ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF REHABILITATION ANDIRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN MINOR IRRIGATION

PROJECTS IN ORISSA, INDIA: A CASE STUDYy

A. MISHRA*, S. GHOSH, P. NANDA AND A. KUMAR

Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region (ICAR), Bhubaneswar, India

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a case study on the impact of rehabilitation and irrigation management transfer (IMT) on irrigation,

agriculture and functioning of a water user association (WUA) from farmers’ perspectives. The study was carried out in three

selected minor irrigation projects (MIPs) in Orissa, India, which were rehabilitated by the state government obtaining financial

assistance from European Commission during 1995–2005. A total number of 207 farmers were selected as respondents for this

study following the probability proportionate random sampling method. The impact on irrigation was assessed with a set of 11

indicators on a 5-point continuum scale and it is revealed that the overall irrigation impact value lies between 3 and 4. A

paradigm shift in water delivery from supply driven to demand driven was observed. Impact on agriculture is reflected through

an increase in cultivated area by 9.6–22%, cropping intensity by 10–26%, irrigated area by 18–107%, irrigation intensity by 15–

57% and a diversified cropping pattern with higher productivity. Functioning of the WUAwas studied with a group dynamic

effectiveness index (GDEI) having 10 parameters. GDEI value ranged from 6.28 to 6.82 on a scale of 0 to 10. The lessons learnt

from the study and measures for further improvement in the system’s performance are presented. Copyright# 2010 JohnWiley

& Sons, Ltd.

key words: irrigation management transfer; impact assessment; minor irrigation project; rehabilitation; water user association

Received 4 July 2008; Revised 15 May 2009; Accepted 1 June 2009

RESUME

Cet article presente une etude de cas sur l’impact de la rehabilitation et du transfert de la gestion de l’irrigation (IMT) sur

l’irrigation, l’agriculture et le fonctionnement de l’association d’usagers de l’eau (WUA) du point de vue des agriculteurs.

L’etude a ete realisee dans trois petits projets d’irrigation (PMI) dans l’Orissa, en Inde, qui ont ete rehabilites par le

gouvernement de l’Etat avec une aide financiere de la Commission Europeenne sur la periode 1995–2005. 207 agriculteurs ont

ete selectionnes pour repondre a cette enquete en suivant la methode d’echantillonnage aleatoire de probabilite proportionnelle.

L’impact de l’irrigation a ete evalue par un ensemble de onze indicateurs sur une echelle continue de 5 points; il apparait que

l’impact global de l’irrigation se situe entre 3 et 4. Un changement de paradigme dans l’approvisionnement en eau de la gestion

par l’offre a la gestion par la demande a ete observe. L’impact sur l’agriculture se traduit par une augmentation de la superficie

cultivee de 9.6–22%, de l’intensite culturale de 10–26%, de la superficie irriguee de 18–107%, de l’intensite de l’irrigation de

15–57% et un assolement diversifie avec une plus grande productivite. Le fonctionnement de l’association d’usagers a ete

etudie avec un indice de l’efficacite dynamique du groupe (GDEI) ayant dix parametres. La valeur de GDEI varie de 6.28 a 6.82

sur une echelle de 0 a 10. La lecon a tirer de l’etude et les mesures d’amelioration de la performance du systeme sont presentes.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mots cles: transfert de la gestion de l’irrigation; evaluation de l’impact; petit projet d’irrigation; rehabilitaion; association d’usagers de l’eau

INTRODUCTION

A paradigm shift in the policies for irrigation development

and management has been happening all over the world

during the past two decades. The centralized control and

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

Published online 22 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.540

*Correspondence to: A. Mishra, Water Technology Centre for EasternRegion (ICAR), Bhubaneswar-751023, Orissa, India.E-mail: atmaramm@yahoo.comyEvaluation de l’impact de la rehabilitation et du transfert de la gestion del’irrigation dans des petits projets d’irrigation en Orissa, Inde: une etude decas.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

management responsibility of the irrigation resources are

being transferred to local farmer groups or water users’

associations (WUAs) for better management. As a result,

farmers’ participation in irrigation management has taken

centre stage and the irrigators who were considered as

beneficiaries are now considered partners in planning,

development, operation and maintenance of irrigation

systems (Parthasarathy, 2000). Transfer of irrigation

management responsibilities from government agencies to

farmers is now an important policy in many countries,

including India.

