 |
| |
The Ozar Water User Societies:
Impact of Society Formation and Co-management of Surface Water and
Groundwater
|
|
| |
Suhas Paranjape,
SOPPECOM
K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM
Chris Scott, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Hyderabad
|
|
| |
1.Background and Methodology
The Ozar WUAs and the need for the study
This paper is based on a recent study, “The Ozar Water User
Societies: Impact of Society Formation and Co-management of Surface
Water and Groundwater” supported by International Water Management
Institute (IWMI). The Samaj Parivarthan Kendra (SPK) initiated the
Ozar WUAs --Banganga, Mahatma Phule and Jay Yogeshwar -- in 1990-91
with technical support from SOPPECOM. The WUAs have performed very
well by any of the conventional norms like irrigation efficiency,
increase in the ICA, maintenance of the system, managing the water
properly, collection of water charges, etc.
They have also provided an example of co-management of groundwater
and surface water. They have built a number of check dams on the
nallahs and streams flowing through their command and use them to
harvest rain water, store their unused quota of canal water and
help recharge wells and thus increase water availability, irrigated
area, area under high value crops like vegetables and grapes. In
the Mahatma Phule WUA, the farmers also pay certain water charges
to the WUA for using water from their wells and have developed simple
methods of monitoring well water levels and estimating the charge.
The Ozar societies have come to be known widely as an example of
successful participative management. They have helped form many
more societies on the Waghad system of which they form a part. It
is now more than ten years since their command area was turned over
to the WUAs and merits a fresh look at the experience they have
accumulated. Though there are some studies available, most of these
concentrate on the first few years of the societies. Sufficient
time had not elapsed by then for trends to work themselves through
and for the functioning to stabilise as it has done in the last
few years. A study of the Ozar experience at this point of time
therefore was expected to give us greater insights into the process
that resulted in such a successful example of participation as well
as provide valuable clues to how issues in the co-management of
groundwater and surface water and to some extent, local and exogenous
water, were tackled.
There were a number of issues, for example: What was the process
through which they approached new and distinctive directions? What
were the factors that facilitated their adoption of these directions?
How did the different stakeholders react, the well owners, the non-well
owners, the government department (after all breaking the well-canal
nexus has so far been a shibboleth with the Irrigation Department)
to their ideas of integration and co-management of groundwater and
surface water? How were compromises reached? There are difficult
issues of mensuration involved. How were they sorted out? How have
things been routinised? And what has been the impact of the formation
of WUAs? Has concentration of benefits increased or decreased? Have
the `last' benefited despite a growing concentration?
Objectives of the study
It was on this background that the study was taken up. It had three
main objectives. The first objective of the study is a systematic
process documentation of the experience generated by the three WUAs.
It covers the different stages, steps, negotiations with the ID,
the people, etc., the problems encountered and how solutions were
found. It also tries to isolate some of the factors and situations
that have contributed to the apparent success of these WUAs and
highlights the role that the Samaj Parivartan Kendra (SPK) and the
ideas held by Bapu Upadhye and Bharat Kawle of the SPK played in
the Ozar societies' unique handling of the co-management issue,
and the role of hourly basis of deliveries to the individual farmer
by the societies.
The second objective of the study was to utilise the voluminous
data contained in the records of the WUAs and supplement it with
household data from a fresh primary survey to make a comparative
analysis of the pre- and post- WUA formation scenarios and attempt
to understand the differential impact of society formation on different
sections within the command. And the third objective of the study
was to isolate and discuss issues specifically related to the co-management
of groundwater and surface water.
Methodology of the study
The first important instrument of the study is the fair amount of
literature available about the Ozar experience, though most of it
deals with the early period of the Ozar societies, up to about 1997.
This pool of secondary data includes the personal memoirs of Bapu
Upadhye, an SPK study of the Ozar experience of participation both
covering the initial period, an IIM study pamphlet published in
1996, a groundwater study by the GSDA, and a student monograph on
groundwater use.
The other important source of data was the extensive and detailed
record maintained by the three societies that runs right up to the
year 2001-2002. Since most of the earlier literature covers the
data for the period up to about 1997, the study concentrates on
the data for the last six years that may be said to reflect the
position after the trends initiated in the early years had time
to work themselves out and establish themselves. A field survey
that collected information on a household basis was also undertaken
to supplement the information from the two sources mentioned above
because in practice, the social unit is not the individual beneficiary,
who is the unit of official records, but the household, which may
consist of more than one beneficiary. The survey was meant to throw
more light on the inter-household distribution of assets and benefits.
Survey method and sample
The survey was conducted by administering a questionnaire that consisted
of both structured and unstructured questions. No systematic proofing
or cross checking was attempted since it was not possible to do
so within the limitations imposed by time and resources. The findings
have significance in terms of indicating broad trends but should
not be considered to be quantitatively precise. For some of the
processing, the additional data were pulled from the records and
discussions with farmers and SPK and societies' office bearers.
For example, the crop pattern was based on questionnaire responses
but productivity and price were derived from the data that the societies’
records.
Since the co-management initiative was the strongest in the Mahatma
Phule Society, it was decided to conduct a census survey for that
society. For the other two societies, a sample of about 10% of households
spread over the head, middle and tail reaches and covering different
operational holding sizes was drawn. Finally, 96 households (covering
more than 80% of the beneficiaries) were surveyed from Mahatma Phule,
17 households (covering about 7% of the beneficiaries) from Banganga
and 34 households (covering 10% of the beneficiaries) from Jay Yogeshwar
could be covered.
Comparison years and computation of income
To study the impact, 1991-92 was taken as the reference year. It
represents the earliest year for which comparable data is available,
a year when the society was being formed, but its impact had not
begun to be felt to a great degree. It also represents the last
year before turnover. We have chosen to compare the reference year
with the years 1996-97 to 2001-2002, and the average of the later
five years that would also take some account of the variation of
rainfall regimes. For the process documentation, we have relied
on intensive interviews with the SPK activists and the WUA office
bearers. Some knowledgeable farmers also attended these meetings.
Computing incomes
In our pilot testing we found that agricultural incomes was not
reported with consistency. Moreover, our earlier experience also
indicated that building in cross checks does not greatly increase
consistency. We therefore opted for calculating agricultural income
as an imputed value on the basis of the agricultural information
provided by the respondent. We treated the cropping pattern as reported
by the respondent as the starting point. On the basis of society's
record and the discussions carried out at Ozar and within SOPPECOM,
estimated productivity table for crops before and after the society
formation was prepared. Production was computed on this basis.
