MINOR IRRIGATION PROGRAMME - MAHARASHTRA (MIP-M)

CONSULTANT SERVICES – CONSOLIDATION PHASE

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME 1 : MAIN REPORT

OCTOBER 2011

INDIA

L-ab/document.doc/13/10/2011

CONTENTS

Page

VOLUME 1: MAIN REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES (ii)

LIST OF TABLES (iii)

APPENDICES (iii)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (iii)

MEASURES AND CURRENCIES (v)

GLOSSARY (v)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (vi)

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Service Completion Report Purpose 11.2 Programme History 11.3 The Programme Area, Problems and Needs 1

2 PROGRAMME GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 3

2.1 Programme Goals and Objectives 3

2.2 Programme Design, Strategies, and Activity Components 32.2.1 Design 32.2.2 Organisation 42.2.3 Strategies and Activity Components 5

2.2.4 Participatory Agriculture Development Programme 62.2.4.1 Activities under PADP 72.2.4.2 Implementation Methodology 7

2.2.5 Methodology of Assessment 7

3 PROGRAMME PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 9

3.1 Programme Criteria, Guidelines, and Implementation Plans 93.1.1 Scheme Selection Criteria 93.1.2 Guidelines, Implementation Plans and Reports 10

3.2 Achievements 113.2.1 Construction of Irrigation Schemes 113.2.2 Development of Water User Associations 183.2.3 Farmer’s Contributions for Construction 203.2.4 Development of Improved Irrigated Agriculture 21

(i)

3.2.5 Institutionalisation of Development Approach 23

3.3 Budget Expenditure and Residual Funds 253.3.1 Overall Expenditures 253.3.2 Construction / Investment Costs 253.3.3 KfW Loan Funds 26

3.4 Provision of Consultant Technical Assistance 26

4 PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION 28

4.1 Programme Impacts 284.1.1 Impacts upon the Agricultural Production and Marketing 284.1.2 Impacts upon Livelihood (Income and Employment Generation) 294.1.3 Other impacts upon Livelihood (Health, Education etc) 314.1.4 Impacts upon Sustainable Irrigation Scheme Management 334.1.5 Impacts upon the Environment 344.1.6 Impacts on Government Policy 34

4.2 Programme Strengths, Weaknesses and Innovations 344.2.1 Programme Strengths 344.2.2 Programme Weaknesses 354.2.3 Programme Innovations 36

4.3 Overall Programme Effects and Benefits 36

5 ISSUES ARISING WITH IMPLEMENTATION 37

5.1 Headworks Issues 385.2 Distribution Systems 38

6 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECCOMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE PROJECTS 40

7 COMPLIANCE WITH CONSULTANT’S TOR 41

8 HANDOVER OF TAT OFFICE AND EQUIPMENT 43

9 THE NEXT STEPS 43

9.1 For MIP-M 439.2 Proposed New Project 43

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Organisation of MIP-M 5Figure 2: Map of MIP-M Scheme Locations 14

(ii)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Key Selection Criteria for MIS under MIP-M 10Table 2: Status of Irrigation Scheme Construction as at 30 June 2011 13Table 3: Status of WUAs finances for Distribution Systems

at 30th June 2011 20Table 4: Estimated vs. Actual Investment in MIP-M Schemes 25Table 5: Summary of Loan Expenditures for MIP-M 26Table 6: Technical Assistance Rendered from Jan 2008 to July 2011 27

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Steps of PIDM Process Appendix 2: List of MIP-M DocumentsAppendix 3: Salient Features of MIP-M SchemesAppendix 4: Reasons for Delayed Completion of 8 SchemesAppendix 5: Summary of MIP-M Scheme Investment CostsAppendix 6: Funding of MIP-MAppendix 7: Draft Completion of Services CertificatesAppendix 8: Copies of Equipment and Vehicle Handover Documents Appendix 9: Brief Proposal for Rehabilitation and Handing Over of Minor Irrigation

Schemes in Maharashtra, Feb 2011

VOLUME 2: THEMATIC REPORTS

PART 1: TECHNICAL ASPECTSPART 2: AGRO-ECONOMIC ASPECTSPART 3; SOCIOALOGICAL ASPECTS PART 4: OTHER ASPECTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APG - Agricultural Production GroupAPMC - Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (GoM)CCA - Culturable / Cultivable Command AreaCD - Cross Drainage works (Term used for various Structures on Canal, Field

Channels (FCs) and Field Drains(FDs). In Chaks(area irrigated by as outlet on the Canal).

CDO - Central Design Organisation [of Water Resources (Irrigation) Department], Nasik

CE - Chief EngineerCO - NGO Community OrganiserCTF - Cut throat flume ( for water measurement)DEA - Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, GoI DFO - District Field Officer of PADP Training AgencyDLC - District Level Committee for MIP-M DMC - District Management CommitteeDoA - Department of Agriculture

(iii)

DPR - Detailed Project Report / Definite Project ReportDSR - District Schedule of Rates EE - Executive EngineerEGS - Employment Guarantee Scheme (Farmers are paid for undertaking rural

works) EIRR - Economic Internal Rate of ReturnFSO - Field Station Officer for PADPGCA - Gross Command AreaGoM / GoI - Government of Maharashtra / Government of IndiaICA - Irrigable Command AreaKfW - Kreditanstalt für WiederaufbauKTWKVK

--

Kolhapur Type Weir [Bridge-cum-Weir]Krishi Vidnyan Kendra (Agricultural Centre)

M&E - Monitoring and EvaluationMILS - Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)MIS - Minor Irrigation SchemeMIT - Minor Irrigation TankMLA - Member of Legislative Assembly (of a state)NHP - National Hydrology Project of Water Resources Department, NasikNGO - Non-Government OrganisationNREGA - National Rural Employment Guarantee ActO&M - Operation & MaintenanceOFW - On-farm WorksPADP - Participatory Agricultural Development ProgrammePAPs - Project Affected PersonsPEA - Project Executing AgencyPIDM - Participatory Irrigation Development and Management PIR - Project Identification Report / Preliminary Investigation ReportPMU - Programme Management Unit for MIP-M, A Division Office directly under the

control of CE, MILS, Pune.QA/QC - Quality Assurance / Quality ControlRDPR - Revised Detailed Project Report / Definite Project ReportRD&WCD - Rural Development and Water Conservation Department of (GoM)SC - MIP-M Steering CommitteeSE - Superintending EngineerSHG - Self Help GroupSLC - State Level Committee of MIP-M SMS - Subject Matter SpecialistST - Storage TankSWT - Scheme Working TeamTAO - Taluka Agricultural OfficerTAT - MIP-M Technical Assistance Team (Consultants office in Pune for MIP-M). WALMI - Water and Land Management Institute of Water Resources Department

(Training Organisation of WRD of GoM), located at Aurangabad.WRD - Water Resources Department (formerly known as Irrigation Department). WUA/s - Water Users Association/s (Registered)ZP - Zilla Parishad (Community Council)

(iv)

MEASURES AND CURRENCIES

1 km2 = 1,000,000 m2 = 100 ha1 hectare = 10,000 m2 1 quintal = 100 kg

INR = Indian Rupees

GLOSARY OF TERMS

Patkari Water manager appointed by WUA in each schemeKrishi-mitra Young farmer appointed by WUA as assistant to DFO under PADP

(v)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

German Financial Co-operation with India

Country: IndiaProgramme Title: Minor Irrigation Programme – Maharashtra Period: 10 years, commencing February 2001Implementing Agency: Rural Development and Water Conservation Depart-

ment, Government of Maharashtra Executing Agency: Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), Maharashtra Funding: EURO 23 million, KfW Entwicklungsbank

INR 404.1 million, Government of MaharashtraINR 164.4 million, Farmer contributions

This Report: Consultant’s Service Completion Report Prepared by: GITEC in association with Kirloskar ConsultantsReporting Period: MIP-M Main and Consolidation Phases

March 2005 to June 2011

(1) The Consultant consortium of GITEC/BCEOM/Kirloskar was selected by the Gov-ernment of Maharashtra (GoM) to provide technical assistance services to the imple-mentation of Minor Irrigation Programme – Maharashtra from its commencement until its completion. Initially appointed for the Pilot Phase from February 2001 to January 2004, (which was later extended to December 2004) the consortium was reappointed for the Main Phase from March 2005 to December 2008 which was later extended with a Consolidation Phase to the end of the programme in June 2011. (2) Although the full programme period of over 10 years has been completed, the de-velopment of the distribution system infrastructure and on-farm works has not been fully accomplished in all irrigation schemes and these works will be completed under the direction of the Programme Management Unit of MI(LS) and without the need for further Consultant services apart from some short monitoring and approval inputs for fi-nal checking and bill payment, up to September 2011.

(3) Final Reports were prepared at the end of each Phase as per the Consultant’s ToRs. The Pilot Phase report was the Pilot Phase Précis, submitted in March 2004, with the Main Phase report being the Main Phase Summary Report, submitted in March 2009. (4) This Final Report is intended to supplement the two previous final reports by summarising the progress made throughout the Programme together with the assist-ance of the Consultant with the main focus on the Consolidation Phase. It identifies the inputs that have been provided by the Consultant and the Programme achievements. The Report provides analyses of the progress of the different project activity compon-ents, project impacts, project strengths and weaknesses, innovations, and lessons learned. Suggestions are also made for the continuation of the approaches developed by the Programme beyond the completion of consultancy services in the MIP-M schemes and new projects.

(vi)

(5) Programme Implementation Progress in the completion of its physical objectives has not been as planned and achievements have fallen behind schedule. The activity targets and objectives for the infrastructure development have not been reached. How-ever the targets and objectives for the institutional development and agricultural com-ponents on the schemes that have been completed have been achieved and fulfilled:

(a) Instead of between 40 and 42 schemes being completed, only 29 schemes were taken up for construction of which headworks have been completed on 27 and distribution systems able to function (serving >80% of planned command area) (ICA) on 20.

(b) The balance 13 schemes (i.e. 42 less 29 schemes) which were investigated, designed and tendered but unable to be taken up for construction are to be completed from regular GoM budgets.

(c) With the reduced number of schemes completed, the increased area under irrigation is 4,500 ha compared with the 7,850 ha that was planned.

(d) The cropping intensity in the completed schemes has increased to 157%, exceeding the target of 120%.

(e) The net benefit increase is INR 26,500/ha (in yr. 2002 values) compared with target of INR 11,000/ha (in yr. 2002 values) in the completed schemes.

(f) Water User Associations (WUAs) are registered in 28 schemes.

(g) In 9 schemes the WUAs have taken over responsibility for scheme management, operation and maintenance. In the balance schemes, WUAs have expressed their willingness for taking over the schemes as soon as the main infrastructure is completed.

(h) The participatory agricultural development programme (PADP) has been implemented in 25 schemes.

(i) 139 guidelines were prepared consisting of Administration Notes, Technical Notes, Training Manuals and Reference Documents.

(j) Training courses have been held for Gov’t staff, NGOs, WUA committees and farmers in all schemes. 7,650 farmers have been trained under PADP.

(k) Vehicles and equipment were procured to support project implementation.

(l) Due to the inability to complete 42 schemes, the allocated loan from KfW has been underutilised by EURO 8.15 million with the balance funds to be reassigned by KfW within India. The funds for the completion of the 13 schemes unable to be taken up under MIP-M and the unfinished works on the 29 MIP-M schemes must now be allocated from regular GoM funds.

(m) 148.82 person months (PM) of technical assistance has been provided by the Consultant, of which 122.0 PM have been contributed by national consultants and 26.82 WM by international consultants. As at 15th July, a further 0.8 PM of international consultant has yet to be provided until 30th September.

(vii)

(6) Project Impact has been good with GoM acknowledging that MIP-M has set a replicable example in participatory irrigation and paved the way for setting policies that enable farmers to take-over responsibility for creating, managing and maintaining minor irrigation facilities. Favourable impacts have been made in the approach to irrigation development and management, in increased crop diversity and yields, increased in-come and employment generation, improved self-reliance, skills and capacities of farm-ers to implement community-based projects, all of which have arguably resulted in im-proved health, education and standard of living. The project has changed the traditional habit of farmer dependence on Government for water management.

(7) Project Strengths have been its participatory approaches, advanced project man-agement and technical assistance from international and national experts, the involve-ment of NGOs in social mobilisation and guaranteed project funding.

(8) Project Weaknesses have been a too-complicated and bureaucratic programme design, a lack of qualifying sites, (initially) too-high farmer contributions, onerous and complicated scheme approval and Government payment processes, lack of competent and motivated Government field officers, lack of Government field resources and a lack of responsible civil works contractors. (9) Innovations introduced by MIP-M include the engagement of NGOs for undertak-ing social engineering activities at field level, the adoption of the Participatory Irrigation Development and Management (PIDM) approach for guiding the overall irrigation scheme development process and the Participatory Agriculture Development Pro-gramme (PADP) for providing intensive support in agricultural advancement for the newly formed water user associations (WUAs). A unique feature of MIP-M was that the WUAs assuming full responsibility for the management of the MIS are given full owner-ship of the water and the irrigation service fees (ISF) charged to their members are kept in total by the WUA for management and maintenance activities.