Recent case studies of rehabilitation and irrigation

management transfer (IMT) around the world show that

farmers’ involvement in water management has led to a

better and smoother performance of the systems. In the

Philippines, IMT showed that there were clear gains to the

farmers as well as to the irrigation agency (Bagadion and

Korten, 1991). The US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has

followed signing of agreements with farmers to take over the

system before any construction. This meant the farmers’

involvement from the very inception of the project, rather

than being included as an afterthought (Svendsen and

Vermillion, 1994). In Mexico, responsiveness, timeliness

and flexibility of system operations have either remained the

same or improved during the post-IMT period. The head and

tail problems, which were common prior to the IMT, have

been reduced due to the participation of water users (Salas

andWilson, 2004). Very high financial self-sufficiency ratios

coupled with low running cost achieved by the farmers’

cooperative led to the conclusion that transfer has resulted in

better performance in Ghana (Sam-Amoah and Gowing,

2001a). Howarth and Lal (2002) mentioned that rehabilita-

tion of the Rajapur irrigation systems in Nepal was

successful because of effective participation of farmers’

organizations in project design and implementation, which

has empowered them with the rights and responsibility for

water and infrastructure. Yercan et al. (2004) reported

increases in irrigated areas and fee collection rates and

indicated that irrigation associations were financially more

self-sufficient compared to those in the pre-transfer period in

Turkey.

Results of the IMT have been mixed in a few countries. In

Senegal, making pump operators responsible to farmers

improved the quality of service in many schemes, but the

withdrawal of government maintenance services for pump

engines led to serious problems and even crop failures

(Wester et al., 1995). Further, low water charges decided by

WUAs have underestimated the long-term maintenance

costs of the irrigation system (Gal et al., 2003). Farmers’

organizations in Sri Lanka were exempted from paying

water fees to the government as they operate and maintain

the systems themselves which has led to improvements in

irrigation and other input supplies. However, long-range

funding of operation and maintenance (O&M) of the system

was reported as problematic (Kloezen, 1995).

In India, the government-controlled irrigation systems

have been facing difficulty in managing irrigation at grass

roots level. Almost all the state governments are short of

funds necessary to carry out repair and maintenance of the

systems (Parthasarathy, 2000). It is realized that the capacity

to cater for adequate operation and maintenance requires

involvement of farmers especially at the lowest level of the

distribution system (Wijayaratna and Valdez, 1996). As a

result of the debate over non-performance of the publicly

supplied irrigation system in the early 1990s, participatory

irrigation management (PIM) and IMT have been advocated

as a solution. On the concept of people’s management of

developmental infrastructures that requires local solutions to

local problems affecting them, the National Water Policy of

the Government of India of 1987 and 2002 stressed farmers’

participation in irrigation management. Accordingly, several

states in India have been implementing PIM programmes

and transferring irrigation management to farmer’s organ-

izations under the WUA umbrella. In the state of Andhra

Pradesh, the changes due to farmers’ management of

irrigation systems resulted in a significant expansion of

irrigated area, reduced flooding losses, an early cropping

calendar as a result of improved drainage, and higher paddy

yields (Svendsen and Huppert, 2003). However, the reforms

did not establish clear accountability linkages between

WUAs and O&M engineers in the public irrigation agency

and failed to specify measures to permanently reduce the

size of the state’s irrigation bureaucracy. By implementing

the modernization programme in minor irrigation tanks in

the state of Tamil Nadu, improvement in conveyance,

distribution, application and irrigation efficiencies and

increase in paddy yield, water productivity and gross

incomewere reported (Anbumozhi et al., 2001). McKay and

Keremane (2006) in their findings reported that that the

WUA has been successful in devising and enforcing the

rules for water distribution, fee collection and conflict

resolution for over a decade in the Mula irrigation system in

the state of Maharashtra. PIM and IMT have been

implemented in the state of Orissa since 1995–96 with

funding from various agencies, where the present study was

conducted.

In India, the irrigation projects are classified into three

categories i.e. major, medium and minor irrigation. Projects

having a cultivable command area (CCA) of more than

10 000 ha are termedmajor irrigation projects, between 2000

and 10 000 ha are termed medium irrigation projects and less

than 2000 ha are termed minor irrigation projects (MIPs).