The other thorny issue was that of prices. It was not possible to
pin down the `before' period with sufficient precision to arrive
at a meaningful reference prices. The fluctuations in the prices
of some of the produce, seasonal as well as across years, created
another problem. Finally, we decided to compute both before and
after incomes at constant prices, using the average price for the
last six years as recorded by the societies in their records. It
should be noted that this does not truly compare (with whatever
degree of precision it does, which is a separate question) the income
then with the income now. Instead the comparison is more close to
a `what if' comparison. What if the farmers today had the crop pattern
they had earlier, what would their income be? This sense of the
comparison needs to be kept in mind
2. The Ozar Water User Societies: The
Process
The background
The three water user societies in Ozar, Maharashtra, namely, the
Banganga Water Distribution Co-operative Society, the Mahatma Phule
Water Distribution Co-operative Society and the Jay Yogeshwar Water
Distribution Co-operative Society (shortened to Banganga, Mahatma
Phule and Jay Yogeshwar societies in what follows) lie in the extreme
tail portion of the Right Bank Canal (RBC) of the Waghad dam command
area. (Fig.s 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on the location
of the Ozar societies.)
The Waghad dam, built across the Kolwan River, is one of the four
dams (the other three being Ozarkhed, Karanjwan and Palkhed) that
comprise the Upper Godavari Project. The Waghad system has been
planned to service an irrigable command area (ICA) of about 59,000
ha spread over 180 villages in six talukas of three districts in
Maharashtra.
Table 2.1: Some relevant details of the Upper Godavari
Project
(comprising Waghad, Ozarkhed, Karanjwan and Palkhed dams) |
|
Upper Godavari Project
|
Waghad system |
Gross Storage
|
341.14 Million m3
|
76.5 Million m3 |
Live Storage
|
317.68 Million m3 |
70 Million m3 |
Gross Command Area (GCA)
|
104,100 ha |
13,500 ha |
| Culturable Command Area (CCA) |
89,400 ha |
9,640 ha |
| Irrigable Command Area (ICA) |
59,000 ha |
6,750 ha |
| |
|
SPK 1994, p. 1 |
The Waghad dam was constructed in 1979 just downstream of an old
defective earthen dam. The canals are eight monthly canals, with
no assured provision for summer watering. In the planning stages
there was no provision for the Right Bank Canal (RBC), and was included
only later, after considerable pressure. The Waghad system canal
network now comprises a 15 km long Left Bank Canal (LBC) and a 45
km long RBC and was completed in 1985.
The Samaj Parivartan Kendra
The major initiative in setting up the Ozar societies was taken
by the Samaj Parivartan Kendra (SPK) a social organisation in the
area, founded and presided over by the Late Bapu Upadhye until his
death. His close colleague and then Vice-President of SPK, Bharat
Kawle, accompanied him in all his efforts. Both hailed from Ozar
town, a thriving town about 16 km north of Nashik on National Highway
No. 3., were socialists by conviction and have led lives dedicated
to serving the interests of the workers, the landless, the women
and the downtrodden.
The area comprising the three Ozar societies
The operational area of the three Ozar societies – the Banganga
Water Users' Society, the Mahatma Phule Water Users' Society and
the Jay Yogeshwar Society – comprises a contiguous geographical
area of about 1300 ha with gross and culturable command areas as
shown below in Table 2.2. However, the three societies differ considerably
in many respects.
| Table
2.2: Gross and Culturable Command Areas of the Ozar Societies |
| Society |
Banganga |
Mahatma Phule
|
Jay Yogeshwar |
| Minor |
Distributary 1 of Sub-Minor
3 |
Minors 17 and 18
|
Minors 18A and 19 |
| Gross Command Area (GCA) |
249 ha |
432 hp |
615 hp |
Culturable Command Area (CCA)
|
216 hp
|
340 hp |
595 hp |
| |
|
|
SPK
1994, p. 9 |
The Banganga command forms the North most portion of this contiguous
area drained by the Banganga River and the soils are virtually all
deep black soils. The Jay Yogeshwar command forms the South most
portion and is divided into two broad zones one with very shallow
and poorly textured soils near the minor and better soils nearer
to the Ghagra nala that drains the command. The Mahatma Phule command
lies in between the two and is drained by the Satwai nala and the
soils here are shallow to very shallow, are poorly textured and
the proportion of deep or heavy soils is very small. The Ghagra
nala originates almost within the command and has a very small catchment,
the Satwai nala has a much larger catchment, while the Banganga
river has the largest catchment area.
Before the Waghad dam was built only the land falling now under
the Banganga command had some irrigation. There are two old bandharas
(check dams) of the KT Weir type on the Banganga river that served
the Banganga area. This irrigation system, referred to as `second
class’ irrigation[1], was entirely
farmer managed. The system provided the farmers with water during
the late kharif season and also helped in the preparatory phase
for the rabi season. It rarely had water in the summer. However,
the network of channels also meant that wells were replenished from
seepage and could provide the necessary supplements till the end
of the rabi season. The soils being heavy and rich in texture, and
the irrigation was sufficient to stabilise two crops on the land
for most of the years in the old days. Most of the land now falling
in the Mahatma Phule and Jay Yogeshwar societies was rainfed and
only a few had wells.
During the '70s, irrigation systems developed upstream and there
was a sharp reduction in flows into the Banganga weirs. Dependability
was hit, there was a scramble for water and earlier well settled
norms and procedures began to be breached. By 1985, when the Waghad
canal system was completed, the system had virtually fallen into
disrepair. Having successfully agitated for inclusion of the RBC,
the farmers' expectations had grown, and once the Waghad system
was operative this led to a further build up. The Ozar portion of
the Waghad system, placed at the tail end of the system, was reported
to receive barely 50 to 100 ha irrigation.
The 1990 Rahuri seminar
Every account of the Ozar initiative marks its beginning as the
1990 Rahuri seminar that Bapu and Bharat attended. The Rahuri seminar
was organised by the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (MPKV), Rahuri,
one of the four Agricultural Universities in Maharashtra state and
the Centre for Applied Systems Analysis in Development (CASAD).
R. K. Patil and S. N. Lele, who were then with CASAD, had pioneered
Participative Irrigation Management (PIM) in Maharashtra through
the Water Users' Society that they helped form on Minor 7 of the
Mula project. They had taken an active role in organising the seminar
and they presented their experience of Mula Minor 7 arguing strongly
for Water Users' Societies taking over irrigation management. Bapu
strongly believed that it was greatly possible to extend the irrigated
area in the state if only we did away with administrative obstacles,
changed the attitude of officialdom, rooted out corruption and relied
on the farmers. The Rahuri seminar struck a chord in him and he
returned with a resolve to attempt something on similar lines in
Ozar. It also inaugurated a fruitful interaction and collaboration
between SPK and Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management
(SOPPECOM) [2].