(10) Lessons learned show that the adoption of participatory approaches to com-munity-based irrigation development is possible but is not easy in an environment where the expectation of the farmers is for Government to provide the MIS at no cost to the community. Clear and consistent government policies are necessary. To complete a MIS from start to finish i.e. to the point where WUAs are capable of sustainable O&M, requires at minimum a 5-year implementation time-frame which is achievable only with the full commitment of motivated and competent field officers and external input from dedicated NGOs and, of course, the willingness of the farmers.

(11) Project Management has largely been efficient at PMU level with the support of the Consultant, whereas at field level the implementation management by the Divisions through whom all works are executed has been very inefficient. Delays have been ex-perienced at all stages of the development process due to the inaction of the division staff who assumed little responsibility and exhibited little concern over whether the works were implemented as per the agreed schedules or not.

(viii)

- 1 -

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Service Completion - Final Report Purpose

The purpose of this “Final Consultant’s Service Completion Report” is to provide a re-view of the objectives, design, achievements and impacts of the Minor Irrigation Pro-gramme – Maharashtra (MIP-M) during the period of provision of technical assistance to the Programme (focusing on the Consolidation Phase), by the Consultant (GITEC/BCEOM/Kirloskars). The period of the Consolidation Phase was from 1st January 2008 to 30th June 201l, with a one-year overlap of services with the Main Phase in the period from 1st January to 31st December 2008. The activities undertaken during 2008 were covered in the Précis Report for the Main Phase published in March 2009 and there-fore details not repeated in this report.

Although the physical goals and objectives of the Project have not been reached during the period of Consultant technical assistance, the objective of developing and proving an implementation approach (Participatory Irrigation Development and Management, PIDM) to the sustainable development, management and maintenance of Minor Irriga-tion Schemes by WUAs was successfully achieved. In addition the objective to institu-tionalise the PIDM approach has been achieved with the adoption by MI(LS) of the policy to prepare WUAs for taking over O&M responsibilities in all existing schemes un-der their management and all future schemes yet to be constructed.

Being a Consultant’s Report, it reflects the opinions and ideas of the Technical Assist-ance Team (TAT) which may not necessarily be those of the RD&WCD. Where there are differences in opinion, these are pointed out. The completion of this report fulfils the requirements given in Art 3.4 (c) of the Supplementary Agreement to Addendum No 1 to the Consulting Contract for the Main Phase, dated 29 Dec 2010.

1.2 Programme History

The Minor Irrigation Programme - Maharashtra was initiated by the RD&WCD of Government of Maharashtra as a bi-lateral development programme through Government of India and was taken up by KfW in 1995. The Feasibility Study reports were completed by Euroconsult1 and the Programme agreed and Loan Agreement subsequently signed with Government of India on 31st December 1998. The Separate Agreement, outlining the implementation details was later finalised with Government of Maharashtra on 11th May 1999 and Consultants appointed in January 2001. Mobilisation of the Team Leader took place on 31st January 2001 with the balance international and national consultant staff joining soon thereafter.

The consortium of GITEC Consult, GmbH in association with BCEOM, from France and Kirloskar Consultants from India provided the services throughout the full Programme period from January 2001 until June 2011.

1.3 The Programme Area, Problems and Needs

Maharashtra is the largest state in India at 308,000 sq. km. with approximately 60% of its 100 million populations living in the rural areas. It has a defined wet season from

1 Euroconsult is a consulting company from the Netherlands

- 2 -

June to September and dry season from October to May. The kharif crop is planted at the onset of the rains with harvest in September - October followed by the Rabi crop planted in October – November. Irrigation is required to ensure that a successful Rabi crop is achieved. Where water remains in tanks or wells at the end of the Rabi season, a hot weather crop can also be grown, provided sufficient water is available for do-mestic and livestock requirements which take priority.

In the west of the State, rainfalls are assured and water is usually plentiful for 2 crops per year with 3 crops per year possible with storage. In the central and eastern parts, rainfall is less dependable resulting in limited surface and ground water supplies in some years. Without water storage only a kharif crop is possible. MIP-M was estab-lished to work in the central and eastern parts of the State to construct MIS for water storage. The unreliability of the rainfall coupled with poor soils and, until recently, poor agricul-tural support infrastructure, makes rain-fed farming in many areas of the State a risky business. Crops yields and returns are low in comparison with input costs resulting in continuing rural poverty. Many farmers (if not all at some stage) are loan defaulters and it is only through subsidised funds and regular Government “loan waiver” programmes, that many farmers are able survive.

Providing assured water in a community can change this scenario. Although designed with only a 50% dependability of filling in any year, a MIS can provide sufficient water to raise community standards of living and bring farmer households out of poverty. To achieve this requires efficient and equitable water utilisation coupled with improved ag-ricultural practices and proper O&M. Ownership and control of the water must also be in the hands of the users. This gives confidence to the farmers and improves willing-ness to invest in their farming systems.

Traditionally the approach to MIS development in Maharashtra has been one where the Government was responsible for the planning, design, construction and management without community participation. The need was identified for a Programme such as MIP-M to change the approach to being farmer-centred. The involvement of NGOs in the process was also necessary to break dependency on the Government by the farm-ers and instil community self-reliance.

MIP-M fulfilled the need to:

Involve communities to develop, use, operate and manage irrigation schemes efficiently and sustainably with equitable water distribution

Improve agricultural production and maximise its investment to realise full potential, and;

Assist RD&WCD towards institutionalising participatory irrigation devel-opment and management.

- 3 -

2 PROGRAMME GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

2.1 Programme Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of the Programme to be achieved at the completion of MIP-M (as given in the logical framework for the Main Phase) was:

Profitable, equitable and efficient irrigated agriculture is being under-taken in at least 51 WUA-managed MIS, which have been developed by GoM with active participation of the beneficiary communities.

The indicators for achieving the goal are listed as:

MIS have been well constructed and fully functioning as per design un-der the management of strong WUAs

10 MIS have been completed from Pilot Phase (ICA of 1550 ha) and about 40 MIS developed under Main Phase (ICA of 6300 ha)

Average net financial return for the beneficiary families has increased by 250% within 5 years after start of MIS operation.

The objectives of the Programme were:

GoM / RD&WCD have formally adopted the PIDM approach for particip-atory irrigation development of WUA-managed MIS with equitable water distribution, targeting small farmers

GoM / RD&WCD has developed institutional capacity to implement the PIDM approach

MIS have been selected and constructed following the PIDM approach and are under the management of WUAs. Target ICA and number of farmers benefiting under MIP-M (Pilot plus Main Phases) are 7850 ha and 8300 households respectively

Financially viable irrigated agriculture has been achieved through in-creased crop production, cropping intensity and irrigated area.

Regarding agricultural production, the specific targets were to:

Increase the irrigated area by 7,800 hectares with increase in net bene-fits of Rs11,100/ha within five years (i.e. from Rs4,700/ha to Rs14,800 / ha with base year 2004);

Double the cropping intensity to 120% , and Double the average crop yields, after 3 years of operation.

2.2 Programme Design, Strategies, and Activity Components

2.2.1 Design

MIP-M was designed in two phases; a 3-year Pilot Phase, from February 2001 to Janu-ary 2004, followed by a 5-year Main Phase to December 2008. It was subsequently ex-tended for a further period of 2.5 years for a Consolidation Phase until June 2011. During the Pilot and Main Phases, potential MIS sites were investigated in 14 districts and finally selected in 11 – Pune, Aurangabad, Osmanabad, Washim, Akola, Yavatmal, Amravati, Buldhana, Chandrapur, Latur, and Sangli.

- 4 -

The target number of MIS for MIP-M in 2001 was 51 but difficulties in finding suitable sites and cost increases, reduced the target to 42 by 2005. Finally only 29 schemes were able to be taken up for development with 28 expected to be completed within the Programme. The last scheme and an additional 13 schemes which were identified dur-ing the Main Phase will now be completed under regular GoM funding as an extension to MIP-M was not possible.

2.2.2 Organisation

The Programme organisational structure is given in Figure 1.

For policy, planning and approvals, committees were established at Mantralaya (State Government), department, circle (region) and division (district) levels.

Implementation, was managed by a PMU set up within the Chief Engineer’s Ooffice of Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), i.e. MI(LS), under the authority of the Secretary, WC&EGS (of RD&WCD). The execution of the field activities were the responsibility the respective field offices located at circle, division and sub-division levels.

To assist with the “social engineering” activities involved with farmer mobilisation and participation, NGOs were assigned to each scheme or group of schemes. During the latter part of the Main Phase and for the Consolidation Phase, an APEX NGO was appointed to take charge in 16 schemes in order to expedite the farmer tasks.

For undertaking the agricultural activities, a training provider was engaged for the 25 schemes in which the PADP agricultural programme was implemented. To facilitate implementation, scheme working teams (SWT) were established at scheme level bringing together the respective staff from the concerned agencies.

Overall guidance (advisory services) to the Programme was provided by the Consultants.

Figure 1: Organisation of MIP-M

- 5 -

2.2.3 Strategies and Activity Components

The development and management of a MIS in MIP-M involves a partnership between the concerned farmers organised in the WUA and the RD&WCD. As partners, both parties have certain rights and obligations during the design, construction and the O&M of the irrigation infrastructure.

One very important aspect of the participatory development is that all concerned farm-ers will be actively involved in all stages and that all decisions require the approval of the WUA on behalf of all water users. Before decisions are taken, all concerned water users are consulted (including women members) from the villages situated in the com-mand areas of the MIS.

The entire process for designing, constructing and managing a MIS under MIP-M was called the Participatory Irrigation Development and Management (PIDM) approach and divided into 4 phases:

Scheme Assessment, Design and Selection Phase: From the first re-connaissance visit up to preparation of the Project Identification Report (PIR) for approval by the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) and KfW.

Group Formation and Agreement Phase: Includes activities from pre-paration of Detailed Project Report (DPR) to registration of WUA and signing of a Scheme Agreement between WUA and RD&WCD for devel-opment of the scheme.

Construction and Capacity Building Phase: Starts from construction through to commissioning and includes strengthening the WUA for O&M responsibilities.

- 6 -

Irrigation Management Phase: WUA assumes O&M responsibility through signing an Irrigation Management Agreement between WUA and RD&WCD and agricultural skills are enhanced through PADP.

A PIDM Procedure Manual (TN15) was prepared in 2001 and based on experience during the Pilot Phase (2001 – 2005), the approach and manual was reviewed and amended in April 2005 for the Main Phase.

The steps in PIDM are given in Appendix 1.

2.2.4 Participatory Agriculture Development Programme

One of the main objectives of MIP-M was to improve the income of small farmers through their participation in improved agricultural development and marketing. The Participatory Agriculture Development Programme (PADP) was introduced during the Main Phase to achieve this goal by fostering and adopting sustainable irrigated ag-riculture by recipient farmer communities. This continued throughout the Consolidation Phase to cover 25 schemes.

Sustainability was pursued both in terms of the reliable provision of irrigation water and initiation of a process that enabled appropriate agricultural technology to progressively develop at each scheme to take full advantage of the available water. In addition, sus-tainable agricultural practices would be encouraged through the promotion of low ex-ternal input organic agriculture that has least environmental and health consequences.

The direct target group of the PADP consisted of all landowners/ farmers within the command area of schemes covered under MIP-M. The official WUA member was the title holder of the land but his family members were also encouraged to participate fully in the training programs. The total number of farmers benefiting directly from PADP is estimated at 7,650.

Whereas construction of physical works and associated tasks for irrigation are routine activities of the MI(LS), other activities within the PIDM approach including income gen-erating activities are not. Therefore a Training Agency was appointed to conduct the PADP component.

PADP was implemented through a consortium of three organisations namely AFARM, Pune, Krishi Vidnyan Kendra (KVK), Jalna and Primove Infrastructure Development Consultants, Pune. As this was a participatory training program, farmers had the final say on the content of their curriculum. Following the assessment of existing cropping and irrigation practices and the implementation of a local marketing survey, one or more Training Needs Assessment (TNA) meetings were conducted to assess the most important problems regarding (irrigated) agriculture as perceived by farmers.

- 7 -

2.2.4.1 Activities under PADP

Under PADP program, each year, every scheme budgeted for ten trainings programs. Written hand-outs were distributed to farmers ahead of each session. Four exposure visits were planned where a group of farmers travelled to see an Agriculture University or agriculture research station/ or KVK Centre or a progressive farmer. Through this ex-ercise farmers could see first-hand new varieties, irrigation techniques, farm machin-

ery, etc., and adopt such techniques and technol-ogies and improve their farming system to in-crease their benefit. Ten demonstration plots were set out in one-acre plots, where key rec-ommended agricultural technologies were show-cased for farmers to evaluate on a cooper-ating farmer’s field. Eight field days (half were for women) were scheduled for farmers to observe the progress and results of the demonstration plots per year. These in-cluded recommended practices of growing a

crop, introduction of new crops, new varieties, seed treatment practices, fertilization re-gimes, as well as plant protection innovations. Marketing surveys were also carried out each with farmer participation so they could learn more profitable locations and periods to sell their produce. They also learned the desirable characteristics of their produce that fetched highest prices as well as obtained highest quality grades for their produce.

