Vi4 Pradan Final Print

Study on Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs Natural Resources Management & Livelihoods

Series-4

Lift Irrigation SamitisLohardagga District, JharkhandPromoted by

PRADAN(Professional Assistance for Development Action)

PRADAN

AKRSP

SDTT

FF

EC

1

Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

Suggested citation: C.P.Geevan (2010) Study on sustainability of Lift Irrigation Societies Promoted by Pradan in Jharkhand. Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India), Ahmedabad (2010)

Publication: 2010 Field Studies: 2008

Research Team:C.P.Geevan, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator) Email: [email protected]

Researchers:

Saurabha Trivedi Rohit Patel

Centre for Environment & Social Concerns [CESC] G-3, Samip Apartment, Manekbaug, Shreyas Crossing Ahmedabad 380015 (Gujarat) INDIA www.cesc-india.org Tel/Fax: 079-26401571; [M] Mobile: 9824283954

Table of Contents

Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Approach to the Study PRADAN Core Beliefs and Principal Mode of Engagement Promoting & Nurturing Mutual Help Groups Sectoral Interventions Enhancing Livelihoods Lift Irrigation Societies Covered in the Study Background Profiles of the Six Water User Associations Lift Irrigation Scheme and Water Users Associations Micro-liftMicro-Lift Irrigation Scheme Micro-Lift Irrigation Systems Before PRADANs Initiatives PRADAN Model Lift Irrigation Samitis the Micro-Lift Irrigation Groups Site Selection, Survey and Design Technical design Implementation Management of LI Agricultural extension and market linkage Present Status and Functioning of the LI Samitis Introduction Membership and Changes in Area Irrigated LI System Management Accounting Irrigation Usage - Coupon System LI System Usage

5 6 8 9 10 12 12 13 13 13 15 15 17 19 24 24 24 25 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 30 32 33 36

3


5.6 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7 7.1 7.2 7.3

Record Keeping and Funds Governance, Gains & Other Aspects Introduction Community Characteristics Womens SHG & LI Samitis Governance of LI Samitis Changes in Farming Income from Vegetable Cultivation Discussion Re-look at the Context Differential Stakes and Resilience Strength in Simplicity

36 38 38 38 39 39 41 41 43 43 44 46 47

References

4


FOREWORDPRADAN has promoted diverse community organizations for livelihood enhancement. It is our continuous endeavour to ensure that they function effectively and efficiently on their own. Many community organizations, enterprises and collectives that PRADAN had helped create, are today autonomous entities. The relationship between such entities and PRADAN is complementary. PRADAN is committed to providing professional inputs to them as and when needed and they, too, help PRADAN by extending their support to other new entities. When Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) initiated a dialogue with NGO practitioners and academicians on the question of institutional sustainability, we considered it to be a useful effort. The dialogue culminated in a decision to initiate a few focused studies on the accumulated experiences of the last few decades. Since this study is an attempt to document the autonomous functioning of community institutions and analyze such cases, we became enthusiastic partners. We suggested several cases for inclusion in this study from across different parts of the country. I am indeed happy that the micro-lift irrigation users associations were finally chosen for the study. Numerous users associations have enabled thousands of poor tribal families emerge out of subsistence farming to organized agriculture in the hilly and undulating Central Indian Plateau. I do hope that this documentation and analysis will enrich the debate on institutional sustainability of community organizations promoted to enhance livelihoods.

Soumen Biswas Executive Director, PRADAN

5


PREFACEThere has been a growing concern over institutional sustainability and even an overriding emphasis on it as a normative principle in development action, particularly in the planning and implementation of medium to long-term projects (Chambers, 1983; Shah, 2003). Institutions are humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction. They consist of both formal rules and informal constraints (North, 1990). Village Institutions (VI) work as mechanisms to ensure norms to govern or regulate the access of villagers or outsiders to resources and specify relations among them. Often the norms formal or informal - are well understood, respected and observed by the villagers. From a development perspective, village institutions are crucial vehicles through which development initiatives by NonGovernment Organizations (NGOs) are endorsed, empowered and implemented. A major challenge for sustainability of development initiatives is that of ensuring the perpetuation of appropriate, effective and relevant institutional arrangements. The experience of civil society initiatives in the development sector in the last few decades has underlined the importance of institutional sustainability and the need for deepening the understanding of the issues when the institutions did not emerge, as it were, on their own but were crafted and promoted by NGOs, with unavoidable elements of dependency of the community-based organizations on the NGO. As a follow-up to the discussions on this question, Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India) [AKRSP (I)] constituted a Village Institution Task Force and subsequently initiated studies on sustainability in the context of livelihood enhancement initiatives associated with natural resources management challenges. The multi-location study has been facilitated by the grants from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, European Commission, Ford Foundation and the support of the partner organizations. The seven NGO partners in this study are: 1) Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India) [AKRSP(I)], 2) Behavioural Science Centre (BSC), 3) Development Support Centre (DSC), 4) Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), 5) Mysore Relief and Development Agency (MYRADA), 6) Seva Mandir and 7) Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN). While supporting the study, all these organizations with a long and credible track record in development work fully respected the independence of the research. The focus of each study is on the factors favouring the sustainability of the village institutions promoted by NGOs. Related to this inquiry are a gamut of questions on the policies and practices of stakeholders that affect the sustainability not withstanding the lack of a shared understanding of the term. The objectives of the study are: 1. Examine the interventions and institutional issues that appear to be specific to the village level institutions that have exhibited potential for long-term survival or endurance and autonomous functioning 2. Analyse and critically review the sustainability question, exit strategies of the promoting NGO and post-exit support needs of the village level institution 3. Examine the capabilities of VIs for adapting to new challenges under changing development scenarios A major conceptual difficulty is the lack of an unambiguous understanding or definition of institutional sustainability and universally agreed ways of determining it. In particular, given the multiplicity of visions and approaches to development, various NGOs who promote the VI envisage it differently. Since this study is expected to help the practitioners, the question of adopting a pragmatic approach to institutional sustainability taking into account the realities in field implementation was discussed at length

6


in the launch workshop organized on 9April 2007. Several experts, practitioners and executive leadership of most the NGO partners in these series of case studies participated in these deliberations. The workshop reached a broad agreement on the scope of the study and adopted certain guidelines or thumb-rules on what constitute the role shift, exit or withdrawal of the promoter NGO in specific development or institutional contexts. In particular, it was agreed that the study will not use any pre-defined definition of institutional sustainability and will examine the long-

term survival and endurance of institutional initiatives in the diverse contexts where the NGO partners promoted community-based organizations that have become more or autonomous entities with little or no direct support from the NGO. Several meetings and brain-storming sessions were organized with each partner organization before finalizing the individual case studies. The study has been subject to intensive review and the findings have been discussed in four review workshops organized between 2006 and 2010 attended by the NGO partners, experts and researchers.

7


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPradan provided a rare opportunity for us to observe at close quarters the mix of professional inputs creating and expanding the opportunity sets available to the poor living in one of the most poorly serviced areas. Mr Soumen Biswas, Executive Director readily warmed up to the study and suggested as candidates for inclusion a large number of initiatives promoted by PRADAN in diverse contexts in several states. He extended full support and cooperation. We thank Mr D Narendranath, Programme Director, Pradan the nodal person for this study for his wholehearted support and deep professional commitment. He posed excellent questions for discussion and provided rigorous review of the case study. He also found time to participate in almost all the workshops. The discussions with Manas Satpathy, Programme Director, Pradan was very useful. He had, about ten years earlier, carried out a study on the micro-lift irrigation schemes in Jharkhand under the IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Programme. Mr Santosh Tiwari contributed to the review of the report and participated in the review workshop. Ms Tamali Kundu, Integrator (Themes) attended one of the review workshops. Pradans staff in the offices at Lohardagga and Ranchi provided excellent support and helped with logistics. In particular, we thank Ms Aswini Bhattacharya the erstwhile Executive (Projects) at Lohardagga (presently CEO, Seven Sisters Development Trust, Assam an organization supported by Pradan) and Mr Yoganand Misra, the State Integrator, Jharkhand. It will require a very long list to mention all the men and women the leaders and members of the Lift Irrigation Samitis and the several SHGs as well as village leaders who shared their experiences, spared enormous amount of time replying to our queries and tolerated our pestering with good humour. Without the wholehearted cooperation, warmth and hospitality of these numerous unnamed individuals this study would have been almost impossible. Professors Debi Prasad Mishra (IRMA), R Parthasarathy (CEPT) and C.N.Ray (CEPT) were involved in the review of the case study and the research has gained much from their valuable comments as well as participation in the review workshop. The support, encouragement and trust of Mr Apoorva Oza, CEO, AKRSP (I) has been invaluable. His proactive intellectual engagement with this study made us confront the question of amalgamating practitioners concerns with a variety of theoretical possibilities. Dr Somnath Bandyopadhyays intense scrutiny and incisive questioning helped to ward of any professional complacency on our side. Thanks to Dr Bhaskar Mittra , Senior Programme Officer, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Allied Trust for the magnanimous efforts to ensure the smooth progress of the study and for being very supportive when we faced unforeseen difficulties. In addition to carrying out the responsibilities of liaising with different agencies and organizing the review workshop, Dr. Jyotirmayee Acharya (AKRSP) enthusiastically joined in the discussions. Many thanks to Mr Niraj Joshi who helped to pilot this research. He has now reinvigorated the dissemination of findings by assuming the responsibility of publishing within a tight frame on his return to AKRSP after a break. He also helped to organize the final round of reviews and participated in several discussions on many aspects of this study starting with the initial efforts.