Organisational effort
Bapu and Bharat launched an intensive organisational effort with
the SPK and they started with the farmers now part of the Banganga
society, since they were at the extreme tail. The Banganga farmers
were receptive not only because they were deprived of water, but
also because they understood the significance of irrigation much
better. A series of small baithaks preceded a formal meeting organised
on 15 June 1990, less than a month after the Rahuri seminar that
was also attended by SOPPECOM personnel. More than 100 farmers attended
including some farmers from other minors as well. Farmers raised
two main issues at the intense and prolonged discussion at the meeting:
one, discipline and two, cost. Detailed calculations and examples
of how the problems were tackled in Mula Minor 7 convinced most
farmers that the somewhat higher cost would be outweighed by the
benefits of assured and equitable access to water.
Deciding on the number and jurisdiction of the societies
A unanimous decision was taken to form a water users' society of
the Banganga farmers on SM3. Farmers from other minors who attended
also wanted SPK to take the initiative in forming water users' societies
on their minors, and the meeting ended by deciding to explore the
possibility of bringing all the Ozar farmers in the Waghad command
into a single water user society.
Initially, the irrigation officials insisted on a hydraulic unit,
and one society for every minor. While the SPK agreed in principle,
they pointed out that administrative boundaries did not always match
hydraulic boundaries: for example, the head reach of SM3 lies in
Dindori taluka while the tail reach lies in Niphad taluka. Also,
SPK had worked mainly among the farmers in Ozar. These kinds of
difficulties are not uncommon and the issue is whether priority
should be given to social effectivity or to the unit of organisation.
A rigid hydraulic unit often creates management units that have
no cohesiveness and consequently do not perform well.
Finally, SPK was allowed to retain what they saw as the best compromise
between social effectivity and hydraulic boundaries. It was decided
that three societies, one, the Banganga society on the portion of
SM3 command that lay mainly in Ozar, the Mahatma Phule society on
Minors 17 and 18 and the Jay Yogeshwar society on Minors 18A and
19. It allowed the societies to have contiguous hydraulic sub-units
that were also administratively cohesive and similarly placed in
respect of social action.
However, since strict hydraulic units were not followed, separate
Standing Wave Flumes (SWFs) and automatic gauge recorders had to
be installed and the irrigation officials agreed to install them.
With these decisions taken the societies were speedily formed. The
societies applied for registration in December 1990 and were duly
registered on 8 March 1991, within three months!
The issue of the seasonal quotas
Carrying over seasonal quotas
The vexed problem of determining the seasonal quotas took a lot
of discussion between the irrigation officials, SPK and SOPPECOM
until it was resolved. The farmers wanted water saved from the kharif
quota to be carried over to the rabi season. The officials pointed
out that since the kharif quota, if used, is supposed to be replenished
during the kharif season itself, it did not make any difference
to the rabi quota since any unutilised portion would not be added
to storage.
The relationship between the rabi and the hot weather quota was
simpler to resolve. For the Waghad system, technically, the farmers
were not entitled to canal water during summer. However, there was
a provision that they may be provided water in the summer if there
is sufficient water in the dam. The farmers wanted that a similar
saving in the rabi quota be carried over to the summer season. This
was agreed to and was included in the MoU [3].
Irrigation scheduling
The farmers also requested that the irrigation season be treated
to begin from two weeks later than the usual departmental practice.
They pointed out that the crop calendar prevalent in the area did
not match the calendar of deliveries as scheduled by the department.
This became part of the MoU and the kharif irrigation season is
taken to extend up to 31 October and the rabi up to 15 March. The
farmers' request also makes sense from another point of view. The
farmers may well be able to provide water to their crops during
in the immediate post monsoon season because the wells still have
water. If canal irrigation is provided later, then later recharge
from canal water takes place that much longer and the total period
during which irrigation can be maintained increases.
CCA or ICA – what should be the basis?
One important point of initial divergence was the insistence of
SPK and the farmers that the quota should be determined on the basis
of the Culturable Command Area (CCA) and not on the basis of the
Irrigable Command Area (ICA) as was department practice. After several
exercises and rounds of discussion the department agreed to determine
the total quotas on the basis of CCA. However, the division into
kharif and rabi quotas came to be fixed on an ad-hoc basis. The
quotas granted then to these societies are summarised below in Table
2.3.
| Table
2.3: Irrigation quotas of the Ozar societies [4] |
| WUA |
CCA |
Kharif quota ('000 m3)
|
Rabi quota
('000 m3) |
| Banganga |
216 |
424 |
528 |
| Mahatma Phule |
340 |
440 |
1,016 |
Jay Yogeshwar
|
595
|
1,216 |
1,410 |
| |
|
|
SPK
1994, p. 10 |
The SPK insistence on CCA based quotas make more sense than is immediately
apparent. The concept of what is irrigable and what is not is much
more subjective than the concept of what land is culturable or not.
For example, it is quite possible that after water comes to the
area, the farmers will put extra effort and sufficient inputs to
make culturable but supposedly unirrigable land irrigable. From
a long term view, therefore, it makes sense to allocate the quota
according to CCA rather than ICA.
Joint inspection, turn over and trial rotation
A similar pragmatic approach and an attempt to reach a balance are
evident in the joint inspection and turnover. In August 1990 a joint
inspection was carried out and details of the repair and upgradation
required prior to turn over were drawn up. SPK saw to it that all
details were meticulously recorded. The task turned out to be much
larger than anticipated and if turnover was to await completion,
it would take a couple years. On the other hand, if it was not,
farmers would have an inefficient system on their hands and for
encouragement and participation a reasonably efficient performance
in the early years was important.
A balance was struck through a combination of measures. A priority
list of works was drawn up; to be completed before turnover and
the department was to complete the rest of the works within a
stipulated period. Farmers volunteered to take up a considerable
amount of work, with each farmers' group choosing a task commensurate
to its ability. Most field channels and even a part of the main
channel were repaired this way. The MoU was signed in November
1991 and after most of the priority works were completed, the
system was formally turned over to the societies in March 1992.
Even then a substantial section was sceptical and thought that
a system that could irrigate at best 50 ha, however improved,
would not supply water to the tail portions in the command. These
issues were sorted out by the first test rotation of September-October.
Water flowed through most of the command, and though patches were
left out, it was clear that water could reach all parts of the
designated command. It also pinpointed locations at which the
lack of or improper field channels were a bottleneck and also
areas of heavy seepage and specific locations that needed specific
treatment.
Even more important was the overall impact of the trial rotation.
It almost became a festival with children joining in as groups
of farmers moved around and feasted their eyes on the flowing
water. Most of the Jay Yogeshwar and Mahatma Phule commands had
never seen even a rabi crop. The possibility of receiving water
became a live possibility and farmers took on the task of removing
the obstacles to the circulation of water within the command with
redoubled effort. After this rotation the balance shifted clearly
in favour of the societies and silenced the sceptics and the troublemakers.
