Ots 24 > Sm-oac > Finalrep

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

1. ABOUT SEVA MANDIR Seva Mandir started its work on adult education in 1969 in the rural areas of Udaipur district in Rajasthan. The guiding philosophy behind its work was that educating the poor would lead to their empowerment. However, in the beginning of the 1970s it was realized that the major concern of its target group- the poor and the marginalized was livelihood. Thus livelihood related works such as well deepening and agricultural extension were taken up on a small scale in its work area. Over the years the work of the organization has expanded to include areas such as education, natural resource development, health, women and child development etc. From the mid 90s Seva Mandir has consolidated its work along three broad lines – livelihood programme, capabilities programme, and the institution building programme. The activities in Natural Resource Department of Seva Mandir are linked to the livelihood development programme. The various NRD interventions of the organization include forestry, JFM, water resource development, agricultural extension etc. Seva Mandir's work has now expanded to 583 villages in Udaipur and Rajsamand districts of Rajasthan influencing the lives of 70,000 households covering 360,000 people.

2. ABOUT THE PROJECT1 In the year 2002, the NRD department of Seva Mandir came up with a proposal for construction of lift irrigation systems and anicuts to be funded under the Sustainable Communities Programme (SCP) of Shell Foundation. The project was named Water and Livelihood Security as Empowerment (WLSE), 2002-2005. The objectives and key features of the project are summarized as follows: The project is designed with the goal of strengthening the livelihoods of small and marginal farmers in rural areas by providing them with access to irrigation from the water resource development activities. The project activities proposed to be undertaken to achieve the stated goals are: 1

Taken from the project proposal submitted to Shell Foundation by Seva Mandir

1

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

1. Construction of small ware harvesting structures to impound rainwater 2. Installation of irrigation systems to provide irrigation benefits to small and marginal farmers 3. Providing agricultural extension inputs in the form of horticulture, vegetable cultivation and cultivation of improved cereal crops to augment incomes of small and marginal farmers 4. Enhancing the capabilities of village-based people’s institutions for operation and management of the irrigation assets created under the project. Thus the objective of the project has been to follow an integrated approach towards improving agriculture by combining extension activities along with irrigation facilities and to build capacity among the village institutions so that they are able to manage the asset on their own.

3. PROJECT AREA Udaipur lies in the Southern part of Rajasthan and is surrounded by the Aravalli range of mountains. The topography of the entire Udaipur region is characterized by highly undulating land, vast stretches of wasteland. The average rainfall is 625 mm and the average number of rainy days is 31 with July being the wettest month. The irrigation projects have been undertaken in 3 villages namely Ranpur, Amarpura and Deopur. Ranpur village is located in the Jhadol block which lies 80 kilometres (Km) south west of Udaipur. The other two villages of study Amarpura and Deopur lie under the Kherwada block which is located on the Udaipur- Ahmedabad road. In 2002-03 a lift irrigation system (LIS) was installed at village Ranpur on the perennial river Wakal. In Amarpura two LIS were installed on the river Som flowing through the village. While in the neighbouring village Deopur the LIS installed by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) had become non functional due to the collapse of the anicut which had been constructed on the river Som. An anicut was constructed by Seva Mandir at the same site as the previous anicut which made the LIS made by the DRDA functional once again.

2

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY As at the time this study was undertaken, around one year had passed since the LIS became operational and due to the anicut the benefits of the DRDA LIS could be availed off, it was necessary to find out whether there have been actually any changes in the direction envisaged. The study would bring to light any discrepancies between the envisaged and the real benefits so that corrective action may be undertaken in these project areas and also incorporate these findings in the planning and implementation of such irrigation projects in other areas. The study was undertaken with the following objectives: 1. To perform the cost benefit analysis of the lift irrigation system (LIS) and water harvesting structure (WHS) installed at three villages. The cost benefit analysis would be carried out at two levels: i.

At the beneficiary level: This would take into account the costs being incurred by the beneficiaries of each project in utilizing the irrigation facilities from the project and the consecutive benefits, both direct and derived, at the individual level.

ii.

At the project level: This would involve the cost benefit analysis of the project as a whole and assessment of the financial vibility of the each project.

2. To determine the other impacts of the lift irrigation system (LIS) and water harvesting structure (WHS) installed at three villages. 3. The analysis of the management systems was divided in to two parts: i.

To study the existing systems of management of the lift irrigation system (LIS) in each village

ii.

To identify the conflicts and issues associated with each system and to suggest strategies for resolving the same.

3

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

5. SCOPE 1. The cost benefit analysis undertaken at both the beneficiary and the project level pertains to private costs and benefits. No attempt has been made to quantify and include the social costs and benefits involved in the process. 2. The study has been conducted for one LIS in village Ranpur (Jhadol block), two LIS in village Amarpura (Kherwara block) and the WHS in village Deopur (Kherwara block). In village Deopur, as mentioned earlier, the anicut had been constructed to restart DRDA installed LIS. Hence in our study at Deopur the focus has been on the benefits to the beneficiaries due to the LIS becoming operational. 3. Since the major objective of the entire project is to provide access to irrigation facilities and as mentioned above the purpose of anicut construction had been to make existing LIS operational, other benefits due to the anicut such as well recharge and availability of drinking water for cattle have not been taken into account. 4. All the LIS considered for the study have been constructed on perennial water sources, the benefit cost ratio and other impacts may not be applicable to other LIS installed on other sources of water such as tubewells. 5. The suggestions for resolving the conflicts and issues are village specific and may not be applicable in other villages.

6. METHODOLOGY 6.1. Sources of Data 6.1.1. Primary sources 6.1.1.1 Questionnaire: In order to collect data regarding the costs and benefits at the beneficiary level, questionnaires were prepared in consultation with the unit team and were administered to the sample of beneficiaries as well as non beneficiaries.

4

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

6.1.1.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): To collect information regarding the existing management systems and the conflicts and issues associated with each LIS, FGDs were held with groups of beneficiaries. 6.1.1.3 Key Informant Interviews: Personal interviews were held with the other stakeholders such as office bearers namely the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Lift management committees, President of the Gram Vikas Committee, pump operators etc.

6.1.2. Secondary sources Preliminary information regarding the project area and the project in each village was provided by the NRD team at the unit and the block level. Reports, journals and books on the concerned subject in the Documentation Centre of Seva Mandir and the library at IRMA were also consulted to get a better understanding of the project.

5

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

7. SAMPLING PLAN From the field visits to the lift irrigation and anicut sites in the three villages, namely Ranpur ( Jhadol block), Amarpura and Deopur ( Kherwara block) we found that the fields of beneficiaries are quite dispersed, while some beneficiaries have field located at different heights as compared to the water source. Similarly some fields are located closer to the water source while others are relatively far off. These result in varying consumption of fuel (diesel) for the same amount of irrigation and hence the cost of irrigation for fields located far way from each other is different. In addition, the soils of fields located at different places may also differ in the fertility. For the purpose of supplying water to the fields from the water source, chambers have been constructed at such points in the middle of fields of different beneficiaries so as to supply water to the surrounding fields. In order to draw a representative sample of beneficiaries keeping in mind the above mentioned differences, we took chambers within the lift irrigation/anicut command area as the sampling variable that is, first stratification of beneficiaries was done on the basis of chamber from which their fields receive water and then random samples of beneficiaries were drawn from each chamber. The sampling plan for each of the three villages is as follows: 1. Ranpur: There are 19 beneficiaries of the lift irrigation system installed by Seva Mandir. Since the number of beneficiaries is relatively small, we conducted a census survey to cover all the 19 beneficiaries in the survey. 2. Amarpura: Under the project, Seva Mandir has installed 2 lift irrigation systems at different sites to draw water from the river Som. Each lift irrigation system had been envisaged to provide water to 52 beneficiaries (Agriculture survey- Amarpura). For the purpose of data collection from beneficiaries of one of the operational lift irrigation system in the village, we drew chamber wise samples of fields of beneficiaries according to the procedure discussed earlier in the section.

6

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

3.

Deopur: In Deopur, Seva Mandir has constructed an anicut to harvest water and to make functional the lift irrigation system installed by DRDA which was non functional before the project. Since only 21 beneficiaries were drawing water, we have conducted a census survey of all the beneficiaries who are drawing water for irrigation from the lift irrigation system made functional by the anicut.

8. LIMITATIONS 1. Since in all the three projects under study only one year has passed since the irrigation systems became functional, the costs incurred at the beneficiary level and the benefits at both the beneficiary and the project level are likely to change over time. 2. Changes observed such as in cropping pattern, use of other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers etc. as observed during the first year may differ over time. 3. Many impacts such as increase in milk yield, which have not been observed, now may become visible after certain years.

7

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

9. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 9.1. Introduction In accordance with our first objective, we have done cost benefit analysis in three villages. The cost benefit analysis can be interpreted as what expenditure has been incurred on something and what are the benefits from it. The cost benefit analysis has been done in purely private terms and we have not included social costs and benefits accrued as it was beyond the scope of our study. The social cost and benefits have not been taken into consideration as it was difficult to quantify social costs and benefits attached solely to these projects. We have done cost benefit analysis at two levels: 9.1.1. At the level of Beneficiaries: At this level, we have taken all the running costs of farmers they have incurred in the farming and all the benefits they have got from it. Here, all the benefits to farmers, which have been accrued due to installation of these projects, have been taken into consideration. In other words, only incremental benefits and incremental costs have been taken into account. The main costs and benefits, which we included at this level, are as follows: 9.1.1.1 Costs: The costs, which we took in our calculations, are: •Cost of Seeds •Cost of Fertilizers •Cost of Pesticides •Cost of Irrigation: It includes the cost of diesel and payment made towards the operation and maintenance expenses. •Cost of Transportation: Incurred in purchasing of diesel. •Cost of using Tractor •Cost of using Thresher

8

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

•Cost of Labour: As farmers have started taking additional crop, number of migration days have decreased and the loss of income that they have incurred due to this has been included in our calculations of cost of production as the cost of labour. 9.1.1.2 Benefits: The benefits, which we took in our calculations, are: Sale value of the crop grown: For calculating this figure, we have taken the total production and not the marketable surplus. Sale value of By-product (Fodder): Due to increased farming and increased number of crops, the amount of fodder grown has increased and its sale value has also been included in the calculation of benefits. 9.1.2. At the level of Project: We have also done cost benefit analysis at the level of project. In this analysis, we have included all the costs, which were incurred in the installation of lift irrigation systems and constructing anicut. The benefits, we included are the net benefits which accrued to all the planned beneficiaries after deducting all their costs. These benefits have been projected over the estimated life of these lift irrigation schemes and anicut. We have calculated the benefit-cost ratio (BC Ratio), net benefit cost ratio and the pay back period of these projects. Despite the limitations of pay back period in failing to consider the time value of money, we have calculated it as it conveys information about the rate at which the uncertainity associated with the project is resolved. The shorter the pay back period, the faster the uncertainity associated with the project is resolved. The longer the pay back period, the slower the uncertainity is resolved. Decision makers, it may be noted, prefer an early resolution of uncertainity as an early resolution of uncertainity enables them to take prompt corrective action and modify/change other investment decisions.

9

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

9.2. Assumptions of Cost Benefit Analysis

We have taken several assumptions while performing the cost benefit analysis. These are as following: 1. Life of LIS has been assumed as ten (10) years and for Anicut, it has been taken as twenty (20) years: A normal lift is supposed to work for ten (10) years, if it is provided proper maintenance and for anicut, it is twenty (20) years. 2. Discounting rate has been taken at eight percent (8%): Since the infrastructure projects are financed at the rate of eight percent (8%), hence, we have taken the same for discounting the benefits for doing cost-benefit analysis at the project level. 3. Family labour has not been included while computing cost of production. 4. Net benefits are assumed to remain constant over the life of the projects: Since the projects were installed just one year ago, so we didn’t have any means to predict the trend of cost and benefits for future years. Hence, we have taken the figures of only that one year and projected them for rest of the life of the projects. 5. For our study, we have projected the benefits to the identified number of beneficiaries to find out the benefits that this project would have generated over its estimated working life, had all the planned beneficiaries taken water. 6. Salvage value of these projects has been assumed as nil.

10. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LIS IN VILLAGE RANPUR In this village, the lift irrigation system was installed in the year 2003 before the kharif season. The village is situated on the banks of the Wakal River and the lift has been constructed on this river under the Shell Foundation’s project. In this village, the beneficiaries who were identified to take water from this lift were twenty-eight (28) but the number of beneficiaries who took water during the first year was nineteen (19) only. It has been mutually decided by the beneficiaries that every one will get water to irrigate only two (2) bighas of land. Therefore the total land irrigated with the water taken from the lift was thirty-eight (38) bighas only.

10

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

10.1. At the beneficiaries’ level: The incremental costs that the nineteen (19) farmers incurred while irrigating the stipulated two (2) bighas of their land with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by deducting the total cost they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the installation of the LIS from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS. The costs are as follows: Table 1 Total incremental costs Cost of Seeds Cost of Irrigation Cost of Fertilizers Cost of Pesticides Cost of Tractor/Thresher Cost of Labour Total

Rs.10, 290 Rs.9, 666 Rs.5, 825 Rs.2, 400 Rs.850 Rs.15, 382.5 Rs.44, 413.5

The incremental benefits are as follows: Table 2 Total incremental benefits Sale value of Production Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Total

Rs. 70, 385 Rs.4, 700 Rs.75, 085

10.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio) The benefit cost ratio has been computed as follows: Total Benefits/Total Cost = Rs.75, 085 / Rs.44, 413.5 = 1.69

11

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

By this we can interpret that on an average each beneficiary is getting Rs.1.69 for every Rs. 1 invested. So, we can see that nineteen (19) farmers incurred a total cost of Rupees forty four thousand four hundred and thirteen point five (Rs.44, 413.5) and got benefits worth Rupees seventy five thousand and eighty five (Rs. 75, 085), so it is a good sign as it is for only nineteen (19) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase in future years, it will be more beneficial for the farmers. Except these monetary benefits, farmers also got benefits like due to reduction in migration they were able to live with their families for more number of days in the year.

