation development in the lower basin, including
the use of surface and groundwater. Four alternatives have been identified and
assessed.

(i) Full modernization of the BIP (48,000 ha)

(ii) Conjunctive development of surface water and groundwater (120,000 ha) in
two districts
(iii) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River (122,000 ha)
(iv) Surface water diversion of water from the Sunkoshi River with conjunctive
groundwater development (244,000 ha) in five districts

541. A summary of the investment options is presented in Table 41.

Table 41: Summary of the MFLW Investment Options ($ million)

Option 1 2 3 4
Sunkoshi
Conjunctive
Full Conjunctive Marin
Surface and
Modernization Surface and Diversion
Component Groundwater
of the BIP Groundwater Project
with (SMDP)
48,000 ha 120,000 ha (SMDP)
244,000 ha
122,000 ha
1. Infrastructure
Modernization Surface Water 89.1 78.5 607.1 480.0
Modernization of Groundwater 21.9 33.6
Power and Electricity Distribution 57.0 200.0 267
Sub Total Infrastructure 89.1 157.5 807.1 780.6
2. Agriculture Support Initiatives 4.8 12.0 12.2 24.4
3. Training And Awareness 0.5 1.2 1.2 2.4
4. Consultancy and Management
Support 12.0 21.5 105.9 103.5
5. MOM Budget Support During
Implementation Period 3.9 4.4 10.0 10.4
Sub Total 110.3 196.5 936.5 921.4
Contingencies 10% 11.0 19.7 93.6 92.1
Total Investment 121.3 216.2 1,030.1 1,013.5
Cost per ha $2500 $1,800 $6,600 $4,500

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 125

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

542. Institutions and Management: The clear constraints of a public bureaucracy and
the PIM to effectively manage the BIP and other surface water irrigation can be seen in
the current poor operational performance. There is no evidence that again following this
model would be more successful; if anything there is evidence that the farmer linkages
and social fabric of the project has become more complex in recent years.

543. It is proposed to fill the gap in surface and groundwater management through
outsourcing provided through the engagement of a third-party service provider. The third
party management or IMO through a PPP can boost efficiency in design, contracting,
and management, helping to ensure financial sustainability through cost control and
efficiency. For the large scale irrigation schemes it is in MOM that third-party service
providers can have the greatest impact in improving performance, raising standards
across all functions.

544. For the lower level systems the DOI through the IMO would develop water
service agreements with the WUA. The water service agreements would be contractual
and would specify the water allocations, MOM responsibilities, as well as the financial
responsibilities of both parties. The service agreements would define the penalties for
default of the service agreement conditions.

545. There is clear role for expanded use of groundwater but this needs to be
developed through a controlled and managed approach ensuring integrated and
sustainable management of the surface and groundwater resources.

546. Currently groundwater irrigation is mainly through small private operators with diesel
pumps; there is no monitoring or control of abstraction. The proposals for groundwater
modernization incorporate electrification and modernization of tubewells, including the
introduction of prepaid meters, which would provide significant benefits to farmers and also
allow the introduction of mechanisms to monitor and manage groundwater. There are
different management models for groundwater and pumped irrigation, including groundwater
service agreements, franchised, leased or direct managed tubewells.

547. Initiation and establishment of sustainable self-financing long term management

systems requires a significant amount of upfront work and investment. This is required
whatever long term arrangements are established.

548. The implementation can be split into two Stages: Stage 1 would be the period of
establishment, with Stage 2 the long-term arrangements. It is estimated that the Stage 1
establishment phase would require at least five years. During the initial Stage 1 set-up
phase there would minimal revenue and the MOM costs would have to be supported as
part of the investment package. Under Stage 1 selected management functions would be
contracted to a private company or consortium with the brief to establish and set up
sustainable and long term management arrangements, including establishing systems
for cost recovery.

549. At the end of the Stage 1 management would be passed to a long-term

management arrangement. A number of options exist, including; (i) a PPP type
management arrangement; (ii) the establishment and handover to an autonomous
management authority; or (iii) a hybrid management arrangement that may include some
elements of (i) and (ii).

550. The Stage 1 management contract would provide a first stage towards
establishing effective and sustainable management.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 126

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

D. Summary of Innovations
551. The MFLW research TA is designed to support the application of innovative water
efficient technologies and management systems that can be used for irrigation planning
and design. The proposals include some new ideas, as well as the reformulation and
strengthening of the existing strategies. For the Bagmati River Basin the 14 main
innovations developed from the study are summarized in Table 42.

Table 42: Summary of MFLW Innovations

Aspect Description
1 Innovative Diagnostics Integrated approaches for diagnosis and participative planning
and Planning for of irrigation, including surface and groundwater, agriculture,
Modernization power and institutions.
2 Water Conservation Increasing of recharge through wet season irrigation and limiting
Irrigation in the Upper dry season irrigation using polyhouses to conserve water for
Basin supporting improvement of the severely degraded environmental
and groundwater conditions in the Kathmandu Valley.
3 Gravity Micro Irrigation Use of gravity piped systems including sprinklers or drip to
in the Middle Basin improve water use efficiency and expand the dry season
irrigation areas.
4 Option for Full Major upgrading and modernization of a large irrigation scheme
Modernization of the to achieve high levels of water use efficiency. The investment
Bagmati Irrigation would incorporate the establishment of flow measurement, use
Project of long crested weirs, balancing reservoirs, and development of
modern water management including SCADA.
5 Option for Conjunctive An alternative to full modernization. This incorporates a more
Development of Surface limited rehabilitation and upgrading of the surface water
and Groundwater in the irrigation, including the BIP and other surface water schemes, to
Lower Basin support wet and limited dry season irrigation and groundwater
recharge. This lower cost option would not achieve the same
levels of benefits as full modernization, but the investment and
management requirements would be lower. To meet the shortfall
of the surface water, the investment would include modernization
of the groundwater, including extending the electricity grid,
provision of efficient electric pumps and motors and investment in
a 19-MW solar power plant. The power from the plant would be
ring fenced to ensure power was available for groundwater
pumping during the irrigation season; power would be sold to
the grid during the offseason. Revenue from the electricity sales
would be used to support the MOM of the scheme.
6 Option for Conjunctive This option incorporates conjunctive surface and groundwater
Development of Surface development over five districts. Surface water supplies would be
and Groundwater in the supplemented by water diverted from the Sunkoshi Marin River
Lower Basin and (SMDP). Groundwater pumping would be by electricity with
Irrigation Transfer from secure power derived from investment in a solar powerplant and
the Sunkoshi Marin River from the SMDP power plant.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 127

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Aspect Description
7 Development of Agriculture support is required to assist farmers achieve the
Commercial Agriculture targeted levels of production. To achieve long term sustainability
Support the agriculture support would be based on a business models
that allow the self-financing of the support systems, which will
allow the program to continue after the end of the project
investment period. The investment plans include agriculture
support with the funds applied to support the initial startup costs.
The returns from the agriculture investments would be used to
continue and expand the agriculture support activities as well as
create revenue which can be used for MOM. Investment in crop
storage and marketing, procurement and sales of high quality
inputs, self-financing training programs, contract farming, land
leveling, afforestation are proposed.
8 Training and Awareness Development of intensive training and awareness using new
approaches and technologies to effectively engage with
stakeholders including local politicians during the design and
implementation stages. New approaches are proposed to maximize
the impacts and ensure sustainability of training and awareness,
including the establishment of self-financing of training courses
through basic charging systems, sponsorships and advertising.
9 Outsourcing of There is uncertainty as to whether the capacities of the current
Management Functions institutional arrangements meet the needs of long term efficient
and Establishment of a and sustainable MOM (government, WUA or joint management).
Long-term Self-financing To close the gap it is proposed to initially outsource selected
Management management functions to a third party operator through a
Organizations management contract. The new organization would work with
existing DOI staff and WUA to establish effective and efficient
MOM including establishing sustainable systems of MOM cost
recovery. For the long term, efficient self-financing management
needs to be established. The initial management contract would
develop arrangements, necessary reforms and support the
transition for long term MOM. Options for long term management
include a PPP arrangement or establishment of an Autonomous
Irrigation Management Authority
10 New Management Tertiary water management remains well below the requirements
Initiatives for WUGs of efficient and modern irrigation. It is proposed that the tertiary
level management would be through water service agreements,
which would define the roles and responsibilities of the IMO as a
water service provider and the WUAs to operate and maintain the
tertiary units. The assignment of MOM responsibilities for the
tertiary canals could be direct appointment to the WUAs or
alternatively competitive lease type contracts.
11 Strategies for Expansion of groundwater use must be supported by effective
Groundwater monitoring and management. Electrification of tubewells is
Management proposed, which provides significant benefit to farmers and also
provides mechanisms for monitoring and control. Groundwater
users would be required to enter into groundwater service
agreements, which set out the tariffs as well as quotas for
pumping and other management measures. Prepaid meters
allow groundwater controls to be implemented by increasing the
tariff levels if users exceed the groundwater quota.
12 Establishing an Irrigation To support the coordination and effective management of the
Coordination Committee various management levels and the stakeholders an ICC would
(ICC) be established, consisting of the Project Director, representatives
from the office of the deputy commissioner, DOA, law enforcement,
WMOs and the IMO.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 128

More Food with Less Water – Task 2
Final Report – Nepal

Aspect Description
13 New Initiatives for the The requirements for highly effective and sustainable MOM will
Financing of MOM effectively require a significant increase in the levels of MOM
funding. There are significant limitations in the scope to increase
the ISF and new initiatives for supplementary cost recovery are
identified, including (i) financial returns from commercial agriculture
investments; (ii) fish production in canals and water bodies; (iii)
afforestation of government land; (iii) lease of canal banks for
housing and business; and (iv) other investments and revenue
generating initiatives. A key role of the IMO would be the
establishment and management of sustainable financing of MOM.
14 Low-cost Remote Low-cost or medium resolution remote sensing supported by
Sensing to support sample high resolution snapshots can be applied to measure
Water Management. productivity of water based on biomass. The availability of near
real time imagery opens the opportunity to apply remote sensing
outputs to provide regular information of water and crop
productivity, including water deficit, which can be directly applied
to support irrigation water allocations.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 129

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Appendix 1
Performance Benchmarking
of the Bagmati Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING

CONTENTS
I. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
A. Overview...........................................................................................................................1
B. Objectives.........................................................................................................................2
C. Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................2
II. Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) Diagnostic Assessment......................................................... 3
A. Benchmarking Procedures ...............................................................................................3
B. Project Description ...........................................................................................................4
C. Field Visits ........................................................................................................................6
D. Existing Infrastructure, Current Operation and Maintenance Procedures, and
General Conditions...................................................................................................................7
1. Layout of Canal Network and Main System Operations .......................................... 7
2. Bagmati Barrage and Main Canal Headworks....................................................... 11
3. Main Canals ........................................................................................................... 14
4. Branch Canals........................................................................................................ 21
5. Distributary Canals ................................................................................................. 28
6. Secondary and Sub-Secondary Canals................................................................. 31
7. Field Channels ....................................................................................................... 34
III. Benchmarking Results ........................................................................................................... 37
A. Summary Main Findings.................................................................................................37
B. Benchmarking Indicators................................................................................................40
1. Internal Indicators................................................................................................... 41
2. External Indicators ................................................................................................. 44
C. Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................45

List of Attachments
Attachment 1: Results Worksheets for Bagmati Irrigation Project RAP
Attachment 2: Performance Benchmarking Indicators

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

List of Figures
Figure 1: Bagmati Irrigation Project Layout Map ..............................................................................5
Figure 2: Layout of Bagmati Irrigation Project Canal Network .........................................................8
Figure 3: Headworks of the East Main Canal (Bagmati River Barrage).........................................11
Figure 4: Head Gate at the East Main Canal (look across the Bagmati River to the Inlet of
the West Main Canal) .....................................................................................................................12
Figure 5: Gate Control Box for Roller Gate (East Main Canal) ......................................................13
Figure 6: Control Center for the Bagmati Barrage and Main Canal Headworks ............................14
Figure 7: Cross Regulator in the East Main Canal at the Manpur Branch Canal...........................15
Figure 8: Cross Regulator in East Main Canal at Gadhaiya Branch Canal ...................................16
Figure 9: Roller Gate in Main Canal Cross Regulator ....................................................................17
Figure 10: Local Farmer using Low-lift Pump for Irrigation of Field on Left-bank of East
Main Canal (Out of Command Area) ..............................................................................................18
Figure 11: Dilapidated Emergency Spill Structure on the East Main Canal ...................................19
st nd
Figure 12: Section of the East Main Canal between the 1 and 2 Cross Regulators (left)
nd
and Re-sectioned Section downstream of the 2 Cross Regulator (right) ....................................20
Figure 13: East Main Canal in the Section Upstream of the Laxmipur Branch Canal ...................20
Figure 14: Headworks of the Manpur Branch Canal ......................................................................21
Figure 15: Broken Measurement Flume at the start of the Bahuari Branch Canal ........................22
Figure 16: Head Gate of the Gadhaiya Branch Canal with Threaded Gate Stem that is
Not Vertical and Difficult to Move ...................................................................................................23
Figure 17: Headworks of the Laxmipur Branch Canal....................................................................24
Figure 18: Farmer-installed Bamboo Weir on Concrete Drop Structure in Manpur Branch
Canal ..............................................................................................................................................25
Figure 19: Cross Regulator in Manpur Branch Canal at Offtake to the Rajghat Distributary
Canal ..............................................................................................................................................26
Figure 20: Two Operators are required to Move the Sluice Gates in the Manpur Branch
Canal Cross Regulator at the Barhathawa Distributary Canal .......................................................27
Figure 21: Poor-quality Gate Lifts and Gate Stems that are Not Vertical.......................................27
Figure 22: Headworks of the Rajghat Distributary Canal ...............................................................28
Figure 23: Head Gate of the Pararia Distributary Canal (Non-functional)......................................29
Figure 24: Cross Regulator in the Pararia Distributary Canal (CAD) .............................................30
Figure 25: Secondary Canal Headworks supplied by the Pararia Distributary Canal....................31
Figure 26: Sub-secondary Canal supplied by the Laxmipur Branch Canal (CAD) ........................32
Figure 27: Elevated RCC Section of Secondary Canal (CAD).......................................................33
Figure 28: Secondary Canal filled with Silt (Pararia Distributary Canal) ........................................34
Figure 29: Outlets from Secondary Canal (Laxmipur Branch Canal) (CAD)..................................35
Figure 30: Outlet from Secondary Canal (Pararia Distributary Canal (CAD) .................................36
Figure 31: Field Channel supplied by a Direct Outlet from the Manpur Branch Canal .....................36

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

List of Tables
Table 1: Field sites visited during BIP RAP......................................................................................7
Table 2: East Main Canal and Structure Inventory – Bagmati Irrigation Project..............................9
Table 3: West Main Canal and Structure Inventory – Bagmati Irrigation Project...........................10
Table 4: Bagmati Irrigation Project Internal Indicators – Canal System.........................................41
Table 5: Bagmati Irrigation Project Internal Indicators – Budgets, WUAs and Employees............43
Table 6: Bagmati Irrigation Project External Indicators ..................................................................45

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page iii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page iv

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Overview

1. The international irrigation sector, including large canal schemes in Nepal, faces
critical future challenges, which the existing management capacities and physical
infrastructure of many irrigation projects are incapable of dealing with successfully.
Significant irrigation modernization will be required to improve the precise control and
monitoring of water flows at different levels of the physical distribution and delivery systems
in many irrigation projects, especially on a real-time basis, and thus provide excellent
water delivery service to individual irrigation agencies, water users and other commercial
and environmental stakeholders.

2. The results of many donor-financed irrigation rehabilitation and modernization

programs have been less than hoped for, and often schemes have ended up in expensive
and frustrating cycles of deterioration-rehabilitation-deterioration-rehabilitation. Therefore,
new and innovative approaches are called for in terms of how the multi-dimensional issues
plaguing low-performing schemes are assessed when a new loan or grant project is
being initiated, and most importantly, the strategies and technical details for modernizing
infrastructure and institutions need to better reflect best international practices in irrigation
engineering, canal control, flow measurement, structure design, irrigation management
transfer, and other tools available to professional engineers and consultants.

3. Selecting the best modernization strategy to pursue from potential project-

alternatives is a complex decision-making process. Irrigation modernization alternatives
and their impacts involve a variety of diverse stakeholders in the selection of preferred
engineering solutions based on subjectively defined criteria (quantitative and qualitative).
As a consequence, technical feasibility, environmental, social/community, institutional,
political, and economic factors have to be properly assessed as part of water resources
planning. Many attempts at modernization have been initiated, but continue to struggle
with complex technical and engineering problems in implementation.

4. The recommended first step in a modernization program is an in-depth diagnostic

assessment of the current performance of an irrigation project. In this MFLW Task 2 TA,
the Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) was utilized to benchmark the performance of the
Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP), one of the largest canal irrigation projects in Nepal. The
completed worksheets are presented in Attachment 1.

5. Performance benchmarking is a systematic process for securing progressive

improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable internal or external
norms and standards.1 The overall aim of benchmarking is to improve the performance
of an irrigation project as measured against its mission and objectives. Benchmarking
implies comparison – either internally with previous performance and desired future targets,
or externally against similar irrigation schemes.

6. Broad goals of modernization are to achieve improved irrigation efficiency (an

external indicator), better crop yields (another external indicator), less canal damage from
uncontrolled water levels, more efficient labor, improved social harmony, and an improved
environment as accomplished by less diversions or better quality return flows. In general,
these goals can only be achieved by paying close attention to internal details of a project.

1
Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 2004. “Conceptualizing Irrigation Project Modernization through Benchmarking
and the Rapid Appraisal Process.” Irrigation and Drainage, Vol. 53 (2): 145-154.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

B. Objectives

7. This report describes the existing level of irrigation performance in the BIP and
provides a detailed summary of the benchmarking results from the RAP. The RAP
quantified the performance of the scheme in terms of the quality of water delivery service
at each canal level in the system including parameters such as physical infrastructure,
water control, communications, maintenance, institutional capacity, and water delivery
service, paying particular attention to important technical and engineering details. The
purpose of the RAP was to develop a preliminary framework for a strategic irrigation
modernization plan in the BIP.

8. The basic purpose of the RAP diagnostic assessment is to identify the best approach
to solving performance problems as part of developing a strategic master plan for an
irrigation system with well-defined objectives. The primary goal of using the RAP in this
case was to obtain an initial sense of what and where the problems related to irrigation
are in the BIP, how they should be prioritized, etc. The second goal was to generate a
baseline assessment (ie, benchmarking), against which progress may be measured. The
third was to start mobilizing project staff and stakeholders for irrigation modernization.

9. The following is a general outline of the issues that were investigated as part of
the performance benchmarking.

 General System Characteristics: general project conditions, reservoirs, drainage,

groundwater, crops, water supply, water use
 Project Operations: water delivery system characteristics, equity and reliability of
water deliveries, transparency of decision-making, flexibility- frequency, flow rate
and duration, flow measurement, facilities and upgrades, canal lining
 Status and Needs of Modernization Improvements: water delivery service, on-farm
improvements, system infrastructure improvements, water conservation programs,
training and education

C. Acknowledgments

10. This report was prepared by the International Irrigation Management Specialist
and National Irrigation Management Specialist as part of Task 2 of the TA Innovations for
More Food with Less Water.2 The support and assistance provided by Department of
Irrigation (DOI), Ministry of Irrigation, Government of Nepal staff are recognized and
appreciated:

Mr. Rahman Yadav, Project Manager BIP

Mr. Laxman Prasad Singh, Executive Engineer (EMC and Laxmipur Branch Canal)
Mr. Shakil Akhtar, Executive Engineer (Manpur and Gadhaiya Branch Canals)
Mr. Noor Mohamad Khan, Senior Divisional Officer
Mr. Mahesh Tharu, Senior Divisional Officer
Mr. Rajinanad Chaudhary, Engineer
Mr. Kaushal Kishor Thakur, Engineer

2
TA-7967 REG: Innovations for More Food with Less Water – Task 2: Country and Project-Specific
Recommendations and Pilot Innovations (45072-001).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

II. RAPID APPRAISAL PROCESS (RAP) DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT

A. Benchmarking Procedures

11. The Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) is a knowledge-based toolkit that allows
trained professionals to systematically diagnose system performance at disaggregated
hydraulic levels of an irrigation project. In general, the RAP is a quick and focused
examination of irrigation systems and projects that can give a reasonably accurate and
pragmatic description of the status of irrigation performance and provide a basis for
making specific recommendations related to hardware and management practices.

12. The RAP of irrigation projects was introduced in a joint FAO/IPTRID/World Bank
publication.3 That publication provides a detailed explanation of the RAP and also gives
comparative benchmarking results from 16 international irrigation projects. The techniques
for benchmarking and mapping service were further developed into MASSCOTE with the
focus on canal operations.4 More than 60 RAP/MASSCOTE evaluations have been
carried out worldwide since as a prelude to major investments in irrigation modernization.

13. The RAP is a systematic examination focusing on how an irrigation project actually
works. It is designed in general to (i) identify specific and immediate actions that could
be easily taken, with a minimum of investment, to improve system operation and water
management; (ii) quickly critique options that have been proposed for major future
investment; and (iii) provide a fresh look at the whole system, with the goal of being able
to provide suggestions for new ways to improve the overall irrigation distribution system.

14. The RAP for irrigation projects is a 1-2 week process of collection and analysis of
data both in the office and in the field. The process examines external inputs such as water
supplies, and outputs such as water destinations (ET, surface runoff, etc.). It provides a
systematic examination of the hardware and processes used to convey and distribute
water internally to all levels within the project (from the source to the fields).

15. External indicators and internal indicators are developed to provide (i) a baseline of
relevant information for comparison against future performance after modernization, (ii)
benchmarking for comparison against other irrigation projects, and (iii) a basis for making
specific recommendations for modernization and improvement of water delivery service.

16. The complete length of each canal level is visited examining key structures along
the way. Interviews are conducted with irrigation staff from the senior management to the
field operators. Physical infrastructure and internal processes are examined starting with
the main canal system, along with representative lateral canals or pipelines, pumping
plants, regulation reservoirs, etc.

17. During the field portion of the visits, relevant measurements and photographs are
taken of control structures, flow measurement devices, reservoirs, pumps, etc. Other areas
of emphasis include communications, O&M, drainage recirculation, energy usage, cropping
patterns, urbanization, SCADA,5 and water quality trends.

18. Completing the worksheets comprising the RAP inputs requires an extended field
visit to the project by a qualified evaluator(s). The evaluator focuses on how the project

3
Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 1999. Modern Water Control and Management Practices in Irrigation: Impact
on Performance. Water Reports No. 19. FAO, Rome. ISBN 92-5-104282-9. 224 p.
4
Further background to the RAP / MASSCOTE approach is given in Water Reports 62 available from FAO
(http://www.fao.org/nr/water/topics_irrig_masscote.html)
5
SCADA stands for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. Many projects in the United States, Australia,
and other areas with large modern irrigation schemes have put in radio telemetry, electronic sensors, flow
meters, automatic gates and valves, etc. that are generally referred to as SCADA systems.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

functions hour-by-hour and day-by-day – what the instructions are, how water is
physically moved throughout the canal/pipeline system, what perceptions and reality are,
and other items such as staffing, budgets, and communication. A quick assessment (ie,
“Rapid Appraisal”) of these items will immediately identify weaknesses and strengths in
the project. Action items are virtually always readily apparent after the systematic RAP
has been conducted.

B. Project Description

19. The Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP) is a large run-of-the-river canal irrigation
scheme in the Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts in the Terai plain of Nepal. The gross
command area is over 60,000 ha, including designated forest areas, some of which have
been developed and are currently supplied by the project. The irrigable area in the system
is approximately 49,600 ha. Figure 1 shows the layout map of the BIP.

20. The BIP is an extensive unlined, manually-operated canal system served by a

diversion from the Bagmati River (at the Bagmati Barrage) located near the East-West
Highway. It was originally envisioned that the project would provide supplementary irrigation
water to approximately 122,000 ha. Of the two phases, comprising multiple stages each, that
were initially planned, only a portion of Stage 1 of Phase 1 has been completed to-date.

21. The scheme is served by two (2) main canals – the East Main Canal and the West
Main Canal – with a total combined length of 49.3 km. The design capacity of the East and
West Main Canal is reported to be 34.7 m3/s and 48.2 m3/s, respectively.

22. The main crops are paddy rice in the monsoon season (Kharif) and a wide range of
crops in the winter (Rabi) season including wheat, oilseeds, pulses and maize, plus annual
sugarcane fields. Due to water constraints occurring during periods of low flow in the
Bagmati River, a rotational schedule is followed.

23. Annual mean rainfall in this part of the Terai plain is about 1,500 to 2,000 mm.
Rainfed agriculture was practiced extensively in the area before the project was constructed.

24. There is extensive use of shallow tubewells in the command area, but this is not
monitored or measured by the DOI who operate and maintain the BIP.6

25. The canal system is extensively used year-round by people living in adjacent
village communities for laundry and bathing, as well as livestock watering. Seepage from
the canals and deep percolation from irrigated fields provides recharge for shallow
tubewells and hand-pumps used for drinking water.

6
The Groundwater Resources Development Board, under the Ministry of Irrigation, is responsible for the
regular monitoring of existing tubewells for water level fluctuations, groundwater reserves, and water quality.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 1: Bagmati Irrigation Project Layout Map

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

26. The BIP has taken a long time to construct the canal system down to the farm
level. Irrigation in the Bagmati Stage 1 command area initially started in the early 1980s
and construction of the command area development (CAD)7 works has continued to the
present day. The East Main Canal was built first, starting in 1980, followed by the West
Main Canal a few years later. The branch canals were constructed next, and then the
distributary canals. CAD works have progressively, but slowly, extended the canal system
down to the field level. The focus of the donor-supported CAD works has been the
development of the secondary and tertiary level canals. Construction of the project has
been slow due to financial constraints, a major flood disaster in 1993, and issues with the
local contractors and technical details of the original design. When the feasibility study
for the Command Area Development Project8 was carried out in 1992, the project was
only fully or partially irrigating a total of 14,600 ha.

27. Since its inception, the BIP was conceptualized and developed as a dual-
management scheme whereby the DOI was responsible for construction and O&M of the
main system down to the tertiary level, and farmer groups were responsible for the rest
of the system down to the field level. Thus, water users have always been intimately
involved with the management of the scheme, even though the collection of irrigation
service fees (ISF) is among the lowest in the country, and the Water Users Association
(WUAs) have not been formally organized and active in the project.

C. Field Visits

28. The RAP was conducted during a week of intensive fieldwork at the project in
December 2013. The complete main canal system was inspected, as well as branch and
distributary canals in the head, middle and tail portions of the system (refer to Table 1).
Farms served with canal water and those supplied by shallow tubewells were visited.
The Consultant was accompanied by BIP engineering and operations staff.

29. A set of standardized data and measurements were taken at each of the key
control structures including hydraulic headloss, structural dimensions, GPS coordinates,
minimum and maximum flow rates, and operational targets, along with detailed site
photographs. Historical records for parameters such as water deliveries and cropping
patterns were also obtained for representative years and reviewed with district staff.

30. In addition to the field site visits summarized in Table 1, meetings were held with
DOI staff from the project office and in the field to discuss the MFLW study and provide
information for the benchmarking indicators.

7
The command area development (CAD) works refer to the extension of full irrigation facilities below the
branch canals. The CAD works carried out in the project have included the construction or rehabilitation of
distributary, secondary and tertiary canals and related structures.
8
ADB. 1992. Feasibility Study on Bagmati Command Area Development Project. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., in
association with Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Ltd. TA No. 1335
Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Table 1: Field sites visited during BIP RAP

No. Site Description
1 Bagmati River Barrage and Headworks of the East Main Canal (EMC)
st
2 Headworks of the Manpur Branch Canal; 1 Cross Regulator in the EMC
3 Direct Outlet for Secondary Canal supplied by the EMC
st nd
4 Section of the EMC between 1 and 2 Cross Regulators
nd
5 Headworks of the Gadhaiya Branch Canal; 2 Cross Regulator in the EMC
6 Emergency Spill (Escape) from the EMC
7 Low-lift Pump supplying Fields on Left-bank of the EMC (out of command)
rd
8 Headworks of the Laxmipur Branch Canal; 3 Cross Regulator in the EMC
st
9 1 Cross Regulator in the Laxmipur Branch Canal
st
10 1 Drop Structure in the Manpur Branch Canal
11 Direct Outlet to Tertiary Canal from Manpur Branch Canal
12 Modified Drop Structure in the Manpur Branch Canal
13 Direct Outlet to Sub-secondary Canal from Manpur Branch Canal
st
14 Headworks of the Rajghat Distributary Canal; 1 Gated Cross Regulator in the MBC
15 Siphon in the Rajghat Distributary Canal
16 Direct Outlet and Field Channel supplied by the Manpur Branch Canal
17 Headworks of Sub-secondary Canal supplied by the Manpur Branch Canal
nd
18 Headworks of the Barhathawa Distributary Canal; 2 Gated Cross Regulator (MBC)
19 Direct Outlet and Field Channel supplied by the Barhathawa Distributary Canal
nd
20 2 Gated Cross Regulator in the Barhathawa Distributary Canal
21 RCC Concrete (Elevated Flume) Section of Secondary Canal
22 Section of the Gadhaiya Branch Canal at km 16+000
23 Headworks of Secondary Canal; Cross Regulator in the Pararia Distributary Canal
24 Secondary Canal supplied by the Pararia Distributary Canal
25 Headworks of the Pararia Distributary Canal; Laxmipur Branch Canal
26 Drop Structure in the Laxmipur Branch Canal
27 Gated Regulator in Laxmipur Branch Canal; Headworks of Two Sub-secondary Canals
Source: Present Study, 2014

D. Existing Infrastructure, Current Operation and Maintenance Procedures,

and General Conditions

1. Layout of Canal Network and Main System Operations

31. The current schematic layout of the BIP canal network is shown in Figure 2. At
the main canal level, the cross regulator structures are gated, which is the same for the
branch and distributary canals. However, there are still some of the original ungated drop
structures (concrete weirs with fixed crests) that exist in branch and distributary canals,
serving as cross regulators. There are no cross regulators in the secondary and tertiary
canals. The head gates of all canals are sluice gates. The only emergency spill structures
in the system are located on the main and branch canals.

32. The offtakes from the secondary (and sub-secondary) canals supplying the field
channels consist of un-gated pipe outlets. A large number of unauthorized pipe outlets
have subsequently been installed by farmers in all levels of the canal system.

33. There are no functional flow measurement devices in the entire canal system.
The only measurement of irrigation water in the BIP occurs at the headworks of the two
(2) main canals (at the barrage) using calibrated rating tables (ie, rated gates). Some
measurement flumes were installed in the past in some of the branch canals; however, it
appears that these structures have been intentionally damaged and are no longer used.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 2: Layout of the Bagmati Irrigation Project Canal Network

Bagmati Barrage
East Main Canal

West Main Canal

(not shown)

Branch Canal

Distributary Canal

Secondary Canal

Tertiary Canal or Field Channel

Sluice Gate Cross Regulator

Sluice Gate Head Regulator

Source: Present Study, 2014

34. The DOI staff control the water distribution system down to the secondary canal level
through the main, branch and distributary canals; however, there are direct outlets at all
levels of the canal system that are operated by the water users. The supply to the secondary
canals is controlled by gated head regulators, and, on average, each secondary canal
serves approximately several hundred hectares via four (4) or more tertiary canals.

35. One distinguishing feature of the layout of the BIP canal system is that there is a
wide range of the design service area associated with each classification of canal type.
For example, some canals designated as secondary level may serve only about 100 ha,
while others supply over five times as much area.

36. The main types of canal structures in the BIP include the following:

(i) Drop structures and gated cross regulators

(ii) Head gates for controlling releases to lower level canals
(iii) Field outlets (pre-cast, ungated)
(iv) Emergency spills (side and tail escapes)
(v) Siphons for crossing drains and river channels
(vi) Bridges, footbridges and culverts

37. A preliminary inventory of the canal system infrastructure that had been prepared
by the DOI and consultants in 2006 during the CAD program is summarized in Tables 2
and 3.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Table 2: East Main Canal and Structure Inventory – Bagmati Irrigation Project

Name Chainage Description

1. Head Regulator 0+000 7 gates 4m (W)*2m (H)
2. Godari Syphon 2+182 24m (L) 2nos. 3.3 (W)*3.3 (H)
3. Dumazor Syphon 3+375 41m (L) 2nos. 3.3 (W)*3.25 (H)
4. Cross Regulator 4+750 2 gates, 5.0m (W)*3.25 (H)
5. Hariwon Syphon 5+970 84m (L), 2nos.3.3m (W)*3.3 (H)
6. Cross Regulator 9+312 2 gates 3.5m (W)*3.05m (H)
7. Escape 13+400 2 gates 3.65m (W)
8. Lakhandehi Syphon 14+222 250m(L)2nos. 3.3m(W)*3.3m(H)
9. Cross Regulator 17+125 3 gates
10. Road Bridges 24 nos.
11. Other Structures 20 nos.
Manpur Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 gate 2.5m (W)*1.45m (H)
2. Drop Structures 15 nos.
3. Road Bridges 7 nos.
4. Other Structures 14 nos.
Gadhaiya Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 gate 3.6m (W)*2.0m (H)
2. Escape 4+975 1 gate 2.5m (W)
3. Drop Structures 22 nos.
4. Road Bridges 16 nos.
5. Other Structures 8 nos.
Laxmipur Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 1 gate
2. Drop Structures 22 nos.
3. Cross Regulator 8+000 1 gate 5.63m (W)
4. Escape 8+000 1 gate 2.5m (W)
5. Aqueducts 8+436 5.20m (W), 25.7m (L), 1.7m (H)
6. Road Bridges 6 nos.
7. Other Structures 21 nos.
Sakraul Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 1 gate 3.49m (W)
2. Drop Structures 7 nos.
3. Road Bridges 7 nos.
4. Other Structures 7 nos.
Bishnupur Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 1 gate 3.0m (W)
2. Drop Structures 8 nos.
3. Road Bridges 6 nos.
4. Other Structures 16 nos.
Pararia Distributary 0+000 1 gate 3.0m (W)
Source: DOI, Project Completion Report (as of June 2006), Bagmati Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Table 3: West Main Canal and Structure Inventory – Bagmati Irrigation Project

Name Chainage Description

1. Head Regulator 0+000 5 gate 4m (W)*2m (H)
2. Gairi Syphon 24m(L) nos. 3.2m (W)*2.5m (H)
3. Pawreri Syphon 1+350 105m (L), 2 nos. 3.2m (W)*2.5m (H)
4. Escape/Level Crossing 10+150 Canal side 4 gates 3.75m(W)*2.6m(H)
Drain side 5 gates, 4.50m (W)*2.5m (H)
5. Chandi Syphon 12+170 165m (L), 2 nos. 3.2m (W)*2.5m (H)
6. Cross Regulator 14+835 3 gates 5m (W)
7. Lamaha Syphon 21+575
8. Cross Regulator 22+325
9. Gujara Syphon 24+896 38.0m (L), 2 nos. 2.5m (W)*2.5m (H)
10. Cross Regulator 24+965 5 gates 2.5m (W)
11. Lal-Bakeya syphon 28+400 Not constructed
12. Road Bridges 22 nos.
13. Other Structures 30 nos.
Bhalohiya Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 11.3m (W), 3 gates 3m (W)
2. Cross Regulator 2+700 3 gates 2.8m (W)
3. Cross Regulator 7+850 2 gates 3.3m (W)
4. Cross Regulator 12+300 2 gates 2.875m (W)
5. Cross Regulator 18+500 5.0m (W), 2 gates 2.1m (W)
6. Canal Syphon 28+320
7. Drops 26 nos.
8. Road Bridges 21 nos.
9. Other Structures 42 nos.
Bahuari Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 1 gate 3.0m (W)
Bagahi Branch
1. Head Regulator 0+000 3 gates 2.0m (W)
Bhushaha Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 2.3m (W)
Samanpur Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 2.3m (W)
Jingaria Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 1.6m (W)
Birta Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 1.6m (W)
Laukat Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 1.6m (W)
Madhopur Distributary
1. Head Regulator 0+000 2 gates 1.6m (W)
Source: DOI, Project Completion Report (as of June 2006), Bagmati Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

2. Bagmati Barrage and Main Canal Headworks

38. The West Main Canal (28.2 km) and East Main Canal (21.1 km) offtake from the
Bagmati Barrage and supply hydrologically-separate command areas on either side of
the Bagmati River (all within what is termed the “Stage 1 of Phase 1” command area). The
headworks of each main canal at the Bagmati Barrage consists of a series of 4 m x 2 m
electrically-powered roller gates (refer to Figure 3), which have a standby generator. The
gates are in good working order and the site is generally neat and tidy. The structures and
equipment at the barrage and headworks are well-maintained.

39. The entire barrage structure and main canal headworks were rehabilitated after
the major flood in 1993. The gate controls and electrical assemblies were replaced in
with assistance from the People’s Republic of China in 1996 (refer to Figure 4).

Figure 3: Headworks of the East Main Canal (Bagmati River Barrage)

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 4: Head Gate at the East Main Canal (look across the Bagmati River to the
Inlet of the West Main Canal)

Source: Present Study, 2013

40. An example of one of the gate control panels is shown in Figure 5. The gates are
moved under local manual control using push-buttons for Up/Down gate movements;
there is no automation or computerized control of water levels or flow rates. Even though
the gate panels are still functional, since they are getting close to being in service for
almost 20 years, consideration should be given to either rehabilitating them or replacing
them with new, more advanced units, which would include, for example, electronic displays
of all sensor readings, remote alarming, data logging, and other features of modern control
systems suitable for installations of this magnitude.

41. When the barrage was rehabilitated, a control center was installed in a building
adjacent to the headworks of the East Main Canal as shown in Figure 6. This control
center is no longer functioning due to problems with the electrical connections between
the barrage and the control room (among other possible issues not fully investigated as
part of this RAP). This control center is due for rehabilitation. Also, a recommended
feature when the control system is over-hauled is to install a video monitoring system so
that operators in the control room can view in real-time the gates and particularly the
conditions downstream of the barrage when making releases into the river section.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 5: Gate Control Box for Roller Gate (East Main Canal)

Source: Present Study, 2013

42. DOI estimates that the silt loading into the West Main Canal is three times as
high as the East Main Canal. This is due to the local river morphology in relation to the
design of the two canal intake structures. Modifications to the intake structure of the
West Main Canal were part of works contained in the 1992 ADB Feasibility Study, but
these works were never carried out. In addition, there have been plans for desilting
basins at the head of each main canal that have never constructed. As a result, there is
a considerable amount of silt in the canals, which has consequences in terms of O&M
budgets and system performance. Since canal sedimentation is such a serious issue in
the project, a high priority should be placed on carefully checking the previous feasibility-
level design recommendations by a river morphologist(s) and civil engineer(s), and
implementing both modifications to the intakes and developing a comprehensive sediment
management strategy.

43. The discharge into each main canal is measured and recorded six times daily, ie,
every 4 hours. The operators use a calibrated rating table for the roller gates based on
measurements taken of gate opening and upstream and downstream water levels.
However, the operators also seem to use rules-of-thumb for estimating discharge, such
as 7 cm of gate opening being equivalent to 1 m3/s of flow. A review of the discharge
records indicates that the discharge is normally recorded to the nearest m 3 per second,
and that there are periods of up to three weeks when the main canal discharge from the
barrage is not varied.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 6: Control Center for the Bagmati Barrage and Main Canal Headworks

Source: Present Study, 2013

3. Main Canals

44. The West and East Main Canals delineate the northern boundary of their respective
command areas. There are three (3) branch canals supplied from each of the main
canals. (Note: the design capacities given below have not been verified.) Each branch canal
supplies multiple distributary canals and secondary canals, as well as direct outlets.
East Main Canal
Manpur Branch Canal (8.2 m3/s, 12.8 km)
Gadhaiya Branch Canal (9.0 m3/s, 19.0 km)
Laxmipur Branch Canal (10.2 m3/s, 17.2 km)

West Main Canal

Bhalohia Branch Canal (17.6 m3/s, 32.3 km)
Bahuari Branch Canal (2.21 m3/s, 12.0 km)
Bagahi Branch Canal (7.7 m3/s, 17.8 km)

45. Figure 7 shows the first gated cross regulator structure in the East Main Canal,
adjacent to the headworks of the Manpur Branch Canal. The cross regulator consists of
dual roller gates with overhead counter-balanced manual lifting mechanisms. The same
cross regulator design is used at the next branch canal (Gadhaiya), as shown in Figure 8.
There are no side overflow weirs. These gates do not perform optimally for good water
level control due to the hydraulic properties of orifices (vs. weirs).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 7: Cross Regulator in the East Main Canal at the Manpur Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

46. When the 1992 ADB Feasibility Study was carried out one of the main constraints
identified in terms of achieving the system’s potential irrigation development was the
existing insufficient conveyance capacity of the constructed canals, particularly the East
Main Canal and its branch canals. For example, the design capacity of the East Main
Canal is 34.7 m3/s, but its actual estimated capacity at the time was only about 15 m3/s.
Reportedly, in 2006, the capacity of the East Main Canal was increased to the design
amount by enlarging its cross sectional profile via bed widening and removing the
internal berm. The discharge records from 2012-2013 at the barrage indicate that the
maximum flow rate at the headworks was 32 m3/s (during July to September). It is
recommended that the actual discharge capacity of the East Main Canal and the three (3)
branch canals is accurately verified with field measurements, in conjunction with a
detailed survey and inventory of their respective service areas.

47. The gates in the cross regulator structure are in fair condition and the mechanical
assemblies are in good working order (refer to Figure 9). During the Kharif season, when
canal flows are highest, the gate operator at the first cross regulator (refer to Figure 7)
reports that he makes 2 to 3 gate changes per day. However, for the gate operator to make
a significant adjustment in opening requires up to an hour. During the Rabi season, the
cross regulator gates are closed on a rotation cycle so that the upstream offtakes take
most, or all, of the available water, which is then passed to the next downstream branch
canal by opening the cross regulator gates. The same gate operator at the cross regulator
also operates the adjacent branch canal headworks.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 8: Cross Regulator in the East Main Canal at Gadhaiya Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

48. The general operational objective is to maintain upstream water levels at more or
less a target elevation as indicated by marks on the concrete walls in front of the gate.
Officially, the DOI gate operators are to receive instructions from DOI Engineers or Sub-
engineers regarding canal operations; however, there are only notional efforts at very
active management of the main canals. Instead, the basic operational pattern is to attempt
to deliver the full design capacity into each branch canal, while in the Rabi season, as
previously mentioned, a rotation schedule is implemented the head of the branch canals.

49. There are no staff gauges at the main canal cross regulator structures and the
operators do not keep any written records of water levels or discharges.

50. There is a significant amount of trash and floating debris in the main canal (refer
to Figure 9). There are no trash racks and no evidence of set-aside places on the
embankments where canal trash is removed and disposed of. It is recommended that
floating booms or trash racks be installed in the system to protect the main canal cross
regulators.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 9: Roller Gate in Main Canal Cross Regulator

Source: Present Study, 2013

51. A defining characteristic of the operation of the East Main Canal is that at peak
times only about 2/3rds of the water in the system (ie, 22 m3/s out of a maximum discharge
of 32 m3/s) is actually delivered to the three (3) branch canals, while the remaining water is
taken by direct outlets (numbering about 50-60) or low-lift pumps (refer to Figure 10).
These direct outlets and low-lift pumps are operated by water users themselves, who
may or may not follow the same rotation schedules followed by the branch canals during
the dry season. Low-lift pumps are used to pump water to fields adjacent to the left bank
in areas that are outside of the official command boundaries of the scheme. However, it
is not clear how much area is really irrigated in this manner (estimate is about 400 ha).
Verification of this amount should be the subject of further investigation so a proper
determination can be made of how much area and which locations of these out of
command areas are to be brought into the authorized service area. A recommended
operational strategy for these types of main conveyance canals in similar irrigation
projects is that they be under the control of a single person or a sole entity within the
central office (often called a “watermaster”) who is in charge of scheduling and monitoring
the distribution of available water supplies at the main canal level on an equitable basis.
Since the operators in the East Main Canal do not have control over such a significant
portion of the flow in the system, their job is much more difficult and the flows taken by all
outlets are more variable and uncertain.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 10: Local Farmer using a Low-lift Pump for Irrigation of Field on the Left-
bank of East Main Canal (in an Out of Command Area)

Local farmers can rent diesel-powered

low-lift pumps from nearby villages for
250 NPR/hour. This farmer is irrigating a
portion of his 3 ha located adjacent to the
left-bank of the East Main Canal.

Source: Present Study, 2013

52. There was no provision for all-weather maintenance roads on both sides of the
main canal embankments, or lower level canals, at the time of construction. Access for
vehicles and maintenance equipment is possible along one side of the main canal for
most sections, but is quite rough in some places. There are no bridge crossings where
the East Main Canal crosses rivers in siphons.

53. The emergency spill (side escape) on the East Main Canal (located about 4 km
downstream of the 2nd cross regulator) is shown in Figure 11. The structure consists of
two (2) sluice gates, which are no longer functional. Even though the inlet to the structure
is mostly silted in, the water lines on the concrete walls indicate that water does spill over
the top of the gates when the canal is full. This section of the main canal has a substantial
amount of sediment that has not been removed, and the canal banks are not well
maintained.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 11: Dilapidated Emergency Spill Structure on the East Main Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

54. The main canals were originally constructed with wide internal berms, as shown
in Figure 12, to be later removed when future phases of the project would be built. The
physical assessment of the canals carried out during the RAP field work indicated that
the condition of the unlined sections in some parts of the system varied considerably.
While some sections have recently been re-sectioned (refer to the right photograph in
Figure 12), other sections are poor due to (i) the regrowth of dense vegetation, even trees,
in the canal and on the embankments; (ii) rough finishing during original excavation and
subsequent canal cleaning; (iii) poor compaction during original construction; and (iv) bank
erosion.

55. As shown in Figure 13, the lower portions of the main canals are in significantly
worse shape than the headend and receive little, if any, maintenance. Dense vegetation
restricting flow is a problem in the entire canal network, but particularly in the secondary
and sub-secondary canals.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 12: Section of the East Main Canal between the 1st and 2nd Cross Regulators
(left) and Re-sectioned Section downstream of the 2nd Cross Regulator (right)

Source: Present Study, 2013

Figure 13: East Main Canal in the Section Upstream of the Laxmipur Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

4. Branch Canals

56. The six (6) branch canals in the BIP canal network range in size from 2.2 m 3/s to
17.6 m3/s (design capacities). The branch canals generally run north to south starting at the
main canals. There are no re-regulation reservoirs or recirculation of drainage water at the
branch canal level.

57. Figure 14 shows headworks of the Manpur Branch Canal, the first offtake from
the East Main Canal, which supplies four distributary canals. The headworks consist of a
single manually-operated sluice gate (2.5 m x 1.45 m). The head gate is operated by the
DOI gate operator that also controls the adjacent main canal cross regulator.

Figure 14: Headworks of the Manpur Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

58. The Manpur Branch Canal was constructed in 1985 and according to the 1992
ADB Feasibility Study its discharge capacity was 3.5 m3/s. This was subsequently increased
to approximately 8.0 m3/s in order to supply a potential service area of about 7,000 ha.
After this, during the time when new settlers were moved into the scheme, an additional
1,200 ha were added to the command area of this branch canal by developing previously
forested areas up to km 3+660. The discharge capacity of the canal was correspondingly
increased to 9.2 m3/s ([7,000 + 1,170 ha] x 1.124 l/s/ha = 9.2 m3/s). Notably, this entire new
service area at the headend of the Manpur Branch Canal was all added using ungated pipe
outlets, which has contributed to the inequitable nature of water delivery service in the
system. This lack of canal construction to distribute water at the secondary and tertiary
levels also means that more paddy-to-paddy field-level water distribution is practiced
with the associated higher level of conveyance losses.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

59. There are no flow measurement devices at the start of the branch canals and
discharge is only roughly estimated by the operators based on rules of thumb about gate
openings; however, as shown in Figure 15 measurement structures had been installed in
the past but were vandalized and no longer function. Reportedly, the DOI undertook a
program several years ago to rate some canal sections, but these calibrations are not used.

Figure 15: Broken Measurement Flume at the start of the Bahuari Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

60. The head gate of the Manpur Branch Canal is in fair condition, the gate stem is
greased, and the sluice gate moves freely. However, there is a wide disparity in terms of
the dimensions and physical condition of branch canal head gates. Figure 16 shows the
backside of the head regulator at the Gadhaiya Branch Canal (the 2nd offtake from the
East Main Canal). As can be seen in the photograph this gate is difficult to move and
requires two men to physically operate it. The main reason, besides the gate’s large
dimensions and weight, is that the spindle was not fixed to the center of the gate leaf,
meaning it jams in the side-runners. This is such an obvious problem, and so easy to
remedy, it is difficult to know why it has not been repaired, or how the spindle could have
not been installed vertically in the first place (only 2 years previously).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 16: Head Gate of the Gadhaiya Branch Canal with Threaded Gate Stem that
is Not Vertical and Difficult to Move

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

61. There is a relatively large headloss across the headworks of the branch canals
(about 1.5 m), which facilitates more steady of control of the discharge from the main
canal. The head gates of the Manpur and Gadhaiya Branch Canal both operate as free flow.
This situation would make possible the installation of a weir or flume flow measurement
structure at the start of the branch canals.

62. Further indication of disparities in the physical condition of the canal infrastructure,
even within the same main canal, is given by Figure 17, which shows the headworks of
the Laxmipur Branch Canal (the last offtake from the East Main Canal). This gate is not
only difficult and cumbersome to move, it illustrates a type of hardware design that is not
effective for the precise control of canal flows.

Figure 17: Headworks of the Laxmipur Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

63. There are approximately twenty (20) drop structures in the Manpur Branch Canal.
The original drop structures in the branch canals (and distributary canals) were designed
as vertical concrete structures (1.5 m drop) with horizontal stilling basins. However, as
can be seen in Figure 18, farmers do add temporary bamboo dams on top of some of these
drop structures in order to check up the upstream water levels when canal flows are low.

64. Gated cross regulators, such as the one shown in Figure 19, have subsequently
been installed in the branch canals at offtakes to distributary canals. The cross regulator
design is similar to the gated head regulators, consisting of manually-operated vertical
sluice gates with single or double lifting stems.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 18: Farmer-installed Bamboo Weir on Concrete Drop Structure in Manpur

Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

65. Similar to the branch canal headworks’ design, some of the gated cross regulators
have single stem gates, while others are double-stem. As demonstrated by the photograph
in Figure 20 showing two operators moving the cross regulator, these double stem gates
are very difficult to operate.

66. Operators of the branch canals do not keep written records of water levels or
discharges. There are no functional staff gauges in the branch canals, with the exception
of some gauges that were painted on structures at several places when rated sections
calibrations were done a few years ago.

67. The general condition of the canal embankments is fair to poor. There are some
places where severe bank erosion was observed during the RAP. Some gabion bank
protection works were installed over too-short a distance and bank compaction was
inadequate. Some of the gabions have started to fail within only a few years of installation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 19: Cross Regulator in Manpur Branch Canal at the Offtake to the Rajghat
Distributary Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

68. There are a substantial number of un-gated outlets located along the branch
canals, some supplied with multiple pipes through the embankments. Services area for
these direct outlets range from 30 ha to over 80 ha. Some of these outlets supply field
channels that were installed with the permission of DOI and are well maintained.

69. Figure 21 shows the results of CAD works that were constructed and installed in
the Laxmipur Branch Canal. As can be seen from the photos, the cross regulator gates,
which are of poor quality, were not even installed vertical, making them difficult to
operate. The gear-operated gate lift shown in the figure was reportedly procured by the
contractor from Calcutta, and it is of extremely poor quality and design. Besides these
obvious mechanical problems with the installation, other issues include: (i) the lack of
primer and all weather paint to protect the metal; (ii) the gate stem cover (top) is welded
onto the actuator preventing access to the threaded stem for greasing and maintenance;
(iii) the rubber gate seals are poor quality and not securely attached to the gate leaf; (iv)
the gate frame is not level, (v) the quality of the concrete is very poor and the poured
walls are not straight or level; (vi) there are no handrails or other safety features; (vii)
backfill around the structure is uneven and insufficient; and (viii) there is a tremendous
over-amount of concrete works.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 20: Two Operators are required to move the Sluice Gates in the Manpur
Branch Canal Cross Regulator at the Barhathawa Distributary Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

Figure 21: Poor-quality Gate Lifts and Gate Stems that are Not Vertical

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

5. Distributary Canals

70. There are fifteen (15) distributary canals in the BIP. The distributary canals are
the lowest level of the canal system operated and supervised by the DOI employees.
Generally, a distributary canal serves approximately 5 to 7 secondary canals covering a
service area of about 1,000 to 1,500 ha with a design capacity of 1.0 to 1.5 m 3/s. There
are no flow measurement structures at the start of distributary canals and gate rating
tables are not available.

71. Some distributary canals only serve a small fraction of their original design service
area reliably. Secondary canals, which may be rotated depending on the length and
configuration of the parent distributary canal, receive significantly worse service at the tail
end. Notably, the project does not maintain adequate records of the amount of irrigated
area receiving canal water from the system.

72. Figure 22 shows the headworks of the Rajghat Distributary Canal (Manpur Branch
Canal), which has a design service area of 1,230 ha (10+660 km) and supplies two (2)
secondary canals. The headworks consists of a single 3-m wide manually-operated sluice
gate. The structure is in good condition and the gate stem is greased.

Figure 22: Headworks of the Rajghat Distributary Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

73. The condition and functional state of the headworks of distributary canals varies,
however, quite significantly within the project. The head gate shown in Figure 23 is at
the offtake from the Laxmipur Branch Canal to the Pararia Distributary Canal. This structure
is missing the gate stem and farmers have to put blocks underneath to hold it open. What is
unexpected about this particular situation is that this distributary canal was rehabilitated
several years ago, when all the cross regulator structures (refer to Figure 24) and head
gates of its secondary canals were replaced, except this headworks structure was left in
this condition. Apparently, this is because the CAD works only involved construction of
completely new structures, while maintenance of the existing structures, such as this head
gate, was the responsibility of the DOI to be done under normal maintenance budgets (but
has not been done yet).

Figure 23: Head Gate of the Pararia Distributary Canal (Non-functional)

Source: Present Study, 2013

74. During the dry season when the available water supply at the Bagmati River
diminishes, a rotation schedule is followed in the Manpur Branch Canal, whereby the
Rajghat Distributary Canal receives water for 6 days, and then is off for 8 days (14-day
rotation cycle). During this 6-day period the head gate is left completely open and there
is little or no flow past the cross regulator in the branch canal. Subsequently, the water is
taken for 8 days by the next distributary canal (Barhathawa), during which time the
secondary canals also all take water for 8 days. Thus, the rotation schedule is applied at
the head of distributary canals, as well as at the head of secondary canals, depending on
the location within the system.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

75. The cross regulators in distributary canals consist of single vertical sluice gates
(refer to Figure 24). Generally, even gates like these, which have only been installed for
less than five years, are difficult and time-consuming to operate for good water level
control. These types of actuators have an enclosed gear mechanism that is operated by
a removable handle. Water level fluctuations during canal operations are significant, up
to about ±15 cm or more. At some locations it is evident that the cross regulators in
distributary canals are moved infrequently or not at all.

76. Note that in Figure 24 the old concrete drop structure is visible about 20 m
downstream of the new gated cross regulator that was installed under a recent CAD
program. Since these concrete drop structures had vertical grooves in the walls it is not
readily apparent why the gates were not installed in the existing structure (or the existing
structures modified according) instead of building an entirely new structure upstream.

Figure 24: Cross Regulator in the Pararia Distributary Canal (CAD)

Source: Present Study, 2013

77. In some parts of the distributary canals there is silt in the canal bed up to about
50-60 cm deep. When queried why the field channels are being well-maintained, but not
the distributary canals, the reason given was that it was straightforward to organize 10 to
15 farmers for cooperative works, however, organizing 1000 farmers was not possible
due to the lack of functioning WUAs.9

9
Personal communication: Sarlahi District WUA President.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

6. Secondary and Sub-Secondary Canals

78. There are 80 secondary canals in the BIP according to an inventory of the canal
system carried out in 2005. Each secondary serves about several hundred hectares with
a design duty of 0.95 l/s/ha. There is a large range in the service area of individual
secondary canals, from about 100 ha to over 700 ha. There are no flow measurement
structures at the start of secondary canals and gate rating tables are not available.

79. The secondary canal headworks in the BIP consist of single manually-operated
sluice gates. A secondary canal headworks supplied by the Pararia Distributary Canal is
shown in Figure 25. This structure was built several years under a CAD program. The
quality of the structures and concrete works is better than some other places where CAD
works were constructed, but the overall quality is still less than satisfactory. Besides the
basic hydraulic circumstances that make a fully gated system like this very difficult to
operate effectively, these gate lifts, in particular, have several faults that will hamper their
long term operation. Instead of requiring high-quality, all-weather, robust and commercially
available hardware, the gate lifts that were procured and installed by the local contractors
are not the type that can be easily maintained and function easily. For example, similar to
the gate lifts shown previously in Figure 21, these have fully welded enclosures that do
not permit access to the gear mechanism or threaded gate stem.

Figure 25: Secondary Canal Headworks supplied by the Pararia Distributary Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

80. At the secondary canal level and below there are no gated cross regulators. The
1992 ADB Feasibility Study proposed an operations strategy of proportional flow division
below the secondary canal, whereby fixed crest proportional flow dividers would equitably
distribute the available water supplies to offtaking sub-secondary and tertiary canals;
however, these proportional flow dividers were not built as part of the CAD works. Instead,
irrigation water is distributed by water users among outlets through a rotation schedule.

81. Figure 26 shows the headworks of a sub-secondary canal that is indicative of

some design and construction issues in some recent CAD works.10 This particular outlet
reportedly supplies an area of only about 30-40 ha. Besides the poor quality of the gate
hardware itself, a remarkable quantity of concrete and materials were used for a structure
of this capacity (30-40 l/s). The lack of sufficient backfill is also evident. There are no staff
gauges at the structure nor indication of whether flow measurement was an intentional part
of the design. The long throat in front of the gate is susceptible to filling with silt, and
indeed this has happened.

Figure 26: Sub-secondary Canal supplied by the Laxmipur Branch Canal (CAD)

Source: Present Study, 2013

10
According to the Project Completion Report (2011) for Consulting Services for Remaining Command Area
Development (CAD) Works, issues with the contractors performing the CAD works have included: negligence in
following prescribed testing routines and not seeking specified inspections; not mobilizing sufficient resources,
skilled manpower, and equipment to manage and supervise the works; and subletting the works to
unauthorized, unskilled and incapable local subcontractors. Note: these are just issues with the carrying out
of the construction and no not address issues with the specifications, or why out-dated design strategies
were followed by DOI and the local consultants in the first place.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

82. Other design and construction issues with other CAD works are illustrated by the
photographs in Figures 27 and 28. The elevated RCC channel shown in Figure 27 is
part of a secondary canal supplied from the Barhathawa Distributary Canal that is about
10 km long. This secondary canal traverses across fields, village areas, and roads in the
same elevated manner with concrete supports. Sections of the canal have settled, and in
some places the walls have been damaged. This relatively small canal was built at a very
high cost, but reportedly, the canal is not used for water conveyance and distribution in the
area it was supposed to serve.

Figure 27: Elevated RCC Section of Secondary Canal (CAD)

Source: Present Study, 2013

83. Figure 28 shows the start of a secondary canal supplied by the Pararia Distributary
Canal that was constructed in recent years. As can be seen in the photograph, nearly the
entire canal cross section is filled with silt. Reportedly this was due to problems with the
design, including using an insufficient gradient and a cross section that was too wide for the
design flow for this service area. Whatever the reasons for its present silted-in condition,
apparently the water users have not self-mobilized in order to clean the canal on the
basis that this responsibility lies with the DOI.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 28: Secondary Canal filled with Silt (supplied by the Pararia Distributary Canal)

Source: Present Study, 2013

7. Field Channels

84. Direct outlets from branch, distributary, secondary, sub-secondary and tertiary
canals supply field channels that distribute water to individual fields. The smallest
command area unit in the design of the BIP irrigation layout is a chak consisting of 30 ha
(24 ha net). The terminology of field channel and tertiary canal is used somewhat inter-
changeably in the project. Within the chak the official canal layout entails small field
channels constructed by farmers to take water to individual plots. Some of what are
considered field channels by the project are actually serving the area covered by multiple
chaks. It is mostly a distinction in name only, since below the head gates of the
secondary or sub-secondary canals there is no permanently constructed infrastructure in
terms of cross regulators or gated outlets.

85. An example of a direct outlet constructed under the recent CAD program is
shown in Figure 29. The outlet consists of un-gated pre-cast concrete elements. Each
outlet is sized for a design capacity of approximately 30 l/s/ha. These represent “good”
examples for CAD outlets; others inspected in the project were of a similar design, but
mainly just consisted of small concrete walled structures with short pipes that were already
falling apart, such as the one shown in Figure 30.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 29: Outlets from Secondary Canal (Laxmipur Branch Canal) (CAD)

Source: Present Study, 2013

86. Figure 31 shows a field channel supplied by a direct outlet from the Manpur
Branch Canal. In general, the field channels appear to be well maintained, which is a
distinction from the tertiary, secondary and distributary canals that supply them.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Figure 30: Outlet from Secondary Canal (Pararia Distributary Canal (CAD)

Source: Present Study, 2013

Figure 31: Field Channel supplied by a Direct Outlet from the Manpur Branch Canal

Source: Present Study, 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

III. BENCHMARKING RESULTS

87. The benchmarking results for the BIP presented in this chapter reflect a poor level
of water delivery service and irrigation performance. There are several categories of
explanation including outdated infrastructure and designs flaws, a lack of sufficient cash-
flow for regular maintenance, institutional weaknesses and management limitations, and
serious difficulties in controlling and measuring water as it is conveyed and distributed to
water users.

A. Summary Main Findings

88. The BIP consists of an extensive upstream-controlled canal system with vertical,
screw-driven, undershot gates at canal headworks and cross regulators down to the
secondary canal level, with a significant number of un-gated direct outlets at all levels of
the network. Similar to other poor-performing Nepalese irrigation projects in the Terai,
the BIP has not benefited from modern designs and operational strategies. The design
concept was based on continuous flow in the main, branch and distributary canals, with
rotation of the secondary canals in the dry season. The system took a long time to build,
with the construction of CAD works following many years after the main canal network was
installed. Initially, the main and branch canals were built with smaller capacities than what
was required for the areas they served. This situation has partly been remedied, but the
new canal capacities have not been accurately verified and are based in part on unrealistic
assumptions about irrigation and conveyance efficiencies. Siltation and the lack of
preventative maintenance have contributed significantly to the present poor performance
of the system.

89. It is practically impossible to carefully control flows in the tailend reaches of the
branch and distributary canals of the system in an equitable and reliable manner, especially
with the existing hardware, lack of communications between operators and an active and
centralized water management authority, lack of accurate flow measurement devices or
methods, absence of regulating reservoirs, interference by farmers who operate so many
direct outlets, and other issues.

90. There are large uncertainties in the water balance and production-related datasets
(irrigated acreage, crop types, cropping calendar) analyzed as part of the RAP that
should be refined as part of an enhanced monitoring program. The amount of irrigated
service is not actually well-measured, and even though the canal capacities have been
increased at different places in the system, there has also been a significant increase in
the service area of some canals due to the inclusion of forested area that were previously
out of command. A water balance using recent and verified data should be completed for
each of the branch canal systems, in conjunction with the carrying out of a detailed
engineering survey of the present status all control-related infrastructure. The service area
(net irrigated hectares) and actual canal capacity (m3/s) of each canal system needs to be
verified, identifying cultivable and irrigated areas.

91. The execution of the CAD program has, on the whole, been unsatisfactory in terms
of both design and construction. Some of the canal infrastructure that has been installed in
the system is of such poor quality that it should be removed and completely replaced.

92. The current mode of operation of the branch and distributary canals results in
severe inequities in the distribution of irrigation water to secondary and tertiary canals. The
cross regulators and head gate structures of many canals are in poor condition, so it is
very difficult to provide a steady and reliable discharge corresponding to current irrigation
demands.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

93. There is a noticeable disparity in the vigor and quality of crop stands among
different areas in the command area. It is not clear at this point if this is primarily due to
irrigation constraints or if there are other factors involved such as differences in soil
fertility or a lack of other inputs such as fertilizer and good quality seeds.

94. The main and branch canal cross regulators are used to maintain target water
levels at FSL; however, in the dry season (Rabi) the cross regulator gates even in the
main canal are fully or partially closed to allow rotational water deliveries to occurring at
upstream offtakes – including a large number direct (un-gated) outlets. Then, the strategy
is to reduce the water level maintained in the upstream pool and route the available canal
flows to the next downstream regulator, where the next rotation will occur for a few days.
This operational strategy is made necessary by the absence of functioning head gates at
the offtakes, the lack of real-time control over discharges into the branch and distributary
canals, the way that the project office views it responsibility for water control only being
at higher levels of the system, and a general shortage of effective manpower in the field.
While necessary given the current constraints though this mode of operation contributes
greatly to tailender inequities in service. (Note: even at offtakes where the head gates
appear to be operable, the BIP staff do not always have operational control over them, so
they mostly remain open.)

95. Improvements in irrigation efficiencies, widespread crop diversification, and the

adoption of modern on-farm water management practices in the BIP will only be possible
after the successful implementation of a modernization program that addresses existing
operational constraints with effective water control and monitoring throughout the system.

96. During low flow conditions in the Bagmati River with the present control strategy
and infrastructure, it very difficult to supply irrigation water equitably to different areas of
the project. Tailenders have historically suffered the most from water shortages with
many not able to receive any irrigation water at all from the canal system. As a result
there is increasing conjunctive use of groundwater, particularly towards the tail end of the
system. Given the general impression that there is a reasonably good supply of groundwater
in the lower parts of the BIP command area, there may be the potential to either
systematically integrate more conjunctive use into the system, or to re-evaluate what the
boundaries of the command area should be in terms of a secure surface water supply.

97. The subsequent addition of a large number of direct outlets in upper portions of
the command area (formerly forested areas) has exacerbated water shortages and
tailender inequities in the project. It has also undermined the ability of the DOI to
cooperatively develop and implement water allocation plans that are seen as fair by a
majority of farmers. All offtakes, particularly those supplied by the main canals need to be
managed as part of the rest of the system, especially during the rotation schedule followed
by the secondary canals.

98. Once the irrigation season starts, the headgates to the secondary canals are
generally opened all the way and left that way. Not surprisingly, water only reaches
blocks in lower parts of the system on a very unreliable basis and in relatively small
quantities, usually during rain events when upstream farmers don’t want irrigation water.
Water users have compensated by using pumped groundwater.

99. The prerequisites for a sustainable modernization program must be addressed

early in the implementation of future modernization investments including a well-trained
and properly motivated staff, adequate maintenance budgets, a focus on the service
attitude (irrigation project exists to serve the farmers), a sound technical plan to deal with
the major infrastructure problems, and the use of the RAP results to aid in formulating
future strategies.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

100. Managers and field staff face a daily struggle to manage a large and complex
system, which is made much more difficult by the fact there are no re-regulation reservoirs,
many broken structures, uncontrolled direct outlets, very few functional spill points
(escapes), poor coordination with lower levels of the canal network, and the basic
condition of just not having enough water distributed to adequately satisfy the area being
farmed, particularly in the dry season. Communication, meaning both the sharing of
pertinent information among operators and feedback leading to correct decision-making, is
minimal and ineffective.

101. Given the long travel times from the diversion into the main canals at barrage on
the Bagmati River to the lower parts of the system (particularly the last branch canals), a
re-regulation reservoir is necessary to buffer the variable inflow for high efficiency and
flexibility. These reservoirs could be integrated with a strategy for intentional groundwater
recharge in areas where this would benefit locally pumped groundwater for crops and
drinking water. Operations in each branch canal could also be made much simpler and
the service to farmers improved substantially by installing several in-line or off-line re-
regulation reservoirs about 2/3rds the distance down the canal. An engineering analysis for
locating and designing re-regulation points in the system should be a high priority in the
modernization planning process. An alternate to this may be to expand the augmentation
programs whereby the re-use of drainage water could provide the requisite flexibility in
canal operations.

102. Irrigation modernization plans should suit local conditions in each of the branch
canals, for example to address the different stages of canal rehabilitation in each system,
but they must also be part of an overall strategy for the entire command area.

103. Inflexible, out-dated designs and operations are limiting crop production (yields),
cropping intensity, and contributing to the serious problems with unreliable and unequitable
service in extensive parts of the command area. These out-dated designs include the
use of very heavy gates double-stem gates at cross regulators.

104. The physical hardware and conditions in the main canals are in fair to poor
shape. The control structures in the branch and distributary canals are severely deteriorated
in some places and not in acceptable working condition. Past rehabilitations efforts have
been fragmented and not addressed the system in a comprehensive manner. Some
infrastructure requires total replacement.

105. Improved flow control and measurement at the main canal level are required
before any institutional development programs are introduced. Irrigation deliveries to the
secondary and tertiary canals must be done in a well-controlled and flexible manner in
order for rotation schedules to be implemented that will extend the amount of area
supplied with canal water. This means the flow at the head gate of the secondary canals
is kept fairly constant during each rotation cycle, and farmers must have the ability to
request a reduction in the flow or closure of the head gate. Providing accurate flow
measurement at the start of the branch and distributary canals and demonstrating its use
for several seasons would be helpful with canal operations and allow WUAs to raise their
management capacity.

106. The local DOI engineering staff does not have the technical capacity at present to
develop strategic modernization plans that use sophisticated modern designs or
management practices. A major training effort will be required to introduce modernization
concepts and teach practical design, engineering and construction techniques. Emphasis
should be put on proper flow measurement technologies and modern water control in
large canal systems. Field staff also require training on aspects of canal operations such
as accurate discharge measurement and record-keeping.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

107. The low salaries and lack of proper incentives for irrigation staff at all levels of the
system is seriously undermining not only the efficient operation of the system, but also
hampering the ability of the institutional reforms aimed at improving agricultural production.
The majority of farmers have suffered from inattention and neglect while the infrastructure
in many places has seriously deteriorated.

108. Traditional rehabilitation projects such re-building existed gated structures should
be rejected in place of simple, robust structures and operational policies that have a high
likelihood of success. The outcomes of modernization should be aimed to provide
perceptible and sustainable benefits to farmers, which the existing designs and operations
have not been able to deliver.

109. There needs to be clarity at all levels of the system, including the WUAs and water
users, about exactly what the roles and responsibilities are for operations and maintenance.
The details of things like preventative maintenance plans need to be clearly agreed upon
and sufficiently funded either by the DOI or through fees collected from farmers.

110. A realignment of the irrigation charges and revenue collection in the project is
needed that will provide sufficient funds to the WUAs and the DOI for preventative
maintenance and modernization improvements. The existing maintenance budgets are
grossly inadequate. Broken items are not being fixed. Silt is not being removed from the
canals sufficiently, which only creates more expensive problems later on.

111. In the past resources have been put into calibrating sections of canals, even
though the accuracy of such calibrations is usually unacceptably inaccurate. If regular
calibrations were done at the start of well-maintained distributary canals, by qualified staff,
it may be possible to have reasonably accurate rating tables established. At present, local
staff do not have either the technical training or the equipment (current meters) needed to
properly calibrate rated gates or canal sections. In addition, the heavy silt load in the
canals presents special difficulties for producing accurate and reliable rating tables. More
emphasis should be placed during the modernization planning and training on the
requirements associated with a large-scale structure calibration program.

B. Benchmarking Indicators

112. The RAP comprises formalized ranking indicators for characterizing the quality of
water delivery service that is provided by an irrigation project. Key indicators are specified
for different levels of the system – individual field, most downstream point operated by a
paid employee, second level canals, and main canals. The water delivery service index is
a composite of assigned ratings (on a 0 to 4 scale) for flexibility, reliability, equity, and
other parameters such as the measurement of volumes and control of flow rates,
depending on the level of the system being analyzed. Weighting factors are applied to
each sub-indicator rating to reflect their relative importance in the degree of service
within each indicator group.

113. The Rapid Appraisal carried out in the BIP focused primarily on internal project
operations and canal system infrastructure. The objective was to identify key factors related
to water control and measurement in the system, and as necessary, suggest practical
strategies for improvement.

114. The completed worksheets from the RAP including those for the main canal(s),
secondary canals, tertiary canals, and final deliveries are contained in Attachment 1.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

1. Internal Indicators

115. The results of the internal benchmarking indicators for the canal system are
summarized in Table 4. Most of the key indicators reflecting operations and service are
significantly below 2.0. These very low values suggest widespread problems resulting in
poor levels of irrigation performance, particularly those that are associated with operations.

Table 4: Bagmati Irrigation Project Internal Indicators – Canal System

Bagmati Irrigation Project Value*
Actual water delivery service to individual ownership units (eg, field or farm) 1.0
Stated water delivery service to individual ownership units (eg, field or farm) 1.5
Actual water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee 0.8
Stated water delivery service at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee 1.4
Actual water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals 1.7
Stated water delivery service by the main canals to the second level canals 2.8
Social “order” in the canal system operated by paid employees 1.0
Main Canal – East Main Canal
Cross regulator hardware (main canal) 2.7
Turnouts from the main canal 2.2
Regulating reservoirs in the main canal 0.0
Communications for the main canal 2.2
General conditions for the main canal 1.6
Operation of the main canal 1.0
Second-level Canals
Cross regulator hardware (second-level canals) 2.0
Turnouts from the second-level canals 1.5
Regulating reservoirs in the second-level canals 0.0
Communications for the second-level canal 2.1
General conditions for the second-level canals 1.3
Operation of the second-level canals 1.0
Third-level Canals
Cross regulator hardware (third-level canals) 1.3
Turnouts from the third-level canals 2.0
Regulating reservoirs in the third-level canals 0.0
Communications for the third-level canals 2.1
General conditions for the third-level canals 1.1
Operation of the third-level canals 1.0
* Values are assigned to indicators and sub-indicators on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 indicating least
desirable and 4 denoting the most desirable
Source: Present Study, 2014

116. The internal indicators are a measure of the flexibility, reliability, equity and
measurement of the irrigation water supplies at different levels of the canal system. One
can definitely say that the present water delivery service to individual fields is not close to
the degree that would be required for modern farm irrigation methods. A specialized
indicator that ranks the ability of the present water delivery service to support pressurized
irrigation system is 0.3 out of a possible 4.0. Significant progress in the control and
flexibility of the flows at this level should be a high priority for future modernization efforts.
The RAP results indicate that the reliability and equity of farm irrigation deliveries is very
poor. The inflexible nature of canal operations provides little flexibility to farmers, even
though very simple field irrigation techniques still require some level flexibility in order to be
reasonably efficient.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

117. There is a significant difference between quality of water delivery service as

described in the project office questions and the actual service as assessed by the RAP
indicators. For example, the actual water delivery service by the main canals to branch
canals (1.7) compared to the stated service (2.8) is much different. The values given in the
office for reliability and equity were particularly overstated compared to the conditions
found in the field. The management of the BIP seem to have a relatively good understanding
of the O&M challenges experienced in the field, so this discrepancy is partly due to the
inevitable better presentation of things that occurs at the beginning of an unfamiliar
benchmarking exercise. However, it is also a reflection of widespread problems that exist
in the system compared to the unintentional focus on areas that receive at least a
minimum degree of service. It is an unspoken, but real acceptance, that tailenders cannot
receive the same level of service in terms of reliability and equity in canal water supplies.

118. Another point to bear in mind about the internal indicators shown in Table 4 is that
they attempt to reflect the situation more or less across the entire project. Therefore, two
points are relevant. The first is that conditions in some parts of the system are significantly
worse than the indicators appear to show. Second, the RAP indicators for the BIP are so
low that in many cases the distinction between poor and extremely poor ratings is hard to
meaningfully distinguish.

119. Ratings for the quality of water delivery service provided by the DOI at different
levels of the system are progressively worse (eg, 1.5 at main to secondary canal and 0.8
at the head of the secondary canals), which in part is due to the fact that the DOI only
concentrates on operations at the main and branch level canals. The low service ratings
for the main canal(s) highlight the need for an effective water delivery procedure that
matches actual irrigation demands in the system. The sub-indicator measuring the degree
to which the discharges into the secondary canals were equitable was particularly low
(1.0). One sign of the severe inequity in the project is that crop yields during the Rabi
season are estimated to be about 25% less in the tailend of the canal system vs. the
headend, where water supplies are more readily available.

120. At the level of final deliveries to the individual field outlets, the very low rating for
water delivery service (1.0) is due to the lack of flow measurement (0.0), prevalent inequities
in the amount of available discharge (1.0), and uncertainties in the rotation schedule (1.0),
depending on where an outlet is located within the system.

121. Of concern is the low rating for the “social order” indicator (1.0), which reflects the
amount of widespread vandalism and broken structures/equipment (1.0), the large number
of outlets that are unauthorized (0.0), although since these outlets have been informally
sanction by DOI it is difficult to really distinguish between legal and illegal turnouts, and
overall lack of effective control at all levels of the system in terms of whether discharges are
within permissible limits (1.0) that would ensure more equity and reliability for all water users.

122. The ratings of the indicator for operations at the main canal level is significantly
worse than the indicator for cross regulator hardware (1.0 vs. 2.7) based primarily on the
fact there is a large elevation change across the headworks of branch canals, meaning
that fluctuations in water level in the main canal causing variations in the offtaking
discharges is moderated somewhat. There is a significant difference in the cross
regulator hardware ratings between the main canals (2.7) and branch canals (2.0).

123. The sluice gates used in the branch and distributary canals are difficult to operate
for maintaining constant upstream water levels, and the current level of maintenance is
inadequate. However, even though some these gates relatively well-maintained and can
move relatively easily, the critical point is that the cross regulators in the system do a
poor job of water level control.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

124. The general condition of the main canal is relatively poor (1.6); however, this is still
better than relatively worse general conditions present in the branch (1.3) and distributary
canals (1.1). These low ratings reflect a general lack of preventative maintenance and
insufficient resources in terms of maintenance staff and equipment.

125. The indicators for the offtakes from the branch to distributary canals (1.5) was
relatively low due to inadequate maintenance (1.0) and the fact that functioning of the head
gates of distributary canals (1.5) is difficult in terms of meeting targets for constants flows.

126. The ratings for communications in the scheme were similar at the main canal,
branch canal, and distributary canal level (2.2, 2.1, and 2.1). The sub-indicator ratings the
main and branch canals for the frequency of communications with the next higher level
(1.0) and the lack of remote monitoring of spill points (0.0) were particularly low.

127. The results of the internal benchmarking indicators for budgets, WUAs and DOI
employees are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Bagmati Irrigation Project Internal Indicators –

Budgets, WUAs and Employees
Bagmati Irrigation Project Value*
Budgets 0.0
Employees 1.6
Water User Associations 0.6
Mobility and size of operations staff 0.0
Computers for billing and record management 0.0
Computers for canal control 0.0
* Values are assigned to indicators and sub-indicators on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 indicating least
desirable and 4 denoting the most desirable
Source: Present Study, 2014

128. The low indicator for budgets (0.0) reflects the fact that the budget and resources
available for the proper O&M of the project are woefully inadequate and no fees are
collected from water users. From an economic standpoint, the project’s current state of
O&M is not sustainable, and now that the CAD works are nearly finished it is foreseeable
that the condition of the canals and infrastructure will deteriorate even further than their
present unsatisfactory condition.

129. The indicator for employees (1.6) is low due to issues with the inadequacy of
training, lack of incentives, and low salaries. To a certain extent DOI employees in the
project are empowered to make decisions regarding real-time operation of the system,
but the tools available to them to take effective actions are very limited.

130. WUAs only exist in a nominal form in the scheme, and the ones that do exist
(reportedly about 145 have been registered by the DOI at the level of secondary and
tertiary canals) do not collect irrigation service fees from farmers or have any recognized/
official responsibilities. There is no officially agreed upon rate that farmers should pay for
irrigation, although at least one WUA had collected 150 NPR per year ($1.50/yr) from
farmers but abandoned this effort when members complained that other farmers were
not paying such fees. The WUA indicator is very low (0.6) due to the fact that they have
little ability to influence the real-time management of the system or to rely on outside help
for enforcing rules and policies. WUAs have been organized and trained as a part of
institutional development efforts; however, at present they have only minimal input into the
day-to-day operation of the system. Groups of farmers do have to cooperate in order to
distribute water, especially since farmers themselves have control over most of the canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

system below the distributary canal level, but these interactions occur within the
framework of localized power dynamics and social structures.

131. The ratings for the use of computers for billing/record management (0.0) and canal
control (0.0) are both quite low and reflect the fact that there is minimal use of modern
information technologies tools for the management of the BIP.

2. External Indicators

132. The RAP procedures include a project-level water balance framework, as well as
important accounting information about water use, yields and economics. Reasonably
accurate water balance-related estimates are essential for making meaningful decisions
regarding the quantity of water that can be made available for different WUAs/farmers
and other strategic allocations choices.

133. The readily available water balance data from the DOI were incomplete and with
such large uncertainties in the estimates that it was not possible to compute some
external indicators related to irrigation performance with an acceptable level of accuracy.
The DOI did not provide adequate datasets for (i) crop areas, (ii) pumped groundwater,
or (iii) main canal releases, and the limited time available for the benchmarking component
of the study did not permit the production or verification of independent sets of values.
Remote sensing may provide an opportunity to refine the estimates contained herein in
order to provide a reasonable range of critical values such as current crop water use,
and projected irrigation demands under different climatic and management scenarios. But
the fact that data was not accessible in order to produce reasonably accurate benchmarking
of the external indicators does give some indication of the management deficiencies that
need be addressed in the future.

134. The external indicators for the BIP are presented in Table 6. These indicators are
based on the IPTRID guidelines for benchmarking,11 supplemented by the results of the
RAP (refer to Attachment 2).

11
Malano, H and M. Burton. 2001. Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage
Sector. IPTRID Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. Rome.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Table 6: Bagmati Irrigation Project External Indicators

Service Delivery Performance Value
Annual project irrigation efficiency (%) na
Annual field irrigation efficiency (%) na
3
Total annual volume of irrigation water delivery (Mm /year) na
3
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m /ha) na
3
Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m /ha) na
Main system water delivery efficiency na
Annual relative water supply na
Annual relative irrigation supply na
Water delivery capacity na
Cropping intensity (%) na
Security of entitlement supply na
Financial
Cost recovery ratio 0.0
Maintenance cost to revenue ratio 0
Total O&M cost per unit area (US$/ha) 36
Total cost per person employed on water delivery (US$/person) 1,481
Revenue collection performance 0
Staffing numbers per unit area (persons/ha) 0.0075
3
Average revenue per cubic meter of irrigation water supplied (US$/m ) 0
Productive Efficiency
Total gross annual agricultural production (tons) na
Total annual value of agricultural production (US$) na
Output per unit service area (US$/ha) na
Output per unit irrigated area (US$/ha) na
3
Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m ) na
3
Output per unit water consumed (US$/m ) na
na = not available
Source: Present Study, 2014

C. Concluding Remarks

135. Not unexpectedly, this RAP confirmed unacceptably low levels of irrigation
performance in the BIP. Many of the issues with the agricultural sector in the country are
beyond the scope of irrigation modernization, but practical solutions do exist that could
significantly improve the operations of the large canal systems in the Terai, with real
benefits to farmers, national food security, and the environment. However, even though
the importance of the BIP is nationally recognized, previous efforts have suffered
workable modernization strategies to satisfy defined objectives, and there is the critical
link between canal operations and poor performance has not been explicitly recognized.

136. Modern design of an irrigation system must not be confused solely with new physical
components. The design process for irrigation modernization should start with the definition
of performance objectives and the definition of an operational plan.

137. The first step in the modernization process is to define the proper objectives,
beginning with the sincere acceptance of a service attitude by DOI towards farmers.
Changing attitudes in the irrigation sector will go a long ways towards the development of
new ideas and new designs. The amount of funding required to implement workable
strategies and the degree of technical capacity required in the BIP should not be
underestimated though. Irrigation modernization is a long-term and expensive process that
will be difficult to implement until leaders within DOI have a better understanding of the
concepts of modernization. It also requires thorough attention to technical details, which
this report is intended to emphasis.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 45

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

138. The Consultant’s approach utilized key performance indicators to compile and
organize baseline information systematically as part of developing the formal assessment
of the BIP. These internal and external benchmarking indicators have allowed examination
of standard measures such as the adequacy and quality of water supplies in concert with
more ambiguous but essential issues such as the relative strength of rule enforcement by
the project authorities. This integration will play a dominate role because the BIP has
significant inter-related technical and institutional complexity that needs to be quickly
broken down into a range of feasible project alternatives for consideration by the
Government and ADB within the limits of available staffing time and budget.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 46

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 1 – Performance Benchmarking

Attachment 1
Results Worksheets of the Bagmati Irrigation Project
Rapid Appraisal Process

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

1 Input rules: A blank cell indicates a place for data input

2 A shaded cell should not receive input. It is a default value or explanation cell
3 3.0 Red letters indicate computed values
4 4.0 Blue values indicate values that were transferred from elsewhere in the spreadsheet.
5
6
7
8 Project Name = Bagmati Irrigation Project
9 Water Year = 2012/2013
10 Total Project area (command and non-command) Hectares; gross, including roads, all fields, water bodies
11 Command area - area with irrig. facilities 65,000 Physical area in hectares, NOT including multiple cropping
12
13 Estimated conveyance efficiency for external water 75 Percent, %
14 Est. convey. effic. for internal project recirculation 90 Percent, %
15 Estimated seepage (deep perc.) for paddy rice 10 Percent, % of irrigation water delivered to fields (averaged over the irrigation season)
16 Estimated surface losses from paddy rice to drains 20 Percent (%) of irrigation water delivered to fields
17 Estimated field irrigation efficiency for other crops 60 Percent, %
18

19 Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s) 82.9 Cubic Meters per Second (CMS)
Actual Peak flow rate into the main canal(s) at the diversion
20 point(s) 60 Cubic Meters per Second (CMS)
21
22 Average ECe of the Irrigation Water dS/m (same as mmho/cm)
23
24
25
26 This worksheet has 9 tables that require inputs FOR ONE YEAR, in addition to the cells above.
27 Table 1 - Field Coefficients and Crop Threshold Ece
28 Table 2 - Monthly ETo, mm
29 Table 3 - Surface Water Entering Command Area Boundaries
30 Table 4 - Internal Surface Irrigation Water Sources
31 Table 5 - Hectares of Each Crop in the Command Area, by Month
32 Table 6 - Groundwater Data
33 Table 7 - Precipitation, effective precipitation, and deep percolation of precipitation
34 Table 8 - Special agronomic requirements
35 Table 9 - Crop Yields and Values
36

37 Table 1 - Field Coefficients and Crop Threshold ECe

38 Threshold
39 ECe Field Coefficient, Kc (based on ETo)
40 Crop # Water year month --> January February March April May June July August September October November December
41 Irrigated Crop Name dS/m
42 1 Paddy Rice #1 3 1.01 1.16 1.20 1.01
43 2 Paddy Rice #2 3 1.00 1.11 1.20 1.20 0.92
44 3 Paddy Rice #3

45 4 Maize (Summer) 1.8 0.15 0.52 1.02 1.04 0.57

46 5 Maize (Winter) 1.8 0.51 1.02 1.05 0.61 0.15
47 6 Mustard 6 0.75 1.00 0.65 0.17
48 7 Potato 1.7 1.07 1.10 0.87 0.15 0.53
49 8 Pulses 2 0.96 0.77 0.30
50 9 Sugarcane 1.7 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
51 10 Vegetables (Summer) 1.5 0.15 0.45 0.88 0.90 0.68
52 11 Vegetables (Winter) 1.5 1.10 0.82 0.15 0.54 1.07
53 12 Wheat 6 0.75 1.10 1.10 0.67 0.20
54 13
55 14
56 15
57 16
58 17

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 1

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

59
60
61

62 Table 2 - Monthly ETo values

63 Month --> January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual
64 Monthly ETo, mm. --> 56.4 71.4 129.9 165.6 167.7 141.6 116.9 111.3 101.7 96.1 66.6 52.4 1278
65
66
67

68 Table 3 - Surface Water Entering the Command Area Boundaries (Million Cubic Meters - MCM) and which can be used for Irrigation
69
70 Month --> January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual
Irrigation Water Entering from outside the command area 37 14 40 19 10 7 117 158 140 65 6 11 623
through regular canals. The MCM should be the total MCM at
the original diversion point.
71
Other Irrigation water inflows to Command Area from External 0
72 Source #2 (Define below)
Other Irrigation water inflows to Command Area from External 0
73 Source #3 (Define below)
74 Total Surface Irrigation Water Sources 37 14 40 19 10 7 117 158 140 65 6 11 623
75
76 Define the External Sources of Irrigation Surface Water
77 External Source #2:
78 External Source #3:
79

80 Table 4 - Internal Surface Irrigation Water Sources (Million Cubic Meters - MCM)
81 ("non-canal" water could have originated from canals, but the volumes below are pumped or diverted from rivers, drains, lakes, etc.)
82 Month --> January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual
Direct Farmer Usage of non-canal Water Inside the Command
83 Area. 0.0

Project Authority Use of non-canal Surface Water Inside

84 Command Area. 0.0
85 Recirculation inside Command Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

86
87

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 2

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

88 Table 5 - Hectares of Each Crop in the Command Area, by Month

89 (note - the blue numbers in the cells for each month are the Kc values that were entered earlier. An area must be entered in the blank cells for those Kc values to be used)
90 Crop # Month of the Water Year--> January February March April May June July August September October November December max. value
91 Crop Name
92 Fields with no crop this month (computed value) 18,560 18,560 17,300 21,860 30,980 30,980 17,300 17,300 19,580 19,580 17,300 18,560
93
94 Paddy Rice #1 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.16 1.20 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
95 1 Paddy Rice #1 10,380 10,380 10,380 10,380 10,380
96 Paddy Rice #2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.11 1.20 1.20 0.92 0.00
97 2 Paddy Rice #2 24,060 24,060 24,060 24,060 24,060 24,060
98 Paddy Rice #3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
99 3 Paddy Rice #3 0
100 Maize (Summer) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.52 1.02 1.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
101 4 Maize (Summer) 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280
102 Maize (Winter) 0.51 1.02 1.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15
103 5 Maize (Winter) 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280
104 Mustard 0.75 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
105 6 Mustard 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560 4,560
106 Potato 1.07 1.10 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.53
107 7 Potato 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280
108 Pulses 0.96 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30
109 8 Pulses 6,840 6,840 6,840 6,840
110 Sugarcane 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
111 9 Sugarcane 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080 19,080
112 Vegetables (Summer) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.45 0.88 0.90 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
113 10 Vegetables (Summer) 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280
114 Vegetables (Winter) 1.10 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.54 1.07
115 11 Vegetables (Winter) 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280 2,280
116 Wheat 0.75 1.10 1.10 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
117 12 Wheat 9,120 9,120 9,120 9,120 9,120 9,120
118 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
119 13 0 0
120 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
121 14 0 0
122 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
123 15 0 0
124 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
125 16 0 0
126 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
127 17 0 0
128 Total Irrigated Cropland, Ha 46,440 46,440 47,700 43,140 34,020 34,020 47,700 47,700 45,420 45,420 47,700 46,440 85,440

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 3

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
129

130 The Groundwater data below should be provided only if wells are used within the project area.
131
132

133 Table 6 Groundwater Data (MCM)

134 Month --> January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual

135 Ground water pumped by farmers Inside the Command Area 4.1 4.1 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 27.3
Ground water pumped by the Project Authorities Inside the
136 Command Area. 0.0
Ground water pumped from the Aquifer, But which remains
137 outside the Command Area 0.0
Ground water pumped outside the Command Area and then
138 brought into the command area. 0.0

139 Total ground water pumped outside Command Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

140 Total Ground water pumped Inside the Command Area 4.1 4.1 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 2.7 27.3
141
142 Reality Check on Groundwater Storage and Recharge:
143 A. Total reported annual pump withdrawals from the aquifer = 27.3 MCM
144 B. Estimation of seepage and deep percolation of irrigation water
145 Your previous estimate of conveyance efficiency of external water (%): 75 This estimate includes spills, seepage, and evaporation.
146 Your estimate of the % of external water that deep percolates during conveyance: 15 %
147 **Note: your deep percolation estimate cannot exceed: 25 %
148
149 Your previous est. of the convey. effic. of internal project well water (%): 90
150

151 Est. of field irrigation efficiency computed from your earlier values: 65 % (this is weighted between rice and other crops; you must complete Table 7 before a value is displayed)
152 Your estimate of the % of delivered water that deep percolates on-farm: 20 %
153 **Note: your deep percolation estimate cannot exceed: 35 %
154

155 Estimated surface water imports that deep percolate due to conveyance seepage 94 MCM
156 Estimated surface water imports that deep percolate on-farm 31 MCM
157
158 C. Estimate of pumped groundwater that is used for ET or special practices in the command area: 5 MCM
159 D. Recharge from surface canal water that originated outside the boundaries 125 MCM
160 E. Difference (C - D). If the value > 0.0, the aquifer is considered as an external water source -119 MCM - Estimated net Aquifer contribution
161 Rough estimate of Net Aquifer Contribution as an external source: 0 MCM
162 END of the GROUNDWATER INPUT SECTION

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 4

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

163 Table 7 - Precipitation, effective precipitation, and deep percolation of precipitation

164 This table requires 3 inputs for each month:
165 A. The gross millimeters of precipitation per month.

166 B. For each crop, an estimate of the PERCENT of the precipitation that is effective, by month.
167 Effective precipitation is defined for this worksheet as precipitation that is either
168 - Stored in the root zone of the crop for use as ET in subsequent months, or
169 - Is used as ET during that month…….it does NOT include deep percolation for salt removal
170 ***All other precipitation either DEEP PERCOLATES, or RUNS OFF.
171 C. For each crop, an estimate of the millimeters of deep percolation of precipitation beyond the root zone, by month.
172 Item January February March April May June July August September October November December
173 Precipitation, mm 5.0 3.5 7.3 27.5 104.3 233.0 529.9 377.8 285.9 61.0 0.9 0.7
174 Crop Name

175 Crop # Irrigated Crops

176 ETfield, mm 0.00 0.00 131.19 192.10 201.25 143.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
177 1 Paddy Rice #1 % Effective precip 50 50 25
178 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 13.73 52.155 58.245 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 Deep perc. of precip., mm. 10 20 20
180 ETfield, mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.87 123.53 122.04 115.32 61.27 0.00
181 2 Paddy Rice #2 % Effective precip 5 15 20 50
182 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.496 56.6715 57.18 30.52 0 0
183 Deep perc. of precip., mm. 20 20 20
184 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 3 Paddy Rice #3 % Effective precip
186 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 Deep perc. of precip., mm.
188 ETfield, mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.16 73.63 119.21 115.74 57.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
189 4 Maize (Summer) % Effective precip 10 10 10 10 10

190 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 10.431 23.298 52.992 37.781 28.59 0 0 0

191 Deep perc. of precip., mm. 10 20 20 20 10

192 ETfield, mm 28.77 72.83 136.38 101.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.86

193 5 Maize (Winter) % Effective precip 90 90 90 90 90

194 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 6.552 24.714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.657

195 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

196 ETfield, mm 42.32 71.40 84.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.91

197 6 Mustard % Effective precip 90 90 90 90

198 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 6.552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.657

199 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

200 ETfield, mm 60.37 78.54 113.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.99 27.77

201 7 Potato % Effective precip 90 90 90 90 90

202 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 6.552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.846 0.657

203 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 5

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

204 ETfield, mm 54.16 54.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.72

205 8 Pulses % Effective precip 90 90 90

206 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.657

207 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

208 ETfield, mm 56.42 35.70 97.42 165.60 167.71 141.60 116.87 111.29 101.70 96.10 66.60 52.39

209 9 Sugarcane % Effective precip 90 90 90 75 50 25 20 20 25 50 75 90

210 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 6.552 20.595 52.155 58.245 105.984 75.562 71.475 30.52 0.705 0.657

211 Deep perc. of precip., mm. 10 20 20 20 20

212 ETfield, mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.84 75.47 124.61 105.18 75.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

213 10 Vegetables (Summer) % Effective precip 50 40 25 10 10

214 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 13.73 41.724 58.245 52.992 37.781 0 0 0 0

215 Deep perc. of precip., mm. 10 20 20 20

216 ETfield, mm 62.06 58.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.42 35.96 56.06

217 11 Vegetables (Winter) % Effective precip 90 90 10 75 90

218 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.104 0.705 0.657

219 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

220 ETfield, mm 42.32 78.54 142.88 110.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.48

221 12 Wheat % Effective precip 90 90 90 50 90

222 Effective precip., mm 4.491 3.186 6.552 13.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.657

223 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

224 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

225 13 0 % Effective precip

226 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

227 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

228 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

229 14 0 % Effective precip

230 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

231 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

232 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

233 15 0 % Effective precip

234 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

235 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

236 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

237 16 0 % Effective precip

238 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

239 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

240 ETfield, mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

241 17 0 % Effective precip

242 Effective precip., mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

243 Deep perc. of precip., mm.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 6

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

244 Table 8 - Special agronomic requirements (mm)

245
246 Some crops have special irrigation requirements at a specific time of the year.
247 For example, rice fields may need to be flooded prior to transplanting or planting.
248 Cotton fields may need to be "pre-irrigated" - that is, irrigated prior to planting.
249 These special requirements may require a much higher project irrigation water demand than what is expected if one just examines
250 evapotranspiration requirements. However, they do NOT include any leaching requirements for salinity control.

251
252 **The units of the input values for Table 8 are millimeters. They should represent the gross millimeters needed IN ADDITION TO
253 any ET requirements (minus effective rainfall). These should be "gross" values at the field,
254 but should not include any conveyance losses that are necessary to transport the water to the field.

255

256 Insert mm. values for this year. There may be no entries in this table, depending upon the crops and practices.

257 Special Needs, mm. of Irrigation Water

258 Irrigated Crop Description January February March April May June July August September October November December
259 1 Paddy Rice #1 150
260 2 Paddy Rice #2 150
261 3 Paddy Rice #3
262 4 Maize (Summer)
263 5 Maize (Winter)
264 6 Mustard
265 7 Potato
266 8 Pulses
267 9 Sugarcane
268 10 Vegetables (Summer)
269 11 Vegetables (Winter)
270 12 Wheat
271 13 0
272 14 0
273 15 0
274 16 0
275 17 0

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 7

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

276

277 Table 9 - Crop Yields and Values

278

279
280 Exchange rate - $US/(local currency) : 0.011

Farmgate
selling price, Value of
Local agricultural
Typical yield, metric currency/ Gross production,
281 Irrigated Crop Name tons/ha metric ton hectares tonnage/yr $US/yr
282 1 Paddy Rice #1 4 25000 10,380 41,520 11,533,333
283 2 Paddy Rice #2 4.5 27000 24,060 108,270 32,481,000
284 3 Paddy Rice #3 0 0 0
285 4 Maize (Summer) 3 20000 2,280 6,840 1,520,000
286 5 Maize (Winter) 5 20000 2,280 11,400 2,533,333
287 6 Mustard 0.9 80000 4,560 4,104 3,648,000
288 7 Potato 15 25000 2,280 34,200 9,500,000
289 8 Pulses 1 70000 6,840 6,840 5,320,000
290 9 Sugarcane 60 4800 19,080 1,144,800 61,056,000
291 10 Vegetables (Summer) 12 25000 2,280 27,360 7,600,000
292 11 Vegetables (Winter) 15 25000 2,280 34,200 9,500,000
293 12 Wheat 2.5 24000 9,120 22,800 6,080,000
294 13 0 0 0 0
295 14 0 0 0 0
296 15 0 0 0 0

297 16 0 0 0 0

298 17 0 0 0 0

299 Total annual value ($US) 150,771,667

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 1. Input - Water Balance 8

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E

2 Item Description Units 2012/2013 Value used Est. CI

3 Stated Efficiencies %/100
4 Stated conveyance efficiency of imported canal water (accounts for seepage and spills and tail end flows) % 75 75
5 Weighted field irrigation efficiency from stated efficiencies % 65 65
6 Areas
7 Physical area of irrigated cropland in the command area (not including multiple cropping) Ha 65,000 65,000
8 Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping Ha 85,440 85,440
9 Cropping intensity in the command area including double cropping none 1.31 1.31 0.00
10 External sources of water for the command area
11 Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area (gross at diversion and entry points) MCM 623 623
12 Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area MCM 1064 1,064
13 Effective precipitation to irrigated fields (not including salinity removal) MCM 150 150
14 Net aquifer withdrawl due to irrigation in the command area MCM 0 0 0.00
Total external water supply for the project - including gross ppt. and net aquifer withdrawl, but excluding internal
15 recirculation MCM 1,687 1,687 0.00
16 Total external irrigation supply for the project MCM 623 623 0.00
17 "Internal" Water Sources
18 Internal surface water recirculation by farmer or project in command area MCM 0 0
19 Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area MCM 27 27
20 Groundwater pumped by Project Authorities and applied to the command area MCM 0 0
21 Gross total annual volume of project authority irrigation supply. MCM 623 623 0.00
22 Total groundwater pumped and dedicated to the command area MCM 27 27 0.00
Groundwater pumped by Project Authorities and applied to the command area, minus net groundwater withdrawl
(this is to avoid double counting. Also, all of net is applied to this term, although some might be applied to
23 farmers) MCM 0 0 #DIV/0!
24 Estimated total gross internal surface water + groundwater MCM 27 27 #DIV/0!
25 Irrigation water delivered to users
26 Internal authority water sources are stated to have a conveyance efficiency of: % 90 90
27 Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users - using stated conveyance efficiency MCM 468 468 0.00
All other irrigation water to users (surface recirculation plus all well pumping, with stated conveyance
28
efficiencies, using 100% for farmer pumping and farmer surface diversions) MCM 27 27 #DIV/0!
Total irrigation water deliveries to users (external surface irrigation water + internal diversions and pumping water
29 sources), reduced for conveyance efficiencies MCM 495 495 #DIV/0!
30 Total irrigation water (internal plus external) - just for intermed. value MCM 651 651 #DIV/0!
31 Overall conveyance efficiency of project authority delivered water % 75 75 #DIV/0!
32 Net Field Irrigation requirements
33 ET of irrigated fields in the command area MCM 521 521
34 ET of irrigation water in the command area (ET - effective precipitation) MCM 371 371 0.00
35 Irrigation water needed for salinity control (net) MCM 0 0 0.00
36 Irrigation water needed for special practices MCM 52 52
37 Total NET irrigation water requirements (ET - eff ppt + salt control + special practices) MCM 423 423 #DIV/0!
38 Other Key Values
39 Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s) cms 82.9 83
40 Actual peak flow rate of the main canal(s) at diversion point(s) this year cms 60 60
41 Peak NET irrigation requirement for field, including any special requirements cms 26.2 26 #DIV/0!
42 Peak GROSS irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies cms 40.9 41 #DIV/0!
43 ANNUAL or One-Time External INDICATORS for the Command Area
44 Peak liters/sec/ha of surface irrigation inflows to canal(s) this year LPS/Ha 0.92 0.92 0.00

RWS Relative water supply for the irrigated part of the command area
(Total external water supply)/(Field ET during growing seasons + water for salt control - Effective precipitation)
45 none 3.99 3.99 #DIV/0!
Annual Command Area Irrigation Efficiency
46 [100 x (Crop ET + Leaching needs - Effective ppt)/(Surface irrigation diversions + Net groundwater)] % 68 68 #DIV/0!

Field Irrigation Efficiency (computed) =

[Crop ET-Effective ppt + LR water]/[Total Water Delivered to Users] x 100
47 % 85 85 #DIV/0!
RGCC - Relative Gross Canal Capacity -
48
(Peak Monthly Net Irrigation Requirement)/(Main Canal Capacity) none 0.32 0.32 #DIV/0!
RACF - Relative Actual Canal Flow -
49 (Peak Monthly Net Irrigation Requirement)/(Peak Main Canal Flow Rate) none 0.44 0.44 #DIV/0!
50 Gross annual tonnage of agricultural production by crop type m Tons see Table 9 on each INPUT worksheet (1

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 4. External Indicators Page 9

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E

51 Total annual value of agricultural production $ US 150,771,667 150,771,667

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 4. External Indicators Page 10

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
7 General Project Conditions
8 Average net farm size (ha) 1.0
9 Number of water users 14,000
10 Typical field size, ha 0.2
11 Number of offtakes (turnouts) that are physically operated by paid employees. These can be of any size.
12 By employees of the government or umbrella organization 100
13 By employees of water user associations - within their boundaries
14 Land consolidation (or rectangular fields) exists on what % of the project area? 0%
15 Canal water supplies what drinking water to what % of the people living in the project area? 0
16 Ownership of land, % of total
17 owned and operated by farmers 75
18 farmed by tenants on private ground 20
19 owned by government or cooperative
20 percent rented land 5
21 Check: This value should equal 100 after the question above is answered. 100
22 Field irrigation description
23 % of land with sprinklers
24 % of land with drip
25 % of land with surface irrigation 100
26 Check: This value should equal 100 after the question above is answered. 100
27 Water Supply
28 Water source (river, reservoir, wells - write in the answer) Bagmati River
29 Live Storage Capacity of Reservoir, million cubic meters (MCM)
30 Times/year the majority of system is shut down without water 1
31 Typical total annual duration of canal system shutdown, days 30
32 Provide an answer to the most applicable of the 2 questions below:

33 1. What is the volume of gross irrigation water officially allocated to the project, per year, mcm
34 or, 2. What is the maximum flow rate officially allocated to the project, (cms)
35 On the average, what percentage of this allocation is provided? (%) 100
36 Ownership (Define by terms such as "country", "state", "project", or "farmer")
37 Main canals DOI
38 Secondary canals DOI
39 3rd Level DOI
40 Distributaries to individual fields Farmers
41 Water DOI
42 Currency
43 Name of currency used in the budgets below: NPR
44 Exchange rate: (US Dollar)/(Local currency) 0.01
45
46 Umbrella Water User Association (WUA)
47 Do the individual WUAs also belong to a larger, project-level WUA? (Yes/No) No
48 If so, does the larger, project-level WUA operate the main canals? (Yes/No)
49
50 Project Budget - Does not include WUAs, unless a WUA operates the main canal(s)
51 Annual Project Budget (average over the last 5 years)
52 Total salaries (Local currency/year) 60,000,000
53 Improvement of structures, modernization (including salaries) - local currency/year
54 Maintenance (including salaries and external contracts) - local currency/yr 150,000,000
55 Rehabilitation (including salaries and external contracts) - local currency/yr
56 Other Operation (including salaries and external contracts) - local currency/yr 1,000,000
57 Administration and other (including salaries and external contracts) - local currency/yr 49,000,000
58 Total annual budget - sum of previous 5 items (Local currency/year) 200,000,000
59

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 5. Project Office Questions Page 11

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013

60 Total annual expense for pumping energy (this should have been included in Operation, above) - local currency/yr
61 Sources of the Project Budget (average over the last 5 years), % from each source
62 Country or State Government 100
63 Foreign
64 Fees from Water User Associations or Farmers (computed from later WUA data) 0
65 Check: This value should equal 100 after the "Country" and "Foreign" answers are given. 100
66 Employees
67 Professional, permanent employees (college degrees and well-trained technicians) 50
68 Professional employees that are temporary or contract - equivalent number
69 Non-professional, permanent employees
70 Non-professional employees that are temporary or contract - equivalent number 300
71 Total number of full time equivalent employees 350
72 Average years a typical professional employee works for the project (anticipated) 2
73 How many of the operation staff actually work in the field? 300
74
75 Salaries - include bonus and the equivalent costs of houses and other benefits provided.
76 Professional, senior admin, (Local currency/year) 300,000
77 Professional, engineer (Local currency/year) 240,000
78 Non-professional - canal operators, (Local currency/year) 180,000
79 Day laborers, (Local currency/year) 120,000
80
What percentage of the total project (including WUA) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is collected as in-kind
81 services, and/or water fees from water users? (calculated value from WUA worksheet) 0
82 Calculated Indicator of O&M sources (automatic computation) 0
What percentage of the total budget (project and WUA) is spent on modernization of the water delivery
83 operation/structures (as contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation)?, % 0
84 Calculated Indicator of the modernization budget (automatic computation) 0
The question below will require knowledge of the budget, as well as a qualitative assessment of project
85 activities that are seen in the field.

What is the visitor's estimate of the adequacy (%) of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available (from
all sources) to sustain adequate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) with the present mode of operation? (Answer
86 =[Available funds]/[Needed Funds] * 100), % 20
87 Calculated Indicator of O&M adequacy (automatic computation) 0
88
89 Project Operation
90 Annual Operation Policies
91 Does the project make an annual estimate of total deliveries? (Yes/No) No
92 Is there a fixed advance official schedule of deliveries for the year? (Yes/No) Yes
93 If yes, how well is it followed in the field (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed) 5
94 Does the project tell farmers what crops to plant? (Yes/No) No
95 If yes, how well is it followed (10=Excellent, 1 = Not followed)
96 Do the project authorities limit the acreage that can be planted to various crops? (Yes/No) No
97 If yes, how well is it followed (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed)
98 Daily Operation Policies - as described in the office
99 How often are main supply discharges re-calculated, days? 3 times per day
100 How are flow changes into the main canal (at the source) computed and adjusted?
101 Sums of farmer orders (Yes/No) No
102 Observation of general conditions (Yes/No) Yes
103 Standard pre-determined schedule with slight modifications (Yes/No) Yes
104 Standard pre-determined schedule with no modifications (Yes/No) No

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 5. Project Office Questions Page 12

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
105 What daily or weekly INSTRUCTIONS for field persons does the office give?
106 1. Main dam / pump station discharge flows (Yes/No) Yes
107 Predicted by computer program? (Yes/No) No
108 Later observation - How closely is this instruction followed in the field (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed)? 8
109 2. Cross regulator positions (Yes/No) Yes
110 Predicted by computer program? (Yes/No) No
111 Later observation - How closely is this instruction followed in the field (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed)? 7
112 3. Water levels in the canals (Yes/No) Yes
113 Predicted by computer program? (Yes/No) No
114 Later observation - How closely is this instruction followed in the field (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed)? 8
115 4. Flow rates at all offtakes? (Yes/No) No
116 Predicted by computer program? (Yes/No)
117 Later observation - How closely is this instruction followed in the field (10=Excellent, 1=Not followed)?
118
Based on the later observations , describe the extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are used for
119 canal control (assign a value of 0-4) 0

120 4 - Very effective usage. Real time control of all key structures with meaningful results
121 3 - A few key structures are automated with computer controls.

2 - Computers are effectively used to predict water flows, gate positions, daily diversions, or
122 other values. Open loop control. Output is used in the field and is meaningful.
1 - Computers are used to predict some key control factors, but they are quite ineffective or
123 give erroneous results.
124 0 - No computers are really used for canal operation.
125 To what extent are computers being used for billing and record management? (0-4) 0
126 4 - Used for almost all billing and records. Frequently updated and effective.
3 - Used for about half of billing and record-keeping activities. Frequently updated and
127 effective
128 2 - Just beginning either billing or record keeping of turnout deliveries.
1 - Computers are used effectively for some data management on the project (such as flows
129 down canals, dam releases), but not for billing
130 0 - No significant usage of computers for billing and record management
131
132 ***AS DESCRIBED IN THE OFFICE***
133 Stated Water Delivery Service that the Main Canal Provides to its Subcanals
134 Flexibility Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 3
4 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration, but the schedule is arranged by the
135 downstream subcanals several times daily, based on actual need.
3 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration but arranged by the downstream canal
136 once/day based on actual need.
137 2 - Schedules are adjusted weekly by downstream operators

138 1 - The schedules are dictated by the project office. Changes are made at least weekly.
0 - The delivery schedule is unknown by the downstream operators, or changes are made
139 less frequently than weekly.
140 Reliability Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 3
4 - Second Level canal operators know the flows and receive the flows within a few hours of
141 the targeted time. No shortages during the year.
3 - Second Level canal operators know the flows, but may have to wait as long as a day to
142 obtain the flows they need. Only a few shortages throughout the year.
2 - The flow changes arrive plus or minus 2 days, but are correct. Perhaps 4 weeks of some
143 shortage throughout the year.
1 - The flows arrive plus or minus 4 days, but are incorrect. Perhaps 7 weeks of some
144 shortage throughout the year.

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 5. Project Office Questions Page 13

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time and the volume is
145 unknown.
146 Equity Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 2
147 4 - Points along the canal enjoy the same level of good service
148 3 - 5% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average
149 2 - 15% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
150 1 - 25% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
151 0 - Worse than 25%, or there may not even be any consistent pattern.
152 Control of flows to Second Level canals - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 3
153 4 - Flows are known and controlled within 5%
154 3 - Flows are known and are controlled within 10%
155 2 - Flows are not known but are controlled within 10%
156 1 - Flows are controlled within 20%
157 0 - Flows have more variation than 20%
158
159 Stated Water Delivery Service provided at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee.
160 Number of fields downstream (0-4) 0
161 4 - 1 field
162 3 - less than 3 fields
163 2 - less than 6 fields
164 1 - less than 10 fields
165 0 - 10 or more fields
166 Measurement of volumes delivered at this point (0-4) 0
167 4 - Excellent measurement and control devices, properly operated and recorded
168 3 - Reasonable measurement and control devices, average operation
169 2 - Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow rates
170 1 - Reasonable measurement of flows, but not of volumes
171 0 - No measurement of volumes or flows
172 Flexibility (0-4) 2
173 4 - Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged by users within a few days
174 3 - Fixed frequency, rate or duration, but arranged.
175 2 - Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the crop needs
176 1 - Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain schedule
177 0 - No established rules
178 Reliability (0-4) 2

179 4 - Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and duration promised. Volume is known.
3 - Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally there are a few days of delay. Volume
180 is known

181 2 - Water arrives about when it is needed, and in the correct amounts. Volume is unknown.

182 1 - Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly unreliable - but less than 50% of the time.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time, and volume
183 delivered in unknown.
184 Apparent Equity (0-4) 2
4 - All points throughout the project and within tertiary units receive the same type of water
185 delivery service
3 - Areas of the project receive the same amounts of water, but within an area service is
186 somewhat inequitable.
2 - Areas of the project unintentionally receive somewhat different amounts of water, but
187 within an area it is equitable.
188 1 - There are medium inequities both between areas and within areas.
0 - There are differences of more than 50% throughout the project on a fairly wide-spread
189 basis.
190

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 5. Project Office Questions Page 14

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
191 Stated Water Delivery Service received by individual units (fields or farms).
192 Measurement of volumes to the individual units (0-4) 0
193 4 - Excellent measurement and control devices, properly operated and recorded
194 3 - Reasonable measurement and control devices, average operation
195 2 - Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow rates
196 1 - Reasonable measurement of flows, but not of volumes
197 0 - No measurement of volumes or flows
198 Flexibility to the individual units (0-4) 0
199 4 - Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged by users within a few days
200 3 - Fixed frequency, rate or duration, but arranged.
201 2 - Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the crop needs
202 1 - Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain schedule
203 0 - No established rules
204 Reliability to the individual units (0-4) 2

205 4 - Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and duration promised. Volume is known.
3 - Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally there are a few days of delay. Volume
206 is known

207 2 - Water arrives about when it is needed, and in the correct amounts. Volume is unknown.

208 1 - Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly unreliable - but less than 50% of the time.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time, and volume
209 delivered in unknown.
210 Apparent Equity (0-4) 2
4 - All fields throughout the project and within tertiary units receive the same type of water
211 delivery service
3 - Areas of the project receive the same amounts of water, but within an area service is
212 somewhat inequitable.
2 - Areas of the project unintentionally receive somewhat different amounts of water, but
213 within an area it is equitable.
214 1 - There are medium inequities both between areas and within areas.
0 - There are differences of more than 50% throughout the project on a fairly wide-spread
215 basis.
216 Computed ratio of (number of turnouts)/(number of paid employees) - uses WUA sheet information 0.2
217 Computed index of operation staff mobility and efficiency 0
218
219 Drainage, and Salinity Information
220 Average salinity of the irrigation water, dS/m (computed average of the 3 years of INPUT data) 0
221 Average salinity of the drainage water that leaves the project, dS/m
222 Average annual depth to the shallow water table, m 4
223 Change in the shallow water table depth over the last 5 years, m (+ is up) 0
224 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of the irrigation water, average mgm/L
225 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of the drainage water, average mgm/L
226 Biological load (BOD) of the irrigation water, average mgm/L
227 Biological load (BOD) of the drainage water, average mgm/L

FAO/ITRC/Cal Poly ITRC 5. Project Office Questions Page 15

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
This sheet must be completed after visiting all levels of the project.
6 The answers only refer to paid employees.
7
8
9 Various Indicators Regarding Project Employees
Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers (not secretaries and drivers). This should
10 include employees at all levels of the distribution system, not only those who work in the office. 0

4 - Adequate training at all levels. Employees are very aware of the capabilities of
themselves and of their equipment. Employees clearly have a service mentality. Employees
11 are hired with good backgrounds or are trained at the time of employment, and afterwards.
3 - Managers appear to have excellent training, both upon entering employment and
continuing afterwards. But some important knowledge has not been passed down to the
12 operators.

2 - Training exists at all levels as needed, but evidently training does not go deep enough,
because employees at all levels seem to be missing some important ideas. Many employees
13 have never had adequate training - including poor pre-employment backgrounds.
14 1 - Only minimal training exists. There is inattention to qualifications upon hiring.
15 0 - Virtually no training exists before or after hiring.
16 Availability of written performance rules 3
4 - Each employee has a written job description that spells out his/her job and specifies how
he/she will be evaluated. Evaluations are annual, and results are discussed with the
17 employee.
3 - There is a general written job description in the office. There is an annual evaluation of
18 performance, but it is not rigorous.
2 - There is an evaluation, but no detailed job description, nor is there a description of
19 evaluation procedures.
20 1 - There is a written job description, but no meaningful evaluation procedure.
21 0 - No written job description, and no formal evaluation procedure.
22 Power of employees to make decisions 2
4 - Employees are officially encouraged to think and act on their own, and they do it in a
23 positive manner.
3 - Employees are not officially encouraged to think and act on their own, but they do it
24 anyway in a positive manner.
2 - Employees are encouraged to think and act on their own, but they do not seem to have
25 much initiative.
1 - Employees are not supposed to do any significant tasks without prior authorization.
26 However, if they do take the initiative they are not punished.

0 - Employees are not supposed to do any significant tasks without prior authorization. They
27 think they will be reprimanded if they do something on their own initiative.
28 Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause. 1

4 - it is easy to fire or lay off employees. There is a short process. Employees are aware of
29 this and know of other employees being fired or laid off when it was necessary.
3 - Employees can be fired if the case is well documented. It is a long process. Employees
30 are aware of other employees being fired when it was necessary.
2 - Firing only happens occasionally due to laziness or serious problems. It is not common.
Employees believe that it would be very unusual unless a person was VERY lazy for a long
31 time.
1 - Firing rarely occurs, and never due to laziness. It is extremely difficult to lay off excess
32 personnel.

0 - Employees are virtually never fired, even if they should be. The system appears to be
33 plagued with many people who are not necessary or who should be dismissed but are not.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 6. Project Employees Page 16

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
34 Rewards for exemplary service 1

4 - There is a well designed program that follows a structured process. Rewards occur at
least annually to a significant number of individuals. Promotions are given for meritorious
35 service, and bonuses or extra benefits are given to those who are at the top of their grade.
3 - No program, but people who do a good job are frequently promoted. Promotion is based
36 on merit.
2 - Promotion is based on time in service, some extra benefits are given for exemplary
37 service. This is more than just a piece of paper.
1 - There are seldom awards, but occasionally it happens. The awards are primarily paper
38 with little or no cash or financial benefit.
39 0 - Nothing exists.
40 Relative salary of the canal operators, as compared to a typical day laborer. This is a computed value. 1.5
41 Index of the relative salary of an operator compared to a day laborer (computed value) 2.0

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 6. Project Employees Page 17

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 Water User Associations - WUAs - General description
7 Percentage of project area for which WUAS meet the following descriptions:
8 None - No WUAs exist in any form
9 WUAs exist on paper, but have no meaningful activities 100
10 WUAs exist on paper, but have no significant activities except for holding occasional meetings
11 WUAs exist, but are quite weak
12 WUAs exist, with medium strength
13 Strong WUAs with laws, enforcement, full collection of costs, new investment, etc.
14 Total (must equal 100) 100
15 Typical WUA size, ha 200
16 Typical WUA age, years 7
17 Functions of a typical WUA (Yes/No answers)
18 Distribution of water in its area Yes
19 Maintenance of canals No
20 Construction of facilities in its area No
21 Collection of water fees No
22 Collection of other fees No
23 Farmer cooperative - agronomic purposes No
24 Technical advice to farmers No
25 Are there written rules in the WUA regarding proper behavior of farmers and employees? No
26 Number of fines levied by a typical active WUA in the past year [labor fine for not participating in cleaning] 3
27
28 Governing Board of WUA - select the answer that most closely matches average conditions)
29 Elected by all farmers (1 vote/farmer) - Yes/No No
30 Elected by all farmers, but votes are weighted by farm size - Yes/No No
31 Appointed - Yes/No Yes
32 Is a government employee on the Board - Yes/No No
33
34 Water User Association (WUA) Budget - These are TOTALs of all WUAs in the project.
**This does NOT include an Umbrella WUA - its budgets should be included in the earlier Project Office
35 Questionnaire worksheet**
36 Sum of all Annual WUA Budgets (average over the last 5 years) - Local currency/yr
37 Total salaries 34,800,000
38 Improvement of structures and modernization (including salaries)
39 Maintenance (including salaries and external contracts) 34,800,000
40 Rehabilitation (including salaries and external contracts)
41 Other Operation (including salaries and external contracts)
42 Administration (including salaries and external contracts)
43 Funds sent away to the project offices or government
44 Total of all WUA Budgets (sum of previous 6 items) 34,800,000
45 Sources of WUA Budgets (average over the last 5 years), Percentage from each source
46 Country or State Government
47 Foreign
48 Fees from Farmers 100
49 Total (must equal 100) 100
50 Employees (totals for all WUAs in project)
51 Professional, permanent employees (college degrees and well-trained technicians) 0
52 Professional employees that are temporary or contract - equivalent number 0
53 Non-professional, permanent employees 0
54 Non-professional employees that are temporary or contract - equivalent number 290
55 Total number of full time equivalent employees 290
56 Average years a typical professional employee works for a WUA (anticipated)
57 How many of the operation staff actually work in the field?
58
59 Salaries - These should include the equivalent worth of benefits, housing, etc. that are provided.
60 Professional, senior admin, (Local currency/year)
61 Professional, engineer (Local currency/year)
62 Non-prof. - canal operators, (Local currency/year) 120,000
63 Day laborers, (Local currency/year)

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 7. WUA Page 18

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 Water Charges
64
65 How are water charges collected? - select one of the 3 choices below 1
66 1. None collected, and none are assessed
67 2. None collected, although policy says charges are to be collected
68 3. They are collected
69 What Percentage of water charges are recovered/collected? (%) 0
70 What group collects the water charges? (Choose 1, 2, or 3)
71 1. From individual users by the government or central organization
72 2. From individual users by a WUA
73 3. Other
74 Basis of water charge and amount of the charge
75 If by area, (Local currency)/hectare/year
76 If by crop, the maximum rate in (Local currency)/crop/year (not per season)
77 If per irrigation, specify the (Local currency)/irrigation
78 If volumetric, (Local currency)/cubic meter
79 If water charges are described as "volumetric", which one of the following describes the term?
80 a. The volume delivered to each farmer, each irrigation, is measured
81 b. The volume is estimated based on total volume applied to an area of many farms
82 Is there a special charge for private well usage? (Yes/No) No
83 If so, what is charge? (Local currency)
84 Describe the "unit" that is charged for:
85 If so, what Percentage of these charges are collected?
Estimated total annual water charges collected from farmers throughout the whole project,
86 (Local currency)/year - not including in-kind fees
What annual value of in-kind services or contributions are provided by water users above point of ownership
87 (equivalent local currency) for the total project?
88 a. Labor (Local currency value)
89 b. Crop (Local currency value)
90 c. Construction materials (Local currency value)
91 d. Other (Local currency value)
92 Total in-kind 0
93 Frequency of in-kind services (Number of times per year)
94 What Percentage of farmers participate in the in-kind services?

95 Various indices for Water User Associations (use the information above to answer these questions)
96 Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that participates in water distribution 0
97 Automatically calculated index value (0-4) 0
Actual ability of the strong Water User Associations to influence real-time water deliveries to the WUA. (Note: This
98 only applies to the strong WUAs. If there are no strong WUAs in the project, the answer is "0".) 1
4 - Within the capacity of the supply canal, changes are made according to the WUA request
99 within 1 day of advance notice as a standard practice.
3 - Changes can be made according to the WUA request with a one week advance notice -
100 any flow rate, duration, or frequency that is physically possible.
2 - Changes can be made according to the WUA request with a one week advance notice,
101 but the changes are limited (less than what is probably physically possible).
1 - The WUAs have no realistic voice in ordering, except for occasional changes. Perhaps
102 they have a formal meeting a few times a year and express their desires.
103 0 - No one listens to them.
Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of its rules (Note: If there are no WUAs in the
104 project, the answer is "0".) 1
4 - No problem. Just call up local authorities. The local authorities come out right away and
105 effectively prosecute wrong-doers.
3 - The local authorities will come and are moderately successful with prosecutions.
106 Corruption is not a problem.
2 - Sometimes, for very serious cases, the authorities will come. But they are not very
107 effective or helpful.

1 - Although some enabling laws have been written by the government, it is up to the WUA to
108 enforce those laws. There is no help with enforcement from outside the WUA.
0 - There are no enabling laws, and no outside assistance with enforcement. Everything
109 depends on the WUA.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 7. WUA Page 19

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
110 Legal basis for the WUAs (Note: If there are no WUAs in the project, the answer is "0".) 2
4 - WUAs are recognized and formed under law. They have legal powers to tax, hold
money, dismiss employees, condemn land, and own structures. The law is real and the
111 enabling legislation is upheld in courts.

3 - The WUAs are recognized by law. There is good judicial backup. However, the powers
112 are limited. The government still holds most of the power that could belong to the WUA.
2 - The WUAs are recognized by law. Many rules have been laid out in enabling legislation.
Supposedly, the WUA has power, but in reality there is no support from either the judicial or
113 executive systems to support it.
1 - Although the government has the WUAs "on the books", in reality there are few if any true
powers related to water. The WUAs were formed mainly to the bidding of the government,
114 such as collecting fees.
115 0 - WUAs are not even on the state or federal government books.
116 Financial strength of WUAS (Note: If there are no WUAs in the project, the answer is "0".) 0
4 - Completely and sufficiently self-sustaining. They have the power to tax, charge for water,
117 and obtain loans.
3 - Completely and sufficiently financed, but much of the financing comes from the
118 government in terms of maintenance, operation, grants, etc.
2 - Underfinanced, but not badly. Conditions are poor but are maintained and replaced well
119 enough to be functional. No modernization improvements are made.
1 - Inadequate, but enough funds to replace and maintain key structures. Insufficient funds
120 to do much of the basic maintenance needed..
0 - Woefully inadequate. Only enough funds or in-kind services are available to do
absolutely essential tasks. Funds are insufficient to maintain and replace essential
121 equipment.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 7. WUA Page 20

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 General Project Conditions That Require Field Visits to be Described
7 General condition of project drains (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
Does there appear to be an adequate density of drains?
8 (10=very adequate, 1=completely lacking where needed) 7
9 What is the ratio of yields at different areas of the project (head/tail) during the wet season? 1.1
10 What is the ratio of yields at different areas of the project (head/tail) during the dry season? 1.4
11
12 Silt level in canals (1=high; 10=low) 3
13 Source of silt Bagmati River/ bank erosion
14
15 Main Canal
16 Control of Flows Into Main Canals
17 Type of flow control device Roller Gates
18 Type of flow measurement device Rated Gate
19 Probably accuracy of Flow control AND measurement, +/- % 10-15%
20
21 Main Canal Characteristics
22 Total length of Main Canals, km 49.3
23 Length of longest main canal, km 28.2
24 Approximate canal invert slope, % 0.00020
25 Do uncontrolled drain flows enter the canal? (Yes/No) Yes
26 Percentage of a typical canal cross section that is filled with silt [10% in EMC; 30% in WMC] 10
27 Total number of spill points for a typical main canal 1
28 Water travel time (hours) from start to first deliveries 2
Longest water travel time for a change to reach a delivery point of this canal level from the source or from a buffer
29 reservoir (hours) - i.e., water travel time to the most downstream delivery 12
30 Has seepage been measured well? No
31 Have spills been measured well? No
32 Number of wells feeding into the canal 0
33 How effectively are they used for regulation? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
34 Lining type (percentage of all main canals)
35 Masonry, %
36 Concrete, % 10
37 Other type of lining, %
38 Unlined, % 90
39 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
40 General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks (assign a value of 0-4) 2
41 4 - Excellent.
42 3 - Good. The canal appears to be functional, but it does not look very neat.
2 - Routine maintenance is not good enough to prevent some decrease in performance of
43 the canal.
44 1 - Decreased performance is evident in at least 30% of the canal.
45 0 - Almost no meaningful maintenance. Major items and sections are in disrepair.
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced, some seepage may be
46 desired). Assign a value of 0-4 3
47 4 - Very little seepage (less than 4%)
48 3 - 4-8% of what enters this canal.
49 2 - 9 - 15% along this canal
50 1 - 16-25% along this canal.

51 0 - Extremely high levels of undesired seepage. Provides severe limitations to deliveries.

52 Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal (0-4) 1.5
53 4 - Excellent maintenance equipment and organization of people.
3 - Equipment and number of people are reasonable to do the job, but there are some
54 organizational problems.

2 - Most maintenance equipment functions, and the staff is large enough to reach critical
55 items in a week or so. Other items often wait a year or more for maintenance.

1 - Minimal equipment and staff. Critical equipment works, but much of the equipment
56 does not. Staff are poorly trained, not motivated, or are insufficient in size.
0 - Almost no adequate and working maintenance equipment is available, nor is there good
57 mobilization of people.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 21

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
58
59 Main Canal Cross Regulators
60 Condition of cross regulators (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 6
Type of cross regulator (describe)
Vertical Gates with Overhead
61 Cable Hoist
62 Do operators live at each cross regulator site? (Yes/No) No
63 Can the ones that exist operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 5
64 Are they operated as theoretically intended? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 8
65 Number of cross regulators/km 0.14
66 Are there large overflows at cross regulator sides? No
67 Unintended weekly maximum controlled water surface variation in an average gate, cm 15
68 In months with water, what is the maximum number of days of no gate change? 3
69 What is the maximum time required for an operator to reach a regulator, hours? 0.5
70 How frequently (hrs) will an operator move a gate if required or instructed? 8
71 How frequently (days) are gates typically operated? 1
72 Officially, can the gate operator make gate adjustments without upper approval? No
73 In reality, do gate operators make adjustments without upper approval? Yes
74 If the operators make their own decisions, how good are their decisions (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 5
75 Minutes required for an operator to make a significant setting change on the gate 60
76
77 Internal Indicators for Main Canal Cross Regulator Hardware
Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the current targets
are being met. Rather, this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet
78 the targets. 2
4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water levels or flows could be controlled easily if desired. Current
79 targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.
3 - Easy and quick to physically operate, but requires many manual interventions per
80 structure per day to meet target.

2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Requires more than 5 manual

81 changes per structure per day to meet target, but is difficult or dangerous to operate.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate. In some cases it is almost physically
82 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
83 impossible to operate as intended.
84 Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. (0-4) 2
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
85 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
86 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
87 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
88 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
89 maintenance equipment is in working order.