Organisational matters
SPK's role
The most important factor in the Ozar societies' unique brand of
success is the role played by SPK. SPK differs from other NGOs in
that it is not an `outsider', professional NGO. The leadership as
well as the broad membership and the following of SPK were all drawn
from the same area. Bapu and Bharat were both from Ozar and had
close links with local people and the local farmers through their
social activity. Secondly, SPK was conscious of minimising its own
role in the long run.
In the first preparatory phase almost all the work was being handled
by SPK. With the formation of the societies, responsibility began
to devolve, but without SPK delinking or withdrawing. Initially
three SPK members were part of the managing committees of all the
three societies. Today no SPK member is part of the societies' management
committee. However, SPK is always there to help if the societies
face a problem that they feel is beyond their capacity. SPK plays
a role in inter-society matters as well as in larger policy matters,
and system-wide co-ordination of the 19 water user societies that
have now been formed on the Waghad system.
Technical capability and meticulous record-keeping
The other important aspect of the Ozar societies is the high level
of technical ability that they have been able to mobilise from within
and outside. The continued support and help that SOPPECOM has provided,
based on the common vision SOPPECOM and SPK share, is an example.
However, SPK's own ability in respect of technical matters is crucial.
To use technical support, and to use it rightly and judiciously
requires a high degree of understanding and grasp of technical matters.
Both Bapu and Bharat show this grasp and facility. SPK has been
able to put together a team of farmers that combines among them
experience in farming, social standing, a grasp of the main issues
involved, organisational ability as well as technical expertise.
This team now comprises the main office bearers of the three societies.
Special mention must be made here of Rajabhau Kulkarni who is an
Agricultural Engineer and a farmer. He has helped establish procedures
for monitoring and carrying through technical tasks, keep meticulous
and detailed records and find the right balance between purely technical
solutions and the social requirements of the situation.
Functioning together
Though the three societies are three separate legal and functional
entities, they function in a manner that gives them a larger collective
identity and a number of benefits. The societies and SPK share a
common office in Lohianagar and a common secretary, though all other
office bearers and the canal operators are separate. The common
office, the common secretary and the presence of SPK see to it that
the earlier common bond is preserved. A co-ordination committee
of the three societies tackles common or inter-society matters and
also includes SPK activists. The most obvious important benefit
has been the saving of cost. Another has been the transfer of personnel
when needed. There are often mutual adjustments when the canal operators
are `lent' by one society to another to clear bottlenecks or to
help as yet semi-trained persons acquire full capability.
More important is the greater speed with which learning, debate
and discussion, and procedures are transferred across the societies'
boundaries though different societies do adopt different practices
in many respects. It is important that the societies do not get
rigidly locked into different practices and there is a broad direction
of consensus towards which they move. Even in societies that do
not accept a new practice, there is a better understanding of and
often consensus on the principle behind it.
Extending participation to project level
There are now 19 registered water user societies on the Waghad RBC
that cover almost all the command. The next logical step would be
the formation of a federation of WUAs at the canal level, if not
at the project or system level. It may be argued that until such
federation and turnover at the project level takes place, there
cannot be participatory decision making in the full sense. Yet this
has not taken place in Ozar. [5]
Taking action only when a felt need emerges
The discussion brought out, firstly that not forming a federation
at this stage is a conscious decision. They believe that federation
has first to emerge as a felt need on the part of the WUAs. At present
they have a co-ordinating body of all the WUAs on the Waghad RBC
and this body that takes on the task of negotiating with the state
on matters of common interest and they believe this should continue
until the formation of a single body becomes a felt need that arises
from below.
This seems to be a general philosophy of action for SPK that issues
need not be taken up until they become felt needs. They make a distinction
between raising an issue, talking about it, discussing it and taking
specific action on the issue. While they raised issues of co-management
that went far beyond felt needs, there was a discussion that went
on for almost three years before ideas of co-management were accepted
and action taken. Similarly, while the issue of levying a charge
on wells was raised and discussed in all the three societies, action
was taken only in Mahatma Phule, since in the other societies a
general consensus has not emerged, though there is strong section
that advocates such a step.
Accountability: the so-called `Karanjvan dam water theft'
One consequence of the formation of WUAs is seen in the uncovering
of the `water theft' from the Karanjwan dam in the district. Since
2001-02 was a bad year, extra reservation was made for drinking
and the WUAs went to the collector in May 2002 to ascertain its
exact extent and also pleaded with him to give due consideration
to irrigation needs. The collector sent for the information and
on that basis directed the authorities to release about 187 mcft
into the Kadva river but the Executive Engineer, Palkhed Division,
found the storage to be much lower. When even by June 2002, no action
was taken, the WUAs approached the newspapers and the scandal broke.
The shortfall was estimated to be 202 mcft by the irrigation officials
while the newspaper reports claimed it was 318 mcft. Three officials
were suspended and an enquiry has been set up. The officials claim
it was a case of negligent record keeping while the newspapers claimed
underhand sale of water.
The important point is the role that the WUAs played in this. Formation
of WUAs and MoUs based on volumetric shares has had an important
role to play in bringing some degree of accountability in the whole
episode. It is because of these MoUs that the WUAs could ask for
and obtain the necessary records, which later exposed the discrepancy.
3. The Ozar Water User Societies: The
Impact
Overall impact - the societies' records
The Ozar WUAs’ meticulous and detailed records allow us to
assess the impact of societies. As has been discussed earlier, we
decided to treat the year 1991-92 as the reference year for comparison.
We compare the years 1996-97 to 2001-2002 with the reference year.
We also include an average of the later five years for comparison,
which would also take some account of the different kinds of rainfall
regimes. All the data below in this sub-section are based on the
data provided by the three societies from their records.
Membership and members availing of irrigation:
All the three societies have been formed, so to speak, at one go
with between 60 and 70 per cent membership, and has risen a little
to between 75 and 86 per cent with Jay Yogeshwar having the highest
and the Banganga the lowest percentages. If we look at the number
of farmers availing of irrigation, we see a clear effect of the
nature of rainfall and dam storage. On an average, in Banganga,
33% and 21% of the farmers, in Mahatma Phule 53% and 37%, and in
Jay Yogeshwar 53% and 34% availed of rabi and summer irrigation
respectively.
Cropped Area and Cropping Intensity:
In Banganga, though both kharif and rabi season cropped area shows
only a small increase of 5% and 10% because both were already substantially
high. The main change here is the increase in summer cropped area,
increasing from 5% to 39%. In Mahatma Phule, the kharif area increased
by 11 % and the rabi area by 24%. The summer area increased from
2% to 19% of CCA. The rabi area is now just below 50% of the CCA.
The greatest impact however is seen in the Jay Yogeshwar society.
Here all the increases are large: kharif area increased by 28% of
CCA, rabi area by 29% and summer cropped area increased from 2%
to 17%. Cropping intensity, expressed as a ratio of the gross cropped
area to the CCA increased from 100% of CCA to 182% in Banganga,
from 60% to 104% in Mahatma Phule and from 74% to 136% in Jay Yogeshwar.