The ultimate irrigation potential of India is estimated at 140

Mha, out of which the share of minor irrigation (MI) is

58.58%, i.e. 81.54Mha. Similarly, in the state of Orissa

(located in the eastern part of the country), it has been

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 43

estimated that out of the total cultivable area of 6.56 Mha,

5.9 Mha (3.95 from major and medium, 0.97 from minor

flow, 0.89 from minor lift and 0.09Mha from other sources)

can be brought under irrigation through different sources.

The irrigation potential by the end of year 2006–07 is

estimated as 2.76Mha (1.25 from major and medium, 0.52

from minor flow, 0.42 from minor lift and 0.57Mha from

other sources). Thus, about one-third of the irrigated area in

the state gets irrigation water from MIPs. Out of 3696 minor

irrigation projects in Orissa, 2200 are classified as fully

operational, 740 as partially derelict and 582 as completely

derelict. About 174 schemes are under construction. The

area of these defunct and partially defunct schemes is about

0.16Mha, which is about 28% of the net cultivated area of all

flow-based MIPs. The defunct schemes are damaged to

different extents and have almost ceased to serve as

irrigation sources due to siltation, non-maintenance, damage

and reduction of the contributing catchment area because of

increased human activities. The government of Orissa with

support from the European Commission (EC) through the

Union Ministry of Water Resources rehabilitated 49 MIPs in

the state during 1995–2005, where the philosophy of IMTwas

put into practice. The rehabilitation process included repair of

head regulators, resectioning of the canal system to its

design dimensions, formation of WUAs and imparting

training for WUA members on irrigation management.

Since the inception of the rehabilitation, farmers’ groups

have been involved in planning, implementation, decision-

making and hydraulic testing, etc.

The transition period has marked confusion and opposi-

tion from the opinion makers; sometimes the farmers

themselves are not able to reconcile themselves with the

shift from government dependency to self-control on

irrigation management. Therefore, an increasing concern

about the impact of rehabilitation and IMT was felt.

Although a vast number of studies on the impact of

management transfer around the world are available in the

literature, some of which as cited above elicit a mixed result.

This has prompted the authors to carry out the present study

in the sampled rehabilitated and handed over MIPs in the

state of Orissa.

Field assessment of irrigation system performance and

application of statistical methods depend on quantitative flow

data at various levels over a specified time period (Clemmens

and Bos, 1990; Pitts et al., 1996). However, flow measure-

ments are not given a high priority in most irrigation systems

in developing countries (Horst, 1999). Even in many cases

where data are available, quality and integrity are question-

able (Murray Rust and Snellen, 1993). In spite of being the

most fundamental stakeholders, farmers often receive least

attention during the assessment of performance considering

irrigation as a service provided to them. A set of criteria for

partial performance evaluation of irrigation system needs to

be considered from the farmers’ perspective (Svendsen and

Small, 1990), and researchers have explored various

parameters to evaluate the irrigation system’s performance

from farmers’ perspectives (Sam-AmoahandGowing, 2001b;

Ghosh et al., 2005). In the present study, an attempt has been

made to assess the impact of rehabilitation and IMT on

irrigation, agriculture and effectiveness of WUAs from

farmers’ perspectives. Measures for further improvement in

systems performance have also been suggested.

METHODOLOGY

Selection of the MIPs

A reconnaissance survey was undertaken through field

visits of 10 handed over MIPs in Nayagarh, Ganjam and

Dhenkanal districts ofOrissa. Based on the experience gained

during the survey and considering the pros and cons of several

factors related to water availability, cropping pattern,

command area size, organizational pattern and functioning

of WUAs and hardware of the irrigation system, one handed

overMIP in each district (i.e. KoskaMIP inNayagarh district;

Devijhar MIP in Ganjam district and Analaberini MIP in

Dhenkanal district) was selected for the study.

Features of selected MIPs

KoskaMIP is located at 208170 3000Nand858060 0000 E. It isthe biggest of the three MIPs chosen with a command area of

840 ha spread over 21 villages. There are three canals that are

offtakes from the reservoir, i.e. the RightMainCanal (3.61 km

long with 9 outlets), Left Main Canal (3.39 km long with 11

outlets) and Diversion Weir Canal (4.20 km long with 12

outlets). The catchment area of the reservoir is about 35.6 km2.

This projectwas selected for rehabilitation in 1998 andhanded

over on 10 July 2004. This project has fiveWUAs comprising

979 members. WUAs function under an apex body.