2.2.4.2 Implementation Methodology

An Agricultural Development Committee (ADC) was established within each WUA with whom the agricultural programmes were executed. Agricultural Production Groups (APGs) which focussed on a particular crop or development issue were also set up. To assist with the activities and facilitate communications between the Field Station Of-ficers (FSO) who were appointed by the training agency and the APGs, a “krishi mistra” (village agricultural technician) was appointed from within the village. The FSO provided the agricultural training to the participating farmers with the assistance of local and outside experts as resources persons.

2.2.5 Methodology of Assessment

In 2004, monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of the Programme interventions by means of an annual socio-economic survey of eight farmers per scheme commenced. A questionnaire of four datasheets was developed, wherein details of the crops planted and the inputs used were monitored as well as resulting yields ascertained, allowing

Cotton Demo Plot at Ghanmukh Scheme, Dist- Yavatmal

- 8 -

the net benefits to be calculated. In total eight schemes were selected: 1) Pimpri Hat-gaon, 2) Kasari, 3) Bibkhed, and 4) Varve (these four schemes initiated in 2004) 5) Walki, 6) Jambrun Jahagir, and 7) Khandala (these three schemes initiated in 2005), and 8) Bolegaon (initiated in 2006). The surveys were conducted in late April and May each year after the summer season crop was harvested. The farmers selected were representative of the range of farm sizes in each scheme. Thus in each scheme farmer respondents tilling small, medium and large holdings were selected for the impact as-sessment survey. These surveys gave continuity of impact assessment on selected farmers which was extrapolated to the whole scheme through later comparative discus-sions in plenary meetings with the WUA.

- 9 -

3 PROGRAMME PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

The programme progress and achievements have been reported in bi-annual Consult-ant’s Progress Reports delivered throughout the Programme, culminating in this Con-sultant’s Service Completion Report. The status of the Programme as at July 2011 is summarised as follows.

Headwork construction completed in 28 schemes

Distribution systems completed in 13 schemes, substantially completed in 2 schemes and work in progress in 13 schemes

WUA‘s are registered in 28 schemes

9 schemes are handed over to WUA for management, O&M and 11 schemes are in process for handover

Training in PIDM has been imparted to all MI(LS) and NGO staff as well as participating Taluka Agricultural Officers in the MIP-M schemes

PADP Programme implemented in 25 schemes

Potential irrigated area increased to 4,500 hectares (less than target of 7,850 ha)

Increase in net benefits of Rs26,500/ha\2 (exceeds target of Rs11,000.ha)

Cropping intensity has increased to 157% (exceeding target of 120%)

Crop yields have increased to 185% (less than target of 200%)

WUA collecting funds through fisheries

Improved living standard in project villages.

3.1 Programme Criteria, Guidelines, and Implementation Plans

3.1.1 Scheme Selection Criteria

The criteria for selection of schemes sunder MIP-M were agreed between GoM and KfW at the start of the Programme in 2001 and were revised in 2004 at the time of the mid-term review (agreed in MoM of KfW Mission dated 15 Feb 2005) and again in 2008 during the Main Phase (agreed as per MoM of KfW Mission dated 19 Feb 2008). All schemes had been selected by the start of the Consolidation Phase. The main selec-tion criteria are listed in Table 1 with the details of the variations given in Appendix 6.

Table 1: Key Selection Criteria for MIS under MIP-M

2 At 2002 currency values which is the baseline year for the Programme

- 10 -

Key Selection CriteriaTechnicalSlope of Land 0% to 2%SSize of Catchment Minimum of 3 sq kmMaximum Height of dam Max. 15 m (20m in exceptional circumstances) Earthmoving Operations for Grading & Levelling Maximum of 500 cubic metres per hectareEffective Soil Depth Minimum of 60 cmEconomicEIRR (over 25 year period) Minimum of 10%Investment Cost - MI Tanks - Storage Tanks - KT Weirs - Diversion Weirs

Maximum of € 2,968 per hectare ICAMaximum of € 3,317 per hectare ICAMaximum of € 3.201 per hectare ICAMaximum of € 1,339 per hectare ICAWith 10% increase for backlog districts

SocialLand Distribution Minimum of 60% of farms is smaller than 2 hec-

tares and they own a minimum of 30% of com-mand area

CommunityCommitment Majority of farmers has expressed interest to parti-

cipate in PIDM Programme during Awareness Meetings and Gram Panchayat has signed Letter of Commitment

EnvironmentalLocation Scheme is not located in nature reserve areaEnvironmental Impact No negative impacts on environmentDownstream Water Users No riparian users are affected by the scheme

3.1.2 Guidelines, Implementation Plans and Reports

The Consultant prepared guidelines, plans to support implement at the appropriate time throughout the Programme. These consisted of:

Abbrev. Document Type No.AN Administrative Notes 43TN Technical Notes 64TM Training Manuals 28MN Miscellaneous Notes 7M&E Monitoring and Evaluation Reports 24TR Training Reports 35PR Progress Reports (incl Final Report) 23RD Reference Documents 4

In addition to the above documents, a special hand-out publication was prepared for a State Level Seminar held in January 2011.

In 2007, a 30 minute docudrama video was produced by MIP-M in both English and Marathi which was used as a training tool for the Programme. Its main purpose was to raise awareness of the farmers in the new schemes to the MIP-M approach and of the benefits from having strong WUAs managing the schemes. The full list of documents produced within the Programme is attached in Appendix 2. Hard and soft copies were provided to the PMU for distribution as appropriate.

- 11 -

3.2 Achievements

3.2.1 Construction of Irrigation Schemes

At the commencement of the Consolidation Phase in January 2009, headworks had been completed on 27 schemes with distribution systems (substantially) completed on 8 schemes.

During the Consolidation Phase, the headworks on 1 further scheme was completed and distribution systems completed on a further 5 schemes with an additional 2 com-pleted to better than 80%. Another 13 schemes have yet to complete their systems with several having much work to do. Most will have completed the works within 12 months but in 4 schemes it is unlikely that the work can be completed even within that time-frame.

For 3 schemes (Umrani II ST, Sukali MIT and Wanjari MIT) problems with completing the headworks delayed the start of the construction of their distribution systems. Um-rani and Sukali have leakages which need to be fixed before farmers are willing to con-tribute to the distribution systems and for Wanjari, the headworks have only recently been completed with land acquisition for the main canal has not been completed.

For the 4th scheme, Chinchghat, blatant disregard for the PIDM approach and standard MI distribution system design as per the MI Manual of Water Resources Department, by the Division, created unnecessary problems and delayed completion. Whether the works will be completed to a satisfactory level at which time the WUA can assume re-sponsibility for maintenance is now in doubt.

Therefore in total, 28 schemes have headworks completed (albeit 2 with leakage prob-lems yet to be repaired) and 24 will have distribution systems capable of functioning within 1 year.

During this period, due to land acquisition problems 2 schemes (Umardara and Selu Khadse MITs) that were included in the list of 30 MIS at the start of the Consolidation Phase were dropped in 2009. Umardara headworks were completed up to gorge filling stage (i.e. about 80% completion) but Selu Khadse construction did not start. It was envisaged that approximately 40 to 42 schemes would be constructed under MIP-M and therefore as a result of the shortfall, there were still ample funds available under the KfW loan for mew schemes. It was agreed in early 2008 by GoM (and by GoI in October 2008) that the Programme would permit new schemes to be taken up to fully utilise the available funds during the Consolidation Phase. However this decision was reversed by KfW in March 2009 and although attempts were made to retain these schemes, sufficient progress with the on-going schemes could not be shown to con-vince KfW that the new schemes could be completed within the Programme timeframe and in March 2010, KfW confirmed their decision to drop the schemes.

The 13 schemes that were identified for the Consolidation Phase, of which 11 were sanctioned by GoM in November 2008 and headworks tendered in January 2009, were transferred from MIP-M and approval given by GoM for construction under regular GoM funds

- 12 -

As at 30 June 2011, the 28 schemes remaining in MIP-M will serve a total design irrig-ated command area (ICA) of 4,500 ha. The location of the schemes is given in Figure 2 and details of their construction status given in Table 2.

- 13 -

Table 2: Status of Irrigation Scheme Construction as at 30 June 2011

Head work Distribution System (Main Canal (MC) plus OFDI)

Construction of Head work

Construction of Distribution

System 1 A Pimpri-Hatgaon Yavatmal Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 171 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed2 A Varve Bhor Pune Minor Irrigation Tank 133 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed3 A Bibkhed Lonar Buldhana Storage Tank 202 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed4 A Kasari Lonar Buldhana Storage Tank 240 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed5 D Umrani II Jath Sangli Storage Tank 52 100% but Leaking 10% Completed Pending repairs ?6 A Adgaon - Jawale Paithen Aurangabad Minor Irrigation Tank 91 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed7 B Januna Mehakar Buldhana Storage Tank 138 Completed Completed Completed Completed8 A Gugwad II Jath Sangli Storage Tank 133 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed11 A Dhotra Kalamb Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 145 Completed MC completed OFDI 10% Handed over to WUA Completed12 B Mendhala Kalamb Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 110 Completed MC completed OFDI 60% Completed By June 201212 A Bolegaon Gangapur Aurangabad Kolhapur Type Weir 159 Completed Already existing Handed over to WUA Existing13 B Khandala Ner Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 115 Completed MC completed - OFDI 60% Completed By June 201214 B Walki Ner Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 130 Completed MC 90% completed - OFD1 0% Completed By June 201215 A Jambrun-Jahagir Washim Washim Storage Tank 145 Completed Completed Handed over to WUA Completed16 B Kolwan Tiosa Amravati Minor Irrigation Tank 138 Completed MC completed, OFDI 30% Completed By June 201217 D Sukali Karnja Washim Minor Irrigation Tank 143 95% Completed Design pending Pending repairs ?18 B Janephal Mehakar Buldhana Storage Tank 245 Completed Completed Completed Completed19 B Talkhed Motala Buldhana Storage Tank 188 Completed LIS 80% completed Completed By June 201220 C Wanewadi Osmanabad Osmanabad Storage Tank 134 Completed LIS 50% Completed Completed By June 201221 B Warwanti Osmanabad Osmanabad Storage Tank 113 Completed Existing Completed Existing22 B Shahapur Khamgaon Buldhana Kolhapur Type Weir 185 Completed LIS Completed Completed Completed23 C Danora Barshi - Takli Akola Kolhapur Type Weir 88 Completed LIS 90% Completed Completed By Sept 201130 B Gorja Bhadrawati Chandrapur Minor Irrigation Tank 113 Completed MC completed - OFDI 50% Completed By June 201232 C Ghanmukh Mahagaon Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 124 Completed 80% completed - OFD1 0% Completed By June 201233 D Wanjari Kelapur Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 241 Completed Work order issued - not started Completed ?34 C Maregaon Kalamb Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 195 Completed MC canal 95% - LIS 80% Completed By Sept 201135 B Khadakdari Mahagaon Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 198 Completed MC Completed - OFDI 50% Completed By June 201236 Dropped Umardara Shirur Latur Minor Irrigation Tank 113 80% completed39 C Chinchghat Yavatmal Yavatmal Minor Irrigation Tank 173 Completed MC 20% - OFD1 0% Completed ?

Present Status Expected date of Completion

Group

Scheme dropped from MIP-M in 2009 due to PAP issues

MIS no. Name of Scheme Taluka District Type of Scheme ICA ha

- 14 -

Figure 2: Map of MIP-M Scheme Locations

- 15 -

The schemes can be categorised into four groups:

Group A: ( 9 schemes) Schemes completed, and handed over

Jambrun Jahagir, Bolegaon, Kasari, Gugwad II,

Adgaon Ja-wale,

Bibkhed, Varve,

Pimpri Hatgaon

Dhotra,

Group B: (11 schemes)Schemes completed and in process of handing over

Kolwan, Janephal, Januna, Shahapur,

Warwanti, Khandala, Mendhala. Khadakdari,

Gorja Talkhed, Walki

Group C: (5 schemes)Schemes substantially completed with minor works remaining.

Dhanora Wanewadi, Chinchghat

Ghanmukh, Maregaon,

Group D. (3 schemes)Schemes not completed and for which an exit strategy has been pre-pared. .

Umrani II Sukali. Wanjari

The salient features of the schemes and breakdown of costs are given in Annex 1, of Volume II, Part 1: Technical Aspects, with a summary given in Appendix 3.

The Group A and B schemes need no further discussion. For the Group C and D schemes, the reasons for the delays in their construction are outlined in general as fol-lows as follows. Full details are provided in Appendix 4.

MIS no. 23: Dhanora KTW: Construction of the weir commenced in 2004 but problems with availability of sand delayed the work for over 18 months. Slow work by the Con-tractor then followed with the main works completed only in 2009. Immediately after completion, erosion of the concrete was evident and payments to the Contractor were then withheld until repaired. This took until June 2011 to complete when the Contractor provided the needles.