It is interesting that though the impact has pulled all cropping
intensity values above 100%, the distance between the societies
has even somewhat increased.
Crop pattern: The major changes can
be summed up as follows. First there is a shift from coarser cereals
like Bajra to finer staples like wheat. Second, there is a shift
from seasonals to perennials. Third, there is a shift from subsistence
or low value crops to high value crops. The only exception here
is Groundnut in Jay Yogeshwar, though that too can be treated as
a somewhat high value crop. And lastly, there is a shift to summer
preference over rabi within these changes. This is most evident
in Mahatma Phule, where the rabi `cut' is most established.
Water Use and Duty: Mahatma Phule
has the highest canal use duty followed by Jay Yogeshwar, while
Banganga has a significantly lower canal use duty, though if we
consider conjoint use, then Banganga has the highest duty. The reasons
for this contrast are: firstly, Banganga has a better recharge from
the Banganga river and that local water that does not appear in
the records. Secondly, around 1998-99 the society has undertaken
a revival of the old channel network and this has led to an increased
circulation of water within the area. In fact the poor canal use
duty is the other side of the coin, because the same recharge network.
Changes in production and income:
In Banganga society, we see production increasing steadily but production
per ha as well as total gross income have been increasing rather
slowly. Mahatma Phule and Jay Yogeshwar both show firm increases
in all the parameters recorded.
Inter-household impact -- the survey
The survey sample finally covered a total of 96 households from
Mahatma Phule covering about 80% of the beneficiaries, and 17 households
from Banganga and 34 from Jay Yogeshwar covering about 10% of the
beneficiaries each. Generally speaking, the information given by
farmers confirms the trends the societies’ records show. What
is also as important is that on the whole, the impact has been positive
and of a similar nature for all farmers. This itself is an important
corroboration of the trend. With this prefatory remark we may now
turn to the findings of the survey. All the data in this sub-section
are based on the data gathered from the field survey.
Landholding: On the whole, for the
sample group land assets within the command have increased for almost
all groups. This is true for agricultural land within as well outside
the command. The increases are marginal, but turn up in all the
groups. This implies that some farmers from outside the sample group
have sold their land. The landholding structure is more of a middle
farmer dominated pattern, thick in the middle with the proportions
tapering off towards both extremes. Almost half of the land is owned
by half of the households in the middle farmer range (1 to 3 ha).
The big farmers (more than 3 ha) own 32% while the small and marginal
farmers (less than 1 ha) own18%.
Livestock: The information on livestock
shows that livestock population has fallen greatly after the formation
of the societies. This trend is a secular trend that cuts across
landholding size, with the sole exception of the lowest group who
seem to have managed to buy two additional milch animals. The trend
is the most pronounced in Banganga. There seem to be two main factors
responsible: first, with a greater assurance of irrigation, other
higher value options like grapes, floriculture, vegetables, etc.,
are preferred to dairying. Secondly, increasing incomes have allowed
farmers to purchase tractors and operations for which bullocks were
needed earlier can now be carried out by hiring in the necessary
equipment.
Devices and vehicles owned: The information
shows a very significant improvement in the overall standard of
living. Now all households except one have at least one LPG stove.
Biogas expectedly has increased only among the middle and large
farmers. The number of mobikes has gone up for all groups from an
average of one in four to nine in ten households. There is a striking
increase in the number of motorised four-wheel vehicles (not including
tractors, which are dealt with separately below) in all the societies:
from about three in a hundred households their number has now increased
to almost one in every five households but expectedly confined to
the middle and big farmers. These are reportedly jeep-like vehicles
that serve as transport vehicles as well.
Pumps and equipment owned: Diesel
pumps are out, electric pumps are in. The number of electric pumps
has almost doubled, from two per every three households it has increased
to six per five households. The co-management strategy has a lot
to do with this, since, with it, the pump becomes a necessary instrument
of production and has to be acquired by the small as well as the
large farmers. There is a large increase in the equipment in agriculture
-- number of tractors, power tillers, sprayers taken together from
one every eight households to one every alternate household. These
increases is secular, cutting across holding size, though the average
number of pumps per household also secularly rises with holding
size. However, between societies, there is a distinct difference:
Banganga has now more than one mechanical equipment per household,
Jay Yogeshwar has about four every five households and Mahatma Phule
has only one every three households.
Fodder sources: There is a shift
away from crop residue to fodder crops and purchases across holding
size though the larger groups show a stronger shift. In Banganga,
there is a significant reduction in the households reporting fodder
crops as one of their sources and it ties in with the fall in livestock
and dairy activity in Banganga.
Crops and cropping pattern:There
is a shift away from coarse cereals, chickpea, other legumes and
oilseeds to wheat, vegetables, grapes, sugarcane to some extent,
floriculture and other fruits. Except for small differences, the
broad trend is similar in every society. The trend is also fairly
secular across holding size for wheat, vegetables and grapes, while
sugarcane, other fruits and floriculture are confined to the middle
and large farmers. The most dramatic increase is in grapes, from
6 ha earlier to 73 ha now.
Income: the aggregate impact: Agricultural
income was computed as an imputed value calculated on the basis
of the reported cropping pattern and using the table of productivity
before and after the society formation, and the average price for
the last six years as recorded by the societies. The general trend
is that the income from all sources has increased: agricultural
income has increased 6-fold from about 25,000 Rs per household to
1,50,000; income from livestock from about 350 to 900; income from
employment from 5,500 to 13,000; income from business from 2,250
to 7,500; wage and allied income from about 70 to 1,150; and total
income from about 33,000 to 1,89,000. The proportionate rise in
income over earlier income is greater for many of the households
in the smaller holding sizes. The spread (the ratio of the highest
to the lowest value among the groups) for agricultural income has
fallen marginally from about 5.2 to about 5.
In comparison with basic subsistence needs, if we assume 50 Rs per
person day as subsistence wage, 250 days of work for two persons
as the employment need, and a net income at half of the gross income,
then the lowest income reported for a group, that is, Rs. 45,000,
provides for a wage of about Rs. 45 per person-day. It still needs
the other income in order to pull it above the 50 Rs mark. In general,
for many households access to other avenues of employment is still
important for them to cross the subsistence mark, though the proportion
of such supplement has gone down. The per household income in Jay
Yogeshwar and Banganga is fairly high as compared to Mahatma Phule.
Income variation across reach is neutral suggesting that if common
and equitable access in the command is established, the natural
factors of landholding take precedence over position within the
reach.
4. The Ozar Water User Societies: Issues
in Co-management
Switching to hourly basis – increase in efficiency
Besides being good water users' groups, the Ozar societies have
also struck out in new directions and set significant precedents
in participative irrigation management. The first of this is the
switching over to an hourly basis for calculating the water charge
for water use.