Maximum unintended weekly fluctuation of target water levels in the canal, expressed as a percentage of the
average water level drop across a turnout. For example, if the water level in the canal varies by 40 cm (highest to
lowest level at a point), and the average change in water level across a turnout is 50 cm, the percentage variation
90 is 90%. This is calculated automatically from the other data. 15.0
91 Computed index regarding water level fluctuation (0-4) 3
92 Computed index regarding the travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level (0-4) 3
93
94 Main Canal Cross Regulator Personnel
95 For whom do the operators work? DOI
96 Typical education level of operator (years of school) 10
What is the option for firing an operator? (describe)
Difficult but contract can be
97 cancelled / very rare
98 Do incentives exist for exemplary work? (10=high, 1=none) 1
99 Do incentives exist for average work? (10=high, 1=none) 1
100 Are operators encouraged to think and act on their own? (10=Definitely yes; 1=No) 5
101 Is there a formal performance review process annually? No
102 If so, is it written down & understood by employees?
103 Number of persons fired in last 10 yrs for incompetence 0
104

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 22

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
105 Main Canal Communications/Transportation
106 How often do operators communicate with the next higher level? (hr) 24
107 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 1
108 How often do operators or supervisors of this level communicate with the next lower level? (hr) 12
109 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 3
110 How frequently do supervisors physically visit this level of canal and talk with operators? (days) 7
111 Computed index of visiting frequency (0-4) 2
112 Dependability of voice communications by the operators (by phone or radio) (0-4) 3
113 4 - Excellent - lines work all the time.
114 3 - Very good. Lines work at least 95% of the time
2 - Poor at many of the sites. However, there is a good line of communication within 30
115 minutes of travel by the operator
1 - No direct line is available to operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to
116 some line and that line of communication almost always works.
0 - No direct line is available to the operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to
117 some line. However, even that line often does not work.
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key spill points, including the end
118 of the canal. (0-4) 0
119 4 - Excellent. At all key points, feedback is provided at least every 2 hours.
3 - Excellent coverage. However, data are recorded continuously on-site and feedback is
120 only once per day.

121 2 - Data is recorded several times per day and stored on-site. Feedback is once per week.
122 1 - Only a few sites are covered. Feedback occurs weekly.
123 0 - Monthly or less frequent feedback of a few sites
124 Availability of roads along the canal (0-4) 2.5
4 - Very good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather.
125 Equipment access on the second side.
3 - Good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather. Limited
126 access in some areas on the second side.

127 2 - Rough but accessible road on one side of the canal. No access on the second side.
1 - All of the canal can be easily traversed on one side with a motorcycle, but maintenance
128 equipment access is very limited.
0 - No apparent maintained access on either side of the road, for very long sections of this
129 canal.
How is communication done? (explain)

130 Mobile phone

131 What is the transportation of mobile personnel? Bicycle
132 How many automatic remote monitoring sites are there? 0
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for crews and maintenance
133 equipment) - hours 6
134 Computed index of travel time for maintenance (0-4). 0
135 Travel time (hours) needed to reach the office of the main canal, from the office of the supplier 2
136
137 Main Canal Off-Takes (Turnouts)
138 Percentage of the offtake flows that are taken from unofficial offtakes 5
139 Magnitude of a typical significant offtake flow rate, cms 8
140 Number of significant offtakes/km 0.14
141 Typical change in water surface elevations across an off-take (main turnout), cm 100
142 Can they physically operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
143 Are they physically operated as theoretically intended? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 7
144 How well can the offtakes be supplied when the canal flow rates are low? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 7
145 Personnel from what level operate the offtakes? (1=this level; 2=lower; 3=both) 1
146 How frequently is the offtake examined by personnel? (hours) 8
147 Officially, how frequently should offtakes be adjusted? (days) 1
148 Officially, can offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) No
149 In reality, do offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) Yes
150

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 23

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
151 Scheduling of Flows From Main Canal Offtakes
152 What % of the time is the flow OFFICIALLY scheduled as follows:
153 Proportional flow
154 Rotation 50
155 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
156 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input
157 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs 50
158 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
159 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
160 What % of the time is the flow ACTUALLY scheduled as follows:
161 Proportional flow
162 Rotation 50
163 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
164 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input 50
165 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs
166 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
167 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
168 Control of Flows From Main Canal Offtakes
169 Official type of flow control device Sluice gate
170 Common name Sluice gate
171 Official type of flow measurement device None
172 Common name?
173 Actual flow control/measurement Operator experience/ rotation
174 Probable accuracy of Q control/measurement +/-% 15-20
175
176 Turnout Indicators (Main Canal)
Ease of turnout (to the next lower level) operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the
current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and
177 measure flows to meet the targets. Assign a value of 0-4 based on the descriptions below 1.5

4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water divisions or flows could be controlled easily if desired.
178 Current targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 24

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 3 - Easy and quick to physically operate. Flow rate or target measurement devices are
179 reasonable but not excellent.
2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Flow rate measurement devices or
180 techniques appear to be poor, along with poor calibration.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate, and in some cases almost physically
181 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
182 impossible to operate as intended.
183 Level of maintenance of the turnouts that supply the next lower level.(0-4) 1
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
184 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
185 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
186 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
187 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
188 maintenance equipment is in working order.
189 Flow rate capacities of the main canal turnouts (to the next lower level) (0-4) 4
190 4 - No problems passing the maximum desired flow rates.
191 2 - Minor problems
192 0 - Serious problems - many structures are under-designed.
193 Regulating Reservoir Indicators (Main Canal)
194 Suitability of the number of location(s) (0-4) 0
195 4 - Properly located and of sufficient quantity.
196 2 - There is 1 regulating reservoir but more are needed or the location is wrong.
197 0 - None.
198 Effectiveness of operation (0-4) 0
199 4 - Excellent.
200 2 - They are used, but well below their potential.
201 0 - There are none, they are not used, or are used incorrectly.
202 Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities (0-4) 0
203 4 - Excellent.
204 2 - Helpful, but not large enough.
205 0 - There are none, or they are so small that they give almost no benefit.
206 Maintenance (0-4) 0
207 4 - Excellent.
208 2 - Not too good.
209 0 - None, or very bad siltation and weed growth so that the effectiveness is reduced.
210 Operation (Main Canal)
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the operators/observers of this
canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storage
211 variations and wave travel times. Assign a value of 0-4 based on the descriptions below 1.3
4 - If there is an excess or deficit (spill or deficit at the tail ends), the headworks responds
212 within 12 hours.
213 2.7 - Headworks responds to real-time feedback observations within 24 hours
214 1.3 - Headworks responds within 3 days.
215 0 - Headworks responds in a time of greater than 3 days.
Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual demands. This is different
than the previous question, because the previous question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has
216 been made. 0
4 - Excellent. Information passes from the lower level to this level in a timely and reliable
217 manner, and the system then responds.
2.7 -Good. Reliable procedure. Updated at least once every 2 days, and the system
218 responds.
1.3 - The schedule is updated at least weekly with meaningful data. Changes are actually
219 made based on downstream requirements.
0 - Perhaps the schedule is updated weekly, but with data that is not very meaningful.
220 Corresponding changes may not actually be made.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 25

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
221 Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3
222 4 - Instructions are very clear and very correct.
223 2.7 - Instructions are clear, but lacking in sufficient detail.
224 1.3 - Instructions are unclear, but are generally correct.
225 0 - Instructions are incorrect, whether they are clear or not.
How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to the office? This means one
226 or more persons physically drive all the sections of the canal. 1.3
227 4 - Once/day
228 2.7 - Once/2 days
229 1.3 - Once per week
230 0 - Once per month or less often
231
232 Capacity "bottlenecks" in the Main Canal
Describe any flow rate restrictions in the Main Canal, including their location and hydraulic nature (this is different than most other questions
because it asks for a written description)

233
234 ACTUAL Service that the Main Canal Provides to its Subcanals
235 Flexibility Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
4 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration, but the schedule is arranged by the
236 downstream subcanals several times daily, based on actual need.
3 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration but arranged by the downstream canal
237 once/day based on actual need.
238 2 - Schedules are adjusted weekly by downstream operators

239 1 - The schedules are dictated by the project office. Changes are made at least weekly.
0 - The delivery schedule is unknown by the downstream operators, or changes are made
240 less frequently than weekly.
241 Reliability Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 2
4 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows and receive the flows within a few
242 hours of the targeted time. There are no shortages during the year.
3 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows, but may have to wait as long as a day
243 to obtain the flows they need. Only a few shortages throughout the year.
2 - The flow changes arrive plus or minus 2 days, but are correct. Perhaps 4 weeks of
244 some shortage throughout the year.
1 - The flows arrive plus or minus 4 days, but are incorrect. Perhaps 7 weeks of some
245 shortage throughout the year.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time and the volume is
246 unknown.
247 Equity Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1
248 4 - Points along the canal enjoy the same level of good service
249 3 - 5% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average
250 2 - 15% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
251 1 - 25% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
252 0 - Worse than 25%, or there may not even be any consistent pattern.

253 Control of flows to customers of the next lower level - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
254 4 - Flows are known and controlled within 5%
255 3 - Flows are known and are controlled within 10%
256 2 - Flows are not known but are controlled within 10%
257 1 - Flows are controlled within 20%
258 0 - Flows are controlled within 25%

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 8. Main Canal Page 26

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 Second Level Canal
7 Control of Flows Into Second Level Canals
8 Type of flow control device Sluice gate
9 Type of flow measurement device None
10 Probably accuracy of Flow control AND measurement, +/- % 15-20%
11
12 Second Level Canal Characteristics
13 Total length of Second Level Canals, km 110.5
14 Length of longest Second Level Canal, km 32.3
15 Approximate canal invert slope, % 0.00050
16 Do uncontrolled drain flows enter the canal? (Yes/No) No
17 Percentage of a typical canal cross section that is filled with silt 10-15%
18 Total number of spill points for a typical Second Level Canal 0
19 Water travel time (hours) from start to first deliveries 1
Longest water travel time for a change to reach a delivery point of this canal level from the source or from a buffer
20 reservoir (hours) - i.e., water travel time to the most downstream delivery 10
21 Has seepage been measured well? No
22 Have spills been measured well? No
23 Number of wells feeding into the canal 0
24 How effectively are they used for regulation? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
25 Lining type (percentage of all Second Level Canals)
26 Masonry, %
27 Concrete, %
28 Other type of lining, %
29 Unlined, % 100
30 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
31 General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks (assign a value of 0-4) 1.5
32 4 - Excellent.
33 3 - Good. The canal appears to be functional, but it does not look very neat.
2 - Routine maintenance is not good enough to prevent some decrease in performance of
34 the canal.
35 1 - Decreased performance is evident in at least 30% of the canal.
36 0 - Almost no meaningful maintenance. Major items and sections are in disrepair.
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced, some seepage may be
37 desired). Assign a value of 0-4 3
38 4 - Very little seepage (less than 4%)
39 3 - 4-8% of what enters this canal.
40 2 - 9-15% along this canal
41 1 - 16-25% along this canal.

42 0 - Extremely high levels of undesired seepage. Provides severe limitations to deliveries.

43 Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal (0-4) 1
44 4 - Excellent maintenance equipment and organization of people.
3 - Equipment and number of people are reasonable to do the job, but there are some
45 organizational problems.

2 - Most maintenance equipment functions, and the staff is large enough to reach critical
46 items in a week or so. Other items often wait a year or more for maintenance.

1 - Minimal equipment and staff. Critical equipment works, but much of the equipment
47 does not. Staff are poorly trained, not motivated, or are insufficient in size.
0 - Almost no adequate and working maintenance equipment is available, nor is there good
48 mobilization of people.
49

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 27

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
50 Second Level Canal Cross Regulators
51 Condition of cross regulators (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
Type of cross regulator (describe)
Manually operated sluice
gates that replaced
52 concrete drop structures
53 Do operators live at each cross regulator site? (Yes/No) No
54 Can the ones that exist operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
55 Are they operated as theoretically intended?(10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 4
56 Number of cross regulators/km 0.2
57 Are there large overflows at cross regulator sides? No
58 Unintended weekly maximum controlled water surface variation in an average gate, cm 15
59 In months with water, what is the maximum number of days of no gate change? 7
60 What is the maximum time required for an operator to reach a regulator, hours? 1
61 How frequently (hrs) will an operator move a gate if required or instructed? 8
62 How frequently (days) are gates typically operated? 6
63 Officially, can the gate operator make gate adjustments without upper approval? Yes
64 In reality, do gate operators make adjustments without upper approval? Yes
65 If the operators make their own decisions, how good are their decisions (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 5
66 Minutes required for an operator to make a significant setting change on the gate 30
67
68 Internal Indicators for Second Level Canal Cross Regulator Hardware
Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the current targets
are being met. Rather, this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet
69 the targets. 1

4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water levels or flows could be controlled easily if desired. Current
70 targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.
3 - Easy and quick to physically operate, but requires many manual interventions per
71 structure per day to meet target.

2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Requires more than 5 manual changes
72 per structure per day to meet target, but is difficult or dangerous to operate.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate. In some cases it is almost physically
73 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
74 impossible to operate as intended.
75 Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. (0-4) 1
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
76 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
77 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
78 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
79 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
80 maintenance equipment is in working order.
Maximum unintended weekly fluctuation of target water levels in the canal, expressed as a percentage of the
average water level drop across a turnout. For example, if the water level in the canal varies by 40 cm (highest to
81 lowest level at a point), and 30
82 Computed index regarding water level fluctuation (0-4) 2
83 Computed index regarding the travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level (0-4) 3
84

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 28

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
85 Second Level Canal Cross Regulator Personnel
86 For whom do the operators work? DOI
87 Typical education level of operator (years of school) 10
What is the option for firing an operator? (describe)
Difficult but contract can
88 be cancelled / very rare
89 Do incentives exist for exemplary work?(10=high, 1=none) 1
90 Do incentives exist for average work?(10=high, 1=none) 1
91 Are operators encouraged to think and act on their own?(10=Definitely yes; 1=No) 5
92 Is there a formal performance review process annually? No
93 If so, is it written down & understood by employees?
94 Number of persons fired in last 10 yrs for incompetence 0
95
96 Second Level Canal Communications/Transportation
97 How often do operators communicate with the next higher level? (hr) 24
98 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 1
99 How often do operators or supervisors of this level communicate with the next lower level? (hr) 12
100 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 3
101 How frequently do supervisors physically visit this level of canal and talk with operators? (days) 7
102 Computed index of visiting frequency (0-4) 2
103 Dependability of voice communications by the operators (by phone or radio) (0-4) 3
104 4 - Excellent - lines work all the time.
105 3 - Very good. Lines work at least 95% of the time
2 - Poor at many of the sites. However, there is a good line of communication within 30
106 minutes of travel by the operator
1 - No direct line is available to operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to some
107 line and that line of communication almost always works.
0 - No direct line is available to the operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to
108 some line. However, even that line often does not work.
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key spill points, including the end of
109 the canal. (0-4) 0
110 4 - Excellent. At all key points, feedback is provided at least every 2 hours.
3 - Excellent coverage. However, data are recorded continuously on-site and feedback is
111 only once per day.

112 2 - Data is recorded several times per day and stored on-site. Feedback is once per week.
113 1 - Only a few sites are covered. Feedback occurs weekly.
114 0 - Monthly or less frequent feedback of a few sites
115 Availability of roads along the canal (0-4) 2
4 - Very good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather.
116 Equipment access on the second side.
3 - Good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather. Limited
117 access in some areas on the second side.

118 2 - Rough but accessible road on one side of the canal. No access on the second side.
1 - All of the canal can be easily traversed on one side with a motorcycle, but maintenance
119 equipment access is very limited.
0 - No apparent maintained access on either side of the road, for very long sections of this
120 canal.
How is communication done? (explain)

121 Mobile phone

122 What is the transportation of mobile personnel? Bicycle
123 How many automatic remote monitoring sites are there? 0
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for crews and maintenance
124 equipment) - hours 6
125 Computed index of travel time for maintenance (0-4). 0
126 Travel time (hours) needed to reach the office of the Second Level Canal, from the office of the supplier 2

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 29

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
127
128 Second Level Canal Off-Takes (Turnouts)
129 Percentage of the offtake flows that are taken from unofficial offtakes 5
130 Magnitude of a typical significant offtake flow rate, cms 5-10
131 Number of significant offtakes/km 0.32
132 Typical change in water surface elevations across an off-take (main turnout), cm 50
133 Can they physically operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
134 Are they physically operated as theoretically intended? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 4
135 How well can the offtakes be supplied when the canal flow rates are low? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 5
136 Personnel from what level operate the offtakes? (1=this level; 2=lower; 3=both) 3
137 How frequently is the offtake examined by personnel? (hours) 4
138 Officially, how frequently should offtakes be adjusted? (days) 6
139 Officially, can offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) No
140 In reality, do offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) Yes
141
142 Scheduling of Flows From Second Level Canal Offtakes
143 What % of the time is the flow OFFICIALLY scheduled as follows:
144 Proportional flow
145 Rotation 50
146 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
147 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input
148 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs 50
149 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
150 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
151 What % of the time is the flow ACTUALLY scheduled as follows:
152 Proportional flow
153 Rotation 50
154 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
155 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input 50
156 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs
157 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
158 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
159 Control of Flows From Second Level Canal Offtakes
160 Official type of flow control device Sluice gate
161 Common name Sluice gate
162 Official type of flow measurement device None
163 Common name?
164 Actual flow control/measurement None
165 Probable accuracy of Q control/measurement +/-% 15
166
167 Turnout Indicators (Second Level Canal)
Ease of turnout (to the next lower level) operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the
current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and
168 measure flows to meet the target. 1.5

4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water divisions or flows could be controlled easily if desired.
169 Current targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.
3 - Easy and quick to physically operate. Flow rate or target measurement devices are
170 reasonable but not excellent.
2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Flow rate measurement devices or
171 techniques appear to be poor, along with poor calibration.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate, and in some cases almost physically
172 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
173 impossible to operate as intended.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 30

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
174 Level of maintenance of the turnouts that supply the next lower level.(0-4) 1
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
175 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
176 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
177 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
178 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
179 maintenance equipment is in working order.
180 Flow rate capacities of the Second Level Canal turnouts (to the next lower level) (0-4) 2
181 4 - No problems passing the maximum desired flow rates.
182 2 - Minor problems
183 0 - Serious problems - many structures are under-designed.
184 Regulating Reservoir Indicators (Second Level Canal)
185 Suitability of the number of location(s) (0-4) 0
186 4 - Properly located and of sufficient quantity.
187 2 - There is 1 regulating reservoir but more are needed or the location is wrong.
188 0 - None.
189 Effectiveness of operation (0-4) 0
190 4 - Excellent.
191 2 - They are used, but well below their potential.
192 0 - There are none, they are not used, or are used incorrectly.
193 Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities (0-4) 0
194 4 - Excellent.
195 2 - Helpful, but not large enough.
196 0 - There are none, or they are so small that they give almost no benefit.
197 Maintenance (0-4) 0
198 4 - Excellent.
199 2 - Not too good.
200 0 - None, or very bad siltation and weed growth so that the effectiveness is reduced.
201 Operation (Second Level Canal)
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the operators/observers of this
canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storage
202 variations and wave travel times. Assign a value of 0-4 1.3
4 - If there is an excess or deficit (spill or deficit at the tail ends), the headworks responds
203 within 12 hours.
204 2.7 - Headworks responds to real-time feedback observations within 24 hours
205 1.3 - Headworks responds within 3 days.
206 0 - Headworks responds in a time of greater than 3 days.
Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual demands. This is different than
the previous question, because the previous question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has been
207 made. 0
4 - Excellent. Information passes from the lower level to this level in a timely and reliable
208 manner, and the system then responds.
2.7 -Good. Reliable procedure. Updated at least once every 2 days, and the system
209 responds.
1.3 - The schedule is updated at least weekly with meaningful data. Changes are actually
210 made based on downstream requirements.
0 - Perhaps the schedule is updated weekly, but with data that is not very meaningful.
211 Corresponding changes may not actually be made.
212 Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3
213 4 - Instructions are very clear and very correct.
214 2.7 - Instructions are clear, but lacking in sufficient detail.
215 1.3 - Instructions are unclear, but are generally correct.
216 0 - Instructions are incorrect, whether they are clear or not.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 31

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to the office? This means one
217 or more persons physically drive all the sections of the canal. 1.3
218 4 - Once/day
219 2.7 - Once/2 days
220 1.3 - Once per week
221 0 - Once per month or less often
222
223 Capacity "bottlenecks" in the Second Level Canal
Describe any flow rate restrictions in the Second Level Canal, including their location and hydraulic nature (this is different than most
other questions because it asks for a written description)

224
225 ACTUAL Service that the Second Level Canal Provides to its Subcanals
226 Flexibility Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
4 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration, but the schedule is arranged by the
227 downstream subcanals several times daily, based on actual need.
3 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration but arranged by the downstream canal
228 once/day based on actual need.
229 2 - Schedules are adjusted weekly by downstream operators

230 1 - The schedules are dictated by the project office. Changes are made at least weekly.
0 - The delivery schedule is unknown by the downstream operators, or changes are made
231 less frequently than weekly.
232 Reliability Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1
4 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows and receive the flows within a few hours
233 of the targeted time. There are no shortages during the year.
3 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows, but may have to wait as long as a day
234 to obtain the flows they need. Only a few shortages throughout the year.
2 - The flow changes arrive plus or minus 2 days, but are correct. Perhaps 4 weeks of
235 some shortage throughout the year.
1 - The flows arrive plus or minus 4 days, but are incorrect. Perhaps 7 weeks of some
236 shortage throughout the year.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time and the volume is
237 unknown.
238 Equity Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1
239 4 - Points along the canal enjoy the same level of good service
240 3 - 5% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average
241 2 - 15% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
242 1 - 25% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
243 0 - Worse than 25%, or there may not even be any consistent pattern.

244 Control of flows to customers of the next lower level - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
245 4 - Flows are known and controlled within 5%
246 3 - Flows are known and are controlled within 10%
247 2 - Flows are not known but are controlled within 10%
248 1 - Flows are controlled within 20%
249 0 - Flows are controlled within 25%

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 9. Second Level Canals Page 32

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 Third Level Canal
7 Control of Flows Into Third Level Canals
8 Type of flow control device Sluice gate
9 Type of flow measurement device None
10 Probably accuracy of Flow control AND measurement, +/- % 15%
11
12 Third Level Canal Characteristics
13 Total length of Third Level Canals, km
14 Length of longest Third Level Canal, km
15 Approximate canal invert slope, %
16 Do uncontrolled drain flows enter the canal? (Yes/No) No
17 Percentage of a typical canal cross section that is filled with silt 10-15
18 Total number of spill points for a typical Third Level Canal
19 Water travel time (hours) from start to first deliveries
Longest water travel time for a change to reach a delivery point of this canal level from the source or from a buffer
20 reservoir (hours) - i.e., water travel time to the most downstream delivery 18
21 Has seepage been measured well? No
22 Have spills been measured well? No
23 Number of wells feeding into the canal 0
24 How effectively are they used for regulation? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
25 Lining type (percentage of all Third Level Canals)
26 Masonry, %
27 Concrete, %
28 Other type of lining, %
29 Unlined, % 100
30 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
31 General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks (assign a value of 0-4) 1
32 4 - Excellent.
33 3 - Good. The canal appears to be functional, but it does not look very neat.
2 - Routine maintenance is not good enough to prevent some decrease in performance of
34 the canal.
35 1 - Decreased performance is evident in at least 30% of the canal.
36 0 - Almost no meaningful maintenance. Major items and sections are in disrepair.
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced, some seepage may be
37 desired). Assign a value of 0-4 2.5
38 4 - Very little seepage (less than 4%)
39 3 - 4-8% of what enters this canal.
40 2 - 9 -15% along this canal
41 1 - 16-25% along this canal.

42 0 - Extremely high levels of undesired seepage. Provides severe limitations to deliveries.

43 Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal (0-4) 1
44 4 - Excellent maintenance equipment and organization of people.
3 - Equipment and number of people are reasonable to do the job, but there are some
45 organizational problems.

2 - Most maintenance equipment functions, and the staff is large enough to reach critical
46 items in a week or so. Other items often wait a year or more for maintenance.

1 - Minimal equipment and staff. Critical equipment works, but much of the equipment
47 does not. Staff are poorly trained, not motivated, or are insufficient in size.
0 - Almost no adequate and working maintenance equipment is available, nor is there good
48 mobilization of people.
49

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 33

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
50 Third Level Canal Cross Regulators
51 Condition of cross regulators (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
Type of cross regulator (describe)
Sluice gate
52 (no side weirs)
53 Do operators live at each cross regulator site? (Yes/No) No
54 Can the ones that exist operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
55 Are they operated as theoretically intended? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 4
56 Number of cross regulators/km
57 Are there large overflows at cross regulator sides? No
58 Unintended weekly maximum controlled water surface variation in an average gate, cm 15
59 In months with water, what is the maximum number of days of no gate change? 8
60 What is the maximum time required for an operator to reach a regulator, hours? 1
61 How frequently (hrs) will an operator move a gate if required or instructed? 4
62 How frequently (days) are gates typically operated? 5
63 Officially, can the gate operator make gate adjustments without upper approval? Yes
64 In reality, do gate operators make adjustments without upper approval? Yes
65 If the operators make their own decisions, how good are their decisions? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 5
66 Minutes required for an operator to make a significant setting change on the gate 30
67
68 Internal Indicators for Third Level Canal Cross Regulator Hardware
Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the current targets
are being met. Rather, this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet
69 the targets. 1
4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water levels or flows could be controlled easily if desired. Current
70 targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.
3 - Easy and quick to physically operate, but requires many manual interventions per
71 structure per day to meet target.

2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Requires more than 5 manual changes
72 per structure per day to meet target, but is difficult or dangerous to operate.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate. In some cases it is almost physically
73 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
74 impossible to operate as intended.
75 Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. (0-4) 1
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
76 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
77 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
78 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
79 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
80 maintenance equipment is in working order.
Maximum unintended weekly fluctuation of target water levels in the canal, expressed as a percentage of the
average water level drop across a turnout. For example, if the water level in the canal varies by 40 cm (highest to
81 lowest level at a point), and 50
82 Computed index regarding water level fluctuation (0-4) 1
83 Computed index regarding the travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level (0-4) 2
84

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 34

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
85 Third Level Canal Cross Regulator Personnel
86 For whom do the operators work? DOI
87 Typical education level of operator (years of school) 10
What is the option for firing an operator? (describe)
Difficult but contract can be
88 cancelled / very rare
89 Do incentives exist for exemplary work? (10=high, 1=none) 1
90 Do incentives exist for average work? (10=high, 1=none) 1
91 Are operators encouraged to think and act on their own? (10=Definitely yes; 1=No) 6
92 Is there a formal performance review process annually? No
93 If so, is it written down & understood by employees?
94 Number of persons fired in last 10 yrs for incompetence 0
95
96 Third Level Canal Communications/Transportation
97 How often do operators communicate with the next higher level? (hr) 12
98 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 2
99 How often do operators or supervisors of this level communicate with the next lower level? (hr) 12
100 Computed Index of communications frequency (0-4) 3
101 How frequently do supervisors physically visit this level of canal and talk with operators? (days) 7
102 Computed index of visiting frequency (0-4) 2
103 Dependability of voice communications by the operators (by phone or radio) (0-4) 3
104 4 - Excellent - lines work all the time.
105 3 - Very good. Lines work at least 95% of the time
2 - Poor at many of the sites. However, there is a good line of communication within 30
106 minutes of travel by the operator
1 - No direct line is available to operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to some
107 line and that line of communication almost always works.
0 - No direct line is available to the operators, but they are within 30 minutes travel time to
108 some line. However, even that line often does not work.
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key spill points, including the end of
109 the canal. (0-4) 0
110 4 - Excellent. At all key points, feedback is provided at least every 2 hours.
3 - Excellent coverage. However, data are recorded continuously on-site and feedback is
111 only once per day.

112 2 - Data is recorded several times per day and stored on-site. Feedback is once per week.
113 1 - Only a few sites are covered. Feedback occurs weekly.
114 0 - Monthly or less frequent feedback of a few sites
115 Availability of roads along the canal (0-4) 1
4 - Very good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather.
116 Equipment access on the second side.
3 - Good access for automobiles on at least one side in all but extreme weather. Limited
117 access in some areas on the second side.

118 2 - Rough but accessible road on one side of the canal. No access on the second side.
1 - All of the canal can be easily traversed on one side with a motorcycle, but maintenance
119 equipment access is very limited.
0 - No apparent maintained access on either side of the road, for very long sections of this
120 canal.
How is communication done? (explain)

121 Mobile phone

122 What is the transportation of mobile personnel? Bicycle
123 How many automatic remote monitoring sites are there? 0
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for crews and maintenance
124 equipment) - hours 7
125 Computed index of travel time for maintenance (0-4). 0

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 35

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
126 Travel time (hours) needed to reach the office of the Third Level Canal, from the office of the supplier 2
127
128 Third Level Canal Off-Takes (Turnouts)
129 Percentage of the offtake flows that are taken from unofficial offtakes 10
130 Magnitude of a typical significant offtake flow rate, cms 1
131 Number of significant offtakes/km
132 Typical change in water surface elevations across an off-take (main turnout), cm 30
133 Can they physically operate as needed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 3
134 Are they physically operated as theoretically intended? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 4
135 How well can the offtakes be supplied when the canal flow rates are low? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 4
136 Personnel from what level operate the offtakes? (1=this level; 2=lower; 3=both) 3
137 How frequently is the offtake examined by personnel? (hours) 6
138 Officially, how frequently should offtakes be adjusted? (days) 6
139 Officially, can offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) Yes
140 In reality, do offtake operators make flow rate adjustments without upper approval? (Yes/No) Yes
141
142 Scheduling of Flows From Third Level Canal Offtakes
143 What % of the time is the flow OFFICIALLY scheduled as follows:
144 Proportional flow
145 Rotation 50
146 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
147 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input
148 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs 50
149 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
150 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
151 What % of the time is the flow ACTUALLY scheduled as follows:
152 Proportional flow
153 Rotation 50
154 Schedule computed by higher level - no lower level input
155 Schedule computed by higher level - some lower level input
156 Schedule by operator based on judgement of supply and d/s needs 50
157 Schedule actively matches real-time lower level requests
158 The value to the right should equal 100 once the data above is entered 100
159 Control of Flows From Third Level Canal Offtakes
160 Official type of flow control device Sluice gate
161 Common name Sluice gate
162 Official type of flow measurement device None
163 Common name?
164 Actual flow control/measurement
165 Probable accuracy of Q control/measurement +/-% 15-20%
166
167 Turnout Indicators (Third Level Canal)
Ease of turnout (to the next lower level) operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that the
current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it would be to move the turnouts and
168 measure flows to meet the target. 1.5

4 - Very easy to operate. Hardware moves easily and quickly, or hardware has automatic
features that work well. Water divisions or flows could be controlled easily if desired.
169 Current targets can be met with less than 2 manual changes per day.
3 - Easy and quick to physically operate. Flow rate or target measurement devices are
170 reasonable but not excellent.
2 - Cumbersome to operate, but physically possible. Flow rate measurement devices or
171 techniques appear to be poor, along with poor calibration.
1 - Cumbersome, difficult, or dangerous to operate, and in some cases almost physically
172 impossible to meet objectives.
0 - Communications and hardware are very inadequate to meet the requirements. Almost
173 impossible to operate as intended.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 36

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
174 Level of maintenance of the turnouts that supply the next lower level.(0-4) 0.5
4 - Excellent preventative maintenance. Broken items are typically fixed within a few days,
175 except in very unusual circumstances.
3 - Decent preventative maintenance. Broken items are fixed within 2 weeks. Reasonable
176 equipment is available for maintenance operations.
2 - Routine maintenance is only done on critical items. Broken items are noticeable
177 throughout the project, but not serious.
1 - Even routine maintenance is lacking in many cases. Many broken items are noticeable,
178 sometimes on important structures.
0 - Large-scale damage has occurred due to deferred maintenance. Little or no
179 maintenance equipment is in working order.
180 Flow rate capacities of the Third Level Canal turnouts (to the next lower level) (0-4) 4
181 4 - No problems passing the maximum desired flow rates.
182 2 - Minor problems
183 0 - Serious problems - many structures are under-designed.
184 Regulating Reservoir Indicators (Third Level Canal)
185 Suitability of the number of location(s) (0-4) 0
186 4 - Properly located and of sufficient quantity.
187 2 - There is 1 regulating reservoir but more are needed or the location is wrong.
188 0 - None.
189 Effectiveness of operation (0-4) 0
190 4 - Excellent.
191 2 - They are used, but well below their potential.
192 0 - There are none, they are not used, or are used incorrectly.
193 Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities (0-4) 0
194 4 - Excellent.
195 2 - Helpful, but not large enough.
196 0 - There are none, or they are so small that they give almost no benefit.
197 Maintenance (0-4) 0
198 4 - Excellent.
199 2 - Not too good.
200 0 - None, or very bad siltation and weed growth so that the effectiveness is reduced.
201 Operation (Third Level Canal)
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the operators/observers of this
canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of orders, and problems associated with wedge storage
202 variations and wave travel times. Assign a value of 0-4 1.3
4 - If there is an excess or deficit (spill or deficit at the tail ends), the headworks responds
203 within 12 hours.
204 2.7 - Headworks responds to real-time feedback observations within 24 hours
205 1.3 - Headworks responds within 3 days.
206 0 - Headworks responds in a time of greater than 3 days.
Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual demands. This is different than
the previous question, because the previous question dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has been
207 made. 0
4 - Excellent. Information passes from the lower level to this level in a timely and reliable
208 manner, and the system then responds.
2.7 -Good. Reliable procedure. Updated at least once every 2 days, and the system
209 responds.
1.3 - The schedule is updated at least weekly with meaningful data. Changes are actually
210 made based on downstream requirements.
0 - Perhaps the schedule is updated weekly, but with data that is not very meaningful.
211 Corresponding changes may not actually be made.
212 Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3
213 4 - Instructions are very clear and very correct.
214 2.7 - Instructions are clear, but lacking in sufficient detail.
215 1.3 - Instructions are unclear, but are generally correct.
216 0 - Instructions are incorrect, whether they are clear or not.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 37

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C

2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to the office? This means one
217 or more persons physically drive all the sections of the canal. 1.3
218 4 - Once/day
219 2.7 - Once/2 days
220 1.3 - Once per week
221 0 - Once per month or less often
222
223 Capacity "bottlenecks" in the Third Level Canal
Describe any flow rate restrictions in the Third Level Canal, including their location and hydraulic nature (this is different than most other
questions because it asks for a written description)

224
225 ACTUAL Service that the Third Level Canal Provides to its Subcanals
226 Flexibility Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
4 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration, but the schedule is arranged by the
227 downstream subcanals several times daily, based on actual need.
3 - Wide range of frequency, rate, and duration but arranged by the downstream canal
228 once/day based on actual need.
229 2 - Schedules are adjusted weekly by downstream operators

230 1 - The schedules are dictated by the project office. Changes are made at least weekly.
0 - The delivery schedule is unknown by the downstream operators, or changes are made
231 less frequently than weekly.
232 Reliability Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1
4 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows and receive the flows within a few hours
233 of the targeted time. There are no shortages during the year.
3 - Operators of the next lower level know the flows, but may have to wait as long as a day
234 to obtain the flows they need. Only a few shortages throughout the year.
2 - The flow changes arrive plus or minus 2 days, but are correct. Perhaps 4 weeks of
235 some shortage throughout the year.
1 - The flows arrive plus or minus 4 days, but are incorrect. Perhaps 7 weeks of some
236 shortage throughout the year.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time and the volume is
237 unknown.
238 Equity Index - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1
239 4 - Points along the canal enjoy the same level of good service
240 3 - 5% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average
241 2 - 15% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
242 1 - 25% of the canal turnouts receive significantly poorer service than the average.
243 0 - Worse than 25%, or there may not even be any consistent pattern.
244 Control of flows to customers of the next lower level - Choose a value from 0-4, based on the scale below: 1.5
245 4 - Flows are known and controlled within 5%
246 3 - Flows are known and are controlled within 10%
247 2 - Flows are not known but are controlled within 10%
248 1 - Flows are controlled within 20%
249 0 - Flows are controlled within 25%

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 10. Third Level Canals Page 38

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 Point of Management Change (downstream of which Paid Employees do not operate turnouts)
7 Hectares downstream of that point (typical) 100
8 Number of water users downstream of that point (typical) 500
9 Actual Service provided at the most downstream point operated by a paid employee.
10 Number of fields downstream of this point (select from below, 0-4) 0
11 4 - 1 field
12 3 - less than 3 fields
13 2 - less than 6 fields
14 1 - less than 10 fields
15 0 - 10 or more fields
16 Measurement of volumes delivered at this point (0-4) 0
17 4 - Excellent measurement and control devices, properly operated and recorded
18 3 - Reasonable measurement and control devices, average operation
19 2 - Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow rates
20 1 - Reasonable measurement of flows, but not of volumes
21 0 - No measurement of volumes or flows
22 Flexibility (0-4) 1
23 4 - Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged by users within a few days
24 3 - Fixed frequency, rate or duration, but arranged.
25 2 - Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the crop needs
26 1 - Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain schedule
27 0 - No established rules
28 Reliability (0-4) 1.5

29 4 - Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and duration promised. Volume is known.
3 - Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally there are a few days of delay. Volume is
30 known

31 2 - Water arrives about when it is needed, and in the correct amounts. Volume is unknown.
32 1 - Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly unreliable - but less than 50% of the time.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time, and volume delivered in
33 unknown.
34 Apparent Equity (0-4) 1
4 - All points throughout the project and within tertiary units receive the same type of water delivery
35 service
3 - Areas of the project receive the same amounts of water, but within an area service is
36 somewhat inequitable.
2 - Areas of the project unintentionally receive somewhat different amounts of water, but within an
37 area it is equitable.
38 1 - There are medium inequities both between areas and within areas.

39 0 - There are differences of more than 50% throughout the project on a fairly wide-spread basis.
40
41 Final Water Distribution to Individual Ownership Units (e.g., field or farm)
42 What percentage of the final distribution of water to individual fields is made by these people?
43 No one (%)
44 Individual farmer or farm irrigator (%) 100
45 WUA volunteer (%)
46 WUA employee (%)
47 Project-level employee (%)
48 Check: The value on the right should equal 100% if the question above is answered properly 100
49 If farmers must cooperate, how many farmers must cooperate to make the final distribution of water to fields? 20
50 What percentage of the final distribution is done through:
51 Small unlined distributary canals (%) 50
52 Larger unlined canals (%)
53 Field-through-field conveyance (%) 50
54 Pipelines (%)
55 Lined canals (%)

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 11. Final deliveries Page 39

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
56 Check: The value on the right should equal 100% if the question above is answered properly 100
57 General condition of final conveyance (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 6
58 Ability to measure flow rate to individual fields/farm (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 1
59 Ability to measure volume to individual fields/farm (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible) 1
60
61 FLEXIBILITY to final field/farm
62 Are there written arrangements/policies for FREQUENCY of water delivery? (Yes/No) No
63 How closely are they followed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
64 Are actual practices better than official policies?(10=Yes, 1=No)
65 Are there written arrangements/policies for RATE of water delivery? (Yes/No) No
66 How closely are they followed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
67 Are actual practices better than official policies?(10=Yes, 1=No)
68 Are there written arrangements/policies for DURATION of water delivery? (Yes/No) No
69 How closely are they followed? (10=Excellent, 1=Horrible)
70 Are actual practices better than official policies?(10=Yes, 1=No)
71 What percentage of the time do farmers actually receive water as:?
72 Continuous flow - no adjustments (%)
73 Continuous flow - some adjustments (%) 50
74 Fixed rotation - well defined schedule that is followed (%)
75 Fixed rotation - well defined schedule that is often not followed (%)
76 Rotation - variable but known schedule (%) 50
77 Rotation - variable and unknown schedule (%)
78 Arranged (but not part of a rotation) (%)
79 Check: The value on the right should equal 100% if the question above is answered properly 100
80 Advance days notice required if water deliveries are arranged
81
82 EQUITY
83 Is there an effective legal mechanism to ensure that individual farmers receive water with equity? (Yes/No) No
84
85 Actual Service received by individual units (field or farms).
86 Measurement of volumes to the individual units (0-4) 0
87 4 - Excellent measurement and control devices, properly operated and recorded
88 3 - Reasonable measurement and control devices, average operation
89 2 - Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow rates
90 1 - Reasonable measurement of flows, but not of volumes
91 0 - No measurement of volumes or flows
92 Flexibility to the individual units (0-4) 1.5
93 4 - Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged by users within a few days
94 3 - Fixed frequency, rate or duration, but arranged.
95 2 - Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the crop needs
96 1 - Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain schedule
97 0 - No established rules
98 Reliability to the individual units (0-4) 1

99 4 - Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and duration promised. Volume is known.
3 - Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally there are a few days of delay. Volume is
100 known

101 2 - Water arrives about when it is needed, and in the correct amounts. Volume is unknown.
102 1 - Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly unreliable - but less than 50% of the time.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, and duration more than 50% of the time, and volume delivered in
103 unknown.
104 Apparent Equity to individual units (0-4) 1
4 - All fields throughout the project and within tertiary units receive the same type of water delivery
105 service
3 - Areas of the project receive the same amounts of water, but within an area the water delivery
106 service is somewhat inequitable.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 11. Final deliveries Page 40

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6 2 - Areas of the project unintentionally receive somewhat different amounts of water
107 (unintentionally), but within an area the water delivery service is equitable.
108 1 - There are medium inequities both between areas and within areas.

109 0 - There are differences of more than 50% throughout the project on a fairly wide-spread basis.
110
111 Perceptions by Visiting Team
112 Sense of lack of conflict between users (10=no conflicts, 1=huge problems) 4
113 Sense of lack of conflict between users and the government/project (10=no conflicts, 1=huge problems) 3
Ability to convert to modern field irrigation systems
114 (10=easy; 1=almost impossible with the level of service provided) 1
115
116 "Order" Indicators - Evidence of orderly behavior in the canals operated by paid employees.
117 Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or NOT taken at flow rates greater than allowed (0-4) 1
4 - No noticeable evidence of farmers or WUAs taking deliveries when not allowed, or at flow rates
118 greater than allowed.
3 - Between 0 and 5% of deliveries are taken when not allowed or at flow rates greater than
119 allowed.
2 - Between 5 and 15% of deliveries are taken when not allowed or at flow rates greater than
120 allowed.
1 - Between 15 and 30% of deliveries are taken when not allowed or at flow rates greater than
121 allowed.
0 - Greater than 30% of deliveries are taken when not allowed or at flow rates greater than
122 allowed.
123 Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals (0-4). 1
124 4 - No noticeable evidence of farmers or WUAs having unauthorized turnout locations.
125 3 - Between 0 and 3% of deliveries are taken from unauthorized locations.
126 2 - Between 3 and 6% of deliveries are taken from unauthorized locations.
127 1 - Between 6 and 10% of deliveries are taken from unauthorized locations.
128 0 - Greater than 10% of deliveries are taken from unauthorized locations.
129 Lack of vandalism of structures (0-4). 1
130 4 - No noticeable evidence of vandalism of structures.
131 3 - Between 0 and 3% of structures are vandalized.
132 2 - Between 3 and 6% of structures are vandalized.
133 1 - Between 6 and 10% of structures are vandalized.
134 0 - More than 10% of structures are vandalized.

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 11. Final deliveries Page 41

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G
1
2 Project Name:
3 Bagmati Irrigation Project
4 Date:
5 December 2013
6
7 Points for understanding this Indicator Summary
1. This spreadsheet only applies to INTERNAL indicators. A separate spreadsheet is used for EXTERNAL indicators such as Irrigation
8 Efficiency and Relative Water Supply.
9 2. The majority of the values on this worksheet are automatically transferred from previous worksheets in this spreadsheet.
10 3. Some of the indicator values on this worksheet must be assigned by the user.
11 4. The organization of this worksheet is as follows:
12 a. The alpha-numeric label for each indicator is found in Column A
13 b. The Primary Indicator name is given in Column B
14 c. The Sub-Indicator is described in Column C
d. The assigned value for each Sub-Indicator is found in Column D. Also, computed values for each Primary Indicators
15 are found here.
16 e. The weight assigned to each Sub-Indicator is given in Column E.
17 f. The original indicator labels, as found in FAO Water Reports 19, are given here.
18 g. The worksheet in which the original data were entered is given.

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name
SERVICE and
20 SOCIAL ORDER
Actual Water Delivery
Service to Individual
Ownership Units (e.g., field Final
21 I-1 or farm) 1.0 I-1 deliveries
22 I-1A Measurement of volumes 0.0 1.0 I-1A
23 I-1B Flexibility 1.5 2.0 I-1B
24 I-1C Reliability 1.0 4.0 I-1C
25 I-1D Apparent equity. 1.0 4.0 I-1D
Stated Water Delivery
Service to Individual Project
Ownership Units (e.g., field Office
26 I-2 or farm) 1.5 I-5 Questions
27 I-2A Measurement of volumes 0.0 1.0 I-5A
28 I-2B Flexibility 0.0 2.0 I-5B
29 I-2C Reliability 2.0 4.0 I-5C
30 I-2D Apparent equity. 2.0 4.0 I-5D
Actual Water Delivery
Service at the most
downstream point in the
system operated by a paid Final
31 I-3 employee 0.8 I-3 deliveries
32 I-3A Number of fields downstream of this point 0.0 1.0 I-3A
33 I-3B Measurement of volumes 0.0 4.0 I-3B
34 I-3C Flexibility 1.0 4.0 I-3C
35 I-3D Reliability 1.5 4.0 I-3D
36 I-3E Apparent equity. 1.0 4.0 I-3E

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 42

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name
Stated Water Delivery
Service at the most
downstream point in the Project
system operated by a paid Office
37 I-4 employee 1.4 I-7 Questions
38 I-4A Number of fields downstream of this point 0.0 1.0 I-7A
39 I-4B Measurement of volumes 0.0 4.0 I-7B
40 I-4C Flexibility 2.0 4.0 I-7C
41 I-4D Reliability 2.0 4.0 I-7D
42 I-4E Apparent equity. 2.0 4.0 I-7E

Actual Water Delivery

Service by the Main Canals
43 I-5 to the Second Level Canals 1.5 I-4 Main Canal
44 I-5A Flexibility 1.5 1.0 I-4A
45 I-5B Reliability 2.0 1.0 I-4B
46 I-5C Equity 1.0 1.0 I-4C
47 I-5D Control of flow rates to the submain as stated 1.5 1.5 I-4D

Stated Water Delivery Project

Service by the Main Canals Office
48 I-6 to the Second Level Canals 2.8 I-8 Questions
49 I-6A Flexibility 3.0 1.0 I-8A
50 I-6B Reliability 3.0 1.0 I-8B
51 I-6C Equity 2.0 1.0 I-8C
52 I-6D Control of flow rates to the submain as stated 3.0 1.5 I-8D

Social "Order" in the Canal

System operated by paid Final
53 I-7 employees 1.0 I-9 deliveries
Degree to which deliveries are NOT taken when not allowed, or at flow rates greater
54 I-7A than allowed 1.0 2.0 I-9A
55 I-7B Noticeable non-existence of unauthorized turnouts from canals. 1.0 1.0 I-9B
56 I-7C Lack of vandalism of structures. 1.0 1.0 I-9C
57
58 MAIN CANAL
Cross regulator hardware
59 I-8 (Main Canal) 2.7 I-l0 Main Canal

Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or
60 I-8A difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet the targets. 2.0 1.0 I-10A

61 I-8B Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. 2.0 1.0 I-10C

62 I-8C Lack of water level fluctuation 3.0 3.0 I-10D
63 I-8D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 3.0 2.0 I-10E

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 43

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name
Turnouts from the Main
64 I-9 Canal 2.2 I-12 Main Canal

Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that
the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it
65 I-9A would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to meet the targets. 1.5 1.0 I-12A
66 I-9B Level of maintenance 1.0 1.0 I-12C
67 I-9C Flow rate capacities 4.0 1.0 I-12D
Regulating Reservoirs in
68 I-l0 the Main Canal 0.0 I-13 Main Canal
69 I-10A Suitability of the number of location(s) 0.0 2.0 I-13A
70 I-10B Effectiveness of operation 0.0 2.0 I-13B
71 I-10C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 0.0 1.0 I-13C
72 I-10D Maintenance 0.0 1.0 I-13D
Communications for the
73 I-11 Main Canal 2.2 I-14 Main Canal
74 I-11A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 1.0 2.0 I-14A

75 I-11B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their customers 3.0 2.0 I-14B
76 I-11C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio. 3.0 3.0 I-14C
77 I-11D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field. 2.0 1.0 I-14D

Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key

78 I-11E spill points, including the end of the canal 0.0 1.0 I-14E
79 I-11F Availability of roads along the canal 2.5 2.0 I-14F
General Conditions for the
80 I-12 Main Canal 1.6 I-15 Main Canal
81 I-12A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 2.0 1.0 I-15A
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced,
82 I-12B some seepage may be desired). 3.0 1.0 I-15B
83 I-12C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 1.5 2.0 I-15C
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for
84 I-12D crews and maintenance equipment) 0.0 1.0 I-15D
Operation of the Main
85 I-13 Canal 1.0 I-16 Main Canal
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the
operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of
orders, and problems associated with wedge storage variations and wave travel
86 I-13A times. 1.3 2.0 I-16A

Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual

demands. This is different than the previous question, because the previous question
87 I-13B dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has been made. 0.0 1.0 I-16B
88 I-13C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3 1.0 I-16C

How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to
the office? This means one or more persons physically drive all the sections of the
89 I-13D canal. 1.3 1.0 I-16D
90

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 44

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name

91 Second Level Canals

Second
Cross regulator hardware Level
92 I-14 (Second Level Canals) 2.0 I-l0 Canals

Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or
93 I-14A difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet the targets. 1.0 1.0 I-10A
94 I-14B Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. 1.0 1.0 I-10C
95 I-14C Lack of water level fluctuation 2.0 3.0 I-10D
96 I-14D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 3.0 2.0 I-10E
Second
Turnouts from the Second Level
97 I-15 Level Canals 1.5 I-12 Canals

Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that
the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it
98 I-15A would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to meet the targets. 1.5 1.0 I-12A
99 I-15B Level of maintenance 1.0 1.0 I-12C
100 I-15C Flow rate capacities 2.0 1.0 I-12D
Second
Regulating Reservoirs in Level
101 I-16 the Second Level Canals 0.0 I-13 Canals
102 I-16A Suitability of the number of location(s) 0.0 2.0 I-13A
103 I-16B Effectiveness of operation 0.0 2.0 I-13B
104 I-16C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 0.0 1.0 I-13C
105 I-16D Maintenance 0.0 1.0 I-13D
Second
Communications for the Level
106 I-17 Second Level Canals 2.1 I-l20 Canals
107 I-17A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 1.0 2.0 I-20A
108 I-17B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their customers 3.0 2.0 I-20B
109 I-17C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio. 3.0 3.0 I-20C
110 I-17D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field. 2.0 1.0 I-20D
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key
111 I-17E spill points, including the end of the canal 0.0 1.0 I-20E
112 I-17F Availability of roads along the canal 2.0 2.0 I-21F
Second
General Conditions for the Level
113 I-18 Second Level Canals 1.3 I-21 Canals
114 I-18A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 1.5 1.0 I-21B
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced,
115 I-18B some seepage may be desired). 3.0 1.0 I-21C
116 I-18C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 1.0 2.0 I-21D
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for
117 I-18D crews and maintenance equipment) 0.0 1.0 I-21E

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 45

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name
Second
Operation of the Second Level
118 I-19 Level Canals 1.0 I-22 Canals
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the
operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of
orders, and problems associated with wedge storage variations and wave travel
119 I-19A times. 1.3 2.0 I-22A

Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual

demands. This is different than the previous question, because the previous question
120 I-19B dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has been made. 0.0 1.0 I-22B
121 I-19C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3 1.0 I-22C
How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to
the office? This means one or more persons physically drive all the sections of the
122 I-19D canal. 1.3 1.0 I-22D
123
124 Third Level Canals

Cross regulator hardware Third Level

125 I-20 (Third Level Canals) 1.3 Canals

Ease of cross regulator operation under the current target operation. This does not
mean that the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or
126 I-20A difficult it would be to move the cross regulators to meet the targets. 1.0 1.0
127 I-20B Level of maintenance of the cross regulators. 1.0 1.0
128 I-20C Lack of water level fluctuation 1.0 3.0
129 I-20D Travel time of a flow rate change throughout this canal level 2.0 2.0
Turnouts from the Third Third Level
130 I-21 Level Canals 2.0 Canals

Ease of turnout operation under the current target operation. This does not mean that
the current targets are being met; rather this rating indicates how easy or difficult it
131 I-21A would be to move the turnouts and measure flows to meet the targets. 1.5 1.0
132 I-21B Level of maintenance 0.5 1.0
133 I-21C Flow rate capacities 4.0 1.0
Regulating Reservoirs in Third Level
134 I-22 the Third Level Canals 0.0 Canals
135 I-22A Suitability of the number of location(s) 0.0 2.0
136 I-22B Effectiveness of operation 0.0 2.0
137 I-22C Suitability of the storage/buffer capacities 0.0 1.0
138 I-22D Maintenance 0.0 1.0
Communications for the Third Level
139 I-23 Third Level Canals 2.1 Canals
140 I-23A Frequency of communications with the next higher level? (hr) 2.0 2.0

141 I-23B Frequency of communications by operators or supervisors with their customers 3.0 2.0
142 I-23C Dependability of voice communications by phone or radio. 3.0 3.0
143 I-23D Frequency of visits by upper level supervisors to the field. 2.0 1.0
Existence and frequency of remote monitoring (either automatic or manual) at key
144 I-23E spill points, including the end of the canal 0.0 1.0
145 I-23F Availability of roads along the canal 1.0 2.0
General Conditions for the Third Level
146 I-24 Third Level Canals 1.1 Canals
147 I-24A General level of maintenance of the canal floor and canal banks 1.0 1.0
General lack of undesired seepage (note: if deliberate conjunctive use is practiced,
148 I-24B some seepage may be desired). 2.5 1.0
149 I-24C Availability of proper equipment and staff to adequately maintain this canal 1.0 2.0
Travel time from the maintenance yard to the most distant point along this canal (for
150 I-24D crews and maintenance equipment) 0.0 1.0

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 46

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name
Operation of the Third Third Level
151 I-25 Level Canals 1.0 Canals
How frequently does the headworks respond to realistic real time feedback from the
operators/observers of this canal level? This question deals with a mismatch of
orders, and problems associated with wedge storage variations and wave travel
152 I-25A times. 1.3 2.0

Existence and effectiveness of water ordering/delivery procedures to match actual

demands. This is different than the previous question, because the previous question
153 I-25B dealt with problems that occur AFTER a change has been made. 0.0 1.0
154 I-25C Clarity and correctness of instructions to operators. 1.3 1.0
How frequently is the whole length of this canal checked for problems and reported to
the office? This means one or more persons physically drive all the sections of the
155 I-25D canal. 1.3 1.0
156
Budgets,
157 Employees, WUAs
Project
Office
158 I-26 Budgets 0.0 I-23 Questions

What percentage of the total project (including WUA) Operation and Maintenance
159 I-26A (O&M) is collected as in-kind services, and/or water fees from water users? 0.0 2.0 I-23A
Adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is available (from all sources)
to sustain adequate Operation and Maintenance (O&M) with the present mode of
160 I-26B operation. 0.0 2.0 I-23B
Adequacy of spending on modernization of the water delivery operation/structures (as
161 I-26C contrasted to rehabilitation or regular operation) 0.0 1.0 I-23C
Project
162 I-27 Employees 1.6 I-24 Employees
Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers (not
secretaries and drivers). This should include employees at all levels of the distribution
163 I-27A system, not only those who work in the office. 0.0 1.0 I-24A
164 I-27B Availability of written performance rules 3.0 1.0 I-24B
165 I-27C Power of employees to make decisions 2.0 2.5 I-24C
166 I-27D Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause. 1.0 2.0 I-24D
167 I-27E Rewards for ememplary service 1.0 1.0 I-24E
168 I-27F Relative salary of an operator compared to a day laborer 2.0 2.0 I-24F
169 I-28 Water User Associations 0.6 I-25 WUA
Percentage of all project users who have a functional, formal unit that participates in
170 I-28A water distribution 0.0 2.5 I-25A
Actual ability of the strong Water User Associations to influence real-time water
171 I-28B deliveries to the WUA. 1.0 1.0 I-25B
172 I-28C Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of its rules 1.0 1.0 I-25C
173 I-28D Legal basis for the WUAs 2.0 1.0 I-25D
174 I-28E Financial strength of WUAS 0.0 1.0 I-25E
Project
Mobility and Size of Operation staff mobility and efficiency, based on the ratio of operating staff to the Office
175 I-29 Operations Staff number of turnouts. 0.0 I-28 Questions
Project
Computers for billing and Office
176 I-30 record management The extent to which computers are used for billing and record management 0.0 I-30 Questions
Project
Computers for canal Office
177 I-31 control The extent to which computers (either central or on-site) are used for canal control 0.0 I-31 Questions
178

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 47

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C D E F G

Old Indicator Label (FAO

Weighting Factor

Worksheet Location
Water Reports 19)
Indicator Label

Value (0-4)
19 Primary Indicator Name Sub-Indicator Name

INDICATORS THAT
WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY THESE INDICATORS REQUIRE THE INPUT OF VALUES (0-4) IN EACH
179 COMPUTED OF THE BOXES
Ability of the present water
delivery service to
individual fields, to support
pressurized irrigation
180 I-32 methods 0.3 I-26 n/a
4 - Excellent volumetric metering and control; 3.5 - Ability to measure flow
Measurement and control rates reasonably well, but not volume. Flow is well controlled; 2.5 - Cannot
of volumes to the field measure flow, but can control flow rates well; 0 - Cannot control the flow rate,
181 I-32A even though it can be measured. 0.0 1.0 I-26A n/a
4 - Arranged delivery, with frequency, rate and duration promised. All can be
Flexibility to the field varied upon request; 3 - Same as 4, but cannot vary the duration; 2 - 2
182 I-32B variables are fixed, but arranged schedule; 0 - Rotation 0.0 1.0 I-26B n/a
4 - Water always arrives as promised, including the appropriate volume; 3 - A
Reliability to the field few days of delay occasionally occur, but water is still very reliable in rate and
183 I-32C duration; 0 - More than a few days delay. 1.0 1.0 I-26C n/a

Changes required to be
able to support pressurized
184 I-33 irrigation methods 0.5 I-27 n/a
4 - No changes in water ordering, staff training, or mobility; 3.5 - Improved
training, only. The basic procedures/conditions are just fine, they just are not
being implemented to their full extent; 3.0 - Minor changes in water ordering,
Procedures, Management mobility, training, incentive programs; 2.0 - Major changes in 1 of the above;
1 - Major changes in 2 of the above; 0 - Need to completely revamp or Managemen
185 I-33A convert almost everything. 0.0 1.0 I-27A t

4 - No changes needed; 3.5 - Only need to repair some of the existing

structures so that they are workable again.; 3.0 - Improved communications,
repair of some existing structures, and a few key new structures (less than
Hardware US$300/ha needed), OR…very little change to existing, but new structures are
needed for water recirculation; 2 - Larger capital expenditures - $US 300 -
$US 600/ha; 1 - Larger capital expenditures needed (up to $US 1500/ha); 0 -
186 I-33B Almost complete reworking of the system is needed 1.0 1.0 I-27B Hardware
4 - Continuous feedback and continuous use of information to change inflows,
with all key points monitored. Or, minimal feed back is necessary, such as
Sophistication in receiving with closed pipe systems.; 3 - Feedback several times a day and rapid use
and using feedback (within a few hours) of that information, at major points.; 2 - Feedback
information. This does not once/day from key points and appropriate use of information within a day; 1 -
need to be automatic. Weekly feedback and appropriate usage, or once/day feeback but poor usage
of the information; 0 - No meaningful feedback, or else there is a lot of
187 I-34 feedback but no usage. 0.5 I-29 n/a

188

189 SPECIAL INDICATORS THAT DO NOT HAVE A 0-4 RATING SCALE

Final
190 I-35 Turnout density Number of water users downstream of employee-operated turnouts 500 deliveries
Project
191 I-36 Turnouts/Operator (Number of turnouts operated by paid employees)/(Paid Employees) 0.2 Office
192 I-37 Main Canal Chaos (Actual/Stated) Overall Service by the Main Canal 0.54
(Actual/Stated) Overall Service at the most downstream point operated by a
193 I-38 Second Level Chaos paid employee 0.58
194 I-39 Field Level Chaos (Actual/Stated) Overall Service to the Individual Ownership Units 0.69

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 12. Internal Indicators Page 48

 Attachment 1 BIP RAP Benchmarking Worksheets 20140624 rev 6

A B C
1 Project: Bagmati Irrigation Project
2 Date: December 2013
3
4 * The following are data items that have been defined by the IPTRID Secretariat in the publication
5 "Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector", December 2000.
6 * "DI 12" refers to "Data Item No. 12" of the IPTRID Guidelines
* "RAP 9" refers to a Data Item that was collected or computed in Worksheet 4.External Indicators, but was not
7 specified by IPTRID; however, that value is needed for the IPTRID computations
8 * These values have been imported from other worksheets
9
10 Value Description

Availability of water (surface plus ground) to users - using stated conveyance efficiency for
11 DI 1 495 surface water and assumed efficiencies for ground water, MCM (includes all farmer pumping)
Surface irrigation water inflow from outside the command area (gross at diversion and entry
12 DI 2 623 points), MCM
13 0 Net groundwater imported into the project, MCM
Total irrigation water supply (surface plus groundwater) brought into the project boundaries,
14 623 MCM.
15 DI 3 65,000 Physical area of cropland in the command area (not including multiple cropping), ha
16 DI 4 85,440 Irrigated crop area in the command area, including multiple cropping, ha
17 9,590 Annual external irrigation supply per unit command area (m3/ha)
18 7,296 Annual irrigation supply per unit irrigated area (including multiple cropping) - (m3/ha)
Total external water supply - including gross precipitation and net aquifer withdrawl, but
19 DI 5 1,687 excluding internal recirculation, MCM
20 DI 8 83 Flow rate capacity of main canal(s) at diversion point(s), cms
21 DI 9 41 Peak gross irrigation requirement, including all inefficiencies, cms
22 DI 10 0 Gross annual volume of irrigation water entitlement, MCM
23 DI 10 0 Gross maximum flow rate entitlement of the project, cms
24 DI 10a 100 Average percentage of the entitlement that is received, %
25 DI 12 0 Gross revenue collected from water users, including in-kind services. $US
26 DI 13 2,348,000 Total management, operation and maintenance cost of project. $US
27 DI 14 1,848,000 Total annual (Project + WUA) expenditure on system maintenance, $US
28 640 Total number of Project and WUA employees
29 DI 15 948,000 Total cost of personnel in the project and WUAs, $US
30 DI 16 300 Total number of Project and WUA employees who work in the field
31 DI 17 #DIV/0! Gross revenue that is due from the water users, $US
32 DI 18 see note below Gross annual agricultural production, tons
33 DI 19 150,771,667 Total annual value of agricultural production at the farm gate, $US
34 DI 20 521 Total annual volume of water consumed as ET on the fields (ET) - MCM
35 DI 21 0.0 Average irrigation water salinity, dS/m
36 DI 21 0.0 Average drainage water salinity, dS/m
37 DI 22 0.0 Biological load (BOD) of the irrigation water, average mgm/l
38 DI 22 0.0 Biological load (BOD) of the drainage water, average mgm/l
39 DI 23 0.0 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of the irrigation water, average mgm/l
40 DI 23 0.0 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of the drainage water, average mgm/l
41 DI 24 0.0 Change in water table depth over the last 5 years, m
42 DI 25 4.0 Average annual depth to the water table, m
Requires in-
depth
43 DI26 computations Differences in the volume of incoming salt and outgoing salts
44 RAP 9 0 Total annual NET groundwater pumping, MCM
45 RAP 20 371 Crop ET - Effective Rainfall, MCM
46 RAP 31 85 Average Field Irrigation Efficiency, % (computed from ET and Gross)
47 RAP 15 90 Estimated conveyance efficiency for pumped internal aquifer water, %
48
49 Values for DI 18 must be extracted from Table 9 on each INPUT-Year"X" worksheet
50
51
52 IPTRID Indicators (computed from the values above)
**Note - IPTRID indicators may not equal the RAP indicators of the same name because the RAP indicators reflect
53 recent USA understanding of terminology for transferrable indicators.
3
54 9,590 Annual irrigation water delivery per unit command area (m /ha)
3
55 7,296 Annual irrigation water delivery per unit irrigated area (m /ha)
56 79 Conveyance system water delivery efficiency, % (as stated)
57 3.2 Annual relative water supply ***does not include rice deep perc.***
58 1.7 Annual relative irrigation supply ***does not include rice deep perc.***
59
60 100 Security of entitlement supply, % received
61 0.0 Cost recovery ratio
62 #DIV/0! Maintenance cost to revenue ratio
63 36 Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha)
64 1,481 Total cost per employee (US$/person)
65 #DIV/0! Revenue collection performance
66 0.0075 Staff per unit area (Persons/ha)
67 0.16 (Number of turnouts operated by staff)/(total field staff persons)
68 Total revenue per unit volume of water delivered by project authorities (US$/m3)
69 0.00377 Total MOM cost per unit volume of water delivered by the project authorities (US$/m3)
70 150,771,667 Total annual value of agricultural production (US$)
71 2,320 Output per unit command area (US$/ha)
72 1,765 Output per unit irrigated area, including multiple cropping (US$/ha)
3
73 0.2419 Output per unit irrigation supply that is imported into the project boundaries (US$/m )
74 0.0894 Output per unit of total water (including precipitation) into the project (US$/m3)
3
75 0.2895 Output per unit water consumed (US$/m )

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 13. IPTRID Indicators Page 49

 RAPand Benchmarking Example for WB October14 2002

A B C D E
1 Bagmati Irrigation Project Confidence Interval (CI)
2 %/100
3 1 Water Year of the data 2012/2013
4 WATER BALANCE INDICATORS
5 2 Total annual volume of irrigation water available at the user level (MCM) 495 #DIV/0!
Total annual volume of irrigation supply into the 3-D boundaries of the command area
6 3 (MCM) 623 0.00
Total annual volume of irrigation water managed by authorities (including internal well
and recirculation pumps operated by authorities) (MCM) (can include recirculated
7 4 water; but does not include any drainage or groundwater that is pumped by farmers) 623 0.00
8 5 Total annual volume of water supply (MCM) 1,687 0.00
9 Total annual volume of irrigation water delivered to users by project authorities (MCM) 468 #DIV/0!
10 6 Total annual volume of ground water pumped within/to command area (MCM) 27 0.00
11 7 Total annual volume of field ET in irrigated fields (MCM) 521 0.00
12 8 Total annual volume of (ET - effective precipitation) (MCM) 371 0.00
13 Peak net irrigation water requirement (CMS) 26.2 #DIV/0!
14 9 Total command area of the system (ha) 65,000 0.00
15 10 Irrigated area, including multiple cropping (ha) 85,440 0.00
3
16 11 Annual irrigation supply per unit command area (m /ha) 9,590 0.00
3
17 12 Annual irrigation supply per unit irrigated area (m /ha) 7,296 0.00
Conveyance efficiency of project-delivered water, % (weighted for internal and external,
18 13 using values stated by project authorities) 75 #DIV/0!
19 14 Estimated conveyance efficiency for project groundwater, % 90 0.00
20 15 Annual Relative Water Supply (RWS) 3.24 #DIV/0!
21 16 Annual Relative Irrigation Supply (RIS) 1.68 0.00
22 17 Water delivery capacity 3.16 #DIV/0!
23 18 Security of entitlement supply, % 100
24 19 Average Field Irrigation Efficiency, % 85 #DIV/0!
25 20 Command area Irrigation Efficiency, % 68 #DIV/0!
26 FINANCIAL INDICATORS
27 21 Cost recovery ratio 0.00
28 22 Maintenance cost to revenue ratio #DIV/0!
29 23 Total MOM cost per unit area (US$/ha) 36
30 24 Total cost per staff person employed (US$/person) 1,481
31 25 Revenue collection performance #DIV/0!
32 26 Staff persons per unit irrigated area (Persons/ha) 0.0075
33 27 Number of turnouts per field operator 0.2
Average revenue per cubic meter of irrigation water delivered to water users by the
3
34 28 project authorities (US$/m ) 0.0000
Total MOM cost per cubic meter of irrigation water delivered to water users by the
3
35 29 project authorities (US$/m ) 0.0050
36 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS
37 30 Total annual value of agricultural production (US$) 150,771,667
38 31 Output per unit command area (US$/ha) 2,320
39 32 Output per unit irrigated area, including multiple cropping (US$/ha) 1,765
3
40 33 Output per unit irrigation supply (US$/m ) 0.242
3
41 34 Output per unit water supply (US$/m ) 0.089
3
42 35 Output per unit of field ET (US$/m ) 0.290
43 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
44 36 Water quality: Average salinity of the irrigation supply (dS/m) 0.0
45 37 Water quality: Average salinity of the drainage water (dS/m) 0
46 38 Water quality, Biological: Average BOD of the irrigation supply (mgm/liter) 0
47 39 Water quality, Biological: Average BOD of the drainage water (mgm/liter) 0
48 40 Water quality, Chemical: Average COD of the irrigation supply (mgm/liter) 0
49 41 Water quality, Chemical: Average COD of the drainage water (mgm/liter) 0
50 42 Average depth to the shallow water table (m) 4
51 43 Change in shallow water table depth over last 5 years (m) (+ is up) 0.0
52 OTHER
53 44 Percent of O&M expenses that are used for pumping (%) 0%

FAO/WB/Cal Poly ITRC 14. World Bank BMTI Indicators 49

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Appendix 2

Water Resources and Irrigation

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES

CONTENTS

I. Irrigated Agriculture in Nepal ................................................................................................... 1

A. Water Resources and Irrigation ....................................................................................... 1
1. Surface Water.......................................................................................................... 1
2. Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 1
B. Agriculture........................................................................................................................ 1
II. Stakeholder Perspectives ........................................................................................................ 3
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3
B. Main Findings from the Upper and Middle Basin............................................................. 3
1. Upper Basin ............................................................................................................. 3
2. Middle Basin ............................................................................................................ 5
C. Main Findings from the Lower Basin ............................................................................... 6
1. BIP Farmers/WUAs ................................................................................................. 6
2. DADO, Sarlahi District ............................................................................................. 7
3. BIP Field Staff.......................................................................................................... 8
D. Participatory Rural Appraisals ......................................................................................... 8
1. Tubewell Farmers .................................................................................................... 8
2. STW Areas .............................................................................................................. 9
E. Sample Area Profiles ..................................................................................................... 10
1. Upper Basin ........................................................................................................... 10
2. Middle Basin .......................................................................................................... 11
3. Lower Basin ........................................................................................................... 13
F. Summary of Consultations............................................................................................. 14
1. FGDs ..................................................................................................................... 14
2. PRAs...................................................................................................................... 14
3. SAPs ...................................................................................................................... 15
III. Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 16
A. Upper Reach.................................................................................................................. 16
B. Middle Reach ................................................................................................................. 17
1. Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 18
C. GIS ................................................................................................................................. 18
IV. Planning for the Middle nad Upper Bagmati Basin ................................................................ 19
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19
1. Upper Basin ........................................................................................................... 19
2. Middle Basin .......................................................................................................... 20
B. Schemes in the Upper and Middle Basin ...................................................................... 20

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation
C. Planning for Modernization ............................................................................................ 23
1. Upper Basin ........................................................................................................... 23
2. Middle Basin .......................................................................................................... 23
3. Surface Water Management.................................................................................. 24
4. Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 24
D. Strategic Plan for Modernization.................................................................................... 24
1. System Improvements ........................................................................................... 25
2. Water Management ............................................................................................... 25
3. Institutions.............................................................................................................. 25
E. Water Balance for the Upper and Middle Basin ............................................................ 25
V. irrigation planning for the LOWER BAGMATI Basin.............................................................. 30
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30
B. Surface Water Management.......................................................................................... 30
C. Groundwater Management ............................................................................................ 31
F. Other Small and Medium Irrigation Systems in the Lower Basin .................................. 32
D. Groundwater Development............................................................................................ 34
E. Water Balance Scenarios for the BIP ............................................................................ 35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Average Stream Flow Bagmati River Upper Basin......................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Streams in the Upper Bagmati basin ............................................................................... 16

Table 2: Inventory of Schemes in the Upper and Lower Basin...................................................... 21
Table 3: Scenario Water Balance Current Situation Typical 50-ha Scheme ................................. 26
Table 4: Scenario Water Balance Canal and Structure Upgrading Typical 50-ha Scheme .......... 27
Table 5: Scenario Water Balance Micro Irrigation Sprinkler Typical 50-ha Scheme ..................... 28
Table 6: Scenario Water Balance for Conservation Irrigation (Polyhouses) 50-ha Scheme......... 29
Table 7: Summary of the Irrigated Areas in the Lower Bagmati Basin (ha) .................................. 32
Table 8: Inventory of Small and Medium Schemes in the Lower Bagmati Basin .......................... 33
Table 9: Current Water Balance BIP.............................................................................................. 36
Table 10: Option 1 – Future with Project Water Balance BIP........................................................ 37

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

I. IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL

A. Water Resources and Irrigation

1. Surface Water

1. There are more than 6,000 rivers and rivulets flowing in Nepal. The Koshi, Narayani,
Karnali and Mahakali are major rivers originating from Tibet, while the Babai, Kamala,
Bagmati, East and West Rapti, Banganga, Trijuga, Kankai, and others originate from the mid-
mountain regions and are medium-size rivers. There are several small rivulets that originate in
the hills or Terai and become tributaries of the above rivers or outflow to India. In the summer
season there is generally adequate stream flow in the rivers, which decreases gradually as
rainfall ceases and reduces to low level during dry spring season. Annual average outflow of
200 billion m3 occurs to India as surface runoff. Most rivers flow in spate during monsoon and
the flow reduce in winter and spring seasons.

2. The government has tapped most medium rivers as run of the river scheme and has
made treaties with India on major rivers, which in some cases have little water diverted within
Nepal. There exists some potential to tap the rivers for multiple purposes by constructing inter-
basin transfers or storage dams.

3. Through efforts by the government and farmers, irrigation systems have been
developed to irrigate 945,525 ha. However, many of these need improvements in infrastructure
as well as managerial aspects to provide irrigation to the designed command area.

2. Groundwater

4. Nepal is endowed with widespread groundwater resources. It is found in most of the

Terai and in some middle hill valleys. GDC (1994) stated that the Terai is underlain by a thick
sequence of saturated detrital sediments of alluvial and colluvial origin, forming some of the
most productive aquifers on the sub-continent. GDC estimated annual recharge of 600 mm
and suggested, up to 10,745 MCM of groundwater could be used annually. Similarly Sharma
and Paudel (1995) had indicated that there is about 12 billion m3 of groundwater that can be
utilized.

5. The potential groundwater irrigated area based on the number of deep tubewells and
shallow tubewells developed is 342,376 ha (DOI, 2013). The GWRDD’s monitoring of sample
well suggest that there is adequate recharge back to the initial level in all Terai areas except in
Kathmandu Valley where water table is lowering by 1 m and more at some places annually
due to overdraft.

B. Agriculture

6. Agricultural practices are still subsistence-based using traditional practices meant to

meet home consumption needs. Land holding size has decreased and most farmers own less
than 0.5 ha. Due to the small land holding size, lack of reliable year-round irrigation service
and the unavailability of fertilizers and good quality seed, farming is not a lucrative occupation
for most farmers. Rather, it is a last resort for many people with no other occupation. Only a
small percentage of farmers are growing vegetables, fruits, cereals and flower for sale and
making good incomes.

7. Nearly half of the cultivable area has no surface irrigation facilities and even where the
potential has been created, water supplies in most areas are infrequently adequate with and is
moderately short during the winter and deficit in spring. But growing commercial crops requires
assured irrigation and good marketing opportunities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

8. Nepal is importing fruits, vegetable, flower, cereals, fish, pulse, oil etc. in large
amounts. There are abundant land, labor and water resources. But due to constraints on
capital to develop irrigation facility, and unavailability of fertilizers and seed and technical
advice due to sparse agriculture extension service to promote improved technology farmers
are forced to subsistence based farming practice.

9. Due to growing demand of agriculture produce and increased awareness of quality of

farm produce, there is the opportunity to produce organic fruits and vegetables as well as fresh
fish among others which can be done in irrigation command area. There are a few sugar
factories in lower Bagmati Basin area allowing farmers at the head reach with reliable water
supplies to grow sugarcane and make good incomes. This requires assured irrigation service
in spring season. In some irrigated areas of BIP, farmers are cultivating even three crops of
maize in a year to sell as sweet cob. Some farmers at Rauthat are growing wheat seed on
contract. They have also developed alternate water source in case of not receiving canal
water. Once farmers are introduced to high income generating agriculture, they adopt the
technologies.

10. Likewise in upper reach, few farmers have started commercial vegetable farming under
polyhouses using drip irrigation supplied by canal water as well as drilling open wells. Tomato
cultivation yields attractive incomes and so the practice is adopted in the command area. Hill
farmers can grow vegetables in the summer season and even export to the Terai and India.
The lack of technical support and timely availability of inputs are major constraints; if technical
support could be provided with quality inputs in time, high value crop production could be
promoted.

11. In the middle reach, water availability is generally adequate during summer, but
becomes reduced in winter and spring. Farmers need technical support and timely supplies of
quality inputs and assured water supplies to grow high income crops. The middle reach area in
the foothills of the Mahabharat or Siwalikh Ranges is mostly coarse gravel mixed sandy soil
and groundwater exploitation is not feasible except in these valleys. To conserve water,
storage reservoir/ponds are needed to store surplus water in rainy season. In the valley areas
of the middle reaches, groundwater could also be developed. Also the water need could also
be reduced by developing branch (field channels or pipe lines) to each field plots. Also
development and adoption of improved water distribution schedule for the command the area
could increase the irrigated area.

12. In general, water demand increases in the spring in all reaches of the Bagmati Basin in
contrast to reduced stream flows occurring then. Growing a third crop is feasible in all reaches
is possible only with assured irrigation sources.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

II. STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

A. Introduction

13. Consultation with stakeholders was a key part of the MFLW Study. Stakeholder
consultations have been carried out in the first instance using a standardized tool developed
for the study called Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The FGDs are a form of qualitative
research in which farmers, water user associations (WUAs) and government officers were
asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards the core themes of the
MFLW Study. These included irrigation, irrigation management and irrigated agriculture. The
responses to cost recovery were a key part of the FGDs. The FGDs form a key reference to
guide the current issues and to identify potential opportunities and the directions of
interventions to improve efficiencies and productivities. In addition, Sample Area Profiles
(SAPs) were undertaken at selected locations to better understand current issues. The
findings of the stakeholder consultations are presented in Appendix 7 and the sample area
profiles in Appendix 8. This section presents a summary of the key findings and how they
influence the planning for the irrigation in the Bagmati River Basin.

14. Small and some medium-scale irrigation systems have been developed and managed
by the farmers themselves since decades and are referred to as farmer-managed irrigation
systems (FMISs). The government has assisted in the rehabilitation of some of these systems
and many of them are yet to be supported. The WUA/farmers take the responsibility to for
management, operation and maintenance (MOM) of these systems. They seek government
support in case of heavy damage beyond farmers’ capacity to maintain and repair the
systems.

15. The government has developed a number of medium and large irrigation systems. The
management responsibility of these systems is distributed among the Department of Irrigation
(DOI) and the WUAs, depending on the size of the canals, in general. The responsibility for
lower level canal e.g. tertiary canals and field channels are the responsibility of WUA and that
of secondary, sub secondary, distributary, branch and main are the responsibility of agency.
But there are flaws to comply from both sides. Agency’s works depend upon the budget they
receive and often maintenance works are not done to necessary level. Where the WUA is
active, farmers generally operate and maintain canals of lower level, but many WUA are not
active and do not do maintenance works in large irrigation system. They expect government to
do all MOM activity.

16. There is cost sharing arrangement for new construction and rehabilitation. But the
government’s regular budget support is limited for MOM and deferred maintenance works
accumulate. Farmers generally try to avoid paying ISF. In some schemes, farmers are paying
ISF and even contributing labor for canal maintenance, but in many schemes, ISF collection is
very low due to low priority by management placed on ISF collection.

B. Main Findings from the Upper and Middle Basin

1. Upper Basin

17. The main findings from the FGDs in the upper Bagmati Basin are summarized as
follows:

(i) The farmers are practicing the traditional cropping patterns with improved
technologies of crop production such as improved varieties, chemical fertilizers
and pesticides. The existing cropping patterns are: rice- wheat, rice-potato,
rice- mustard, maize-mustard, and summer vegetables-winter vegetables.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

(ii) The command area has a high potential for normal as well as off-season
vegetables production and other high-yielding variety (HYV) crops. At the Katunje
Scheme, there is a Sobogaard organic farming operation situated nearby in the
adjoining Dadhikot VDC of Bhaktapur, which is doing organic agriculture
production in polyhouses. At the Koirale Scheme, the farmers have a direct link
to the Panchakanya Cooperative Society. The cooperative is assisting farmers to
grow organic vegetables. There is a demonstration of micro-irrigation technology
of Everest Agriculture Farm located in the vicinity, which is privately operated and
is producing tomatoes in polyhouses.
(iii) Agriculture inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides are available in the
local market. However, the qualities of seeds and fertilizers are not reliable and
the inputs are costly.
(iv) The extension service is weak and not easily available to the majority of
farmers.
(v) Some farmers have received agriculture training provided by the local agencies,
such as the Agriculture Development Office (DADO) through the local Agriculture
Service Center (ASC), but the farmers do not have adequate knowledge of
modern and high-production agricultural technologies.
(vi) The size of land holdings is small (0.05-0.20 ha) and mechanization is difficult.
However, the farmers are using power tillers and threshers.
(vii) Agriculture credits are not easily available and the interest rate is relatively
high. The command area has good access to local markets.
(viii) Adequate marketing information is not usually organized and available; farmers
do not always get reasonable price for their produce.

18. Recommendations by the stakeholders in the upper basin include:

(i) Crop diversification should be done with high-value crops such as normal and
off-season vegetables, particularly hybrid tomato production in polyhouses made
up of low cost materials such as bamboo and plastic sheets. More subsidies
should be provided in the construction of polyhouses.
(ii) Organic agriculture production should be promoted for higher income of the
farmers.
(iii) Agriculture inputs should be made easily available in the required quantity
and on time, with reasonable subsidies.
(iv) Soft agriculture credit should be made more available with short and easy
processing.
(v) Agriculture training should be provided to the farmers, particularly for production
of off-season vegetables and hybrid tomato production in polyhouses.
(vi) The extension service provided by the DADO has to cover the whole
district, and thus the level of resources in inadequate weak and not easily
available to the majority of the farmers due to lack of man power. The ASCs have
very limited technical resources and manpower. The present technical staff are
not able to meet the demands by farmers for modern and high-production
technologies. The technical capability of the ASCs should be upgraded and
enough manpower and resources should be made available so as to help and
serve the farmers effectively and efficiently.
(vii) The linkage between agriculture research and extension should be strongly
and institutionally established.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

(viii) Cooperative/community farming should be done in terms of mechanization

and commercialization in order to get higher production and productivity.
(ix) Regular market information should be provided to the farmers by the extension
service and the private sectors/NGOs, and more networking of market information
should be done.

2. Middle Basin

19. The main findings from the FGDs in the middle basin are summarized as follows:

(i) The farmers are practicing the traditional cropping patterns with improved
technologies of crop production such as improved varieties, chemical fertilizers
and pesticides. The existing cropping patterns are: rice-wheat, rice-potato, rice-
mustard, maize-mustard, and summer vegetables-winter vegetables.
(ii) The command area has a high potential for normal as well as off-season
vegetables production and other high-yielding variety (HYV) crops.
(iii) Agriculture inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides are available in the
local market. However, the qualities of seeds and fertilizers are not reliable and
the inputs are costly.
(iv) The extension service is weak and not easily available to the majority of
farmers. Some farmers have received agriculture training provided by the
DADO through the local ASCs, but the farmers do not have adequate
knowledge of modern and high-production agricultural technologies.
(v) The size of land holdings is small (0.05-0.35 ha) and mechanization is difficult.
However, the farmers are using power tillers and threshers.
(vi) Agriculture credits are not easily available and the interest rate is relatively high.
(vii) The command area has good access to local markets.
(viii) Adequate marketing information is not usually organized and available; farmers
do not always get reasonable price for their produce.
20. Recommendations by the stakeholders in the middle basin include:

(i) Crop diversification should be done with high-value crops such as normal and
off-season vegetables particularly, hybrid tomato production in polyhouses
made up of low cost materials such as bamboo and plastic sheets. More
subsidies should be provided in the construction of polyhouses.
(ii) Organic agriculture production should be promoted for higher income of the
farmers.
(iii) Agriculture inputs should be made easily available in the required quantity
and on time, with reasonable subsidies.
(iv) Soft agriculture credit should be made more available with short and easy
processing.
(v) Agriculture training should be provided to the farmers, particularly for
production of off-season vegetables, hybrid tomato and mushroom production
in polyhouses, and SRI rice.
(vi) The extension service is provided by the DADO has to cover the whole
district, and thus the level of resources in inadequate weak and not easily
available to the majority of the farmers due to lack of man power. The ASCs
have very limited technical resources and manpower. The present technical
staffs are not able to meet the demands by farmers for modern and high-

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

production technologies. The technical capability of the ASCs should be

upgraded and enough manpower and resources should be made available so
as to help and serve the farmers effectively and efficiently.
(vii) The linkage between agriculture research and extension should be strongly
and institutionally established.
(viii) Cooperative/community farming should be done in terms of mechanization
and commercialization in order to get higher production and productivity.
(ix) Regular market information should be provided to the farmers by the extension
service and the private sectors/NGOs, and more networking of market
information should be done.

C. Main Findings from the Lower Basin

1. BIP Farmers/WUAs

21. The main findings from the FGDs in the Lower Basin (BIP) are summarized as follows:

(i) The farmers are practicing the traditional cropping patterns with improved
technologies of crop production such as improved varieties, chemical fertilizers,
micro nutrients and pesticides. The existing cropping patterns are: spring rice-
monsoon rice-wheat, sugarcane-sugarcane, rice-wheat, rice-lentil, rice-mustard,
rice-maize, rice-potato, maize-mustard, summer vegetables- winter vegetables,
and fish production.
(ii) The command area has a good potential for the production of cereals, sugarcane,
potato, maize, lentil, mustard, vegetables production and fish production.
(iii) Agriculture inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides are available in the
local market. However, the qualities of seeds and fertilizers are not reliable and
these inputs are costly.
(iv) The extension service is weak and not easily available to the majority of
farmers. Some farmers have received agriculture training provided by the DADO,
through the local ASC, but the farmers do not have adequate knowledge of
modern and high-production agriculture technologies.
(v) The size of land holding is small (0.25-0.5 ha) and fragmented, and thus
mechanization is difficult. However, the farmers are using tractors and threshers.
(vi) Agriculture credits are not easily available and the interest rate is relatively high.
(vii) The command area has good access to local markets.
(viii) Adequate marketing information is not usually organized and available; farmers
do not always get reasonable price for their produce.

22. Recommendations by the stakeholders include:

(i) Crop diversification of crops should be promoted for high-value crops such as
sugarcane, spring rice with the SRI method, normal and off-season vegetables,
and fish production.
(ii) Seed production for rice and wheat should be promoted.
(iii) Agriculture inputs should be made more easily available in the required quantities
and on time, with reasonable subsidies so as to better compete with the highly
subsidized cross border effects.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

(iv) Soft agriculture credit should be made more available with short and easy
processing.
(v) Agriculture training should be provided to the farmers, particularly for spring rice
with the SRI method, normal and off-season vegetables, and fish production.
(vi) The extension service is provided by the DADO has to cover whole districts,
and thus the level of resources in inadequate weak and not easily available to
the majority of the farmers due to lack of man power. The ASCs have very
limited technical resources and manpower. The present technical staffs are not
able to meet the demands by farmers for modern and high-production farming
technologies. The technical capability of the ASCs should be upgraded and
enough manpower and resources should be made available so as to help and
serve the farmers effectively and efficiently.
(vii) Land consolidation should be done for mechanization and commercialization
in order to get higher production and productivity.
(viii) The linkage between agriculture research and extension should be strongly
and institutionally established.
(ix) Regular market information should be provided to the farmers by the extension
service and the private sectors/NGOs, and more networking of market information
should be done.

2. DADO, Sarlahi District

23. During the FGD, the Senior Agriculture Development Officer expressed the concern
that there is no direct coordination between the BIP and the DADO. However, there are
agriculture extension services provided by ASCs to the farmers in the district. Farmers groups
have been formed by the DADO for extension services. Similarly, there is no direct
institutional linkage and coordination between the WUAs and agriculture extension staff at the
district level. However, irrigation representatives are invited to meetings of the district council.

24. In the district, irrigation water has contributed to the production of sugarcane. The
level of production of sugarcane in the district is high; local farmers have broken national
records for sugarcane production and been rewarded. The highest record of sugarcane
production is 81 t/ha.

25. The area has a high potential for fish farming. The BIP can assist fish farmers by
developing an appropriate mechanism to deal with water logged areas. Further, the agriculture
programs should be integral part of the BIP. A number of crop production demonstrations and
seed multiplication activities should be launched in the BIP command area in close
coordination with WUAs, BIP and DADO.

26. Seasonal irrigation schedules and cropping calendars have not been developed in
the BIP. Due to a lack of field channels in the BIP command area, the optimum use of
irrigation water (on farm irrigation) is lagging behind.

27. SRI demonstrations could be launched in the BIP in the coordination with DADO and
BIP where reliable and flexible irrigation water supplies are ensured.

28. Fifteen percent of the Block Grant Fund (VDC fund) of the government has
been allocated to agriculture development programs, which has not been implemented in an
organized and planned way due to a lack of skilled manpower in the VDCs. Therefore, one
trained village level agriculture extension staff should be deployed by the agency so as to
disseminate improved technologies to the farming communities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

29. Improved agriculture technologies involving an effective water management transfer

program on the basis of farmer-to-famers training needs to be organized in close coordination
with BIP and DADO for better commercial crop production.

30. The issue of better coordination between irrigation and agriculture has not been
adequately addressed. Both sectors have been working in isolation. However, with limited
budgets and manpower, the DOA has been providing services to farming communities. As far
as better coordination between the BIP and the DADO is concerned, it is directly related to
allocations in the annual agriculture budget. The funds from the central government to the
DADO are not sufficient to fulfil the district’s demand. The district’s annual budget and
programs are being endorsed by the DDC whereas the BIP is a centrally-funded and operated
project. There is no direct link of the BIP with the DADO, even though both are working in
irrigated agriculture.

31. A special agriculture budget should be allocated to the BIP for implementing
agriculture activities in its command area. The annual agriculture program and budget should
be prepared and implemented jointly by the DADO, WUA and BIP. Agriculture extension
services should be a part of the centrally-funded irrigation projects, such as BIP, for three to
five years. The annual agriculture program should be endorsed by the WUA Assembly.

3. BIP Field Staff

32. A significant budget has been allocated to Command Area Development (CAD) works,
and the field staff have been working as daily wage laborers under this budget. Approximately,
$300,000 (NRs30 million) is allocated in the BIP budget for MOM, but often it is not released
from the central government on a scheduled basis. Only a minor amount of canal maintenance
is actually carried out, mostly for earthworks. At the same time, a nominal contribution from
WUAs/ farmers is given for some maintenance works. The roles and responsibilities between
the WUAs and field staff have not been clearly crafted. Specific job descriptions and training
programs have not been received by the BIP field staff.

33. There is a lack of adequate coordination between the BIP staff and WUAs in terms of
programmed water allocations. Field staff (ie, supervisor, gate operator and dhalpas) are
responsible for this according to the BIP. Water management in the command area needs to
be better coordinated between the head reaches and the areas at the tail ends of canals
according to a schedule developed each cropping season in coordination with main canal
operations. The roles and responsibilities of the dhalpas and supervisors should be better
coordinated with the actual needs for irrigation water in their respective command areas.
Canal maintenance and construction works should be adjusted before sowing and after
harvesting time in coordination with the WUAs.

34. Traditionally farmers have perceived that use of more water results in more production,
especially in paddy crops. This practice needs to be discouraged through demonstrations and
training on proper water use for paddy (including SRI as appropriate).

D. Participatory Rural Appraisals

1. Tubewell Farmers

35. STWs were installed since about 12 to15 years in the locality. Shallow tubewells were
drilled by local manpower using the local Thokuwa method. In general the water table in the
locality is about 4 to 6 meter deep. Wells are drilled to a depth of about 13 to 20 m. In general
a 7.5 HP Bharat, Usha and Kirloskar diesel engine pumps were being used for other use of
this size engine, now even 5 HP engines are being used. Discharge of tubewells ranges from
7 to 12 lps with an average 9 lps.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

36. The cost of a typical shallow tubewell installation is around NRs65,000 around
NRs20,000 for a typical depth of 20 m using the Thokuwa method, and NRs40,000 to 45,000
for a typical 7.5 HP diesel engine. The operation cost of pumps is about NRs150/hour which
includes 1 liter diesel plus NRs10/hour operator’s charge, lubricants and maintenance cost.
Maintenance costs are about NRs9,000 per annum that includes annual average repair cost of
machine and other accessories.

37. Usually tubewells are used for winter vegetables, wheat, spring vegetables and
sugarcane during the critical stages of the crops. Water is applied for paddy seed bed
preparation and supplementary irrigations in critical situations. The area coverage of one STW
is around 2 to 2.5 ha. The general usage hours is reported to be 200-250 hours comprising 80
to 100 hours in sugarcane, 40-50 hours for wheat, 80-90 hours for spring and winter
vegetables. Spring paddy is not grown using STW in general because of high cost; however,
few farmers applied supplementary irrigation for spring paddy grown in small area in critical
situation.

2. STW Areas

38. The general cropping pattern in the tubewell area is reported as follows:

 Paddy-Wheat
 Paddy/Lentil-Maize
 Paddy-Lentil+Mustard
 Paddy-Potato/Vegetables
 Sugarcane-Sugarcane
 Cropping intensity was reported to be 230 to 240%

Cropped Area:
 Summer season (Kharif): paddy 25 to 30%
 Winter season (Rabi): wheat 30 to 35%, sugarcane 60 to 70%, lentil and oilseeds
10 to 15%, vegetable and potato in around 5% area, maize around 3%
 Spring: Vegetable in around 2% of the area.

Crop Yields:
 Paddy- 3.5 to 4.2 t/ha
 Wheat- 2.4 to 2.6 t/ha
 Maize- 3.5 to 4.5 t/ha
 Lentil- 1.0 to1.2 t/ha
 Oilseed- 0.80 to 0.90 t/ha
 Vegetables- 8 to 10 t/ha
 Potato- 10 to 12 t/ha
 Sugarcane- 75 to 80 t/ha

Farm-gate Prices of outputs and inputs:

 Paddy- Rs20 to 25/kg, wheat- 28 to 30 NRs/kg, maize 18 to 22 NRs/kg, lentil- 80
to 90 NRs/kg
 Oilseeds- 80 to 90 NRs/kg, sugarcane- NRs 481/quintal, potato- 15 to 18 NRs/kg
 Urea- Rs22/kg, DAP-50/kg, potash- 35 NRs/kg, zinc sulphate 100 NRs/kg, tractor
hire 900 to 1,200 NRs/hr, bullock pair NRs500/day, hired labor- NRs350/day
 Plant protection cost in lump sum: paddy- 2,500 NRs/ha, wheat- 500 NRs/ha,
sugarcane- 3,000 NRs/ha, Vegetables/potato- 2,000 NRs/ha, maize- 1,500 NRs/ha

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Use of Chemical Fertilizer (kg/ha)

 Paddy: Urea- 180, DAP-90, Potash-30
 Wheat: Urea-120, DAP-60
 Sugarcane: Urea- 300, DAP-180, Potash-60
 Vegetables/potato: Urea 120, DAP-120, Potash-60
 Maize: Urea-180, DAP-120, Potash-30
 Lentil: DAP-60
 Oilseeds: Urea-60, DAP-60

Farm Yard Manure

 Farm yard manure is applied in the cultivated are once in a year before tilling the
field during April/May. Usage depends on the production/availability of manure,
which depends on the numbers of livestock raised by the household. On average
2-4 tons/ha of manure is estimated to be applied in the field.
Conclusions
 The cost of tubewell irrigation with diesel engines is much more expensive
compared to electric engines. Improved rural electrification is seen as a key part
of the development of groundwater pumping.
 For increasing agriculture production and productivity, agricultural inputs supply
in not timely available. The quality of seeds and fertilizers are not satisfactory.
 Market supports are needed to facilitate the farmers during post-harvest time and
soft credit facility should be insured to discourage the selling of the standing crop.
 Nepalese farmers are vulnerable to competition and may not reasonable prices
for their crops due to the impact of cross-border subsidized farming systems.
 The cost of tubewell installations are costly and marginal farmers cannot afford.
The interest rate of agriculture is higher than industrial sector and repayment of
agriculture credit often becomes burdens to the farmers because of low profit in
agriculture sector.
 Trainings should be articulated to the tubewell farmers about off-season vegetables,
high yielding crops and crop diversification.
 Effective and efficient agriculture extension services are recommended by the
respondents.

E. Sample Area Profiles

1. Upper Basin

39. Two out of three schemes selected in the upper reach of the basin were very old
irrigation schemes (Koiralakhola and Tikabhairab), which were newly rehabilitated by the DOI.
The other scheme (Katunje) was also an old FMIS rehabilitated in around 1995. All schemes
are relatively small and have traditionally responsibility for MOM has been left to farmers
themselves.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

40. Canal operation: In these schemes, water distribution is done via a main canal and
direct outlets. Branch and field channels are not constructed. Outlets are provided and most
are not gated. Farmers practice water applications by passing water from one plot to another.
There is no water allocation system. During the low flow period, farmers in the upper part of
the system go to the intake and divert water from the supply stream into the canal and irrigate
field starting from the first outlet, and then the water is passed to next farmer, continuing in
sequence along the canal. During the rainy season when the flow is enough, the first few
outlets are opened for few days and the farmers apply water one by one in the same way.
After meeting the water requirements of the first group of outlets, the second group of outlets is
opened. Irrigation water is managed to let all famers transplant paddy in the command area.
Then only water is applied for follow up irrigation.

41. Actual irrigated area: In the Katunje Scheme, the canal has been blocked due to the
construction of a water pipeline crossing the canal alignment, blocking water being able to
flowing past this point. As a result only about 40% of the command area is actually irrigated. In
the Chhampi Scheme, farmers have yet to convert sloping uplands to terracing so the actual
irrigated area is only about 50%. There is a general tendency of only applying water regularly
in the head reach of scheme.

42. WUAs: A WUA was usually formed during construction of the schemes and the WUA
mobilized the farmers for repair and maintenance of canals, mainly for earthworks. Before the
DOI intervened during rehabilitation of the Katunje Scheme, the government used to pay for a
dhalpa (canal operator), who used to take care of each system. After rehabilitation,
government support for dhalpa stopped and the WUAs have not hired them back. In the
Koiralkhola Scheme the WUAs manages the canal by mobilizing farmers for maintenance.
The Tikabhairav WUA has hired a dhalpa to upkeep the canal and he is paid in kind by
contributing paddy per ha basis. Four stone crushers at the intake also pay NRs5,000 per
month to the dahlia.

43. Maintenance: Responsibility of maintenance lies with the WUA/farmers and they are
doing some minimal works in order to run the canal. In Ketone, the WUA has sought Village
Development Committee’s (VDC) support of NRs200,000 to maintain the canal. Others are
newly constructed and the WUAs have mobilized farmers to maintain earthen canal.

44. Irrigation infrastructure: Farmers expressed the need to extend lined canal in all
irrigation schemes. Gated outlets should be provided and they should be mobilized to
make field channels directly to each plot. In the Katunje Scheme, the WUA needs assistance
for shifting water supply pipe to avoid canal flow obstruction.

45. Water use efficiency: There is a water shortage during the dry season in all schemes.
Spring crops are usually not popular. WUE can be improved by the proper development of
crop planning, and developing and implementing a water distribution schedule. Sprinkler and
drip irrigation could be introduced to improve irrigation efficiency. Intermediate reservoirs could
also be developed as fish ponds to store water when not needed in rainy season, and then
that water could be supplied for irrigation in the dry season.

2. Middle Basin

46. The two schemes selected in the middle reach are newly irrigated areas developed
after the DOI supported their development in the 1990’s. These schemes are relatively small
and were handed over to farmers for MOM.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

47. Canal operation and water management: Water is distributed to the command area by
long main canals and few branch canals, with outlets at both levels. The outlets provided are
mostly not gated and were insufficient in number, so farmers cut the canal banks and to take
water from convenient points. They make temporary field channels at some outlets, and in
other places water is passed from one plot to another, which increases seepage and
conveyance losses. This practice has contributed to water shortages. In the Ghattekhola
Scheme, the soil is coarse textured, so seepage and percolation losses are high. Realizing
this, farmers are using micro-sprinkler irrigation by conveying water through pipes. There is no
water allocation system. During the low flow period, farmers in the head reach go to the intake
in order to divert water into the main canal, and then irrigation is sequentially passing water to
each downstream outlet. During rainy season when the supply flow is adequate, all branches
and outlets are opened and the farmers take turns within the area covered by the outlet. When
water supplies are short, a rotation is followed and mutually accepted by the farmers.

48. Actual irrigated area: Both schemes irrigate their entire command area, at least in rainy
season. Due to a lack of piped branch canals, the tail end of the Ghattekhola Scheme faces
water shortages. Similarly a portion of the tailed of the Raigaun Scheme, where the branch
canal passes through a trough, could be irrigated if the branch canal was piped.

49. WUAs: The WUAs were formed during construction to mobilize farmers for
participation and to be active in the repair and maintenance of canals. These WUAs are still
active and a dhalpa has been hired at Raigaun to take care of the system, on the basis of in-
kind payments by farmers. They are getting their accounts audited and WUA registrations
renewed.

50. Maintenance: Responsibility for maintenance lies with the WUA/farmers and they are
contributing labor and also cash to run the canal. In the Raigaun Scheme they hire an
excavator to dig approach channel by collecting contribution from all farmers. The WUAs
also get Village Development Committee (VDC) support at times in order to maintain the
canals. The WUA mobilize farmers to maintain earthen canals.

51. Irrigation infrastructure: Farmers want to install about 200-300 m of pipe in the branch
canal in the Ghattekhola Scheme. Farmers also requested the provision of micro- sprinkler/
drip irrigation equipment. In the Raigaun Scheme gated outlets are needed, and the farmers
should be mobilized to make field channels in order to apply water directly to each plot. In
addition, the farmers are considering extending irrigation to an adjoining piece of land above
the canal by pumping and requested provision of three (3) pump units. Water measurement
facilities and training its application should be provided.

52. Water use efficiency: Water shortages are experienced in both schemes, particularly
during the spring season. Spring crops are still not popular. WUE could be improved by the
development of proper crop planning, and developing and implementing a water distribution
schedule. Sprinkler and drip irrigation could be introduced to improve irrigation efficiency.
Intermediate reservoirs could be introduced with dual use as fish ponds in order to store water
when water is not needed in rainy season, and then provide irrigation for paddy crops in dry
season.

53. Agriculture: Farming is the main occupation in these areas and due to their remoteness
they are growing crops using few chemical inputs. Fertilizer is expensive and usually not
available in time. Crops selection is still for home consumption and commercial farming is not
widespread, although a few farmers have started to grow organic vegetables in the
Ghattekhola Scheme and sugarcane in the Raigaun Scheme. These areas are suited for
organic vegetables and fruit production and the more technical support from the DOI would
help create an enabling market environment.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

3. Lower Basin

54. The SAPs done in the lower reach of the Bagmati were carried out in the BIP
command area. CAD works are still on-going in the BIP and more is planned, particularly at the
tailend of the system. In the areas covered in this report there is enough water in the Bagmati
River during the summer and winter. A full supply is delivered in the summer beginning usually
in July and this continues till November. Some water is delivered in the winter for crops,
depending upon farmers’ requests.

55. Canal operation: The BIP field staff operate the main, branch and distributary canals,
and the operation of secondary, sub-secondary and tertiary canals are left to farmers/WUAs.
Depending upon water available, the canals are supplied to run at FSL as far as possible.
Many pump sets draw water directly from main canals and also at some places from branch
canals. Many unauthorized direct outlets also draw water, reducing the available flow
downstream. Water available from the distributary/secondary canals is distributed among
secondary/sub-secondary following certain rotation schedule. In the Gadhaiya Branch there is
7-day rotation schedule between the upper and lower reaches, which the farmers have found
effective this year for the whole command area. In some places where the WUAs are active,
there is a rotation among secondary and tertiary canals, but in many places water is delivered
from head to tail in a sequential manner. In the dry season, water supplies are less and a
rotation is followed.

56. Actual irrigated area: All the upper portions of the command area receive irrigation
water in the rainy season, except some tail end reaches where the tertiary canals and field
channels have not been developed. In the lower reach almost one-third of the area is not
irrigated in the rainy season. A rotation schedule in the Gadhaiya Branch has enabled the
farmers to irrigate nearly all the command area.

57. WUAs: Several WUAs were formed at different levels of the canal system to support
construction and maintenance work of the project by mobilizing farmers for participation and
repair and maintenance of canals. Some of these WUAs are still active for canal MOM, while
many are not. WUAs were not formed according to hydrological boundaries so there is little
linkage among them.

58. Maintenance: Responsibility for maintenance below the distributary canal lies with the
WUA/farmers. Some of them are contributing labor and also cash to run the canal, but many
have not even constructed tertiary canals. The pattern varies among different localities. The
role of the BIP and the WUAs should be more clearly spelled out so that farmers will be
mobilized to construct and maintain lower-level canals.

59. Irrigation infrastructure: Silt excluders are needed, in addition to completing the
remaining CAD works. Many cross regulator and head regulator gates need to be improved
and direct outlets should either be removed or gated. The tertiary canals and field channels
should be constructed where needed. Where water shortages will persist, more tubewells
could be developed.

60. Water use efficiency: WUE is low due to the lack of proper water allocation, and there
is still the common practice of field-to-field irrigation in many places. Farmers sow a variety of
crops at different times in the winter making water management difficult. This can be improved
by the development of proper crop planning and developing and implementing water
distribution schedule. Intermediate reservoirs could be introduced with dual use as fish ponds
in order to store water when water is not needed in rainy season, and then provide irrigation
for paddy crops in dry season.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

61. Agriculture: Farming is the main occupation in this area and farmers with the
necessary resources are growing sugarcane. Fertilizer is costly and usually not available in
time. Farmers have to compete with produce from Indian, which is cheap due to highly
subsidized inputs there. Extension services are nominal and not effective. Intensive agriculture
support for crop planning and more technical assistance is needed to promote commercial
agriculture.

F. Summary of Consultations

1. FGDs

62. The FGDs conducted with farmers and WUAs of the irrigation schemes of upper and
middle reaches showed that a majority of farmers are managing the irrigation systems in their
own way, growing traditional cereal crops for subsistence rather than for sale. Development of
these irrigation schemes has allowed farmers to grow more number of crops in a year and
change cropping pattern besides increasing crop yield to an extent. A WUA is formed during
project period and the farmers are maintaining the irrigation systems to keep them operational.
When major damage or obstructions occur, especially major structural damage, farmers rely
on the government for support. Farmers in general do not construct tertiary field channels and
apply water from one field plot to another. Water allocation plans are not made; water is
delivered to head reach plots first and then it is delivered to next sequentially. Farmers have
not appreciated importance of field channels for distribution and delivery water making a canal
operation plan. Tailend farmers become deprived of water in water shortage. Nevertheless,
there is good cooperation among farmers and manage water distribution mutually.

63. Similar observations are relevant to the BIP. There the WUAs are formed for
secondary, sub-secondary, tertiary canals, and they have varying capacities. Some WUAs are
taking care of irrigation MOM and even hiring dhalpas to run their canals paying cash or grain,
while some other WUA are not taking care of canal management. Nevertheless, all farmers
grow generally two crops paddy-wheat/mustard/lentil leaving fallow in spring due to water
shortages. In the lower BIP, sugarcane and maize are also grown for sale. A small number of
farmers have started to grow vegetables using polyhouse too for sale even using micro
irrigation to conserve water. Commercial farmers find there is profit in properly carried out
agriculture. But fertilizer, seed, and even agriculture extension service is not available in time
and quality.

2. PRAs

64. The PRAs were done with the shallow tubewell users of western and eastern BIP.
Farmers have developed STWs with assistance from the project, and even with private-funds,
as there was no surface irrigation water previously. The government is still supporting the
farmers for groundwater development. Some old STWs have become non-functional and are
being replaced with new STWs. In some villages, especially in eastern side Barhathawa area
of Sarlahi, STWs have not been successful, so more open wells are developed. The shallow
tubewells and dug wells are appreciated because the canal flow is not reliable. Water is
available at shallow depths so low lift pumps are used to irrigate. Farmers operate pumps
during peak irrigation periods. They will wait for rain or canal water, but if they do not get it in
time, then they will operate these pumps. Usually they provide 3 to 4 waterings for paddy, 1 to
2 for wheat, 4 for maize, and 3 to 4 for sugarcane.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

65. Owners of STWs also sell water to their neighbors at a rate of NRs300 per hour. In
general they operate about 200 hours in a year. STWs are economic for farmers and provide
independence from the erratic surface supply. They are reporting good yields and benefits.
Farmers with STWs and dug wells feel these are suitable for supplementing canal water
shortages, and it allows for improved farming conditions. The cost for operation of pumps is
not high if electricity is available and even diesel is affordable for commercial farmers.

3. SAPs

66. The SAPs showed that a majority of farmers are managing the irrigation systems in
their own way, growing traditional cereal crops for subsistence rather than for sale.
Development of irrigation schemes has allowed farmers to grow more number of crops in a
year and change cropping pattern besides increasing crop yield to an extent. A WUA is formed
during project’s construction period and the WUA with farmers are maintaining the irrigation
system to keep operational. When major damage occurs especially major infrastructure
damage, which is supported by the government. Farmers in general do not construct tertiary
field channels and apply water from one field plot to another. Water allocation plans are not
made; water is delivered to head reach plots first and then it is delivered to next sequentially.
Farmers have not recognized the importance of field channels for even distribution and
delivery of irrigation water. Tailend farmers are deprived of water in many cases. Nevertheless,
there is generally some cooperation among farmers for managing water distribution mutually.

67. Farmers grow generally two crops paddy-wheat/mustard/lentil, leaving fallow in spring
due to water shortages. In the lower parts of the BIP, sugarcane and maize are also grown for
sale. Some farmers have started to grow vegetables using polyhouses, with some using micro
irrigation to conserve water. Commercial farmers find there is profit in properly carried out
agriculture. But fertilizer, seed, and even agriculture extension service are usually not available
at the right time or in good quality.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

III. WATER RESOURCES

A. Upper Reach

68. Rainfall is the main source of surface water in this area. Average annual rainfall in is
approximately 1,800 mm and almost 80% that occurs between June to September. Part of the
rainfall drains of as surface runoff to nearby streams and the rest infiltrates into the ground,
some of which seeps out at many local springs.

69. The Bagmati River rises in the Kathmandu Valley originating at Bagdwar about 15 km
northeast of Kathmandu in the Shivapuri Hills. Various tributaries originate from different parts
of the valley, feeding water at different locations in the valley. The list of tributaries and their
lengths are shown in Table 1. Main sources of water in Bagmati river system are rainfall and
natural springs that originate due to the groundwater recharge of the hills surrounding the
valley. It is thus different from most of other river systems that depend mainly on glaciers in
Himalayas. The average annual rainfall in Kathmandu valley is 1,900 mm of which about 80%
occurs only during monsoon (July to September). The upper Bagmati Basin is where most of
the urbanized areas are situated; this is also where many rivers and springs are situated,
providing the major source of water for entire catchments.

Table 1: Streams in the Upper Bagmati basin

SN Name Length (km) Elevation (m) Source

1 Bagmati 35.5 2,732 Shivapuri Bagdwar
2 Bishnumati 17.3 2,300 Shivapuri Tarebhir
3 Bosan 6.1 1,800 Pokhari Bhanjyang
4 Manamati 6.1 2,000 Bhangari Danda
5 DhobiKhola 18.2 2,732 ShivapuriDanda
6 Godawari 14.8 2,200 PhulchokiDanda
7 Hanumante 23.5 2,000 MahadevPokhari
8 Indrawati 16.8 1,700 DahachowkDanda
9 Indrayani 7 2,000 BhangariDanda
10 Kodaku 14.9 2,000 TleshworDanda
11 Tukucha 6.4 1,325 Maharajgunj
12 Manohara 23.5 2,375 ManichaurDanda
13 Matatirtha 5 2,000 Matatirtha Danda
14 Nagmati 7.9 2,443 ShivapuriDanda
15 Nakhu 17.6 2,200 Bhardue danda
16 Samakhusi 6.4 1,350 Dharampur East
17 Sangla 10.7 2,000 Aale Danda
18 Syalmati 4.8 2,200 ShivapuriDanda
19 Tribeni 10.7 1,700 Bhirkot
20 Mahadav 9.2 2,000 Aale Danda
Source: DOI, 2014

70. Flow records for the Bagmati River are maintained by taking discharge measurements
at Khokana (downstream of Kathmandu Valley). The monthly average flow is around 17 m3/s.
The historical records indicate that streamflow is much higher in the rainy season, reaching up
to 447 m3/s; however, the dry season flow also decreased in some year to less than 0.2 m3/s
in spring season. Average monthly flow at Sundarijal at near the source and at Khokana is
shown in Figure 1.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Figure 1: Average Stream Flow Bagmati River in the Upper Basin

Source: Present Study, 2014

71. These rivers are the source of water supply for the five municipalities and villages in
the valley. There are several small irrigation schemes spread over the basin. In general there
is enough flow during rainy season, which becomes critical during the dry spring season.
Usually pre-monsoon rainfall occurs in March to April and farmers start transplanting beginning
on May onwards in irrigated area.

72. Surface water is not adequate for water supply to the towns in the valley, so
groundwater is pumped by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board as well as by local
industries, hotels and peoples etc. The water supplies to houses return as sewerage and
contribute to increased polluted water flow in the river.

B. Middle Reach

73. In the middle reach of the Bagmati Basin there are three main rivers, along with two
other short rivers. The Kokahjor River is the first that flows from east as a border stream
between Kavre Palanchowk and Sindhuli District, while Kulekhani River is the second river to
meet Bagmati from west flowing through Makwanpur District and third is the Marin River that
flow past the valley of Sindhuli. Several tributaries are there to feed these rivers. Irrigation
schemes have been built by diverting water from the tributaries. These are perennial streams
in the basin but with no flow measurement records. A reservoir has been built for hydropower
generation in Kulekhani River, and water from penstock is transferred to another East Rapti
River Basin. Besides there are two small streams one in Makwanpur and another In Sindhuli
that drains to Bagmati River in the middle reach.

74. Annual average rainfall in mid reach is high above 1,600 mm, so there is adequate
water in stream in summer. The flow decreases in winter and spring due to no storage
systems. Several irrigation systems have been built by farmers to some of which government
has assisted in rehabilitation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

1. Groundwater

75. There is some potential for groundwater development in middle reach of the basin,
especially in the valleys of Makwanpur and Sindhuli Districts. There are open wells in these
two districts. In order to know the changes that have occurred over the years in the land use in
both upper and lower parts of the basin, various information were reviewed. Urbanization has
increased in Kathmandu Valley near the city, reducing the available farm land. In the lower
Bagmati Basin, the forest area inside the BIP command area has been encroached where
irrigation water is being diverted reducing available flow for the main canal and branch canal to
irrigate the official design command area.

76. In order to assess the trends in land use over the past years, the available information
such as the LRMP map, the Survey Department’s database and current maps were obtained
and reviewed, as described in the following sections.

C. GIS

77. A preliminary GIS was prepared during the study and has been used to determine the
land use changes of lower Bagmati Basin. The command area of the BIP, part of which lies
out of the actual Bagmati Basin, is considered as the ‘lower basin.’ The GIS analysis showed
the gross command area of BIP to be about 78,000 ha and the potential cultivable area of
around 66,500 ha based on study of recent maps, which needs to be field verified for
ascertaining.

78. Similarly, the urbanization of upper Bagmati in the Kathmandu Valley was also studied
using trend series analysis of historical maps. This showed the urbanized area has increased
from 2,917 ha in 1978 to over approximately 22,500 ha in 2013, reducing farm land from
52,036 ha to 21,006 ha over the same period. Much of this land was converted to urban areas
during the past decade; however, the trend has slowed down and limited transactions of land
are taking place in the past few years, mainly for housing.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

IV. PLANNING FOR THE MIDDLE NAD UPPER BAGMATI BASIN

A. Introduction

1. Upper Basin

79. The Upper Bagmati River Basin is essentially the Kathmandu Valley where the
Bagmati River originates. Here urbanization is occurring and now the farm land remains
mainly at the outskirts in the north and south directions. Farming is still the main occupation of
rural people in these areas and to survive on less land they have now, they are adopting
innovative approaches like polyhouse cultivation of vegetable, and other vegetable and flower
crops to fetch higher income. There are many small surface water irrigation systems; some of
them have been rehabilitated with government support but there are still many systems to be
rehabilitated. The canal networks are not well developed to field plots even in the rehabilitated
systems, and plot-to-plot irrigation is done losing more water in conveyance. Thus water
management is generally poor with very low irrigation efficiency. To improve irrigation
efficiency, upgrading of remaining FMISs and also introducing micro irrigation is proposed.

80. As more water is tapped from tributaries for irrigation, flows in dry season reduce
abruptly and water that flows in main Bagmati River is virtually sewerage. To alleviate this
problem, farmers could be persuaded to use less water in dry months leaving more water in
the stream to flow but at the same time supporting them to grow high income crops in smaller
areas using less water, so that their income from dry season farming is compensated. For not
abstracting water for irrigation in the stream in dry season, farmers can be supported to
develop small farm pond and to develop polyhouse for high value vegetable/flower cultivation.
Land size is decreasing and farmers have to produce more with less land, so some farmers
have shown interest to do farming in polyhouse using drip irrigation in limited area. They may
raise fish in the pond in summer and release pond water for irrigation later. However they need
to be contracted that they will get water through pipe only for specified drip irrigation in the
polyhouse and not abstract any more water from canal for dry season surface irrigation.

81. The upper reach of the Bagmati Basin comprises three districts of Kathmandu Valley. It
is a circular valley surrounded by hills all around. In the past it was primarily agriculture land
with few towns distributed throughout valley concentrating at the center. Here there are a
number of small streams originating from the hill springs in all directions, which meet at
different points and exit the valley via the Bagmati River. Since long past, farmers have dug
canals for diverting water from these streams to irrigate paddy fields. These are generally
small schemes spread throughout the valley, ranging in size from few ha up to 250 ha.
Schemes smaller were developed and managed by farmers/WUA. The cultivated areas and
irrigated areas in these three districts comprises 38,301 ha and 14,153 ha, respectively
(District Profile, 2009). In addition some farmers have dug open wells and shallow tubewells
and are using low lift pumps to lift from stream to irrigate.

82. The DOI is the main government agency who is supporting in the rehabilitation of 93
small and medium irrigation schemes by constructing permanent side intakes and the
construction of lined canals and essential structures. But the management responsibility is left
to WUA/farmers. The District Development Committees and DADO are also supporting the
rehabilitation and development of smaller irrigation schemes.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

83. A majority of farmers are following cereals-based traditional subsistence farming

practices: growing paddy in summer followed by wheat/mustard/potato in winter. They use
improved seeds and apply fertilizers if available in time. Farmers are also rearing cattle and
they apply farm yard manure. The average size of land holding is small, ranging between
0.05-0.5 ha in general. Here manual laborers were traditionally used to till the land and now
power tillers are being used for land preparation. The soil is fertile and good for growing
diverse crops. Farmers are doing intensive cultivation and vegetable crops are produced in
large amounts in some pockets of the valley. Now due to increased demands of high value
crops, vegetables, mushrooms, fish, and flowers are some of the crops farmers have started
to produce on own land and also on leased land.

84. Urbanization is spreading over the years reducing the amount agriculture land. An
estimate the KUDC shows that agriculture land has reduced from 40,950 ha in 1985 to 27,570
ha in 2000, mainly due to a rise in use of land for non-agricultural purposes. Urbanization in
the valley was fairly rapid looking at past trends, but now transactions for developed plots has
stalled in the last few years, indicating potentially slower urbanization in the future. This has
reduced average land holding sizes and there is a need to produce more from less land by
intensive cultivation, which is possible with assured irrigation supply throughout the year.

2. Middle Basin

85. The middle basin is the area lying south of Mahabharat Range and north of Siwalik
Hills in the south. A portion of three districts Kavre Palanchowk, Sindhuli and Makwanpur
constitutes this range. These areas are far from district headquarters and had slower from
development for quite a long time, so farming is still the main occupation here. Kokhajor,
Kulekhani and Marin are the three rivers draining to the Bagmati. Farmers have developed
small irrigation schemes by diverting water from these rivers or tributaries. The DOI has
supported the construction of some new systems, and rehabilitated others by extending their
irrigated areas.

86. There is enough water in these small schemes during summer, beginning from July
onwards. When onset of monsoon is delayed, water shortages are felt for transplanting in
certain years. The stream flow, after cessation of monsoon rains in October, gradually
decreases in the winter and spring. Stream flow is not adequate for supporting the inefficient
practice of delivering water from plot-to-plot and distributing water in ad hoc basis. There is
some potential for groundwater exploitation, especially in the Phaparbari area of Makawanpur
and Marin area of Sindhuli.

87. Most farmers are following cereals-based traditional subsistence farming practice:
growing paddy in the summer followed by wheat/mustard/potato in the winter. They do mixed
farming and rear cattle. They apply sufficient farmyard manure and less chemical fertilizers.
Average land holding size is more than in upper reach ranging between 0.05-0.5 ha. Bullock
and manual laborers were used to till the land, but this has been gradually replaced by tractors
and power tillers for land preparation. The soil is pervious and good for growing diverse crops.
Now with construction of roads, some farmers have started to do more intensive cultivation of
organic vegetables. Due to increased demands of high value crops and the growing road
networks, there exists some potential to increase the productivity of these enterprises.

B. Schemes in the Upper and Middle Basin

88. There are many small irrigation schemes developed by the farmers themselves, a full
inventory of which was not available. The inventory of irrigation schemes where the DOI has
provided support for rehabilitation and maintenance is shown in Table 2.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 2: Inventory of Schemes in the Upper and Lower Basin

Current
Ref Part District Program Scheme Name Place CCA (Ha) Irrigated
Area (ha)
1 Upper Kathmandu ISP Balambu Irrigation scheme Balambu 50 50
2 Upper Kathmandu ISP Patichaur Irrigation scheme Gokarneshwor 50 50
3 Upper Kathmandu ISP Panchmane Irrigation scheme Jitpurphedi 21 21
4 Upper Kathmandu ISP Lamabagar Irrigation scheme Manamaiju 36 36
5 Upper Kathmandu ISP Narayankhola Irrigation scheme Suntol 52 52
6 Upper Kathmandu ISP Dhulopiro Irrigation scheme Nayapati 30 30
7 Upper Kathmandu ISP Swetbarahi Irrigation scheme Sundarijal 100 100
8 Upper Kathmandu ISP Taukhel Irrigation scheme Dakshinkali 30 30
9 Upper Kathmandu ISP Taudaha Irrigation scheme Setidevi 35 35
10 Upper Kathmandu ISP Setidevi Irrigation scheme Chovar 44 44
11 Upper Kathmandu ISP Dhunganabesi Irrigation scheme Nanglebhare 80 80
12 Upper Kathmandu ISP Salepakhure Irrigation scheme Nanglebhare 52 52
13 Upper Kathmandu ISP Chunikhel Irrigation scheme Chunikhel 55 55
14 Upper Kathmandu ISP Bharey Irrigation scheme Nanglebhare 100 100
15 Upper Kathmandu ISP Dhadokhola Irrigation scheme Aalapot 55 55
16 Upper Kathmandu ISP Baire Irrigation scheme Dakshinkali 40 40
17 Upper Kathmandu ISP Sheshmati Irrigation scheme Dharmasthali 74 74
18 Upper Kathmandu ISP Sundarijal Irrigation scheme Sundarijal 150 150
19 Upper Kathmandu ISP Shesh Narayan Irrigation scheme Shesh Narayan 70 70
20 Upper Kathmandu ISP Satghatte Irrigation scheme Gagalphedi 125 125
21 Upper Kathmandu SISP Rajkulo Panga Irrigation scheme Kirtipur 100 100
22 Upper Kathmandu SISP Matatirtha Irrigation scheme Matatirtha 50 50
23 Upper Kathmandu SISP Katuwa Bandh Irrigation scheme Baluwa 35 35
24 Upper Kathmandu SISP Naginkhola Irrigation scheme Goldhunga 65 65
25 Upper Kathmandu SISP Lapsiphedi Irrigation scheme Lapshiphedi 40 40
26 Upper Kathmandu SISP Kavreghattekhola Irrigation scheme Kavresthali 115 115
27 Upper Kathmandu SISP Tauthali Irrigation scheme Setidevi 30 30
28 Upper Kathmandu SISP Bukikulo Irrigation scheme Dakshinkali 70 70
29 Upper Kathmandu SISP Thadokhila Irrigation scheme Baluwa 40 40
30 Upper Kathmandu SISP Kavrekhola Irrigation scheme Gagalphedi 36 36
31 Upper Kathmandu SISP Pyudol Irrigation scheme Dahachowk 25 25
32 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Sundarijal Barahatar Irrigation scheme Sundarijal 150 150
33 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Swetbarahi Irrigation scheme Sundarijal 100 100
34 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Matatirtha Irrigation scheme Matatirtha 25 25
35 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Shanglekulo Irrigation System Sangla 50 50
36 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Thadokhola Irrigation System Tinthana 25 25
37 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Mahankal Irrigation System Mahankal 50 50
38 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Krishnamati Irrigation System Goldhunga 50 50
39 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Ghattetar Irrigation System Ramkot 30 30
40 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Koiralakhola Irrigation System Kavresthali 50 50
41 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Kolmati Irrigation System Nayapati 160 160
42 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Mahankal Irrigation System Baluwa 50 50
43 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Kavresthali Bharyange Irrigation System Kavresthali 50 50
44 Upper Kathmandu Farmer Sheradhol Mashine Ramkotphant Kulo Ramkot 75 75
45 Upper Kathmandu MIP Indrayani Irrigation scheme Indrayani 100 100
46 Upper Lalitpur ISP Bungamati Bhorle Irrigation scheme Bungamati 63 63
47 Upper Lalitpur ISP Chhampi Irrigation scheme Chhampi 125 125
48 Upper Lalitpur ISP Sirkhadol Irrigation scheme Lamatar 125 125
49 Upper Lalitpur ISP Siddhipur Irrigation scheme Siddhipur 150 150
50 Upper Lalitpur ISP Motiraj Irrigation scheme Tikathali 65 65
51 Upper Lalitpur ISP Mulpani Irrigation scheme Lubhu 60 60
52 Upper Lalitpur ISP Majhkulo Irrigation scheme Lubhu 100 100
53 Upper Lalitpur ISP Makalkulo Irrigation scheme Sainbu 90 90
54 Upper Lalitpur ISP Khyakdol Irrigation scheme Dukuchap 25 25
55 Upper Lalitpur ISP Nagdaha Irrigation scheme Dhapakhel 30 30
56 Upper Lalitpur ISP Wamudhi Irrigation scheme Siddhipur 75 75
57 Upper Lalitpur ISP Pipledol Irrigation scheme Lamatar 90 90
58 Upper Lalitpur ISP Harisiddhi Irrigation scheme Harisiddhi 80 80
59 Upper Lalitpur ISP Labadol Irrigation scheme Lubhu 35 35
60 Upper Lalitpur ISP Ashranga Irrigation scheme Ashranga 55 55
61 Upper Lalitpur ISP Pyutar Irrigation scheme Pyutar 50 50
62 Upper Lalitpur ISP Dhanabu Irrigation scheme Bungamati 25 25
63 Upper Lalitpur ISP Tikabhairav Irrigation scheme Lele 300 300
64 Upper Lalitpur SISP Tapyodh Irrigation scheme Thaiba 68 68
65 Upper Lalitpur SISP Hattiban Irrigation scheme Lalitpur Sub- 48 48
66 Upper Lalitpur SISP Godamchaur Irrigation scheme Godamchaur 13 13
67 Upper Lalitpur SISP Khokana Irrigation scheme Khokana 250 250
68 Upper Lalitpur SISP Sherakulo Irrigation scheme Sainba 50 50
69 Upper Lalitpur SISP Aaphalbagar Irrigation scheme Imadol 30 30
70 Upper Lalitpur SISP Godawari (Daaya) Rajkulo Irrigation scheme Godamchaur 175 175
71 Upper Lalitpur SISP Lubhu Rajkulo Irrigation scheme Lubhu 150 150
72 Upper Lalitpur Farmers Tikabhairav No. 2 Rajkulo Tikabhairav 88 88
73 Upper Lalitpur Farmers Dhandol Irrigation Canal Chapagaun 356 356
74 Upper Lalitpur Farmers Bhorlekulo Irrigation System Chhampi 50 50
75 Upper Lalitpur Farmers Phaling Dha: Irrigation System Thaiba 68 68
76 Upper Lalitpur MIP Tadh: Irrigation scheme Chapagaun, 150 150
77 Upper Lalitpur CMIASP Ikudh Irrigation scheme Thaiba 75 75
78 Upper Lalitpur CMIASP Tileshwor Mahadev Irrigation scheme Lele 40 40

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Current
Ref Part District Program Scheme Name Place CCA (Ha) Irrigated
Area (ha)
79 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhokekhola Irrigation scheme 1 Nangkhel 28 28
80 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhokekhola Irrigation scheme 2 Nangkhel 38 38
81 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Swetikhola Irrigation scheme Tathali 23 23
82 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhobankhola Irrigation scheme Tathali 55 55
83 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Chakhukhola Irrigation scheme Dhadhikot 55 55
84 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Hermancha Irrigation scheme Sudal 38 38
85 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Nanabook Irrigation scheme Sipadol 78 78
86 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Ghattekhola Irrigation scheme Sudal 30 30
87 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Khasangkhusung Irrigation scheme Tathali 40 40
88 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhusiphant Irrigation scheme Nagarkot 32 32
89 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Aamdol Irrigation scheme Chittapol 13 13
90 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhungekhola Irrigation scheme Sirantar 55 55
91 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Barshikkhola Irrigation scheme Changu 60 60
92 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Bramhayani Irrigation scheme Tathali 32 32
93 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Mingagali Mathillo Irrigation scheme Sudal 80 80
94 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhumabu Irrigation scheme Bode 90 90
95 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Ranikot Irrigation scheme Gundu 50 50
96 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Dhungekhola Mathillo Irrigation scheme Sirantar 32 32
97 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Mulsanghu Irrigation scheme Bageshwori 55 55
98 Upper Bhaktapur ISP Daudol Irrigation scheme Sudal 57 57
99 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Tapyodh Irrigation scheme Nagarkot 60 60
100 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Ghampekhola Irrigation scheme Nagarkot 30 30
101 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Susumekhola Irrigation scheme Nagarkot 20 20
102 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Tauthaliphant Irrigation scheme Nagarkot 35 35
103 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Katunje Rajkulo Irrigation scheme Katunje 120 120
104 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Mahadevkhola Irrigation scheme Dadhikot 450 450
105 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Triveni Kulo Irrigation scheme Nangkhel 50 50
106 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Kutudhal Irrigation scheme Bageshwori 106 106
107 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Thadokhola Irrigation scheme Chittapol 38 38
108 Upper Bhaktapur SISP Chaharedoke Irrigation scheme Nangkhel 44 44
109 Upper Bhaktapur MIP Rajkulo Irrigation System Nagarkot 50 50
110 Upper Bhaktapur MIP Bidol Irrigation System Sudal 65 65
111 Upper Bhaktapur MIP Budhi Gandaki Irrigation System Gundu 40 40
112 Upper Bhaktapur MIP Kusumekhola Irrigation System Nangkhel 30 30
113 Middle Kaver ISP Ghattekhola Irrigation scheme Chamaraangbesi 35 20
114 Middle Sindhuli ISP Pipalmadi Irrigation Plan Pipalmadi 80 80
115 Middle Sindhuli SISP Chaduli Irrigation Plan Kapilakot – 9 200
116 Middle Makwanpur ISP Paabas Valley Irrigation scheme Chatiban 8 85 65
117 Middle Makwanpur ISP Chyauchyau Irrigation scheme Sikharpur 8 99 20
118 Middle Makwanpur ISP Karmachuli Irrigation scheme Chatiban 8 90 90
119 Middle Makwanpur ISP Kudulle Irrigation scheme Sikharpur 6 35 30
120 Middle Makwanpur ISP Jyuina Irrigation scheme Chatiban 9 28 25
121 Middle Makwanpur SISP Palung Irrigation scheme Palung 4 64 60
122 Middle Makwanpur SISP Phaparbari Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 6 100 85
123 Middle Makwanpur SISP Bhorleni Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 2 50 45
124 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Pabas Jureli Irrigation scheme Chatiban 6 160 30
125 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Thadokhola Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 7 25 20
126 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Dhunwakot Irrigation scheme Betini 5,6,7,8,9 & 500 300
127 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Raj Irrigation scheme Chitlang 2 250 100
128 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Gairi Gaun Irrigation scheme Palung 8 100 50
129 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Bagdai Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 6 100 50
130 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Bhakhre Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 5 106 50
131 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Parseni Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 7 40 30
132 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Narayanthan Irrigation scheme Daman 1 100 50
133 Middle Makwanpur Farmers Risheswor Irrigation scheme Daman 3 165 65
134 Middle Makwanpur MIP Buddhasimat Irrigaiton scheme Chatiban 100 50
135 Middle Makwanpur MIP Rai Gaun Irrigaiton scheme Rai Gaun 245 245
136 Middle Makwanpur MIP Atharbidha Irrigaiton scheme Chatiban 110 90
137 Middle Makwanpur MIP Hathidhunga Irrigaiton scheme Rai Gaun 74 74
138 Middle Makwanpur CMIASP Motipur Irrigation scheme Phaparbari 74 74
139 Middle Makwanpur CMIASP Jyoti Irrigation scheme Chatiban 25 25
140 Middle Makwanpur NTP Mainatar Irrigation scheme Chatiban 18 18
141 Middle Makwanpur NTP Kitani Irrigation scheme Palung 8 6
142 Middle Makwanpur NTP Gadha Kholsi Irrigation scheme Sisneri 14 14
143 Middle Makwanpur Other Godankhola Irrigation scheme Rai Gaun 25 25
144 Middle Makwanpur Other Khaite Khola Irrigation scheme Daman 100 100
145 Middle Makwanpur Other Masin Khola Irrigation scheme Daman 50 50
146 Middle Makwanpur Other Dubo Khola Irrigation scheme Daman 20 20
147 Middle Makwanpur Other Lohajwar Irrigation scheme Daman 100 100
148 Middle Makwanpur Other Baddha Simat Irrigation scheme Chatiban 7 24 24
Sub Total Upper 8,053 8,053
Sub Total Lower 3,199 2,380
Total 11,252 10,433

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

C. Planning for Modernization

1. Upper Basin

89. The amount urbanization has severely reduced the arable land in upper reaches of the
basin and due to the division of family-owned lands among the inheritors, the average land
holding size is now very small. However, at the same time there is an urgent need for
increased agricultural production to meet the requirements of the growing population. This can
be met in part by delivery of assured irrigation supplies and the adoption of improved farming
throughout the year. Traditional subsistence-based farming is not attractive and beneficial to
youth and as a result there is an exodus of the younger generation, which creates labor
shortages in the villages. Farmers have already developed irrigation systems in 14,153 ha
(District Profile, 2009) using local technologies, some of which the government supported in
with improvements to the main canals. Water management practices tend to be wasteful; this
is a prime motivation for efficiency improvements through modernization. The remaining areas
could also be brought under irrigation by adopting water storage measures and improved
irrigation methods. Further, there exist some untapped groundwater reserves in the valley,
which should be used judiciously. Currently, there is a groundwater overdraft causing up to 1
m each year of drawdown in some places.

