| 1. NATIONAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS (NIP) |
| A. | Technical Feasibility
|
| | 1. Water Resources |
| | 2. Land Resources |
| | 3. Type of projects |
| B. | Socio-Economic and Financial Feasibility
|
| | 1. Economic internal rate of return |
| | 2. Level of irrigation development in the region |
| | 3. Development cost per hectare |
| | 4. Per capita income |
| | 5. Average farm size |
| C. | Other Factors
|
| | 1. Availability of hydrologic data |
| | 2. Availability of maps |
| | 3. Environmental impacts |
| | 4. Endorsement by project beneficiaries |
2. COMMUNAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS (CIP) |
| A. | Technical Feasibility
|
| | 1. Cropping intensity |
| | 2. Type of projects |
| B. | Agro-Institutional Feasibility
|
| | 1. Status of farmers |
| | 2. Right-of-way |
| | 3. Local government acceptance |
| | 4. Landholding |
| | 5. Type of soil |
| C. | Economic Feasibility and other Factors
|
| | 1. Internal rate of return |
| | 2. Development cost per hectare |
| | 3. Level of irrigation development of province vs. regional potential |
| | 4. Environmental impact |
3. MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS |
| A. | Technical Feasibility
|
| | 1. Project components |
| | 2. Cropping intensity |
| B. | Socio-Economic and Financial Feasibility
|
| | 1. Economic internal rate of return |
| | 2. Level of irrigation development | >
| | 3. Development cost per hectare |
| | 4. Per capita income in project area |
| | 5. Population density |
| C. | Other Factors
|
| | 1. Reservoir resettlement |
| | 2. Environmental impact |
| | 3. Acceptability by proposed beneficiaries |
|
| RATING CLASSIFICATION |
| POINTS |
| 91 - 100 | : | A | Exceptionally good project, very feasible, highly recommended for immediate implemetation. |
| 81 - 90 | : | B | Very good project, very feasible, highly recommended for immediate implementation. |
| 71 - 80 | : | C | Average project, feasible, merits consideration for implementation. |
| 61- 70 | : | D | Fair project, merits consideration for implementation at a later stage with improved agro-economic condition. |
| 51 - 60 | : | E | Marginal project feasibility doubtful, needs further reformulation and detailed studies. |
| < 50 | : | F | Not feasible, not recommended for implementation. |
|