In most societies, the society pays the government on the basis
of the metered quantity of water it receives, but the internal assessment
of water charge for users remains based on area and crop. It decreases
state presence, facilitates recovery of water charges and links
them to volumetric supply, but for the individual farmer in the
command, nothing much changes, and his costs are still not linked
to the volume of water he uses. In creating a push in the direction
of water saving and increasing efficiency of water use, it goes
only half the way. However, volumetric supply to individual farmers
is said more easily than done. The need is to find a solution that
is readily acceptable to farmers and easily implemented with little
or no transaction cost.
The Ozar societies evolved such a solution, first implemented in
full in Mahatma Phule and Jay Yogeshwar societies in 1998-99 and
also applied in Banganga society last year [6].
Estimating the losses and delays and leaving a small cushion for
adjustments, they calculated the total time that would be available
for watering. Dividing this time by the total demand for irrigation,
gave a figure of the time taken to irrigate one ha. At present this
estimate, in farmers' terms, is that of watering 1 bigha in one
hour. A bigha is roughly half an acre, so that the norm here is
that of 5 hours/ha. The water charge was then converted to the number
of hours a farmer received water. The calculation was simple enough
to understand and, though there were some doubts, the farmers agreed
to give it a try. The system has now been in operation for four
years in two of the societies. The issues have not been fully settled
but there has definitely been an overall acceptance.
The switchover to an hourly basis for assessment of water charge
has led to an increase in discipline and efficiency. The canal operators
had received instructions that they should supply water for the
calculated time and the farmer should be ready to receive water.
Farmers began to try and prepare their fields well in time and manage
their affairs in such a way that they would be ready to irrigate
their fields when it was their turn to receive water. Earlier the
canal operator would generally have to wait till the farmer was
satisfied that he had `filled' his farm. He could try and persuade
but not stop the farmer from taking more water than was customary,
and only if it was excessively wasteful could he take the matter
to the society. Now the whole problem was simplified at one stroke.
All the canal operator had to do was to see that he got so many
hours of flow, and it became the responsibility of the farmer to
see that his field was irrigated within that time. The result was
a greater awareness on part of the farmers and an increase in water
application efficiency.
Shift from rabi to summer
However, this concern for efficiency is also related to another
shift in importance from the rabi to the summer watering that has
been taking place in the Ozar societies. Normally an eight-monthly
system like the Waghad system would show a relatively higher rabi
utilisation than the Ozar societies. One reason for this is the
greater importance of perennials like grape and other fruits and
the relatively smaller importance of sugarcane. These crops require
not very large but assured supplements of water in the summer and
net a much higher income than corresponding rabi crops.
The important issue was how to make this summer supplement possible.
Earlier, when the department was in control, it was easier to take
a rabi crop than a summer crop because the department offered some
assurance of water for rabi but none for summer. However, with the
formation of the water user societies, it was up to the farmers
themselves. As we have already seen, the farmers had effected an
extension of the season by a couple of weeks. There was also a provision
in the MoU of carrying over savings in the rabi quota to the summer
season. If the farmers saved sufficient water in the rabi, they
could have that vital supplement in summer for their perennials.
This aspect gave a fresh and qualitatively different impetus to
improving efficiency.
One of the results was the switchover to hourly rates. The other
equally important and simultaneous measure was the rabi `cut'. By
common consent the societies decided to implement a `cut' in the
rabi quota by between 20 and 25% and asked the members to plan accordingly.
Moreover, the prevalent norm of 5 hrs/ha is also probably tight
and those with field crops like wheat find it a scramble to stick
to those norms. Both measures provide a cushion to deal with exigencies
as well; in such situations one would simply forgo the rabi saving.
On the whole this has so far proved to be a line of thinking that
is acceptable to most farmers.
Co-management of surface water and groundwater: charging
and recharging wells!
Besides the hourly rate and the rabi `cut', the most important aspect
of the Ozar societies pertains to the co-management of surface,
that is, canal water and groundwater, that is water from wells.
Though the law allows for a charge to be placed on wells within
the command, this is rarely done. As a consequence, for most of
the well owners within the influence area of the canals, canal seepage
turns out to be a free recharge of their wells. There are instances
in which the farmers virtually collude to fill in nominal demand
forms for small areas dispersed all over the command so that water
flows through the command and recharges their wells at little cost!
In Ozar, SPK and SOPPECOM were both aware of the problem of wells
and the co-management of surface water and groundwater. They believed
that a charge should be levied on wells within the command and that
there should be an integration of surface water and groundwater.
This led to two important measures being discussed right from the
beginning. The first was a charge to be levied on the wells. This
consists firstly in getting the idea accepted that the increase
in benefit that well owners get is due to the recharge that takes
place as the canal water circulates within the command. Secondly
it also consists in finding ways to determine how much the charge
should be. So far, in the Ozar societies, only in the Mahatma Phule
society wells in the commands pay a charge and a system has also
been devised to determine that charge. These issues will be discussed
in greater detail below. The other measure relates to increasing
the benefit by integrating surface and groundwater. This aspect
can give additional strength to the first measure, because it demonstrates
that the society is as interested in seeing the benefit from wells
increase. The positive linkage and positive sum approach that emerges
from a combination of these is what is the strength of the co-management
strategy in Ozar.
Check dams to check losses
In every command area of canal served projects, substantial portion
of the canal seepage and system losses appears in wells or in downstream
flows. These are utilised as and where possible by those who can
tap them. A large portion of the losses does eventually get used.
However, the entire process is an unmanaged process that leads to
free riding. SPK argued that the water flowing away through the
drains and out of the system was a net loss, and since the society
had paid for it, it was virtually the farmers' money that was flowing
away! The way to check this loss was to build check dams on the
drainage lines in the system so that the water would be detained
and the wells in the command would be recharged.
Check dams as means of increasing dependability
SPK approached the government for aid in respect of building check
dams on the drainage streams in the command and came up against
a government shibboleth: no local water resource development is
carried out in the canal served command areas, and the command area
authorities do not consider it their task. It took all their resourcefulness
for the SPK to convince the government that Ozar should at least
be treated as a special case to explore the possibilities of building
check dams on the streams draining the command.
Today six check dams have been built on the Satwai nala flowing
through the Mahatma Phule command, ten on the Ghagra nala flowing
through the Jay Yogeshwar command and two check dams (in addition
to the earlier two weirs) have been built on the Banganga river
flowing through Banganga command. The idea was to create additional
supplement and assurance: the check dams would first of all harvest
rainwater, secondly it would trap a substantial part of seepage
and thirdly, it would also trap extra flows let directly into the
stream.