90. There is a resident labor force along with good nearby markets for vegetable and niche
crops (yielding high profit) to be grown using the limited water supply. More production and
therefore better returns to farmers could be possible by improving irrigation system in order to
grow a third crop. This level of irrigation would make a significant contribution to raising
farmers’ livelihoods. Once the infrastructure is modernized, the main intervention needed is to
enhance the water management capabilities of the WUAs, including strengthening their
enhancement efforts.

2. Middle Basin

91. The middle basin mainly consists of remote rural areas covering four districts lying
away from large towns. Here local people are fully engaged in agriculture and urbanization has
yet not initiated. So upgrading the existing FMISs and developing new irrigation systems is
needed to uplift these people’s economy. Further, the soil in these areas is generally coarse,
so pressurized water application1 should be promoted to serve larger areas with less water. In
addition, small water ponds could be developed to permit storage for dry season use where
fish could also be reared in the rainy season.

92. In the middle reach of the basin, management of irrigation system needs to be
improved, along with some physical system improvement works. Much of the available water
supply is applied wastefully, which should be better controlled in order to expand irrigation
service to larger areas. Irrigation systems, including rainwater harvesting schemes, need to be
developed in the remaining areas. This reach of the basin has potential for further irrigated
agriculture development with no immediate threat of urbanization in the current situation.

1
Some farmers in Chayamrangbesi at one of the FGD sites are using small sprinkler systems supplied by using gravity.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

3. Surface Water Management

93. Irrigation management practices are the same in both upper and middle reaches
where farmers are doing traditional cereals-based farming. The WUA/farmers work
cooperatively to bring water into the canal by contributing labor and in some cases even cash.
But water deliveries are not well-organized. Generally, a farmer in need of water goes to intake
and brings water into the canal and diverts that into his field. Mostly this occurs first for the
farmers at the head reach and thus water deliveries start there and then water is sequentially
passed to the lower reach, until it goes to the tailend, without the farmers collectively making
any formal delivery schedules. Farmers indicated their preference for paddy transplantation
and to allow all farmers to plant paddy before delivering water to the already transplanted
fields. There occurs excessive percolation loss of water when water flows from one field plot to
another due to a lack of branch and field channels. Field channels are supposed to be
constructed by farmers, but often they are not made and, consequently, tailenders have to
suffer water shortages. This reduces the actual amount of irrigated areas despite there being
adequate water supplies if properly used. The lack of field channels also precludes water
deliveries being made to specific plots without watering the upstream plots. Upstream farmers
do not attach importance the construction of field channels. Nevertheless, there is good
understanding and cohesion among the farmers, to at least to let tailenders get water for
paddy transplanting. In some place, such as Raigaun, farmers have made water allocation
schedules, however farmers in most of the small schemes need guidance on how to improve
water management.

94. Water measurement is not done in any of the schemes. How much water is being used
is not known, and how can that be made efficient is even less known. Some progressive
farmers growing high value vegetables for sale are using plastic pipes to convey water and are
even using sprinkler irrigation to apply water more efficiently. Due to the severely sloping
terrain, at many places the gravity head of water can be used to operate small and medium
sprinkler and drip irrigation systems.

95. There are some shortages of water during the dry spring season when crop water
requirements are high; therefore farmers find it difficult to grow perennial crops for the lack of
water. An assured water supply should motivate farmers to practice improved farming.

4. Water Quality

96. Water quality in the Bagmati River water is relative good until it reaches Kathmandu.
After passing through the urban portions of the districts, the effluents discharged to the river
get mixed and the water becomes highly polluted, which can be considered as virtually ‘dead
water’ until it exits from the Chovar Gorge.

D. Strategic Plan for Modernization

97. Farmland in the upper reach of the basin is fragmented and small. In the middle reach
land holdings are slightly larger than in the upper reach. Irrigation water is equally needed in
both reaches for crop production. However, there is good cooperation and cohesion among
farmers. At present since there is a labor shortage and investments are programmed i.e. for
inputs/labor to be procured for all works, farming for commercial purposes should be promoted
with proper technical guidance. To manage with the limited water supplies and even to expand
the total irrigated area, the small canal systems should be improved for operating under better
control. The systems are small and scattered, so the WUAs and farmers have to be
empowered and made more capable for preparing crop plans and canal operation plans, and
then be able to implement water distribution more judiciously. The recommended
improvements are summarized in the following sections.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

1. System Improvements

 Structural Improvements:
a. Government assistance for the main canals in the FMISs
b. Maintenance of canal and structures
c. De-silting basin and sediment traps
d. Installation of division boxes and gates in un-gated outlets
g. Rainwater harvesting and micro irrigation systems
 Support for construction of field channels
 Precision land leveling
 Introducing micro irrigation
 Augmenting water sources
 Construction of re-regulation reservoirs, also for to be used as fish ponds
 Shallow tubewells and open well development

2. Water Management

 Introduce water sharing distribution plans

 Preparation of crop plans and water allocation plans
 Implement water distribution schedules as per water allocation plans
 Water distribution monitoring
 Irrigation service fee collection based on water use
 Timely maintenance

3. Institutions

 Awareness campaigns for farmers about the role of the WUAs

 Reformation of multi-tier WUAs on a more of a hydrologic boundary basis
 WUA capacity development training
 Making WUAs responsible for MOM
 Strengthening the WUA office administration activities

E. Water Balance for the Upper and Middle Basin

98. To assess the current and possible future water use, a simple water balance scenario
has been developed for the BIP. For the water balance a typical 50-ha scheme has been
analyzed with typical stream flow data taken from the Ghatte Kulo. The current situation is
shown in Table 3. The water balance with canal and intake upgrading is shown in Table 4.
The water balance for micro irrigation using sprinklers is shown in Table 5. The water balance
for conservation irrigation using polyhouses is given in Table 6.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 3: Scenario Water Balance Current Situation Typical 50-ha Scheme

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
80% rainfall (mm) - - 2 15 17 38 101 130 267 259 179 40 1,049
ET0 mm/month 67.3 43.1 53.2 63.6 105.5 121.6 131.9 125.1 121.3 134.9 118.3 99.8 1,186
Deep Percolation mm/month 90 90 90 90 90 90 540
Scheme Area 50 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
early paddy 20.0% 10 1.1 1.1 1.05 1 0.95
monsoon paddy 80.0% 40 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.05 1
Total rice 100.0% 50
wheat 24.0% 12 0.55 1.1 1.15 1.05 0.40
oilseed 10.0% 5 0.4 0.64 1 0.72
potato 10.0% 5 0.31 0.70 1.13 0.89 0.77
spring maize 40.0% 20 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
winter vegetable 10.0% 5 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89 0.80
spring vegetable 10.0% 5 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Total non rice 104.0% 52
Total crop 204% 102
Crop Water Requirements (mm) includes land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
- 267 36 50 56 151 560
154 186 57 62 156 615
154 - - - - - 267 222 107 117 307 1,175
24 57 63 99 22 264
17 33 53 64 167
13 36 61 82 67 259
11 47 25 -
21 30 49 46 72 218
21 59 55 20 154
21 85 174 223 337 159 102 45 - - - - 1,146
175 85 174 223 337 159 102 312 222 107 117 307 2,320
Crop Water Requirement '000M3
- - - - - - - 26.68 3.62 5.02 5.58 15.10 56
61.57 - - - - - - - 74.50 22.76 24.68 62.40 246
61.57 - - - - - - 26.68 78.12 27.77 30.25 77.50 302
- 2.85 6.84 7.51 11.85 - - - - - - 29
- 0.86 1.63 2.65 3.20 - - - - - - - 8
- 1.79 3.07 4.09 - - - - - 9
2.22 9.43 4.92
1.04 1.51 2.45 2.30 3.62 11
- - - - 1.03 2.93 2.74 7
1.04 5.22 12.70 15.54 23.78 5.15 12.17 4.92 - - - - 81
62.61 5.22 12.70 15.54 23.78 5.15 12.17 31.61 78.12 27.77 30.25 77.50 382
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary ('000m3) 105 9 23 28 43 9 22 53 130 46 50 129 650
Total requirement at Intake ('000m3) 174.2 15.8 38.5 47.1 72.1 15.6 36.9 89.0 217.0 77.2 84.0 215.3 1,082.6
Total requirement at Intake (l/s) 67.2 6.1 14.8 18.2 27.8 6.0 14.2 34.4 83.7 29.8 32.4 83.0
Total requirement (l/s/ha 1.34 0.12 0.30 0.36 0.56 0.12 0.28 0.69 1.67 0.60 0.65 1.66
Efficiencies Application Efficiency Rice: 60% Application Efficiency other 55% Distribution Efficiency 60%

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 4: Scenario Water Balance Canal and Structure Upgrading Typical 50-ha
Scheme
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
Effective rainfall (mm) - - 2 15 17 38 101 130 267 259 179 40 1,049
ET0 mm/month 67.3 43.1 53.2 63.6 105.5 121.6 131.9 125.1 121.3 134.9 118.3 99.8 1,186
Percolation mm/month 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 600
Scheme Area 50 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
early paddy 20.0% 10 1.1 1.1 1.05 1 0.95
monsoon paddy 80.0% 40 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.05 1
Total rice 100.0% 50
wheat 20.0% 10 0.55 1.1 1.15 1.05 0.40
oilseed 10.0% 5 0.4 0.64 1 0.72
potato 20.0% 10 0.31 0.70 1.13 0.89 0.77
spring maize 36.0% 18 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
winter vegetable 16.0% 8 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89 0.80
spring vegetable 12.0% 6 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Total non rice 114.0% 57
Total crop 214% 107
Crop Water Requirements (mm) Land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
- 252 21 35 41 61 410
64 171 42 47 66 390
64 - - - - - 252 192 77 87 127 800
24 57 63 99 22 264
17 33 53 64 167
- 15 34 107 82 238
59 78 17 - 153
21 30 49 46 72 218
21 59 55 20 154
21 71 153 196 363 221 132 37 - - - - 1,194
85 71 153 196 363 221 132 289 192 77 87 127
Crop Water Requirement '000M3
- - - - - - - 25.18 2.12 3.52 4.08 6.10 41
25.57 - - - - - - - 68.50 16.76 18.68 26.40 156
25.57 - - - - - - 25.18 70.62 20.27 22.75 32.50 197
- 2.37 5.70 6.26 9.87 - - - - - - 24
- 0.86 1.63 2.65 3.20 - - - - - - - 8
- 1.50 3.40 10.72 - - - - - 16
10.54 13.96 3.01 28
1.67 2.42 3.92 3.69 5.79 17
- - - - 1.24 3.51 3.29 8
1.67 5.65 12.74 16.00 30.81 14.05 17.25 3.01 - - - - 101
27.24 5.65 12.74 16.00 30.81 14.05 17.25 28.19 70.62 20.27 22.75 32.50 298
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary ('000m3) 42 9 21 27 51 23 29 44 109 31 35 50 472
Total requirement at Intake ('000m3) 64.8 14.5 32.7 41.0 79.0 36.0 44.2 67.3 167.2 48.0 53.9 76.9 725
Total requirement at Intake (l/s) 25 6 13 16 30 14 17 26 64 19 21 30
Total requirement (l/s/ha 0.50 0.11 0.25 0.32 0.61 0.28 0.34 0.52 1.29 0.37 0.42 0.59
Efficiencies Application Efficiency Rice 65% Application Efficiency other crops 60% Distribution Efficiency 0.65
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 5: Scenario Water Balance Micro Irrigation Sprinkler Typical 50-ha Scheme
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
Effective rainfall (mm) - - 2 15 17 38 101 130 267 259 179 40 1,049
ET0 mm/month 67.3 43.1 53.2 63.6 105.5 121.6 131.9 125.1 121.3 134.9 118.3 99.8 1,186
Percolation mm/month 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 600
Scheme Area 50 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
early paddy 20.0% 10 1.1 1.1 1.05 1 0.95
monsoon paddy 80.0% 40 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.05 1
Total rice 100.0% 50
wheat 10.0% 5 0.55 1.1 1.15 1.05 0.40
oilseed 10.0% 5 0.4 0.64 1 0.72
potato 40.0% 20 0.31 0.70 1.13 0.89 0.77
spring maize 40.0% 20 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
winter vegetable 36.0% 18 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89 0.80
spring vegetable 30.0% 15 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Total non rice 166.0% 83
Total crop 266% 133
Crop Water Requirements (mm) Land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
- 102 21 35 41 61 260
64 171 42 47 66 390
64 - - - - - 102 192 77 87 127 650
24 57 63 99 22 264
17 33 53 64 167
- 15 34 107 82 238
59 78 17 - 153
21 30 49 46 72 218
21 59 55 20 154
21 71 153 196 363 221 132 37 - - - - 1,194
85 71 153 196 363 221 132 139 192 77 87 127
Crop Water Requirement '000M3
- - - - - - - 10.18 2.12 3.52 4.08 6.10 26
25.57 - - - - - - - 68.50 16.76 18.68 26.40 156
25.57 - - - - - - 10.18 70.62 20.27 22.75 32.50 182
- 1.19 2.85 3.13 4.94 - - - - - - 12
- 0.86 1.63 2.65 3.20 - - - - - - - 8
- 2.99 6.80 21.43 - - - - - 31
11.71 15.51 3.34 31
3.75 5.44 8.82 8.29 13.02 39
- - - - 3.10 8.78 8.23 20
3.75 7.49 16.29 20.87 45.69 20.49 23.73 3.34 - - - - 142
29.32 7.49 16.29 20.87 45.69 20.49 23.73 13.52 70.62 20.27 22.75 32.50 324
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary ('000m3) 45 11 23 30 65 29 34 20 109 31 35 50 482
Total requirement at Intake ('000m3) 55.9 13.4 29.1 37.3 81.6 36.6 42.4 25.5 135.8 39.0 43.8 62.5 603
Total requirement at Intake (l/s) 22 5 11 14 31 14 16 10 52 15 17 24
Total requirement (l/s/ha 0.43 0.10 0.22 0.29 0.63 0.28 0.33 0.20 1.05 0.30 0.34 0.48
Efficiencies Application Efficiency Rice: 65% Application Efficiency other crops 70% Distribution Efficiency 80%
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 6: Scenario Water Balance for Conservation Irrigation (Polyhouses) 50-ha

Scheme
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
Effective rainfall (mm) - - 2 15 17 38 101 130 267 259 179 40 1,049
ET0 mm/month 67.3 43.1 53.2 63.6 105.5 121.6 131.9 125.1 121.3 134.9 118.3 99.8 1,186
Percolation mm/month 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 900
Scheme Area 50 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
early paddy 20.0% 10 1.1 1.1 1.05 1 0.95
monsoon paddy 60.0% 30 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.05 1
Total rice 0.1% 40
wheat 0.0% 0 0.55 1.1 1.15 1.05 0.40
oilseed 0.0% 0 0.4 0.64 1 0.72
potato 0.0% 0 0.31 0.70 1.13 0.89 0.77
spring maize 0.0% 0 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
winter vegetable 0.0% 0 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89 0.80
spring vegetable 0.0% 0 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Polyhouse vegetable 10.0% 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
fish pond 10.0% 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total non rice 0.0% 10
Total crop 0% 50
Crop Water Requirements (mm) Land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
- 252 21 35 41 136 485
139 171 42 47 141 540
139 - - - - - 252 192 77 87 277 1,025
24 57 63 99 22 264
17 33 53 64 167
- 15 34 107 82 238
59 78 17 - 153
21 30 49 46 72 218
21 59 55 20 154
64 41 49 50 88 89 55 28 67
142 118 127 128 168 170 136 109 9 28 68 147
21 71 153 196 363 221 132 37 - - - - 1,194
160 71 153 196 363 221 132 289 192 77 87 277
Crop Water Requirement '000M3
- - - - - - - 25.18 2.12 3.52 4.08 13.60 48
41.68 - - - - - - - 51.37 12.57 14.01 42.30 162
41.68 - - - - - - 25.18 53.50 16.08 18.09 55.90 210
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
3.20 2.05 2.45 2.49 4.41 4.45 2.74 1.38 - - - 3.35
7.11 5.91 6.33 6.40 5.44 0.46 1.42 3.38 7.35
10.31 7.96 8.78 8.90 4.41 4.45 2.74 6.82 0.46 1.42 3.38 10.70 70
51.99 7.96 8.78 8.90 4.41 4.45 2.74 32.00 53.95 17.50 21.47 66.59 281
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary ('000m3) 75 8 9 9 5 5 3 46 83 26 31 97 397
Total requirement at Intake ('000m3) 83.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 5.4 5.5 3.4 50.8 92.0 29.1 34.7 107.8 441.1
Total requirement at Intake (l/s) 32 4 4 4 2 2 1 20 35 11 13 42
Total requirement (l/s/ha) 0.64 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.71 0.22 0.27 0.83
Efficiencies Application Efficiency Rice: 65% Application Efficiency other 90% Distribution Efficiency 90%

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

V. IRRIGATION PLANNING FOR THE LOWER BAGMATI BASIN

A. Introduction

99. The BIP has been developed with a 403 m barrage to irrigate the Stage I area of 45,600
ha in the Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts through two main canals: the Eastern Main Canal (EMC)
and the West Main Canal (WMC). There are three branch canals supplied by the EMC and three
branch canals from the WMC. Eighteen distributary canals have been developed and
secondary/sub secondary canals have been made in around 75% of the CCA. CAD works for
the remaining areas is on-going. Tertiary and field canals, which are to be developed by
farmers/WUAs, have been made in few secondary canals only. In addition, the tertiary canals
and field channels have been developed for some secondary and distributary canals.

100. The project is providing irrigation service to around 75% of the command area in rainy
season and around 50% in the winter and about 30% in the spring. Canal operations are not
planned ahead; water is released from around mid-July to irrigate paddy crops and the flow in
the main canals is continued. The lack of a network of field channels and continuous watering,
as well as disorganized water withdrawals at the head reach, reduces the flow downstream
and there are complaints of not getting water at the tail reach of the branch canals, some of
farmers who could afford them, have installed shallow tubewells and open wells because of
unreliable supply from the canal system.

101. Damaged and defective gates, un-gated direct outlets and a lack of control on water
withdrawals and lack of water distribution plan are reducing actual irrigation area.

102. Modernization seeks to contribute to the determining of potential irrigation areas and
introduce ways to attain this goal through improvements to the physical infrastructure and
water management practices, with a particular focus on institutional development, which has to
consider better groundwater management as a potential additional source of irrigation water.

B. Surface Water Management

103. The BIP has around 340 field staff, including supervisors and gate operators mostly on
work charge,2 to operate gates for water management under the direction of engineers and
Senior Division Engineers (SDEs) assigned for particular canals. They are assigned to control
gates of head and cross regulators of various levels of the canal systems, comprising main
branch and distributary canals. These government staff work throughout the day to regulate
the gates at head regulators and cross regulators. The SDEs, engineers and sub-engineers
are assigned to each main and branch canal for MOM and CAD works. The engineers directs
water supervisors and gate operators to deliver specific discharges through main and branch
canals. A water distribution plan is not prepared and irrigation water is delivered through two
main canals. Farmers have to depend on the judgment and skill of the project management
staff. In the rainy season water is delivered to both main canals and through these main
canals water is delivered to branches. Water is delivered from head to tailend with famers in
the upper reach usually taking as much water as needed, so tailenders often suffer and do not
get their irrigation water in time.

104. There are several direct outlets (mostly Hume pipes) from the main canal, branch and
distributary canals, some placed by BIP on the request of farmers and some by the farmers
themselves. Many of these direct outlets are not gated. Furthermore, some farmers owning
fields upslope of the canals are using low lift pumps to irrigate areas that are out of designed
command area.

2
On daily wage basis.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

105. Usually irrigation water is released around mid-July after completing maintenance and
other improvement works. A formal water delivery schedule is not developed by the DOI or
WUAs and implemented. Water is released as per the demands of farmers and it is not well
managed to meet water demands in true sense. There is no measurement of water except at
the intake of the EMC and WMC. There are around 50 direct outlets from the main canal and
also from the upper reaches of branch canals that project management consider illegal, but they
nonetheless draw water as much as they need. Furthermore around 100 low-lift centrifugal
pumps also draw water to irrigate areas north of the main canal. These water abstractions
reduce winter flows by about 15% for irrigation in the command area. On average the water
withdrawals by these direct outlets and pumps would amount to 3 m3/s.

106. The tertiary and field canals have not been constructed and field-to-field irrigation is
practiced, which increases water conveyance losses. Average percolation losses are higher in
the command can range up to 90 mm/day and field-to-field irrigation in such situations will
reduce irrigation distribution efficiency excessively.

107. The project design has been based on a nominal water duty of 0.95 l/s/ha at distributary
level (Nippon Koei, 1992). With the current water management practices, the distribution loss
is high; applying water continuously to plots in the head reaches plots reduces equity in the
whole command area. At present the canals are simply operated and water is not managed in a
true sense. The need for management improvement is not sufficiently recognized project
managers, as well as some farmers and WUAs. Farmers are using STW and open wells in
order to get more dependable irrigation water.

C. Groundwater Management

108. There are sizeable number of open dug wells and shallow tubewells developed since
the 1980s. Various agencies including the Agriculture Development Bank used to support
loans for installing shallow tubewells and open wells with subsidies. The JADP/DOA and
Groundwater Resources Development Board (GRDB), used to support installation of deep and
shallow tubewells. Farmers have also installed many private wells. Farmers are allowed to
make wells without any requirement for permits.

109. Studies by the GDC carried out in 1992 estimated that the groundwater resources in
Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts have high potential. The GDC (1992) estimated that potential
shallow tubewells on irrigable lands could supply 30,000 ha and 27,000 ha in Sarlahi and
Rautahat, respectively, which are the two adjoining districts on the two sides of the Bagmati
River. Similarly, the potential for deep tubewell irrigable area is about 4,000 ha and 700 ha,
respectively, making the total potential groundwater irrigable area in these two districts to be
34,000 and 28,000 ha, respectively. The current groundwater conditions and use are
summarized in Appendix 3; the MFLW studies identified the important role of surface water
recharge and indicate a larger area of groundwater from the GDC estimates would be possible.

110. The GRDB is monitoring water levels in selected tubewells of sample districts. The
depth of water level draw down in the Sarlahi District shallow is generally less than 2 m in most
cases, except for a few wells where the drawdown reaches around 5 m. This shows that
groundwater is not overexploited and there exists potential to improve irrigation through the
development of conjunctive groundwater use and more efficient irrigation technologies.

111. Operation and maintenance of shallow tubewells and open wells are the responsibility
of farmers/WUAs. They bear the cost of fuel and maintenance of the wells. Generally they use
wells to pump water when surface water is not available. They generally operate wells about
200 hours/annum for paddy seed bed preparation, transplanting and irrigating wheat, and
establishment sugarcane and maize. Farmers even sell water to neighbor farmers. Owning
STW makes them independent with assured and reliable water supplies for irrigation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

112. Deep tubewells are managed through WUAs and they charge around $20/hour
(NRs200) per hour of pump usage to cover MOM costs. In some villages, electricity has been
provided to field-level for STW operation, but many others have to operate diesel pumps.
Electricity for irrigation pumps is subsidized so farmers demand electricity to reduce pumping
cost.

113. Open wells for water supplies in local villages and some deep tubewells were
developed in 1970s with JADP and ADB supports. There are around 1,500 open wells and
600 shallow tubewells3 in the command are of BIP. These wells are operated roughly about
200 hours annually using centrifugal pumps. Farmers use these wells to augment canal
supply; most are located in the tailends of secondary, distributary and branch canal systems.
Groundwater is also being used outside the BIP command area.

114. The GRDB is monitoring water levels in few sample wells. The statistics shows that all
wells get recharged to original level each year showing there is no mining of groundwater.

F. Other Small and Medium Irrigation Systems in the Lower Basin

115. There are around 70 small and medium surface irrigation systems in Sarlahi and
Rautahat Districts including tail reach of Narayani Irrigation Project in Rautahat District. A
summary of the developed irrigable area in the two districts is shown in Table 7. There is lack
of water during the dry season in all systems and the Narayani canal system is practically not
distributing water in summer months. Some of these non-served irrigated areas are within the
BIP command area and some outside. Most of these require support for rehabilitation/
improvement and also water management training. These systems deliver water during wet
season but pumping groundwater is required for the rest of the year.

116. Using surface water in wet season as far as possible and then switching to
groundwater is a feasible solution. Hence, supply surface water for wet season paddy
cultivation helps with groundwater recharge. However, there is a need for rehabilitating many
of the existing groundwater wells, as well as developing some new wells; these
rehabilitated/new wells would be connected to electric grid, which could be served by solar
power (more power is needed in the spring season when more solar power is to be
generated). The inventory of irrigation schemes in the lower basin is shown in Table 8.

Table 7: Summary of the Irrigated Areas in the Lower Bagmati Basin (ha)

Source Sarlahi (ha) Rautahat (ha) Total (ha)

Bagmati Irrigation Project 24,700 23,000 47,700
Other Surface Water Systems 13,600 25,000 38,600
Pumped Groundwater 18,800 16,600 35,400
Total 57,100 64,600 121,700
Source: Present Study, 2014

3
Present study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 8: Inventory of Small and Medium Schemes in the Lower Bagmati Basin

No. Name VDC CCA (ha)

Rautahat District
1 Jhaj Irrigation Project 4,000
2 Narayani Irrigation Project 8,720
3 Lohaniya Irrigation Project Dumariya 466
4 Simara Bhawanipur Irrigation Project Santapur 406
5 Kothiyar Irrigation Project Rangapur 117
6 Gujara Irrigation Project Laxmipur 200
7 Hariharpur Irrigation Project Laxmipur 250
8 Aruwa Irrigation Project Laxminiya 250
9 Chandi Irrigation Project Gehadi Guthi 250
10 Kamdehi Irrigation Project Dipahi 200
11 Aruwa Irrigation Sub-project Santapur, Petmarwa 300
12 Aruwa Santapur Irrigation Sub-project Phatuwa 200
13 Bhakuwa Irrigation Sub-project Dumariya 395
14 Dudhiya Irrigation Sub-project Phatuwa 215
15 Banjara Irrigation Sub-project Banjara 130
16 Aauriya Irrigation Sub-project Aauriya 65
17 Mathiya Irrigation Sub-project Mathiya 65
18 Nartakiya Irrigation Sub-project Narkatiya 65
19 Panchmukhi Irrigation Sub-project Panchmukhi 50
20 Jethrahiya Irrigation Sub-project Panchmukhi 70
21 Jethrahiya Irrigation Sub-project Bhalohiya 110
22 Sonarnia Irrigation Sub-project Sonarnia 150
23 Baghi Irrigation Sub-project Baghi 100
24 Laxminiya Irrigation Sub-project Laxminiya 165
25 Rangpur Irrigation Sub-project Laxminiya 175
26 Kanakpur Irrigation Sub-project Bhasdawa 1,979
27 Bairiya Irrigation Sub-project Bairiya 70
28 Paroha Irrigation Sub-project Dumariya 120
29 Raghunathpur Irrigation Sub-project Raghunathpur 200
30 Chandranighapur Irrigation Sub-project Chandranighpur 730
31 Aaruwa Irrigation Sub-project Sonarniya 1,019
32 Aaruwa Irrigation Sub-project Maryadpur 600
33 Choncha Irrigation Sub-project Rangpur 200
34 Bhakuwa Irrigation Sub-project Arkalawa 495
35 Aaruwa Irrigation Sub-project Sonarniya 1,019
36 Aaruwa Irrigation Sub-project Maryadpur 600
37 Choncha Irrigation Sub-project Rangpur 200
38 Bhakuwa Irrigation Sub-project Arkalawa 495
39 Lalbandi Inar Tubewell Irrigation Sub-project Lalbandi 12
40 Haripur Inar Tubewell Irrigation Sub-project Haripur 10
41 Banke Irrigation Sub-project Kalinjor 200
42 Other small Irrigation Sub-project 6,220
Total 25,063
Sarlahi District
No. Name VDC CCA (ha)
1 Manusmara Irrigation Project I Basbariya 1700
2 Manusmara Irrigation Project II Sekhauna 2300
3 Sudama Irrigation Project sudama 1100
4 Harpurwa Irrigation Project Harpurwa 595
5 Pharhadawa Irrigation Project Pharhadawa 300

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

6 Bhaktipur Irrigation Project Bhaktipur 150

7 Kisanpur Irrigation Project Kisanpur 330
8 Jhingadwa Irrigation Project Jhingadwa 376
9 Parsa Irrigation Project Parsa 685
10 Pattharkot Irrigation Project Pattharkot 521
11 Miyakhor Irrigation Project Bhaktipur 100
12 Bagdaha Irrigation Project Bagdaha 250
13 Laukot Irrigation Project Laukot 375
14 Miyakhor Irrigation Project Bhaktipur 100
15 Laxmipur Irrigation Project Laxmipur 70
16 Likhawa Irrigation Project Jabdi 55
17 Kabilashi Laghuwa Irrigation project Kabilashi 330
18 Maliniya Irrigation Project Haripur 290
19 Aanpganchi Irrigation Project Bhaktipur 422
20 Ekadashi Irrigation Project Ramnagar 861
21 Katahawabaandh Irrigation Project Dumariya 496
22 Phuljor Irrigation Project Parwanipur 209
23 Dhodhiyahi Irrigation Project Chandranagar 300
24 Rajpur Pakshala Irrigation Project Maanpur 285
25 Haraiya Buddha Irrigation Project Dhankaulpurba 316
26 Sinsarkati Irrigation Project Chainpur 490
27 Jhim Irrigation Project Iswarpur 205
28 Bhurgi Irrigation Project Kaudena 200
29 Lalbandi Inar Tubewell Irrigation Project Lalbandi 12
30 Haripur Inar Tubewell Irrigation Project Haripur 10
31 Banke Irrigation project Kalinjor 200
Total 13,633
Source: Present Study, 2014

D. Groundwater Development

117. So since 1970’s farmers have been installing shallow and deep tubewells and open
dug wells; most of these have been supported to some extent by the government. These wells
are spread out in non-command areas as well as in the canal systems. Farmers find pumping
with diesel powered pump from wells to be expensive, yet they feel the extra security
worthwhile to ensure protection against not receiving canal water. Most large commercial
farmers growing sugarcane, winter maize and vegetables have installed wells. There is little
information about how many of these wells are actually performing.

118. The government is studying the potential development of the Sunkoshi Marin diversion
Project and also the Bagmati Multipurpose Project to irrigate about 122,000 ha in five districts
of the central Terai. The DOI has contracted out for undertaking detailed feasibility study of
Sunkoshi Marin Diversion project. The Nepal Electricity Authority is also conducting studies for
developing Bagmati Storage Hydroelectric Project for 418 MW of power generation and to
irrigate 120,000 ha.4.However, these works are large projects and will take a long time to
materialize.

4
NEA Annual Report 2013

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

E. Water Balance Scenarios for the BIP

119. To assess the current and possible future water use scenarios, a simple water balance
has been developed or the BIP. The assumptions for the water balance estimates are
described below.

120. Effective Rainfall (Pe) : It is a portion of rainfall that is estimated to be effective for crop
growth. It excludes all potential losses due to percolation to the depth below root zone,
evaporation, and runoff. Following conditions have been applied for calculating effective
rainfall for rice crop fields from the homogenous 80% reliable rainfall values.

 For P80 < 5 mm, Pe = 0

 For P80 = 5 to 10 mm, Pe = 0.85*P80
 For P80 >10 and <100 mm, Pe = 0.85*P80, if this < (ETc + Lp) or Pe = (ETc +Lp)
 For P80 > 100 mm, Pe is lesser of (ETc + Lp)and 0.7*P80
 For other crops, there is usually minor contribution of rainfall to water requirement.
In those cases, 70% of the reliable rainfall has been taken as effective rainfall.

121. Field Application Efficiency: the proportion of water effectively stored for crop growth is
called application efficiency. It depends upon relief of the field, soil characteristics, field size,
and stream flow applied. These vary depending upon the management effort as well. While
irrigating dry foot crop it is difficult to apply water evenly over the whole field due to uneven
land and small stream flow applied, application efficiency of 50% is considered. After project
land leveling and the design flow rates will be delivered, it is expected to reach about 55%. For
paddy cultivation, provision for deep percolation is separately included, so field efficiency is
taken as 80% and after land leveling works and increased stream size, it is expected to reach
85%. For groundwater irrigated area due to small flows, it is expected to be about 80%.

122. Distribution Efficiency: Distribution efficiency includes seepage and percolation loss in
all canal networks including management losses until it reaches the field head. As there is no
tertiary and field channel and water flows from one plot to another, more losses occur during
conveyance and hence 40% distribution efficiency is taken. After the project, these canal
networks will be developed; so it is expected to be about 51%. Where groundwater is pumped,
usually hose pipe is used to deliver water with negligible loss, so distribution efficiency of 85%
is considered to account for management loss.

123. Land Preparation requirement: Land preparation in Nepal is done shortly before the
transplanting, so it is considered to be done within that month and a provision of 150 mm is
provisioned.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 9: Current Water Balance BIP

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
80% Reliable rainfall (mm) - - - - - - 54 - 495 236 165 - 950
ET0 mm/month 67 52 56 71 130 166 168 142 117 111 102 96 1,278
Deep Percolation mm/month 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 1,260
Scheme Area 47700 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
Spring Paddy 1.0% 500 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95
Early paddy 21.0% 10,000 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95
Main paddy 46.1% 22,000 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95
Total Paddy 68.1% 32,500
Sugarcane 27.3% 13,000 0.85 0.75 0.40 0.55 0.70 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.05 0.95
Wheat 18.9% 9,000 0.54 1.10 1.15 0.65
Pulse 13.6% 6,500 0.45 0.85 1.05 0.96
Oilseed 9.6% 4,600 0.43 0.91 0.86 0.50
Potato 4.8% 2,300 0.48 0.90 1.13 0.85
Winter vegetable 4.8% 2,300 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.92
Summer vegetable 4.8% 2,300 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Spring vegetable 0.2% 100 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
spring maize 4.8% 2,300 0.5 0.93 1.05 0.92
Winter maize 4.8% 2,300 0.5 0.9 1.05 0.92
Total non Paddy 93.7% 44,700
Total crop 216% 77,200
Crop Water Requirements (mm) Land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
Spring Paddy 398 287 235 135 1,055
Early paddy 411 37 207 236 890
Main paddy - 150 62 96 91 400
Total Paddy - - - - 398 287 235 545 187 269 332 91 2,345
Sugarcane 57 39 23 39 91 166 172 177 - - - 91 855
Wheat 28 62 82 84 - 257
Pulse 30 45 59 69 202
Oilseed 23 51 61 65 200
Potato - 25 51 81 110
Winter vegetable - 16 39 68 119 243
Summer vegetable - - - 86 86
Spring vegetable 40 116 122 126 - 404
spring maize 68 154 139 130
Winter maize 33 49 59 66 207
Total non Paddy 120 225 345 466 578 436 432 433 - - - 177 3,211
Total crop 120 225 345 466 976 723 668 979 187 269 332 268 5,556
Crop Water Requirement Mm3
Spring Paddy - - - 1.99 1.44 1.18 0.67 - - - - 5.3
Early paddy - - - - - 41.08 3.68 20.65 23.61 - 89.0
Main paddy - - - - - - - - 33.00 13.66 21.18 20.08 87.9
Total Paddy - - - 1.99 1.44 1.18 0.67 41.08 36.68 34.31 44.80 20.08 182.2
Sugarcane 7.36 5.11 2.93 5.11 11.82 21.53 22.37 23.01 - - - 11.87 111.1
Wheat - 2.55 5.59 7.39 7.60 - - - - - - - 23.1
Pulse 1.95 2.89 3.85 4.46 - - - - - - - 13.1
Oilseed - 1.04 2.36 2.82 2.99 - - - - - - - 9.2
Potato - 0.58 1.17 1.86 2.54 - - - - - - - 6.1
Winter vegetable - 0.37 0.91 1.56 2.75 - - - - - - - 5.6
Summer vegetable - - - - - - - - - - - 1.97 2.0
Spring vegetable - - - - 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.13 - - - - 0.4
spring maize - - - - 1.55 3.54 3.19 3.00 - - - - 11.3
Winter maize 0.77 1.12 1.36 1.51 - - - - - - - 4.8
Total non Paddy 10.07 13.66 18.17 24.70 29.29 25.19 25.67 26.13 - - - 13.84 186.7
Total crop 10.07 13.66 18.17 26.69 30.72 26.36 26.35 67.21 36.68 34.31 44.80 33.92 368.9
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary (Mm3) 20.1 27.3 36.3 51.9 60.4 51.8 52.2 103.6 45.9 42.9 56.0 52.8 601.2
Total requirement at Intake (Mm3) 50.4 68.3 90.9 129.7 150.9 129.6 130.5 259.0 114.6 107.2 140.0 131.9 1,503.0
Available flow at canal intake
80% relaible stream flow at intake m3/s 28.4 17.9 13.6 12.0 10.1 9.3 18.6 75.0 293.0 239.6 163.9 61.3
Min. Environmental flow downstream m3/s 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
80% dependable streamflow for canal Mm 26.4 15.9 11.6 10.0 8.1 7.3 16.6 73.0 291.0 237.6 161.9 59.3
Canal flow at intake m3/s 26.4 15.9 11.6 10.0 8.1 7.3 16.6 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 59.3
Canal flow in Mm3 66.9 40.3 29.5 25.3 20.6 18.5 42.1 157.4 157.4 157.4 157.4 150.5 1,023.1
Effective Surface Flow 50.4 40.3 29.5 25.3 20.6 18.5 42.1 157.4 114.6 107.2 140.0 131.9 878
Net Water Balance Surface alone Mm3 16.6 - 28.0 - 61.4 - 104.4 - 130.3 - 111.1 - 88.4 - 101.7 42.7 50.1 17.4 18.6
Efficiencies Application( Paddy): 80% Application (non paddy): 50% Distribution (SW) 40% Distribution (GW) 85%
Ground Water requirement Mm3 - 13.2 28.9 49.1 61.3 52.3 41.6 47.8 - - - - 294.3
Ground water % of demand 42% Surface Water % of demand 58% Effective surface water supply (Mm3) 878

Energy estimation
Total pumping Head (m) GW 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 4
Total energy Mw-h (GW) - 448 982 2,005 2,503 2,489 1,981 2,278 - - - - 12,685
Pumping cost $/month GW($ million) - 0.107 0.236 0.481 0.601 0.597 0.475 0.547 - - - - 3.044
Total pumping requirement m3/sec - 5.1 11.1 19.0 23.7 20.2 16.1 18.5 - - - - 113.52
Unit requirement l/s/ha - 0.11 0.23 0.40 0.50 0.42 0.34 0.39 - - - -
Power Demand (MW) 1.2 2.7 5.6 7.0 6.9 5.5 6.3 - - - -

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 2 – Water Resources and Irrigation

Table 10: Option 1 – Future with Project Water Balance BIP

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Total
80% rainfall (mm) - - - - - - 54 - 495 236 165 - 950
ET0 mm/month 67 52 56 71 130 166 168 142 117 111 102 96 1,278
Percolation mm/month 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 1,260
Scheme Area 47,700 ha
CROP AREAS % ha Kc Values
Spring Paddy 6.3% 3,000 - - - - 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95 - - - -
Early paddy 21.0% 10,000 - 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95
Monsoon paddy 41.9% 20,000 1.10 1.10 1.05 0.95
Total Paddy 69.2% 33,000
Sugarcane 29.4% 14,000 0.85 0.75 0.40 0.55 0.70 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.05 0.95
Wheat 18.9% 9,000 0.54 1.10 1.15 0.65 -
Pulse 13.6% 6,500 0.45 0.85 1.05 0.96 - -
Oilseed 9.6% 4,600 - 0.43 0.91 0.86 0.50 - -
Potato 7.1% 3,400 - 0.48 0.90 1.13 0.85 - -
Winter vegetable 6.7% 3,200 - 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.92 - -
Summer vegetable 7.1% 3,400 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Spring vegetable 1.9% 900 0.31 0.70 0.95 0.89
Spring maize 5.2% 2,500 0.5 0.93 1.05 0.92
Winter maize 6.5% 3,100 0.5 0.9 1.05 0.92
Fish Ponds (New) 0.0% 10 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total non Paddy 106.1% 50,610
Total crop 234% 83,610
Crop Water Requirements (mm) Land Preparation (in the month of transplanting)
Spring Paddy 398 287 235 240 1,160
Early paddy 411 - 21 61 493
Monsoon paddy - 37 62 72 196 367
Total Paddy - - - - 398 287 235 650 37 83 133 196 2,020
Sugarcane 57 39 23 39 91 166 172 177 - - - 91 855
Wheat 28 62 82 84 - 257
Pulse 30 45 59 69 202
Oilseed 23 51 61 65 200
Potato 25 51 81 110
Winter vegetable 16 39 68 119 243
Summer vegetable - - - 86
Spring vegetable 40 116 122 126 404
Spring maize 68 154 139 130
Winter maize 33 49 59 66 - 207
171.60 157.39 161.42 176.40 234.89 270.60 219.02 246.60 41.71 201.10 327.35
Total non Paddy 120 225 345 466 578 436 432 433 177 3,211
Total crop 120 225 345 466 976 723 668 1,084 37 83 133 373 5,231
Crop Water Requirement MM3
Spring Paddy - - - - 11.94 8.61 7.06 7.19 - - - - 34.80
Early paddy - - - - - - 41.08 - 2.11 6.14 - 49.32
Monsoon paddy - - - - - - - - 7.36 12.42 14.31 39.26 73.35
Total Paddy - - - - 11.94 8.61 7.06 48.26 7.36 14.52 20.45 39.26 157.47
Sugarcane 7.93 5.50 3.16 5.50 12.73 23.18 24.09 24.78 - - - 12.78 120
Wheat - 2.55 5.59 7.39 7.60 - - - - - - - 23
Pulse 1.95 2.89 3.85 4.46 - - - - - - - 13
Oilseed - 1.04 2.36 2.82 2.99 - - - - - - - 9
Potato - 0.86 1.73 2.74 3.75 - - - - - - - 9
Winter vegetable - 0.52 1.26 2.17 3.82 - - - - - - - 8
Summer vegetable - - - - - - - - - - - 2.91 3
Spring vegetable - - - - 0.36 1.04 1.10 1.13 - 4
Spring maize - - - - 1.69 3.85 3.46 3.26 - 12
Winter maize 1.03 1.51 1.84 2.04 - - 6
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 - - 0.00 0.02
Total non Paddy 10.92 14.88 19.80 27.14 32.97 28.10 28.67 29.20 - - 0.00 15.71 207
Total All 10.92 14.88 19.80 27.14 44.90 36.72 35.73 77.46 7.36 14.52 20.45 54.97 365
Scheme Water Requirements
At field boundary (Mm3) 19.9 27.1 36.0 49.3 74.0 61.2 60.4 109.9 8.7 17.1 24.1 74.7 562.3
Total requirement at Intake (Mm3) 38.9 53.0 70.6 96.7 145.1 120.1 118.5 215.4 17.0 33.5 47.2 146.6 1,102.6
Available flow at canal intake
80% relaible stream flow at intake 3
m /s 28.4 17.9 13.6 12.0 10.1 9.3 18.6 75.0 293.0 239.6 163.9 61.3
Min. Environmental flow downstream m3/s 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
80% dependable streamflow for canal m3/s 26.4 15.9 11.6 10.0 8.1 7.3 16.6 73.0 291.0 237.6 161.9 59.3
Canal flow at intake m3/s 26.4 15.9 11.6 10.0 8.1 7.3 16.6 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 59.3
Canal flow in Mm3 66.9 40.3 29.5 25.3 20.6 18.5 42.1 157.4 157.4 157.4 157.4 150.5 1,023.1
Net Water Balance from Surface alone Mm3 28.0 - 12.7 - 41.1 - 71.4 - 124.5 - 101.6 - 76.4 - 58.1 140.4 123.9 110.2 4.0
Efficiencies Application( Paddy): 85% Application (non paddy): 55% Distribution (SW) 0.51 Distribution (GW) 85%
Ground Water requirement Mm3 - 7.6 24.7 42.8 74.7 60.9 45.9 34.8 - - - - 291.5
Groundwater % of demand 44% Surface Water % of demand 56% Effective surface water supply (Mm3) 617
Energy estimation
Total pumping Head (m) GW 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 5 4 4
Total energy Mw-h (GW) - 173 559 1,166 2,032 1,934 1,456 1,106 - - - - 8,425
Pumping cost $/month GW($ million) - 0.012 0.039 0.082 0.142 0.135 0.102 0.077 - - - - 0.590
Total pumping requirement m3/sec - 2.9 9.5 16.5 28.8 23.5 17.7 13.4 - - - -
unit l/s/ha - 0.06 0.20 0.35 0.60 0.49 0.37 0.28 - - - -
Power Demand (MW) 0.7 2.3 4.9 8.5 8.1 6.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Appendix 3

Groundwater

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

GROUNDWATER

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. Background ................................................................................................................... 1
B. Scope of Work............................................................................................................... 1
II. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER AND
SURFACE WATER SYSTEM.............................................................................................. 2
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
B. Geology......................................................................................................................... 2
C. Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................ 2
D. Topography and Land Form ......................................................................................... 4
E. Soils and Land Use ....................................................................................................... 4
F. Groundwater Levels, Flow and Springs ........................................................................ 4
G. Climate .......................................................................................................................... 7
H. Groundwater Use .......................................................................................................... 8
III. GROUNDWATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT................................................................. 11
A. Groundwater Resource Development Potential ......................................................... 11
B. Interactions between Surface and Groundwater Systems.......................................... 11
C. Scope and Options for Use of Surface Water and Groundwater................................ 12
D. Energy Minimization.................................................................................................... 20
E. Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................ 23

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

List of Figures

Figure 1: Depth to Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Depth to Groundwater from Selected Monitoring Boreholes ............................................. 5
Figure 3: Conceptual North to South Cross Section ......................................................................... 6
Figure 4: STW Distribution in Rautahat District................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: STW Distribution in Sarlahi District .................................................................................. 10
Figure 6: Identification of Areas Suitable for Conjunctive Use ........................................................ 13
Figure 7: Concepts of Intra and Inter-Annual Regulation ................................................................ 16

List of Tables

Table 1: Long-term Average Rainfall and Pan Evaporation Data ..................................................... 7

Table 2: Cost of Wells ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Scope and Options for Water Management ...................................................................... 14
Table 4: Tactical Use of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models................................ 18
Table 5: Operational Use of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models ......................... 19
Table 6: Data Requirements and Availability for Groundwater Resource Assessment .................. 21
Table 7: Groundwater Assessment Approaches............................................................................. 22

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: Field Visit to Lower Bagmati Area

Attachment 2: Conceptual Understanding of Recharge and Irrigation Efficiency
Attachment 3: Establishment and Management of Conjunctive Use Schemes
Attachment 4: Monitoring Data Related to Groundwater
Attachment 5: Groundwater Maps of the Lower Bagmati

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

1. The focus for groundwater assessment in Nepal has been for the Lower Bagmati
Area in the Terai. This appendix describes the integrated groundwater and surface water
system in the Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP), plus the irrigated areas in the Rautahat
and Sarlahi Districts that located to the west and east of the Bagmati River respectively.
The objectives of the input by the Hydrogeologist included the following:

(i) To gain a rapid understanding of the integrated surface water and

groundwater system based on existing reports and data, and on the findings
from a short field reconnaissance of the Lower Bagmati area
(ii) To obtain an understanding of the potential of the aquifer system to support
large scale groundwater utilization
(iii) To better understand and report on the interactions between groundwater
and surface water
(iv) On the basis of the knowledge obtained, appraise the option for conjunctive
use of surface water and groundwater
(v) The appraisal is preliminary, based on relatively limited information available,
yet sufficient to make judgment on the potential for conjunctive use.

2. General information on geology and hydrogeology has been obtained from the
Nippon Koei report published in 19921 and the 1994 GDC reports entitled
“Reassessment of Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in the Terai”. These
reports refer to the GWRDP/UNDP study previously undertaken. The information in the
reports has been supplemented to a limited extent by more recent information and
findings from the field trip undertaken in March 2014 and reported in Attachment 1.

3. This report contains sections on the physical characterization of the Lower

Bagmati area related to topography and land form, geology and hydrogeology, climate
and hydrology, soils, land use and irrigation infrastructure. Further sections describe the
interactions between groundwater and the surface environment, and the potential for
groundwater use for irrigation in conjunction with surface water. Some attention is also
paid to the role of energy in the choice of conjunctive use options and the information
requirements that are needed to allow for a more in-depth appraisal of the integrated
groundwater and surface water system.

B. Scope of Work

4. The tasks for the Hydrogeologist included a visit to the MFLW pilot scheme in
Nepal and work with the national consultants to compile previous reports and data, and
visit the BIP command area. Based on the available information and the findings from
the site visit, the scope for sustainable groundwater development is assessed. The
assessment takes account of issues related to water quality, environmental impacts,
rural water supply and energy use.

5. The opportunities for conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater are
assessed, as well as the implications of water and energy management, taking account
of climate variability and surface water availability. The findings presented in this report
are at a pre-feasibility level and will require more detailed assessment at feasibility level.
Recommendations for further studies, including monitoring are discussed in some detail.

1
ADB. 1992. Feasibility Study on Bagmati Command Area Development Project. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., in
association with Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Ltd. TA No. 1335 Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

II. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER

AND SURFACE WATER SYSTEM

A. Introduction

6. The conceptual understanding of the integrated groundwater and surface water

system forms the basis for assessment of the scope for groundwater development and
the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater.

7. The development of conceptual understanding requires knowledge of the

following aspects:

(i) Geology
(ii) Hydrogeology
(iii) Topography and Land Form
(iv) Climate and Hydrology
(v) Soils and Land Use
(vi) Groundwater Levels, Flow and occurrence of Springs
(vii) Groundwater and Surface Water Use
(viii) Groundwater Quality

B. Geology

8. The aquifer system in the Lower Bagmati area comprises deposits of Pleistocene
and Holocene age, created by the deposition of material from the Himalayan mountain
range. The northern limit of these deposits is along the southern exposed limit of the
Siwalik Formation, which also forms the lower limit of the aquifer system. The Siwalik
Formation has a thickness of some 4 to 5 km and is subdivided into lower, middle and
upper subdivisions, comprising sandstones, siltstones, shale and conglomerates. The
Siwalik Formation is overlain by the Terai-Gangetic sediments, which are subdivided into
the following parts:

(i) The Bhabar Formation which is a fan-like deposition of materials from the
Churia Hills to the north. It is characterized by ill-sorted course sediments,
comprising sands, gravel, pebbles and boulders.
(ii) The Gangetic Sediments located south of the Bhabar Formation and
comprising finer sediments and lenticular inter-bedding of sand and gravel,
and silt and clays. The spatial characteristics of these inter-bedded layers
are variable and a reflection of the depositional environment controlled by
the north to south running rivers. The sediments are overlain by a semi-
confining layer comprising silt, loam and clay of variable thickness.

9. The rivers that run across the Terai Plain from north to south actively deposit
sand, gravel and courser sediments, as well as silts where deposition of such fine
material is possible.

C. Hydrogeology

10. The transmissivity of the aquifer is a function of the occurrence of aquifer material
(sand, gravel) and the thickness of layers containing such material. The studies carried
out by GWRDB/UNDP indicate very variable permeability depending on the grading and
sorting of aquifer material, with values as high as 400 md in the Bhabar Formation in
gravel layers. Permeability of sand layers in the Gangetic Sediments is generally less
than 50 md, although locally course lenses of gravel may exhibit higher values. The
transmissivity is also variable and values as high as 2000 m2/d are common. In general
the transmissivity is high enough to support large scale groundwater abstraction.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

11. No information is as yet available on the storage characteristics of the aquifer and
the semi-confining layer covering the Gangetic Sediments. The storage capacity of the
Bhabar Formation, with course deposits in the unconfined groundwater table zone will be
high, with a specific yield likely in the range of 10 to 20%. The finer textured deposits that
form the semi-confining layer are likely to have a specific yield value in the range of 3 to
6%.

12. Recharge to the aquifer system is from both natural and man-made sources and
includes the following:

(i) Recharge from direct rainfall, which occurs mainly during the monsoon
season and represents the deep percolation through the base of the root
zone of vegetation. The recharge is controlled by the rate of rainfall, the
evapotranspiration of vegetation, and the moisture conditions in the root
zone. Recharge may be constrained by the occurrence of low permeability
surface deposits resulting in runoff and ‘rejection’ of surplus recharge when
the groundwater table rises to ground surface during the monsoon period.
(ii) The Bhabar Formation is largely unconfined and allows for most effective
rainfall (rainfall minus evapotranspiration) to percolate to the groundwater
table. In the reporting from the early 1990’s, recharge to the Bhabar
Formation is estimated by Nippon Koei to be on average 660 mm/year.
Recharge to the Gangetic Sediments is not mentioned, but is potentially as
high as that for the Bhabar Formation, depending on the magnitude of the
monsoon rainfall. Much lower recharge has been reported for the Gangetic
Sediments, which is believed to be due to the ‘rejection’ of recharge
referred to earlier.
(iii) Direct infiltration occurs in the river beds of the north south running rivers.
The recharge is potentially very high, with actual recharge being constrained
by the ability of the aquifer system to transmit the infiltrated river water to
the east and west. The lateral flow is a function of river level and hydraulic
gradients. No estimates are given in previous reports.
(iv) Recharge is also in the form of deep percolation of surface water irrigation.
This recharge component comprises seepage from the distribution system
and on-field percolation of applied irrigation water to the groundwater table.
This recharge component is a function of the amount of distributed water
within the irrigation canal system and field application and the irrigation
system efficiency values. Irrigation efficiencies for the BIP are generally low
with an overall efficiency of no more than 30-40% for the current situation.
This implies that that for an annual application of day 600 mm of irrigation
water, about 360-420 mm could potentially recharge the aquifer (assuming
no surface drainage leaving the boundaries of the scheme). As for rainfall
recharge, the actual recharge would be less when the groundwater table
rises to ground surface during the monsoon season.

13. Overall, the potential recharge to the Lower Bagmati area is considerable, giving
ample scope for groundwater use for irrigation where aquifer conditions are favorable.
There are no significant constraints to infiltration and deep percolation for the soils that
occur in the area (Refer to Section II-E).

14. Attachment 2 discusses the concepts of potential recharge and the use of
irrigation efficiency under high groundwater table conditions.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

D. Topography and Land Form

15. To the north of the BIP boundary, the land surface is gently undulating with an
average elevation of some 170 m MSL (mean sea level) at the foot of the Churia Hills, to
some 120 m MSL at the northern boundary of the BIP. A more gentle land surface
gradient is evident on the Gangetic Sediments with a gradient of some 1.5 m/km.

16. Local relief appears minor from inspection during the field visit. DEM data may
help in better appreciation of local relief.

E. Soils and Land Use

17. Soils in the BIP are predominantly light textured classified as loam and silt loam,
with some silty clay, clay loam, silty clay loam and silty clay. Both loam and silt loam soils
have favorable moisture holding capacity and high available moisture (difference
between moisture contents at field capacity and wilting point), requiring only limited
irrigation during the Rabi season. The two soils also exhibit good capillary characteristics
and, according to Rijtema (1965), have the capacity to contribute 1 mm/d of upward flux
for a depth to groundwater of 2.5 m below the base of the root zone of crops. This further
contributes to the ability of dry land crops to rely largely on residual moisture and upward
flux, without the need for significant irrigation.

18. Land use is predominantly agriculture with Rabi crops including wheat, maize,
pulses, oilseed and potato. Kharif crops include maize and paddy. Sugar cane is present
in areas where sugar refineries are located and is a perennial crop.

F. Groundwater Levels, Flow and Springs

19. Figure 1 has been extracted from the GDC report and shows the depth to
groundwater table for May 1991 in the BIP area. The depth does not exceed 4 m in most
of the Gangetic Sediments where most irrigation occurs. The groundwater table surface
is thus closely controlled by the surface elevations and the hydraulic gradient is very
similar to the ground surface gradient.

20. Piezometric levels in the deeper parts of the aquifer system are shown in
Figure 1 to be artesian, with levels several meters above ground surface. This indicates
a significant upward hydraulic gradient and deeper groundwater contributing the
groundwater table. The rate of upward flow is a function of the vertical head difference
and the hydraulic resistance of the low permeability layers within the aquifer sequence.
Estimates have not been found in the earlier reporting.

21. Figure 2 shows depth to groundwater for selected observation points in the
Rautahat and Sarlahi District for 2005 to 2010. For some years data are missing.
Shallow groundwater levels are prevalent in both districts and this agrees with the
findings shown in Figure 1. One observation borehole (Hariwan) in Sarlahi District is in
the northern part and likely in the Bhabar Formation, where depth to groundwater is
expectedly larger.

22. Figure 3 shows a conceptual north to south section with groundwater flow
components superimposed. Annotations in the figure illustrate the different groundwater
flow components, including recharge and spring flows.

23. Part of the recharge to the Bhabar Formation is rejected at the transition between
this Formation and the Gangetic Sediments. The topography also shows a relatively
sudden change in surface gradient from north to south. The occurrence of springs is
most significant in Rautahat District and fewer are evident in Sarlahi District. The
discharge from the springs is not measured and varies throughout the season. The total

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

discharge does allow for substantial irrigation within the Lower Bagmati area, particularly
in Rautahat District and also feeds irrigation areas to the south of the Lower Bagmati
area. Jahj Irrigation Project in Rautahat District is indicated in the Nippon Koei report as
4,000 ha, while a major spring in Sarlahi District supplies irrigation water for the
Mansumara Irrigation Project, which, according to Nippon Koei, covers at least 7,000 ha.

24. An estimation of total spring flow could possibly be determined using an indirect
method. This would require estimates of areas irrigated from the spring sources, crop
distribution and crop consumptive use, irrigation efficiency, and knowledge of the
amounts of irrigation water from other sources.

25. An estimate could possibly also be derived from an estimation of total recharge to
the Bhabar Formation and an estimate of the underflow into the Gangetic Sediments,
based on estimated hydraulic gradients and aquifer transmissivity.

Figure 1: Depth to Groundwater

Groundwater depth less than 4m

in most of the irrigated area

Artesian conditions in deep aquifer as per

GDC report and noted during the field visit to
occur further north in the Rautahat District

Source: GDC, 1994, ‘Reassessment of Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in the Terai’

Figure 2: Depth to Groundwater from Selected Monitoring Boreholes

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Rautahat District
Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0

1
Depth to Groundwater (m)

2 Balirampur
3 Dhamaura

4 Kanakpur

Sarlahi District
Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0

2
Depth to Groundwater (m)

4 Aaurhi
Bayalbas
6
Malangwa
8
Hariwan
10

12

14

3000000
Hariwan

2995000 Kanakpur

2990000 Dhamaura
Bayalbas
2985000

Balirampur
2980000

Aaurhi
2975000

2970000 Malangwa

2965000
310000 315000 320000 325000 330000 335000 340000 345000 350000 355000 360000 365000 370000 375000 380000

Source: GWRDB Report “Smarika”

Figure 3: Conceptual North to South Cross Section

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Source: Annotated from GDC, 1994, “Reassessment of Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in
the Terai”

G. Climate

26. Rainfall and evapotranspiration are the important components used in the
derivation of recharge. The average monthly rainfall was taken for station 0912 (Ramoli
Bairiya), which is located some 5 km west of the Bagmati River in the central part of
Rautahat District. Average monthly and annual data for the period from 1956 to 1989
(obtained from the Nippon Koei report) are shown in Table 1. Rainfall can be annually
variable with the minimum annual value of 877 mm in 1,957 and a maximum of 2426 mm
in 1975. The average over the period of record of 1,647 mm is probably representative
for the Lower Bagmati area. More recent data will need analyzing to give better
understanding of spatial variability. The data indicates that 83% of rainfall (1,374mm)
occurs in the four months from July to September.

Table 1: Long-term Average Rainfall and Pan Evaporation Data

J F M A M J J A S O N D Year
Rainfall 18 11 19 40 97 265 479 357 273 76 6 7 1,647
Pan 56 81 146 204 220 189 171 155 126 105 75 62 1,590
evaporation
Effective Rain -38 -70 -127 -164 -123 76 308 202 147 -29 -69 -55
Source: 1992 Nippon Koei Report

27. Pan evaporation is given in the Nippon Koei report and shown in Table 1. Annual
total pan evaporation is 1,590mm. For the four months from July to September, the total
is 641 mm and this implies an effective rainfall of 733 mm, indicative of high potential
recharge. Potential evapotranspiration needs to be derived from climate station data
using the modified Penman method as outlined in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56.
Table 5 of FAO 56 indicates conversion factors, which are dependent on numerous
factors. For conditions in Lower Bagmati a pan coefficient of 0.75 to 0.8 may be
appropriate and this would result in ET0 (reference crop evapotranspiration) values
some 20 to 25% less than the pan evaporation values. Using ET0 values would thus
increase effective rainfall by some 15 to 20%. For the annual period, the average annual
effective rainfall would range from 375 to 455 mm.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

28. Three seasons are identified similar to those in Bangladesh: (i) the dry season
extending from October to March, characterized by low rainfall and relatively cool
temperatures; (ii) the pre-monsoon season from April to June, characterized by high
temperatures and increasing rainfall, and (iii) the monsoon season from July to
September, characterized by medium high temperatures, high humidity and very high
rainfall.

H. Groundwater Use

29. Figures 4 and 5 show shallow tubewell distribution for Rautahat and Sarlahi
Districts respectively with quantities given by village area. The figures clearly indicate
that groundwater use is widespread and appears not to be clearly linked to the surface
water distribution system. Maps showing the surface water distribution with shallow
tubewell distribution may give a better appreciation of distribution of groundwater use.
During the field visit to Sarlahi District, areas were visited where only groundwater is
used. More than 100 dug wells are used to irrigate some 800 ha. Groundwater use in
this area appears sustainable and indicates that recharge from rainfall as well as lateral
inflow from surrounding areas irrigated with surface water sustain the groundwater
abstraction.

30. Shallow tubewells (STW) are traditionally hand dug to a depth where sand layers
are encountered. Costs for different types of well are listed in Table 2. The cost figures
were supplied by TMS.

Table 2: Cost of Wells

Command Area
SN Items Cost/unit Operating hr/annum O&M cost/hr Comments
(ha)
A Shallow tubewell
1 Upgrading existing STWs 50,000 250 3 200/hr Replace pump and layflat tube

Develop STW with layflat tube &

2 New improved STW 80,000 250 4 200/hr
diesel 5 HP pump
Install UPVC pipe line fiieted with
3 STW with sprinkler 400,000 300 6 300/hr sprinkler system STW with diesel
pump set
Invest NPR 1/2 million for 20 STW
Improved STW with
4 60,000 300 4 120/hr and provide 3 KW motors operated
electrical motor
pumps
B DEEP Tubewell 7,000,000 1600 30 200/hr Electric, PVC pipeline laid
C 2 m wide dugwell 100,000 300 6 200/hr Diesel pump, layflat tube
Note: all costs in NPR ( for approximate cost in US$, divide by 100)

Source: TMS, 2014

31. In most of the two districts groundwater is likely used as a supplementary source
for irrigation and its use will be dependent on availability of surface water. Conjunctive
use in an unplanned way has thus been practiced for a considerable period of time.

32. Groundwater is commonly used for village water supply using hand-operated
pumps on hygienically sealed well units.

33. Treadle pumps are locally used for small scale irrigation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure 4: STW Distribution in Rautahat District

Source: GWRDB, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure 5: STW Distribution in Sarlahi District

Source: GWRDB, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

III. GROUNDWATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

A. Groundwater Resource Development Potential

34. The high total recharge from rainfall and irrigation deep percolation, combined
with favorable aquifer conditions provides good potential for sustained groundwater use.
In most of the area covered by the BIP the depth to aquifer layers from which
groundwater can be abstraction is less than 5 m, allowing for development of shallow
tubewells. With the depth to groundwater generally not exceeding 5 m, the use of
centrifugal pumps is possible throughout. The choice between shallow dug wells and
tubewells will depend on the lithology of the aquifer material and may also warrant
consideration regarding energy use during pumping. When course materials including
gravels and pebbles are found at shallow depth, dug wells would be more suitable as
was found during the field visit in Sarlahi District, where locally extensive use of shallow
dug wells is evident.

35. The groundwater resource development in spatial terms needs to be considered

in the conjunctive use context as described in Section III-C. The combination of surface
water and groundwater will ensure that the total cultivable area within the BIP can be
irrigated from the combined surface water and groundwater resource. Groundwater
storage will play a role in buffering shortfalls between surface water supply and demand
and this is further elaborated in Section III-D.

B. Interactions between Surface and Groundwater Systems

36. Surface water is imported into the BIP command area and thus seepage from the
canal distribution system and deep percolation of applied irrigation water at the field level
will contribute to groundwater recharge. The recharge can be determined from gross
surface water application and the combined efficiency of the distribution system and the
field application. Using efficiency factors will determine the potential recharge from the
surface water irrigation system. Actual recharge may be smaller when high groundwater
table conditions constrain the seepage from the surface water distribution system.

37. When the groundwater table is within some 2 m from the base of the root zone of
crops and natural vegetation, upward capillary flux from the water table to the root zone
will be possible. The rate of upward flux is a function of the moisture content in the root
zone and the soil physical characteristics of the sub-soil. For loam and silt loam, which
are the predominant soil types in the BIP, considerable upward flux is possible even
when the groundwater table is 2 m below the base of the root zone, meaning some 3 m
below ground surface (refer to soil and land use section).

38. It should be noted that capillary upward flow will not occur when application of
irrigation water or rainfall during the monsoon causes downward percolation through the
base of the root zone.

39. In shallow groundwater table situations, irrigation field efficiency is often

determined as high and this is attributed to the recirculation of water caused by the
upward capillary flow. Such efficiencies cannot be maintained when increase in
groundwater abstraction will cause lowering of the groundwater table and therefore a
reduction in capillary contribution to the root zone. This is elaborated on in Annex 2.

40. Groundwater will discharge to natural drainage channels, particularly during the
kharif season, when groundwater levels are high. There is no quantification of flows in
the drainage channels and so far no knowledge of possible reuse of drainage flow.

41. The outflow from groundwater to the major springs located at the transition from
the Bhabar Formation to the Gangetic Sediments was already discussed in paragraph

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

24. The emerging groundwater occurs near the northern limit of the BIP area and may
thus be considered as an import into the area. Some of this water is used within the BIP
area, while some serves irrigated areas further south. Spring flow will be variable and
dependent on recharge to the Bhabar Formation. Any development of groundwater in
this area will adversely impact on spring discharge.

C. Scope and Options for Use of Surface Water and Groundwater

42. Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is already practiced in an

informal way in the BIP. Use of groundwater is largely controlled by the availability and
reliability of the surface water supplies from the canal system. Water deliveries are not
possible in the current situation in some areas due to the condition of the existing
infrastructure and management constraints, or may be limited when surface water
availability is low. There may also be preference of farmers for using groundwater for
reasons that are separate from surface water availability.

43. Figure 6, extracted from the 1994 GDC report, highlights the areas suitable for
conjunctive use. The figure indicates the feasibility for use of shallow tubewells in most of
the Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts. Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is
marked mainly for Sarlahi District, but does not preclude its use in Rautahat District.

44. The ample resource availability of the combined surface water and groundwater
system allows for flexibility in the choice of water use options. Availability of water may
not be the only criterion for selection of options. Minimizing energy use may become an
important consideration in the choice of options.

45. Table 3 lists a number of available water management options, which range from
use of surface water only to use of groundwater only. The table highlights project
requirements to achieve option implementation. It also highlights potential constraints
and opportunities related to option implementation.

46. The second option in Table 3, which includes conjunctive use of surface water
and groundwater, would appear the most flexible and could potentially minimize the
investment required for system improvement. There would be good opportunity for
zoning of water application, making optimum use of the existing water supply
infrastructure. Improved water management would be required to avoid any risk of
overuse of resource during lean water years and also to avoid energy use associated
with pumping of groundwater. There would be ample opportunity for using the
groundwater more extensively during years (or time periods) when surface water
availability is constrained, thereby making use of the storage capacity of the groundwater
reservoir. Conversely, surface water could be used more extensively during other
years/periods to allow the groundwater reservoir to refill.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure 6: Identification of Areas Suitable for Conjunctive Use

Source: GDC, 1994, “Reassessment of Groundwater Development Strategy for Irrigation in the Terai”

47. The concepts of intra- and inter-annual conjunctive use are illustrated in Figure 7.
Intra-annual conjunctive use implies regulation within an annual cycle, whereby surface
water is used by preference when this is available, while groundwater is used during
periods of shortfall in surface water supply. The availability of surface water may be
spatially variable and this needs to be taken into consideration when introducing the
intra-annual regulation of the two sources of irrigation water.

48. Inter-annual conjunctive use implies the enhanced use of groundwater during
years when surface water is in short supply and reduced groundwater use when surface
water is in surplus. The basic concept of this type of regulation is the use of the
groundwater system as an underground reservoir from which water can be extracted at a
rate in excess of natural and surface water irrigation induced recharge. The depleted
groundwater reservoir would be re-filled during years when recharge surface water
availability are high.

49. Conjunctive use would combine the intra- and inter-annual regulation with short-
term shortages in surface water supply covered by short-term groundwater abstraction,
while impacts of low rainfall and consequently years with lower surface water availability
would be compensated for by extended and enhanced groundwater abstraction.

50. Attachment 3 provides further information on the establishment and

management of conjunctive use, based on the author’s experience in China.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Table 3: Scope and Options for Water Management

Option Project Requirement Potential Constraints Opportunities

 Potential areas out of command  Improved on farm-level irrigation efficiencies would
 High cost for full coverage reduce gross water use
Optimum use of surface distribution  Insufficient supply during months with  Crop diversification to less water demanding crops
1. Surface water only
system covering the full BIP area. inadequate surface water availability would reduce gross water use
 Limited scope for storage within the BIP
area
 There are no evident constraints to this  Improved on farm-level irrigation efficiencies would
The mix of surface water and option, when appropriate zoning and reduce gross water use and potentially reduce
groundwater use can be spatially allocation of ratios of surface water and surface water requirement, while also reducing the
variable with possible surface water groundwater are used, both in spatial and energy cost for pumping
only in certain areas, a mix of surface temporal context.
2. Surface water  Crop diversification is less critical, but could still be
water and groundwater in some, and
supplemented with considered when looking for optimizing crop
groundwater only in other areas. The
groundwater production
ratio of surface water and groundwater
use could be variable to accommodate  Zoning of surface water and groundwater would
reduced surface water availability offer opportunities to minimize investment in surface
during certain times of year. water distribution and minimize energy consumption
by wells
 Like for the surface water only option, the  The same opportunities as for the previous option
surface water distribution system would apply
3. Surface water and
This would imply a more even spatial need to cover the full command area
groundwater evenly
mixed
mix of surface water and groundwater.  Shallow tubewell coverage would need to
be increase to cope with the increased
demand for groundwater

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Option Project Requirement Potential Constraints Opportunities

 The area(s) of well coverage would have  Opportunities as for other options apply
to be considerably expanded  Use of more groundwater offers flexibility in water
 Reduced surface water use may application to farmers
4. Groundwater The surface water distribution could be compromise the use of centrifugal pumps  Saved surface water would offer scope for irrigation
supplemented with reduced, with expansion of the shallow because of the groundwater table expansion in areas outside the BIP
surface water tubewell coverage dropping too low, particularly during dry
years
 Energy cost would become a possible
constraint
 This options is unlikely to succeed due to  Improved efficiency will not impact much on the net
constraints on recharge, particularly quantity of groundwater used for irrigation, but
during low rainfall years would reduce energy consumption
Groundwater only would rely on the
5. Groundwater only ability of the aquifer system to be  The use of shallow tubewells fitted with  The use of pits with the centrifugal pump set below
replenished fully by rainfall recharge centrifugal pumps may be compromised ground surface would limit the risk posed by
by groundwater levels falling below the groundwater levels falling below the suction limit
suction limit

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure 7: Concepts of Intra and Inter-Annual Regulation

Net Average Year Dry Year Wet Year
Month Demand Rainfall Recharge Water Availability (mm) Rainfall Recharge Water Availability (mm) Rainfall Recharge Water Availability (mm) Average Year
(mm) (mm) (mm) SW GW (mm) (mm) SW GW (mm) (mm) SW GW 180
J 50 18 0 40 0 14 0 28 11 23 10 52 0 160
F 75 11 0 30 36 8 0 21 47 14 0 39 25
140
M 130 19 0 30 85 14 0 21 98 24 0 39 72
A 190 40 0 20 138 30 0 14 152 50 0 26 124 120

mm/month
M 210 97 0 20 112 73 0 14 138 121 0 26 87 100
J 180 265 32 0 0 199 0 0 21 331 85 0 0 SW
80
J 160 479 223 0 0 359 127 0 0 599 319 0 0
60 GW
A 145 357 141 0 0 268 69 0 0 446 212 0 0
S 120 273 98 0 0 205 44 0 0 341 153 0 0 40
O 95 76 6 50 0 57 0 35 14 95 33 65 0 20
N 65 6 0 50 10 5 0 35 26 8 0 65 0
0
D 50 7 0 40 4 5 0 28 18 9 0 52 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Annual 1470 1648 500 280 386 1236 240 196 526 2060 812 364 308
Month
Note: Values for illustration of concept only
Explanatory Notes: Dry year
1 Values are given in mm/month over the gross area
160
2 The recharge is potential recharge, derived from rainfall and return flow from applied surface water irrigation
3 Water availability is the net amount required to satisfy crop demand 140
4 80% of rainfall is assumed as effective to contribute to crop demand
120
5 Net surface water availability is assumed to be 50% of gross availability, thus implying a 50% overall efficiency

mm/month
6 For a dry year, rainfall is assumed to be 75% of average recharge, while this is 125% for a wet year 100
7 For a dry year, surface water availability is assumed to be 70% of average, while this is 130% for a wet year 80 SW
Recharge is determined from the difference between 80% of rainfall and net demand, plus 80% of net surface water availability (this implies that 40% of
8
gross surface water supply contributes to recharge)
60 GW
9 The example shows that annual recharge is in excess of annual net groundwater abstraction for average conditions, which implies a sustainable situation 40
10 Intra-annual regulation implies a release from groundwater storage when net groundwater abstraction is greater than recharge
20
11 For a dry year, the annual recharge is less than annual net groundwater abstraction, resulting in reliance on groundwater storage release
12 During average and wetter than average years, recharge is in excess of net groundwater abstraction and depleted grounwater storage is replenished 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Inter-Annual Regulation Month

The concept is illustrated by assuming a sequence of one average year followed by two dry years, one wet year, one dry year and one wet year
Inter-Annual Regulation
Year Recharge GW GW storage change Cumulative storage GW level decline Cumulative decline
1 500 386 -114 0 0 0 1000
2 240 526 285 285 2.9 2.9 800
3 240 526 285 570 2.9 5.7
600
4 812 308 -504 67 0.0 0.7

mm/year
5 240 526 285 352 2.9 3.5 400 Recharge
6 812 308 -504 0 0.0 0.0 200 GW
0 Storage change
Explanatory Notes:
1 Values in mm -200
Cum. storage
2 Negative storage change implies a rise in groundwater level -400
3 For cumulative storage, a negative value is ignored and set to zero, implying that surplus storage is rejected through natural drainage
-600
4 A positive storage change is causing a drop in groundwater level based on a specific yield of 10%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Source: Current Project Analysis
Year

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

51. Both natural and surface water irrigation induced recharge need to be better
understood as function of rainfall and surface water availability, and in conjunction with
the factors that control groundwater recharge. The latter includes the understanding of
the parameters that determine the capacity of the soil, sub-soil and underlying aquifer to
take in recharge. The limited information available during the field visit to Nepal allows
only for the expression of a positive outlook on groundwater resource availability and
replenishment. A more rigorous approach would be needed to support, in quantitative
terms, this positive outlook.

52. Consideration may be given to the future development of integrated groundwater

and surface water models, linked with energy optimization tools. The purpose of the use
of integrated modelling may be summarized as follows:

(i) Groundwater modelling is used to quantify the water resource availability in

complex, dynamic groundwater/surface water systems. Increasingly models
are used to assess the environmental impacts of abstraction and climate
variability/change.
(ii) A model must be technically sound and be an agreed representation of the
combined groundwater and surface water system. It needs to be based on
a sound and shared understanding (the conceptual model) of groundwater
system behavior and its interactions with the surface environment. A
numerical model should adequately represent this conceptual understanding
before it is used as a predictive tool for resources planning and management.
(iii) The purpose of a groundwater model can be considered in the context of
both ‘tactical’ and ‘operational’ water resources management.
(iv) The ‘tactical’ use of groundwater models relates to a holistic and basin-
scale approach to understanding the role of groundwater systems and the
influences exerted upon them (either natural or anthropogenic). This
approach is described in Table 42. Tactical uses could also be seen as
developing preparedness for adverse conditions.
(v) The ‘operational’ use of groundwater models relates to groundwater
management functions, such as those shown in Table 5.

2
Tables 4 to 7 were prepared by the author of this appendix during the Water Resources Demand
Management Project (WRDMAP) in China (2005 to 2010), which introduced integrated water management.
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Table 4: Tactical Use of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models

Use Clarification
Review of water resources management plans This relates largely to the evaluation of the
limits of sustainable water resources
development
Local impact assessment This relates to use of the model to assess
impacts of different groundwater management
options on users, springs, river flows and
wetlands
Forecast of water supply yield for prevailing To establish the current resource state and
groundwater conditions from that determine the optimum groundwater
use for the immediate future
Forecast of response of groundwater to The use of the model helps in drought
drought forecasting and thus the development of
appropriate drought plans
Forecast the need for mitigation measures This is linked to the previous use and relates
to the use of models in assessing mitigation
needs such as use of river water and
cutback/cessation of abstraction
Forecast operational yield of artificial To assess the net gain in the short and long
groundwater storage and recovery (ASR) term
schemes
Assess the implications of climate change This relates to assessing the impact of climate
change on groundwater resource systems
Assess the implications of land use change This relates to the impact of land use change
on the groundwater resource system
Design of an ‘optimum’ groundwater Models allow for evaluation of the ‘value’ of
monitoring network monitoring facilities
Source: WRDMAP, 2010

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Table 5: Operational Use of Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Models

Function Drivers Clarification
Models are essential to assist in river basin planning and
River basin management are required wherever sustainability approaches (such as
plans for example reduced groundwater abstraction) are likely to
be contested.

Groundwater models can be used to assess the impact of

Strategic Water groundwater abstraction on environmentally sensitive
Resources
areas such as rivers, wetlands and groundwater
Planning
Environmental impact dependent terrestrial ecosystems. Such assessments
assessments often relate to small-scale areas and regional models can
be used to set the boundary conditions for local-scale
modelling. More refined modelling processes may be
required to gain more confidence in impact assessments.

Because of their regional coverage, models can play an

important role in abstraction permitting. Better informed
Abstraction permitting
decision making will lead to improved acceptance of
decisions made by the permitting authority.
Operational
Management of Abstraction up to the full permitted rates is sometimes
Groundwater required under adverse climatic conditions, particularly
Water availability
drought periods when surface water is in short supply. As
forecasts
for permit limit determination, models can play an
important role in this duty.

The cost of monitoring can be very high, yet monitoring

data is essential to accurate groundwater resource
Asset management of
evaluation and thus to effective resource management.
monitoring network and
Models are very useful in analyzing how important certain
Monitoring design of monitoring
data are to the accuracy of model predictions. Models
networks
therefore help to design monitoring systems that maximize
model accuracy and minimize costs.

Groundwater quality is generally closely linked to

Framework for groundwater flow and the input and output components of
groundwater quality groundwater systems. Regional groundwater flow models
investigations can be seen as a first step in the evolution to more
comprehensive flow and contaminant transport models.

Time-variant groundwater models are reliable tools to

Groundwater protection
assess the dynamic nature of groundwater protection
zones
zones.
Groundwater Regional groundwater flow models are powerful tools to
Quality
Diffuse pollution assess groundwater movement with time. They can form
the basis for diffuse pollution modelling.

Regional groundwater models provide a good insight into

the potential fate of pollutants originating from the
contaminated land sites. More sophisticated modelling,
Contaminated land
probably at more localized scale, would be needed to
obtain a more in-depth understanding of pollutant transport
from localized contaminated land.

Source: WRDMAP, 2010

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

53. Part of the modelling process is the collection and collation of relevant data and
information. The indicative requirement for data is indicated in Table 6 and is
comprehensive. Without such information the ability to calibrate the model to a standard
that allows for quantitative assessment of resource development scenario impacts may
be constrained. In the context of the use of the model as outlined before, its value could
still be considerable in understanding groundwater processes and in the relative
importance on impact of selected development scenarios.

54. Table 6 presents data requirements for different levels of groundwater assessment,
from basic to very advanced. Groundwater modelling should be considered as a very
advanced approach to groundwater assessment. It may be that during scoping of
groundwater assessment activities, lack of data warrants a less advanced approach,
which could be built on over time. Table 7 provides an overview of different approaches
to groundwater assessment.

D. Energy Minimization

55. Energy use is directly associated with abstraction of groundwater from wells. The
energy consumption is a function of gross discharge rate, depth to pumping level in the
wells, number of hours of operation and various efficiency functions. The energy use can
be expressed as follows:

E = Q * H * T / (367.6 * Pe * Me)
where E – energy use in KWh (over the time period)
Q – gross discharge rate in m3/d
H – total lift in m
T – time of pumping in days
Pe – pump efficiency (fraction)
Me – motor efficiency (fraction)

56. It is clear from the above equation that the energy use and therefore pumping
cost is directly proportional to the gross rate of pumping, which is a function of total
irrigation efficiency within the command area served by the well. Improvement of irrigation
efficiency is thus beneficial to energy cost reduction. Improving overall efficiency from 40%
to 70% would reduce the gross pumping rate and hence energy use by 43%.

57. The total lift is the sum of static water depth from water outlet level and the
additional drawdown due to pump drawdown and friction losses with the rising main. The
pump drawdown is a function of gross pumping rate, aquifer transmissivity, well diameter
and well entry losses. Energy optimization thus involves appropriate well diameter and
minimization of well entry losses through correct well design, construction and
development. For large diameter dug wells, the pumping drawdown can be significantly
reduced and this is particularly beneficial when aquifer transmissivity is low. For example
for a low transmissivity of 100 m2/d and a discharge rate of 10 l/s, increasing the well
diameter from 0.1 to 1 m, would reduce the pumping drawdown by 3.2 m (based on the
Thiem equation), and thus, the energy usage by 15 kWh/day for an overall efficiency of
50%. For a 10 m total pumping head this would comprise a saving of some 30%.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Table 6: Data Requirements and Availability for Groundwater Resource Assessment

Data Category Groundwater Resource Assessment Method
Basic (Method 1) Intermediate (Method 2) Advanced and very advanced (Methods 3 and 4)
Geology A basic understanding of geology is required A better understanding of spatial variability in geology is Detailed knowledge of geology is available from a variety of data
that allows for identification of aquifers and required than for the basic case. sources, which allows for 3-dimensional mapping of geological
aquitards. formations
Hydrogeology A basic understanding of the hydraulic Hydraulic characteristics are more precisely defined and The hydrogeological characterization of the groundwater system is
characteristics of the groundwater system is rely in part on aquifer testing. based on pumping test data and hydrogeological studies undertaken
available or based on knowledge of similar Groundwater piezometry is spatially better defined and in the past.
systems. based on a more extensive monitoring network. Time Extensive monitoring of groundwater levels and groundwater quality
Requires some knowledge of groundwater variant data may not be too refined, but changes over has been undertaken over a number of years and allows for detailed
levels both in space and time. longer time periods are defined. spatial and temporal characterization of piezometry.
Some understanding also exists of vertical hydraulic gradients in the
groundwater system if this comprises multiple aquifers and aquitards.
Hydrology Basic knowledge exists of rainfall and A better understanding of spatial distribution of long-term Available climate data is such that both spatial and temporal
evaporation for the area under consideration average rainfall is available. There is also better variability in rainfall and evaporation can be obtained, down to time
based on long-term average or annual values. understanding of time variance, which allows for periods as short as one day. Such data allows for accurate
Also a basic understanding exists of the river assessment of annual, seasonal and monthly variations. assessment of water requirements and recharge.
system and how this relates to geology and its The river system is better defined in terms of the The river system is well defined and river flow and river level
interaction with the groundwater system relationship between river levels and groundwater levels, measurements allow for more accurate evaluation of river gains and
which allows for better definition of gains and losses. losses.
Soils There is a basic understanding of soil Soil distribution and properties are better defined and allow Soil data is extensively available and includes information on soil
properties, particularly their ability to allow some judgment on their capacity to store soil moisture and physical properties that allow for improved assessment of the
recharge to the aquifer this allows for better assessment of groundwater recharge. moisture balances used in recharge assessment. The data also
allows for calculation of capillary flux from a shallow water table.
Land Use A basic knowledge exists of vegetation and Land use is better defined spatially and over short and Detailed information on land use allows for spatial and temporal
crop distribution and also the extent of urban long time periods and this allows for a better assessment distribution of land use data.
areas. of historical trends in water requirements and use.
Irrigated Basic knowledge of irrigation requirements and Water requirements are better defined from historical data Water requirements can be calculated using climate and land use
Agriculture water use from surface water and groundwater on land use, better knowledge of water distribution in data and can be verified from monitored water use. The spatial and
sources is available. irrigation systems and use of groundwater for irrigation. time variant nature of water requirements can thus be defined more
Some knowledge of the spatial distribution of Thus the spatial and time variant nature of water accurately.
water use, based on land use and water requirements is better understood.
requirements is also available.
Water Use and A quantitative knowledge of water use, Water use can be better defined both spatially and in A good understanding exists of water use for different purposes, both
Distribution including groundwater abstraction and surface terms of time and this relates to both surface water and in terms of spatial distribution and variation with time. Detailed
water use is available. groundwater. information is available for both surface water and groundwater use.
In urban/industrial areas there needs to be Urban water use can also be better defined from better Where gaps in data coverage exist, available data allow for
knowledge of total water use and also about historical water use data. interpolation or indirect determination of water use.
leakage to the underlying groundwater.

Lahmeyer International in association with Lahmeyer India page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Table 7: Groundwater Assessment Approaches

Approach Scope and Objective Assessment tools Accuracy Future Use

Method 1 Preliminary assessment based on limited Mainly done without the need for complex Approximate and limited by data, staff This method could be retained and used
data, which does not require advanced assessment tools. Tools used on a day to capability and time. Depends also on again. It can form the basis for more
tools and specialists. day basis such as Excel may be used to scope and objectives. advanced assessment, when better data
store and manipulate data. and/or more time and budget are
available.
Method 2 An intermediate assessment, which can Advanced assessment tools such as Better and sometimes good accuracy can Assessment procedures and tools can be
be re-used and could form a sound basis Excel and data base programs are used be achieved with this method, largely usefully used for resource management
for more advanced assessment. in the processing and analysis of data. dependent on the availability and quality and planning. Accuracy and precision of
Data integration and conceptualization of Basic assessment methodologies are of data, on available budget and staff assessment depend on the degree of
the integrated surface water and used, including Excel based water experience. approximation in the representation of
groundwater system are important. balance analysis. complex groundwater systems.
Method 3 An in-depth and comprehensive Excel, database programs and GIS are One should aim for high accuracy using Tools developed using this method can
assessment using advanced analysis used in the processing of data, this method and thus data availability be used and updated/improved when
tools, including GIS, and specialist staff assessment of resource availability and needs to be good and staff experience more data become available. This method
resources. processing of results from assessment advanced. should be seen as one that can be
tools. GIS is extensively used in data and This method enables assessment of developed within the water resources
results processing and visualization. uncertainty and provides guidance for management organizations, without
More advanced water balance analysis is additional field investigation and requirement of external
done, using spreadsheet methods or monitoring programs. specialists/organizations. It may require
stand-alone lumped water balance appropriate training of staff and/or
simulation models. employment of relevant specialists.
Method 4 This method is the most advanced for Advanced distributed numerical models Accuracy and definition of uncertainty are The tools developed under this level
resource assessment, planning and linked with GIS systems are used in the at a very high level and this allows for should be seen as long-term assessment
management. It allows for very detailed detailed assessment of groundwater accurate prediction of future groundwater tools, which are used on a regular basis
assessments and accurate representation behavior. Groundwater models need to level behavior in response to changing/ for resources planning and management.
of historical and future groundwater be comprehensive and able to accurately variable climatic and anthropogenic They need to be updated and, if needed,
resource behavior under both varying represent surface water interactions. influences. re-calibrated on a regular basis when
climatic and anthropogenic influences. Groundwater modelling is often used in more data become available.
conjunction with surface water models. The development of the tools should be
MIS systems can be used to integrate seen as a long-term investment.
models with resource planning/
management tools.
Source: WRDMAP, 2010

Lahmeyer International in association with Lahmeyer India page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

58. Energy is further reduced by using an efficient pump and motor. Combined pump
and motor efficiency of 0.5 could be improved to 0.6 by using good equipment. This
would result in an energy saving of 15%.

59. In conclusion, energy use for groundwater pumping can be considerably reduced
through improved irrigation efficiency, careful and appropriate well design and
construction, and use of efficient pumping equipment. For the three measures described
above combined, an energy saving of some 60% could result.

60. Improving irrigation efficiency would be at the expense of recharge from surface
water application. When surface water availability is high and the need for groundwater
replenishment is high, a low, rather than high irrigation efficiency would be required. This
may point towards the question of need for canal lining.

E. Monitoring Requirements

61. Routine monitoring data appears to be limited, particularly related to groundwater

level monitoring (infrequent), groundwater abstraction (virtually non-existent), spring
flows (non-existent), and surface water distribution.

62. Groundwater levels are monitored monthly, which is adequate to analyze intra-
annual and longer-term trends. The frequency of monitoring is inadequate to form an in-
depth understanding of groundwater level responses to natural (rainfall) and
anthropogenic (abstraction, surface water irrigation) influences. The number of
monitoring points for measuring the shallow groundwater table could easily be expanded
by using disused dug wells in villages. The participation of local schools in measurement
of groundwater levels may be considered as an option for involving rural communities in
groundwater level monitoring. It would also be beneficial to have locations where a set of
piezometers measures both the shallow groundwater table and the deep piezometric
level. For such monitoring wells the use of continuous monitoring devices should be
considered.

63. Monitoring of groundwater use would help the understanding of the significance
of groundwater as a resource for rural water supply and particularly irrigation. Monitoring
of gross water use would be relatively easy if pump details are known and a record is
kept of electricity use. For diesel powered pumps, this would need reliance on well users
to keep a record of number of hours of well operation. Indirect estimates of net
groundwater use can be based on assessment of water demand for crops reliant on
groundwater. When both surface water and groundwater are used for irrigation, there
would need to be knowledge of quantity of surface water used for irrigation.

64. No rainfall data beyond that what was included in the Nippon Koei report has
been made available. This also applies to climate data required for the derivation of
reference crop evapotranspiration. Rainfall data both in terms of its spatial distribution
and its time variance is important for the derivation of recharge and also to put
groundwater level monitoring data into context. There is need to evaluate the adequacy
of rain gauge coverage in the Lower BIP area and also the coverage of climate stations.

65. Monitoring of spring discharge along the spring line along the transition between
the Bhabar Formation and the Gangetic Sediments is not available. Indirect
measurement could include the monitoring of cropped areas fed from water derived from
the springs. Direct measurements would involve the construction of stream gauges on
the streams receiving water from the springs.

66. Attachment 4 provides detail on monitoring requirement related to groundwater

and based on the author’s work for the WRDMAP project in China.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Attachment 1: Field Visit to the Lower Bagmati Area

67. The purpose of the field visit was to get a general impression of the irrigated
areas and to obtain insight into the behavior and use of groundwater. The specifics of the
field visit and relevant commentary are given in the paragraphs below, followed by
general conclusions. The base location was at Chandranigahapur about 15 km west of
the main barrage on the Bagmati River.

68. A shallow tubewell (STW) site was visited in the late afternoon, a few kilometers
south of Chandranigahapur. The well was located at a dairy farm and used for irrigation
of grass and fodder in irrigation plots of about 120 m2. The well was said to be about 12
m deep and depth to water about 2.5 to 3 m below ground surface. The well was said not
to have a well screen and produced only about 4 l/s (measured on site with a bucket
measurement). The pump is powered by a 2 HP motor and is operated for about 4 to 6
hours/day. The well is electric powered. Application to the irrigation plots is currently
once a week, fortnightly in winter. The farmer said that the aim is to apply 50 mm depth
of water. Inspection of the plot indicated an uneven surface and slow spreading of the
applied water. Depth of inundation was more than 50 mm for considerable time,
encouraging excessive infiltration into the permeable loamy soil. The farmer indicated
that the applied water has infiltrated fully after 4.5 hours. One plot is irrigated for 2 hours
and given the discharge rate of about 4 l/s, this implies a total application of 30 m 3,
implying a depth of application of some 240 mm. Some loss would obviously occur in the
earthen distribution channel, which was some 40 m long. The site was a clear example
of very inefficient irrigation, considering that crop consumptive use for the plot would be
no more than some 35 mm in one week- an efficiency of only some 15%.

69. Part of the field visit was spent in the command area west of the Bagmati River.
On the way south the land surface shows little or no local relief difference and this was
similar for most of the crop areas that were traversed. The cropping in the northern part
included mainly wheat and maize, interspersed locally with pulses and small scale
cultivation of onions.

70. Springs emerge along the southern limit of the Bhabar zone where a change in
land gradient is evident and where the very high transmissivity aquifer to the north meets
the Gangetic Plain aquifer. Water emerges from numerous springs and one was visited
to obtain a visual impression. The spring water emerges some 3 to 4 m below the
general land surface in an area forested until not so long ago. The water emerges at the
foot of vertical sandy ‘cliffs’ and collect in rivulets and stream flowing south. Photos 1
and 2 provide a good impression of the incised channels. Flow from the spring visited
was low, estimated at no more than a few l/s. A local gentleman (Mr. Shiv Raj Ghimire)
who kindly acted as local guide, indicated that during the monsoon season a much more
extensive part of the incised are is covered by some 1.5 m of water, with obviously
considerably higher discharges.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

71. Some of the water discharging from the springs is used locally as indicated in
Figure B.5.3 of Annex B of the Nippon Koei report. The remaining discharge is diverted
at the Jahj Barrage to feed the Jhaj Irrigation scheme located between the BIP and the
Indian Border.

72. There was clear use of extensive use of treadle pumps and one site where
pumps where in operation was visited. The pumps are manually operated (Photo 3) and
are estimated to discharge about 0.5 to 1 l/s. At the location (some 8 km south of
Chandranigahapur), onions were irrigated in narrow strips some 1 m wide and 9 m long.
Application was said to be for 7 minutes every 5 days. The plots were well levelled and
irrigation appeared efficient. Mr. Indrah Kalu indicated that the treadle pumps can irrigate
up to 1,000 m2.

73. The village located near to the visited treadle pump was visited to inspect a dug
well that was used in the past for potable water supply (now replaced by hand pumps).
The water level in the well was about 4 m below ground surface and was said to rise to
about 1 m below ground surface during the monsoon season. Such wells are present in
most villages and may offer scope for groundwater level monitoring.

74. One of the channels originating from the springs located further north was
crossed and flow was estimated to be between 100 and 200 l/s.

75. One deep tubewell (DTW) in the local area is used for public water supply and
showed artesian conditions with probably some 10 l/s escaping from the top of the well.
It is estimated that the piezometric head in the well could be several meters above
ground surface. This clearly indicates the semi-confined and multi-layered composition of
the aquifer system with significant upward hydraulic gradients.

76. A recently irrigated maize field indicated the inefficiency of irrigation. The
annotated Photo 4 clearly demonstrates the problems. Land levelling would be the
minimum requirement to improve efficiency, although use of well-designed and
maintained furrows could yield significant improvement.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

77. A STW was visited in a homestead just downstream of the Jhaj Barrage.
Information obtained was somewhat corrected by the subsequent visit to the owner of
the well in the nearby village. The well was constructed in 1985 and discharges some 12
l/s. The pump is run by a 15 HP Chinese motor. Early rice was said to be cultivated
requiring frequent irrigation. A volume of 800 l was said to be needed to produce 1 kg of
rice. For a yield of 4,000 kg/ha, this would amount to 3,200 m3/ha, or an application of
320 mm, which is not such a meaningful figure without knowledge of rainfall quantity. For
summer rice only supplementary irrigation is required. For the irrigation of the command
area of the STW, 75% was from surface water, 25% from groundwater, although no
distribution over time could be given.

78. An area was visited where more than 100 dug wells are used as the only source
of irrigation water. Two dug wells were inspected and the farmer at the first well indicated
that the well is 120 cm internal diameter, build with concrete rings 40 cm high and 130 cm
diameter. The depth of the well is only 7.5 m and taps a layer of very coarse sand and
gravel. The well is fitted with a centrifugal pump with a 7.5 HP motor, yielding over 10 l/s
without noticeable drawdown and irrigating 6 ha. The depth to water from ground surface
was about 4 m, while this is 0.8 to 1 m during the monsoon season. The farmer said that
similar conditions exist in an area of some 2 km by 4 km. STW are not preferred for
reason of drilling difficulty because of occurrence of boulders. The cost of the dug well is
low and it has a long life time.

79. An operating dug well was observed with the pump mounted on a cart and thus
useable for other wells (Photo 5). The water was conveyed by flexible 4 inch pipe to a
field some 100 m distant (Photo 6), minimizing conveyance losses.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

80. A stream was seen that takes water from a large spring some 8 km to the north
(at the transitions from Bhabar Formation to the Gangetic Plain). Water is flowing to and
used in the Manusmara Irrigation Project located to the south of the BIP and east of the
Bagmati River. This area was indicated in the Nippon Koei report to cover 7,000 ha in
the early 1990’s with proposed extension to 14,000 ha. It implies that the spring flow
further north is considerable.

81. On the return, driving along the north to south branch canal, regular drops of
some 2 m were noted. Options for hydropower generation could be considered. For a
1 m3/s flow and a 2 m drop some 10 kW could be feasible.

82. A meeting was held with the project manager of BIP, Mr. Ramanand Yadav. He
indicated that in the northern part of the BIP land levelling is done well and three crops of
maize are grown. This implies a reliable supply of irrigation water.

83. Discussions were held about the problems of siltation and the difficulty to close
the surface irrigation system in the dry season for a prolonged period of time. Suction
mode wells suffer from declining groundwater levels during shut down periods and falling
below the suction limit.

84. Some general conclusions and findings include the following:

(i) There is no indication that STW use is constrained by low groundwater

levels, except possibly in the upper regions when the surface water supply
is cut for a prolonged period of time. Measurements made at the time of the
field visit indicated a groundwater level some 4 m below ground surface and
farmers indicated that this might drop by another meter or so during April-
May. It is not known how STW performance would be affected by a
prolonged dry season caused by late onset of the monsoon.
(ii) Dug wells that were used for village water supply still exist and may offer
scope for use as monitoring wells to capture the depth to the groundwater
table.
(iii) Poor water allocation was evident at many locations visited and was evidently
due to poor land levelling. Field application efficiency could be significantly
improved by land levelling and also by rapid application of irrigation water at
a high rate (encouraging rapid spread across the field). A further benefit
would be the avoidance of leaching of fertilizer and the improved aeration of
the root zone.
(iv) Significant field channel losses were evident and used of flexible pipe could
avoid such losses to a large extent.
(v) Treadle pumps were evident in the Rautahat district and appeared to be
used in an efficient and effective way (albeit in small irrigated plots).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Attachment 2: Conceptual Understanding of Recharge and Irrigation Efficiency

Recharge

85. For a given area (such as the BIP), recharge is defined as the quantity of water
originating from external sources reaching the saturated groundwater system through the
upper surface (generally ground surface). External sources of water include rainfall,
applied surface water irrigation and surface water (flooded areas, permanent lakes,
rivers, etc.).

86. The recharge component that originates from rainfall onto the soil surface is the
infiltration through the soil surface minus the transpiration from vegetation. Under high
rainfall conditions, water may accumulate at the soil surface within bunded fields, from
which it will infiltrate into the soil and contribute to recharge.

87. The recharge component that originates from surface water irrigation, using
imported water (such as is the case in the BIP), includes seepage from the canal
distribution system (primary, secondary and tertiary canals) and percolation of applied
irrigation water within cultivated fields (similar to direct rainfall).

88. Infiltration from natural temporary or permanent water bodies comprises a third
component of recharge. Natural water bodies may include flooded low lying land and
natural water bodies such as rivers. It should be noted that temporary flooding of low
lying areas originates to a major extent from rainfall runoff, possibly to a minor extent
from rivers and from the surface water irrigation system’s tail end escapes.

89. Return flow of irrigation water pumped from wells is not included in the recharge,
because the water originates from within the area under consideration. In water balance
calculations this return flow would be treated as a separate component, thus not included
in recharge from natural sources or deep percolation from imported surface water used
for irrigation.

90. The maximum possible amount of recharge is defined as potential recharge.

Potential recharge will occur when the groundwater table forms no constraint to recharge
and this is the case when it is at such a depth that it cannot interact with the surface
environment.

91. Actual recharge is the difference between potential recharge and so-called
rejected recharge. Part of the potential recharge will be rejected when the groundwater
table is at or near the ground surface and thus constrains the downward percolation to
the saturated groundwater system. Reduced recharge is still possible when the
groundwater table is at or near ground surface, and would be determined by the natural
drainage capacity of the saturated groundwater system.

92. Actual recharge can be considerably smaller than potential recharge due to the
groundwater table rising to or near ground surface during the monsoon season, when
most rainfall occurs.

93. With extensive groundwater development, the groundwater table would be

considerably lowered during the Rabi and early Kharif seasons, and recharge during the
monsoon season is significantly enhanced. It can be up to potential recharge under
maximum groundwater development conditions.

94. Recharge from surface water irrigation can be similarly constrained by a high
groundwater table as described for direct rainfall recharge. The maximum possible
recharge would only occur when the groundwater table is deep. Actual recharge from
this source could be very small if the drainage capacity of the natural groundwater

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

system is limited. Again, if groundwater is also used for irrigation, the lowered
groundwater table would allow for enhanced recharge from surface water irrigation.

95. Potential recharge from water bodies is a function of the height of the surface
water level above the base of the water body and the deep percolation capacity of the
underlying deposits. When the groundwater table is high, recharge can be significantly
reduced or reduced to zero when the groundwater table rises above the surface water
level.

Irrigation Efficiency

96. Irrigation efficiency is a concept used by irrigation engineers to calculate gross

water requirements from net crop water demands. Normally efficiency factors relate to
components of the water distribution system (canal conveyance efficiencies) and to the
field application (field efficiency). Net crop water demand divided by those efficiencies
will result in the gross supply at the intake. This concept is less applicable when the
groundwater table is close to or at ground surface for the following reasons:

97. The deep percolation through the base of the root zone is constrained and may
not allow for a loss determined from adopted field efficiency.

98. Similar, when the groundwater table is high, the leakage from the distribution
system is constrained and can be smaller than what would be calculated from canal
efficiency values.

99. A high groundwater table will allow for upward capillary flow to the root zone of dry
land (non-rice or jute) crops. Deep percolation from field application of surface water, thus,
in part, returns to the root zone and would reduce the irrigation demand at field level.

100. On a local scale with intermixed cultivation of rice and dry land crops, the dry land
areas act as sinks for high groundwater level conditions within the rice fields. This would
again contribute to capillary upward flow to the root zone of such dry land areas.

101. In the BIP it is said that dry land crops are generally irrigated sparsely and this
may be due to shallow groundwater allowing for upward capillary flow. The soils in the
BIP area are favorable and allow for capillary upward flow from a considerable depth.

102. Shallow groundwater table conditions would also reduce the use for pre-watering
for rice cultivation, when capillary upward flow keeps moisture content in the upper
profile at higher levels.

103. When groundwater abstraction occurs and causes lowering of the groundwater
table, the deep percolation from fields irrigated with surface water may become
enhanced.

104. The use of irrigation efficiencies to calculate gross demand from net crop water
requirements should be considered with care, given the impact of groundwater table
conditions on the return flows from irrigation.

105. During studies in Bangladesh and elsewhere in similar agro-environmental

conditions, models have been used that incorporate the water balance in the upper
profile and account for the influence of shallow groundwater table conditions on recharge
and irrigation demand. It is therefore recommended to accommodate the complex
conditions if modelling tools are used for the BIP area.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Attachment 3: Establishment and Management of Conjunctive Use Schemes

The following text has been extracted/adapted from guidance notes prepared by the
author during the WRDMAP (2010) studies in China.

(i) It is not uncommon that both surface water and groundwater are used to
satisfy water demands. However, the sources are often considered in
isolation and not as a combined (integrated) source. The establishment of
conjunctive use schemes requires consideration of the following aspects,
which are of both a technical and non-technical nature:
(ii) There is need for adopting the concept of a single and fully integrated
resource. It is not unusual for water resources planners (possible due to
pressure from politicians) to double count resource availability.
(iii) It is thus imperative that clarity is provided on what a conjunctive scheme
entails and that misconceptions about resource availability are avoided.
(iv) There needs to be a sound understanding of the integrated groundwater
and surface water system and its responses to natural and anthropogenic
influences. Such understanding needs to be established for conditions that
prevailed historically and those that are planned for the future. The use of
appropriate resource assessment.
(v) Effective and focused monitoring of surface water and groundwater
behavior as a consequence of known influences such as climate and
groundwater use (which also need to be monitored) is indispensable for
establishing understanding of the integrated system.
(vi) One of the big issues of conjunctive use systems is that of spatial
coincidence of the resource and the existence of a transfer or distribution
system that facilitates/enables the use of either resource to meet a
particular demand.
(vii) The groundwater reservoir needs to be capable of being rapidly recharged
and have hydrogeological characteristics that enable easy extraction of
groundwater at affordable cost.
(viii) Understanding is required of the capacity of the groundwater system to
receive water (through recharge), convey water (lateral groundwater
movement), its inter-relationships with the surface water system and release
water (for example through groundwater abstraction from wells). There is
also a need to understand the efficiency of the groundwater reservoir. The
efficiency may be defined as the ratio of possible net groundwater use and
the total replenishment from precipitation, net groundwater inflow (if relevant)
and deep percolation from surface water irrigation. This ratio is less than or
equal to 1 and depends on how much sub-surface outflow from the
groundwater reservoir occurs. This ratio would not be fixed, but would likely
be dependent on the level of storage within the groundwater reservoir.
(ix) Clear rules on water use practices and water use priorities need to be
prepared and such rules need to be enforced. For example, the use of
groundwater may be preferred by farmers for reasons of cost or reliability of
supply. The risk is that surface water, although available, may not be used,
and this would compromise the replenishment of the groundwater reservoir.
Equally, in an urban setting, groundwater may be preferred for water quality
reasons, because this would limit the cost of treatment.
(x) There is thus a need for the preparation and implementation of
comprehensive water allocation and use plans. Comprehensive implies that

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

special plans, such as for example those related to drought, are sub-
components of the comprehensive plan. The planning would need to be
flexible and adaptable because of the uncertainties inherent in forecasting the
availability of surface water. Longer-term water allocation is normally derived
from statistical analysis of historical water availability, particularly surface
water. On a shorter term basis the actual surface water availability would
need to be taken into account and this would determine the amount of
groundwater that can be taken. It should be noted that groundwater resource
availability is primarily limited by recharge.
(xi) The natural variability in surface water availability is thus compensated for
by the use of variable quantities of groundwater, with the total being
constrained by the average annual quantity set out in the comprehensive
plan. It is important to realize the significance of using more surface water
(and thus enhancing recharge) during periods of surface water surplus so
that depleted groundwater reserves can be replenished.
(xii) It should be appreciated that comprehensive plans may have been based on
limited data/understanding of the behavior of the integrated surface water
and groundwater system. Lack of data and understanding results in
uncertainty and it should be a clear aim of the comprehensive plan to
address such uncertainty and reduce it over time. This requires continuous
monitoring of all aspects of resource behavior, water allocation and actual
use.
(xiii) It is essential that an integrated approach is also used in the management
of the water allocation plans and in the overall management of water
resources, including planning, assessment, monitoring, etc. This requires
strong institutions where compartmentalization into separate surface water
and groundwater sections is avoided.
(xiv) Comprehensive planning requires good communication, participation and
knowledge management strategies. Communication and participation
strategies are required, which set out in detail the requirements and
procedures for communication and participation, both within the planning
organization and between the organization and stakeholders. Knowledge
management is required to ensure the successful implementation and
maintenance of the conjunctive use scheme. It involves the process of data
management and the sharing of data/information within the organization and
with stakeholders.
(xv) There is thus a need for building technical capacity, for adapting the
organizational and institutional setup, and improving information and
communication systems.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Attachment 4: Monitoring Data Related to Groundwater

The following text has been extracted/adapted from guidance notes prepared by the
author during the WRDMAP (2010) studies in China.

General
Data required for a complete groundwater monitoring system must include all data that is
directly or indirectly related to groundwater, but ultimately depends on the objectives for
using the data. The following questions need to be asked: What data components are
required to answer the questions that have been set? Is this data available? Is the data
of sufficient frequency and spatial coverage? Is the data of adequate quality and
accuracy?

Typical monitoring components are:

 Groundwater levels
 Groundwater quality
 Groundwater abstractions and discharges
 Meteorological data
 Water use (groundwater and surface water) in agriculture
 Water use in other sectors

Community or WUA Level

Management at the community or WUA level relates to local scale use of water and land
resources. Monitoring at this scale will be of direct benefit to the communities. It will also
benefit the higher management levels, particularly once monitoring systems are in place
in all WUAs. Table A4.1 outlines an example of the responsibilities that could be given to
WUAs for the monitoring of relevant groundwater data for their needs.

Monitoring is an essential component of effective self-management of water resources at

the community or WUA level. This is particularly important when there are potential water
shortages and there is a need for adjustment of cropping patterns so that less water
demanding crops are favored. Monitoring of water use and recording of cropping
patterns (crop types and related areas) by the community or WUA allows for annual
evaluation and thus for judgment of the success of implementation of changes in water
use and cropping. Learning from experience, and communication of this experience
within the community or WUA and preferably amongst different communities or WUAs
will lead to ability to face the challenges of coping with reduced amounts of water.

Monitoring of groundwater levels in conjunction will also enable the community or WUA
to judge the changes in the groundwater table over time. Knowledge of such changes
are useful to the community or WUA in determining what measures are required to avoid
wells running dry or performing poorly. The aim in the longer term is to halt and/or
reverse falling trends in groundwater levels. If this is not the case, then the community or
WUA can pro-actively communicate with the higher management levels and report the
situation. Such feedback is important for the successful management of water resources
at the river basin level.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Groundwater Monitoring Process

Table A4.1: Monitoring Components and Responsibilities at WUA level

Monitoring Component Type of record Monitoring Unit Responsibility
Electricity use or
direct abstraction Production group
Groundwater Production group
readings/ leaders
Irrigation
measurements
Water Use
Diversion records WUA representatives/
Surface water and timings of Production group production group
irrigation leaders
Areas for individual Production group
Cropping Production group
crops leaders
Selected wells
Depth to water (possibly one for Production group
Groundwater levels
measurement each production leaders
group)

Groundwater monitoring is a process and does not just involve the collection of data
through measurements at monitoring facilities. The process requires the development of
an appropriate groundwater monitoring protocol, which is applicable to the relevant
management level. The word appropriate is introduced to indicate that the monitoring
should serve a clearly defined purpose and known objectives, all within the constraints of
financial resources (Figure A4.1).

Development of an
appropriate
monitoring protocol

Serves a clearly
defined purpose and
known objectives

Within the
constraints of
financial resources

Figure A4.1 Main requirements

The aspects of a monitoring protocol, which is encapsulated into a monitoring plan,

include the following:
 Establishment of monitoring facilities (Figure A4.2)
 Collection of information from the monitoring facilities using accepted methods
 Development of effective data storage and retrieval facilities
 Development of data processing, analysis and visualization systems for use in
groundwater resource assessment, management and forecasting
 Establishment of effective and agreed data sharing and dissemination
 A clear definition of roles and responsibilities at the different management levels
 Ensuring the use of well-trained staff and the allocation of adequate financial
resources

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Establishment of
monitoring facilities

Density of the monitoring network

and the frequency of monitoring

Data storage and

retrieval system

Retrievable and available for

further analysis

Dependent on the resource

management level

Processing and
analysis systems

Water resource assessment,

management and forecasting

Simple forecasting, or Dependent on the resource

Complex integrated management level
surface water and
groundwater models

Sharing of data an
dissemination

Between management levels

Between management levels

and stakeholders

Data/information enquiry
systems

Clear definition of Training and financial

roles and resources
responsibilities

Figure A4.2 Components of a monitoring system

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Attachment 5: Groundwater Maps Lower Basin

Figure A5.1: Distribution of Deep Tubewells in Lower Basin

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure A5.2: Distribution of Shallow Tubewells in Lower Basin

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure A5.3: Pre-Monsoon and Post Monsoon Depth to Water Table Rautahat
District

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 3 – Groundwater

Figure A5.4: Pre and Post Monsoon Depth to Water Table Sarlahi District

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Appendix 4

Agriculture

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION .............................................................. 1

A. Current Agriculture Systems ......................................................................................... 1
B. Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security....................................................... 2
C. Irrigation ........................................................................................................................ 2
D. Surface Water Resources ............................................................................................. 3
E. Ground Water Resources ............................................................................................. 3

II. OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL AND WATER POLICIES................................................... 5

A. Background ................................................................................................................... 5
B. Past Policy Reforms...................................................................................................... 7
C. Agriculture in the Third Three-Year Interim Plan (TYIP)............................................... 8
D. Challenges of Irrigation Development........................................................................... 8
E. Improved Approaches for Irrigation Development ........................................................ 9
F. Sector Strategy ........................................................................................................... 10
G. Effectiveness of the Policies ....................................................................................... 11

III. AGRICULTURE RESEARCH................................................................................................. 12

A. Agronomy Research ................................................................................................... 12
1. Objectives of Agronomy Research ........................................................................ 12
2. Research Strategies............................................................................................... 12
3. Current Research and Crop Diversification ........................................................... 13

IV. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS............................................................................ 15

A. Organizational Structure and Human Resources ....................................................... 15
B. Farmer’s Group Approach .......................................................................................... 15
C. Leadership and Capacity ............................................................................................ 16
D. Partnership and Funding............................................................................................. 16
E. Personnel Management and Incentives ..................................................................... 16
F. Lack of Public Resources ........................................................................................... 17
G. Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Experience Sharing......................................... 17
H. Logistical Support and Extension Materials ................................................................ 17
I. Knowledge Management ............................................................................................ 17
J. Changing Needs of Farmers....................................................................................... 18
K. Services for the Disadvantaged .................................................................................. 18
L. Women Farmers ......................................................................................................... 18

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

V. BAGMATI RIVER BASIN ....................................................................................................... 19

A. Climate ........................................................................................................................ 19
B. Soils ............................................................................................................................ 19
C. Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 20
D. Cropping Practice and Input Use ................................................................................ 21
E. Land Use..................................................................................................................... 24
F. Crops........................................................................................................................... 24
G. Seasons ...................................................................................................................... 24
H. Cropping Patterns ....................................................................................................... 24
I. Crop Calendar............................................................................................................. 26
J. Fertilizers..................................................................................................................... 28
K. Improved Seeds .......................................................................................................... 28
L. Agricultural Credit........................................................................................................ 29
M. Fruit Cultivation and Agri-business ............................................................................. 30
N. Cost of Cultivation of Major Crops .............................................................................. 31
O. Farm Budget Analysis ................................................................................................. 39

VI. NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY ............................................... 40

A. Middle and Upper Bagmati Basin ............................................................................... 40
1. Tomato (Organic/Inorganic) Production in Plastic Poly-houses ............................ 40
2. Mushroom Production in Plastic Poly-houses........................................................ 40
3. Fish Ponds ............................................................................................................. 43
B. Lower Bagmati Basin .................................................................................................. 43
1. Sugarcane (High Yielding Variety) ......................................................................... 43
2. Vegetables ............................................................................................................. 43
3. Fish Production ...................................................................................................... 43

VII. STRATEGIES TO INCREASE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION........................................... 47

A. Agriculture Prospective Plan (APP) for Nepal ............................................................ 47
B. Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects of Crop Diversification .............................. 48
1. Policy Constraints .................................................................................................. 48
2. Institutional Constraints.......................................................................................... 48
3. Regulatory Constraints........................................................................................... 49
4. Other Miscellaneous Constraints ........................................................................... 49
C. Opportunities and Prospects....................................................................................... 49
D. Government Policies and Strategies for Crop Diversification ..................................... 49
E. Organization and Management of BIP and DADOs ................................................... 50

VIII. CROPPING PATTERNS AND ANTICIPATED CROP YIELDS ............................................. 52

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

A. Lower Bagmati River Basin......................................................................................... 52

IX. Case Studies .......................................................................................................................... 54

A. Case Study (1): Assessment based on Irrigated Area................................................ 54
B. Case Study (2): Pricing ............................................................................................... 54
Case Study (3): Building Research Capacity and Dissemination in India......................... 54
C. Case Study (4): Sunsari Morang Project, Nepal......................................................... 56
D. Case Study (5): Sikta Irrigation Project, Nepal ........................................................... 56
1. Background ............................................................................................................ 56
2. Project Area ........................................................................................................... 57
3. Water Resources ................................................................................................... 57
4. Case Study (6): Dispute Management in Farmer’s Managed Irrigation System:
Geya Danda Irrigation System of Eastern Nepal ........................................................... 58

List of Figures
Figure 1: Principal Crops by District ................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Comparison of Fertilizer Prices in India and Nepal (NRs/kg).......................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1: Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops (2011/12) ....................................................... 1

Table 2: Status of Irrigation Development in Nepal.......................................................................... 3
Table 3: Irrigated Area developed during the Different Plan Periods (ha) ....................................... 4
Table 4: Cereal Cropping by District (2011-2012).......................................................................... 22
Table 5: Other Cropping by District 2011-2012.............................................................................. 23
Table 6: Land use and Land Cover in the Bagmati River Basin .................................................... 24
Table 7: Cropping Patterns of the Bagmati Basin .......................................................................... 26
Table 8: Crop Calendar for Main Cereal Crops Cultivated in Nepal .............................................. 27
Table 9: Costs of Production of Paddy in Kathmandu.................................................................... 31
Table 10: Costs of Irrigated Wheat in Kathmandu Valley .............................................................. 32
Table 11: Farm Budget of Maize Rainfed in Kathmandu Valley .................................................... 33
Table 12: Farm Budget of Paddy Irrigated in Lower Bagmati ........................................................ 34
Table 13: Crop Budget of Irrigated Wheat in Lower Bagmati......................................................... 35
Table 14: Crop Budget of Irrigated Maize in Lower Bagmati ......................................................... 36
Table 15: Crop Budget of Sugarcane in Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts ........................................ 37
Table 16: Cost of Production of Button Mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) in Polyhouses (size=500
2
m ) in Kathmandu ........................................................................................................................... 38
Table 17: Cost of Production of Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) (based on 1,000 kg of
paddy straw) in Kathmandu............................................................................................................ 39
Table 18: Present Level of Irrigation Development in Bagmati River Basin................................... 39
Table 19: Utility Value of Mushroom Species................................................................................. 41

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page iii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 20: Types of Cultivated Mushroom....................................................................................... 41

Table 21: Average Profitability of Rice per Hectare 2009/10 ......................................................... 46
Table 22: Cropping Changes Lower Bagmati ................................................................................ 53

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page iv

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

I. OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION

A. Current Agriculture Systems

1. Nepal is situated between China in the north and India in the east, south and west,
and located within the latitude 26º22’ to 30º27’ north and longitude 80º04’ to 88º12’ east
and it occupies large part of central Himalayas and its foothills, with a total area of 147,181
km2. Approximately 35% of the land is mountainous with rugged topography, hills
represent about 42% and the Terai (Plain) covers the remaining 23% of the area. Elevation
varies from 60 m to 8,848 m above mean sea level and increases from south to north.
Total population of the country is 26,494,504 with the population density of 180 persons
per km2 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011).

2. Agriculture is the main source of food, income and employment for majority of the
people in Nepal. About 66% of the population depends on agriculture for livelihood. It
contributes 35% to the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The annual agricultural
growth rate is 4.51% (MoF, Economic Survey 2011/12). The features of Nepalese
agriculture are unique in the sense of its complex nature of farming systems that are
intertwined among the multiplicity of enterprises of crops, livestock, poultry, vegetables,
fruits, spices, fisheries, agro-forestry and non-timber forest products. The majority of the
farmers produce what they consume, and consume what they produce.

3. The productivity and competitiveness of the agriculture sector are low. The
adoption of improved technologies is limited and even though most cultivated area is
devoted to cereals, there is a growing food trade deficit and malnutrition is high. Some
subsectors such as dairy processing, poultry, tea, vegetable seeds and fisheries show
dynamism, but overall, these positive signs are not yet sufficient to lift a large number of
people engaged in agriculture out of poverty and make a dramatic change in reducing
malnutrition and assure food security of the nation.

4. The average farm size is 0.7 ha with 52.7% landholdings of size less than 0.5 ha
(Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010). Rice, maize, wheat, millet and barley are the
major cereals grown. Rice-based cropping pattern is popular in the lowland irrigated
areas where as maize and millet are mostly grown in the unirrigated uplands. Oilseeds,
pulses, sugarcane and potato are the other important crops. Different fruits and
vegetables are cultivated in summer and winter seasons in different physiographic
regions. Aquaculture is popular in the southern Terai flat land and river systems
originating mostly from the Himalayas harbor indigenous fish species. Total cultivated
land is 3,091,000 ha, which is 21% (Year Book 2012) of the total area of the country. The
area, production and yield of major crops are shown in Table 1 and crop distribution in
Figure 1.

Table 1: Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops (2011/12)

Crops Area (ha) Production (T) Yield (kg/ha)
Paddy 1531,493 5,072,248 3,312
Maize 871,387 2,179,414 2,501
Wheat 765,317 1,846,142 2,412
Millet 278,030 315,067 1,133
Barley 27,966 34,830 1,246
Pulses 334,323 319,770 956
Oilseed 214,835 179,145 834
Potato 190,250 2,584,301 13,584
Vegetables 245,037 3,298,816 13,463
Sugarcane 64,472 2,930,047 45,447
Source: MoAD, Year Book 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Figure 1: Principal Crops by District

Source: Special Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007)

B. Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security

5. The impacts of climate change on the livelihoods of the poorest of the poor in
Nepal would be substantial (IPCC, 2001c). There is large income and consumption
disparity in the country. The poorest 20% of the population consume only 6.2% of the
resources; on the other hand, the richest 20% of the population consume about 53.3% of
the resources (CBS, 2004). Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change in
Nepal. The overall agriculture production system is very traditional, unmanaged and is
too slow to adopt new technology. Changes in water availability in the monsoon, pre-
monsoon and the post-monsoon season have direct impact on the Nepalese agriculture.

C. Irrigation

6. Until 1950s, irrigation development in Nepal was a result of farmers’ own initiation
and investment in the construction and management of irrigation systems. Such irrigation
systems are referred to as farmer managed irrigation systems (FMISs). It is estimated
that about 70% of the country's irrigated area is covered by such systems, which make a
substantial contribution to the national economy. Besides this, with the start of first five-
year plan in 1957, the government also started development of irrigation in planned way.
Since then several medium and major irrigation systems were developed with the
assistance of donor agencies. Following table shows present status of irrigation
development in Nepal.

7. At present irrigation water is provided to approximately 42% of net cultivated land

which forms about 62% of net irrigable area. About 41% of net irrigated area is being
supplied with year round irrigation water. It is estimated that existing irrigation systems
are the basis for approximately 33% of the current agricultural production of the country
(Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Nepal, 2001).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

8. The percentage of irrigated areas receiving irrigation service varies over the
cropping seasons, which in turn depends on the operational status of the irrigation
infrastructure and intensification of management activities deployed to manage water. In
general, in agency managed irrigation systems (AMISs), coverage of irrigation service for
irrigating monsoon paddy varies between 52 and 77%, while for winter crops it varies
between 20 and 40% (refer to Table 2). Total irrigated area till the second year of the
Three Year Interim Plan (2010/11-2012/13) is 1,311,960 ha (refer to Table 3).

Table 2: Status of Irrigation Development in Nepal

Overall Total Total

Cultivated Irrigable Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated
Geographic Area Area Area As % of Area as% of as% of
Region '000 ha '000 ha '000 ha Cultivated '000 ha Irrigated Cultivated
Terai 1,360 1,338 889 65% 368 41% 27%
Hill 1,054 369 167 16% 66 39% 6%
Mountain 227 60 48 21% 18 38% 8%
Total 2,642 1,766 1,104 42% 452 41% 17%
Source: WECS (2001) 'Water Resources Strategy', Draft, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat,
HMGN, Nepal and DOI (2010)

D. Surface Water Resources

9. In Nepal, the water resources are regarded us the key strategic natural resource
having the potential to be the catalyst for all round development and economic growth of
the country. Nepal has a monsoon type climate. The total rainfall varies between 1,000
to 4,000 mm with an annual average of 1,814 mm. More than 75% rainfall occurs during
four months of the monsoon period (June-September). The total annual surface runoff
has been estimated to be 225 billion cubic meters (BCM) (equivalent to over 10,000
cubic meters per capita) of which 12 BCM is estimated to be entering from the upper
catchments located in China, while about 15 BCM has been estimated to be entering into
the Border Rivers between Nepal and India from the tributaries located in the Indian side.

10. The seasonal distribution of flow is extremely varied as low as 1.5% to 2.4% of
total runoff in the months of January, February and March, and as high as 20 to 27% in
the months of July and August for snow fed rivers, while these figures for purely rain fed
rivers are respectively 0.5% to 3% in the months of March, April and May and 20% to
30% in the months of July and August. There are seventeen river basins in the Nepalese
river system covering a total drainage area of 191,007 km2 of which 22% or 42,030 km2
lies in China and 5% or 9,850 km2 is in India. Karnali, Sapta Gandaki and Sapta Koshi
are the major river basins with their origins in the Himalayas and account for around 80%
runoff. The Babai, West Rapti, Bagmati, Kamala and Kankai are medium river basins
accounting for about 7% of the runoff. The southern rivers, with origins in the Siwalik Hill
Range, are Bering, Balan, Khutiya, Pathraiya, Lal Bakaiya, Ratu, Sirsia, Manusmara and
Banganga. These rivers are seasonal with little flows during non-monsoon periods. The
Mahakali and Mechi Rivers form the western and eastern frontiers with India.

E. Ground Water Resources

11. Available information show that a good potential for groundwater extraction exists
specially in the southern plains (Terai) and inner valleys of the hills and mountainous
regions. Much of the Terai physiographic region and some parts of Siwalik valleys are
shallow or deep aquifers, many of which are suitable for exploitation as sources of
irrigation and drinking waters. The annual recharge estimates range from 124 to 685 mm.
The corresponding volume of water available for groundwater abstractions is estimated to
be between 5.8 BCM and 12 BCM, however based on the measurements of the seasonal
fluctuations of the water table in shallow tubewells the groundwater reserve is reported to
be about 8.8 BCM annually.
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 3: Irrigated Area developed during the Different Plan Periods (ha)

Through the DOI’s Intervention (AMIS)

Total
Ground Irrigated
Surface Irrigation Systems Water Additional Area at the
New FMIS Irrigation FMIS Irrigated End of the
Planning Periods Irrigation Improvement Total System Total Traditional Areas Plan Period
Before 1st Five Year Plan 6,228 6,228 6,228 6,228
th
From 1st Five year to 7 Five Year Plan and at
352,076 109,098 461,174 842,988 849,216
the end of Interim Plan (1956/57-1991/92) 381,814
8th Five Year Plan (1992/93-1996/97 146,178 60,223 2,06,401 206,401 1,055,617
9th Five Year Plan (1997/98-2001/02) 29,586 80,879 110,465 36,238 146,703 300,935 65,824 1,121,441
10th Five Year Plan (2002/03-2006/07) 25,504 14,298 39,802 47,683 87,485 286,637 73,187 1,194,628
3 Year Interim Plan (2007/08-2009/10) 11,394 12,434 23,828 46,454 70,282 274,203 57,848 1,252,476
3 Year Interim Plan (2010/11-2012/13)
First Year (2010/2011) 6,799 8,829 15,628 20,120 35,748 265,374 26,919 1,279,395
Second Year (2011/2012) 10,005 15,230 25,235 22,560 47,795 250,144 32,565 1,311,960
Source: Project Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, Department of Irrigation (2013)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

II. OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL AND WATER POLICIES

A. Background

12. In 1955, a thirteen point program largely to safeguard the interest of the farmers
was declared by the government. Then the first five-year development plan was
implemented in 1956. So far, ten five-year periodic plans have already been launched
and three-year interim plan (TYIP) is underway. All the periodic plans have given
agriculture as the top priority sector of the economy and irrigation is the component of
major investment. The need to increase agricultural production through widespread use
of appropriate technologies and inputs and better co-ordination of related line agencies
was always felt by the government. Accordingly, various policies and strategies for
increasing agricultural production (food production) were taken up by the government in
each of five-year and three-year interim plans.

13. Beginning 1988, a number of policy reforms have been introduced emphasizing
participation of user beneficiaries of irrigation development and management. Water
Resources Act (1992), Water Resources Regulation, 1993 and the 1997 amendment of
Irrigation Policy (1992) have attempted to create policy environment to enable and foster
users’ participation in government sector irrigation schemes.

