Efficacy of the Small Water Harvesting Structures in a Dryland Region in India: Implications for Crop Productivity

Transcription

1 Efficacy of the Small Water Harvesting Structures in a Dryland Region in India: Implications for Crop Productivity mita Shah, Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Gota, hmedabad India, gidr@ad1.vsnl.net.in I. Introduction Small water harvesting structures were important sources of irrigation before the advent of big dams and canal systems. While these structures serve as a major device for ground water recharge, especially in low rainfall/dryland regions, they are often viewed as having limited economic benefits. The recent revival of interest in small water harvesting structures however, is an outcome of the increasing environmental concerns, particularly due to depleted ground water resources in large parts of the country. While the primary objective of such measures is to improve recharging of ground water, they often provide a source of supplementary irrigation. Hence, if properly introduced, these measures can ensure economic viability which in turn, may induce private investments. What is however missing in these efforts is (a) mechanism of sharing of benefits with those who do not derive any direct economic gains from such structures; and (b) emphasis on water use efficiency such that it improves the ground water table to a sustainable level. One of the possible ways to overcome this distributional problem is to make smaller structures, like farm ponds, on a large number of privately owned farms which in turn may cater to a large number of farmers, especially those who otherwise cannot afford investing in private wells and/or remain outside the reach of small irrigation schemes. Given this context, the government of Gujarat (a federal state in India) has initiated a Farm Ponds Scheme in The major objectives of the scheme are twofold: (i) to recharge the ground water table; and (ii) to improve crop yield through increased soil moisture and supplementary irrigation. Generally, these ponds are made on farmers fields and in vicinity of the irrigation wells. The ponds are typically of small size i.e. of 12, 14 and 15 square meters. The corresponding costs are about US$ 180, 270, and 310 respectively. Despite the fact that the scheme is likely to generate substantial private benefits to farmers, the state is subsidising 85 per cent of the cost. likely corollary of such a high degree of subsidisation might be low incentives for water-use efficiency as well as maintenance. esides these, given the budgetary constraints, the scheme with a high rate of subsidy for all categories of farmers may have only limited coverage. Very often this might be at the cost of the poor farmers. y about 6868 ponds were made in different districts with special concentration in the dryland/semiarid regions in the state. The present analysis is based on a larger study involving a primary survey of 688 farmers in the major districts of Gujarat. The survey consisted of about 10 per cent of the total 6868 ponds, selected from each district, on a pro-rata basis. II. Impact of farm ponds: some evidence It may be noted that at the outset the sample households were predominantly characterised by access to irrigation. bout 72.4 per cent of the sample households had at least a part of their land under irrigation, constituting 44 per cent of the gross cropped area. This is fairly high from the view point of a dryland region. Prima facie, this indicates that the scheme has mainly attracted those who already had access to ground 1

2 water irrigation especially, wells; they constituted 46 per cent of the sample households. Given this backdrop, the following analysis describes impact of the scheme on the farm economy among the sample households. Supplementary irrigation s perceived by the policy makers, the major benefit from farm ponds is impact on survival and/or supplementary irrigation. This objective seems to have been achieved at a moderate level. bout 45 per cent of the respondents reported that they have realised improvement in irrigation facilities due to the farm ponds. The impact on irrigation however, varied significantly across districts, i.e. from 0.8 per cent in Sabarkantha to 96.2 per cent in havnagar. mong other districts with relatively high incidence of impact are some of the dry/semiarid districts receiving special emphasis under the scheme. This however, leaves out several high priority districts in dryland/semiarid regions where the scheme has fairly good coverage but relatively smaller impact. The lower impact in these districts is contributed to (a) inadequate water retention; (b) damaging of the structures because of heavy rainfall; and (c) inappropriate location or size of the farm pond. To a large extent, inadequate water retention in anaskantha, Sabarkantha and mreli was due to the sandy soil in these districts. Yield, fertiliser use and net returns n attempt was made to ascertain changes in yield, NPK-use and net returns due to availability of additional irrigation from the farm ponds. This has been captured by comparing a normal year before-after the scheme was introduced. Table 1 provides estimates of economic impact in terms of indicators like fertiliser-use, yield and net returns. It is observed that yields have increased significantly especially in the case of relatively less irrigated crops like bajri, maize and groundnut. In fact, in most cases these crops were grown under conditions without irrigation before receiving benefits from the scheme. Obviously, the significantly large yield-gain has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in NPK-use and also net returns. The net returns have increased substantially by about Rs.1,000 (US$ 22.25) per acre in the case of wheat to Rs. 3,500 (US$ 80) per acre in the case of Jeera. Conceding that the average area benefiting by the scheme exceeds one acre per household (except in the case of maize), many of the sample farmers might have received significantly large amounts of net returns within a year. It may however be noted that irrigation-impact has been realised mainly during the kharif season. The impact on increased cropping intensity therefore, is quite minimal though, there is a shift towards crops like cotton and Jeera (spices). It is also important to note that these kind of incremental returns are subject to variations in rainfall in each year. Moreover, the actual economic gains have accrued only to a subset of beneficiaries where the structures were properly maintained, and the soil-type was suitable for water conservation and/or ground water recharge. Nevertheless, if these conditions are fulfilled, an average additional net returns worked out to be about Rs (US$ 50) per acre per annum over the initial investment of about Rs.10,000-12,000 (US$ ). There is also a potential for increasing the incremental net returns further, by adopting more water-efficient crops and practices. lso, the positive impact is likely to be consolidated over a medium and long term period which has not been captured by the present study. significant positive relationship between number of 2