10.2. At the project level 10.2.1. Costs The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows: Table 3 Total project cost Project Cost Materials: Pipe& Fitting Pump Cement Swinpan Painting Roof sheet Total Cost of Material

Rs. 2, 07, 959 Rs. 41, 603 Rs. 9, 790 Rs. 6, 500 Rs. 1, 000 Rs. 3, 000 Rs. 2, 69, 852

Labour: Excavation Pump & Chamber Total Cost of Labour

Rs. 15, 297 Rs. 26, 182 Rs. 41, 479

Total Cost

Rs. 3, 11, 331

12

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Farmers’ contribution is in the form of labour and the labour cost stated above has been paid to them. 10.2.2. Benefits The total costs incurred by the farmers during the year while irrigating their two (2) bighas of land were Rupees forty four thousand four hundred and thirteen point five (Rs. 44, 413.5) and the benefits which accrued to them were Rupees seventy five thousand and eighty five (Rs. 75, 085), therefore the annual net benefits accrued to them were Rupees thirty thousand six hundred and seventy one point five (Rs. 30, 671.5), which is the difference between total cost incurred and total benefits accrued to the farmers. We have then projected the data for twenty-eight (28) farmers (Assumption 5), which is the actual number of planned beneficiaries. The net benefit for twenty-eight (28) was computed as follows: Net benefits for 19 farmers: Rs. 30, 671.5 Annual net benefits for 28 farmers: Rs. (30, 671.5 / 19)*28 = Rs. 45, 200.11 We have projected the benefits for the estimated life of the lift irrigation system taking it as ten years (10). This was done as follows:

Table 4 Net cash flows Net Cash Flows 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11 45200.11

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

13

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Year 10

45200.11

PV of Cash Inflows NPV

303296.39 -8034.61

BC Ratio (PV/I) NBC Ratio (NPV/I) Pay Back Period

0.97 -0.03 6.89

The net present value (NPV) of the project comes to negative Rupees eight thousand thirty four (Rs.-8, 034), which means that the present value of all the inflows after discounting at the rate of eight percent (8%) comes to negative. The benefit cost ratio comes to zero point nine seven (0.97). This explains that the project will yield 0.97 times its cost over its estimated life. Pay-Back period comes to six point eight nine (6.89) years, which means that the project will recover its cost in six point eight nine (6.89) years.

11. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LIS IN VILLAGE AMARPURA In this village, the lift irrigation system was installed in the year 2002.The village is situated on the banks of the Som River and the lift has been constructed on this river under the Shell Foundation’s project. There were two lifts constructed in this village but only one is functioning, other one is non-functional in the sense that only one farmer took water from it, so we are taking only one lift which is functioning. The reason for the non-functioning of one lift has been explained in another section of this report. In this village, the beneficiaries who were identified to take water from these lifts were one hundred and five (105) but the number of beneficiaries who took water during the first year was twenty-eight (28) only from the functional lift. The command area is approximately seventy-five (75) bighas.

11.1. At the beneficiaries’ level:

14

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

The incremental costs that the twenty (20) farmers incurred while irrigating their stipulated lands with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by deducting the total cost they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the installation of the LIS from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS. The costs are as follows: Table 5 Total incremental costs Cost of Seeds Cost of Irrigation Cost of Fertilizers Cost of Thresher Cost of Tractor Cost of Labour Total

Rs. 13, 896 Rs. 23, 420.63 Rs. 3, 950 Rs. 3, 960 Rs. 7, 400 Rs. 15, 050 Rs. 67, 676.63

The incremental benefits are as follows: Table 6 Total incremental benefits Sale value of Production Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Total

Rs. 82, 907 Rs. 6, 850 Rs. 89, 757

11.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio) The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows: Total Benefits/Total Cost = Rs.89, 757 / Rs.67, 676.63 = 1.33 By this we can interpret that on an average each beneficiary is getting Rs.1.33 for every Rs. 1 invested. So, we can see that twenty (20) farmers incurred a total cost of Rupees sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy six point six three (Rs. 67, 676.63) and got benefits worth Rupees eighty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty seven (Rs. 89, 757), so it is a good sign as it is for only twenty (20) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase

15

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

in future years, it will be more beneficial for the farmers. Except these monetary benefits, farmers also got benefits like due to reduction in migration they were able to live with their families for more number of days in the year.

11.2. At the project level 11.2.1 Costs The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows: Table 7 Total project cost Project Cost Store cum pump house Chambers (Rs. 2044*4) Canal excavation Construction of Platforms Pipelines etc. Diesel Pump Set 5% Site Variability Total Approx cost

Rs. 37, 852 Rs. 8, 176 Rs. 2, 525 Rs. 5, 055 Rs. 1, 87, 238 Rs. 45, 000 Rs. 14, 292.3 Rs. 3, 00, 138.3 Rs. 3, 00, 000

Farmers’ contribution is in the form of labour and the same has been included above stated project cost. 11.2.2 Benefits The total costs incurred by the twenty (20) farmers during the year while irrigating their land with the lift were Rupees sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy six point six three (Rs. 67, 676.63) and the benefits which accrued to them were Rupees eighty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty seven (Rs. 89, 757), therefore the annual net benefits accrued to them were Rupees twenty two thousand and eighty point three seven (Rs. 22, 080.37), which is the difference between total cost incurred and total benefits accrued to the farmers.

16

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

We have then projected the data for fifty-two (52) (assumption 5) farmers, which is the actual number of planned beneficiaries for this LIS. The net benefit for fifty-two (52) was computed as follows: Net benefits for twenty (20) farmers: Rs. 22, 080.37 Annual net benefits for fifty-two (52) farmers: Rs. (22, 080.37 / 20)*52 = Rs. 57, 408.96 We have projected the benefits for the estimated life of the lift irrigation system taking it as ten years (10). This was done as follows:

Table 8 Net cash flows Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10

Net Cash Flows 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96 57408.96

PV of Cash inflows NPV

385218.81 85218.81

BC Ratio (PV/I) NBC Ratio (NPV/I) Pay back period

1.28 0.28 5.23

The net present value (NPV) of the project comes to Rupees eighty five thousand two hundred and eighteen approximately (Rs.85, 218.81), which means that the present value of all the inflows after discounting at the rate of eight percent (8%) comes to positive

17

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

The benefit-cost ratio comes one point two eight (1.28). This explains that the project will yield one point two eight (1.28) times its cost over its estimated life. Payback period comes to five point two three (5.23) years, which means that project will recover its cost in five point two three (5.23) years.

12. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ANICUT IN VILLAGE DEOPUR In this village, Seva Mandir constructed Anicut in the year 2002-2003. There was a lift constructed by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), but it was not functioning till the time of construction of Anicut. The Anicut has been constructed on Bhoot wala Nala. The planned numbers of beneficiaries were forty-five (45) but the actual number taking water is only twenty one (21), out of which nine (9) took water on rent.

12.1. At the beneficiaries’ level: The incremental costs that the twenty-one (21) farmers incurred while irrigating their stipulated lands with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by deducting the total cost they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the installation of the LIS from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS. The costs are as follows: Table 9 Total incremental costs Cost of Seeds Cost of Irrigation Cost of Fertilizers Cost of Thresher Cost of Tractor Cost of Labour Total

Rs. 10, 750 Rs. 14, 080 Rs. 5, 360 Rs.9, 610 Rs. 7, 570 Rs. 11, 462.5 Rs. 58, 832.5

18

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

The incremental benefits are as follows:

Table 10 Total incremental benefits Sale value of Production Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Total

Rs. 77, 550 Rs.8, 455 Rs. 86, 005

12.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio) The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows: Total Benefits/Total Cost = Rs.86, 005/ Rs.58, 832.5 = 1.46 By this we can interpret that on an average each beneficiary is getting Rs.1.46 for every Rs. 1 invested. So, we can see that twenty-one (21) farmers incurred a total expenditure of Rupees fifty eight thousand eight hundred and thirty two point five (Rs. 58, 832.5) and got benefits worth Rupees eighty six thousand and five (Rs. 86, 005), so it is a good sign as it is for only twenty-one (21) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase in future years, it will be more beneficial for the farmers.

12.2. At the Project Level 12.2.1. Cost The total costs incurred in the construction of Anicut were as follows:

19

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Table 11 Net project cost Cost of Anicut

Rs. 6, 72, 000

Cost of Apron

Rs. 58, 000.00

Cost of Wingwall

Rs. 24, 000.00

Total

Rs. 7, 54, 000.00

12.2.2 Benefits As the lift was not functioning in this village and it started due to the construction of Anicut, so we have taken all the benefits accruing from the lift as the benefits due to construction of Anicut. The gross benefits of twenty-one (21) farmers due to lift were Rupees eighty six thousand and five (Rs.86, 005) and the gross costs which they incurred while irrigating their land came to Rupees fifty eight thousand eight hundred and thirty two point five (Rs. 58, 832.5), therefore, the net benefits for twenty one (21) farmers came to Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred and seventy two point five (Rs.27, 172.5). We have then projected the data for forty-five (45) (assumption 5) farmers, which is the actual number of planned beneficiaries. The net benefit for forty-five (45) was computed as follows: Net benefits for twenty-one (21) farmers: Rs. 27, 172.5 Annual net benefits for forty-five (45) farmers: Rs. (27, 172.5/ 21)*45 = Rs. 58,226.5

20

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

We then projected the benefits for the estimated life of Anicut (20 years), which was done as follows:

Table 12 Net cash flows Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20

Net Cash Flow 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79 58226.79

PV of cash flows NPV

571679.17 -182320.83

BC Ratio NBC Ratio

0.76 -0.24

Pay back period

12.95

The net present value of the project comes to negative Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand three hundred and twenty point eight three (Rs. –1, 82,320.83). Benefit-cost ratio comes to zero point seven six (0.76). It is less than one (1) as the initial investment is quite high.

21

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Payback period comes to approximately thirteen years (12.95), so we can say that we will recover our investment in thirteen (12.95) years.

13. CONCLUSION In a nutshell, we can say that LIS and Anicut have proved very beneficial for the farmers, as it is evident from the figures we have calculated and shown below. But as the figures are for only one season, these benefits may increase in future years and also if many other farmers start taking water. Rajasthan is a drought prone region and these schemes have proved a boon for the under privileged farmers of this area as they are completely dependent on rain water for their agriculture and they were able to take crop in only Kharif season, now they can take additional crop in other seasons also with the help of water because of these schemes.

22

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT The direct impact of the irrigation facilities has been on agriculture both in terms of production, productivity, cropping pattern etc. The second objective of our study is to consider other impacts of these irrigation facilities that could not have been included in the cost benefit analysis but are nevertheless important as they affect other important aspects of the livelihoods of the beneficiaries. The cost benefit analysis along with the impact together should be considered to decide the true effect of the intervention.

14.1. RANPUR 14.1.1. Usage of the LIS Out of the 19 beneficiary households who have contributed partly or fully towards the 20 percent of the project cost to be deposited in the GVK, 17 beneficiary households have made use of irrigation facilities provided by the LIS since the system became functional after its installation in March 2003 i.e. before the beginning of the Kharif cropping season. While 2 beneficiaries took irrigation during Kharif for vegetable cultivation- turmeric and arbi, none of them were required to use the irrigation facility for the major Kharif crop- maize due to sufficient rains during monsoon. During the following cropping season of Rabi 17 out of the 19 beneficiaries took the wheat crop with the help of the irrigation water provided by the lift. 4 out of these 17 beneficiaries in addition took garlic crop as well. None of the beneficiaries took any Zaid crop during the past year. Though the cost benefit analysis being undertaken takes in to account the changes during the first year of operations of the LIS, it is important to note that during the ongoing Kharif season 10-11 beneficiaries have sown turmeric and arbi and are taking irrigation through the LIS, which indicates the growing usage of the LIS during the different cropping seasons.