The practice of utilising the check dams is the strongest in Mahatma
Phule society and weakest in the Banganga society. A part of the
quota is let directly into the check dam. In Mahatma Phule the practice
dates back to 1993-94 season and since then it has been a regular
feature of the society's operation. It is not so systematically
practised in Jay Yogeshwar and only occasionally and sporadically
in Banganga. Initially, in Mahatma Phule, only the calculated difference
between the quota and the demand was let into the check dams. It
was very soon clear that after every rotation, releasing water into
the check dams resulted in a significant rise in the levels in the
wells, and that this water often served for watering the crop once,
or if it was on a drip system, even twice and thrice between rotations.
Now some farmers prefer to let part of their irrigation entitlement
into the check dams rather than take it directly through the canal.
Effective co-management of surface water and groundwater (henceforth
simply co-management) requires bringing wells into the participative
management net. There was intense discussion and debate around this
point for almost three years in all the three societies before a
decision could be taken in one of them, Mahatma Phule: a) to apply
a water charge to the wells in the command and b) to base it on
water released into the check dams.
The importance of volumetric supply
The argument for charging wells in the command essentially said:
`The water in the wells is water we have paid for. Should we allow
someone to use it without paying for it?' It should be noted that
without the change of basis in water charge assessment from crop
area to volumetric, it is virtually impossible to formulate this
argument in an effective manner.
When the charge is on the basis of crop area, implicitly one is
buying not the water, but the service. The extra water that drains
away either through seepage or the portion that flows out of the
command is not part of the deal, and hence, not part of the stake
the farmer holds. The changeover in basis of assessment now implies
that it is the volume of water being delivered by the department
at the head of the command that is the commodity under transaction
and turning it into a service is an internal matter for the society.
The changeover makes the farmers stakeholders in the water, and
farmers become their own service providers. The idea of trapping
excess flow into the check dams is also connected with this change
of basis: the society had paid for the water flowing away. This
creates a direct stake for farmers in saving water and increasing
efficiency that earlier was the concern of department.
What about well owners’ investment in wells?
Even in Mahatma Phule, there were two further issues that had to
be tackled and the first of these was that of the investment that
well owners have made in their wells. This is an issue that has
come up everywhere there has been a suggestion that well owners
should pay a water charge. Well owners argue that water has become
utilisable only because the well owners have invested in the well,
in the lifting device and equipment and in the distribution system
and water use is therefore the rightful fruit of and return on that
investment.
The SPK and the farmer activists argued that this may apply to the
water the wells intercepted when the canal was not flowing, but
the additional water that came into their wells was solely due to
canal operation. Besides, they also pointed out, this additional
water actually helped reduce the idle time of their investment,
and they really should not mind paying a water charge. This argument
finally prevailed in Mahatma Phule.
The problem of mensuration
In Mahatma Phule, the consensus was that the well owners would pay
only for the water released into the check dams, a matter we shall
discuss shortly. The next issue was the important one of how to
determine who should pay how much. In the case of the time-based
assessment of water charge for the individual farmers, we have seen
how the problem was resolved by a commonly accepted, simple and
transparent procedure of assessment. The complicating factor here
was that the wells were placed at different distances from the canal
or check dams and differed greatly in the amount of water that appeared
in them after a rotation.
Let us have a look at the final solution that was accepted. The
depth of water in a well in the immediate pre-monsoon period in
summer is noted. The depth of water in the well is also measured
immediately after a rotation. The difference between the two is
treated as the characteristic of the well that determines the charge
for the well. The amount of water released into the check dams divided
by the sum of the differences for all wells is the parameter that
multiplied by the difference in level for each well gives the corresponding
water for which the well owner should be charged.
To take a simple example let us say that there are only two wells.
The first well has a depth of water of 20 m after a rotation and
a pre-monsoon level of 10 m. The second well has a depth of water
of 10 m after a rotation and a pre-monsoon level of 5 m, Let us
assume that 1500 m3 of water was released into the check dams that
recharged these wells. In this case the differences in depth are
10 m and 5 m respectively for the two wells, so the sum of differences
is 15 m. Dividing the total volume of water 1500 m3 by the sum of
differences gives us a parameter of 100 m3 per m. So the first well
would be charged for 10 x 100 = 1000 m3 and the second well for
5 x 100 = 500 m3 of the water.
Measure and consensus
Technically speaking, the wells receive not only the water released
into the check dams, but also that of seepage. Secondly, they do
not necessarily receive all the water released. Thirdly, the water
received in each well is not necessarily proportional to the difference
in depth so calculated. Yet, from the stakeholders' perspective,
the solution makes sense. The problem is to determine who pays how
much, not precisely how much water each well has: related, but distinct
problems. From the point of view of the stakeholders, they need
an agreement on principle, and a sufficiently transparent procedure
that ties cost to benefit.
The procedure presupposes a prior agreement in principle that the
water that is let into dams has to be paid for by the well owners
since it appears in their wells. Similarly, those who receive more
water should pay more. What the procedure does is to propose a simple
and transparent measure that is a reasonable common sense approximation
of who receives how much and hence who pays how much. Accurate it
may not be, but it certainly appeals to common sense that the increase
in water depth is a fair measure of the increase in amount of water
in the wells.
Deciding how much water to release and when Procedures have also
be established about how to decide how much water to release into
the check dams and when. In Mahatma Phule, the decision is generally
taken before the rotation begins. Generally the difference between
the amount of water supplied during the rotation and the assessed
demand during that rotation is released into the check dams, usually
at the end of the rotation after everyone has watered their fields.
Water is let into the upstream check dam from which it flows down
into the downstream check dams as the upstream ones fill up. An
assessment is also carried out on how much water has been stored
that year behind the main dam. If it is a good year and there is
a somewhat greater amount of water in the dam, that is taken into
account and a larger portion may be released into the check dams.
Evolving practices
Many practices are undergoing change. Recently some farmers have
begun to request the society that part or whole of their quota should
be released into the check dams instead of being delivered to their
fields directly. They are then directly charged for that portion
of their quota. They choose check dams into which the water should
be released, and it is their responsibility to provide adequate
channels. No one, of course, is allowed to lift water directly from
the check dam storage.
Initially, the monitoring of wells for purposes of assessment was
frequent and detailed. Now some sort of a convention about the relative
contribution of each well has been established and the frequency
and detail of monitoring has gone down. The practice of some farmers
having their quota released into check dams has also served to emphasise
the conventional nature of the relative contribution. Releasing
water into any specified check dam does not necessarily mean that
only those farmers will get the benefit; the water is added in different
degrees to all check dams downstream and the wells recharged from
them. However, since the farmers in the direct influence zone of
that particular check dam benefit the most, they do not mind paying
for the entire quota.
Hence, the charge that is assessed by convention and consensus may
not precisely reflect the precise share of water each well receives,
though they are reasonably correlated. This ability to evolve simple,
transparent procedures sufficiently and reasonably close to actual
water shares to determine who is to pay how much is, in fact, the
strong point of the Ozar experience.
What about Banganga and Jay Yogeshwar?