Devijhar MIP of Ganjam district is located at 198 430 0000

N and 858 070 0000 E and has a command area of 500 ha. The

catchment area of the reservoir is 9.3 km2. There is only one

main canal that is an offtake from the reservoir whose design

discharge at the sluice is 0.545 cumec. It is 5.30 km long

having 24 outlets. There is one branch canal which is an

offtake from the main canal having a design discharge of

0.204 cumec. The length of the branch canal is 3.507 km

with 17 outlets. Rehabilitation of this project started in 2001

and it was handed over to farmers on 5 July 2004. This

project has one of the biggest WUAs comprising 934

members representing 10 villages. Unlike other WUAs,

village water user groups (VWUGs) exist here and one

member from each VWUG acts as a representative on the

management committee of the WUA.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

44 A. MISHRA ET AL.

Analaberini MIP in Dhenkanal district is located at 288500 0000 N and 858 350 0000 E. There is only one canal that is

an offtake from the reservoir which has a design discharge of

0.097 cumec, length of 0.824 km and five outlets. The

command area of the MIP is about 89 ha. This project’s

rehabilitation began in 2003. The project was handed over to

the WUA on 11 March 2005. The project has one WUAwith

140 members from two villages.

Farmers having land in the command area of the irrigation

project constitute the general body of the WUA. The elected

management committee of the WUA comprises a president,

secretary, treasurer and a few members. A project having

more than one WUA forms an apex body that consists of

elected members representing the management committee

of each WUA. The WUA is registered under the Orissa Pani

Panchayat (WUA) Act 2002. Farmers having land in the

command area of the outlet constitute the outlet committee

which functions under the WUA. Outlet committees indent

for supply of irrigation water to the WUA management

committee which decides the schedule of water supply. After

the rehabilitated project is handed over to the WUA, the

operation, maintenance, fixation and collection of water tax

become responsibilities of the WUA.

Even though legally the systems were handed over to the

WUA after the completion of rehabilitation, a beneficiary-

farmers’ group was involved in assessment of rehabilitation

requirements, development and implementation of an action

plan for rehabilitation itself with training, support and

guidance from government functionaries from the inception

of rehabilitation. The rehabilitation works were carried out

in a participatory fashion to ensure quality in construction

and transparency. After satisfaction of the beneficiaries

through hydraulic testing of the canal system carried out

through an independent agency, the systems were formally

handed over to the WUAs.

Impact assessment indicators

Irrigation. Among different stakeholders in irrigation

system, farmers are the producers of agricultural outputs

through the utilization of irrigation services provided to

them. Therefore, in the present study an alternative approach

was followed for irrigation performance assessment from

the farmers’ perspectives.

A methodology based on farmers’ assessment of the

irrigation water supply was followed where farmers’

opinions were recorded on 11 indicators. The indicators

considered were:

P1 Adequacy/sufficiency of irrigation water to meet crop

water requirement

P2 Point of delivery of water

P3 Stream size of water/outlet stream size

P4 Timing of irrigation water supply

P5 Equity of water distribution among the farmers per ha

of cultivated land

P6 Sufficiency in duration of irrigation water supply

P7 Frequency of irrigation water supply

P8 Prior knowledge/awareness about water delivery sche-

dules

P9 Management decisions on cultivation practices based

on irrigation water supply

P10 Certainty of irrigation water availability

P11 Performance of the canal system to cater for the

irrigation requirement

Selected farmer-respondents were asked to give their

judgement with respect to each above-mentioned indicator

for both the wet and dry season on a 5-point continuum scale

(very good to very bad). They were also asked to put forward

their perception regarding the importance of these indicators

during both seasons separately on a 5-point continuum scale

(0–1, very bad; 1–2, bad; 2–3, average; 3–4, good; 4–5, very

good). Mean and standard deviation were calculated to

aggregate the responses of farmers across different WUAs

and reaches (head, middle and tail) of the MIP. Sub-

sequently, the overall irrigation service to farmers was also

assessed taking the mean score of all the above-mentioned

11 indicators.

Agriculture. Agricultural impact reflects the effective-

ness of on-farm water management. This was realized by

making a comparison between the pre- and post-project

scenarios of the command with respect to cropping pattern,

crop productivity, area under irrigation, irrigation intensity

and cropping intensity. Crop productivity of a specific crop

is defined as the ratio of total production of crop to the total

area cultivated under that crop. Its unit is generally

expressed in tonnes per hectare. Irrigation intensity is

defined as the ratio of total irrigated area in the year to total

command area. This is generally expressed as a percentage.