23

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.1.2. Increase in irrigated area The 19 beneficiaries of the LIS together own a total of 114 bigha of cultivable land. Prior to the LIS, only 11 bigha of this land that is approximately 10 percent was under some form of irrigation. Though 3 of the beneficiaries have private wells, the well water is not used for the purpose of irrigation and all the 11 bigha of the irrigated landholding received irrigation from the Ramakunda canal. During the first year of operations, the lift irrigation management committee decided to allow each beneficiary to irrigate a maximum of 2 bigha of land holding from the lift. Hence the total increase in area under irrigation has been 2 bigha for each beneficiary. Thus the area under irrigation has increased from 10 percent to 42 percent. The 2 beneficiaries who prior to the LIS used to irrigate their land during Rabi from the water from the Ramakunda canal have also preferred to irrigate 2 bigha of their earlier irrigated land holding from the water available from the LIS while the remaining portion of the irrigated land holding is still under canal irrigation. Figure 1

Increase in irrigated area Land irrigated after LI

Land irrigated before LI

10%

90%

Irrigated area before LI

42%

Unirrigated area before LI

58%

Irrigated area after LI Unirrigated area after LI

14.1.3. Net sown area and cropping intensity After the LIS the net sown area (N.S.A.) has shown an increase of nearly 31 percent from 98 bigha to 128 bighas. The break up of the increase according to cropping season shows that there has been a marginal increase in the N.S.A. This slight increase has been on account of 2 farmers

24

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

undertaking vegetable cultivation from the water available from the LIS. The percentage increase in N.S.A. in Rabi has been significant. This is due to the fact that 17 out of the 19 beneficiaries that is, 90 percent of the current beneficiaries were not able to take the Rabi crop prior to the LIS. Thus the overall cropping intensity has increased from 0.86 percent to 1.125 % post LIS. Figure 2

Gross sown area Gross Sown Area (bighas)

Gross Sown Area 150

128.25 98

100

87

Total

87.5 40.75

50

11

Kharif Rabi

0 N.S.A. before LI

N.S.A.after LI

Figure 3 Cropping intensity

Cropping intensity

Change in cropping intensity 2 1.5

1.4657143 1.12

1 0.5 0 Before LI

After LI

14.1.4. Cropping Pattern Maize accounts for the maximum area under cultivation among all Kharif crops. Before the LIS, apart from maize, the other crops being cultivated by the beneficiaries included urad and paddy (local variety). However these varieties were being cultivated by only a few beneficiaries. The cropping pattern during Kharif has remained more or less the same with a slight decline in maize 25

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

and other crops due to introduction of vegetable cultivation. Turmeric and haldi are the vegetables which were cultivated during Kharif. While before the LIS, wheat cultivation was restricted to only 6 percent of the total cultivable land belonging to the beneficiaries, a total of 36 bigha land has now come under wheat cultivation which is 32 percent of the total cultivable land. Apart from wheat, mustard was also grown during Rabi. Post LIS, the area under mustard cultivation has decreased and vegetable (garlic) has been introduced. 4 out of the 19 beneficiaries that is 20 percent have grown vegetables on some portion of the total 2 bigha land apart from wheat. For wheat cultivation all the beneficiaries have taken water from the LIS, while one beneficiary could manage to get 1for the wheat crop from the canal water. Figure 4

Cropping Pattern – Kharif and Rabi Cropping Pattern: Rabi

Cropping Pattern: Kharif 100%

80%

Vegetables

60%

Urad

40%

Paddy

20%

Maize

80% % area

% area

100%

Vegetables

60%

Mustard

40%

Wheat

20% 0%

0% Before LI

Before LI

After LI

After LI

14.1.5. Range of yield For the beneficiaries who cultivated wheat before the LIS, the average yield was 200 kg per bigha. However, post LIS, the average yield of wheat has risen to 295 kg with the range of yield varying from 200 kg to as much as 350 kg per bigha. Even the beneficiaries who used to cultivate wheat crop prior to the LIS could manage 3 irrigations to the crop on an average. However after the LIS, the average number of irrigations provided to the wheat crop has increased from 3 to 4.

26

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.1.6. Cost of cultivation The costs calculated are incremental in the sense that the cultivation costs of all the crops for which water from the lift had been used, have been considered.Among the Kharif crops, maize requires no irrigation as it is rainfed hence of the total cost of cultivation of maize, seeds and fertilizers form the major component. In case of Kharif vegetables such as turmeric seeds form the major portion of the cost of cultivation. In addition 2 more irrigations are required for the crop, apart from rainfall. In case of wheat, irrigation accounts for the highest proportion of cost among all other components. The cost of irrigation to the beneficiaries has shown a variation from Rs 240 to Rs 650 for 4 irrigations for the 2 bighas of land. In case of the vegetables grown in Rabi, which is garlic, seeds account for as high as 64 percent of the total cost followed by irrigation. On an average the garlic crop requires 10 to 12 irrigations. Figure 5 Cost of cultivation – Kharif and Rabi Cost of cultivation:Vegetable (Kharif) 0%

Cost of cultivation: Maize: (Before LI) Seeds

0% 1%

47%

52%

5%

Irrigation

Irrigation Fertilizers Pesticides

95%

Tractor/Thresher

Tractor/Thresher

Cost of cultivation: Vegetable (Rabi)

Cost of cultivation: Rabi (After LI)

10% 4%

Seeds

0%

Fertilizers Pesticides

0%

0%

Seeds 26%

5%

Irrigation

31%

Fertilizers

24% 36%

0%

Seeds

0%

Irrigation 64%

Pesticides

Fertilizers Pesticides

Tractor/Thresher

Tractor/Thre sher

27

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.1.7. Food Security Maize forms the staple diet in the Mewar region and like other villages maize is cultivated by all farmers in the village and on the maximum area of land. The produce is for subsistence purpose and the surplus if any is kept for seeds and for selling later in the market if the need for cash arises. Even in case of families which are below food security level, distress sales of the crop take place if there is any immediate requirement for cash. Out of the 6 beneficiaries who took the Rabi crop and who were below the food security level before the LIS, in terms of cereal requirement of the household, 5 achieved self sufficiency with the additional cereal crop available during Rabi and 1 moved closer to food security. Though in terms of pulses requirement, the beneficiaries are not self sufficient as the cultivation of pulses is very less. Similar is the case of vegetables. However, after the LIS vegetable crop has been taken by the beneficiaries both during Kharif and Rabi season but all the crops taken namely turmeric, arbi and garlic have mainly been cultivated for sale in the market and only a small portion has been cultivated for home use. Besides these, 1-2 farmers grew other vegetables such as ginger, chilli and brinjal on small patches of land for home consumption. Though the data available regarding surplus foodgrains sold does not indicate any clear trends it is likely that over the years, increase in food security and availability of cash income from sale of vegetables would reduce distress sale of food grains and the prices realized by the farmers in case of sale of surplus would be better.

14.1.8. Decrease in migration The average family size in the village is about 5 members. From among the beneficiary households 1-2 members migrate to Udaipur for wage labour for 10-15 days per month. Women members do not migrate. Most of the migrants work as wage laboureres at construction sites and, the wage rate varies from Rs 40 for unskilled labour to as high as Rs 85 per day for masons. The average wage rate is Rs 60 per day. Income from migration is one of the major sources of cash income for the beneficiary households. It is used not only to buy food items but for other

28

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

expenses incurred on marriages and other social functions, sickness etc. Post LIS, migration among beneficiary households has reduced from 6 months on an average to 4 months as the members were engaged in the fields for Rabi crop for around 20 days during the cropping season and the increase in food grain availability form the Rabi crop has reduced the dependence on migration income for food grains.

14.1.9. Reduction in fodder scarcity & increase in livestock The average livestock profile of the beneficiary households consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2 milch animals. The fodder requirements are fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop and from the forests. Around 3-4 beneficiaries also cultivate fodder on around 1-1.5 bigha land. However, before the LIS almost all of the beneficiaries had to purchase green fodder for the cattle worth Rs 150 to Rs 700. However, with the crop residue of wheat crop now available the amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced considerably and around 9 beneficiaries who earlier had to purchase fodder from the market did not have to spend on fodder purchase this time. However, none of the beneficiaries have grown fodder from the water available from the lift.

14.1.10. Reduction in indebtedness & asset creation All the beneficiary households have debts to clear. Debts have been taken mainly for non productive purposes such as marriages and sickness. Though no significant changes could be observed in the debt situation before and after LIS which can be traced to the implementation of the LIS, however some beneficiaries have undertaken activities such as house repair and purchase of livestock after the harvesting of the Rabi crop. Around 4 beneficiaries reported to have purchased livestock mainly bullocks and 2 have undertaken house repair with the savings on food grains and fodder after LIS and from their previous savings. Apart from this around 6-7 beneficiaries who are undertaking vegetable cultivation this Kharif season also reported to have purchased seeds and diesel (for irrigation) from such savings, Thus there are certain trends of reinvestment of the returns from the LIS in agriculture.

29

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.1.11. Changes in agricultural practices Since there has been no use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being cultivated by majority of the beneficiaries for the first time, there is no reference data available to compare with for any visible changes such as increase in fertilizer consumption, pesticides, mechanization etc. Vegetable cultivation during Kharif and Rabi has resulted in introduction of cash crops. In addition, the beneficiaries have grown a new variety of wheat namely Pharmi instead of Kalyan Sona grown earlier by those who used to cultivate wheat before the LIS as well. However, the cause of change could not be ascertained. All the 17 beneficiaries have applied vermicompost for the wheat crop. Seva Mandir had provided it as part of its extension activities in water resource development areas.

30

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.2. AMARPURA 14.2.1. Increase in irrigated area The twenty (20) farmers surveyed who take water from LIFT 1 in this village together own about one hundred and fourteen (114) bighas of land. Prior to the installation of the lift they were able to irrigate only about seven (7) bighas of their land from the canal emanating from the Kagdar dam and the remaining one hundred and seven (107) bighas of their land remained unirrigated. After the installation of the lift the land that was irrigated increased steeply to about fifty one (51) bighas with a consequent decrease in unirrigated land to about sixty three (63) bighas. Percentage wise the increase in irrigated land is about six hundred and twenty eight percent (628%). Initially only six percent (6%) of the land was being irrigated but it has now climbed to forty five percent (45%). Figure 6 Increase in irrigated area Irrigated area afterLI

Irrigated area before LI

6% 94%

Irrigated area before LI

55%

Unirrigated area before LI

45%

Irrigated area after LI Unirrigated area after LI

14.2.2. Change in Gross Sown Area The total Gross Sown Area before installation of LIS was ninety-nine (99) bighas comprising of ninety five (95) bighas in Kharif and four (4) bighas in Rabi season while there was no crop taken in Zaid season.

31

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

After the installation of LIS the Gross Sown Area increased to about one hundred and fifty (150) bighas. The increase was mainly attributed to increase in net sown area in the rabi season and a slight increase in the net sown area in the Zaid season also. The net sown area in the Rabi season went up to about forty-six (46) bighas from the earlier figure of four (4) bighas. Farmers also started taking crops in the Zaid season due to availability of irrigation and as a result the net sown area in this season increased to about nine (9) bighas. Percentage wise the increase in total gross sown area was about fifty two percent (52%). Figure 7 Change in Gross Sown Area

Gross Sown Area (bighas)

Gross Sown Area 160 140 120 100

150.25

99

95

80 60 40 20 0

95

Kharif

46.5 4

Rabi

Zaid

8.75

0

N.S.A. before LI

N.S.A.after LI

14.2.3. Cropping Intensity As a result of an increase in the Gross Sown Area the cropping intensity has increased from one point zero five (1.05) before the installation of LIS to about one point five nine (1.59) after the installation of LIS.

32

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Figure 8 Cropping intensity

Cropping intensity

Cropping intensity 2 1.5

1.58994709 1.047619048

1

Cropping intensity

0.5 0 before LI

after LI

14.2.4. Cropping Pattern Prior to the installation of the LIS farmers were taking mainly the crop of Maize in the Kharif season. Only a few farmers were taking wheat in the Rabi season. After the installation of the LIS the number of farmers taking wheat crop in the Rabi season increased in a considerable manner. In addition the a few farmers also started taking Moong crop in the Zaid season. Hence we can see that irrigation has resulted in diversification of agriculture with farmers taking newer crops like wheat and moong. Moreover, a number of farmers are planning to grow vegetables etc. also. Figure 9 Cropping pattern

33

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN After LI (in Bighas)

Before LI (in Bighas)

40

Maize

Maize

8.75 46.5

Wheat

Wheat 95

Moong

Moong

95

14.2.5. Change in Productivity Before the introduction of LIS the average productivity of wheat was about one hundred (100) kilograms per bigha of land. After the installation of LIS the average productivity of wheat has increased to about three hundred and twenty eight (328) kilograms per bigha of land.Percentage wise the increase is about two hundred and twenty eight (228) percent.The average productivity of moong is about nine kilograms per bigha of land.

14.2.6. Cost of Cultivation In case of wheat, irrigation accounts for the highest proportion of cost among all other components. It accounts for as high as thirty eight percent (38%) of the total cost of cultivation. Figure 10 Cost of cultivation: Wheat Cost of cultivation: Wheat Seeds

26%

28%

Irrigation Fertilizers Pesticides

0% 8%

Tractor/Thresher

38%

34

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

In case of Moong - the Zaid crop - also the cost of irrigation is the highest. Here also it accounts for a staggering seventy seven percent (77%) of the total cost of cultivation of this crop. This necessitates the need of bringing the cost of irrigation down. Figure 11 Cost of cultivation: Moong Cost of cultivation: Moong 7% 0%

16%

Seeds Irrigation Fertilizers Pesticides

77%

14.2.7. Decrease in Migration Before the installation of LIS, an individual beneficiary migrated for about one hundred and fifty seven days on an average. But after the installation of the LIS, the average number of days a family migrates has reduced to one hundred and twenty (120) only. Due to this decrease in migration the total income earned from migration has also reduced from Rs One lakh seventy five thousand (Rs 175000) to Rs One lakh thirty two thousand (Rs 132000) only ( for all 19 beneficiaries). Decrease in migration can be attributed to the fact that farmer took the Rabi crop as well as Zaid crop. Despite taking two (2) additional crops, the migration days did not reduce in equivalence to the number of days required to take these crops as the farmers - to compensate for the lost migration income - migrated in those days when they used to be in the village during normal years.

