Impact of Drip Method of Irrigation on Sugarcane Cultivation

1
Impact of Drip Method of Irrigation on Sugarcane
Cultivation

• Dr. A. Narayanamoorthy
• Reader
• Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics
• Pune - 411 004, Maharashtra State, India.
• E-mail na_narayana_at_hotmail.com
• Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

2
Coverage

• What is drip method of irrigation?
• Micro-irrigation, why?
• Advantages of micro-irrigation
• Is DMI cost-intensive technology?
• Current status of MI in India
• Impact of DMI on Sugarcane Cultivation
• Why do we need a study on sugarcane?
• Objectives of the study
• Empirical setting
• Cost of cultivation
• Productivity gains
• Water saving
• Electricity saving
• Relative economics of DMI
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Policy suggestions

3
What is drip method of irrigation?

• It is a new water saving technology.
• water is supplied directly to the root zone of
  the crop (Figure)
• Reduces water losses occurring through
  evaporation, conveyance and distribution.
• Water use efficiency can be achieved upto 100,
  whereas the same is only 35-40 under FMI.
• It reduces cost of cultivation, increases
  productivity and reduces energy (electricity)
  consumption.

4
(No Transcript)
5
Micro-irrigation, why?

• Water potential available has been declining at
  faster rate, but the demand for water from
  different sectors has been increasing alarmingly
  (total potential is 139 mha) (Table)
• Studies project a huge demand-supply gap in water
  in 2025 in India
• Water use efficiency is only in the range of
  30-40 percent in India (Table and Figure)
• A number of demand curtailing strategies have
  been introduced to increase water use efficiency,
  but the results are not encouraging.

6
Irrigation Potential Utilisation upto 1999-2000
7
Irrigation efficiency under different methods of
irrigation
8
(No Transcript)
9
Advantages of micro-irrigation

• Evaporation and distribution losses of water are
  negligible.
• Water use efficiency under DMI is upto 100.
• Reduces cost of cultivation.
• Increases input use efficiency.
• Increases yield of crops significantly (Table)
• Suitable for all kinds of lands (hilly areas,
  undulating terrain, barren lands, shallow soils).

10
Water saving and yield gains in DMI over FMI
11
Is DMI cost-intensive technology?
12
Current status of MI in India

• Drip method was introduced in 1970s, but
  sprinkler was in use even in 1950s and 1960s
• DMI area increased from 1500 ha in 1985 to 70859
  in 1991-92 and further to 5 lakh ha in 2003
• SMI area increased 0.23 mha in 1985 to 0.67 mha
  in 1998 and further to 1.635 mha in 2004-05
• MI constitutes very meager share in GIA.
• DMI is relatively popular in MHA, KAR,TN, AP.
  MHA alone accounts for over 50 of area.
• Sprinkler is relatively popular in MP,WB,ASS,HAR,
  RAJ. HAR and RAJ together accounts for over 50
  of area in 2004-05.

13
(No Transcript)
14
Statewise area under DMI
15
Potential Area (mha) for DMI SMI in India
16
Impact of DMI on Sugarcane Cultivation
17
Why do we need study on sugarcane?

• Sugarcane is water-intensive crop, it consumes
  2/3 of water in Maharashtra, but accounts only
  2.50 in GCA
• Area under sugarcane has been increasing from
  2.42 mha in 1960-1 to 4.58 mha in 2001-02 in
  India and from 0.155 mha to 0.664 mha in
  Maharashtra
• Input efficiency is low
• Productivity is almost constant
• Most of the studies are based on experimental
  data
• There is a need for survey based study

18
Objectives of the study

• To analyse the impact of drip irrigation
  technology on production and productivity of
  sugarcane.
• To analyse the water use pattern and water use
  efficiency.
• To estimate electricity saving due to DMI.
• To analyse the economic viability of drip
  irrigation.

19
Empirical setting

• Maharashtra state has been selected purposively.
• Sugarcane consumes bulk of the water despite
  water scarcity.
• Area under DMI increased from 236 ha in 1986-87
  to 3.18 lakh ha. in 2004-05.
• Maharashtra accounts nearly 50 of total area.
• Pune (Baramati block) and A.Nagar (Shrirampur
  block) were selected for the study.
• 100 sample farmers - 50 adopters and 50 non-drip
  adopters were selected.
• NPW and BCR were calculated to study the economic
  viability

20
(No Transcript)
21
Cost of cultivation (Cost A2)

• DMI reduced cost of cultivation by 12 (Rs.
  5843/ha) in Pune, about 15 (Rs.7250/ha) in A.
  Nagar and about 13 altogether.
• Cost saving is found more in operations like
  irrigation, ploughing preparation, weeding
  inter-culture and seed sowing.