Cropping intensity is defined as the ratio of total cropped

area in the year to the total command area. It is also

expressed as a percentage.

Responses were taken from the selected farmers with

respect to the above-mentioned variables for both wet and

dry seasons with the help of an interview schedule developed

for this purpose. The means of the percentage change

between pre- and post-IMT with respect to the aforesaid

variables were computed.

Effectiveness of the WUA. The WUA ensures volun-

tary and active involvement of farmers in all decisions and

activities related to the irrigation water management

programme. It develops a process and group dynamics

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 45

in which affected populations collectively discuss and

work out ways and means to tackle their own problems

rather than waiting for others to do it for them (Samad and

Vermillion, 1999). The group dynamics plays a pivotal role

in the functioning of the group in an efficient manner. There

are certain factors which influence group effectiveness.

Therefore to understand the effectiveness of a WUA a

Group Dynamic Effective Index was developed,

following the summated ratings method of scale construc-

tion and indexing the items with respective weighting

delineated through the scale product method (Ghosh et al.,

2006). A questionnaire survey of 40 experts (associated

directly or indirectly with the PIM programme) was carried

out to assess content validity. The GDEI included

10 parameters with different weighting (%) as indicated

in Figure 1.

GDEI was studied on the basis of 10 different

parameters, which are participation (P), decision-making

procedures (D), operation, maintenance and management

functions (O), interpersonal trust (T), fund generation (F),

social support (S), group atmosphere (A), membership

feelings (M), group norms (N) and empathy (E). To

understand the effectiveness of the WUA, GDEI was used

which included the above-mentioned 10 different

parameters, which receive different weights in calculation

of overall group effectiveness. Each parameter was

assessed on the basis of five statements on which farmers’

responses were taken on a 3-point continuum ranging from

0 to 2. Mean and standard deviation values of each

parameter were calculated at the first step and thereafter,

overall GDEI was calculated as follows:

GDEI ¼ 0:20�Pþ 0:15�Dþ 0:12�Oþ 0:10�Tþ 0:10�F þ 0:08�Sþ 0:08�Aþ 0:07�M

þ 0:05�N þ 0:05�E

Selection of farmer respondents

In the present study, a stratified probability proportionate

random sampling method was used to select the farmers as

respondents. The selected farmers represent the head,

middle and tail reaches of the canal under the WUA’s

jurisdiction. Koska MIP has five WUAs while Devijhar and

Analabereni MIP have one each. WUAs 1 and 3 of Koska

MIP fall in its head reach, WUAs 2 and 4 in the middle reach

and WUA 5 in the tail reach. About 10% of the total

member-farmers were considered as sample respondents

under the selected irrigation projects. Accordingly, a total of

207 farmers (96 in Koska, 91 in Devijhar and 20 in

Analaberini) were interviewed. Analaberini, being a very

small MIP having only a 0.824 km long canal with command

area of 89 ha, is divided into two reaches, i.e. head and tail

reach, for the purpose of impact assessment. Detail of

sampling of the respondents is presented in Table I.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Impact on irrigation

The impact of rehabilitation and IMT is visible with better

water storage in the reservoir due to renovation of the head

regulator and strengthening of the reservoir embankment. At

present an adequate amount of water in the reservoir is

available to cater for the supplemental irrigation require-

ment of the wet season crop. In addition, some water is also

available to partially meet the requirement of dry season

crops. Farmers’ perceptions on 11 indicators illustrating the

impact on irrigation are analysed for the chosen MIPs and a

comparison among them is made.

Table II presents the overall impact of rehabilitation and

IMT on irrigation in different WUAs of Koska MIP in both

seasons. The mean score of the wet season is higher than that

of the dry season. The mean score ranges from 3.59 to 3.87

(good) for the wet season and 2.53 to 3.46 (average to good)

in the dry season.

Among the WUAs, irrigation performance is found to be

better in WUAs 1 and 3 (located in the head reach) which

might be due to their locational advantage. The variation of

overall irrigation impact over space during the wet season is

negligible. However, some spatial discrepancy is seen for

WUAs 4 and 5 during the dry season. As the command area

of both WUAs is located in the middle and tail reaches,

insufficient water availability due to excessive conveyance

losses and inequitable distribution of water might be the

reason for this spatial discrepancy.