8


ABBREVIATIONSRs. CU DIC HH IA IAMR INRM LIS LPH NDDB NGO : Indian National Rupees : Capacity Utilization: Ratio of currently irrigated using LI system to DIC : Designed Irrigation Capacity (acres) : House Hold : Irrigated Area : Irrigated Area to Member Ratio : Integrated Natural Resource Management : Lift Irrigation Scheme : Litres per hour : National Dairy Development Board : Non Government Organization

NREGP : National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme O/M/A SHG : Operators service charge/Maintenance cost of machine/ Administrative cost : Self Help Group

9


1 Approach to the StudyThe theoretical framework for the study of sustainability relies considerably on the large body of literature on institutional analysis (Ostrom 1990; Wade 1988; Uphoff 1982; North 1990). According to Honadle and VanSant (1985), sustainable institutions are those that survive over time as identifiable units, recover some or even all their costs, and supply a continuing stream of benefits. Dietz et al (2002) believe institutional sustainability to be the continued use of an institution over time with adaptation occurring in the norms within the broad framework of stable institutional arrangements. Multiple criteria must be satisfied as longevity, cost recovery or benefit flows by themselves are just not enough. The studies such as that of Elinor Ostrom 1 demonstrate how certain institutional frameworks for cooperation engendered by the users themselves endure facilitating the successful management of shared resources. Ostrom and others showed how many forms of cooperative institutional arrangements could be robust enough and endure for long periods without being doomed to become another tragedy of the commons, a destiny which Hardin (1968) postulated would surely befall Common Property Resources (CPR) characterised by the absence of well-defined property rights. The catalysing of cooperative action by external mediation such as that by NGOs raises the question of the longevity and robustness of institutions crafted through such interventions. The question of institutional sustainability, as envisaged in this study, is analytic and not normative. The intent is to capture why institutions tend to persist or perish; not to ascertain whether they ought to sustain.

Measurement of sustainability is widely recognised as an immensely difficult problem, as conventional monitoring and evaluation methods, mostly using economic analysis, are considered insufficient to detect or quantify sustainability (Brown et al., 1987; Carpenter, 1993; Chopra, 2001; LandellMills, 1998). The sustainability question, therefore, poses a huge dilemma on the one hand of whether a particular definition ought to be adopted and used in a normative sense and on the other, having adopted one definition or another, whether adequate and agreed measures or evaluation frameworks are, indeed, available to test it. In the absence of a universally accepted definition, the approach adopted here is admittedly an eclectic one that lays emphasis on the following:

Survival or durability of village level organizations over a long period or what Ostrom calls the long endurance of selfgoverning CPR institutions as one key aspect (i.e., the village level organization continues to be fostered by the village community even after the NGO has ceased to directly support or guide it and enjoys considerable legitimacy in the village) The VI has a significant role in the NRM or NRM-based livelihood promotion activities with the sanction of the community Norms and practices evolved through the village level organization persist and is perceived as beneficial by the village community

The current capabilities of the VI in these different aspects may vary. Also, the VI many not exist in the same form as it was in its earlier phase when it was supported directly by the promoting NGO.

1 . The 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ms Elinor Ostrom and Mr Oliver E. Williamson. Ostrom demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by the cooperation among users. Williamson developed a theory where business firms serve as structures for conflict resolution. Ostroms studies on the governance of the commons challenges the widely held notion that there are no alternatives to managing shared resources other than regulation by central authorities or privatization. 10 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

The factors that appear to strengthen or weaken the sustainability on various counts are examined using a framework developed from a review of the writings of the leading thinkers on the subject. Mancur Olson (1965) argued that the endurance of institutions fostering cooperative behaviour depend greatly on the capacity of the cooperatives to maintain a sound balance between allegiance of members and rewards to members, since in its absence allegiance will not be assured. Extending this argument, Tushaar Shah (1996) noted that well-designed cooperatives can be in a position of advantage on both counts, when there is considerable homogeneity in the expectations of the members from the cooperative. Based on detailed research on numerous cooperatives in India, he advanced the concept of salience to understand what makes cooperatives work and proposed important design principles (Shah 1995, 1996). In the case of CPR 2, where negative externalities abound, scholars such as Wade, Ostrom, Baland and Platteau (Wade 1988; Ostrom 1990; Baland and Platteau 1996) identified specific conditions that are most likely to help local institutions to succeed. Their research represents diverse approaches to empirical comparative studies and relies on multiple datasets from many parts of the world including India. Ostrom focuses primarily on specifics of institutional arrangements in accounting for successful governance of CPR. Baland and Platteau used wide-ranging cases and economic literature on property rights (Agarwal, 2002). There are considerable convergences in these studies. Despite differing terminologies, frameworks and nuances in the arguments, there is considerable

agreement on the importance of four key themes: 1) Resource characteristics, 2) Group characteristics, 3) Institutional arrangements and 4) Relationships between group and external forces and authorities such as markets, state and technology. The conceptual framework for examining local organizations in natural resources management has been presented in a concise review by Rasmussen and Meinzen-Dick (1995) of the theoretical and empirical literature on the institutional sustainability by Ostrom (1990, 1992), Wade (1988), Burdhan (1993) and Bromley (1989). This study has adopted some of the common elements drawn from important studies as the basis for analysing the persistence of institutional arrangements. The overall framework for the study is drawn from the major studies on institutional arrangements for the management of the commons and several working papers on the concept of social capital and its measurement. A systematic checklist was prepared based on these theoretical and empirical studies. This was then applied to analysis of the individual cases. Attempts were then made to relate the observations from field to the design principles3 that impact sustainability of various institutional initiatives. The institutional changes brought about was studied through a multi-track approach that involved discussions with the NGO team at different levels, interactions with the villagers and field investigations to ascertain the functioning of village level institutions and triangulate observations. These changes were mapped across the periods of dependence and relative autonomy from the NGO that promoted it.

2. For some other frameworks to analyse CPRs, see Oakerson (1992) and Edwards and Stein (1998) 3. Ostrom (1990) defines Design principles as essential elements or conditions that account for long endurance of institutional arrangements.

11


2 PRADANProfessional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN) is one of the leading NGOs in India with its headquarters in New Delhi. Established in 1983, it was pioneered by a group of young professionals inspired by the conviction that professionals with knowledge resources and empathy for the marginalized must work with communities at the grassroots in order to help them overcome poverty. The organization believes that the path towards conquering economic poverty is through enhancing the livelihood capabilities of the poor and increasing their access to better income opportunities. The approach aimed at enabling the poor to break free from their past, develop a more optimistic vision of their future and work for achievable goals. PRADANs approach is of equipping the poor with technical, organizational, negotiating, and networking skills. Currently, about 270 professionals under PRADANs fold are working in the remote villages of India helping the needy communities. PRADAN professionals, divided into 30 teams, work with over 180,000 families in about 3,430 villages across eight of the poorest states in the country. The most of the families that PRADAN works with belong to the marginalized communities. At present the organization is working in eight states, viz., 1) Assam 2) Bihar 3) Chhattisgarh 4) Jharkhand 5) MP 6) Orissa 7) Rajasthan and 8) West Bengal.2.1 Core Beliefs and Principal Mode of Engagement

empathetic and long-term engagement. It is such a construct of who the poor are and what needs to be done to enable them get out of their present condition to live a life of dignity and purpose that inspired the founding of PRADAN. The organization believes that knowledge is needed to expand the pie, as it were expand opportunities for poor people through innovation and by adapting and demystifying technology, building and nurturing fair service linkages and beneficial networks, fostering collaboration among poor people and between them and the rest of the world and helping poor people enhance their capabilities. Empathy is considered as essential to spawn change in lives of others by stimulating the latters resources. As per development interventions, in PRADANs perspective, is a helping occupation where interest in and caring for the other are essential resources, particularly when transactions are across inherently unequal players. Mainstreaming has been a core belief guiding strategy for the organization. PRADAN sees itself as transitory in a local context, facilitating relationships between poor people and local institutions. Thus collaboration with local, provincial and federal governments, banks and knowledge institutions is considered as a key component. There is a strong belief in the latent capabilities of poor people and that they can change not only their own life but also those of others like them. Thus, all interventions and scaling up strategies are built around collectives of poor people and enabling poor people themselves plan for change and take charge of expansion and intensification of development initiatives/ interventions. Community managed interventions and community led scaling-up are central to the engagement strategy. Self-managed businesses of poor people are promoted to manage backward and forward linkages; competing, surviving and thriving in the market place. Broadly an area