22
Productivity gains

• Yield gains in absolute term comes to about 24
  tonnes/ha in Pune, 27 tonnes/ha in A. Nagar 26
  tonnes/ha together.
• In , productivity gain was 20 in Pune, 25 A.
  Nagar 23 together.
• Cost efficiency is also higher under DMI.
• Less moisture stress, less weeds and higher input
  efficiency are the main reasons for higher yield.

23
Productivity (tonnes) gains by DMI
24
Water saving by DMI

• Water consumption is estimated in terms of HP
  hours (HP of pumpset X hours of water used)
• Water saving due to DMI is about 41 in Pune, 48
  in A. Nagar and 44 together.
• Additional irrigated area estimated from water
  saving is 0.80 ha (1.98 acre).
• Water use efficiency is also very high under DMI.

25
Water saving by DMI
26
Electricity saving by DMI

• Estimated by multiplying HP hours with power
  consumption of 0.750/kwh/hp.
• Electricity saving is estimated as 895.50 kwh/ha
  in Pune, 1223 kwh/ha in A. Nagar and 1059 kwh/ha
  together.
• Saving of money due to reduced consumption of
  electricity comes to Rs. 1589/ha (assumed Rs.
  1.50/kwh)
• Electricity use efficiency is also very high
  under DMI.

27
Electricity saving by DMI
28
Relative Economics of DMI

• Adopters profit is higher about Rs. 29,198/ha
  in Pune and Rs. 25,750/ha in A. Nagar.
• In percent term, adopters profit is higher by 67
  and 83 respectively in Pune and A. Nagar.
• Higher yield and low cost of cultivation are the
  main reasons for the higher profit.
• Higher profit is not because of price effect, but
  only due to yield effect.

29
Relative economics of DMI and FMI
30
Private cost benefit Analysis

• Some assumptions are followed for estimating NPW
  and BCR.
• NPW and BCR are computed under with and without
  subsidy condition and also assuming 5 increase
  in the cost of production per annum.
• Differential (10,12 15) discount rate are
  considered.
• BCR in Pune varies from 1.98 to 2.02 without
  subsidy and 2.16 to 2.19 with subsidy.
• BCR in A. Nagar varies from 1.83 to 1.87 without
  subsidy and 2.02 to 2.05 with subsidy.
• BCR varies from 1.72 to 1.92 without subsidy and
  1.88 to 2.03 with subsidy while assuming 5
  increase in cost of production per annum.

31
Assumptions followed for estimating BCR

• The life period of the drip set is considered as
  five years for sugarcane (INCID, 1994).
• The cost of cultivation and income generated
  using drip method of irrigation is assumed
  constant during the entire life period of drip
  set.
• Differential rates of discount (interest rates)
  are considered to undertake the sensitivity of
  investment to the change in capital cost. These
  are assumed at 10, 12 and 15 percent as
  alternatives representing various opportunity
  costs of capital.
• The crop cultivation technology is assumed
  constant for sugarcane during the entire life
  period of drip set.

32
NPW and BCR under DMI
33
Policy Suggestions

• Capital cost needs to be reduced
• Subsidy should be provided under Central scheme
• Rate of subsidy should be fixed based on level of
  water consumption
• Infrastructure status and tax holiday may be
  given to drip industries to reduce the capital
  cost.
• Differential subsidy rate can be fixed higher
  rate for water-intensive crops
• Some target should be fixed for each sugar
  industry
• Drip set manufacturers must play pro-active role
• Effective extension network is essential
• Appropriate pricing of canal water and
  electricity would encourage the adoption of drip
  irrigation
• Each state should formulate its own scheme
  depending upon water availability and potential.
• Some portion of canal water should be allotted
  only for the use of drip irrigation

34
Issues to be studied

• Is it cost-intensive method?
• Can small farmers adopt this method?
• What are the crops suitable for MI?
• Is MI investment economically viable for low
  value crops?
• Can small farmers adopt MI without state subsidy?