Irrigation management:

Irrigation is the artificial exploitation and distribution of water at project level aiming at application of water at field level to agricultural crops in dry areas or in periods of scarce rainfall to assure or improve crop production. The most important physical elements of an irrigation project are land and water. In accordance with the propriety relations of these elements there may be different types of water management: the communal type the enterprise type the utility type Communal type Until the end of the 19th century the development of irrigation projects occurred at a mild pace, reaching a total area of some 50 million ha worldwide, which is about 1/5 of the present area. The land was often private property or assigned by the village authorities to male or female farmers, but the water resources were in the hands of clans or communities who managed the water resources cooperatively.

Enterprise type The enterprise type of water management occurred under large landowners or agricultural corporations, but also in centrally controlled societies. Both the land and water resources are in one hand. Large plantations were found in colonized countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but also in countries employing slave labor. It concerned mostly the large scale cultivation of commercial crops such as bananas, sugarcane and cotton. As a result of land reforms, in many countries the estates were reformed into a cooperatives in which the previous employers became members and exercised a cooperative form of land and water management. Utility type The utility type of water management occurs in areas where the land is owned by many, but the exploitation and distribution of the water resources are managed by (government) organizations. After 1900 governments assumed more influence over irrigation because :

water was increasingly considered government property owing to the increasing demand for good quality water and the reducing availability

governments embarked on large scale irrigation projects as they were considered more efficient the development of new irrigation schemes became technically, financially and organizationally so complicated that they fell outside the capabilities of the smaller communities the import and export policies of governments required the cultivation of commercial cash crops whilst, by controlling the water management, the farmers could be more easily guided to plant these kind of crops. The water management signified a large subsidy on irrigation schemes. From 1980 the operation and maintenance of many irrigation projects was gradually handed over to water user organizations (WUA's) who were to assume these tasks and a large part of the costs, whereby the water rights of the members had to be respected.

The exploitation of water resources via large storage dams - that often provided electric power as well - and diversion weirs normally remained the responsibility of the government, mainly because environmental protection and safety issues were at stake. In the past, the utility type of water management witnessed more conflicts and disturbances then the other types WUA's From 1980 programs were developed to transfer the operation and maintenance tasks from the government to water user associations (WUA's) that show some resemblance to water boards in the Netherlands, with the difference that it concerns irrigation rather than drainage and flood control. An effective development occurred in Mexico, where in 1990 a program of WUA's was initiated with tradable water rights. By 1998 some 400 WUA's were in operation commanding on average 7600 ha per WUA. They were able to recover more than 90% of the tariffs, mainly because they had to be paid in advance. Government subsidies to the water distribution and maintenance reduced to only 6% See also Irrigation in Mexico Legal and institutional framework. Similar efforts were made in Peru, see Irrigation in Peru Legal and institutional framework, but the progress is not yet at the level of that in Mexico. Irrigation management transfer in India: The processes and constraints Paper by IRAP The paper discusses the evolution of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in India, following the felt need for better irrigation management to prevent water scarcity in many regions in the country.

The irrigation sector was identified as a priority area in the various policy reforms that took place in the water sector in the country. These reforms emphasized the importance of involving end users/farmers in the operation and management of irrigation conveyance systems. This led to the establishment of the Farmers Managed Irrigation Systems (FAMIS), which aimed at improving the overall efficiency of the irrigation system, generate a sense of ownership among farmers and to improve the irrigation revenue recovery rate. This laid the seeds for Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in India. Participatory Irrigation Management Efforts should be made to involve farmers progressively in various aspects of management of irrigation systems, particularly in water distribution and collection of water rates. Assistance of voluntary agencies should be enlisted in educating the farmers in efficient water-use and water management. In April 1987, the Ministry of Water Resources issued guidelines for farmers participation in water management, primarily for areas under the Centrally Sponsored Command Area Development Programme. The guidelines covered all aspects like past experience in India and abroad, objectives of PIM, area of operation of farmers associations in different irrigation schemes, duties and responsibilities of the farmers, training and monitoring. Conferences at National, State and Project levels have been organized for creating awareness on Participatory Irrigation Management amongst farmers and officials. Objectives of PIM i. To create a sense of ownership of water resources and the irrigation system among the users, so as to promote economy in water use and preservation of the system. ii. To improve service deliveries through better operation and maintenance. iii. To achieve optimum utilization of available resources through sophisticated deliveries, precisely as per crop needs. iv. To achieve equity in water distribution. v. To increase production per unit of water, where water is scarce and to increase production per unit of land where water is adequate.

vi. To make best use of natural precipitation and ground water in conjunction with flow irrigation for increasing irrigation and cropping intensity. vii. To facilitate the users to have a choice of crops, cropping sequence, timing of water supply, period of supply and also frequency of supply, depending on soils, climate and other infrastructure facilities available in the commands such as roads, markets cold storages, etc., so as to maximize the incomes and returns. viii. To encourage collective and community responsibility on the farmers to collect water charges and payment to Irrigation Agency. ix. To create healthy atmosphere between the Irrigation Agency personnel and the users.