14. Various agricultural policies have been formulated in Nepal since last few years
which are supposed to guide the agricultural development in the country. These consists
of general sectoral level policies, commodity based polices and development programs
and priorities. In this regards key policy documents derived to guide the agriculture
sector development in Nepal are:

 National Agriculture Policy, 2061 (2004)

 Agro-business Promotion Policy, 2064 (2006)
 National Fertilizer Policy, 2058 (2002)
 National Seed Policy, 2056 (2000)
 National Tea Policy, 2057 (2000)
 National Coffee Policy, 2060
 Dairy Development Policy, 2064 (2007)
 Agriculture Bio-diversity Policy, 2063 (2007)
 Trade Policy, 2009

15. Other policy documents related to the agriculture sector at draft stages include:

 Pesticide Policy
 Rangeland Development Policy
 Draft Food Safety Policy
 National Land Use Policy
 Poultry Policy
 Livestock Breeding Policy

16. In addition to these policy documents, periodic plans, long term perspective plans
and national level development priorities set for agriculture development are other
important policy guidelines important to agriculture development in Nepal. Nepal has had
periodic development plans since 1956/57. Since then Nepal has completed 10 periodic
5-year plans and recently two 3-year periodic plans, with one ongoing till 2012/13.
Besides these, Nepal has also witnessed one long term perspective plan named the
Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) 1995/96-2014/15 and one priority based policy named
as National Agriculture Sector Development Priority (NASDP) 2010/11-2014/15.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

17. Of these policy documents, the National Agriculture Policy aims at achieving high
and sustainable economic growth through commercial agriculture system contributing to
food security and poverty reduction. Its main emphasis is on:

 Increased agricultural production and productivity

 Agriculture competitive in regional and world markets through commercialized
agriculture systems, and conserving, promoting and utilizing natural resources
 Environment and bio-diversity

18. Except in one periodic plan where transportation was ranked as first priority, in all
of other periodic plans the agriculture sector was ranked to be the first priority area for
the overall development of the country. The recent periodic plans have major thrust of
poverty alleviation, but have also emphasized agriculture sector developed as a top priority.
The recent plans also emphasize commercialization and agribusiness development of
Nepalese agriculture based on competitiveness with greater participation of private and
cooperative sector. For the marginalized population these plans also aim at to provide
targeted and inclusive development programs.

19. The National Agriculture Sector Development Priority (NASDP) approved by

government of Nepal identified the key priority areas in agriculture for the medium-term,
with the possibility of attracting support of different development partners working in
Nepal. The NASDP has emphasized broad based agricultural development and food
security. Delivery of demand-led services, promoting participation of the private sector in
the areas of their comparative advantages, has been underlined. Altogether, eight priority
outcomes are proposed. Under these priorities, 29 subsequent outputs are identified.

20. However, there are the critics that these policies, plans and programs have been
effective in Nepal to bring the desired and planed outputs. They lacked proper supporting
program, budget, targets and commitments to effective implementation. Plans lacked
adequate budget provisions and human resources development and they had ineffective
monitoring mechanism. As a result of all these actual implementation of all these well
designed policies and plans remained very poor.

21. Water resource planning approach in the country had been concentrated at sub-
sector level and investment decisions made on a project by project basis. This fragmented
manner of planning by different government organizations has so far, failed to address the
complex and interrelated issues. Multiple users: agriculture, domestic water agencies and
industry - utilize the water resources of each river basin without any special attention to
river basin water availability. The groundwater resource in the Terai plains is grossly
under-utilized and needs legislative measures for its planned development and
management. Details about issues, and constraints, trade-offs about alternative choices
and various alternatives are to be analyzed under the ongoing national water resources
strategy formulation.

22. The potential issues related to irrigated agriculture include: (i) developed irrigation
facilities not utilized to the optimum; (ii) lack of basic inputs; (iii) organization and
management deficiency leading to inefficient program implementation; (iv) problem of
cost recovery in government irrigation schemes; (v) high capital cost requirements for
physical infrastructure development; (vi) problem of river management; (vii) absence of
objective investment criteria in the development of irrigated agriculture; and (viii) lack of
cooperation among the users and government agencies; etc.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

23. Development of irrigation is a complex socio-technical phenomenon. It involves

collective action by the people and includes multiple activities including the maintenance
of irrigation infrastructure, organizing local community, and delivering water to users for
meeting crop water requirement. Varying demand and supply of irrigation water over
time and space has further increased complexity in managing irrigation systems.

24. Despite the development of large number of irrigation systems, above-mentioned

socio-technical complexities in managing irrigation systems led Nepal's agricultural
growth rate unsatisfactory. Once a food grain exporting country, Nepal has turned into
net importer of food grain since the beginning of 1980s (DOI, 1990).1 What is alarming is
the fact that the country’s population is increasing at a rate of 1.35% (CBS, 2011)2, while
national food production is increasing only at the rate of 1.3%. Poor management and
unsatisfactory water utilization efficiency of Nepal’s irrigation systems are in part some of
the causes for the dismal performance of the irrigated agriculture (NPC, 1998).3

B. Past Policy Reforms

25. Since the mid-1980s, due to dismal performance of Nepal's irrigated agricultural
sector, the government shifted its attention from the construction of large and medium
scale irrigation systems to the rehabilitation and improvement of FMISs. Accordingly, the
government brought out a new irrigation policy in 1989, which was revised in 1997. The
new irrigation policy clearly emphasized the participatory and demand-driven approach.
The basic concept of this participatory approach is that greater farmer participation in all
stages of irrigation development increases the farmers' sense of ownership and control
over the system, which ultimately leads to better use of the scarce water resources and
increased agricultural production.

26. With this notion of participatory approach, since the early 1990s, the government
also started management transfer program of AMISs to respective users. The program is
continuing at present.

27. Further, in 1995, the government brought out a 20-year Agricultural Perspective
Plan (APP) prepared by the Planning Commission of Nepal which is expected to
accelerate Nepal's agricultural growth rates of the time from 3 to 5% per annum. The
APP considers irrigation as one of the prime inputs for agricultural development. The
APP emphasizes development of year round irrigation through improvement of existing
FMISs and development of shallow tube wells, especially in Terai. Conjunctive use of
both surface water and groundwater in order to minimize the undesirable physical,
environmental and economic effects of each solution and to optimize the water demand /
supply balance was looked also looked in to.

28. The APP emphasized agriculture-led growth strategy for poverty reduction and
overall economic development without adverse effect to environment. It focused on
acceleration of sustainable high growth path of agriculture sector with poverty reduction
as its mission based on rapid transformation of agriculture that would propel growth even
in the non-agricultural sectors through the multiplier effects.

1
DOI (1990) ‘Master plan for irrigation development in Nepal, Cycle 2, Main report’, prepared by Canadian
International Water and Energy Consultants in association with East Consult (P) Ltd, Kathmandu, Nepal.
2
CBS (2011) Population Census of Nepal 2011, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission
Secretariat, Govt. of Nepal.
3
NPC (1997) Concept paper for the ninth plan 1998-2002, (Nawaun yojanako aadharpatra BS 2054-2059,
2054), National Planning Commission Secretariat, HMGN, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

29. The APP strategy is technology-driven. Its priority inputs cover fertilizer, irrigation,
roads, electrification and technology. It emphasizes livestock, high-value crops, agri-
business and forestry as its priority outputs. APP also considered on special needs of
small farmers vs. large farmers and cooperatives and private sector as important drives
for agricultural development in Nepal.

30. Recently, in order to manage Nepal's available water resources in a sustainable

manner, the government also brought out a national strategy for water resources
development (National Water Resources Strategy), which is considered as a comprehensive
umbrella policy for the water sector.

C. Agriculture in the Third Three-Year Interim Plan (TYIP)

31. The government has come up with a draft approach paper of the upcoming Three
Year Interim Plan (TYIP) FY2014-FY2016, which was endorsed by the National
Development Council (NPC). The NPC will publish a final version of the approach paper
before the Finance Minister unveils the budget for FY2014. It will be the third interim plan
(previously, TYIP FY2008-FY2010 and TYIP FY2010-FY2013) as the country is unable
to have a full five year plan due to the protracted political transition. The NPC publishes a
detailed TYIP after few months of the approach paper’s, which needs to be endorsed by
the cabinet. The government is targeting an average annual growth rate of 6.0% over the
next three years, with agriculture sector growth and non-agriculture sector growth targeted
at 4.5% and 6.7%, respectively.

D. Challenges of Irrigation Development

32. Despite greater emphasis on the development of year round irrigation through
participatory and demand driven approach, performance of irrigated agriculture in terms
of cropping intensity and crop yield is still not up to the satisfactory level. The reasons
are several, as discussed below.

33. There is lack of clear-cut guideline in both the policy and implementation defining
whether irrigation water is a social or an economic good. Although the policy hints that
irrigation water is an economic good, neither there are mechanisms for collecting water
taxes from the users, nor there exist any legal enforcement for this. As a result of this, in
practice, irrigation water is treated as a social good. This policy dilemma has hampered
effective maintenance of irrigation systems, which in turn is hampering irrigation services
to farmers.

34. Most of the surface irrigation systems in Nepal are fed by medium or small rivers,
with limited water resources available during the lean season insufficient for year round
irrigation. Development of year round irrigation through these systems is not possible
unless storage reservoirs are developed.

35. Although Nepal has ample opportunities in developing year round irrigation by
utilizing waters either from the major river systems or through inter basin transfer,
actualization of such projects in Nepal has remained a dream so far. Despite these
opportunities, many of the donors are reluctant to fund these projects due to riparian
concern. Large amounts of resources required to develop such project combined with
long gestation period add another constraint in the process. As a result, vast tracks of
country's cultivated lands remain un-irrigated and at the same time country's water
resources is flowing downstream unutilized. Over the years, there is a growing concern
about the broader water security issue among the Nepalese people.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

36. People's participation has remained one of the key policy tools in the
development of country's irrigated agriculture. Nepal's irrigation policy demand people's
participation in planning, design and also in sharing capital cost for infrastructure
development. However, past experiences suggest that people's participation in sharing
capital cost of infrastructure has not been fully satisfactory. As poverty alleviation has
remained one of the national goals of irrigation development, raising a part of capital cost
from the local community who already live below the poverty line does not seem socially
justifiable.

37. The APP emphasizes development of groundwater for year round irrigation,
especially in Terai. Despite great effort in this line, the groundwater development has not
been very satisfactory. The reasons are two folds. First, removal of subsidy on
development of groundwater might have de-accelerated the demand for tube wells.
Second, the high operating cost of tube well mainly due to the price hike of diesel and
electricity has made farmers reluctant for its development and extensive use of
groundwater for irrigation in developed areas.

38. In addition to the above mentioned the following constraints were also identified:

 Reorientation of supply-driven approach4

 Lack of effective implementation of APP
 Farmer's dependency syndromes and sustainability5
 Weak institutional capability
 Symbiotic relationship between agriculture and irrigation (weak linkages)
 Poor participation of users in irrigation development

39. Unavailability of sufficient funds, stringent covenants associated with donor’s loan
agreements, subsistence farming, and skewed land distributions with very small land
holdings are also identified as constraints for irrigation development.

E. Improved Approaches for Irrigation Development

40. Despite of many challenges, the government is committed to continue irrigation

development programs through improved approaches. Past experiences suggest that
MTEF should focus on following approaches to get better result.

41. It has been widely accepted that farmer managed irrigation systems (FMISs)
have operated better than agency managed irrigation systems (AMISs). Though these
FMISs were fairly sustainable in the past, due to worsening scarcity of water resources,
declining soil fertility and degradation of natural forest at present, many of these FMISs
are incapable of meeting the ever-increasing demands of the people. Recognizing these
constraints, the government is supporting them through several programs. Of these
programs, rehabilitation of FMISs under NISP6, SISP7, and IDP8 has remained very
popular at field level. The large number of requests received by the Department of Irrigation
testifies this. Such programs are very successful in drawing people's participation, and thus
need to be continued.

4
At present, irrigation development is not guided by agricultural development. Thus, it is termed here as
supply driven approach of irrigation development. There is a need to promote agriculture driven irrigation
development approach, which is termed here as demand driven approach.
5
Increasing rate of external intervention on irrigation, especially on FMISs, has raised concerns about the
increasing dependency of farmers on the government.
6
Nepal Irrigation Sector Project (NISP) funded by the World Bank
7
Second Irrigation Sector Project (SISP) funded by the Asian Development Bank
8
Irrigation Development Project (IDP) funded by the European Union

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

42. While the irrigation programs with short gestation periods should be given top
most priority, at the same time, development of surface irrigation systems from large
rivers and from multipurpose storage should be initiated. Although such projects are
capital intensive, they are the real solution for long term year round irrigation of the Terai
for country's food security.

43. The fundamental basis of APP and its strategy for irrigation (emphasis on use of
groundwater) has been reconfirmed by recent studies, but some of the implementation
actions (like subsidy on shallow tube wells) need revision. Although intensification of
agricultural production using ground water appears to be financially viable, greater
commercialization of agriculture products is needed to enhance farmer's investment on
tube wells. This requires an integrated approach to agriculture.

44. Past experiences suggest that people's participation in sharing capital cost of
irrigation infrastructure has not been satisfactory. As poverty alleviation has remained
one of the national goal (or irrigation development), raising a part of capital cost from the
local community already living below the poverty line, does not seem socially justifiable.
Thus, there is a need to minimize people's participation in sharing capital cost of
irrigation infrastructure, while their active participation in planning and design of irrigation
infrastructure need to be further promoted.

45. In order to minimize the operating cost of tube wells, ground water needs to be
developed along with the present surface irrigation systems by utilizing the existing
infrastructures and institutions. By doing so, the operating cost of the tube wells could be
reduced to a level acceptable to the farmers, and at the same time year round irrigation
can be assured. Balanced use of water from all the sources can help provide throughout
the year irrigation.

F. Sector Strategy

46. In order to meet the proposed objectives and targets of irrigation development,
following strategies will be adopted:

(i) Following APP, improve management of existing FMISs and AMISs through
their physical rehabilitation and capacity building of water users associations.
(ii) Maximize development of ground water for year round irrigation along with
surface irrigation systems for consumptive use.
(iii) Integrate irrigation planning and management with agriculture development.
(iv) Develop country's irrigation water use plan.
(v) Initiate inter-basin transfer projects, storage projects and ponds (in hills) to
develop year round irrigation.
(vi) Strengthen WUA capacity for planning, implementation and management of
irrigation system.
(vii) Formulate and Implement effective legal mechanism for recovering the
irrigation service fee from the farmers
(viii) Implement the concept of river basin planning for irrigation development
(ix) A detailed analysis of past weaknesses in the areas of policy and institutions
(x) Changes required for achieving the targeted high growth rate in agriculture
are noted in the policy and institutional matrix.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

47. In irrigation the following issues have been identified:

 Developed irrigation facilities not utilized to the optimum/lack of basic inputs

 Organization and management deficiency
 Problem of cost recovery, adequate operation and maintenance
 Problem of high cost of irrigation projects
 Lack of objective criteria for guiding investment in irrigation development
 River management
 Adoption of new technology/poor research base.

G. Effectiveness of the Policies

48. The policies in the previous sections can be assessed in terms of their
effectiveness (i) to assist in boosting the national economy by increasing agricultural
production by specializing cropping areas on topographical basis; (ii) to increase overall
production and productivity for meeting national demand for food; (iii) to increase
production and productivity of raw materials required for the development of agro-based
industries; (iv) to create opportunities for productive employment for a large number of
small and marginal farmers; and (v) to maintain balance between agricultural development
and environmental protection.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

III. AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

A. Agronomy Research

49. Agronomy research was established to develop improved varieties of different

field crops and their suitable agronomical package of practices. In the past, agronomy
research acted as the parental body of different commodity crop programs such as rice,
wheat, maize, grain legumes, oilseeds, hill crops, sugarcane and tobacco along with
cropping system and production programs. Then, different crop commodity program
centers (rice, maize, wheat, jute, sugarcane, cotton, oilseeds, were established in
different agro-climatic locations of the country in the year 1972 (2029 B.S.). With the
establishment of Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) and National Agricultural
Research Institute (NARI), the mandate and objectives of the agronomy division has
been revised recently. Currently, the division is involved in agronomical research in
different crops, and also, collaborates with crop commodity research programs for testing
of location specific technologies for the mid-hills of Nepal.

1. Objectives of Agronomy Research

50. The objective of agronomy research include:

(i) To help develop national policy, guidelines and priority for agronomical
research in different crops.
(ii) To develop agronomical technologies, generate viable cropping systems
and collaborate with crop commodity programs for testing technologies for
the recommendation domain of mid hill regimes.
(iii) To conduct and lead the research on weed science research in various
crops including weed survey, identification, distribution and weed control
research regimes in different crops.
(iv) To take a lead role in lentil and soybean research for the mid-hills of Nepal
(v) To verify agronomical technologies developed under its command areas in
collaboration with farmers, public and private partners in rice and maize-
based cropping systems.
(vi) To carryout tillage and soil conservation research in various crops.
(vii) To produce source seeds (Foundation seed) of rice, wheat, lentil, and
soybean crop varieties.
(viii) To organize training, visits and field days in collaboration with the concerned
public and private partners.

2. Research Strategies

51. The overall norms of agronomic research and/or allocation of resources in

different types of agronomical research in the Agronomy Division as well as in different
Commodity Research Programs on fields crops will be gradually oriented towards three
different categories of research as follows:

 Basic Agronomic Research - 20%

 Applied Agronomic Research - 50%
 Adaptive Agronomic Research on rice and maize cropping systems - 30%.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

52. Basic agriculture research projects will be developed for on station research in
areas like tillage and soil conservation, residual moisture conservation, dry farming, etc.

53. Applied research will be focused on multiple cropping systems under rice and
maize based cropping systems, crop rotation, crops diversification systems, weed
management, rain-fed agriculture and agro-forestry research.

54. Adaptive collaborative research on resource conservation technologies, technology

verification research in various crops, will be done through outreach research sites of the
country along with other disciplinary divisions of NARC to strongly support their ultimate
validation, adoption, promotion and mass dissemination among the farmers at large.

3. Current Research and Crop Diversification

55. Agricultural research is, depending upon the nature of the problem, basically a
long-, medium-, or short-term activity that needs an assured source of funding. More
than 60% of the investment in agricultural research is carried through the Nepal
Agricultural Research Council (NARC). Despite the priority given to this sector, research
in the past heavily depended on donor funding, which created a sense of false security
for as long as it continued. NARC has gone through this situation, and once the donor
funding terminated, it had to overstretch its operational budget to support staff expenses,
keeping scientists idle in the research centers and laboratories. Lack of adequate
funding and the required facilities at research establishments, and poor staff morale due
to lack of incentives are factors contributing to the poor performance of research.

56. Most past efforts have provided the lesson that unless programs are demand-
driven with greater beneficiary participation, they remain unsustainable. As a result, a
shift in the design and implementation process is emerging in NARC. NARC is
developing its research programs by setting priorities based on thematic areas. The
research problems are discussed at meetings of regional and district technical working
groups, where the stakeholders/farmers, extension personnel, non-governmental
organizations participate in the discussion. For preparing research proposals, NARC has
organized its research program into five broad thematic areas:

 Crops and horticulture

 Livestock and fishery
 Natural resource management and climate change
 Biotechnology
 Outreach and technology dissemination

57. Crop and horticulture research, particularly involving crops like rice, maize,
wheat, finger millet, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and potatoes, plays a major role in
improving food security. Experience has shown that conventional food crops alone will
not resolve the increasing food and nutrition insecurity looming large in the hills and
mountains. In these areas, indigenous food crops could contribute to improving food
security if given due priority for research and development.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

58. The crop and horticulture research program will broadly focus on crop
improvement, on-farm crop management, market and value chain development, and
policy issues. The important components of thematic focus are as follows:

(i) Theme 1: Improving crop varieties

a. Germplasm collection, maintenance, and utilization for food, fiber, legume,
fruit, and vegetable crops
b. Development of suitable high-yielding varieties of major food crops such
as rice, wheat, and maize, and minor crops such as millets, barley, and
buckwheat through selection and hybridization to ensure food security
c. Enhancement of productivity of oilseeds, and winter and summer legumes
with emphasis on tolerance to drought and other stresses
d. Variety improvement of cash crops such as tea, coffee, cardamom,
sugarcane, ginger, and jute through selection and hybridization for enhancing
quality production and productivity
e. Generation and promotion of off-season vegetable- and floriculture-
related technologies
(ii) Theme 2: On-farm crop management and improvement of agronomic practices
a. Development of integrated crop management, including integrated pest/
weed management and integrated plant nutrient management practices
b. Development of cost-effective integrated crop management package of
practices
c. Development of package of practices for organic farming
d. Strengthening of farm mechanization operations, including reduced tillage
e. Dissemination of technology for seed/sapling production and management
(iii) Theme 3: Marketing and value chain development
a. Development and scale-up of postharvest technologies, including drying,
processing, and value-addition techniques
b. Generation of technology for value addition on non-timber forest products,
including medicinal and aromatic plants
c. Study of national and international markets for exportable agricultural
products, including quality demanded by the markets
d. Review of the government’s export policies, suggesting appropriate
actions to increase value of exports

59. All the proposed programs for intervention are related to enhancement of
agricultural productivity and promotion of commercial agriculture to solve the twin
scourges of nutrition/food insecurity and poverty by developing technologies without
disturbing ecological balance. The programs for intervention identified in this report not
only conform to government policies and priority but are also the priority concerns of
donors operating in the country.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

IV. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS

60. During the last six decades of agriculture development, various initiatives have
been publicly financed with the support of international development partners. Several
experiments were also conducted with different approaches specific to the donor-
assisted projects that were implemented throughout the country. These projects varied in
terms of geographical coverage of districts, the size of the funding amounts, and the
number of project components. However, they also had commonalities such that all
projects had agriculture and natural resources components, they tested the approaches
for services delivery, implemented income generating activities through knowledge and
skills development, had external advisors with varying experience levels, were implemented
for a time-bound period, developed local infrastructures, and were aimed at raising the
standards of living of the beneficiaries.

61. The Nepalese agricultural extension system is characterized by the public

services delivery dominated by conventional approaches to advise agricultural producers
and the stakeholders. After several experiments with different approaches, the government
has resorted to the conventional one, working through Farmers’ Groups (FGs).

62. The Nepalese agricultural extension system is still conventional as characterized

by the notion and practice of research generating the technologies which extension
passes on and the farmers hopefully adopting these technologies. Experiences in Nepal
have shown that the present system is old-fashioned and not suited to farmers’ current
needs, priorities and demands. As a result, the present day objectives of food security,
poverty reduction, commercialization, competitiveness, inclusive services, and natural
resources management for sustainable livelihoods improvement are difficult to achieve.
Features of such a conventional system are discussed in the following sections.

A. Organizational Structure and Human Resources

63. The public sector is the major extension service provider in Nepal. The
Department of Agriculture (DOA) is the responsible institution for extension services
provision. In all 75 districts of the country the District Agriculture Development Offices
(DADOs) are respectively designated for agriculture extension services. The strength of
the manpower present at each office varies between those located in mountains, hills
and Terai districts. In the agriculture subsector, the number of Agriculture Service
Centers (ASCs) located at the sub-district level are fixed: 4 each in the Terai and
mountains, and six in the mid hill districts. This is irrespective of the number of farm
households, scale of commercialization, agricultural area covered, the types of crops
grown, the level of poverty faced, access to information and connectivity, existence of
rural infrastructures, and so forth. Farmers can visit the ASCs to seek advice, and
extension workers do not have to make regular schedule to visit them, except for a
definite purpose of their own. The total number of ASCs is 378 throughout the country.
Earlier the number of service centers was in correspondence with the number of Ilaka in
the district, but this number has changed from time to time. The service centers are
headed by JTs (Junior Technicians) or JTAs (Junior Technical Assistants). Farmers visit
agriculture service centers, often located in different places, separately to seek advice
they require.

B. Farmer’s Group Approach

64. The government has adopted the farmers’ group approach of extension service
delivery for reasons of cost effectiveness, group learning and joint decision making. To
access government services, farmers are required to be organized into such groups

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

having persons of similar interest in enterprise types. They are advised by extension
workers to conduct regular monthly meetings and to raise welfare funds. The JT/JTA
contact FGs to select candidates from among farmers to make use of available external
trainings, to conduct demonstrations, to participate in agricultural tours and in other
activities offered under government funding. These groups ultimately graduate into
cooperatives as formal institutions and get operated following business-like operations
and for purposes of accessing benefits provided to cooperatives from the government.

C. Leadership and Capacity

65. District, region and department levels are headed not by extension personnel but
by any of the officials of the DOA. Some of the appointees happen to be recent recruits
and thus of limited experience in agricultural extension. In the district, other subject matter
specialists are also posted. They represent various technical areas/fields including
horticulture, agronomy, plant protection, agricultural economics, fisheries and agricultural
extension. The required entry level is a graduate in agriculture-related sciences or by
promotion from JT level. The extension advice, even today, is related primarily to new
technologies for higher productivity without much regard to aspects such as profitability,
sustainability of production, post-harvest operations, grading, packaging and marketing.
There exists also a lack of information on quality standards and marketing management
due to the lack of expertise among the extension workers themselves. The front line
extension workers are mainly the JTAs and JTs in the ASCs who hold respectively
mainly high school (some with JTA training) and intermediate level qualifications from the
vocational school and agricultural colleges. The needs, priorities and demands of the
farmers for improved farming thus remain unmet by the available extension work force in
the country. There is a narrow focus of the extension service and the technical capacity
of the extension system is inadequate to meet farmers’ demands for agribusiness
development, commercialization, diversification and natural resources management.

D. Partnership and Funding

66. At the local level, funding for extension support is very limited. Extension staff do
not have adequate resources for their full time engagement without forging partnerships
with the Village Development Committees (VDCs), or the District Development
Committees (DDCs), NGOs, farmers groups, and other government and private sector
stakeholders. There is generally difficulty in finding partners having the resources to
properly address farmers’ needs. In the absence of having elected local bodies, JTs/
JTAs have the added responsibility to represent as members of the VDCs pursuant to
the relevant Government decision.

E. Personnel Management and Incentives

67. There exist 11 technical specialties (called the faculties) that make up the
agriculture extension services. Entry levels, promotion and transfers have to be managed
within the specific technical area to which an individual belongs. Poor remuneration
packages, frequent transfers and limited opportunities for higher level studies for career
development are problems facing extension staff. The Civil Service Act is one that is
applicable to all types of government employees, excepting the health personnel.

68. There exists token field allowances available for the field staff such as the JTs
and JTAs, but these are insufficient to fully motivate them. As well, often their transfers
do not relate to the earlier experiences and an individual’s capacities. There is also the
absence of clear job descriptions for the employees as well as career development paths
that are transparent and based on a scientific performance evaluation system.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

F. Lack of Public Resources

69. To satisfy political demands equally among parties, extension programs tend to
focus coverage over the entire districts of the country. This approach distributes limited
public funds available to all ASCs rendering a range of extension packages of inputs,
trainings, marketing, etc., which can be ineffective in isolation. The DADOs find no better
alternative than to allocate at least some activities to each ASC for engaging JTs/JTAs.

G. Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Experience Sharing

70. Extension workers have been trained in some of the tools and techniques useful in
extension work, which includes areas such as participatory rural appraisal, problem
census/problem solving, projectization, project concept note preparation, log-framing,
proposal writing, bottom-up planning, participatory monitoring and evaluation, etc. A needs
assessment is normally carried out at the FG-level one year in advance for use in planning
during the following year but there is no assurance that planned activities are carried out
and funds committed for implementing these from the government. There is also little
flexibility for articulating programs and funds based on farmers’ priorities and needs.

71. The government provides the ceiling for funds allocated each year and the district
council approves an annual extension program based on the availability of funds
according to the devolution principles. The extension programs are then translated into
activities that form the targets for each ASC annually. Monthly reports are submitted to
the district by the ASC and districts forward them to the region, and the region to the
department with limited feedback from the supervisors. Joint planning and priority setting
between and with research, education, and client groups is generally absent within the
extension system. Client surveys, diagnostic studies, program evaluation and impact
assessments are also not built into the system. As well, indigenous knowledge of the
producers is not well understood (and not considered) by research and extension.

72. On the positive side, the NARC does organize summer and winter crop oriented
workshops where research and extension personnel can interact. Outreach research
sites of the NARC also provide useful venues for local level information sharing. There
is, however, no joint projects/programs participated in by research, extension and
education arms of the agricultural system leading to their acting as independent and
separate entities. Therefore, extension has not been able to adequately address the
needs, priorities and demands of the agricultural producers. Program areas are scattered
and geographical coverage is large for successful monitoring of extension activities. The
situation is also aggravated by the shortage of vehicles for mobility.

H. Logistical Support and Extension Materials

73. ASCs are ill-equipped with required mobility by field vehicles, teaching aids and
extension materials. In many places the ASCs operate from rented premises or share
facilities with VDCs and others. Extension messages are not often accompanied by
critical support services of inputs, credit and marketing. There are neither means nor
capacities of the extension workers to put up a trial to solve local problems at the
farmers’ fields.

I. Knowledge Management

74. The system does not embrace regular experimentation, reflection and learning for
the improvement in the service delivery system. There are several good practices visible
with farmers groups, which are published and broadcast through radio and television

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

programs but are seldom internalized and replicated. Technical guidelines passed on to
farmers are based mainly on recommendations from NARC but the extension workers do
not have capacity to adapt them for area-specific problems and needs.

J. Changing Needs of Farmers

75. Commercial farmers’ demands are more specialized than input-based demands
of subsistence farmers. There is a mismatch between farmer’s real needs and interests
and project focus.

K. Services for the Disadvantaged

76. The extension system works with a generalized approach to delivering the
services without regards to the types of clientele existing in the farming community.
These different types of service recipients include: small/marginal and big farmers;
agricultural producers devoid of communication infrastructures in the remote areas; and
different indigenous and ethnic communities who historically had poor access to all
services provided by the state. So the extension system should design different
mechanisms and related service inputs to address the needs and priorities of these
different clienteles prevailing in the agriculture sector in the country.

L. Women Farmers

77. Nepalese women farmers work longer hours and contribute more in farming than
their male counterparts. But extension service coverage for women farmers is less than
that for male farmers. The reasons for this include: (i) very few or no frontline female
extension workers in the districts; (ii) male extension workers who are not well-oriented
towards gender sensitive service delivery skills; (iii) cultural values in some societies
prohibit free movement of women out of their homes; (iv) lack of women-friendly
technologies to reduce their drudgery (for example, food processing); (v) additional
responsibilities of child care and household core borne by women compared to the males;
and (vi) lower literacy rate of women farmers than the male farmers.

78. One important extension method to reach women farmers, however, is

noteworthy; the organization of on-the-spot training in the farming community has helped
in the technological empowerment of women. But such events are very limited in number
and the duration for such one-day-trainings happens to be for just few hours.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

V. BAGMATI RIVER BASIN

79. The Bagmati watershed covers an area of 3,500 km2 and drains out of Nepal
across the Indian state of Bihar to reach the Ganges. It, partially or wholly, spreads over
eight districts of the country: Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Makwanpur, Kavre,
Sindhuli, Rautahat and Sarlahi. It can be classified into three main areas: the Upper,
Middle and the Lower Bagmati Watershed Areas. The Upper Bagmati Watershed Area
covers the whole of the Kathmandu Valley including its source at Shivapuri. From the
Chovar Gorge, the river flows into the Middle Bagmati Watershed Area across the
Mahabharat and Siwalik Ranges. The catchment area of upper and middle Bagmati
Basin is 2,807 km2.

80. The Bagmati watershed area is mainly composed of three parts: Kathmandu
Valley, the Middle Bagmati watershed area and the Lower watershed area. The terrain of
the upper and middle areas is rugged and comprised of several steep mountains except
Kathmandu Valley. The Middle Bagmati watershed area consists of the two
physiographic regions of Nepal. Those regions are (i) the Siwalik region (450-815 m
above MSL, in the southern part) and (ii) the middle mountain region (Highest elevation
is 625 m, in the northern part). The Kathmandu Valley is an almost circular, tectonic
basin, some 26 km in E-W direction and 20 km in N-S direction. The valley bottom is
composed of the small ridges and elevated flat land and low basins drained by Bagmati
River and its tributaries. The average altitude is 1,350 m above msl. The surrounding
mountains, whose height range 1,500 and 3,000 m.

81. The Lower Bagmati River Basin, where the Lower Bagmati Irrigation Project is
located, includes the Sarlahi and Rautahat Districts of Terai with the total area of
125,900 ha and 112,600 ha, respectively. The cultivated area of Sarlahi is 84,678 ha and
that of Rautahat is 58,440 ha. Both districts have high productive potential for cereals,
cash crops, tropical fruits and fish production

A. Climate

82. The climate in Bagmati watershed varies from sub-tropical in the valleys and foot
slopes through warm temperate at the mid-elevation to cold temperate in the higher
altitudes. The low land (<1,000 m from msl) has a subtropical climate with mean annual
temperatures of 20-30ºC. In the warm temperate climate zone (1,000–2,000 m) the
temperature range is 10-20ºC. In the cold temperate climatic zone (2,000-3,000 m) it is
10-15ºC (Sharma et al., 2006). The mean relative humidity in the basin varies between
63% and 87%. The higher mountains receive snowfall occasionally during the winter
months. Average rainfall is 1,900 mm per year with more than 80% of the precipitation
occurring during the four months of June to September.

B. Soils

83. The Upper Bagmati watershed area contains grey to grayish brown sandy loam
soils in the gentler slope Mahabharat sub-zone. On the steeper slopes, the Mahabharat
Range includes shallow gravelly soils with a dark brown to reddish sandy loam. The
Kathmandu valley is an alluvial plain with sandy clay to sandy loam soil. Sandy clay soils
contain a considerable amount of clay with moderate runoff potential whereas sandy
loam soils contain sand with little silt and clay. Normally, sandy loam soils are well
drained and highly susceptible to erosion if vegetation is removed.

84. The lower watershed is the flat alluvial plain of the Terai which is famous for its
agricultural fertile land. However, the soils on the Siwalik hill slopes are very poor
gravelly and sandy loams. These soils are thin, well drained and have no soil structure.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

As exposed conditions, they are highly erodible. The main Terai alluvial plain area
comprise of sandy loam to silt loam. Silt loam soil contains a considerable amount of
sand and has a moderate run-off potential. These soils are weakly structured and highly
susceptible to erosion.

C. Water Quality

85. Several studies have been carried out over the last decade to assess the
Bagmati River water quality. However, these studies are considered within the Upper
Bagmati sub-basin (Kathmandu valley river stretch) only. Apart from the study conducted
by the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology for a period of four years (1992-1995),
other studies do not provide time series data on the river quality for all seasons of the
year. All the studies have reported that the water quality of the Bagmati River in the
Kathmandu Valley is of very poor quality, chemically and bacteriologically, and unsuitable
for any freshwater fauna and flora for most of the dry season. However, in the rainy
season (June-September), water quality improves considerably due to the increase in
the assimilative capacity of the river. River water quality in the upper Bagmati River
stretch is rapidly declining so much that the river is merely a sewer in the dry season.

86. From water quality analyses results, it is found that the water quality of tributaries
of the Bagmati River outside the valley is found to be good and can be used for a variety
of purposes.

87. River water quality within the valley is bad but as the river passes through the
valley the quality of water improves slowly. After mixing with Kulekhani River water,
Bagmati River water quality improves considerably. This situation continues after mixing
with other tributaries originating in the hills and Chure as well. Water quality along the
Bagmati River outside the valley seems to be improved till it passes through Karmaiya.
However, the river water quality seems to deteriorate at Bramhapuri due to the disposal
of partially treated industrial effluent from a sugar mill (Nepal Environmental and
Scientific Services (P) Ltd. (1997).

88. The deterioration of water quality in the upper Bagmati sub-basin has far
reaching implications for the entire Bagmati river stretches because of the location of the
sub-basin at the Bagmati headwaters. It is reported that the decline in the river water
quality has a direct detrimental impact on the health of the water user groups
downstream of the Bagmati Basin. Incidents of diarrhea, typhoid, jaundice, cholera and
skin diseases are of common occurrence among the user groups. However, there are no
specific surveys with regard to this. The riverside inhabitants complain of the occurrence
of such diseases in the dry season when they have no option other than using the river
water to meet daily demand.

89. Livestock toll is even higher in the dry months due to water related diseases. The
polluted river water has seriously impaired the aquatic ecology and biodiversity along the
Bagmati River. Fresh water fish have been completely wiped out from their habitats in
the upper sub-basin and are declining in the river stretches of the upper middle and
lower middle sub-basins. The river is losing its religious and spiritual significance. The
sacred river water for Hindu devotees has now become filthy and unsuitable for use on
religious and cultural grounds.

90. Organic matter influences the physical conditions of a soil in several ways. Plant
residues that cover the soil surface protect the soil from sealing and crusting by raindrop
impact, thereby enhancing rainwater infiltration and reducing runoff. Surface infiltration
depends on a number of factors including aggregation and stability, pore continuity and
stability, the existence of cracks, and the soil surface condition. Increased organic matter

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

contributes indirectly to soil porosity (via increased soil faunal activity). Fresh organic
matter stimulates the activity of macro fauna such as earthworms, which create burrows
lined with the glue-like secretion from their bodies and are intermittently filled with worm
cast material.

D. Cropping Practice and Input Use

91. All the eight districts of Bagmati River Basin have changed the traditional rain fed
farming to intensive irrigated farming. High yielding varieties of field crops are now
practiced along with local varieties. Main crops grown in the project areas along with
area, production and yield are summarized in the following Table 4 and Table 5.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 4: Cereal Cropping by District (2011-2012)

[Area: ha; Production: kg; Yield: kg]
Paddy Maize Millet Wheat Potato
District Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield
Upper Bagmati
Kathmandu 8,000 46,080 5,760 7,124 28,496 4,000 852 1,000 852 4,742 15,903 3,354 2,580 48,010 18,609
Bhaktapur 4,252 25,242 5,936 1,970 7,979 4,050 100 1,400 140 3,150 11,060 3,511 1,528 23,939 15,667
Lalitpur 4,600 26,676 5,799 10,806 34,579 3,200 575 1,200 690 4,600 14,690 3,618 975 18,891 19,375
Sub Total 16,852 97,998 5,832 19,900 71,054 3,750 1,527 3,600 561 12,492 41,653 3,494 5,083 90,840 17,884
Middle Bagmati
Kavre 10,100 31,512 3,120 24,300 62,937 2,590 3,500 3,850 1,100 9,950 21,478 2,159 9,695 179,358 18,500
Makawanpur 11,110 37,552 3,380 23,636 72,562 3,070 2,660 3,254 1,223 4,210 12,007 2,852 4,858 67,217 13,836
Sindhuli 10,265 32,848 3,200 15,450 40,170 2,600 11,610 10,449 900 5,550 13,700 2,468 1,750 17,500 10,000
Sub Total 31,475 101,912 3,233 63,386 175,669 2,753 17,770 17,553 1,074 19,710 47,185 2,493 16,303 264,075 14,112
Lower Bagmati
Sarlahi 39,352 143,635 3,650 10,050 41,205 4,100 1,000 1,000 1,000 28,000 67,200 2,400 1,350 19,980 14,800
Rautahat 40,650 136,178 3,350 1,680 5,292 3,150 60 51 850 15,550 41,626 2,677 2,420 44,286 18,300
Sub Total 80,002 279,813 3,500 11,730 46,497 3,625 1,060 1,051 925 43,550 108,826 2,539 3,770 64,266 16,550
TOTAL 128,329 357,162 4,188 95,016 293,320 3,376 20,357 23,003 853 75,702 197,664 2,842 25,156 419,181 16,182
Source: MoAD, Year Book 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 5: Other Cropping by District 2011-2012

[Area in Ha, Production in T, and Yield in Kg/Ha]
Sugarcane Pulses Oilseeds Vegetables
District Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield
Upper Bagmati
Kathmandu 10 253 25,300 1,414 1,236 874 85 78 874 1,940 43,951 22,655
Bhaktapur 250 251 1,004 2,860 53,452 18,687
Lalitpur 778 794 1,020 2,220 1,816 820 2,680 52,900 19,739
Sub Total 10 253 25,300 2,192 2,030 947 2,555 2,145 899 7,480 150,303 20,360
Middle Bagmati
Kavre 27 642 23,778 642 642 642 642 642 642 9,356 145,606 15,563
Makawanpur 95 3,250 34,201 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 3,250 2,382 42,859 17,994
Sindhuli 11 490 44,545 490 490 490 490 490 490 2,155 22,248 10,324
Sub Total 133 4,382 34,175 4,382 4,382 1,461 4,382 4,382 1,461 13,893 210,713 14,627
Lower Bagmati
Sarlahi 17,100 769,500 45,000 23,079 23,764 1,030 6,100 4,638 760 8,910 117,792 13,220
Rautahat 9,050 362,000 40,000 20,766 17,963 865 10,450 8,648 830 10,740 117,971 10,984
Sub Total 26,150 1,131,500 42,500 43,845 41,727 948 16,550 13,286 795 19,650 235,763 12,102
TOTAL 26,293 1,136,135 33,992 50,419 48,139 1,118 23,487 19,813 3,155 41,023 596,779 15,696
Source: MoAD, Year Book 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

E. Land Use

92. The Bagmati River Basin area is extensively cultivated (37.8%) followed by
occupation of sand (4.8%), bush (3.6%), grass (1.4%), channel (1.2%), built-up area
(0.6%), barren land (0.3%), orchards (0.2%), scattered and nursery (0.1% each), and
others (0.2%) (refer to Table 6).

Table 6: Land use and Land Cover in the Bagmati River Basin

Land Use Cover Area (ha) %

Forest 186,340 49.61
Cultivation 141,986 37.80
Sand 18,118 4.82
Bush 13,367 3.56
Grass 5,241 1.40
Channel 4,441 1.18
Built-up Area 2,378 0.63
Barren land 1,264 0.34
Orchard 785 0.21
Scattered tree 551 0.15
Nursery 360 0.10
Pond or lake 141 0.04
Other 628 0.17
Total 375,600 100
Source: Multi-Dimensional Study of the Bagmati river Basin, WECS, 2008

F. Crops

93. Cereals such as rice, wheat, maize and millet are the predominant crops in the
river basin. In the hilly region of Nepal, maize is a dominant crop and in the plain region
paddy is the major crop. Paddy is the second crop in the hills; then wheat, millet and
barley come respectively. The cropping pattern in the Lower Bagmati Basin is different
from that followed in the Upper Basin. If adequate water supply is available, three crops
per year, two seasons of paddy (summer and spring) are possible in the Lower Bagmati
Basin. Though there is adequate irrigation in the upper basin, farmers grow only two
crops a year due to the lower temperature.

G. Seasons

94. Nepal has four distinct seasons. Spring, from March to May, is warm and dusty
with rain showers. Summer, from June to August, is the monsoon when the hills turn lush
and green. Autumn, from September to November, is cool with clear skies. In winter,
from December to February, it is cold at night and can be foggy in the early morning.

H. Cropping Patterns

95. Nepal has a total area of 147,181 km2 of which 3,091,000 ha (21%) is cultivated.
The average length (east to west) is about 885 km, while the breadth (north to south) is
about 193 km. The country is broadly divided from east to west into three agro-ecological

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

zones, the mountain (35.2%), the hills (41.68%), and Terai (23.12%). The southwest
zone is the Terai or plains, which are the northern extension of the Gangetic Plains of
alluvial soils and have an elevation of 70-300 m above mean sea level (msl). The middle
zone comprises the less densely populated hills, which are cut by a series of valleys.
Attitude ranges from 250 to 4,000 msl, and the zone is characterized by steep valleys
that are often terraced for extensive agriculture. Nepal has a diverse agro-climatic
environment and the topography of the hill zone results in different microclimates that
can be suited to specific crops.

96. Accordingly, in the plains or Terai there is hot and humid or subtropical to tropical
climate, while in the hills both subtropical climate in the foothills and temperate climate
on the top of the hills prevail. The mountains have very cold climate. Based on the
prevailing climatic conditions, different types of crops are grown. Primarily, rice, wheat,
legumes, oilseeds, sugarcane and tropical fruits are the major commodities of the Terai,
while rice, maize, wheat, millets, pulses, oilseeds, potato and citrus are major
commodities in the hills, and potato, barley, buckwheat, amaranthus and temperate fruits
are the commodities suitable for the mountains. Potato and vegetables are grown in
every ecological zone.

97. Among the fruits, mango, litchi, banana, pineapple and guava are major
commodities, while in the hills citrus is the main fruit. Banana, guava, pears, and
peaches are also grown in this belt. In the high hills or mountains temperate fruits such
as apple, apricot, walnut etc., are appropriately cultivated.

98. Based on the conditions described in the preceding sections, the cropping
patterns are shown in Table 7.

99. Whether irrigated or rain fed, rice is the staple crop of the lowland. This is
because rice is the staple food commodity of the Nepalese people. It is considered a
prestigious crop in the society. In the lowlands wheat is another important food commodity.
Both these crops are consumed by every family.

100. Similarly, maize is the second most important food crop in the hills. This is mainly
grown for family consumption. Farmers also sell it if they have surplus production. In
many hill areas, millet is another important food item. Hill farmers feel that millet is highly
nutritious for them.

101. In high hills or mountains, potato is the main crop taken as food followed by
maize, buckwheat, barley etc. Because of the cold climate, farmers of this area harvest
mostly one crop in a year.

102. In every agro-ecological zone, priority is given to food crops first and then to cash
crops. People need food crops for meeting household needs and cash crops for income
generation. Traditionally, farmers grow every sort of possible crop needed for home
consumption. This is the reason why there are mainly two types of cropping patterns,
namely rice based in the lowlands and maize based in the uplands; the cropping patterns
of the Bagmati river basin are shown in Table 7.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 7: Cropping Patterns of the Bagmati Basin

Summer Winter Spring

Lower Basin Terai Irrigated Areas
Rice Wheat Maize
Rice Potato Vegetable
Rice Peas Rice
Rice Lentil Vegetable
Rice Mustard Vegetable
Sugarcane
Mid and Upper Basin Irrigated
Wheat Maize
Rice Potato Maize
Rice Wheat Vegetable
Rice Lentil Vegetable
Rice Vegetable Rice
Non Irrigated and Higher Areas
Maize Millet Blackgram - Fallow
Maize Millet Vegetables
Maize Legumes Potato/Fallow
Maize Ghaiya Vegetables/fallow
Ghaiya Legumes Fallow

103. With regard to success stories of crop diversification, many farmers have
successfully adopted cultivation of different off-season vegetables like cabbage, peas,
cucumber, tomato etc. using modern technologies. Bananas are becoming very popular
in the Terai region, where they are grown on a commercial basis. Other important
commodities that are being adopted by farmers are cauliflower, sunflower, lentils,
mushroom and soybean. These commodities have high demand locally and farmers
therefore can sell these items easily.

I. Crop Calendar

104. Table 8 provides an overview of the main cropping patterns for cereals. On the
whole, the availability of irrigation water is the main determinant of the choice of crops
and the planting season. Thus, in the Terai in areas with reliable irrigation, three paddy
crops can be grown (spring, summer and late summer), while two crops of paddy can be
grown in the hills (summer and spring). Maize can also have three planting seasons in
some places in the Terai (spring, summer and winter) and two in the hills (spring and
summer). In the hills, early maturing maize varieties offer greater crop rotation flexibility
and opportunities for higher cropping intensity. Wheat and barley are planted between
October and December while harvest starts in the Terai in spring and ends in the
Mountains in early summer. Finally, millet is cultivated as a main summer crop in the
Mountains and as a relay crop in the Hills (mostly after maize).

105. In the Hills, the lands/terraces located on the lower part of Hills slopes near the
rivers are generally irrigated. In these areas, rice is the major crop in summer followed by
wheat in winter (similar to that in the Terai) while on the rain fed upland areas, maize is
the major crop. Therefore, the proportion of rice, maize and wheat at district level
depends on the availability of irrigation facilities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 8: Crop Calendar for Main Cereal Crops Cultivated in Nepal

Crop Ecological Irrigation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Season
Zones
Paddy Hills Partially TP TP H H Summer
Year-round TP TP H H Spring
Terai Rain fed TP TP H H H Summer
Year-round TP TP H H H Spring
TP TP H H Late summer*
Maize Hills Rain fed P P H H Summer
Irrigated P P H H Spring

Terai Rain fed P P H H Summer

Year-round P P H H Spring
Sugarcane Terai Irrigated H HP P P H Winter
Millet Hills Rainfed P P H H Summer
Wheat Hills Rain fed H H H P P P Winter
Terai Rain fed** H H P P Winter
Barley Hills Rain fed H H P P P Winter
P= Planting; TP= Transplanting; H= Harvesting.
Source: Special Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

J. Fertilizers

106. All fertilizers used in Nepal are imported. For many years, fertilizer prices were
subsidized until subsidies were eliminated in 1999. One important reason for removing
the subsidies was that the binding constraint to increase use of fertilizers in Nepal was not
the price of fertilizer but the supply itself, which in turn is limited to the amount of subsidies.
Two effects of the subsidy removal have been prominent: i) an increase in the overall
supply of fertilizers, with declines in formal imports more than offset by increased informal
imports from India; and ii) increases in fertilizer prices in Nepal, which is inevitable when
subsidies are eliminated.

107. On the first point, the overall picture is not very clear because reliable statistics
are lacking on the volume of informal imports. Formal trade, reported in government
statistics, show total supply of about 150,000 tons in recent years, about 30% imported
by the Agricultural Inputs Company and 70% by private traders. The data show that
there has been a rapid increase of fertilizer supply in Nepal, from 224,000 tons in
1997/98 to 488,000 tons by 2002/03.

108. The main reason why informal trade accounts for such a large share of total
supply is that fertilizers are subsidized in India; thus, following the removal of subsidies in
Nepal, fertilizer prices in Nepal are much higher than in India, exactly double in the case
of Urea (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2: Comparison of Fertilizer Prices in India and Nepal (NRs/kg)

Source: Thapa (2006), “Constraints and Approach for Improving Fertilizer Supply for Meeting Domestic
Demand”, Policy Paper 30, Economic Policy Network.

K. Improved Seeds

109. Unlike fertilizers, for which the overall supply and availability have improved in
recent years, the situation in the seed sector is far from satisfactory. Although both
government sources and various studies show that crop areas covered by improved
seeds are very high, in the 80-90% range for cereals and vegetables, the problem of
seed quality remains. The bulk of the seeds used are farmers’ own seeds from previous
harvests or acquired from neighbors. These may be improved or high-yielding variety
(HYV) seeds at the outset, but after several seasons their quality degenerates. Thus, the
primary problem is replacement of these old “improved” seeds with fresh “improved”
ones.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

110. The government policy is one of encouraging private-sector involvement in seed

production and supply, and indeed the private-sector participation is quite visible, both in
the Hills and in the Terai. The amount of seeds distributed by this sector – numerous
private agro-vets and seed operators – is not known but is considered to be substantive.

111. The Nepal Seed Corporation (NSC) is an important part of the seed sector. The
company distributes quality seeds through many dealers. But, the seed supply is far
below the targets. The reasons given for this less than satisfactory performance include
failure to collect adequate seeds of good quality from farmers as per the contracts and
the influx of low-quality seeds from India across the long and porous border, which
discouraged private-sector activity. The amount supplied by the formal sector is very low.

112. The third important source of seed is imports from India. Seeds are brought by
farmers and small traders across the porous border. These imports are not recorded and
so it is not known how much seed is brought each season. However, there is consensus
that this has been an important source of supply, especially around the border areas in
the Terai.

113. The government has taken the difficulties in the seeds sector seriously. A major
program being implemented is the District Seed Self-Sufficiency Program (DISSPRO).
DISSPRO was initiated by the DADOs, and encourages the production and marketing of
good quality seeds by providing technical support to farmer groups. This program has
been instrumental in spreading good-quality seeds through farmer-to-farmer informal
exchange practice. Improved seeds are also informally imported from India and
exchanged through informal farmer-to-farmer practice. These informal mechanisms
supported by DISSPRO account for over 95% of the farmers’ seed use.

114. The main problem in the seeds sector, faced by both the private agro-vets and
seed operators, as well as by DISSPRO, is the binding constraint in the availability of
breeding seeds for multiplication. Capacity in government farms, the only official source
for such seeds, is limited by the size of the farm and other resources. (Source: Special
Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007)

L. Agricultural Credit

115. Availability of agricultural credit at reasonable rates is obviously essential for

commercial agricultural production. Agricultural credit also plays an import role during
droughts and other distress conditions as borrowing is an important coping mechanism.
This is particularly a problem for vulnerable population groups in view of their heavy
reliance, even in normal times, on informal sources of credit characterized by high
interest rates.

116. Rural credit availability from formal channels remains very limited in Nepal
despite the presence of many rural finance institutions (RFIs) in Nepal as well as a legal
and institutional framework in place for a substantial expansion of rural credit. The formal
rural finance sector, supervised or registered with Nepal Rastra Bank or NRB (Central
Bank of Nepal), includes over 300 rural branches of commercial banks, about 450
branches of the Agricultural Development Bank Nepal (ADBN), Small Farmers
Development Bank with over 130 outlets, several development banks, over 30 savings
and credit cooperative societies, and about 30 micro-finance NGOs. In addition, the
semiformal sector comprises government-sponsored rural credit programs, over 1,500
savings and credit cooperative societies registered under the Cooperatives Act, and over
50 multispectral NGOs. The informal sector comprises moneylenders, traders, friends,
relatives, as well as thousands of community organizations. Many NGOs operating
micro-finance programs also operate outside NRB supervision. (Source: Special Report
FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

M. Fruit Cultivation and Agri-business

117. The diversity of climates and quality soil for fruit production are suitable for a wide
variety of fruit species, from litchis to apples, to be grown in Nepal. With a total
productive acreage of over 101,233 ha, fruits are an important cash crop for Nepal. Fruit
cultivation has significantly increased over the past five years. Both tropical/semi-tropical
and temperate fruits have achieved a similar increase in growth rate.

118. Tropical and winter fruits cover an area of approximately 77,000 ha. Citrus crops
occupy about 24,000 ha. Orange and sweet orange are the main citrus trees cultivated
and represent, respectively, 15,304 ha and 4,139 ha of productive area. Over 90% of the
citrus production is concentrated in the Hills, mostly in the Western, Central and Eastern
regions and as a result the production period is concentrated in one short season in
December/January. Expansion of production in other areas and diversification of varieties
could extend the production period. Other citrus species includes lime and lemon.

119. Temperate fruits cover an area of nearly 26,000 ha. The expansion of the
cultivated area of temperate fruit over the past five years is remarkable, as these fruits
are cultivated in remote Mountains areas where there is a lack of road connectivity.
Increase in winter fruit production could positively impact on rural poverty in the
mountains as experienced in northern Pakistan. Markets for winter fruits are vast in India
and Bangladesh. Nearly 40% of temperate fruits are grown in far- and mid-western
regions and 25% in the central region. Apple is the main winter fruit and cultivated in
about 5,600 ha productive area. Over 40% of the apple-cultivated area lay in the mid-
west region, mainly in the mountain districts.

120. The new road to Jumla will soon provide a market outlet for apple production, and
further apple development could potentially reduce rural poverty in Jumla District. Yields
remain very low, with an average of only 8.6 ton/ha. Most apples found in major markets
in Nepal are from India or China. Pear is the second temperate fruit and covers about
3,600 ha of productive area. Pears are mainly cultivated in the hills of the eastern,
central and western regions. Nepali pears are marketed in large urban markets. Other
temperate fruits include peach (2,300 ha) and plum (1,600 ha). Grapes are not reported
in Nepal but Indian grapes are seen in most market centers. Drier mountain regions
could be suitable for high-quality grape production. Walnut is the main nut cultivated in
Nepal and represents approximately 1,729 ha, found mainly in the mid-west mountains.
Demand for walnuts is growing in India and Europe.

121. Despite promising growth in the past years in the fruit sector, the comparative
advantage of Nepal’s privileged ecological location has not yet been turned into
competitive advantage as farming practices remain poor; most trees are not grafted,
rootstock varieties are not used, varieties planted are of sub-optimal quality for export,
trees are generally not pruned, orchards not fertilized and the distribution chain is sub-
optimal. This results in biennial bearing, low productivity and low quality of fruit on the
market. Fruit markets in Nepal continue to be supplied with products from India and
China. Yet there are substantial import substitution opportunities to start with and vast
opportunities for export to neighboring countries for future developments when the
production, productivity and quality of fruits improve. Unlocking this potential would
require good research and extension work and possibly plantation subsidy of high-quality
seedlings from professional nurseries in the initial years. Some plant material such as
root-stocks may need to be imported. Research linkages with countries benefiting from
similar agro-ecological conditions and having successfully developed perennial
horticulture crops, particularly northern Pakistan, would be advantageous. (Source:
Special Report FAO/WFP Food Security Assessment Report to Nepal, July 2007).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

N. Cost of Cultivation of Major Crops

122. Profitability of the farm business is a pre-condition for attracting farmers for
increasing the agricultural production in the country. Comparing costs and benefits of
different crops are necessary to device national policies for making the farm production
viable. For judging the profitability of crop production and recommending policy
measures for market interventions sound information on the costs of production, yield
rate and farm gate price are necessary. The following tables provide the cost of
cultivation of major crops of Nepal.

123. The cost of production of the main irrigated paddy and by-product are NRs.18
and NRs.1, respectively. The gross income of paddy at farm gate is NRs.19,432. The
price at market is NRs.20 per kg with additional NRs.500 towards marketing cost. Thus
the total value at marketing would be NRs.113,680 and the net profit at the market is
NRs.28,212 (refer to Table 9).

Table 9: Costs of Production of Paddy in Kathmandu

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 90,793
a Human Labor Day 171 400 68,400
b Bullock Labor Day
c Power Tiller Use Hour 13 500 6,500
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 7 200 1,400
e Thresher Use Hour 8 150 1,200
f Sprayer Use Hour 8 20 160
g Seed Kg 50 55 2,750
h Manure Kg 1,500 1 1,500
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 40 48 1,920
Urea Kg 60 21 1,260
Potash Kg 20 34 680
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 400
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 4,323
2 Fixed Cost Rs 265
a Land Tax Rs 55
b Water Tax Rs 20
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 80
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 110
3 Total Cost Rs 91,058
4 Gross Income Kg 110,490
a Main Product Kg 5,800 18 104,400
b By-Product Kg 6,090 1 6,090
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 19,432
6 Cost per quintal Rs 1,465
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 500
b Value at Market Rs 5,684 20 113,680
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 28,212
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012

124. The cost of main product of wheat and by-product at the farm gate are estimated
at Rs.22 and Rs.1per kg, thus making the gross profit at farm gate NRs.14,932.
Marketing cost and value at the market are NRs.500 and NRs.82,320 thus making the
net marketing margin as NRs.19,752.per ha (refer to Table 10).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 10: Costs of Irrigated Wheat in Kathmandu Valley

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 65,503
a Human Labor Day 115 400 46,000
b Bullock Labor Day
c Power Tiller Use Hour 6 500 3,000
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 4 200 800
e Thresher Use Hour 8 150 1,200
f Sprayer Use Hour
g Seed Kg 120 45 5,400
h Manure Kg 1,200 1 1,200
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 45 48 2,160
Urea Kg 50 21 1,050
Potash Kg 10 34 340
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 200
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 3,853
2 Fixed Cost Rs 240
a Land Tax Rs 55
b Water Tax Rs 20
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 75
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 90
3 Total Cost Rs 65,743
4 Gross Income Kg 80,675
a Main Product Kg 3,500 22 77,000
b By-Product Kg 3,675 1 3,675
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 14,932
6 Cost per quintal Rs 1,773
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 500
b Value at Market Rs 3,430 24 82,320
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 19,752
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012.

125. The data presented in Table 11 indicate a gross profit of maize at farm gate is
NRs.4,848 whereas the total cost at the market is NRs.65,366. The net profit of maize is
NRs.8,914 per ha.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 11: Farm Budget of Maize Rainfed in Kathmandu Valley

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 58,296
a Human Labor Day 126 400 50,400
b Bullock Labor Day
c Power Tiller Use Hour
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour
e Thresher Use Hour
f Sprayer Use Hour
g Seed Kg 20 50 1,000
h Manure Kg 1200 1 1,200
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 30 48 1,440
Urea Kg 40 21 840
Potash Kg 10 34 340
j Plant Protection Materials Rs
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 2,776
2 Fixed Cost Rs 192
a Land Tax Rs 42
b Water Tax Rs
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 70
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 80
3 Total Cost Rs 58,488
4 Gross Income Kg 63,336
a Main Product Kg 2,900 21 60,900
b By-Product Kg 3,045 0.80 2,436
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 4,848
6 Cost per quintal Rs 1,933
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 400
b Value at Market Rs 2,842 23 65,366
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 8,914
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012.

126. The average cost of production of irrigated paddy is NRs.59,643 with a gross
income of NRs.88,445. The gross profit at the farm gate level is NRs.28,802. The value
at the market is NRs.91,238. The net marketing margin is NRs.36,240 per ha (refer to
Table 12).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 12: Farm Budget of Paddy Irrigated in Lower Bagmati

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 59,388
a Human Labor Day 126 300 37,800
b Bullock Labor Day 4 600 2,400
c Tractor Use Hour 6 900 5,400
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 7 200 1,400
e Thresher Use Hour 8 150 1,200
f Sprayer Use Hour 8 20 160
g Seed Kg 50 55 2,750
h Manure Kg 1200 1 1,200
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 40 45 1,800
Urea Kg 60 18 1,080
Potash Kg 20 31 620
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 450
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 2,828
2 Fixed Cost Rs 255
a Land Tax Rs 45
b Water Tax Rs 20
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 70
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 120
3 Total Cost Rs 59,643
4 Gross Income Kg 88,445
a Main Product Kg 4,900 17 83,300
b By-Product Kg 5,145 1 5,145
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 28,802
6 Cost per Quintal Rs 1,112
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 500
b Value at Market Rs 4,802 19 91,238
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 36,240
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012.

127. The irrigated wheat fetches NRs.16,859 as profit at the farm gate kevel. The
value of wheat at the market include NRs.74,382 with a net profit of NRs.21,441 per ha
(refer to

128.

129. Table 13).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 13: Crop Budget of Irrigated Wheat in Lower Bagmati

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 55,616
a Human Labor Day 105 300 31,500
b Bullock Labor Day 5 600 3,000
c Tractor Use Hour 5 900 4,500
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 4 200 800
e Thresher Use Hour 8 150 1,200
f Sprayer Use Hour 5 20 100
g Seed Kg 120 50 6,000
h Manure Kg 1,200 1 1,200
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 45 45 2,025
Urea Kg 50 18 900
Potash Kg 20 31 620
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 200
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 3,271
2 Fixed Cost Rs 290
a Land Tax Rs 45
b Water Tax Rs 40
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 85
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 120
3 Total Cost Rs 55,906
4 Gross Income Kg 72,765
a Main Product Kg 3,300 21.00 69,300
b By-Product Kg 3,465 1.00 3,465
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 16,859
6 Cost per Quintal Rs 1,589
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 500
b Value at Market Rs 3,234 23.00 74,382
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 21,441
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012.

130. The net profit obtained after marketing the main and by-product of maize is
NRs.21,526. The price at the farm gate is NRs.16,772 (refer to

131.

132.

133. Table 14).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 14: Crop Budget of Irrigated Maize in Lower Bagmati

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 53,985
a Human Labor Day 110 300 33,000
b Bullock Labor Day 8 600 4,800
c Tractor Use Hour 7 900 6,300
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 6 200 1,200
e Thresher Use Hour
f Sprayer Use Hour 5 20 100
g Seed Kg 20 50 1,000
h Manure Kg 1,300 1 1,300
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 35 45 1,395
Urea Kg 50 18 900
Potash Kg 20 31 620
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 500
k Others Rs 300
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 2,570
2 Fixed Cost Rs 285
a Land Tax Rs 45
b Water Tax Rs 40
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 85
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 115
3 Total Cost Rs 54,270
4 Gross Income Kg 70,992
a Main Product Kg 3,400 20.00 68,000
b By-Product Kg 3,740 0.80 2,992
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 16,722
6 Cost per Quintal Rs 1,508
7 Marketing Cost & Margin
a Marketing Cost Rs 500
b Value at Market Rs 3,332 22.00 73,304
c Net Profit: Marketing Margin Rs 21,526
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012

134. The crop budget for sugarcane production is summarized in

135.

136.

137. Table 15.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 15: Crop Budget of Sugarcane in Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts

Price per Total Value
Item Particulars Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
1 Variable Cost 122,435
a Human Labor Day 160 300 48,000
b Bullock Labor Day 6 600 3,600
c Tractor Use Hour 7 900 6,300
d Irrigation/Pumpset Use Hour 15 200 3,000
e Thresher Use Hour
f Sprayer Use Hour 7 20 140
g Seed Kg 50 481 24,050
h Manure Kg 6000 1 6,000
i Chemical Fertilizers
DAP Kg 125 45 5,625
Urea Kg 300 18 5,400
Potash Kg 120 31 3,720
j Plant Protection Materials Rs 1,200
k Others Rs 600
l Interest on Variable Cost Rs 14,800
2 Fixed Cost Rs 430
a Land Tax Rs 110
b Water Tax Rs 45
c Depreciation of Farm Equipment Rs 125
d Maintenance of Farm Equipment Rs 150
3 Total Cost Rs 122,865
4 Gross Income Kg 216,450
a Main Product Qtl 450 481 216,450
b By-Product Kg
5 Gross Profit at Farm Gate Rs 93,585
6 Cost per Quintal Rs 273
Source: Market Research and Statistics Management Program, Agribusiness Promotion & Marketing
Development Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Government of Nepal, 2012.

138. The cost of mushroom cultivation by two different methods was carried out. The
cost of cultivation of mushroom in 4 poly houses is NRs.256,294 with a net profit of
NRs.143,706 (refer to Table 15). The other method, oyster mushroom has incurred a
cost of NRs.62,389 with a net income of Rs.27,611 (refer to Table 16).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 16: Cost of Production of Button Mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) in

Polyhouses (size=500 m2) in Kathmandu
Price per Total Value
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit (Rs) (Rs)
A Construction of Polyhouses
1 Bamboo No. 80 150 12,000
2 Plastic (Polyethylene) sheet Kg 30 200 6,000
3 Jute/Plastic threads Kg 10 200 2,000
4 Paddy straw Kg 150 15 2,250
5 Labor Day 16 500 8,000
Sub-total 30,250
B Tools/Equipment
1 Spade/ Saw/Sickle etc. LS 1,500 1,500
2 Sprayer No. 1 3,600 3,600
3 Watering can No. 2 300 600
Sub-total 5,700
C Compost Preparation
1 Paddy straw Kg 4000 15 60,000
2 Plastic sheet Kg 10 200 2,000
3 Water Tanker 10 1,500 15,000
4 Labor Day 32 500 16,000
Sub-total 93,000
D Chemical Fertilizers and
Plant Protection Materials
1 Ammonium Sulphate Kg 64 40 2,560
2 DAP Kg 28 48 1,344
3 Urea Kg 20 21 420
4 Agri. Lime Kg 120 6 720
5 Bavistin Kg 0.5 1,200 600
6 Nuvan 100 ml 4 120 480
7 Formalin Liter 4 150 600
Sub-total 6,724
E Seed bed preparation and
Seed
1 Plastic sheet Kg 10 200 2,000
2 Plank No. 4 200 800
3 News papers Kg 10 20 200
4 Soils Mt 4 1,500 6,000
5 Seed Bottle/Pack 80 35 2,800
4 Labor Day 10 500 5,000
Sub-total 16,800
F Misc Expenditures
1 Land Leasing LS 5,000 5,000
2 Electricity LS 1,000 1,000
3 Water LS 2,000 2,000
4 Plastic bags Kg 20 200 4,000
5 Labor cum Watch man Month 4 8,000 32,000
6 Interest @ 15% for 4 months Month 4 2,455 9,820
7 Farmer’s Remuneration Month 5 10,000 50,000
(Management cost )
Sub-total 103,820
G Total Cost(A+B+C+D+E+F) 256,294
H Gross Income Kg 1,600 250 400,000
I Net Income 143,706
Source: Neupane, S. P., Mushroom Cultivation in Nepal 2012

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 17: Cost of Production of Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) (based on

1,000 kg of paddy straw) in Kathmandu
Price per
Unit Total Value
Item Description Unit Quantity (Rs) (Rs)
1 Paddy straw Kg 1000 15 15,000
2 Polyethylene bag Kg 10 200 2,000
3 Seed Bottle 200 30 6,000
4 Labor Day 20 500 10,000
5 Fire wood/K. oil Kg 300 10 3,000
6 Electricity, water and others LS 1,000
7 Interest @15% for 3 months Month 3 463 1,389
8 Farmer’s Remuneration Month 3 8,000 24,000
9 Total costs Rs 62,389
10 Gross income Kg 600 150.00 90,000
11 Net income 27,611
Source: Neupane, S. P., Mushroom Cultivation in Nepal 2012
.
139. The present level of irrigation in the 8 districts of Bagmati River Basin consists of
162,037 ha of irrigated area as against an irrigable total of 209,542 ha (refer to Table
18).

Table 18: Present Level of Irrigation Development in Bagmati River Basin

District Overall Total (ha) Irrigable Total (ha) Irrigated Total (ha)
Upper Bagmati
Kathmandu 17,104 14,069 5,149
Bhaktapur 7,223 6,274 4,319
Lalitpur 11,068 7,425 4,924
Sub total 35,395 27,768 14,392

Middle Bagmati
Kavre 29,921 7,958 4,414
Makwanpur 35,776 23,502 3,507
Sindhuli 34,333 20,652 10,898
Sub total 100,030 52,112

Lower Bagmati
Sarlahi 73,710 73,521 71,173
Rautahat 56,390 56,141 57,653
Sub total 130,100 129,662 128,826
Total 265,525 209,542 162,037

O. Farm Budget Analysis

140. The budget spent by the farmers on different inputs is based on the need and
yield potential of the crop. All crops are not applied the same quantity of seed, fertilizer
and pesticides. Further, the input use is determined by the farmers own experience and
research recommendations. In the rural areas of developing countries labor is a scarce
commodity. As a result the labor wages are high. The cost of production varies based on
the availability of labor in that area and again on the wages. Similar is the case with
critical inputs like seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. The cost of these inputs is high in
Nepal due to the absence of the subsidies. Availability of good quality seed is also a
problem for farmers. Though the seed supplied by the government is good in quality, the
quantity is not enough to meet the farmers’ demands.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

VI. NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY

A. Middle and Upper Bagmati Basin

1. Tomato (Organic/Inorganic) Production in Plastic Poly-houses

141. There is growing demand for tomatoes throughout the year in the Kathmandu
Valley. Total sales of tomatoes in the Kalimati wholesale vegetable market, Kathmandu
is 235,637 tons/year (DOA 2012) of which only 14,359 tons (6%) is supplied from the
valley itself, while 87% is supplied by the surrounding area and from other districts, and
7% from India. The largest amount of tomatoes (27.5%) is supplied by Sarlahi followed
by Kavre (25.5%), Dhadhing (22%), and Rautahat (3.78%).

142. Growing tomatoes in open field is limited to 3 to 4 month’s supply in a year

whereas growing tomatoes in poly-houses provides supply to 9 to 10 month’s supply in a
year, with comparatively higher production per unit area. Many farmers in the Upper
Basin, particularly in the Kathmandu Valley, are growing tomatoes in poly-houses and
supplying throughout the year. Some farmers in Kavresthali VDC of Kathmandu are
growing organic tomatoes, which give higher price as compared to inorganic tomatoes.
Thus, tomato production (organic/inorganic) should be promoted and supported by the
government/project in terms of subsidies in the construction of poly-houses, micro
irrigation (drip/sprinkler), and inputs.

2. Mushroom Production in Plastic Poly-houses

143. There is a growing trend towards higher consumption of mushrooms because of

their health benefits associated very low cholesterol and low calorie content, as well as
their fine taste. At present, oyster and button mushrooms are easily available in the
market. Due to their high market value, fresh local produce fetches around NRs.150-
250/kg. Based on trends of recent years, the demand and consumption of mushrooms is
expected to continue increasing. Commercial cultivation of mushrooms in Nepal is
increasing rapidly. Mushrooms have now become one of the major crops in Kathmandu
Valley and other parts of country. Mushrooms are growing in different VDCs. Total sales
of mushrooms in the Kalimati wholesale vegetable market of Kathmandu is 2,687
tons/year (DOA 2012), of which only 550 tons (20%) is met by the valley and the rest is
supplied by the surrounding districts.

144. There are mainly three types of mushroom grown in the Kathmandu Valley: (i)
oyster mushroom, (ii) button mushroom, and (iii) shitake mushroom. Button mushrooms
are preferred by many consumers and the price of button mushrooms is comparatively
higher than for oyster mushrooms. Mushroom production in poly houses should be
promoted and supported by the government/project in terms of subsidies in the
construction of plastic houses and inputs. Extension services and trainings should also
be provided to the farmers in order to get more production.

145.

146. Currently about five species of mushroom are cultivated in commercial scale.
Among them white button mushroom and oyster mushroom is produced more and is
consumed more. Straw mushroom is also being cultivated in Terai region which is
tropical climate.

147. Mushroom cultivation is relatively new in Nepal. Beginning from 1970s,

mushroom farming has slowly become more known to farmers and agriculture scientists.
The wild varieties with medicinal properties are also becoming slowly known to other
countries as well. There are few wild species of medicinal importance and high value
which are exported to other countries. This however is in very small scale, without any

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

institutional structure. Their commercial cultivation has yet to be done. The research for
mushroom cultivation began in 1974 under the NARC. Cultivation of white button
mushroom in 1977 was first mushroom farming done by farmers. Plant pathology
division in NARC began distribution of spawn. Oyster mushroom was introduced to
farmers in 1984. In the beginning a handful of farmers started this farming in Bhaktapur
and Kathmandu Districts. After successful production of oyster mushroom, the number of
farmers increased to 50. At present there are about 5,000-6,000 mushroom farmers in
Kathmandu alone. The average production is about 8,000-10,000 kg per day. Pokhara
and Chitwan are other major mushroom producers. Other districts also produce these
two species but in very less amount, barely enough to meet local demand.

148. Due to the geographic diversity many varieties of mushroom are found in Nepal.
Though only few are domesticated, there are large numbers of wild mushrooms which are
edible and has high nutritional and medicinal value. Very less study has been done
regarding this. Many parts of Nepal still remain unexplored for mushroom. All the cultivated
species are not indigenous. Table 19 gives utility value of mushroom species in Nepal.
Table 19: Utility Value of Mushroom Species
Edible Medicinal Toxic Others
110 13 45 6
Source: Adhikari, M.K., 2005. Mushroom Diversity in Nepal: A Glimpse

149. The types of mushroom in Nepal can be broadly classified as: (i) Cultivated
mushrooms (Table 20), and (ii) wild mushrooms.

Table 20: Types of Cultivated Mushroom

Types Name Geographical Distribution
White button mushroom Gobre chyau Hilly region
(Agaricus bisporus)
Oyster Mushroom Kanye chyau Hilly regions, Terai region in
(Pleurotus ostreatus) winter

Shiitake Mirge chyau Mid hills

(Lentinus edodes)
Straw mushroom Parale chyau Terai region
(Volvorielle volvacea)
Ganoderma Rato chyua Hilly region
(Ganoderma lucidum)
Source: Researcher, South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE), Nepal.
Field Officer, Rural Education and Development (READ), Nepal.

150. There are many species of wild mushrooms found in various areas of Nepal.
Villagers consume wild mushroom, but the harvest of wild mushroom is in very less
amount. Many species have been placed under medicinal plant by department of forest.
Some important wild mushrooms of very high commercial value are:

 Boletus edulis (Cep, or Bolete)

 Cantharellus cibarius (Chantharelle)
 Cordyceps sinensis (Yarsagumba in Nepali)
 Craterellus connucopiodes (Horn of plenty)
 Ganoderma lucidum
 Morchella conica (Morel)
 Morchella esculenta (Morel)
 Tricholoma matsutake (Matsutake)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

151. Among these, Cordyceps sinensis has become important source of income for
many people in the mid-western region. Most of morels collected in the forest of Nepal
are exported abroad. It is not yet cultivated artificially.

152. Mushroom farming is mostly concentrated in peripheral areas around major

urban centers such as Kathmandu valley, Pokhara and Narayanghat. The consumption
is also found to be more in these areas. According to farmers these areas have highest
demand. Kathmandu valley is the largest producer as well as largest consumer. Up to
8,000-10,000 kg of mushroom is consumed in Kathmandu Valley alone (Manandhar
2005). The two species of mushroom are produced inside the valley during winter when
temperature is low. During summer, which is off -season, farmers shift their cultivation to
higher altitude in hills surrounding the valley.

153. There are many species which can be cultivated or collected from forest,
processed and utilized. According to Dr. Keshari L Manadhar, Center for Agriculture
Technology, Imadole, Lalitpur, the following species can be cultivated:

 Auricularia
 Flammulina
 Photiota nameko

154. The cultivation method for oyster mushroom production using paddy straw is as
follows. Paddy straw is selected from the field by choosing fresh, not old, clean and
straight pieces, of good quality. These straws are manually chopped into small pieces (2-
3 inches long) using the locally hand-made chopper. Chopped straw is then soaked in
water for 2-4 hours, or sometimes overnight, in a container or a small ditch specially
made for this purpose. The soaked straw is cleansed in water 1-2 times in a plastic
bucket or some other container.

155. The water from the straw is drained off in sieve. Most farmers drain the water off
slowly by placing the cleansed straw on a sloped place, a procedure that takes 2-4
hours. The drained straw is then steamed in a steamer. The local steamers are clay pots
with a number of holes on the bottom. These steamers are put on top of a metallic vessel
containing water. The water is boiled using a kerosene stove. The mouth of the straw
steamer is covered with thick plastic sheet and tied up by a string so as to make it tight. It
takes about half an hour for the steam to reach the top of the steamer. Once the steam
reaches to the top, steaming should be continued for about half an hour or more in order
to sterilize the straw. The temperature in this process usually goes beyond 90℃.Instead
of the clay pot steamer; a metallic drum can be used. In such cases the metallic drum is
filled with water to about 6 inches from the bottom and a tripod stand is used to support
the grate. The drum is then filled with straw and covered with a plastic sheet.

156. The steaming method is then the same as with the clay pot steamer. The
steamed straw is cooled down in the same container or transferred into a plastic sack to
prevent contamination from outside. The plastic bags used for making packets are of
different sizes: 12×16. (small) and 18×26 (large). These bags are punched to make
holes at a distance of 4 inches apart. Cooled straw is packed in the bags in layers up to
4 inches deep and grain spawn is sprinkled in layer by layer . Once the bag is filled, the
bag mouth is closed with a rubber band. Incubation proceeds at room temperature for
20-21 days, until the mycelium spreads completely throughout inside the packets. When
the spawn run is completed, the bag is removed by cutting the plastic.

157. The packets are arranged in a row on the floor using a brick or two underneath.
The spacing between the packets is 6 inches, with 2 feet between the rows. Watering is
done every morning and evening using a sprayer. In the dry season, one more spraying

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

of water should be done. Primordial appear after 4-5 days and develop into a full size
mushroom within an additional 2-3 days.

158. Oyster mushrooms are often grown without any environmental control. P. sajor-
caju is cultivated for the summer crop at Kathmandu (25-30ºC and 80%) and in the hills
of Nepal while it is cultivated in the Terai regions during the winter season (22-26ºC and
70%). P. ostreatus is grown during the winter season in Kathmandu and other cool
places (5-20ºC and 70%). Some mushroom growers try to grow these two species
together. Of course, oyster mushrooms cannot be grown in Terai during the summer (30-
40ºC and 70%). The mid hills of Nepal are the most appropriate areas for oyster
mushroom production and therefore the mushroom technology has been expanded
widely in those villages.

3. Fish Ponds

159. There is a shortage of irrigation water during the dry season. Water can be stored
in ponds for irrigation purposes, as well as fish production. Likewise, some micro-
irrigation technologies such as drip and sprinkler irrigation would be useful for saving
water.

B. Lower Bagmati Basin

1. Sugarcane (High Yielding Variety)

160. Sugarcane is grown in the Lower Bagmati River Basin Districts of Sarlahi and
Rautahat. There are two sugar mills are located, one in each district. The average
productivity of sugarcane in the districts is about 40 ton/ha. The varieties are old and do
not have high production potentials. Thus, new varieties with high production potential
should be introduced and promoted in the head stream of BIP.

2. Vegetables

161. Vegetables are grown in the area and supplied to Kathmandu. Vegetables
production should be promoted and supported in order to get more income. The
suggested cropping pattern is Winter Vegetable-Summer Vegetable.

3. Fish Production

162. There are 750 ponds of 286 ha in Sarlahi District and 500 ponds of 470 ha in
Rautahat District. The average production is 3.75 ton/ha. The BIP service area has high
potential of fish production. Fish production should be promoted and supported. New
ponds should be dug in support of the BIP as demanded by the farmers.

163. Agricultural extension services and trainings should be provided to the farmers.
Extension Service should be strengthened and supported in terms of manpower, new
technologies trainings (updated) and resources.

1. Shallow Tubewell Areas

164. There is often no regular and timely supply of irrigation water from the BIP during
the critical stages of crops. The farmers supplement the surface irrigation water supplies
with pumped groundwater (tubewells/ open wells), and thus irrigation is more reliable. In
such conditions, the SRI method of rice production in summer as well as monsoon rice
should be promoted and supported. The suggested cropping pattern is: Summer Rice-
Monsoon Rice- Wheat/Maize/Potato.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

165. Tubewells/open wells are reliable sources of irrigation water, but the cost of
operation is high. Vegetables are the high value crop (HVC) in the area. The farmers get
higher price as compared to cereals. Thus the year round production of vegetables
should be promoted and supported. The suggested cropping pattern is: Winter
Vegetables-Summer Vegetables-Spring Vegetables.

2. SRI (System of Rice Intensification)

166. The System of Rice Intensification or SRI is a climate-smart and agro-ecological

methodology to increase the productivity of irrigated rice (and, more recently, other
crops) by changing the management of plants, soil, water and nutrients. Using the SRI
methodology, yields are increased by 20-50% or more, while reducing inputs: seed by
90%, irrigation water by 30-50%, chemical fertilizer by 20-100%, and usually reduced
need for pesticides. For the farmer, SRI brings greater returns to labor, land and capital.

167. SRI methodology is based on four main, interacting principles:

(i) Establishing plants early and quickly, to favor healthy and vigorous root and
vegetative plant growth.
(ii) Maintaining low plant density to allow optimal development of each individual
plant and to minimize competitions between plants for nutrients, water and
sunlight.
(iii) Enriching soils with organic matter to improve nutrient and water holding
capacity, increase microbial life in the soil, and to provide a good substrate for
roots to grow and develop,
(iv) Reducing and controlling the application of water, providing only as much
water as necessary for optimal plant development and to favor aerobic soil
conditions.

168. Based on these principles, farmers adapt SRI practices to their climate zone, and
to their agro-ecological and socioeconomic conditions. Most common adaptations
respond to soil conditions, water control, changing weather patterns, access to organic
inputs, the decision to practice fully organic agriculture or not, access to labor,
mechanization, and other socioeconomic factors.

169. In addition to irrigated rice, the SRI principles have been applied to rain fed rice
and to other crops, such as wheat, sugarcane, finger millet, mustard, and pulses all of
which show increased productivity over current conventional planting practices. When SRI
principles are applied to other crops, we refer to it as the System of Crop Intensification or
SCI.

170. The key SRI practices for irrigated rice production are summarized below.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Cultivation Practices Standard Methods SRI Methods

Seed Selection and Seeds are not selected or treated Seeds are soaked for 24 hours prior
Preparation to seeding to eliminate non-viable
seeds
Nursery Management Flooded nurseries, densely Non-flooded nurseries, often raised
seeded beds,
non-dense seeding
Age of Seedlings when 21-30 days, sometimes up to 60 8-12 days, representing the 2-leaf
Planted days stage
Spacing Hills are 10-15 cm apart, in rows Hills in square pattern, with spacing
or 25x25cm or more
random spacing
Number of Plants/hill 3-5 plants/hill; 130-500 plants per 1 plant/hill (<16 plants per m2)
m2
Water Management Continuous flooding of fields Alternate wetting and drying
during crop cycle
Weed Control Hand weeding, or herbicide use Mechanical weeding, aerating the
soil
Fertilization Reliance on chemical fertilizers Organic matter as base fertilization,
complemented if needed with
chemical fertilizer

171. Seed treatment and nursery management: seeds are soaked in a large container
of water for 24 hours. Viable seeds sink to the bottom and non-viable seeds float to the
surface, and can easily be removed. Seeds are sown non-densely in a seedbed with
good soil structure. Each plant has space to grow, and roots can develop easily and will
not get entangled with each other.

172. Transplanting young seedlings at the 2 leaf-stage. Seedlings are grown in a non-
flooded nursery and removed carefully with minimal trauma to the roots. Seedlings
should be replanted quickly and carefully, at a shallow depth of only 1-2 cm deep,
assuring that the roots are not dried out or damaged. Some adaptations for direct-
seeding and mechanical transplanting have been developed in a number of countries.

173. Reducing plant density through (i) planting one seedling per hill, and (ii)
increased spacing between the plants, usually at 25 cm x 25 cm, planted in a square
pattern. In less fertile soils and with low tillering rice varieties, spacing can be reduced to
20 cm x 20 cm, with profusely tillering rice varieties and organic matter enriched soils,
spacing can be increased to 30 cm x 30 cm, or possibly to 35 cm x 35 cm (rarely more).

174. Reducing irrigation water application: only a shallow water layer of 1-2 cm is
introduced into the paddy field during the vegetative period. The plot is left to dry until
cracks become visible, when another thin layer of water is introduced. This is called
'intermittent irrigation' or 'Alternative Wetting and Drying' (AWD). During flowering, a thin
layer of water is maintained, followed by AWD during the grain filling period, before
draining the paddy 2-3 weeks before harvest. Some farmers irrigate every evening,
others leave the fields to dry over a 3-8 day period, depending on soil and climate
conditions, and control over irrigation water. The drying period creates aerobic conditions
allowing roots to better develop.

175. Enhancing soil organic matter: The soils are enriched with organic matter to
improve soil structure, nutrient and water holding capacity, and to favor soil microbial
development. Adding organic matter represents the base fertilization, which is
complemented if needed by fertilizer, most often urea. Most common organic matter
sources are compost, animal manure, green manure, and crop residues such as rice
straw.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 45

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

176. Controlling weeds is done through mechanical weeding, mostly done with a
simple push-weeder. Weeds grow more vigorously under non- flooded field conditions,
and need to be kept under control from an early stage.

177. Frequent use of the mechanical weeder is ideal, up to 4 times starting at 10 days
after transplanting and repeated every 7-10 days until the canopy is closing. Mechanical
weeding has multiple functions and benefits:

 Incorporation of weeds into the soil, where their nutrients are recycled
 Superficial tillage improves soil aeration
 Root growth is stimulated through some root pruning and soil aeration
 As water, organic matter and soils are mixed anew and oxygenized through
the weeding process, nutrients become better available to the plants. A re-
greening effect of the plants can be observed 1-2 days after weeding.
 A redistribution of water across the plot through the weeding process
contributes to a continuous leveling of the plot and eliminates water patches in
lower laying areas in the field that create anaerobic conditions for the plants.

178. Average irrigated and non-irrigated paddy performance is summarized in Table

21. The high profitability of SRI is notable, six times higher than normal irrigated paddy,
which generated an average margin over variable and fixed costs of Rs 20,000/ha.

Table 21: Average Profitability of Rice per Hectare 2009/10

SRI Paddy Non
Production Unit Irrigated Irrigated irrigated
Main product mt 11.3 3.7 3.2
By-product mt 11.4 3.5 3.5
Sales/value
Main product Rs (000) 138 45 40
By product Rs (000) 14 4 3
Gross income Rs (000) 151 49 43
Variable costs Rs (000) 24 28 27
Fixed costs Rs (000) 1 0 0
Total cost Rs (000) 26 29 27
Margin at farm gate Rs (000) 126 20 16
Source: DOA 2011

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 46

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

VII. STRATEGIES TO INCREASE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION

A. Agriculture Prospective Plan (APP) for Nepal

179. The Agriculture Prospective Plan (APP) is a 20-year plan on which the whole
agricultural strategy of the country lies. The main objectives of APP are to reduce
poverty by 35% over a 20-year period; and to increase the rate of growth of agricultural
GDP from the current low level of 3% per annum to about 5%, thereby using agriculture
as the growth engine for the rest of the economy. The government has established a
strategy for implementation of the APP, such as the pocket package strategy, and GO-
NGO-Private sector partnership etc. Pockets of commercially feasible commodities will
be developed and a suitable package of technologies will be provided.

180. Considering the climatic conditions, the following commodities for diversification
have been identified:

(i) Vegetables: summer vegetables - lady's finger, squash, beans, tomato, etc.
winter vegetables - cauliflower, cabbage, radish, carrot, peas, etc.
(ii) Fruits: summer fruits - mango, litchi, guava, pineapple.
winter fruits - apple, walnut, apricot, peach, etc.
citrus fruits - mandarin, orange, lime, etc.
(iii) Spices- ginger, turmeric, cardamom, garlic, etc.
(iv) Vegetable seeds
(v) Sugar cane
(vi) Soybean
(vii) Pulses- lentil, gram, pigeon pea, etc.
(viii) Potato
(ix) Chili
(x) Maize
(xi) Oilseeds - mustard, sunflower, etc.

B. Pocket Areas

181. The use of pocket areas as defined by the APP is the strategy for implementation
as described below.

 Within the pocket areas farmers groups will be formed, comprising mixed
groups of men and women farmers, and specific women farmer groups
particularly in areas and for crops where women are the key decision makers.
 To make the farmers groups sustainable, appropriate measures will be
adapted.
 In order to make the groups independent, the formation of cooperatives and
higher level organization are being encouraged.
 The approach will be demand driven with the demand coming from the farmer
groups. The research and extension services are provided on the basis of
farmers' needs.
 The needs and requirements of the farmers are identified through group
meetings in the pocket area itself.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 47

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

 Farmers are being encouraged to undertake marketing through demonstrations,

training and workshops.
 The private sector involvement is encouraged in appropriate areas, such as
processing, marketing etc.
 In every potential district, a joint forum for traders and producers is being
encouraged.

182. Besides technical and input services, credit services are being made available to
farmers. The whole agricultural system has been divided into two areas i.e., food security
and commercialization.

183. Crop diversification does not only addresses food security and commercialization,
but also makes judicious use of land, water and other resources. Any commodity which
is locally feasible commercially and has higher comparative advantage can be taken into
consideration so that there will be income growth which contributes to poverty alleviation.
Even small and marginal farmers come into groups and can have a commercial type of
farming. In this way the system can be made economically sustainable, environmentally
friendly and ecologically sound.

184. As regards the implementation, besides the concerned agencies, there are
different committees at different levels i.e., district-level, regional-level, central and
national-level. These committees have representations from line agencies, NGOs,
private sector, and farmers etc. Problems encountered are taken to these committees
and discussed thoroughly to bring out solutions. They also provide guidelines to
implementers and suggestions to policy makers. Crop diversification programs if
implemented properly help improve the whole agricultural system.

B. Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects of Crop Diversification

185. Crop diversification is a popular strategy to maximize the use of land, water and
other resources. It can meet different requirements of people's food supply and can
generate earnings for farmers. However, there are several constraints to crop
diversification, as summarized in the following sections.

1. Policy Constraints

186. Due to ineffective linkage mechanisms between extension and research no joint
planning is practiced. As a result no prior commitment is made for the supply of seeds
and other planting materials.

2. Institutional Constraints

187. Institutional constraints include the following:

(i) Research centers recommend cereal varieties without sufficient foundation

seed. As a result these varieties cannot are not available in all districts.
(ii) Seed potatoes are not available for production due to lack of storage facilities.
(iii) Quality is not monitored during distribution.

188. In the case of fruit tree plant distribution, the fruit development division of the
DOA allocates the number of nursery plants to be purchased by the DADO from the
recommended resource centers, farms and registered nurseries.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 48

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

3. Regulatory Constraints

189. Regulatory constraints include:

(i) The price of Agricultural Inputs Corporation (AIC) seeds increases due to
handling and management charges, even though subsidized.
(ii) There are no special arrangements for seed multiplication, local collection
and distribution.
(iii) In the case of plants to be produced by private farms and nurseries, there is
no certification system.
(iv) There is an open distribution of plants from India in the border districts.
However, there are doubts about the quality of this planting material.
4. Other Miscellaneous Constraints

190. The transportation network is very weak, particularly in the hill areas. Thus,
transportation of planting materials to production sites and of produce to the markets is
usually difficult and expensive.

191. In the APP, there is a provision that the production pockets will be connected with
agricultural roads, so that the produce can be transported to nearby markets and the
planting materials can be sent to production sites easily. But for this, the allocated
budget is not enough.

C. Opportunities and Prospects

(i) Existence of climatic diversity, as a result of which many high value crops
can be successfully grown.
(ii) The farmers group approach, in which the farmers can be united to produce
as well as to sell and tackle the problems.
(iii) Initiation of a bottom-up planning process.
(iv) Small and marginal formers can be included in the groups for farming. This
means even small and marginal farmers can practice farming on a
commercial basis to generate income from their small piece of land.
(v) The MAD has a good network of extension services and motivation
measures for farmers.
(vi) Women farmers' proactive involvement in mainstreaming.
(vii) Government agencies, NOGs and the private sector are encouraged to
work hand in hand on the same platform.
(viii) Representation of farmers in agricultural committees at different levels.
(ix) Expanded market centers and marketing technologies. Also, development
of entrepreneurship thinking of farmers.

D. Government Policies and Strategies for Crop Diversification

192. Policies and strategies for crop diversification go along with the policies and
strategies of the whole agricultural system. The following are some of the major policies
and strategies of the government, which are indicated clearly in the APP and the Ninth
Agriculture Plan. The APP provides the central focus for agriculture and rural development.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 49

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

193. It recognizes the need for a different strategy for the Terai region and a different
strategy for the hills and mountains. The Terai strategy is technology driven with the
objective of providing year round irrigation for most of the cultivated area and thus
enables rapid growth in the basic food staples. The strategy for hills and mountains is
demand driven with the objective of increasing production of high value crops.

194. The Ninth Agriculture Plan is giving due attention to crop diversification and
commercialization. Fifteen to twenty years ago farmers were not aware of the
advantages of crop diversification and the government paid little or no attention to it.
Consequently, farming was mostly traditional. In the lowlands the farmers used to grow
rice followed by wheat and in the uplands maize followed by millet. At the most they used
to grow two crops in a year whether lowland or upland. Cropping intensity was very low.
Gradually, diversification started and farmers could judge which crops to grow in their
field for optimum benefit. Many farmers changed their cropping system from traditional to
modern. An income generating type of agriculture was initiated among small and
marginal farmers. Big farmers started commercialization. Due to the enhancement of
technological development, farmers had several options for the commodities. In the
meantime, the farmers' group concept was initiated and pocket strategy came into
implementation. The group and pocket approach in agriculture accommodated all
farmers (small, marginal and big), and because of group spirit they were oriented
towards commercialization. Crop diversification contributes:

(i) To increased cropping intensity

(ii) To generation of employment opportunities
(iii) To commercialization of farming
(iv) To growing high-value crops in order to derive higher profits
(v) To reduction of migration of male household members for work because of
on-farm income earning opportunities
(vi) To engagement of women farmers in income generating activities

195. Crop diversification is an important strategy for overall agriculture development in

the country. It provides the farmers with viable choices of commodities to grow on their
land. Nepal has different agro-ecological zones with a variety of climates ranging from
tropical in the Terai to alpine in the high mountains. Besides the climatic factors, the
farmers need options on high value exportable commodities. Crop diversification can
meet this type of need of the farmers.

196. Previously, the farmers used to concentrate on a few major crops such as rice,
maize and wheat. A considerable area in the hills and high hills was left fallow because
of the fact that there was no diversification in practice. With the increase of population
traditional agriculture could not meet the food requirements and therefore diversification
was introduced. Crop intensity was thereby increased and annual per unit production
was raised.

E. Organization and Management of BIP and DADOs

197. The BIP and DADOs of Sarlahi and Rautahat are well organized. The BIP is a
central level project of the DOI, whereas the DADOs are district level organization of the
DOA. The programs and budget of DADOs are to be endorsed by the respective DDC.
The BIP does not carry out any agricultural activity while DADOs are responsible for
providing extension services in the whole district with their limited man power, resources
and mobility. Thus, the extension services provided by DADOs in the BIP area is weak

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 50

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

and is not able to meet the growing technologies demands of the farmers. The linkage
and coordination among BIP and DADOs are not institutionalized.

198. In order to increase agriculture and water productivity, it is suggested to establish

an agricultural unit (Division) in the BIP under the Project Manager consisting of one
agriculture consultant, one irrigation water management consultant, one social
mobilization consultant, and four junior technicians of agriculture with all logistic support,
Likewise, to strengthen the extension delivery system of DADOs, support should be
provided in terms of manpower and resources to the district offices and the ASCs
located in the BIP area. Similarly, to increase the efficiency of the extension workers
involved in the project activities, some incentives (project allowance) should be provided
for transportation and field visits.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 51

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

VIII. CROPPING PATTERNS AND ANTICIPATED CROP YIELDS

A. Lower Bagmati River Basin

199. There will be a gradual change in the cropping patterns in the BIP area with the
availability of irrigation water and effective extension services. The cropping patterns
such as Spring Paddy (with SRI)-Monsoon Paddy-Wheat or Maize or Potato of three
crops will be adopted in the project area. Sugarcane will continue to be grown in larger
area. Likewise, Paddy-Lentil and Paddy-Mustard will remain to be grown. Winter,
summer and spring vegetables will be grown in larger area with higher production.

200. With the effective extension services, agriculture and water management trainings,
enhancing the capacities of the farmers groups and water user’s groups/association and
support to the extension delivery system to the farmers will gradually replace the existing
and old varieties of crops by new high yielding varieties. As a result, the crop yields and
crop production will be increased in the BIP area. The crop yields at present and with the
project intervention in five years are estimated and presented in Table 22.

201. In order to motivate famers to adopt high yielding technologies, the following
extension activities are suggested to be carried out in the BIP area with the project
support.

 Varietal demonstration of crops

 SRI demonstrations in paddy
 Farmers field visits to demonstrations
 Farmer field tour to research stations and good irrigation schemes
 Farmers field schools
 Agriculture trainings
 Water management trainings
 Capacity building of FGs and WUAs

202. The crop area of spring paddy (Chaite) with SRI method is suggested to be
increased every year and area of early paddy (Bhadaiya) to be decreased as the yield
under SRI method of paddy is much higher than early paddy. Likewise, the area of
sugarcane, winter maize, potato, and vegetables is to be increased with higher yields.
Similarly, some new fish ponds are suggested to be dug.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 52

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

Table 22: Cropping Changes Lower Bagmati

[Area in ha, Yield in ton/ha and Production in tons]

Present Situation 2013 With Project 2018 Incremental
No. Crop Area Yield Production Area Yield Production Production
1 Paddy
a Spring 500 4.2 2,100 500 4.9 2,450 350
Paddy
(Chaite)
b Spring 2,500 11.5 28,750 26,650
Paddy
(Chaite,
SRI)
c Early Paddy 10,000 3.5 35,000 10,000 4.7 47,000 12,000
(Bhadaiya)
d Monsoon 20,000 4.8 96,000 20,000 6 120,000 24,000
Paddy
(Late)
2 Wheat 9,000 2.7 24,300 9,000 3.7 33,300 9,000
3 Maize
a Winter 2,300 5.1 11,730 3,100 6.5 20,150 8,420
Maize
b Summer 2,300 2.7 6,210 2,300 3.5 8,050 1,840
Maize
4 Sugarcane 13,000 60 780,000 14,000 75 1,050,000 270,000
5 Lentil 6,500 1.05 6,825 6,500 1.5 9,750 2,925
6 Mustard 4,600 0.9 4,140 4,600 1.5 6,900 2,760
7 Potato 2,300 15 34,500 3,500 25 87,500 53,300
8 Vegetables
a Winter 2,300 16 36,800 3,200 25 80,000 43,200
Vegetables
b Summer 2,300 13 29,900 3,100 22 68,200 38,300
Vegetables
c Spring 100 12 1,200 900 21 18,900 17,700
Vegetables
9 New Fish 10 4.4 44 44
Ponds of
0.5 ha each
Total 75,200 1,068,705 83,210 1,580,994 510,189

203. It has been assumed that (i) there is improvement in the agriculture extension
delivery systems of the DADOs with the project support including manpower and
resources; (ii) agriculture and water management trainings are regularly provided to the
FGs and the WUAs; (iii) support including subsidies are given to the farmers. (iv) there is
timely supply of irrigation water.(v) new tubewells/dugwells are bored/dug with project
support; and (vi) new fish ponds are constructed with project support

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 53

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

IX. CASE STUDIES

A. Case Study (1): Assessment based on Irrigated Area

204. In Sindh Province, Pakistan irrigation water charging is based on the area
cultivated and the crops grown. Much effort and time is needed to collect information on
these two parameters for an area as large as Sindh. The basic unit of assessment is the
revenue village. Assessment is carried out after each cropping season, theoretically
based on field walkthroughs. Farm areas and owners are identified, based on the area
maps, which are often outdated. Each farm is then divided into cropped acreage plots
and the assessment of each plot is carried out by applying the rate for that crop. Under
this method, the revenue officials use their skill and experience, and sometimes
judgment, to determine whether a selected acre has produced a full yield or some
percentage of full. This figure is used to calculate the water charges. However, the
method is open to manipulation and leads to underassessment. There are nine main
charge rates, including kharif and rabi crops. Furthermore, rates for government and
private lift schemes are double and half the gravity rates, respectively. All these factors
increase the opportunities for misreporting. For several years, the assessment by the
Revenue Department was double-checked by the Irrigation Department. Assessments
were generally found to be as much as 50% higher than those of the Revenue
Department.

205. There is considerable ill feeling among farmers towards the water charge
assessment by the Revenue staff, which makes them very unwilling to pay. The main
complaint concerns the arbitrary assessment of the area under cultivation. A common
grudge is that, as staff is forced to be lenient towards large landowners, they try to
achieve targets by overcharging smaller landowners.

B. Case Study (2): Pricing

206. Pricing as an incentive for water saving In the cases of Haryana and Sindh, the
current water fee is less than 3% of the net revenue from irrigated crops. Neither of these
states identifies demand management as an objective of water pricing, despite the fact
that competition for water is growing. In Morocco, farmers are willing to pay as much as
17% of their net income for a moderately inflexible, but reliable, surface water supply. In
Gujarat, where farmers have complete flexibility of control over their own wells, they will
pay more than 30% of their net income for water. Even at this price, there is no evidence
of farmers investing in improved water management technologies at field level. If policy-
makers in Haryana and Pakistan were to consider using water pricing to deter farmers
from using water, they would need to raise current fees twentyfold or thirtyfold to reach
15% of net income. No agency or government could expect to introduce price increases
of this magnitude in the short term. Prices would have to rise over time and be matched by
improvements in service delivery. The studies from Pakistan and Nepal also demonstrate
that systems of fee collection and enforcement need to be improved significantly as
present systems achieve no more than 30–60% collection of very low fees.

Case Study (3): Building Research Capacity and Dissemination in India

207. India is currently facing huge challenges in water management, including

disputes on reservoir releases, over-exploitation of groundwater resources, degradation
of wet lands, salt-water intrusion in coastal regions and shortages in drinking water
supply. Action was taken to initiate a pilot research project to generate and disseminate
knowledge. This case study illustrates that pilot demonstrations and capacity building are
a prerequisite for promoting improved water management practices to all stakeholders.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 54

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

208. India is the world’s major irrigating country with the major share of the water
resources being used for irrigation. The demand for water from the non-agricultural
sectors is growing rapidly, causing an increased pressure on available water resources.
The national and state governments of India currently face huge challenges in water
management.

209. Agricultural production in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh is mainly

concentrated in the densely populated catchments of the Krishna and Godavari rivers.
The state is facing water related problems like interstate water disputes on reservoir
releases, inequity in canal water distribution in irrigation commands, over-exploitation of
groundwater resources in rain-fed agriculture, degradation of wet lands, salt water
intrusion in coastal regions and shortages in drinking water supply for Hyderabad.

210. Actions taken: the FAO-funded joint applied research study in farmers´ fields was
initiated and facilitated by Alterra–IWRM (the Netherlands) and the State Agricultural
University in Hyderabad.

211. The aim of the study was to generate and disseminate knowledge as well as
build research capacity on improved agricultural water productivity of canal and tank
irrigation systems. Also, the objective is to strengthen strategic partnerships among
research institutions, policy makers, line departments, NGOs and WUAs. Eight pilot areas
throughout Andhra Pradesh were selected for the study. Local NGOs together with local
project staff living in the villages are facilitating the participatory involvement of the pilot
area farmers.

212. The project included both technical and non-technical measures. In addition, a
very important goal is to support the development and design of innovative production
systems to make more effective use of natural resources. An integral part of the project
is to support institutional capacity of local authorities in implementing these approaches.

213. Results and products developed so far are:

(i) Improved on-farm crop and water management packages tested in the pilot
areas resulting in overall higher water productivity
(ii) Up-scaling of pilot area results through remote sensing: canal water savings
up to 40% can be realized in Krishna Western Delta
(iii) Participatory irrigation water management implemented in a canal
command: water savings up to 30% realized
(iv) Participatory irrigation water management implemented in a tank command:
there are no longer water disputes among farmers; tail-enders have
sufficient tank water; groundwater is now regarded as strategic reserve;
increase of cropped area up to 30%
(v) Introduction of subsurface drainage systems to combat deltaic environmental
degradation and salinization: increase of water productivity up to 50%
(vi) Pilot demonstrations and capacity building are a prerequisite for promoting
improved water management practices to all stake holders
(vii) Considerable time was required to build mutual trust between stakeholders
and project staff
(viii) WUAs can effectively employ improved water management practices
(ix) Project achievements served as a model for tank irrigation improvement, for
aspects such as technical, managerial and participatory irrigation

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 55

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

C. Case Study (4): Sunsari Morang Project, Nepal

214. Because of the difficulties in operating the Stage I rehabilitation of the Sunsari
Morang Project (58,000 ha), which was designed as a fully gated, manually operated
system, a structured design was adopted for the rehabilitation of Stage II as follows:
downstream of the off-takes of the sub-secondary canals, the system is ungated. Tertiary
canals are supplied through concrete flow dividers and the watercourses through
adjustable proportional modules, as used in northern India. The operation of the Stage II
subsystem has been considerably simplified compared to Stage I. However, it has lost
flexibility in meeting the variations in demand due to factors such as local variations in
rainfall and excessively long staggering of rice cultivation. Towards the end of the
growing season, some farmers still request irrigation water while others are ready to
harvest. The lack of a drainage system and of operational flexibility in the structured
design imposes severe operational constraints, which affect productivity. The duty
limitations of the main system (0.7 l/s/ha) and the low flows of the Koshi River during the
dry season make this run-of-the-river project very dependent still on monsoon rainfall.

215. This example from Nepal challenges the opinion shared by some irrigation
professionals that farmers prefer proportional distribution. They certainly prefer equity
over anarchy but they can also understand that equity and higher productivity can be
achieved through improved water control and alternative operational procedures. If the
water user associations in Sunsari Morang in Nepal were organized before the physical
improvements, farmers would have been in a position to formulate their preferences for
not freezing the infrastructure into an inflexible distribution system.

D. Case Study (5): Sikta Irrigation Project, Nepal

1. Background

216. The Sikta Irrigation Project is situated in the Banke District of the Mid-western
Development Region. The Project, with a cultivable command area 33,766 ha, including
the rehabilitation of Dunduwa Irrigation System, constructed by Indian Cooperation
Mission in 1964, would irrigate almost all the low lands of the Banke District and its
economic impact could be significant for this development region. The Project area
comprises 34 VDCs and the municipality of Nepalgunj, which is the District
headquarters. The irrigated area can be further extended by 9,000 ha of nine VDCs lying
on the left bank of Rapti River.

217. The concept for the Sikta Irrigation Project was first formulated in pre-feasibility
studies conducted from 1975 to 1976 and contained in the report on the proposed
Western Rapti Multipurpose Development, which comprised the construction of a high
dam at Bhalubang of Dang District with a storage reservoir for irrigation and hydropower
development in the West Rapti Basin and adjacent areas such as Kapilvastu.

218. The German company Lahmeyer International GmbH completed a feasibility

study for Sikta Irrigation Project in August 1980 based on a run-of-the-river diversion
gravity irrigation scheme. A further study for a run-of-the-river scheme was carried out by
the DOI, Hydrology and Meteorology Branch, and this was completed in June 1983.
However, due to unavailability of external funding, the project could not be developed
until 2002, when Irrigation Development Project - MWR decided to reassess the project.
In April 2004, the feasibility study report was submitted by the IDP-MWR after having a
rigorous field level study. The study showed that the project is technically, economically
and socially viable in the present context as well. Based on the Feasibility Study Report
2004, the government decided to implement the project in three phases, which are as
follows. The total cost of the Project as per the Study is NRs.7.45 billion (revised to
NRs.12.80 billion in Fiscal Year 2007/08).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 56

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

219. In view of the relatively high incidence of rural poverty in Banke District in the
Mid-western Development Region – 40% of the rural households fall below the poverty
line - the small number of existing irrigation facilities and the limited local surface and
groundwater resources in the district which would be suitable for small or medium scale
irrigation development, the government has therefore given a high priority to the
implementation of the large scale Sikta Irrigation Project which would irrigate about
43,000 ha of land (including the proposed extension on the left bank) in the district. The
water source for this project is the West Rapti River, which originates from the mid-
mountains in the mid-western Region of the country, having average annual flow of
about 120 m3/s.

220. The overall goal of the project is to contribute to the National Development
Objectives of the government and to improve the standard of living of the people in
Banke District. This would be achieved by the provision of irrigation facilities together
with the improvement of agricultural support services, which would improve the
agricultural productivity so that agricultural production and thus incomes of the rural
population would be increased.

2. Project Area

221. The Project Area is located in the Banke District of the Mid-eastern Development
Region of Nepal. It covers 34 VDCs and one municipality of the district. Nepalgunj is the
headquarter of Banke District and although the administrative head quarter of the Mid-
eastern Development Region is Birendra Nagar in the Surkhet District, Nepalgunj
remains the commercial centre of this region. The head works under construction lies
within 300 m of the highway at the Agaiya village about 58 km east of Nepalgunj. The
project area is accessible by the national highway (Mahendra Rajmarg) by road. The
district headquarters of Nepalgunj is connected from Kohalpur with the national highway
by a regional highway which continues up to the Nepal-Indian Border crossing at
Rupaidhiya.

222. Nepalgunj has all weather airport having daily flights from Kathmandu. This
airport is a hub for most of the air service to the remote hill districts in the Mid-western
Development Region.

3. Water Resources

223. Of all the streams and rivers in the District, the West Rapti River, although rain-
fed, is the only river with a significant perennial flow during the dry season and is
therefore proposed as source for the irrigation system. The drainage area of the Rapti
River lies in the Mid-western Region of Nepal between elevations of 140 to 4,000 m asl.
The total length of the river to the proposed diversion site as about 280 km, and the
catchment area covers 5,459 km2 at this diversion site. The Rapti River is formed by the
confluence of two main rivers in the Mid-western hill region, the Madi khola and the
Jimruk khola, the more important being the Madi Khola which has two tributaries; the
Lungri and Arung kholas.

224. The Rapti River has been gauged since 1964. The nearest gauging station to the
proposed diversion site is at Jalkundi about 42 km upstream from the site with the
catchment area of 5,150 km2. This station has hydrological records since 1964. In the
absence of long term gauging at the intake site selected for the Project, the hydrological
analysis is based on the records of Jalkundi.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 57

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

4. Irrigation Infrastructure

225. To provide irrigation water to 33,766 ha of Banke District, the project would
construct a run-of-the-river, gravity irrigation system, which would comprise the following
principal works.

(i) A barrage with a total length of 317 m across the Rapti adjacent to the
Agaiya village on the East-West Highway, backing up the river flow to a
sufficient elevation to command 33,766 ha.
(ii) An intake head regulator is designed for a maximum diversion capacity of
62.5 m3/s, 50 m3/s for the right bank main feeder canal and 12.5 m3/s for
flushing from the settling basin. The canal intake structure with two gated
openings and a two chamber desilting basin.
(iii) A canal head regulator on the left side will be provided for the diversion of
water to irrigate 1,800 ha, the command area of Rajkulo Irrigation Project.
(iv) A lined feeder canal section of the main canal with a maximum discharge
capacity of 50 m3/s, about 50 km parallel to East-West Highway to serve the
main cultivable command area 33,766 ha on the right bank of the Rapti.
The canal will have a total of 91 structures out of which 66 are minor and 25
are major. The structures comprise of siphons, aqueducts, highway
crossings, village road bridges and covered canals. The canal will be flanked
along its length by an all-weather inspection road. The feeder canal will
enter the command area about 2 km. south of Kohalpur.
(v) A main canal (50 km) and secondary, sub-secondary canals (233 km)
delivering water to 85 ha blocks in the command area, flanked by all weather
inspection roads and provided with appropriate control, measurement and
auxiliary features.
(vi) An open drainage system will be developed starting from the field channel
to collector drain and subsequently connected to tertiary, secondary and
primary drains. No salinity symptoms in land irrigated from tube wells or
from existing surface lifting systems are observed.
(vii) River bank protection works will be provided to control the erosion along the
Rapti and Dunduwa Rivers.

226. The project would incorporate the existing ground water irrigation facilities and
the two existing surface lift irrigation systems in the water distribution system to allow a
structures conjunctive use of the irrigation facilities. Since the discharge in the Rapti
River would only allow to start diversion for the monsoon crop in the main command area
in the middle of June, therefore the existing groundwater facilities would be very
important for the establishment of nurseries for paddy cultivation.

4. Case Study (6): Dispute Management in Farmer’s Managed

Irrigation System: Geya Danda Irrigation System of Eastern Nepal

227. The Geya Danda Irrigation System is one of the most successful farmer’s
managed systems in present context. Irrigation allocation and maintenance responsibility
has been most important in maintaining the high level of support by the irrigator. The
power of decision-making under the village the level irrigation groups, have allowed
integrating the different ethnic group, cultural economic status farmer among the area.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 58

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Agriculture

228. The gathering representing system level decision makes encourage enforcing the
existing rule. Because of social pressure in meeting violators are bounded to pay their
penalties. So the discipline is maintained in the system. All the users have fear to them
to maintain social prestige. So they follow all the rule and regulation. There is general
assembly, which is important open forum for exposing problem. Farmers can raise the
issue regarding their problem. All the beneficiaries envisage importance of effective
communication; information about the charge of irrigation distribution procedure most be
available everywhere. With the penalty for being absent during the maintenance, farmers
cannot afford to miss work. The Geya Danda Irrigation System has been maintained by
the local people using empirical knowledge, skills, methods and local technology for
subsistence in the local environment. The system’s main objective is to fulfill the food
requirements of the local people’s livelihood. In this respect, the local human resources,
local tools and technology, strategy for natural resources management system, collective
indigenous knowledge, experience, skill and attitudes of the people and their initiation
and participation on the process of the resources management is more sustainable.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 59

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Appendix 5

Institutions

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

INSTITUTIONS

CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
B. Study Design .................................................................................................................... 1
C. Scope of Works for Institutional Aspects.......................................................................... 2
D. Report Content ................................................................................................................. 3
II. METHODOLOGIES USED FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSES.............................................. 4
A. Approach .......................................................................................................................... 4
B. Methodology..................................................................................................................... 4
1. Country Level Policy and Institutional Review ......................................................... 4
2. Institutional Benchmarking ....................................................................................... 5
3. Institutional Analyses Tools...................................................................................... 5
4. Financial Analysis .................................................................................................... 6
5. Institutional Analyses Results .................................................................................. 6
III. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF IRRIGATION ........................................................................ 7
A. Historical Background of Institutional Milieu..................................................................... 7
1. History of Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems ....................................................... 7
2. Initiation of State Involvement in Irrigation Affairs.................................................... 7
3. Institutional Development Works at the Bagmati Irrigation Project.......................... 8
4. Changing Priorities, Programs and Projects ............................................................ 8
5. Different Phases of Irrigation Development ............................................................. 9
6. Evolution of the Department of Irrigation ............................................................... 10
7. Non-government and Private Institutions............................................................... 12
B. Prevailing Policy, Legal and Institutional Milieu ............................................................. 12
1. Policy Framework................................................................................................... 12
2. Prevailing Legal Framework................................................................................... 13
3. Policies on Irrigation and Water Sector Development ........................................... 13
4. Irrigation Sector Subsidies ..................................................................................... 14
5. Current Plans, Program and Projects .................................................................... 16
C. Assessment of Existing Scenario................................................................................... 17
1. Assessment of Implementation .............................................................................. 17
2. Performance of Irrigation Management ................................................................. 18
3. Capacities of WUAs ............................................................................................... 19
4. Irrigation Management Transfer as a Possible Solution ........................................ 19

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

5. Lessons Learned from International Experiences of IMT ...................................... 20

IV. PRIMARY RESULTS FROM FIELD ACTIVITIES.................................................................. 22
A. Discussions with Various Stakeholders ......................................................................... 22
B. Field Observations of Bagmati Basin ............................................................................. 22
1. General Information Collected of Bagmati Basin ................................................... 22
2. Observations from Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin ............................................ 23
3. Observations from Lower Bagmati Basin............................................................... 24
C. Stakeholders’ Response to Current Management based on FDGs and PRAs ............. 25
D. Strength, Weaknesses and Main Gaps.......................................................................... 25
V. NEW INITIATIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 27
A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 27
B. Example of Irrigation Management through an Autonomous Irrigation Authority,
Bangladesh............................................................................................................................. 28
C. Example of PPP Management under the Irrigation Management Investment Project
(IMIP) Bangladesh.................................................................................................................. 30
VI. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 33
A. Operation and Maintenance Costs................................................................................. 33
B. Investments in Irrigation Modernization ......................................................................... 33
C. Investments in Capacity Development........................................................................... 34
VII. ROAD MAP FOR INSTITUTIONS.......................................................................................... 35
A. Key Areas for Reform..................................................................................................... 35
1. Policy Reforms ....................................................................................................... 35
2. Capacity Building of WUAs .................................................................................... 36
3. Institutional Strengthening...................................................................................... 37
B. Guidelines for an Institutional Road Map ....................................................................... 38
C. Costs, Resources and Timeframes (Project Level) ....................................................... 40

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: Chronology of Legal and Institutional Measures for Governance of Irrigation

List of Tables

Table 1: Status of WUA Formation in BIP System at Secondary Canal Level (as of 2011-12) ....... 8
Table 2: Strengths, Weakness and Gaps in Different Parts of Bagmati Basin .............................. 26

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

NEPAL INSTITUTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

1. The main objective of the Research and Development Technical Assistance

(RDTA) - TA 7969 REG (called “Innovations for More Food Less Water”) - is to support
the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in the identification, assessment, and design of new
investments for more sustainable, water-efficient irrigated agriculture. The RDTA
responds directly to ADB’s operational plan for sustainable food security and ADB’s
water operational plan for 2011–2020, both of which call for improving the productivity
and efficiency of water use through (i) investing in modern irrigation infrastructure, (ii)
adopting enabling policies that correctly price the opportunity cost of water, and (iii)
strengthening institutions for more efficient and sustainable water management.

2. The RDTA involves two interrelated components named: Task 1 and Task 2.
Task 1 is a comprehensive synthesis of state-of-the-art knowledge and international best
practices in water-efficient irrigated agriculture, including preparation of a detailed
analytical framework for raising water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture in the different
agro-ecosystems and irrigation domains of Asia. While Task 2 involves country studies
and capacity building to support the application of innovative water-efficient technologies
and management systems in the design and implementation of ADB investment projects
in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal. Task 1 is being implemented by International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), while Task 2 is being carried out by a team of consulting
firms that includes Lahmeyer International in association with Lahmeyer International
India, BETS Consulting Services, Centre for Environment and Development, and Total
Management Services. This report mainly related to Task 2 of the RDTA (referred
hereafter as “MFLW Task 2”).

B. Study Design

3. MFLW Task 2 has been designed to generate innovative ideas and mechanisms
that support the production of more food with less water in the region through the
identification, assessment and design of new investments for more sustainable, water-
efficient irrigated agriculture in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. Benchmarking and baseline
measurements have also been included as part of the project so that a sound
benchmarking system can be established and intervention packages at the pre-feasibility
level can be developed. Through a consultative approach, the task aims to prepare
scheme-specific options for each pilot project, possibly in partnership with local institutions.
It is expected to identify technically, economically, and environmentally sound
technologies and associated institutional and policy frameworks ready for scaling up in
future operations by ADB and other development partners. Specific deliverables of the
TA are that its recommendations will be reflected in the future ADB operations in the
design of new ADB projects by 2017.

4. The MFLW Task 2 studies have been built on existing and current studies
supported by the ADB. For example, in Nepal, the MFLW study is building on the 2013
Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project (BRBIP), which is designed to improve water
security through integrated river basin management and increased water availability in
the dry season. Similarly, in Bangladesh, the MFLW study is designed to build on
Irrigation Management Improvement Investment Program (IMIIP) and the studies
prepared by the PPTA (ADB TA 8154-BAN), mainly focusing on the Muhuri Irrigation
Project (MIP), Teesta Barrage Project (TBP) and the Ganges Kobadak Irrigation Project
(GKIP). Likewise, in India, the study will build on the outputs of the TA Scoping Study for
a National Water Use Efficiency Improvement Support Program (NWUEISP) which
supports the National Water Mission (NWM) and the 12th Five Year Plan reform

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

agendas aimed at improving water use efficiency (WUE) and agricultural production on
major and medium schemes in the country.

C. Scope of Works for Institutional Aspects

5. Irrigation management in Asia in the new millennium is facing new challenges

that were unknown to the irrigation policymakers and irrigators two decades ago. The
degree to which irrigation management in Asia is sustainable in the future will depend on
how effective water users, policy makers, technical experts, researchers, NGOs, and
other stakeholders are in designing future irrigation institutions that would cope with future
complexities.1 Hence, it is very imperative to give due importance to the institutional
aspects of irrigation management and to develop a thorough understanding of the existing
institutions and their ability capabilities before attempting to make any improvements.

6. The main objective of the institutional aspects of MFLW Task 2 is to review the
current roles of the key actors and stakeholders in the arena of land and water resources
management with the aim of identifying ways and means of improving their overall
performance. With this objective in mind, all the key actors, functions and processes
involved in the management of irrigated agriculture, along with their links with the
enabling environment and their impact on agricultural production through efficient use of
water are being analyzed.

7. This appendix report on institutions covers the following topics:

(i) Review of the existing policy and legal frameworks for irrigation management
and including Irrigation Management Transfer (country wide assessment)
(ii) Summary of discussions with government and various stakeholders and
review of reports on how irrigation management is performing, eg, are the
guidelines/ rules and financing being followed (country wide assessment)?
(iii) First hand evaluation at the field level how (i) and (ii) are actually being
implemented through the identification of strengths, weaknesses and the
main gaps, and assessment of current levels of management, operation
and maintenance (MOM) funding over last 5 years (project level).
(iv) Indicative assessment of what level and type of MOM will be required for
the future. Identify possible different management scenarios, preliminary
assessment of resources. Preliminary assessment of the government and
WUAs to take on the role (project level).
(v) Outputs of FGDs and PRAs and sample areas to assess stakeholders’
responses to current management, identify weaknesses and bottlenecks.
Identify potential areas for follow up investigation (project level).
(vi) Financial assessment of the MOM costs-current and future to meet the
needs of efficient and sustainable operation and maintenance (project level)
(vii) Identify sources of funding for MOM: government, farmers’ contribution and
alternative funding opportunities (project level)
(viii) Examine different institutional and management arrangements. Link the
proposed modernization plans with the institutional requirements. Identify
how funding and resources gap can be filled (project level).
(ix) Prepare plan and road map for institutions - project and country level.
Assess costs and resources (project level) and time frames and necessary
areas of change and reform required at country level.
1
Shivakoti, G. P., et al, 2005. Asian Irrigation in Transition: responding to the Challenges. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

D. Report Content

8. This report relates to the institutional aspects covered by the consultants of

MFLW Task 2. It has been organized into six sections. The first section gives an
introduction of the background of the project, scope of work, study design and the report
content. The second section describes the methodology followed in the institutional
benchmarking and assessments being carried out under MFLW Task 2. The third section
presents a review of the institutional arrangements at the country level as well as that of
the capacities of the WUAs in Nepal. Section four presents the preliminary results from
the field exercises in Nepal. The fifth section presents the financial assessments carried
out in the course of the study and, finally, section six outlines the preliminary roadmaps
for Nepal in terms of the institutions.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

II. METHODOLOGIES USED FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSES

A. Approach

9. The approach has been to start with the macro level and then to zoom into the
micro level. In this concern, first the institutional assessment at the country level was
carried out. The policy environment and the relevant institutions at the national level
were documented. Then, at the second stage, institutional assessment at the scheme
level was carried out.

10. Standardized approaches were used in the institutional analyses in all the three
countries. However, considering the differences in the context and the requirements of
each scheme, slightly different procedures most appropriate for the particular context,
have been used for the institutional benchmarking and assessment for each scheme.

11. Participatory methods were used to the extent possible so that even while
collecting data from the various relevant institutions (government, water users’ association,
private sector), ways of further expediting them in order to achieve the goal of improving
service delivery and water productivity are explored. Efforts were continuously being
directed towards increasing the responsiveness of the actors, enhancing the flexibility of
the irrigation services and moving towards a more service oriented system. The
proposed changes were discussed with all the stakeholders to confirm that it is in line
with their felt need and priorities.

B. Methodology

1. Country Level Policy and Institutional Review

12. In MFLW Task 2, first of all, the existing policies and legal framework related to
the use of land and water resources were reviewed for each country. This was
considered essential in order to provide a better understanding of the national context
and the environment in which the concerned institutions are operating.

13. Secondly, assessments of the existing institutions and their capabilities were
carried out focusing on the goal of developing capable and efficient institutions. This step
was also considered as an integral part of the project as it was considered imperative to
have capable institutions in place in order to translate the new knowledge and innovative
approaches into actions directed towards obtaining sustainable land and water
management. In this concern, the concerned institutions were grouped into three categories:
public sector, private sector, and water users associations. Each category has been
separately described below.

14. Public Sector (government agencies): As part of the study, the concerned
government institutions were identified and their roles and functions were documented. A
review was also be made of the past and on-going irrigation programs and projects to
comprehend the successful approaches, lessons learned and challenges. The
performance, constraints and opportunities of the existing government institutions was
then analyzed with the objective of identifying various options for enhancing the overall
efficiency of agricultural water use as well as attaining sustainable land and water
management.

15. Private Sector: Realizing the importance of the involvement of the private sector
for making the whole effort more sustainable, a reconnaissance of the prevailing private
sector institutions was carried out and the potential scope for enhancing their role was
also assessed. Potential mechanisms to enhance their roles, such as the introduction of
new incentives or strengthening of existing ones, in addition to identifying the corresponding

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

regulations in order for the private sector to operate within a set of appropriate rules is being
explored.

16. Water Users Associations: Existing Water Users Associations (WUAs) in the
selected pilot schemes were identified and their performance in terms of water use
efficiency and MOM cost recovery were assessed. The needs and aspirations of the
water users were identified. The past success/failure stories of the WUAs were also
explored with the objective of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the institutions
and areas needing special attention.

17. The results of country level analysis of institutions including their evolution,
current status and assessment of the strengths and weakness have been presented in
chapter three of this report.

2. Institutional Benchmarking

18. Baseline data were collected for the selected pilot irrigation systems based on
performance monitoring indicators, such as revenue collection performance, total MOM
costs per irrigated hectare, staff numbers and establishment costs per irrigated hectare,
etc. For the large irrigation scheme in the Lower Bagmati Basin, called the Bagmati
Irrigation Project (BIP), a Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP) performance benchmarking
was conducted while, for the other irrigation systems, benchmarking data was collected
through the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRAs)
tools. The baseline status data collected through different methods have been used to
benchmark the current status and to project the impact of future interventions to improve
service delivery and productive efficiency.

3. Institutional Analyses Tools

19. A range of analyses and focus areas have been identified for the MFLW Task 2
in the different pilot schemes in order to adapt a rationalized and standardized analytical
approaches in all the three countries. The analyses have been designed to: (i) diagnose
the current issues; (ii) analyze the opportunities and options to meet the targets, and (iii)
planning and preliminary design for improved water management and modernization.
Particular emphases of the analyses have varied depending on the specific characteristics
of each scheme.

20. Consultation and participation have been the key parts of the Task 2 strategy.
Specifically for the institutional part, FGDs were used to develop a quick non-quantitative
assessment of current farming systems, constraints and indicative responses to possible
initiatives to modernization and efficiency initiatives. They were used to develop a broad
understanding of the issues and opportunities. The FGDs were open in nature and were
conducted to cover the representatives of the relevant government institutions, WUA
representatives as well as with representatives from private sector, separately or in a
group depending on the topic of discussion. They followed a check list to make sure that
all the essential topics were discussed.

21. The outputs of the FGDs were used to design the questionnaires for the PRA as
well as tailoring of the benchmarking to meet the specific characteristics of each pilot
project. The PRAs are being used to build on the FGDs and consist of structured and
detailed household and farmer surveys using questionnaires and enumerators to widen
the sample base. The PRAs allow some quantitative assessment of constraints, issues
and responses to possible initiatives to increase WUE and productivity, as well as solicit
opinions regarding fair values for cost recovery related to the MOM of the irrigation
scheme now and after modernization.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

22. For selected schemes, the FGDs were supported by PRAs, which are a more
structured approach and range of techniques that enables stakeholders to analyze their
problems and then plan, implement and evaluate agreed-upon solutions. This process was
used to learn about the agriculture and irrigation systems in an iterative and expeditious
manner. It was used in exploring the local knowledge also helped in enhancing the
quality and validity of the information collected from the other sources. The PRA tool
facilitated in developing a deeper understanding of systems' dynamics and in
appreciating the interlinked factors influencing land and water management. It was
instrumental in exploring the constraints and opportunities of the operating agencies,
WUAs and farmers, and in identifying the issues facing the farmers, their aspirations and
opportunities and bottlenecks for change. Moreover, it also helped in developing better
understanding of the conditions of the proposed an intervention and other related issues
in an intensive, cumulative and efficient manner.

23. A simple package of PRA tools was used in MFLW Task 2. Separate gatherings
were called for farmers of different levels of the WUA. The location of the PRA session
was randomly selected making sure that all the head, middle and tail portions of the
irrigation command are covered. The whole process was designed and developed to be
complete in about two months for each scheme. Details of the FDGs and PRAs
conducted under MFLW Task 2 have been included in Appendices 2 of this report. The
outcome from the field exercises has been included in Section IV of this report.

4. Financial Analysis

24. Cost recovery for MOM is seen as one of the major constraints for the long term
and sustainable improvement of irrigation performance. Hence, an assessment of the
real costs of MOM and the current levels of allocated/expended funding has been carried
out in MFLW Task 2, with the objective of formulating a basis for planning the requirements
and identifying appropriate approaches to cost recovery. It was carried out through a
participatory process with active involvement all stakeholders. Efforts were directed
towards increasing the responsiveness of the actors, enhancing the flexibility of the
irrigation services and moving towards a more service oriented system. The outcome of
this endeavor has been presented in Section V of this report.

5. Institutional Analyses Results

25. Based on the data collected from different sources including literature review;
primary data collected from the field using different methods like field observations,
FDGs, PRAs, etc.; and discussion with various stakeholders and actors in the field of
land and water management, analyses have been made of the prevailing institutional
arrangements and the reforms needed to achieve the goal of attending higher production
gains using less water. All data pertaining to the institutional aspects including its
performance monitoring indicators like revenue collection performance, total management
and MOM costs per irrigated hectare, staff numbers and establishment costs per
irrigated hectare, etc. were used in this analysis. The objective of this analysis was to
assess the strengths and constraints of the different institutions (government, WUA and
private) and to explore opportunities for further defining their role in order to contribute to
better water management. Necessary changes in rules, procedures and structures
(physical and/ or institutional) related to water rights, water delivery services, accountability
mechanisms and incentives that can contribute toward better performance have been
identified. Thus, a broad roadmap has been prepared based on all the analyses. The
outline of the roadmap for institutions has been presented in Section VII of this report.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

III. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF IRRIGATION

A. Historical Background of Institutional Milieu

1. History of Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems

26. Evidences of the engagement of the agrarian communities of Nepal in the

development of irrigation schemes are available from the period that dates back to the
sixth century. Using local knowledge and skills the Nepalese farmers constructed simple
and rudimentary irrigation systems using locally available materials like boulders and
wooden logs. These systems are commonly referred to as Farmers Managed Irrigation
System (FMIS). In these FMISs, farmers managed and utilized water as per their individual
or collective needs. Resource mobilization was generally done by the farmers themselves.
Over time, such practices and associated norms, generally unwritten, became the guiding
principles for managing water-related conflicts.