Table III presents the overall impact on irrigation in the

head, middle and tail reaches of the Devijhar MIP in both

seasons. Farmers’ assessment on various issues of irrigation

water delivery in the head, middle and tail reaches of theFigure 1. Group dynamics effectiveness index (GDEI) with its indicators

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

46 A. MISHRA ET AL.

Devijhar MIP during the wet and dry seasons shows that the

scenario is better in the wet season than in the dry season.

During the wet season, the performance difference is clearly

seen over the reaches. The head reach has distinctly clear

advantages over the middle and tail reaches. The mean value

of irrigation indicators in the wet season ranges from 3.56

(good) to 4.44 (very good). However, in the dry season it

ranges from 3.29 to 3.98 and hence may be considered good.

Table I. Number of farmers respondents in head, middle and tail reach of the selected MIPs

Name ofthe MIP

Nameof WUA

Total no. ofmember farmers

No. offarmers selected

No. of farmer-respondents

Head reach Middle reach Tail reach

Koska WUA 1 170 17 42 36 18WUA 2 128 12WUA 3 275 25WUA 4 245 24WUA 5 161 18Total 979 96

Devijhar WUA 1 934 91 14 56 21Analabereni WUA 1 140 20 6 — 14

Table III. Impact of rehabilitation and IMT on irrigation for wet and dry seasons in Devijhar MIP

Indicator Head Middle Tail

Wet season Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season Dry season

P1 4.84 4.38 4.12 3.39 3.52 3.10P2 4.31 3.92 3.82 3.48 3.38 3.09P3 4.08 3.46 3.81 3.14 3.43 3.19P4 4.54 3.77 3.64 3.15 3.33 3.09P5 4.31 3.85 3.64 3.18 3.33 3.19P6 4.75 4.25 3.58 3.08 3.43 3.29P7 4.63 4.36 3.94 3.51 3.86 3.67P8 4.61 4.38 4.14 3.78 3.52 3.57P9 3.85 3.62 3.44 3.26 3.38 3.33P10 4.46 3.85 3.96 3.41 4.14 3.57P11 4.46 3.92 3.88 3.24 3.81 3.19Mean 4.44 3.98 3.82 3.33 3.56 3.30

Table II. Impact of rehabilitation and IMT on irrigation for wet and dry season in Koska MIP

Indicator WUA 1 WUA 2 WUA 3 WUA 4 WUA 5

Wetseason

Dryseason

Wetseason

Dryseason

Wetseason

Dryseason

Wetseason

Dryseason

Wetseason

Dryseason

P1 4.06 2.94 3.75 2.75 3.88 3.16 3.62 2.33 4.22 2.00P2 3.75 3.06 3.58 3.33 3.64 3.24 3.79 2.33 3.94 2.18P3 3.81 3.31 3.91 3.58 4.00 3.80 3.30 2.24 3.44 2.50P4 3.94 2.94 3.58 3.36 3.68 3.20 3.08 2.24 3.17 2.13P5 3.81 3.44 3.50 3.50 3.68 3.32 4.67 2.28 3.06 2.20P6 3.94 3.00 3.83 3.36 3.80 3.16 3.70 2.43 3.76 2.40P7 3.87 3.37 3.75 3.73 3.64 3.16 3.37 2.52 3.55 2.93P8 3.50 3.31 3.50 3.50 3.60 3.40 3.25 2.90 3.06 2.79P9 4.00 3.60 3.67 3.54 3.80 3.60 3.79 3.76 3.72 3.13P10 3.87 3.19 3.75 3.55 3.84 3.48 3.46 3.09 3.56 2.94P11 4.00 3.75 4.08 3.82 4.08 4.00 3.96 3.62 4.06 2.62Mean 3.87 3.26 3.72 3.46 3.79 3.41 3.64 2.70 3.59 2.53

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 47

Due to paucity of water in the reservoir during the dry

season, the irrigation supply remained confined to the head

and middle reaches. This might be the reason for better

scoring of irrigation impact in the head reach in the dry

season.

Table IV presents the overall impact on irrigation at

Analaberini MIP in both seasons. A distinct difference is

seen between the seasons, the wet season remaining in the

very good zone (4.55–4.57) and the dry season remaining in

the good zone (3.16–3.39). In this MIP, spatial discrepancy

of irrigation impact is not observed, which might be due to

the smallness of the project.