35

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.2.8. Reduction in fodder scarcity & increase in livestock The average livestock profile of the beneficiary households consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2 milch animals and some small ruminants like sheep and goats. The fodder requirements are fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop and from the forests and pasture land available in the village. But it did not fulfill the demand of total fodder required in a year. Hence people used to purchase the additional fodder from the market to fill the gap between demand and supply. But after installation of lift beneficiary started taking additional crop like wheat and in turn they also got the fodder in terms of wheat residue. Hence with the crop residue of wheat crop now available, the amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced considerably. There is a steep decrease in the amount beneficiary used to spend on fodder. On an average it has been decreased from three hundred and sixty five to twenty five only. it comes to around a decrease of ninety four percent.

14.2.9. Reduction in indebtedness & asset creation People took loans mainly in the Amarpura for non-productive purposes such as marriages and sickness and sometimes even to support their daily needs. We could not observe any change regarding the debt situation in Amarpura after the lift irrigation. Presently beneficiary families have the average outstanding of around two thousand and nine hundred rupees. Beneficiaries also have not created any significant asset after the installation of lift except one who has bought a bullock for the agriculture purposes. As from the lift beneficiaries have taken only one or two crops hence we cannot expect any change regarding these situation. We can except some changes in these in near future.

14.2.10. Changes in agricultural practices Before the lift irrigation beneficiaries generally took the crop of maize in kharif season but after installation of lift they also started taking the crop of wheat in rabi and there are some farmers who took the crop of moong in Zaid season. This is because of the availability of irrigation after the installation of the lift.

36

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

If we see the cost incurred by the farmer in different activities in order to take wheat crop, we find that irrigation constitutes the maximum up to thirty eight percent after that seeds and tractor/thresher respectively twenty eight percent and twenty six percent. The cost incurred on fertilizer is very less as it is only eight percent of the total cost. For the maize crop, forty seven percent of the cost is of seeds and fifty three percent is for fertilizers. In maize, these are only the two major cost components. Figure 12 Cost of cultivation: Maize

Cost of cultivation: Maize (Before LI) 1%

0%

Seeds Irrigation 47%

52%

Fertilizers Pesticides Tractor/Thresher

0%

Since there has been no use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being cultivated by majority of the beneficiaries for the first time, hence we cannot compare it in terms of change such as increase in fertilizer consumption, pesticides, mechanization etc. before and after lift irrigation.

14.3. DEOPUR 14.3.1 Increase in irrigated area The 21 beneficiaries of the LIS together own around 131 bigha of cultivable land. Prior to the LIS, only 4 bigha of this land that is approximately 3 percent was under some form of irrigation.

37

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

This was mainly due to the availability of some private wells and the lift present in the village. But beneficiaries are not able to take the full benefit of lift because of unavailability of water sources in the village (after the anicuts was broken). After the construction of the anicuts again by Sevamandir people started exploiting the lift and taking irrigation. The total irrigated area after the construction of the anicuts has increased to the fifty-two bighas of land. It is around forty percent of the total land of the beneficiaries. Figure 13

Increase in irrigated area Land Irrigated Before LI

Land Irrigated after LI

3% Irrigated area before LI Unirrigated area before LI

40% 60%

Irrigated area after LI Unirrigated area after LI

97%

14.3.2. Gross sown area and cropping intensity After the LIS the Gross sown area (G.S.A.) has shown an increase of nearly 51 percent from 94 bigha to 142 bighas. The gross sown area prior to the introduction of lift was consisted of around 90 bighas of maize crop in the kharif season and around 4 percent of the wheat crop in rabi season. The increase in the total gross sown area after the lift irrigation is due to an increase in net sown area in wheat crop. For the wheat crop there is an increase of 48 bighas of land resulting in to total net sown area of 52 bighas. If we see it in terms of percentage the increase is around 1312%. This increase can be directly attributed to the availability of irrigation as beneficiaries earlier were not able to take Rabi crop because of that.

38

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Figure 14 Change in gross sown area

GrossSown Area ( I n Bighas)

Gross Sown area 142.75

150 100

94.25 90.25

90.25 52.5

50

Kharif Rabi

4 0 N.S.A. before N.S.A.after LI LI

If we see in terms of cropping intensity it has also been increased. It has notched up to the figure of 1.085 from earlier of 0.716. Figure 15

Cropping intensity

Change in cropping intensity Change in cropping intensity 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

1.58 1.044

1 Before LI

After LI

By looking at the figure we can say that there have been significant improvements in these two parameters. It has the potential to increase even more in near future as beneficiaries are planning to take some crops during Zaid season. Also there are some farmers who have not taken the wheat crop this year planning to take it next year, as they got motivated after seeing the benefit drawn by their other mates.

39

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

14.3.3. Cropping Pattern Prior to the installation of the LIS farmers were taking mainly the crop of Maize in the Kharif season. Only a few farmers were taking wheat in the Rabi season. It was after the installation of the LIS the number of farmers taking wheat crop in the Rabi season increased in a considerable manner. Although there was not considerable change in the cropping pattern of beneficiaries family in Deopur but there is a bright chance of it as people have now availability of irrigation. The beneficiaries earlier were taking only one crop (maize) because of the unavailability of the irrigation. As the irrigation now available they can take different crop. Figure 16 Cropping pattern – before and after LI Cropping Pattern Before LI

Cropping Pattern After LI

4 52.5 Maize Wheat 90.25

Maize Wheat 90.25

There are some farmers in the village planning to take moong, vegetables, etc in the coming year. Hence we hope that the agriculture in deopur would move from the practice of monocropping to multiple cropping and it would more diverse in near future.

14.3.4. Change in Productivity Before the introduction of LIS wheat crop was being taken only in four bighas of land but after the introduction of lift the total land under wheat increased to around 52 bighas, not only that the average productivity of land also increased. There is an increase of 61% in the productivity of the

40

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

land. In real term it has gone up to 290 kilogram of wheat per bigha from 180 kilogram per bigha.

14.3.4.1. Change in productivity (avg. yield in Kg. / bigha) Before LI After LI change % increase Wheat 180 290 110 61.11111

14.3.5. Cost of Cultivation In case of wheat, the cost of cultivation in Deopur comes to around on average of 1120 rupees per bigha. The cost of tractor/thresher accounts for the highest proportion of cost among all other components. It accounts for as high as thirty six percent (36%) of the total cost of cultivation. After that it is the irrigation that constitutes the major cost of around thirty percent (30%). Figure 17 Cost of cultivation: Rabi Cost of Cultivation (Rabi) 23% 36%

Seeds Irrigation Fertilizers

0% 11%

30%

Pesticides Tractor/Thresher

The cost of cultivation of maize is very less in Deopur it comes to around only one hundred and eighty rupees per bigha. It may be because of the fact that farmers do not have to incur irrigation cost and also they incur very less cost on other items. If we see the cost breakage then we find that cost of seeds is the highest. Here it accounts for nearly fifty percent of the total cost percent (50%) of the total cost of cultivation of this crop. After that fertilizer is the major cost item which is around thirty eight percent(38%) of the total cost. The cost of irrigation in the maize crop is

41

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

zero because of the fact that people do not take irrigation for maize. Mostly they rely on rainwater for maize crop. Figure 18 Cost of cultivation: Maize Cost of cultivation (Maize) 12%

Seeds

0%

Irrigation Fertilizers

50%

38%

Pesticides

0%

Tractor/Thresher

14.3.6. Decrease in Migration Before the installation of LIS, a family used to migrate for an average of one hundred and forty nine (149) days. But after the installation of the LIS, the average number of days a family migrates has reduced to one hundred and twenty (120) only. Due to this decrease in migration the total income earned from migration has also reduced from Rs fifty four thousand nine hundred fifty (Rs 54950) to Rs forty three thousand four hundred and eighty seven (Rs 43487) only (for all 21 beneficiaries). Decrease in migration can be attributed to the fact that farmer took the Rabi crop. Despite taking one additional crops, the migration days did not reduce in equivalence to the number of days required to take this crop as the farmers - to compensate for the lost migration income - migrated in those days when they used to be in the village during normal years.

14.3.7. Reduction in fodder scarcity & increase in livestock The average livestock profiles of the beneficiary households in deopur also are same as Amarpura. It consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2 milch animals and some small ruminants like sheep and goats. The fodder requirements are fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop and pasture land available in the village. But it did not fulfill the demand of total fodder required 42

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

in a year. Hence people used to purchase the additional fodder from the market to fill the gap between demand and supply. But after installation of lift beneficiaries started taking additional crop like wheat and in turn they also got the fodder in terms of wheat residue. Hence with the crop residue of wheat crop now available the amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced considerably. There is a steep decrease in the amount beneficiary used to spend on fodder. On an average it has been decreased from four hundred and two to nil. This year beneficiaries do not have to purchase any fodder from the market. There demand of fodder is fulfilled by their selfproduction only. Although we could not trace any sign of people taking water for producing fodder. If we see the total number of live stocks owned by the beneficiary families, we find that there is a slight increase in number of total live stocks. There is one family in Deopur who bought a pair of bullocks to fulfill his requirement in farming. There is also an increase in total number of cow and goat. Although the increase is very small, for both it is one each.

14.3.8. Reduction in indebtedness & asset creation Just like Amarpura in Deopur to People generally took loans for non-productive purposes such as marriages and sickness and sometimes even to support their daily needs. In case of Deopur also there is no change regarding debt situation of the beneficiaries. Presently beneficiary families have the average outstanding of around one thousand and twenty three rupees. Beneficiaries also have not created any significant asset after the installation of lift except one who has bought a pair bullock for the agriculture purposes. There are also two families who have bought a cow and a goat each. As there was an increase in total income of the beneficiaries' household we can expect some changes in near future.

14.3.9. Changes in cultivation costs The pattern of cultivation costs in Deopur is also more or less same as Amarpura before the lift irrigation and after it. The only difference is that farmers did not take the Zaid crop in Deopur. Beneficiaries generally took the crop of maize in kharif season but after installation of lift they

43

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

also started taking the crop of wheat in Rabi. If we see the cost incurred by the farmer in different activity in order to take wheat crop then we find that tractor/thresher constitute the maximum up to thirty six percent of the total cost. Other major cost items are irrigation seeds and fertilizers. Figure 19 Cost of cultivation: Rabi Cost of Cultivation (Rabi) Seeds

23%

Irrigation

36%

Fertilizers 0%

Pesticides

30%

11%

Tractor/Thresher

For the maize it is fifty percent (50%) for seeds that constitute the maximum cost and other major cost item are fertilizers and irrigation. Figure 20 Cost of cultivation: Maize Cost of cultivation (Maize) 12%

Seeds

0%

Irrigation Fertilizers

50%

38%

Pesticides Tractor/Thresher

0%

In case of Deopur also, we cannot compare it in terms of any change such as increase in fertilizer consumption, pesticides, mechanization etc. before and after lift irrigation, as there has been no

44

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being cultivated by majority of the beneficiaries for the first time.

45

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

15. MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SYSTEM The main issues involved in management of lift irrigation are:

15.1. Technical Issues •

Method of irrigation (tube well, drip, lift etc.)

•

Distribution method (open or underground)

•

Pump capacity

•

Numbers of pump required

•

Type of pumps required

•

Number of distribution chambers required and their location

•

Estimation or potential area to be covered by the lift irrigation

•

Nature of the water resource and capacity to supply (amount of Water)

•

With limited water resource available, possible area that can be covered or possible crop that can be grown

•

Distribution to tail end farmers

•

Mechanism by which water can be taken from different distribution chambers to different farmers field (keeping in view the conveyance losses)

•

Maximum hours of pump operation/ day and their maintenance etc.

•

The level upto which cropping intensity can be increased i.e. should we restrict only to Rabi or extend it to Zaid also.

•

Any backup in case of failure at the time of peak irrigation requirement.

15.2. Operational Issues 

Amount of water to be distributed to different fields of farmers.



Total time required for one farmer.



Scheduling of water distribution. 46

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN



Pricing of Irrigation water.



Proper recovery mechanism.



Managing the water distribution at: - Peak time - Deficit in water supply



Recording the type of crop grown by farmers.

15.3. Governance Structure for the group irrigation scheme 

Criterion should be equality in distributing water to the member beneficiaries.



Clearly defining the roles of the governance body, operating system and the members.



Formation of rules and norms for all the beneficiaries.



Deciding the ratio of the total project cost that should be taken from the members and amount of loan, if required.



Preparation of schedule.



Inspection of crop sown.

47

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

16. RANPUR 16.1. Project profile A lift irrigation system has been installed during March 2003 at village Ranpur in Jhadol block on the river Wakal which is a perennial water source. The LI system had been initially planned to provide irrigation to an area of 18 ha belonging to 28 beneficiary households, however due to the dispersed location and highly undulating terrain of the village it was observed that for around 20 proposed beneficiaries whose fields are located relatively far away and at a considerable height from the proposed site of installation it would be economically unviable to draw water from the lift owing to very high diesel consumption. Finally, 19 beneficiaries are making use of the irrigation facility provided by the LI system for irrigating their fields in the command area.