Given Mahatma Phule’s successful co-management, a question
naturally arises – why have Banganga and Jay Yogeshwar not
followed Mahatma Phule in this respect? This question was discussed
with SPK and the farmer activists. One strand of thinking was that,
it is happening, but at a slower pace. For example, Jay Yogeshwar
tried releasing water into the check dams a couple of years. In
Banganga, last year, farmers on their own de-silted some of the
check dams and asked that water be let into them.
It was also pointed out that different conditions prevail in the
different societies. Jay Yogeshwar soils are very poor and need
more frequent watering, the demand is higher than in Mahatma Phule
and it is more difficult to generate surpluses. Also, the Ghagra
nala that drains the Jay Yogeshwar command has a small catchment
just equal to the command area. In contrast, the Satwai nala that
drains the Mahatma Phule has a catchment much larger than the command
so the Mahatma Phule check dams also have sizeable benefit from
water harvested from the local catchment.
In Banganga, the wells are already better recharged. The two main
Banganga weirs are much larger than the check dams in Mahatma Phule
and Jay Yogeshwar. The water released into the Banganga weirs may
not be enough to fill even one of them and special measures may
be needed to achieve some degree of fair distribution of water between
the check dams. Also, the Banganga check dams leak and, unless something
is done about retaining water in them for a longer period, it is
difficult to release water into them. Banganga lands are much more
favourably placed in respect of well recharge and well irrigation
has always been strong there since the second class irrigation days.
The soils are richer and do not need as frequent watering.
However, it should be noted that in both Banganga and Jay Yogeshwar,
farmers have been thinking about the Mahatma Phule experience and
reflecting on it. In both attempts were made to release water into
the check dams and assess the effect. In Banganga, instead of releasing
water into the check dams, recently there has been a drive to clear
the old second class irrigation channels and divert some monsoon
flows directly through them. This has reportedly resulted in better
availability of water in the wells. This Banganga initiative is
a related and parallel stream of co-management thinking.
In effect, we have in Ozar, not one, but three different situations
in the three societies and three different degrees and kinds of
co-management. The three situations differ significantly in the
catchment areas of the streams that drain the commands, in the soils
that are dominant in the area and in co-management practices.
Towards replicating co-management strategies
The Ozar experience is an important step towards co-management.
But in learning from it, it is also important that we do not turn
it into a rigid model. And the SPK would be the first to advocate
that caution. It also needs to be realised that co-management may
take different forms in different situations. For example, in a
situation where re-circulation of water through the old recharge
channels practically benefits all the command and all the wells
in the command, it may be superfluous to add a charge on wells,
and more important to collectively clear and maintain these recharge
channels.
In one sense, co-management has always been an individual practice:
farmers have always used the wells in the command areas as instruments
of managing canal water and canal induced recharge. Participative
irrigation management offers us a chance of shifting from unregulated
individual management practices to systematic, collective co-management.
However, this will require a conscientious effort to assess the
different components of water use, evolve management strategies
for their integrated use and sharing of costs.
Mahatma Phule has taken the lead in evolving a simple and transparent
procedure that reasonably assesses recharge from water released
into the check dams. However, there is a need to go further. There
is a need to take up a medium term rigorous study of the relative
contributions of in situ water use, rainwater harvested by the check
dams, recharge from field deliveries, recharge from water released
into the check dams and the actual canal water use itself and to
work with farmers to evolve simple and transparent procedures to
assess these contributions. In particular, we need to be able to
work out a broad water balance methodology and apply it to the three
societies. It is hoped that SOPPECOM will be able to take up this
task with the help of SPK and based on the natural resource data
management system (NRDMS) methodology it is developing.
At the cross roads
The Ozar water user societies are entering a crucial phase of their
existence. Up till now they have maintained a rising curve in system
improvement and efficiency and in productivity enhancement. Co-management
has carried them this distance. But now other matters and issues
are also coming to a head. In the coming years these will prove
crucial in shaping their future path of development.
For example, the very benefits have brought about a change in the
crop pattern. Within the span of ten years, it has shifted from
an earlier subsistence based mode of farming with a predominance
of coarse cereals like bajra to an almost exclusively cash crop
based pattern. While this has meant a very significant rise in incomes,
it has also meant two more things. First, it has meant that subsistence
needs are not directly met by agriculture the way they were earlier.
So even the small holder has to buy food. Secondly, because it is
exclusively cash crop oriented, it has also meant a much greater
risk, as farmers have found out over the last two or three years.
This trend is likely to be accentuated further by globalisation.
Also the other change in the crop pattern, the relatively greater
shift to and emphasis on summer crops or perennials also has reached
a point where not very large changes in summer area or summer availability
may be forthcoming.
So far co-management strategies have been oriented towards the availability
of water, that is, as instruments of harnessing more water. It is
possible that the strategy may have to be reoriented towards water
use, that is co-management as an instrument of optimal water use
and towards minimising risk. This may involve moving towards combining
agriculture and industry, looking at agricultural production as
part of biomass and energy production and planning cropping systems
in that manner. In this reorientation NRDMS methods could be used
as an instrument of planning and monitoring water use and availability.
But that is a different story: those are different problems, not
the old ones; they are problems arising from development, not the
lack of it.
| [1] |
Second class irrigation systems
are generally very small and also old (sometimes dating back
to 200-300 years like the Phad system) and declared by the
government to be so. Unlike in the usual irrigation system,
in the case of Second Class Irrigation system the water charges
is included in the land revenue (and it has been about Rs.
10/ha for the last 100 years or so) and no separate water
charges are levied on the user. Maintenance and management
are entirely with the users. |
| [2] |
SOPPECOM, taking off from CASAD,
was formed around 1990 with the specific objective of promoting
participative management and sustainable and equitable use
of natural resources, especially water. |
| [3] |
In Maharashtra there is the written
agreement, usually known as Memorandum of Understanding (MoU),
between the society and the department prior to turn over.
The MoU contains the roles and responsibilities of both the
parties and also include the seasonal water quota for the
society. The MoU is supposed to be revised every five years. |
| [4] |
Note that the ad-hoc allocation
gave Mahatma Phule a relatively smaller kharif quota and a
relatively higher rabi quota. The quotas for all the societies
have subsequently been reduced by 12%. |
| [5] |
Recently, however, there has been
a change. All the societies on the Waghad system decided to
come together and form a federation. Moreover, after a series
of discussions it was decided that the system would be handed
over to the federation and in a formal ceremony on November
1, 2003, the system was formally handed over to the federation.
The federation is yet to be registered and this year is supposed
to be a year of joint management. This is the first time in
India that an entire system has been handed over, and it will
be watched with keen interest by all those interested in participative
irrigation management. |
| [6] |
The methodology described here
was worked out by Rajabhau Kulkarni of Mahatma Phule society. |
|
|
| |
TOP |
|
|