PRADAN believes that two conditions must be met, simultaneously, for poor people to break free from structural economic poverty. Firstly, their livelihood capabilities must be enhanced. These pertain to both being and doing capabilities. Secondly, they must be able to find sustainable income earning opportunities. Stimulating these changes requires knowledge and passionate,

12


saturation approach is followed which besides enhancing efficiency, hasten the pace of change and helps create viable and vibrant clusters. PRADAN follows a four-pronged approach while attempting to develop the capabilities of the communities it works with:

Promoting and nurturing Self-Help Groups (SHGs) of poor women and strengthening them as organizations to leverage institutional finances for members livelihoods. Developing and introducing locally suitable economic activities to increase productivity and incomes among SHG members; building synergic collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders. Mobilizing finances for livelihood assets and infrastructure from government bodies, donors, banks, and other financial institutions. Setting up mechanisms to sustain the livelihood gains made by the poor communities.

party stakeholders through demonstrated positive behaviour. The groups are encouraged to form larger aggregations in the form of small clusterlevel bodies or larger federations. The experience and capabilities developed through functioning in collectives stand them in good stead when they are required to set up and manage their own livelihood-related institutions such as Cooperatives, Mutual Benefit Trusts and Producer Companies.2.3 Sectoral Interventions

With this approach, PRADAN has plans to reach out to 1.5 million poor people in the next 10 years as a part of its vision, PRADAN 2017.2.2 Promoting & Nurturing Mutual Help Groups

Forming cohesive groups whose members can support each other is central to the approach adopted by PRADAN. While in most cases, these are Self-Help Groups, often this follows a more open format, where cooperation is facilitated without having savings as a core activity. However, thrift and credit associations of poor women who share similar social and economic contexts have been promoted in almost all cases. As the mutualhelp groups develop greater capabilities, PRADAN helps them establish collaborative linkages with banks in order to leverage credit that, in turn, meets members needs for larger funds. Such linkage-building requires the groups to play the role of social collateral, by satisfying third-

The income enhancing interventions promoted by PRADAN can be seen as a menu of sectoral livelihood streams. These have grown as a result of PRADANs experiences in livelihood improvement in different locations and socioeconomic contexts. Usually, reliable experimentation is carried out before implementing new programmes or introducing an option in a new location. Pilot projects are carried out involving few families to master and adapt technology, identify training needs, develop training programmes and create a successful prototype before scaling up. Often adopting new technological options and adapting it to specific local conditions has been a hall mark of many interventions. PRADAN organizes exposures and training programmes, trains community-based service providers (selected by the SHGs), promotes organizations where necessary, develops service linkages and leverages missing infrastructure from public agencies.2.4 Enhancing Livelihoods

In the domain of livelihood enhancement, PRADAN has focus on two approaches: a) enhancing productivity of natural resources and b) promoting decentralized micro-enterprises, including home-based units. Income enhancement rather than expenditure reduction has considerable emphasis in all programmes. The natural resource programme comprises agriculture, horticulture,

13


several tree-based options, livestock-based incomes, small-scale irrigation and watershed development. Micro-enterprises are promoted in poultry, tasar silk production and processing, rearing and processing of mulberry silk, goat rearing and cultivation of mushrooms. Enhancing productivity, mobilizing investments to create productive assets, building peoples capabilities, setting up services and building peoples organizations are the key components of the livelihood programmes. Poultry and Tasar silk are two cases of programmes that have become significantly scaled up. After starting off as very small pilot projects, these now encompass thousands of families. So far, PRADAN has promoted 15 poultry cooperatives in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand. Producer Companies for agriculture development, Tasar silk production, poultry and milk marketing in collaboration with the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) have been set up. A national-level body of poultry co-operatives is being planned. It is envisioned

that these entities will be financially self-reliant. There are also cooperatives in agriculture and horticulture providing services and inputs for participating families. The organization is participating in the implementation of NREGP (National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme) in several states. A pilot project sponsored by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India has to demonstrate PRADANs INRM (Integrated Natural Resource Management) models suitable for selection of NREGP works; it was implemented in two districts each in Orissa and Jharkhand and one district in Chhattisgarh. The pilot helped open up opportunities to work with Panchayats. The organization is working with the Madhya Pradesh government in its new initiative to involve NGOs in implementing NREGP, which PRADAN considers as very encouraging development since partnership has been identified as an important strategy for growth in the Vision 2017 exercise.

14


3 Lift Irrigation Societies Covered in the Study3.1 Background

This study 4 covers six water users associations promoted initially by PRADAN to enhance livelihoods of poor tribal farmers with the help of micro-lift irrigation schemes. The villages covered in this phase of the multi-location study are located in the rather remote and extremely underdeveloped part of Jharkhand, the mineral rich state that formally split from Bihar on 15th November 2000. The village institution studies were established when the region was part of Bihar. Tribal communities form nearly 28 percent of the states population. The villages covered in this study are situated in Lohardagga district in which the tribal communities constitute about 57 percent of the population. When compared to the larger states in India, Jharkhand is relatively small in terms of both geographical area (75,400 sq. km) and population (22.3 million). The districts, too, are very small with total area ranging from about 1,200 sq km to 5,300 sq km. The district Lohardagga, where the community institutions covered in this study is located, is 3rd smallest district of the state. It has an area of nearly 1,500 sq km and a population of about 0.3 million. Large number of people from Jharkhand migrate out, often going as far as Punjab. Some of the experiences in highly intensive agriculture are brought back by the migrants. The district of Lohardagga is linked with Rourkela, which is a major market for vegetables.

Figure 3.1: District map of Jharkhand In their formative phase, the six water users associations henceforth referred to as the Lift Irrigation Samiti or LI Samiti had on the records about 220 members and the lift irrigation system was designed to cater to about 220 acres (Table3.1) This chapter provides a brief profile of the six LI Samitis covered in this study. The details of their functioning and the changes in the irrigation management are discussed in separate chapters. At present PRADAN plays no role in the management of the users groups covered in this study, even though the organization is still working on other projects and interventions in many of these villages. Before exiting from the LI Samitis, considerable attention was paid to strengthening the farming systems, inputs, agricultural training, crop production assistance and market linkages.

4. The field work was carried out in first half of year 2008

15


Table-3. 1 : Six Water Users Associations Of Micro-Lift Irrigation Schemes Promoted By PRADAN (Year 2008) SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hamlet/ Village Banpur Banjaritoli Patratu Khaliyantoli Salaiya Ambatoli Salgi Garbhutoli Taku Patratoli Daru Pujartoli TOTAL Block Kisko Kisko Kisko Kuru Kuru Senha Start 1993-94 1993-94 1992-93 1996-97 1996-97 1993-94 Membership (Initial) 15 42 (*) 38 38 29 57 219 DesignedIrrigation Capacity (DIC)Acres 30 48 30 30 30 50 218

(*) Including 19 members from hamlet Barkatoli not covered in this study. Therefore, the total number of members covered in the study is 200. According to a previous study 5 by Bhamoriya & Mahapatra, the average land-holding among tribal families in Jharkhand is 2 to 3 acres. The agriculture is mainly rain-fed and mostly monocrop paddy. Since the tribal settlements are perched mostly in the higher portions of the hills, they are devoid of any major canal irrigation systems. Wells, small streams and rivers are the main irrigation sources. The average long-term mean rainfall for the state is about 1400 mm. Only 9 percent of the state is irrigated. Due to the hilly and undulating terrain, there is very little of water available to the poor tribal farmers in dry seasons. To PRADAN, it was clear that irrigation held the key to ushering in dramatic change in the life of these communities. If electricity was easily available, it could have provided an affordable way to energize pumps to lift water for irrigation, given the subsidized electric power for agriculture. Unfortunately, most villages still remain unconnected to the grid and even where connected, power supply is available erratically for a few hours in a day. The power supply situation is appalling in the states like Jharkhand. Even in the major towns of Jharkhand power supply is erratic and often not available for most of the day. The idea of rolling out low-cost micro-irrigation systems offered a solution and hope. It was not easy, however, to implement it in the prevailing conditions. Many engineering challenges for local adaptation had to be met, besides that of equipping the community to make effective use of this option. The adaptation requirements included cultural, technical, economic and availability of materials in local markets. The technical ingenuity had to be coupled with institutional initiatives to make the idea workable. PRADAN succeeded in piloting a community-owned and operated micro-lift irrigation scheme with small groups of water users as the collective managers of the system. The details of the implementation are described in the publication brought out by PRADAN From Subsistence Agriculture to Irrigated Farming6. The main characteristics are summarized in another section of this document. The original outlay for these schemes was in the range of about Rs. 60,000 to Rs 2.0 lakhs,

5. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Saroj Mahapatra (undated) Where is the Demand? A Case study of Lift Irrigation Intervention of PRADAN in Lohardagga and West Singhbhum Districts of Jharkhand 6. Gupta, Tilak D. (1999), From Subsistence Agriculture to Irrigated Farming experience of community managed lift irrigation in Bihar and Orissa Plateau. 16 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

depending on the terrain and various other conditions. The number of members in a users group range from 10 to 40 and the command area designed to be irrigated vary from 25 to 50 acres. These water users groups were started between 1992 and 1997. These WUAs (Lift Irrigation Samiti - LIS) were selected from a short list of about 10 such associations which were categorized as good to medium in terms of their performance during a IWMI-Tata study 7. As far as the running of the lift irrigation groups were concerned, PRADAN had, for all practical purposes, completely exited and were not providing any sort of support to any of these groups in managing either the system or the institution. However, this does not, in any way, imply that PRADAN does not have a presence. In fact, PRADAN is very much present providing support to the poultry marketing and to a much lesser extent as a facilitator for certain horticulture promotion schemes. We have seen no evidence of this presence extending to any direct supervision of the LI Samitis. In fact, villagers often wished PRADAN staff were around to help them sort some difficulties.3.2 Profiles of the Six Water User Associations

cover all the member households in the six hamlets, responses from 120 out of 200 could only be obtained.This was partly due to the inability to establish contact with all and partly due to nonavailability of some. There were a small number who did not respond even after being contacted for the survey. The detailed household-wise survey of the 120 members of six lift irrigation groups covered in this study showed that nearly 28 percent have average monthly cash income of less than Rs. 1000/- and those with cash incomes between Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 2000/- per month is about 48 percent (Table-3.2). Taken together, this showed that nearly 77 percent of the LIS members have cash income less than Rs. 2000/- per month. An important caveat to be kept in mind is that these are estimates of cash available with the family and not of net incomes. It must be noted that in situations like that of the communities covered in this study, our purpose is to bring out the internal differentiation rather than estimate poverty level. To estimate poverty levels, other factors, in particular, the non-cash aspects of the farming too must be considered. Even in an indirect manner, this data cannot be used to comment on changes in the poverty level as a result of the LI system, which can only be done by a specific study comparing baseline data prior to the implementation of the LI scheme. It must also be noted that the LI Samitis were constituted by selecting families within a certain economic status or wealth ranking. Therefore, by the very nature of membership selection it does not have a wide variation in economic status. However, the cash available shows the differences in farming and marketing practices among the families mediated by the use of LI system and in our view constitute a good proxy for the differentiation that has emerged through the use of the system.

When these schemes were launched PRADAN considered the micro-lift irrigation as an option to improve the conditions of the poor and the membership of LI Samiti was open primarily to the poor. The members belong predominantly to the Oraon tribe (72%). In terms of religious beliefs, nearly 5 to 7 percent each consider themselves as Hindu, Muslim and Christian. In addition to intensive group discussions and individual interviews, household surveys of the members of the user groups covering 120 respondents was also carried out. While the aim of the survey was to

7. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Saroj Mahapatra (undated~ 2003) Where is the Demand? A Case study of Lift Irrigation Intervention of PRADAN in Lohardagga and West Singhbhum Districts of Jharkhand.

17


Table-3.2 : Distribution Of Cash Income Among The LI Samiti Members SN 1 2 3 4 5 Income per Month (Rs) < 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 3,000 3,000 to 5,000 > 5,000 Total (N = 120) 100.0 Percent 28.3 48.3 15.0 6.7 1.7

Nearly 78 percent of the LI Samiti members have land holdings less than 5 acres (Table-3.3). Since the data does not cover all members, these ratios may not agree with some of the previous data covering all members. Only two out of 120 active members covered in the survey were landless. Comparison of land holdings and income groupsTable-3.3 : Six LI Samitis Land holding pattern Village/ Hamlet 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Banpur Banjaritoli Patratu Khaliyantoli Salaiya Ambatoli Salgi Garbhutoli Taku Patratoli Daru Pujartoli Landless 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

showed that among those having land holdings of less than 5 acres (93 families), 63% (59 families) have monthly cash income between Rs. 1,000/and Rs. 3,000/- per month. Also, among all 120 members, nearly the same proportion has cash income in this range (i.e., 76 out of 120).

Land owned - Area in acres Lessthan 2 3 8 3 11 9 11 45 2 to 5 9 14 8 5 3 9 48 5 to 10 0 6 4 1 4 5 20 Morethan 10 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 Total 12 30 18 17 16 27 120

TOTAL

The survey conducted showed that currently in the 5 to 14 age group nearly 92 percent of the children are attending school (Table-3.4) with more girls in school than boys (90% boys; 94% girls). In the 15 to 18 age group the figure is about 61 percent (70% boys, 47% girls). A few managed to send the children for English classes in the coaching centres that have sprung up everywhere. The household survey showed that nearly 2718

percent families in the six LIS incur additional expenses for childrens education. Despite the rather bleak conditions there is considerable optimism coupled with serious doubts on what can be done primarily through land resources. Most of them do not have very high confidence that the little parcels of land in their possession could be the bedrock for a bright future for their children.Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

Table-3.4 : Percentage Of Children Attending School Data From Survey Of LIS Member Households Age Category Boys Girls All 5 to 18 Years Total 159 147 306 In School (%) 82.4 81.6 82.0 Total 103 109 212 5 to 14 Years In School (%) 89.3 93.6 91.5 15 to 18 Years Total 56 38 94 In School (%) 69.6 47.4 60.6

Since the focus of this study is the micro-lift irrigation schemes managed by respective water LI Samitis, the description given in this section pertains only to those settlements and the users (members) of the corresponding LI Samiti. By its very design, the role of LI Samiti is limited to that of managing the micro-irrigation scheme and PRADAN had not attempted to saddle any other responsibilities relating either to the village or other interests of the group with the institution. Secondly, it is fairly straight forward to see that the degree of stake of a member depends heavily on the importance of agriculture to his household. This has also been discussed in depth in a previous study 8 which went as far as to note that some of the poorest have very little interest as they are not able to make full use of the irrigation system. Further, from a techno-economic perspective, the layout of the LI system, of how water is distributed and how users are linked to the system are important factors that determine the efficiency or efficacy of the system as well as determine the degree of management challenge. Therefore, in the profiles that follow, a thumbnail sketch of the group is accompanied by a discussion of the LI system with the help of an indicative map. Unlike in the other case studies, the sketches focus on the layout of the irrigation system rather than that of the whole village.

3.3

Lift Irrigation Scheme and Water Users Associations

The typical micro-lift irrigation system consists of a diesel powered pump that lifts water from a stream or rivulet and distributes it to the users. The main distribution line is made of heavy duty PVC pipe of sufficiently large diameter. A couple of smaller branch lines convey the water through control valves along the main line to individual users. Most of the branch lines are just open canals, which are prone to water losses as the water seeps down. Making cement-lined canals is expensive. However, there are a few cases where cementlining has been done. Since the terrain is undulating, the relative elevation at which different distribution valves are situated varies and this variation translates into differential costs as the energy required for pumping will vary with the parameters such as relative height and water losses in the canal. The institutional model is very simple with a small management committee and three office bearers the President, Secretary and Treasurer. The number of members range from 15 to 60. In the early phase PRADAN had insisted and attempted to ensure formal and to an extent a rigid system. During the period when PRADAN was guiding the LI Samitis, the users had to comply with a

8. Satpathy, Manas K., Irrigation for Livelihoods Improvement: Small Holder Tribal Irrigation in Jharkhand, IWMITata Water Policy Research Program Annual Partners Meet 2002.