Constraints in Implementation of PIM (Issues) There may be a necessity and practicability in adoption of PIM yet there are a number of constraints in making the PIM sustainable in the long run. Some of these are: a) Lack of legal back up and policy changes: In many States, there is no or very little legal back up and clear-cut policy decision at the Government level to take up PIM, which is a big impediment in implementation of PIM. For the actual irrigation management transfer and operation of PIM in an irrigation project, policy changes and legal back up are essential. This is important for distributing required quantity of water at minor / distributary take off points, taking up correction of system deficiency, claim to get the maintenance funds proportionate to its portion transferred to associations, collection of water charges and retaining some portion of it for WUAs functioning, fixation of water rates, incentives to farmers, resolution of conflicts etc. Clarity on legislation is also required in certain States. b) System deficiency: In older projects, there are many problems like deterioration of old control and measuring structures, leakages and seepage at various places, erosion of banks and beds, siltation and weed infestation. These are serious

problems, hindering farmers to take over the system management on technical and financial considerations. c) Uncertainty of water availability: This is another important aspect, as farmers will understandably be reluctant to take on the responsibility for managing the system unless deliveries of water are made reliable, flexible, practical transparent and responsive to need. The engineers on their part may not be confident about ensuring supply of the requisite quantity of water to the WUAs, as would be bligatory in terms of the MOU signed between Irrigation Agency and WUA. Further, the farmers who have their holdings at the head of the canal tend to appropriate more water than required, whereas the farmers at the tail end often fail to get their apportioned share of water. Head-enders, therefore, have vested interest in continuing the existing arrangements. The tail-enders may not be keen to form WUAs as water supply in such areas remains inadequate and erratic and they remain apprehensive that the situation will not be materially altered if an ssociation is formed. These differences in perceptions and conflicts of interests inhibit the coming together of head end and tail end farmers. d) Fear of financial viability: Maintenance and operation of the system demands huge finances. Farmers have got the apprehension that in absence of surety of finance, it would be difficult for them to fulfill the requirement of funds for operation and maintenance. They feel that when Government is not able to handle the system with huge money available with them, how farmers would be able to do justice? e) Lack of technical knowledge: Apart from the financial uncertainty, lack of technical input is one of the inhibiting factors to take over the system. When Government, having such qualified and senior Engineers, finds it difficult to manage the system, how untrained and uneducated farmers would be able to take up such a highly technical operation and maintenance work of big irrigation systems. f) Lack of leadership: On account of limited exposure of the farmers to the rest of the world and PIM in particular, potent leadership is lacking, rather on account of limiting knowledge. At times so called local leaders give the negative or unclear

version before other farmers which further create misunderstanding among the farmers bringing them sometimes into a fix. g) Lack of publicity and training: Seeing is believing; and knowledge brings confidence in people. This aspect is lacking and there is a constraint to adoption of PIM. h) Demographic diversity: Due to variation in economic, ethnic, education levels etc. diversity of farmers, PIM is taking much time in this country. To handle this aspect deep study, analysis and solution need be found out. i) Mega irrigation projects: World scenario gives an indication that there are smaller projects in the countries of the world, where irrigation project transfer has taken care for PIM. In India, there are huge projects having very large distribution system and culturable command area sometimes more than 20 lakh hectares. Larger the project, complex would be its maintenance, operation and management aspects and so the formation and functioning of farmers associations for different necessary activities. j) WUAs v/s Panchayats: In many of the areas, where WUAs have been formed, there is a clash of interest among Panchayats and WUAs on who is to own the system, particularly when watershed schemes are being handed over to the Panchayats. k) PIM in efficient systems: Some of the northern States have raised apprehensions that when their systems are running very efficiently, why not PIM should form an integral part of the system of distribution already in operation.

Future Prospects of PIM

States do have provisions for the financial management of these associations. For example acts of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh States mention that the funds of the farmers organizations shall comprise of the following: i) grants and commission received from the State Government as a share of the water tax collected in the area of operation of the farmers organization; ii) such other funds as may be granted by the state government and Central Government for the development of the area of operation;

ii)

iii) resources raised from any financing agency for undertaking any economic development activities in its area of operation; iv) income from the properties and assets attached to the irrigation system; v) fees collected by the farmers organization for the services rendered in better management of the irrigation system; vi) amounts received from any other sources; and vii) investment of private sector in distribution and ancillary/extension services.