Irrigation

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 

David (2003) describes the poor state of irrigation development in the

country. As of 1999, less than 30 per cent of potential irrigable land is served

by an irrigation system. Worse, the present systems are very ineffi cient and

in urgent need of repair and rehabilitation. In the simulation, the level of

irrigation development is increased to the level of irrigable land estimated for

the region, if the current profi le is less than the potential level. This brings

the irrigated area to about 25 per cent of the total agricultural area.11

In computing the cost of the simulated project, the mix and cost estimates

suggested by David (2003) are adopted.12 As before, we impute full cost

recovery of maintenance and operating expenses. Different economic lives

are assumed for different elements of the mix. The marginal effect of the

irrigation package can be considered small and the ineffi ciencies of the

current irrigation system are captured by the model. Overall benefi t is

estimated to be Pesos 1.6 million, but benefi ts to the poor are almost Pesos

3 million, as the richest quintile is affected negatively. However, these gains

to the poor are small and are not suffi cient to pull anyone above the poverty

line. The benefi t–cost ratio is estimated to be very small, at 0.0008.