19


token system, in which coupons were issued and according to the water needs, coupons had to be given to the pump operator. In this model, the pump operator had a crucial role as both operator and of accounting for the usage. A bank account jointly operated by the secretary and treasurer was also the norm. However, currently these are not strictly followed by most LI Samitis.Banpur Banjaritoli

Banpur Banjaritoli with about 18 households (population nearly 560) is one of the three villages that constitute the Kharki panchayat in Kisko block. (Banpur Banjaritoli is an hamlet of Banpur village consisting of three hamlets and 70 households in total. The LI Samiti started functioning from 1993 with the help of PRADAN. The number of members as per record is 15. But the active members are 12. Of these 3 possess landholdings up to 2 acres and rest 9 have holdings exceeding 2 acres and less than 5 acres. The irrigation is enabled through two outlets at elevations of 20 and 25 feet higher than the pump (Figure-3.2). The motor is secured in a pump house. Currently members use the system to irrigate about 12 acres, as compared to the original designed capacity to cover 30 acres. It would be worth mentioning that the water source is around 40-50 feet below the pump house. So, the LIS members have taken initiative to make a well converging it from other sources to lift ater using the pump. The motor is secured in a pump house. Currently members use the system to irrigate about 12 acres, as compared to the original designed capacity to cover 30 acres.

Figure 3.2: Banpur Benjaritoli - Lift Irrigation Scheme layout (schematic, not to scale)

Along with the LI Samiti, there is also one SHG of women formed in the year 2000 Bharat Mahila Mandal drawn from households associated with the Samiti. The emphasis of this SHG is savings and credit. Currently they have a saving of about Rs. 81,000/-. The nearby towns are Kisko (8 KM) and Lohardagga (11 KM). Agriculture is the primary occupation for almost all households. Before the micro-LI Scheme, the agriculture was almost entirely dependent on rains. Currently, because of the micro-LIS agriculture is far more robust allowing people to go for two crops in a year. There are about 25 cows, 50 goats and 32 bullocks owned by the members. However, no household has earning from sale of milk.Patratu Khaliyantoli

The LI Samiti in this village was started in 1993 with the support from PRADAN. This LI caters to members from two hamlets of the Patratu village - Khaliyantoli and Barkatoli. Associated with the LIS there are four women SHGs formed in 1999 -1) Sahyogi Samuh (Barkatoli), 2) Mamta Samuh (Barkatoli) 3) Kamal Samuh (Khaliyantoli) 4) Kalyan Samuh (Nawatoli) which are still functioning very well. At present there are 23 active members in the LI Samiti from Khaliyantoli. Besides, there are 19 from Barkatoli, totalling 42 members.

20


Patratu Khaliyantoli is one of the four villages of the Bagadu panchayat in the Kisko block. Patratu Khaliyantoli is a hamlet of the Patratu village, one of the 4 villages of the Bagru panchayat. The nearest major town is Lohardagga (7 KM). There are 32 HH in Khaliyantoli. Nearly 70 percent of the LI Samiti members have 1 to 5 acres of land and there are no landless members. For almost all member households agriculture is the major livelihood system. Paddy is the major crop. The number of livestock is comparatively very large in this village. About 6 households are marketing milk.

Salaiya Ambatoli

Salaiya Ambatoli is one of the 20 hamlets of the Salaiya village, which belongs to the Pakhar Tisiya panchayat under Kisko Block. Two more villages Nathpur and Pakhar are also part of this panchayat. There are 20 falas (hamlets) in village Salaiya Ambatoli. There about 115 HH (population over 1000) and nearly 90% are tribals. Forest lands are there in the village boundary. The LI Samiti was started in 1992-93 with support from PRADAN. At present there are 22 active members. This was the first LI installed with support from PRADAN in the district. The villagers also have constructed a check dam in the same year as LI installation. Interestingly they have also maintained the check dam with the same intensity as the LI. The Samiti has also purchased a new 8HP pump from the earnings of the Samiti recently and currently owns two pump sets. Nearly 62% have landholdings between 2 and 5 acres. At present, the LI Samiti uses the system to irrigate 15 acres compared to the original design capacity of 30 acres. The irrigation is provided to nearly 30 acres through two main outlets located at elevations of nearly 45 ft and 50 ft relative to the pump. The first outlet (A) is 300 m from the pump and the second (B) 400 m further from the first (Figure-3.4). The water is pumped from a check dam across a rivulet.

Figure 3.3: Patratu Khaliyantoli Lift Irrigation Scheme Layout (Schematic, not to scale)

The irrigation is through two outlets one located 590 m away from the pump at 6 ft higher than the pump and another 250 m further from the first outlet located 16 feet higher than the level of the pump (Figure-3.3). The members of the LI Samiti use the system to irrigate nearly 60 acres which is the highest among the six LI Samitis covered in this study. The irrigation is provided through three canals, one of which is lined with cement to prevent water losses. The pump lifts water from a small check dam across a rivulet. The LI Samiti has made a well to capture water from seepage and use it in lean season when the total volume of surface water is insufficient for suction.

Figure 3.4: Salaiya Ambatoli Lift Irrigation Scheme layout (schematic, not to scale)

21


Salgi Garbhutoli

Salgi Garbhutoli is one of the hamlets of the Salgi village, belonging to Salgi panchyat of Kuru block. PRADAN initiated the Lift Irrigation scheme in this village in 1996-97. The hamlet has about 40 HH of which nearly half belong to the Oraon and nearly a third to the Mahato tribal communities. Nearly 30 households have landholdings of less than 5 acres and there are no landless families. The livestock in the village consists of about 40 cows, 100 bullocks and 300 goats. No one is marketing milk. In addition to the LI Samiti, there are two womens SHGs in this settlement 1) Santosi Mahila Mandal and 2) Sangita Mahila Mandal. At present there are 25 active members in the LI Samiti. The system provides irrigation to about 30 acres of land by lifting water from a reservoir having a catchment area of more than 50 acres. Embankment was made to capture the water during rainy season in the same year when the LIS was formed. The irrigation water is distributed through three main outlets A, B, C (Figure 3.5). The first outlet (A) is about 25 ft above the pump and at a distance of 400 m. The second (B) is 400 m from the first at an elevation of 50 ft above the pump. The third main outlet (C) is 80 ft above the pump and at a distance of 900 m from the second. There are three pairs of channels at each of the main outlets, one canal to the right and another to the left of the main feeder from the pump, as we move away from the pump. The users draw water from one of these supply canals.

Figure 3.5: Salgi Garbhutoli Lift Irrigation Scheme layout (schematic, not to scale) Taku Patratoli

Taku Patratoli is one of the hamlets of the Taku village, which is one of the six villages that constitute the panchayat belonging to the Kuru block. There are about 49 HH (population 350) in Taku Patratoli (Oraon-28 HH, Bhagat-7 HH, Toppo-7 HH, Lakra -3 HH, Tirki-2 HH, Kujur-1 HH and Yadav-1 HH). There are no landless families. Just about four households have landholdings of more than 5 acres while rest have holdings of less than 5 acres. The LI Samiti was initiated by PRADAN in 199697. There are currently 21 active members in the LI Samiti. There are three SHGs 1) Jyoti Mahila Mandal 2) Sarana Mahila Mandal and 3) Kiran Mahila Mandal functioning along with the LI Samiti. Currently, there are about 40 members in the three SHGs which were started in 1998-99. The total area irrigated by the LI system is about 30 acres through three main outlets (Figure-3.6) through three pairs of canals connected to three

22


in this study. There are two women SHGs functioning - Ujala Mahila Mandal started in 2003 and Asha Mahila Mandal started in 2004. Together they have a membership of 32. There is also a Kisan Club having 32 members that also function like an SHG. This serves as a platform to discuss issues of agriculture, farming, irrigation, village disputes, dairy, NREGA, Kisan Credit Card and occasionally problems at village level. main outlets (A, B and C). The water is lifted from low-land well of 30 feet diameter and the first outlet is located 200 m away from the pump at an elevation of 10 ft relative to the pump. The second outlet is at a distance of 150 m from the first and 22 ft above the pump. The third outlet is 36 ft above the level of the pump and 100 m further from the second.Figure 3.6: Taku Patratoli Lift Irrigation Scheme layout (schematic, not to scale) Daru Pujartoli

At present, the LI system irrigates about 30 acres with the water drawn from River Koel. The water is distributed through 4 main outlets (Figure-3.7). Each outlet has a pair of canals that delivers water to the cultivators fields. The first outlet (A) is at a distance of 300 m at an elevation of 5 ft relative to the level of the pump. The second outlet B is 150 m from the first at a relative elevation of 10ft above the pump. The third (C) is 275 m from the second and at an elevation of about 12 ft above the pump. The fourth outlet (D) is 18ft above the pump and 425 m from the third.

