A.Usha , A.Pouchepparadjou and L.Umamaheswari

Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture and

Research Institute

Karaikal - 609 603, India

Contact E-mail pouchepparadjou@gmail.com

India has been progressing in water resources development since

independence in spite of severe climatic variations, rapid population

growth, urbanization and industrialization.

India, with only 4% of the global freshwater resources is supporting

16 % of the world’s population.

With the shrinking per capita availability of water resources it is

difficult to maintain the delicate balance between demand and supply.

Introduction

The degradation of natural resources due to improper

management has resulted in soil nutrient depletion and

overexploitation of ground water leading to the low

equilibrium trap of low productivity, low income and low

surplus.

• Most important irrigation source

for farmers since ancient times.

• They are the key common

property resources in rural areas.

Irrigation Tanks

Tank irrigation has declined due to neglect of catchment areas,

inadequate maintenance and increase in private wells.

Traditional community institutions have come under tremendous

pressure because of state and market interventions, person-

oriented political patronage, and political encouragement for

encroachment (Nadkarni, 2000).

Government subsidies for alternative forms of irrigation is another

reason for the decline of tanks in Indian agriculture.

In 1999

UNION OF INDIA

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

FARMERS

TRPP

Tank Rehabilitation

Project Puducherry

Preserve agriculture income from

irrigated crop production

Diminish reliance on ground water

resources

Halt the process of salinity of the

aquifers

Maintain the water supply for

irrigated agriculture from tanks -

sustainability

TRPP - Project Objectives

Digital Elevation Model of Puducherry Region

alluvium

tertiary

cretaceous

rechargerecharge

tank

Groundwater Exploration Stages

alluvium

tertiary

cretaceous

extraction

recharge

tank

Groundwater Exploration Stages

Total Number of Tanks 86

No. of Tanks Defunct – Urbanization 2

Total number of Tanks Rehabilitated 84

System Tanks 50

Non System Tanks 34

Total Ayacut 6450 Ha

No. of Farm Families 13500

People depended on

tank for all purposes

As time passed, people

shifted to borewells and

tanks got silted

Participatory Approach in the Past

FARMERS INSTITUTIONS

1. Eri Variya Perumakkal

2. Caisses Communes

3. Syndicate Agricoles

?

water table

natural ground level

- 10 m

- 30

- 40

- 50

- 60

- 20

1911ru

n-o

ff t

anks

river

div

ersi

ons

syst

em t

anks

dug w

ells

Cai

sses

com

munes

Sy

ndic

ate

agri

cole

Com

mune

Pan

ych

at/P

WD

rule of Pallava’s

Time Line : Change in water table in Puducherry

the last 100 years

EU

F

und E

nds

GoP

conti

nues

TR

PP

TR

PP

Saline water intrusion

Let us reverse it !

Causes for downfall of Surface Irrigation

• Bore wells

• Government subsidy on electricity

• Inconsistent policies/ rules & regulations

• Green Revolution through ground water exploitation

• Inadequate local institutions

• Lack of Maintenance of Tanks

• Lack of community participation

• Communal conflicts

A common scene before rehabilitation

ENCROACHMENT INSIDE THE ABISHEKAPAKAM TANK

Another common sceneDamaged Surplus Course - Vadhanur

Another common sceneSub-standard tank bunds - Kariamanikam

ACTIVITIES OF THE PROJECT

• Community organisation/participation

• Infrastructure development

• Irrigation/water management

• Agricultural extension

• Hydrogeological study & monitoring

• Agro-economy & agricultural benchmark

• Training/exposure visits

• Gender activities & income generation

• Publicity & information/awareness campaign

• Institutional strengthening & monitoring

• Special studies

• Accounting & financial management

• Corpus fund establishment

• Information system & database

• Monitoring & evaluation

Thus to ensure maximum people participation various efforts like-

Training, Exposure visit, Campaigns, Workshops, Streetplay,

Village Level Meetings, etc. have been undertaken under the Project

Formation of Tank Association

Construction of infrastructure

Subsidy

Command area improved

Maintaining infrastructure

Association

Equal distribution of water

Preventing sea water intrusion

Optimum usage of water

Exposure

Visits,

Training,

Campaigns,

workshops

Awareness creation

Expected

outcome of

the project

Tank Rehabilitation Project, Puducherry

Pillaiyarkuppam Authuvoikal feeding channel

Result in the village

AFTER

Thirukkanur Periya Eri (Moola Madagu)

AFTER

BEFORE BEFORE

This paper attempts to analyze the socio-economic,

environmental and institutional impact of participatory

tank rehabilitation in Union Territory of Puducherry,

India.