27. Sporadic supports were also made by incumbent kings in response to the pleas
(jaaheris) made to the palace. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the
state provided material and financial support to construct raj kulo (royal canals) mainly in
and around Kathmandu Valley, which were managed by communities (Poudel, 2003).2

28. During the nineteenth and first half of twentieth century, the farming communities
in both the hills and Terai of Nepal are found to have significantly enhanced the number
of FMIS (about 20,000) following the growing urge to expand paddy cultivation. These
FMIS have surpassed the test of time. Today also, most of these FMIS have still
survived and still form the predominant part of irrigated agriculture of the country.

2. Initiation of State Involvement in Irrigation Affairs

29. The state had no role in development and management of water resources until
the middle of nineteenth century. With the expansion of paddy cultivation during the
nineteenth century, the state also started to recognize agriculture as a source for
revenue generation. In 1853, it promulgated the National Code of Conduct (muluki ain
BS1910). The objective of this Code of Conduct was to make the District Revenue
Offices (maal addas) responsible for enforcing prior use water rights (primarily based on
the customary practices); to develop irrigation in the plains (Terai); to facilitate in
construction, operation and maintenance of irrigation systems; and to manage related
conflict management. Under the Muluki ain the king was formally the owner of the natural
resources in the country. Rights of ownership often were transferred to the king’s family
or other elite.3 Occasional investments in developing irrigation canals through the
interests of the king or prime minister are also found to have occurred.

30. In 1951, when multi-party system was established in the country, ownership of
natural resources was shifted from the king to the state of Nepal. The tax for natural
resources had to be paid directly to the state of Nepal and no longer to the elite or royal
family (Pradhan, 1989). However, the institutions around water did not have a major
change. The state still did not have a strong apparatus to implement new regulations.
Most important regulations still came from customary and local law. For local elites, it
became more difficult to organize farmers for the creation of public works, because of
changes in ownership.

2
Paudel, S. N., 2003. Nepalma Sinchahi: Jaljanya Savyata ra Samsthagat Vikash (Irrigation in Nepal:
Water-based Civilization and Institutional Development. Jalshrot Vikash Sanstha, Kathmandu, Nepal.
3
Patterns of Irrigation Organizations in Nepal: A Comparative Study of 21 Farmer-Managed Irrigation
Systems by Prachanda Pradhan. IWMI, 1989.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

31. Even though construction of modern irrigation systems in Nepal is observed to

have started during Rana regime in 1922, starting with Chandra Nahar followed by
Juddha Nahar, Jagadispur Jalasraya (Banganga), Phewa Bhadh, etc., not much was
achieved by the government until a separate department was established for irrigation
and Nepal started exercising periodic plans. Irrigation development is said to have become
more organized after 1957 when the practices of undertaking planned development
activities in form of five-year development plans started taking roots. Objectives and
targets were set for each sector including irrigation and annual programs were made to
meet these targets.

3. Institutional Development Works at the Bagmati Irrigation

Project

32. Implementation of institutional development activities in the project area lies with
the BIP. The water management division has envisaged carrying out WUA formation at
secondary, distributary, branch and main canal levels. Till 2012, the formation of WUAs,
only at some secondary canal levels, has been carried out through one Agricultural
Engineer, and two Association Organizers. The level of organizations as envisaged are
as follows:

 Secondary Canal Water User’s Associations (Registered)

 Distributary Canal Level Committee,
 Branch Canal Level Co-ordination Committee
 Main Canal Level Co-ordination Committee
33. The members elected are Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Additional
Secretary, Treasurer and six (6) members.

34. The status of WUA formation until the year 2011-12 as shown in the Table 1,
which indicates that institutional development aspect of the project has not been paid
due attention. As a result, participation of the water users in the MOM of the canal
system is not very much visible.

Table 1: Status of WUA Formation in BIP System at Secondary Canal Level

(as of 2011-12)
Organized Total
No. Name of Canal Registered WUA (Not Registered) Formulated
1 Eastern Main Canal 49 4 53
2 Western Main Canal 97 11 108
3 Total WUA Formation 146 15 161
Source: Annual Progress Report (FY 2011-12), “Consulting services for remaining command area
development works”, by Multi Disciplinary Consultants (P) Ltd, MEH Consultants (P) Ltd, ERMC (P), Ltd &
WELINK Consultants (P) Ltd.

4. Changing Priorities, Programs and Projects

35. The priorities and programs for irrigation development in Nepal have also gone
through many changes and phases amid economic and political changes that the country
has gone through (Shivakoti, 2000; Shukla, 2001; Shah and Singh, 2001; Sijapati, 2008).

36. Nepal embarked into periodic plans from 1957. This marked the beginning when
it gradually started carrying out irrigation development activities in a planned manner.
The focus during the initial period was mainly on expansion of irrigated area. The minor
irrigation program was introduced in the second three-year development plan (1962-65)
to provide low-cost-irrigation facilities to farmers within a short period of time. The

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

program included the construction of small wells, irrigation tanks, reservoirs, pumps (lift)
and other low cost irrigation facilities. Although it was planned to provide irrigation
facilities to 4,455 ha by the end of the Plan period under this program, the actual
achievement was insignificant.

37. The Third Plan Period (1966-70) saw the countrywide implementation of the
minor irrigation program with the emphasis on the participation of the beneficiaries. The
government investment in irrigation development - especially in the large-scale irrigation
systems in the Terai increased tremendously from 1970 onwards. This was due to the
increase in the borrowing of international capital in the form of loans and grants for the
country's overall economic development. This is clearly reflected in the surge of irrigation
development targets in the subsequent five-year development plans- from the Fourth
Plan (1970-75) onwards.

38. Until the middle of 1980s, irrigation development by the government focused
largely on the construction of physical infrastructure of canals and structures, and very
little attention was given to the effective management of the completed systems.
Attention began to be paid to the improved management of government-operated irrigation
systems from 1985 onwards. This is reflected in the implementation of a number of
management-oriented projects in 1985-89: the USAID-funded Irrigation Management
Project (IMP) in 1985, the Irrigation Line of Credit (ILC) in 1988 financed by the World
Bank, the Irrigation Sector Project (ISP) in 1988 financed by the ADB, and the Irrigation
Sector Support Project (ISSP) in 1989 under the co-financing of the UNDP, the World
Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). All these projects have specifically
emphasized the participatory approach to irrigation development and management of
irrigation facilities. Further, following the introduction of the Basic Needs Program (BNP)
in 1987, the working Policy on Irrigation Development for the fulfillment of Basic Needs'
was formulated in the early 1989.

39. From the 1990s there has been a policy shift from new construction to the
rehabilitation of existing schemes. The government adapted a policy of promoting small-
scale irrigation schemes and increasing farmers’ participation at all stages of the project.
It also started providing support to FMIS to improve their infrastructure.

5. Different Phases of Irrigation Development

40. Based on the review of the history, irrigation development in Nepal can be
described as having gone through four different phase: (i) initial phase (before 1957); (ii)
planned development phase (1957-70); (iii) infrastructure development phase (1970-
1985); and (iv) integrated development phase (after 1985).

41. The period before 1956, can be observed as initial efforts of commencing and
streamlining activities related to governance of irrigation. It signifies an era of evolution of
rules, norms or codes related to irrigation development and defining roles and
responsibilities of the informal irrigator communities involved in the development of the
irrigation infrastructures. This phase, with no formal linkages between stakeholders and
the state’s organ or external support agencies and allied government bodies, largely
benefited the elites and ones that were close to the state’s power structure and the palace.

42. The next period from 1957 to 1970 can be characterized as an era of planned
development in Nepal. Extensive development of water resources infrastructure took
place under the joint initiatives of the state and bilateral donors. Three important laws
related to governance of water resource sector were institutionalized during this period.
Keeping the emphasis on irrigation development, but with the view of making it better
planned, the Irrigation Act of 2018 was promulgated in 1961. This Act made explicit legal
provisions for various water uses in addition to irrigation, distribution of water among
aspiring water users, collection of water charges, sewerage disposal, etc. Another act,

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

the Water Tax Act of 2023 was later enacted in 1966 to articulate provisions for water tax
and licensing, including for drinking water. In 1967, a more comprehensive act, the
Irrigation, Electricity and Related Water Resources Act of 2024 was brought in,
particularly for providing a legal framework for the various uses of water. In all these
Acts, the emphasis was on the state’s lead roles in the governance of water sector. No
provisions to involve the grass-root level stakeholders in the decision-making processes
existed. Consequently, provisions for ensuring genuine representation of stakeholders in
the governance of water sector, accountability, and enabling environment for participatory
water resource management largely remained unaddressed.

43. The period from 1970 to 1985 mainly focused on the development of relatively
large water projects, again with bilateral assistance. The sector concentrated on
infrastructure development to achieve high economic growths. The state intensively
developed large schemes and took charge of their management solely through its own
bureaucracies. Promulgation of the Soil and Watershed Conservation Act in 1982; on the
presumption that the state could check the prevalent mismanagement of watersheds
leading to land degradation, through floods, water logging, salinity and siltation in the
reservoirs; fostered the state’s roles further in constructing and maintaining dams,
embankments, improving terraces, constructing diversion channels and retaining walls
as well as in protecting vegetation in landslide prone areas. Towards the end of this
period, based on the experiences gained through pilot projects such as participatory
water supply and sanitation projects (supported by UNICEF), Irrigation Management
Project (supported by USAID), etc., which heavily emphasized organized stakeholders’
participation in the development and management of the water related projects, a greater
realization that the state-led, sectoral, and construction-oriented approach alone cannot
produce the intended outputs began to take roots among the water sector policy makers.

44. As a consequence, the period after 1985 has been heavy on an integrated and
participatory development approach in the water sector. The various laws and regulations
that have been enacted after 1985 stress on making congenial provisions for encouraging
stakeholders’ participation in the development and management of various water-related
projects. Similar realizations can be seen to have evolved among the stakeholders’
organizations and accordingly, initiatives have been made by them to be part of the
governance process of the water resource sector in the country (e.g. formation of National
Federation of WUAs). Several new policies, laws, and regulations have been promulgated
and interventions been made that exhibit efforts of various institutional measures taken in
Nepal for improving irrigation governance. In 1989, the action plans and policies for the
turnover of small irrigation systems and the participatory management of large irrigation
systems were formulated. This was followed by the promulgation of Water Resources
Act and Irrigation Policy in 1992 with the clear vision of irrigation development. In line
with the commitment made in the first policy document, the government has been
updating its irrigation policy from time to time. The policy was amended in 1997, then in
2003 and recently in 2013. The Irrigation Policy enforces the concept of decentralized,
autonomous, and self-financed management of the irrigation schemes. In management-
transferred surface or groundwater irrigation systems, the state would not collect
irrigation service fees. The respective WUAs can collect such fees on their own from
their beneficiaries as per the operation and maintenance need of the particular scheme.

6. Evolution of the Department of Irrigation

45. As the main government agency responsible for irrigation in the country, the
Department of Irrigation (DOI) has passed through different stages working under
different ministries before coming to its present stage and form. Its genesis goes back to
1952 when it was known as the 'Canal Department' and was placed under the Ministry of
Works and Transportation to gradually construct irrigation infrastructure throughout the
country. At that time, there were no qualified Nepali technicians and Engineer Kartar
Singh Garcha of Panjab, India was assigned as the first Chief Engineer of the Department.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Not only the chief engineer but the working modality was also based on Indian system as it
was considered to be well developed for the execution of public works.

46. After the beginning of planned development in the country, annual programs
were made to meet the set targets of expanding irrigation infrastructure to supplement
the monsoon for paddy cultivation. For the execution of the programs the department is
also found to have gradually expanded by establishing division offices in different areas.
Beginning with Chandra and Judha Canal Divisions in central Terai it expanded to
Kathmandu Division for Kathmandu valley, Morang Division in the east, Bhairahawa
Division in the west and Parwanipur Division for Parsa and Bara districts. The chief of
the division offices were given equal status as the Badhahakims (the then area
administrative chiefs). Slowly, the Nepali engineers also entered the service in the
department and started replacing the Indian engineers.

47. In 1960, the Canal Department was placed under Ministry of Heath, Canal and
Electricity. Soon the Drinking Water Department was also merged into the Department
and it was named Irrigation and Drinking Water Department. The organizational structure
of the Department was also expanded with three Superintendent Engineers under the
Chief Engineer, who headed the organization. Divisional Engineers, one for each
irrigation project, were placed under the Superintending Engineers and Engineers and
Overseers respectively under the Divisional Engineers. Fortunately, after 1960 the
number of people completing their engineering mainly from India or Russia gradually
increased and these got accommodated in the gradually expanding organization.

48. Considering the fact that hydrological studies carried out through the assistance
of USAID had greater significance for irrigation, the then Irrigation and Drinking Water
Department was reorganized in 1972 by merging the Hydrology and Meteorology
Department. It was then called Irrigation and Hydrology and Meteorology Department
and was placed under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Irrigation. Its organizational
structure was also expanded to include the four Regional Directorates. Posts like
Director General, Deputy Director General, Regional Director, etc. were created instead
of the original posts like Chief Engineer, Superintendent Engineer, etc.

49. The targets for irrigation are found to have drastically increased from the fifth five
year plan (1975-80). The seventh five year plan is found to have introduced many
changes in the irrigation development approach. Including the expansion of command
area development, the plan also stressed on improving the management of the existing
systems by introducing effective water management.

50. In 1980, the Irrigation, Hydrology and Meteorology Department was placed under
the Ministry of Water Resources. Also, one more Directorate was added for the Far-
western Region following the government's decision to consider Far-west as a separate
development region. Even though the division and sub-division offices were under the
regional directorates central-level projects were directly under the department.

51. Up until the mid-1980s, the task of development and management of irrigation in
the country was being carried out by several agencies, viz.: Department of Irrigation,
Hydrology and Meteorology (DIHM), Farm Irrigation and Water Utilization Division
(FIWUD) of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and the Ministry of Panchayat and Local
Development (MPLD). Considering the need to bring all the irrigation activities under one
umbrella, in 1987 all these different units were merged into one agency and the
Department was given the nomenclature of Department of Irrigation (DOI). Regional
Irrigation Directories (RID) in each development region and District Irrigation Offices
(DIO) in each district were also established under the DOI.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

52. After the promulgation of Local Governance Act in 1999 the responsibility of
development of all rural infrastructures including irrigation was entrusted to district
infrastructure development unit. Thus, it was deemed necessary to reorganize the
department to adjust to these changes thus, in January 2002, DOI was again reorganized
by forming Division Offices instead of the previous District Offices. Separate department
was formed for the river training works. Then in 2009, since the establishment of Ministry
of Irrigation (MOI), DOI has been working under it.

53. Presently, the DOI is the key government agency responsible for the planning,
development and management of irrigation in the entire country. The present department
has been organized to do so through its 26 Irrigation Development Divisions, 20
Irrigation Development Sub-divisions, 8 Irrigation Management Divisions, 3 Mechanical
Divisions and 8 Groundwater Field Offices which in turn are monitored by regional offices
in each of the five development regions and guided by a central office in Jawalakhel,
Lalitpur. The DOI is equally responsible for development of new irrigation projects and
MOM of developed schemes.

7. Non-government and Private Institutions

54. Apart from the government, many other institutions have and still continue to
support the irrigation sector of Nepal. Multilateral donors like World Bank, ADB, UNDP,
FAO, IFAD, etc. and bilateral donors like India, China, JICA, USAID, etc. have provided
financial support. Similarly, international organizations such as IWMI, CARE Nepal, Ford
Foundation, Winrock International, HELVETAS, Plan International, GTZ, etc. have supported
the sector by carrying out various feasibilities and assessment studies. They have also
contributed in disseminating recent and appropriate technologies. Likewise, national non-
profit organizations like INPIM Nepal, FMIS Promotion Trust (FMIST), Jalshrot Vikas
Sanstha (JVS), have been contributing support to the farming community through
various applied studies, capacity building and dissemination activities.

55. Private institutions operating with profit motive are also contributing to the
irrigation sector. These are spread throughout the nation but are localized and are
observed to be mainly engaged in agro-industries and marketing tasks.

56. The donors started supporting irrigation in Nepal from the 1960s. Initially it was
bilateral grants, particularly Indian and American grants. Later, from the mid-1970s
onward, Nepal also started accepting loans from multilateral donors. A significant
amount of expenditure was made in the 1980s for expansion of irrigated area and
command area development through multilateral donor support during the 1980s and
1990s. At present, multilateral support from ADB, World Bank and Saudi Fund accounts
for slightly more than 50% of the total investments made by the government in the
irrigation sector of Nepal so far.

57. The activities of international organizations in the arena of irrigation in Nepal can
be observed from the 1970s while the national NGOs mainly established and started
their activities from the 1990s.

B. Prevailing Policy, Legal and Institutional Milieu

1. Policy Framework

58. Nepal has very recently promulgated a new irrigation policy i.e. Irrigation Policy
2013. It was done in line with the commitment by the government to update the policy
document within five years of its commencement, even though this time it took almost 10
years. (The last policy document was promulgated in 2003). No significant deviation has
been made in the new policy. However, based on the experiences gained in the last 10
years, refinements have been made in the details to make it more applicable.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

59. The policy outlines the strategies for irrigation development. It covers the
sustainable development and extension of irrigation area by effectively utilizing country’s
available water resources to support in the increased productivity of agriculture. The
policy incorporates: (i) maintenance, effective water management and new construction
of irrigation projects to provide year round irrigation service; (ii) conjunctive use of
surface and groundwater systems; (iii) balanced irrigation development; and (iv)
organizational improvements and capacity development of staff.

2. Prevailing Legal Framework

60. The current state of affairs Nepal in terms of irrigation is guided by the Water
Resources Act, 2049; Water Resources Regulation, 2050; and Irrigation Regulation,
2056. The main content of each of these documents has been briefly outlined below.

61. Water Resources Act, 2049 (1992) vests ownership of all the country’s water
resources in the state. It establishes a hierarchy of water needs and sets the state as the
licensor of water use. It also provides for levying a water charge, as prescribed by the
state, to the licensee against the use of water resources. The Act allows a licensee to
make available services from the use of water resources to any other person based on
mutual terms and conditions and to collect charges for the delivered services. For the
water resources developed by the state, the service charge would be assessed and
realized for the services rendered to water users as prescribed by a tariff fixation
committee. Services to any person can be stopped in case of non-payment of such
charges, unauthorized use of the services, or for any act that may contravene the
predefined terms and conditions. The Act also empowers the government to make
necessary rules on matters relating to water fees, charges, etc payable to the state for
utilizing water resource related services.

62. Similarly, Water Resources Regulation, 2050 (1993) delegates the power to
recognize licensed users and resolve water related disputes to the district level. It also
provides for a “District Water Resources Committee (DWRC)” in each district, under the
chairmanship of Chief District Officer (CDO) comprising of the Local Development Officer
and representatives from district level Agriculture Development Office, Forest Office,
Drinking Water Office, Irrigation Office, Electricity Project Office, offices related to
utilization of water resources, and the District Development Committee.

63. Irrigation Regulations, 2056 (2000) emphases on greater collaboration with water
users in all phases of irrigation projects - planning, construction, operation and maintenance.
The strategy of increasing farmer participation have been emphasized, mainly based on
the recognition that government resources alone were inadequate to meet the country's
irrigation development objectives and sustain the management of government irrigation
systems after their completion. The Irrigation Regulation gives water users, a legal
mandate to form water users' associations and has institutionalized the participation of
actual water users in irrigation.

3. Policies on Irrigation and Water Sector Development

64. Important documents relating to irrigation and water sector policies in Nepal since
1990 include the following:

 Master Plan for Irrigation Development in Nepal (1990)

 Water Resources Act (1992)
 Irrigation Policy (1992, 2003, 2013)
 Groundwater Development Strategies (1987/1994)
 Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995)
 Irrigation Rules (2000)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

 National Water Strategy (2002

 Irrigation Policy (2003)
 Irrigation Development Vision (2005) and Associated Financial Plan
 National Water Plan (2005)
 New Irrigation Policy MOI (2013)
 Draft Integrated Water Resources Strategy (2011 - WECS)
 Draft Policy on Micro-irrigation (2007-2011)
 National Plans (9th, 10th, 3-year Interim Plans till 2012/13 )

65. In summary, these documents emphasize a balanced development of water

resources in Nepal. They have recognized drinking water, irrigation, hydropower and
tourism as important priority areas of water sector development in Nepal.

66. In regard with the irrigation development, Irrigation Policy, 1992 (and its updated
versions in 2003 and 2013) is the most important policy document for irrigated
agriculture development in Nepal. The Irrigation Policy evolved to direct irrigation
development and management in a partnership between users associations and
government agency. This required users’ participation both at the stage of irrigation
development and management of irrigation system after the completion of development.
Various modes of participation between users and association have been visualized
depending upon size and type of irrigation system, eg surface, groundwater and non-
conventional irrigation systems. The newer version of policy is formulated also with the
objective of promotion of conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water based
irrigation systems along with new / non-conventional irrigation systems such as rain
water harvesting, pond irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, drip irrigation and treadle pump
irrigation. In the country, the irrigation systems developed so far are limited to run of the
river systems. To make the system good for round-the-year irrigation, it is necessary to
develop storage so that the problem of low flow of rivers during the winter season can be
mitigated to some extent.

67. In summary, these policy documents envision the intended output from irrigation
development as follows:

(i) To avail round the year irrigation facilities through effective management of
existing water resources
(ii) To develop the institutional capacities of water users for sustainable
management of existing systems
(iii) To enhance knowledge, skills and institutional working capability of
technical human resources, water users and NGOs relating to development
of the irrigation sector

68. However, inadequate budgets, lack of proper human resources development and
management, lack of capacity of the users for proper MOM of irrigation systems, and
environmental issues have remained to be the key constraints toward the effective
implementation of these policy documents.

4. Irrigation Sector Subsidies

69. In the irrigation sector, the major forms of subsidies include (i) capital cost
subsidies, and (ii) operating cost subsidies. Capital cost subsidies are mainly in forms of:

 Construction of main infrastructure for surface water schemes and deep

tubewells
 Construction cost of shallow tubewells

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

 Rehabilitation cost for agency and farmer managed irrigation systems.

70. Likewise, the forms of MOM subsidies include:

 Electricity cost subsidy for tubewell and lift irrigation systems

 MOM subsidy for surface systems

71. Currently as specified in Irrigation Policy 2003, surface irrigation system

construction and rehabilitation of medium and large schemes is being provisioned with a
capital subsidy of between 85 and 97% for infrastructure construction cost down to the
tertiary canal level. Farmer contributions can be in cash or kind. While in the past,
farmers in Nepal were quite self-sufficient, as evidenced by the extensive development
of FMISs without government support, in more recent times they have become
dependent on government support, as evidenced by the collapse in STW construction
after the end of subsidies during the period of APP. The main reasons why little irrigation
development would occur in the absence of subsidies include:

 The small size of almost all irrigation holdings

 Productivity is low by international standards.
 The expectation that government will meet the basic infrastructure needs of
the people “because it has always done so”
 Farmers currently are unwilling or unable to pay their ISFs
 Surface schemes are expensive to both construct and rehabilitate.
 In no country dominated by smallholder and subsistence agricultural production
have users demonstrated capacity to meet a significant proportion of the costs
of irrigation scheme construction.
 Most of the easily developed irrigation areas in the mountains, hills and valleys
have already been developed. This means that new schemes will be high cost
in future.

72. Subsidies are provisioned for system management and MOM on agency
managed irrigation schemes. This has been because for a substantial period maintenance
of such schemes were “deferred” that over time required major rehabilitation to bring it
back up to effective operational condition. To cope with the problem, government brought
in a program of “turn over” the management of these systems to WUAs in a process
termed Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT). This has been supported by a number of
donor projects including by ADB (1995) and USAID (1996). Several other bilateral and
donor funded projects since then involved in rehabilitation of schemes and assisted in
IMT. Under similar scheme FMIS were also rehabilitated for example SISP (ADB), NISP
(WB) and the ongoing CMIASP (ADB) and IWRMP (WB). However, IMT stops at the
tertiary canal level in larger schemes.

73. In regard to groundwater irrigation with tube wells a subsidy has been in great
consideration. Before and after APP, STW construction was subsidized, mainly through
ADB. However it was considered that such subsidies were delaying groundwater
development so needed to be removed. Policy-linked program such as APP and sector
loans provided by ADB convinced the government to remove subsidies, against
substantial opposition. However, there was no progress in STW development and this
perhaps caused a failure to meet APP targets of STW installation despite of a program of
credit also attached with the program. Little development occurred for several years and
government then reintroduced STW subsidies. Under this new arrangement STW boring

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

and development is government funded (through GWRDB) with groups of farmers

required to equip the bores and invest in water distribution system.

74. A wide range of subsidies relate to non-conventional irrigation investment. NITP,

a program of DOI, pays for most NCI investment from the source to the field though with
a minimum community contribution of 3%. NGO projects also normally pay for water
acquisition, and often also contribute for distribution system either directly or through
credit provision.

75. Electricity costs are subsidized for tube well and lift irrigation system users by the
Nepal Electricity Authority, at a rate of around 50% of the normal commercial tariff of
NRs.10 per unit. However a major constraint in adequate utilization of this facility is
constraint in development of electricity line by NEA in all such required area.

5. Current Plans, Program and Projects

76. Irrigation Master Plan 1990, Agriculture Perspective Plan 1995, Water Resources
Strategy 2002 and National Water Plan 2005 are the overarching long term plans that
guide the current irrigation activities in Nepal.

77. The APP (1995) is 20-year long term plan that stresses on the need to diversify
agricultural production on the basis of geographical location and commercialization. It
was demand driven and considered as to increase agricultural productivity through
irrigation (groundwater), fertilizer use, infrastructure (agricultural roads), and technology,
but it was not fully implemented. However, the recent Agricultural Policy, which updates
the APP, places commercialization, private sector-led development and trade at the
forefront of the development agenda.

78. The National Water Plan (NWP), 2005 is first long-term plan of water resources in
the country. It is aimed towards operationalizing the Water Sector Strategy (WSS)
emphasizing on integrated or holistic approach. In principle, it recognizes the broader
development goals that include human, societal and environmental aspects. It postulates
the doctrines such as the integration, coordination, decentralization, popular participation
and implementation of water-related programs within the framework of good governance
and equitable distribution. It has adopted Integrated Water Resources Management
(IWRM) as one of the principal themes. Hence, it emphasizes that management of water
resources services has to reflect the interactions between different demands and
coordinate within and across the sectors.

79. With the national water sector goal of ‘significantly improving the living conditions
of the Nepali people in a sustainable manner’ by the end of the plan, the NWP has
detailed out the activities for short-term (by 2007), medium-term (by 2017) and long-term
(by 2027) stressing on the efficient but sustainable use of the resource. Hence, the NWP
is still effective and, it terms of time, the nation is currently about mid-way through the
planned period.

80. Within the broader framework of the Irrigation Master Plan 1990 and National
Water Plan 2005, the DOI has been preparing and implementing its annual programs.
Apart from the continuation of MOM of on-going projects, the DOI, for the last few years,
has been also been working with marginalized farmers in remote areas under the
program of Non-conventional Irrigation Technology Project (NITP). Similarly it has given
high priority to IWRM principles while planning and developing new projects. Having
realized the importance of year round irrigation, it is underway to start multipurpose inter
basin water transfer project, diverting water from water surplus river to water deficit river.
Currently, the DOI is involved in the development of many irrigation projects like Sikta,
Ranijamara Kulariya, Mahakali III, Babai, IWRMP, CMIASP and MIP.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

C. Assessment of Existing Scenario

1. Assessment of Implementation

81. This section of the report provides an evaluation at the irrigation programs that
have been implemented or are being implemented at present. In this concern, strengths,
weaknesses and the main gaps in terms of program implementation has been analyzed.
Assessment has been made by comparing the actual implementation compared to the
stipulated plans.

82. In spite of producing a fairly comprehensive long-term plan (NWP, 2005), Nepal
has not been able to make significant strides in terms of implementation of its irrigation
activities. An assessment carried out after the short-term timeframe (2007) has clearly
revealed significant gaps exists between the targets set, proposed activities, actually
implemented activities and the achievements (Sijapati, 2008).

83. For the irrigation sub-sector, NWP’s short-term purpose was to establish a
foundation towards the end of achieving appropriate and efficient irrigation that supports
optimal and sustainable use of irrigable land in the country and to provide tangible
benefit to the people for the fulfillment of their basic needs. The main output at the end of
the period was expressed as irrigation systems planned, developed and continued for
sustainable management. The physical targets set for the period for the irrigation sector
by the NWP were as follows:

 71% of the total irrigable area will be developed to have irrigation facility
 49% of the irrigated area will receive year-round irrigation
 35% irrigation efficient will be attained
 30% of the MOM cost will be recovered as ISF
 140% cropping intensity will be achieved in year-round irrigation
 160% and 126% cropping intensity will be achieved for all crops and cereals
only respectively
 15% increase in cereal production compared to 2001

84. For this target, the following five activities were proposed by the NWP:

 Integrated Program for Irrigated Programs

 Improved Management of Existing Irrigation Schemes
 Improved Planning and Implementation of New Irrigation Systems
 Capacity Building of Local Level Institutions
 National Capacity Building of Farmers

85. Gap analysis in terms of expenditure revealed that, for the short-term period, the
NWP proposed a total expenditure of NRs.20,185 million, out of which NRs.19,794
million was for structured means and the remaining NRs.391 million for unstructured
means. The expenditure through unstructured means has not been accounted for but the
compilation of development expenditure in the different projects of irrigation has revealed
that the total allocation and expenditure made during the tenth Plan were NRs.10,697
million and NRs.8,145 million, respectively. Thus, the actual expenditure through
structured means during the Tenth Plan period was about one third. Similarly, in terms of
action programs, when proposed NWP activities were compared with the activities
actually implemented, it revealed that NWP had given major thrust in improved
management of existing irrigation projects but the allocated budget for that action
programs during the Tenth Plan period was not very significant. In relative terms
emphasis is observed to have been given more on planning and management of new
irrigation projects and on integrated programs. Similarly, compared to NWP proposal,
high priority was given to software activities like strengthening of local capacity and

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

capacity building of farmers. However, it is also observed that in software activities even
though the allocation is higher than proposed, the actual expenditure is relatively low.
This showed that the spending capacity on software activities of the concerned
institutions is quite low. Finally, the achievements made were compared with the targets
set by the NWP. Slight improvements was observed in Irrigation Service Fees (ISF)
collection during the later years but still it is found to be far below the set targets.

2. Performance of Irrigation Management

86. Apart from the assessment of progress in terms of actual implementation vis-à-
vis stipulated plans, evaluation made by various studies of the performance of irrigation
sector has been documented in this section. In this regard also, the results of
government intervention are found not to be very encouraging. It has been observed that
most irrigation schemes rarely achieve the targeted production. This is primarily
attributed to design flaws, deficiencies in scheme management (particularly, due to
insufficient funding) and lack of sufficient attention to operation and maintenance.

87. An estimated $1.8 billion has been spent in the irrigation sector from 1956-2013.
Only 23% of this amount was funded through the government’s own resources. The
remaining 77% in investments has been funded from external sources. Nearly 56% of
these funds have been spent on constructing new irrigation infrastructure. Despite a
standing policy since the mid-1980s to prioritize the rehabilitation and expansion of FMIS
networks, the DOI has invested only about 18% in this area.

88. The DOI’s investments in medium and large scale projects have been
disappointing. Water volumes supplied by many large projects are far below original
plans and they consistently have capital cost over-runs (Shah and Singh, 2001). Some
projects such as Bagmati and Babai are reported to have cost over $5000 per hectare to
construct.4 Performance assessments including those done by the National Planning
Commission have stated that irrigation development and operation in Nepal is
performing dismally relative to the amount of resources poured into the sector. There are
many reasons for such poor performance but the ones that are more frequently reported
are: (i) weak governance framework and enforcement in attaining effective service
delivery; (ii) unrealistic productivity projections in assessing benefit-cost ratios; (iii) poor
system management; (iv) insufficient operation and management due to lack of user
participation; and (v) poor understanding of farmer priorities. The institutional arrangements
to induce realistic project planning and effective system management are, obviously, weak.

89. Intervention by government agencies to improve farmer managed irrigation

systems have also run into difficulties. Difficulties often arise because irrigation agencies
fail to recognize the institutional aspect of irrigation systems and focus only on improving
physical capital. Institutional structures stand on social capital developed over many
years of learning through shared experiences and are as tangible as physical capital.
Their neglect not only results in weakening of farmer organizations but also leads to
opposite outcomes. The tendency to build much more than is needed has in some
instances diminished the cost effectiveness of the program. Moreover, the practice of
budgetary allocation on a district basis has hampered the selection and implementation
of the most cost-effective subprojects.

90. On the positive side, growing trends of commercial farming, especially vegetable
production have been observed in some patches. These are mostly concentrated on
major road corridors and/or some pocket areas. Some trends of crop intensification,
multiple cropping and increased vegetable productions have also been noted in some
areas during recent decades.

4
Shah, S. G. and Singh, G. N. 2001. Irrigation Development in Nepal: Investment, Efficiency and Institution.
Winrock International Research Report Series No. 47. Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

3. Capacities of WUAs

91. Modernization and increased water efficiencies require effective management.

Hence, as part of MFLW Task 2 project, efforts were made to get a realistic picture of
how WUAs can take on complex management roles. The strengths and weaknesses of
the current management systems were reviewed and examined.

92. Survival and performance of the FMISs in Nepal have been a living example of
the capacities of the WUA. It has proved that Nepali farmers can construct, operate and
maintain traditional irrigation systems and manage water effectively without any external
support. However, it will not be true to say that all FMIS have been success stories.
There are many FMISs that have been abandoned by the farmers because of their
inability to handle technical complexity and environmental issues like river degradation,
silt intrusion, etc.

93. On the other hand, the poor performance of the AMISs and trends in budget
allocations for MOM of irrigation system provides a clear indication of the need to involve
the farmers more.

94. Various assessments5 have revealed that the WUAs in most AMISs do not
possess the skills and knowhow to properly carry out all the function of MOM of large
irrigation systems. Earlier evaluation studies of irrigation management transfer and
performance of farmer managed irrigation systems have also confirmed that WUAs in
Nepal in the prevailing context can manage irrigation systems of up to 600 ha on their
own. However, they are not capable of handling complex management tasks of irrigation
systems of larger than this size without external support.

95. In this context, the most preferred solution leading towards long-term sustainability
of the existing irrigation system can be through the means of capacity building of the
WUAs and establishment of some incentive mechanism directly to those engaged in the
operation and maintenance.

96. Considering the current level of the Nepali farmers, different options for
upgrading the WUAs and alternatives such as engagement of third party to bring scheme
management up to necessary levels have been explored. This has been included as part
of the institutional development roadmap.

4. Irrigation Management Transfer as a Possible Solution

97. IMT is the process in which some functions and responsibilities of management,
formerly exercised by a state agency, are transferred to an organization of the users of
the irrigation system. A government undertakes IMT to (i) reduce public expenditures; (ii)
improve irrigation performance and generate surplus production to enhance sustainability
of irrigation facilities; and (iii) conserve water resources and reduce resource consumption.
It further identifies other potential benefits of building successful local organizations.
These benefits, for the local people through IMT are empowerment, confidence building,
forming social capital and reduction of dependency.

98. In line with the irrigation policy which states that all irrigation systems irrigating up
to 2000 ha in the Terai and 500 ha in the hills are to be fully transferred to farmers, the
DOI has been carrying out IMT since 1992. Larger public systems (more than 2,000 ha.)
are the candidates for participatory joint irrigation management transfer (PJIMT) where
WUAs and public irrigation management division share responsibility to operate and
maintain their part of the irrigation system. This means that the WUAs will be responsible
to manage, operate and maintain branch canal level irrigation infrastructure and

5
Khanal, Puspa Raj. 2003. “Engineering Participation: The Process and Outcomes of Irrigation Management
Transfer in the Terai of Nepal.” Wageningen University, Netherlands.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

associate tasks and the public irrigation management division will be responsible for
upper level irrigation infrastructure such as main canal, headwork, etc. Both the partners
under a PJIMT will eventually sign a service contract, which will legally define each
party's role and responsibility, and also the incentives and penalties if each party does
not comply with the provisions stated in the contract.

99. Studies conducted in irrigation systems in Nepal in which IMT has been
accomplished have revealed that the average productivity of major crops was not
increased significantly after IMT (Joshi, 2002). However, the level of service in most
cases is reported to have improved by the water users due to the enhanced role and
responsibilities of the WUA. This in essence means that after IMT the farmers started
getting water more conveniently even though it has not been able to directly translate
into production terms.

5. Lessons Learned from International Experiences of IMT

100. International experiences of IMT have also shown mixed results. Although, IMT
has succeeded in enhancing involvement of WUAs consequently resulting in increased
accountability, transparency and responsibility in countries like Mexico and China, in
most countries it has not been able to initially expected objectives. IMT programs in most
countries have partially reduced the cost of government allocations towards the MOM of
irrigation systems, but it has been coupled with government disengagement from
financing irrigated agriculture, thereby hampering the provision of some support services
to the agriculture sector. Consequently, some irrigation systems that were financial
unsustainable before IMT, has been found to depend considerably on the government
capacity to intervene and prevent the systems from collapsing.

101. Although WUAs tend to remain responsible for providing services related to water
distribution, some farmers’ organizations have also started to look into the provision of a
wider range of agricultural services to their members, making the scope of the reform
process more comprehensive. Some governments had high expectations that the private
sector would become involved in the provision of some of these basic support services. It
seems now that these projections were either too optimistic or poorly conceived, and
often the private sector did not or would not react to fill this gap.

102. Likewise, the performance of water services in terms of fee collection has been
erratic in different countries. Initially, in a good number of cases, IMT led to significant
increases in the fee collection ratio, but this has not always been sustainable. There are
large variations between irrigation systems within the same country and among
countries. It has not been the “silver bullet” that was originally presented as one of the
main reasons for introducing the reforms. However, the level of cost recovery is higher
than before the transfer.

103. International experiences of IMT have also shown that it does not necessarily
lead to increases in cropping intensities or yields (Samad, 2001). There are only a few
documented cases where there appears to be a direct relationship between the reform
and agronomic improvements. These can normally be traced to the efforts of pilot
studies taking advantage of the reform derived interventions. However, in most cases,
the link to improvements in agricultural productivity cannot be easily made. On the other
hand, there is no reference, or case, where decreases in agriculture productivity have
been reported.

104. On the positive side, the IMT process in general has led to improvements in
communication related to the management-related activities of irrigation systems. There
has been an increase in both accountability and responsibility pertaining to the quality of
the service provided, which has enhanced the nature of the relations between users and
managers. While the magnitude of quality improvement cannot be asserted from these

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

studies, in a few countries at least such a change has been reported. There is ample
indication that communication between system management and end users has increased.
This creates a better understanding of the water distribution process and its requirements,
which translates into enhanced satisfaction of the service provided and received by each
party.

105. The main message from all these international experiences is that Nepal should
also be more pragmatic in terms of its IMP programs. Moreover, since the country has
been pushing this agenda for more than two decades which any evaluation, it is felt high
time that DOI should conduct a critically review of the IMT process. Before proceeding
further with it, outcome and impacts from IMT need to be assessed mainly in the
following regards:

 Reduction in government costs

 The role of WUAs in increased accountability and more efficient water supply
 Renewed support services to agricultural production
 Improved payments for irrigation services
 Improving agricultural productivity
 Enhanced communication between users and managers

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

IV. PRIMARY RESULTS FROM FIELD ACTIVITIES

A. Discussions with Various Stakeholders

106. Discussions were held with all related stakeholders as part of MFLW Task 2. In
this concern the TA consultants met and discussed with high level government officials
as well as those at the field level. Similarly, executive members of the WUA as well as
general members were also met and discussed. Also, representatives from various
relevant private institutions were also consulted. In this way, the first hand opinions and
perspectives of the farmers were sought. Some of these have been briefly outlined in this
section. However, since the data collection is still on-going, it is quite evident that more
information will be added to this section.

107. The feedback received from the various stakeholders has been one of the
ingredients to develop management plans for the pilot projects. It has also been used to
develop frameworks and recommendations for possible initiative to improve the irrigation
management as well as MOM cost recovery.

B. Field Observations of Bagmati Basin

1. General Information Collected of Bagmati Basin

108. The Bagmati River has both cultural and economic significance to the people of
Nepal. The water flowing in the river is considered holy and is used for cultural and ritual
ceremonies practiced at the many significant temples located along its banks. The river
flows through Kathmandu which is the administrative and economic center of the country
as well as Nepal’s gateway for tourism. It provides most of the city’s drinking water in its
upper basin, hydropower generation in the middle basin, and large-scale irrigation in the
lower basin.

109. The basin is considered the most water stressed basin in Nepal. The basin is
extensively cultivated (37.8%) but water resources availability is declining owing to
natural and anthropogenic causes while experiencing significant increases in fresh water
demand to meet the expanding population and industrial sector and demands for
irrigated agriculture. The rapid and unplanned expansion of Kathmandu City has placed
tremendous pressure on the water resources of the upper basin. In the absence of
appropriate solid waste and waste water management, the river has become the main
waste collector drain. Rapid urbanization has also led to increased demands on the
valley’s water supply distribution. During dry season, around 80% of the upper Bagmati
River flow is diverted for domestic use leaving very little flow for irrigation and other
sectors including environment. Current utilization of surface water is only 10% as water
in the rainy season is untapped. As a result, municipal authorities, individuals and
companies continue to extract groundwater at an unsustainable rate. Ground water
extraction is estimated to be 4 to 5 times higher than the natural recharge and the water
table has retreated by 35 m in the last 20 years. Throughout the basin, frequent floods
and river bank erosion are the main threat to infrastructure, agricultural land, people’s
lives, and their livelihoods.

110. Until now the planning, development and management of water resources in the
basin has been generally ad-hoc, uncoordinated and reactive. Government agencies
have operated in isolation leading to ineffective investments and inequitable allocation of
water for human needs, productive use, and the environment. Currently, the government
has embraced the principals of IWRM and wants to establish a more holistic and
systematic development and management of its water resources.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

111. In 2009, the government approved the Bagmati Action Plan (2009-2014). The
Plan provides a long list of interventions that collectively aim to restore and conserve the
river environment in the valley. Some of these interventions are already being
implemented by the High Powered Committee for the Integrated Development of the
Bagmati Civilization (HPCIDBC), but due to lack of capacity and funds many of the plan
recommendations are still to be implemented. The government has also sought to
address drinking water scarcity and improve wastewater management in Kathmandu
Valley through several ADB-financed projects.6

112. Recently, ADB has also approved the BRBIP in order to resolve critical priorities
of the basin inhabitants as well as to provide a long-term sustainable management
framework for the basin. It will support in developing appropriate legal and institutional
frameworks for operationalizing the IWRM approach and develop a model that can be
replicated in the other basins as well. It also aims to assist in the formation of the
Bagmati River Basin Organization providing support to the Water and Energy
Commission Secretariat (WECS) as the responsible national authority for formation of
River Basin Organizations (RBOs). The need for acquiring information on water
resources, maintaining meta data and developing a water balance accounting system for
water allocation will be provided through the development of a Decision Support System
(DSS).

113. The MFLW Task 2 studies supported the newly commenced BRBIP by providing
innovative ideas that will help the project in better achieve its objective of improving
water security through integrated river basin management and improving water availability
especially during the dry season.

2. Observations from Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin

114. The MFLW Task 2 consultants made many field visits to the upper Bagmati
basin. Observations made from the different field visits have been well documented.
From the field visits, it was evident that traditionally highly productive agricultural hub of
Kathmandu Valley currently faces many problems due to its recently drastically growing
population. It suffers from declining production mainly due to the rapid urbanization and
reduced surface water river flows. Over exploitation of groundwater is a major issue. The
rapid and unplanned expansion of Kathmandu City has put tremendous pressure on the
water resources of the basin. In the absence of appropriate sewage collection and waste
water treatment plants, the river has become the main collector drain. Solid waste
deposited on the river banks also further degrades the river environment. Rapid
urbanization has put tremendous pressure on the valley water supply distribution.

115. The situation is further aggravated by (i) the conversion of the recharge areas
into residential areas; (ii) lowering river stream and sand mining leading to riverbed
deepening; and (iii) upstream catchment degradation. As it exits the city, the river is
“biologically dead” and comprises heavily polluted sewage water that potentially
endangers the downstream water users' health. Competing and uncontrolled use of water
in the basin has an increasing negative impact on its overall sustainable development.
Plans to improve Kathmandu's water supply from the upper basin water sources were
developed without consideration for downstream users and environmental flow. Flood
protection works and irrigation development are also planned in isolation of other sector
requirements; flood protection work has affected some of the irrigation intakes. Irrigation
is primarily small FMISs in operation, drawing water to irrigate fields by conventional
methods. Generally field channels are not constructed, so farmers apply water by
conveying from one plot to another. The traditional cropping patterns with irrigation are
rice followed by wheat, but with some production of vegetable cultivation or potatoes.

6
ADB. 2011. Technical Assistance to Nepal for Preparing the Kathmandu Valley Urban Environment
Improvement Project. Manila (TA 7936-NEP).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

116. The scenario in the middle reach is slightly different in terms of agriculture from
the sense that it is very less affected by urbanization. Hence, Aside from the problems
inherited from Kathmandu, the middle reach of the basin, with steep slopes and
degraded watersheds, is prone to severe landslides and floods, which threaten both
infrastructure and settlements.

117. Recently more intensive farming systems for vegetables are being developed
using simple polyhouses (polythene covering over bamboo steel frames). These vary
from quite basic systems using bamboo structures and earth channels to drip and sprinkler
systems. Water is from the natural water courses, government irrigation systems and
groundwater. These new agricultural initiatives are achieving high levels of production,
good returns to investment and providing good employment opportunities. The
encroachment of buildings into the agriculture lands is changing the characteristics of the
valley; although much of the agricultural land is now lost or is too small or fragmented,
there are parts that remain viable productive areas both in the valleys and around the
settlements in the hills.

3. Observations from Lower Bagmati Basin

118. The lower Bagmati is part of the flat alluvial plain called Terai. With mild gradient
topography, sandy loam to silt loam soils and relatively higher temperatures, this area is
considered to be suitable for agriculture. Most part of this area is irrigated either though
surface water or, in case where surface water is not available, through groundwater
sources. Irrigation systems in the lower Bagmati are generally larger than those in the
upper or middle reach and the BIP is the largest irrigation scheme in that area.

119. The BIP currently irrigates about 45,600 ha. Its feasibility study was undertaken
by JICA in the 1990s to include two development phases: (i) development of 69,000 ha
of irrigated land; and (ii) development of a high dam to generate 140 MW and increase
the command area by 54,000 ha. So far, the development of the first phase was initiated
with financing from Saudi Arabia. The high dam proposal has never been implemented
and there are no immediate plans to implement. The construction of Bagmati Barrage
was started the 1979/80. The 403 m barrage with 30 sluice gates was designed to
irrigate 45,600 ha in Sarlahi and in Rautahat Districts, the design duty was 1.3 l/s/ha.
Following the construction of barrage, in 1987 the irrigation system was developed with a
series of loans from the Saudi Fund including the construction of main canal, secondary
canals, tertiary canals and command area development and river training works within
the command area, and also to rehabilitate 1993 flood damaged barrage. In 2007 a
further loan was received from the Saudi Fund for command area development of an
unreliably irrigated area of 13,600 ha construction of silt ejectors and protection of the
command area.

120. The hydrology department monitors the river flows about 1 km upstream of the
Bagmati Barrage. During winter, the average flow in the river decreases to about 10 m 3/s
and only 25,500 ha obtains irrigation water. In the spring water flow further decreases to
7 m3/s and only about 13,000 ha are irrigated. The government is looking at alternative
options including an inter-basin diversion that would transfer water from the Sun Koshi
Basin.

121. Irrigation water is abstracted by gravity to east and west canals with flow
measured approximately by gauges upstream of the gates as well as stage discharge in
the canals; these are occasionally calibrated by the hydrology department. Water is
allocated with some quite limited measurement using the gates. The water distribution
network at field level is inadequate and farmers adopt field to field irrigation for the lack
of field channels, which causes significant losses of water in the dry season. The
operators maintain the design water levels in the canals by rotation of the branch canals.
Since the construction about 4,000 ha of forest land to the south of the main canals has

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

now been converted to farm land and is unofficially abstracting water for irrigation. Since
the command area development works of the current stage of the BIP is coming to an
end, the focus now has to be on improving the management. Starting from
benchmarking (identification of internal and external indicators) the Task 2 consultants
have considered different management alternatives for enhancing WUE and sustainability
of the system.

122. Apart from the command area of the BIP, the remaining part of Lower Bagmati is
also primarily under cultivation. Only a small part of it, near the East-West Highway, now
remains under preserved forest and an even small part is being used for residential
purposes. Most of the cultivated area not receives irrigation facilities but the level of
irrigation service varies significantly. Groundwater irrigation systems are established in
areas that are deprived of surface irrigation facilities or are receiving poor services.

123. Major investigations of groundwater resources in Lower Bagmati were carried out
from 1969 to 1994. These assessments have clearly confirmed sufficient annual
recharge for utilization of groundwater in the area. The government started groundwater
development program in the area from 1970s. Agriculture Development Bank Nepal
(ADBN) assisted a large number of farmers with loan for the installation of STWs up to
the 1990s while the Groundwater Division of the DOI has also been supporting with the
installation of both shallow and deep tubewells. In recent years, international organizations
like IDE has been supporting poor farmers with low cost irrigation technology like treadle
pumps for the use of groundwater.

C. Stakeholders’ Response to Current Management based on FDGs and

PRAs

124. Through the use of various tools such the FDGs and PRAs in representative
sample areas, first-hand opinions and perspectives of the farming communities in
Bagmati Basin were also sought. These tools helped in assessing how agricultural, water
and economic policies and other external economic factors and other external socio
economic factors including subsidies and imports of crops are affecting the current
cropping systems.

125. The FDGs and PRAs also helped in identifying the key socio-economic
constraints for current and future agriculture production systems, like land tenure, crop
marketing systems, labor, credit etc. and effectively assessing the stakeholders’ responses
to current management and in identifying weaknesses and bottlenecks.

126. They were also instrumental in identifying the possible opportunities to remove
bottlenecks including reference to case studies or pilot programs. Assess farmer's
capacities to pay MOM costs currently and in the future.

D. Strength, Weaknesses and Main Gaps

127. Based on the information collected from the field; strengths, weaknesses and the
main gaps in the present context have been identified. Through the benchmarking
exercise, current levels of operation and maintenance funding at the scheme has also
been ascertained and indicative assessment of what level and type of MOM will be
required for the future has also be determined. Moreover, resource availability, possible
different management scenarios and roles of the various actors (government, WUA,
private sector) are also being identified. A synopsis of the strength, weaknesses and
gaps in the upper, middle and lower Bagmati is outlined in Table 2.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Table 2: Strengths, Weakness and Gaps in Different Parts of Bagmati Basin

Item Upper Bagmati Middle Bagmati Lower Bagmati

Strengths Highly fertile soil for Livelihood primarily Suitable for agriculture:
agriculture dependent on Agriculture flat land, warmer
Relatively good so people give high climate, fertile land.
infrastructure like road priority to agriculture / Good groundwater
network and marketing irrigation recharge
facilities Strong tradition of Relatively good
Higher level of awareness cooperation in agriculture infrastructure for
of the people (FMIS culture) agriculture and irrigation
Weakness Very adversely affected by Undulating topography Insufficient water
urbanization with limited chunks of available for irrigation,
Limited availability of land available for particularly at the start of
agricultural land agriculture the rainy season/pre-
Over-exploitation of Poor infrastructure monsoon
groundwater resulting in development in general Floods during rainy
depleting water levels Poor storage and season that result in
marketing facilities sedimentation, river
Poverty rampant bank erosion and losses
in properties and
occasionally even result
7
in casualties
Gaps Lack of appropriate Lack of applied research Lack of guidelines and
regulatory framework for in agriculture and criteria for water
efficient water use and its specially in regarding distribution,
strict implementation suitable cropping Lack of applied research
Lack of applied research in patterns/crop rotations in agriculture and
agriculture and specially in requiring less water specially in regarding
regarding suitable Lack of general suitable cropping
cropping patterns/crop awareness of patterns/crop rotations
rotations requiring less technologies that lead to requiring less water
water efficient water use, Lack of capacity of the
Weak coordination among Weak presence of water users associations
institutions of irrigation and institutions and external to manage irrigation
agriculture. support to help the water and farmers
farming community. regarding crop
production and irrigation
techniques
Weak coordination
among institutions of
irrigation and agriculture
in the field level.
Source: Present Study, 2014

128. MFLW Task 2 has explored various options for enhancing water management in
Bagmati Basin. These include strategies like promoting water conservation and efficient
use of water in the upper Bagmati, disseminating technologies like rainwater harvesting,
pond irrigation, low pressure sprinklers and drips, polyhouses, etc. for high value crops in
the middle Bagmati and encouraging effective mechanisms of conjunctive use and water
saving techniques like alternative wetting in paddy cultivation. Moreover, it has also
identified and recommended appropriate institutional arrangements and mechanisms for
sustainable cost recovery for MOM as outlined it in Chapter VII.

7
The 1993 flood alone claimed 789 lives, affected 30,200 people and caused tremendous damage to
houses and public infrastructure

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

V. NEW INITIATIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

A. Introduction

129. A major weakness that continues to plague the productivity of large irrigation
schemes is the lack of efficient and sustainable MOM. As a consequence, the
infrastructure of these schemes is degraded and needs rehabilitation and modernization.
Other reasons include inadequate government financing, lack of beneficiary
empowerment and engagement in MOM; and limited capacity of public agency resulting
in weak service delivery. Specific issues are the: (i) inadequacy of budget to support
system MOM; (ii) lack of distinction between annual, periodic or emergency maintenance
of a system; and (iii) poor cost recovery from the water management groups

130. Water management is very limited with minimal attention to how the scarce water
resources are allocated and most schemes only meet a small portion of their target
production. Many farmers turn to the use of groundwater to support limited and irregular
water supplies. The mix of irrigation from surface and groundwater makes evaluation
difficult and masks deficiencies of the surface water supplies.

131. During the past 20 years, substantial efforts were made to improve irrigation
MOM through introduction of participatory irrigation management (PIM). PIM proved
generally successful on small and medium schemes but it has yielded limited results on
large schemes. The variable performance of PIM in improving irrigation MOM is
internationally documented and private sector participation through public private
partnership (PPP) is seen as an interesting alternative approach. It has demonstrated
promising results in few developing countries such as Brazil, Morocco and Ethiopia but is
still to be developed in Asia. The concept of examining alternative approaches of service
delivery agreements and management arrangements including PPP for sustainable
irrigation MOM in large irrigation schemes has been studied as part of the MFLW
investigations. There are a number of different approaches that can be considered and
clearly designing an appropriate model to meet the specific needs of specific projects
and within the national policies for each country. Two broad management models have
been identified as possible management arrangements that could be applied to meet the
needs of providing long term highly efficient and sustainable management of large scale
management of irrigation in south Asia.

(i) The establishment of an Autonomous Integrated Irrigation Authority with the

remit to achieve an efficient, sustainable and self-financed irrigation
management. The infrastructure assets would be transferred to the new
authority who would manage the operation and maintenance including
establishment of adequate levels of cost recovery to meet the long term and
sustainable needs of highly efficient operation and maintenance. The
constitution of the new authority would be developed and agreed with
government to allow the necessary levels of autonomy and flexibility to
implement long term effective management. This would include the remit to
operate on a commercial basis to ensure long term and sustainable
financing for MOM. Highly qualified and experienced staff would be
recruited from the government and private sector through a competitive
selection process.

(ii) Through a PPP arrangement where the irrigation assets for all or part of the
scheme would be leased to a private sector operator. The lease would be
competitive and would be awarded to the bidder who achieved the highest
level of managerial and technical expertise together with the financially
most reasonable price to operate the system. Ownership of the assets
would remain with the Government. Typically the lease could be for 15
years after which the contract would be renegotiated.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

132. In both options a third party irrigation management operator would move to
efficient and sustainable management practices. To ensure long term financial viability
commercial operations would be developed to ensure adequate levels of financing; this
would include collection of the irrigation fees as well as other cost recovery activities
designed to help meet the shortfall in financing of MOM.

133. Staff would be given attractive terms of employment including supplementary

payment according to the results obtained and to Key Performance Indicators (KPI); the
management operator would be allowed to engage staff according to the requirements;
non performing staff would be released.

B. Example of Irrigation Management through an Autonomous

Irrigation Authority, Bangladesh

134. The Barind Multipurpose Development Authority (BMDA) is an autonomous

authority reporting to the Bangladesh Ministry of Agriculture. The BMDA has taken up
innovative approaches to the management of irrigation systems.

135. The part of greater Rajshahi, Dinajpur, Ranqpur, Pabna and Boqra District of
Bangladesh and the Indian territorial Maldah District of West Bengal is geographically
identified as the Barind Tract. Following partition, the tract became a remote part of
Bangladesh, far from markets and generally suffered a socio-economic downturn. In
1985 the government established the Barind Integrated Area Development Project under
Bangladesh Agriculture Development Corporation (BADC). The project was completed in
1990 using only 26% of the funds allocated. The BMDA was established under the
Ministry of Agriculture in 1992 and now covers 16 districts; 124 upazilas, 1,094 unions,
and 20,153 mouzas.

136. From the outset the BMDA adopted an approach of providing a sustainable and
highly efficient water delivery together with well-maintained pump and pipe irrigation
systems. To achieve this goal, farmers were required to pay for water. The BMDA has
not required external finance and operates the tubewells as well as parallel agriculture
support initiatives based on a commercial basis which assures a high quality of service
delivery and sustainable finance.

137. There are 12,604 deep tubewells under the management of the BMDA and all
are governed by BMDA Zone Offices. In response to the universal concern for irrigation
sustainability and concerns MOM will fail through a lack of user raised funding; the
BMDA has introduced innovative concepts for collection of the irrigation service charge
(ISC) through the use of prepaid metering systems. The benefits of the pre-paid system
electronic card are: (i) all water provided is paid for in advance; (ii) there is no opportunity
to by-pass the meter; (iii) the system is completely transparent with checks and balances
in place to counter fraud; (iii) people cannot coerce the operator to deliver water free of
charge; and farmers cannot be exploited by land owners who may control the well. The
prepaid water charges go to BMDA and the operational costs of the tubewells and the
BMDA is totally self-financing. The BMDA also undertakes a number of other initiatives
to support cost recovery.

138. The development priorities of BMDA, particularly concerning the development of

irrigated agriculture include:

(i) Increasing the irrigated area with the use of underground water sourced by
deep tubewells
(ii) Formulation and implementation of command area development projects
(iii) Extension of the electricity network to power irrigation equipment and serve

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

agro-based industries
(iv) Re-excavation of ponds for fish farming
(v) Improving access by the construction and reconstruction of feeder roads
(vi) Farmer training
(vii) Afforestation
(viii) Crop diversification with the use of deep tube wells and some surface water
pump schemes

139. The BMDA is managed by a board chaired by an appointee of the Prime Minister.
The Executive Director of the Authority is a member and also secretary of the Board. The
Board also includes: (i) the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajshahi District, (ii) the
Deputy Commissioners of all the original five districts" covered by the Authority; and (iii)
three other members appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture from the relevant districts.
In addition the members of parliament for the BMDA area act as advisors to the Board.

140. The BMDA also involves itself with: (i) the development of upazila roads and
bridges; (ii) tissue culture; (iii) reforestation; and (iv) the supply of drinking and domestic
water; (v) quality seed production; (vi) advanced hydro-geological management of
groundwater; (vii) water conservation; and (viii) rainwater collection and (ix) village based
pilot projects.

141. There are 12,604 deep tubewells under the supervision of the BMDA and all are
governed by BMDA Zone Offices. Despite the high level of drawdown of groundwater, it
was reported that aquifer recharge by rainwater and flooding maintains the standing
water level at its original levels. As recharge is from surface water, arsenic content was
reported to be minimal. In response to the universal concern for irrigation sustainability,
that MOM will fail through a lack of user raised funding, the BMDA has introduced two
innovative concepts for prepayment for water; this was started using a system of
coupons but this has now evolved using electronic prepaid meters.

142. The Prepaid metering system provides every farmer with a user card. The user
card, provided by the BDMA has photo ID, name and a user number. The card is loaded
with credit by paying cash at any BMDA office, or to an accredited dealer. The card is
then inserted in a slot at the pump station and water is pumped automatically with the
charge levied against the credit on the card. The meter, usage and pump delivery is
checked every one or two days by a BMDA official in a similar manner as for the coupon
system. Card uploading stations (vending stations) are connected electronically to a
central BMDA operator and all data can be monitored remotely. The process works using
technology similar to that used for loading credit to cell phones. The initial concern for
the introduction of a high technology electronic system was dismissed on viewing the
system in operation. Farmers were using the card with confidence and the procedure
was working. It fails when there is no electricity, but then so do the electrically powered
pumps.

143. Irrigation systems based on these principles:

(i) Water is available when, and in the quantities, required all year round
(ii) All repairs and maintenance costs are borne by BMDA
(iii) Technical support is provided free of charge to the farmers
(iv) All electricity used by pumps or other irrigation equipment is paid for by the
BMDA
(v) Pump operators are remunerated by the BMDA on an hourly basis

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

(vi) The prepaid coupons and electronic card reloading are sold by dealers who
are paid 2.5% commission for selling the top-ups
(vii) The BMDA pays employee salaries and support costs for its 1,036 staff
members without depending on unreliable funding sourced from the
government. Staff are paid incentives based on the performance of the
projects and levels of cost recovery.

144. There are no WMOs established in irrigation systems under the BMDA control.
The use of prepaid meters and pipes distributions reduces the requirement for WMOs;
despite this the BMDA keeps a very close liaison with the farmers and the communities
through their Upazila offices, field level staff and the pump operators; this approach
appears to be effective and BMDA are able to respond to any requirements very quickly;
farmers understand the procedures and appreciate the simplicity and transparency of the
management approach taken by the BMDA.

C. Example of PPP Management under the Irrigation Management

Investment Project (IMIP) Bangladesh.

145. The IMIP project is designed to realize the full production potential of large-scale
irrigation schemes in Bangladesh. It will address the recurrent lack of sustainable MOM
and increase water productivity by transferring the MOM schemes to private operators
and by introducing innovative infrastructure modernization.8 The Project will focus on the
modernization of Muhuri Irrigation Project (MIP) in the Chittagong Division. It will also
finance the feasibility study and detail design of the modernization of the large scale
surface water schemes; the Ganges Kobadak Irrigation Project (GKIP) and Teesta Irrigation
Project (TIP), which are located respectively in the Khulna and Rangpur Divisions.

146. The improvement works at the MIP will be initiated in mid-2015 through
Bangladesh Water Development Board with ADB support. The MIP pumps water from
around 400 km of canals/drains during the dry season; water is retained by the Feni
Closure Dam and Regulator.

147. The IMIP project evolved from studies carried out under the ADB Second
Command Area Development Project (CAD-II) 2007/08. Two principal constraints to
sustainable performance of major water schemes emerged from the

(i) Limited capacity and resources of public agencies in effective maintenance of

public agencies in managing MOM of large-scale irrigation schemes

(ii) Major system deterioration as a result of inadequate MOM planning and

financing mechanisms

148. Subsequent capacity development technical assistances were undertaken to

investigate the potential for alternative service delivery agreement and management
arrangements including independent entities including the establishment of a third party
to operate and maintain the MIP. The proposals were discussed extensively at the field
and in Dhaka and were agreed by the key stakeholders including the MOWR, BWDB
and the WUAs. The project was approved by the government in June 2014.

149. Many of the lessons learnt from the BMDA were incorporated into the IMIP; this
includes the use of underground pipe systems and prepaid meters. For the IMIP
however a slightly different approach to the management was proposed. The
development of the management would be in two stages as described below:

8
ADB. 2012. Technical Assistance to Bangladesh for Preparing the Irrigation Management Improvement
Project. Manila (TA 8154-BAN).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

(i) For Stage 1, the BWDB will recruit a private consulting company or
consortium through competitive selection and enter into a six-year
management contract agreement. The organization would be called the
Irrigation Management Operator or C-IMO. This initial phase of the IMO
would be responsible for setting up and delivering efficient service and
collecting revenue to recover the cost for MOM. In addition, the IMO would
be responsible for: (i) construction supervision of civil works; (ii)
participatory design of piped distributions systems; and (iii) development of
pilot agricultural demonstrations and supplementary cost recovery activities.

(ii) After 6 years, the long-term IMO (M-IMO) would be recruited through a 15-
year lease contract to maintain the MOM system established during the 6-
year first stage. The contract will be awarded through a competitive tender
based on (i) a fixed fee for the lease and bidders present a financial offer for
the water charge; or (ii) a predetermined water charge and bidders would
present a financial offer for the lease. After 15 years, the contract would be
re-tendered.

150. A PPP cell will be established within BWDB. It will prepare the bid documents;
support the bidding process and the contract administration of the C-IMO and later the
M-IMO contract. The PPP cell will become permanent. A Project Monitoring Cell will be
established in BWDB’s Monitoring Division. It will provide independent verification of the
performance of various stakeholders and to monitor the project progress against outputs
and targets set out in the Design and Monitoring Framework.

151. All the assets would be the owned by the government with the IMO responsible
for the MOM of the pumps with the pump operators contracted by the IMO to operate the
pumps based on the volume of water pumped. Farmers would pay for water based on
volume pumped using a pre-paid meter and user card which when introduced into a pre-
paid meter enables the pump to start and water delivered until such time as the card is
removed or its credit expires. The amount debited to the card is proportional to the
pumping energy consumed which effectively is the volume. Farmers recharge their cards
using a hand held Mobile Vending Unit (MVU) kept by a dealer who collects farmer
payments. The dealer recharges his MVU credit whenever required from a vending
station after depositing the recharge amount into the bank account of the irrigation
management operator.

152. The IMO would be responsible for the MOM of the pumps, pipe systems as well
as the khals and other secondary infrastructure. In addition the IMO would be
responsible for the collection of the water charges. These costs would be paid through
revenue using the prepaid meters. The staff and operational costs of the IMO during the
Stage 1 period would be provided through the project loan. For Stage 2 the IMO costs
would be paid from water charges together with supplementary cost recovery initiatives
including; lease of land for forestry, fish stocking etc. To meet the requirements of the
Stage 2 start-up, it is proposed that adequate funds to meet the operational costs of the
IMO including MOM requirements for six months is accumulated in the bank account of
IMO before the end of Stage 1. This fund would be used to support the first year
operational costs of Stage 2.

153. The IMO would establish transparent and open systems of financial management
through an escrow9 bank account for the project which would be used for revenue
collected and payment of operation and maintenance costs. The estimated revenues and

9
Escrow refers to money held by a third-party on behalf of transacting parties. The escrow manager has the
duty to properly account for the escrow funds and ensure that usage of funds is explicitly for the purposes
intended.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

expenditures would be presented and agreed by BWDB in the annual work plan and
actual expenditures presented in quarterly reports. The IMO would be authorized to
make direct payments for MOM of the pumps and routine maintenance and other
expenditures based on procurement rules which would be specified in the contract
agreement with the BWDB.

154. An Implementation Coordination Committee (ICC) will be established in MIP

under the leadership of BWDB Chief Zonal Engineer with representatives from relevant
department local offices, farmer’s organizations and IMO. The ICC will be tasked with
resolving conflicts and implementation issues related to the implementation of the works
and the IMO performance based management contract. The ICC will also advise on the
water tariff.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

VI. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

A. Operation and Maintenance Costs

155. In the 1990s, the DOI estimated that the annual MOM cost for most large projects
in the Terai was more than NRs.400/ha.10 The estimate of the MOM cost in the
Feasibility Study Report of BIP by JICA prepared in the early 1990s puts the figures to
NRs.491/ha. Similarly, in the project operation plan for the Narayani Zone Irrigation
Development Project, the annual incremental MOM cost for surface irrigation schemes
was NRs.950/ha. At that time, the project operation plan for the Sunsari Morang Irrigation
System (SMIS) then assumed an annual maintenance budget of NRs.770/ha (DOI,
2001).11 Current estimate of MOM costs in the Terai schemes is about NRs.2,000/ha, with
about NRs.800 for operation and NRs.1,200 for maintenance. This significant increase in
costs can partially be explained by inflation (including changes in conversion rate) and
partially by raising labor rate in recent times.

156. The MOM figures for surface irrigation systems have also been compared with
the cost to individual farmers of pumping groundwater. The current estimates of this cost
are around NRs.3,000 to 5,000 per crop/season, meaning that two crops per year would
cost NRs.6,000 to 10,000 with this type of supply (even more expensive where the
farmer has to rent the equipment). This corresponds to a much higher costs compared to
surface schemes. However, it is also to be noted that groundwater systems offer much
better control and hence year-round irrigation is possible resulting in better services in
terms of water delivery. Many farmers that have poor service (or none at all) from
surface irrigation systems have moved to groundwater pumping wherever it is accessible
at a reasonable cost. Thus, they usually pay a high cost for an adequate, reliable and
flexible service.

157. In spite of the fact that cost recovery from irrigation shows a very bleak picture
and the collection of water charges is only about 4% of the total MOM expenditure. 12
However, this has been observed to be the case main due to the lack of incentive and
enforcement in the collection mechanism.

158. Economic analysis has revealed that the MOM costs of irrigation services at
present in Nepal correspond to 6 to 12% of the net income per hectare generated from
crop cultivation. The past 5 years’ average of MOM budget allocation for government
operated irrigation systems shows an annual average value of about NRs.430/ha. This
MOM cost corresponds to the current level of services, which may not be fully satisfactory.
Responding to the users’ demand with more flexible service would increase the inputs
again and, as a consequence, the cost per year. Therefore, it seems reasonable to
consider a cost for upgraded services from surface supply allowing two crops at about
NRs.1,400/ha/year. This cost should be acceptable to users provided that the service
really improves. The above analysis indicates that irrigation modernization in the case of
government operated systems is still a viable option.

B. Investments in Irrigation Modernization

159. Modernization of an irrigation system is defined at the act of upgrading or

improving the system capacity to enable it to respond appropriately to the water service
demands of the current times, keeping in perspective future needs; or as a process of
10
The currency conversion rate during the early 1990s was around Nepalese Rupees 40 for one US$ while
that at the late 1990s was NRs.70/ US$. Currently (2013), the conversion is almost NRs. 100/ 1 US$.
11
Department of Irrigation (DOI). 2001. Irrigation operation and maintenance (MOM) cost and water charge
recovery study. Phase II. Main report. Nepal Irrigation Sector Project. Nepal, Ministry of Water Resources.
12
Source: Irrigation Annuals Programs and Irrigation Handbooks from BS.2060/61 to 2068/69. This value
reflects 10 year average values.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

technical and managerial upgrading (as opposed to mere rehabilitation) or irrigation

schemes with the objective to improve resource utilization (labor, water, economics,
environment), and water delivery service to farms (FAO, 1997). The following parts of
this section discuss on the procedure followed while developing irrigation modernization
plan at the scheme level.

160. Investments in irrigation modernization have been aimed towards least cost,
reliable and efficient service delivery to farmers. Thus, the procedure followed for the
planning of modernization at the project level includes both financial assessment of the
MOM costs (both current and future) to meet the needs of efficient and sustainable
operation and maintenance as well as identification of sources of funding for MOM,
which includes government, farmer contribution and alternative funding opportunities.

161. MOM cost recovery was one of the key areas focused during the process of
planning for modernization. For this, the MOM cost was first assessed. Information on
resources and inputs (water, staff, energy, office, communication and transportation) that
area mobilized in order to produce the desired level of irrigation services and the
estimation of their associated costs was gathered during the RAP. This analysis of the
current cost of operations provided an idea of the cost-effectiveness of current
operations and, thus, helped in identifying changes in different inputs (increases or
decreases) for improving the cost-effectiveness of operation. At the same time, it
provided a good basis for a cost analysis of the improvements. Secondly, the prevailing
system of water charges in the different schemes was reviewed, with the objective of
making it at least equal to the level of MOM costs. The most common practice in the
region of charging on flat crop area basis did not provide any incentive for water saving.
Hence, both the rate of water charges as well as the system of water charging was
reviewed.

162. A rough estimate of farmers’ capacity to meet increased operation and

maintenance costs was made. To date, both the Irrigation Service Fees and the collection
efficiency have been very low. For irrigation improvements to be sustainable in the long-
term, farmers must be able to meet at least the costs of routine and preventive maintenance.
The assessment concentrates on the incremental returns to irrigation, considering the effects
on farm incomes of varying irrigation operation and maintenance costs.

C. Investments in Capacity Development

163. Based on the analysis of the necessary functions to be performed by the different
actors and institutions that have a role in the management of land and water resources,
an appropriate capacity development program has been developed. The program will
develop capable institutions that can take up the required level of responsibility along with
a credible cost-recovery strategy and governance improvements that help ensure
accountability.

164. The capacity development program will commence with a general program of
awareness rising on the need and importance of efficient use of water. Specific capacity
development program has been developed for the government institutions that will help
them in better management of the available water resources. They will be made aware of
the modern techniques of water management and irrigation modernization. Similarly,
specific capacity development package has been developed for the water users that will
include piloting models and management approaches that strengthen WUAs leading to
enhanced water use efficiency, water service accountability and water fee collection
capacity. Likewise, the capacity development program will also address the issue and
concerns of the private sector institutions by disseminating the basics of service oriented
management and irrigation modernization.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

VII. ROAD MAP FOR INSTITUTIONS

A. Key Areas for Reform

165. The key areas of reform from the institutional perspective in MFLW Task 2 have
been grouped into three categories: (i) Policy Reforms; (ii) Capacity Building; and (iii)
Institutional Strengthening. Each of these topics has been dealt in the following sections.

1. Policy Reforms

166. First of all, some shifts in policy framework have been felt necessary. This has
again been conceived at two levels: one, at the national level policy and the second at
the level of the working policy for the scheme (eg, the BIP). Some of the key areas in
such policy shifts have been felt necessary at the national level are as follows.

167. The key emphasis of irrigation sector in Nepal since the establishment of the
department of irrigation has been on infrastructure development. Although the plan
documents mention about sustainability of the irrigation systems, there seems to be no
proper strategy or action plan for minimizing the adverse environmental effects such as
increasing sediment load on arable land, bank erosion, etc. Hence, a greater focus on
sustainability of the developed infrastructure is essential.

168. FMISs have made a huge contribution to the economy of the country as a whole.
However, it seems like the country has not duly recognized their contribution. Hence,
there is a need to promote the FMISs by recognizing them as a legal entity and
strengthening their institutions so that they can function more effectively.

169. It has been felt that the decision-making process is very centralized. All decisions
of annual programs and budget allocation are made from the central level. Hence, efforts
should be made to decentralize some of the authorities from the center to the field and
provide greater autonomy in decision making in MOM of irrigation systems.

170. With more than two decades of ongoing IMT efforts in Nepal, there is now a need
to critically review the validity of its rationale at the national level. Overall, the IMT
processes undertaken can be perceived as a mix result, but most of the set targets have
not been met. Now that the process is better understood and its implementation has
taken hold, efforts should concentrate on looking at it from a fresh angle and making
necessary refinement before moving further ahead.

171. Analysis of past efforts clearly indicates that irrigation planning in Nepal has
completely ignored the holistic approach and adopted the “project approach” rather than
the “program approach.” Rather than in isolation, there in a need to consider irrigation as
an integral part of farming as a whole system. Hence, internalization of the subsectors in
farm production is required such that irrigation becomes the subsector providing reliable
water supply while agriculture provides appropriate technology and material and farming
community, as the other subsector, utilizes water and other inputs to raise farm production.
There are equally other important subsectors, such as hydrology/ meteorology and
geology, assessing and forecasting water availability for irrigation and marketing providing
profitable opportunity for farm products.

172. Also, a greater emphasis on financial sustainability has been felt necessary. Until
now, the situation of water charge collection has remained very dismal. The tendency to
go on construction without establishing proper mechanism of operation and maintenance
has resulted in quick deterioration of the constructed infrastructure.

173. Similarly, some refinements are also felt necessary in the implementation at the
scheme level. Some of the key areas for refinement in the working level are as follows.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

174. It has been experienced in the past that many of the related institutions e.g.
policy-level organizations, line agencies and semi-government organizations work together
during the planning phase, but when it comes to the implementation stage, they work
independently, maintaining loose contacts and when it come to the operation stage, even
that loose contact gradually disappears. Hence, it is proposed that the program be
developed through active participation of all stakeholders so that shared obligations,
responsibilities and commitments are maintained up to the operation stage.

175. Mechanism need to be developed to establish and strengthen viable dialogue

among all the concerned subsectors at national and local level as well as in all phases of
development.

176. Weaknesses in implementation have been identified as the main drawback in the
past programs implemented in the irrigation sector in the basin. Hence, it is emphasized
that good governance should be embraced as the key driver of institutional change. This
includes establishing a more effective, accountable, and transparent administration. In
this respect, improved governance needs to be linked to capacity development and
institutional strengthening. To ensure good governance, the four elements of will be
included in the implementation activities::

Accountability – Accountability will be promoted within project organizations to

build capacity and assist project implementation. This will require evaluation
criteria and oversight mechanisms that will be a part of the project’s M&E program.

Transparency – Transparency will be directly related to the project’s

communication strategy and will ensure that relevant information about the
project is made available to the general public on a timely basis.

Predictability – Emphasis will be given to applying existing laws and regulations

fairly and consistently, and working with partners to develop and pass new
policies and laws governing water in the Bagmati River Basin. Predictability of
operations will result if these policies and laws are applied fairly and evenly.

Participation – Involvement of relevant stakeholders in project activities will be

done by: (i) developing mechanisms for participation and actively encouraging the
participation of project beneficiaries and affected groups, (ii) improving the inter-
face between different sectors, and (iii) working with NGOs to directly involve
beneficiaries.

177. Crop prices for cereals at present are so low that it will be difficult for WUAs to
cover the full costs of operation and maintenance on large schemes in Nepal, even if
diversified cropping can be introduced over substantial areas. The “invisible” losses to
farmers due to rehabilitation include declining production and income over a period of
years during the deterioration of the system, and lost harvests during the period of
rehabilitation.

2. Capacity Building of WUAs

178. Agriculture, irrigation and hydro-meteorology services are being delivered by

established government institutions (central and district level offices); agro-industries and
marketing tasks are operated as private institutions with slow technological and
managerial innovations; and the social institution of a large number of WUAs are
scattered all over Bagmati Basin. Hence, there is a pressing need to institutionalize the
WUAs also by gradually building up their capacity and capabilities. The WUAs also need
to be oriented towards productive methods of farming that can be achieved through
efficient use of water. They also have to be educated about river basin approach and
how they can carry out integrated development of natural resources including water for
the individual basins.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

179. Previous assessments have revealed that the WUAs in most agency managed
irrigation systems do not possess the skills and knowhow to properly carry out all the
function of MOM on their own for irrigation systems larger than 600 ha. This calls for the
formation of specific taskforce who need to be trained in specific task related MOM. Poor
performance of irrigated agriculture also implies the need to raise general awareness
and capacity building at the water utilization end.

180. It is also equally important to make sure that the capacity building programs are
really and not just carried out for the sake of it. For example, training and support in
maintenance to WUA therefore needs to complement and follow programs of institutional
support which include management, accounting, bookkeeping, and better irrigated
farming practices for improved output and incomes. Maintenance training should focus
on identification, planning, and improvements in the quality of execution of basically
simple works. The trained individuals should be to transfer improved skills and practices
to other farmers.

3. Institutional Strengthening

181. Institutional strengthening is required for all the concerned institutions to function
effectively and collaboratively. Nepal has embraced the principles of IWRM and is in the
process of orienting the implementation of its program considering the hydrological
boundaries. Hence, it is imperative that the institutional arrangements should also follow
the same structure.

182. The analysis of the existing institutional mechanism has identified the need to
strengthen a central level planning and coordinating organization. This has been a felt
need in view of the prevalent fragmented approach in water sector development. Further,
several more number of departments and agencies are involved in planning and
development programs more often with lack of interagency consultations and coordination.
Thus, there is a need for effective integration and coordination of the propose plans and
programs.

183. Cooperation among members of the farming community cannot be assumed to

happen by default. There are many dimensions to the basis for cooperation among
individuals. Individual common-pool resource users are likely to contribute and cooperate
only if they perceive that they will be able to reap the long-term benefits of engaging in
collective action. They are also more likely to cooperate if they are aware of their
interdependence and see mutual benefits resulting from working together. The presence
of a set of credible, commonly understood, well-enforced and agreed-upon rules further
helps in generating a positive incentive system for villagers to engage in collective
action. Without creating the right environment, it cannot assume that cooperation among
resource users will develop naturally.

184. Farmers will not participate in development works unless there is some incentive
for them to do so. With inadequate resources, weak incentives to perform, and
inadequate understanding of resource systems, the government officials very often fail to
perform. It, therefore, comes as no surprise to see agency-managed irrigation systems
turning dysfunctional. Common-pool resource systems are co-production processes that
perform best when both the oversight agencies and resource users cooperate in making
the system work. Non-cooperation by either party results in poor performance.
Developing sustainable common-pool resource systems involves not only the application
of technical skills but institutional design skills as well. Failures may occur not just
because of deficiencies in technical skills but also due to lack of knowledge in designing
institutions. Since the most important consideration in institutional design is the process
of developing a set of rules that participants in a process understand, agree upon, and
are willing to follow, valuable insights can be gained by understanding them and their
interrelationships.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

185. Policy actions that aim at facilitating the development of local institutions might have
greater chances of success if existing local institutions are recognized and encouraged.
Institutions are built on common understandings that take years to build. If such an
understanding already exists in a local community, this is a source of great strength.

186. Institutional development is a slow process based on the principles of trial and
error. One cannot expect new institutions to take root merely by introducing them, that
too, without the support of the community who are affected by them. The DOI has
frequently imposed its institutional designs and organization structures on irrigation
communities. Imposing these structures adversely affect the functioning of local
organizations if they exist. When legitimacy of local institutions is challenged, farmers’
faith in local institutions vanishes quickly. Policy actions, therefore, need to be strongly
linked with an institutional environment where villagers are provided positive incentives
to participate in crafting rules and engage in productive working relationships. Farmers
have to be recognized as being intelligent with capabilities to make informed decisions
and engage in collective action.

187. Farmers are very knowledgeable about stream flows, crop preferences, stability
of land, and a host of other time and space information. Such types of information are
extremely valuable in operating irrigation systems under considerable amounts of
uncertainty. If local knowledge and participation can be incorporated into designing rules
governing resource use, then it is more likely the systems will function successfully.
Without a clear understanding of the local time and space information that users possess,
designing rules to regulate forest resource use may not, again, be effective. Efforts at
helping communities to develop institutions, therefore, have to be directed toward
enhancing their capabilities and willingness to relate to and work with one another, rather
than handing down rules or organizations to govern resources. Institutions, no matter how
well designed they are in the beginning, will subsequently require adjustments to changing
conditions.

188. Unless these changes can be incorporated, institutions quickly become ineffective.
It is, therefore, important that resource users affected by the operational rules are
permitted to participate in modifying the operational rules. Since the lifestyles of resource
users are closely linked to their resource systems, they are the ones who are most
knowledgeable about the resource conditions. Unless they are involved resource
management can be expected to be both ineffective and inefficient.

B. Guidelines for an Institutional Road Map

189. MFLW Task 2 has identified necessary changes in rules, procedures and
structures (physical and/ or institutional) related to water rights, water delivery services,
accountability mechanisms and incentives that can contribute toward better performance of
irrigated agriculture. This has been carried out through a participatory process with active
involvement all stakeholders. Efforts were focused on increasing the responsiveness of the
actors, enhancing the flexibility of the irrigation services and moving towards a more
service oriented system. Thus a broad road map has prepared for the establishment of an
institutional milieu that can lead to more sustainable, water-efficient irrigated agriculture.

190. The first step in the process will be to orient and reorganize all the prevailing
institutions in terms of hydrological boundaries (river basin approach). Establishing a
new RBO to look after the entire river basin will only succeed if a consensus can be
found amongst all basin stakeholders. Hence, coordination with multiple agencies needs
to be established to generate synergy for the desired results. Furthermore, collaboration
needs to be maintained with the ongoing other future projects directly or indirectly related
to the Bagmati River Basin.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

191. Based on the various assessments made of the prevailing institutional and
management arrangements and the identification of resources and funding gaps, the
following general guidelines have been proposed for the forthcoming projects and
program in Bagmati Basin.

192. Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS), which is aiming to develop
river basin plans for the different river basins of Nepal including Bagmati, needs to be
strengthened in terms of establishing a strong database of water resources in the basin.

193. Systematic public awareness campaigns and consultations with all key
stakeholders should be prepared. Involvement of all key stakeholders should be ensured
in the planning, implementation as well as in monitoring and evaluations. This is
essential not only to generating commitment but also for proper implementation.

194. The activities pertaining to innovations for more food with less water should be
implemented on the basis of a long-term plan. However, the plan must be adaptive and
flexible. Sufficient time should be allowed for dissemination and proper monitoring,
evaluation and refinements as required.

195. All external assistance should be geared toward supporting the farmers’ efforts to
develop their own institutions. This must be recognized as most effective enhancing
water security and improving irrigation performance.

196. The activities of the research based institutions in the field of irrigated agriculture
such as the NARC should be strengthened and expanded. Innovative technologies
identified and developed both in-house by innovative farmers in some areas or from
aboard have to be pilot tested for suitability and demonstration and dissemination to the
public.

197. A realistic assessment of capability of the farming community to operate, manage

and maintain the different levels of a system should be made. Ideally, cooperation
between individuals is likely when their numbers are less than 20, which implies tight
limitations on block size when landholdings are as small as in Nepal. Increasing
problems are likely to occur as the hierarchy of WUAs is extended.

198. The planning of activities should also address the financial capacity of WUAs and
their strategies for financing irrigation management. This should include honest
assessments of farmers’ financial capacity in the context of the changing productivity of
irrigated agriculture. It should include helping WUAs to design needs-based budgeting
and water charges, and new arrangements for joint investment by WUAs and agencies
in rehabilitation.

199. The Planning and Design Division of the DOI should also be strengthened with
proper and efficient hydrological and hydraulic computations and design guidelines for
irrigation systems and their hydraulic structures.

200. Checks and balances should be created to ensure that the concerned
implementation agencies and WUAs act according to the interests of the general farmers.
This may include a variety of measures, such as requirements for approval by WUA
members of irrigation management plans, budgets and fees and irrigation management
audits. WUAs are unlikely to focus on the issues unless the fair and transparent
procedures are in place.

201. The proposed plan needs to be accompanied by M&E systems that will permit a
progressive learning through the implementation process.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

C. Costs, Resources and Timeframes (Project Level)

202. In order to materialize the reforms outlined in the earlier sections and to
implement them in the field, some project level activities have been identified. This
section of the report provides the description of the proposed activities in terms of costs,
resources and timeframe in the projects and programs to follow.

203. The following points can be mentioned in terms of resources and timeframe for
project activities:

(i) The proposed programs and projects will not start from scratch but will
rather try to build up on the activities and achievements made by the earlier
and on-going projects from ADB as well as other donors. Hence, the costs
and resources have also been arranged accordingly so that the proposed
activities can be economically and efficiently carried out.

(ii) The proposed activities will broadly grouped into three components, as
follows:

 Component A: Adaptation of enabling policies

 Component B: Investments in modern irrigation infrastructure
 Component C: Capacity building and institutional strengthening

204. Under Component A, policy reform activities will be carried out. These reforms
will include those that promote efficient and sustainable use of water and correctly price
the opportunity cost of water. Likewise, Component B will mainly focus on infrastructure
development ensuring that they are properly designed efficient water management.
Finally, Component C will focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

REFERENCES

ADB, 2006, ADB Water User Association Manuals. Draft manuals cited in MMTS
[2010a]. Asian Development Bank.
Ballabh, V. 2005. Emerging Water Crisis and Political Economy of Irrigation Reforms in
India. In G. P. Shivakoti, D. Vermillion, W. F. Lam, E. Ostrom, U. Pradhan, and R. Yoder,
eds. Asian Irrigation in Transition: responding to the Challenges. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Barker, R., and F. Molle. 2005. Perspectives on Asian Irrigation. In G. P. Shivakoti, D.
Vermillion, W. F. Lam, E. Ostrom, U. Pradhan, and R. Yoder, eds. Asian Irrigation in
Transition: responding to the Challenges. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Bastakoti, R. C., and G. P. Shivakoti, 2009. Context and Institutions in Irrigation
Management: Applicability of Design Principles in Nepal and Thailand. Workshop on
Water and Design Principles, Indiana University, USA.
Chambers, R. 2013. Viewpoint - Ignorance, Error and Myth in South Asian Irrigation:
Critical Reflections on Experience. Water Alternatives 6(2):154-167
IWMI. 2010. Integrated Water Resources Management: Central Asian Experience. IWMI,
Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Global Water Partnership – Central Asia and
Caucuses, supported by the Government of Finland.
Joshi, 2002, Irrigation Management Transfer and Adoption of Agriculture Technology in
Khageri Irrigation System, Chitwan, Nepal.
McKinney, Daene C. 2003. “Cooperative Management of Trans-boundary Water
Resources in Central Asia.”
Pradhan, P., 1989. Patterns of Irrigation Organizations in Nepal: A Comparative Study of
21 Farmer-Managed Irrigation Systems. Country Paper No. 1. International Irrigation
Management Institute, Colombo.
Paudel, S. N., 2003. Nepalma Sinchahi: Jaljanya Savyata ra Samsthagat Vikash
(Irrigation in Nepal: Water-based Civilization and Institutional Development. Jalshrot
Vikash Sanstha, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Samad, M., 2001. Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer on the Performance of
Irrigation Systems: A Review of Selected Asian Experiences. Paper presented at the
ACIAR Water Policy Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand.
Shah, S. G. and Singh, G. N. 2001. Irrigation Development in Nepal: Investment,
Efficiency and Institution. Winrock International Research Report Series No. 47. Winrock
International, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Shukla, A. K. 2001. Policies, Processes, and Performance of Management Turnover in
Agencies Initiated Intervention. In: Ganesh P. Shivakoti and E. Ostrom (eds.) “Improving
Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal‟. Institute for Contemporary Studies:
California, USA.
Sijapati, S. and K. C. Prasad, 2005. Improving Governance in Nepal’s Water Resources
Sector through Institutional Changes. Paper presented at the Third International Conference
on Irrigation and Drainage entitled "Water District Management and Governance" organized
by USCID at San Diego, CA, USA. USCID, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sijapati, S. and et al, 2008. Human Resources Assessment of Department of Irrigation,
Water Management Branch, Department of Irrigation, Nepal.
Upadhyay, S. and H. P. Hemchuri 2001. Assessment of Rehabilitated Hill Irrigation
Systems in Nepal. Winrock International, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Attachment 1

Chronology of Legal and Institutional Measures for Governance

of Irrigation

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Chronology of Legal and Institutional Measures for Governance of Irrigation

Year Event/Activity Rationale

1853 National Code of Conduct To provide legal foundation for prior use water rights, to
1910 (Muluki Ain) develop irrigation in the Terai and to make District Revenue
Offices responsible for construction, operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems.
1961 Irrigation Act, 2018 To make legal provisions for various water uses, construction
and maintenance of irrigation canals, distribution of water,
collection of water charges, sewerage disposal, etc.
1966 Water Tax Act, 2023 To articulate provisions of water tax and licensing, including
for drinking water sector.
1967 Irrigation, Electricity and To provide legal framework for the use of water resources for
Related Water Resources Act, irrigation, electricity production, and others uses.
2024
1974 Canal Operation Regulation To govern water use for irrigation.
1982 Soil and Watershed To check mismanagement of watersheds that leads to land
Conservation Act, 2039 degradation, through floods, water-logging, salinity, and
siltation in the reservoirs and to manage the government
constructed embankments, terraces, diversion channels, and
retaining walls as well as to protect vegetation in landslide
prone areas.
1985 Initiation of the Irrigation To promote participatory irrigation management approach in
Management Project (IMP) the country.
1987 Organizational restructuring To bring all irrigation related activities under one umbrella.
and formation of Department
of Irrigation (DOI)
1988 Adoption of a new working To institutionalize the participatory irrigation management
policy on irrigation approach.
development by HMG
1988 Irrigation Regulation, 2045 To provide legal provisions for formation of water users’ group,
water distribution, realization of water charge etc. of a new
working policy on irrigation development by HMG.
1992 Adoption of the Irrigation To bring uniformity in implementation procedures of all
Policy, 2049 institutions and to continue necessary reforms in the
institutional structure and management for better service
delivery.
1992 Water Resources Act, 2049 To provide umbrella legislation for hydropower, irrigation,
drinking water and other water uses and to establish District
Water Resource Committees (DWRCs) for regulating use of
water resources at the district level.
1992 Electricity Act and Regulation, To facilitate and regulate the hydropower sector, with the main
2049 thrust on hydropower development.
1993 Introduction of the Water To elaborate on the provisions made in the Water Resources
Resources Regulation, 2050 Act, 2049.
1993 Social auditors organize the To discuss on the issues of Arun III Hydropower Project.
first public hearing in Nepal.
1996 First Amendment of Irrigation To update irrigation policy for rapid and sustainable
Policy, 2049 development of irrigation and to adapt river basin approach
and greater participation of WUAs at all stages of irrigation
development.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Institutions

Year Event/Activity Rationale

1997 Environmental Protection Act, For ensuring environmental friendliness in various
2053 development efforts.
1998 Formation of National To develop a higher tier of organization of the water users’
Federation of Water Users’ association enabling their representation at national level.
Association (NFWUAN)
1998 Enactment of the Nepal Water To devolve the management of water supply schemes to the
Supply Sector Policy users groups
1998 Formation of a committee for To lease Nepal Water Supply Committee to the private sector.
Private Sector Participation
1999 Local Self-Governance Act, To strengthen the decentralization governance process in the
2055 country.
2000 Irrigation Regulation, 2056 To elaborate on the provisions made in the Water Resources
Act, 2049.
2001 First election of NFWUAN For democratic appointment of the executive body of
NFWUAN.
2003 Adoption of Irrigation Policy, To promote optimal use of available physical and institutional
2060 infrastructure for expanding year round irrigation services.
2004 Second election of NFWUAN For appointment of democratically elected executive body of
NFWUAN.
2004 Irrigation (First Amendment) To legalize the Irrigation Policy, 2060.
Regulation, 2060
2009 Third Election of NFIWUAN For appointment of democratically elected executive body of
NFWUAN.
2013 Irrigation Policy, 2070 To promote optimal use of available physical and institutional
infrastructure for expanding year round irrigation services.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Appendix 4

Remote Sensing

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

REMOTE SENSING

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
A. Study Area ....................................................................................................................1
II. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 3
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS .................................................................................................. 4
A. Satellite Imagery ...........................................................................................................4
B. Meteorological Data ......................................................................................................4
C. Surface Energy Balance Model ....................................................................................5
IV. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 6
A. NDVI Analysis Historic Years........................................................................................6
B. ET and Biomass analysis 2013.....................................................................................9
1. NDVI, ET, Biomass and POW for February 27, 2013..............................................9
2. Land Use Classification..........................................................................................11
3. Spatial variations of POW ......................................................................................15
4. Actual ET, Potential ET and ET Deficit ..................................................................17
V. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 19
A. Applications.................................................................................................................19
B. Terms of Reference for Remote Sensing Monitoring and Management Systems........20
1. Application 1: Monitoring as an Input for System Modernization .............................21
2. Application 2: Near-real Time Monitoring for Operational Management at the
Field Level ......................................................................................................................21
3. Application 3: Monitoring for Evaluation and Planning at the System Level..........22

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: MODIS NDVI

Attachment 2: ET, Biomass and POW for 3 Landsat Images
Attachment 3: SEBAL ET and Biomass

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

List of Figures

Figure 1: True Color Composite BIP Service Area, based on Landsat-8 Image (December
th
20 , 2013).......................................................................................................................2
st
Figure 2: Spatially Gridded Air Temperature for January 1 2014...................................................5
Figure 3: Mean NDVI for (a) 2003 and (b) 2013 (December – March/April) ....................................7
Figure 4: Histogram Mean NDVI [-] for 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013 (December –
March/April) ....................................................................................................................7
Figure 5: Surface Area [ha] per NDVI Class (taken from Table 2)...................................................8
-1
Figure 6: Results for February 27, 2013: (a) NDVI, (b) Mean Daily ET [mm day ], (c) Mean
-1 -1 -3
Daily Biomass [kg ha day ], and (d) POW - Biomass [kg m ]...................................10
Figure 7: Irrigation Canals BIP where Most Activity is Occurring...................................................11
Figure 8: Unsupervised Classification BIP – 5 Classes (2013) ......................................................12
Figure 9: Mean NDVI Time Series for 2013 per Class ...................................................................13
-1 -1 -1
Figure 10: Histogram of NDVI, ET [mm day ] Biomass C3 [kg ha day ], and POW –
-3
Biomass C3 [kg m ] for Class 5. Black lines: February 11, Red: February 27,
Green: March 15, 2013.................................................................................................14
-3
Figure 11: Close-up POW February 27, 2013 – Biomass-C3 [kg m ] for Maize in the
Northeast of BIP - Sarlahi District.................................................................................16
Figure 12: POW versus Distance to Canals ...................................................................................17
Figure 13: Daily ET Deficit for February 27, 2013 ..........................................................................18
Figure 14: Example Dashboard and Applications ..........................................................................23

List of Tables

Table 1: Selected (and Planned) Landsat Imagery BIP ...................................................................4

Table 2: Surface Area [ha] per NDVI Class (*=none).......................................................................8
Table 3: Total Area [ha] per Class (2014) ......................................................................................12
Table 4: Mean NDVI, ET, Biomass (for C3 and C4) and POW (and Standard Deviation) per
Land Class (February 27, 2013)...................................................................................15
Table 5: Total Water Use (February 27, 2013)...............................................................................15
Table 6: Mean ET, Potential ET and ET Deficit per Land Class (February 27, 2013) ...................17

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

REMOTE SENSING NEPAL

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This appendix describes the results of a remote sensing study to identify trends in
the evolution of irrigated areas and to assess the productivity of water (POW) of the
Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP) in the Lower Bagmati River Basin in Nepal during the dry
season (rabi), which roughly covers the months December to March

2. The evolution of irrigated areas has been analyzed by identifying trends using
medium resolution MODIS-NDVI imagery (which has a spatial resolution of 250 m) for
the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013.

3. The POW is calculated on a unit area basis as the crop total biomass production
divided by the water consumption (by evapotranspiration, ET). The POW is assessed
using the Surface Energy Balance Algorithm for Land (SEBAL) and analysis with high
resolution Landsat imagery that has a spatial resolution of 30-m.

4. Improving agricultural POW is important in order to (i) meet rising food demands,
in light of increasing water scarcity; (ii) respond to competing demands on water between
agriculture, drinking water, industry and environmental uses; and (iii) contribute to
poverty reduction and economic growth, including better nutrition for families, productive
employment, higher incomes, and greater equity. Targeting high water productivity can
reduce investment costs by reducing the amount of water that has to be withdrawn.

5. Crop production can be expressed as a total biomass production, or as crop yield

per unit of water. Where the latter is more appropriate and useful for irrigation
performance evaluation purposes, it requires an accurate crop identification map and
corresponding growing period as input. Because no such data was available for this study,
satellite imagery was used to identify areas with similar vegetation by unsupervised
classification that may be used in detailed follow-up studies for the identification of land
use by supervised classification of imagery.

A. Study Area

6. The BIP is situated in the southern part of the Bagmati River basis near the
border with India (in the Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts). A true-color image of the BIP
service area, together with the canals (blue) is presented in Figure 1. The figure is
based on a Landsat 8 image of December 20th, 2013. The total command area covers
about 75,000 ha.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 1: True Color Composite BIP Service Area, based on Landsat-8 Image
(December 20th, 2013)

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

II. METHODOLOGY

7. The development of irrigated areas in the BIP area over the past 10 years is
determined by a NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) 5-year time step
analysis for the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The time series
covers the irrigated dry season with one NDVI observation every 8-days, depending on
cloud cover, and is based on MODIS satellite observations with a spatial resolution of
250 m. Satellite based NDVI observations provide a simple but effective way to identify
vegetated areas ranging from bare soil to fully covered areas. The agricultural areas are
distinguished from other areas (urban areas, water bodies, forests and other natural
vegetation), and divided in agricultural classes ranging from very active (very high NDVI)
to non-active (low to very low NDVI). Using the time series the trend in the area size of
each class is determined. Additionally the areas in GKIP that show the highest and the
lowest activity are investigated.

8. The NDVI analysis provided information on year by year trends but does not
provide information on the productivity of water. This is assessed in a detailed analysis
where the SEBAL algorithm is used to determine the crop water consumption (ET) and
biomass production based on 30-m medium resolution satellite observations. The
SEBAL model relies on visible and thermal infrared satellite observations and
meteorological data. A detailed description of SEBAL is presented in Annex 3.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS

A. Satellite Imagery

9. The NDVI time series was derived using MODIS satellite constellation that contains
two polar orbiting satellites with a spatial resolution of 250 m and a revisit time twice per
day. The data is available at the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center. For
this analysis, MODIS-products were downloaded for the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012
and 2013. By combining datasets from both MODIS satellites an 8-daily time series of the
NDVI is obtained that is then aggregated in a yearly image covering the dry season.

10. High resolution Landsat images (30 m) provide more detailed information than
MODIS, and are essential to monitor small agricultural fields, but are less frequent
available due to the much lower re-visit time of 16 days. Landsat images (Landsat 8
LDCM and Landsat 7 ETM) can be obtained from the GLOVIS or EarthExplorer archives.

11. For the analysis, cloud free Landsat images are selected at the peak of the dry
season, when most of the crops are fully developed (highest NDVI) from the end of
March till the beginning of April (refer to Table 1). At the time of analysis, no suitable
images could be obtained for the season of 2014 due to cloud cover of the early season
images and therefore the analysis focuses on the year 2013.

Table 1: Selected (and Planned) Landsat Imagery BIP

Year Path/Row 138/43+138/44 Landsat DOY Quality
2014 February 14 LE7 45 Bad (cloudy)
February 6 LC8 37 Bad (cloudy)
January 29 LE7 29 Bad (haze)
January 21 LC8 21 Bad (haze)
January 13 LE7 13 Bad (cloudy)
January 5 LC8 5 Bad (cloudy)
2013 March 15 LE7 74 Good
February 27 LE7 58 Good
February 11 LE7 42 Good
Source: Present Study, 2014

12. Pre-processing of the Landsat imagery is required before analysis. This

processing includes: filling of stripes (of Landsat 7, due to sensor mail functioning),
image compositing of Landsat tiles, eventual cloud masking, and conversion of DN-
values at the top of the atmosphere to surface reflectances (so-called atmospheric
correction).

B. Meteorological Data

13. Meteorological data is required for the estimation of POW and was obtained from
national weather stations located in Nepal and neighboring countries. Daily mean values
of air temperature (Ta), relative humidity (RH) and wind speed (u) from approximately 70
stations are collected from NOAA National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/)
and extrapolated to each satellite pixel using a physically based model (Daymet-model,
Thornton et al., 1997). An example of the daily mean air temperature for the 1st of January
2014 is presented in Figure 2 (the temperature ranges between -8oC (magenta) and
19oC (red). Daily solar radiation at the ground is derived from calculated values at the top
of the atmosphere and atmospheric transmissivity (t) data derived from the geo-
stationary satellite FengYun-2D.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 2: Spatially Gridded Air Temperature for January 1st 2014

The black polygons represent the GKIP (Bangladesh) and the BIP (Nepal) study areas.

Source: Present Study, 2014

C. Surface Energy Balance Model

14. The SEBAL algorithm has been used to quantify the actual evapotranspiration (ET)
and biomass production. The land surface energy balance describes incoming and
outgoing fluxes of energy and heat at the land surface. The energy associated to ET (or
latent heat flux) is one of these components. By computing the net radiation, heat
released into the atmosphere for heating the atmospheric boundary layer and heat lost
into the soil, ET is computed.

15. The key input data for SEBAL consists of satellite measurements of surface
albedo, the NDVI and land surface temperature. These measurements can be inferred
from the Landsat imagery. Additional input data used are: a digital elevation map (DEM)
and a land use map. The land use map differentiates only between water, vegetated
areas, bare soil, and built-up area and is used to determine surface roughness. Land use
data is not used in the computation of ET. The SEBAL algorithm also requires standard
meteorological data: air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and solar radiation
that have been obtained from national weather stations (see previous section).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

IV. RESULTS

A. NDVI Analysis Historic Years

16. The mean NDVI over the period December – beginning of April for the years
2003 and 2013 is presented in Figure 3 and the years 2004, 2008 and 2012 in Annex 1,
with irrigation canals depicted in black. The NDVI is a good indicator for crop
development because the index provides a normalized quantification of plant vitality in a
field; the more vital the leafs and biomass, the higher the index, thus high yielding crops
in good health and planting pattern have a higher index than scattered low yielding
crops, bare soil and natural vegetation. As such, the relatively easily derivable NDVI can
be used to gain insight in crop development. Thus, the NDVI identifies areas that are
vegetated, where areas with a NDVI lower than 0.4 represent areas with little activity /
low performance and areas with a NDVI of more than 0.55 are densely vegetated. The
mean NDVI ranges between 0.35 and 0.65, and the highest values of more than 0.6 are
mainly found in the north of BIP in the Sarlahi District. It is not possible to link NDVI
values to agricultural classes directly, but shifts in NDVI values in the region can be
observed.

17. The analysis shows that since 2003/2004 a significant part of the forested area in
the Sarlahi District appears to have been replaced by agriculture. The map of 2003
shows higher NDVI values than the other years that can be explained when analyzing
the rainfall data for station Ramoli Bairiya. This reveals that there has been significant
more rainfall in the period December 2002 – March 2003 (~140mm) than in other years
(<30mm) (source: www.dhm.gov.np). This is also clearly demonstrated in Figure 4,
showing the histogram of the mean NDVI for all 5 years. The peak of the histogram for
the year 2003 is shifted to higher NDVI values. A similar shift we can observe in 2012,
while the years 2004 and 2008 have similar values.

18. This increase in NDVI values during prolonged rainfall indicate that under normal
circumstances of average rainfall the NDVI values are lower, thus indicating possible
water shortage for agricultural crops. This can be caused by a lack of water available for
irrigation. When proper irrigated the crops would reach maximum NDVI and thus the
values of wet and dry years of the irrigated areas would be similar. The areas that show
the highest mean NDVI-values are situated in the Sarlahi District, in the south of the
Sarlahi District (south of Kabilasi) and in the northern part of the Rautahat District around
Simara Bhawanipur.

19. In Table 2 the mean NDVI values versus the area for each year are arranged for
values lower than 0.35 to higher than 0.65 in steps of 0.05. No significant positive or
negative trend in the mean NDVI values since 2004, where 2003 is considered to be an
outlier due to significant more rainfall during the dry season of 2003. This suggests that
there have been no significant improvements of the performance in the BIP area during
the period analyzed. There have been shifts in location of agriculture and possibly area,
but this has not resulted in a clear trend of productivity change. The areas with the
highest activities are found mainly in the northern parts of BIP in both the Rautahat and
Sarlahi Districts and in the southern part near Malangawa, where the highest mean NDVI
values are observed. The corresponding areal size (in hectares) to indicate the size of
shifts is presented per class in Figure 5.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 3: Mean NDVI for (a) 2003 and (b) 2013 (December – March/April)

a b

Source: Present Study, 2014

Figure 4: Histogram Mean NDVI [-] for 2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013
(December – March/April)

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Table 2: Surface Area [ha] per NDVI Class (*=none)

NDVI [-] Activity 2003 2004 2008 2012 2013 Trend
Urban, rivers, NDVI <0.35 2,481 2,650 3,038 2,613 3,775 *
water bodies

Bare soil, fallow ≥ 0.35 NDVI Not 1,669 3,450 4,481 4,956 9,788 *
<0.4 used

≥ 0.4 NDVI Low 7,500 21,725 24,381 17,513 26,069 *

<0.45

≥ 0.45 NDVI 28,425 31,363 28,019 29,250 23,494 *

<0.5

≥ 0.5 NDVI 24,250 10,538 9,481 15,550 7,269 *

<0.55

≥ 0.55 NDVI 6,500 1,931 2,775 2,463 2,319 *

<0.6

≥ 0.6 NDVI High 2,275 1,688 1,600 1,606 1,469 *

<0.65

Forest NDVI ≥ 0.65 2,050 1,800 1,375 1,200 969 -

Total 75,150

Source: Present Study, 2014

Figure 5: Surface Area [ha] per NDVI Class (taken from Table 2)

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

B. ET and Biomass analysis 2013

1. NDVI, ET, Biomass and POW for February 27, 2013

20. For the definition of POW in the region, a snapshot was made to define water
consumption by ET, the related biomass production and derived POW. For this snapshot
images of February 11, 27 and March 15, 2013 are used, where the image of February
27 shows best results because at that date most crops are well developed. In order to
identify possible trends in agricultural areas and POW, a high resolution Landsat image
was used to classify and mask agricultural from non-agricultural land use.

21. Figure 6 presents the NDVI [-], daily biomass production [kg ha-1 day-1], daily
actual ET [mm day-1] and POW of biomass [kg m-3] for February 27, 2013 for the entire
area. The white colored areas within the command areas are classified as non-agricultural
areas (urban, forest, river, riverbeds and fallow land). The results for the other Landsat
images (February 11 and March 15, 2013) are presented in Attachment 2, including the
results of the non-agricultural areas.

22. The areas with the highest NDVI (red encircled in Figure 6a) correspond with
areas identified as most active in Figure 3b: the northern part of the Rautahat District, a
small area in the south along one of the irrigation canals (west of Matsari), the north-west
of the Sarlahi District and in the south (west of Salempur and Malangawa). All these
areas have a NDVI of 0.5 or more. In most cases the green areas are located near or
along the irrigation canals. The area south of BIP (in the Sarlahi District) is an area
without irrigation canals (Figure 7). Thus, water here is obtained by other means, e.g.
tubewells. The area in the middle section shows low to very low activity.

23. The daily water consumption (Figure 6b) varies roughly between 4 and 5 mm
and the biomass production (Figure 6c) is more than 120 kg ha-1 (assuming a C3-crop).1
The derived POW for biomass (Figure 6d) varies between 2.5 and 3.5 kg m-3 where the
most active areas reach 3.5 kg m-3.

1
Crops can be divided into two broad categories in terms of the way in which they use photosynthesis to
convert sunlight and water into carbohydrates (i.e. biomass). In C3 plants carbon dioxide is first fixed into a
compound containing three carbon atoms while in C4 plants carbon dioxide is initially fixed into a compound
containing four carbons atoms. In other words this means that C4 plants are more efficient than C3 plants in
converting sunlight into biomass. Both maize and sugar cane are C4 crops, and are better adapted than
wheat (a C3 plant) in an environment with high daytime temperatures, intense sunlight, drought, or nitrogen
or CO2 limitation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 6: Results for February 27, 2013: (a) NDVI, (b) Mean Daily ET [mm day-1], (c)
Mean Daily Biomass [kg ha-1 day-1], and (d) POW - Biomass [kg m-3]

a b

c d

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 7: Irrigation Canals BIP where Most Activity is Occurring

Source: Present Study, 2014

2. Land Use Classification

24. In order to determine water productivity per crop variety, a land use map is
required. Unfortunately, no such map could be secured for the BIP during the study;
therefore, the available satellite imagery was used to derive land cover classes that
might be linked to crop varieties. Classification can be done by clustering based on
spectral values, also known as unsupervised classification, or by machine learning
where training sets of ground truth are used to derive land use classes. While the latter is
producing verifiable results, unfortunately there are no means within the scope of this
study to complete such supervised classification because of the required field effort. In
order to relate crops at least indicative to POW, an unsupervised classification was done
where the main classes will be related to POW only.

25. Using the Landsat image of 2013 listed in Table 1 an unsupervised classification
was made for the dry season of 2013, to derive the 5 main agricultural land use classes.
The resulting map is presented in Figure 8, and the total area of each class in Table 3.
All together they cover roughly 43,000 ha, which agrees with other estimates for the BIP.

26. Figure 9 presents the NDVI values of the derived classes versus Landsat
imagery acquisition time for 2013 (black dots). Clearly, the different classes have similar
NDVI values at the point of image acquisition, thus land use identification is difficult. One
class (class 5) can be clearly distinguished because of the longer growing season; this
class has been identified by the local expert team to be maize. Three other classes
identified by the local expert team are lentils, sugarcane and wheat. The other classes
are not identified. The classes identified will be used in this study mainly indicative,
because no extensive field data was used, and no validation has been carried out, thus
the accuracy of the classification and correctness of crop identification cannot be
established.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 8: Unsupervised Classification BIP – 5 Classes (2013)

Source: Present Study, 2014

Table 3: Total Area [ha] per Class (2014)

Class Color Area [ha]
Other White

Class 1 (Lentils**) 6,903

Class 2 9,901

Class 3 (Wheat**) 10,435

Class 4 (Sugar Cane**) 11,587

Class 5 (Maize**) 3,919

Sub total 42,745

Water 88

Forest 2,141

Bare land* 29,441

Total 74,414

(*The class bare land covers urban areas, river bed, bare soil
and fallow land, **As identified by the local experts)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 9: Mean NDVI Time Series for 2013 per Class

Source: Present Study, 2014

27. NDVI, water use (ET) and biomass production changes during the growing
season due to the growing stages of a crop, the weather conditions and field activities
such as irrigation. This is demonstrated in Figure 10, presenting the Histograms of
NDVI, ET, biomass and POW-biomass for maize (class 5) based on the three Landsat
images (black: February 11; red: February 27; green: March 15). As the crop develops
the NDVI increases (more rapidly), and so does the water consumption (ET) and
biomass production. In turn this also leads to a higher POW of biomass.

28. In order to determine the POW, based on the final yield of a crop, satellite
imagery at frequent intervals during the entire growing period (from seeding date till
harvest date) need to be analyzed. In this way the total (cumulative) ET and biomass
production can be determined. Once the harvest index is known (which is crop specific
and defines the fraction of yield from the total biomass production, plus the average
sugar content in case of sugar cane) the total yield and POW of yield can be derived.

29. The mean values of ET, Biomass, NDVI and POW of biomass for all 5 classes on
February 27 (and standard deviations) are listed in Table 4. As mentioned before, crops
can be divided in two categories based on the photosynthesis efficiency, namely C3 and
C4. Under the same circumstances the total biomass production of C4 crops is roughly a
factor 1.8 higher than C3 crops. Since its unknown which of the 5 classes is a C3 or C4
crop, the biomass production and derived POW are given for both crops types (C3 and
C4).

30. The total water use can be determined by combining the areal size of each class
with the average water consumption (ET). The total water use [m3] of each class on
February 27, including the remaining classes forest, water bodies and bare land are
presented in Table 5. These values represent only daily values for February 27. The
total water use on February 27, 2013 is 207,309 m3 (~0.21 Mm3).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 10: Histogram of NDVI, ET [mm day-1] Biomass C3 [kg ha-1 day-1], and POW
– Biomass C3 [kg m-3] for Class 5.
Black lines: February 11, Red: February 27, Green: March 15, 2013

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Table 4: Mean NDVI, ET, Biomass (for C3 and C4) and POW (and Standard
Deviation) per Land Class (February 27, 2013)
Class NDVI ET Biomass-C3 Biomass-C4 POW Bio C3 POW Bio C4
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 -3
[-] [mm day ] [kg ha day ] [kg ha day ] [kg m ] [kg m ]
Class 1 0.45 ± 0.05 3.52 ± 0.54 92 ± 20 165 ± 35 2.58 ± 0.23 4.64 ± 0.41
Class 2 0.41 ± 0.03 3.37 ± 0.61 80 ± 16 143 ± 29 2.35 ± 0.18 4.23 ± 0.32
Class 3 0.48 ± 0.03 3.92 ± 0.42 105 ± 15 188 ± 27 2.66 ± 0.18 4.79 ± 0.33
Class 4 0.56 ± 0.04 4.28 ± 0.27 133 ± 15 239 ± 27 3.09 ± 0.21 5.56 ± 0.38
Class 5 0.58 ± 0.05 4.21 ± 0.32 136 ± 20 245 ± 36 3.21 ± 0.29 5.78 ± 0.51
Source: Present Study, 2014

Table 5: Total Water Use (February 27, 2013)

Area Water use Water use/ ha

3 3
Class [ha] [m ] [m ]
Class 1 (Lentils) 6,903 22,136 3.2
Class 2 9,901 30,148 3.0
Class 3 (Wheat) 10,435 36,829 3.5
Class 4 (Sugar cane) 11,587 44,624 3.9
Class 5 (Maize) 3,919 14,864 3.8
Water bodies 88 264 3.0
Forest 2,141 7,499 3.5
Bare land* 29,441 50,945 1.7
Total 74,414 207,309 2.8
(*The class bare land covers urban areas, river bed, bare soil and fallow land)

3. Spatial variations of POW

31. Figure 11 presents a close up of the POW for maize (class 5) for February 27,
2013 in the north-west of BIP – the Sharlahi District (refer to Figure 6d). The POW
roughly varies between 3.0 and 3.5 kg m-3. This area has a developed network of canals
(see blue lines) providing a good water supply to each part of the area. The maximum
distance (perpendicular) from the canal is roughly 1 km (as presented in sub-figure of
Figure 11).

32. Figure 12 presents the POW dependence of the distance perpendicular to the
main canal for the areas presented in Figure 11. The red line represents the linear fit.
This figure demonstrates that there is no clear loss of performance further way from the
canals in these areas, however a more detailed study including secondary canals may
explain the clustering of areas with high POW by water management.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 11: Close-up POW February 27, 2013 – Biomass-C3 [kg m-3] for Maize in the
Northeast of BIP - Sarlahi District

Legend

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 12: POW versus Distance to Canals

The red line represents a linear fit.

Source: Present Study, 2014

4. Actual ET, Potential ET and ET Deficit

33. The water deficit is a measure for water stress and thus decreased production
and is determined by subtracting the actual water consumption (ET act) from the potential
water consumption (ETpot), both derived with the SEBAL algorithm.

34. Table 6 shows the actual, potential and deficit water consumption for each
agricultural class for February 27. The class with the highest deficits is class 1 (Lentils),
the lowest values are found for class 4 (sugar cane). A spatial representation of the
water deficit is presented in Figure 13. It can be observed that the highest deficits are in
areas with no nearby irrigation canal, with the exception of the area up north in the
Sarlahi District. The total water deficit volume is 15,039 M3 that is roughly 10% of the
actual total water consumption (and equal to the whole consumption of class 5). As an
indication, under optimized growth the total amount of required water would increase
with 10% under similar circumstances. The deficit water consumption of all images and
land cover are presented in Attachment 2, where it can be observed that the non-
agricultural areas vary from low to the large water stress longer in the dry season.

Table 6: Mean ET, Potential ET and ET Deficit per Land Class (February 27, 2013)
Class ET ETpot ETdef ETdef
-1 -1 -1 3
[mm day ] [mm day ] [mm day ] [m ]
Class 1 3.52 4.12 0.56 3,490
Class 2 3.37 3.89 0.51 4,529
Class 3 3.92 4.26 0.34 3,170
Class 4 4.28 4.52 0.24 2,517
Class 5 4.21 4.59 0.38 1,333
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Figure 13: Daily ET Deficit for February 27, 2013

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

V. CONCLUSIONS

A. Applications

35. The land and water productivity in an irrigation scheme can be quantified using
remote sensing based models (such as energy balance models) that quantify growth
indicators such as actual biomass production and actual evapotranspiration spatially at
pixel level for an entire command area. The advantage of using remote sensing over
traditional methods is that remote sensing requires fewer inputs in terms of data and
resources while providing an unbiased overall picture of an entire scheme. Another
major advantage is that time series of satellite data can be used to analyze productivity
and spatial variations that can be used to (i) identify regions that require intervention and
(ii) monitor water needs and crop production near-real time for management purposes.
For example, an important element of successful operational irrigation systems is crop
production in relation to the depletion of irrigation water by means of crop evapotranspiration
(actual ET, or water consumption). The water consumption is commonly derived using crop
factors in combination with Penman-Monteith derived ET data. This approach is based
on optimal and uniform (ie, between fields but also within a field) crop growth during a
season, while in practice crop development and health can vary in a spatial context due
to crop varieties and varying conditions such as heterogeneity in soil texture, soil
compaction and preparation, climate, elevation, slope and aspect, pest control, nutrients,
planting distance, management etc. Therefore quantitative information derived from
remote sensing observations provides a more accurate estimation of water consumption
and biomass production.

36. In this study remote sensing was used to determine the development of irrigated
areas over the past 10 years by analyzing a NDVI time series and an assessment of the
POW of the BIP in Nepal during the dry season (rabi), which roughly covers the months
December to March.

37. The development of irrigated areas was analyzed using imagery for the years
2003, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The time series analysis uses 8-daily
MODIS satellite observations with a spatial resolution of 250 m during the entire irrigated
dry season. The NDVI is a good indicator for crop development because the index
provides a normalized quantification of plant vitality in a field; the more vital the leafs and
biomass, the higher the index, thus high yielding crops in good health and planting pattern
have a higher index than scattered low yielding crops, bare soil and natural vegetation. As
such, the relatively easily derivable NDVI can be used to gain insight in crop development.
The analysis shows that no significant positive or negative trend in the mean NDVI values
since 2004, where 2003 is considered to be an outlier due to significant more rainfall
during the dry season of 2003. This suggests that there have been no significant
improvements of the performance in the BIP area during the period analyzed. There have
been shifts in location of agriculture and possibly area, but this has not resulted in a clear
trend of productivity change. The areas with the highest activities are found mainly in the
northern parts of BIP in both the Rautahat and Sarlahi Districts and in the southern part
near Malangawa, where the highest mean NDVI values are observed.

38. The POW can be expressed as total biomass production or crop yield per unit of
water. In order to quantify biomass production and actual water consumption of crops in
the region based on SEBAL using with high resolution Landsat imagery as input. To
obtain a complete picture of POW development a full season should be monitored on a
minimum weekly basis in order to pinpoint POW affecting events such as ET deficit in
the plants caused by lack of irrigation, or extreme weather events causing damages to
crops. This does however require frequently available cloud-free imagery (with the
correct specifications), with a minimum of bi-monthly observations in the visible spectrum

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

and daily in the thermal spectrum. Alternatively a snapshot can be made at the end of a
growing season where based on one image water consumption and biomass production
is determined for the day in question. While such a snapshot separates areas of no or
limited production with areas of production, no conclusive analysis of POW between
productive areas can be made due to differences in growth stage (caused by different
planting dates), nor can events causing lower POW`s being identified.

39. In order to relate the water consumption to crops, a field level land use map is
required. Because this data could not be secured for the command area, high resolution
(30 m) remote sensing was used to derive land cover classes that can be linked to crop
varieties. Classification was done by clustering based on spectral values, also known as
unsupervised classification, where the main derived clusters, or classes, where related to
crops. A method to derive a higher accuracy and precision in land use classification is
machine learning, or supervised classification, where training sets of ground truth are
used to derive land use classes. While this method is producing verifiable results, it also
requires more input in terms of labor and resources for analysis and ground data collection.

40. For this study a snapshot analysis and unsupervised classification was
conducted to gain insight in the spatial distribution of the POW. For this study a snapshot
analysis and unsupervised classification was conducted to gain insight in the spatial
distribution of the POW. The date February 27th 2014 was selected for the snapshot
because at this point most crops are well developed and a satellite image was available.
The analysis shows that the areas prior identified having the highest NDVI values
correspond with areas identified as most active: the northern part of the Rautahat
District, a small area in the south along one of the irrigation canals (west of Matsari), the
north-west of the Sarlahi District and in the south (west of Salempur and Malangawa). In
most cases the green areas are located near or along the irrigation canals. The area
south of BIP (in the Sarlahi District) is an area without irrigation canals. Thus, water here
is obtained by other means, e.g. tubewells. The area in the middle section shows low to
very low activity. The daily water consumption varies roughly between 4 and 5 mm and
the biomass production is more than 120 kg/ha. The derived POW for biomass varies
between 2.5 and 3.5 kg/m3 where the most active areas reach 3.5 kg/m3. The total water
consumption of the snapshot amounts to 207,309 m3 (~0.21 Mm3), from which 148,601
m3 was consumed by agriculture at that specific day. The total water deficit volume is
15,039 m3 that is roughly 10% of the actual total water consumption. As an indication,
under optimized growth the total amount of required water would increase with 10%
under similar circumstances.

B. Terms of Reference for Remote Sensing Monitoring and Management

Systems

41. The report demonstrates that spatial variations of POW within a command area
can be determined and visualized using Remote Sensing thus enabling analysis and
management applications to improve on the productivity of water. In this respect three
observation applications are recommended and should be included in investment planning:

(i) Monitoring as an input to the planning for system modernization and

management reforms
(ii) Near-real time monitoring for operational management at the field level
(iii) Monitoring for evaluation and planning at the system level

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

1. Application 1: Monitoring as an Input for System Modernization

42. The analysis has demonstrated that remote sensing has been successfully
applied to unbiased identify spatial variations in POW in the command area. Identified
regions qualify for system improvements and as such can be further investigated in order
to recommend improvements. In this way regions that require improvements can be
specifically targeted in a cost effective way requiring little input data at field level which is
usually hard to obtain. The NDVI time series analysis has identified the trend of
improvement, and can be used to quantify the results of scheme improvements versus
its history. As such it is recommended to continue the use of the method for system and
scheme improvement evaluations. This requires bi-monthly 250-m resolution MODIS
analysis of NDVI for the period end November/December to early May (following year),
which corresponds with the dry season (Rabi season).

43. The proposed TOR is summarized below and requires for Application 1 of an
investment up to $ 5,000 per season.

Application NDVI Time Series Analysis

Data
1 Growth Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI, 250 m
spatial resolution, 8-daily temporal resolution, period end
November – early May, total ~20 images (1 per 8 days)

2. Application 2: Near-real Time Monitoring for Operational

Management at the Field Level

44. The satellite derived variables for a near-real time operational solution are growth
parameters (actual biomass production and leaf area index to monitor crop
development), water parameter (transpiration deficit), mineral parameter (nitrogen
content in the upper leaf) and the yield parameters (potential yield and actual yield for
the main crops). Due to the small plot size in the area monitoring ideally should be done
at high resolution (30 m resolution or better) in order to monitor in-field variations and to
be able to provide irrigation advice at this level. However, this is not feasible with the
current satellite availability because experiences from this study have learned that there
is not sufficient high resolution satellite coverage. Monitoring is only possible during Rabi
season due to the cloud cover blocking image acquisition during the Kharif season, and
even during Rabi cloud cover is at such extent that the use of remote sensing here will
be extremely difficult at high resolution; non-acquisition due to cloud cover will affect
operations and images are available at a (bi)weekly basis only. Therefore, for near-real
time operational purposes the use of 250-m resolution is proposed in order to obtain
valuable information because these images are available twice per day thus offering
secure coverage. Consequently, yield parameters cannot be obtained because the fields
are too small to be able to differentiate between crops within a pixel. However with
weekly data provision at 250-m resolution (derived from daily images) relative differences
in growth, water and minerals are provided thus allowing for applications that identify areas
under water stress (that require irrigation), for pest/weed control and to monitor nutrient
deficits and biomass differences. Potentially, newly launched satellites (such as the
upcoming Sentinels) may enable high resolution monitoring and applications in the near
future.

45. The proposed TOR is summarized below and requires for Application 2 an
investment up to $30,000 per season for the package depending on data selection for an
area of 150 x 150 km2.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Application Near-real Time Monitoring

Data
2 Growth Actual biomass production, 250 m spatial resolution, weekly
interval, period: end November – early May, total ~27 images (1
per week)
Leaf area index (LAI), 250 m spatial resolution, weekly interval,
period end November – early May, total ~27 images (1 per week)
2 Water Precipitation excess (Rain – ET), 250 m spatial resolution, weekly
interval, period end November – early May, total ~27 images (1
per week)
Transpiration deficit, 250 m spatial resolution, weekly interval,
period end November – early May, total ~27 images (1 per week)
2 Mineral Nitrogen (N2) content in the upper leaf, 250 m spatial resolution,
weekly interval, period end November – early May, total ~27
images (1 per week)
o
2 Climate Precipitation 0.25 spatial resolution, weekly interval, period end
November – early May, total ~27 images (1 per week)

3. Application 3: Monitoring for Evaluation and Planning at the

System Level

46. The satellite derived variables that can be used are related to growth, water,
minerals and yield. Because this is a retrospective study and no real-time operational
planning depends on it, the use of 30-m resolution data is feasible. Bi-monthly high
resolution images are selected from archives and used to derive required growth
parameters (actual biomass production and leaf area index to evaluate crop development),
water (parameters are water consumption by evapotranspiration and transpiration deficit),
mineral parameter (nitrogen content in the upper leaf) and yield parameters (potential
yield and actual yield for the main crops). If a detailed land cover map is available, these
parameters can be linked to yield also. The parameters are then used for water accounting
for future planning, and evaluation of the period covered.

47. The proposed TOR is summarized below and requires for Application 3 an
investment up to $20,000 for the package depending on data selection for an area of 150
x 150 km2.

Application Monitoring for evaluation and planning

Platform/processing
Data
3 Water Total water consumption over growing (Rabi) season, 30m
spatial resolution, period end November – early May period,
1 image shortly after end of growing season
3 Growth Total actual biomass production over growing (Rabi) season,
30m spatial resolution, period end November – early May
period, 1 image shortly after end of growing season
3 Growth Total potential biomass production over growing (Rabi)
season, 30m spatial resolution, period end November – early
May period, 1 image shortly after end of growing season
3 Yield Total yield over growing (Rabi) season, 30m spatial
resolution, period end November – early May period, 1
image shortly after end of growing season
3 POW Productivity of water (POW of yield), 30m spatial resolution,
period end November – early May period, 1 image shortly
after end of growing season
3 Land cover 30m spatial resolution, 1 image shortly after end of growing
map season

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

48. The most efficient and cost effective and thus recommendable way to incorporate
remote sensing based Applications 1, 2, and 3 is by using a cloud-based solution (via the
internet). This because of its ease of use, configurability and it can be obtained readily
from third parties by subscription, thus not requiring large initial investments.

49. The strength of such a service is that it can be configured as a ‘dashboard’ that
contains different applications (or “apps”) for the different tasks and or/management
levels and is therefore flexible and customizable for users. Applications in a dashboard
can be obtained for free, per subscription or developed in-house with or without third
party developers, thus fees are only applicable for the use of the service and the apps
and/or data used. For example, some medium or low resolution satellite data can be
obtained for free that can be used for some applications, while others might require
purchased high resolution data. When using a dashboard the different apps will use the
required data, thus overspending on resources can be avoided because it can be easily
identified what the needs are. The applications to be made available to stakeholders do
depend on the use and level of stakeholders. Since satellite derived maps on itself are
data not containing information (eg, water deficit versus fields that require irrigation), it is
recommended to offer applications, or “apps”, that can be defined during stakeholders
consultations. Such apps can for example be water deficit applications that tells
stakeholders what areas experience droughts or an SMS service that informs stakeholders
per text message. An example of such dashboard is presented in Figure 14, showing an
agricultural and water accounting dashboard and an irrigation planner. Because the
service, apps and data are cloud based running on high speed servers, access at the
different (field) offices and by smart phone if desired are possible. It is therefore
recommended to further investigate the in use of such solution to further increase POW
in the schemes.

Figure 14: Example Dashboard and Applications

50. The scope is summarized below, application costs without data can be in the
range of $10,000 per season for a total solution. Applications including data are usually
offered on a per hectare or per km2 basis.

