Irrigation Sustainability in the Land Use/Soil System in South Italy: Results from a GIS Simplified Approach and Future Methodological Developments - Water and Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies - page 246

Table 3. CASI 3 matching table — Irrigated land uses classes/crop surface/unitary CWR

ID
Poly

CASI
3
code

Database
code

Description He

Polygon

% He

crop

CWR
(m 3 /ha)

Irrigation
Technique

Average*
CWR
(m 3 /ha)

21211 Sugar beet Sprinkler

60 30 4600

4550

1 2121 50

21213 maize Sprinkler

40 20 4500

21221 artichoke Drop

43 30 3200

21222 cauliflower Drop

7 5 1500

2 2122 70 1900

21223 lettuce Drop

21 15 700

21224 potato Drop

29 20 2200

21231 tomatoes Drop

17 15 5100

21232 aubergine Drop

9 8 5500

3 2123 86 5060

21233 water melon Drop

15 13 4600

21234 melon Drop

12 10 4600

21235 asparagus 47 40 5500 Drop

* The water use efficiency calculation is based on the average CWR per CASI 3 land use polygon/class.

2.2.3 Irrigation techniques
The information about irrigation techniques is available on 27617 he (circa 70% of
the consortia irrigated surface). In synthesis the main irrigation techniques adopted in the
Objective 1 Italian region are: sprinkler 58,9%; drop 27,2%; flowing 8,90% (Table 4).

Table 4. Hectares distribution of the irrigation techniques inside Consortia Comprensori

Irrigation techniques (he)

Region Flowing Submersion Infiltration Sprinkler Drop Total

Region

Campania 66 65 5514 7115 362 13122

Puglia 55370

506 0 0 37944 16920

Sicilia 3645 200 500 11407 25703 41475

Sardegna 20 4118 23 39731 15637 59529

Calabria 10306

1993 730 0 6902 681

Abruzzo 15551 11 0 44215 89 59866

Molise 0 0 0 1615 311 1925

Basilicata 34024

2.735 0 2527 13532 15230

Total 24516 5124 8564 162461 74932 275617

Source : INEA 2001 (SIGRIA — Land Reclamation and Irrigation Consortium Database).

In the actual dynamic, the abandon of flowing and the constant decrement of the
sprinkler techniques are both in favour of the drop system, especially on the irrigated
orchards. This process tends to reduce the utilised volumes per ha, incrementing on farm
irrigation investment. But it actually seems not to produce any results on the water costs.
The nominal CWR doesn't take into account the differences between the irrigation
techniques inside a single irrigated land use.