Water Pricing and Participatory Irrigation Management: Experiences and Lessons Learnt from Integrated Watershed

Development Project in Jammu and Kashmir, India

Falendra Kumar SudanDepartment of Economics

University of Jammu, India Jennifer McKay

Centre for Comparative Water Policies and Laws, University of South Australia, Australia

ICID 7th Asian Regional Conference,Adelaide

26 June, 2012

Content of Presentation

Background Objectives of the paper Methods PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II) Impact of PIM Users Responses to

Increased Water Pricing Reasons for Low Cost

Recovery Cost Recovery and

Reducing Water Use Lessons Learnt

Background

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM)

• Water Users’ Associations (WUAs) Market failure and government failure

• conservation of land and groundwater resources through rainwater harvesting

Participatory Watershed Development

• for protection and sustainable use of land and water resources

Institutional arrangements (users’ associations)

• clearly defined rewards and sanctions WUAs

• responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M) of canal systems below certain point to local farmers

Background

Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP), Hills-II, Jammu and Kashmir • encourage the formation of WUAs

• eventually want to transfer irrigation management to irrigators

Initiatives of IWDP, Hills-II seen as first step towards • operationalizing water pricing • attaining sustainable irrigation water

resource management

Objectives of the paper

To review relevant literature on water pricing and PIM

To analyze the process and impact of evolving PIM under IWDP, Hills-II, users’ responses to water pricing and reasons for low cost recovery

To suggest policy recommendations to recover project costs and collect water charges from users

Methods

Collection of primary data and information

• well-structured and pre-tested questionnaires

• participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques

• group meetings Sample size

• 90 members of WUAs

• 780 households

• Six WUAs (three each from selected sub-watersheds)

• Twelve villages (six each from ‘project’ and ‘non-project’ area)

Methods

Ramnagar SW• Project area with WUAs (185 HHs)• Project area without WUAs (119 HHs)• Non-project area (72 HHs)

Akhnoor SW• Project area with WUAs (158 HHs)• Project area without WUAs (72 HHs)• Non-project area (174 HHs)

Stratified sampling technique• WUAs, ‘project’ and ‘non-project’

To make comparative study • “forested watersheds’ villages and

agricultural watersheds’ villages” Purposive sample: 20% HH level respondents Content analysis technique

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Irrigation system in watershed areas of J&K• medium and small water harvesting structures

and distribution channels Past neglect and mismanagement

• declined utilities in irrigating crops IWDP (Hills-II) started modernization and repair

• initiated treatment of catchment areas Involvement of user groups

• repair, maintenance and improvement of physical structures

• water management on cost-sharing basis (voluntary free labour)

Introduced significant institutional reforms • revive and strengthens community institutions • clearly defining rights and obligation for users’

communities

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Formation of WUA Process of formation of a WUA - relatively

simple Election process

• highly democratic and fair • conducted in a participatory manner

Location of WUAs • physical infrastructure for irrigation already

existed • repairs and maintenance

Identification of user-farmers • participatory development staff and village

leadership Tenure of WUA: one year Separate bank account

• signatories to bank account: president and a member

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Operation of irrigation system Entire reform process

• repair and renovation oriented Majority of works done through WUAs along with

panchayats• fair and impartial manner• proper records of all financial transactions

maintained• contracts given in a fair and just procedure

Cost of works done by WUAs: 25% lower than contractors

Transparency in WUA functioning assured • technical and financial estimates• funds disbursements• works execution by local farmers

No new structures, or alteration of original designs• emphasis on restoring original designs

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Allocation rules Credibility of WUA depends on ability to

• ensure equitable distribution of benefits • penalize any free rider

Rules in use• share of water determined by land acreage• water rationing• rotational use of water in rice cultivation• collective patrolling to avoid breaching of channel

WUA decides • extent of area to be cultivated • timing of start of irrigation in a particular season

Irrigation system confronted with numerous problems• rationing supplies• equitable sharing of shortfall in supplies among all

users

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Maintenance of irrigation system ‘Maintenance’ to ensure smooth functioning of

physical facilities Common interest stronger in PIM

• users made a substantial contribution to cost of developing it

WUAs established conventions regarding • timing of repairs• division of work• responsibility of members • obligations of users

Provision of sanction (ranging from fines to loss of water rights) against non-compliance

Large landowners dominated WUA functioning

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Benefits and costs Potential beneficiaries mobilized on issue related

to fair sharing of benefits and costs Users’ participation

• cost-effectiveness in repairs and maintenance

• efficient management of infrastructure

• interest in minimizing costs

• economical and efficient services

• equitable distribution of water Inequitable water distribution

• conflicts among users and members of users’ association

PIM under IWDP (HILLS-II)