16.2. Sources of irrigation before LI Before the LI was installed the other sources of irrigation included the Ramakunda canal and water from private wells. Farmers from many adjoining villages including Ranpur can access the water from Ramakunda canal by paying water charges amounting to Rs 14 per bigha to the irrigation department. While the majority of the farmers in the village take only the Kharif crop which is rainfed, some farmers take the Rabi crop with the irrigation water from the canal. However, the number of such farmers is very less due to the fact that there is always uncertainty about the supply of water from the canal owing to various problems such as irregular supply and water theft etc. Even the 2 beneficiaries of the existing LI system who had taken the Rabi crop from the canal water in the previous year of the commencement of the LI system had preferred to take the water from the LI system despite the fact that the water charges for canal water are considerably low ( Rs 14 per bigha) as compared to the irrigation cost from the LI system (which is around Rs 125 per irrigation for a 2 bigha land holding). Though some farmers in the village own wells, however, the use of well water for irrigation is quite less. Out of the 3 beneficiaries who have their private wells none was using the well water for irrigation purpose.

48

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

16.3. LI description •

Planned command area: 18 ha

•

Planned no. of beneficiaries: 28

•

Actual command area: 38 bighas

•

Actual area under irrigation at present: 37 bighas

•

No. of beneficiary households: 19

•

Pump capacity: 14 H.P.

•

Project cost: 3.11 lakhs

•

GVK contribution (@20%of project cost): Rs 61876 (20% of 311331)

•

GVK contribution (current status): Rs 39756

16.4. Criteria of water distribution and water charges: The LI management committee decided that during the first year of operation each beneficiary household will be allowed to irrigate 2 bighas of land from the water made available from the LI. There is no restriction on the type of crop to be cultivated or the maximum number of hours for which a beneficiary can draw water from the lift in a cropping season. Each beneficiary has to provide diesel for running the pump for irrigating his fields.

16.5. Maintenance There are 2 pump operators who take turns to operate the LIS and undertake care and maintenance work. Both these pump operators have been chosen form among the 19 beneficiaries. They perform the function of maintaining record of hours of pump operation, collecting hourly charges from the beneficiaries. However neither of the 2 pump operators is trained to take care of any major breakdowns in the LIS for which the committee has to hire mechanics from outside the village.

49

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

16.6. Maintenance Fund During the first year of operation of the LI system, all the expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance was borne by Seva Mandir. This included replacement of a broken pulley and other minor expenses. As the first year of operations is now over, the maintenance has to be carries out by the beneficiaries. The LI management committee had decided that all the beneficiaries would deposit Rs 100 towards the maintenance fund after harvesting of the Rabi crop; however not all the beneficiaries have done so. However, two rupees have been collected per hours of pump operation from the beneficiaries for engine oil.

16.7. Scheduling of water distribution For the purpose of scheduling, lot is drawn and then the beneficiaries take water according to the lot number. Since only 2 beneficiaries had taken water during Kharif last year (for vegetables) and during Rabi all the beneficiaries had taken wheat and only 4 had grown vegetables on some part of the 2 bigha land which can be irrigated by the LI water. For those beneficiaries who had grown vegetables, there was no set procedure for scheduling of water distribution to these farmers and water was provided to them as and when required by making adjustments with other farmers regarding the timing of irrigation for these farmers. Hence the scheduling relies more on informal mutual agreements among the beneficiaries.

16.8. Meetings The meeting of the LI committee is held on the 25th of each month. The majority of the beneficiaries attend the meetings and matters related to scheduling of water distribution, maintenance fund, payment to operators etc are discussed.

16.9. Reasons for some identified beneficiaries not taking water Though the LI committee has decided that all the beneficiaries would be allowed to irrigate 2 bigha of land from the LI water, one of the beneficiaries is able to irrigate only one bigha of his 50

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

land as the remaining one bigha lies on the other side of the road where it is not possible to provide irrigation form the LI. Apart from this 2 more beneficiaries did not take water from the lift as they did not plan to grow the Rabi crop last year. Both of them however, plan to take water from the LI system to cultivate Rabi crop in the current year.

16.10. Gram Vikas Kosh The beneficiaries who are drawing water from the LI have each deposited some part of their share of the GVK and they plan to deposit the remaining contribution in installments. However, the LI management committee has not decided upon any time frame for the collection of the remaining dues from the beneficiaries.

16.11. Conflicts and conflict resolving mechanism All conflicts relating to water distribution, water charges and other management aspects of the LI system are to be resolved by the LI management committee. However, since the LI became operational there have been no conflicts related to the LI system. 16.12. Suggestions for efficient management of LIS in Ranpur At present there are 19 beneficiaries who are drawing water from the LI system. However, 8 more farmers have approached the LI management committee to become members of the LI system. The LI management committee is yet to submit a proposal to the zone office for the same. For this purpose one of the existing distribution pipelines may have to be extended and new chambers constructed to carry water to the fields of these 8 new proposed beneficiaries. For the first year of operations, each beneficiary had been allowed to irrigate only 2 bighas from the LI system. However, after the successful operation of the Li system during the past 2 cropping seasons and considering the fact that the LI pump can easily be utilized for more number of hours per cropping season, the management committee is planning to increase the area which can be irrigated by each beneficiary. There are no plans to change the criteria of distribution.

51

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

16.13. Major concerns of the beneficiaries 1. Since the water charges have been fixed on an hourly basis, the system is more advantageous to beneficiaries whose fields are located close to the LI system. Beneficiaries whose fields are located at a comparatively greater distance or at a greater height suffer from dual disadvantage because the longer time required for irrigating per bigha of land results in more diesel consumption. 2. Three main distribution lines have been constructed to take water from the water source to the 9 distribution chambers located in the fields. From each distribution chamber, the water is taken to the surrounding fields through kutcha drains. In case of the beneficiaries whose fields are relatively far off from the distribution chamber assigned to them, the seepage losses in the drain result in consumption of 0.5 to 1.5 litre more diesel consumption than the farmers whose fields are adjacent or close to the distribution chamber. Since the water charges do not take into account the actual water reaching the fields in a given time. The irrigation costs of these beneficiaries are higher. 3. As mentioned earlier there are 3 main distribution lines to take water to the fields. Valves are located at the distribution chambers to close and open the water supply. No valve is located at the main distribution point before the 3 lines. Hence in case of one of the distribution lines, water first gets filled in the other 2 lines till the valve located at the first distribution chamber in the line and then starts filling in the other line. Thus even before water reaches the field around 1.5 litre diesel is already consumed. 4. It had been decided that all the beneficiaries would give 15 kg wheat to the 2 lift operators after wheat crop has been harvested but most of the beneficiaries have not fulfilled the commitment.

52

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

16.14. Other observations Though the water charges are not equitable and many of the beneficiaries have raised concern about their relatively higher irrigation costs there have been no conflicts regarding the issue. The two operators take keen interest in the operation and maintenance of the LI system. However, in the absence of sufficient remuneration (due to non payment) their interest may not be sustained for long. Though all the beneficiaries have paid the GVK, the one time heavy contribution left many with little or no cash to purchase seeds for vegetable cultivation. The beneficiaries have not made the pre decided contribution to the maintenance fund, which may result in cash crunch in case of requirement for repairs and maintenance. The beneficiaries feel that in order to avoid high fees of mechanic in case of pump repairing, 2 persons from the beneficiary group (preferably the pump operators) should be provided training to repair the pump. The beneficiary group is a cohesive group. The members have so far shown their willingness to consider the needs of each other as has been demonstrated by the peaceful manner in which the scheduling of water distribution has been done in the past. The beneficiaries are satisfied with Seva Mandir’s work in the village and more of the beneficiaries plan to take up vegetable cultivation now that they are assured about the satisfactory performance of the LI system.

53

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

17. AMARPURA 17.1. Project Profile The number of target beneficiaries under the Shell funded 'lift irrigation scheme' was originally 105. These beneficiaries belong to Lift 1 (Badaliwala) and Lift 2 (Batkiwala). The total land estimated to be irrigated through the two lifts was 30 hectares. (Approximately 15 hectares for each lift). This project is purely target based under which Seva Mandir has to install seven lift irrigation projects in one year according to the norms of Shell. A proposal was submitted to Seva Mandir by GVC Committee (President, Secretary and other 25 villagers) on November 5, 2002. It was stated that a total of 139 farmers would be benefited from the Scheme. Later on, after conducting PRAs and other meetings, GVC President Hukmichand and 7 villagers submitted another proposal to install the lift irrigation where 105 villagers agreed to pay Rs. 500 in the first installment. The proposal was passed by the General Secretary sanctioning Rs 5.29 lakh. Since the benefit due to the lift would accrue to only a few villagers and not the whole village, it was decided that 20% of the project cost (Rs. 5.29 lakh) would be deposited by the beneficiaries in the Gram Vikas Kosh. The major cost for the project was the material cost, i.e. Rs. 4,64,476 and it was not possible to collect 20% of the project cost through labour provided in this scheme. The pump capacity is 14 hp for each lift and is more than enough according to the design considerations. The number of chambers in lift 1 and lift 2 is 4 and 3 respectively. In our field visits, we observed that the chambers are closely spaced and most of the beneficiaries have to take water from the earthen canal. We also found out that in these earthen canals, water takes about 15-30 minutes to reach to the farmer's field 100 meters away.

17.2. Gram Vikas Kosh The total number of beneficiaries was estimated to be 105. Earlier the GVK contribution was calculated to be Rs. 1000 per bigha for each farmer. However, upon revision, the actual GVK 54

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

contribution came out to be Rs. 600 per bigha for each farmer. Out of a total of 105 beneficiaries, number of members who deposited their GVK contribution fully is16 and number of members having their GVK contribution due is 89. Out of these 89 members, number of members who paid GVK contribution partially is 45 and the number of members who did not pay any installment is 44. From the above figures, it can be assumed that number of members who are seriously interested in lift irrigation is 60 (44+16).

17.3. Percentage utilization of project The number of members who irrigated their fields through the lift for wheat crop is 26. The number of members who irrigated their fields through the lift for moong crop is19. Thus, only 24% and 18% of the total beneficiaries have taken water for wheat and moong respectively. Out of 16 members who deposited GVK contribution in full, only 10 have been taking the benefit from lift irrigation. The 19 members taking water for moong are from the same 26 members who have taken water for wheat crop. Figure 21 GVK status: Amarpura

GVK status of 26 farmers taking water from lift 1

1

Paid fully

Paid partially

3 10

Due fully

12

Unidentified

55

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

17.4. Criteria for distribution From the above statistics, it is obvious that members have been taking water form the lift irrespective of their GVK contribution. Often, the lift operator is unaware about the GVK deposit status of farmer beneficiaries taking water. The distribution criterion for Amarpura is on hourly basis unlike Ranpur where it is on the basis of bighas of land irrigated. The rate for water utilisation is Rs. 20 per hour exclusive of the diesel cost. Another important observation is that all 26 farmers currently taking water from the lift have their fields located near the chambers where water reaches in no time.

17.5. Scheduling of water distribution The scheduling of water is based on the proximity of the chambers to the pump. The water is provided to the first chamber (nearest to the pump) and after all the farmers have taken water through the first chamber, it is brought to the second chamber. Among the farmers irrigating their fields through the same chamber, the priority is given to farmer who brings the diesel first and the same order is followed for other chambers.

56

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Table 13 Scheduling of water distribution: Amarpura Total hours used per Date

Number of farmers No of days Total hours used day 42

`

63.75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 11 12 1 1 1 1 51

55 43 72.58 5.91 3.5 6.76 7.5 194.25

2.29 3.9 6.04 5.91 3.5 6.76 7.5 avg = 3.8

1 2 3 4

20 21 1 4 46

39.58 100.83 4.75 31.66 176.82

1.97 4.8 4.75 7.91 avg = 3.85

24/11/03 to 1/1/04

1/1/04 to 14/03/04 (wheat) Total

18/03/04 to 04/06/04 (moong) Total

From the above table, it is clear that most of the days only one farmer came to the lift for irrigation. No proper scheduling is being practically followed at Amarpura. The range of number of hours used varies from 1 hour to 23 hours at a stretch on a single day which violates the norm of using the pump for a maximum of 10 hours a day.

17.6. Governing body No separate pump committee exists at Amarpura. The GVK committee performs the functions of pump committee. It is interesting to note that the President of the GVK committee belongs to the lift 2, which is not operating. During our field visits, we could not see any evidence that the GVK President has been taking interest in making the lift functional. The operator of lift 1

57

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

(Bhanwar) is paid Rs. 600 per month for four months and finance records are submitted to another GVK member Ramlal. The operator is not satisfied with the system because of large opportunity costs. The reason is that operating the lift even for 1 hour makes him devoid of his daily wage of Rs. 50. The operator for lift 2 is a mason and has a high opportunity cost. He does not take any interest in mobilizing the farmers to take water from the lift. Even for lift 1, the payment for the pump utilisation is due as shown below: Table 14 Water charges recovery status Total bill 6515

Recovered Due 1989 4526

Thus, it is obvious that a large amount is still due and no compliance mechanism has been adopted for recovering the due amount.

17.7. Conflicts After discussions with the farmers, we observed a number of conflicts in the village. There are three irrigation providers existing in Amarpura. 1. Government irrigation scheme 2. Private pump operators 3. Seva Mandir's lift irrigation scheme •

The people associated with the lift 2 are politically very active. They are involved with local MLA who promised them to rejuvenate the Government canal (Kagdar canal). This made them disinterested in the Seva Mandir Lift Scheme.

•

The money lender Shankar has great influence on the farmers in lift 2. One of the three chambers of lift 2 opens up in his field and the other two chambers lie in the vicinity of his fields. Thus, the real proposed beneficiaries (small farmers) do not get benefit and the already well-off farmer goes away with large benefits.