The distribution system also suffered delays due to lack of action by the concerned MI (LS) staff with designs delayed for several years. Other problems concerned the WUA and storage buildings where the lack of supervision by the MI(LS) staff required that parts be demolished and reconstructed. Cost overruns and the need for a revised DPR, which took over 2 years for MI(LS) to prepare, added delay. This scheme should have been completed by 2007 in all respects but was not due to the lack of interest of the MI(LS) staff. It is unfortunately the farmers who have lost in-come estimated by TAT to be in excess of Rs 80 lakhs.

MIS no. 20: Wanewadi ST: This scheme commenced in 2005 with headworks com-pleted in 2007. Although there were problems with the appointed contractor for the headworks sub-letting the work, the main problems started with the design of the distri-bution system with the MI (LS) staff ignoring both the SNGO and TAT recommenda-tions in the designs of LIS.

- 16 -

The WUA building and approach road were assigned to separate contractors and distri-bution system (13 LIS schemes) was also divided into many contracts, with the result that construction was unmanageable and as at 30th June 2011, only the road has been completed. Construction of the WUA building stopped when payments were withheld for substandard quality of work. Also, for the LIS, the pipes and fittings supplied did not meet the specifications and these works subsequently came to a standstill. [Note: As at end September 2011, all LIS were reported to have now been completed and will be paid under MIP-M]. For the WUA building, it will be completed using GoM regular funds after the departure of TAT. MIS no. 39: Chinchghat MIT: The headworks commenced in 2006 and are now com-pleted. The problem with this scheme was again the mismanagement of the distribution system design and implementation. Firstly, the topographic survey and designs were not assigned to a competent agency and the designs did not follow MIS design guidelines and PIDM procedures. Consequently instead of taking 6 to 12 months for these activities it took over 3 years and resulted in a total mess. As at 30th June 2011, the main canal is only 20% constructed and the on-farm works have yet to commence.

MIS no 32: Ghanmukh MIT: Construction of the headworks commenced in 2005. Un-fortunately the contract was given to an inexperienced and undercapitalised contractor who failed to complete the works, leaving the site idle for almost 3 years.

The construction of the distribution system was the next problem. Initially the farmers started to construct the works themselves but the alignment of the canal set out by the responsible MI(LS) engineer was not correct and completed sections subsequently had to be abandoned. The WUA members were then not credited (i.e. no contribution con-sidered) for their efforts for the redundant sections. A willing but small contractor was then appointed for the task of completing the canals but through inadequate cash flow and support from the responsible MI(LS) sub-division, he also failed to complete the work and as at 30th June 2011, the main canal still cannot operate.

As a consequence of the delays, all interest from the farmers has now been lost and no on-farm works have been undertaken to date. MIS no. 34: Maregaon MIT: Construction began in 2004 and headworks were substan-tially completed in 2006. However, the distribution system was delayed due to delayed (and confused) survey and design works undertaken by the MI(LS), delayed land ac-quisition by the Land Acquisition Office and later the poor performance of the contract-ors.

The result is that the systems are still not completed as at 30 June 2011. Due to this delay plus the poor quality of canal works, the continuity of interest from the farmers was lost and no on-farm works have been undertaken to date.

MIS no 5: Umrani II ST: The dam was completed in late 2003 but leakages were ob-served around the outlet pipe and through the left abutment as soon as filling com-menced in 2004. In 2005 the Contractor partially removed the left flank (up to ch. 95m) and reinstalled the culvert pipes with grouting in the COT. However this did not reduce the seepage to within acceptable levels to enable water storage in the dry season and warrant construction of upstream community lift systems.

A review of the works was undertaken by TAT after which KfW advised that a full geo-technical investigation should first be undertaken to ascertain foundation properties be-

- 17 -

fore any additional works commenced. A scope of works for these investigations was prepared and submitted to the Sangli Division for implementation. After protracted delays by the drilling contractor and disregard of the TAT instructions by EE, Division a sub-standard report was submitted (18 months after due date) to the TAT by EE, Divi-sion. As a result of the long delays, no repair works could be completed on the dam with the result that the distribution systems have not been constructed and contributions made by farmers have been returned to them by the WUA.

The EE, Div Sangli said that he will now refer the matter to the Central Deign Office of the Water Resources Department for their opinion and design of repairs and works will be undertaken from regular GoM funds when they become available.

MIS no. 17: Sukali MIT: Headworks construction of Sukali MIT started in 2005 with gorge filling completed in June 2007. However, at that stage, the expenditure limit of the administrative approval had been reached, and the contractor stopped his work pending revised administrative approval being issued. The cost overruns had been created due to bogus soils / foundation data being used in PIR and DPR by the MI(LS) sub-division which became clearly evident during construction.

After a two year delay in its preparation by the responsible MI(LS) Division, the revised DPR was finally submitted to GoM in October 2009 but was only approved in late 2010 due to pending “show cause” explanations of actions taken by field staff during the de-sign and construction phases, being submitted. For this reason it became impossible to complete the scheme within the programme time-frame.

There were also two other concerns with this scheme. In 2007 it was observed that ex-cessive flows in the downstream drains and waterlogging in adjacent fields were occur-ring indicating that some under-seepage beneath the dam embankment was taking place. As a result, the reliability of water storage became a concern.

The second concern with Sukali MIT is the cost for the distribution system which had increased three-fold from the original to revised DPR.

Therefore given the facts that;

1. Scheme completion was delayed due to delayed administrative approval being issued,

2. excessive seepage is observed to be coming under the dam, and 3. the significantly increased distribution system cost,

The exit strategy proposed under MIP-M in 2010 was to delete the canal (it was consid-ered that it would never be reliable) and encourage additional LIS directly from the reservoir and from a series of pick-up weirs on the downstream nalla. However, as at 30 June 2011, although meetings (facilitated by TAT and PMU) were held with the famers, there has been no further progress in completing the scheme by MI(LS) or the contractor.

The completion of this scheme will now rest with the GoM with funding for the distribu-tion system to be provided under regular budgets.

- 18 -

MIS no. 33: Wanjari MIT: Construction of this scheme commenced in 2004 but due to PAP opposition over six years, the headworks were just being completed as at 30 June 2011.

Unfortunately due to a lack of interest by the concerned MI(LS) staff the original DPR was submitted without any survey of the command area having been undertaken and therefore distribution system designed Even with all the time that was available due to the delays encountered during headworks construction, the distribution system designs were not finalised by the Division and neither the land acquisition proposals for the canal made on time. Consequently, as at 30 June 2011, as the land had still not been acquired for the main canal, construction of the distribution system could not com-mence.

The completion of this scheme will now rest with the GoM with funding to be provided under regular budgets.

3.2.2 Development of Water User Associations

In MIP-M each of the MIS developed under the programme has a separate water users association (WUA) attached to it. The TOR, while discussing the objectives and results clearly states that, ‘... WUAs will be established...’, and expects that, ‘....the WUAs are capable to operate and maintain the schemes..’. MIP-M’s policy on preparation and im-plementation of schemes emphasizes the management of MIS by farmers organized in fully operational WUAs. The schemes, in MIP-M are the result of the contract con-cluded between the farmers, organized in a WUA and the RD&WCD. The WUA plays key role in all the phases of the project, viz. planning, implementation, operation and management. The TOR also stresses the need to promote the creation and strengthen-ing of fully functional WUAs during preparation of the schemes.

The responsibilities of the WUAs as stated in the TOR are:

Responsible for O&M, and Collection of water charges

To achieve these objectives, mere formation of WUAs, though necessary was not suffi-cient. It had to be followed by proper capacity building activities. MIP-M has paid spe-cial attention to capacity building activities for WUAs. The ultimate aim of these activit-ies was to make them self-reliant so far as administrative, financial, technical and O&M (operation and management) related matters are concerned.

Capacity building programme for WUAs in MIP-M consisted of three components:

Formal training of Management Committee and other office bearers), Routine hand-holding activities, and Visits to similar community-based management organisations (CBOs)

elsewhere

Some of the benefits of appointing Apex NGO were as follows:

Adequate staff to arrange trainings Capacity to create a pool of resource persons Pre-training preparations assured the attendance of desired target group

- 19 -

Trainings mostly implemented as per the plans Regular monthly review meetings of the staff enabled quality improve-

ment Trainings were strongly accompanied by hand-on support at village level Retaining the same trainers improved training delivery Logistic arrangements were easily made, and Training aids were prepared and used

The monitoring strategy adopted was as follows:

Periodic field visits by WUA Expert Discussions with SNGO officials Village meetings with WUA members Telephonic monitoring Guidance as regards further course of action to SNGOs

As an essential element of follow up activity the records of WUA were checked during each of the field visits. A list of 17 records, 7 financial and 10 non- financial records, were prescribed, which the WUAs were supposed to maintain.

Lessons Learnt

(a) On an average 75% of the target group used to attend the training programmes.

(b) Receptivity on the part of trainees was an important challenge for the organisers (mainly SNGOs). Considering the age group and social background of the trainees, duration of training was restricted to 3 to 4 hours a day.

(c) Encouraging female members of WUA management committees to attend Training was another challenge faced by the organisers.

(d) Selection of proper resource persons for WUA training was also a difficult job.

(e) On one hand knowledgeable persons in content areas did not have necessary communication skill so far as interactive style was concerned, and on the other hand persons with good communication skill did not have necessary knowledge.

(f) Time bound programme was expected to be carried out by the SNGOs in respect of training. Difficulties, therefore, arose in matching the timing of a specific training module with the status of progress at scheme level.

(g) It was observed that smaller NGOs, as compared to Apex NGO, found it difficult to organise WUA training for want of resources. However there were couple of exceptions to this observation.

(h) Those SNGOs which could mobilize competent resource persons were able to do the job effectively.

(i) Limited tenure of SNGOs/Apex NGO posed another problem. If scheduled Training was completed before the scheme becomes operational; there was

- 20 -

less scope for converting the knowledge obtained during training into skills. It was strongly felt that in such programmes training should continue after the schemes becomes operational.

3.2.3 Farmer’s Contributions for Construction

The WUAs under MIP-M contribute towards the cost of constructing the distribution systems. Initially contributions were set at 62.5% of the total distribution system cost but were later changed to apply to only part of the systems with the loan funds paying 100% for the main canal in flow irrigation schemes and for the pumps and rising mains in the lift schemes. The overall WUA contribution to the distribution system costs then fell to about 40% overall. (see Table 4)

Table 3: Status of WUAs finances for Distribution Systems at 30th June 2011Members are in number, amounts in Rs.

Scheme

Share Capital (10% annual O&M) #

Capital Cost Contribution to Distribution System (62.5% of total DS cost for Batch 1 and II schemes and ap-

prox 20% for schemes thereafter)

Required (members /

Amount)

Collected (members /

Amount)

Amount Re-quired Collected (cash and labour) (members /

Amount)

A.1 ST Jambrun-Ja-hagir, 104/ 11,700 15,025 4,045,410 17 / 168,000 + 20 LIS completed*

A.2 MIT Adgaon –Jawale, 75 / 5,800 3,075 1,557,000 30 / 288,000

A.3 KTW Bolegaon, 180 / 33,577 21350 Req’d only for power meters 110 / 215,000

A.4 ST Bibkhed, 124 / 35,000 30,000 3,552,000 93 / 1,178,000

A.5 ST Kasari, 165 / 35,000 29,000 37,29,000 92 / 1,537,000

A.6. MIT Varve, 117 / 14,625 12,500 2,619,000 117 / 240,000 (C.) 1,930,000 (Ln) ~90,000/- (L)*

A.7 Gugwad, ~120 / 31,820 16500 3,660,000 100+ / 29,83,313 (23 LIS completed)A.8 MIT Dhotra, ~110 / 7,930 9,000 2,426,710 90 / 2,48,000.A.9 Pimpri-Hatgaon 104 /10,160 10,260 1,750,000 65 / 476,000

B.1 MIT Kolwan 119 / 8530 5625 744,960 8 / 110, 000 (7 Chaks Completed).