Daru Pujartoli is one of the hamlets of the Daru village of the Senha block. There are 32 HH (population 300) and all are land owning with 80% having less than 2 acres. About 5% have more than 5 acres. There are nearly 35 cows (14 hybrid), 5 buffaloes, 65 bullocks and 200 goats in this village. About 10 households have earnings from marketing of milk. The LI Samiti was initiated in 1993-94 with the support from PRADAN. Currently there are about 45 active members in the LI Samiti and is the largest in terms of members among the six covered

Figure 3.7: Daru Pujartoli Lift Irrigation Scheme Layout (Schematic, not to scale)

23


4 Micro-Lift Irrigation Scheme4 .1 Micro-Lift Irrigation Systems BeforePRADANs Initiatives

Before PRADAN took interest in the micro-lift irrigation systems, the government was promoting it with the aim of improving rural livelihoods. The approach of these agencies consisted mainly of four elements:(a) (b) (c) (d) Enabling lift irrigation using electric or diesel engine Construction of individual dug wells Providing portable pump-sets for individual farmers and Construction of minor flow irrigation canals

The lift irrigation using the electric motors did not succeed due to erratic and unreliable power supply, dependence upon an external government appointed person to operate the system and the theft of motors. The system based on diesel pumps was not cost effective, largely due to a design which included costly high powered motors of 14 HP or more. The capital cost to irrigate one acre worked out to be nearly Rs. 30,000.4.2 PRADAN Model

Taking on this challenge, the professionals in PRADAN improvised on the various aspects of micro-lift irrigation designs from the pumps and distribution systems to system management. PRADAN came up with a community-owned scheme that incorporated not only the regional peculiarities but was also within reach of the poor communities who needed it badly. These smallscale LI schemes entail relatively low capital cost, use mostly materials that are not difficult to obtain in local markets and exploit water resources that are often neglected in conventional irrigation planning. In the PRADAN model, capital cost is low less than Rs. 5000 per acre. A certain degree of flexibility to adapt to the changing local conditions is also built into the overall design. Local people are also involved at most stages of planning, implementation and management of the community-owned LI schemes. The key phases in the development and stabilization of the PRADAN micro-LI model consist of the following:

The micro-lift irrigation scheme is basically an approach that draws water from small streams and rivulets to irrigate the farmland of small landholders. However, to implement this, it was necessary to find the right design that addressed the technical and non-technical challenges. This was just the sort of challenge that PRADAN considered its forte, almost the raison dtre, if you will. PRADAN became associated with the micro-lift irrigation systems after acceptance of an invitation from the district administration of Lohardagga and the signing of a MOU in this respect in 1992. As per this initial MOU, PRADAN was to play the role of technical support and facilitation; not that of project implementation agency.24

Site and User Group Identification Technical Survey, Planning and Formation of the WUA Project approval, procurement and rolling out the micro-LI infrastructure Group Building, Operation and Stabilization Agricultural Extension and Market Linkage Emphasis on User Contribution

The user contribution could be in the form of trench digging, pipe-laying, pump house construction, making canals and if needed construction of earthen check dams to impound water for lifting. This was insisted upon to build stakes of members. The micro-LI model is part of PRADANs Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) theme, which includes a package of community organization, agricultural training,


cooperative production assistance and facilities for timely credit and marketing. The formation of strong and cohesive groups of farmers who use the water for irrigation remains the cornerstone of the model. The model is suited to smallholders who stand to gain by cooperation. The last phase, that of strengthening the farming system and helping to firm up market linkages, is an important part of the intervention. We will not dwell on this in detail here as this is part of the larger strategy of PRADAN in the region and is somewhat outside the scope of this study. The first efforts were in Kisko block. Soon, a team of professionals became actively involved in developing the scheme. With the deployment of adequate number of professionals by PRADAN, a favourable district administration and the existence of a large number of potential lift irrigation sites resulted in fast expansion of the activity. However, by the fourth year (1995-96) the expansion slowed down considerably. This was driven partly by an introspection based on the recognition that a lot needs to be done to consolidate systems already created before further expansion. Also, the district administration virtually lost interest in the schemes after the transfer of the district collector who had encouraged it. Consequently, PRADAN sought support from GTZ and also succeeded in channelizing funds from various government programmes like Bihar Plateau Development Project, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, Million Wells Scheme and Employment Assurance Scheme directly to the village level community institutions created for implementation and management of lift irrigation schemes. By the end of December 2001, there were nearly 120 schemes covering about 5600 acres and 4450 users.

4.3 Lift Irrigation Samitis the Micro-Lift Irrigation Groups

The Lift Irrigation Samitis (LIS) are the foundation of the user-group managed micro-LI system. PRADAN has tried to have groups with as much of homogeneity as possible as regards to the caste or tribe involved. This has been coupled with a conscious bias towards small and marginal farmers being included in the Water Users Associations. The LIS has to be functional before the scheme is implemented, as the grant or loan is transferred directly to the account of the LIS, thereby necessitating the existence of the LIS before the implementation. The LIS is lead by president and treasurer/ secretary. The pump operator is a very important player. The functional rules are all decided by the LIS themselves through facilitation by PRADAN. The organizations role was that of a facilitator helping the LIS to become functional and guiding them through the implementation of the scheme. PRADAN provides training to one operator and helps the LIS office bearers to pick up elementary accounting methods. A revolving fund is also inbuilt into the scheme. Once the system stabilized, it is not difficult for the users to manage it themselves. Over a period of few years the LIS are encouraged to manage the schemes on their own.4.4 Site Selection, Survey and Design

The basic criterion for implementation of lift irrigation scheme was poor and homogeneous community as users and the technically feasibility of the site. The details given here are based on the publication brought out by PRADAN in 19999. The technical surveys determined the length of the pipeline, the elevation of the highest outlet from the water source level and command area mapping. The command area mapping included understanding the land resources terrain, land

9 Satpathy, Manas K., Irrigation for Livelihoods Improvement: Small Holder Tribal Irrigation in Jharkhand, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Program Annual Partners Meet 2002.

25


ownership pattern, land type, etc. This was very crucial for designing the distribution system with its branch pipes, position of outlets and the actual command area. In the initial designs, there was no provision for pump house to secure the equipment and the motor was kept on a mobile trolley. Later, necessity of a pump house was felt for protecting the machine against the elements and theft. Pump house is a low-cost structure usually made using locally available materials. The pump house made of mud and stones tend to get damaged by flood. Therefore, the wall of the pump house was changed to a design using brick or stone masonry with cement mortar. To protect the machine against vibration that increases wear and tear, cement concrete foundation was also added. The design was modified to make it easier for users to undertake the construction work on their own by simplifying the specifications and finding suitable materials from local markets. Unplasticized PVC pipes are used instead of the HDP pipes to reduce frictional loss. To increase cost effectiveness, pipes of different diameter are used within one distribution network. In some sites two motors of lesser power are used instead of a single one of higher HP rating. Simple alternatives such as using flange outlets brought down cost to a fifth of the brass gate-valves initially used in the outlets.4.5 Technical design

underground. A typical micro-LI scheme lifts water to a height of 10 to 20 meters to irrigate 30 to 50 acres of land belonging to an average of 20 to 40 users. Within these basic technical parameters, a number of variations are made to accommodate local requirements. The machine and the components required are simple enough as to be operated and managed by the users.

Figure 4.1: Schematic representation of a typical LI scheme

The PRADAN model consists of one or two diesel engines of 5 to 8 HP coupled with suitable pumpsets to lift water and 140/160 mm rigid PVC pipes having 3 to 4 main distribution outlets. Where required an intake well/dug-well is constructed. In a few cases, small check dams have been created across streams to impound the flow. Rigid PVC pipes of different diameters are used to deliver water to the command area. The pipeline length varies between 300 to 1,500 metres. A number of outlets (3 to 4) are suitably located in the command area. The delivery pipe remains buried26

A schematic representation of a typical micro-LI scheme is given in Figure-4.1 and the typical cost estimate is indicated in Table-3.1 The initial capital costs of implementing these systems were provided from project funds. The user groups have contributed in many ways: trench digging, pipe laying, building canals and in the construction of pump houses which were later added to secure the pumps that remained unprotected initially. In some cases, the users have also constructed small check dams to impound water and increase the water available for pumping. Believing the success of the LI scheme to be crucially dependent upon the formation of cohesive water users association, it was felt that the volume of water discharge should be such that only one farmer can irrigate his/her parcel of land at a time. Therefore the flow needed to be small enough for only one farmer to manage it and adequate enough, especially for the Rabi season.