3 waterings and yield was also observed in a regression exercise especially in the case of traditionally dryland crops rather than among irrigated crops. Groundwater table and soil moisture: perceived impact Evidently, the proportion of farmers reporting positive impact on ground water table is relatively smaller than that in the case of those which reported irrigation impact. Only 35 per cent of the respondents indicated that the farm ponds have exerted a positive impact on the status of ground water table. Contrary to this, those perceiving improvement in soil-moisture are a much larger proportion i.e. 65 per cent of the total respondents, which is quite encouraging. It was however difficult to ascertain the extent to which increased soil-moisture per se, has actually resulted in higher yield, especially if the irrigationimpact was missing. Generally the expected yield impact was in the range of per cent at least within a short term period. What is more important is that as many as 50 per cent of the farmers were planning to make additional investment in terms of irrigation wells. nother 14 per cent responded that there is no further scope in addition to the one they already had. Only 36 per cent of the farmers were not planning such investments. While this indicates a fairly positive impact in terms of inducing the private investment, there does exist a potential danger of over-exploitation of ground water resources. Obviously, this is quite concerning in a situation already facing severe depletion of ground water resources. Together the actual as well as expected benefits in terms of irrigation and soil-moisture conservation appear to be fairly significant. In turn, they may help shaping up farmers' investment behaviour or willingness to pay for such measures in the future. The next section looks into this aspect in some detail. III. Farmers willingness to pay for future investment in farm ponds Given the wide spread positive impact - both actual as well as perceived - a substantially large proportion i.e. 81 per cent of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to invest in farm ponds either by using their own resources or through credit support in case it is available to them. Of course, these responses can be viewed only as indicative rather than reflecting the real intention on part of the farmers to make such an investment. Moreover, our sample is biased in favour of relatively resourceful farmers having irrigation, who may have relatively better capacity to borrow. What is however striking is that the willingness to invest is not confined only to those who have already realised positive benefits from the scheme. For instance, 50.5 per cent of the total 546 farmers who indicated positive inclination to invest in farm ponds were those who had not received the actual benefits. in fact, their response was significantly influenced by factors like yield gain, perceived impact on soil-moisture, and agroclimatic conditions (zones). Surprisingly, sources of irrigation and perception about ground water recharge did not show any significant association with farmers' willingness to pay. IV. Policy implications The important policy emerging from the analysis are: (i) Given the wide spread problems of low water retention as well as serious damages to the structures, there is a need for more flexibility in the design as well as execution of the scheme. This, particularly, refers to some kind of low-cost devices for providing siltation 3

4 and lining to the farm ponds in the in the regions having sandy and/or rocky soils. Similarly, there should be a mechanism for repair and maintenance by the farmers by providing effective credit support and, at the same time by restructuring of the subsidies. One of the mechanisms for promoting this, is to shift the subsidy from farm ponds to the devices like drip or sprinkler irrigation improving water use efficiency and also for land levelling which has a significant impact on yield under undulating topography. (ii) There is also a case for rationalising the present structure of subsidies across households having different resource base (i.e. the initial paying capacity) and also different levels of economic returns from farm ponds. Since a substantial proportion of the farmers without access to irrigation are willing to invest in farm ponds, they should be given special attention by providing extension as well as credit support. (iii) Finally the state's investment in farm ponds may be used as an incentive for developing the fallow and/or wasteland. t present the scheme does not seem to have generated any positive impact on regeneration of these lands except for a few instances. Possibly, a series of farm ponds can be made on community waste land which then can be leased to individuals/groups for cultivation. To make this effective, pro-active promotional measures should precede in order to convert willingness into actual investment by the farmers who reap significant private benefits both direct as well as indirect. Unless these efforts are made, benefits from the scheme will remain confined to a rather limited coverage of area as well as households. 4

5 Table Changes in Yield, Input Use, Income: Major Crops Variables (per acre) Crops Paddy Groundnut Cotton Maize Jeera ajri Wheat Yield (Kg.)* NPK (Kg.) NR (Rs.) Change (274) (299) (193) (378) (209) (443) No. of watering (Mean) rea under the crop (cre) T M N Crop failure in base year No. of districts Source: Field Survey, Note: = fter Farm Ponds; = efore Farm Ponds; T = Total rea; M= Mean rea per Farm Pond N = No. of sample farmers growing the crop * There were several cases reporting crop-failure in the before-project situation (957)