Collective Action in Canal Irrigation

1
Collective Action in Canal Irrigation

• K.V.Raju
• Institute for Social and Economic Change,
  Bangalore, India
• Email kvraju_at_isec.ac.in
• and
• Ruth Meinzen-Dick
• IFPRI, Washington DC, USA
• Email r.meinzen-dick_at_cgiar.org

2
Irrigation sources

• Canal irrigation
• Categories of major, medium, and minor
• Sources of irrigation
• Canals
• Tanks
• Lift systems
• groundwater

• Canals photo

3
Irrigation Coverage
4
Irrigation
5
Vicious Cycle
6
Problems

• Inadequate allocation of OM.
• Inequitable distribution of water.
• Lack of incentives for saving water.
• Poor drainage.
• Low water rate recovery
• Gap in design and actual area
• Deteriorated condition of the system.
• No measuring devices/ Control structures

7
Overview

•       Policy context
• - Devolution trends
• - Participatory irrigation management in India
•   What conditions for collective action?
•  Study methodology
•   Findings
• -  Factors affecting organization, collective
  action
•   Implications

8
Collective Action

•    Need to look beyond registered societies
• Formal
• Informal organizations
• Relevant types of CA for irrigation
• Collective maintenance
• Collective representation

9
Methodology
STATE Project Reach No of WUAs Total
Rajasthan IGNP Head 3 12
Rajasthan IGNP Middle 3 12
Rajasthan IGNP Tail 3 12
Rajasthan IGNP Purposive 3 12
Rajasthan Chambal Head 3 12
Rajasthan Chambal Middle 3 12
Rajasthan Chambal Tail 3 12
Rajasthan Chambal Purposive 3 12
Karnataka KRS Head 3 12
Karnataka KRS Middle 3 12
Karnataka KRS Tail 3 12
Karnataka KRS Purposive 3 12
Karnataka UKP Head 3 12
Karnataka UKP Middle 3 12
Karnataka UKP Tail 3 12
Karnataka UKP Purposive 3 12
10
Organisations CA

•  
• Formal Organizations 25
• Informal Organizations 8  
• Collective Maintenance 60
• Joint interaction 75

11
Resources mobilised for CA

• Interaction with officials
• Rs 1,483/ minor (cash only)
•  Collective maintenance
• Rs 16,534/ minor
• Rs 311/ farm
• Rs 75/ ha (cash labor)

12
Conclusions

• More likely to find organizations where
•     larger minor commands
•     closer to markets
•     active temples
•     college graduates
•     influential persons
• (not affected by head/tail, coops)

13
conclusions

• Organizations are a means, not an end
•     not all are active
•     look for collective action
• Collective action
• more often for lobbying than maintenance
• organizations increase CA for maintenance, not
  lobbying
• CA can mobilize significant resources
• not full substitute for government, irrigation
  fees

14
Andhra Pradesh Story
15
AP-PIM focus

• Irrigation Policy
• APFMIS Act, 1997.
• Clear roles responsibilities for WUAs and Govt
  agencies
• Financial control
• Fee collection retention
• Operation maintenance by users

16
Rationale- AP-PIM

• Better O M
• Adequate Timely water supply
• Improved supply to tailend areas
• Farmers involvement in irrigation management
• Sense of ownership
• Social audit, water budgeting, water management

17
Structure of WUA
Medium
PC
WUA
18
(No Transcript)
19
Benefits

•  
•        10.07 lakh acres gap command area
  reduced
•         Tail end problems reduced
•         Production increased to 140 lakh Tonnes
•         Farmers got 5-10 bags extra Paddy
•         No crop submersion flood waters
  quickly drained
•         Execution of Works with Speed
  Quality
•         Estimated Rates ( No Excess)
•         Farmers participated Owners
• Money given directly to WUAs