58

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

•

The farmers having their lands near the river are more interested in private pumps because of two reasons: Firstly, the farmers have a tradition of making an irrigation contract for the whole season, so they find it difficult to switch over from private pump to that of Seva Mandir's. Secondly, the farmers who have not deposited their GVK contribution consider it an obligation to deposit their due amount after taking the crop.

17.8. Management Issues The issues that we identified in the management of lift irrigation in Amarpura village are as follows: (1). In Amarpura, while identifying the beneficiaries, the beneficiary family was not taken as one unit. If this had been the case, the number of real beneficiaries would have been only 25. (2). In 105 beneficiaries, some are having land at upland slope or at the corner distance and some are having near the river Som, so they are at unequal distance and slope from the lift. (3). There are two irrigation facilities existing in the village, i.e. Government canal and private pump operator. So, up to what area one lift is economical to them as compared to two other sources of irrigation because we assume that, " Each farmer is a rational person and tries to maximise his benefit and minimize his cost and in case when they have choices in front of them, they will prefer the better option". (4). There do not exist separate pump committees for both the lifts and GVC committee is taking care of both. The GVC Committee performs the role of pump committee irrespective of whether they are the beneficiaries of either lift or not. (5). All those farmers who are near to the river can take water from private pump operators and all those farmers having land at distance from distribution chambers are either not interested in

59

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

taking water, keeping in view the huge conveyances losses and time and money loss. All farmers of lift 1 are politically involved and interested in government canals. (6). Giving water at 20 Rs./hour consumes 1.2 –1.3litre/ hour to near field and 1.5 litres or more to distance farmers. (7). In absence of fencing, lots of farmers are not utilizing their lands. The farmers are worried that if they go for a crop, the cattle would spoil their fields. (8). The number of chamber is less and they are located very closely, which prevents users to use irrigation due to high transaction cost.

17.9. Management Suggestions 17.9.1. Technical: 1. At present, water for irrigation is being given by 4 chambers and 2 open outlets. These chambers are closely spaced and are not sufficient for the whole command area. So, the questions here arise: •

How many chambers are required?

•

What should be the location so that maximum beneficiaries can avail the facility of irrigation?

Farmers are interested in availing the irrigation facility which is reflected in the assurance given by farmers that they would take the water from the lift in this season, but they might not take the water if the cost of irrigation is more to them compared to the present private pump operator service or if the government canal is started. So, our aim here is to reduce the cost of irrigation on the farmer. One of the ways is to suggest the location and number of chambers through which we can minimize the conveyance loss and maximize the irrigation efficiency. For this the earthen

60

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

channels should not be more then 100 meters and at least 3or 4 members should be able to take water from a single chamber. Moreover, the chambers should be on the contours and their plinth level should be high so that water can flow under gravity to the earthen cannels. These chambers should be open from the all four side with flip gates provided on them. Observing the soil type and discussing with the farmers, we learnt that nearly 15 to 30 minutes are required to reach the water from the chamber to the farmer's field. This costs them nearly Rs.10/-(for half hour of pump charges) plus Rs. 20(diesel charges for half an hour), thus in total, approximately they pay Rs. 30 extra whenever they take water from the lift.

If the farmer's

field is near to the lift chamber, then this cost reduces to a great extent but when the farmer's field is near to the river Som then they prefer to take water from the private operator to minimize their cost. In this case, they have to pay Rs. 40 and can save Rs.10 per hour. Thus, by suggesting location criteria, we can minimize these time and money losses to the farmers. Another criterion to be taken into account for proper functioning of lift irrigation is the number of holdings. From field observations and discussions with the farmers, we came to know that nearly 30 minutes are required to switch from one field to another field. This time is required for filling and emptying the diesel from the diesel set. This time can be much greater if the next field is far from the previous field. This point is highly relevant when farmers require water at a time in the peak time and there is a great pressure on the pump to supply water to all the farmers who make a demand. The cost of irrigation to tail enders which are at distance from the lift as well as from the chamber is high as they are required to pay high cost for irrigation per hours and all the farmers who are near the lift get water at ease (they get irrigation first in scheduling) and at low cost.(less requirement of diesel and less time loss). According to the lift operator, the close end generally requires 1.3 litres of diesel per hour and the tail end requires 1.5 litres of diesel per hour. So, question here is to suggest a mechanism so that Seva Mandir's mission of providing irrigation facilities to all those needy and poor farmers gets accomplished.

61

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Here we propose two criteria: 1. More time should be given to tail end farmers to compensate the time loss but even in this case the cost of diesel will be born by the farmer so it may go up to one hour diesel cost. 2. There should be fixed charges for all the farmers in which the farmers are required to pay Rs. 58 + 1, in total, Rs. 59. In this case, the operator will have to keep diesel with him and farmers need not to supply diesel to the operator. Farmers have to give the diesel price to operator before starting pump. In this the operator will be given Re 1 incentive per hour for bringing the diesel.

17.9.1.1 Advantages of this mechanism 1. Being an incentive for the operator, he will encourage more farmers to take water from the lift. 2. The irrigation cost for the close end and tail end farmers will be subsidized, thus it can bring equity among the farmers. 3. In this system, the operator need not to shut the pump and refuel it for next farmers but keep on going by giving irrigation to just next field.

17.9.1.2 Limitations 1. Agreement on the farmers on this scheme is difficult to achieve. 2. The operator needs to collect some amount from the farmers beforehand, in order to bring the diesel in advance. 17.9.2. Operating Issues As far as scheduling of irrigation is concerned, there is no proper mechanism but at the same time, there is no problem existing in distribution as the farmers are few and currently, their requirement can be met without any difficulty. At present farmers perceive water resources to be unlimited but scheduling becomes important when

62

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

 Water is in short supply (may be drought year)  When number of actual beneficiaries goes up  At the peak crop requirement In these cases, the questions, which arise are:  How to schedule the irrigation so that possible conflict can be minimized?  For which crop, irrigation should be given so that water resources can be utilized judicially?  What will be the number of irrigation or hours of irrigation that can be provided to each farmer? So, the operator has to determine when the load on pump will be high? Also, is it possible to give irrigation in all the three seasons, i.e., Rabi, kharif and zaid? This can be decided in the meeting of the governing committee whether there is significant water available in river or not, when will the members grow the crop and which crop they will grow. For this, we can follow the mentioned table:

Table 15 Scheduling pattern of crops Week Oct.1-7 Oct.7-15 Oct.15-22 Oct23-30

Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mustard *

Wheat

Gram *

Pea *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

63

* *

*

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

* *

*

* *

Total

* 7

4

3

5

irrigation

Now, next problem is to decide the number of hours the pump will operate so that the norm of operating the pump for 10 hours a day is not violated. Henceforth, a sample-scheduling chart has been presented below through which we can get an idea of maximum operation hours under different crops and the week in which load will be maximum. Firstly, if total land within the command area of lift1 is 75 bigha and assuming that in 50 bigha, they grow wheat and in remaining 25 bigha, they grow mustard (10), gram (10), pea (5), then the hours of operation can be obtained from the following table: Table 16 Proposed Scheduling Mechanism *Per bigha on an average 3 hours required Week No. 1 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Total

Mustard Land(bigha) 10 30 30 30 30

Wheat 50

Gram 10

Pea 5

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

30 30

15 15 15 15 15

30

hours

64

Total 75 bigha 75 225 165 225 165 180 150 150 150 1485

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

From the table, we observe that the motor will operate for a total of 1485 hours in the season but the peak time required is 225 hours in the 4th and 8th week. But in one week maximum operating time available is 10*7=70 hours and even if it works for 20 hours per day, it runs for 140 hours but is still not able to cater to the requirement of 225 hours. We can balance these problems, either by introducing different sowing time for early or late growing crop, which may or may not be the problem. But, in this case by governance body meeting, we can restrict the area to be sown so that available water resources can be utilized properly.

17.9.3. Pricing mechanism Here it is an assumption that we are operating in an irrigation market where we have three competitors: 1.Government-operated cannel 2.Private pump operators 3.Seva Mandir lift irrigation scheme. Also, the farmers are rational and behave as consumers who strive to obtain the greatest value for their money. If the price charged is too high, he may switch over to other schemes, which are more profitable to him. At the same time, neither can we go beyond a certain level in fixing price nor are we under any competition. But this aspect lets us know whether our irrigation is need based or if our irrigation get closed down, what would be the losses to the Amarpura villagers. Moreover, if there is no loss, what is the significance of such scheme. While fixing price, the prime focus is on certain aspects: •

We are able to cover our operating expenses like pulley belt,oil,and some minor maintenance.

•

Price should be such that every body is able to pay.

•

Price should be such that no farmer has an incentive to waste the water or utilize it excessively. 65

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

•

Price should be such that every farmer whether at close end or tail end, is treated equally.

At present, water charge in Amarpura is Rs.20/- per hour excluding the diesel charge, which is given by the farmer at the time of irrigation. The other possible pricing mechanisms may be: 1.

Land based i.e., price for using water will be charged on the basis of bighas. (on an average 3 hours are required to irrigate the land of one bigha), but under this mechanism, we can not monitor when the whole field gets irrigated and at what level (wilting stage to field capacity stage require different amount of water) of saturation is achieved. Secondly all those farmers who sow water intensive crops will demand more water and those who sow less water intensive crop may be given low priority.

2.

On the basis of amount of water, i.e., we can include the conveyance losses in each farmer's account. Under this mechanism, if at close end, the amount of water reached to the field is 1000 litres and charge is Rs. 50, then at the 100 meter if amount of water reached is 60% of the 1000 litres, then charges will have to be paid @ 60% of Rs. 50.

3.

Another way is to take part of the crop as an irrigation charge but what if the crop fail or production is so low that it is not possible to submit the crop as a water charge.

17.9.4. Price recovery mechanism In the village, we observed that large proportion of water charges is due. Often, the farmers are not able to pay money. In this case, it is difficult to operate the lift side by side minimizing the default rate. For farmers, we can have provision to pay 1. At the time of second irrigation, they have to pay for previous irrigation. 2. They can pay after the crop is grown and sold but in this case they have to pay the interest i.e., principal amount plus interest for the period in which crop is harvested. In this case, the possible action is 1. To fine the person to 1.5 times of the irrigation bill to be paid in cash or kind. 2. To terminate the membership with simple majority (50%) and allow him after paying irrigation charge and membership fee.

66

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

17.9.5. Maintenance Fund In the initial stage, pump doesn’t require huge expenses on the maintenance but in later years, due to high operating hours and increasing wear and tear, it might require huge expenditure say around Rs.5000/-. So for this we propose that out of Rs.20 charge, we separate Rs. 10 for the maintenance fund which can accumulate over a year and be used in frequent maintenance Remaining Rs. 10 can be used for the salary of the operator. 17.9.6. Lift irrigation cooperative: Figure 22 Governance structure

Governing body

Operating staff Members

17.9.7. Governance system For the better working of the lift irrigation, it should be free from any group dynamics which exist in most of the villages and we believe that the actual beneficiaries can take care better if they are given the responsibility of the lift irrigation because these beneficiaries form a common interest. But it is a threat that these small groups of common interest can hijack the lift and can privatize it. As per the policy of the Seva Mandir lift irrigation pump is a property of the village and this can be ensured by giving due representation to all villagers in the pump committee

67

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

through the gram vikas committee. Reason behind giving due representation to villagers is to keep check on pump committees member and prevent them from privatizing the lift or if they prevent any new member, Committee can interfere into the matter. Committee can check the arbitrary decisions, if any. This lift committee will work independently from the GVC because it was observed that although the lift project was initiated by the GVC committee but when their president and other officials do not belong to the beneficiary list they don’t take interest in the lift management and some time even oppose it as happened in Amarpura where officials either belong to another lift which is not operational or are not in the beneficiary list2. But for proper representation of the village, 10 members will be included in the pump governance committee in which president, treasurer and the secretary will be from the lift irrigation beneficiary. The role of representative from the GVC will be to put a check on the lift committee so that they cannot privatize the lift to themselves or restrict the entry of any new comer. We propose existing lift irrigation committee on cooperative principles in which there will be  Governing body  Operating staff  Members 17.9.7.1 Governing body From beneficiaries: 1. President 2. Tresurer 3. Secretary And 2 beneficiaries as members. From the GVC, 5 persons will be included in the governance body as members in which the president of GVC will be ex-officio member of the pump committee. The purpose of including the members from GVC is that it will keep a check on the monopoly of LI members as two-third majority will be required to take any decision related to

2

Amarpura GVC president hukimi chand belong to lift 2 and treasurer is not in the beneficiary list. 68

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

the LIS. Another non-voting member will be the zonal level worker, who can provide the guidance to the committee. 17.9.7.2 Operating staff 1. Operator Operator will be from the beneficiary and should not be a mason who can sideline the pump work if other option is available to him. He should be literate and have good image in the village. The governance body will select the operator. 17.9.7.3 Members Membership criteria For successful management of irrigation, we have to distinguish between members and nonmembers and simultaneously identify the users and non-users or potential users. Again the question is who the members are and what is their eligibility criterion. After Amarpura field observation, it seems that there is no clear cut distinction made between members and nonmembers. Those who deposited GVC are the members; Or those who partially deposited the GVC but taking water from the lift; Or those who did not deposit the GVC but though came under the command area and taking water from the lift. GVC is the part of Seva Mandir policy, which is required to be implemented in an efficient way. So, we suggest that all those farmers who either deposited GVC fully or partially are eligible for the lift irrigation (if this can be implemented in Amarpura, then eligible members are near about 60). For this minimum fees of say Rs. 50 is required, but the member will be given right to vote only when he has fully deposited the GVC.