B.2 ST Janephal, 190 / 16,000 24,000 1,714,880 87 / 500,000 B.3 Januna, 134 / 28,185 9,245 1,006,080 55 / 323, 000B.4 KTW Shahapur, 149 / 14900 8800 1,545,888 45 / 690, 370 (Sch. Completed).B.5 ST Talkhed, 197 / 19,700 12,000 1,359,200 17 / 87,000 (6 Chak Completed).B.6 MIT Gorja, 97/12500 6800 642,592 N/AB.7 ST Warwanti, 101/12500 8400 0 Existing distribution systemB.8 MIT Khandala 72 / 9,450 4,200 300,448 10 / 87,000B.9 MIT Mendhala, 84 / 7,419 7,419 561,266 N A / 1,47,000*C.1 KTW Danora 71 / 19,500 19,500 651,840 N A / 131,000C.2 ST Wanewadi, 59/7500 4600 1,040,400 N A / 223,077C.3 MIT Chinchghat, 132 / 15,130 14,000 666,940 N A / 1,10,000C.4 MIT Ganmukh, 93 / 9,350 2,250 645,554 N A / 32000

C.5 MIT Khadakdari, 178 / 15.050 22,000 715,616 N A / 1,80,000

C.6 MIT Maregaon, N A / 6000 6,000 640,000 N A / 31000* (2 chak completed)*C.7 MIT Walki, 90 / 5,800 1,200 501,090 12 / 86000C.8 MIT Wanjari, 156/18500 7,300 845,470

- 21 -

Scheme

Share Capital (10% annual O&M) #

Capital Cost Contribution to Distribution System (62.5% of total DS cost for Batch 1 and II schemes and ap-

prox 20% for schemes thereafter)

Required (members /

Amount)

Collected (members /

Amount)

Amount Re-quired Collected (cash and labour) (members /

Amount)

D.2 ST Umrani II, 120 / 21,800 15,600 2,051,000 38 / 110,000 (C.) ~10,000 (L)*. D.3 MIT Sukli, 101 / 11,805 11,805 788,931 9 / 74,000

Total 2,985/ 409,831 1,311 / 540,804 39,761,275 572+ / 10,524,760(C ) / N A (L) / 1,930,000

(Ln) / N A (M)

C = Cash, L = Labour, Ln = Bank loan, M = Materials

Notes: #. All WUAs are registered as Cooperative Societies under prevailing legislation. A share capital contribution of 10% of the estimated annual O&M cost is required from the farmers for the regis-tration of the WUA$ A capital cost contribution of cash plus pledged labour. * Excludes labour contributions that have yet to be measured

As at the end of June, the direct farmer contributions amounted to Rs10,524,760 in cash plus Rs1,930,000 in loan (Varve MIT) as summarised in Table 3 It should be noted that the value of the expected contributions given (i.e. Rs36,761,275) is based on the initial DPR values advised to the WUAs at the time construction commenced and does not consider the revised / updated data recently compiled in Table 4 In Table 4, the revised total farmer contributions required amount to Rs78,121,200 of which it is determined that Rs50,125,650 (i.e. 64%) have already been completed or will be com-pleted by the farmers within the next year. This latter amount represents 28% of the total cost of the distribution systems compared to the revised target of 40%.

During the Consolidation Phase, the final valuations were completed for Gugwad, Kas-ari and Bibkhed schemes with final settlement of contributions made from KfW funds.

For the balance schemes yet to be valued, the balance of the KfW loan share agreed in the Scheme Agreement with the WUA (based on DPR amounts) will be transferred to the WUA accounts for use in completing the distribution systems. Funds from these ac-counts can only be used for civil construction works and withdrawn with the signatures of two WUA Committee members and the EE, MI(LS) Division. A review of the schemes will be undertaken by the PMU in 2012 and a decision taken on any unspent funds as on 30 June 2012 will be taken. TAT has recommended that the WUAs be ad-vised to spend the funds and complete the works by that date or else forfeit this money.

3.2.4 Development of Improved Irrigated Agriculture A final review of the PADP programme and its impacts was undertaken in May 2011 for the period 2004 to 2010. It was prepared by the International and National Agronomists from the data gathered during field visits and in discussion with staff from the PADP training provider and PMU. The full report is given in Volume II, Part 2 of this Report with the main achievements summarised as follows:

PADP Programme implemented in 25 schemes

Potential irrigated area increased 4,500 hectares (less than target of 7,800 ha)

- 22 -

Increase in net benefits of Rs26,500/ha\3 (exceeds target of Rs11,000.ha)

Cropping intensity has increased to 157% (exceeding target of 120%)

Crop yields have increased to 185% (less than target of 200%)

Benefit areas:

The total area able to be irrigated once all 29 MIP-M schemes are completed will be 4,500 ha, which is less than the target area expected of 7,850 ha, from 42 schemes.

Scheme level benefits:

Perhaps the most important data to evaluate regarding the impact of MIP-M is the de-termination of net benefits or profit from agriculture received by farmers in project schemes. Taking the net benefits per ha per farmer, one can extrapolate this benefit to the area of each scheme ICA. In the 8 schemes being monitored ICAs range in size from 115 ha in Khandala to 240 ha in Kasari. The cropped areas in the ICA have in-creased by almost 60% on average from before to after project and with a mean net benefit of Rs 33,445/ha post-project (in 2002 values) compared with Rs 6,985/ha pre-project (i.e.. increase of Rs 26,500/ha), there has been a 4.8 fold increase in incomes. For a scheme, this means an average income increase from Rs 1,131,564 /ha to Rs 5,351,210/ha. This income is 33% above the average expected income given in the DPRs after 5 years so results are better than design

Increased Cropping Intensity: On average, cropping intensity in the 8 intensively monitored schemes has increased by 57% i.e. to 157% (Range increase is from 118% in Jambrun Jahagir to 4% in Walki MIT where the distribution system has yet to be completed). In 2010-11 cropping year with all tanks full and distribution systems completed, the expected average increase in cropping intensity will be 75 to 80%). This exceeds the target cropping intensity set of 120% overall.

Increased Crop Yields: Data on 14 key crops was gathered from the eight schemes in the Impact Evaluation Survey (2004-2010) to determine if farmers were learning how to cultivate their crops more efficiently based on experience. It is evident that there is an upward trend for yields to increase over this span of time in most instances. Interpretation must also ac-count for the effect of drought on crop growth in any year as this can greatly bias yield trends.

Including all 8 schemes (of which some distribution systems are have yet to be fully completed), the mean increase in crop yield has been 85%. This is on track but is less than the 100% increase set as the target after 3 years of operation.

Farmers receiving irrigation now enjoying middle class life:

3 At 2002 currency values which is the baseline year for the Programme

- 23 -

Of the 64 farmers in the Impact Evaluation Survey, almost two thirds (66%) earned all of their income from farming. Some 13% worked as labourers earning a mean of Rs14,120/yr. (range Rs4,000-50,000/yr.). Aside from farming, 22% were also engaged in business averaging incomes of Rs60,320/yr. (range Rs6,000 to Rs300,000). With these incomes farmers have been able to repay their debts (many were loan defaulters before the project) and make sizable purchase of assets. When evaluating the results it is clear that not all of these purchases could be made from income earned from irrig-ated agriculture and therefore combined incomes and loans were used. With the bad debts having been repaid, many farmers are now able to avail of credit on the formal market.

Effect of farm size on benefit:

Emphasis of MIP-M is to target small farmers and therefore whether cropped area size had an influence on the magnitude of economic benefits of crop production or not, was analysed in Pimpri-Hatgaon. Farm size was divided into three categories small (<0.5ha), medium (0.5 -1 ha) and large (>1 – 2 ha). There were three farms in the small and large categories with two in the medium. The general hypothesis for the effect of farm size on production was that small farmers needing to maximize yield and would apply higher input levels than large farmers. Of course large farmers would spend more on inputs due to their larger area, but small farmers may outspend them on a per hec-tare basis. The results showed that the net benefits of small farmers were significantly higher per ha in most years when compared with the medium and large farms.

3.2.5Institutionalisation of Development Approach

Photo of Old & New house of the family at Jambrun Jahagir Scheme

- 24 -

MIP-M introduced several new strategies in the PIDM approach to irrigation develop-ment in Maharashtra. It was for the first time in India that NGOs were involved in the process, working alongside the government to mobilise the communities to participate in the planning, designs construction and management.

Another departure from convention was the inclusion of equitable water allocation in the design i.e. water allocation is based on an agreed land area ceiling (or agreed sup-ply volume) rather than “water rights” being automatically tied to “land ownership”. In other words, the community decides the maximum land area to be irrigated per landowner and the available water is distributed to as many farmer households as practicable. The conventional approach of “the larger the farmers’ landholding, the greater the amount of water received” is restricted under PIDM to a recommended ceil-ing of 2 ha per household; 2 ha being the upper limit for being classified as a “small farmer”.

Also introduced was a requirement for farmers in both open channel gravity flow and lift irrigation systems to contribute a significant share of the costs for the distribution sys-tems, which in the Pilot Programme Phase was 62.5%. Under regular GoM pro-grammes, gravity main canals from MI Tanks are provided at no cost to the farmers whereas for LIS from KT weirs or storage tanks, farmers are required to meet 100% of the costs. Therefore in comparison with gravity schemes the farmers were “disadvant-aged” but in lift schemes they were “advantaged”.

The Main Phase subsequently continued in accordance with PIDM but slightly modified taking account of the lessons learned during the pilot phase and recommendations made from the MIP-M mid-term review. One of the lessons learned was that the ex-pectation of 62.5% contribution from the farmers towards the distribution system devel-opment was unrealistically high given the much lesser contributions (often no contribu-tion) expected from farmers under other irrigation development programmes of the Government.

Although MIP-M had demonstrated the willingness of farmers to make the high contri-butions during the Pilot Phase such as in Pimpri-Hatgaon, Kasari, Bibkhed and Gug-wad, without consistency in the approaches and policies of the Government for all pro-grammes, the interest of the farmers and Government staff and their willingness to par-ticipate in MIP-M reduced. MI(LS) staff questioned why farmers should be expected to contribute cash and labour under MIP-M (to gravity schemes) when they can lobby the politicians and wait a few years to get a “free” scheme. With this attitude there was no drive by the various stakeholders to support MIP-M’s approach of “communities parti-cipating to help themselves”.

Where the farmers embraced the concepts the schemes developed successfully often with beneficiaries demanding design changes during construction to improve operation. Particularly in lift schemes, where the MI(LS) initial designs were for 4 to 5 large LIS, the farmers usually demanded a much larger number of smaller schemes to increase flexibility in operation and management.

Institutionalisation of the PIDM approach into the RD&WCD has not been achieved during the life of MIP-M although it is now proposed by the GoM that WUAs be de-veloped in about 230 existing schemes currently under the management of MI(LS), with the schemes then transferred to the WUAs for O&M. The PIDM approach is to be followed. All the schemes require upgrading and will involve the participation of the

- 25 -

farmers contributing both their experience and ideas for the scheme and in cash / la-bour for its improvement. A development partner to provide co-financing for this pro-posal is currently being sought.

In the opinion of Consultant, the main reasons for the inability to effect change in Gov-ernment policy are:

1. The policies of Government are made by politicians, and tend to be pop-ulist rather than pragmatic which work against sustainable development interests.

2. Successful irrigation management transfer (IMT) involves both strong policy plus incentive for change – both of which are lacking in RD&WCD.

3. Policies of Government are inconsistent regarding farmer involvement / contributions i.e. free schemes vs. farmer contributions

4. The regular transfer of staff within the department regularly removes in-stitutional memory.

3.3 Budget Expenditure and Residual Funds

3.3.1 Overall Expenditures

The accounts of MIP-M are maintained by the PMU and the summary of overall ex-penditures and contributions under MIP-M will be provided in the PMU Final Report to be submitted after settlement of all bills on 30 September 2011.

3.3.2 Construction / Investment Costs

The detailed investment costs for each scheme are given in Annex 1, Part 1 of Volume 2 of this Report and summarised in Appendix 5. A comparison between the actual in-vestments with the DPR estimates i.e. those required to complete the schemes in all respects is given in Table 4. As at 30 June 2011, Rs 9.36 mil. has been invested.

The investments actually made from KfW and GoM funds are close to those estimated, as was expected. The share of farmers’ investment which includes their costs for on-farm canal (or pipe) and drainage works and land levelling is less than required. The reason for this is mainly due to the delays in completion of the headworks and main distribution systems. The farmers are not willing to invest their time and funds until main works are completed and the water has proved to be reliable.

Table 4: Estimated vs. Actual Investment in MIP-M Schemes

 

Estimated Investment as per DPRs (Rs)

(see Appendix 5)

Actual Investment as at 30 June 2011 (Rs)(see Appendix 5)

Share Total % Total % KfW 665,877,100 63.6% 614,336,808 65.6%GoM 302,749,480 28.9% 272,149,793 29.1%Farmers 78,121,200 7.5% 50,125,650 5.4%Total 1,046,747,780   936,612,251           Headworks 845,691,650 80.8% 764,806,952 81.7%Distribution System 197,303,200 18.8% 175,283,436 18.7%

- 26 -

Farmers share of Distribution System 39.6%   28.6%

3.3.3 KfW Loan Funds

As at 30 June 2011, the amount received from KfW for MIP-M to the Disposition Fund account in Pune was Rs 573,857,519. Income generated during the period from bank interest amounted to Rs 4,642,708. These amounts are equivalent to EURO 10 mio and EURO 80,900 respectively at the average exchange rate from 2001 – 2010.

The expenditures and residual funds for the KfW loan to MIP-M are summarised in Table 5. As at project termination on 30th June, the physical works had stopped but the MIP-M Disposition Fund account remains open until 30th September to settle outstand-ing bills. Based on the bills in hand on 30th June, the total utilisation of KfW loan funds under MIP-M is expected to be EURO14.85 mio. or 65% of the total loan amount leav-ing a residual amount of EURO8.15 mio. unspent.