Table-4.1 : Cost Estimate Of A Typical Lift Irrigation Scheme Description Intake well, pump house, etc Nominal value of voluntary labour from members Pump-set, Accessories, PVC tubes, etc Total Approx. Cost (Rs .) 40,000 20,000 120,000 180,000

Note: These are costs reported in the year 1999 and not based on current prices. 4.6 Implementation

The implementation of the scheme is through the LIS formed to manage the scheme. After the scheme gets official sanction, a bank account of the water users association is opened. A meeting for the implementation is conducted in the village. Activities, time line and responsibilities are decided. The sanctioned amount gets deposited in the bank account. People start the work of trench digging. The PRADAN professional would help the LIS in the procurement of diesel engine, pipes, valves and other materials. After the trench digging, the laying of the pipelines is done by the users. The professional or a villager from a nearby LIS provides support. Pump foundation is constructed by the users with guidance from the professional or knowledgeable villagers. The installation of equipment, construction of pump house and making of intake well are carried with the guidance of professionals from PRADAN. During this period, the professionals ensure that regular meetings are held of the LIS. They facilitate weekly meetings, review members participation in meetings, keep a check on the involvement of the members in implementation and monitor labour contribution by members. The professionals also keep a tab on timely implementation and the sharing of responsibilities among the members. They also help to follow up the transactions with suppliers of materials and equipment. Initially,27

PRADAN staff used to be closely involved in the installation by repeatedly visiting the site. Gradually, older groups or better trained groups began to mentor the new groups by providing such support and reducing the involvement of PRADAN staff. PRADAN also organized exposure of the LIS members to well functioning micro-lift irrigation groups, training of pump operators and accounts maintenance. PRADAN professionals provided training to the LIS on different reporting requirements and annual audit of the scheme initiated by the DRDAs or other funding agencies.4.7 Management of LI

The lift irrigation is supposed to be implemented and managed by the water users association (WUA) called Lift Irrigation Samiti (LIS). The LIS is a small group comprising all the farmers having land holding in the LI command area and are interested to be the member of LIS. Each member is supposed to make the financial and labour contribution at the time of the implementation. Only the members can use the LI to irrigate at the rate fixed by the LIS. A nonmember can take benefit of the LI by paying higher amount than compared to the members of LIS. A farmer who was not a member at the time of implementation may be included in LIS after paying the amount more or less equal to the labour and financial contribution made by the members at the time of implementation.


In the period of implementation almost all the members of the LIS attends the weekly meeting where implementation plan, responsibility distribution and accounts are discussed. Some groups even impose fines on absentees. After the implementation, in the first Rabi season, meetings continue to be held weekly. In this phase, the discussions usually revolve around coupon distribution, payment to the operator and management of revolving fund. The users purchase the coupons in units of 15 minutes usage by paying the full amount, submit the coupons to the operator and irrigate his land. In the next meeting, the operator submits the coupons to the cashier and is paid for his service. Professionals from PRADAN provide inputs for establishing the management system and also on crops. Funds from sale of coupons are used for maintenance. The operator takes care of the maintenance. If required, a mechanic from outside is called in. A system of providing a mechanic trained by PRADAN at its training centre for a cluster of users was also initiated and this cluster mechanic often provides the repair service. If the cost of repairs exceeds the available funds, separate contribution is organized from the members.

4.8

Agricultural extension and market linkage

The promotion of the LI Scheme is supplemented by inputs for improving the farming skills of the LI users, as well as helping to develop institutional credit linkage to individual farmers. In some cases, the agricultural grant from the government was made an integral part of the scheme. These, in most cases were incorporated into the funds available for the project implementation and were usually set aside as a revolving fund of the LI Samiti. In several cases, the availability of crop loans were facilitated from ongoing agricultural development schemes. The trainings provided by PRADAN recognized that the tribal communities were almost completely new to irrigated and intensive agriculture. Often skilled farmers were included in the training to help the less skilled understand the issues and learn the techniques. These efforts also included exposure trips to modern farms and interactions with farmers who practice intensive agriculture. In the early phase PRADAN also helped to organize the availability of quality inputs such as seeds and fertilizers as well as strengthen the market linkages.

28


5. Present Status and Functioning of the LI Samitis5.1 Introduction

The six LI Samitis covered in this study show autonomous functioning of these institutions with certain degree of variation and differences in individual institutional capabilities. These are essentially user groups with a narrow focus and a clear membership boundary. The LI Samiti as an organization is a simple user group. The detailed examination of records shows that many members are no longer active users and appear prima facie to be drop-outs. However, in reality many of them have not exited from the LI scheme, but have, in fact, joined other LI Samitis from which it is cheaper and easier to obtain water. Some are active members of one LIS and passive in another. However, there are some members who do not use the LI for various reasons, mainly due to their inability or futility of depending on agriculture. To understand the functioning, detailed householdlevel survey of the member was carried out, in addition to the group discussions and one-on-one interviews with prominent individuals. Some of the information available from previous studies supported by PRADAN and internal notes prepared by PRADAN staff were also used. It must be borne in mind that it is the rolling out of LI as a technical option to enhance livelihood, that forms the basis of this user group. Importantly, there was very little history and experience of managing irrigated and intensive agriculture by the community that adopted this model. A previous study by Bhamoriya and Mahapatra rightly notes: The demand for irrigation is not a demand for irrigation alone. It incorporates demand for irrigated agriculture as a solution to the problems of food security, migration, poverty, social wellbeing as well (in some cases). Looking back, it is clear that, although, LI schemes did provide the opportunity for irrigated agriculture, it was not driven by an actual or felt need, at least in so far as the tribal community29

was concerned. Interestingly, in one of the reviews undertaken by PRADAN, a professional even goes as far as to say that more than looking at what has been achieved, it is necessary to look at what could possibly have been achieved since many other communities in similar settings are able to obtain much higher profits from irrigated agriculture in the region. He notes that while non-tribal communities produce most of the vegetables and make a good profit selling to lucrative markets, the tribal families associated with LIs promoted by PRADAN are not able to or are unwilling to make a good attempt at this. While this could, indeed, be one way of looking at the situation, it completely misses the reality that the experiential universes of the communities being compared have little in common. Right at the outset, it is necessary to keep the real conditions in which the system was adopted in mind when one looks at how the LI Samitis managed by the tribal communities have endured, examine how they continue to function and try to understand why. This is mentioned here as there were, even within PRADAN, two ways of viewing the LI Samitis: a) primarily as a user group to manage the irrigation system and b) as a more complex entity that could act as a sort of farmers mutual help association organizing and developing the agriculture by catalyzing a whole lot of other activities including leveraging credit, sourcing inputs, facilitating agriculture extension and supporting marketing. However, in practice, both with and without PRADANs support, the LI Samitis remained, by and large, as limited-purpose user groups. The attempts by PRADAN, at a certain stage, using a revolving fund and substantial efforts in advancing the agricultural practices, to push these entities into the complex role did not make significant headway, so that by the time PRADAN exited from these LIs, there were basically nothing more than water users groups whose core interest, if one were to characterize it that way, was of managing the irrigation system for the benefit of individual usersSustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

who depended on it to manage farming that was run on individual priorities rather than any collective motivation. The LI scheme needed a whole lot of learning, adoption and adaptation. In one big leap, a community which was carrying on low intensity, nearly risk-free subsistence agriculture with lowest possible investments was, as it were, joining the club of a quintessential modern farmer, producing for the market. It is difficult to reconstruct the path they took to attain some degree of confidence in this, which in itself is remarkable, let alone determine how good or successful they have been in effecting this transition. It has not been possible to probe this aspect sufficiently in this study. Nevertheless, the impression one gets from the villages is that undoubtedly a significant transformation has taken place, as could be discerned from both the hard data and the conversations with the people. However, as anyone who is familiar with the modernization of agriculture could affirm, even farmers with very long tradition could have accomplished such

transition only with assured support from a large array of services and support provided by the state and other agencies on a continuous basis, which is conspicuous by its absence in Jharkhand. Considering all this, it is important to look at the functioning of the institutions by positioning them firmly within the reality of the context rather than any latent or plausible potential.5.2 Membership and Changes in Area Irrigated

In the beginning, there were 200 members in the LI system from the six hamlets covered in this study (219 when all the hamlets are considered). The entire LI system, as per original implementation, was designed to irrigate 218 acres (Table-5.1). The original design thus anticipated almost one acre irrigated area per member, or an irrigated area (IA) to membership ratio (IAMR) of almost 1:1, which is close to the ratio of 1.1 computed from the summary data obtained10 for all the 12 community-managed micro-LI schemes initiated by PRADAN in Lohardagga in 1993-94.