Data and Methodology

Data used in the study

Primary data pertaining to 2007-08 (post TRPP period) using a

pre-tested interview schedule from 120 farmers.

Data on crop cultivation aspects for the pre TRPP period

(2004-05) by recall and cross-check questions.

Secondary data were collected from the Directorate of

Agriculture, Statistics department, State Groundwater Unit at

Puducherry and Project Director (TRPP), Puducherry.

Tools of analysis

Conventional percentage analysis

Lorenz curve of income distribution

Gini ratio in income inequality

Benefit-Cost ratio in crop cultivation

Multiple regression and

Garrett ranking technique

Sl. No. Crops

Before TRPP After TRPP

Area (ha) Per cent to

NCA

Area (ha) Per cent

to NCA

1. Rice 47.10 37.89 50.00 39.46

2. Black gram 15.00 12.07 13.00 10.26

3. Green gram 10.00 8.05 10.00 7.89

4. Groundnut 20.80 16.73 18.20 14.37

5. Sugarcane 13.20 10.62 15.00 11.84

6. Banana 13.00 10.46 12.50 9.87

7. Cotton 5.20 4.18 8.00 6.31

8. Net Cropped

Area (NCA)

124.3 100.00 126.7 100.00

Cropping intensity (%) 103.52 105.58

Area under crops in sample farms

Irrigation intensity in sample farms

Sl. No. Crops

Before TRPP After TRPP

Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent

1. Rice 45.00 35.64 50.00 38.85

2. Black gram 15.00 11.88 15.00 11.65

3. Green gram 13.00 10.29 10.00 7.77

4. Groundnut 20.80 16.47 18.20 14.14

5. Sugarcane 14.00 11.10 15.00 11.66

6. Banana 13.25 10.50 14.50 11.27

7. Cotton 5.20 4.12 6.00 4.66

8. Gross Irrigated

Area (GIA)

126.25 100.00 128.70 100.00

Irrigation intensity (%) 105.20 107.25

Net returns and B:C ratio of major crops

Sl.

No

Crops

Before TRPP After TRPP

Small

farmers

Marginal

farmers

Large

farmers

Small

farmers

Marginal

farmers

Large

farmers

Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

BCR

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Rice

Black

gram

Green

gram

Groun

dnut

Sugar

cane

Banana

Cotton

43700

10250

3800

21800

30681

21500

6830

3.10

1.87

1.35

1.60

1.30

1.62

1.30

7500

4920

1300

9700

18742

10900

3000

2.95

1.50

1.30

1.42

1.30

1.50

1.30

95000

38000

25320

63000

92000

80000

35000

3.72

1.30

1.28

1.42

1.29

1.38

1.57

51990

11600

4050

23100

33750

23000

7750

3.25

1.93

1.50

1.70

1.30

1.62

1.26

8665

5800

1350

10000

19250

11500

3100

3.25

1.93

1.30

2.70

1.30

1.62

1.26

11165

0

40000

28000

70000

95000

10000

0

50000

3.91

1.26

1.32

1.33

1.31

1.62

1.52

Livestock

asset

Before TRPP After TRPP

No Maintenance

Cost (Rs)

Gross

income

(Rs)

Net

income

(Rs)

No Maintenan

ce Cost

(Rs)

Gross

income

(Rs)

Net

income

(Rs)

Milch

animals

62 21,091 30,000 8,909 82 28,767 42,023 13,256

Others

(goats,

poultry)