Table 5: Summary of Loan Expenditures for MIP-M

Budget Item EURO Rs* EURO Rs EURO Rs EURO RsDisposition Fund in Pune (Equivalent)Annual CostsAudit Services 40,840 2,413,644 2,061,438 229,424 2,290,862 Monitoring & Evaluation 24,210 1,430,811 380,749 - 380,749 NGO (50% share) 296,290 17,510,739 16,755,119 3,855,620 20,610,739 Information / training 468,800 27,706,080 17,101,720 1,790,397 18,892,117

Investment CostsConstruction 15,109,120 892,948,992 537,167,972 63,050,835 600,218,807

Contingencies 1,396,412 82,527,977 3,693,536 - 3,693,536 Price Increase (3% pa) 2,196,220 129,796,602 9,509,536 - 9,509,536

Sub-Total 19,531,892 1,154,334,845 10,222,514 586,670,070 870,487 68,926,276 11,093,001 655,596,346

KfW Payments in FrankfurtConsultancy Installation 59,710 115,190 - 115,190 Consultancy Annual Costs 2,575,170 3,213,105 72,055 3,285,160 Contingencies 230,838 - - Price Increase (3% pa) 610,810 363,478 28,092 391,571 Sub-total 3,476,528 3,691,773 100,147 - 3,791,920 - TOTAL PROJECT (in EURO) 23,008,420 13,914,287 970,634 14,884,921 * Average exchange rate used from 2001 - Nov 2010 = Rs 57.39 / EURO Predicted average exchange rate used from 2001 - Sept 2011 = Rs 59.1/ EURO Unutilised Budget: 8,123,499

As per Separate Agreement Expenditure as at 30 June 2011 Balance Expenditure to 30 Sept 2011 Forecast Total Project Expenditure

A summary of the fund management of MIP-M with an explanation of the process for settling the final bills and current issues is given in Appendix 6.

3.4 Provision of Consultant Technical Assistance

The Consultant’s inputs for the Main Phase were updated in Addendum 1 to the Main Phase Contract (dated 13th October 2008).for the Consolidation Phase and revised (downwards) in the Supplementary Agreement to Addendum No. 1 (dated 29th Dec 2010). This last revision was due to the 13 schemes being dropped from MIP-M, in March 2010.

In total 27.82 international and 121.86 national person months of technical assistance were provided to the Programme for the Consolidation Phase. Although the Consolida-tion Phase period was officially from 1st Jan 2008 to 30th June 2011, it was agreed by MI(LS) that flexibility in staff inputs would be permitted at the end of the period to facilit-

- 27 -

ate winding up of programme activities (letter from Chief Engineer’s Office, ref: PB-1/447 of 12th May 2011. As also agreed, the TAT office remained open until 15th July to enable smooth handover of vehicles and equipment, financial and technical audit and draft final report preparation. Beyond this date, it was agreed that there would be some days held in hand by the Team Leader for the checking and approval of contractors bills (up until 30th September 2011) and for participation in the KfW Mission scheduled for late September 2011.

As at the completion of services on 15th July, a balance of 24 person days remains with the Team Leader. Of this 10 days will be used for checking and clearing bills (110 bills are pending with PMU as on 15th July) and for finalising the Consultant’s Final Report. A further 10 days will be used for joining the KfW mission (including travel time) with the balance 4 days to be converted for the travel and accommodation costs involved.

A summary of the technical assistance rendered is given in Table 6.

Table 6: Technical Assistance Rendered from Jan 2008 to July 2011

Position NameMain Phase

Residual

Revised Additonal Months for

Consolidation TotalTotal Months of Input as at

Balance Inputs

Months Phase \1 Months 15th July 2011 Months \3International SpecialistsTeam Leader / Irrigation Engineer K. Smith 4.15 14.50 18.65 17.85 0.80 Rural-sociologist/User participation O. Verheijen - 1.80 1.80 1.80 - Agronomist J. Litsinger - 6.20 6.20 6.20 - Environmental Specialist M Priem - - - - - Backup P Keil-Bruder 0.22 0.75 0.97 0.97 -

Sub Total International 4.37 23.25 27.62 26.82 0.80 Local Specialists - Agriculturalist / Extensionist Gujare 8.53 20.15 28.68 28.73 (0.05) WUA Specialist P Sadolikar 1.30 8.50 9.80 9.96 (0.16) Regional Engineer 1 (Pune) U K Apte 1.86 24.00 25.86 25.90 (0.04) Regional Engineer 2 (Yavatmal) K K Bade 3.70 9.44 13.14 13.18 (0.04) Regional Engineer 3 (Akola)) R M Gattani - 9.55 9.55 9.53 0.02 Electrical Engineer as required - 5.85 5.85 5.84 0.01 O&M Engineer as required - 4.30 4.30 4.32 (0.02) Marketing / Agricultural Economist S S Deshmukh 2.35 2.46 4.81 4.81 - Training S S Sunkar 2.26 14.09 16.35 16.19 0.16 Unallocated 0.40 3.16 3.56 3.54 0.02

Sub Total National 20.40 101.50 121.90 122.00 (0.10) Total Person Months 24.77 124.79 149.56 148.82 0.70

\1 Revised as per KfW Mm March 2009 and Supplementary Agreement to Addendum No 1 and Memo 2 Feb 2011\2 Start of MIP-M Consolidation Phase\3 Balance time of 0.8 PM (24 days) of CTA time to be used as agreed between KfW/GoM during KfW Mission Sept/Oct 2011 - 9.5 days for home time for bill checking / approval - 11 days for CTA for KfW Mission (including travel time) from 25th Sept 2011 - Balance days to be converted for airfares and accommodation costs for CTA and Regional Engineer, Pune for KfW Mission

- 28 -

4 PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

The target for MIP-M was 51 MI schemes to serve 7,850 ha by the end of the Consolid-ation Phase so the final area even after the extension to 2011 is short of this target. The main reason for the shortfall has been the inability to find sufficient qualifying schemes although it was not through lack of trying. Since its inception, more than 200 potential new schemes have been referred to MIP-M for consideration of which approx-imately 140 were visited. In addition 76 existing schemes were visited which were in need of modernisation. No schemes were taken up eventually for modernisation and of the potential schemes approximately 50% were dropped for technical reasons, 10% for economic reasons, 37% for sociological reasons and 3% on environmental grounds.

4.1 Programme Impacts

4.1.1 Impacts upon the Agricultural Production and Marketing

For PADP, impact assessments specifically covering adoption rates, cropping intensit-ies, yield changes and incomes were undertaken annually in about 60% of the schemes. This data was then used in conjunction with the detailed M&E Impact sur-veys to assess the overall benefits and outcomes of PADP and total Programme inter-ventions.

1. Impact on crop intensification from Irrigation:

In 2009-10, data for 17 of the 27 MIP-M schemes was used to determine the ef-fect of irrigation on crop intensification. With irrigation, farmers could plant crops in both the rabi and summer seasons. The benefit of the tanks not only provided irrigation directly from stored water but also from improved ground water in the vicinity through deep percolation, raising water levels in wells and bores on neighbouring farmers’ properties. In some schemes such as Warwanti and Bolegaon, as the farmers had already installed many existing wells in known aquifers, the farmers decided there was no need for constructing a new distribu-tion system but rather only improve the density of wells in order to cover any uncommanded areas. On average cropping intensity in the 8 monitored schemes has increased by 57%.

2. Agronomic and Economic comparison of rain-fed and irrigated cropping:

For three schemes (Varve, Bibkhed and Bolegaon) the changes as a result of irrigation over the rain fed condition prior to construction of the dams, over the span of 2004-10 were analysed. One of the first outcomes from irrigation was the desire of farmers to increase their cultivated area e.g. the kharif area in Bib-khed and Bolegaon increased from 12 to 14% although Varve decreased by 13% due to famers keeping land fallow for growing cash crops in rabi season. In rabi season the cropped area increased from 0 to 45-91%. A summer crop was also harvested from 5-11% of the area where previously there could be none.

- 29 -

3. Farmers experience in cropping leads to higher yields:

From the analyses of data collected on 14 key crops in the eight schemes in the Impact Evaluation Survey (2004-2010), the mean increase in crop yield has been 85%. This did not occur within a single season following commencement of irrigation but developed systematically with increased farmer knowledge through PADP and experience.

4. Finding highest paying market and establishing marketing linkages:

Under PADP, efforts for market linkages for produce have been established e.g. soybean was marketed to the ITC Company with higher rates that the prevailing market rates. Farmers actively seek the best markets for cash crops even in dif-ferent states often becoming innovative in transportation used. For example, farmers at Varve are selling onion at Bangalore, Hyderabad and Vashi markets. .Entrepreneurs such as one farmer in Jambrun Jahagir selling vegetables (to-mato, chilli, brinjal, drumstick, coriander) door to door in the village with his young son to regular customers, have sprung up.

5. Improved farm equipment:

Farmers are using their increased income to improve their farm equipment and save labour. Before in Jambrun Jahagir, there was only one tractor for rent in the village and the owner barely had enough work to justify its purchase. How-ever, there are now five tractors for rent and their owners have more business than they can serve.

6. Support to fishermen and more fish in diet:

Tanks become a reservoir for fish culture which not only gives employment to fishermen, but earns money for the WUA who lease the contract and adds more protein to the local diets. All tanks will attract fishermen to negotiate to raise fish. Bibkhed WUA auctioned off their fishing rights for over Rs.8 lakh for a five year period.

4.1.2 Impacts upon Livelihood (Income and Employment Generation)

1. Higher Income:

Farmers report that they feel their incomes have increased three-fold since commencing irrigation. (Calculations show that on average they have increased almost five-fold when compared to initial DPR values). Farmers now growing high value crops like leafy vegetables, especially during the summer season has increased incomes markedly. .For example, broccoli crop was introduced at Varve and Wanewadi schemes and through improved market linkages have earned very good prices. In Warwanti, a farmer earned upwards of Rs1.0 lakh from 0.40ha area in two months by cultivating coriander.

- 30 -

Mr. Krushindar Sonajirao Jawale, one of the beneficiaries from Adgaon Jawale MI scheme earned Rs. 2.45 lakh income from 170 no. of sweet lime plants ins one year. He applied the required dose of fertilizers & pro-duction management practices that was taughthe learned in training PADP program under MIP-M.

2. Increased demand for labour:

The demand for rural labour has increased due to the increase in cropping throughout the year. Earlier farmers were seeking employment in adjoining vil-lages or towns during the dry season but now farmers are hiring the labour from neighbouring villages. .

3. Decrease in rural to urban migration :

During rain-fed times the main work was in the wet season as there was only one crop per year. As farm sizes have de-creased, income from farming for only one crop per year was not suf-ficient to meet

household food demands. Thus farmers migrated to better paying, albeit sea-sonal, jobs.

4. Diverting surplus income to generate more income:

From the Impact Evaluation Survey it was reported that farmers purchased a wide variety of livestock, vehicles, farm equipment, and paid for marriage cere-monies from their increased incomes. Purchases varied between years but pur-chasing bullocks, cows, motorcycles, and pumps were generally the most popu-lar choices.

The best example from Adgaon Jawale scheme is that M/S. Nana Shankar Jawale and Arjun Baburao Jawale who left the village 20 years ago and migrated to Chikhalthana and Viha- Mandava respectively. After completion of MI tank both of them have returned back to the vil-lage to resume agricultural activity also attended all the training programs under PADP. Mr. Nana Jawale has now, planted 600 sweet lime plants with drip irrigation system near to MI tank as well as earning income by growing crops like groundnut & vegetable crops.

- 31 -

5. Credit availability:

Before irrigation became available, all farmers in Warwanti who took out loans in rainfed agriculture defaulted on payments. But now all farmers can take loans from the banks and for which they now can repay

4.1.3 Other impacts upon Livelihood (Health, Education etc)

1. Greater food security:

Where irrigation water was commonly available from the project tank, farmers said that they no longer worried about producing enough food to support their families anymore and had food security for the first time. e.g. Jambrun Jahagir farmers told that they were making chapatti only when they had festival or spe-cial guest. Now they do not have enough space to store the wheat.

2. Assured drinking water availability:

A tank has meant a great boon for communities where drinking water was in short supply during the summer season as the wells are recharged due to per-colation.

3. Better diet from more diverse crop:

Growing a greater range of crops including vegetables and fruits, and harvest-ing in more seasons meant improved nutrition intake for families. Jambrun Ja-hagir farmers used to travel to Washim to purchase vegetables but now can produce all they need. In Warwanti farmers told that their diet before was sorghum, wheat, and millet with some vegetables and no fruit. All schemes re-ported that their diets had improved.

4. Access to education:

The farmers in three sites showed how much they value education, as in each scheme were we interviewed, farmers told us they prioritized their new buying power to pay for the education of their children.

5. Access to medical care:

The farmers reported that having money brings more assurance that medical care is within their reach. Farmers now will see the doctor immediately when they feel sick.

6. Improved Public health:

It seems now that farmers with disposable income construct toilets, whereas previously there were none to very few in scheme villages; not even pit latrines. According to the farmers in Varve, almost all farmers have septic tank toilets which were all paid for in the last 2-3 years.