69

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

17.9.8. Compliance mechanism All those farmers who deposited GVC partially will be given chance to deposit the remaining amount in easy installments of Rs. 100 to Rs. 500 after each crop. All those farmers who are willing to join the lift membership, are required to deposit GVC and membership fee, if not fully, then in installments.

17.9.9. Rules and regulations It is preferred that the committee decides the rules and norms under which it will work. But in order to help its proper functioning, we suggest some rules and regulations, which can be altered by the committee as and when required. Water should be distributed equally among all the beneficiary families irrespective of the ownership of land, which implies that small as well as large landholders are eligible for equal share of the irrigation water. 1. Water will be distributed according to the rules decided by the committee. 2. As far as possible, people having their fields in the tail end or at the extremes should be given extra time to reach water at their fields. All farmers shall have to deposit their share in GVK. The cashier shall keep money for the running expenses and rest shall be put into the bank. For monitoring purpose, a zonal officer will be designated as signatory in the bank account. 3. The group members will elect the committee members and assign them their duties.

70

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

4. In case of conflict, members shall submit their grievances to the committee president and not deal directly with the operator. If any case of misbehavior is found against any member, the committee will decide the required measures of penalty. 17.9.10. Responsibility The pump committee will be formed under the principles of people participation. The purpose of introducing the election and voting right is to make them able to actively participate in the meetings. While electing the committee, members should keep in mind that the skills of record keeping are expected from their representatives. (Later on, this training can also be provided by the implementing agency, if required.). They should call meeting once in a month or before sowing any crop or season. One zonal worker will be a non-voting member of the committee and will inform the developments to Seva Mandir and guide the committee members. We here suggest some responsibilities of the office bearers:

17.9.10.1 President 1. He will have the full responsibility of the pump committee and will take care of the pump and its machinery. 2. He reserves the right to call the meeting of the members anytime, if there is an urgent requirement. 3. He, as a President reserves the right to coordinate and instruct the office bearers and can question them about the pump performance. 4. He shall hold the office till the date he has confidence of the members or a maximum of three years whichever is earlier. However, he can be impeached if minimum 10% of the members duly sign and proposed by at least one member from the beneficiary and one member from GVK committee.

71

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

5. He will be responsible for sorting out any conflicts between the beneficiaries. 6. He will decide the scheduling and criteria for allocation of irrigation water to different crops when water is insufficient.

17.9.10.2 Secretary cum Cashier 1. He shall be responsible for record keeping related to water distribution. 2. He shall take the minutes of all the meetings held. 3. He shall be responsible for all cash transactions in the system including the deposit and withdrawal of money from the maintenance fund. 4. He shall keep ready cash for current expenses. 5. He will issue the passbook to each member, which they will have to produce before operator for entry.

17.9.10.4 Operator 1. He will be responsible for the maintenance of the pump and its parts. 2. He will be responsible for minor repair works. 3. He will monitor the water distribution and schedule it as per the rules decided by the committee. 4. He will maintain the log book in which he has to mention the number of hours for which pump operated, number of hours for which water was taken by the farmer and amount paid and due in that log book.

72

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

73

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

18. DEOPUR 18.1. Project profile Seva Mandir built an anicut over a village stream (bootwala nala) to increase water availability and to support lift irrigation scheme already installed in village in 1986 by DRDA. The lift was not used after the collapse of the weir structure in 1995. This lift as stated above was installed in 1986 with the help of DRDA and the effort of then Sarpanch Moti Singh. About 12 families were taking water from the lift before 1995 (collapse of structure). Meanwhile (between 1986 to 1995) Moti Singh took over the lift and almost virtually privatized it and started lending it to other farmers after eliminating the stake of the other 11 participants. However, the villagers did not deposit the electricity bill in time. As a result, electricity connection was cut–off, thus making the lift dysfunctional. In PRA report, it was stated that through this anicut 29 families within the radius of 1 Km up and down the stream would be able to irrigate their land, which is approximately 22 Ha. In a report prepared by an engineer, it was stated that 6 wells within the 300-meter range of the proposed site would be recharged. Around 15 households of the village Deopur expected to take one additional crop if anicut was constructed on that site, but it is not clear that those 15 households are the same as of 22 families. A proposal was sent to Seva Mandir on 30/9/2002,signed by only 19 villagers including President (GVC) Devilal and Secretary (GVC) Sevaram before installing lift irrigation scheme at the ‘UDARA’(place of anicut) Deopur. Villagers according to the records were taking water from the Som river through electricity motor at the baskaria and gamnara locations.3 Another proposal came from GVC on 20/1/2003 to build an anicut. It was stated that 37 families (earlier the number was 29) would take water from the anicut and contribute 10% of the project cost in GVC. Thus, in this project, beneficiaries would contribute Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- would be contributed from labor, in total Rs. 75,000. This amount was to be deposited in GVC and it was the responsibility of the GVC 3

it is to be noted that this village (Deopur) has three GVC committees of three different fala namely nichla fala,uppra fala and dungri fala and this work was proposed in nichla fala)

74

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

committee to collect the money from the beneficiaries. At the time of visit, the president of the GVC committee was Mr. Prem Shanker / Kuber who was not a beneficiary of the life irrigation scheme. He owned three private water pumps and gave them on rent to the farmers. The villagers removed Gattu Singh from this post, who is now the operator of the lift scheme.

18.2. GVC In Deopur, total number of beneficiaries who would be benefitted by the lift that would become functional after construction of the anicut, as identified by Seva Mandir is 45. Out of these 45 members, the number of members having total amount of contribution due is 5, number of members who have completely deposited their GVC contribution is 30 and number of members who have partially deposited their GVC contribution is10. Figure 23 GVK status: Deopur GVK status of the identified beneficiaries Paid fully

5 Paid partially

10 30

Due fully

Total GVK contribution to be collected from the 45 identified beneficiaries was Rs. 44,525. However, whole of the amount has not yet been recovered and the l amount still due is Rs. 12075. The GVK rate to be contributed by each beneficiary has been calculated as Rs. 500 per bigha.

75

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

At present, in village nichla fala, only 12 beneficiaries are taking water from the lift and giving it on rent to other 8 farmers at @ Rs.120 per hour.

Out of these 12 beneficiaries, 8 have

completely deposited their GVK contribution, 4 still have some amount due (includes pump committee president Kamji and his brother Savji). Out of the 8 farmers who take water on rent @ Rs. 120 per hour, only one has deposited his GVK in full, three have deposited only a partial amount and the remaining four have not deposited any amount in GVK. It is worth mentioning that when anicut was built, all the old beneficiaries (those who were taking water between 1986 to 1995) came together to start the lift again. For recommencing the lift, they had to deposit Rs.26, 000. On this amount, the government gave a rebate of Rs. 13000. But according to the pump operator Gattu Singh, a total amount of Rs. 28,000 was spent on the lift including electricity charges, penalty and pipeline cost and all the 12 beneficiaries shared this cost equally. Thus, each of these 12 beneficiaries contributed about Rs. 2500. It was reported that they (all 12 beneficiaries of the lift) invited other identified beneficiaries to share the cost and become the member of the lift committee but none of them came forward. Out of these twelve beneficiaries, one has not deposited his GVK contribution. After discussion with the farmers, we came to know that the lift connection was cut off because the beneficiaries using the lift earlier were not able to deposit electricity bill in time. Only, the twelve beneficiaries deposited the electricity bill. For the rabi (wheat) crop, the bill came out to be Rs.7000, which is to be deposited by the all the twelve farmers equally.

18.3. Distribution and scheduling criteria: There are three chambers built by DRDA from where water goes to the fields through earthen canals. The scheduling of water is based on the proximity of the chambers to the pump. The water is provided to the first chamber (nearest to the pump) and after all the farmers have taken water through the first chamber, it is brought to the second chamber. All 12 beneficiaries utilize water according to the need irrespective of the number of hours or the area of the landholdings.

76

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

There is no proper scheduling mechanism. The water charges in Deopur are not based on a per bigha basis. There are two systems prevailing for collection of water charges. The twelve committee members pay the electricity bill equally irrespective of the number of hours of utilization. Thus, the farmers owning large amount of cultivable lands within the command area derive greater benefits than the small ones. Under this system one can take as much water he can from the anicut. This we think would also lead to over exploitation of the water resources because it is the tendency of farmers to take as much water as he can. These twelve members have decided a rate of Rs. 120 per hour for all those beneficiaries who did not deposit the electricity bill and want to take water on rent. There was no proper basis or criterion of deciding the rate of Rs. 120 per hour as rent. After some defaults in payment, they stopped giving water to others and presently they are adamant on not giving water to any other farmer. There is no clearly defined membership pattern in the pump committee. Whether one has deposited his GVK contribution or not, if he deposits the electricity bill, he can become the member of the lift irrigation committee. So, broadly there are three groups existing in Deopur: 1. The twelve members of the pump committee. 2. The ones who are among the beneficiaries and taking water on rent. 3. The ones who may or may not lie in the beneficiary list but making a claim to utilize the water from the anicut (it being a common property resource)

18.4. Maintenance Fund There does not exist a separate maintenance fund apart from GVK. Also, there is no record or book-keeping of the operation and maintenance expenses incurred till now. In this year, it was reported that motor winding burnt thrice and it cost Rs.1500 each time. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 4,500 was deposited by the 12 committee members equally and paid for the operation and

77

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

maintenance. We also came to know that one of these 12 members, Savji, used 42 hours of irrigation and it can be inferred that that machine is often operated continuously for more than 12 hours a day. This may be a possible reason for burning of motor winding thrice in a year. We can thus infer that they use water excessively for their farms which can lead to depletion of stored water very soon and fall in water recharging capacity of the anicut.

18.5. Conflicts

1. The purpose of the Seva Mandir to build anicut is to provide water for cattle drinking and recharging the nearby water bodies and simultaneously to support the existing lift irrigation system in the village. But a great chunk of benefit has been captured by few beneficiaries only as some beneficiaries are taking water at a greater rate and some are not taking any benefit. Whether the main purpose of the anicut to provide water for the cattle drinking has been fulfilled or not, is also under question as most of the water is being used in supporting lift irrigation. Another lacuna of the system is that the lift irrigation is being used by very few beneficiaries. 2. Most of the farmers near the anicut (just above the anicut) and at the down stream are not able to reap the benefits from the anicut because it stores most of the water at the upstream and releases very less water into the downstream. This has created a severe conflict in the village and also has somewhat maligned the image of Seva Mandir. The farmers having their landholdings in this area are not happy with Seva Mandir as they are at the disadvantaged position after the anicut has been rebuilt. This led to violent outcome in one of the meetings of Seva Mandir when one sufferer cut the finger of one of the beneficiaries. 3. There are three different groups existing in the village (as already mentioned). Upon discussions with the farmers and our observations, we came to know that some influential person (presently taking benefits from the lift) of the village has virtually 'privatized' the lift. They hold power to include any one in the group. This power imbalance in the lift

78

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

irrigation system is due to the fact that Seva Mandir does not have any stake in the lift and the advantaged group has captured the lift after paying the old electricity bill. 4. There is no effort put up by the GVC president to resolve the matter or to take the corrective steps, as he does not have any incentive to do this. His land is at the bank of the river and he also owns a water pump. He can fulfill his need with the help of his pump, so he has no incentive in resolving the matter. Because of this situation, most of the listed beneficiaries in the scheme are not able to take the benefits of the lift. Moreover, there is no provision of supplying water from the anicut to the farmers having their fields just near the anicut on the upstream It puts big question mark on Seva Mandir's mission to help the most needy section of the society where few influential persons are reaping a major chunk of the benefits. Deopura and it has been diverted towards the richer person of the village. It is following the principle of "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". 5. The chamber carrying water from the lift opens up in the fields of Moti Singh from where water is diverted to the fields of Gattu Singh. There is no cemented or pakka pipeline carrying water to the fields of other farmers. Most of the beneficiaries get water through the earthen canals.

18.6. Problems In Deopura some beneficiaries are gaining at the expense of others. As we have discussed, some beneficiaries have virtually privatized the existing lift irrigation scheme for their use and have reserved the right to include others. Thus, it has become the case of commonized cost privatized benefits. In Deopura, the situation has come to this stage due to lack of intervention by Seva Mandir at the time of its restarting. This lift was established long ago by DRDA and it was not feasible for Seva Mandir to intervene in the lift at that moment but when we talk about the gram vikas then it was the need of the time to include all the possible beneficiaries to increase the stake in the lift.