Table-5.1 : Irrigated Area, Membership And Utilization LI Hamlet Initial 1 Banpur Benjaritoli 2 Patratu Khaliyantoli 3 Salaiya Ambatoli 4 Salgi Garbhutoli 5 Taku Patratoli 6 Daru Pujartoli Total 15 23 38 38 29 57 200 Members Now 12 23 22 23 22 42 144 Inactive 3 1 16 15 7 7 49 Irrigated Area (IA in acres) Design Used 30 48 30 30 30 50 218 12 60 15 22 20 30 159 Capacity Utilization (CU) 0.40 1.25 0.50 0.73 0.67 0.60 0.73 AMR Design 2.00 1.10 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.90 1.00 Now 1.00 2.61 0.68 0.96 0.91 0.71 1.10

DIC: Designed Irrigation Capacity. CU (Capacity Utilization) : Ratio of currently irrigated area using LI system to DIC. IAMR: Irrigated Area to Member Ratio.10. From records maintained by PRADAN

30


As per the data obtained, 49 members have become inactive for various reasons (Table-5.2). However, the irrigation usage intensity per active member (IAMR) is now 1.1, showing higher utilization. At the same time, the ratio of actual area under irrigation to original designed capacity (or the capacity utilization) has fallen to 0.73 (or 73% utilization) partly as many of the farms are no longer irrigated from these six LI systems and partly due to other reasons, including actual water availability being less than anticipated in design. A major reason for the variation is the year-to-year variations in water availability. Even with a given design, the maximum area that can be irrigated will be less when the actual water availability is taken into account11. We have not been able to take this variable factor into account in this study. However, the discussions showed that there are considerable variations in water availability and it does pose serious supply

constraints. It is difficult to discern a clear pattern in the changes of IAMR or UR. These are obviously related to the changes in number of active users, actual water availability and the farming practices. It is very pertinent to examine and understand the presence of inactive users in the LI Samiti, as superficially that may seem symptomatic of some weakness in the system. About 25 percent of the original members (49 out of 200) are no longer active within the groups in which they had joined when the scheme was rolled out. Two have been removed from the group due to compulsions of decisions taken by the village. Nearly, 14 percent has moved out to join other LI schemes that make irrigation more cost-effective for them. In other words, they have moved out as the LI system itself has been extended with the addition of new schemes.

Table - 5. 2 : Changes In Membership Of The LI SamitisLI Hamlet Banpur Benjaritoli Small land holding Own pump Occupation shift Given on lease Finance/ Cost Crop loss by animals Poor land Removed from group Total 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Patratu Khaliyantoli 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Salaiya Salgi Taku Daru Pujartoli 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 14 11 9 6 5 1 1 2 49 29 22 18 12 10 2 2 4 Total % Ambatoli Garbhutoli Patratoli 1 11 2 0 0 0 0 2 16 9 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 7

11. An analysis of LI Groups in Jharkhand carried out by PRADAN in 2002, showed that properly functioning groups were using, on an average, only about 50% of DCA. The review by PRADAN notes this becomes nearly 60% after correcting for water availability. The analysis also indicated that on the whole, when all groups are considered, about 20% of the original members were not using the system

31


The major category among inactive users (29%) is those with very small holdings (14) who find it difficult to make full use of the irrigated agriculture. There are about 5 who have stopped using LI system as they find the irrigation too expensive or consider it beyond their means. Together, these two those with very small holdings and those unable to afford the cost of LI system constitute nearly 40 percent of the inactive users. Clearly this is a category which was expected to enhance their economic status by making use of the LI system. However, they find it difficult to effectively use irrigation and be active members of the LI Samiti. This pattern has also been noted in a previous study 12 which cautions that the LI system is not too well suited for the very poor and those with inadequate land who cannot make proper use of irrigated agriculture. There is another category that has moved out of agriculture for reasons such as taking up regular paid work or migration. About 22 percent (11 members), all from Salaiya Ambatoli, have no longer any use of the LI system, even though they are carrying on irrigated farming, as they now own pump-sets, which was provided by the Horticulture Department under a subsidized scheme. The new pump sets given to individual farmers are apparently more efficient and operating costs are low because it can be operated on kerosene. Besides, it gives them more flexibility. Some members of Salaiya Ambatoli are also members in another LI Samiti promoted by PRADAN. However, no one from outside is a member in Salaiya Ambatoli LI Samiti. The reasons for the existence of inactive members also include reduced efficiency of old pumps and many households getting homestead wells from government schemes resulting in a preference to cultivate the homestead land rather than far-flung

uplands. The siltation, too, has reduced water availability. Besides, new LI Samitis have also come up resulting in some members shifting to the new Samitis. The year-to-year variations in water availability along with the corresponding changes in crops also affect utilization in a given year. The presence of a certain number of inactive users does not mean that the LI system has not worked. On the other hand, it has become more compact consisting primarily of families who have strong interests in irrigated agriculture and LI is the option available to sustain it. With the income enhancements they have made under irrigated agriculture, they will be worse off without the LI system and have strong motivations for continuing with the irrigated agriculture. However, given the opportunity to own efficient machines many may opt out of the LI Samiti and prefer to manage the irrigation individually. The core interest is irrigated agriculture and it may happen that some who are very successful in organizing their own systems would cease to depend on the group. However, the LI system had provided the launching pad, as it were for these families to make a leap from subsistence to organized irrigated agriculture, which was unthinkable without the schooling they underwent in the LI Samiti.5.3 LI System Management

The lift irrigation scheme was promoted as a stakeholder implemented and managed effort with PRADAN providing handholding in the early phase in various forms. The Water Users Association (LI Samiti) comprises all the farmers having land holding in the LI command area and has interest in irrigated agriculture. Only the members can use the LI to irrigate at the rate fixed by the LIS. The non-members could use the system by paying higher charges compared to the

12. Satpathy, Manas K., Irrigation for Livelihoods Improvement: Small Holder Tribal Irrigation in Jharkhand, IWMITata Water Policy Research Program Annual Partners Meet 2002 32 Sustainability of Village Institutions Promoted by NGOs

members of LIS. There is also provision to coopt new members. A farmer who had not joined at the beginning of the scheme could later join the group after paying an amount more or less equal to the labour and financial contribution made by the members at the time of implementation, as decided by the group. When PRADAN was promoting the user groups, a well structured system was developed in which proper accounts had to be maintained and printed coupons were used to allocate water drawing rights with one coupon giving the right to pump water for 15 minutes. As per the system encouraged by PRADAN and followed in the early phase, the farmer purchases the coupon conferring entitlement to run the pump for 15 minutes by paying a pre-determined cost per coupon. The user has to buy the required number of coupons to run the pump as per his needs from the treasurer by paying the full amount. He then submits the coupons to the pump operator who will run the pump to provide the irrigation. Only one farmer can irrigate at a time. The main outlet feeding water to the canal that irrigates the particular user is kept open and all other outlets are closed by the operator. The cost of coupon included maintenance, service charges for the operator and a nominal administrative cost. The required diesel was additional and was provided by the user. The maintenance cost included was nominal and when the need for additional funds arose to cover the expenditure on major repairs; it was collected from the members. Initially, the operator, who used to be a person trained by PRADAN, was responsible

for the maintenance. If the task was beyond his capability, a mechanic from outside (or the cluster mechanic trained by PRADAN to service a cluster of LI schemes) is called.5.4 Accounting Irrigation Usage - Coupon System

The coupon system that involves printing of the coupons, maintaining accounts and settlement to pay the operator have been replaced by alternate informal systems. The informal systems have moved away from cash transactions or has tried to minimise conditions in which funds are kept in the custody of functionaries and cumbersome settlement of accounts are needed. The discussions indicated that cash transactions increasingly turned contentious and became the main cause for distrust. There are numerous allegations and cases of operators not doing their work properly. Simpler and informal systems appear to smoothen the operations, perhaps at the cost of efficiency and discipline. More or less on a case to case basis, users who need water but do not have immediate cash are allowed to draw water and pay later. In Taku Patratoli, there are 5 non-members who use the LI system to irrigate nearly 5 acres. Even after 13 years these non-members remain nonmembers. Why have they not thought about being members? The non-members pay in addition to the diesel Rs. 20/- per hour of usage which is double that paid by members. Some form of coupon or token system is working in the 3 out of 6 LI Samitis (Table-5.3). The coupon system is working in Salaiya Ambatoli and Daru Pujartoli. The latter has a very well disciplined system compared to others.

33


Table-5.3 : Status Of The Coupon System

LI Samiti Banpur Benjaritoli

Coupon Plans to Re-start

Remarks Worked only in the initial period; Gradually became an informal system in which any member can bring diesel and operate the pump. All the maintenance cost is shared equally

Documents

Vi4 Pradan Final Print