Application Description
2, 3 Viewer Dashboard Displays georeferenced information related to
viewer growth, water and nutrients.
2 Irrigation Dashboard Provides irrigation advice using a viewer in a
planner viewer dashboard.
SMS service Provides irrigation advice using SMS services
2, 3 Water Dashboard Displays georeferenced information related to
accounting viewer growth, yield and water.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

51. For the investment planning it is recommended to include the costs for
Application 1 ($5,000 per season), Application 2 at 250-m resolution ($30,000 per
season), Application 3 ($20,000 per season) and application platform costs ($10,000 per
season). For capacity building (i.e. training on the use of applications) it is recommended
to include a $15,000 budget. Computer hardware with internet connections must be
available at the offices or should otherwise also be budgeted.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Attachment 1

MODIS NDVI

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Mean NDVI for 2004, 2008 and 2012 (December – March/April)

2004 2008

2012

Legend

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Attachment 2

ET, Biomass and POW for 3 Landsat Images

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Daily Biomass Production (C3 crop) [kg ha-1 day-1] for each Landsat Image (of
2013, listed in Table 1): (a) February 11, (b) February 27 and (c) March 15

a b

Legend

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Daily Actual ET [mm day-1] for each Landsat Image (of 2013, listed in Table 1):
(a) February 11, (b) February 27 and (c) March 15

a b

Legend

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Daily POW – Biomass (C3 crop) [kg m-3] for each Landsat Image (of 2013, listed in
Table 1): (a) February 11, (b) February 27 and (c) March 15

a b

Legend

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Daily ET Deficit [mm day-1] for each Landsat Image (of 2013, listed in Table 1):
(a) February 11, (b) February 27 and (c) March 15

a b

Legend

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Attachment 3

SEBAL ET and Biomass

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Evapotranspiration

The primary basis for the SEBAL model is the surface energy balance. The
instantaneous LvE is calculated for each pixel of the image as a 'residual' of the
surface energy balance:

LvE = Rn - G - H

where LvE is the latent heat flux (or evaporation ET expressed as an energy flux), Rn
is the net radiation flux at the surface, G the soil heat flux and H is the sensible heat
flux to the air (all fluxes are expressed in W m-2).

The net radiation Rn represents the actual radiant energy available at the surface. It
is the net radiation of all incoming and outgoing (shortwave and long wave) radiant
fluxes radiant fluxes, the surface radiation balance equation:

Rn = (1 - α) RS↓ + RL↓ - RL↑ - (1- εo) RL↑

where RS↓ is the incoming short-wave radiation, α is the surface albedo, RL↓ is the
incoming long wave radiation, RL↑ is the outgoing long wave radiation, and εo is the
surface thermal emissivity.

The amount of net short-wave radiation {(1 - α) RS↓} that remains available at the
surface is a function of the surface albedo. The broad band surface albedo is
derived from the narrow band spectral reflectances measured by each satellite
band. The incoming short-wave radiation (RS↓) is computed using the solar constant,
the solar incidence angle, a relative earth-sun distance, and a computed broad band
atmospheric transmissivity (t). The transmissivity can be estimated from sunshine
duration or inferred from pyranometer measurements (if available). In this study the
transmissivity will be derived from FenYung-2D (FY-2D) surface solar irradiance
(SSI) product.

The incoming long wave radiation (RL↓) is computed using a modified Stefan-
Boltzmann equation with an apparent emissivity that is coupled to the shortwave
atmospheric transmissivity and a measured air temperature. Outgoing long wave
radiation (RL↑) is computed using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with a calculated
surface emissivity and surface temperature. The land surface temperature is
computed from the satellite measurements of thermal radiances.

The soil heat flux and sensible heat flux are subtracted from the net radiation flux at
the surface to compute the 'residual' energy available for evapotranspiration (LvE).
Soil heat flux is empirically calculated as a G/Rn fraction using vegetation indices
(NDVI), land surface temperature, and surface albedo. The sensible heat flux is
computed using wind speed observations, estimated surface roughness, and
surface to air temperature differences that are obtained through a sophisticated self-
calibration between dry (LvE ≈ 0) and wet (H ≈ 0) pixels. SEBAL uses an iterative
process to correct for atmospheric instability caused by buoyancy effects of surface
heating.
The LvE time integration in SEBAL is split into two steps. The first step is to convert
the instantaneous latent heat flux (LvE) into daily LvE24 values by holding the
evaporative fraction (EF) constant. The evaporative fraction EF is defined as:

EF = LvE / (Rn – G)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

Field measurements under various environmental circumstances have indicated that

EF behaves temporally stable during the diurnal cycle. Since EF ~ EF24, i.e. the 24hr
latent heat flux can be determined as:

LvE24 = EF Rn24

For simplicity, the 24hr value of G is ignored, which is especially true for longer time
scales. The second step is the conversion from a daily latent heat flux into monthly
(or two-weekly) values, which can be achieved by application of the Penman-
Monteith equation:

ET = {s Rn24 + ρ cp (∆e / ra ) } / {s + γ (1 + rs / ra) }

where s (mbar K-1) is the slope of the saturated vapor pressure curve, ρ cp (J m-3 K-1)
is the air heat capacity, ∆e (mbar) is the vapor pressure deficit, γ (mbar K-1) is the
psychrometric constant, ra (s m-1) is the aerodynamic resistance and rs (s m-1) is the
bulk surface resistance to evapotranspiration. The parameters s, ∆e and ra are
controlled by meteorological conditions, and Rn and rs by the hydrological conditions
through the feedback of soil moisture on surface albedo and leaf water potential.

The SEBAL computations can only be done for cloudless days (i.e. cloud free
satellite images). The result of LvE24 has been explored to convert the Penman-
Monteith equation and to quantify rs by inverse modelling assuming LvE24 = LvEPM for
the day with a satellite image. The values of rs so achieved, will consequently be
used to compute LvEPM for all days without satellite image but with routine weather
data. The total ET for a given period can be derived from the longer term average
LvEPM flux.

Biomass Growth

The biomass production routine in SEBAL is based on solar radiation absorption by

chlorophyll and the conversion of this energy into a dry matter (DM) production (kg
ha-1) by means of a light use efficiency:

The absorption of solar radiation APAR (W/m2) for photosynthesis depends on

global radiation and light interception. The second component of equation above
describes the light use efficiency e(t) that converts energy into dry matters.

Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) (0.4 to 0.7 µm) is part of the short wave solar
radiation (0.3 to 3.0 µm) that is absorbed by chlorophyll for photosynthesis in the
plants. PAR is a fraction of the incoming solar radiation (RS↓). The PAR-value
describes the total amount of radiation available for photosynthesis if leaves
intercept all radiation. This is a rather theoretical value, because leaves transmit and
reflect solar radiation. Only a fraction of PAR will be absorbed by the canopy (APAR)
and used for carbon assimilation. APAR can be approximated as a fraction of the
PAR using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI).

The light use efficiency describes the climate impact and environmental stress on
crop growth. Carbon dioxide is obtained from the atmosphere through the stomata.
The waste products of photosynthesis, oxygen and water vapor, are dispelled from
the plant thought the same stomata into the air. The light use efficiency is coupled in
SEBAL to the stomata aperture being expressed as the bulk surface resistance rs.
The mathematical-biological description of the bulk stomatal resistance reads as

rs = rs,min / { LAI F1(Ta) F2(∆e) F3(hrw) }

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 4 – Remote Sensing

where rs,min (s m-1) is the leaf or bulk stomatal resistance without any stress, LAI is
the leaf area index, F1(Ta) represents a function that describes the effect of air
temperature on rs, the function F2(∆e) represents the effect of the vapor pressure
deficit on the stomatal aperture and the function F3(hrw) is the effect of the soil water
potential on rs. By holding the soil water potential constant between two consecutive
satellite overpasses, and making F1 and F2 variable, rs can be re-computed for every
individual day.

When the stomata close due to environmentally induced lower leaf water potentials
with limiting expansion of the guard cells, light is no longer effectively converted into
dry matter because carbon is absent in sufficient quantities. A resistance scalar is
used to quantify the day-to-day value of the light use efficiency e(t). It is from
experimental studies known that the light use efficiency has a prescribed maximum
emax that depends on C3 and C4 crops and the chemical composition. This
maximum value is multiplied by the resistance scalar to obtain the actual value for
light use efficiency e (g MJ-1)

The SEBAL model formulation for crop growth is on large tracks similar to most
numerical crop growth simulation models and global scale ecological production
models. A significant difference, though, is that crop development due to soil type,
prevailing water management conditions and farmer practices is not computed, but
prescribed through satellite measurements of NDVI and surface temperature.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Appendix 5

Stakeholder Consultations

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 1
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
B. Participatory Approach and Methods ............................................................................... 1

II. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................. 2

A. FGD Selection .................................................................................................................. 2
B. Main Findings ................................................................................................................... 2
1. Upper Basin ............................................................................................................. 2
2. Middle Basin............................................................................................................. 5
3. Lower Basin – BIP Farmers/WUAs.......................................................................... 7
4. Lower Basin FGD – DADO (Sarlahi District and at Shiv Nagar Rautahat).............. 8
5. Lower Basin – BIP Field Staff ................................................................................ 10

III. PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISALS.............................................................................. 11

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 11
B. Main Findings ................................................................................................................. 11

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: FGD – Katunje Upper Basin

Attachment 2: FGD – Koirale Khola Upper Basin
Attachment 3: FGD – Tikabhairav Upper Basin
Attachment 4: FGD – Ghattekhola Middle Basin
Attachment 5: FGD – Raigaun Middle Basin
Attachment 6: FGD – Laxmipur Lower Basin BIP
Attachment 7: FGD – Gadhaiya Branch Canal BIP
Attachment 8: FGD – Bhalohiya Hardiya BIP
Attachment 9: FGD – Bhalohiya Ganga Pipara BIP
Attachment 10: FGD – DADO Lower Basin
Attachment 11: FGD – BIP Murtiya
Attachment 12: PRA – BIP Shallow Tubewell Area 1
Attachment 13: PRA – BIP Shallow Tubewell Area 2

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

List of Tables

Table 1: Focus Group Discussions in the Bagmati River Basin....................................................... 3

Table 2: Participatory Rural Appraisals in the Bagmati River Basin .............................................. 11

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location Map for Focus Group Discussions ..................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Location Map for Participatory Rural Appraisals ............................................................. 12

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

NEPAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

I. OVERVIEW

A. Introduction

1. Consultation with stakeholders was a key part of the MFLW Task 2 Study.
Stakeholder consultations have been carried out in the first instance using a
standardized tool developed for the Study called Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).
FGDs are a form of qualitative research in which farmers, water user associations
(WUAs) and government officers were asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs,
and attitudes towards the core themes of the MFLW. These included irrigation, irrigation
management and irrigated agriculture. The responses to cost recovery were a key part of
the FGDs. The FGDs form a key reference to guide the current issues and to identify
potential opportunities and the directions of interventions to improve efficiencies and
productivities.

2. For selected schemes, the FGDs are supported by Participatory Rural Appraisals/
Assessments (PRAs), which are a more structured approach and range of techniques
that enables stakeholders to analyze their problems and then plan, implement and
evaluate agreed-upon solutions. It is a process of learning about rural conditions in an
iterative and expeditious manner. The PRA is a systematic process of learning about
conditions of an intervention or an issue related to it in an intensive, cumulative and
efficient manner. It is information/data collection and structuring, developing hypotheses
about problems, constraints and potentials. It is done on-site. In the field of land use
planning, the PRA approach can be useful to gather information on a broad range of
community activities; to develop a better understanding of systems' dynamics; and to
appreciate the interlinked factors influencing land uses and management.

B. Participatory Approach and Methods

3. In order to derive the necessary data and information for the FGDs and PRAs,
the methodology included consultative meetings with stakeholders, system visits (walk-
throughs), observations, key informant interviews, and facilitated group discussions.

4. Consultative meetings were also held with engineers and other professional
personnel from the division offices of Department of Irrigation (DOI) and Department of
Agriculture (DOA) to solicit their views and ideas, as well as the collection and review of
relevant reports.

5. In addition to the fieldwork done in the Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP), the
Consultant visited the command area of each scheme selected in Upper and Middle
Bagmati Basin (refer to Table 1 in the following section for a list of schemes participating
in the Study). The Study Team included the Irrigation Management Specialist, the
Agricultural Specialist, the Survey Specialist and the Irrigation Planning and Design
Engineer. Thus, the Consultant was able to become familiar with detailed conditions of the
physical irrigation infrastructure structure, existing agriculture practices, water allocation
and distribution methods, and opportunities for the better irrigation performance. During
the field visits, personnel from various government agencies participated, and WUA
representatives were invited to share their concerns and suggestions with the relevant
authorities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

II. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

A. FGD Selection

6. Table 1 presents the list of FGDs and their locations are shown in Figure 1. A
total of eleven (11) FGDs were completed. Refer to the detailed results presented in
Attachments 1 to 11. Each attachment also contains a completed template and list of
participants.

7. Three (3) schemes were selected in the Upper Reach, taking one from each
district; two (2) schemes were selected in two districts of the Middle Reach; and four (4)
branch/secondary canals of the BIP, located in the Lower Reach was carried out by
reviewing project documents and discussions with concerned WUA, farmers and
irrigation officials. Schemes were selected on the basis of available information,
accessibility, and representative size.

B. Main Findings

1. Upper Basin

1. The main findings from the FGDs in the Upper Basin are summarized as follows:

(i) These are small old farmer-managed irrigation schemes. The DOI has
supported in the rehabilitation of the schemes and is now left with WUAs for
operation and maintenance. The canals are usually small, partially-lined
and constructed using a few essential structures like side intake, culverts,
super passages, division box, footbridge, outlets, etc.
(ii) Agriculture: The main crop is paddy in summer followed by wheat/
mustard/or potato in winter. Production is good and yield is little above
national average. Average land holding is less ranging from (0.05-0.20 ha).
Some farmers are growing vegetables and doing tomato cultivation under
polyhouses. Agriculture extension support from the DADO is sparse and
weak. Good quality inputs like fertilizer and seed are costly and not
available in time. Farmers are not organized and so they have to sell their
produce at low prices, and as a result the younger generation is migrating
elsewhere and there is labour shortage in the village and wage rate has
gone up. Farmers now are willing to get support for commercial high value
vegetable cultivation under polyhouses provided they are supported with
subsidized machinery, polyhouse and technology. They are also interested
to dig ponds in their fields for water storage, which will be used for fish
rearing as well.
(iii) Water Management: Water is adequate in summer after monsoon rain, but
reduces in winter and spring until rain starts. The WUA/or farmers manages
the water distribution schedule mutually opening inlet when water is
needed. Depending on water at the canal, a few or all outlets in the main
canal are opened to distribute water. Generally they follow a rotation
schedule of delivering water to fields at head reach first and then to next
reach until it reaches to tail especially for completion of paddy transplanting.
There is no water measurement and written schedule. Farmers have not
made field channels and practice irrigation by letting water pass from one
plot to another. Significant amounts of water are lost in conveyance due to
seepage and water shortage occurs. In earthen canals there is more
seepage. In spring season there is less flow, so farmers growing tomato in
polyhouse use pipes to convey to their field and they seek support for drip
irrigation system with pipes and polyhouse.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Table 1: Focus Group Discussions in the Bagmati River Basin

Targeted No. of Representatives

No. Name Date Venue Group participants of Agencies

Upper Bagmati Basin

1 Katunje ISP 12 Dec 13 Katunje, WUA/ 20 1 SDE from DOI
Bhaktapur Farmers
2 Koirale Khola ISP 7 Jan 14 Koirale Khola, WUA/ 16 1 SDE and 1 SAO
Kathmandu Farmers from DOI
3 Tika Bhairav ISP 8 Jan 14 Chhampi, WUA/ 25
Lalitpur Farmers
Sub-total 3 FGDs 62 3

Middle Bagmati Basin

4 Ghatte Khola IS 29 Nov 13 Ghatte Khola, WUA/ 31 1 Engineer from
Kavre Farmers Div. Office DOI
5 Rai Gaoun IS 20 Dec 13 Rai Gaoun, WUA/ 26 1 Admin Off.
Makawanpur Farmers 1 Admin. Off. (DO)
Sub-total 2 FGD 58 3

Lower Bagmati Basin

6 BIP, EMC, 22 Dec 13 Haripur, WUA/ 25 1 SDE
Laxmipur Branch Sarlahi Farmers 1 Engineer
7 BIP, EMC, 23 Dec 13 Murtiya, WUA/ 21 1 SDE
Gadhaiya Branch, Sarlahi Farmers 1 Engineer
Murtiya 2 Dhalpas
8 BIP, WMC, 24 Dec 13 Hardiya WUA/ 31 1 SDE
Bhalohiya Branch Farmers 1 Engineer
9 BIP, WMC, 25 Dec 13 Ganga Pipara WUA/ 26 1 Engineer
Bhalohiya Branch Farmers 1 Admin. Off.
10 DADO Office, 27 Dec 13 DADO Sarlahi DADO 14 2 SDE
Malangawa, Extension 7 Supervisors
Sarlahi Staff 8 Dhalpas
8 Operators
11 BIP Field Staff 28 Dec 13 Murtiya, BIP Staff 25
Sarlahi
Sub-total 6 FGD 6 142 35

Total 11 FGD 11 262 41

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Figure 1: Location Map for Focus Group Discussions

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

(iv) Institutional: Informal WUAs existed before the project were supported by
the DOI. They were reformed and registered during the construction and
made responsible for system upkeep and operation. The Tikabhairav and
Koiralakhola WUAs are relatively active and organized. But in the Katunje
ISP, the WUA is almost inactive and is not managing the canal. It is not
attempting to remove a flow obstruction caused by water supply pipe laid
across canal. The WUAs are voluntary organizations comprising active
farmers who can mobilize farmers or seek support from VDC/ agency to
maintain the canal. The WUA collect grain in some schemes to pay canal
operator, but official water charges are not collected. Though they recognize
the value of water, they do not feel responsible for cost recovery and hope to
get support from government.
(v) Infrastructure: A silt removing facility at the intakes is needed and control
gates at the outlets. Branch canals / field channels should be constructed in
order to deliver water to the plots. There is need for structures such as super
passages and lined canals in order to run the canals to the tail unobstructed,
and for repairs of certain damaged structures. Farmers expressed the desire
to participate in improved agriculture practices, including an expansion of
micro-irrigation and high value organic vegetable cultivation.

2. Recommendations by the stakeholders in the Upper Basin include:

(i) Support for crop diversification growing high-value crops normal and off-
season vegetables particularly, hybrid tomato production in polyhouses and
farm ponds, preferably adopting organic production practice for higher
income to the farmers.
(ii) Agriculture inputs, credit and technology support should be made easily
available in the required quantity and on time, with reasonable subsidies.
(iii) The technical staff knowledgeable of modern high-production technologies
should be providing extension service.
(iv) Cooperative/community farming should be promoted for mechanization and
commercialization and regular market information should be provided.

2. Middle Basin

8. This reach is relatively remote away from headquarter and so less government
support has been delivered. Two DOI supported FMISs that have been turned over to
WUAs for operation and maintenance were chosen for conducting the FGDs: (i) one with
a discharge capacity of 120 l/s and (ii) one with 40 l/s. The main findings from the FGDs
in the Middle Basin are summarized as follows:

(i) Agriculture: Farming is the main occupation here and the main crop is
paddy in summer followed by wheat/ mustard/or potato in winter. Agriculture
extension support from the DADO is very weak and due to remoteness
fertilizer is costly and not available in time. So in Chyamrangbesi, Kavre
farmers are growing organic crops and vegetables. They are relatively
organized and attempting to improve agriculture practices. Land holding
size is relatively moderate (0.05-0.35 ha). They need support on adopting
improved farming practice eg, mechanization, reliable irrigation and land
improvement along with quality extension service. There is a good road
network to the market for sale of agriculture produce. Farmers expressed
desire to participate in improved agriculture improvement practice including
micro-irrigation expansion and high value organic vegetable cultivation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

(ii) Water Management: There is adequate water in summer, so farmers open

few or all outlets in the main canal to distribute water to the branch canal (if
any) or to the field. Water moves on turn from head reach to tail in both
main canal and branch mainly for completing paddy transplantation. The
WUA/farmers manage water distribution mutually in case shortage occurs.
In winter, water flow decreases and farmers grow less water requiring crop
and manage water accordingly. Generally there are no field channels in
Raigaun, except for few temporary field channels in some outlets. They let
water to flow from one plot to another losing more in seepage. This leads to
water shortage. In Ghattekulo, soil is coarse textured and so seepage and
percolation loss is high, there some farmers are conveying water through
HDPE pipes to run micro sprinkler.
(iii) Institutional: Formal WUAs were formed and registered during project
implementation. The same WUA is looking after the system maintenance,
and farmers mutually divert and apply water on rotation one after another
from head to tail in main canal as well as in branch. The WUA’s role is to
mobilize farmers for maintenance two times a year. There is good cohesion
and support for the WUA in both systems. ISF is not collected. In Raigaun a
ditchrider (dhalpa) is hired and for his wage farmers collect grains. The WUA
works voluntarily. The WUA members are energetic and active and their
capability should be improved by providing training for canal MOM and
administration.
(iv) Infrastructure: A permanent intake, silt removing facility and canal lining
are expected in system at Chyamrangbesi.1 While in Raigaun, which draws
water from Bagmati River, a 450-m long covered canal is needed to cross a
ephemeral stream and also an excavator to dig approach channel each
year. Branch canals should be constructed as well as field channels to
deliver water to plots besides gates to control water flow through the outlets.
In Ghattekulo, canal flows at the contour at height and field is below, so
pipe delivery is needed to operate micro irrigation systems (with gravity
head). Then new branches can be developed to extend the irrigated area.
Similarly a 15-m inverted siphon is demanded at Raigaun to extend water
additional area at the tail.

9. Recommendations by the stakeholders in the Middle Basin include:

(i) Promotion of diversified high-value organic crops as normal as well as off-

season vegetables like hybrid tomato production in polyhouses using
pressurized irrigation for efficient irrigation should be promoted for higher
incomes.
(ii) Organic and chemical fertilizers, other inputs, soft credit and training
support should be made easily available in the required quantity and on
time, with reasonable subsidies.
(iii) The ASCs should be upgraded with enough manpower and resources be
made available so as to help and serve the farmers effectively and efficiently.
(iv) Cooperative/community farming should be promoted to facilitate farm
mechanization and adopt commercial farming. Marketing information should
be provided.
(v) High tech irrigation infrastructure development like pressurized sprinkler
and drip irrigation system and management support should be provided.

1
A side intake constructed in 1994 has been washed away.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

3. Lower Basin – BIP Farmers/WUAs

10. One site each at the upper reach and another at lower reach in both main canal
EMC, and WMCs, were chosen as sample sites for conducting FGDs in the BIP. Canal
development and command area development (CAD) works are still being done and are
still to be in some area particularly in the tail area. The undeveloped area is not being
irrigated through canal now. Groundwater is used there or farming is done under rain
fed. River flow is enough for irrigation design command area 45,600 ha during the
summer. It decreases and irrigated area also decreases to an extent in winter. About
2,100 ha forest land has been forested at the upper reach and farmers draw water from
canal reducing flow for downstream area. The potential irrigated area now is estimated to
be 47,700 ha. The main findings from the FGDs in the BIP are summarized as follows:

(i) Agriculture: The main crop is paddy and sugarcane. The former is
followed by wheat/lentil/ mustard/potato/ winter maize. Land size ranges
generally between 0.25-0.5 ha. Production is above national average here
and in some pocket where farmers have open wells or tube well, sugarcane
production is much higher. Poor technical support from the DADO and
unavailability/cost of quality fertilizer time are major problems. Quality seed
is also not available in time and is costly. Farmers have to compete with low
priced Indian produces, which is produced using heavily subsidized inputs
seed, fertilizer, machinery and irrigation; so is reported to distract farmers
towards agriculture. Farmers have demanded for access to farm machinery,
quality fertilizer, seeds, and improved agriculture technology and intensive
extension supports.
(ii) Water management: BIP field staffs regulate water distribution in main
canal and branch canals. Canals are operated almost at Full Supply Level
in the summer season. Water is delivered through all direct outlets,
distributaries, secondary and sub-secondary from head to tail. Whatever
water is left, flows further downstream. There is no explicit water allocation
schedule. Farmers are supposed to construct tertiary and field channels,
but they have hardly developed any except at a few places. Field-to-field
irrigation is practiced causing excessive percolation loss at upper reach and
consequently water shortage for the tail reach. The upper reach farmers get
enough water, while tailenders of some distributary and secondary canals
suffers water shortages and have to use groundwater. In Gadaiya Branch
Canal command, a water distribution schedule of 7 days (3 days to upper
and 4 days to lower) was implemented in 2012-13 so water could be
delivered to more areas. But in other branch canal service areas there is no
systematic water distribution schedule. Some farmers are practicing
distribution schedule among distributary and secondary by mutual
agreement. CAD work was not been initiated in Bhalohiya tail so much less
area is irrigated there. Farmers want the government to take action for
controlling continuous water abstraction through direct outlets in the upper
reaches irrigating newly reclaimed land.
(iii) Due to inadequate water availability and also low reliable delivery, many
farmers lying at the tail reach have installed STWs or open wells for
irrigation. Farmers want government support for constructing tertiary canals
as well as field channels. The BIP should provide more support for the
WUAs in crop planning and the development of water allocation schedules.
It will help farmers to cultivate crops accordingly and get irrigation water
reliably.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

(iv) Institution: The BIP is the responsible agency for managing and maintaining
the canal system. More than 200 WUAs have been formed based on
secondary canal and sub-secondary canals, and a cluster of direct outlets,
particularly to participate in construction/maintenance works. They do not
feel responsibility for canal water management. The WUAs are not
federated at distributary, branch and main canal levels. Thus, these are not
linked with others. There are some WUAs at the tail reach who are active in
mobilizing farmers for maintenance and are eager for agencies support to
strengthen them and give them responsibility. A federated WUA at least for
each branch canal will assist in water distribution planning.
(v) Infrastructure: Both project staff and farmers expressed the need for a silt
excluder to reduce silt entry. Also completing the remaining CAD works is
required besides maintaining damaged structures. The tertiary canals and
field channels are also required in order to facilitate irrigation to each plot
through a channelized network (instead of field-to-field). Drainage ditches
should be constructed for safe drainage. Damaged structures, especially
the steel gates of cross regulators and head regulators should be repaired/
replaced. Flow measurement devices should be installed to monitor flow for
equitable water distribution. Farmers at the tailed of the Bhalohiya service
area are interested in precision land levelling and the promotion of improved
field irrigation methods in order to reduce field water losses and to
contribute increased crop yields.

3. Recommendations by the stakeholders include:

(i) Early completion of the CAD works and also maintenance of damaged
canals and reliable water delivery by BIP. Electrification for ground water
pumping should be done.
(ii) Fertilizers, other inputs, soft credit and training support should be made
easily available in the required quantity and on time, with reasonable
subsidies.
(iii) The ASCs should be upgraded with enough manpower and resources
should be made available so as to help and serve the farmers effectively
and efficiently to promote commercial farming.
(iv) Cooperative/community farming should be promoted to facilitate farm
mechanization and adopt commercial farming. Marketing information be
provided.
(v) Land leveling should be supported to improve irrigation efficiency and to get
higher production and productivity.

4. Lower Basin FGD – DADO (Sarlahi District and at Shiv Nagar Rautahat)

11. During the FGD with the DADO, the Senior Agriculture Development Officer
expressed the concern that there is no direct coordination between the BIP and the
DADO. However, there are agriculture extension services provided by ASCs to the
farmers in the district. Farmers groups have been formed by the DADO for extension
services. Similarly, there is no direct institutional linkage and coordination between the
WUAs and agriculture extension staff at the district level. However, irrigation
representatives are invited to meetings of the district council.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

12. In the district, the irrigation water has contributed to the production of sugarcane.
The production of sugarcane in Sarlahi district is high. BIP has contributed to grow
sugarcane. The highest record of sugarcane production is 81 t/ha. Local farmers have
broken national records for sugarcane production and been rewarded. Farmers are also
growing hybrid maize two or even three crops a year for sale,

13. In Rautahat farmers producing wheat seed and also there are many fruit
nurseries, besides fish ponds.

14. The area has a high potential for fish farming. The BIP can assist fish farmers by
developing an appropriate mechanism to deal with water logged areas. Further, the
agriculture programs should be integral part of the BIP. A number of crop production
demonstrations and seed multiplication activities should be launched in the BIP
command area in close coordination with WUAs, BIP and DADO.

15. Seasonal irrigation schedules and cropping calendars have not been developed
in the BIP. Due to a lack of field channels in the BIP command area, the optimum use of
irrigation water (on farm irrigation) is lagging behind. Water management is poor and as
a result improved farming is limited to reliable irrigation pockets.

16. SRI demonstrations could be launched in the BIP in the coordination with DADO
and BIP where reliable and flexible irrigation water supplies are ensured.

17. Fifteen percent of the Block Grant Fund (VDC fund) of the GON has been
allocated to agriculture development programs, which has not been implemented in an
organized and planned way due to a lack of skilled manpower in the VDCs. Therefore,
one trained village level agriculture extension staff should be deployed by the agency so
as to disseminate improved technologies to the farming communities.

18. Improved agriculture technologies involving an effective water management

transfer program on the basis of farmer-to-famers training needs to be organized in close
coordination with BIP and DADO for better commercial crop production.

19. For a long time the issue of better coordination between irrigation and agriculture
has not been adequately addressed by the GON. Both sectors have been working in
isolation. However, with limited budgets and manpower, the DOA has been providing
services to farming communities. As far as better coordination between the BIP and the
DADO is concerned, it is directly related to allocations in the annual agriculture budget.
The funds from the central government to the DADO are not sufficient to fulfil the district’s
demand. The district’s annual budget and programs are being endorsed by the DDC
whereas the BIP is a centrally-funded and operated project. There is no direct link of the
BIP with the DADO, even though both are working in irrigated agriculture.

20. A special agriculture budget should be allocated to the BIP for implementing
agriculture activities in its command area. The annual agriculture program and budget
should be prepared and implemented jointly by the DADO, WUA and BIP. Agriculture
extension services should be a part of the centrally-funded irrigation projects, such as
BIP, for three to five years. The annual agriculture program should be endorsed by the
WUA Assembly.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

5. Lower Basin – BIP Field Staff

21. A sizeable budget is allocated to CAD works, but the field staff work on the basis
of a daily wage under this budget. Approximately, NRs.30 million is allocated for
operations, but often the budget is not released on a scheduled basis. Only a minor
amount of canal maintenance is actually carried out, mostly for earthworks. At the same
time, a nominal contribution from the WUAs/farmers is given for some maintenance
works. The roles and responsibilities between the WUAs and field staff have not been
clearly crafted. Specific job descriptions and training programs have not been received
by the BIP field staff.

22. There is a lack of adequate coordination between the BIP staff and WUAs for in
terms of programmed water allocations. Field staffs (supervisor, gate operator) are
responsible for this according to the BIP. Water management in the command area
needs to be better coordinated between the head reaches and the areas at the tail ends
of canals according to a schedule developed each cropping season in coordination with
main canal operations. The roles and responsibilities of the gate operator and supervisors
should be better coordinated with the actual needs for irrigation water in their respective
command areas. Canal maintenance and construction works should be adjusted before
sowing and after harvesting time in coordination with the WUAs.

23. Traditionally farmers have perceived that use of more water results in more
production, especially in paddy crops. This practice needs to be discouraged through
demonstrations and training on proper water use for paddy (including SRI as
appropriate).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

III. PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISALS

A. Introduction

4. The PRAs were carried out in two areas in the BIP with groups of farmers using
shallow tube wells (STWs) and open wells for irrigation (refer to Table 2). The main
issues discussed were the features of tube well irrigation, current agriculture practices,
and potential opportunities for improvement.

Table 2: Participatory Rural Appraisals in the Bagmati River Basin

Targeted No. of
No. Name Date Venue Group participants
1 Bagmati Irrigation Project 29 Dec 13 Harion VDC, STW Users 22
Sarlahi
2 Bagmati Irrigation Project 26 Dec 13 Shivnagar, STW Users 21
Mohammandpur Extension
VDC-8 Service
Source: Present Study, 2014

B. Main Findings

24. Tube wells: The STWs were installed mostly with the cooperation of a
Japanese-assisted under the DOA for tube well development. Some farmers have taken
up loan and grant support from the DOA and a few have developed STWs using own
funds. The local “Thokuwa” (hammering) method was used and the wells are usually
about 20 m deep, while the water table is generally within 6 m. Indian diesel engine 7.5
HP pumps are used. The average tube well discharge is about 10 l/s. The cost of
developing a 20-m deep STW is approximately NRs.20,000 and the pump set costs
about NRs.45,000. Generally, STWs are used to irrigate vegetables, sugarcane, spring
winter wheat, and maize, and for paddy seed bed preparation and transplanting when
farmers cannot get sufficient canal water. For sugarcane irrigation water is applied during
spring season for crop establishment, which takes about 100 hours of operation for one
hectare of land; similarly, about 90 hours is needed for irrigation of spring crop/vegetables,
and about 50 hours pumping is done for wheat and potato the winter. Most farmers owning
STWs have about 1.5 to 2.5 ha under irrigation. Some owners also sell water to
neighboring farmers for NRs.250/hour.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Figure 2: Location Map for Participatory Rural Appraisals

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

25. Open wells: Open wells are traditionally dug in local villages for drinking water
purposes. In certain areas where the depth of the gravelly aquifer is thin, STWs are not
successful and in such areas open wells are dug for irrigation purposes. In the middle
portion of the Sarlahi District – Barhathwa, Rajghat, Sundarpur Chauharwa areas – there
are about 700 open wells, each of which can command about 6 ha. Average discharge is
about 20 l/s. Two or more pumps can be operated simultaneously to lift water from an
open well. The water table depth is usually less than 6 m. The cost of drilling an open
well is approximately NRs.15,000. There are local masons who develop and maintain
these wells. With an open well, farmers feel they have a guaranteed water supply and
can adopt high-value farming practices, whereas depending on irrigation water from the
BIP is less reliable, especially for lower reach farmers. Many farmers in this area are
growing maize in the spring using open wells and makes profit of NRs.90,000/ha.

26. Irrigation infrastructure: For small farmers, the cost of drilling a private well is
usually beyond their reach, so government support is needed. The interest rate for
agriculture loans is high and diesel rate is also relatively high, so electrification for the
wells was requested.

27. Agriculture: Only diesel pump sets are used and diesel fuel is an expensive
farming input. Farmers have to compete with Indian farmers who are using subsidized
inputs. Farmers seek assistance with improving timely availability of quality fertilizer and
seed and. More effective and efficient agriculture extension services and practical
training for growing high-yielding crops and off season vegetables was requested. There
is the need of at least one village extension worker in each VDC, whereas now one
technician now has to support about 4 to 7 VDCs. Sugarcane is the most profitable crop
in the area and wherever reliable irrigation water is available, farmers prefer to grow
sugarcane. Hence, in the tail reach of the BIP there are less sugarcane fields. Farmers
make about NRs.300,000/ha from sugarcane compared to about NRs.150,000 from
paddy-wheat combination.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Attachments

Focus Group Discussions

Participatory Rural Appraisals

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 1

KATUNJE ISP, UPPER BASIN
1 Katunje Focus Group Discussion
12/12/2013 Irrigation Sub- Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr.TR Bhandari, Mr. BS
Project, Misra, Jeebachh Yadav, SDE DOI WUAs\Farmers (16)
Objective of the Identification of irrigated agriculture problems and general perceptions of the
FGD farmers
Composition of National Consultant (5), SDE (1), WUAs/Farmers(16)
the Participants
Summary of General Meeting
The discussion was led by the Community Leader and older farmer/WUAs members. All the
participants actively expressed their experience and suggestions for water management
improvement.
Specific Areas Explored
Famers get seeds and fertilizers from the nearby market. Due to a lack of
Agriculture
irrigation water, especially in the winter and spring seasons, agriculture
Constraints
production is not at the expected level, as compared to other areas of the valley
Water
Water allocation is done from head to tailend by rotation.
Allocations

Crop
No significant change in cropping system and no crop diversification.
Diversification
Summary and Conclusions

The system is centurys old. The existing WUA is not active for O&M of the canal. However, labor
mobilization for canal maintenance is being carried out by community. The command area is
highly affected by the urbanization process. The land value is relatively high. Many young people
from the farming community have employment opportunities in other sectors in Kathmandu
Valley. However, senior farmers are doing hard work in their field. Due to labor scarcity in the
Katunje area, hiring agriculture labor is expensive. Despite the labor crises, some farmers are
growing vegetables for cash income. However, canal water is not reliable for vegetables due to
deteriorated condition of main canal.

The canal rehabilitation activities should be carried out jointly by WUA and DOI to improve water
use efficiency.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 2

KOIRALE KHOLA ISP, KAVRETHALI UPPER BASIN

2 Koirale Khola Focus Group Discussion

07/01/2014 Irrigation Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. TR Bhandari, Mr. BS
Scheme, Misra, Jeebachh Yadav, Mr. Santos Pokhral (SAO), SDE DOI
Kavresthali, WUAs\ Farmers (16)
Objective of the Identification of irrigated agriculture constraints and general perceptions of the
FGD farmers.
Composition of National Consultant (5), SDE (1),SAO (1)\DOI, WUAs Farmers (16)
the participants
Summary of General Meeting
WUAs members actively participated and other vegetable farmers, plus a few women, expressed
their views.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Famers get seeds from the nearby market but good quality seeds and fertilizers
Constraints are not available in a timely manner.

Water
Rotational from head to tailend.
Allocations
No significant change in cropping system and no crop diversification, However
Crop
some farmers have been growing seasonal and off- seasonal vegetable under
Diversification
in polyhouses.
Summary and Conclusions

The water management in the command area needs to be coordinated from head to tailend
based on developing a schedule in coordination with main canal operations. Traditionally, the
farmers have perceived that use of more water will result in more production, especially in paddy
crops. This needs to be discouraged through demonstrations on proper water use for paddy
(including SRI as appropriate).

The role of the WUA should be strengthened to support agriculture development in order to
achieve input/service providers for the market. Strengthening the WUA through training should be
implemented on water management to improve water use efficiencies. The WUA should develop
its institutional capacities to collect ISF collection with a transparent record-keeping system for
O&M in the respective system.

Koirale ISP is century-old system managed by the farmers community. Rules and regulations of
the famers’ organization are based customary practices. After the intervention of CMAISP
(Project), the existing organization got formal and legal status as per national irrigation policy. The
WUA was registered under the DOI.

After rehabilitation of the intake and main canal, leakage and seepage has been fully controlled in
the canal lining section, which is about 1 km. The farmers expressed their satisfaction because of
lining in the main canal.

Many farmers are motivated to grow off-season vegetables in polyhouses and getting more cash
income. Further, the farmers are interested in micro-irrigation technologies as they have seen
demonstrations of this at the Everest Agriculture Farm located in the locality which is privately
operated.

The command area has a high potential for off-season vegetables and other HV crops as market
access is good

There is no mechanism for ISF collection; farmers are doing labor mobilization for O&M. The
WUA appears to be weak as compared to traditional community leader in the command area.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

However, there is cohesion among the water users and they are fully aware of growing
vegetables demands in Kathmandu Valley.

The command area has the potential for high-value organic vegetables and some of the farmers
have already been growing organic vegetables in polyhouses. These farmers have a direct link to
Panchakanya Cooperative Society. The cooperative is assisting farmers to grow organic
vegetables. Further, the capacity of farmers should be further developed with technology of
intensive organic vegetable production.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No Name of Participant Position

1 Bhoj Raj Phuyal Chairman WUA
2 Bharat Bahadur Phuyal Secretary WUA
3 Hari Krishna Phuyal Farmer
4 Gopal Phuyal Farmer
5 Ram Hari Bhandari Farmer
6 Yashoda Phuyal Farmer
7 Bimala Phuyal Farmer
8 Gita Phuyal Farmer
9 Gyanandra Timalsina Farmer
10 Kumar Phuyal Farmer
11 Bhagwoti Phuyal Farmer
12 Shanta Phuyal Farmer
13 RK Phuyal Farmer
14 Kamala Phuyal Farmer
15 SK Phuyal Farmer
16 Pabitra Phuyal Member

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 3

TIKA BHAIRAB ISP UPPER BASIN
3 Tika Bhairab Focus Group Discussion
08/01/2014 Khelbu Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. Jeebachh Yadav, Mr.TR
Kuchhabu Bhandari, Mr.BS Misra (SDE/Chief IDD), WUAs/Farmers (25),
Irrigation Dhalpa (1)
Sub-Project
Objective of the Identification of agriculture irrigation management constraints and potential
FGD solutions
Composition of National Consultant (5), WUAs farmers (15), WUA Dhalpa (1)
the Participants
Summary of General Meeting
During the discussion women participants actively participated and shared their experiences in
agriculture. The WUA members/farmers discussed the situation issue-by-issue and made
suggestions for improvement
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Quality seeds and fertilizer are not available in a timely manner in the command
Constraints area. They are buying from Lagankhel market.

Water
Rotational from head to tail
Allocations

Crop No significant changed in cropping system but few farmers have been growing
Diversification vegetables under polyhouse.
Summary and Conclusions

The irrigation system covers 27 ha and there is potential to increase command area. This is a
century-old farmers’ managed irrigation system. During the implementation of CMIASP (FY
2012/13), the system was rehabilitated (intake and main canal). The source is perennial.
Traditionally, the head reach farmers receive irrigation water first and then middle and tailend.
They have adjusted cropping calendar accordingly. There are no water disputes in the community.
In case of any dispute, it is internally solved by the WUA members and community leaders.

There is problem of silt caused by stone crushing industries located upstream from the intake,
However, the stone crushers are paying NRs. 5000 per month to the WUA. The WUA has
deployed a choukidar for cleaning the silt and water allocation, including minor maintenance in the
earthen canal section. Labor mobilization from every household is done for cleaning and maintenance
of the canal especially in the earthen canal as and when required.

The area has a high potential for high-value organic vegetables production. Some women’s
farmer groups have started organic vegetables farming in the command area under polyhouses.
A campaign of organic vegetables farming with micro-irrigation technology is needed through
government agencies and NGOs. The farmers are satisfied with the achievements so far, and
expressed the desire to participate all sorts of agriculture improvement works including micro-
irrigation expansion. Further, community based water shed management program should be
implemented in the catchment area of the Khelbu Kuchhabu River including Lale and Nakhu River
for more sustainable development.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name of Participant Position

1 Chattra Man Shrestha Farmer
2 Alka Nagerkoti Dhalpa
3 Hari Shrestha Farmer
4 Nirmala Karki Farmer
5 Gyan Kumari Khadka Farmer
6 Kanchhi Nagerkoti Farmer
7 Radha Ghimire Farmer
8 Devaki Thapa Farmer
9 Ambika Ghimire Farmer
10 Purnima Nagerkoti Farmer
11 Maili Khadka Farmer
12 Rekha Khadka Farmer
13 Shanti Nagerkoti Member
14 Sita Nagerkoti Member
15 Kabita Khadka Farmer
16 Shanta Prasad Ghimire Farmer
17 Kali Maya Nagerkoti Farmer
18 Gayeten Khadka Farmer
19 Nabaraj Nagerkoti Farmer
20 Khadka Bahadur Nagerkoti Farmer
21 Narayan Thapa Farmer
22 Manohari Ghimire Farmer
23 Dhurba Khadka Farmer
24 Subash Khadka Farmer
25 Ramchandra Ghimire Member
26 Krishna Hari Khadka Member

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 4

GHATTEKHOLA ISP, KAVRE DISTRICT MIDDLE BASIN

4 Ghattekhola Focus Group Discussion

29/11/2013 Irrigation Sub- Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr.TR Bhandari, Mrs.
Project Shanti Satyal, Engineer from Division Office DOI.
WUA and Farmers (31)
Objective of Identification of irrigation management problems and opportunities
the FGD
Composition National Consultant (3), DOI Eng. (1), WUAs/Farmers(31)
of the
Participants
Summary of General Meeting
All the farmers actively participated in the discussion, which was conducted in an amicable
manner. The farming community was represented by a mixed social group, and farmers were
very honest and open in their expressions.
Specific Areas Explored
Quality seeds and fertilizer are not available in time and also in required
Agriculture amount. Prices of the inputs are higher. At the same time, the Agriculture
Constraints Extension Service is weak and not as efficient as expected by the farmers.
Farmer’s training is inadequate.
Water Water is allocated from head to tail on rotational basis, and water is not
Allocations measured

Crop There is no significant change in traditional cropping pattern. However,

Diversification farmers have started vegetables farming under the polyhouse condition.
Summary and Conclusions

The area is now linked by earthen road. It is about 26 km away from Khopasi (town in Kavre
District) and about 85 km from Lalitpur. All agriculture produce has markets. Farmers are
adopting improved technologies such as poly-houses for organic tomato cultivation. Farmers
are doing some organic farming. Most farmers are adopting traditional check-basin irrigation
method for paddy and winter crops. Due to high seepage and percolation, they face water
shortage in late winter and spring. Few farmers have used pipe to deliver water and are using
sprinkler to irrigate, which saves water. If this practice could be promoted, a goal expressed by
farmers, then water availability would be adequate even during the spring season.

WUA organization: The WUA is formed and is working to mobilize labours for canal
maintenance. The WUA is also getting their account audited and renewing their registration.
However, they are not handling water distribution matter and it is common for farmers to get
water in turn one after another for paddy transplantation when water is urgently needed. They
need to be supported/trained in order to measure water and how could water be used more
efficiently. A ditchrider is needed to operate the canal and do minor repair maintenance works
which farmers do agree to contribute to. They should be assisted in strengthening the WUA
and canal operation maintenance and modernization. Farmers are willing to pay ISF in order
to get reliable water deliveries. They did not expand their uplands where maize and millet
were cultivated and producing very little, but it could be converted to paddy field after irrigation
development. They are thrilled with the achievement and expressed desire to participate all
sorts of agriculture improvement works including micro-irrigation expansion.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name of Participants Position

1 Megh nath Dahal Chairperson
2 Nilkanth Ghimire Vice Chairperson
3 Saraswati Ghimire Secretary
4 Yul Prasad Dahal Treasurer
5 Gangaraj Sintan member
6 Uddhav Prasad Dahal member
7 Chandra kumari Bi. Ka. member
8 Sabitri dahal member
9 Indra Kumari Dahal member
10 Double prasad Dahal member
11 Makhmali Sintan member
12 Khemraj Dahal Water user / Farmer
13 Bikash Lama Water user / Farmer
14 Kuber Dahal Water user / Farmer
15 Bhim Prasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
16 Ram Prasad Ghimire Water user / Farmer
17 Hom Prasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
18 Kewal Prasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
19 Suman Dahal Water user / Farmer
20 Rudra Parasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
21 Bal Krishna Dahal A Water user / Farmer
22 Bal Krishna Dahal B Water user / Farmer
23 Danad Paasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
24 Som Nath Ghimire Water user / Farmer
25 Radah Bi.Ka Water user / Farmer
26 Nabaraj timilsina Water user / Farmer
27 Ram Prasad dahal Water user / Farmer
28 Buddhi bahadur Sintan Water user / Farmer
29 Jhanja Narayan Dahal Water user / Farmer
30 Ramseh Prasad Dahal Water user / Farmer
31 Shyam Prasad Dahal Water user / Farmer

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 5

RAIGAUN ISP, KAVRE DISTRICT MIDDLE BASIN
5 Raigaun Focus Group Discussion
20/12/2013 Irrigation Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. TR Bhandari, Mr. BS Misra,
Sub- Jeebachh Yadav, Me. Hari Poudel (AO) Hatauda DOI WUAs\
Project Farmers (25), WUA Dhalpa (1)
Objective of Identification of constraints affecting irrigation management
the FGD
Composition National Consultant (4), Representative of DIO (2), WUAs/farmers (25), WUA
of the Dhalpa (1)
Participants
Summary of General Meeting
All the male and female farmers/WUA members, and the dhalpa actively participated in the
meeting in a democratic manner. There was no leader and all speakers were involved equally.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Seeds and fertilizer is not available on a timely basis and the Agriculture
Constraints Extension services is not adequately provided to all the beneficiary farmers.
Water
Rotational from head to tailend.
Allocations
Crop
Not significant
Diversification
Summary and Conclusion
The system is located in between 60 km north-east from the Irrigation Division office at
Hetauda and 17 km north from the East-West Highway (Bagmati-Karmaiya). The discussion
was carried out in an amicable manner and all the representatives including women
participated actively during the meeting. The major concern of the key members of the WUA
expressed during the meeting was that in the monsoon (high flood) the command area towards
the river bank side is vulnerable and they suggested there is an urgent need for river protection
works. This should be implemented by the concerned agencies in coordination with WUA.
There are disputes reported by all participants over water distribution during the peak season-
puddling for rice transplantation. However, these disputes are settled mutually by committee
with the help of Dhalpa (ditchrider). The source of irrigation water is the Bagmati River, which is
perennial, but during the winter and spring season water is inadequate due to poor physical
condition of the canal system and there are inadequate field channels for water distribution. In
addition, there is leakage and seepage in the main canal especially in the lined sections where
maintenance has been overlooked by the WUA due to resource constraint. However, recently,
WUA has received NRs. 500,000 from the District Development Committee, Makawanpur for
minor maintenance of main canal. The WUA has been collecting 7 kg paddy from every
household for payment of the dhalpa. In case of emergency, the WUA is collecting cash from
farmers for canal de-silting and maintenance. It is reported that an NR. 40,000 has been
already spent for de-silting, during the last season.
In this system, despite the disparity in landholding size, farmers of all social groups seem to
cooperate in irrigation management. Existing agriculture production appears to be not
satisfactory to the farmers as expressed by participants. Further, canal upgrading and water
management for winter and spring season with improve agriculture technology, may enhance
the cash income and better living condition of the farmers through vegetable production, as the
system has access to markets via all-weather roads to the district headquarters, and the East-
West Highway. Moreover, the source is perennial for all season.
The system rehabilitation works need to be implemented by the WUA and the DOI under a joint
management situation. There is a high potential to increase command area in the tail reach
and the system is a potential candidate for model irrigation management in the middle irrigation
area of Bagmati River.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
No. Name Position
1 Prem Bb.Raut Chair
2 Narahari Bolakhe Trainer
3 Deri Bdr Rai Member
4 Ram Bdr Rai Member
5 Jay Bdr rai Member
6 Imar Bdr dhunga Dhalpa
7 Dal Bdr Rai Member
8 Chandra Kan
9 Hari Pd. Rai Member
10 Bhdha Rai Member
11 Bhim Km Rai Trainer
12 Jangi Rai Trainer
13 Bhim Rai Trainer
14 Rajesh Rai Trainer
15 Bishnu Bdr Rai Trainer
16 Ram Bdr Rai Trainer
17 Snjai Rai Trainer
18 Shobha Rai Trainer
19 Shambhu Pokhrel Trainer
20 Bakra Rai Trainer
21 Pradip Rai Trainer
22 Ser Bahadur Rai Trainer
23 Anand Rai Trainer
24 Rajkumar Shrestha Trainer
25 Bhim Kumar Rai Trainer
26 Heramb Pd Upadhya Trainer
27 Khem Raj Bhattarai Trainer

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 6

LAXMIPUR BRANCH CANAL BIP
6 Bagmati Focus Group Discussion
22/12/2013 Irrigation Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr.TR Bhandari, Jeebachh
Project, Yadav, Mr. Laxmi Prasad Singh SDE, BIP, Mr.SP Gupta Er.
Karmaiya,
BIP WUAs\ Farmers (25)
Sarlahi District
Eastern Canal,
Laxmipur
Branch,
Haripur-9
Objective of Identification of irrigation management constraints
the FGD
Composition National Consultant (4), BIP Senior Staff (2), WUA/farmers (25)
of the
Participants
Summary of General Meeting
The community leader actively participated, while the WUA leaders had low voice as compared
to others during the discussion
Specific Areas Explored
Famers get seeds from the nearby market (Khopasi). The sources of high
Agriculture
yielding varieties of crops are not reliable. They do not use fertilizers and
Constraints
pesticides.
Water
Rotational from head to tail
Allocations

Crop
No significant changed.
Diversification
Summary and Conclusions

The Haripur sample command area covers 125 ha. The area of the system is inhabited by
people belonging to mixed social groups. The majority of households are smaller-holder with
an average land holding size less than 0.5 ha. The economically active young people are
prone to emigrate for remittance, however, there is no serious agriculture labor problem faced
by the farming communities. Water allocation is not coordinated according to the farmers
demand and there is no significant use of groundwater. On the other hand, construction of
tertiary canals has not gained momentum as the mobilization of the WUA is lagging behind
towards the effective use of irrigation water.

Crop production was found to be less than the national averages, however, some cooperative
societies within the command area have been doing cooperative farming for better production
and cash income. The cooperative farming system is in initial stage so performance has not
been demonstrated.

The performance of WUA in carrying out O&M and internal resource mobilization was found to
be very weak. The command area is highly influenced by elites. Irrigation conflicts are settled
by community leaders. Irrigation water management should be coordinated with main canal
operation schedule.

The WUA should mobilize farmers in regular O&M activities through ISF collocation. In close
coordination with BIP, the strengthening of the WUA’s capacity is a core element for better
water management in the area.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

No. Name

1 Shiv Kumar Ray

2 Ram Ray
3 Laxman Sah
4 Ram Chandra Ray
5 Counor Sah
6 Counor Singh
7 Cooma Newpane
8 Burja Khatri
9 Astik Sah
10 Bishnu Chaudhari
11 Dependra Chaudhari
12 Ram Pukar Ray
13 Ranjit Sah
14 Ram babu Ray
15 Rameshwor Raut
16 Bikau Rout
17 Shhalendra Chaudhari
18 Tanu Lal Rout
19 Mh. Inderish
20 Bhagor Chaudhari
21 Mohan Reapani
22 Manoj Khadka
23 Shib Narayan Ray
24 Radha Krishna Neupane
25 Ram Krishna Yadav

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 7

GHADHAIYA BRANCH CANAL BIP
7 BIP Karmaiya, Focus Group Discussion
23/12/2013 Sarlahi District Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. TR Bhandari, Dr. SK
Eastern Canal, Updahya, Jeebachh Yadav, Mr. Sakil Akther SDE,BIP, RK
Gadhaiya Chaudhary Er.BIP WUAs\ Farmers (24)
Branch,
Murtiya VDC
Objective of Identification of irrigation management constraints.
the FGD
Composition National Consultant (5), Senior Staff of BIP (2), WUA/farmers (24)
of the
Participants
Summary of General Meeting
WUA members and farmers actively participated.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture extension service is poor chemical fertilizer is not available on a
Agriculture
timely basis, and most of the agriculture inputs are being imported from Indian
Constraints
border town.
Water
Rotational from head to tail.
Allocations

Crop
Traditional cropping pattern.
Diversification
Summary and Conclusions

Water management in the command area needs to be coordinated from head to tail based on
developing a schedule in coordination with main canal operations. The role and responsibility
of BIP, the dhalpa and supervisor should be coordinated with actual need of water in the
respective command area. Irrigation schedule should be developed based on existing cropping
calendar giving due consideration to sugarcane by season.

Traditionally, the farmers have perceived that use of more water will make more production
specially in paddy crops. It needs to be discouraged through demonstrations on water use in
the paddy (including SRI as appropriate).

Canal maintenance and construction works should be adjusted before sowing and after
harvesting time in coordination with WUAs and internal resource mobilization activities should
be enhanced.

As compared to other observed command areas of BIP, this area was found to be satisfactory
as coordination and cohesion among farmers are better because of mixed communities.

The role of the WUA strengthened to network with agriculture development support to achieve
input/service providers for market. Strengthening the WUA capacity through training should be
implemented on water management to improve water use efficiencies. The WUA should
develop its institutional capacities to collect ISF collection with transparent record keeping
system for O&M in the respective system.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Navin Kharal Farmer

2 Lal Babu Shah Farmer
3 Sitabi Pasloa Farmer
4 Punya pd. Khatiwada Farmer
5 Narendra Gurung Farmer
6 Chandeshwor Chaudhari Farmer
7 Kumar Chaudhari Secretary
8 Ram Kumar Mahato Farmer
9 Nabin Yadav Chairman
10 Chetan Yadav farmer
11 Vijay Yadav Chairman
12 Nemi Yadav Farmer
13 Saroj Kumar Yadav Farmer
14 Bijali Paslar Operator
15 Tikamaya B.k Dhalpa
16 Rama Khatiwada Dhalpa
17 Hari Charan Farmer
18 Ram Chandra Yadav Farmer
20 Jay Bhadra Lal Karna Farmer
21 Ram Pukar Ray Farmer
22 Upendra Ram Farmer
23 Shiv Narayan Yadav Driver/Farmer
24 Sharshwati Chaudhary Farmer

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 8

BHALOHIYA BRANCH CANAL BIP
8 BIP Focus Group Discussion
24/01/2014 Bhalohiya Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr.TR Bhandari, Jeebachh
Branch, Yadav, Siva Kumar Upadhya, Mr. Mahes Prased Tharu SDE,
Samanpur Mr. Rajesh Yadav Er, RP Chaudhary Er. WUAs\Farmers (31)
Distributory,
Hardiya
Irrigationion
Sub-Project
Objective of the Identification of irrigation management constraints
FGD
Composition of National Consultant (5), BIP Senior Officers (3), WUAs/farmers (31)
the Participants
Summary of General Meeting
WUA farmers actively participated, but women’s representative was very low.

Specific Areas Explored

Agriculture Quality seeds and fertilizer is not available on a timely basis in the command
Constraints area; however, they are buying from Indian market.

Water
Rotational from head to tail.
Allocations

Crop No significant changed in cropping system but few farmers have been growing
Diversification vegetables under polyhouse.
Summary and Conclusions

As compared to other areas in BIP, the WUA and farmers have improved the irrigation
management as the WUA has been mobilizing internal resources for minor maintenance of canal
system and had better coordination with the BIP staff, dhalpas and supervisors.

The tertiary and field channels have not fully developed yet. However, WUA/farmers have initiated
construction of tertiary canals from their internal resources.

Some of the farmers have already benefited from the irrigated agriculture of sugarcane and better
paddy production. However, commercial crops, except sugarcane, have not extended to a large
scale. Further, better agriculture extension service and water management may develop farmers’
capacity for better production and benefit.

Training on water management to improve water use efficiency, improved agriculture technology
and ISF collection should be implemented in close coordination with BIP and WUA including
others supporting organizations in the command area.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Chaulai Yadav Ch. man
2 Ramsogasth Yadav Farmer
3 Shambhu Pd. Sah Secretary
4 Phekam Savani Chairman
5 Bigu Pandit Farmer
6 BreejMohan Sahami Farmer
7 Rabi Kumar Sahami Farmer
8 Shivji Yadav Farmer
9 Hoshnarayan Yadav Farmer
10 Ramyongan Sah Farmer
11 Anutha Paswan V Secretary
12 Rajminiya Devi V.Secretary
13 Gau Miya Dhobi V.Secretary
14 Hari Narayan Ram V.Secretary
15 Laxmi Narayan Sah V.Secretary
16 Ramji Sahami V.Secretary
17 Jaykrishan Shahi V.Secretary
18 Bishnath Sah V.Secretary
19 Prem lal Yadav Treasurer
20 Raj Dev Ray Yadav Ch.man
21 Niraj Yadav Farmer
22 Hoshnarayan Yadav Farmer
23 Devendra Jnishra Farmer
24 Shambhu Pd. Yadav Sec. up
25 Birendra Thakur Suplervisor
26 Balmiki Patel Suplervisor
27 Raja Ram Patel
28 Ramyakabal yadav Ch.man
29 Gopal Yadav
30 Pundev Yadav Farmer
31 Rakesh Sah Secretary

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 9

BHALOHIYA BRANCH CANAL BIP
9 BIP Karmaiya, Focus Group Discussion
25/12/2013 Ratahat District Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. TR Bhandari, Mr.
Western Jeebachh Yadav, Mr. Siva Kumar Upadhya, Mr. Mahahes
Canal, Prasad Tharu SDE, Mr. Rajesh Yadav Er., Mr. Rajendra Pr.
Bhalohiya Chaudhary Er. BIP, WUA/farmers (25)
Branch,
Samanpur
Distributory,
Ganga Pipra
Objective of Identification of irrigation management constraints
the FGD
Composition National Consultant(5), Senior officer of BIP (3), WUA/farmers(25)
of the
Participants
Summary of General Meeting
All the WUA members and farmers actively participated, but women’s representation was very
low.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Agriculture extension service is very poor. Seeds and fertilizer are not
Constraints available in time.

Water
Rotational from head to tailend
Allocations

Crop
Traditional cropping pattern
Diversification
Summary and Conclusion

In this system about 35% of the command area has not been irrigating from the BIP, and the
command area development program has not been implemented yet. Often, resourceful
farmers have been pumping irrigation water from the Bhailaiya Branch in the critical period.

The water allocation in distributary and Sub-distributary canals is highly erratic to the farmers
as they are not timely informed about water schedule. The existing canal system is full of silt.
However, farmers have been somehow transplanting monsoon paddy. There has been always
water scarcity in mid and tailend area. The head reach farmers of the system have been
pumping canal water for the paddy. In some locations, the FSL of canal system is not
coordinated with ground level and ground level is higher than FSL.

The WUAs were found to be very weak in terms of water management, internal resource
mobilization (kind, cash, labour) and farmers mobilization for O&M (ISF collection). The WUA
and farmers are expecting irrigation water free of cost. Moreover, the WUAs are engaged in
canal construction works under a BIP budget, and the WUA contribution part of the
construction is not fully transparent to the respective farming communities.

As per policy, the DIO is responsible for planning, design, monitoring and evaluation of
irrigation projects throughout the country. It is therefore, under the Director General, planning,
design, monitoring and evaluation division that should carry out periodic monitoring and
evaluation of the projects and compliance of WUA.

Training, incentive part of the construction works provided to the WUA including WUA
institutional performance should be reflected in the periodic monitoring and evaluation report of
DOI.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Ram Krishna Pd. Mahato Chairman
2 Mahindra Chaudhari Member
3 Ram Prasad Mahato CHM
4 Birendra Pandey CHM
5 Shivadatta Mahato CHM
6 Ram Babu Ray CHM
7 Ramanand Yadav Member
8 Surendra Yadav Member
9 Nandlal Ray Member
10 Ramautar Ray Member
11 Tej Narayan Thakur stap
12 Ashok Panday stap
13 Manoj Mahato Member
14 Birendra Ray Supperv
15 Nemlal Ray Member
16 Rajesh Yadav Stap
17 Nirash Chaudhari Farmer
18 Bhrahamdev Ray Farmer
19 Lal Yadav Farmer
20 Rajindra Sha Farmer
21 Ram Sogarth Ray Farmer
22 Ramdrish Ray Farmer
23 Haluman Thakur Farmer
24 Hirde Narayan Baitha Farmer
25 Jaylal Mahato Farmer

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 10

DISTRICT AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE LOWER BAGMATI
10 District Focus Group Discussion
27/12/2013 Agriculture Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr.TR Bhandari, Mr.
Development Jeebachh Yadav, Mr. Asiduz Zamen IIDSS, Mr. Gugal
Office (DADO), Kishwor Tiwari Sr. Agriculture Officer, DADO Staff (13)
Malangawa,
Sarlahi District
Objective of the Identification of irrigated agriculture management constraints
FGD
Composition of National Consultant (4), International Consultant (1), DADO Staff (13)
the Participants
Summary of General Meeting
The meeting was highly friendly. Mr. JK Tiwari, Senior Agriculture Officer was a key resource
person, while other DADO staff also participated fully during the discussion.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Due to lack of adequate budget and manpower with DADO, extension services
Constraints have not been delivered as expected by farming community and BIP.
Summary and Conclusions

During the discussion, the Senior Agriculture Officer expressed that there is no direct coordination
between BIP and District Agriculture Development Office. However, agriculture extension services
are provided by Agriculture Service Centers to the farmers groups in the district. Farmers groups
have been formed by agriculture office for extension services. Similarly, there is no direct
institutional linkage and coordination between the WUAs and agriculture extension staff in the
district level. However, as per need DDC invites irrigation representatives during the meeting of
district council.

In the district, irrigation water has contributed to sugarcane farmers. The production of sugarcane
in the district is very high. The highest record of sugarcane production is 81 MT per hectare. The
farmers have broken the national record of sugarcane production and received rewards.

The area has high potential for fish farming. The BIP can assist the fish farmers by developing
appropriate mechanism in the water logged area. Further, the agriculture program should be
integral part of BIP. A number of crop production demonstrations and seed multiplication activities
should be launched in the BIP command area in close coordination with WUAs, BIP and DADO.

Moreover, seasonal irrigation schedule and cropping calendar have not been developed in the
BIP. Due to lack of field channels in the BIP command area, optimum use of irrigation water (on
farm irrigation) is lagging behind.

System of Rice Intensification (SRI) demonstrations could be launched in the BIP in the
coordination with DADO and BIP where irrigation water is ensured.

Fifteen percent of the Block Grant Fund (VDC fund) of the government of Nepal has allocated to
agriculture development program, which has not been implemented in an organized and planned
way due to lack of skill manpower in the VDC. Therefore, one trained village level agriculture
extension staff should be deployed by the agency so as to impart improved technology to the
farming communities.

Improved agriculture technology with effective water management transfer program: farmer-to-
famer training needs to be organized in close coordination with the BIP and DADO for commercial
crop production.

Since a long time, the issue of coordination between irrigation and agriculture has not been
adequately addressed by the GON - both sectors have been working in isolation. However, with
limited budget and manpower constraints, the DOA has been providing services to farming

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

communities. As far as better coordination between the BIP and DADOs is concerned, it is
directly related to annual agriculture budget. The fund from central government to the district
agriculture office is not sufficient to fulfil the district’s demand. The district annual budget and
program are being endorsed by the DDC whereas the BIP is a centrally funded and operated
project with no direct link with district agriculture office. Moreover, the BIP and DADO area
working in the irrigated agriculture area of the district.

Therefore, a special agriculture budget should be allocated to BIP for implementing agriculture
activities in its command area. The annual agriculture program and budget should be prepared
and implemented jointly by DADO, WUA and BIP. Agriculture extension services should be
accessory part of centrally funded irrigation project for three to five years. The annual agriculture
program should be endorsed by WUA Assembly.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Yugal kishor Towari DADO

2 Bigyan Kumar Mandal ACO

3 Ramprasad Mahato CDO
4 Devand Yadav AEO
5 Ajay Kumar Singh J.T
6 Bishewor Jha J.T
7 Ramkumar Sharma J.T
8 Ramkailash Sah J.T
9 Ramchandra Mahato A.O
10 Brahmadev Yadav J.T
11 Jyot N. Giri J.T
12 Tilak Pokhrel J.T
13 Bisheshwor Jha J.T
14 Lalbabu chaudhari F.D.O
15 Ram Binod Singh J.T

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION – ATTACHMENT 11

BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT FIELD STAFF - MURTIYA
11 BIP Field Staff Focus Group Discussion
28/12/2013 Murtiya Dr. Indra Lal Kalu, Mr. AK Deo, Mr. TR Bhandari, Mr.
Jeebachh Yadav, Mr. Siva Kumar Upadhya, Mr.
Asiduzzamen IIDSS, Mr. Laxman Pr. Shingh SDE, Mr. Noor
Mohamad Khan SDE BIP, Dhalpa (8) ,Supervisor (7), Gate
Operator (8)
Objective of the Identification of irrigation management problems
FGD
Composition of National Consultant (5), International consultant (1), Senior BIP Staff(2), Field
the Participants Staff (23)
Summary of General Meeting
All the field staff participated during the discussion, but due to presence of senior staff some of
the field staff were hesitant to express their opinion about their working conditions, and roles and
responsibilities. However, being local residents of the command area the majority of field staff
were fully involved in the discussion.
Specific Areas Explored
Agriculture Irrigation water operation (canal operation plan) is ad-hoc due to continuous
Constraints canal constructions and rehabilitation works

Water
Rotational from head to tailend
Allocations

Crop
Farmers are growing sugarcane and area is increasing year by year.
Diversification
Summary and Conclusion

A huge amount of budget has been allocated to canal works, and all the BIP field staff have been
working as a daily wage laborers under this budget. Approximately NRs. 30 million is being
invested in the BIP budget for O&M, but often this budget item is not released in a timely manner
from government. As far as canal maintenance is concerned only minor canal maintenance is
done, especially in terms of earthworks. At the same time nominal contribution in terms of labor
mobilization is being done by WUAs/farmers for the same maintenance works. The roles and
responsibilities between the WUA and field staff of BIP have not been clearly crafted. Job
descriptions and training programs have not been given to the field staff. Capacity building and
training should be implemented based actual needs of the job.

There is insufficient coordination between the BIP and WUA for water allocation. Eventually, field
staff (supervisor, gate operator and dhalpas) are responsible for this according to the BIP. Water
management in the command area needs to be coordinated from head to tailend in terms of
developing a schedule in coordination with main canal operations, preferably each cropping
season. The role and responsibilities of the BIP, dhalpa and supervisor should be coordinated
with actual need of water in the respective command areas. Canal maintenance and construction
works should be adjusted before sowing and after harvesting time in coordination with WUAs

Traditionally, farmers have perceived that the use of more water make more production,
especially in paddy crops. This needs to be discouraged through demonstrations on water use in
the paddy (including SRI as appropriate).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Hari Bahadur Pulami Supervisor

2 Bikau Raut Supervisor

3 Raj Narayan Yadav Supervisor
4 Ramkumar Ray Dhalpa
5 Surynath Parwan Dhalpa
6 Chandra Prasad Prsie Gate operator
7 Chandreshwor Chaudhari Gate operator
8 Chetan Ray Dhalpa
9 Tika Maya B. K Dhalpa
10 Rama Khatieada Dhalpa
11 Jayvadralal Karn Dhalpa
12 Ram Bahadur Basnet Gate operator
13 Man Bahadur Khadaka Dhalpa
14 Hari Shankar Ray Dhalpa
15 Rambiswar Ray Gate operator
16 Anil Kumar singh Gate operator
17 Harichand Parwan Dhalpa
18 Bal Krishna Upadhya Supervisor
19 Nagendra Yadav Supervisor
20 Satyanarayan mahato Dhalpa
21 Lal Bahadur Khadka Dhalpa
22 Indra Bahadur Phuyal Dhalpa
23 Sarswati chaudhari Dhalpa
24 Neeru Mahammed SDE
25 Laxman Prasad Single SDE

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL – ATTACHMENT 12

SHALLOW TUBE WELL USERS, BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT
Venue: Harion VDC, Sarlahi district
Date: December 29, 2013

Facilitators: Tej Raj Bhandari, Awadh K Deo, Jeebachh Yadav and Indra Kalu

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Technical Aspects:
STWs were installed since about 12 to15 years ago in the locality. Tubewells were drilled by local
manpower using the local Thokuwa method. In general, the depth to the shallow water table in the
locality is about 6 to 9 meters. Wells are drilled to a depth of approximately 16 to 20 meters. In
general a 7.5 HP Bharat/Uhsa/Kriloskar diesel engine pump is being used. The discharge of the
tubewells is reported to be around 9 to 12 lps. The average discharge of STW found to be 7 lps.

Cost of Tube well Installation:

Cost of a typical shallow tube well installation is reported as follows:
A typical 7.5 HP Diesel Engine: NRs. 40,000 to 45,000
Installation Cost Using Thokuwa Method for a typical depth of 20 meters: NRs. 20,000

Irrigation:
Usually tubewells are being used for winter vegetables, wheat, spring vegetables and sugarcane
during the critical stages of the crops. For paddy seed bed preparation and supplementary
irrigations are being provided in the critical situations. The area coverage of one STW is around 2
to 2.5 ha.

Usage Hours:
The general usage hours as reported are 80 to 100 hrs in sugarcane, 40-50 hrs for wheat, and
80-90 hrs for spring and winter vegetables. Spring paddy is not practiced because of high cost.
However, supplementary irrigation in critical situation for spring paddy grown in small area is also
reported.

Operation and Maintenance:

The operation cost of pumps are reported to NRs. 250/hr. This includes fuel (1 L diesel) plus NRs.
10/hr. operator’s charge. In addition, the per annum maintenance cost has been estimated to be
in range from NRs. 8,000 to 10,000, which includes annual average repair cost of machine and
other accessories.

STW Cropping Pattern:

The general cropping pattern in the tube well area is reported as follows:
Paddy-Wheat
Paddy/Lentil-Maize
Paddy-Lentil+Mustard
Paddy-Potato/Vegetables
Sugarcane-Sugarcane
Cropping Intensity was reported to be 230 to 240%

Cropped Area:
Summer season (Kharif): Paddy 25 to 30%

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Winter season (Rabi): Wheat 30 to 35%, Sugarcane 60 to 70%, Lentil plus oilseeds 10 to 15%
Vegetable and potato in around 5% area, maize around 3% of the area
Spring: Vegetable in around 2% of the area

Crop Yields:
Paddy- 3.5 to 4.2 t/ha, Wheat-2.4 to 2.6 t/ha, Maize-3.5 to 4.5 t/ha, Lentil 1.0 to1.2 t/ha, Oilseed-
0.80 to 0.90 t/ha, Vegetables- 8 to 10 t/ha, Potato- 10-12 t/ha, Sugarcane-75 to 80 t/ha.

Farm-gate Prices of Outputs and Inputs:

Paddy- NRs 20 to 25 /kg, Wheat- 28 to 30 NRs./kg., Maize 18 to 22 NRs/kg, Lentil- 80 to 90
NRs./kg, Oilseeds- 80 to 90 NRs/kg., Sugarcane- NRs 481/quintal, Potato- 15 to 18 NRs./kg
Urea- NRs. 22/kg, DAP-50/- /per kg, Potash- 35 NRs./kg, Zinc Sulphate 100 NRs/kg, Tractor hire
900 to1200 NRs./hr, Bullock pair NRs 500/day, Hired human labor- NRs. 350/day,
Plant protection cost in lump sum: Paddy- 2500 NRs/ha, Wheat- 500 NRs/ha, sugarcane- 3000
NRs/ha., Vegetables/potato-2000 NRs/ha, Maize- 1500 NRs/ha.

Use of Chemical Fertilizer (kg/ha):

Paddy: Urea- 180, DAP-90, Potash-30, Wheat: Urea-120, DAP:-60, Sugarcane: Urea- 300, DAP-
180, Potash-60; Vegetables/potato: Urea 120, DAP-120, Potash-60; Maize: Urea-180, DAP-120,
Potash-30, Lentil: DAP-60, Oilseeds: Urea-60, DAP-60

Farm Yard Manure:

Farm yard manure is applied in the cultivated are once in a year before tilling the field during
April/May. Usage depends on the production/availability of manure from the number of livestock
raised by the household. On average 2-4 t/ha of manure is estimated applied in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

 The cost of tube well irrigation with diesel engines is much more expensive as compared
to the electrical engine. This requires rural electrification in the areas with high ground
water potential.
 For increasing agriculture production and productivity, the supply agricultural inputs
supply is not adequate or timely. The quality of seeds and fertilizers are not satisfactory.
 Market supports are needed to facilitate the farmers during post-harvest time and soft
credit facility should be insured to discourage the selling of the standing crop.
 Nepalese farmers are vulnerable to competition in being able to get reasonable prices for
their production due to the impact of cross-border subsidized farming system.
 The cost of tube well installation is costly, which marginal farmers cannot afford. The
interest rate of agriculture loans is higher than in the industrial sector and repayment of
agriculture credit often becomes a serious burden to the farmers because of low profit in
agriculture sector.
 Trainings should be articulated to the tube well farmers about off-season vegetables, high
yielding crops and crop diversification.

 Effective and efficient agriculture extension services are recommended by the

respondents.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Binod Kumar Singh Farmer
2 Hari Narayan Mahato Farmer
3 Raj Kumar Mahato Farmer
4 Lal Bahadur Khadka Farmer
5 Nabin Khanal Farmer
6 Yogendra Sah Farmer
7 Ramashrya Sah Farmer
8 Shiv Shanker Ray Farmer
9 Atma Ram Yadav Farmer
10 Nathuni Prasad Ray Farmer
11 Sarjit Singh Farmer
12 Tek Bahadur Magar Farmer
13 Omnath Chaulagain Farmer
14 Ramashish Mahato Farmer
15 Shiv Shanker Mahato Farmer
16 Shiv Chandra Singh Farmer
17 Rajkumar Mahato II Farmer
18 Surdev Daiman Farmer
19 Awadh Kishor Deo Agriculture Specialist
20 Tek Raj Bhandari Survey Specialist
21 Indra Kalu Irrigation Management Specialist
(IMS)
22 Jeebachh Yadav Irrigation Planning and Design
Engineer (IPDE)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL – ATTACHMENT 12

SHALLOW TUBE WELL USERS, BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT
Venue: Harion VDC, Sarlahi district
Date: December 29, 2013

Facilitators: Tej Raj Bhandari, Awadh K Deo, Jeebachh Yadav and Indra Kalu

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Technical Aspects:
STWs were installed since about 12 to15 years ago in the locality. Tubewells were drilled by local
manpower using the local Thokuwa method. In general, the depth to the shallow water table in the
locality is about 6 to 9 meters. Wells are drilled to a depth of approximately 16 to 20 meters. In
general a 7.5 HP Bharat/Uhsa/Kriloskar diesel engine pump is being used. The discharge of the
tubewells is reported to be around 9 to 12 lps. The average discharge of STW found to be 7 lps.

Cost of Tube well Installation:

Cost of a typical shallow tube well installation is reported as follows:
A typical 7.5 HP Diesel Engine: NRs. 40,000 to 45,000
Installation Cost Using Thokuwa Method for a typical depth of 20 meters: NRs. 20,000

Irrigation:
Usually tubewells are being used for winter vegetables, wheat, spring vegetables and sugarcane
during the critical stages of the crops. For paddy seed bed preparation and supplementary
irrigations are being provided in the critical situations. The area coverage of one STW is around 2
to 2.5 ha.

Usage Hours:
The general usage hours as reported are 80 to 100 hrs in sugarcane, 40-50 hrs for wheat, and
80-90 hrs for spring and winter vegetables. Spring paddy is not practiced because of high cost.
However, supplementary irrigation in critical situation for spring paddy grown in small area is also
reported.

Operation and Maintenance:

The operation cost of pumps are reported to NRs. 250/hr. This includes fuel (1 L diesel) plus NRs.
10/hr. operator’s charge. In addition, the per annum maintenance cost has been estimated to be
in range from NRs. 8,000 to 10,000, which includes annual average repair cost of machine and
other accessories.

STW Cropping Pattern:

The general cropping pattern in the tube well area is reported as follows:
Paddy-Wheat
Paddy/Lentil-Maize
Paddy-Lentil+Mustard
Paddy-Potato/Vegetables
Sugarcane-Sugarcane
Cropping Intensity was reported to be 230 to 240%

Cropped Area:
Summer season (Kharif): Paddy 25 to 30%
Winter season (Rabi): Wheat 30 to 35%, Sugarcane 60 to 70%, Lentil plus oilseeds 10 to 15%
Vegetable and potato in around 5% area, maize around 3% of the area
Spring: Vegetable in around 2% of the area

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Crop Yields:
Paddy- 3.5 to 4.2 t/ha, Wheat-2.4 to 2.6 t/ha, Maize-3.5 to 4.5 t/ha, Lentil 1.0 to1.2 t/ha, Oilseed-
0.80 to 0.90 t/ha, Vegetables- 8 to 10 t/ha, Potato- 10-12 t/ha, Sugarcane-75 to 80 t/ha.

Farm-gate Prices of Outputs and Inputs:

Paddy- NRs 20 to 25 /kg, Wheat- 28 to 30 NRs./kg., Maize 18 to 22 NRs/kg, Lentil- 80 to 90
NRs./kg, Oilseeds- 80 to 90 NRs/kg., Sugarcane- NRs 481/quintal, Potato- 15 to 18 NRs./kg
Urea- NRs. 22/kg, DAP-50/- /per kg, Potash- 35 NRs./kg, Zinc Sulphate 100 NRs/kg, Tractor hire
900 to1200 NRs./hr, Bullock pair NRs 500/day, Hired human labor- NRs. 350/day,
Plant protection cost in lump sum: Paddy- 2500 NRs/ha, Wheat- 500 NRs/ha, sugarcane- 3000
NRs/ha., Vegetables/potato-2000 NRs/ha, Maize- 1500 NRs/ha.

Use of Chemical Fertilizer (kg/ha):

Paddy: Urea- 180, DAP-90, Potash-30, Wheat: Urea-120, DAP:-60, Sugarcane: Urea- 300, DAP-
180, Potash-60; Vegetables/potato: Urea 120, DAP-120, Potash-60; Maize: Urea-180, DAP-120,
Potash-30, Lentil: DAP-60, Oilseeds: Urea-60, DAP-60

Farm Yard Manure:

Farm yard manure is applied in the cultivated are once in a year before tilling the field during
April/May. Usage depends on the production/availability of manure from the number of livestock
raised by the household. On average 2-4 t/ha of manure is estimated applied in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

 The cost of tube well irrigation with diesel engines is much more expensive as compared
to the electrical engine. This requires rural electrification in the areas with high ground
water potential.
 For increasing agriculture production and productivity, the supply agricultural inputs
supply is not adequate or timely. The quality of seeds and fertilizers are not satisfactory.
 Market supports are needed to facilitate the farmers during post-harvest time and soft
credit facility should be insured to discourage the selling of the standing crop.
 Nepalese farmers are vulnerable to competition in being able to get reasonable prices for
their production due to the impact of cross-border subsidized farming system.
 The cost of tube well installation is costly, which marginal farmers cannot afford. The
interest rate of agriculture loans is higher than in the industrial sector and repayment of
agriculture credit often becomes a serious burden to the farmers because of low profit in
agriculture sector.
 Trainings should be articulated to the tube well farmers about off-season vegetables, high
yielding crops and crop diversification.

 Effective and efficient agriculture extension services are recommended by the

respondents.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Binod Kumar Singh Farmer
2 Hari Narayan Mahato Farmer
3 Raj Kumar Mahato Farmer
4 Lal Bahadur Khadka Farmer
5 Nabin Khanal Farmer
6 Yogendra Sah Farmer
7 Ramashrya Sah Farmer
8 Shiv Shanker Ray Farmer
9 Atma Ram Yadav Farmer
10 Nathuni Prasad Ray Farmer
11 Sarjit Singh Farmer
12 Tek Bahadur Magar Farmer
13 Omnath Chaulagain Farmer
14 Ramashish Mahato Farmer
15 Shiv Shanker Mahato Farmer
16 Shiv Chandra Singh Farmer
17 Rajkumar Mahato II Farmer
18 Surdev Daiman Farmer
19 Awadh Kishor Deo Agriculture Specialist
20 Tek Raj Bhandari Survey Specialist
21 Indra Kalu Irrigation Management Specialist
(IMS)
22 Jeebachh Yadav Irrigation Planning and Design
Engineer (IPDE)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL – ATTACHMENT 13

SHALLOW TUBE WELL USERS AND EXTENSION WORKERS, BAGMATI IRRIGATION
PROJECT

Venue: Shivnagar, Mohammadpur VDC-8, Rautahat district

Date: 26 Dec 2013
Facilitators: Tej Raj Bhandari, S K Upadhyay, Awadh K Deo, Jeebachh Yadav and Indra Kalu

Observer: Asaduz Zaman, International TA Team Member

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Technical Aspects:
STWs were installed since about 12 years ago in the locality. Tube wells were drilled by local
manpower using the local Thokuwa method. In general, the depth to the shallow water table in the
locality is about 6 to 10 meters. Wells are drilled to a depth of about 15 to 20 meters. In general, a
7.5 HP Bharat/Uhsa/Kriloskar diesel engine pump is being used. The discharge of tubwells is
reported to be about 9 to 12 lps. The average discharge of tube wells is 8 lps.

Cost of Tube Well Installation:

Cost of a typical shallow tube well installation is reported as follows:
A typical 7.5 HP diesel Engine: NRs. 40,000 to 45,000
Installation Cost Using Thokuwa Method for a typical depth of 20 meters: NRs. 20,000

Irrigation:
Usually tube wells are being used for winter vegetables, wheat, spring vegetables and sugarcane
during the critical stages of the crops. For paddy seed bed preparation and supplementary
irrigations are being provided in the critical situations. The area coverage of one STW is around 2
to 2.5 ha.

Usage Hours:
The general usage hours as reported are 80 to 100 hrs in sugarcane, 40-50 hrs for wheat, 80-90
hrs for spring and winter vegetables. Spring paddy is not practiced because of high cost.
However, supplementary irrigation in critical situation for spring paddy grown in small area is also
reported.

Operation and Maintenance:

The operation cost of pumps are reported to NRs. 250/hr. This includes fuel (1 L diesel) plus NRs.
10/hr operator’s charge. Besides, per annum maintenance cost has been estimated to be in range
from NRs. 8,000 to 10,000 that includes annual average repair cost of machine and other accessories.

STW Cropping Pattern:

The general cropping pattern in the tub well area is reported as follows:
Paddy-Wheat
Paddy/Lentil-Maize
Paddy-Lentil+Mustard
Paddy-Potato/Vegetables
Sugarcane-Sugarcane
Cropping Intensity was reported to be 220 to 230%

Cropped Area:
Summer season (Kharif): Paddy 50 to 60% of the area

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Winter season(Rabi): Wheat 35 to 45%, Sugarcane 35 to 45%, Lentil plus oilseeds 10 to 15%,
Vegetable and potato in around 5% area, maize around 1% of the area
Spring: Vegetables in limited areas in around 5% of the area

Crop Yields:
Paddy- 3.6 to 4.3 t/ha, Wheat-2.5 to 2.7 t/ha, Maize-3 to 4 t/ha, Lentil-1.1 to 1.2 t/ha,
Oilseed-0.85 to 0.95 t/ha, Vegetables-8 to 10 t/ha, Potato-10 to13 t/ha, Sugarcane-75 to 80 t/ha.

Farm-gate Prices of Outputs and Inputs:

Paddy- Rs 20 to 25 /kg, Wheat- 28 to 30 Rs./kg., Maize 18 to 22 Rs/kg, Lentil- 80 to 90 Rs./kg,
Oilseeds- 80 to 90 Rs./kg., Sugarcane- Rs 481/quintal, Potato- 15 to 18 Rs./kg
Urea- Rs. 22/kg, DAP-Rs50/per kg, Potash- Rs35 /kg, Zinc Sulphate- Rs100 /kg, Tractor hire-Rs
900 to1200 /hr, Bullock pair- Rs 500/day, Hired human labor- Rs. 350/day,
Plant protection cost in lump sum: Paddy- 2500 Rs/ha, Wheat- 500 Rs/ha, Sugarcane- 3000
Rs/ha., Vegetables/Potato-2000 Rs/ha, Maize- 1500 Rs/ha.

Use of Chemical Fertilizer (kg/ha):

Paddy: Urea- 180, DAP-90, Potash-30; Wheat: Urea-120, DAP-60; Sugarcane: Urea- 300, DAP-
180, Potash-60; Vegetables/Potato: Urea 120, DAP-120, Potash-60; Maize: Urea-180, DAP-120,
Potash-30; Lentil: DAP-60, Oilseeds: Urea-60, DAP-60

Farm Yard Manure:

Farm yard manure is applied in the cultivated once a year before tilling the field during April / May.
Usage depends on the production/availability of manure, which depends on the number of
livestock raised by the household. On average, 2-4 t/ha of manure is estimated to be applied in
the field.

CONCLUSIONS

 In order to reduce cost of tube-well irrigation, diesel engines need to be replaced with the
electrical engines. This requires rural electrification in the areas with high groundwater
potential and in the unirrigated areas of the BIP.
 Agricultural inputs, especially high quality seeds and fertilizers should be available in time
and in the required quantity.
 Market supports are needed.
 Effective and efficient agriculture extension services are needed by the respondents.
 Nepalese farmers are vulnerable due to the impact of cross-border subsidized farming
and the dependency on importing seeds and fertilizers from across the border, which is
illegal as per government policy. The quality of seeds and fertilizers is not always reliable.
 Marginal farmers are willing but not able to install tube wells because of the high cost that
is beyond their affordable capacity. They need special support.
 Some marginal farmers are using treadle pumps in some upland areas due to the lack
proper support services such as a lack of training (eg, IPM, Farmers Field School, etc.)
including capacity building of the farmers.
 Access to micro-credit facilities should be insured through appropriate institutional
arrangements.
 Crop insurance policies needs to be formulated and implemented as quickly as possible.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

 Due to limited extension staffs in the DADO, additional manpower at least one trained
village extension worker in each VDC needs to be deployed.
 The existing extension staff need to be trained for developing their capabilities in order to
cope with the growing demand of different types of farming communities.

PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Position

1 Raj Narayan Yadav Senior Agriculture Development Officer
2 Hari Shanker Jaiswal Agriculture Extension Officer
3 YadunandanThakur J.T.
4 Uday Narayan Jha Farmer
5 Nawal Kishor J.T.
6 Sarvalal Prasad Yadav Farmer
7 Subhakaran Jha Fishery Development Officer
8 Tarun Khadka Farmer
9 Tapendra Ray Farmer
10 Jawahar Ray Farmer
11 Bhola Ray Farmer
12 Tirith Ray Farmer
13 Krishnadev Giri Farmer
14 Bishwanath Sah Farmer
15 Ram Pukar Sah J.T.
16 Jeebachh Yadav IPDE
17 Shiva Kumar Upadhaya Economist
18 Asaduz Zaman Institution Specialist
19 Awadh Kishor Deo Agriculture Specialist
20 Tej Raj Bhandari Survey
21 Indra Kalu Irrigation Management Specialist (IMS)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Appendix 8

Sample Area Profiles

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILES

CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 1
A. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
B. Selection of Sample Area Profiles.................................................................................... 1
II. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS............................................................................................. 3
A. Upper Basin...................................................................................................................... 3
B. Middle Basin ..................................................................................................................... 4
C. Lower Basin...................................................................................................................... 5
SAP 1 IRRIGATION PROFILE UPPER BASIN................................................................................ 9
SAP 1 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 11
SAP 2 IRRIGATION PROFILE UPPER BASIN.............................................................................. 17
SAP 2 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 19
SAP 3 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 25
SAP 3 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 28
SAP 4 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 35
SAP 4 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 38
SAP 5 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 45
SAP 5 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 47
SAP 6 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 53
SAP 6 AGRICULTURE PROFILE ................................................................................................... 55
SAP 7 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 59
SAP 7 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 61
SAP 8 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 67
SAP 8 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 69
SAP 9 IRRIGATION PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 75
SAP 9 AGRICULTURE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 77

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: Katunje Irrigation Project Upper Basin

Attachment 2: Koirale Khola Irrigation Project Upper Basin
Attachment 3: Tikabhairav Irrigation Project Upper Basin
Attachment 4: Ghattekhola Irrigation Project Middle Basin
Attachment 5: Raigaun Irrigation Project Lower Basin
Attachment 6: Samanpur Distributary, Upper Bhalohiya Branch Canal, Bagmati Irrigation Project
Attachment 7: Lower Bhalohiya Branch Canal, Bagmati Irrigation Project
Attachment 8: Upper Laxmipur Branch Canal, Bagmati Irrigation Project
Attachment 9: Gadhaiya Branch Canal, Bagmati Irrigation Project

List of Tables

Table 1: Sample Area Profiles for MFLW Task 2 ............................................................................. 1

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location Map for Sample Area Profiles in the Bagmati River Basin ................................. 2

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

NEPAL SAMPLE AREA PROFILES

I. OVERVIEW

A. Introduction

1. In the Bagmati River Basin there are many irrigation schemes, varying in size
from only a few hectares up to 45,600 ha. Various government agencies have supported
the development and rehabilitation of such schemes. In the Upper Reach of the Basin,
the Department of Irrigation (DOI) has provided support to over 150 small to medium
size irrigation schemes in Kathmandu Valley.1 The Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP)
located in the lower portion of the basin, in the Terai, is the largest.

2. In order to study the existing situation of those schemes and document potential
aspects for improvement as identified by the water user associations, farmers, and the
government agencies, sample schemes were chosen and a Sample Area Profile (SAP)
was prepared. This involved field visits by the MFLW Task 2 Consultant, reviewing
available reports and data, and conducting interviews with WUAs and concerned farmers,
and irrigation officials using standard templates.

B. Selection of Sample Area Profiles

3. The list of SAPs conducted is presented in Table 1 and their locations shown in
Figure 1. A total of nine (9) SAPs were carried out during Task 2. The detailed results
are contained in Attachments 1 to 9. Each SAP report in the attachment contains the
completed templates, site photographs and a map.

4. Three (3) schemes were selected in the Upper Reach, taking one from each
district; two (2) schemes were selected in two districts of the Middle Reach; and four (4)
branch/secondary canals of the BIP, located in the Lower Reach was carried out by
reviewing project documents and discussions with concerned WUA, farmers and irrigation
officials. Schemes were selected on the basis of available information, accessibility, and
representative size.

Table 1: Sample Area Profiles for MFLW Task 2

Sample
No. Reach District Name of Scheme Location Area (ha)
1 Upper Bhaktpur Katunje ISP Katunje 120
2 Upper Kathmandu Koiralakhola ISP Kavresthali 25
3 Upper Lalitpur Tikabhairav Chhampi 27
4 Middle Kavre Palanchowk Ghattekhola ISP Chyamrangbesi 30
5 Middle Makwanpur Raigaun ISP Raigaun 245
6 Lower Rautahat BA\SA\ SR-5 Samanpur 238
7 Lower Rautahat Bhalohiya Branch Ganga Pipra 760
8 Lower Sarlahi LA\ L-1 Haripur 977
9 Lower Sarlahi GA\SR\R3 Murtiya 300
Source: Present Study, 2014

1
Profile of Irrigation in Central Region 2012, CRID.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Figure 1: Location Map for Sample Area Profiles in the Bagmati River Basin

Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

II. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

A. Upper Basin

5. Two out of three schemes selected in the Upper Reach were very old irrigation
schemes (Koiralakhola and Tikabhairab), which were newly rehabilitated by the DOI. The
other scheme (Katunje) was also an old Farmer Managed Irrigation System (FMIS)
rehabilitated in around 1995. All schemes are small and have traditionally responsibility
for management, operation and maintenance (MOM) has been left to farmers themselves.

6. Canal operation: In these schemes, water distribution is done via a main canal
and direct outlets. Branch and field channels are not constructed. Outlets are provided
and most are not gated. Farmers practice water application by passing water from one
plot to another. There is no water allocation system. During the low flow period, farmers in
the upper part of the system go to the intake and divert water from the supply stream into
the canal and irrigate field starting from the first outlet, then the water is passed to next
farmer, continuing in sequence along the canal. During the rainy season when the flow is
enough, the first few outlets are opened for few days and the farmers apply water one by
one in the same way. After meeting the water requirements of the first group of outlets, the
second group of outlets is opened. Irrigation water is managed to let all famers transplant
paddy in the command area. Then only water is applied for follow up irrigation.

7. Actual irrigated area: In the Katunje Scheme, the canal has been blocked due to
the construction of a water pipeline crossing the canal alignment, blocking water being
able to flowing past this point. As a result only about 40% of the command area is actually
irrigated. In the Chhampi Scheme, farmers have yet to convert sloping uplands to flat
lowland, so the actual irrigated area is only about 50%. There is a general tendency of only
applying water regularly in the head reach of scheme.

8. WUAs: A WUA was usually formed during construction of the schemes and the
WUA mobilized the farmers for repair and maintenance of canals, mainly for earthworks.
Before the DOI intervened during rehabilitation of the Katunje Scheme, the government
used to pay for a dhalpa (canal operator), who used to take care of each system. After
rehabilitation, government support for dhalpa stopped and the WUAs have not hired
them back. In the Koiralkhola Scheme the WUAs manages the canal by mobilizing
farmers for maintenance. The Tikabhairav WUA has hired a dhalpa to upkeep the canal
and he is paid in kind by contributing paddy per ha basis. Four stone crushers at the
intake also pay NRs.5,000/mo to the dhalpa.

9. Maintenance: Responsibility of maintenance lies with the WUA/farmers and they

are doing some minimal works in order to run the canal. In Katunje, the WUA has sought
Village Development Committee (VDC)’s support of NRs.200,000 to maintain the canal.
Others are newly constructed and the WUAs have mobilized farmers to maintain canals.

10. Irrigation infrastructure: Farmers expressed the need to extend lined canal in all
irrigation schemes. Gated outlets should be provided and they should be mobilized to
make field channels directly to each plot. In the Katunje Scheme, the WUA needs
assistance for shifting water supply pipe to avoid canal flow obstruction.

11. Water use efficiency: There is a water shortage during the dry season in all
schemes. Spring crops are usually not popular. Water use efficiency can be improved by
the proper development of crop planning, and developing and implementing a water
distribution schedule. Sprinkler and drip irrigation could be introduced to improve irrigation
efficiency. Intermediate reservoirs could also be developed as fish ponds to store water
when not needed in rainy season, and then that water could be supplied for irrigation in the
dry season.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

B. Middle Basin

12. The two schemes selected in the middle reach are newly irrigated areas
developed after the DOI supported their development in the 1990’s. These schemes are
relatively small and were handed over to farmers for MOM.

13. Canal operation and water management: Water is distributed to the command
area by long main canals and few branch canals, with outlets at both levels. The outlets
provided are mostly not gated and were insufficient in number, so farmers cut the canal
banks and to take water from convenient points. They make temporary field channels at
some outlets, and in other places water is passed from one plot to another, which increases
seepage and conveyance losses. This practice has contributed to water shortages. In the
Ghattekhola Scheme, the soil is coarse textured, so seepage and percolation losses are
high. Realizing this, farmers are using micro-sprinkler irrigation by conveying water through
pipes. There is no water allocation system. During the low flow period, farmers in the
head reach go to the intake in order to divert water into the main canal, and then
irrigation is sequentially passing water to each downstream outlet. During rainy season
when the supply flow is adequate, all branches and outlets are opened and the farmers
take turns within the area covered by the outlet. When water supplies are short, a
rotation is followed and mutually accepted by the farmers.

14. Actual irrigated area: Both schemes irrigate their entire command area, at least
in rainy season. Due to a lack of piped branch canals, the tailend of the Ghattekhola
Scheme faces water shortages. Similarly a portion of the tailed of the Raigaun Scheme,
where the branch canal passes through a trough, could be irrigated if the branch canal
was piped.

15. WUAs: The WUAs were formed during construction to mobilize farmers for
participation and to be active in the repair and maintenance of canals. These WUAs are
still active and a dhalpa has been hired at Raigaun to take care of the system, on the
basis of in-kind payments by farmers. They are getting their accounts audited and WUA
registrations renewed.

16. Maintenance: Responsibility for maintenance lies with the WUA/farmers and they
are contributing labor and also cash to run the canal. In the Raigaun Scheme they hire
an excavator to dig approach channel by collecting contribution from all farmers. The
WUAs also get VDC support at times in order to maintain the canals. The WUA mobilize
farmers to maintain earthen canals.

17. Irrigation infrastructure: Farmers want to install about 200-300 m of pipe in the
branch canal in the Ghattekhola Scheme. Farmers also requested the provision of micro-
sprinkler/ drip irrigation equipment. There is the need to construct a permanent intake
and sediment excluder and line portion of the main canal in in Ghattekhola Scheme. In
Raigaun Scheme, a 450 m flume section is requested in order to cross a stream in the
approach canal upstream of the side intake. Also in the Raigaun Scheme gated outlets are
needed, and the farmers should be mobilized to make field channels in order to apply
water directly to each plot. In addition, the farmers are considering extending irrigation to
an adjoining piece of land above the canal by pumping and requested provision of three (3)
pump units. Water measurement facilities and training its application should be provided.

18. Water use efficiency: Water shortages are experienced in both schemes,
particularly during the spring season. Spring crops are still not popular. Water use
efficiency could be improved by the development of proper crop planning, and developing
and implementing a water distribution schedule. Sprinkler and drip irrigation could be
introduced to improve irrigation efficiency. Intermediate reservoirs could be introduced with
dual use as fish ponds in order to store water when water is not needed in rainy season,
and then provide irrigation for paddy crops in dry season.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

19. Agriculture: Farming is the main occupation in these areas and due to their
remoteness they are growing crops using few chemical inputs. Fertilizer is expensive
and usually not available in time. Crops selection is still for home consumption and
commercial farming is not widespread, although a few farmers have started to grow
organic vegetables in the Ghattekhola Scheme and sugarcane in the Raigaun Scheme.
These areas are suited for organic vegetables and fruit production and the more
technical support from the DOI would help create an enabling market environment.

C. Lower Basin

20. The SAPs done in the Lower Reach were carried out in the BIP command area.
Command Area Development (CAD) works are still ongoing in the BIP and more is
planned, particularly at the tailend of the system. In the areas covered in this report there
is enough water in the Bagmati River during the summer and winter. A full supply is
delivered in the summer beginning usually in July and this continues till November.
Some water is delivered in the winter for crops, depending upon farmers’ requests.

21. Canal operation: The BIP field staff operate the main, branch and distributary
canals, and the operation of secondary, sub-secondary and tertiary canals are left to
farmers/WUAs. Depending upon water available, the canals are supplied to run at FSL
as far as possible. Many pump sets draw water directly from main canals and also at
some places from branch canals. Many unauthorized direct outlets also draw water,
reducing the available flow downstream. Water available from the distributary/secondary
canals is distributed among secondary/sub-secondary following certain rotation
schedule. In the Gadhaiya Branch there is 7-day rotation schedule between the upper
and lower reaches, which the farmers have found effective this year for the whole
command area. In some places where the WUAs are active, there is a rotation among
secondary and tertiary canals, but in many places water is delivered from head to tail in a
sequential manner. In the dry season, water supplies are less and a rotation is followed.

22. Actual irrigated area: All the upper portions of the command area receive
irrigation water in the rainy season, except some tailend reaches where the tertiary
canals and field channels have not been developed. In the lower reach almost one-third
of the area is not irrigated in the rainy season. A rotation schedule in the Gadhaiya
Branch has enabled the farmers to irrigate nearly all the command area.

23. WUAs: Several WUAs were formed at different levels of the canal system to
support construction and maintenance work of the project by mobilizing farmers for
participation and repair and maintenance of canals. Some of these WUAs are still active
for canal MOM, while many are not. WUAs were not formed according to hydrological
boundaries so there is little linkage among them.

24. Maintenance: Responsibility for maintenance below the distributary canal lies
with the WUA/farmers. Some of them are contributing labor and also cash to run the
canal, but many have not even constructed tertiary canals. The pattern varies among
different localities. The role of the BIP and the WUAs should be more clearly spelled out
so that farmers will be mobilized to construct and maintain lower-level canals.

25. Irrigation infrastructure: Silt excluders are needed, in addition to completing the
remaining CAD works. Many cross regulator and head regulator gates need to be improved
and direct outlets should either be removed or gated. The tertiary canals and field channels
should be constructed where needed. Where water shortages will persist, more tube
wells could be developed.

26. Water use efficiency: Water use efficiency is low due to the lack of proper water
allocation, and there is still the common practice of field-to-field irrigation in many places.
Farmers sow a variety of crops at different times in the winter making water management

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

difficult. This can be improved by the development of proper crop planning and
developing and implementing water distribution schedule. Intermediate reservoirs could
be introduced with dual use as fish ponds in order to store water when water is not
needed in rainy season, and then provide irrigation for paddy crops in dry season.

27. Agriculture: Farming is the main occupation in this area and farmers with the
necessary resources are growing sugarcane. Fertilizer is costly and usually not available
in time. Farmers have to compete with produce from India, which is cheap due to highly
subsidized inputs. Extension services are nominal and not effective. Intensive agriculture
support for crop planning and more technical assistance is needed to promote
commercial agriculture.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Attachments

Sample Area Profiles

Sample
No. Reach District Name of Scheme Location Area (ha)
1 Upper Bhaktpur Katunje ISP Katunje 120
2 Upper Kathmandu Koiralakhola ISP Kavresthali 25
3 Upper Lalitpur Tikabhairav Chhampi 27
4 Middle Kavre Palanchowk Ghattekhola ISP Chyamrangbesi 30
5 Middle Makwanpur Raigaun ISP Raigaun 245
6 Lower Rautahat BA\SA\ SR-5 Samanpur 238
7 Lower Rautahat Bhalohiya Branch Ganga Pipra 760
8 Lower Sarlahi LA\ L-1 Haripur 977
9 Lower Sarlahi GA\SR\R3 Murtiya 300

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 1: KATUNJE IRRIGATION PROJECT

SAP 1 IRRIGATION PROFILE UPPER BASIN

Scheme Name: Katunje Irrigation Project
1 Sample Area Name: Katunje Unit : whole scheme Location UTM:342974 E
VDC 3060252 N
2 Scheme 120 ha Sample 120 Percent of 100
Area ha Area ha Scheme
Built yr 1993-94 Rehab yr -
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Uni Qty Description/condition
t
3.1 Gates nr 1 A steel gate at intake with a fixed trash
rack.
3.2 Lined Canal M 1390 Brick lined seepage at different location
3.3 Unlined Canal M 2110 Canal is not in operation d/s of road
crossing for long.
3.4 Branch Channel Nr No branch canals
3.5 Field channel Nr Constructed temporarily
3.6 Road crossing Nr 2 Pipe crossing
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P G M M M M P P P P G G G
availability (good
medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3 Wet Season
(Kharif )
4.3.1 Rice 105
4.3.2 Maize 5
4.3.3 Summer 10
Vegetables
4.4 Dry Season
(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 60
4.4.2 Potato 45
4.4.3 Mustard 5
4.4.4 Winter 10
Vegetables
Fallow
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water Farmers are operating the canal as per need. They manage
management irrigation rotation as they understand mainly for transplanting of
paddy. There is enough water in rainy season. When water supply
pipe was laid along the road, pipe was placed obstructing the canal
and since then area downstream (d/s) of that is not irrigated. WUA
is inactive and defunct for canal O &M. Few old farmers are
operating the canal taking support from VDC and other donors.
5.2 Is water Water is not measured. Farmers bring in available water from the
measured stream.
5.3 How is water There is no specific water allocation rule. Farmers adopt local

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

allocated practice of delivering/getting water from head field to tail field

sequentially, or by mutual agreement. They feel need of ditch rider
for distributing water but they have not implemented.
5.4 Is there a WUA, During the Irrigation Sector Program, WUA was formed as per
how is it paid irrigation policy. But it is inactive now and it is not paid. WUA is not
for able to collect internal OM fund (irrigation service fee) due to lack
of management, record keeping and financial transparency as
informed by key informants.
5.5 Is there any Farmers do not pay ISF. But few farmers contributed labour to
payment of keep canal operating at the upper reach. Farmers got Rs 0.2 M
irrigation contribution from Village Development Committee for canal
service charge maintenance and did that work. Some farmers at the head reach
or any other go to repair the canals if damages occur. Tail enders is not active
charges now. After a water supply pipe has been placed obstructing canal
flow, very little water flows below road crossing.
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NRs/ha
Resources (NRs)

Labour VDC support for canal 20000 1667

repair 0
Materials
Water
manage
ment
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labour 200 10000 8.33
requirements 0
and costs
Materials 20000 16.67
0
Water
manage
ment
Other
Total 300000 25 US$/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions There is need to realign water supply pipe obstructing canal flow at
for improving road crossing; and need of repairing part of lined canal. There is need
the irrigation of gated outlets which may canal or pipe outlets. Urbanization has
infrastructure started at the tail end and that could be reduced from the command
area. Some farmers expect urbanization to develop to the upper
reach as well. But many farmers consider this not likely in the recent
future and they need agriculture for livelihood and so suggest for
support to improve the canal system.
6.2 Suggestions Canal capacity is adequate to carry design discharge to irrigate 120
for improving ha and there is enough flow in the stream during rainy season, but in
the water winter, flow in the stream decrease to about 20l/s and water is not
management adequate for all field. Field channel preferably pipe is needed to
and water deliver water to field plot avoiding field to field irrigation. Canal runs
use along the contour which is above 5 m above the terrace, sprinkler/drip
efficiency irrigation could be used utilizing gravity head of water.
A demarcation of agriculture area should be done and then necessary
support be provided.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAP 1 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 20 WUA members/farmers, 1 Irrigation Engineer

from Division Irrigation Office, Kathmandu of DOI
and 3 Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.05 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated (Ha) 70
2.2 Rainfed (Ha) 50
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 70%
3.2 Owner/leasor 25%
3.3 Leasee 5%
4 What are the conditions of the Clay loam, some farmers got their soils tested at
soils? Have they been tested their own initiation
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 60% good to medium
5.2 Groundwater
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good Only about 60% of land is irrigated and 40% is not
available as required-provide irrigated due to blockage by water supply pipe at
short explanation road crossing
7 Are there labour shortages Labour availability is poor
8 Do farmers use machinery? Tractor (Power tiller), thresher and sprayer are
How could mechanize used.
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if No
so what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation No
systems or experience of new
irrigation? What are the
costs/costs/ha who provided
the funds
11 Have farmers received any Some farmers have got trainings about improved
vocational extension training. cultivation of vegetables provided by District
Where and by whom has Agriculture Development Office of DOA/Govt. of
training been provided? Nepal
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Sallaghari
information on markets, market (local market) and by Agriculture programs
market prices? How do of Radio and TV. It could be improved by providing
farmers market their trainings on marketing systems and post harvest
information: radio, extension processing, especially for off-season vegetables.
workers, private sector? How
the information could be
improved?
13 Describe the post harvest Threshing of paddy and wheat is done by power
activities how and where is threshers and milling in localities.
there any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family A few households are getting remittance from
involved in any subsidiary abroad. It adversely affects labour availability in
activities? Describe. What % agriculture production. At the same time, agri.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

of their income is from other labour is engaged in other construction activities in

activities, Does this affect the the Kathmandu valley.
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers are getting inputs from local markets, but
inputs, is there any the quality of inputs is not satisfactory, especially
constraints problems with the seeds and fertilizers.
source of inputs.
16 Is there any migration from Not significant to date
the area-if so to where and is
this significant.
17 Is there any experience of No
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to Yes, but not in organized way and is not sufficient
credit, where from, is it
sufficient?
19 Is there any crop insurance. No crop insurance, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be
useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
yield and price received (only
main crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Rice 105 4500 30
Maize 5 2500 33
Dry Season (Rabi)
Wheat 60 2400 35
Potato 45 16000 35
21 How much of each crop is
consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 80-85%
Maize 60-65%
Wheat 75-80%
Potato 5-7%
22 Comment on the production. The productivities of crops are slightly higher than
Are these value reasonable the national average and can, further, be
how do they compare with the increased.
statistics
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 52.50 157,500.00
Fertiliser and Compost
manure
Chemical fertilizer 252.00 882,000.00
Compost manure 1575.00 157,500.00
Pesticides LS 63,000.00
Labour person days
Power tiller use (hour) 1680 840,000
Bullock labour - -
Human labour 21525 10,762,500.00
Dry Season Wheat
Seed 72.00 273,600.00

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 168.00 588,000.00
Compost manure 900.00 90,000.00
Pesticides LS 36,000.00
Labour person days

Power tiller use (hour)

Bullock labour
Human labour 8400 4,200,000.00
Dry Season Potato
Seed 765.00 3,060,000.00
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 126.00 441,000.00
Compost manure 675.00 67,500.00
Pesticides LS 27,000.00
Labour person days
Power tiller use (hour) 840 420,000
Bullock labour
Human labour 8550 4,275,000.00
24 Comment on the Inputs-what Higher costs of Chemical fertilizers and
are the constraints. Are the unavailability of required quantity in time. At the
costs reasonable same time, farmers are not quite familiar with the
quality of fertilizers and seeds.
25 Conclusions Due to vicinity to city, many people are doing other
jobs as well, so agriculture is not the major source
of income as return on investment is relatively low
to other sector. Moreover some farmers especially
at the tail reach want to develop urbanization more
income from sale of land.
26 What the reasons farmers are Small land holding (0.05 ha) and further
not achieving the full fragmentation of land is continued. Poor extension
potential-list and describe service and lack of input as well as technology of
high value crop production.
27 What would be possible Trainings should be provided to the farmers
mechanisms to improve crop regarding high production technologies and
production marketing information and systems. Inputs should
be made available in required amount and in time.
Transfer of appropriate technologies should be
imparted in close coordination of line agencies and
other supporting organizations (NGOs).
28 What would be possible The farmers should be trained about the best use
mechanisms to improve water of available irrigation water and crop management.
use Further, micro irrigation technologies campaign
should be organized and implemented in the
feasible areas.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 1: Intake Structure

Photo 2: Brick Masonry Lined Canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Seepage Water

Photo 3: Seepage through Brick lined Canal

Photo 4: View of Canal and Command Area in winter

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 5: A farm family harvesting green vegetable

Figure 1: Layout of Canal and Command area of Katunje Irrigation Sub Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 2: KOIRALEKHOLA IRRIGATION PROJECT

SAP 2 IRRIGATION PROFILE UPPER BASIN

Scheme Name: Koiralekhola Irrigation Project Kavresthali, Kathmandu

1 Sample Area Name : Kavresthali Whole Unit Location
VDC UTM:332858 E
3074790 N
2 Scheme 25ha Sample 25 Percent of 100
Area ha Area ha Scheme
Built yr 100 Rehab yr 2011-13
yrs

3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure

Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 Intake nr 1 A side intake fitted with 0.3m wide steel lift
gate and a trash rack and masonry
diversion weir.
3.2 Lined Canal Km 1 0.30 cm wide 0.30 cm high RCC lined
canal
3.3 Unlined Canal Km 1.5 Operational but not well maintained.
3.4 Branch canals km 0.5 3 numbers,
3.5 Field Channel Outlets are provided but field channels are
not constructed
3.6 Other

4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water availability G,M,P (good G G G G M M P P M G G G
medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3 Wet Season
(Kharif )
4.3.1 Rice 22
4.3.2 Maize 2
4.3.3 Summer 1
Vegetables

4.4 Dry Season

(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 13
4.4.2 Potato 5
4.4.3 Mustard 5
4.4.4 Winter 2
Vegetables
Fallow
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water A needy farmer opens intake gate, bring in water and irrigate his field.
management After that another farmer takes water sequentially from head to tail or
by mutual agreement in general. In summer there is enough flow. As
most of the canal length is lined, there is enough flow and many
outlets can be opened at a time. But in winter, flow decreases so they

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

rotate canal delivery depending upon irrigation need of the crops

meeting demands from head to tail. There is not enough flow for
spring crop, so they grow vegetable crops in small area in spring due
to water shortage. Spring cropping is not a traditional practice.
5.2 Is water Water is not measured..
measured
5.3 How is water No water allocation system. All farmers get water in turn for paddy
allocated transplantation during summer and so in winter season. There is two
old FMIS upstream of this canal and they also distribute water among
each system to manage the need of systems mutually.
5.4 Is there a WUA is formed and has established its office. It is a voluntary
WUA, how is organization.
it paid for
5.5 Is there any It is not collecting ISF. Farmers contribute labour to maintain the
payment of canal. Earlier about 100 person days were required to maintain, now
irrigation after rehab, about 15 labours are sufficient. Due to road construction
service above the canal source, a lot of sand has entered into canal and more
charge or any canal clearance was required this year only.
other charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value TK/ha
Resources (NR)
Labour 15 7500 300
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labour 30 15000 600
requirements
and costs
Materials
Water
management
Other
Total 6 $/ha
6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements
6.1 Suggestions A silt excluder is required to remove silt flow. Branch canals should be
for improving constructed. There is need of gates at each outlet and also to extend
the irrigation lined canals downstream (d/s). D/S protection works at the intake is
infrastructure required.
6.2 Suggestions Farmers have distributed share cards for water distribution. But it has
for improving not been used to allocate water. There is enough land where water
the water could be delivered. Water measurement and allocation system should
management be introduced. Some farmers are installing poly house for tomato
and water use cultivation and doing mushroom cultivation. Farmers are interested to
efficiency construct fish pond if supported.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAP 2 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 16 WUA members/farmers, 1 SDE and 1 AO from
Division Irrigation Office, Kathmandu and 4
National Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.20 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 25
2.2 Rainfed
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 60%
3.2 Owner/leasor 40%
3.3 Leasee
4 What are the conditions of the Loam to Clay loam. Some farmers have got their
soils? Have they been tested soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 90% good
5.2 Groundwater
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good Good, but scarcity during planting/transplanting
available as required-provide time of rice (June/July) because of water is less in
short explanation the source, KoiraleKhola
7 Are there labour shortages Not significant
8 Do farmers use machinery? How Tractor (Power tiller) and thresher are used
could mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if so No
what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation There is one Everest Agriculture Farm located in
systems or experience of new the locality which is producing tomatoes in poly
irrigation? What are the houses made up of permanent metallic structures
costs/costs/ha who provided the as well as bamboos. Irrigation is done by drip
funds system learned from Israel.
11 Have farmers received any Some farmers have got trainings about improved
vocational extension training. cultivation of vegetables and mushroom provided
Where and by whom has training by District Agriculture Development Office of
been provided? DOA/Govt. of Nepal
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Kalimati
information on markets, market market of Kathmandu and by local media,
prices? How do farmers market Agriculture programs of Radio and TV. It could be
their information: radio, extension improved by providing trainings on marketing
workers, private sector? How the systems and post harvest processing,
information could be improved?
13 Describe the post harvest Threshing of paddy and wheat is done by power
activities how and where is there threshers and milling is done in localities.
any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family About 50% of the households are getting
involved in any subsidiary remittance from abroad, but it does not,
activities? Describe. What % of significantly, affect labour availability in agriculture
their income is from other production system.
activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers are getting inputs from local markets. They
inputs, is there any constraints are using organic fertilizers and pesticides only.
problems with the source of
inputs.
16 Is there any migration from the Not significant to date
area-if so to where and is this
significant.
17 Is there any experience of No
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to credit, Yes, the farmers are getting credits from local
where from, is it sufficient? Agriculture Development Bank as well as other
commercial banks and is sufficient
19 Is there any crop insurance. Crop insurance is not done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, yield Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
and price received (only main
crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Rice 22 4000 30
Maize 2 2600 32

Dry Season (Rabi)

Wheat 13 2600 35
Potato 5 12000 35
Mustard 5 800 80
21 How much of each crop is
consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 80-85%
Maize 60-65%
Wheat 75-80%
Potato 5-7%
22 Comment on the production. Are The productivities of rice, maize and wheat are
these value reasonable how d slightly higher than the national average and can,
they compare with the statistics further, be increased.
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 11 44,000
Fertiliser and Compost manure
Organic fertilizer 22 101,200
Compost manure 880 88,000
Organic Pesticides LS 44,000
Labour person days
Power tiller use (hour) 352 176,000
Bullock labour
Human labour 4510 2255,000
Human labour
Dry Season Wheat
Seed 15.60 62,400
Fertiliser
Organic fertilizer 13 59,800

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Compost manure 195 195,000

Organic Pesticides
Labour person days

Power tiller use (hour) 182 91,000

Bullock labour
Human labour 1820 910,000
24 Comment on the Inputs-what are Farmers are getting seeds and organic
the constraints. Are the costs fertilizers/pesticides from the local market at
reasonable reasonable price.
25 Conclusions The command area is very potential for normal and
off-season vegetables. Some farmers are growing
tomatoes in poly houses and getting more income.
They need more support and subsidy for the
construction of poly housesand micro irrigation
technologies
26 What the reasons farmers are not Small land holding (0.2 ha) and further
achieving the full potential-list and fragmentation of land is continued in the area,
describe Urbanization process is taking place,
Poor extension service,
Lack of good quality of seeds,
Lack of knowledge of modern and high production
technologies are the constraints in getting higher
production.
27 What would be possible Trainings should be provided to the farmers
mechanisms to improve crop regarding high production technologies and
production marketing information and systems. Transfer of
appropriate technologies should be imparted in
close coordination of line agencies and other
supporting organizations (NGOs).
28 What would be possible The farmers should be trained about the best use
mechanisms to improve water use of available irrigation water and crop management.
Further, micro irrigation technologies should be
implemented.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Figure 1: Intake Structure (Koirale Irrigation Project)

Figure 2: RCC Line Canal and sand removed from canal (KIP)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Figure 3 Wheat and Potato Cultivation below Canal (KIP)

Figure 4: Wheat Cultivation in the Command Area (KIP)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Poly House for Vegetable Farming

Figure 5: Poly House for Vegetable farming

Figure 6: Location Map of Koiralekhola Irrigation Subproject.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 3: TIKABHAIRAV KHELBU KUCHHABU SUB PROJECT

SAP 3 IRRIGATION PROFILE

Scheme Name: Tikabhairav Khelbu Kuchhabu Irrigation Sub Project

1 Sample Area Name: Chhampi Whole Unit Location: UTM
VDC
2 Schem 27 ha Sample 27 Percent of 100
e Area Area ha Scheme
ha
Built yr Age Rehab yr 2011-13
old
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Uni Qty Description/condition
t
3.1 Intake nr 1 Orifice side intake in operation
3.2 Lined Canal M 415 Newly constructed
3.3 Pipe canal m 115 Operational
3.4 Unlined Canal m 2670 Old earthen canal, there is seepage
through canal.
3.5 Branch Channel Short small channels have been made at
the outlets
3.6 Field channel Not constructed
3.6 Other
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P G G G G G M M M M G G G
availability (good
medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Ha
Key
Cropping
4.3 Wet Season
(Kharif )
4.3.1 Rice 22
4.3.2 Maize 2
4.3.3 Summer 1
Vegetables

4.4 Dry Season

(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 13
4.4.2 Potato 5
4.4.3 Mustard 5
4.4.4 Winter 2
Vegetables
Fallow
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current A dhalpa is hired to look after the canal. Farmers are operating the
water canal as per their need. They start irrigating from upstream to
management downstream fields both along the main canal and among the fields
from each outlet. Upper reach starts planting early and tail reach
transplants late almost about 2- 3 weeks. Few key WUA members

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

are actively caring canal O &M especially for maintaining the earthen
canal. Stream flow is high during rainy season so there is enough
water then and in winter water requirement is low, so water is
adequate. In spring there is less water and farmers grow crops in less
area as well. To expand cropped area water saving methods should
eb adopted.
5.2 Is water Water is not measured. Farmers bring in available water from the
measured stream.
5.3 How is water There is no specific water allocation rule. The farmers adopt local
allocated practice of delivering/getting water opening outlets sequentially from
head reach to tail end and similarly among each outlet command area
(fields) too from upper field to lower field plot sequentially, or by
mutual agreement. They have hired ditch rider who help for
distributing water.
5.4 Is there a Now a WUA was formed and registered as per the irrigation policy.
WUA, how is WUA works voluntarily to serve fellow farmers and to themselves.
it paid for
5.5 Is there any Farmers do not pay ISF in cash. They pay grains at the rate of 70
payment of kg/has wage for the dhalpa. There are four stone crushers at the
irrigation intake site who pay Rs 5000/month as wage to the Dhalpa for
service cleaning the canal. Farmers work together to repair the canals each
charge or year.
any other
charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NRs/ha
Resources (NRs)

Labour 300 15000 5555

0
Materials
Water
manageme
nt
Other
5.7 Estimated Labour 500 25000 9259
OM 0
requirements
and costs
Materials 10000 3703
0
Water
manageme
nt
Other
Total 350000 129
US$/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions There is need to construct other 8 super passages and line critical
for improving canal length to ease safe operation of the canal and to reduce
the irrigation seepage loss to provide water to the tail of canal. There is need of
infrastructure gated outlets which could be even pipe outlets. Field channels or
preferably pipes are needed to deliver water to field plot.
Ponds/storage tanks could be constructed to store water during

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

surplus time for fish farming in summer and delivering water in dry
season.
6.2 Suggestions Farmers should be supported to develop crop planning and matching
for improving water distribution schedule. Training on water management should be
the water given shown how field channels can save water loss. The canal runs
management along the contour higher above most fields in the terrace, so
and water sprinkler/drip irrigation could be used utilizing gravity head of water.
use Adoption of sprinkler/drip will support to extend irrigation service to
efficiency upland field which is not currently being irrigated.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAP 3 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 26 WUA members/farmers, and 4 National
Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.15 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 27
2.2 Rainfed
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 50%
3.2 Owner/leasor 50%
4 What are the conditions of the Loam to Clay loam. Some farmers have got their
soils? Have they been tested soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 95% good
5.2 Groundwater
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good Good, but scarcity during March/April because of
available as required-provide water is less in the source, Kuchhabu Khola
short explanation
7 Are there labour shortages Not significant
8 Do farmers use machinery? How Tractor (Power tiller) and thresher are used
could mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if so No
what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation No
systems or experience of new
irrigation? What are the
costs/costs/ha who provided the
funds
11 Have farmers received any Some farmers have got trainings about improved
vocational extension training. cultivation of vegetables and mushroom provided
Where and by whom has training by District Agriculture Development Office of
been provided? DOA/Govt. of Nepal
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Lagankhel
information on markets, market market of Lalitpur, local Cooperative Society and
prices? How do farmers market by local media and, Agriculture programs of Radio
their information: radio, extension and TV. Market information can be improved by
workers, private sector? How the net working with wholesale market of Kalimati
information could be improved? without any middleman.
13 Describe the post harvest Threshing of paddy and wheat is done by power
activities how and where is there threshers and milling is done in localities.
any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family About 10% of the households are getting
involved in any subsidiary remittance from abroad and govt. pension, but it
activities? Describe. What % of does not, significantly, affect labour availability in
their income is from other agriculture production system.
activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers are getting inputs from local markets and
inputs, is there any constraints Cooperative Society. Inputs are not available in
problems with the source of time and are costly
inputs.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

16 Is there any migration from the Not significant to date

area-if so to where and is this
significant.
17 Is there any experience of No
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to credit, Yes, the farmers are getting credits from local
where from, is it sufficient? Cooperative Society, Agriculture Development
Bank as well as other commercial banks and is
sufficient
19 Is there any crop insurance. Crop insurance is not done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, yield Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
and price received (only main
crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Rice 24 3500 33
Maize 3 2100 30

Dry Season (Rabi)

Wheat 19 2000 28
Potato 5 14000 35
Mustard 3 700 80

21 How much of each crop is

consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 80-85%
Maize 60-65%
Wheat 75-80%
Potato 5-7%
22 Comment on the production. Are The productivities of rice, maize and wheat are
these value reasonable how d slightly higher than the national average and can,
they compare with the statistics further, be increased with good water management
and high production technologies of agriculture
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 12 48,000
Fertiliser and Compost manure
Chemical fertilizer 2.4 9,120
Compost manure 260 26,000
Pesticides LS 36,000
Labour person days
Power tiller use (hour) 384 192,000
Bullock labour
Human labour 4920 2,460,000
Dry Season Wheat
Seed 22.80 91,200
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 38 144,400
Compost manure 285 28,500

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Pesticides
Labour person days

Power tiller use (hour) 266 133,000

Bullock labour
Human labour 2660 1,330,000
24 Comment on the Inputs-what are Farmers are getting seeds and chemical
the constraints. Are the costs fertilizers/pesticides from the local market. The
reasonable price of inputs is higher.
25 Conclusions The command area is very potential for normal and
off-season vegetables. Some farmers are growing
tomatoes in poly houses and getting more income.
They need more support and subsidy for the
construction of poly houses and micro irrigation
technologies
26 What the reasons farmers are not Small land holding (0.15 ha) and further
achieving the full potential-list and fragmentation of land is continued in the area,
describe Urbanization process is taking place,
Poor extension service,
Lack of good quality of seeds, and
Lack of knowledge of modern and high production
technologies are the constraints in getting higher
production.
27 What would be possible Trainings should be provided to the farmers
mechanisms to improve crop regarding high production technologies and
production marketing information and systems. Transfer of
appropriate technologies should be imparted in
close coordination of line agencies and other
supporting organizations (NGOs).
28 What would be possible The farmers should be trained about the best use
mechanisms to improve water use of available irrigation water and crop management.
Further, micro irrigation technologies should be
implemented.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 1: De-siltation Basin d/s of intake

Photo 2: RCC Lined Canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Pipe Outlet

Photo 3: A 10 cm HDPE pipe inserted in the wall as pipe outlet

Photo 4: Earthen Canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 5: View of Command area

Photo 6: A poly house farmer picking tomato at Chhampi VDC

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Figure 1: Location Map of Tikabhairav KK Irrigation Subproject.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 4: GHATTEKHOLA IRRIGATION PROJECT

SAP 4 IRRIGATION PROFILE
Scheme Name: Ghattekhola Irrigation Project
1 Sample Area Name Chyangranbesi Main canal 1400 m Location
VDC UTM:346768.51 E
3041960.06 N
2 Scheme 30 ha Sample 30 Per cent 100
Area ha Area ha of
Scheme
Built yr. 1994/95 Rehab yr.
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 Intake nr 1 A side intake is washed away. Now
temporary check is erected by piling
stone, mud & bush to divert the flow.
3.2 Lined Canal m 50
3.3 Unlined Canal M 1350 Damaged at places by silt deposit
3.4 pipe Channel M 80 HDPE pipe placed at landslide ( tail
side)
3.5 Pipe branch channel M 100 A 2” dia HDPE Pipe has been laid to
small manholes/ distribution box
through which water is supplied to both
side field.
3.6 Cross drainage structures Nr 7
3.7 Other Micro Sprinkler is used to irrigate field
vegetable crops
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P (good G G M M M M M M G G G G
availability medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3 Wet Season
(Kharif )
4.3.1 Rice 17
4.3.2 Maize 12
4.3.3 Summer 1
Vegetables
4.3.4 Cucurbits 1
4.4 Dry Season
(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 13
4.4.2 Potato 13
4.4.3 Mustard 1
4.4.4 Winter 3
Vegetables

5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water WUA was formed during construction. WUA looks after the system,
management but farmers divert water and apply one after another from head to tail
in main canal as well as branch. Farmers manage water distribution
and there is canal operation rule. A ditch rider has not been hired

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

there.
5.2 Is water No
measured
5.3 How is water A head reach farmer irrigates his field for transplanting and then next
allocated farmer below his plot will irrigate and the same pattern is followed
along the main canal and also in the branch canal.
They distribute water among plots by discussing among farmers in
each branch. Water is distributed accordingly in the branches. WUA
interferes occasionally only when there is acute problem in water
distribution.
5.4 Is there a WUA, There is a WUA to manage the canal system. WUA’s role is to
how is it paid for mobilize labours for maintenance two times a year. Farmers
contribute labour but not cash. WUA works voluntarily.
5.5 Is there any No ISF collection. Farmers contribute labour for canal repair and
payment of maintenance
irrigation service
charge or any
other charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NR/ha
Resources (NR)
Labour 80 person day 32000 1660
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labour 200 person day 80000 2667
requirements
and costs
Materials 50000 50000 1667
Water
management
Other
Total 45 $/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions for A simple side Intake needs to be constructed and a silt excluder
improving the should also be provided to minimize silt load in the canal. HDPE pipe
irrigation are requested to be placed in the main canal to control seepage due
infrastructure to pervious soil. Lining is desirable to reduce excessive seepage.
Water is delivered by flowing water through the stream to tail portion
to replace that practice, about 300 m long branch pipe canal is
needed.
6.2 Suggestions for Soil is very pervious gravel mixed with loamy sand. So surface
improving the irrigation method is not suitable there. Few farmers are using small
water sprinkler irrigation kits for small area. This should be promoted
management throughout the command area to improve water use efficiency and to
and water use support increased food production.
efficiency And drip irrigation could be promoted especially for tomato
cultivation in poly-house. Farmers are interested to dig plastic ponds
and raise fish in the summer and winter. That water can be delivered
for irrigation in the spring.