253 700 2,700 2,000 280 863 3,489 2,626

Income from livestock in sample farms

Sl. No. Sources of

income

Household income (Rs)

Before TRPP After TRPP Change in

income

(Absolute)

1. On-farm 51,443 76,810 25,367

2. Off-farm 32,490 36,650 4,160

3. Non-farm 2,500 3,000 500

Total 86,433 116,460 30,027

Details on household income in sample farms

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57

C umula tive of fa rmers

Cu

mu

lati

ve o

f in

com

e

cumulative proportionof inc ome

cumulative proportionof farmers

Lorenz Curve showing income distribution before TRPP

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

C umula tive of fa rmers

Cu

mu

la

tiv

e o

f in

co

me

c umulative proportion of income

c umulative proportion of farmers

Lorenz Curve showing income distribution after TRPP

Gini Ratio of income distribution

Sl. No Category Gini ratio

1. Before TRPP 0.40

2. After TRPP 0.31

Environmental impact of TRPP

Ground water level before and after TRPP

Village Name Before TRPP (m)

(Triennium average:

1996-98)

After

TRPP(m)

2005-07

Keelparkalpet 101.33 57.90

Sedarapet 63.56 77.01

Source: State Ground Water Unit, Puducherry

Opinion survey of sample farmers about water

quality after TRPP

Sl.No Water

quality

Keelparikkalpet Sedrapet Overall

No of

farmers

% to

total

No of

farmers

% to

total

No of

farmers

% to

total

1. Good 25 41.66 25 41.66 50 41.66

2. Medium 20 33.33 20 33.33 40 33.33

3. Poor 15 25.00 15 25.00 40 25.00

Total 60 100.0 60 100.0 120 100.0

Performance analysis of TRPP tanks in Puducherry U.T.

Sl.No. Particulars Variables Regression

coefficient

(bi)

Standard

error

SE (bi)

t statistics Significance

level

1. Maintenance

expenditure

(Rs/ha)

X1 0.735 5.413 3.347 **

2. Water stored

in mcum/haX2 0.813 6.021 4.676 **

3. Tank

location

(in km)

X3 0.645 3614 0.706 NS

4. Well density

(no)X4 -0.585 0.230 5.121 **

5. Water users

organization

R2 = 0.71

N = 80

X5 0.313 0.089 2.286 *

Dependent Variable: Adjusted tank performance = Y

Note: ** Significant at 1% level *Significant at 5% level NS-Non significant

Perception of beneficiaries about the benefits

derived from TRPP

Sl.No. Benefits of TRPP Mean score Rank

I Direct benefits1. Increased crop productivity 81 I

2. Increased soil moisture

availability

74 II

3. Decrease in encroachment of

water spread area

68 III

4. Revenue from fish and trees 55 IV

5. Increase in number of livestock 40 V

6. Increased fodder availability 35 VI

7. Water Users Association

performed well

33 VII

8. Gained labour employment

during project period

28 VIII

II Indirect benefits9. Water levels raised in the wells 65 I

10. Improvement of ecology/scenic

beauty

52 II

People’s participation at different stages of Tank

Rehabilitation Project

Sl.

No

Stages of

participation

Fully

participated

Partially

participated

Not participated

No.of

farmers

Percent No.of

farmers

Percent No.of

farmers

Percent

1. Planning stage 20 33.33 25 41.66 15 25.0

2. Implementation

stage

23 38.33 28 46.66 9 15.0

Conclusion and recommendations of the study

TRPP is proved to be a success due to effective governance and

participative management.

In the study area, Panchayat was the main institution involved in

implementation of the project and tank maintenance activities.

The greater participation of farmers in irrigation management

through Tank Associations (TA) was the major reason for the

success of the project right from planning to implementation.

The study suggested that TRPP had a significant impact on the

beneficiaries.

Therefore, beneficiary participation has to be ensured right from

the beginning especially in the planning and implementation

stages in the governance of irrigation investments.

So this model could be suitable and feasible in other locations if

the two factors, governance with grass root level participation

exist in the investment on irrigation tanks for addressing the

climatic adaptation.

THANK YOU