79

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

The lift has again come into operation due to construction of the anicut in the village at the previous site where old weir structure collapsed. Since both the activities - construction of anicut and commencement of lift happened simultaneously; the villagers perceived that it was due to Seva Mandir that lift had come into operation. At the same time when the benefits are not taken up by the majority of marginal farmers who come under the command area and also deposited GVC, it has increased frustration and anger among them which surfaced in one of the Seva Mandir meetings in the village. Now, the issue here is how to break the monopoly of those 12 beneficiaries who captured the lift for their own use. After analyzing Deopur case, we suggest some alternatives: 1. We do not intervene in this case because after the construction of the anicut, Seva Mandir's image has maligned to some extent. This is evident from the reactions by some farmers who didn’t get the water and had their landholdings in the downstream part of anicut. After the construction of the anicut, water is released to them at restricted quantity and they are not able to use private pumps to irrigate their fields. At the same time, their cattle require water from the anicut for drinking. These two group of farmers stand against the intervention of the Seva Mandir and if we intervene, there is a possibility that we can face violent outburst. 2. For breaking the monopoly of those twelve farmers, we suggest the GVC to intervene in the matter by giving a loan to all possible beneficiaries who come under the command area and currently not taking water but have shown interest in taking water from the lift. For this propose, we have computed the amount to be given to each beneficiary: Total payment by the 12 beneficiaries currently utilizing the lift is Rs. 35000. It includes bill payments, penalty and pipeline costs of Rs. 28000. Electricity bill for the Rabi season is Rs. 7000. So, it is required that Rs. 28,000 be paid to the farmers by the GVC to take over the lift. Henceforth, we need to determine the number of farmers that would fall under the new

80

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

proposed beneficiary list. Out of total 45 listed beneficiaries in the command area, 12 are presently taking water from the lift. The number of remaining beneficiaries is 33. In these 33, we need to determine the number of beneficiaries who would be interested in joining the new lift system. Also, 5 members out of 45 have not deposited any amount in GVK, so they are not eligible for loan. Thus, the number of left out beneficiaries is 28. If we distribute the total cost of Rs. 28000 in all 40 farmers (28+12), it comes out to nearly Rs. 700. But 12 farmers have already paid Rs. 2333 (28000/12) each. After deducting Rs. 700 form Rs.2333, we get an amount of Rs.1567 paid in excess by each of the 12 farmers. So, total amount paid in excess by all 12 farmers is Rs.18804 (1567 *12). Amount collected from 28 farmers is Rs. 19600 (28*700). The amount left after paying to the 12 beneficiaries is Rs. 796 (1960018804). It shows that if we get 27 farmers, we can breakeven the amount required to restart the lift under new setup. If the number of farmers goes below 27, the amount required to be collected increases. The assumption here is that individually we cannot collect more than Rs. 1000 from each farmer. A Sample table showing possible amount to be collected from each farmer for varying number of total farmers is as follows: Table 17 Calculation of loan amount Actual

Possible

TOTAL

Amount

beneficiaries

newcomers

FARMERS

required to be

A

B

N=A+B

collected farmer

12 12 12

27 26 25

(28000/N) 717 736 756

39 38 37

81

per

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

12 12 12 12 12 12

24 23 22 21 20 19

36 35 34 33 32 31

777 800 823 848 875 903

3. Another alternative is to invest the whole amount of Rs.28000 by Seva Mandir GVC committee. In this case, the existing membership will be abolished and fresh member ship will be issued to all potential beneficiaries. (Shall be mentioned in the governance structure). This amount of Rs. 28000 will be reimbursed to all 12 beneficiaries so that their claim over the lift ceases. After the new membership is issued, the electricity bill shall be shared by all the beneficiaries in proportion to the number of hours of utilization. This would prevent the over utilization of water resource and at the same time, it would also lead to an equity and efficiency. 4. One more feasible but costly alternative is to install a new lift (by Seva Mandir) for those marginalized farmers who are not getting the benefit even after the construction of the anicut and fall under the command area. But, constructing a lift with all accessories requires an amount of about Rs.3 lakh. This may not be a practical solution because after installing another lift on the same location, it may lead to conflicts dividing the community into two groups - lift1 beneficiaries (DRDA) and lift 2 beneficiaries (Seva Mandir) which may further spoil the village harmony. But by working upon alternatives 2 and 3, we find that investigation for the feasible solution would depend upon the GVC initiative whether it wants to give loan or wants to take over the lift by paying Rs. 28000. On further analysis, we suggest that alternative 2 in which we talk about giving loans to the potential beneficiaries may not end up giving the best results because in this case we are paying the amount to actual beneficiaries (12) and even after receiving the claim, it may happen that these 12 beneficiaries may be treated as primary on account of the fact that they were the ones who restarted the lift and the newcomer farmers may face secondary treatment.

82

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

Thus, possible solution we suggest is to make all 12 beneficiaries realize that the lift irrigation scheme installed by DRDA belongs to the whole village and in every possible manner; it should cater to the needs of the whole village and not few beneficiaries. For this, GVC needs to take full control over the lift scheme by paying them Rs. 28000, which can be recovered later by the members in installments. But the need of the hour is to break the monopoly of the few beneficiaries. The above activities, if undertaken, would improve the image of Seva Mandir in the eyes of villagers and they would be able to understand the real benefits of keeping the Gram Vikas Kosh in the village.

19. TRAINING

83

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

19.1. Training for proper management of lift irrigation Providing training to the beneficiaries as well as the Seva Mandir workers regarding such projects is an important realization that occurred to us while we were undertaking the study on costs and benefits analysis and management of lift irrigation. Training is required at different stage of project that is during formulation to implementation stage and then after training for proper maintenance of the system. The project aims to make use of perennial water sources such as streams, which are a common good. For this apart from the engineers, which are professionally qualified, we need to train the zonal worker in identification of such sites and the potential beneficiaries. The project seeks to intervene in areas where the agriculture is mostly rain fed and the target groups of beneficiaries have little or no access to other irrigation sources. This implies introducing the concept of collective ownership of irrigation, which may be non-existent in selected site, or village and irrigation was largely associated with individual ownership. While addressing the technical issues in training we focused on the management aspects which involves orientation on various issues such as equity and efficiency in water distribution, the need for scheduling, rationing of time during peak hours, incentive system for the operators, importance of timely payments and a corpus for proper maintenance as well as for replacement in the future. Side by side identify the criteria which can be used in finding the location of chambers and their required number so that we can maximize the irrigation efficiency and able to provide irrigation to all beneficiary under the principal of equity.

19.1.1. Training at the formulation stage

84

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

The implementing team of Seva Mandir should prepare a pre feasibility report for each proposed site of intervention. This should include report on social, technical and economical feasibility of the projects. 19.1.1.1 Technical 1. More training for PRA team in identification of the boundaries. For example through transact across the village gave an idea of physical and social dimension of command area and its beneficiaries. 2. It includes the identification of chambers to be required and their location so that maximum beneficiaries can get irrigation at minimum cost. For this we can train them by using the operation research method like PERT or CPM. This would suggest the possible routes through which if we construct the pipeline we would be able to reach maximum beneficiaries. 3. Before implementing the project we must have the counter maps of the site, which help in avoiding that location, which are at height and on which construction of chamber would lead to negative results. Contour map also helps in designing the canal on the contour over which water can flow through gravity. 4. Main focus of this report is to study how many poor and marginalized farmers would get benefits from the projects. In this feasibility should not be on the basis of the numbers of the beneficiary but on the number of land holding exist in the command area to ensure that the target group of poor and the marginalized is given priority. 5. Record keeping for such project is required like standard format for the auditing the cost of the projects if possible on computer, which can be used by the different block engineers. This help in comparing the different projects. 6. There is lack of coordination between the technical person and the person dealing with the social aspect of the village lack of coordination lead some time inefficiency in the project like improper location of chambers. In this case they require training for better coordination between them before going into the filed.

85

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

19.1.1.2 Economical 1. What should be the optimum size of beneficiary will be require with respect to the cost of project which can categorize the economical feasible. 2. For this team should conduct the financial analysis of the project with respect to the beneficiaries and with respect to the project. Through this the economical size required can be determined. 19.1.1.3 Social 1. Project appraisal training: What percentage of the signatory are require before sanction of the project say absolute majority (2/3 of total) or simple majority (1/2 of total) apart from knowing the fact that these project are target based but if we ensure before implementing the project about the beneficiary then we would not end up in the messing the project which happen in amarpura (lift 2 which is not operational) 2. For efficient management and smooth running of the lift projects both the workers and the villagers are required to train to find out possible mechanism under which the lift management committee will work. This could prevent the privatization of lift by few beneficiaries, which happen in the devpura case. In this more training is required to field workers to assist the villagers in finding such solution.

19.1.2. During Implementation 19.1.2.1 Technical This includes the technical suggestion given to the farmers about the irrigation method they used. For example at presently due to uneven slope of the land irrigation do not reach to whole fields evenly so providing them (beneficiary) the different type of method like furrow irrigation, border irrigation or the check basin methods depending upon the size and shape and the soil type of the filed. This could be part of the extension program. 19.1.2.2 Social

86

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

1. Training given on the collective action and cooperation to zonal workers 2. Formation of the committee, which includes proper representation of the beneficiaries. 3. Define the membership criteria, in this the worker will be given training to work with community and help in finding the solution in getting good committee and their rule and norms. 4. The proposal from the group of beneficiaries should also include the details of the management system, which they would like to put in place. 19.1.2.3 Economical Training on the project appraisal: Project can be revised as per the actual beneficiary amendments or addition in any part of the project through which project efficiency can be increase this will possible if workers are given training to take decision in the filed situation only if the incremental cost of the project is less then incremental benefits.

19.1.3. After project implementation After the implementation, the training will be required for the committee and the operator for the smooth function of the project. This includes 19.1.3.1 Technical 1. For proper maintenance of the system operator is required to give training on the repair and maintenance of pump, which during the peak time when the pump under maximum load and there will chance of failure of pulley belt, pump part or the diesel set. This will reduce the dependency on the external agency (private mechanics) to come and repair 2. Maintaining the record for the day-to-day operation of the life according to date wise, hour wise, farmers wise.

87

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

3. Maintain the scheduling chart week wise for different crop and season. This will mention the hours of use in particular crop, season and by the each farmers. 4. In case the water availability is less then direct them to use less water requirement crop .for this workers are required to train in crop water management. 19.1.3.2 Economical 1. Maintain the expenditure record season wise and crop wise which mention the major and minor maintenance record. This will help in tracking the performance of the pump so that the committee and the operator for smooth functioning of lift can take preventive maintenance. 2. Issue the casebook to each individual and entry the hours of use, amount paid and due in that. This will help in cross checking and monitoring the system. 3. Given a guidance for the proper recovery of the water charges by the workers which can be alter as per the suitability of the committee and the operator 19.1.3.3 Social Form the committee and clear the rule and norms through which the committee can take the measure for equitable distribution of water to the farmers. The preliminary orientation of the proposed beneficiaries would serve the following purposes: 1. Each farmer would be able to judge for himself/herself what would be the actual cost of irrigation for him/her including running costs, payment towards maintenance fund, GVK etc. It would help each beneficiary to be able to choose the best option of irrigation for himself if other alternatives such as private pumps exist in the area. Thus it would prevent backing out of beneficiaries after the implementation of the irrigation system when they find the cost of irrigation to their fields uneconomical. 2. The beneficiaries would be able to realize the importance of mutual cooperation for achieving sustainability of the system and economy in water distribution. Consequently

88

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

the importance of electing a man agent committee who would be able to do justice to the task entrusted to them would be realized. 3. There would be an effort to set up the entire governing and management system with all rules and regulations regarding criteria of water distribution, scheduling, payments, contribution etc in place before the proposal is accepted. Thus becoming a member of the beneficiary group is am informed decision for each of the beneficiary. This would also help in preventing any vested interests to devise s system, which is more advantageous to them.

89

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

20. CONCLUSION The project provided us an opportunity to understand the various aspects concerned with the planning, designing and implementation of water resource development activities particularly irrigation projects. During the course of study for the project our main focus was on the project title and hence some of our learnings could not be incorporated in the project but a mention of these may provide some useful insights about such programmes. First of all, the irrigation projects such as the lift irrigation systems and water harvesting structures are the most apt examples of programmes, which address the core need of the target group. Given the drought proneness of the region and the water scarcity no amount of technological innovations in agriculture can make as significant a difference as irrigation. This is obvious even from the findings of the study which indicate a two to three fold increase in productivity without any other change in application of other agricultural inputs. Thus the importance of irrigation for improving the returns from agriculture cannot be overlooked. Besides agriculture the impact on other aspects of livelihood has also been significant. This conforms the need-based nature of the programme. Thus it becomes important to ensure that such projects are implemented in a manner which not only ensures full utilization of its potential but also equity in its use. The experience in the 3 villages under study are an example how the lack of proper management system can become the major problem in achieving the envisaged objectives of the project namely strengthening the livelihoods of the poor and the marginalized, creating sustainable village institutions etc. and even raise questions on the utility of such big investments when the objectives are not being realized. Herein comes the importance of a properly designed management system which has inbuilt mechanism to ensure that the interests of the poor and the marginalized are protected and the facilities created remain a public property of the village and are not privatized by an individual or a group. Thus the focus in planning and designing of all such water resource development activities which envisage collective usage by only a particular group but at the same time are meant to be a public asset should not only include the technical aspects of the construction and usage of the facilities created but also pay equal importance to ensure that a fair and sustainable management system is

90

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

designed and put in place. This would mean that the organization’s role should not be limited to the creation and transfer of these facilities to the beneficiaries but should now be expanded to include setting up of proper institutions to manage these. The long years of experience in natural resource development particularly water resource development activities and the technical competence in the form of experienced and qualified staff are the strength of the NRD unit and Seva Mandir, however, the challenge would now be to devise effective management systems which are simple and comprehensive and which also take into account the unique socio- political situation in each village. The process may be a long drawn one and may involve unforeseen difficulties but if such management systems come into force they can serve as a model for replication in the respective villages for management and use of collective goods.

91