WUA get their account audited and renews registration. WUA is

working to mobilize labours for canal maintenance, but not handling

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

water distribution matter. They need to be supported/trained to

measure water and how could water be efficiently used. A ditch rider
is needed to operate the canal and do minor repair maintenance
works which farmers do agree to contribute to. They should be
assisted in strengthening WUA and canal operation maintenance
and modernization. Farmers are willing to get reliable water delivery
and to pay ISF.
This irrigation scheme has changed the uplands field where only
maize and millet could be cultivated under rain fed condition is
converted to low land paddy field. Now they are thrilled with the
achievement and expressed desire to participate in all sorts of
agriculture improvement works including micro-irrigation expansion
and high value organic vegetable cultivation (which they are doing to
an extent).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAP 4 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 31 WUA members/farmers, 1 Irrigation Engineer

from Division Irrigation Office, Dhulikhel of DOI and
3 Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex A)
2 Land Holding (ha) Less than 0.05 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 30
2.2 Rainfed
3 Tenure
3 Owner/farmer 100%
Owner/leasor
Leasee
4 What are the conditions of the Sandy loam to Clay loam with small gravels. Highly
soils? Have they been tested pervious. soils not tested
Source of Irrigation (put % of Stream
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
Surface 100% good
Groundwater 0
Other-specify
5 Is the irrigation provided good Good, but scarcity during spring season. It may be
available as required-provide short during transplanting of rice (May/June) if rain
short explanation is delayed
6, Are there labour shortages No much pronounced.
7 Do farmers use machinery? Farm machinery has not been introduced here.
How could mechanize Small land holdings. They need some support for
power tillers.
8 Do farmers buy or sell water if No
so what is the cost
9 Are there any new irrigation A few farmers are using some Sprinklers using
systems or experience of new gravity head. They find it is water efficient and
irrigation? What are the good for crop production. Farmers bought pipe and
costs/costs/ha who provided nozzle.
the funds
11 Have farmers received any Some farmers have got trainings about seed
vocational extension training. production and vegetables production provided by
Where and by whom has District Agriculture Development Office of
training been provided? DOA/Govt. of Nepal
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Khopasi
information on markets, market (Nearby market) and by Agriculture
market prices? How do programs of Radio and TV. It could be improved by
farmers market their providing trainings on marketing systems and
information: radio, extension techniques and post-harvest processing, especially
workers, private sector? How for off-season vegetables.
the information could be
improved?
13 Describe the post-harvest Local and traditional methods of threshing. Milling
activities how and where is is done in localities.
there any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family A few households are getting remittance from
involved in any subsidiary abroad. It adversely affects labour availability in
activities? Describe. What % agriculture production.
of their income is from other
activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers get seeds from nearby market (Khopasi).
inputs, is there any The sources of high yielding varieties of crops are
constraints problems with the not reliable. They do not use fertilizers and
source of inputs. pesticides.
16 Is there any migration from No
the area-if so to where and is
this significant.
17 Is there any experience of No
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to Yes, but not in organized way and is not sufficient.
credit, where from, is it They have a saving and credit cooperative.
sufficient? Interest is high and credit is not sufficient.
19 Is there any crop insurance. No crop insurance, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be
useful?
10 Key Crops Area harvested, Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
yield and price received (only
main crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Rice 27 2900 35
Maize 29 2800 30

Dry Season (Rabi)

Wheat 12 2700 30
Potato 15 14000 35

How much of each crop is

consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 75-80%
Maize 70-75%
Wheat 65-70%
Potato 8-10%
Comment on the production. Productivity is lower than the national average.
Are these value reasonable Farmers are using compost manure (cow dung
how do they compare with the and slurry of bio-gas plants) and not using
statistics chemical fertilizers as these are costly and not
available in time.
11 Inputs/ha Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
11.1 Wet Season Rice
11.1.1 Seed 13.50 47,250
11.1.2 Fertiliser and Compost
manure
Chemical fertilizer - -
Compost manure 810.00 81,000
11.1.3 Pesticides - -
11.1.4 Labour person days
Bullock labour 432 259,200
Human labour 3510 1,755,000
11.2 Wet Season Maize
11.2.1 Seed 5.80 22,040
11.2.2 Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer - -
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Compost manure 810.00 81,000

11.2.3 Pesticides - -
11.2.4 Labour person days
Bullock labour 406 243,600
Human labour 3625 1,812,500
11.3 Dry Season Wheat
11.3.1 Seed 14.40 548,720
11.3.2 Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer - -
Compost manure 810.00 81,000
11.3.3 Pesticides - -
11.3.4 Labour person days

Bullock labour 168 100,800

Human labour 1440 720,000
11.4 Dry Season Potato
11.4.1 Seed 255.00
11.4.2 Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer - -
Compost manure 810.00 81,000
11.4.3 Pesticides - -
11.4.4 Labour person days
Bullock labour 240 144,000
Human labour 2250 1,125,000
11.5 Comment on the Inputs-what Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
are the constraints. Are the available as much as required in time. Farmers are
costs reasonable doing organic agriculture, but the price of produces
is not reasonable.
12 Conclusions All farmers are raising livestock @ (3-4 heads) per
household which provide compost manure and is
sustainable and eco-friendly system of agriculture.
Farmers should get some additional benefits of
organic agriculture assured by the government.
Trainings should be provided regarding organic
cultivation of crops, especially vegetables in poly
houses made up of bamboos and plastic sheets.
Certification of organic cultivation should be done
so as to get higher price.
12.1 What the reasons farmers are Farmers are not using chemical fertilizers and high
not achieving the full production technologies of crops and thus not
potential-list and describe achieving full potential of productivities. They are
using old varieties of crops which should be
replaced by the latest high yielding varieties
released by NARC.
12.2 What would be possible Trainings should be provided to the farmers
mechanisms to improve crop regarding high production technologies,
production postharvest and processing, and marketing
information and systems. Inputs should be made
available in required amount and in time.
Production of off-season vegetables in poly houses
(made up of bamboos and plastic sheet) should be
encouraged in organized ways.
12.3 What would be possible Use of sprinklers drips would be very useful in
mechanisms to improve water improving water use and poly sheet lined tanks
use could be constructed at upstream to store water for
fish farming and irrigation supply in spring.
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 1: A young farmer participating in Focus Group Discussion

Photo 2: Irrigated crops at the command area

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 3: Tomato cultivation in Poly house in a branch canal command area

Photo 4: Farmer distributing water through distribution box for pipe branch canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 5: WUA Chairman clearing an opening of the branch canal

Photo 6: View of mustard and potato farming in the command area

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 7: View of cauliflower farming in the command area

Figure 1: Location Map of Ghattekulo Irrigation Subproject

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 5: RAIGAUN IRRIGATION PROJECT

SAP 5 IRRIGATION PROFILE
Scheme Name: Raigaun Irrigation Project
1 Sample Raigaun Makawanpur Tertiary Unit Location UTM:
Area Whole system 346996.45 E
Name 3017969.84 N
2 Scheme 245ha Sample 245 Percent of 100%
Area ha Area ha Scheme
Built yr 1977 Rehab yr 1997 2007
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 Intake nr 1 Steel lift gate 1m wide. Approach
channel to abstract water during dry
season.
3.2 Lined Canal Km 6.45 Part stone masonry and part RCC
lining
3.3 Unlined Canal km 0.55
3.4 Branch Channel nr 26 26 # pipe outlets of 6-8” dia. Of about
1 km long
3.5 Field channels nr Few Constructed temporarily for winter
crop, Field to field irrigation practiced
in summer .
3.6 Other

4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P (good G G G G G M M M G G G G
availability medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3.1 Main Rice 225
4.3.2 Spring Rice 15
4.3.3 Maize 15
4.3.4 Summer 5
Vegetables
4.4 Dry Season
(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 15
4.4.2 Potato 15
4.4.3 Mustard 150
4.4.4 Lentil 50
4.4.5 Winter 5
Vegetables
4.4.6 Maize 10
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water Farmers take water as they need. There is no water scarcity in the
management source River Bagmati. They need to construct approach channel
to divert water to the inlet. There is sufficient water in for winter
crops. In spring when water supply is reduced, maize is planted at
upper reach only. Farmers manage water distribution mutually
taking water from all outlets irrigating from head reach onwards to
tail both in main canal as well as in branch channel command
area. In normal year, water is not constraint at the source.
5.2 Is water Water is not measured. Farmers estimate full supply depth is 80
Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 45
Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

measured cm and even in dry season they bring water about 70-75 cm deep.
5.3 How is water There is no water allocation system. Farmers bring water in the
allocated irrigation season and start applying from head to tail both in main
canal as well within branches. When water becomes scarce, then
rotation is applied esp. to take water to the tail.
5.4 Is there a There is WUA to take care of the system maintenance. WUA
WUA, how is it executives work voluntarily. As of his good work same Chairman
paid for is working since 1995. There are 2 ditch riders who collect 15 kg
grain/ha from each farmer as their wage.
5.5 Is there any WUA collects NRs 600/ha for repair works mainly to clean
payment of approach/main canal (150 m long) using bulldozer. They collect
irrigation 10kg/ hh to pay to the two ditch-riders who take care of the
service charge approach and main canal. Besides famers pay NRs 20/HH for
or any other renewal of membership.
charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value
Resources (NR) NRs/ha
Labour 385 Nr @ 1 labor/HH 150000 610
Materials Bulldozer 100000 400
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labour 385 @1 person/HH 150000 610
requirements
and costs
Materials Bulldozer 100000 400
Water
management
Other 100000
Total 350,000
6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements
6.1 Suggestions for Repair of canals breached at the tail Bodegaun village. A stream
improving the passes though approach canal and they want covered canal of
irrigation about 450 m. Outlets are not gated and gates need to be provided
infrastructure to control water delivery. In ward No. 3 they want a 8” HDP to be
laid 550 m long to irrigate a high patch that passes through low
land. And a 10 m long inverted siphon in Majhgaun village.
They also are willing to install 3 pump sets to irrigate upland area
near by the canal.
6.2 Suggestions for They need support in water distribution management. WUA have
improving the already decided to hire additional ditch-riders, but that need to be
water implemented. Another requirement is crop planning and water
management allocation accordingly. Soil is generally medium to coarse, so
and water use farmers need to be trained to prepare land and irrigate
efficiency accordingly.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 46

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAP 5 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Raigaun Irrigation Project, Raigaun VDC, Makwanpur District

Date: 20 December 2013

Farmers/Participants 26 WUA members/farmers,

2 staffs from Division Irrigation Office, Hetauda,
and
4 National Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.35 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 225
2.2 Rainfed 20
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 95%
3.2 Owner/leasor 5%
3.3 Leasee
4 What are the conditions of the Sandy loam to Clay loam. Soils not tested
soils? Have they been tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 90% good
5.2 Groundwater
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good Good, but scarcity during planting/transplanting
available as required-provide time of paddy (May/June)
short explanation
7 Are there labour shortages No
8 Do farmers use machinery? Tractor and thresher are used. Mechanization has
How could mechanize not been done because of small land holding
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if No
so what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation No
systems or experience of new
irrigation? What are the
costs/costs/ha who provided
the funds
11 Have farmers received any Some farmers have got minikits of improved seeds
vocational extension training. of vegetables and trainings about crop production
Where and by whom has and vegetables production provided by District
training been provided? Agriculture Development Office of DOA/Govt. of
Nepal
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Hetauda
information on markets, market (District Head Quarter) and Karmaiya, and
market prices? How do local media, Agriculture programs of Radio and
farmers market their TV. It can be improved by providing trainings on
information: radio, extension marketing systems
workers, private sector? How
the information could be
improved?
13 Describe the post harvest Thresher and local and traditional methods of
activities how and where is threshing. Milling is done in localities.
there any processing.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 47

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

14 Are the farmers or their family About 50% of the households are getting
involved in any subsidiary remittance from abroad. It does not significantly
activities? Describe. What % affect labour availability in agriculture production to
of their income is from other date. However, the cost of labour is increasing.
activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers get inputs from nearby market (Phaparbari
inputs, is there any and Hetauda). The sources of high yielding
constraints problems with the varieties of crops and fertilizers are not reliable.
source of inputs.
16 Is there any migration from No
the area-if so to where and is
this significant.
17 Is there any experience of No
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to Credit is not available from any society/bank
credit, where from, is it
sufficient?
19 Is there any crop insurance. Crop insurance is not done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be
useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
yield and price received (only
main crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Rice 225 4200 20
Maize 15 1800 20
Dry Season (Rabi)
Wheat 15 1900 22
Potato 15 11000 40
Mustard 150 1200 60
Lentil 50 1200 80
21 How much of each crop is
consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 65-70%
Maize 60-65%
Wheat 30-40%
Potato 6-9%
22 Comment on the production.
Are these value reasonable
how d they compare with the
statistics
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 112 448,000
Fertiliser and Compost
manure
Chemical fertilizer
Compost manure 9,000 900,000
Pesticides
Labour person days
Tractor use (hour) 1575 2,047,500
Bullock labour 1350 675,000

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 48

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Human labour 27,000 9,450,000

Dry Season Wheat
Seed 18 63,000
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer
Compost manure 225 22,500
Pesticides
Labour person days
Tractor use (hour) 75 97,500
Bullock labour 75 57,000
Human labour 1710 855,000
Dry Season Mustard
Seed 15 120,000
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer
Compost manure 2250 225000
Pesticides
Labour person days
Tractor use (hour) 600 780,000
Bullock labour 750 375,000
Human labour 12000 6,000,000
24 Comment on the Inputs-what Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
are the constraints. Are the available as much as required in time. Farmers are
costs reasonable using compost manure and bio-gas slurry instead
of chemical fertilizers
25 Conclusions All farmers are raising livestock which provide
compost manure and slurry of bio-gas. About 95%
of households are having bio-gas plants. The
productivity can be increased with some additional
use of chemical fertilizers.
26 What the reasons farmers are Farmers are least using chemical fertilizers and not
not achieving the full using high production technologies of crops and
potential-list and describe thus not achieving full potential of productivities.
They are using old varieties of crops which should
be replaced by the latest high yielding varieties
released by NARC.
27 What would be possible Trainings should be provided to the farmers
mechanisms to improve crop regarding high production technologies, post-
production harvest and processing, and marketing information
and systems. Inputs should be made available in
required amount and in time. Area under spring
paddy should be increased to increase cropping
intensity and per unit area productivity. Production
of off-season vegetables should be encouraged in
organized ways.
28 What would be possible Irrigation canals should be improved and repaired,
mechanisms to improve water Water management and crop management
use trainings should be provided

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 49

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 1: Upstream face of intake

Photo 2: Stone Masonry Lined Canal

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 50

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Photo 3: A 6-inch Pipe Outlet

Side wall damaged

Photo 4: A Lined Canal portion with damaged side wall

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 51

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

Figure 1: Layout of Canal alignment and the boundary of command area

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 52

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 8 – Sample Area Profiles

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 6: BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT

LAXIMPUR SECONDARY CANAL

SAP 6 IRRIGATION PROFILE

Scheme Name: Bagmati Irrigation Project

1 Sample Area Name Laxmipur Secondary Unit: LA/L1 Location UTM: 359751 E
Branch Secondary canal 2990728 N
2 Scheme 977ha Sample 125 ha Percent 100 %
Area ha Area ha
Built yr. Rehab yr.
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty. Description/condition
3.1 HR nr 1 Steel lift gate 1m wide
3.2 Lined Canal m 100 Functional
3.3 Unlined Canal km 7.2 Earthen canal functioning well
3.4 Sub Secondary Canal nr 5 5 number of sub secondary canals are
developed
3.5 Tertiary Canal Not developed
3.6 Field canal Not developed
Tube wells
Other
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P G G G G M M P P P G G G
availability (good
medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3 Wet Season
(Kharif )
4.3.1 Monsoon Paddy 75
4.3.2 Early Paddy 25
4.3.3 Maize 6
4.3.4 Summer 4
Vegetables
4.4 Dry Season
(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 30
4.4.2 Sugarcane 40
4.4.3 Lentil 25
4.4.4 Mustard 10
4.4.5 Potato 6
4.4.6 Winter Maize 4
4.4.7 Winter 5
Vegetables
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water Farmers starts watering from head reach to the tail drawing water
management available in the canal. Farmers in forest area i.e. upstream of Laxmipur
branch canal, take water through un gated pipe inlets with no control
reducing the supply into the canal. There is no system of water distribution in
the branch canal and this secondary. All U/S outlets and HRs draw water as
much as they need water and left over water flows down. When the tail
reach farmers demand BIP field staffs deliver water to them.
Within the secondary canal farmers rotate water delivery sequentially from
Head to tail. This area is at the upstream, so there is no scarcity of water for
rice crop in summer whereas for wheat crop there is some scarce of water.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 53

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

5.2 Is water Water is not measured.

measured
5.3 How is water There is no water allocation rule between reaches of the branch canal and
allocated among the farmers within the secondary. H ence tail portion get less water
due to no water allocation system
5.4 Is there a W UA, Few WUAs have been formed in this portion of distributary canal. WUA work
how is it paid for voluntarily.
5.5 Is there any They do not collect ISF.
payment of
irrigation service
charge or any
other charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NR/ha
Resources (NR)
Labor 100 50000
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labor 200 100000
requirements
and costs
Materials 150000
Water
management
Other
Total 250000 200 $/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions for There is need to develop tertiary level canal with control structures. Also field
improving the channel and ditches are felt needed for better water management. Besides
irrigation gates should be installed on direct outlets of branch and secondary canal.
infrastructure These canals also require maintenance.
6.2 Suggestions for Rotational distribution should be implemented and practice of water
Improving the measurement shall be introduced to motivate for constructing tertiary and
water management field channels to use water efficiently. Development of crop planning on
and water use blocks to facilitate smooth canal operation and irrigation
efficiency scheduling.Knowledge of water requirement and water distribution
schedule should be provided to WUAs. Trainings to water users on
improved farming practice and matching irrigation schedule.
WUA seeks role to play and seems to be energetic. WUA should be
involved in canal operation. Major problem is uncontrolled water withdrawal
by farmers from new reclaimed forest land. They seek either to legalize or
prevent them to abstract water.
Farmers seek support for land leveling and on irrigation method (they have
seen at other place)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 54

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAP 6 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 25 WUA members/farmers/canal operator, 2

Senior Divisional Engineers from BIP of DOI
and 4 National
1 Names Consultants
(Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.5 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 125 ha
2.2 Rain fed
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 85%
3.2 Owner/leaser 10%
3.3 Leasee 5%
4 What are the conditions of the Clay loam 70 % and Sandy loam 30%
soils? Have they been tested Some farmers have got their soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of each type and
comment if good/fair/poor)

5.1 Surface 95% fair

5.2 Groundwater 5% good
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good available as During the Monsoon, paddy is supplemented by
required-provide short explanation Laxmipur Branch Canal and during winter season
there is not adequate water flow in the canal
7 Are there labor shortages No serious problem
8 Do farmers use machinery? How could Tractors, threshers and sprayers are used
mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if so No
what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation systems or Insignificant use of Ground water
experience of new irrigation? W hat are the Total cost of STW is NRs. 60,000 to 65,000
costs/costs/ha who provided the funds Cost per Ha is about NRs 20,000 to 22,000
Operation cost per hour is NRs. 250 to 300
Privately operated
11 Have farmers received any vocational Some Leader Farmers Groups have been
extension training. Where and by whom has organized by District Agriculture Development
training been provided? Office, Sarlahi for crop production training

12 Do farmers receive any information on Farmers get market information from Haripur local
markets, market prices? How do farmers market center and by local media. It could be
market their information: radio, extension improved by providing trainings on marketing
workers, private sector? How the information systems and techniques.
could be improved?

13 Describe the post-harvest activities how and Threshers are used. Milling is done in localities.
where are there any processing.

14 Are the farmers or their family involved in any 10 to 12 % of households are getting
subsidiary activities? Describe. What % of their remittance from abroad. It has not serious effects
income is from other activities, Does this affect on labor availability in agriculture production.
the agriculture production?

15 Where do the farmers obtain inputs, is there Famers get inputs from nearby market Haripur
any constraints problems with the source of and Malangwa. Fertilizers are not timely
inputs. available and the quality of fertilizers is not
satisfactory

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 55

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

16 Is there any migration from the area-if so to No

where and is this significant.

17 Is there any experience of different farming Not significant

systems including contract farming,
agribusiness.

18 Do farmers have access to credit,where from, is Yes, Agriculture Development Bank and other
it sufficient? commercial banks provide credit as per demand.
Funding is sufficient, but the interest rate of
agriculture is higher.
19 Is there any crop insurance. Would crop No crop insurance is done, but it would be helpful
insurance be useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, yield and price Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
received (only main crops)

Wet Season (Kharif )

Monsoon Paddy 75 4200 28
Spring Paddy 25 3200 27

Dry Season (Rabi)

Wheat 30 2400 30
Sugarcane 40 60000 4.81
Lentil 25 800 70
Mustard 10 700 80

21 How much of each crop is consumed -enter crop

and %'
Rice 25-30%
Wheat 5-10%
Potato/vegetables 1-2%
22 Comment on the production. Are these value Productivity is slightly higher than the national
reasonable how’d they compare with the average and the productivity can be increased if
statistics irrigation water is supplied as and when required.
It is tail end of Laxmipur Branch and irrigation
23 Inputs water is (quintal)
Qty. inadequate Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 37.50 131,250
Fertilizer and Compost manure
Chemical fertilizer 225 810,000
Compost manure 1125 112,500
Pesticides LS 187,500
Labor person days
Tractor use hour 525 472,500
Bullock pair 450 157,500
Human labor 9375 3,281,250
Dry Season W heat
Seed 36 144,000
Fertilizer
Chemical fertilizer 90 324,000
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 15,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 150 135,000
Bullock labour 150 75,000
Human labour 3420 1,197,000
Dry Season Sugarcane

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 56

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Seed 1800 865,800

Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 216 777,600
Compost manure
Pesticides 120,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 240 216,000
Bullock pair 240 120,000
Human labour
24 Comment on the Inputs-what are Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
the constraints. Are the costs reasonable available as much as required in time. The
quality of seeds and fertilizers is not reliable
25 Conclusions The command area is highly potential for crop
production, sugarcane and commercial vegetables
production, if timely and adequate irrigation with
other agriculture inputs are provided. The
productivity can be increased
26 What the reasons farmers are not achieving the Inadequate irrigation and not timely,
full potential-list and describe Lack of high yielding varieties of crops
Lack of quality fertilizers
Lack of efficient extension services and
technologies
Low prices of products, and
27 What would be possible mechanisms to Not
Landwell organized market
consolidation system
for mechanization and
improve crop production commercialization, Cooperative/community farming,
Timely availability of quality fertilizers and seeds
Easily availability of soft loan , Better marketing of
produces, Efficient and effective extension services,
and Higher incentives for skilled/semi
skilled/unskilled labour work force

28 What would be possible Construction of tertiary canals and optimization

mechanisms to improve water use use of irrigation water

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 57

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Location Map of Secondary Canal of

Laxmipur Branch Canal in Bagmati Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 58

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE SAP 7: BIP GADHAIYA SECONDARY

SAP 7 IRRIGATION PROFILE
Date: 23-12-2013

Scheme Name: Bagmati Irrigation Project

1 Sample Area Name: Gadhaiya Secondary Unit Location UTM:
Branch secondary GA-SR-3 GA SR-3 350670E & 2989017N
2 Scheme 238ha Sample 238ha Percent of 100
Area ha Area ha Scheme
Built yr Rehab yr 2010/2011
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 HR/CR Nr 1 Steel lift gate 1.5 m wide.
3.2 Lined Canal Km 0.72
3.3 Unlined Canal Km 1.83
3.4 Tertiary Canal Nr 5 5 outlets in secondary canal are
constructed for the tertiary canal.
Farmers have developed tertiary
canals to draw water from the unit
outlet to irrigate their lands. The
length of developed tertiaries T1, T2
and T3 are 120, 85, 575 m at left side
and 275 m at right side. There is no
permanent outlet at tertiary. Farmers
cut canal bank to irrigate their land.
3.5 Field Channel Few farmers made field channel and
others Irrigate lands by flowing water
from one field plot to another.
3.6 Tube-wells
Other
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P (good G G G G G G G G G G G G
availability medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Ha
Key Cropping
4.3.1 Monsoon Paddy 45
4.3.2 Summer Paddy 20
4.3.3 Maize 5
4.3.4 Summer 5
Vegetables
4.4 Dry Season
(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 20
4.4.2 Sugarcane 35
4.4.3 Lentil 15
4.4.4 Mustard 10
4.4.5 Potato 5
4.4.6 Winter Maize 5
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water In the Gadhaiya branch they have adopted water distribution
management schedule: 7 days for upper part and another 7 days for lower part
taking Murtiya Sripur area (middle of the branch canal) as dividing

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 59

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

point. This secondary canals delivers water to tertiaries on rotation

sequentially from head to tail.
There is enough water in rainy season and winter and farmers get
water on their need. They request BIP field staff for water in winter
and spring. There are number of direct outlets that irrigate newly
reclaimed land at upstream, this reduces the flow for this area.
5.2 Is water Not measured. Ditch rider estimates discharge by counting number
measured of threads opened.
5.3 How is water Distribute water from head reach to tail of secondary delivering
allocated water to tertiaries which also follow same way. If full supply is there
many tertiaries will get water at the same time, else fewer tertiaries
will be opened.
5.4 Is there a There are many WUAs in this Branch canal. WUA works voluntarily
WUA, how is and are active in this secondary canal.
it paid for
5.5 Is there any WUA have tried to charge NRs. 150/ha, but as they did not get
payment of water in time, farmers did not collect. And they contribute labour for
irrigation maintenance works. In GASR-3.
service
charge or any
other charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NR/ha
Resources (NR)
Labour 500 200000
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated Labour 500 200000
OM
requirements
and costs
Materials 100000
Water
management
Other
Total 13 $/ha
6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements
6.1 Suggestions There is need of permanent gated outlet structures at tertiary level
for improving to control farmers cutting the banks arbitrarily. Also support is
the irrigation required for field channel construction.
infrastructure Gates should be installed in direct outlets up stream of this
secondary; and damaged gates should be replaced.
6.2 Suggestions BIP should support to develop irrigation schedule jointly with WUA.
for improving An equitable canal operation plan should be prepared and be
the water implemented. Farmers feel need of field channels to increase the
management water use efficiency, they should be stimulated through project
and water technical support for field channel construction. Also they should be
use efficiency given training on appropriate irrigation method adopting improved
agriculture technology. They are willing to make crop planning on
block wise to facilitate.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 60

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAP 7 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 24 WUA members/farmers/canal operator,

2 Senior Divisional Engineers/Engineer from BIP of
DOI and
4 National Consultants
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.5 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 90 ha
2.2 Rainfed
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 74%
3.2 Owner/leasor 25%
3.3 Leasee 1%
4 What are the conditions of the Clay loam 70 % and Sandy loam 30%
soils? Have they been tested Some farmers have got their soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 99% good
5.2 Groundwater 1% good
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good During the Monsoon, paddy is supplemented by
available as required-provide Gadhaiya Branch Canal and during winter season
short explanation there is adequate water flow in the canal system
7 Are there labour shortages No serious problem
8 Do farmers use machinery? Tractors, threshers and sprayers are used
How could mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if No
so what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation Insignificant use of Ground water
systems or experience of new Total cost of STW is NRs. 60,000 to 65,000
irrigation? What are the Cost per Ha is about NRs 20,000 to 22,000
costs/costs/ha who provided Operation cost per hour is NRs. 250 to 300
the funds Privately operated
11 Have farmers received any Some Leader Farmers Groups have been
vocational extension training. organized by District Agriculture Development
Where and by whom has Office, Sarlahi for crop production training
training been provided? .
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Haripur local
information on markets, market centre and by local media. It could be
market prices? How do improved by providing trainings on marketing
farmers market their systems and techniques.
information: radio, extension
workers, private sector? How
the information could be
improved?
13 Describe the post harvest Threshers are used. Milling is done in localities.
activities how and where is
there any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family 10 to 12 % of households are getting remittance
involved in any subsidiary from abroad. It has not serious effects on labour
activities? Describe. What % availability in agriculture production.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 61

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

of their income is from other

activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers get inputs from nearby market Haripur and
inputs, is there any Malangawa. Fertilizers are not timely available and
constraints problems with the the quality of fertilizers is not satisfactory
source of inputs.
16 Is there any migration from No
the area-if so to where and is
this significant.
17 Is there any experience of Not significant
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to Yes, Agriculture Development Bank and other
credit, where from, is it commercial banks provide credit as per demand.
sufficient? Funding is sufficient, but the interest rate of
agriculture is higher.
19 Is there any crop insurance. No crop insurance is done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be
useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
yield and price received (only
main crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Monsoon Paddy 45 5500 22
Spring Paddy 20 3100 20
Maize 5 2700
Dry Season (Rabi)
Wheat 20 2600 22
Sugarcane 35 60000 4.81
Lentil 15 750 70
Mustard 10 650 80
21 How much of each crop is
consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 25-30%
Wheat 5-10%
Potato/vegetables 1-2%

22 Comment on the production. Productivity is better than other area of BIP and
Are these value reasonable the national average because the command
how d they compare with the belongs to the head of Gadhaiya branch. Farmers
statistics are united and work together for cleaning and
minor maintenance of canals. They have also
constructed tertiary canals.
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 22.50 78,750
Fertiliser and Compost
manure
Chemical fertilizer 135 486,000
Compost manure 900 90,000
Pesticides LS 112,500
Labour person days

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 62

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Tractor use hour 316 283,500

Bullock labour 270 135,000
Human labour 5625 1,968,750
Dry Season Wheat
Seed 24 84,000
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 42 151,200
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 10,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 100 90,000
Bullock labour 100 50,000
Human labour 2280 798,000
Dry Season Sugarcane
Seed 1575 757,575
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 210 756,000
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 105,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 210 189,000
Bullock labour 210 105,000
Human labour 5950 2,082,500
24 Comment on the Inputs-what Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
are the constraints. Are the available as much as required in time.
costs reasonable
25 Conclusions The command area is highly potential for crop
production, sugarcane and commercial vegetables
production. The productivity can further be
increased to 20-30%
26 What the reasons farmers are Lack of high yielding varieties of crops
not achieving the full Lack of quality fertilizers
potential-list and describe Lack of efficient extension services and
technologies
Lack of training for high production technologies
Low prices of products, and
Not well organized market system
27 What would be possible Land consolidation, commercial farming, soft loan
mechanisms to improve crop and marketing of products
production Higher incentives for skilled/semi skilled/unskilled
labour work force
28 What would be possible Construction of required field channels and
mechanisms to improve water optimization use of irrigation water
use

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 63

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Photo 1: Unit Outlet for tertiary

Bank cut outlet

Photo 2: Tertiary Canal from SR-3

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 64

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Photo 3: Lined canal section of GA/SR R-3

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 65

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Figure 1: Layout Map of GA/SR-3 of Gadhaiya Branch Canal, Bagmati Irrigation

Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 66

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAMPLE AREA PROFILE 8: BIP SAMANPUR DISTRIBUTARY

SAP 8 IRRIGATION PROFILE
Scheme Name: Bagmati Irrigation Project
1 Sample Area Name: Samanpur Secondary Unit: Location UTM: 338827
Distributary BH/SD-SR-5 E & 2985942 N
2 Scheme 300 ha Sample 300 Percent of 100
Area ha Area ha Scheme
Built yr 2005/06 Rehab yr
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 Head Regulator nr 1 Steel lift gate 1m wide, is rusted at
bottom.
3.2 Lined Canal Km 3.2 RCC Lined in good condition, but
earthen bank has not been constructed.
3.3 Unlined Canal Km -
3.4 Tertiary Canal Few tertiary canal has been developed
by farmer. BIP has constructed outlet
position, but farmers have not
constructed tertiary and used the outlets
properly.
3.5 Field Channel Field channels are not constructed.
3.6 Tube well Nr 1 Private STW
3.7 Other
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P G G G G G M M M M G G G
availability (good
medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3.1 Monsoon 150
Paddy
4.3.2 Spring Paddy 45
4.3.3 Maize 15
4.3.4 Summer 15
Vegetables

4.4 Dry Season

(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 60
4.4.2 Sugarcane 120
4.4.3 Lentil 45
4.4.4 Mustard 30
4.4.5 Potato 15
4.4.6 Winter Maize 15
4.4.7 Winter 15
Vegetables
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water Water is rotated among various secondary level committees (SR-1,
management SR-2, SR-3, SR-4, SR-5, SR-6 and SR-7) at the ratio of 3: 4.Three
days for the first 3 secondary and four days for the remaining four
(SR-4, SR-5, SR-6 and SR-7). In that time water flows through all
the outlets of SR-5. Farmers take water in turn from head to tail by

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 67

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

letting water to flow from higher plot to lower. Field channels have
not been constructed. Canal does not convey flow at full capacity
due to high silt deposit in the canal bed.
5.2 Is water No measured.
measured
5.3 How is water This secondary canal gets water 4 days in a week on rotation basis.
allocated Farmers distribute water mutually.
5.4 Is there a There is a WUA in this and 6 other secondary canals in Samanpur
WUA, how is Distributary. They work voluntarily.
it paid for
5.5 Is there any They do not pay ISF but pay in grains for the two ditch riders for
payment of canal maintenance. They expressed willingness to pay, but have not
irrigation collected yet in cash. Many are sugarcane growers and understand
service importance of irrigation water.
charge or any
other charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NR/ha
Resources (NR)
Labour 500 20000 800
0
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated Labour 800 32000 1440
OM 0
requirements
and costs
Materials 20000 800
0
Water
management
Other
Total 22 $/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions Gates of the cross regulators and head regulator are rusted and
for improving needs to be replaced. Farmers should be supported to construct
the irrigation tertiary and field channels. There is heavy silt entry into this canal,
infrastructure which could be reduced by constructing proposed silt ejector at
WMC.
6.2 Suggestions Farmers are adopting water distribution among secondary canals.
for improving They should be provided training on water measurement and
the water support to manage water allocation and distribution. Equitable water
management distribution rules should be enforced. Farmers are interested to
and water use manage water properly.
efficiency They need laser land levelling to make surface irrigation efficient
and knowhow of efficient field methods like furrow and level basin
making access of farm machinery in the area.
They are interested to install STWs in the tail portion where water
flow is not reliable.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 68

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAP 8 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 28 WUA members/farmers,

3 Engineers and 3 Supervisors,
2 Dhalpa/Chaukidar from BIP of DOI and
5 National Consultants and 1 International
Consultant
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.25 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 300 ha
2.2 Rainfed 10 ha
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 85%
3.2 Owner/leasor 15%
3.3 Leasee
4 What are the conditions of the Sandy loam to clay loam
soils? Have they been tested Some farmers have got their soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 96% fair
5.2 Groundwater 4% good
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good During the Monsoon, paddy is supplemented by
available as required-provide Bhalohiya Branch, Samanpur Distributory Canal
short explanation and during winter season there is not adequate
water flow in the canal system
7 Are there labour shortages No serious problem
8 Do farmers use machinery? How Tractors, threshers and sprayers are used
could mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if so No
what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation Insignificant use of Ground water
systems or experience of new Total cost of STW is NRs. 60,000 to 65,000
irrigation? What are the Cost per Ha is about NRs 20,000 to 22,000
costs/costs/ha who provided the Operation cost per hour is NRs. 250 to 300
funds Privately operated
11 Have farmers received any Some Leader Farmers Groups have been
vocational extension training. organized by District Agriculture Development
Where and by whom has training Office, Rautahat for crop production and seed
been provided? production trainings
.
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Samanpur
information on markets, market local market centre and by local media. It could be
prices? How do farmers market improved by establishing district and inter district
their information: radio, extension information net work in close coordination with
workers, private sector? How the DADO and Agri business promotion.
information could be improved?
13 Describe the postharvest Threshers are used. Milling is done in localities.
activities how and where is there
any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family 20-25 % of households are getting remittance from
involved in any subsidiary abroad. It has not serious effects on labour
activities? Describe. What % of availability in agriculture production.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 69

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

their income is from other

activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers get inputs from nearby market Samanpur
inputs, is there any constraints and Hardiya. Fertilizers are not timely available
problems with the source of and the quality of fertilizers is not satisfactory
inputs.
16 Is there any migration from the No
area-if so to where and is this
significant.
17 Is there any experience of Not significant
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to credit,
Yes, Agriculture Development Bank and other
where from, is it sufficient? commercial banks provide credit as per demand.
Funding is sufficient, but the interest rate of
agriculture is higher.
19 Is there any crop insurance. No crop insurance is done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, yield Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
and price received (only main
crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Monsoon Paddy 150 4100 28
Summer Paddy 45 3200 27
Dry Season (Rabi)
Wheat 60 2100 30
Sugarcane 120 55000 4.81
Lentil 45 750 70
Mustard 30 650 80

21 How much of each crop is

consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 25-30%
Wheat 5-10%
Potato/vegetables 1-2%
22 Comment on the production. Are Productivity is slightly higher than the national
these value reasonable how do average and the productivity can be increased if
they compare with the statistics irrigation water is supplied as and when required. It
is tail end of Samanpur distributor and irrigation
water is inadequate
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 75 262,500
Fertiliser and Compost manure
Chemical fertilizer 450 1,620,000
Compost manure 3000 300,000
Pesticides LS 375,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 1050 945,000
Bullock labour 900 450,000
Human labour 18750 6,562,500

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 70

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Dry Season Wheat

Seed 72 252,000
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 126 453,600
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 30,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 300 270,000
Bullock labour 300 150,000
Human labour 6840 2,394,000
Dry Season Sugarcane
Seed 5400 2,597,400
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 648 2,332,800
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 360,000
Labour person days

Tractor use hour 720 648,000

Bullock labour 720 360,000
Human labour 20,400 7,140,000
24 Comment on the Inputs-what are Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
the constraints. Are the costs available as much as required in time. The quality
reasonable of seeds and fertilizers is not reliable
25 Conclusions The command area is highly potential for crop
production, sugarcane and commercial vegetables
production. The productivity can be increased if
adequate irrigation water and agriculture inputs are
provided timely,
26 What the reasons farmers are not Irrigation water is not supplied as and when
achieving the full potential-list and required,
describe Lack of high yielding varieties of crops
Lack of quality fertilizers
Lack of efficient extension services and
technologies
Low prices of products, and
Not well organized market system
27 What would be possible Land consolidation for mechanization and
mechanisms to improve crop commercialization,
production Cooperative/community farming,
Timely availability of quality fertilizers and seeds
Easily availability of soft loan ,
Better marketing of produces,
Efficient and effective extension services, and
Higher incentives for skilled/semi skilled/unskilled
labour work force
28 What would be possible Construction of tertiary canals and optimization
mechanisms to improve water use use of irrigation water

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 71

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Photo 1: CR at Samanpur Distributary and HR of BH SD/SR-5

Photo 2: Lined Canal of BH/SD/SR-5

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 72

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Photo 3: Canal is cracked to make outlet not using the one provided for

Photo 4: A Tertiary canal for sugarcane fields

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 73

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Photo 5: Sugarcane and potato crops in the command area

Figure 1: Location Map of Samanpur Distributory, Bahlohiya Branch of

Bagmati Irrigation Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 74

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAMPLE AREA PROFILES 9: BIP BHALOHIYA BRANCH

SAP 9 IRRIGATION PROFILE
Scheme Name: Bagmati Irrigation Project
1 Sample Area Name: Bhalohiya Bhalohiya Branch Location
Branch lower reach UTM:33327 E &
29724475 N
2 Scheme 760 Sample 80 ha Percent 100
Area ha Area ha of
Scheme
Built yr 1990 Rehabyr ---
3 Inventory of Irrigation Infrastructure
Unit Qty Description/condition
3.1 Siphon Nr 1 About 1.2 *1.2 m wide siphon over
Dori river.
3.2 Lined Canal
3.3 Unlined Canal Km 4.2 Unlined branch canal
3.4 Secondary Canal No development of secondary canal
3.5 Field Channel Few channel developed to irrigate
adjoining land of the branch canal.
3.6 Tubewells 5 STWs electric pump privately
owned
Other
4 O N D J F M A M J J A S
4.1 Water G,M,P (good M P P P P P P P M M M
availability medium
poor)
4.2 Indicative Key Ha
Cropping
4.3.1 Monsoon 55
Paddy
4.3.2 Spring Paddy 20
4.3.3 Maize 3
4.3.4 Summer 2
Vegetables

4.4 Dry Season

(Rabi)
4.4.1 Wheat 35
4.4.2 Sugarcane 20
4.4.3 Lentil 10
4.4.4 Mustard 6
4.4.5 Potato 4
4.4.6 Winter Maize 2
4.4.7 Winter 3
Vegetables
5 Water
Management
5.1 Current water CAD works are yet to be developed in this portion. Few WUAs are
management formed in this lower Bhalohiya branch for participating in the CAD
works. These farmers have built their field channels to get water in
the field from the branch canals. Water reaches there during
summer and winter lately but not in spring. Within the irrigated
area they rotate water delivery sequentially from head to tail.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 75

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

5.2 Is water Water is not measured.

measured
5.3 How is water There is no water allocation rule between reaches of the branch
allocated canal and so the tail portion gets less water.
5.4 Is there a Few WUAs have been formed in this portion of Branch canal also
WUA, how is it anticipating that CAD works will be done. Farmers do not get
paid for water in time and do not pay ISF for the WUA.
5.5 Is there any
payment of
irrigation
service charge
or any other
charges
5.6 Current OM Description Value Value NR/ha
Resources (NR)
Labour 100 40000
Materials
Water
management
Other
5.7 Estimated OM Labour 100
requirements
and costs
Materials
Water
management
Other
Total 100 $/ha

6 Suggestions for Irrigation Improvements

6.1 Suggestions At Bisrampur, lined canal section is reduced abruptly due to which
for improving water flow downstream is insufficient. So the size of lined canal is
the irrigation requested to be increased to meet downstream water
infrastructure requirements. There is need to install trash rack u/s of siphon to
prevent obstruction through to the command area. CAD works
should be developed and BIP should also support for constructing
tertiaries and field channels.
6.2 Suggestions Tail reach farmers are aware of the importance of getting irrigation
for improving water, They have constructed channels from direct outlets and
the water they expressed readiness to construct tertiary and field channel
management after the secondary are constructed. They want rotation of water
and water use ensuring they get their share by making schedule between upper
efficiency reach channels and them. They have drilled few STWs to irrigate
and like land levelling works to improve irrigation efficiency.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 76

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

SAP 9 AGRICULTURE PROFILE

Farmers/Participants 28 WUA members/farmers,

3 Engineers from BIP,
5 Supervisors/ Dhalpa/Chaukidar from BIP,
5 National Consultants and
1 International Consultant
1 Names (Given in Annex)
2 Land Holding (ha) 0.25 ha (average)
2,1 Irrigated Ha 80 ha
2.2 Rainfed 10 ha
3 Tenure
3.1 Owner/farmer 90%
3.2 Owner/leasor 10%
3.3 Leasee
4 What are the conditions of the Sandy loam to clay loam
soils? Have they been tested Some farmers have got their soils tested
5 Source of Irrigation (put % of
each type and comment if
good/fair/poor)
5.1 Surface 95% fair
5.2 Groundwater 5% good
5.3 Other-specify
6 Is the irrigation provided good During the Monsoon, paddy is supplemented by
available as required-provide Bhalohiya Branch, Canal and during winter season
short explanation there is not adequate water flow in the canal
system
7 Are there labour shortages No serious problem
8 Do farmers use machinery? Tractors, threshers and sprayers are used
How could mechanize
9 Do farmers buy or sell water if No
so what is the cost
10 Are there any new irrigation Insignificant use of Ground water
systems or experience of new Total cost of STW is NRs. 60,000 to 65,000
irrigation? What are the Cost per Ha is about NRs 20,000 to 22,000
costs/costs/ha who provided the Operation cost per hour is NRs. 250 to 300
funds Privately operated
11 Have farmers received any Some Leader Farmers Groups have been
vocational extension training. organized by District Agriculture Development
Where and by whom has Office, Rautahat for crop production and seed
training been provided? production trainings
12 Do farmers receive any Farmers get market information from Samanpur
information on markets, market local market centre and by local media. It could be
prices? How do farmers market improved by establishing district and inter district
their information: radio, information net work in close coordination with
extension workers, private DADO and Agri business promotion.
sector? How the information
could be improved?
13 Describe the post harvest Threshers are used. Milling is done in localities.
activities how and where is there
any processing.
14 Are the farmers or their family 25-30 % of households are getting remittance from
involved in any subsidiary abroad. It has no serious affects on labour
activities? Describe. What % of availability in agriculture production.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 77

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

their income is from other

activities, Does this affect the
agriculture production?
15 Where do the farmers obtain Famers get inputs from nearby market Samanpur
inputs, is there any constraints and Pipra markets. Fertilizers are not timely
problems with the source of available and the quality of fertilizers is not
inputs. satisfactory
16 Is there any migration from the No
area-if so to where and is this
significant.
17 Is there any experience of Not significant
different farming systems
including contract farming,
agribusiness.
18 Do farmers have access to Yes, Agriculture Development Bank and other
credit, where from, is it commercial banks provide credit as per demand.
sufficient? Funding is sufficient, but the interest rate of
agriculture is higher.
19 Is there any crop insurance. No crop insurance is done, but it would be helpful
Would crop insurance be
useful?
20 Key Crops Area harvested, Area ha Yield kg/ha NRs/kg
yield and price received (only
main crops)
Wet Season (Kharif )
Monsoon Paddy 55 4200 22
Spring Paddy 30 3100 20
Dry Season (Rabi)
Wheat 35 2200 22
Sugarcane 20 55000 4.81
Lentil 10 750 70
Mustard 6 650 80
21 How much of each crop is
consumed -enter crop and %'
Rice 25-30%
Wheat 5-10%
Potato/vegetables 1-2%

22 Comment on the production. Are Productivity is slightly higher than the national
these value reasonable how d average and the productivity can be increased if
they compare with the statistics irrigation water is supplied as and when required. It
is tail end of Samanpur distributor and irrigation
water is inadequate.
23 Inputs Qty (qtl) Value(NRs)
Wet Season Rice
Seed 27.50 96,250
Fertiliser and Compost manure
Chemical fertilizer 115.5 415,800
Compost manure 1100 110,000
Pesticides LS 165,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 385 346,500
Bullock labour 330 165,000
Human labour 6875 2,406,250

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 78

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Dry Season Wheat

Seed 42 147,000
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 73.50 264,600
Compost manure
Pesticides 175,000
Labour person days
Tractor use hour 175 157,500
Bullock labour 175 85,500
Human labour 3990 1,396,500
Dry Season Sugarcane
Seed 900 432,900
Fertiliser
Chemical fertilizer 108 388,800
Compost manure
Pesticides LS 60,000
Labour person days

Tractor use hour 120 108,000

Bullock labour 120 60,000
Human labour 3400 1,190,000
24 Comment on the Inputs-what Costs of Chemical fertilizers are higher and not
are the constraints. Are the available as much as required in time. The quality
costs reasonable of seeds and fertilizers is not reliable
25 Conclusions The command area is highly potential for crop
production, sugarcane and commercial vegetables
production. The productivity can be increased if
adequate irrigation water and agriculture inputs are
provided timely,
26 What the reasons farmers are Irrigation water is not supplied as and when
not achieving the full potential- required,
list and describe Lack of high yielding varieties of crops,
Lack of quality fertilizers,
Lack of efficient extension services and
technologies,
Low prices of products, and
Not well organized market system
27 What would be possible Land consolidation for mechanization and
mechanisms to improve crop commercialization,
production Cooperative/community farming,
Timely availability of quality fertilizers and seeds
Easily availability of soft loan ,
Better marketing of produces,
Efficient and effective extension services, and
trainings,
Higher incentives for skilled/semi skilled/unskilled
labour work force
28 What would be possible Construction of tertiary canals and optimal use of
mechanisms to improve water irrigation water
use

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 79

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Figure 1: Bholohiya Branch Tail End Canal Section

Figure 2: Farmers using diesel pump to draw water from STW for Wheat Irrigation

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 80

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Consultations

Figure 3: Location Map of Tail portion of Bahlohiya Branch of Bagmati Irrigation

Project

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 81

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

Appendix 9

Strategic Plan for Modernization

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR MODERNIZATION

CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................. 1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
B. Review of Current Water Operations......................................................................... 2
C. Expected Results and Benefits.................................................................................. 3
D. Strategic Plan and Priorities ...................................................................................... 4
II. MAIN CANALS........................................................................................................................ 8
A. Upgrades to Main Canal Control System (Headworks)............................................. 9
B. Sedimentation Basins ................................................................................................ 9
C. Upgrades to Main Canal Cross Regulators ............................................................. 10
D. Re-sectioning of Canal Cross Sections ................................................................... 10
E. Spill Structures......................................................................................................... 10
III. BRANCH CANALS ............................................................................................................... 11
A. Branch Canal Headworks ........................................................................................ 11
1. Rehabilitation of Head Gates ................................................................................. 11
2. Broad-Crested Weirs for Flow Measurement......................................................... 11
B. Cross Regulators ..................................................................................................... 11
C. Regulating Reservoirs ............................................................................................. 12
D. Spill Structures......................................................................................................... 14
IV. DISTRIBUTARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY CANALS ............................................... 15
A. Canal Head Gates and Measurement Structures.................................................... 15
B. Cross Regulators ..................................................................................................... 15
C. Spill Structures......................................................................................................... 15
V. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND SCADA .................................................................... 16
A. Objectives ................................................................................................................ 16
B. Key Activities............................................................................................................ 16
VI. COST ESTIMATES............................................................................................................... 18

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

List of Tables

Table 1: Proposed SCADA Sites in the BIP ................................................................................... 17

Table 2: Cost Estimates for Surface Water Modernization BIP ..................................................... 19

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

BAGMATI IRRIGATION PROJECT

I. OVERVIEW

A. Introduction

1. This report presents an irrigation modernization proposal for system improvements

in the Bagmati Irrigation Project (BIP) comprising strategic engineering upgrades of new
hardware, control and measurement equipment for the canal infrastructure; new approaches
to water management; and the construction of new facilities including regulation reservoirs.

2. The proposed modernization works were developed after site visits done to
conduct the Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) performance benchmarking, including field
inspections of the project’s physical infrastructure and water management strategies,
interviews with professional staff and field operators, and review of engineering technical
data and the available design data (refer to Appendix 1). The integration of this technical
information with the results from the stakeholder consultations (refer to Appendix 5) allowed
the Consultant to better understand the canal systems, daily operating procedures,
agricultural demands, problems and issues, and goals for the future management of the
system.

3. It is expected that the proposed system improvements will form the foundation for
future efforts to improve efficiency and overall performance in the BIP, as well as other
large-scale irrigation schemes in the country. Therefore, as the Department of Irrigation
(DOI) embarks on the detailed design and implementation of the steps summarized in
this strategic modernization plan it is important to recognize the requirements that exist
for all successful and sustainable modernization programs:

 Responsiveness to water user request – a service attitude

 Ability to control and measure water at key points in the system
 Reasonable equity, reliability and flexibility in water delivery service
 Real-time management of relevant data related to water operations
 A well-understood mutually acceptable service agreement
 Excellent communications
 Strict attention to technical details
 Enforcement of rules and regulations and timely resolution of conflicts
 An adequate budget for O&M
 A “game plan” for step-by-step implementation

4. The case of the BIP represents a special challenge in terms of future irrigation
modernization efforts because command area development (CAD) works have been
underway in the scheme for approximately the last 20 years up to the present.1 As
discussed in detail in Appendix 1, the design and construction of the irrigation system so
far as resulted in a system that is difficult and cumbersome to operate with consequences
in terms of poor water delivery service.

1
Since 1987 the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD) has provided several loan packages for CAD works,
construction of irrigation infrastructure, and the rehabilitation of the Bagmati barrage. The second SFD loan
(Loan No. 4/343) supported CAD works in the Bhalohia, Gadhaiya and Laxmipur Branch Canal areas,
followed by a third loan (Loan No. 5/465) for the remaining CAD works.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

5. The Project Completion Reports2 for the recent SFD-supported CAD works have
drawn attention to the fact that, for example “the operation of the canal systems is being
carried out on ad-hoc basis (sic), resulting in inadequate irrigation in the project” and “the
flows in all the canals over the Project are regulated by gates that will make the rotational
operation of the canals more complicated and prone to frequent human interference.”
Problems with poor quality construction have also been pointed out in these completion
reports, which were confirmed by the Consultant’s own site inspections in the project.
Thus, the situation in the BIP is not typical even of rehabilitation projects where an
irrigation system has suffered for years or decades because of out-dated designs, a lack of
preventative maintenance, and a gradual deterioration in service. At the BIP, some
structures are only a few years old and already do not function properly, plus they are
based on out-dated designs and unworkable strategies. To say that a new approach by
the DOI is necessary is an under-statement.

6. It is also worthwhile to note that the design as-built did not fully follow the
proposals in the ADB feasibility study prepared in 1992.3 For example, the operational
concept in the feasibility study was to have a rotational schedule for secondary canals
(ie, “on” or “off”) with proportional flow dividers in the secondary canals to distribute the water
to sub-secondary canals, while the tertiary canals would have pre-set orifice offtakes. The
distribution of available irrigation water supplies is presently done on a more ad-hoc
basis (as mentioned above) and rotation schedules even occur at the head of the branch
canals during the Rabi season.

7. It is beyond the scope of the MFLW TA to prepare a detailed structure inventory

that might indicate some of the CAD works can be re-covered and incorporated into a
new modernization plan with minimal investment. Certainly, many of the control and
measurement structures in the BIP require modification, if not complete replacement. But
this should be approached carefully to avoid unnecessary expenditures that will only
have a marginal impact on service and ultimately crop production. In the following
sections, design analyses and illustrative drawings are used with narrative project
descriptions in this technical report to summarize the operational strategies envisioned
for the future of the BIP.

B. Review of Current Water Operations

8. Current water operations in the BIP have been covered in Appendix 1, which
presents a detailed analysis of the system’s operations and service deficiencies. Within
the BIP, operations are presently characterized by the following:

(i) The BIP is an upstream-control, manually-operated gated system with a

run-of-the-river water supply and no storage that is difficult to operate. Many
structures are in poor condition.
(ii) There are no dedicated flow measurement structures and there is almost no
record-keeping of canal operations.
(iii) Water distribution is mostly on the basis of rotation with little coordination
between different levels of the canal system and diversions into the main
canal based on actual irrigation demands.

2
These quotes are taken from the Project Completion Report (as of July 2012) prepared by the joint venture
of Multi Disciplinary Consultants, MEH Consultants, ERMC and WELINK Consultants for SFD Loan 5/465 –
Consulting Services for Remaining Command Area Development Works.
3
ADB. 1992. Feasibility Study on Bagmati Command Area Development Project. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., in
association with Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd., and Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Ltd. TA No. 1335
Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

(iv) There is no updated and accurate inventory of the net irrigated area or water
balance of the scheme including details about crop types and water use.
(v) There are no facilities to re-regulate canal flows, and water travel times from
the diversion at the barrage are significant.
(vi) There is no effective planning to coordinate the operation of the irrigation
system with agricultural activities.
(vii) The resources available for O&M of the system, both in terms of equipment
and manpower, are woefully inadequate.
(viii) Conjunctive use is done in the project due to the unreliable and inequitable
nature of the surface water supplies, which is compounded by the insufficiency
of water supplies during the dry season.
(ix) More areas in the upstream portions of the system (in previously forested
parts) and a large number of unauthorized direct outlets throughout have
been added over time to the project in an uncoordinated and unplanned
manner, which has exacerbated tailender inequities.
(x) Water users do not pay for irrigation service or effectively cooperate with
each other to share limited water supplies.
(xi) The design and construction of the CAD works are substandard, and have
been counter-productive in terms of providing the level of water delivery
service required for achieving institutional development.

C. Expected Results and Benefits

9. While the issues in the BIP are serious and challenging from the perspective of
being able to provide a high level of water delivery service, the opportunities are also
significant. There is the potential to greatly expand the irrigated area and put the project
on a more sustainable financial path.

10. The implementation of the modernization improvements presented in this report

will improve the efficiency of operations and water management in the BIP, along with an
important increase in the level of water delivery service provided to water users (reduced
flow rate variations and increased flexibility). The performance of current water operations
and record-keeping practices will be simplified. The integrated control strategies that were
developed for the modernization plan will allow significant flow changes to pass through the
canal system without negatively impacting the secondary canals and direct outlet deliveries.

11. The approach to system modernization in the BIP addresses three objectives
simultaneously:

(i) Simplified water delivery operation for field operators and managers with
limited water supplies, which can be supplemented through a rational program
of conjunctive use
(ii) Improved water delivery service throughout the canal system. The main
canals provide better service (improved flexibility and reliability) to the
branch canals, and they in turn provide good service to distributary and
secondary canals.
(iii) Operation with a minimum of surface drainage outflows. The project canals
will operate with fewer spills, and improved flexibility to the farm outlets will
enable farmers to better schedule irrigations, reducing surface runoff and
subsurface drainage outflows.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

12. The recommendations in this report are guided by successful experience that
other irrigation schemes have had in transforming old, manually-operated canal systems
into modern projects that are operated with high levels of water delivery service and a
clear accounting of water diversions. A successful irrigation modernization program
balances the appropriate combination of technical upgrades and management
sustainability. In the case of the BIP, the motivation for irrigation modernization is the
need for robust and cost-effective measurement and control of flows diverted from the
Bagmati River in order to serve a much large portion of the command area and set the
basis for sustainable cost recovery.

13. Implementation of the proposed system improvements will achieve:

(i) Better flow rate and volumetric measurement of irrigation water diversions
from the main canals by new broad-crested weirs
(ii) Better flow control of branch/distributary/secondary canal headworks to
improve the manageability of water that has to be pumped
(iii) Improved water level control for canal operations that result in more
accurate water deliveries to tertiary canals
(iv) Enhanced information management for canal management and water use
(v) Experience gained by DOI staff in specific installation techniques and
operational changes associated with the first set of works that will be useful
in implementing the remaining works
(vi) Demonstration of the benefits listed above at initial projects sites for future
consideration and endorsement by the project’s stakeholders

D. Strategic Plan and Priorities

14. The scope of work in this report involves a substantial amount of technical details
and analyses that are important for proper design, but it is critical to consider them in
terms of an overall strategic plan for the future. This vision is intended not only to deal
with current issues, but to put in place a modern system that will benefit irrigators and
help with regional hydrology needs for the next 50 years or longer. It is getting
increasingly difficult for governments and donor agencies to justify continually spending
great sums of money on rehabilitation of irrigation projects every 10 or 20 years.

15. Implementation of the system improvements in the BIP will result in new
management capabilities for water managers and field staff. The key strategies being
implemented comprise the following key points:

(i) Operation of the main canal diversions at the Bagmati Barrage, will become
coordinated, in real-time, with canal and reservoir conditions (see below).
(ii) The control panels at the main canal headworks and the equipment at
existing main canal cross regulators will be refurbished and upgraded. The
main canals will have the ability to operate more responsively.
(iii) Control of diversions from the main canals will be based on maintaining a
constant target flow rate to match ordered demand for each branch canal
system. Each branch canal headworks will be equipped with a broad
crested weir for this purpose.
(iv) One person in the project office, referred to as the central “watermaster”,
will be able to have real-time information about flows at key points
throughout the service area and information from storage reservoirs. This
represents a real-time and coordinated approach to the water distribution

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

management throughout the project. This central water manager will make
decisions on a more frequent basis as part of a real-time and coordinated
approach to water distribution throughout the project.
(v) Existing gated cross regulators structures in the branch, distributary and
secondary canals will be upgraded with long-crested weirs. The improved
canal water level control at offtakes to lower-level canals and direct offtakes
will mean large changes in canal flow do not affect the capability to provide
steady and measureable water deliveries – water levels will stay nearly
constant over a wide range of canal flows. Operators will have the ability to
run lower or higher canal flows in order to meet irrigation demands while
keeping more constant the discharge to offtakes.
(vi) New re-regulation reservoirs will be built at strategic locations along
selected branch canals. The proposed canal control strategy is integrated with
reservoir operations. Buffer storage within the canal system provides the
watermaster an opportunity to calmly and effectively re-assess the current
diversions and demands, and then re-route flows in an appropriate manner.
The role and activities of the central watermaster will be transformed by the
capability to temporarily store excesses and deficits from the upstream-
controlled canal system in the reservoirs. These regulating reservoirs will
serve two functions:
a. Provide good service to upstream users by absorbing excesses and
deficits from flexible operations upstream.
b. Provide flexibility to downstream users by having water readily
available close to those users, and being able to absorb any flow
reductions into the downstream areas.
(vii) Accurate measurement of canal diversions is important for the proper
management of scarce water resources. Knowing the actual amount of
water delivered to the each canal allows a more complete knowledge of the
water demands in the system, and makes water records for individual
accounts more precise. The flow rates and volumes of water delivered to
the different canal systems is also critical information for water users in
assessing and upgrading their own on-farm water management. It is very
difficult, if not impossible, to properly manage something that is not well
measured.
(viii) New DSS/SCADA capabilities will facilitate real-time remote monitoring of
conditions throughout the service area. The performance of water operations
and record-keeping practices and analyses will be more simplified and more
transparent.

16. A critical feature of future operations in the BIP will be a comprehensive water
planning process that occurs at the beginning of every irrigation season. This planning
process will result in a water management plan that governs all aspects of water
deliveries, scheduled maintenance, and cost recovery (payment amounts and fee
collection). At a suitable time prior to the start of the irrigation season(s), farmers,
through their respective WUA, will have to submit a cropping and irrigation plan for the
upcoming season. At the same time, the DOI project office will prepare a plan of
forecasted water availability and tentative delivery schedule, taking into account required
maintenance periods and water use during previous years. It will be the role of the project
office in close coordination with the WUAs to reconcile the cropping and irrigation plans
with the projected operation of the main canal system. It is anticipated there may be
several iterations in the planning process involving extensive dialogue between
WUAs/farmers throughout the entire command area and the DOI. This water

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

management plan will also be updated and adjusted as necessary during the irrigation
season to account for current conditions. The plan will serve as the basis for charging
farmers/WUAs for irrigation water service. A crucial point in terms of the O&M of the BIP
is that there will be robust planning process put in place that provides an administrative
framework for day-to-day and hour-to-hour distribution and delivery of water.

17. It is envisioned that the DOI staff will control the distribution of irrigation water in
the main canal system on the basis of an arranged demand schedule. On a daily basis,
the WMU will deliver water to each of the branch/distributary/secondary canals, where it
will be measured and recorded on a real-time basis. The tertiary canals will be operated
by the WUAs acting on behalf of their member-farmers whose primary operational
objective is to distribute water equitably and reliably to each outlet on the basis of the
water management plan. There many important details to be worked out in terms of the
specific roles and responsibilities involved with the O&M of the project, but the essential
point is that the canal system will function in terms of levels, each whose primary
responsibility is to provide an agreed-upon service to its next lower level.

18. Once the strategic roadmap is accepted, there are a variety of specific structural
and management changes to be made. Within each of those changes are numerous
details. The Consultant has learned that “the devil is in the details”. This means the
implementation of the modernization program will take time, consistency, and dedication
on the part of DOI staff. It is essential for everyone to understand that irrigation
modernization is a process as much as specific changes. The specific construction
practices will evolve as participants see what works best in particular conditions and
which materials are the most cost-effective. Furthermore, although the strategic concept
for modernization of the BIP is relatively simple, implementation of the details will
undoubtedly involve some errors and learning curves. If the whole modernization
process can be treated as a team effort, it will be successful.

19. Recognizing that the modernization of the BIP and the implementation of new
management strategies is a multi-year process, it is necessary to assign specific
priorities to the recommendations the Consultant has developed. The modernization
works have thus been separated into two phases: short-term and longer-term. This is
important in terms of DOI obtaining the maximum amount of benefits for the project and
water users through investments in modernization. Further, the Consultant also believes
that doing some things first will provide significantly more advantages to farmers and
operators, and therefore, they should be considered a much greater priority. Building on
the success of these initial modernization improvements is a key part of the strategy to
getting endorsements for future works and for building a sustainable cost recovery
mechanism. It will also give staff and contractors experience with local field conditions
and build confidence in taking on new projects.

20. In terms of priorities, the following basic outline is proposed, with the expectation
that some of these major items can be implemented in parallel:

(i) The top priority is to carry out a detailed survey of every irrigated field in the
project. The information to be gathered, and put into GIS, would include:
a. Net area and property boundaries (hectares)
b. Water supply used (canal or shallow/deep tubewell)
c. Cropping pattern for last 3 years
d. Crop plan for the next irrigation season
e. Location, condition and identification of farm outlet
f. Critical elevation (highest point) in the field(s)
g. Condition of field channel(s)
h. Membership status in water users association

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

(ii) It is worthwhile to consider the relative merits of implementing the

modernization program first in one or the other main canal systems, rather
than doing them in parallel. For example, the implementation could be
staggered so that the works are completed first in the East Main Canal area
and then started in the West Main Canal area.
(iii) The system improvements would generally proceed according to the levels
in the canal system, on the basis that the primary concern is to get better
control over the main canals so they provide good service to the branch
canals, and then likewise the improvements in the distributary and secondary
canals will facilitate higher levels of management at the tertiary canals.
Therefore, the order of system improvements would generally follow
according to:
a. Main canal headworks and measurement structures
b. Main canal cross regulators and branch canal head gates
c. Branch canal cross regulators and distributary canal head gates
d. Branch canal re-regulation reservoirs and inter-ties
e. Distributary canal cross regulators and secondary canal head gates
f. Secondary canal cross regulators and tertiary canal head gates
g. Repair/replacement of field outlets
h. SCADA/DSS system (adding remote monitoring capabilities)
i. Drainage system rehabilitation, siphon/bridge repairs, etc.
j. Sedimentation basin(s)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

II. MAIN CANALS

21. The following sections outline the proposed system improvements to the BIP
main canals based the technical assessments and field inspections conducted, and the
information collected and analyzed by the Consultant. These system improvements
include the following:

22. Civil works, which includes structural repairs to existing concrete bulkheads,
basins/floors, wing walls, retaining walls, fences, footbridges and structure decks;
replacement and repairs to steel radial and sluice gate assemblies; earthworks including
diversion works; and bank protection repairs

23. Electro-mechanical works (equipment), which includes the replacement and

repair of gate-lifting mechanisms, electric motors and control systems, and auxiliary
equipment

24. In general, the gates and lifting mechanisms at the head regulators and cross
regulators are in fair condition, but require refurbishment in order to remain in reliable
service for the length of the modernization program. In some cases the gate frames and
mountings will also have to be replaced. In addition, there are other items requiring
rehabilitation at certain critical structures, depending on the specific site, including
repairs to the concrete bulkheads, support walls, and sills. This will involve demolition
and removal of degraded concrete and steel works, including some existing foundation
works, before installing new components. Care must be taken that these repairs will only
involve removal of structural elements to the extent necessary, not creating additional
unforeseen secondary damage to existing structures. and electrical control systems

25. To help ensure that the infrastructure related rehabilitation measures achieve
O&M benefits such as reduced cost and more convenience for operators, a uniform,
standardized set of electro-mechanical controls and hardware (i.e., a standard gate
control “package” from the same commercial manufacturer) should be designed and
deployed for each of the major gate types to the greatest extent practical. The use of
robust equipment conforming to standardized specifications will reduce O&M costs and
provide reliability and the capability for future expansion. One of the issues identified in
the benchmarking is that CAD works so far have utilized low-quality equipment from
different suppliers so that the infrastructure hardware is not uniform.

26. Properly designed, constructed and maintained water measurement devices are
a key component of the proposed irrigation modernization improvements in the BIP.
Proven technologies like broad-crested weirs at the heads of canals are recommended.
One of the most important benefits is the ability to place these measurement structures
into an existing control section, thereby greatly reducing the cost of a new measurement
device.

27. The broad-crested weir is a flow measurement device with a proven track record
that has the potential for wide application in Nepal. It is simple to construct, easy to
maintain, requires minimal headloss, has high accuracy over the entire range of flows, is
adaptable to existing control sections, and can be calibrated using as-built dimensions.
This is most accurate device known for practical use. One critical design element is the
amount of hydraulic headloss that would be available at the proposed locations in the
main canals, and at the other canal locations discussed in the following sections. It is
ideally suited for the entrance to canals if the water level at the start of the canal can be
raised by about 0.3 meters at maximum flow rate. Suitable design parameters can be
verified by topographic survey data during the detailed design phase.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

28. The system improvements in the main canals will facilitate more efficient and
safer canal operations and management, in addition to allowing pump operators to more
closely match available water supplies with irrigation demands.

A. Upgrades to Main Canal Control System (Headworks)

29. The control panels at the main canal headworks are in need of rehabilitation/
upgrades. In general, the condition of the existing mechanical equipment is worn out
because it has been in service since 1995. The gates themselves and the mechanical
systems appear to be in good working order.

30. To improve the measurement of water diverted to the main canals new broad-
crested weirs will be installed at suitable sites in the lined channel sections downstream of
the headworks. The broad-crested weir was chosen as a robust and cost-effective device
for this application based on the following characteristics: (i) accurate over the entire
range of flows; (ii) simple, easy to understand readings that are easily verifiable in the
field; (iii) requires no manual adjustments, on-going calibration checks, or excessive
maintenance; and (iv) vandalism resistant. It would also be very straightforward to equip
these new flumes for integration into the proposed SCADA system.

31. The proposed rehabilitation works include replacement of the gate control panels,
construction of broad crested weirs (in lined sections of both main canals), and channel
cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

B. Sedimentation Basins

32. Sedimentation is a significant maintenance issue in the BIP. No water sample

information with sediment concentration data was available for review at the project but
the field inspections conducted during the performance benchmarking and discussions
with project staff indicated that sedimentation basins are necessary for effective
operation of the system. The 1992 feasibility study included the provision for sediment
exclusion facilities at the head of each main canal, which were never built. The
dimensions for the settling basins from the feasibility study are approximately 27 m wide
by 240 m long.

33. The recommended system improvements include modifications to the intake

structures of both main canals and the construction of sediment (settling) basins. As
noted in Appendix 1, the project staff discussed the fact that the intake of the West Main
Canal allows considerably more sediment (bed load) to enter into the system than the
intake for the East Main Canal on the opposite side of the barrage. However, further
detailed design studies, including hydraulic simulations and possibly physical model tests,
should be carried out to check the designs and conclusions presented in the feasibility
study.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

34. The Consultant has reviewed the proposed design concepts and endorses the
construction of these new sedimentation basins near the start of each main canal as the
most feasible alternative. These basins will improve sediment removal operations by
trapping silt in a more compact and serviceable location, and improve hydraulic conditions
by reducing the amount of sediment being transferred to the canal system. There are
several potential design alternatives in terms of things such as dimensions and
mechanisms for disposal of the collected sediment. It is noted that the preliminary
analysis done for the feasibility study indicated that hydraulic flushing for sediment
disposal would be possible at identified locations (with return flows back to the Bagmati
River). However, the proposed design in the feasibility study entails the use of sluice
gates in the main canal(s) downstream of the basin(s) for flow control. The specific
configuration of the sediment basins, measurement structures, and any new control
gates would have to the subject of further field investigations and detailed designs based
on a comprehensive approach to modernization of the canal system.

35. The major works associated with the sedimentation basin(s) are excavation,
lining, and control structures at the outlet(s). As noted above there is further scope to
optimize dimensions of the basins, which would be the subject of further design and
engineering studies when the detailed design of the system improvements are carried
out.

C. Upgrades to Main Canal Cross Regulators

36. The main canal cross regulators are all in need of major rehabilitation/upgrades.
In general, the condition of the existing mechanical equipment is poor with difficulties to
make manual adjustments for good control of upstream water levels.

37. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, bank protection
works, and channel cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

D. Re-sectioning of Canal Cross Sections

38. There are limited portions of each main canal that require re-sectioning to restore
the proper hydraulic cross section. A preliminary estimate of the required re-sectioning
length is based on a percentage of the length of the main canal alignments.

E. Spill Structures

39. There are three (3) emergency spill structures in the main canal system, all of
which are non-functional due primarily to broken or missing gate-lifting mechanisms and
no measurement devices. Deficiencies at these structures include (i) gates that are
beyond their service life (ii) mechanical control systems that are worn out or missing, (iii)
deterioration of the concrete inlet/outlet transitions, and (iv) severe siltation in the inlet
channels/side-bays.

40. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, replacement of the
mechanical systems and channel cleaning to remove the heavy accumulation of silt. In
addition, each spill site will be equipped with a remote monitoring unit, to measure canal
water level(s), and provide an alarm to operations staff in the event of emergencies.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

III. BRANCH CANALS

A. Branch Canal Headworks

1. Rehabilitation of Head Gates

41. The headworks of the branch canals consist of single or double manually-
operated sluice gates of varying dimensions and configurations. There are a total of six
(6) branch canals with headworks structures and equipment of varying condition. Some
of these branch canal head gate structures are in poor condition with old gates, deteriorated
concrete, and damaged bank protection works. Restoring these branch canal head gates to
fully operational condition will be a critical component of the overall modernization program.

42. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, and channel cleaning
around the structure to remove silt.

2. Broad-Crested Weirs for Flow Measurement

43. Each of the branch canals will be equipped with a new broad-crested weir for flow
measurement. Knowing the actual amount of water delivered to individual branch canals
will allow a more complete knowledge of the irrigation demands in the system, and make
accounting records more precise.

44. If no suitable location is available in a lined section (trapezoidal) downstream of

the branch canal headworks, the proposed measurement weirs would be built in new
rectangular concrete sections installed in unlined portions of the channels. All the broad-
crested weirs would be equipped with staff gauges that read directly in flow units (m 3/s or
lps) making canal operations more transparent.

B. Cross Regulators

45. The cross regulators in the branch canals are manually-operated sluice gate
designs, and in some places they consist of ungated concrete drop structures. The
existing gated cross regulators are difficult (or in many cases impossible) to operate
effectively for good water level control. Flexible canal operations that are responsive to
water users and simple to manage would be achieved by upgrading the existing cross
regulators with long-crested weirs. This long-crested weir consists of concrete walls with
slot for flashboards on top of the crests for fine-tuning of the controlled water level.

46. Long-crested weirs are recommended as the primary water level control device in
branch canals (and lower level canals) because they can be easily constructed, are
simple, and are reliable. They are a cost-effective and inherently safe and reliable
structure. They allow for a simple operation, creating more constant flow rates at field
outlets and offtakes to distributary canals while at the same time allowing the canal to be
operated more flexibly. Long-crested weirs are used to control the water surface
elevation and are not intended to be used for flow measurement.

47. Justifications for upgrading branch canal cross regulator structures for better
water level control include:

(i) Better water delivery service to distributary canals. The hydraulic head on
those head gates would not vary nearly as much with time.
(ii) Less rodent damage to canal banks. If the water levels are more stable, the
rodents will not have as much opportunity to dig into wet, but unsaturated,
soil.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

(iii) Fewer accidental spills; low-risk inherent safety for operations

(iv) Better worker safety conditions; safer access to control structures
(v) Less frequent adjustments and more efficient use of labor resources
(vi) Ability to operate at higher flow rates. If the water can be maintained at more
stable levels, with a high degree of confidence, then the canals can be
operated with less freeboard – allowing higher flow rates.

48. One important aspect of utilizing long-crested weirs for cross regulators is that all
the field outlets supplied by the branch canals must be gated and must be regulated.
Since the canal water levels will generally be maintained at FSL, it will imperative that
the distribution of water is done in a controlled and planned manner. However, the new
long-crested weirs will be equipped with at least one sluice gate. These sluice gates will
(i) allow silt to be flushed from upstream of the structure, (ii) permit operators to lower the
upstream water level below the design running level of the weir, and (iii) allow the
upstream canal reach to be drained for maintenance purposes (and to avoid standing
water in the canal pools when the system is not being operated). There must be a
provision to flush silt and sediments out from the front of the long-crested weir.

49. The effectiveness of a long-crested weir design is proportional to its crest length.
The longer the weir, the better it can control the water level upstream of the weir for a
change in canal flow rate. The actual design length must be determined based on a field
survey of the sites according to (i) head loss across the outlet that is immediately upstream
of the check structure, (ii) the typical percentage change in flow rate during a day through
the check structure, and (iii) the area served by the outlet(s) upstream of the proposed
long-crested weir.

50. The proposed works to install long-crested weirs in the branch canals include
construction of concrete walls and floors for the weir, concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures (if the existing structure is retained for anchoring to the weir walls), installation
of silt flushing gates, dismantling and removal of the existing sluice gates and metal
frames, and channel cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

C. Regulating Reservoirs

51. Six (6) new re-regulation reservoirs are proposed at strategic locations in the system
along each branch canal. These reservoirs will serve as centralized sources to absorb
changes made to water deliveries based on variable operational demands throughout
the BIP canal system.

52. Based on a typical branch canal that has a design capacity of about 9 m 3/s (on
average; the range is 2.2 to 17 m3/s), an inlet to a regulating reservoir would be sized to
be able to temporarily divert 25% of the base canal flow (as measured at the offtake from
main canal). Each reservoir will have a storage volume of approximately 250,000 m3,
providing of a buffer storage volume of 125,000 m3 based on handling the inflow of
2.25 m3/s for a period of up to 15 hrs. (Note: the required storage capacity is double the
buffer amount because the reservoirs will normally be operated half-full in order to
accommodate both excess and deficits in the system.)

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

53. These reservoirs would consolidate all the errors resulting from the excesses or
deficits upstream of these points – allowing flexible canal operations. These reservoirs
are essential for making the modernization plan simple and effective. This will allow the
branch canals to be re-started much further downstream in the system with a controllable
(and measured) flow rate available on short notice and integrated with the reservoir
operations. A buffer provides the DOI watermaster an opportunity to calmly and effectively
re-assess the current supplies and deliveries, and then re-route flows in an appropriate
manner.

54. Advantages will occur at the service area level both upstream and downstream of
the reservoirs:

(i) Upstream, canal spill is not a concern because it will only go the reservoir.
This permits flexible operations in the branch canal and faster responses in
the areas upstream. It provides the capability to more precisely manage
flows in the canal system.
(ii) The regulating reservoir will allow operators to quickly change the flows into
upstream distributary canals and field outlets. These changes will
automatically be compensated for at the reservoir in terms of storage volume
changes.
(iii) Flows downstream of the reservoirs are re-started with a controlled,
constant flow rate at any time.

55. Regulating reservoir design capacities include three separate considerations

[preliminary design values are shown for each component]:

(i) Inlet flow rate capacity: the inlet flow capacity must pass the maximum flow
rejection rate upstream of the reservoir – not to exceed the upstream canal
capacities. This inlet flow rate is often higher by several times than the
outlet flow rate – especially if there are many outlets located upstream to
supply tertiary canals and field outlets. [2.25 m3/s]
(ii) Outlet flow rate capacity: this size will vary somewhere between the total
flow rate demand downstream of the regulating reservoir (the highest value)
and the maximum anticipated deficit during normal operations. [2.25 m3/s]
(iii) Buffer volume: the buffer capacity of the reservoirs will define the flexibility
offered by the project to water users. Therefore, the general rule is to make
the reservoir “as large as possible.” In considering the proper size, it should
be noted that the capacity of a regulating reservoir actually provides only
slightly less than half as much buffer because reservoirs are kept half-full in
order to handle either the “+’s” and “-’s” errors, and to account for the fact
that it is often not half-full when a discrepancy in flow begins. [125,000 m 3].

56. There must always be sufficient area downstream of a regulating reservoir to

utilize the water that is being absorbed temporarily by the reservoir. For example, if a
regulating reservoir is located at the tail end of a canal, there may only be a couple of
fields onto which the water can be applied. In general, the theoretical ideal location for a
regulating reservoir would be about 2/3rds of the distance down the canal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

57. The water level in a canal pool close to the reservoir (this may be adjacent to the
reservoir [most common], or in the next downstream pool) will be controlled by the
inlet/outlet to the reservoir. From that “level pool”, the branch canal will be supplied (re-
started). The level pool will serve as the beginning for the downstream section of the
secondary canal. Depending upon the (i) quality of water level control that is needed, (ii)
the location of the target water level relative to the regulating reservoir, and (iii) the relative
elevations of the water in the reservoir and the canal, a particular reservoir inflow structure
may be a pump, a long-crested weir, a sluice gate, or a combination of the above.
Likewise, the outflow structure may be a pump, a sluice gate, or a combination of the two.

58. Based on the existing site conditions, it is anticipated that the inlet structure will
be a long-crested weir (gravity inflow) with sluice gate(s), and the outlet from the
reservoir will a pump station with liquid-level control.

59. The major proposed works for each reservoir include excavation and embankment
construction; a long-crested weir/gated inlet structure; gated outlet or pump station; new
flow control gate in the adjacent branch canal; emergency spill structure (from either the
reservoir or the adjacent canal pool); land acquisition (approximately 15 ha for each site);
and electrical controls and auxiliary systems.

D. Spill Structures

60. Monitoring of canal spills from the branch canals will be important feedback to the
watermaster and field staff about operations.

61. The proposed constructions works include a new weir structure (over-pour) with a
sharp metal blade for measurement, and channel cleaning to remove the heavy
accumulation of silt in the end section of the channel(s). In addition, each spill site will be
equipped with a remote monitoring unit, to measure canal water level(s) and computed
flow rate, and provide an alarm to operations staff in the event of emergencies.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

IV. DISTRIBUTARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY CANALS

A. Canal Head Gates and Measurement Structures

62. The headworks of the distributary, secondary and tertiary canals consist of
manually-operated sluice gates of varying dimensions and configurations. These
headworks structures have equipment that are in varying condition with some that have
old or non-functional gates, deteriorated concrete, and damaged bank protection works.
Restoring these canal head gates to fully operational condition will be a critical component of
the overall modernization program.

63. Accurate measurement of canal flow rates throughout the scheme is an essential
management tool for achieving a reasonable level of performance. The same concept of
having broad-crested weirs at the head of branch and distributary canals will be applied
to the lower level canals.

64. The proposed rehabilitation works include concrete repairs to the hydraulic
structures, repair/replacement of the gates and lifting mechanisms, channel cleaning
around the structure to remove silt and the construction of concrete broad-crested weirs.

B. Cross Regulators

65. The cross regulators in the distributary, secondary and tertiary canals are
manually-operated sluice gate designs, and in some places they consist of ungated
concrete drop structures. The existing gated cross regulators are difficult (or in many
cases impossible) to operate effectively for good water level control. Similar to the
recommendation for upgrading the cross regulators in the branch canals, the regulators
in these lower level canals would be upgraded with long-crested weirs.

66. The design dimensions of the long-crested weirs and priority selection of these
cross regulators for upgrading would be on the basis of (i) the amount of area served by
upstream offtakes, (ii) the hydraulic sensitivity of the offtakes, and (iii) relative percentage
of the amount of irrigation water delivered to those offtakes, and (iv) the relative
magnitude of the flow changes that occur in that particular part of the canal system.

67. The proposed works to install long-crested weirs in the distributary, secondary
and tertiary canals include construction of concrete walls and floors for the weir, concrete
repairs to the hydraulic structures (if the existing structure is retained for anchoring to the
weir walls), installation of silt flushing gates, dismantling and removal of the existing
sluice gates and metal frames, and channel cleaning around the structure to remove silt.

C. Spill Structures

68. Monitoring of canal spills from the distributary and secondary canals will be
important feedback to the watermaster and field staff about operations.

69. The proposed constructions works include a new weir structure (over-pour) with a
sharp metal blade for measurement, and channel cleaning to remove the heavy
accumulation of silt in the end section of the channel(s).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

V. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM AND SCADA

A. Objectives

70. No remote monitoring system exists to measure and automatically record

discharges and water levels at key points in the BIP, hence optimization of irrigation
water distribution and delivery is limited. The implementation of a Decision Support
System (DSS) is to assist DOI staff in making decisions initially related to optimized
water allocations, and potentially in the future, to incorporate water quality, land-use and
groundwater management is proposed. Installation of a Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) will perform remote monitoring purposes and provide accurate and
timely information about water level and flow data in the canal and the status of the
pumping units. The SCADA system shall be modular based and allow for extension in a
potential later phase to also gather and manage other types of information, e.g. GIS
imagery, salinity, ground water levels, and meteorological data.

71. The proposed SCADA system will improve the reliability and flexibility of water
deliveries throughout the service area. Other benefits of SCADA, besides real-time water
accounting for decisions about where and how to adjust the system, will be upgraded
record-keeping capabilities for historical analysis and forecasting, and faster response
times to user inputs and alarms. Web-based reporting of public access for water use will
also be facilitated by a well-designed SCADA system.

72. The DSS will be developed as a tool that can help organize the assumptions,
opinions and conclusions of persons about the measures to be taken in such a complex
situation. The DSS will facilitate water management being done in a structured and
efficient way. To achieve this, the DSS is: a tool that helps to decide or rather supports
the discussion on alternatives in a structured manner; and is capable of showing the
relative sensitivities of various parameters. A DSS is not: capable of taking a decision;
the only basis for decision taking; and, necessarily a good representation of the reality. A
DSS is generally tailor-made for each application based on the requirements of the
specific the necessary water management issues within the irrigation system. As more
budget, data and sophisticated models become available, the DSS can be adapted, but
only if this higher degree of sophistication yields more accurate results. Thus, ideally, a
DSS is a dynamic model that has to be revised or updated from time to time. The degree
of detail of the underlying models (or decision rules) depends not only on the objectives
but foremost on the availability of data of sufficient quality. For instance, if there were no
good data available about the discharges at a water control structure, the DSS is unlikely
to add better understanding of the allocation of discharges to that individual zone of the
system.

B. Key Activities

73. The establishment of the BIP DSS will be divided into two phases, whereas
Phase 1 is the setup of an irrigation system management data base. In the subsequent
Phase 2 SCADA communications and networking features will be added in order to
automatically provide real-time data as inputs to the DSS from site distributed in the
canal system.

74. The irrigation data base shall include, but not be limited to information about
flows measured at key division structures (eg, branch canal headworks), measured
water levels at other key locations in the canals and at critical structures (eg, spills and
interties), reservoir levels, and reservoir volumes and their inflows and outflows.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

75. The primary reason for this data base is to facilitate the structured collection of all
recordings and the analysis thereof for evaluation and planning purposes. The central
computer system, including the data base software shall be located in the control room
at the Bagmati Barrage or at the DOI office in Karmaihiya.

76. In the initial phase of the DSS, information shall be entered manually from
readings taken in the field, such as the average daily flow rate diverted from the main
canals to branch canals. One significant outcome of Phase 1 shall be the analysis of the
monthly and annual water allocations and determination of any deficiencies and
improvement solutions thereof. Part of the Phase 1 analysis shall be the determination of
which parameters are to be monitored remotely and details such as the appropriate
frequency of office-site communications.

77. The future implementation consultant shall provide a technical design for SCADA
network comprising the selection of SCADA facilities, field measurement instrumentation,
display devices, database server, internet network devices, printing devices, and
transmission technology equipment with an analysis of different technical and commercial
options. Implementation issues to be detailed shall also include installation, interfaces to
other utilities such as (electric utilities), financial and manpower requirements, future
expansion, and expected life of the new system. Technical options regarding the final
site listings, required field instrumentation and communication means shall be evaluated
and will be discussed and agreed with DOI.

78. The implementation consultant will be obligated to develop the proper design
defining the logical and physical interfaces in regard to the components of the SCADA
system among each other and connected with the sub-systems/equipment to be
designed and delivered by others. The consultant shall make an architectural design for
SCADA software using to operate the communications network by, for example,
investigating whether the installation of a wireless radio system is economically and
technically feasible. The proposed wireless system shall consist of a base station to be
located at the control center at the barrage (or the DOI office in Karmaihiya) and with
repeater stations located at appropriate intervals (e.g., every 40 to 50 km).

79. All the designated remote monitoring sites set up in the field will be suitably
equipped for future communications expansion.

80. The sites tentatively identified for inclusion in the SCADA system are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed SCADA Sites in the BIP

†
Site ID Quantity
Bagmati Barrage 1
Main Canal Measurement Structures 2
Branch Canal Head Regulators 6
Branch Canal Spill Structures 6
Regulating Reservoirs 6
†
Note: some sites such as reservoirs may have multiple
RTUs.
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

VI. COST ESTIMATES

81. The costs for modernization of the BIP are shown in Table 2 below. The table
shows the costs for the full modernization and the limited modernization options. Costs
have been assessed based on typical costs for similar works and other cost estimates
prepared by the Department of Irrigation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

Table 2: Cost Estimates for Surface Water Modernization BIP

Full Modernization Limited Modernization
Nr Work Item Unit
Unit Total Cost $ Total cost $ Sub Totals Total cost $ Sub Totals
A Mechanical and Electrical
1 East Main Canal 530,000 110,000
1.1 Overhaul of gate control system for gates at headworks nr 7 40,000 280,000 -
1.2 Overhaul gate hoists, pulleys and cables for cross regulator gates nr 7 20,000 140,000 -
1.3 Rehabilitation of cross regulator gates nr 7 10,000 70,000 70,000
1.4 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 2 20,000 40,000 40,000
2 West Main Canal 520,000 - 120,000
2.1 Overhaul of gate control system for gates at headworks nr 5 40,000 200,000 -
2.2 Overhaul gate hoists, pulleys and cables for cross regulator gates nr 10 20,000 200,000 -
2.3 Rehabilitation of cross regulator gates nr 10 10,000 100,000 100,000
2.4 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 1 20,000 20,000 20,000
3 Branch Canals 95,000 - 95,000
3.1 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure - Category 1 nr 5 10,000 50,000 50,000
3.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure - Category 2 nr 1 5,000 5,000 5,000
3.3 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 4 10,000 40,000 40,000
4 Distributary Canals 290,625 - 290,625
4.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 4 2,500 10,625 10,625
4.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 14 5,000 70,000 70,000
4.3 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 21 10,000 210,000 210,000
5 Secondary Canals 380,000 - 380,000
5.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 20 2,000 40,000 40,000
5.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 60 4,000 240,000 240,000
5.3 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 20 5,000 100,000 100,000
6 Sub-Secondary Canals 197,500 - 197,500
6.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 18 1,000 17,500 17,500
6.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 53 2,000 105,000 105,000
6.3 Rehabilitation of spill structure gates nr 15 5,000 75,000 75,000
7 Tertiary Canals 640,000 -
7.1 Steel gated outlet (with locking mechanism) nr 1,600 400 640,000 640,000 640,000
8 Field Outlets -
8.1 Steel gates (on/off, with locking mechanism) nr 10,000 200 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
9 Regulation Reservoirs 2,050,000 -
9.1 Inlet structure nr 6 100,000 400,000 -
9.2 Flow control gate (in adjacent canal) nr 6 50,000 300,000 -
9.3 Outlet structure (gravity) nr 3 50,000 150,000 -
9.4 Outlet structure (pumped) nr 3 400,000 1,200,000 -
10 Scada Systems nr 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 -
Sub-total of Mechanical and Electrical Works 7,203,125 7,203,125 3,833,125 3,833,125

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization
Full Modernization Limited Modernization
Nr Work Item
Unit Total Unit Cost $ Total cost $ Sub Totals Total cost $ Sub Totals
B Civil Works
1 East Main Canal 5,725,000 - 5,725,000
1.1 Modifications to intake works at barrage L.S. 200,000 200,000 200,000
1.2 Sediment basin L.S. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
1.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structure nr 1 100,000 100,000 100,000
1.4 Bank protection works m 2,100 1,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
1.5 Re-sectioning of canal km 8 250,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
1.6 Rehabilitation of cross regulator structures nr 5 25,000 125,000 125,000
1.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 2 50,000 100,000 100,000
2 West Main Canal 7,225,000 - 7,225,000
2.1 Modifications to intake works at barrage L.S. 500,000 500,000 500,000
2.2 Sediment basin L.S. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
2.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structure nr 1 100,000 100,000 100,000
2.4 Bank protection works m 2,750 1,000 2,750,000 2,750,000
2.5 Re-sectioning of canal km 11 250,000 2,750,000 2,750,000
2.6 Rehabilitation of cross regulator structures nr 3 25,000 75,000 75,000
2.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 1 50,000 50,000 50,000
3 Branch Canals 2,085,800 - 997,000
3.1 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure - Category 1 nr 5 15,000 75,000 75,000
3.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure - Category 2 nr 1 10,000 10,000 10,000
3.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structure nr 5 50,000 250,000 -
3.4 Re-sectioning of canal km 44 20,000 880,000 880,000
3.5 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 1 nr 6 60,000 356,400 -
3.6 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 2 nr 12 40,000 482,400 -
3.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 4 8,000 32,000 32,000
4 Distributary Canals 3,857,750 - 1,397,750
4.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 4 15,000 63,750 63,750
4.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 14 25,000 350,000 350,000
4.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structures nr 18 50,000 900,000 -
4.4 Re-sectioning of canal km 37 20,000 744,000 744,000
4.5 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 1 nr 16 60,000 960,000 -
4.6 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 2 nr 15 40,000 600,000 -
4.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 30 8,000 240,000 240,000
5 Secondary Canals 23,587,865 - 3,352,500
5.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 20 12,500 250,000 250,000
5.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 60 17,500 1,050,000 1,050,000
5.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structures nr 80 25,000 2,000,000 -
5.4 Re-sectioning of canal km 200 10,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
5.5 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 1 nr 361 20,000 7,228,433 -
5.6 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 2 nr 734 15,000 11,006,932 -
5.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 7 7,500 52,500 52,500

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 9 – Strategic Plan for Modernization

Full Modernization Limited Modernization

Nr Work Item
Unit Total Unit Cost $ Total cost $ Sub Totals Total cost $ Sub Totals
6 Sub-Secondary Canals 6,227,784 - 1,350,000
6.1 Repairs to headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 18 12,500 218,750 218,750
6.2 Replacement / repairs to headgate structure (major rehabilitation) nr 53 12,500 656,250 656,250
6.3 New broad-crested weir measurement structures nr 70 15,000 1,050,000 -
6.4 Re-sectioning of canal km 40 10,000 400,000 400,000
6.5 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 1 nr 108 15,000 1,626,397 -
6.6 Upgrade cross regulators with long-crested weir - Category 2 nr 220 10,000 2,201,386 -
6.7 Rehabilitation of spill structures nr 15 5,000 75,000 75,000
7 Tertiary Canals 9,000,000 - 9,000,000
7.1 Headgate structure (minor rehabilitation) nr 1,500 3,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
7.2 Construction /re-sectioning of tertiary canal nr 1,500 1,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
7.3 Land Levelling ha 30,000 100 3,000,000 3,000,000
8 Field Outlets -
8.1 New field outlet pipe and civil works nr 10,000 1,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
9 Regulation Reservoirs 4,128,000 -
9.1 Site preparation ha 90 5,000 450,000 -
9.2 Earthworks- reservoir excavation m3 720,000 2 1,440,000 -
9.3 Earthworks- embankment m3 180,000 3 540,000 -
9.4 Earthworks- compaction m3 216,000 3 648,000 -
9.5 Earthworks- haulage and deposit of excess material m3 420,000 3 1,050,000 -
8 Drainage System 4,500,000 - 4,500,000
8.1 Re-excavation of drain channels km 600 5,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
8.2 Drainage recirculation pump stations nr 6 250,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
9 Bridges and Culverts -
9.1 Rehabilitation / repairs nr 154 1,000 154,000 154,000 154,000 154,000
Sub-total of Civil Works 76,491,199 76,491,199 43,701,250 43,701,250
C Land Acquistion and Resettlement -
1 Land acquisition for regulation reservoirs ha 90 60,000 5,400,000 5,400,000

Total 89,094,324 89,094,324 47,534,375 47,534,375

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Appendix 10

Economics and Finance

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

ECONOMICS AND FINANCE

CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
II. PROJECT CONTEXT..........................................................................................................1
A. The Nepalese Economy .........................................................................................1
B. Economic Rationale for the Project ........................................................................5
C. Background to the Economic Assessment.............................................................6
1. Irrigation and Agricultural Production ..................................................................7
III. THE MODEL PROJECT AREAS.........................................................................................8
A. Present Situation ....................................................................................................8
1. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin........................................................................8
2. Lower Bagmati Basin Model Area.......................................................................9
B. Model Project Interventions ..................................................................................10
IV. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................10
A. Key Assumptions for the Analysis ........................................................................10
B. Project Benefits ....................................................................................................10
1. Quantified Benefits ............................................................................................10
2. Non-Quantified Benefits ....................................................................................11
C. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin Model Project Intervention..............................11
1. Project Costs .....................................................................................................11
2. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin Model Project Benefits ................................13
3. Lower Bagmati Basin Project Costs..................................................................15
4. Lower Bagmati Basin Benefits ..........................................................................16
D. Economic Results and Sensitivity ........................................................................17
E. Risks .....................................................................................................................18
V. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON BENEFICIARIES ......................................18
VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................21

List of Attachments
Attachment 1: Bagmati Irrigation Project Full Modernization Tables
Attachment 2: Upper and Middle Bagmati Pressure and Polyhouse Tables

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page i

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

List of Tables

Table 1: Key Indicators (2006/07 - 2011/12) ....................................................................................3

Table 2: Balance of Payments (% GDP) ..........................................................................................3
Table 3: Area and Population Structure of Bagmati Watershed Districts.........................................6
Table 4: Upper and Middle Bagmati - Without Project Cropping Pattern and Yields.......................9
Table 5: Lower Bagmati Basin Model Area Existing Cropping Pattern and Yields ..........................9
Table 6: Financial Cost Estimates for Upper and Middle Bagmati Intervention Options ...............11
Table 7: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper and Middle Bagmati Upgrade, 50-ha
Model ...............................................................................................................................12
Table 8: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper and Middle Bagmati Pressurized, 50-
ha Model ..........................................................................................................................12
Table 9: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper& Mid Bagmati Upgrade with
Polyhouse, 50-ha Model ..................................................................................................13
Table 10:With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in FMIS Upgrading 50-ha Model...................14
Table 11: With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in FMIS Micro Irrigation Upgrading
50-ha Model .....................................................................................................................14
Table 12: With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in Upgrade plus Polyhouse 50-ha
Model ...............................................................................................................................15
Table 13: Engineering Financial Cost Estimates of Full Modernization of BIP 47,700ha ..............15
Table 14:Economic Cost Estimates of Full Modernization of BIP (47,700 ha) ..............................16
Table 15: Lower Bagmati Basin - With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields ................................16
Table 16: EIRR & Sensitivity Results .............................................................................................17
Table 17: Estimated Incremental Income for Farms in Command Areas ......................................19
Table 18: Incremental Crop Production..........................................................................................20
Table 19: Incremental Employment Days ......................................................................................20

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page ii

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This part of the report contains the economic and financial assessment of the
proposed MFLW program investment in the Bagmati River Basin of Nepal. The
investment is proposed to carry out in four specific models of intervention and the analysis
contains the impact assessment on these four models due to the project activities.

2. All financial and economic analyses are based on the status quo approach of
assessing of project benefit in the project area that leads to assume that no additional
benefits in the near future would have accrued in the project area if there would have
been no project intervention. This facilitates an assessment of only the key and direct
benefits from the specific project invention, hence it also avoid over-estimation of project
benefits. For the economic analysis only the direct and the quantifiable benefits are
included in the calculations. Environmental and other possible external benefits have not
been quantified and are not included in the calculation.

II. PROJECT CONTEXT

A. The Nepalese Economy

3. The economy of Nepal remains largely rural and agricultural. The Terai is the
main granary to produce food crops in the country. In the hill and mountain areas
agriculture is a mainstay of economic activities, but the difficult terrain restricts road
access and inhibits development in many difficult to reach areas. More than 80% of the
population lives in rural areas. The agriculture sector, which comprises almost 35% of
GDP and provides livelihood to about 76% of households, grew at a mere 1.3%, down
from 5.0% in FY2012 and 4.5% in FY2011.1 The industrial sector, which comprises only
15% of GDP, continued the lackluster performance, registering an estimated growth of 1.6%,
down from 3% in FY2012 and 4.3% in FY2011. The remittances induced consumption
demand propelled the services sector growth to an estimated 6%, up from 4.5% in FY2012.
Within the services sector, wholesale and retail trade, whose share in GDP is 14.4%,
nearly equal to that of the industry sector, grew sharply by 9.5%, up from 3.1% in
FY2012.

4. The services sector, including the important tourist industry, accounts for 50% of
the economy, while the industrial sector, which has been declining slightly in recent
years makes up the rest. Nepal remains one of the poorest countries in South Asia and
the 12th poorest country in the world, with a per capita GDP in 2010/11 of $712
(NRs.51,444). Nepal also has a low Human Development Index (HDI) and is placed 157
out of 187 countries in 2011.

5. The overview of general performances in last fiscal year 2013 shows that due to
the adversely affected unfavorable monsoon conditions and the shortage of chemical
fertilizers during the peak summer crops planting season the gross domestic product
(GDP) growth dipped to an estimated 3.6% in FY2013, down from 4.5% in FY2012.
Services sector contributed about four-fifths of the GDP growth, up from about two-fifths
in FY2012, largely due to the rise in remittances induced consumption demand.
Agriculture sector’s contribution dropped to less than one-fifth of the GDP growth in
FY2013 (from two-fifth in FY2012), due to the decline in the production of major food
crops. The industrial sector’s contribution remained below one-fifth in the last three years,
reflecting the slowdown of manufacturing and construction activities.

1
Economic data used throughout this part of report unless mentioned otherwise are either from: (i) Macro
Economic Update Nepal February 2014, ADB or from: (ii) Economic Survey 2013, MOF, Nepal.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 1

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

6. Consumption accounted for an estimated 90.7% of GDP, up from 88.5% in

FY2012 and 85.5% in FY2011, reflecting the increasing consumption demand stimulated
by the growing remittance income. While capital formation hovered around an average of
37% of GDP, gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) has been around 21% of GDP. The
private sector accounted for the largest share of GFCF (17.2% of GDP in FY2013). Net
exports jumped to a negative 28.5% of GDP in FY2013, up from a negative 23.4% of
GDP in FY2012, reflecting a significant rise in import of goods and non-factor services
38.8% of GDP from 33.4% in FY2012. While high remittance income supported imports,
the slowing exports are a result of the persistent supply-side constraints affecting both
production and competitiveness.

7. Gross domestic savings declined to an estimated 9.3% of GDP from 11.5% in

FY2012 and 14.5% in FY2011. This indicates that a majority of the residents’ income is
spent on consumption, which is mostly met by imported goods. Meanwhile, the high
national savings (38.4% of GDP in FY2013) reflects the high remittance inflows. It has also
contributed to a positive savings-investment gap (computed as the difference between
gross national savings and gross capital formation) in the last two years.

8. Though per capita GDP increased to $734 in FY2013 from $709 in FY2012, it is
still lower than $720 in FY2011. The fluctuation in per capita GDP is partly attributed to
the depreciation of Nepalese rupee against the US dollar. The overall economy
marginally expanded to an estimated $19.4 billion in FY2013, from $19.0 billion in
FY2012.

9. Between 1995/96 and 2010/11 Nepal made considerable progress in reducing

poverty, with a fall in the headcount poverty rate from 42% to 25%. 2 In urban areas
poverty declined from 22% to 15% of the population, while in rural areas it declined from
43% to 27%. During this period, poverty rates declined in all development regions and
across all ecological belts. Households whose primary source of income is agriculture
constitute over 61% of all the poor - for those with their own land the poverty headcount
rate is 27% while for those households dependent on agricultural wage labor, the poverty
rate is 47%. Among households owning land, poverty is greatest among those owning 1
ha or less and poverty rates decline significantly for households owning more than 1 ha.
The lowest quintile of the population earns about 4% of total income, while the highest
quintile earns 56%. Households in the highest quintile are predominantly in urban areas,
with about 43% of urban households being in the highest income quintile.

10. Growth in the economy has varied in recent years (refer to Table 1). Annual
variations in the agricultural sector growth are largely determined by variations in the
monsoon from year to year. Average growth is higher for non-agriculture but is expected
to be lower than for the agricultural sector in 2010/11 and 2010/12, partly because of a
declining trend in industrial production. The subsectors with the most consistent growth
in recent years have been education, health and social services, and transport, storage
and communications.

11. The population is expected to reach 27 million in the current year. For the 10
years up to the most recent census in 2010/11, the average annual growth rate was
1.4%.

2
Nepal Living Standards Survey, 2010/11

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 2

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 1: Key Indicators (2006/07 - 2011/12)

1 2
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
GDP growth (%) 2.8 5.8 3.9 4.3 3.5 4.2
Real GDP growth per capita (%) 1.2 3.8 3.1 3.4 2.5 3.2
Population (million) 25.2 25.5 25.9 26.3 26.6 27.0
Agriculture sector growth (%) 1.0 5.8 3.0 2.0 4.5 4.9
Non-agriculture sector growth (%) 4.4 5.9 4.3 5.4 3.4 4.3
Source: MOF Economic Survey 2008/09, Notes: 1) Estimated; 2) Projected

12. Nepal generally lags behind its South Asian neighbors for most indicators of
economic development. Nepal also had the second lowest average GDP growth rate
among SAARC members during 2010 and 2011 and the third lowest in 2009 and its HDI
ranking (157) is lower than any other South Asian country except Afghanistan (172).

13. The recently concluded Three Year Interim Plan (2007/08 – 2009/10) (TYIP)
sought to promote employment oriented, pro-poor and broad based economic growth as
well as good governance and effective service delivery. Increasing investment in
physical infrastructure was a priority. The target for GDP growth was 5.5% per year, with
3.6% for the agricultural sector and an average of 6.5% for the non-agricultural sectors.
The plan also aimed to reduce the proportion of the population living below the poverty
line to 24%, which goal was almost achieved. The achievement of other targets was
affected by the global economic crisis during the period.

14. Nepal typically has a trade deficit, with merchandise imports significantly greater
than the value of merchandise exports in recent years. This deficit is made up by
earnings from tourism, workers’ remittances and inflows of capital and development
assistance. Workers’ remittances are particularly important for the economy and are
equivalent to about 20% of GDP (refer to Table 2). Tourism is also an important source
of foreign exchange, but in recent years has been about one tenth of the level of
remittances. Remittances are also important at the local level in communities: the World
Bank has estimated that remittances have been the main factor in reducing the poverty
rate over the last decade.

Table 2: Balance of Payments (% GDP)

1 2
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Exports 13.0 12.1 7.0 5.4 5.3 5.2
Imports 31.3 32.7 28.1 31.4 29.7 29.6
Trade deficit -18.3 -20.6 -21.1 -26.0 -24.4 -24.4
Workers’ remittances 13.8 16.5 21.1 19.8 19.4 19.6
Current Account Surplus 0.5 0.2 4.2 -2.4 -0.9 -0.8
Source: MOF Economic Survey 2008/09; Central Bureau of Statistics, Notes:1) Revised; 2) Preliminary

15. The total expenditure outlay for FY2014 is NRs.517.2 billion, with 63% for
recurrent expenditure, 16.5% for capital expenditure, and 15.2% for financing provision.
The recurrent expenditure allocation increased by 37% compared to the estimated
expenditure in FY2013 due to the 18% hike in civil servants’ salaries, an additional
NRs.1,000 monthly allowance, new recruitments in the security agencies, and the CA
election related expenses. A revenue target of NRs.429.5 billion (22.0% of GDP9) is set
for FY2014, along with projected foreign grants of NRs.69.5 billion (3.6% of GDP) and
principal repayment of NRs.5.5 billion.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 3

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

16. The budget set a revenue growth target of 19.9% for FY2014, slightly lower than
the 21% revised estimate in FY2013. Overall, gross budget deficit is expected to be
4.5% of GDP (to be financed by foreign loans and domestic borrowing equivalent to
2.2% and 2.3% of GDP, respectively). However, the net foreign and domestic borrowings
are estimated at 2.4% of GDP. Despite the timely announcement of the full FY2014
budget, overall expenditure performance during the first half of FY2014 was still low.
Only 30.3% of the total budget was spent (NRs.156.1 billion), slightly higher than the
29.6% budget utilization in the corresponding period in FY2013. Though the utilization of
recurrent and financing budgets was higher than last year, capital spending has
remained low, with just 13.5% of total allocation spent in the first half of FY2014
(NRs.11.5 billion), down from 14.9% utilization in the corresponding period in FY2013.

17. During the first six months of FY2014, the Nepal Rastra Bank’s (NRB) data
shows that government budget surplus increased to NRs.56.1 billion from NRs.40.4
billion in the corresponding period in FY2013, reflecting higher revenue growth and
slower than expected expenditure growth.

18. Inflation averaged 9.1% in the first half of FY2014, down from 10.7% in the
corresponding period in FY2013. Inflation, as measured by month-on-month (m-o-m)
consumer price index (CPI), moderated in all the six months of FY2014 compared to
corresponding months in FY2013. The decline in prices is mainly driven by the sharp
slowdown in non-food and services prices. However, the still persistently high inflation is
supported by rising food and beverage prices, which averaged 11.5% in the first half of
FY2014 against 9.8% in the same period in FY2013. Primarily, inflation in Nepal is driven
by prices in India— the largest trading partner, to whose currency the Nepalese rupee is
pegged, and with which Nepal shares an open border. Other factors influencing Nepal’s
inflation include agriculture harvest, oil price movements, domestic wage revisions,
exchange rate against convertible currencies, monetary tools (mainly interest rates), and
domestic supply-side constraints such as power outages, transport bottlenecks, lack of
raw materials leading to high import content of manufacture products, inadequate supply
of key agricultural inputs, and market distortions by middlemen, cartels and syndicates.

19. Short-term interest rates remained lower than the corresponding months in
FY2013, indicating the excess liquidity in the banking sector. The 91-day treasury bills
weighted average interest rate was substantially lower than in the corresponding months
in the previous year. It reached 0.47% in mid-January 2014, down from 0.7% in mid-
January 2013. Starting this year, NRB introduced a market-based mechanism to auction
government bonds. The BFIs are showing increasing appetite to purchase them at lower
interest rates than what was offered by NRB when the interest rate on such bonds was
fixed administratively. Meanwhile, interbank rates also remained substantially lower than
in the corresponding months in the previous years. The weighted average inter-bank
transaction rate among commercial banks was as low as 0.21% in mid-January 2014,
much lower than the 0.9% in mid-January 2013. The existing high demand for
government bonds and low interbank rates are driven by the excess liquidity in the
banking sector. Export increased as competitiveness improved due to the depreciation of
the Nepalese rupee, production picked up with the improvement in political situation, and
external demand improved on account of the optimistic growth outlook in the major
export destinations. Merchandise exports (free on board [fob]) registered a growth of
1.8%, in US dollar terms, by mid-January 2014, up from a negative growth of 1.2% in
mid-January 2013. Exports in mid-January 2014 totaled $506.3 million, equivalent to
51.6% of total exports in FY2013. Overall, in the first half of FY2014, the top export items
were woolen carpets, yarns, textiles, readymade garments, and cardamom.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 4

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

20. The top five exports to India were zinc sheet ($38.5 million), textiles ($28.9 million),
cardamom ($25.6 million), polyester yarn ($24.6 million), and jute goods ($21.7 million).
Meanwhile, the top five exports to other countries were woolen carpets ($36.8 million),
readymade garments ($20.0 million), pashmina ($11.8 million), pulses ($9.7 million), and
herbs ($6.1 million). The increase in Nepalese rupee competitiveness has boosted
manufacturing price competitiveness, particularly exports of garments and textiles.

21. Merchandise imports (cost, insurance and freight [cif]) in dollar terms grew by
8.1%, down from the 11.8% growth in the first half of FY2013. Of the total imports of $3.3
billion by mid-January 2014, 18.7% was oil imports. This is equivalent to $615.3 million,
higher than the total value of total merchandise exports. The high oil import reflects the
rising demand for petroleum products largely due to the persistent and long hours of
power cuts, and the depreciating Nepalese rupee.

22. Overall, in the first six months of FY2014, the top imports were petroleum
products, iron and steel, transport and vehicle parts, machinery and parts, and electronic
and electrical equipment. The five top imports from India were petroleum products
($612.0 million), vehicle and spareparts ($170.2 million), steel billets ($104.9 million),
medicine ($74.7 million), and other machinery and parts ($74.4 million). Top imports from
other countries were gold ($122.9 million), crude soybean oil ($94.1 million), tele-
communication equipment ($64.2 million), silver ($52.9 million), and other machinery and
parts ($45.1 million).

23. Remittance inflows have continued to grow along with the increase in the number
of labor migrants and the incentives to remit more money back home due to the
depreciation of the Nepalese rupee against the major convertible currencies. In US dollar
terms, remittance inflows grew by 17.9% in mid-January 2014, up from a growth of 9.2%
in mid-January 2013, reaching $2.7 billion. It is equivalent to 54.0% of the $4.9 billion
(25.5% of GDP) remittance inflows in FY2013.27 Labor migration (those who obtained
permits from the Department of Foreign Employment) grew by 12.7%, higher than 1.5%
growth in the first six months of FY2013. An average of 1,237 workers left the country
legally each day in the first six months of FY2014.

24. The country’s external situation depends on the back of a large increase in
remittance inflows, gain in exports, and slowdown in imports. In the first half of FY2014,
the balance of payments surplus increased to $788.1 million, up from $89.3 million in
mid-January in FY2013. Merchandise trade deficit widened to $2.8 billion, up from $2.6
billion in mid-January 2013. However, the surge in remittance inflows pushed current
account surplus to $554.6 million, sharply up from $50.7 million in the first half of FY2013.
The capital account and financial account registered significant growth rates as opposed
to the negative growth in the first half of FY2013. Actual foreign direct investment stood
at $12.9 million, much lower than the $42.9 million in the first half of FY2013. Gross
foreign exchange reserves increased from $5.5 billion in FY2013 to $6.3 billion in mid-
January 2014, sufficient to cover 10.2 months of import of goods and non-factor services.

B. Economic Rationale for the Project

25. The Bagmati watershed covers an area of 3,500 km2. It spreads over 8 districts of
the kingdom of Nepal, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Makwanpur, Kavre, Sindhuli,
Rautahat and Sarlahi. The catchment area of upper and middle Bagmati Basin is 2,807 km2.

26. The Bagmati watershed area for the purpose of this study is classified mainly into
three parts: Upper Bagmati basin consists of three districts of Kathmandu Valley namely
Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur Districts. The Middle Bagmati watershed area consists
of Makwanpur, Kavre and Sindhuli Districts. The Lower watershed area comprises of two
Terai districts named after Sarlahi and Rautahat. Topographically the upper and middle
part of watershed are either a mountainous or hilly area whereas Kathmandu Valley

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 5

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

comprises of an alluvial flat terrain. The lower Bagmati basin districts are mainly a part of
Gangetic flat plain area of Indian subcontinent. The Middle Bagmati watershed area
consists of the two physiographic regions of Nepal: (i) the Siwalik region (450-815 m
above MSL in southern side) (ii) the middle mountain region (Highest pt. 2,625 m, in the
northern side). The average altitude of Kathmandu Valley is 1,350 m above msl. The
valley is surrounded by some high mountains ranging from some 1,500 to 3000 m above
MSL.

27. The population of Bagmati watershed district is above 5 million (5,087,732) as per
2011 population census (refer to Table 3). Among these the most densely populated
district is Kathmandu which also includes the capital city Kathmandu. Geographically, all
the three valley districts Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur are smaller in size
compared with other watershed districts. Area coverage of other hilly districts are
relatively larger compared with the plain area district, the lower Bagmati watershed
districts. In middle Bagmati watershed district proportion of female population is higher
than male population perhaps also signifying greater migratory movement of male
population from these districts. The average household sizes are observed little bit larger
in lower Bagmati area than in upper and middle area.

Table 3: Area and Population Structure of Bagmati Watershed Districts

Pop.
Area Growth Avg. HH
2
District Km Population Male% Female% 2001/2011 HH no Size
Kathmandu 395 1740,977 52.26 47.74 60.93 469,145 3.71
Bhaktapur 119 303,027 50.82 49.18 34.4 73,084 4.15
Lalitpur 385 466,784 50.80 49.20 38.19 114,443 4.08
Kavre 1,396 389,959 47.84 52.16 1.11 86,605 4.50
Makwanpur 2,426 427,494 49.26 50.74 8.89 89,550 4.77
Sindhuli 2,491 294,621 48.05 51.95 5.29 58,270 5.06
Sarlahi 1,259 768,649 50.59 49.41 20.91 139,980 5.49
Rautahat 1,126 696,221 50.98 49.02 27.72 109,976 6.33
Total 9,597 5,087,732 50.07 49.93 24.68 1,141,053 4.76
Source: Statistical Year Book, 2012, Ministry of Agricultural Development

C. Background to the Economic Assessment

28. The focus of the project will be on watersheds of the Bagmati River Basin. The
project rational is built on the 2013 Bagmati River Basin Improvement Project (BRBIP),
which focus on improving water security in the basin through integrated river basin
management and increased water availability especially in the dry season. More
specifically the MFLW project rational is directed toward exploring two specific
opportunities in details: (i) in the lower reaches of the basin where the Bagmati Irrigation
Project (BIP) is a potential area for improvement, explore potential for greater
conjunctive use of surface and groundwater; and (ii) whereas in the upper and middle
reach of the basin the scope is to improve water use efficiency (WUE) in farmer-
managed schemes with the innovative uses of water saving technologies.

29. With those rationales the project will undertake the improvement and
rehabilitation of small and farmers managed irrigation schemes in the upper and middle
watershed of the basin. Water saving irrigation technologies such as drip and sprinkler
irrigation methodologies shall be introduced where these would be applicable and useful
for raising farmers' income through growing high value income generating crops in these
areas. In the lower Bagmati river basin area upgrading and improvement of the BIP
would be a major intervention whereas supplementary and conjunctive use of
groundwater would be also a key innovative approach. Only the investments in water
infrastructure activities are supposed to generate quantifiable benefits for communities

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 6

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

within the short to medium term, hence these are attempted to quantify in the analysis.
However supplementary investment on other supportive subcomponents such as on
agricultural support and institutional capacity buildings are also rationalized in order to
effective realization and sustaining of the project’s rationalized benefits.

1. Irrigation and Agricultural Production

30. Irrigation is a key factor for improving agricultural production in Nepal, to increase
the production of staples to meet the growing gap between production and the needs of
the expanding population and for diversification and intensification of agriculture to help
increase on-farm incomes and reduce rural poverty. Irrigation therefore has a key role to
play in Nepal’s poverty reduction strategy. For individuals and households, access to
irrigation reduces the severity of rural poverty by (i) increasing food production, (ii)
increasing on-farm employment, and (iii) increasing incomes. Improving the reliability of
access to water for crop production in this context till help support on-farm livelihoods in
rural areas.

31. Agricultural production in all over the project area is dominated by cereals, which
occupy about 80% or more of cropped area, although providing only about half of
production by value. The agriculture sector is the most important in the economy since it
still provides employment for the majority of the population and some 80% of the
population lives in rural areas. Increasing activity in the agriculture sector, which very
largely means expanding the areas under reliable year round irrigation, has the potential
to increase rural employment and incomes. Nevertheless, in many areas labor migration
is now an important source of household cash income and its relative importance may in
some cases act as a disincentive to the improvement or diversification of on-farm
production by (i) providing greater income than is possible from small and very small
farms, and (ii) reducing labor available to farm households. On the other hand, growing
demand from towns and cities has promoted an increase in more commercial farming of
products such as vegetables in various seasons, horticulture, dairy and other livestock
products, especially for those areas with easy or increasingly easy access to major
domestic or north Indian markets.

32. Farm production remains the most important source of income on average for
households in these watersheds, but other sources of income include various types of
non-farm income, remittances from family members working elsewhere in Nepal or
abroad, and other minor sources such as non-timber forest products in some localities.
Especially in the upper Bagmati River Basin area which consists of the Kathmandu
Valley, there exists greater potentiality of commercial farming of vegetables high value
cash crops and development of agribusiness and agro enterprises.

33. Agriculture in the project area is dominated, as in most parts of the country, by
cereal production. On flat, “khet”, land along the valley floors, the crops are principally
paddy rice during the monsoon season followed by wheat, with supplementary areas of
vegetables, potatoes, pulses and oilseeds. In the upland, “bari”, areas irrigation systems
supplement monsoon rains in some places, but mostly crops are rainfed. Upland rice,
maize and millets are grown during the monsoon followed during the winter and dry
season by wheat, oilseeds, pulses, potatoes, vegetables and sometimes crops such as
ginger or turmeric. In the Terai, paddy is the main crop in the summer whereas wheat,
maize, oilseeds, pulses are other dominant crops during winter. Potato and vegetables
are also grown depending upon the availability of irrigation facilities. Sugarcane is
another important crop in the lower basin area which is an important source of cash
income. In the overall in the entire project area on the average cereals may account for
up to 85% or more of land cultivated during the monsoon and at least 60-75% of land
cultivated during the dry season.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 7

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

III. THE MODEL PROJECT AREAS

A. Present Situation

1. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin

34. In upper and middle Bagmati Basin cultivation in most of the hill project area is on
terraced bari fields and is almost all rainfed in such terraced area at present. In
Kathmandu Valley fertile alluvial and relatively flat land exist which is good for rice,
wheat, potato and vegetable crops. However majority of area is rainfed. In some
locations there exist some farmers managed or agency supported irrigation system that
provide supplementary irrigation during the monsoon season. The water available from
these systems is used mostly for paddy rice. Typically, these existing systems cannot
provide sufficient flow to provide irrigation water during the dry season crops as per
demand. Until recently, wherever such winter flow is available the general tendency is to
use to grow potato and vegetable to supplement the growing demand for these crops
from urban centers.

35. While some paddy rice is grown in flat khet area, maize is currently the principal
monsoon cereal crop in the local cropping pattern in terraced hill area. Rainfed upland
rice is also grown as well as millet. During the winter season, where possible wheat is
grown along with minor crops such as pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, potatoes and so on.
While there are wide variation in the detail of farmers’ cropping patterns throughout the
project area, the overall pattern is rather similar almost everywhere. Data on cropping
patterns at individual locations has been obtained from observation and discussion with
farmers during field visits by the consultant team and from local records.

36. Yields achieved for crops are generally not high due to the rainfed character of
most agriculture and because the use of improved varieties and inputs such as fertilizers
is restrictedly available to general farmers.

37. In the Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin a model 50-ha project area is considered
for the economic and financial analyses. The present and without project cropping
pattern for this command area is given in Table 4. This average cropping pattern is
applied for all farms, regardless of size. Monsoon season rice or maize and winter wheat
are the main cereal crops, with millet and buckwheat as minor cereals. Some quantities
of pulses and vegetables (including potatoes) are also grown. Oilseeds are also grown
generally to meet with the family demand for this crop. In Table 4 however some minor
crop areas are combined and represented by some relevant crop items in order to
maintain simplicity in the presentation.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 8

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 4: Upper and Middle Bagmati - Without Project Cropping Pattern and Yields

Crops/Seasons Area (ha) %Crop area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 50 100
Kharif 2
Paddy 30 60 4,800
Maize 10 20 2,700
Sum. Veg. 10 20 13,000
Subtotal 50 100
Rabi
Wheat 15 30 2,700
Pulses 20 40 1,000
Maize 5 10 5,100
Potato 5 10 15,000
vegetable 5 10 16,000
Subtotal 50 100
Kharif 1
Maize 10 20 2,700
vegetable 5 10 12,000
Subtotal 15 30
Total 115 230
Source: Present Study, 2014

2. Lower Bagmati Basin Model Area

38. The Lower Bagmati sub-basin area consists of two Terai districts of the central
development region of Nepal. The total cultivated area of this region is approximately
100,000 ha out of which, about 47,700 ha area lies under the command of the BIP.

39. The present (ie, without project) cropping pattern in the area is summarized in
Table 5. Monsoon season rice and sugarcane are the main crop and winter wheat is the
main crop, supplemented with potato, oilseed, and vegetables.

Table 5: Lower Bagmati Basin Model Area Existing Cropping Pattern and Yields

Crops/Seasons Area (ha) %Crop Area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 50.0
Kharif 2
Paddy 40.0 80.0 4,800
Maize 8.0 16.0 2,700
Sum. Veg. 2.0 4.0 13,000
Subtotal 50.0 100.0
Rabi
Wheat 10.0 20.0 2,700
Pulses 5.0 10.0 1,000
Maize 2.0 4.0 5,100
Potato 5.0 10.0 15,000
vegetable 5.0 10.0 16,000
Subtotal 27.0 54.0
Kharif 1
Maize 15.0 30.0 2,700
vegetable 5.0 10.0 12,000
Subtotal 20.0 40.0
Total 97.0 194.0
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 9

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

B. Model Project Interventions

40. For the purpose of economic and financial analyses, project interventions are
considered for four specific intervention options. Among these, three options of
interventions are considered for Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin and a single option of
intervention has been considered for Lower Bagmati Basin. For the Lower Bagmati Basin
two other options of interventions were also in considerations but these could be not
materialized for economic and financial analyses since these required further analysis
and study, which in fact has been beyond the scope of present study. In summary the
four models of economic and financial analyses considered for present analysis are:

(i) Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin: simple upgrading of farmer’s managed
irrigation schemes of a 50-ha model project
(ii) Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin: an upgrading with pressurized irrigation
system in a 50-ha model project area
(iii) Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin: an upgrading with polyhouse Intervention
in a 50-ha of model project area
(iv) Lower Bagmati Basin: a full modernization of the Bagmati Irrigation Project
(47,700 ha)

IV. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

A. Key Assumptions for the Analysis

41. The economic analysis refers first quarter of 2014 constant prices. The exchange
rate used is NRs.100 = $1 (a mode value of January 2014 rate) and the discount rate is
12%. The project life is 21 years. The analysis uses the world price numéraire.
Economic prices exclude taxes. A standard conversion factor of 0.97 has been used to
adjust financial prices. A shadow wage rate factor of 0.80 has been applied to unskilled
wage rates to reflect the relative abundance of unskilled labor, although in some
locations at some times of year this may under-value unskilled labor due to the seasonal
migration of labor for work in other parts of Nepal or in India.

42. Financial prices for inputs and outputs have been based on Consultants’ field
surveys of recent local farm gate and market prices, supplemented by some DOAD/GON
publication of crop budgets for some major commodities for the project districts.
Economic prices for traded inputs and outputs (rice, wheat, maize, sugarcane and
chemical fertilizers) have been estimated from World Bank Commodity Price Projection
in January 2014.

B. Project Benefits

1. Quantified Benefits

43. In all of the model project analysis the only quantified benefits are the increases
in agricultural crops and limited amount of fish farming resulting from the improvement in
the irrigation system and a partial agricultural support provided to the beneficiaries.

44. The quantified agricultural benefits are based on the crop budgets. These
average crop budgets are based on published crop data for the districts in the project
area as well as on information provided by farmers in focus group discussions (FGDs)
during field investigations by the consultant’s team. A more assured water supplies for
irrigation will enhance yields since crops will be much less subject to water stress, but
anticipated yield increases for crops do not exceed 20%, except for SRI rice which yet

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 10

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

can be considered an innovative intervention. Yield increases reflect mainly the impact of
irrigation water plus some limited support to address on some major agricultural
production issues that emerged during focus group discussion with the stakeholders of
project area. The small numbers of recharge ponds in upper and middle Bagmati Basin
and reserve ponds built in lower Bagmati Basin BIP area has been also used for some
quantities of fish production especially during wet period. The financial prices used in the
crop budgets are based on prices currently applied in the project area. The daily wage
rates for labor are the rates currently paid for farm labor in the project area.

2. Non-Quantified Benefits

45. Apart from the direct agricultural production benefits that have been quantified in
the analysis some additional benefits could be the impact on the livestock industry due to
some increased availability of crop by products for feeding animals and increased
availability of water especially during dry season in some instances. Besides increased
income from additional production of food-grains, vegetables and high-value crop will
have positive impacts on food security, nutrition and health. Increased volume of
marketable agricultural product will also have positive impact on marketing business.
Since reliable data for estimation of such benefits are not readily available these could
be not included in this analysis. Some of these longer term benefits could be quantified if
sufficient and appropriate data were available. Otherwise estimates of the magnitude of
some of these benefits could only be made by making numerous assumptions, leading to
essentially less-meaningful results. Furthermore, even though these benefits will be real
and important, the fact that they will only begin to accrue after some years means that
because of the high discount rate used in the analysis they are likely to have little impact
on the outcome of the cost benefit analysis.

C. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin Model Project Intervention

1. Project Costs

46. The summary of engineering estimates of three model project costs of upper and
middle Bagmati Basin are given in Table 6. The details include both the investment and
the operation and maintenance cost for these options. These costs excluded the non-
civil investment costs which are included in Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9. Cost details
included in Tables 7 to 10 therefore comprise the economic value of both the civil and
non-civil investment costs for all of the investment options designed for upper and middle
Bagmati Basin.

Table 6: Financial Cost Estimates for Upper and Middle Bagmati Intervention
Options

Intervention Options Unit areas Cost /NRs. unit Cost per ha NRs O&M cost/unit NRs O&M cost/ha NRs
Upgrading 50 12,500,000 250,000 312,500 6,250
Micro Irrigation 50 17,500,000 350,000 875,000 17,500
Polyhouse with drip 50 29,000,000 580,000 3,612,500 72,250

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 11

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 7: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper and Middle Bagmati Upgrade,
50-ha Model
A. Civil works US$
Items Financial Economic
Skilled Unskilled Skilled Unskilled
Total Mat. Labor Labor Mat. Labor Labor Total
Upgrading of irrigation system 125,000 81,250 12,500 31,250 78,883 12,136 25,000 116,019
Total 125,000 81,250 12,500 31,250 78,883 12,136 25,000 116,019
B. Non Civil Cost
Agriculture
Agriculture extension and
training 2,500 2,427
Land leveling 1,250 813 125 313 789 121 250 1,160
Water management 1,250 1,214
Institutional 1,250 1,214
Planning, Supervision,
consultancy and initial support
budget 25,000 24,272
Contingency (15%) 42,188 17,403
Total 73,438 47,689
C. Annual Operation and
Maintenance Cost 3,125 3,034
Source: Present Study, 2014

Table 8: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper and Middle Bagmati
Pressurized, 50-ha Model
A. Civil works US$
Items Financial Economic
Skilled Unskilled Skilled Unskille
Total Mat. Labor Labor Mat. Labor d Labor Total
Pressurized upgrading of irrigation 110,43 162,42
system 175,000 113,750 17,500 43,750 7 16,990 35,000 7
110,43 162,42
Total 175,000 113,750 17,500 43,750 7 16,990 35,000 7
B. Non Civil Cost
Agriculture
Agriculture extension and training 2,500 2,427
Land leveling 1,250 813 125 313 789 121 250 1,160
Water management 1,250 1,214
Institutional 1,250 1,214
Planning, Supervision, consultancy
and initial support budget 35,000 33,981
Contingency (15%) 58,688 24,364
Total 99,938 64,359
C. Annual Operation and Maintenance
Cost 8,750 8,495
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 12

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 9: Economic Cost Estimates for MFLW Upper& Mid Bagmati Upgrade with
Polyhouse, 50-ha Model
A. Civil works US$
Items Financial Economic
Skilled Unskilled Skilled Unskilled
Total Mat. Labor Labor Mat. Labor Labor Total
Upgrading FMIs and Poly-house
with Drip Capital cost 290,000 188,500 58,000 43,500 183,010 56,311 34,800 274,120
Total 290,000 188,500 58,000 43,500 183,010 56,311 34,800 274,120
B. Non Civil Cost
Agriculture
-Up-scaling poly-house & micro
irrigation 16,500 10,725 3,300 2,475 10,413 3,204 1,980 15,597
- Agricultural trainings 1,250 1,214
Land leveling 1,250 813 250 188 789 243 150 1,182
Water management 1,250 1,214
Institutional 1,250 1,214
Planning, Supervision, consultancy
and initial support budget 43,500 42,233
Contingency (15%) 53,250 41,118
Total 118,250 103,770
C. Annual O&M cost
FMIS, Poly-house & Drip O&M 36,125 35,073
Source: Present Study, 2014

2. Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin Model Project Benefits

47. For the with project scenario, the model project area of both the simple upgrades
and pressurized irrigation of the upper and middle Bagmati Basin will benefit from more
reliable supplementary irrigation during the monsoon season as well as complementing
supplies during most of the dry season depending upon the availability of discharge.
These effects will lead to increase both the cropping intensity at some level as well as
increase in the crop yields of all the previously grown crops in the area (Table 10 and
Table 11). The other most significant change in the cropping pattern with the project will
be a diversion from the previous situation to a more cash value oriented high value
crops. There will be an introduction of SRI rice and more areas of vegetable crops that
helps to fetch significant benefit in with project scenario. In the micro irrigation model
both the cropping intensities and crop yields for some Rabi and Kharif 1 season crops
are higher. The transition from the present to the future cropping pattern is assumed to
occur over 5 years from the start of the overall project intervention.

48. In the upgrade plus polyhouse intervention model of upper and middle Bagmati
Basin, there will be a complete shift of farming system from traditional crops to a
polyhouse production of high value vegetable commodity in some of their potential areas
in about 15% of area. The polyhouses are also combined with an equal sized reserve
pond which will have multiple use of water reserve for dry periods, rain water collection
and fish farming especially in wet periods. It is assumed that farmers shall adopt poly-
house farming at least in an area that is sufficient to outweigh income foregone from the
previously grown dry season crops in the entire command area. This will act as a water
saving innovation in upper and middle Bagmati basin in dry seasons. The beneficiaries
shall be supported to adopt poly-house technology at the initial phase of project
intervention. The revenue incurred from poly-house farming in with project scenario of
poly-house model of intervention is observed to be substantially high (refer to Table 12).