Transparency and accountability Transparency one of key principles of PIM

• strengthen confidence over functioning of WUAs

• informed activities undertaken to water users

• efficient management of irrigation systems Dissemination of information

• general body meetings on regular intervals Prioritize repair works to utilize available funds

• project functionaries as facilitators

• accountable and responsible to farmers’ organizations

Executives of WUAs

• accountable to their members

Impact of PIM

Perceptible economic gains of PIM

• increase in land values by 10-15%

• better field drainage & reduced waterlogged conditions

• increase in area under cultivation

• ensure timely sowing of crops

• receipt of water at tail end

• new acreage added to irrigate lands

• increased productivity of rice, pulses, vegetables and orchards

• increased income from various crops

• cropping pattern shifted to commercial crops like vegetables and pulses

Impact of PIM

Reduction in rainwater loss and sediment yield Micro-level watershed planning

• emphasis on soil erosion control on hill slopes and gullies

• regulation of water flow system in watershed drainage

• rearrangement of farmlands Adverse climatic conditions in the Shivaliks

• micro catchment techniques for run-off harvesting and conservation practices

• improved moisture retention

• run-off soil loss declined

• improving surface and ground water regime

Impact of PIM

Status of water resources and irrigation Number of water points (bowlies) & gravity based

water points per village Number of water harvesting structures Length of irrigation channel Better quality of water harvesting structures

• more in PA with WUA than without WUA and NPA

Outcomes

• increased water potential

• increased irrigated cropping

• increased irrigation intensity

Impact of PIM

Change in crop intensity and crop productivity Improved soil moisture regime, increased

irrigation resources and high use of fertilizer (including cow-dung)

• improved cropping intensity in PA compared to NPA

Better cropping intensity due to project interventions

• rainfed crop demonstration

• propagation of use of modern inputs through extension agents

Increased average crop yield per hectare

Users Responses to Increased Water Pricing

PIM & increase in water pricing

• 22% user demands less water and leaves land fallow

• 18% applies less water to crop accepting some yield loss

• 36% switches to less water demanding crops

• 43% invests in more efficient irrigation techniques

Further rise in water charges

• water intensive crops no longer optimal

• farmers switch to other crops

• invest in more efficient water application techniques

Users Responses to Increased Water Pricing

In water abundant area, price relatively low• water quantity reduction policies more effective

than water price policies In flood irrigation schemes, water pricing more

efficient In drip systems, increasing water charges less

effective Adoption of irrigation technologies

• water price • land quality • crop type

Pricing induces upstream farmers to use water more efficiently

Reasons for Low Cost Recovery

Low water fee collection rates

• lack of farmer participation in planning & management

• poor communication

• lack of transparency between farmers and irrigation management

• poor water delivery service Water charges covers

• O&M: one-fifth

• cost-recovery rates: between one-fourth and one-third

Responsibility for fee collection shifted to WUAs

• not clarifying water users’ rights and responsibilities

• no incentives for service providers to collect fees

Cost Recovery and Reducing Water Use

Water pricing must covers appropriate costs

• users’ consultation and irrigation agencies Better irrigation services

• an incentive to pay fees & increased ability to pay with higher farm incomes

Financial autonomy to WUA

• improve irrigation water management

• collect water fees from users to recover O&M costs

Water pricing

• either volumetric or area-technology based Use of appropriate water-saving technology

Lessons Learnt

Institutional reforms under IWDP (Hills-II) • bold and innovative

Better maintenance of physical irrigation system• improved water availability

Addresses key issues pertaining to irrigation management• institutional structure, incentives, accountability,

transparency, and sustainability Sustainability of WUAs essentially depends on

• their capacity to operate and manage on own Financial sustainability important in sustainability of

WUAs• to make the reform process a success

Transparent consultation process • farmers to participate in decision-making • willingness to pay water charges • ensure high cost-recovery

Lessons Learnt

To encourage farmers to pay their water charges• incentives for providing high-quality and timely water

service• penalties by stopping water delivery to defaulters,

charging a higher rate for late payment Water charges to be equitable, administratively simple,

and easily understood by users and collecting agency Use of other mechanisms to reduce water use per

hectare• area-crop and area-technology based water charges

• incentive to shift to crops that need less water• to shift to water-saving technologies, or both

Public awareness, education, and training programmes • economic value of water• understanding the importance of conserving water

Lessons Learnt

Mechanisms to ensure accountability

• roles and responsibilities of all agencies concerned

• need to transfer all O&M to WUAs in near future Transparency to progress further

• simple and standardized procedures for accounting and finance

Need to ensure replicability of the successes achieved Needed to form federations of WUAs, for which

continued support and training required Involvement of NGOs and training institutes in

upgrading skill and capacity building Regular monitoring mechanism to be put in operation

to initiate corrective measures as and when needed

Thank you!