- 32 -

7. Use of more sustainable and less polluting cooking fuel:

The common cooking fuel in rural areas was either wood or dried FYM cakes. Wood come from forests and deforestation is one reason that rainfall in Maha-rashtra has been steadily declining over the decades. Smoke from burning wood in the homes is a leading cause of lung cancer among women. FYM, al-though it was preferred due to less smoke, was better used as the more sus-tainable practice of fertilizing farmland than burned up as fuel. As the major food of bovines that produce the FYM was straw, not replacing it reduces or-ganic and nutrient content of farm soil. The farmers in Jambrun Jahagir repor-ted that they now purchased propane gas in cylinders to cook with, instead of wood.

8. Improved personal Hygiene:

When farmers are poor they cannot afford soap, laundry detergent, toothpaste, or sanitary napkins that would improve personal hygiene. Soap is used both to wash ones hands to prevent the spread of diseases such as cholera and hepat-itis. This is particularly important as food is prepared and eaten often by un-clean hands. Laundry detergent also sanitizes clothing and prevents disease transmission. Most of the farmers in Warwanti before the project did not use either hand soap or laundry detergent, but now they do. Brushing one’s teeth on a daily basis prevents caries. Use of sanitary napkins permits girls to join in more school activities improving educational opportunities.

9. More farmers now practice birth control:

One of the greatest barriers to rural prosperity is the increasing population and declining farm size, as in each generation farm size decreases as inherited land is divided among the children. Therefore, the more the number of children, the smaller becomes each farm. The awareness among the new generation in War-wanti has been generated for using contraceptives which they can now afford.

10. Life Insurance:

In Wanewadi about 70% have purchased life insurance. The premium payment ranges from Rs1,600-Rs6,500 per year for a payoff in the event of death.

11. Minimizing suicide cases:

A farmer in Walki related an amazing fact in that, during the rainfed years, farm-ers who took out large loans for cotton production were not able to repay and thus defaulted. Such farmers can lapse into deep depression, and as a result, three committed suicide. Suicide among farmers with large debts that they be-lieve they can never pay off became an epidemic a number of years ago, partic-ularly in the cotton growing regions of Maharashtra. After farmers received irrig-ation, no farmer has committed suicide in Walki.

12. Rise in vices:

Often new found wealth can lead to bad habits such as gambling or drinking. For example in Bibkhed, the farmers reported during the PADP final evaluation

- 33 -

undertaken in June 2011 that gambling has not increased but drinking has, with alcoholism apparently having risen dramatically from 5 to 50% of farmers. A full discussion of this impact is given in the Final Report Volume 2, Annex 2, Section 4.2.13.17 on page 87.

4.1.4 Impacts upon Sustainable Irrigation Scheme Management

1. increased irrigation capacity:

Realising the importance of irrigation as the basis for their rising income and entry into the middle class, farmers are motivated to increase irrigation efficien-cies by using micro irrigation like drip sprinkler sets. Many WUAs revised the designs of their schemes at a late stage after site visits to other schemes where efficient irrigation systems had been installed. The original designs for the lift schemes envisaged furrow irrigation after piped distribution but this has changed in many schemes to be sprinkler. At Jambrun Jahagir scheme about thirty farmers have now established drip or sprinkler irrigation sets.

2. Increased and improved land base:

Farmers with irrigation maximise the cropped areas within their farms and im-prove soil fertility in order to gain even more income. They realize that increas-ing cropping intensity reduces soil fertility so they need to continually add nutri-

Sprinkler irrigation set used for summer Groundnut groundnut at Jambrun Jahagir

- 34 -

ents. Farmers are using their increased incomes to improve the quality of the soil principally by purchasing organic matter.

3. Increase in land value:

With irrigation, the farmers’ land is now worth much more than when it was rain-fed. In Bibkhed farmers reported that the price of land has risen 6-fold in he few years since irrigation commenced.

4. Farmers become proactive in forming institutional linkage:

In three of the schemes, farmers told us in a number of instances where they, either individually or as the WUA, became proactive and sought assistance from government entities to meet their felt needs. In Walki a farmer was able to get a grant-in-aid from a Department of Agriculture scheme to put in a second well and he purchased a sprinkler set and electric pump.

4.1.5

Impacts upon the Environment

1. Environmental effects:

The presence of the tank has meant a number of changes in the watershed, both positive and negative. Positive impacts include increased flora and fauna diversity in the surrounding area. Negative effects include an increase in pests such as wild pigs and deer which have been attracted from the surrounding area in the summer days due to greenery and ample water availability. No in-crease in water-borne diseases due to the tanks has been reported.

2. Decrease of flooding and land erosion:

In Walki the farmers reported that the presence of the dam prevents flooding and crop submergence in the downstream catchment. The excessive overland flow and ponding after heavy rainfall in these areas had previously caused the crops to lodge resulting in crop serious loss in the low-lying areas.

4.1.6 Impacts on Government Policy

Institutionalisation of the PIDM approach into the RD&WCD has not been achieved during the life of MIP-M although it is now proposed by the GoM that WUAs be de-veloped in about 230 existing schemes currently under the management of MI (LS), with the schemes then transferred to the WUAs for O&M. The PIDM approach is to be followed. All the schemes require upgrading and will involve the participation of the farmers contributing both their experience and ideas for the scheme and in cash / la-bour for its improvement.

After completion of PADP program, Kasari WUA started Farmers Field School for Cotton & Soybean crop with the support from Dept. of Agriculture. Jambrun Jahagir WUA established linkages with KVK, Agriculture University & Dept. of Agriculture for Agriculture Technology Support

- 35 -

4.2 Programme Strengths, Weaknesses and Innovations

4.2.1 Programme Strengths

The Programme strengths have been its participatory approaches, advanced project management with good teamwork between PMU and technical assistance from inter-national and national experts, and the involvement of NGOs in social mobilisation and guaranteed project funding.

The development of the PIDM approach and its implementation was a first for Maha-rashtra and perhaps India. The fact that MIP-M has been able to show that even small and poor farmers are able to contribute time, money and knowledge to develop and manage schemes and in doing so farm their way out of poverty, is proof that PIDM can work.

The determination and efforts of the Consultant team to see that PIDM was followed as closely as possible was a strength. In spite of support from the Government agencies and even deliberate attempts at times to derail the Programme, the results in the schemes where the farmers were given the choice to freely participate speak for them-selves.

The guarantee of loan funds for construction on the Programme was a strength that could not be capitalised on because of the lack of commitment from the MI(LS) staff to see the works completed.

The involvement of NGOs on the Programme was also a strength but initially relying on MI (LS) Divisions for their appointment at scheme level was a weakness. The local NGOs appointed with their limited resources, lack of experience and financial limita-tions to recruiting competent staff, had problems in undertaking the tasks assigned. Later in the Programme, once the Apex NGO was appointed, the benefit of having competent staff in the scheme for undertaking the social mobilisation required became evident.

4.2.2 Programme Weaknesses

The Programme weaknesses have been a very bureaucratic programme design, lack of qualifying sites, (initially) too-high farmer contributions, onerous and complicated project approval and Government payment processes, lack of competent and motiv-ated Government field officers, lack of Government field resources and a lack of re-sponsible civil works contractors.

The Programme design involved too many parties to be administratively efficient. The need for the Programme to operate through the regular implementation channels resul-ted in complicated processes leading to long delays. The excessive bureaucracy was exacerbated by the lack of interest from the concerned Government staff.

The selection criteria for sites did not match reality in Maharashtra at the time the Pro-gramme commenced and it became increasingly harder to find qualifying sites as time progressed. More flexibility in site selection from both KfW and GoM would have been beneficial.

- 36 -

A major weakness of the Programme was the appointment of irresponsible civil con-tractors by the MI(LS) Divisions (Consultant was not involved) which led to not only sub-standard works being delivered but an inability to take timely action to rectify prob-lems. Contractors deliberately delaying the works or not meeting standards were not penalised by the MI(LS) although these deficiencies were being identified and reported by the Consultant.

Another major weakness under the Programme was in the system of Government staff transfer. Due to this system staff are not motivated to work or take any responsibility for completing tasks on time and resolving issues in a timely fashion. Staff are neither re-warded nor penalised for undertaking good or poor work but merely transfer from one post to another. Staff in key posts should have been assigned for at least the duration of each Programme Phase.

4.2.3 Programme Innovations

Innovations introduced by MIP-M included the engagement of NGOs for undertaking social engineering activities at field level, the adoption of the Participatory Irrigation De-velopment and Management (PIDM) approach for guiding the overall irrigation scheme development process and the Participatory Agriculture Development Programme (PADP) for providing intensive support in agricultural advancement for the newly formed water user associations (WUAs). A unique feature of MIP-M was that with the WUAs assuming full responsibility for the management of the MIS, they were given full ownership of the water and the irrigation service fees (ISF) charged to their members being kept in total by the WUA for management and maintenance activities.

4.3 Overall Programme Effects and Benefits

The overall benefits of the Programme have been limited to those stakeholders directly involved in MIP-M although the effect of the Programme is now being recognised within other Government Departments and in Mantralaya. Frequent reporting of the Pro-gramme’s achievements has taken place in the newspapers and TV (see newspaper articles in Part 4 of Volume 2 of this Report) and through a State Level Seminar held in January 2011, received national publicity. The PIDM approach developed under MIP-M is to be used as a model for a future new project with the aim of upgrading existing MI schemes with MI (LS) in Maharashtra with their future management under sustainable WUAs.

- 37 -

5 ISSUES ARISING WITH IMPLEMENTATION

The management issues in MIP-M for the Main and Consolidation Phases which con-strained the timely implementation of the Programme were:

1. The management and implementation processes of the Programme were too complicated with too many levels of bureaucracy involved. The PMU (under the Chief Engineers Office) should have had greater authority in decision making on technical and financial matters in order to approve works and expedite the Programme.

2. It was proposed initially (2001) that an APEX NGO would be appointed to man-

age the “social engineering” aspects in the schemes but due to cost was down-graded to the engagement of local NGOs for the Pilot Phase. This proved to be a mistake because of their poor capacity and an APEX NGO was appointed for the Main Phase. This improved implementation but already the momentum for social change had been lost in many of the schemes and ability to effect change was already weakened.

3. Delays in land acquisition continued to be a major problem. As per GoM (and MIP-M) requirements, 80% of the basic rates for land compensation must be paid before the start of construction but this delayed construction at many sites. MIP-M showed that it was possible to complete the land acquisition process up to 80% payment stage within 6 months but in most cases this could not be achieved.

4. The concept of the “scheme working team” (SWT) between the MI (LS), NGOs and farmers in jointly organising the field development activities in the schemes did not work successfully in MIP-M. Success was achieved only where strong leadership was assumed by one party with the other partners undertaking their tasks as assigned.

5. The MI (LS) department is a civil engineering department with no mandate in “social engineering” or agricultural development. As a consequence, for mat-ters pertaining to construction or contractor’s payments then interest is shown but for matters pertaining to community development then there is uncertainty and interest wanes. This indifference shown towards the communities and the benefits to be gained from the timely completion of the schemes was the reason for many delays.

6. The Govt. policy of transfers of MI(LS) staff in the divisions and sub-divisions affected continuity of work. It took time before new staff became familiar with the schemes, the farmers and the PIDM approach. For example, in mid-2008, 100% of the sectional engineers working on MIP-M in Yavatmal were trans-ferred which worked against the completion of the schemes.

7. The Govt. did not keep its agreement for using dedicated MI(LS) sub-divisions in the Main Phase of MIP-M. This was reported as being due to ever increasing pressure on the Divisions for implementing other development programmes e.g. Prime Minister’s Package, EGS, Marathwada Package, etc. All of these pro-grammes were given high priority and to be implemented on a “war footing”. The priorities often outranked the work on MIP-M and hence staff was diverted away from MIP-M activities with predictable results.

- 38 -

5.1 Headworks Issues The main issues experienced in the completion of headworks were:

1. Inadequate geotechnical surveys during project preparation leading to problems on many sites during implementation. Although contractors were required to confirm the borrow areas and verify material quantities before submitting their bids they often relied only on the data provided by the MI (LS) without physically checking. As per the contract conditions, once bids are accepted no additional claims are permitted in this regard and therefore where the quantities or suitab-ility of borrow materials could not be found at their specified locations during construction, the contractors claimed additional lead costs to open new borrow pits. When claims were denied by the Project, the work then stopped.

2. Poor contractor capacity / performance and sub-contracting out of works have been problems at several sites. Contractors do not commit the resources to the sites as per Contract requirements and some contractors who win the work then informally sub-let the work to other contractors. Although there are provisions to penalise the contractors for slow performance, they are not effective. At least 5 schemes were delayed by sub-letting.

3. Contractors often complete 90 to 95% of the works then demobilise, leaving

balance works unfinished. The main reason for this appears to be uncertainty of receiving final payments. Normally all tenders run to excess and where this oc-curs special approval is required before payments are released. Under MIP-M an Excess Committee was established to decide on all issues for which excess/saving reconciliation reports were required from the Engineer in Charge. Report preparation always takes time and subsequently delays the decision and payments were a problem. At least 5 schemes were affected in this manner.