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 13

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 10:With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in FMIS Upgrading 50-ha Model

Crops/Seasons Area (ha) %Crop Area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 50
Kharif 2
Paddy 38 76.0 5,000
Paddy SRI 8 16.0 6,500
Sum. Veg. 2 4.0 14,000
Subtotal 48 96.0
Rabi
Wheat 10 20.0 3,100
Pulses 5 10.0 1,100
Maize 10 20.0 17,000
vegetable 8 16.0 17,000
Subtotal 33 66.0
Kharif 1
Maize 18 36.0 3,400
vegetable 6 12.0 14,000
Subtotal 24 48.0
Total 105 210.0
Source: Present Study, 2014

Table 11: With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in FMIS Micro Irrigation
Upgrading 50-ha Model

Crops/Seasons Area (ha) %Area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 50
Kharif-2
Paddy 38 76 5,000
Paddy SRI 8 16 6,500
Sum. Veg. 2 4 15,000
Subtotal 48 96
Rabi
Wheat 8 16 3,500
Pulses 5 10 1,100
Maize 5 10 5,500
Potato 12 24 20,000
vegetable 15 30 18,000
Subtotal 45 90
Kharif-1
Maize 20 40 3,500
vegetable 8 16 16,000
Subtotal 28 56
Total 121 242
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 14

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 12: With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields in Upgrade plus Polyhouse
50-ha Model

Crops/Seasons Area (ha) % Area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 35
Kharif 2
Paddy 27 77 5,000
Paddy SRI 8 23 6,500
Subtotal 35 100
Poly-house area 7.5
Tomato 7.5 100 90,200
Leafy veg. (inter crop) 20,000
Subtotal 7.5 100
Reserve cum Fish ponds 7.5 3,000
Subtotal 7.5 100
Total 50 100
Source: Present Study, 2014

3. Lower Bagmati Basin Project Costs

49. The engineering estimates of financial cost of proposed full modernization of BIP
is given in Table 13. The cost details includes both the civil/mechanical/ electrical
improvement items as well as the non-civil cost items. The financial cost provided in
Table 10 is converted into economic prices using the standard procedure (PDSP Manual
M10: Financial and Economic Analysis, DOI) and provided in Table 14. All the costs are
based on currently applicable unit rates hence has no need to adjustments for inflation.

Table 13: Engineering Financial Cost Estimates of Full Modernization of BIP

47,700ha

a. Civil, Mechanical, Electrical Works Unit Unit cost$ Nr Total cost, US$
East Main Canal Ls 6,255,000 1 6,255,000
West Main Canal Ls 7,745,000 1 7,745,000
Branch Canals Ls 2,180,800 1 2,180,800
Distributaries Canals Ls 4,148,375 1 4,148,375
Secondary Canals Ls 23,967,865 1 23,967,865
Sub-Secondary Canals Ls 6,425,284 1 6,425,284
Tertiary Canals (inc field channels field outlets Ls 21,640,000 1 21,640,000
Regulation Reservoirs Ls 6,678,000 1 6,678,000
Drainage System Ls 4,500,000 1 4,500,000
Bridges and Culverts Ls 154,000 1 154,000
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Ls 5,400,000 1 5,400,000
Sub Total 89,094,324
b. Non-Civil Costs
Agricultural Support Initiatives 4,770,000
Training and Awareness 477,000
Consultancy and management Support 11,978,172
O&M Budget Support during Implementation Period 3,900,000
Contingencies 10% 11,021,950
Sub Total 32,147,122
Total Investment Cost 121,241,445
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 15

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 14:Economic Cost Estimates of Full Modernization of BIP (47,700 ha)

Items Financial, US$ 000 Economic, US$000

A. Full Modernization of BIP Skilled Unskilled Skilled Unskilled
(mechanical/electrical/civil works Total Mat. Labor Labor Mat. Labor Labor Total
89,094 57,911 8,909 22,274 56,225 8,650 17,819 82,693
Total 89,094 57,911 8,909 22,274 56,225 8,650 17,819 82,693
B. Non Civil Cost
Agricultural Support Initiatives 4,770 4,631
Training and Awareness 477 463
Consultancy and management
Support 11,978 11,629
O&M Budget Support during
Implementation Period 3,900 3,786
Contingencies 10% 11,022 10,701
Total 32,147 31,211
C. BIP O&M 7,547 7,327
Source: Present Study, 2014

4. Lower Bagmati Basin Benefits

50. With Project Cropping Pattern and Crop Yields: In the lower Bagmati Basin for
the full modernization of the BIP the anticipated with project cropping pattern and yields
are provided in Table 15. In with project situation in the lower Bagmati Basin area, the
overall cropping intensity is expected to go up 175% from the existing situation cropping
intensity of 158%. The modernization of the BIP and with improved water management
system and agricultural support system, there will be substantial increase of high value
vegetable crop areas, potato and sugarcane in the command area. Besides adoption of
SRI rice in about 2,500 ha will help to bring substantial benefit for the project. With all
these efforts crop yields are also expected to increase from some 5 to 20 percentages.
The transition from the present to the future cropping pattern is assumed to occur over 5
years from the start of the intervention.

Table 15: Lower Bagmati Basin - With Project Cropping Pattern and Yields

Crops Area (ha) %Crop area Yield (kg/ha)

NCA 47,700
Kharif-2
Paddy 20,000 42 5,400
Paddy SRI 2,500 5 6,500
Maize 2,300 5 3,200
Early Paddy 10,000 21 4,100
Sum. Veg. 3,100 6 15,000
Sugarcane 14,000 29 65,000
Subtotal 51,900 109
Rabi
Wheat 9,000 19 3,300
Pulses 6,840 14 1,500
Oilseeds 4,600 10 1,200
Maize 3,100 6 5,400
Potato 3,400 7 18,000
Vegetable 3,200 7 18,000
Subtotal 30,140 63
Kharif-1
Paddy 500 1 4,500
Vegetable 900 2 14,000
Subtotal 1,400 3
Total 83,440 175
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 16

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

D. Economic Results and Sensitivity

51. The EIRRs for the four intervention models are given in Table 16, together with
sensitivity results for several key variables. The result shows that mostly all the four
models of intervention are feasible. The base case EIRRs for FMIS Upgrade (50-ha
model project) and pressurized irrigation (50-ha model project) are respectively 26.33%
and 28.05%. Both of these models look quite attractive and they are still viable against
any of the anticipated adverse situation of sensitivity test. It seems because the upgrade
and pressurized irrigation models are intended to implement in already built in irrigation
system, this additional investment affect to realize benefits from previous investment as
well as which values are not included in the current cost estimates. In other words,
present investment affects to realize the blocked benefit from previous benefit as well as,
hence the project becomes highly attractive.

52. The polyhouse intervention model is also observed to be feasible at base case.
The base case EIRR of this model is 21.26% showing farmers may find it attractive for
adoption provided sufficient support are given to them. The sensitivity indicators on this
model however show project little bit risky on two key indicators such as delay in benefit
realization and a combined case of reduction on anticipated benefits together with
increase in investment cost. The returns sharply drop on these situations to below the
threshold level of return.

53. The full upgrading of BIP model provides a base case EIRR of 24.41% which still
looks quite attractive for investment. The sensitivity test indicator show that project is
fairly stable to provide returns over the threshold level against any of the anticipated
adverse situation.

Table 16: EIRR & Sensitivity Results

Switching
EIRR B/C NPV Value
(%) Ratio (NRs) (%)
Upper and Middle Bagmati - Upgrade
Base case 26.33 2.48 11,825,708
Capital costs +25% 20.93 1.58 8,894,430 +100
All benefits -25% 19.62 1.48 5,852,099 -49
Benefit delay 5 yr 17.81 1.47 5,671,862 12
Costs+25%; benefits -25% 15.16 1.19 2,920,821
Base case 28.05 2.97 19,699,502
Capital costs +25% 22.69 1.90 15,645,772 +121
All benefits -25% 22.57 1.78 11,504,3,44 -15
Benefit delay 5 yr 20.13 1.76 11,247,572 57
Costs+25%; benefits -25% 17.67 1.42 7,450,616
Base case 21.26 1.75 19,163,216
Capital costs +25% 17.45 1.12 13,006,169 +77
All benefits -25% 13,23 1.05 2,368,673 -28
Benefit delay 5 yr 11.49 0.97 (1,344,634) 4
Costs+25%; benefits -25% 10.29 0.84 (3,788,373)
Lower Bagmati – Modernization of BIP
Base case 24.41 2.18 8,118,457,480
Capital costs +25% 20.08 1.39 6,185,585,439 +105
All benefits -25% 17.61 1.30 3,328,503,953 -42
Benefit delay 5 yr 16.26 1.29 3,243,165,035 9
Costs+25%; benefits -25% 14.01 1.04 1,395,631,912
Source: Present Study, 2014

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 17

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

E. Risks

54. Some risks to the economic outcome of the model projects could be pointed out.
There are risks associated with the cropping pattern adoption by farmers under the new
irrigated regime and with their ability properly to establish and manage the equitable
distribution and use of the available water. The agricultural and institutional support that
embedded with physical upgrading need to match properly in terms of timeliness and
progresses. Furthermore, if farmers continue to grow predominantly traditional cereals
without any diversification this might also place the outcome of the subprojects at risk.

55. Another risk factor could be associated with the lack of proper management of
labor supply in farming business. Presently farming business is considered not very
attractive for many of young people. They seem to be more attracted with migration to
gulf countries and elsewhere. This results for many families reducing their interest or
ability to undertake more labor intensive irrigated cultivation on their land, or even to
cultivate the land at all. The impact would be the same as if the potential command areas
were not fully developed and would jeopardize the economic outcomes of the projects.

V. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON BENEFICIARIES

56. For households with land in the command areas of the model project intervention,
there will be direct financial benefits from increased crop production. The estimated
incremental income that will accrue to households in four of these investment models
areas are given in Table 17. The amounts shown are for the average farm sizes of the
command area since the same cropping pattern is applied in the analysis for the whole
of each command area. The incremental incomes accruing to different sizes of farms are
directly proportional to the area cultivated.

57. This incremental income refers only to production on land in the command areas
of the model projects. This includes net income both from crop grown in farm areas and
fish grown in the recharge/reserve ponds built by the project, which were possible for
quantification. Some beneficiary households may also have land outside the command
areas, and will also have income from livestock and other on-farm or off-farm sources;
these are not included in the analysis.

58. There is substantial incremental return (NRs.1,870,403,349/annum) in the BIP full

modernization area at the time of full development of the targeted works. These returns
for upper and middle basin upgrade and pressurized models are respectively
NRs.3,364,282 and NRs.5,694,249. The large size of return for the BIP full modernization
is obviously due to its larger size of area and larger amount of investment. The per/ha
incremental return on this model is substantially lower (NRs.39,212/ha) than compared
with the upper and middle basin upgrade NRs.67,286/ha and that for upper and middle
basin pressurized is NRs.113,885/ha. The upper and middle basin pressurized model
does also has a substantially larger size of income than compared with the upper and
middle basin upgrade only model. This somehow indicates that the pressure component
of investment in upper and middle basin is a beneficial intervention.

59. The upper and middle basin polyhouse intervention model has an incremental
return size of NRs. 12,838,324. The per/ha return on this model NR. 256,766 /ha is
observed to be quite high compared with any of the other models.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 18

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 17: Estimated Incremental Income for Farms in Command Areas

CA Crop Area Financial

Investment Models Description ha ha NRs
Total Crop Revenue W/O 47,700 75,200 5,755,960,041
Total Crop Revenue W/P 83,440 7,623,895,289
BIP Full Modernization Total Fish Revenue W/P 10 2,468,101
Incremental Benefit 1,870,403,349
Incremental Rs/ha 39,212
Total Crop Revenue W/O 50 97 5,449,838
Total Crop Revenue W/P 105 8,624,417
Upper and Middle Basin
Total Fish Revenue W/P 2 189,703
Upgrades
Incremental Benefit 3,364,282
Incremental Rs/ha 67,286
Total Crop Revenue W/O 50 97 5,521,530
Total Crop Revenue W/P 121 11,026,075
Upper and Middle Basin
Total Fish Revenue W/P 2 189,703
Pressurized
Incremental Benefit 5,694,249
Incremental Rs/ha 113,885
Total Crop Revenue W/O 50 97 5,557,169
Total Crop Revenue W/P 35 2,827,783
Upper and Middle Basin Total Fish Revenue W/P 7.5 711,388
Polyhouse Total Poly-house Revenue W/P 7.5 14,856,322
Incremental Benefit 12,838,324
Incremental Rs/ha 256,766
Source: Present Study, 2014

60. The overall increase of volume of agricultural production in four of these

intervention models are provided in Table 18. In the BIP full modernization project area
(command area 47,700 ha) the realization of additional agricultural production is worth
251,309 tons per year. Out of these the share of incremental food grain production is
40,950 tons and that for potato, vegetables and other cash crop (mainly the sugarcane)
are respectively 26,700 tons, 48,800 tons and 134,815 tons. Here the incremental return
from cash crop namely the sugarcane is quite dominating. The fish culture alone
contributes to 44 tons in the increased volume of agricultural production in BIP area.

61. In upper and middle basin upgrade and the upper and middle basin pressurized
investment models (each having unit command area sizes of 50 ha) the overall
incremental agricultural productions are respectively 237 and 492.5 tons. The share of
potato and vegetable crops are observed larger than the food crops in both of these
models perhaps indicating that these models tend toward having more cash oriented crops
than the traditional food crops in the changed scenario of upgrading of irrigation system.
The 50-ha sized upgrade plus polyhouse intervention model is able to generate about
508.9 tons of additional agricultural produce, which looks to be a substantially larger size
of incremental benefit comparing with the other two upper and middle basin models.
Here polyhouse production of tomato has a dominant share.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 19

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 18: Incremental Crop Production

CA W/O W/P Incremental

Investment Options ha Crop Group tons tons tons
Total 1,056,975 1,308,284 251,309
Food grains 163,610 204,560 40,950
Potato 34,500 61,200 26,700
BIP Full Modernization 47,700
Vegetable 67,900 116,700 48,800
Cash crops 790,965 925,780 134,815
Fish 44.0 44.0
Total 527 764 237
Food grains 281 334 53
Upper and Middle Basin Potato 75 170 95
50
Upgrades Vegetable 166 248 82
Cash crops 5.0 5.5 0.5
Fish 6.0 6.0
Total 527.1 1,019.5 492.4
Food grains 281.1 340.0 58.9
Upper and Middle Basin Potato 75.0 240.0 165.0
50
Pressurized Vegetable 166.0 428.0 262.0
Cash crops 5.0 5.5 0.5
Fish 6.0 6.0
Total 527.1 1,036.0 508.9
Food grains 281.1 187.0 -94.1
Upper and Middle Basin Potato 75.0 -75.0
50
Polyhouses Vegetable 166.0 826.5 660.5
Cash crops 5.0 -5.0
Fish 22.5 22.5
Source: Present Study, 2014

62. Apart from the additional incremental production in the command area all of the
investment models are also supposed to generate additional labor employment
opportunities for the beneficiaries farm households. The additional labor employment
opportunities are supposed generated from increased farm-business activities in the
command area. The estimates of incremental labor employment are given in Table 19.

Table 19: Incremental Employment Days

CA Total Incremental Additional Employment

Investment Options ha Labor Days Days per ha
BIP Full
Modernization 47,700 1,588,100 33
Upgrade 50 1,529 31
Pressure 50 3,848 77
Polyhouse 50 12,801.5 256
Source: Present Study, 2014

63. Of the four intervention models the most employment generating investment is
the polyhouse intervention model. It requires additional 256 labor days in one hectare of
the farm business activity. The incremental labor requirement in BIP full modernization
area is only about 33 md/ha, which is also quite close to upper and middle basin upgrade
model 31md/ha. In the upper and middle basin pressurized model however an additional
77md/ha labor is found being required. These situation indicate that except the upper
and middle basin polyhouse models other intervention models are less labor intensive
while considered with their overall agricultural activities.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 20

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

VI. CONCLUSION

64. The four investment models examined under this study are observed all to be
economically viable. The sensitivity analysis carried out however indicated that the
polyhouse intervention model is more risky in terms of some sensitivity variables where
this option may have chances to reduce returns substantially low in some adverse
situations. The other three models are less sensitive to such adverse situations
happening. The economic assessment undertaken herein has counted only the readily
quantifiable benefits and has not considered the benefits that in future will accrue in the
longer term from other interventions such as agricultural and poverty alleviation
programs. If such programs are implemented the area will be benefited even further. The
project may also be subject to effects of some water conservation efforts, especially in
the upper and middle parts of the Bagmati River Basin. These benefits however have
been not quantified in the analyses. On the other hand the implementation of the
project(s) would require the implementation of both the physical improvements as well as
the other non-physical programs such as institutional reforms, better water management
practices and agricultural technologies in a coordinated way so as to avoid any
anticipated risks on the assumed operations and benefits.

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 21

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance
Attachment 1
Model: A: Lower Bagmati Basin BIP Full-modernization

Table A1: Conversion Factors

Table A1.1: Key Parameters
Exchange Rate (ER) January 2014 (NRs) 100.00 ER
Shadow Exchange Rate (SER) January 2014 103.00 SER
Shadow Exchange Rate Factor (SERF) 1.03 SERF
Standard Conversion Factor (SCF)1 0.97 SCF
Shadow Wage Rate Factor (SWRF)1 0.80 SWRF
1. Note: SCF is based on 2012 review undertaken by Building Climate Resilience of
Watersheds in Mountain Eco-Regions Project ADB PPTA 7883-NEP
Table A1.2: Estimated Conversion Factors for Project Farm Inputs In Domestic Price Numeraire
Content
Item Price Tradable DVA Tax Total CF
Imported Pesticides and Fungicides
Financial 100.00 20.00 65.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 63.11 83.11 0.83
Cultivation equipment and small tools
Financial 100.00 20.00 70.00 10.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 67.96 87.96 0.88
Bullock Hire
Financial 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Straw
Financial 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Green Fodder
Financial 100.00 20.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 77.67 97.67 0.98
Sacks and packaging
Financial 100.00 15.00 85.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 15.00 82.52 97.52 0.98
Cardamom tubers
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Vegetable/potato
Financial 100.00 20.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 77.67 97.67 0.98
Organic Manure
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Transportation
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Tractor Hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Pumpset hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Thresher hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Sprayer hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Seeds - Cereal/Forage
Financial 100.00 20.00 70.00 10.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 67.96 87.96 0.88
Forage Slips/Seedlings
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 22

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance
Table A2: Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods Model: BIP Full-modernization
Table A 2.1: Major Grains
Financial Economic
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 2026-30
A. Rice (Import Parity Price)
World Market Price FOB Bangkok (a)
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 477.0 427.0 413.0 404.6 370.9 330.3 330.3
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 513.7 459.9 450.2 447.1 434.7 420.1 420.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (b) 128 115 113 112 109 105 105
Adjustment for type (15-25%) 128 115 113 112 109 105 105
Price for domestic type of rice in Bangkok 257 230 225 224 217 210 210
Freight - Bangkok - Kolkata - Nepal Border 115 115 115 115 115 115 115
Cost of domestic type of rice in Nepal Border 372 345 340 339 332 325 325

Cost of domestic type of rice in Nepal Border (c) NRs/t 37,186 34,494 34,009 33,854 33,235 32,507 32,507
Custom & handling charges ($10) 1,000
Import duty (5%) 1,859
Landed price in Nepal Border 40,046 34,494 34,009 33,854 33,235 32,507 32,507
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 400
Average marketing margin (15%) 6,067 5,174 5,101 5,078 4,985 4,876 4,876
Transport to district mills (d) 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Wholesale price ex mill 47,513 40,639 40,081 39,903 39,191 38,354 38,354
Conversion of rice to paddy at 65% 30,884 26,415 26,052 25,937 25,474 24,930 24,930
Processing cost 750 728 728 728 728 728 728
Millgate price 30,134 25,687 25,324 25,209 24,746 24,202 24,202
Transport - mill to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 29,134 24,716 24,353 24,238 23,775 23,231 23,231

Import parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 29.1 24.7 24.4 24.2 23.8 23.2 23.2
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 20.0
B. Wheat (Import/ Export Parity)
Financial Economic
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 2026-30
World Market Price US HRW, US Gulf port FOB
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 278.5 278.5 270.8 265.2 243.0 216.2 216.2
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 299.9 299.9 295.2 293.0 284.8 275.0 275.0
Adjustment to comparative quality (25%) 75 75 74 73 71 69 69
Price for domestic type of wheat 225 225 221 220 214 206 206
Insurance and freight to Kolcata -Nepal Border 132 132 132 132 132 132 132
Cost of domestic type of wheat in Nepal Border 357 357 353 352 346 338 338

Cost of domestic type of wheat in Nepal Border

(c) NRs/t 35,696 35,696 35,338 35,178 34,560 33,825 33,825
Custom & handling charges, US$ 10 1,000
Import duty, 5% 1,785
Landed price in Nepal Border 38,481 35,696 35,338 35,178 34,560 33,825 33,825
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 385
Average marketing margin (15%) 5,830 5,354 5,301 5,277 5,184 5,074 5,074
Transport to wholesale market in terai/hills 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Wholesale price 31,266 29,371 29,066 28,931 28,405 27,781 27,781

Transport - wholesale market to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Farmgate price 30,266 28,400 28,095 27,960 27,434 26,810 26,810
Import parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 30.3 28.4 28.1 28.0 27.4 26.8 26.8
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 18.0

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 23

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A 2: (Continued) Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable

Goods
C. Maize (Import/ Export Parity)
Financial Economic
2026-
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 30
World Market Price, US No.2, yellow, FOB US Gulf port
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 208.9 208.9 215.7 212.3 198.4 180.9 180.9
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 225.0 225.0 235.1 234.6 232.5 230.1 230.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (25%) 56 56 59 59 58 58 58
Price for domestic type of maize 169 169 176 176 174 173 173
Insurance and freight to Kolcata 67 67 67 67 67 67 67
Transport and handling to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of domestic type of maize in Nepal Border 236 236 243 243 241 240 240
23,57 24,33 24,13 23,95
Cost of domestic type of maize in Nepal Border (c) NRs/t) 23,574 4 3 24,294 9 8 23,958
Custom & handling charges, US$ 10 2,357
Import duty, 5% 1,179
23,57 24,33 24,13 23,95
Landed price in Nepal Border 27,110 4 3 24,294 9 8 23,958
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 271
Average marketing margin (5%) 1,369 1,179 1,217 1,215 1,207 1,198 1,198
Transport to wholesale market in terai/hills (d) 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
21,42 22,14 21,96 21,78
Wholesale price 24,470 4 6 22,109 2 9 21,789

Transport - wholesale market to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
20,45 21,17 20,99 20,81
Parity price at farmgate 23,470 3 5 21,138 1 8 20,818
Parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 23.5 20.5 21.2 21.1 21.0 20.8 20.8
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 21.0
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Projections (January, 2014)
(a) FOB price Bangkok (Thai 5% cracked)
(b) Quality adjustment assumed 25%
(c) Exchange rate: US$ to NRs = 100
(d) Standard conversion factor = 0.97
2026-
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 30
D. Sugarcane (Import Parity Price)
World Market Price, world f.o.b., Cariban port (a)
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/kg 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.28
Constant 2014 dollars const $/kg 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Adjustment to comparative quality (b=10%) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Adjustment for type (10%) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Price for domestic type of sugar at port 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28
Freight - US port - Kolkata - Nepal Border 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Cost of domestic type of sugar in Nepal Border 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35
Cost of domestic type of sugar in Nepal Border (c) NRs/kg 36.86 36.86 36.35 35.87 35.77 35.19 35.19
Custom & handling charges (1%) 0.37
Import duty (5%) 1.84
Landed price in Nepal Border 39.07 36.86 36.35 35.87 35.77 35.19 35.19
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 0.39
Average marketing margin (15%) 5.92 5.53 5.45 5.38 5.36 5.28 5.28
Transport to district mills (d) 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Wholesale price ex mill 46.38 43.36 42.77 42.22 42.10 41.44 41.44
Conversion of sugar to sugarcane at 11% 5.10 4.77 4.70 4.64 4.63 4.56 4.56
Processing cost (d) 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Millgate price 4.90 4.57 4.51 4.45 4.44 4.36 4.36
Transport - mill to farm (d) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Import parity price at farmgate 4.80 4.48 4.41 4.35 4.34 4.27 4.27

Import parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 4.80 4.48 4.41 4.35 4.34 4.27 4.27
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 4.8
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Projections (January, 2014)
(a) FOB Cariban port
(c) Exchange rate: US$ to NRs = 100
(d) Standard conversion factor = 0.97

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 24

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A2: (Continued) Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods Model: BIP Full-modernization
Table A2.2: Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Inputs
Financial Economic
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 2026-30
A. Urea (Import Parity Price)
Projected world price, E. Europe (bulk) f.o.b Black Sea
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 301.7 301.7 293.7 287.8 264.4 235.9 235.9
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 324.9 324.9 320.1 318.0 309.9 300.1 300.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 32 32 32 32 31 30 30
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 359 359 355 353 346 337 337
Freight & insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of urea in Nepal Border 424 424 420 418 411 402 402
Cost of urea in Kathmandu (a) NRs/t 42,444 42,444 42,012 41,822 41,089 40,206 40,206
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800 0 0 0 0 0 0
Import duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landed price in Nepal Border 44,244 42,444 42,012 41,822 41,089 40,206 40,206
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 442
Average marketing margin (15%) 6,637 6,443 6,443 6,443 6,443 6,443 6,443
Wholesale price in Nepal Border 51,323 48,887 48,455 48,265 47,532 46,649 46,649
Transport to district center in terai/hills 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Wholesale price ex district center 52,323 49,858 49,426 49,236 48,503 47,620 47,620
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 523
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,642 2493 2471 2462 2425 2381 2381
Average retail price at district center 55,488 52,351 51,897 51,698 50,928 50,001 50,001
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 56,488 53,322 52,868 52,669 51,899 50,972 50,972
Import parity price at farmgate (b) NRs/bag 2,824 2,666 2,643 2,633 2,595 2,549 2,549
Local farmgate price NRs/kg 56.5 53.3 52.9 52.7 51.9 51.0 51.0
Current actual farm gate price NRs/bag 35.0
B. Di-ammonia Phosphate (DAP)
Financial Economic
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 2026-30
Projected world price, bulk, f.o.b. US Gulf
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 362.0 362 367.1 365.6 357.9 346 346
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 389.9 395.4 398.5 402.2 416.8 440.1 440.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 39 40 40 40 42 44 44
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 418 423 426 429 442 463 463
Freight and insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of DAP in Nepal Border 483 488 491 494 507 528 528
Cost of DAP in Nepal Border (a) NRs/t 48,289 48,783 49,065 49,400 50,709 52,810 52,810
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800
Import duty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landed price in Nepal Border 50,089 48,783 49,065 49,400 50,709 52,810 52,810
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 501
Average marketing margin (2.5%) 1,252 1,216 1,216 1,216 1,216 1,216 1,216
Wholesale price in Nepal Border 51,842 49,999 50,281 50,616 51,924 54,026 54,026
Transport to district mills in terai/hills 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Wholesale price ex district center 52,842 50,970 51,252 51,586 52,895 54,997 54,997
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 528
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,669 2548 2563 2579 2645 2750 2750
Average retail price at district center in Terai 56,039 53,518 53,815 54,166 55,540 57,747 57,747
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 57,039 54,489 54,785 55,137 56,511 58,717 58,717
Import parity price at farmgate (c) NRs/bag 2,852 2,724 2,739 2,757 2,826 2,936 2,936
Local farmgate price NRs/kg 57.0 54.5 54.8 55.1 56.5 58.7 58.7
Current actual farm gate price NRs/kg 56.0
Ratio of import parity price to local farmgate price 1.02

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 25

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance
Table A 2: (Continued) Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods Model: BIP Full-modernization

Financial Economic
2026-
Item Unit 2014 2014 2015 2016 2020 2025 30
Projected world price, spot, f.o.b.
C. MOP Vancouver
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars curr. $/t 315.6 315.6 302.9 296.9 272.9 243.8 243.8
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 339.9 326.2 323.6 321.6 312.8 310.1 310.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 85 82 81 80 94 93 93
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 322 312 310 308 286 284 284
Freight and insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of MOP in Nepal Border 387 377 375 373 351 349 349

Cost of MOP in Nepal Border (a) NRs/t 38,693 37,667 37,472 37,317 35,096 34,908 34,908
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800 0
Import duty 0 0 0 0 2 7 8
Landed price in Nepal Border 40,493 37,667 37,472 37,317 35,098 34,915 34,916
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 405
Average marketing margin (2.5%) 1,012 983 983 983 983 983 983
Wholesale price 41,910 38,650 38,454 38,299 36,081 35,898 35,899
Transport to district mills in terai/hills 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Wholesale price ex district center 42,910 39,620 39,425 39,270 37,052 36,869 36,870
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 429
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,167 1981 1971 1964 1853 1843 1843
Average retail price at district center in
Terai 45,506 41,601 41,397 41,234 38,905 38,712 38,713
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 46,506 42,572 42,367 42,205 39,876 39,683 39,684

Import parity price at farmgate (b) NRs/bag 2,325 2,129 2,118 2,110 1,994 1,984 1,984
Local farmgate price in NRs/kg 46.5 42.6 42.4 42.2 39.9 39.7 39.7
Current actual farm gate price NRs/kg 25.0
Ratio of import parity price to local farmgate price 1.86
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Projections (January, 2014)
(a) For exchange rate and standard conversion factor, see footnotes for rice price
derivation
(b) 50kg bag
(c) 50kg bag

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 26

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A3: Input and Output Price Summary

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Financial Economic Prices
Unit Prices 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
A. Outputs
Paddy NRs/kg 29.1 24.4 23.8 23.2 23.2
Paddy byproducts NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Wheat NRs/kg 30.3 28.1 27.4 26.8 26.8
Wheat byproducts NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maize NRs/kg 23.5 21.2 21.0 20.8 20.8
Maize byproducts NRs/kg 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Early Paddy NRs/kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pulses NRs/kg 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Oilseeds NRs/kg 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0
Potato NRs/kg 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Sum. Veg. NRs/kg 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Vegetable NRs/kg 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Sugarcane NRs/kg 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3
B. Inputs
Seeds
Paddy NRs/kg 36.4 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Wheat NRs/kg 37.8 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3
Maize NRs/kg 29.3 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8
Early Paddy NRs/kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lentil/Pulses NRs/kg 87.5 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0
Oilseeds NRs/kg 100.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0
Potato NRs/kg 24.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1
Sum. Veg. NRs/kg 25.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Vegetable NRs/kg 22.5 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8
Sugarcane NRs/kg 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
C. Fertilizers & Others
Urea NRs/kg 56.5 52.9 51.9 51.0 51.0
DAP NRs/kg 57.0 54.8 56.5 58.7 58.7
Potash NRs/kg 46.5 42.4 39.9 39.7 39.7
Farmyard Manure NRs/ton 1,000.0 970.9 970.9 970.9 970.9
Pesticides NRs/ha 400.0 332.4 332.4 332.4 332.4
Sacks NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Packaging NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Transport NRs/kg 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Tools/equipment unit 2,000.0 1,759.2 1,759.2 1,759.2 1,759.2
D. Labor
Farm Labor NRs/day 300.0 240.0 240.0 240.0 240.0
Draft Animal NRs/day 600.0 582.5 582.5 582.5 582.5
E. Machinery
Tractor NRs/hr 900.0 753.2 753.2 753.2 753.2
Pumpset NRs/hr 200.0 167.4 167.4 167.4 167.4
Thresher NRs/hr 150.0 125.5 125.5 125.5 125.5
Sprayer NRs/hr 20.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 27

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A 4: Input Summary

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Table A4.1: Without Project
Crops Seeds DAP Urea Potash Manure Pesticides Labor H-Labor Bullock Tractor Pumpset Thresher Sprayer
kg kg kg kg ton times days days hr hr hr hr
Paddy 50 40 60 20 1.2 1.08 126 59 4 6 7 8 8
Wheat 120 45 50 20 0.725 0.25 105 40 5 5 4 8 5
Maize 20 35 50 20 1.3 1.25 110 40 8 7 6 5
Early Paddy 50 40 60 20 1.2 1.08 126 59 4 6 7 8 8
Pulses 30 20 10 0.5 0 72 25 2 4 2
Oilseeds 8 40 20 10 1 0.5 72 25 2 4 2 1
Potato 1250 45 63 20 2 1 162 70 2 5 6 1
Sum. Veg. 0.7 45 63 20 2 1 171 80 2 5 7 1
Vegetable 0.7 45 63 10 2 1 171 80 2 5 7 7
Sugarcane 5000 125 300 120 6 3 160 100 6 7 15 7
Table A4.2: With Project
Crops Seeds DAP Urea Potash Manure Pesticides Labor H-Labor Bullock Tractor Pumpset Thresher Sprayer
kg kg kg kg ton times days days hr hr hr hr
Paddy 50 65 195 50 2 2 130 63 4 6 5 8 6
Paddy SRI 18 30 33 22 2 1.25 91 30 4 5 8 11 10
Wheat 120 109 175 43 1 1 110 60 5 5 3 6 6
Maize 20 65 105 50 2 2 115 45 8 7 6 5
Early Paddy 50 65 195 50 2 2 130 63 4 6 5 8 6
Pulses 30 30 30 0.5 0 75 26 2 4 2 1
Oilseeds 8 87 96 33 1 0.5 75 26 2 4 2 1
Potato 1500 109 110 67 2 1 180 80 2 5 6 1
Sum. Veg. 1 109 110 67 2 2 171 80 2 5 7 2
Vegetable 0.70 109 110 67 2 2 175 80 2 5 7 2
Sugarcane 5000 140 300 120 6 3 180 100 6 7 15 7

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 28

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A5: Cropping Patterns and Yields

Model: BIP Full-modernization
TableA5.1: Cropping Pattern and Yields
Without Project With Project
Crops Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha) Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha)
NCA 47,700 47700
Kharif-2
Paddy 20000 4800 20000 5400
Paddy SRI 2500 6500
Maize 2300 2700 2300 3200
Early Paddy 10000 3500 10000 4100
Sum. Veg. 2300 13000 3100 15,000
Sugarcane 13000 60000 14000 65,000
Subtotal 47600 51900
Rabi
Wheat 9000 2700 9000 3,300
Pulses 6500 1050 6840 1,500
Oilseeds 4600 900 4600 1,200
Maize 2300 5100 3100 5,400
Potato 2300 15000 3400 18,000
Vegetable 2300 16000 3200 18,000
Subtotal 27000 30140
Kharif-1
Paddy 500 4200 500 4,500
Vegetable 100 12000 900 14,000
Subtotal 600 1400
Total 75200 83440
C Intensity 1.58 1.75
TableA5.2: Cropping Summary
Model: BIP Full-modernization
Without Project With Project
Crops Total Irrigated
Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha) Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha) Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha)
Paddy 20500.0 4,785 20500.0 4,785 20500.0 5,268
Paddy SRI 0.0 0 2500.0 6,500
Wheat 9000.0 2,700 9000.0 2,700 9000.0 3,300
Maize 4600.0 3,900 4600.0 3,900 5400.0 4,463
Early Paddy 10000.0 3,500 10000.0 3,500 10000.0 4,100
Pulses 6500.0 1,050 6500.0 1,050 6840.0 1,500
Oilseeds 4600.0 900 4600.0 900 4600.0 1,200
Potato 2300.0 15,000 2300.0 15,000 3400.0 18,000
Sum. Veg. 2300.0 13,000 2300.0 13,000 3100.0 15,000
Vegetable 2400.0 15,833 2400.0 15,833 4100.0 17,122
Sugarcane 13000.0 60,000 13000.0 60,000 14000.0 65,000
Total 75200.0 75200.0 83440.0
CI 157.65 157.65 174.93

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 29

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance
Table A6: Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue
Model: BIP Full-modernization
(i) Paddy
Without Project Area 20500 ha 1 Economic
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 50 36.4 1,821 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602
Labor - male day 44 300.0 13,124 240.0 10,499 240.0 10,499 240.0 10,499 240.0 10,499
- female day 82 300.0 24,676 240.0 19,741 240.0 19,741 240.0 19,741 240.0 19,741
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 600.0 2,400 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330
Tractor hr 6 900.0 5,400 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 40 57.0 2,282 54.8 2,191 56.5 2,260 58.7 2,349 58.7 2,349
Urea kg 60 56.5 3,389 52.9 3,172 51.9 3,114 51.0 3,058 51.0 3,058
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 39.9 798 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,200 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 432 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 120 1.0 120 1.0 117 1.0 117 1.0 117 1.0 117
Transport kg 4785 1.0 4,785 0.8 4,005 0.8 4,005 0.8 4,005 0.8 4,005
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 63,159 52,723 52,684 52,713 52,713
DIRECT COST per kg 13.20 11.02 11.01 11.02 11.02
Yield and Yield Income kg 4785 29.1 139,415 24.4 116,540 23.8 113,772 23.2 111,169 23.2 111,169
Byproduct and Income kg 5264 1.0 5,264 1.0 5,111 1.0 5,111 1.0 5,111 1.0 5,111
GROSS INCOME 144,679 121,650 118,883 116,280 116,280
GROSS MARGIN per ha 81,520 68,927 66,198 63,567 63,567
Return to Labor NRs/day 647 547 525 504 504

Table A 6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Paddy
With Project Area 20500 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026.0
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 50 36.4 1,821 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602
Labor - male day 47 300.0 14,112 240.0 11,290 240.0 11,290 240.0 11,290 240.0 11,290
- female day 83 300.0 24,888 240.0 19,910 240.0 19,910 240.0 19,910 240.0 19,910
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 600.0 2,400 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330
Tractor hr 6 900.0 5,400 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519
Pumpset hr 5 200.0 1,000 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 65 57.0 3,708 54.8 3,561 56.5 3,673 58.7 3,817 58.7 3,817
Urea kg 195 56.5 11,015 52.9 10,309 51.9 10,120 51.0 9,940 51.0 9,940
Potash kg 50 46.5 2,325 42.4 2,118 0.0 0 39.7 1,984 39.7 1,984
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 132 1.0 132 1.0 128 1.0 128 1.0 128 1.0 128
Transport kg 5268 1.0 5,268 0.8 4,409 0.8 4,409 0.8 4,409 0.8 4,409
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 76,189 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 14.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 5268 29.1 153,484 24.4 128,301 23.8 125,254 23.2 122,388 23.2 122,388
Byproduct and Income kg 5795 1.0 5,795 1.0 5,626 1.0 5,626 1.0 5,626 1.0 5,626
GROSS INCOME 159,279 133,927 130,880 128,014 128,014
GROSS MARGIN per ha 83,090 133,927 130,880 128,014 128,014
Return to Labor NRs/day 639 1,030 1,007 985 985

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 30

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
With Project (Paddy-SRI) Area 2500 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 18 36.4 656 32.0 577 32.0 577 32.0 577 32.0 577
Labor - male day 33 300.0 9,879 240.0 7,903 240.0 7,903 240.0 7,903 240.0 7,903
- female day 58 300.0 17,421 240.0 13,937 240.0 13,937 240.0 13,937 240.0 13,937
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 600.0 2,400 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 8 200.0 1,600 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339
Thresher hr 11 150.0 1,650 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381
Sprayer hr 10 20.0 200 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167
DAP kg 30 57.0 1,711 54.8 1,644 56.5 1,695 58.7 1,762 58.7 1,762
Urea kg 33 56.5 1,864 52.9 1,745 51.9 1,713 51.0 1,682 51.0 1,682
Potash kg 22 46.5 1,023 42.4 932 0.0 0 39.7 873 39.7 873
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 500 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 163 1.0 163 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158
Transport kg 6500 1.0 6,500 0.8 5,440 0.8 5,440 0.8 5,440 0.8 5,440
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 52,066 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 6500 29.1 189,368 24.4 158,297 23.8 154,538 23.2 151,002 23.2 151,002
Byproduct and Income kg 7150 1.0 7,150 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942
GROSS INCOME 196,518 165,239 161,479 157,944 157,944
GROSS MARGIN per ha 144,452 165,239 161,479 157,944 157,944
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,587 1,816 1,774 1,736 1,736

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 31

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
(ii) Wheat Without Project Area 9000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 120 37.8 4,540 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993
Labor - male day 56 300.0 16,848 240.0 13,479 240.0 13,479 240.0 13,479 240.0 13,479
- female day 49 300.0 14,652 240.0 11,721 240.0 11,721 240.0 11,721 240.0 11,721
Bullock hire (50% share) day 5 600.0 3,000 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 4 200.0 800 167.4 670 167.4 670 167.4 670 167.4 670
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 45 57.0 2,567 54.8 2,465 56.5 2,543 58.7 2,642 58.7 2,642
Urea kg 50 56.5 2,824 52.9 2,643 51.9 2,595 51.0 2,549 51.0 2,549
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 0.0 0 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 725 970.9 704 970.9 704 970.9 704 970.9 704
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 100 332.4 83 332.4 83 332.4 83 332.4 83
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 68 1.0 68 1.0 66 1.0 66 1.0 66 1.0 66
Transport kg 2700 1.0 2,700 0.8 2,260 0.8 2,260 0.8 2,260 0.8 2,260
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 55,554 46,698 45,880 46,726 46,726
DIRECT COST per kg 20.58 17.30 16.99 17.31 17.31
Yield and Yield Income kg 2700 30.3 81,718 28.1 75,858 27.4 74,072 26.8 72,387 26.8 72,387
Byproduct and Income kg 2970 1.0 2,970 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883
GROSS INCOME 84,688 78,741 76,955 75,270 75,270
GROSS MARGIN per ha 29,135 32,043 31,075 28,544 28,544
Return to Labor NRs/day 277 305 296 272 272

Wheat
With Project Area 9000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 120 37.8 4,540 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993 33.3 3,993
Labor - male day 63 300.0 18,822 240.0 15,057 240.0 15,057 240.0 15,057 240.0 15,057
- female day 47 300.0 14,178 240.0 11,343 240.0 11,343 240.0 11,343 240.0 11,343
Bullock hire (50% share) day 5 600.0 3,000 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913 582.5 2,913
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 3 200.0 600 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502
Thresher hr 6 150.0 900 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 109 57.0 6,217 54.8 5,972 56.5 6,160 58.7 6,400 58.7 6,400
Urea kg 175 56.5 9,885 52.9 9,252 51.9 9,082 51.0 8,920 51.0 8,920
Potash kg 43 46.5 2,000 42.4 1,822 0.0 0 39.7 1,706 39.7 1,706
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,000 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 83 1.0 83 1.0 80 1.0 80 1.0 80 1.0 80
Transport kg 3300 1.0 3,300 0.8 2,762 0.8 2,762 0.8 2,762 0.8 2,762
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 69,545 59,619 57,815 59,600 59,600
DIRECT COST per kg 21.07 18.07 17.52 18.06 18.06
Yield and Yield Income kg 3300 30.3 99,878 28.1 92,715 27.4 90,532 26.8 88,473 26.8 88,473
Byproduct and Income kg 3630 1.0 3,630 1.0 3,524 1.0 3,524 1.0 3,524 1.0 3,524
GROSS INCOME 103,508 96,239 94,056 91,997 91,997
GROSS MARGIN per ha 33,963 36,621 36,241 32,397 32,397
Return to Labor NRs/day 309 333 329 295 295

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 32

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
(iii) Maize
Without Project Area 4600 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 20 29.3 587 25.8 516 25.8 516 25.8 516 25.8 516
Labor - male day 59 300.0 17,708 240.0 14,167 240.0 14,167 240.0 14,167 240.0 14,167
- female day 51 300.0 15,292 240.0 12,233 240.0 12,233 240.0 12,233 240.0 12,233
Bullock hire (50% share) day 8 600.0 4,800 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660
Tractor hr 7 900.0 6,300 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 35 57.0 1,996 54.8 1,917 56.5 1,978 58.7 2,055 58.7 2,055
Urea kg 50 56.5 2,824 52.9 2,643 51.9 2,595 51.0 2,549 51.0 2,549
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 39.9 798 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,300 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 500 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 98 1.0 98 1.0 95 1.0 95 1.0 95 1.0 95
Transport kg 3900 1.0 3,900 0.8 3,264 0.8 3,264 0.8 3,264 0.8 3,264
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 57,535 48,382 48,344 48,371 48,371
DIRECT COST per kg 14.75 12.41 12.40 12.40 12.40
Yield and Yield Income kg 3900 23.5 91,532 21.2 82,583 21.0 81,864 20.8 81,191 20.8 81,191
Byproduct and Income kg 6630 0.8 4,973 1.0 6,437 1.0 6,437 1.0 6,437 1.0 6,437
GROSS INCOME 96,505 89,020 88,300 87,628 87,628
GROSS MARGIN per ha 38,970 40,638 39,957 39,257 39,257
Return to Labor NRs/day 354 369 363 357 357

Maize
With Project Area 5400 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 20 29.3 587 25.8 516 25.8 516 25.8 516 25.8 516
Labor - male day 66 300.0 19,677 240.0 15,742 240.0 15,742 240.0 15,742 240.0 15,742
- female day 49 300.0 14,823 240.0 11,858 240.0 11,858 240.0 11,858 240.0 11,858
Bullock hire (50% share) day 8 600.0 4,800 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660 582.5 4,660
Tractor hr 7 900.0 6,300 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 65 57.0 3,708 54.8 3,561 56.5 3,673 58.7 3,817 58.7 3,817
Urea kg 105 56.5 5,931 52.9 5,551 51.9 5,449 51.0 5,352 51.0 5,352
Potash kg 50 46.5 2,325 42.4 2,118 39.9 1,994 39.7 1,984 39.7 1,984
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 112 1.0 112 1.0 109 1.0 109 1.0 109 1.0 109
Transport kg 4463 1.0 4,463 0.8 3,735 0.8 3,735 0.8 3,735 0.8 3,735
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 66,825 56,818 56,704 56,740 56,740
DIRECT COST per kg 14.97 12.73 12.71 12.71 12.71
Yield and Yield Income kg 4463 23.5 104,745 21.2 94,503 21.0 93,680 20.8 92,911 20.8 92,911
Byproduct and Income kg 7587 0.8 5,690 1.0 7,366 0.0 0 1.0 7,366 1.0 7,366
GROSS INCOME 110,435 101,870 93,680 100,277 100,277
GROSS MARGIN per ha 43,610 45,052 36,977 43,537 43,537
Return to Labor NRs/day 379 392 322 379 379

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 33

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A 6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Early Paddy
Without Project Area 10000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 50 36.4 1,821 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602
Labor - male day 56 300.0 16,800 240.0 13,440 240.0 13,440 240.0 13,440 240.0 13,440
- female day 70 300.0 21,000 240.0 16,800 240.0 16,800 240.0 16,800 240.0 16,800
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 600.0 2,400 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330
Tractor hr 6 900.0 5,400 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 40 57.0 2,282 54.8 2,191 56.5 2,260 58.7 2,349 58.7 2,349
Urea kg 60 56.5 3,389 52.9 3,172 51.9 3,114 51.0 3,058 51.0 3,058
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 0.0 0 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,200 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 432 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 88 1.0 88 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85
Transport kg 3500 1.0 3,500 0.8 2,929 0.8 2,929 0.8 2,929 0.8 2,929
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 61,841 51,616 50,780 51,606 51,606
DIRECT COST per kg 17.67 14.75 14.51 14.74 14.74
YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 3500 29.1 101,967 24.4 85,237 23.8 83,213 23.2 81,309 23.2 81,309
Byproduct and Income kg 3850 1.0 3,850 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738
GROSS INCOME 105,817 88,975 86,950 85,047 85,047
GROSS MARGIN per ha 43,976 37,358 36,171 33,441 33,441
Return to Labor NRs/day 349 296 287 265 265

Early Paddy
With Project Area 10000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 50 36.4 1,821 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602 32.0 1,602
Labor - male day 57 300.0 17,030 240.0 13,624 240.0 13,624 240.0 13,624 240.0 13,624
- female day 73 300.0 21,970 240.0 17,576 240.0 17,576 240.0 17,576 240.0 17,576
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 600.0 2,400 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330 582.5 2,330
Tractor hr 6 900.0 5,400 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519 753.2 4,519
Pumpset hr 5 200.0 1,000 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 65 57.0 3,708 54.8 3,561 56.5 3,673 58.7 3,817 58.7 3,817
Urea kg 195 56.5 11,015 52.9 10,309 51.9 10,120 51.0 9,940 51.0 9,940
Potash kg 50 46.5 2,325 42.4 2,118 0.0 0 39.7 1,984 39.7 1,984
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 103 1.0 103 1.0 100 1.0 100 1.0 100 1.0 100
Transport kg 4100 1.0 4,100 0.8 3,431 0.8 3,431 0.8 3,431 0.8 3,431
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 74,991 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 18.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 4100 29.1 119,448 24.4 99,849 23.8 97,478 23.2 95,247 23.2 95,247
Byproduct and Income kg 4510 1.0 4,510 1.0 4,379 1.0 4,379 1.0 4,379 1.0 4,379
GROSS INCOME 123,958 104,228 101,856 99,626 99,626
GROSS MARGIN per ha 48,966 104,228 101,856 99,626 99,626
Return to Labor NRs/day 377 802 784 766 766

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 34

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
(v) Pulses
Without Project Area 6500 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 30 87.5 2,625 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309
Labor - male day 39 300.0 11,653 240.0 9,322 240.0 9,322 240.0 9,322 240.0 9,322
- female day 33 300.0 9,947 240.0 7,958 240.0 7,958 240.0 7,958 240.0 7,958
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 4 900.0 3,600 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 20 57.0 1,141 54.8 1,096 56.5 1,130 58.7 1,174 58.7 1,174
Urea kg 0 56.5 0 52.9 0 51.9 0 51.0 0 51.0 0
Potash kg 10 46.5 465 42.4 424 0.0 0 39.7 397 39.7 397
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 500 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 26 1.0 26 1.0 26 1.0 26 1.0 26 1.0 26
Transport kg 1050 1.0 1,050 0.8 879 0.8 879 0.8 879 0.8 879
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 32,607 27,011 26,622 27,063 27,063
DIRECT COST per kg 31.05 25.72 25.35 25.77 25.77

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1050 70.0 73,500 70.0 73,500 70.0 73,500 70.0 73,500 70.0 73,500
GROSS MARGIN per ha 40,893 46,489 46,878 46,437 46,437
Return to Labor NRs/day 568 646 651 645 645

Pulses
With Project Area 6840 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 30 87.5 2,625 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309
Labor - male day 42 300.0 12,507 240.0 10,006 240.0 10,006 240.0 10,006 240.0 10,006
- female day 33 300.0 9,993 240.0 7,994 240.0 7,994 240.0 7,994 240.0 7,994
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 4 900.0 3,600 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 30 57.0 1,711 54.8 1,644 56.5 1,695 58.7 1,762 58.7 1,762
Urea kg 0 56.5 0 52.9 0 51.9 0 51.0 0 51.0 0
Potash kg 30 46.5 1,395 42.4 1,271 0.0 0 39.7 1,190 39.7 1,191
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 500 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 38 1.0 38 1.0 37 1.0 37 1.0 37 1.0 37
Transport kg 1500 1.0 1,500 0.8 1,255 0.8 1,255 0.8 1,255 0.8 1,255
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 35,489 29,530 28,311 29,568 29,568
DIRECT COST per kg 23.66 19.69 18.87 19.71 19.71

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1500 70.0 105,000 70.0 105,000 70.0 105,000 70.0 105,000 70.0 105,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 69,511 75,470 76,689 75,432 75,432
Return to Labor NRs/day 927 1,006 1,023 1,006 1,006

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 35

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
(vi) Oilseeds
Without Project Area 4600 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 100.0 800 88.0 704 88.0 704 88.0 704 88.0 704
Labor - male day 40 300.0 12,000 240.0 9,600 240.0 9,600 240.0 9,600 240.0 9,600
- female day 32 300.0 9,600 240.0 7,680 240.0 7,680 240.0 7,680 240.0 7,680
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 4 900.0 3,600 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 40 57.0 2,282 54.8 2,191 56.5 2,260 58.7 2,349 58.7 2,349
Urea kg 20 56.5 1,130 52.9 1,057 51.9 1,038 51.0 1,019 51.0 1,019
Potash kg 10 46.5 465 42.4 424 0.0 0 39.7 397 39.7 397
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,000 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 200 332.4 166 332.4 166 332.4 166 332.4 166
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 23 1.0 23 1.0 22 1.0 22 1.0 22 1.0 22
Transport kg 900 1.0 900 0.8 753 0.8 753 0.8 753 0.8 753
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 33,619 28,098 27,724 28,190 28,190
DIRECT COST per kg 37.35 31.22 30.80 31.32 31.32

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 900 80.0 72,000 80.0 72,000 80.0 72,000 80.0 72,000 80.0 72,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 38,381 43,902 44,276 43,810 43,810
Return to Labor NRs/day 533 610 615 608 608

Oilseeds
With Project Area 4600 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 100.0 800 88.0 704 88.0 704 88.0 704 88.0 704
Labor - male day 43 300.0 12,869 240.0 10,295 240.0 10,295 240.0 10,295 240.0 10,295
- female day 32 300.0 9,631 240.0 7,705 240.0 7,705 240.0 7,705 240.0 7,705
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 4 900.0 3,600 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013 753.2 3,013
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 87 57.0 4,962 54.8 4,766 56.5 4,916 58.7 5,108 58.7 5,108
Urea kg 96 56.5 5,423 52.9 5,075 51.9 4,982 51.0 4,893 51.0 4,893
Potash kg 33 46.5 1,535 42.4 1,398 0.0 0 39.7 1,310 39.7 1,310
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,000 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 200 332.4 166 332.4 166 332.4 166 332.4 166
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 30 1.0 30 1.0 29 1.0 29 1.0 29 1.0 29
Transport kg 1200 1.0 1,200 0.8 1,004 0.8 1,004 0.8 1,004 0.8 1,004
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 42,870 36,643 35,302 36,715 36,715
DIRECT COST per kg 35.72 30.54 29.42 30.60 30.60

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1200 80.0 96,000 80.0 96,000 80.0 96,000 80.0 96,000 80.0 96,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 53,130 59,357 60,698 59,285 59,285
Return to Labor NRs/day 708 791 809 790 790

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 36

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
(vii) Potato
Without Project Area 2300 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1250 24.0 30,000 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388
Labor - male day 70 300.0 21,016 240.0 16,813 240.0 16,813 240.0 16,813 240.0 16,813
- female day 92 300.0 27,584 240.0 22,067 240.0 22,067 240.0 22,067 240.0 22,067
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 45 57.0 2,567 54.8 2,465 56.5 2,543 58.7 2,642 58.7 2,642
Urea kg 63 56.5 3,559 52.9 3,331 51.9 3,270 51.0 3,211 51.0 3,211
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 0.0 0 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 375 1.0 375 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366
Transport kg 15000 1.0 15,000 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 110,351 93,057 92,226 93,061 93,061
DIRECT COST per kg 7.36 6.20 6.15 6.20 6.20

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15000 15.0 225,000 15.0 225,000 15.0 225,000 15.0 225,000 15.0 225,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 114,649 131,943 132,774 131,939 131,939
Return to Labor NRs/day 708 814 820 814 814

Potato
With Project Area 3400 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1500 24.0 36,000 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666
Labor - male day 79 300.0 23,756 240.0 19,004 240.0 19,004 240.0 19,004 240.0 19,004
- female day 101 300.0 30,244 240.0 24,196 240.0 24,196 240.0 24,196 240.0 24,196
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 109 57.0 6,217 54.8 5,972 56.5 6,160 58.7 6,400 58.7 6,400
Urea kg 110 56.5 6,214 52.9 5,816 51.9 5,709 51.0 5,607 51.0 5,607
Potash kg 67 46.5 3,116 42.4 2,839 0.0 0 39.7 2,659 39.7 2,659
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 450 1.0 450 1.0 439 1.0 439 1.0 439 1.0 439
Transport kg 18000 1.0 18,000 0.8 15,064 0.8 15,064 0.8 15,064 0.8 15,064
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 133,317 113,221 110,464 113,261 113,261
DIRECT COST per kg 7.41 6.29 6.14 6.29 6.29

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 18000 15.0 270,000 15.0 270,000 15.0 270,000 15.0 270,000 15.0 270,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 136,683 156,779 159,536 156,739 156,739
Return to Labor NRs/day 759 871 886 871 871

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 37

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Sum. Veg.
Without Project Area 2300 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1 25.0 18 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15
Labor - male day 73 300.0 21,878 240.0 17,502 240.0 17,502 240.0 17,502 240.0 17,502
- female day 98 300.0 29,422 240.0 23,538 240.0 23,538 240.0 23,538 240.0 23,538
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 45 57.0 2,567 54.8 2,465 56.5 2,543 58.7 2,642 58.7 2,642
Urea kg 63 56.5 3,559 52.9 3,331 51.9 3,270 51.0 3,211 51.0 3,211
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 0.0 0 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 325 1.0 325 1.0 317 1.0 317 1.0 317 1.0 317
Transport kg 13000 1.0 13,000 0.8 10,880 0.8 10,880 0.8 10,880 0.8 10,880
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 81,218 67,289 66,458 67,293 67,293
DIRECT COST per kg 6.25 5.18 5.11 5.18 5.18

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 13000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 178,782 192,711 193,542 192,707 192,707
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,046 1,127 1,132 1,127 1,127

Sum. Veg.
With Project Area 3100 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1 25.0 18 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15
Labor - male day 78 300.0 23,383 240.0 18,707 240.0 18,707 240.0 18,707 240.0 18,707
- female day 93 300.0 27,917 240.0 22,333 240.0 22,333 240.0 22,333 240.0 22,333
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.0 6,217 54.8 5,972 56.5 6,160 58.7 6,400 58.7 6,400
Urea kg 110 56.5 6,214 52.9 5,816 51.9 5,709 51.0 5,607 51.0 5,607
Potash kg 67 46.5 3,116 42.4 2,839 0.0 0 39.7 2,659 39.7 2,659
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 375 1.0 375 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366
Transport kg 15000 1.0 15,000 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553 0.8 12,553
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 92,179 77,343 74,586 77,383 77,383
DIRECT COST per kg 6.15 5.16 4.97 5.16 5.16

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 207,821 222,657 225,414 222,617 222,617
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,215 1,302 1,318 1,302 1,302

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 38

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A 6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Vegetable
Without Project Area 2400 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0.7 22.5 16 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14
Labor - male day 83 300.0 24,805 240.0 19,844 240.0 19,844 240.0 19,844 240.0 19,844
- female day 88 300.0 26,495 240.0 21,196 240.0 21,196 240.0 21,196 240.0 21,196
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 7 20.0 140 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117
DAP kg 45 57.0 2,567 54.8 2,465 56.5 2,543 58.7 2,642 58.7 2,642
Urea kg 63 56.5 3,559 52.9 3,331 51.9 3,270 51.0 3,211 51.0 3,211
Potash kg 10 46.5 465 42.4 424 0.0 0 39.7 397 39.7 397
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 396 1.0 396 1.0 386 1.0 386 1.0 386 1.0 386
Transport kg 15833 1.0 15,833 0.8 13,251 0.8 13,251 0.8 13,251 0.8 13,251
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 83,775 69,404 68,997 69,435 69,435
DIRECT COST per kg 5.29 4.38 4.36 4.39 4.39

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15833 18.0 285,000 18.0 285,000 18.0 285,000 18.0 285,000 18.0 285,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 201,225 215,596 216,003 215,565 215,565
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,177 1,261 1,263 1,261 1,261

Vegetable
With Project Area 4100 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0.7 22.5 16 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14
Labor - male day 85 300.0 25,617 240.0 20,494 240.0 20,494 240.0 20,494 240.0 20,494
- female day 90 300.0 26,883 240.0 21,506 240.0 21,506 240.0 21,506 240.0 21,506
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 600.0 1,200 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165 582.5 1,165
Tractor hr 5 900.0 4,500 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766 753.2 3,766
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.0 6,217 54.8 5,972 56.5 6,160 58.7 6,400 58.7 6,400
Urea kg 110 56.5 6,214 52.9 5,816 51.9 5,709 51.0 5,607 51.0 5,607
Potash kg 67 46.5 3,116 42.4 2,839 0.0 0 39.7 2,659 39.7 2,659
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 428 1.0 428 1.0 417 1.0 417 1.0 417 1.0 417
Transport kg 17122 1.0 17,122 0.8 14,329 0.8 14,329 0.8 14,329 0.8 14,329
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 95,553 80,129 77,372 80,169 80,169
DIRECT COST per kg 5.58 4.68 4.52 4.68 4.68

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 17122 18.0 308,195 18.0 308,195 18.0 308,195 18.0 308,195 18.0 308,195
GROSS MARGIN per ha 212,643 228,066 230,823 228,026 228,026
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,215 1,303 1,319 1,303 1,303

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 39

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A 6: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Sugarcane
Without Project Area 13000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 5000 6.2 31,209 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300
Labor - male day 73 300.0 21,972 240.0 17,578 240.0 17,578 240.0 17,578 240.0 17,578
- female day 87 300.0 26,028 240.0 20,822 240.0 20,822 240.0 20,822 240.0 20,822
Bullock hire (50% share) day 6 600.0 3,600 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495
Tractor hr 7 900.0 6,300 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272
Pumpset hr 15 200.0 3,000 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 7 20.0 140 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117
DAP kg 125 57.0 7,130 54.8 6,848 56.5 7,064 58.7 7,340 58.7 7,340
Urea kg 300 56.5 16,946 52.9 15,860 51.9 15,570 51.0 15,292 51.0 15,292
Potash kg 120 46.5 5,581 42.4 5,084 0.0 0 39.7 4,762 39.7 4,762
Organic manure ton 6 1000.0 6,000 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 3 400.0 1,200 332.4 997 332.4 997 332.4 997 332.4 997
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 1500 1.0 1,500 1.0 1,463 1.0 1,463 1.0 1,463 1.0 1,463
Transport kg 60000 0.5 30,000 0.8 50,214 0.8 50,214 0.8 50,214 0.8 50,214
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 160,606 166,388 161,228 165,988 165,988
DIRECT COST per kg 2.68 2.77 2.69 2.77 2.77

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 60000 4.8 288,086 4.4 264,813 4.3 260,393 4.3 256,045 4.3 256,045
GROSS MARGIN per ha 127,480 98,426 99,165 90,057 90,057
Return to Labor NRs/day 797 615 620 563 563

Sugarcane
With Project Area 14000 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 5000 6.2 31,209 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300 6.1 30,300
Labor - male day 81 300.0 24,203 240.0 19,362 240.0 19,362 240.0 19,362 240.0 19,362
- female day 79 300.0 23,797 240.0 19,038 240.0 19,038 240.0 19,038 240.0 19,038
Bullock hire (50% share) day 6 600.0 3,600 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495 582.5 3,495
Tractor hr 7 900.0 6,300 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272 753.2 5,272
Pumpset hr 15 200.0 3,000 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511 167.4 2,511
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 7 20.0 140 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117
DAP kg 140 57.0 7,985 54.8 7,670 56.5 7,912 58.7 8,220 58.7 8,220
Urea kg 300 56.5 16,946 52.9 15,860 51.9 15,570 51.0 15,292 51.0 15,292
Potash kg 120 46.5 5,581 42.4 5,084 0.0 0 39.7 4,762 39.7 4,762
Organic manure ton 6 1000.0 6,000 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825 970.9 5,825
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 3 400.0 1,200 332.4 997 332.4 997 332.4 997 332.4 997
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 1625 1.0 1,625 1.0 1,585 1.0 1,585 1.0 1,585 1.0 1,585
Transport kg 65000 0.5 32,500 0.8 54,398 0.8 54,398 0.8 54,398 0.8 54,398
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 164,087 171,516 166,382 171,175 171,175
DIRECT COST per kg 2.52 2.64 2.56 2.63 2.63

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 65000 4.8 312,094 4.4 286,881 4.3 282,092 4.3 277,383 4.3 277,383
GROSS MARGIN per ha 148,007 115,365 115,710 106,207 106,207
Return to Labor NRs/day 925 721 723 664 664

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 40

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A7: Financial and Economic Net Revenue- High value Crops(Fish)
Model: BIP Full-modernization
With Project ha 1 Economic
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Fingurlings nr 15000 3.0 45,000 1.9 28,800 2.4 36,000 2.4 36,000 2.4 36,000
Labor - male day 20 300.0 6,000 240.0 4,800 240.0 4,800 240.0 4,800 240.0 4,800
- female day 14 300.0 4,200 240.0 3,360 240.0 3,360 240.0 3,360 240.0 3,360
Feed-palates kg 6000 35.0 210,000 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883
Worker's salary month 10 9000.0 90,000 8737.9 87,379 8737.9 87,379 8737.9 87,379 8737.9 87,379
Pumpset hr 0 200.0 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0
Lime kg 500 15.0 7,500 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 825 57.0 47,057 54.8 45,198 56.5 46,622 58.7 48,442 58.7 48,442
Urea kg 825 56.5 46,603 52.9 43,616 51.9 42,817 51.0 42,052 51.0 42,052
Potash kg 20 46.5 930 42.4 847 39.9 798 39.7 794 39.7 794
Organic manure ton 9 1000.0 9,000 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 38 400.0 15,000 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 5 2000.0 10,000 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796
Packaging each 110 50.0 5,500 48.5 5,340 48.5 5,340 48.5 5,340 48.5 5,340
Transport kg 4400 1.0 4,400 0.8 3,682 0.8 3,682 0.8 3,682 0.8 3,682
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 501,190 464,188 471,962 473,013 473,013
DIRECT COST per kg 113.91 105.50 107.26 107.50 107.50
Yield and Yield Income kg 4400 170.0 748,000 165.0 726,214 165.0 726,214 165.0 726,214 165.0 726,214
Byproduct and Income kg 0 0.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0
GROSS INCOME 748,000 726,214 726,214 726,214 726,214
GROSS MARGIN per ha 246,810 262,026 254,252 253,200 253,200
Return to Labor NRs/day 739 785 761 758 758

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 41

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A8: Net Crop Revenue Summary

Command Area Ha. 47700 Model: BIP Full-modernization
Table A8.1: Without Project Economic
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 20000 1,630,396,396 1,378,543,002 1,323,966,627 1,271,333,535 1,271,333,115
Maize 2300 89,630,303 93,467,442 91,900,469 90,291,693 90,291,644
Early Paddy 10000 439,761,385 373,584,631 361,705,948 334,405,706 334,405,496
Sum. Veg. 2300 411,198,319 443,235,333 445,146,084 443,226,655 443,226,607
Sugarcane 13000 1,657,240,927 1,279,535,977 1,289,139,733 1,170,746,848 1,170,745,210
Winter Wheat 9000 262,210,909 288,389,265 279,678,999 256,894,390 256,894,201
Pulses 6500 211,946,037 175,569,940 173,040,372 175,906,605 175,906,673
Oilseeds 4600 176,553,186 201,950,392 203,670,970 201,524,870 201,524,822
Maize 2300 89,630,303 93,467,442 91,900,469 90,291,693 90,291,644
Potato 2300 263,693,548 303,468,621 305,379,372 303,459,943 303,459,895
vegetable 2300 462,816,370 495,869,678 496,805,978 495,799,258 495,799,233
Spring Paddy 500 40,759,910 34,463,575 33,099,166 31,783,338 31,783,328
vegetable 100 20,122,451 21,559,551 21,600,260 21,556,489 21,556,488
Total W/O 75200 5,755,960,041 5,183,104,850 5,117,034,446 4,887,221,024 4,887,218,358
Table A8.2: With Project (Irrigated)
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026
Summer Paddy 20000 1,661,806,992 2,678,542,626 2,617,600,534 2,560,289,323 2,560,289,323
Paddy SRI 2500 361,129,279 413,096,998 403,698,232 394,859,437 394,859,437
Maize 2300 100,302,737 103,619,163 85,046,964 100,135,202 100,135,081
Early Paddy 10000 489,662,068 1,982,955,537 1,933,014,373 2,079,744,388 2,079,744,388
Sum. Veg. 3100 644,244,091 690,236,556 698,783,724 690,112,197 690,111,978
Sugarcane 14000 2,072,093,761 1,615,116,596 1,619,939,597 1,486,904,066 1,486,902,302
Winter Wheat 9000 305,666,995 329,586,178 326,170,506 291,573,670 291,573,264
Pulses 6840 242,743,645 201,987,075 193,647,353 202,243,062 202,243,278
Oilseeds 4600 244,398,285 273,039,992 279,208,826 272,711,393 272,711,234
Maize 3100 135,190,645 139,660,611 114,628,517 134,964,837 134,964,675
Potato 3400 453,277,205 384,951,235 375,576,921 385,087,629 385,087,868
vegetable 3200 680,456,126 729,811,282 738,634,166 729,682,911 729,682,686
Spring Paddy 500 41,545,175 66,963,566 65,440,013 64,007,233 64,007,233
vegetable 900 191,378,285 205,259,423 207,740,859 205,223,319 205,223,255
Total W/P 83440 7,623,895,289 9,814,826,837 9,659,130,584 9,597,538,667 9,597,536,002
Net crop revenue (benefit) stream 1,867,935,248 4,631,721,987 4,542,096,138 4,710,317,643 4,710,317,644
Net fish revenue (benefit) stream 10 2,468,101 2,620,261 2,542,520 2,532,005 2,532,005
Incremental Benefit 1,870,403,349 4,634,342,248 4,544,638,658 4,712,849,648 4,712,849,649

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 42

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table A9: Economic Internal Rate of Return

Model: BIP Full-modernization
Investment Cost
Civil/Mechanical/Elec. Non-Const. O&M Total Incremental Residual Net Benefits
Year Work Cost cost costs cost Benefits value3
1 780,269,943 780,269,943 (780,269,943)
(2,535,496,27
2 2,067,334,305 468,161,966 2,535,496,270 0)
(2,183,983,14
3 2,067,334,305 468,161,966 109,900,485 2,645,396,755 461,413,607 9)
(1,419,828,14
4 1,653,867,444 468,161,966 219,800,971 2,341,830,380 922,002,234 6)
5 1,653,867,444 468,161,966 439,601,942 2,561,631,351 1,836,712,976 (724,918,375)
6 826,933,722 468,161,966 622,769,417 1,917,865,105 2,752,261,464 834,396,359
7 732,669,903 732,669,903 3,635,710,926 2,903,041,023
8 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,756,862,159 4,024,192,256
9 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,736,829,462 4,004,159,559
10 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,733,893,153 4,001,223,250
11 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,715,502,916 3,982,833,013
12 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,648 3,980,179,745
13 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
14 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
15 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
16 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
17 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
18 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
19 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
20 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 3,980,179,746
21 732,669,903 732,669,903 4,712,849,649 12,404,006 3,992,583,752
Base Case Indicators
B/C Ratio at
EIRR 24.41% ENPV-Cost at 12% 11,042,504,739 12% 2.18
ENPV (12%) 8,118,457,480 ENPV-Benefit at 12% 24,035,356,702
B/C Ratio at
81,184,574,804 ENPV-Cost at 10% 12,210,641,124 10% 2.32
ENPV-Benefit at 10% 28,305,861,871
Sensitivity
Indicators
Case Switching
Change EIRR ENPV (12%) Value
6,185,585,43
Case 1 Investment cost increase 25% 20.08% 9 105
3,243,165,03
Case 2 Delay in years to achieve full benefit 5 16.26% 5 9
3,328,503,95
Case 3 Incremental Benefit Shortfall 25% 17.61% 3 42
1,395,631,91
Case 4 Case 1 and Case 3 combined NA 14.01% 2 NA
Case B/C Ratio ENPV at 12% of
Sensitivity at 12% Benefit Cost

Case 1 0.71 1.39 19,160,962,220 13,803,130,924

Case 2 0.07 1.29 14,286,817,884 11,042,504,739

Case 3 1.12 1.30 14,370,721,665 11,042,504,739

Case 4 NA 1.04 14,370,721,665 13,803,130,924

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 43

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance
Attachment 2
Model B: Upper and Middle Bagmati Basin Upgrade, Pressure and Poly-house
Table B1: Conversion Factors
Table B1.1: Key Parameters
Exchange Rate (ER) at end January 2014 (NRs) 100.00 ER
Shadow Exchange Rate (SER) at end January 2014 103.00 SER
Shadow Exchange Rate Factor (SERF) 1.03 SERF
Standard Conversion Factor (SCF)1 0.97 SCF
Shadow Wage Rate Factor (SWRF)1 0.80 SWRF
Note: SCF is based on 2012 review undertaken by Building Climate Resilience of Watersheds in Mountain Eco-Regions Project ADB PPTA 7883-NEP

Table B1.2: Estimated Conversion Factors for Project Farm Inputs In Domestic Price Numeraire
Content
Item Price Tradable DVA Tax Total CF
Imported Pesticides and Fungicides
Financial 100.00 20.00 65.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 63.11 83.11 0.83
Cultivation equipment and small tools
Financial 100.00 20.00 70.00 10.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 67.96 87.96 0.88
Bullock Hire
Financial 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Straw
Financial 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Green Fodder
Financial 100.00 20.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 77.67 97.67 0.98
Sacks and packaging
Financial 100.00 15.00 85.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 15.00 82.52 97.52 0.98
Cardamom tubers
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Vegetable/potato
Financial 100.00 20.00 80.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 77.67 97.67 0.98
Organic Manure
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97
Transportation
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Tractor Hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Pumpset hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Thresher hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Sprayer hire
Financial 100.00 40.00 45.00 15.00 100.00
Economic 40.00 43.69 83.69 0.84
Seeds - Cereal/Forage
Financial 100.00 20.00 70.00 10.00 100.00
Economic 20.00 67.96 87.96 0.88
Forage Slips/Seedlings
Financial 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
Economic 0.00 97.09 97.09 0.97

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 44

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B 2: Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
Table B2.1: Major Grains
Financial Economic
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
A. Rice (Import Parity Price)
World Market Price FOB Bangkok (a)
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 477.0 413.0 370.9 330.3 330.3
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 513.7 450.2 434.7 420.1 420.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (b) 128 113 109 105 105
Adjustment for type (15-25%) 128 113 109 105 105
Price for domestic type of rice in Bangkok 257 225 217 210 210
Freight - Bangkok - Kolkata - Nepal Border 115 115 115 115 115
Cost of domestic type of rice in Nepal Border 372 340 332 325 325
Cost of domestic type of rice in Nepal Border (c) NRs/t 37,186 34,009 33,235 32,507 32,507
Custom & handling charges ($10) 1,000
Import duty (5%) 1,859
Landed price in Nepal Border 40,046 34,009 33,235 32,507 32,507
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 400
Average marketing margin (15%) 6,067 5,101 4,985 4,876 4,876
Transport to district mills (d) 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price ex mill 47,913 40,469 39,579 38,742 38,742
Conversion of rice to paddy at 65% 31,144 26,305 25,726 25,183 25,183
Processing cost 750 728 728 728 728
Millgate price 30,394 25,577 24,998 24,454 24,454
Transport - mill to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 29,394 24,606 24,027 23,484 23,484
Import parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 29.4 24.6 24.0 23.5 23.5
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 20.0
B. Wheat (Import Parity)
Financial
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
World Market Price US HRW, US Gulf port FOB
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 278.5 270.8 243.0 216.2 216.2
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 299.9 295.2 284.8 275.0 275.0
Adjustment to comparative quality (25%) 75 74 71 69 69
Price for domestic type of wheat 225 221 214 206 206
Insurance and freight to Kolcata -Nepal Border 132 132 132 132 132
Cost of domestic type of wheat in Nepal Border 357 353 346 338 338
Cost of domestic type of wheat in Nepal Border (c) NRs/t 35,696 35,338 34,560 33,825 33,825
Custom & handling charges, US$ 10 1,000
Import duty, 5% 1,785
Landed price in Nepal Border 38,481 35,338 34,560 33,825 33,825
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 385
Average marketing margin (15%) 5,830 5,301 5,184 5,074 5,074
Transport to wholesale market in terai/hills 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price 30,866 28,678 28,017 27,392 27,392
Transport - wholesale market to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Farmgate price 29,866 27,707 27,046 26,422 26,422
Import parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 29.9 27.7 27.0 26.4 26.4
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 18.0

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 45

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

C. Maize (Import Parity)

Financial
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
World Market Price, US No.2, yellow, FOB US Gulf port
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 208.9 215.7 198.4 180.9 180.9
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 225.0 235.1 232.5 230.1 230.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (25%) 56 59 58 58 58
Price for domestic type of maize 169 176 174 173 173
Insurance and freight to Kolcata 67 67 67 67 67
Transport and handling to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of domestic type of maize in Nepal Border 236 243 241 240 240
Cost of domestic type of maize in Nepal Border (c) NRs/t) 23,574 24,333 24,139 23,958 23,958
Custom & handling charges, US$ 10 2,357
Import duty, 5% 1,179
Landed price in Nepal Border 27,110 24,333 24,139 23,958 23,958
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 271
Average marketing margin (5%) 1,369 1,217 1,207 1,198 1,198
Transport to wholesale market in terai/hills (d) 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price 24,070 21,758 21,573 21,401 21,401
Transport - wholesale market to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Parity price at farmgate 23,070 20,787 20,602 20,430 20,430
Parity price at farmgate NRs/kg 23.1 20.8 20.6 20.4 20.4
Local farmgate price (at harvest time) 21.0
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Projections (January, 2014)
(a) FOB price Bangkok (Thai 5% cracked)
(b) Quality adjustment assumed 25%
(c) Exchange rate: US$ to NRs = 100
(d) Standard conversion factor = 0.97
Table B2: (Continued) Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods
Table B2.2: Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Inputs
Financial
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
A. Urea (Import Parity Price)
Projected world price, E. Europe (bulk) f.o.b Black Sea
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 301.7 293.7 264.4 235.9 235.9
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 324.9 320.1 309.9 300.1 300.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 32 32 31 30 30
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 359 355 346 337 337
Freight & insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of urea in Nepal Border 424 420 411 402 402
Cost of urea in Kathmandu (a) NRs/t 42,444 42,012 41,089 40,206 40,206
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800 0 0 0 0
Import duty 0 0 0 0 0
Landed price in Nepal Border 44,244 42,012 41,089 40,206 40,206
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 442
Average marketing margin (15%) 6,637 6,443 6,443 6,443 6,443
Wholesale price in Nepal Border 51,323 48,455 47,532 46,649 46,649
Transport to district center in terai/hills 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price ex district center 52,723 49,814 48,891 48,008 48,008
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 527
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,663 2491 2445 2400 2400
Average retail price at district center 55,913 52,305 51,336 50,409 50,409
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 56,913 53,276 52,307 51,380 51,380
Import parity price at farmgate (b) NRs/bag 2,846 2,664 2,615 2,569 2,569
Local farmgate price NRs/kg 56.9 53.3 52.3 51.4 51.4
Current actual farm gate price NRs/bag 35.0

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 46

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

B. Di-ammonia Phosphate (DAP)

Financial
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
Projected world price, bulk, f.o.b. US Gulf
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars const $/t 362.0 367.1 357.9 346 346
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 389.9 398.5 416.8 440.1 440.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 39 40 42 44 44
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 418 426 442 463 463
Freight and insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of DAP in Nepal Border 483 491 507 528 528
Cost of DAP in Nepal Border (a) NRs/t 48,289 49,065 50,709 52,810 52,810
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800
Import duty 0 0 0 0 0
Landed price in Nepal Border 50,089 49,065 50,709 52,810 52,810
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 501
Average marketing margin (2.5%) 1,252 1,216 1,216 1,216 1,216
Wholesale price in Nepal Border 51,842 50,281 51,924 54,026 54,026
Transport to district mills in terai/hills 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price ex district center 53,242 51,640 53,284 55,385 55,385
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 532
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,689 2582 2664 2769 2769
Average retail price at district center in Terai 56,463 54,222 55,948 58,154 58,154
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 57,463 55,193 56,919 59,125 59,125
Import parity price at farmgate (c) NRs/bag 2,873 2,760 2,846 2,956 2,956
Local farmgate price NRs/kg 57.5 55.2 56.9 59.1 59.1
Current actual farm gate price NRs/kg 56.0
Ratio of import parity price to local farmgate price 1.03
Table B2: (Continued) Derivation of Economic Prices for Major Tradable Goods
Financial
Item Unit 2014 2015 2020 2025 2026-30
C. MOP Projected world price, spot, f.o.b. Vancouver
Projected Price at 2010 Constant Dollars curr. $/t 315.6 302.9 272.9 243.8 243.8
Constant 2014 dollars const $/t 339.9 323.6 312.8 310.1 310.1
Adjustment to comparative quality (10%) 85 81 94 93 93
Freight and insurance to Calcutta 67 67 67 67 67
CIF - Port of entry at Calcutta 322 310 286 284 284
Freight and insurance - Calcutta to Nepal Border 65 65 65 65 65
Cost of MOP in Nepal Border 387 375 351 349 349
Cost of MOP in Nepal Border (a) NRs/t 38,693 37,472 35,096 34,908 34,908
Custom & handling charges ($18) 1,800
Import duty 0 0 2 7 8
Landed price in Nepal Border 40,493 37,472 35,098 34,915 34,916
Wholesale taxes & duties (1%) 405
Average marketing margin (2.5%) 1,012 983 983 983 983
Wholesale price 41,910 38,454 36,081 35,898 35,899
Transport to district mills in terai/hills 1,400 1,359 1,359 1,359 1,359
Wholesale price ex district center 43,310 39,814 37,441 37,257 37,258
Retail taxes and duties (1%) 433
Retail marketing margin (5%) 2,187 1991 1872 1863 1863
Average retail price at district center in Terai 45,930 41,804 39,313 39,120 39,121
Transport - district retail center to farm 1,000 971 971 971 971
Import parity price at farmgate 46,930 42,775 40,283 40,091 40,092
Import parity price at farmgate (b) NRs/bag 2,347 2,139 2,014 2,005 2,005
Local farmgate price in NRs/kg 46.9 42.8 40.3 40.1 40.1
Current actual farm gate price NRs/kg 25.0
Ratio of import parity price to local farmgate price 1.88
Source: World Bank Commodity Price Projections (January, 2014)
(a) For exchange rate and standard conversion factor, see footnotes for rice price derivation
(b) 50kg bag
(c) 50kg bag

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 47

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B3: Input and Output Price Summary

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
Financial Economic Prices
Unit Prices 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
A. Outputs
Paddy NRs/kg 29.4 24.6 24.0 23.5 23.5
Paddy byproducts NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Wheat NRs/kg 29.9 27.7 27.0 26.4 26.4
Wheat byproducts NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maize NRs/kg 23.1 20.8 20.6 20.4 20.4
Maize byproducts NRs/kg 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Pulses NRs/kg 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Oilseeds NRs/kg 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0
Potato NRs/kg 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Sum. Veg. NRs/kg 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Vegetables NRs/kg 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
B. Inputs
Seeds
Paddy NRs/kg 36.7 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3
Wheat NRs/kg 37.3 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8
Maize NRs/kg 28.8 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4
Lentil/Pulses NRs/kg 87.5 77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0
Oilseeds NRs/kg 100.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0
Potato NRs/kg 24.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1
Sum. Veg. NRs/kg 25.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Vegetable NRs/kg 22.5 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8
Fertilizers
Urea NRs/kg 56.9 53.3 52.3 51.4 51.4
DAP NRs/kg 57.5 55.2 56.9 59.1 59.1
Potash NRs/kg 46.9 42.8 40.3 40.1 40.1
Farmyard Manure NRs/ton 1,000.0 970.9 970.9 970.9 970.9
Pesticides NRs/ha 400.0 332.4 332.4 332.4 332.4
Sacks NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Packaging NRs/kg 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Transport NRs/kg 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Tools/equipment unit 2,000.0 1,759.2 1,759.2 1,759.2 1,759.2
C. Labor
Farm Labor NRs/day 400.0 320.0 320.0 320.0 320.0
Draft Animal NRs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
D. Machinery
Tractor NRs/hr 500.0 418.4 418.4 418.4 418.4
Pumpset NRs/hr 200.0 167.4 167.4 167.4 167.4
Thresher NRs/hr 150.0 125.5 125.5 125.5 125.5
Sprayer NRs/hr 20.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 48

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B4: Input Summary

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and Poly-house
Table B4.1: Without Project
Crops Seeds DAP Urea Potash Manure Pesticides Labor H-Labor Bullock Tractor Pumpset Thresher Sprayer
kg kg kg kg ton times days days hr hr hr hr
Paddy 50 40 75 40 1.2 1.08 126 59 4 6 7 8 8
Wheat 120 45 50 20 0.725 0.25 105 40 5 5 4 8 5
Maize 20 40 70 20 1.3 1.25 110 40 8 7 6 5
Pulses 30 20 10 0.5 0 72 25 2 4 2
Oilseeds 8 40 20 10 1 0.5 72 25 2 4 2 1
Potato 1250 45 63 20 2 1 162 70 2 5 6 1
Sum. Veg. 0.7 45 63 20 2 1 171 80 2 5 7 1
Vegetable 0.7 45 63 10 2 1 171 80 2 5 7 7
Table B 4.2: With Project
Crops Seeds DAP Urea Potash Manure Pesticides Labor H-Labor Bullock Tractor Pumpset Thresher Sprayer
kg kg kg kg ton times days days hr hr hr hr
Paddy 50 65 150 50 2 2 120 63 4 6 5 8 6
Paddy SRI 18 30 33 22 2 1.25 91 30 4 5 8 11 10
Wheat 120 109 175 43 1 1 110 60 5 5 3 6 6
Maize 20 50 85 40 2 2 112 45 8 7 6 5
Pulses 30 30 30 0.5 0 75 26 2 4 2 1
Oilseeds 8 87 96 33 1 0.5 75 26 2 4 2 1
Potato 1500 109 110 67 2 1 180 80 2 5 6 1
Sum. Veg. 1 109 110 67 2 2 171 80 2 5 7 2
Vegetable 0.70 109 110 67 2 2 175 80 2 5 7 2

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 49

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade and Pressure Models
(i) Paddy
Without Project Area 30 ha 1 Economic
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026.0
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 50 36.7 1,837 32.3 1,616 32.3 1,616 32.3 1,616 32.3 1,616
Labor - male day 44 400.0 17,499 320.0 13,999 320.0 13,999 320.0 13,999 320.0 13,999
- female day 82 400.0 32,901 320.0 26,321 320.0 26,321 320.0 26,321 320.0 26,321
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 6 500.0 3,000 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 40 57.5 2,299 55.2 2,208 56.9 2,277 59.1 2,365 59.1 2,365
Urea kg 75 56.9 4,268 53.3 3,996 52.3 3,923 51.4 3,853 51.4 3,853
Potash kg 40 46.9 1,877 42.8 1,711 40.3 1,611 40.1 1,604 40.1 1,604
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,200 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165 970.9 1,165
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 432 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359 332.4 359
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 120 1.0 120 1.0 117 1.0 117 1.0 117 1.0 117
Transport kg 4800 2.0 9,600 1.7 8,034 1.7 8,034 1.7 8,034 1.7 8,034
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 77,633 64,212 64,109 64,120 64,120
DIRECT COST per kg 16.17 13.38 13.36 13.36 13.36
Yield and Yield Income kg 4800 29.4 141,089 24.6 118,108 24.0 115,332 23.5 112,721 23.5 112,721
Byproduct and Income kg 5280 1.0 5,280 1.0 5,126 1.0 5,126 1.0 5,126 1.0 5,126
GROSS INCOME 146,369 123,234 120,458 117,847 117,847
GROSS MARGIN per ha 68,736 59,022 56,349 53,727 53,727
Return to Labor NRs/day 546 468 447 426 426
Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue
Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
Paddy
With Project Area 30 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026.0
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 10 36.7 367 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323
Labor - male day 43 400.0 17,369 320.0 13,895 320.0 13,895 320.0 13,895 320.0 13,895
- female day 77 400.0 30,631 320.0 24,505 320.0 24,505 320.0 24,505 320.0 24,505
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 6 500.0 3,000 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511
Pumpset hr 5 200.0 1,000 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 65 57.5 3,735 55.2 3,588 56.9 3,700 59.1 3,843 59.1 3,843
Urea kg 150 56.9 8,537 53.3 7,991 52.3 7,846 51.4 7,707 51.4 7,707
Potash kg 50 46.9 2,347 42.8 2,139 0.0 0 40.1 2,005 40.1 2,005
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 125 1.0 125 1.0 122 1.0 122 1.0 122 1.0 122
Transport kg 5000 2.0 10,000 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 81,231 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 16.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 5000 29.4 146,967 24.6 123,029 24.0 120,137 23.5 117,417 23.5 117,417
Byproduct and Income kg 5500 1.0 5,500 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340
GROSS INCOME 152,467 128,368 125,477 122,757 122,757
GROSS MARGIN per ha 71,236 128,368 125,477 122,757 122,757
Return to Labor NRs/day 594 1,070 1,046 1,023 1,023

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 50

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

With Project (Paddy-SRI) Area 15 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 10 36.7 367 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323
Labor - male day 33 400.0 13,171 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537
- female day 58 400.0 23,229 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 8 200.0 1,600 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339
Thresher hr 11 150.0 1,650 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381
Sprayer hr 10 20.0 200 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167
DAP kg 30 57.5 1,724 55.2 1,656 56.9 1,708 59.1 1,774 59.1 1,774
Urea kg 33 56.9 1,878 53.3 1,758 52.3 1,726 51.4 1,696 51.4 1,696
Potash kg 22 46.9 1,032 42.8 941 0.0 0 40.1 882 40.1 882
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 500 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 163 1.0 163 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158
Transport kg 6500 2.0 13,000 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 63,014 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 9.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 6500 29.4 191,058 24.6 159,938 24.0 156,178 23.5 152,643 23.5 152,643
Byproduct and Income kg 7150 1.0 7,150 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942
GROSS INCOME 198,208 166,880 163,120 159,585 159,585
GROSS MARGIN per ha 135,194 166,880 163,120 159,585 159,585
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,486 1,834 1,793 1,754 1,754

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 51

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
(ii) Wheat
Without Project Area 15 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 120 37.3 4,480 32.8 3,941 32.8 3,941 32.8 3,941 32.8 3,941
Labor - male day 56 400.0 22,464 320.0 17,972 320.0 17,972 320.0 17,972 320.0 17,972
- female day 49 400.0 19,536 320.0 15,628 320.0 15,628 320.0 15,628 320.0 15,628
Bullock hire (50% share) day 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 4 200.0 800 167.4 670 167.4 670 167.4 670 167.4 670
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 45 57.5 2,586 55.2 2,484 56.9 2,561 59.1 2,661 59.1 2,661
Urea kg 50 56.9 2,846 53.3 2,664 52.3 2,615 51.4 2,569 51.4 2,569
Potash kg 20 46.9 939 42.8 856 0.0 0 40.1 802 40.1 802
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 725 970.9 704 970.9 704 970.9 704 970.9 704
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 100 332.4 83 332.4 83 332.4 83 332.4 83
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 68 1.0 68 1.0 66 1.0 66 1.0 66 1.0 66
Transport kg 2700 2.0 5,400 1.7 4,519 1.7 4,519 1.7 4,519 1.7 4,519
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 63,742 52,765 51,939 52,794 52,794
DIRECT COST per kg 23.61 19.54 19.24 19.55 19.55
Yield and Yield Income kg 2700 29.9 80,638 27.7 74,809 27.0 73,023 26.4 71,338 26.4 71,338
Byproduct and Income kg 2970 1.0 2,970 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883 1.0 2,883
GROSS INCOME 83,608 77,693 75,907 74,222 74,222
GROSS MARGIN per ha 19,866 24,927 23,968 21,428 21,428
Return to Labor NRs/day 189 237 228 204 204
Wheat
With Project Area 15 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 24 37.3 896 32.8 788 32.8 788 32.8 788 32.8 788
Labor - male day 63 400.0 25,095 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076
- female day 47 400.0 18,905 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124
Bullock hire (50% share) day 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 3 200.0 600 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502
Thresher hr 6 150.0 900 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 175 56.9 9,960 53.3 9,323 52.3 9,154 51.4 8,991 51.4 8,991
Potash kg 43 46.9 2,018 42.8 1,839 0.0 0 40.1 1,724 40.1 1,724
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,000 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 78 1.0 78 1.0 76 1.0 76 1.0 76 1.0 76
Transport kg 3100 2.0 6,200 1.7 5,189 1.7 5,189 1.7 5,189 1.7 5,189
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 74,935 63,182 61,362 63,164 63,164
DIRECT COST per kg 24.17 20.38 19.79 20.38 20.38
Yield and Yield Income kg 3100 29.9 92,585 27.7 85,892 27.0 83,842 26.4 81,907 26.4 81,907
Byproduct and Income kg 3410 1.0 3,410 1.0 3,311 1.0 3,311 1.0 3,311 1.0 3,311
GROSS INCOME 95,995 89,203 87,152 85,218 85,218
GROSS MARGIN per ha 21,060 26,020 25,791 22,054 22,054
Return to Labor NRs/day 191 237 234 200 200

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 52

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
(iii) Maize
Without Project Area 25 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 20 28.8 577 25.4 507 25.4 507 25.4 507 25.4 507
Labor - male day 59 400.0 23,611 320.0 18,889 320.0 18,889 320.0 18,889 320.0 18,889
- female day 51 400.0 20,389 320.0 16,311 320.0 16,311 320.0 16,311 320.0 16,311
Bullock hire (50% share) day 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 7 500.0 3,500 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 40 57.5 2,299 55.2 2,208 56.9 2,277 59.1 2,365 59.1 2,365
Urea kg 70 56.9 3,984 53.3 3,729 52.3 3,661 51.4 3,597 51.4 3,597
Potash kg 20 46.9 939 42.8 856 40.3 806 40.1 802 40.1 802
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,300 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262 970.9 1,262
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 500 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 80 1.0 80 1.0 78 1.0 78 1.0 78 1.0 78
Transport kg 3180 2.0 6,360 1.7 5,323 1.7 5,323 1.7 5,323 1.7 5,323
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 64,837 53,595 53,546 53,566 53,566
DIRECT COST per kg 20.39 16.85 16.84 16.84 16.84
Yield and Yield Income kg 3180 23.1 73,362 20.8 66,102 20.6 65,515 20.4 64,967 20.4 64,967
Byproduct and Income kg 5406 0.8 4,055 1.0 5,249 1.0 5,249 1.0 5,249 1.0 5,249
GROSS INCOME 77,417 71,350 70,764 70,216 70,216
GROSS MARGIN per ha 12,579 17,755 17,218 16,650 16,650
Return to Labor NRs/day 114 161 157 151 151
Maize
With Project Area 35 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 28.8 231 25.4 203 25.4 203 25.4 203 25.4 203
Labor - male day 64 400.0 25,552 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441
- female day 48 400.0 19,248 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399
Bullock hire (50% share) day 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 7 500.0 3,500 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 50 57.5 2,873 55.2 2,760 56.9 2,846 59.1 2,956 59.1 2,956
Urea kg 85 56.9 4,838 53.3 4,528 52.3 4,446 51.4 4,367 51.4 4,367
Potash kg 40 46.9 1,877 42.8 1,711 40.3 1,611 40.1 1,604 40.1 1,604
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 86 1.0 86 1.0 84 1.0 84 1.0 84 1.0 84
Transport kg 3429 2.0 6,857 1.7 5,739 1.7 5,739 1.7 5,739 1.7 5,739
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 69,161 57,488 57,392 57,416 57,416
DIRECT COST per kg 20.17 16.77 16.74 16.75 16.75
Yield and Yield Income kg 3429 23.1 79,096 20.8 71,268 20.6 70,636 20.4 70,045 20.4 70,045
Byproduct and Income kg 5829 0.8 4,371 1.0 5,659 0.0 0 1.0 5,659 1.0 5,659
GROSS INCOME 83,468 76,927 70,636 75,704 75,704
GROSS MARGIN per ha 14,306 19,439 13,244 18,288 18,288
Return to Labor NRs/day 128 174 118 163 163

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 53

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
(v) Pulses
Without Project Area 20 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 30 87.5 2,625 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309 77.0 2,309
Labor - male day 39 400.0 15,537 320.0 12,429 320.0 12,429 320.0 12,429 320.0 12,429
- female day 33 400.0 13,263 320.0 10,611 320.0 10,611 320.0 10,611 320.0 10,611
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 4 500.0 2,000 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 20 57.5 1,149 55.2 1,104 56.9 1,138 59.1 1,183 59.1 1,183
Urea kg 0 56.9 0 53.3 0 52.3 0 51.4 0 51.4 0
Potash kg 10 46.9 469 42.8 428 0.0 0 40.1 401 40.1 401
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 500 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 25 1.0 25 1.0 24 1.0 24 1.0 24 1.0 24
Transport kg 1000 2.0 2,000 1.7 1,674 1.7 1,674 1.7 1,674 1.7 1,674
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 37,969 31,073 30,680 31,125 31,125
DIRECT COST per kg 37.97 31.07 30.68 31.12 31.12

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1000 70.0 70,000 70.0 70,000 70.0 70,000 70.0 70,000 70.0 70,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 32,031 38,927 39,320 38,875 38,875
Return to Labor NRs/day 445 541 546 540 540
Pulses
With Project Area 5 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 87.5 700 77.0 616 77.0 616 77.0 616 77.0 616
Labor - male day 42 400.0 16,676 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341
- female day 33 400.0 13,324 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 4 500.0 2,000 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 30 57.5 1,724 55.2 1,656 56.9 1,708 59.1 1,774 59.1 1,774
Urea kg 0 56.9 0 53.3 0 52.3 0 51.4 0 51.4 0
Potash kg 30 46.9 1,408 42.8 1,283 0.0 0 40.1 1,203 40.1 1,203
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 500 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 28 1.0 28 1.0 27 1.0 27 1.0 27 1.0 27
Transport kg 1100 2.0 2,200 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 38,979 31,933 30,702 31,971 31,971
DIRECT COST per kg 35.44 29.03 27.91 29.06 29.06

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1100 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 38,021 45,067 46,298 45,029 45,029
Return to Labor NRs/day 507 601 617 600 600

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 54

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and Poly-house
(vii) Potato
Without Project Area 5 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1250 24.0 30,000 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388 21.1 26,388
Labor - male day 70 400.0 28,021 320.0 22,417 320.0 22,417 320.0 22,417 320.0 22,417
- female day 92 400.0 36,779 320.0 29,423 320.0 29,423 320.0 29,423 320.0 29,423
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 45 57.5 2,586 55.2 2,484 56.9 2,561 59.1 2,661 59.1 2,661
Urea kg 63 56.9 3,585 53.3 3,356 52.3 3,295 51.4 3,237 51.4 3,237
Potash kg 20 46.9 939 42.8 856 0.0 0 40.1 802 40.1 802
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 375 1.0 375 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366
Transport kg 15000 2.0 29,999 1.7 25,106 1.7 25,106 1.7 25,106 1.7 25,106
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 138,404 115,783 114,944 115,787 115,787
DIRECT COST per kg 9.23 7.72 7.66 7.72 7.72

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15000 15.0 224,996 15.0 224,996 15.0 224,996 15.0 224,996 15.0 224,996
GROSS MARGIN per ha 86,591 109,212 110,051 109,208 109,208
Return to Labor NRs/day 535 674 679 674 674
Potato
With Project Area 10 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1500 24.0 36,000 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666
Labor - male day 79 400.0 31,674 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339
- female day 101 400.0 40,326 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 425 1.0 425 1.0 414 1.0 414 1.0 414 1.0 414
Transport kg 17000 2.0 34,000 1.7 28,454 1.7 28,454 1.7 28,454 1.7 28,454
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 164,213 138,264 135,480 138,304 138,305
DIRECT COST per kg 9.66 8.13 7.97 8.14 8.14

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 17000 15.0 254,997 15.0 254,997 15.0 254,997 15.0 254,997 15.0 254,997
GROSS MARGIN per ha 90,785 116,733 119,518 116,693 116,693
Return to Labor NRs/day 504 649 664 648 648

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 55

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
Sum. Veg.
Without Project Area 10 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1 25.0 18 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15 22.0 15
Labor - male day 73 400.0 29,171 320.0 23,336 320.0 23,336 320.0 23,336 320.0 23,336
- female day 98 400.0 39,229 320.0 31,384 320.0 31,384 320.0 31,384 320.0 31,384
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 45 57.5 2,586 55.2 2,484 56.9 2,561 59.1 2,661 59.1 2,661
Urea kg 63 56.9 3,585 53.3 3,356 52.3 3,295 51.4 3,237 51.4 3,237
Potash kg 20 46.9 939 42.8 856 0.0 0 40.1 802 40.1 802
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 325 1.0 325 1.0 317 1.0 317 1.0 317 1.0 317
Transport kg 13000 2.0 26,000 1.7 21,759 1.7 21,759 1.7 21,759 1.7 21,759
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 108,172 89,062 88,223 89,066 89,066
DIRECT COST per kg 8.32 6.85 6.79 6.85 6.85

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 13000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000 20.0 260,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 151,828 170,938 171,777 170,934 170,934
Return to Labor NRs/day 888 1,000 1,005 1,000 1,000
Sum. Veg.
With Project Area 10 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0 25.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0
Labor - male day 78 400.0 31,178 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942
- female day 93 400.0 37,222 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 350 1.0 350 1.0 341 1.0 341 1.0 341 1.0 341
Transport kg 14000 2.0 28,000 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 119,158 99,141 96,356 99,181 99,181
DIRECT COST per kg 8.51 7.08 6.88 7.08 7.08

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 14000 20.0 280,000 20.0 280,000 20.0 280,000 20.0 280,000 20.0 280,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 160,842 180,859 183,644 180,819 180,819
Return to Labor NRs/day 941 1,058 1,074 1,057 1,057

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 56

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B5: (Continued) Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

Upp.& Mid. Bagmati Upgrade, Pressure and P0ly-house
(ix) Vegetable
Without Project (Irrigated) Area 10 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0.7 22.5 16 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14
Labor - male day 83 400.0 33,073 320.0 26,459 320.0 26,459 320.0 26,459 320.0 26,459
- female day 88 400.0 35,327 320.0 28,261 320.0 28,261 320.0 28,261 320.0 28,261
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 7 20.0 140 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117 16.7 117
DAP kg 45 57.5 2,586 55.2 2,484 56.9 2,561 59.1 2,661 59.1 2,661
Urea kg 63 56.9 3,585 53.3 3,356 52.3 3,295 51.4 3,237 51.4 3,237
Potash kg 10 46.9 469 42.8 428 0.0 0 40.1 401 40.1 401
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 350 1.0 350 1.0 341 1.0 341 1.0 341 1.0 341
Transport kg 14000 2.0 28,000 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433 1.7 23,433
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 109,846 90,431 90,020 90,462 90,462
DIRECT COST per kg 7.85 6.46 6.43 6.46 6.46

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 14000 18.0 251,997 18.0 251,997 18.0 251,997 18.0 251,997 18.0 251,997
GROSS MARGIN per ha 142,151 161,566 161,978 161,536 161,536
Return to Labor NRs/day 831 945 947 945 945
Vegetable
With Project Area 20 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015.0 2020.0 2025.0 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0.7 22.5 16 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14
Labor - male day 85 400.0 34,157 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325
- female day 90 400.0 35,843 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 387 1.0 387 1.0 378 1.0 378 1.0 378 1.0 378
Transport kg 15500 2.0 31,000 1.7 25,944 1.7 25,944 1.7 25,944 1.7 25,944
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 123,811 102,982 100,197 103,022 103,022
DIRECT COST per kg 7.99 6.64 6.46 6.65 6.65

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15500 18.0 278,999 18.0 278,999 18.0 278,999 18.0 278,999 18.0 278,999
GROSS MARGIN per ha 155,187 176,017 178,801 175,977 175,977
Return to Labor NRs/day 887 1,006 1,022 1,006 1,006

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 57

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table 6: Financial and Economic Net Crop Revenue

IMFLW Upper& Middle Bagmati Basin Pressure
Paddy
With Project Area 38 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 10 36.7 367 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323
Labor - male day 47 400.0 18,816 320.0 15,053 320.0 15,053 320.0 15,053 320.0 15,053
- female day 83 400.0 33,184 320.0 26,547 320.0 26,547 320.0 26,547 320.0 26,547
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 6 500.0 3,000 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511 418.4 2,511
Pumpset hr 5 200.0 1,000 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837 167.4 837
Thresher hr 8 150.0 1,200 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004 125.5 1,004
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 65 57.5 3,735 55.2 3,588 56.9 3,700 59.1 3,843 59.1 3,843
Urea kg 195 56.9 11,098 53.3 10,389 52.3 10,200 51.4 10,019 51.4 10,019
Potash kg 50 46.9 2,347 42.8 2,139 0.0 0 40.1 2,005 40.1 2,005
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 125 1.0 125 1.0 122 1.0 122 1.0 122 1.0 122
Transport kg 5000 2.0 10,000 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369 1.7 8,369
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 87,792 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 17.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 5000 29.4 146,967 24.6 123,029 24.0 120,137 23.5 117,417 23.5 117,417
Byproduct and Income kg 5500 1.0 5,500 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340 1.0 5,340
GROSS INCOME 152,467 128,369 125,477 122,757 122,757
GROSS MARGIN per ha 64,675 128,369 125,477 122,757 122,757
Return to Labor NRs/day 498 987 965 944 944

Paddy
With Project (Paddy-SRI) Area 8 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 10 36.7 367 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323 32.3 323
Labor - male day 33 400.0 13,171 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537 320.0 10,537
- female day 58 400.0 23,229 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583 320.0 18,583
Bullock hire (50% share) day 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 8 200.0 1,600 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339 167.4 1,339
Thresher hr 11 150.0 1,650 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381 125.5 1,381
Sprayer hr 10 20.0 200 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167
DAP kg 30 57.5 1,724 55.2 1,656 56.9 1,708 59.1 1,774 59.1 1,774
Urea kg 33 56.9 1,878 53.3 1,758 52.3 1,726 51.4 1,696 51.4 1,696
Potash kg 22 46.9 1,032 42.8 941 0.0 0 40.1 882 40.1 882
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 500 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416 332.4 416
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 163 1.0 163 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158 1.0 158
Transport kg 6500 2.0 13,000 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880 1.7 10,880
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 63,014 0 0 0 0
DIRECT COST per kg 9.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Yield and Yield Income kg 6500 29.4 191,058 24.6 159,938 24.0 156,178 23.5 152,643 23.5 152,643
Byproduct and Income kg 7150 1.0 7,150 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942 1.0 6,942
GROSS INCOME 198,208 166,880 163,120 159,585 159,585
GROSS MARGIN per ha 135,194 166,880 163,120 159,585 159,585
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,486 1,834 1,793 1,754 1,754

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 58

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Wheat
With Project Area 8 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 24 37.3 896 32.8 788 32.8 788 32.8 788 32.8 788
Labor - male day 63 400.0 25,095 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076 320.0 20,076
- female day 47 400.0 18,905 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124 320.0 15,124
Bullock hire (50% share) day 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 3 200.0 600 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502 167.4 502
Thresher hr 6 150.0 900 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753 125.5 753
Sprayer hr 6 20.0 120 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100 16.7 100
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 175 56.9 9,960 53.3 9,323 52.3 9,154 51.4 8,991 51.4 8,991
Potash kg 43 46.9 2,018 42.8 1,839 0.0 0 40.1 1,724 40.1 1,724
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 1,000 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971 970.9 971
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 88 1.0 88 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85
Transport kg 3500 2.0 7,000 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 75,745 63,862 62,041 63,843 63,843
DIRECT COST per kg 21.64 18.25 17.73 18.24 18.24
Yield and Yield Income kg 3500 29.9 104,531 27.7 96,975 27.0 94,660 26.4 92,475 26.4 92,475
Byproduct and Income kg 3850 1.0 3,850 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738 1.0 3,738
GROSS INCOME 108,381 100,713 98,398 96,213 96,213
GROSS MARGIN per ha 32,636 36,851 36,357 32,370 32,370
Return to Labor NRs/day 297 335 331 294 294

Maize
With Project Area 25 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 28.8 231 25.4 203 25.4 203 25.4 203 25.4 203
Labor - male day 64 400.0 25,552 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441 320.0 20,441
- female day 48 400.0 19,248 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399 320.0 15,399
Bullock hire (50% share) day 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 7 500.0 3,500 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929 418.4 2,929
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 5 20.0 100 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84 16.7 84
DAP kg 50 57.5 2,873 55.2 2,760 56.9 2,846 59.1 2,956 59.1 2,956
Urea kg 85 56.9 4,838 53.3 4,528 52.3 4,446 51.4 4,367 51.4 4,367
Potash kg 40 46.9 1,877 42.8 1,711 40.3 1,611 40.1 1,604 40.1 1,604
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 87 1.0 87 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85 1.0 85
Transport kg 3500 2.0 7,000 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858 1.7 5,858
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 69,306 57,609 57,514 57,537 57,537
DIRECT COST per kg 19.80 16.46 16.43 16.44 16.44
Yield and Yield Income kg 3500 23.1 80,744 20.8 72,753 20.6 72,108 20.4 71,504 20.4 71,504
Byproduct and Income kg 5950 0.8 4,462 1.0 5,777 0.0 0 1.0 5,777 1.0 5,777
GROSS INCOME 85,206 78,530 72,108 77,281 77,281
GROSS MARGIN per ha 15,900 20,920 14,594 19,744 19,743
Return to Labor NRs/day 142 187 130 176 176

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 59

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Pulses
With Project Area 5 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 8 87.5 700 77.0 616 77.0 616 77.0 616 77.0 616
Labor - male day 42 400.0 16,676 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341 320.0 13,341
- female day 33 400.0 13,324 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659 320.0 10,659
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 4 500.0 2,000 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674 418.4 1,674
Pumpset hr 2 200.0 400 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335 167.4 335
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 30 57.5 1,724 55.2 1,656 56.9 1,708 59.1 1,774 59.1 1,774
Urea kg 0 56.9 0 53.3 0 52.3 0 51.4 0 51.4 0
Potash kg 30 46.9 1,408 42.8 1,283 0.0 0 40.1 1,203 40.1 1,203
Organic manure ton 1 1000.0 500 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485 970.9 485
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 0 400.0 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0 332.4 0
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 28 1.0 28 1.0 27 1.0 27 1.0 27 1.0 27
Transport kg 1100 2.0 2,200 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841 1.7 1,841
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 38,979 31,933 30,702 31,971 31,971
DIRECT COST per kg 35.44 29.03 27.91 29.06 29.06

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 1100 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000 70.0 77,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 38,021 45,067 46,298 45,029 45,029
Return to Labor NRs/day 507 601 617 600 600

Potato
With Project Area 12 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 1500 24.0 36,000 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666 21.1 31,666
Labor - male day 79 400.0 31,674 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339 320.0 25,339
- female day 101 400.0 40,326 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261 320.0 32,261
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 6 200.0 1,200 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004 167.4 1,004
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 1 20.0 20 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17 16.7 17
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 1 400.0 400 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332 332.4 332
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 500 1.0 500 1.0 488 1.0 488 1.0 488 1.0 488
Transport kg 20000 2.0 40,000 1.7 33,475 1.7 33,475 1.7 33,475 1.7 33,475
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 170,288 143,359 140,574 143,399 143,399
DIRECT COST per kg 8.51 7.17 7.03 7.17 7.17

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 20000 15.0 299,998 15.0 299,998 15.0 299,998 15.0 299,998 15.0 299,998
GROSS MARGIN per ha 129,710 156,639 159,423 156,599 156,598
Return to Labor NRs/day 721 870 886 870 870

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 60

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Sum. Veg.
With Project Area 2 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0 25.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0 22.0 0
Labor - male day 78 400.0 31,178 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942 320.0 24,942
- female day 93 400.0 37,222 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778 320.0 29,778
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 375 1.0 375 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366 1.0 366
Transport kg 15000 2.0 30,000 1.7 25,107 1.7 25,107 1.7 25,107 1.7 25,107
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 121,183 100,839 98,054 100,879 100,879
DIRECT COST per kg 8.08 6.72 6.54 6.73 6.73

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 15000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000 20.0 300,000
GROSS MARGIN per ha 178,817 199,161 201,946 199,121 199,121
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,046 1,165 1,181 1,164 1,164

Vegetable
With Project Area 23 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-2035
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed kg 0.7 22.5 16 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14 19.8 14
Labor - male day 85 400.0 34,157 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325 320.0 27,325
- female day 90 400.0 35,843 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675 320.0 28,675
Bullock hire (50% share) day 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 5 500.0 2,500 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092 418.4 2,092
Pumpset hr 7 200.0 1,400 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172 167.4 1,172
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 2 20.0 40 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33 16.7 33
DAP kg 109 57.5 6,263 55.2 6,016 56.9 6,204 59.1 6,445 59.1 6,445
Urea kg 110 56.9 6,260 53.3 5,860 52.3 5,754 51.4 5,652 51.4 5,652
Potash kg 67 46.9 3,144 42.8 2,866 0.0 0 40.1 2,686 40.1 2,686
Organic manure ton 2 1000.0 2,000 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942 970.9 1,942
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 800 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665 332.4 665
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 0% 2000.0 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0 1759.2 0
Sacks (2nd Hand/2yr life) each 433 1.0 433 1.0 422 1.0 422 1.0 422 1.0 422
Transport kg 17304 2.0 34,609 1.7 28,964 1.7 28,964 1.7 28,964 1.7 28,964
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 127,465 106,046 103,261 106,086 106,086
DIRECT COST per kg 7.37 6.13 5.97 6.13 6.13

YIELD & GROSS INCOME kg 17304 18.0 311,477 18.0 311,477 18.0 311,477 18.0 311,477 18.0 311,477
GROSS MARGIN per ha 184,012 205,431 208,216 205,391 205,391
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,051 1,174 1,190 1,174 1,174

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 61

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B 6.1 : Financial and Economic Net High-value Crop Revenue

Fish With Project –Upgrade, Pressure and Poly-house

With Project Area 2 ha 1 Economic

ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Fingurlings nr 15000 3.0 45,000 2.9 43,689 2.9 43,689 2.9 43,689 2.9 43,689
Labor - male day 20 400.0 8,000 320.0 6,400 320.0 6,400 320.0 6,400 320.0 6,400
- female day 14 400.0 5,600 320.0 4,480 320.0 4,480 320.0 4,480 320.0 4,480
Feed-palates kg 6000 35.0 210,000 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883 34.0 203,883
Worker's salary month 10 9000.0 90,000 7200.0 72,000 7200.0 72,000 7200.0 72,000 7200.0 72,000
Pumpset hr 0 200.0 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0
Lime kg 500 15.0 7,500 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282 14.6 7,282
Sprayer hr 0 20.0 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0 16.7 0
DAP kg 825 57.5 47,407 55.2 45,534 56.9 46,958 59.1 48,778 59.1 48,778
Urea kg 825 56.9 46,953 53.3 43,953 52.3 43,153 51.4 42,388 51.4 42,388
Potash kg 20 46.9 939 42.8 856 40.3 806 40.1 802 40.1 802
Organic manure ton 9 1000.0 9,000 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738 970.9 8,738
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 38 400.0 15,000 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466 332.4 12,466
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 5 2000.0 10,000 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796 1759.2 8,796
Packaging each 75 50.0 3,750 48.5 3,641 48.5 3,641 48.5 3,641 48.5 3,641
Transport kg 3000 2.0 6,000 1.7 5,021 1.7 5,021 1.7 5,021 1.7 5,021
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 505,148 466,739 467,313 468,365 468,365
DIRECT COST per kg 168.38 155.58 155.77 156.12 156.12
Yield and Yield Income kg 3000 200.0 600,000 194.2 582,524 194.2 582,524 194.2 582,524 194.2 582,524
Byproduct and Income kg 0 0.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0
GROSS INCOME 600,000 582,524 582,524 582,524 582,524
GROSS MARGIN per ha 94,852 115,785 115,211 114,160 114,159
Return to Labor NRs/day 284 347 345 342 342

Table B 6.2 : Financial and Economic Net High-value Crop Revenue

Leafy Vegetable (Rayo) intercrop in tomato poly-house –Poly-house model
With Project Area 1 ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed nr 5000 1.0 5,000 1.0 4,854 1.0 4,854 1.0 4,854 1.0 4,854
Labor - male day 100 400.0 40,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000
- female day 100 400.0 40,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000 320.0 32,000
person/
Labor cum watchman mm 0 8000.0 0 6400.0 0 6400.0 0 6400.0 0 6400.0 0
Watering times 0 15000.0 0 14563.1 0 14563.1 0 14563.1 0 14563.1 0
Electricity NRs/ha 0 20000.0 0 19417.5 0 19417.5 0 19417.5 0 19417.5 0
Soil tones 0 1500.0 0 1456.3 0 1456.3 0 1456.3 0 1456.3 0
Newspaper kg 0 20.0 0 19.4 0 19.4 0 19.4 0 19.4 0
DAP kg 100 57.5 5,746 55.2 5,519 56.9 5,692 59.1 5,913 59.1 5,913
Urea kg 100 56.9 5,691 53.3 5,328 52.3 5,231 51.4 5,138 51.4 5,138
Potash kg 80 46.9 3,754 42.8 3,422 0.0 0 40.1 3,207 40.1 3,207
Compost kg 2000 2.0 4,000 1.9 3,883 1.9 3,883 1.9 3,883 1.9 3,883
Pesticide & Fungicide NRs/ha 1 300.0 300 291.3 291 291.3 291 291.3 291 291.3 291
Land lease NRs/ha 0 100000.0 0 97087.4 0 97087.4 0 97087.4 0 97087.4 0
investe
Tools/Equipment - R&M d 25% 2000.0 500 1759.2 440 1759.2 440 1759.2 440 1759.2 440
Plastic sheet kg 0 200.0 0 194.2 0 194.2 0 194.2 0 194.2 0
Plastic bags kg 0 200.0 0 194.2 0 194.2 0 194.2 0 194.2 0
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 104,992 87,738 84,391 87,727 87,727
DIRECT COST per kg 5.25 4.39 4.22 4.39 4.39
Yield and Yield Income kg 20000 20.0 400,000 19.4 388,350 19.4 388,350 19.4 388,350 19.4 388,350
Byproduct and Income kg 0 2.0 0 1.9 0 1.9 0 1.9 0 1.9 0
GROSS INCOME 400,000 388,350 388,350 388,350 388,350
GROSS MARGIN per ha 295,008 300,612 303,958 300,623 300,623
NRs/da
Return to Labor y 1,475 1,503 1,520 1,503 1,503

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 62

 Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Poly-house Tomato - Poly-house

With Project Area 1ha 1
ITEM UNIT Quantity Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total Price Total
INPUT (NRs)
Seed/seedlings nr 5500 5.0 27,500 4.9 26,699 4.9 26,699 4.9 26,699 4.9 26,699
Labor - male day 500 400.0 200,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000
- female day 500 400.0 200,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000 320.0 160,000
Bullock hire (50% share) day 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tractor hr 0 500.0 0 418.4 0 418.4 0 418.4 0 418.4 0
Pumpset hr 0 200.0 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0 167.4 0
Thresher hr 0 150.0 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0 125.5 0
Sprayer hr 10 20.0 200 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167 16.7 167
DAP kg 203 57.5 11,665 55.2 11,204 56.9 11,554 59.1 12,002 59.1 12,002
Urea kg 152 56.9 8,651 53.3 8,098 52.3 7,951 51.4 7,810 51.4 7,810
Potash kg 66 46.9 3,097 42.8 2,823 0.0 0 40.1 2,646 40.1 2,646
Organic manure ton 0 1000.0 0 970.9 0 970.9 0 970.9 0 970.9 0
Pesticide & Fungicide ha 2 400.0 832 332.4 691 332.4 691 332.4 691 332.4 691
Micronutrients/supplementsNRs/ha 10 347.0 3,470 336.9 3,369 336.9 3,369 336.9 3,369 336.9 3,369
Land tax NRs/ha 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Tools/Equipment - R&M invested 50% 2000.0 1,000 1759.2 880 1759.2 880 1759.2 880 1759.2 880
Packaging each 2255 10.0 22,550 9.7 21,893 9.7 21,893 9.7 21,893 9.7 21,893
Transport kg 90200 1.0 90,200 1.7 150,976 1.7 150,976 1.7 150,976 1.7 150,976
TOTAL DIRECT COST per ha 569,165 546,800 544,180 547,133 547,133
DIRECT COST per kg 6.31 6.06 6.03 6.07 6.07
Yield and Yield Income kg 90200 25.0 2,255,000 24.3 2,189,320 24.3 2,189,320 24.3 2,189,320 24.3 2,189,320
Byproduct and Income kg 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
GROSS INCOME 2,255,000 2,189,320 2,189,320 2,189,320 2,189,320
GROSS MARGIN per ha 1,685,835 1,642,520 1,645,140 1,642,187 1,642,187
Return to Labor NRs/day 1,686 1,643 1,645 1,642 1,642

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 63

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B7: Net Crop Revenue Summary

Upper& Middle Bagmati Basin Upgrade
Command Area Ha. 50
Without Project Economic
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 40 2,749,433 2,360,876 2,253,960 2,149,086 2,149,084
Maize 8 49,210 94,261 90,384 86,239 86,238
Sum. Veg. 2 303,655 341,876 343,554 341,869 341,868
Winter Wheat 10 198,658 249,274 239,677 214,280 214,279
Pulses 5 189,843 155,364 153,398 155,623 155,623
Maize 2 12,302 23,565 22,596 21,560 21,560
Potato 5 432,956 546,061 550,255 546,042 546,042
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Spring Maize 15 92,268 176,739 169,470 161,697 161,697
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Total W/O 97 5,449,838 5,563,681 5,443,069 5,291,752 5,291,750
With Project
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 38 2,706,988 4,878,006 4,768,113 4,664,767 4,664,767
Paddy SRI 8 1,081,550 1,335,037 1,304,961 1,276,676 1,276,676
Sum. Veg. 2 321,684 361,719 367,288 361,638 361,638
Winter Wheat 10 210,600 260,203 257,906 220,538 220,538
Pulses 5 194,896 159,667 153,510 159,855 159,855
Potato 10 1,642,128 1,382,644 1,354,799 1,383,045 1,383,045
vegetable 8 1,268,880 1,436,077 1,458,353 1,435,756 1,435,756
Spring Maize 18 246,031 339,238 228,667 318,695 318,694
vegetable 6 951,660 1,077,058 1,093,765 1,076,817 1,076,817
Total W/P 105 8,624,417 11,229,648 10,987,360 10,897,788 10,897,786
Net crop revenue (benefit) stream 3,174,579 5,665,967 5,544,291 5,606,035 5,606,037
Fishponds 2 189,703 231,570 230,422 228,319 228,319
Net fish revenue (benefit) stream 189,703 231,570 230,422 228,319 228,319
Net Crop and Fish Revenue (benefit)
stream 3,364,282 5,897,537 5,774,713 5,834,354 5,834,356

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 64

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B8: Economic Internal Rate of Return

Project Name :IMFLW Upper& Middle Bagmati Basin Upgrade
Investment O&M Total
Incrementa
Total Civil Work Non-Const. Surface Total l Residual Net Benefits
Year cost cost cost cost Benefits value3
1 - - -
2 2,900,485 476,893 30,340 3,407,718 (3,407,718)
3 2,900,485 715,340 60,680 3,676,505 589,575 (3,086,930)
4 2,320,388 953,786 121,359 3,395,534 1,177,793 (2,217,741)
5 2,320,388 1,192,233 182,039 3,694,660 2,352,290 (1,342,370)
6 1,160,194 1,430,680 242,718 2,833,592 3,529,344 695,752
7 303,398 303,398 4,619,770 4,316,372
8 303,398 303,398 5,857,894 5,554,496
9 303,398 303,398 5,851,512 5,548,114
10 303,398 303,398 5,845,556 5,542,157
11 303,398 303,398 5,839,801 5,536,403
12 303,398 303,398 5,834,354 5,530,956
13 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
14 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
15 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
16 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
17 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
18 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
19 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
20 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 5,530,958
21 303,398 303,398 5,834,356 17,403 5,548,360
Base Case Indicators
B/C Ratio at
EIRR 26.33% ENPV-Cost at 12% 12,070,339 12% 2.48
ENPV (12%) 11,825,708 ENPV-Benefit at 12% 29,974,985
B/C Ratio at
118,257,084 ENPV-Cost at 10% 13,093,906 10% 2.69
ENPV-Benefit at 10% 35,275,105
Sensitivity
Indicators
Case Switching
Change EIRR ENPV (12%) Value
Case 1 Investment cost increase 25% 20.93% 8,894,430 100
Case 2 Delay in years to achieve full benefit 5 17.81% 5,671,862 12
Case 3 Incremental Benefit Shortfall 25% 19.62% 5,852,099 49
Case 4 Case 1 and Case 3 combined NA 15.16% 2,920,821 NA

Case B/C Ratio ENPV at 12% of

Sensitivity at 12% Benefit Cost
Case 1 0.82 1.58 23,896,047 15,087,923
Case 2 0.06 1.47 17,743,811 12,070,339
Case 3 1.02 1.48 17,922,035 12,070,339
Case 4 NA 1.19 17,922,035 15,087,923

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 65

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B9: Net Crop Revenue Summary

Project Name :IMFLW Upper& Middle Bagmati Basin Pressure
Command Area Ha. 50
Without Project Economic
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 40 2,821,124 2,427,062 2,317,570 2,211,986 2,211,985
Maize 8 49,210 94,261 90,384 86,239 86,238
Sum. Veg. 2 303,655 341,876 343,554 341,869 341,868
Winter Wheat 10 198,658 249,274 239,677 214,280 214,279
Pulses 5 189,843 155,364 153,398 155,623 155,623
Maize 2 12,302 23,565 22,596 21,560 21,560
Potato 5 432,956 546,061 550,255 546,042 546,042
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Spring Maize 15 92,268 176,739 169,470 161,697 161,697
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Total W/O 97 5,521,530 5,629,866 5,506,680 5,354,653 5,354,651
With Project
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026
Summer Paddy 38 2,457,667 4,878,006 4,768,113 4,664,767 4,664,767
Paddy SRI 8 1,081,550 1,335,037 1,304,961 1,276,676 1,276,676
Sum. Veg. 2 357,634 398,322 403,891 398,242 398,242
Winter Wheat 8 261,091 294,809 290,854 258,963 258,962
Pulses 5 194,896 159,667 153,510 159,855 159,855
Maize 5 79,502 104,602 72,971 98,718 98,717
Potato 12 2,043,454 1,720,306 1,686,893 1,720,788 1,720,789
vegetable 15 2,760,178 3,081,468 3,123,235 3,080,866 3,080,865
Spring Maize 20 318,008 418,409 291,883 394,871 394,870
vegetable 8 1,472,095 1,643,449 1,665,725 1,643,128 1,643,128
12
Total W/P 1 11,026,075 14,034,076 13,762,035 13,696,873 13,696,871
Net crop revenue (benefit) stream 5,504,545 8,404,209 8,255,355 8,342,221 8,342,220
Fishponds 2 189,703 231,570 230,422 228,319 228,319
Net fish revenue (benefit) stream 189,703 231,570 230,422 228,319 228,319
Net Crop and Fish Revenue (benefit)
stream 5,694,249 8,635,779 8,485,777 8,570,540 8,570,539

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 66

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B10: Economic Internal Rate of Return

Project Name :IMFLW Upper& Middle Bagmati Basin Pressure
O&M Total
Non- Net
Total Civil Work Const. Surface Total O&M Total Incremental Residual Benefits
Year cost cost cost cost cost Benefits value 3
1 - - (643,592)
4,705,12
2 4,060,680 643,592 25,000 850 1 (4,705,121)
5,027,76
3 4,060,680 965,388 50,000 1,699 7 862,282 (4,165,485)
4,539,12
4 3,248,544 1,287,184 100,000 3,398 6 1,723,118 (2,816,008)
4,862,62
5 3,248,544 1,608,981 150,000 5,097 1 3,443,720 (1,418,901)
3,561,84
6 1,624,272 1,930,777 200,000 6,796 5 5,182,215 1,620,371
7 250,000 8,495 8,495 6,788,621 6,780,126
8 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,596,534 8,588,039
9 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,589,554 8,581,059
10 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,583,238 8,574,743
11 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,577,335 8,568,839
12 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,540 8,562,045
13 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
14 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
15 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
16 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
17 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
18 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
19 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
20 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 8,562,044
21 250,000 8,495 8,495 8,570,539 24,364 8,586,408
Base Case Indicators
B/C Ratio at
EIRR 28.05% ENPV-Cost at 12% 14,807,293 12% 2.97

ENPV (12%) 19,699,502 ENPV-Benefit at 12% 44,005,844

B/C Ratio at
196,995,022 ENPV-Cost at 10% 15,832,597 10% 3.27
ENPV-Benefit at 10% 51,789,646
Sensitivity
Indicators
Case Switching
Change EIRR ENPV (12%) Value

Case 1 Investment cost increase 25% 22.69% 15,645,772 121

Case 2 Delay in years to achieve full benefit 5 20.13% 11,247,572 15
Case 3 Incremental Benefit Shortfall 25% 22.57% 11,504,344 57
Case 4 Case 1 and Case 3 combined NA 17.67% 7,450,615 NA
Case B/C Ratio ENPV at 12% of
Sensitivity at 12% Benefit Cost
35,081,43
Case 1 0.76 1.90 1 18,509,116
26,057,12
Case 2 0.06 1.76 0 14,807,293
26,311,07
Case 3 0.78 1.78 3 14,807,293
26,311,07
Case 4 NA 1.42 3 18,509,116

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 67

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

TableB11: Net Crop Revenue Summary

Project Name :IMFLW Upper& Mid Bagmati Basin Poly-house
Command Area Ha. 50
Without Project Economic
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 40 2,821,124 2,427,062 2,317,570 2,211,986 2,211,985
Maize 8 60,614 104,993 101,030 96,824 96,824
Sum. Veg. 2 303,655 341,876 343,554 341,869 341,868
Winter Wheat 10 198,658 249,274 239,677 214,280 214,279
Pulses 5 189,843 155,364 153,398 155,623 155,623
Maize 2 15,154 26,248 25,257 24,206 24,206
Potato 5 432,956 546,061 550,255 546,042 546,042
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Spring Maize 15 113,652 196,862 189,431 181,546 181,545
vegetable 5 710,757 807,832 809,888 807,679 807,679
Total W/O 97 5,557,169 5,663,404 5,539,948 5,387,733 5,387,731
With Project
Crop season Crops Ha Financial 2015 2020 2025 2026-35
Summer Paddy 27 1,746,233 3,465,948 3,387,866 3,314,436 3,314,436
Paddy SRI 8 1,081,550 1,335,037 1,304,961 1,276,676 1,276,676
Total W/P 35 2,827,783 4,800,984 4,692,826 4,591,113 4,591,113
Net crop revenue (benefit) stream (2,729,386) (862,419) (847,122) (796,620) (796,619)
Fishponds 7.5 711,388 868,388 864,083 856,196 856,196
Leafy vegetable (intercrop
tomato) 7.5 2,212,560 2,254,587 2,279,685 2,254,671 2,254,671
Tomato Poly-house 7.5 12,643,762 12,318,899 12,338,551 12,316,404 12,316,403
Net fish &P-house revenue (benefit) stream 12,838,324 14,579,456 14,635,197 14,630,651 14,630,651

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 68

Innovations for More Food with Less Water
Appendix 10 – Economics and Finance

Table B12: Economic Internal Rate of Return

Project Name :IMFLW Upper& Mid Bagmati Basin Poly-house
Investment Cost Total
Investment Non-Const. Total O&M Total Incremental Residual Net Benefits
Year Const. cost cost cost cost Benefits value3
1 - - - - -
2 6,853,010 1,037,699 3,507,282 11,397,990 (11,397,990)
3 6,853,010 1,556,549 3,507,282 11,916,840 2,923,000 (8,993,840)
4 5,482,408 2,075,398 3,507,282 11,065,087 5,848,605 (5,216,483)
5 5,482,408 2,594,248 3,507,282 11,583,937 8,776,287 (2,807,650)
6 2,741,204 3,113,097 3,507,282 9,361,583 11,703,965 2,342,382
7 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,635,197 11,127,915
8 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,612,025 11,104,744
9 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,618,426 11,111,144
10 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,623,484 11,116,202
11 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,627,056 11,119,774
12 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,369
13 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
14 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
15 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
16 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
17 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
18 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
19 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
20 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 11,123,370
21 3,507,282 3,507,282 14,630,651 41,118 11,164,488
Base Case Indicators
EIRR 21.26% ENPV-Cost at 12% 48,018,760 B/C Ratio at 12% 1.75
ENPV (12%) 19,163,216 ENPV-Benefit at 12% 84,272,558
191,632,157 ENPV-Cost at 10% 53,466,092 B/C Ratio at 10% 1.83
ENPV-Benefit at 10% 98,072,860
Sensitivity Indicators
Case Switching
Change EIRR ENPV (12%) Value
Case 1 Investment cost increase 25% 17.45% 13,006,169 77

Case 2 Delay in years to achieve full benefit 5 11.49% (1,344,634) 4

Case 3 Incremental Benefit Shortfall 25% 13.23% 2,368,673 28
Case 4 Case 1 and Case 3 combined NA 10.29% (3,788,373) NA

Case B/C Ratio ENPV at 12% of

Sensitivity at 12% Benefit Cost
Case 1 0.72 1.12 67,181,975 60,023,450
Case 2 0.09 0.97 46,677,931 48,018,760
Case 3 1.51 1.05 50,386,481 48,018,760
Case 4 NA 0.84 50,386,481 60,023,450

Lahmeyer International in association with TMS page 69