4. Construction quality was poor at most sites due to poor supervision by MI (LS) field staff. The field staff was not strict on ensuring the contract specifications were followed. In many cases, no actions were taken by MI (LS) staff even when deficiencies were pointed out in written reports from TAT.

5. Construction contracts were very poorly managed by MI(LS) staff. Timely ac-tions were not taken against non-performing Contractors and in these cases where delays were encountered it was the farmers who suffered as they are the ones who lose their promised income.

5.2 Distribution Systems

Construction of the distribution systems proceeded much more slowly than for the headworks. The main reasons for delayed distribution systems were:

1. The MI(LS) field staff are not adequately prepared or resourced for the intensive participatory design and implementation activities required for successful distri-bution system development. Being more familiar with implementing Govern-ment-led approaches, they have difficulty in working alongside the SNGOs and WUAs in developing appropriate designs and undertaking construction – partic-ularly lift systems which also involve electrical installation. Long delays have persisted throughout the Programme.

- 39 -

2. The farmers are reluctant to invest their money, time and effort in the construc-

tion of the distribution systems until they are confident the scheme headworks will be finished. They are well aware of the delays encountered in completing headworks under the regular GoM programmes and therefore are not motivated to expedite their activities with the distribution system. Momentum has to be maintained to ensure the interest of farmers is maintained.

3. Farmers are particularly reluctant to invest in the lift schemes until they are con-fident water will be stored in the dam. From 2002 to 2004 a series of droughts in Maharashtra meant that existing dams did not fill and MIP-M farmers were sub-sequently very nervous about constructing their systems even after better rain-fall fell in the years after 2005.

4. Farmers do not want to invest more than they have to at any point in time. They contribute sufficient funds initially to ensure the scheme can operate (al-beit often very inefficiently) from borrowing and then pay the balance to install additional control devices etc from income. If it takes 2 to 3 years to clear the initial investment plus clear past debts (most farmers are loan defaulters), then it takes a further 1 to 2 years to complete the system as per design.

5. The electricity shortages experienced in Maharashtra hit the rural communities very hard, with load shedding of up to 14 hours per day. This is not conducive to promoting construction of lift irrigation schemes Unfortunately it was not only the load shedding that was problematic but the unreliability of the “schedule” that seriously affected the operation of group systems. It became impossible to manage a rotational water supply when the stated commencement and shut off times of electricity supply were not observed by MSEDCL. As a result of the anarchy that was created by this situation it was logical for each farmer to want individual lift systems with the concept of group development breaking down. The designs for the lift schemes have had to be revised many times exacerbat-ing delays in construction.

6. Many farmers consider that as “landowners”, they are not “labourers” and there-fore are unwilling to provide labour for construction as part of their contribution to the distribution system. This is particularly the case in the schemes in the Marathwada region. The assumption that “farmer” is synonymous with “farm la-bourer” in India was an incorrect premise on which MIP-M was established which impacted on the willingness of farmers to initially participate under MIP-M and later on the speed of distribution system construction. Generally the farm-ers can only pay for labour after the crops have been harvested and the cash flow in the community therefore dictated the construction periods.

- 40 -

6 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS

The main lessons learned from MIP-M and recommended for similar projects in the fu-ture are:

1. MIP-M has shown it is possible develop MI schemes with the farmers and build the capacity of WUAs to operate and maintain the infrastructure in an efficient and sustainable way by following a PIDM approach.

2. A 5-year implementation time-frame is required for new scheme development:

One year is required for the planning, design and preparation for con-struction i.e.. design approvals, WUA registration, land acquisition to 80% payment stage, tendering of works, etc

One year is then required for headworks construction A further year is required for construction / refurbishment of distribution

system, and Two years are required for an agricultural development programme

For existing schemes where the basic infrastructure already exists, the time frame can reduced to 3 years i.e. 1 year for planning and infrastructure improve-ment followed by the 2 years for agricultural development.

3. The development of a MIS should be divided in two parts. The MI(LS) Depart-ment should be responsible for the headworks and an appropriate NGO / private agency appointed for all aspects of the distribution system including WUA and agricultural development. The MI(LS) is a single focus engineering department, whereas an appropriate NGO / private agency can mobilise mul-tiple resources to focus on the technical, social, environmental and economic aspects that are required.

4. For construction works:

Only competent contractors should be appointed to the works and proper contract management must be provided by the Govt. supervisors.

A third party should be appointed for quality control and All works should be accepted by the WUAs before final payments to the

construction supervising agency (quality control) and contractors are made.

5. Farmers in both gravity flow and lift irrigation schemes should be treated the same in that subsidies should be available for assisting with upgrading of the distribution systems. The farmer beneficiaries should contribute at least 30% of the costs towards the upgrade to ensure they are serious about their project.

6. Only competent NGOs should be appointed for the social mobilisation and agri-cultural training activities with adequate experience and resources.

7. A competent PMU must be established which is empowered and with the flexib-ility to manage the activities in the most efficient manner using both private and public sector entities to ensure the works are completed on-time and within es-timated budgets.

- 41 -

7 COMPLIANCE WITH CONSULTANT’S TOR

The role of the MIP-M Technical Assistance Team (TAT) was to support the RD&WCD in all aspects of MIP-M implementation. The ToR for the Main Phase within the Con-sultant’s Agreement defined the Objectives and General Scope of Services and which was also carried over to the Consolidation Phase.

As for the Pilot Phase, the four main fields of support required of the MIP-M Technical Assistance Team (TAT) were:

-Programme Management -Engineering-Agronomy-WUA Development

Apart from the routine duties normally expected of the Team Leader / International Ir-rigation Engineer, a special item was included (Item 1.4 (2)) which was to… “Study the present methods for determination of available yield of monsoon flows and post mon-soon flows in small watersheds and make recommendations for improved techniques”.

A review was undertaken of the present methods used by MI (LS) and a comparison made of the results with other available methods. (see Part 1 of Volume 2). The present methods adopted for determining catchment yield and peak flood flows for MIS in Maharashtra are empirically derived formulae, developed by the British before Inde-pendence. No doubt these have been refined based on the experience of the Water Resources Department (formally Irrigation Department) and others in the intervening years. Against these, (1) new rainfall/area/flow correlations derived from historical river data for all large catchments and (2) the HEC-HMS (Hydraulic Engineering Centre of USACE – Hydrologic modelling System) computer model were compared.

The evaluation concluded that the rainfall/area/run-off correlations were not appropriate for the small catchments involved in the size of schemes under MI(LS) and that al-though HEC-HMS could take into consideration many more parameters which influ-ence the yield and flood flows, the improved accuracy of calculation did not significantly improve on the “thumb-rule” approaches. These empirical approaches which had been developed from observation and experience were found to still be appropriate given the need for the large factors of safety to be included in the designs to allow for climate variability, free-board, poor construction quality, etc... Therefore it was recommended that MI (LS) continue to use he empirical formulae currently in use. The only additional recommendation made was to check that the wasteweir has the capacity to pass double the 100 year flood without the dam overtopping to take account of the increased floods expected from higher rainfall intensities to be experienced with climate change.

Training was provided for PMU staff in the use of HEC-HMS, the same as for other technical design software introduced during the course of the MIP-M.

The MIP-M Technical Assistance Team (TAT) has addressed and completed all the as-signed tasks. All items are covered by the extensive list of support documents – guidelines, training notes, technical and administrative notes prepared, the administrat-ive systems established, the training activities provided and field works undertaken.

- 42 -

Completion of Services Certificates have been prepared and submitted for signature with the Final Bills. Copies of the Certificate for the Main Phase (including the Consol-idation Phase) are enclosed in Appendix 7.

- 43 -

8 HANDOVER OF TAT OFFICE AND EQUIPMENT

The TAT office, equipment and vehicles was handed over to the PMU as per the Con-sultant’s Agreement. Copies of the handover documents are attached in Appendix 8.

9 THE NEXT STEPS

9.1 For MIP-M

The activities to complete the works in the 28 schemes under MIP-M are:

1. Repairs to be undertaken of Umrani II ST and Sukali MIT headworks2. Completion of main distribution systems by contractors3. Completion of on-farm works by WUAs.4. Settlement of all Contractor’s bills and claims by PMU by 30 September 20115. Completion Review of MIP-M by KfW from 26th September to 4th October 2011

For items 1 and 2, all works undertaken after 30 June 2011 are to be funded from regu-lar GoM funds.

For item 3, for all schemes (except Sukali, and Wanjari) the grant portion (either the full 37.5% share or at least the first instalment of 25%) of KfW funds has been placed in the WUA / EE, MI (LS) Division joint account as per the Scheme Agreement signed between the MI(LS) and WUA. It is recommended that the WUAs be given until June 2012 to complete their works at which time the RD&WCD (initiated by PMU) will con-duct a review any unspent KfW funds will be returned to KfW.

9.2 Proposed New Project

The Rural Development and Water Conservation Department (RD&WCD) has ex-pressed the intentions to undertake the rehabilitation and handing over of 230 minor ir-rigation schemes (MIS) with a command area of 100 to 250 ha in the six Irrigation Circles of Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), including storage tanks (ST), minor irrigation tanks (MIT), Kolhapur Type Weirs (KTW), percolation tanks (PT) and saline reclama-tion schemes (SRS).

According to the Executive Engineer MI (LS), PMU for German Projects, the irrigation potential of the 230 MIS is seriously under-utilised as only 8,423 ha (28%) of the planned irrigable command area (ICA) of 29,863 ha is actually irrigated due to insuffi-cient funds for annual maintenance, insufficient staff being available for looking after the schemes and no or, where formed, ineffective Water User Associations (WUA). Re-portedly, only 87 of the 230 listed MIS (38%) have a registered WUA, but many of these WUAs do not function. In the remaining 143 MIS without a registered WUA, the non-cooperation of the farmers is mentioned as the main constraint to further develop-ment.

Based on the experience gained and the lessons learnt with the implementation of the PIDM approach under MIP-M, an adjusted PIDM approach for the rehabilitation and handing over of minor irrigation schemes (MIS) in the State of Maharashtra has been developed. Divided into 4 phases over a 3 year period, the activities involve:

- 44 -

-Screening and Selection-WUA Development and Design -Construction and Capacity Building and-Irrigation Management and Agricultural Development

It is proposed to start in July 2011 with a two-year Pilot Phase, during which 25 MIS in not more than 5 different clusters will be selected for upgrading. This will be followed by the Main Phase for the balance schemes once experience in the Pilot Phase has been developed.

Funding has yet to be secured for the Main Phase Programme but for the Pilot Phase, it is almost certain that funds will be made available from Central Government budgets.

A brief proposal document was prepared by the Consultant in February 2011 (see Ap-pendix 9) based on the experience of MIP-M and of the JICA funded Rajasthan Minor Irrigation Project (RAJAMIP) which is currently undertaking a similar MIS upgrading and modernisation project to that proposed. A visit was made by CE, MI(LS), Pune and EE, PMU Pune to RAJAMIP from 2nd–4th Feb 2011 and in June 2011, the Secretary, RD&WCD, along with EE, PMU visited to JICA and AFD in New Delhi to discuss finan-cing options.

Subsequent to these visits, the draft proposal prepared by the Consultant has been modified by the PMU and submitted to GoM for approval and onward forwarding to the Department of Economic Affairs, Central Government, for inclusion in the development plan and consideration for international funding.

From the lessons learned under MIP-M and RAJAMIP, it has been recommended that under the new Programme:

1. The PMU (under CE, MI (LS) Pune) has full administrative, technical and finan-cial authority for implementation.

2. A competent survey, investigation and design (SID) agency to be appointed by PMU for preparation of DPRs and for undertaking design quality assurance dur-ing construction plus participation in acceptance of works.

3. Responsibility for the headworks upgrading works to be under the EE, MI (LS), Division with responsibility for the distribution systems, to be placed under an Apex NGO. The Apex will appoint appropriate staff to manage the construction work and undertake WUA capacity building and agricultural training.

4. Appointment of APEX NGO and SID agencies to be by PMU.

5. All payments to headworks contractors / agencies to be made by PMU.

6. All funds for distribution system upgrading to be through WUA. A joint bank ac-count to be opened by WUA requiring signatures of WUA and EE, MI (LS) Divi-sion.

7. Programme to bear 100% of headworks upgrade costs including HT lines and transformers for LIS.

- 45 -

8. WUAs to contribute 30% of DPR estimated costs for distribution system upgrad-ing – includes canals, pumps, pipelines, LT lines and drains to 5 ha blocks. For distribution systems below 5 ha i.e. field canals, pipes, sprinklers, drip lines, field drains, WUA to bear 100% of costs.

9. WUAs to contribute 30% towards establishment / upgrading of an appropriate WUA office or building which must include furnishings, electrification, water sup-ply, and sanitation facilities.

10. WUAs to participate as members of works acceptance committees of both headworks and distribution system.