Figure 2 presents the mean value of irrigation impact

indicators for all three selected MIPs. In the wet season the

impact is best noticed in Analaberini, followed by Devijhar

and Koska MIPs. However, during the dry season, the

irrigation impact is best observed in the case of Devijhar

MIP. Through experience gained during interaction with

farmers and in the course of focused group discussion, it is

learnt that the farmers of Devijhar MIP are more aware of the

judicious use of water in growing crops for a better return

than the Koska and Analaberini farmers. This is probably the

reason for the higher irrigation impact in the dry season at

Devijhar MIP. As the irrigation impact indicators were

obtained on a 5-point continuum scale, in all the MIPs the

overall impact lies mostly between 3 and 4, indicating the

fact that the overall irrigation performance of the selected

MIPs is ‘‘good’’ after rehabilitation and IMT. However, it is

felt that there is ample scope for further improvement in

irrigation system performance.

Table IV. Impact of rehabilitation and IMT on irrigation for wet and dry seasons in Analaberini MIP

Indicator Head Tail

Wet season Dry season Wet season Dry season

P1 5.00 3.40 5.00 3.46P2 5.00 1.00 4.92 4.54P3 4.20 1.00 4.23 1.00P4 5.00 3.00 4.92 3.00P5 5.00 3.00 4.92 3.00P6 4.00 3.20 4.46 3.45P7 4.00 3.12 4.08 3.33P8 4.40 4.40 4.15 4.15P9 4.60 4.80 4.69 5.00P10 3.80 4.60 3.92 3.38P11 5.00 3.20 5.00 3.00Mean 4.55 3.16 4.57 3.39

Figure 2. Overall impacts on irrigation during wet and dry season in selected MIPs

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

48 A. MISHRA ET AL.

A perusal of individual indicators from Tables II–IV

shows that farmers perceived the adequacy of irrigation

water and overall performance of system relatively better in

the study area in Orissa. Similar results have also been

reported by other researchers in India and abroad. In the state

of Tamil Nadu, the modernization programme in minor

irrigation tanks resulted in improvement of conveyance,

distribution, application and irrigation efficiencies (Anbu-

mozhi et al., 2001). Farmers perceived improved water

distribution within the minor canals command in the post-

IMT period in the state of Maharashtra (Naik et al., 2002).

A similar study conducted in Turkey by Yercan (2003)

reported that farmers were satisfied with water availability,

quality of the operation and maintenance activities, and

irrigation scheduling, but were dissatisfied with water fees.

Another study on assessment of IMT (Kucu et al., 2008)

revealed that farmers’ perceptions concerning pre- and post-

transfer are significantly positive with respect to the

adequacy of irrigation water supplied to the farm, fairness

of water distribution within the system, frequency of water

distribution conflicts, timeliness of water delivery to the

farm, irrigation fee policy, and maintenance of drainage

canals. Intensive case studies in Nepal showed that equity in

distribution of water has increased significantly due to IMT

(Bhatta et al., 2005). Responsiveness, timeliness and

flexibility of system operations have either remained the

same or improved during the post-IMT period in Mexico

(Salas and Wilson, 2004).

Impact on agriculture

Effectiveness of better water delivery and on-farm water

management is generally reflected through agricultural

output. To ascertain the impact of rehabilitation and IMT on

agriculture, indicators such as cultivated area, cropping

intensity, irrigated area, irrigation intensity, cropping pattern

and productivity of various crops were assessed for pre- and

post- rehabilitation period and compared.

As evident from Table V, at Koska, about a 22% increase

in cultivated area is recorded during the post-rehabilitation

period. The highest percent increase in cultivated area is

recorded inWUA 1 (79.41%) followed byWUA 3 (32.60%).

This might be due to their proximity to the reservoir which

has some direct relation to water availability. Due to the

limited amount of water availability in the reservoir during

the dry season, the farmers of the middle and tail reaches

restrict themselves to a limited area under crop cultivation.

That is why the percentage area increase in the head reach is

considerably higher than the middle and tail reaches.

Devijhar MIP recorded an overall increase in cultivated area

of 17.72% during the post- rehabilitation period. Its head

reach recorded a maximum increase (25.45%) followed by

the middle reach (18.18%) and tail reach (10.51%).

Similarly, in the case of Analaberini MIP, the overall

increase in cultivated area is 9.6%. The head reach registered

about a 25.34% increase in cultivated area; however, no

change is recorded for the tail reach. Further, there is an

overall increase of 21.52, 26 and 10% in cropping intensity

after rehabilitation at Koska, Devijhar and Analaberini

MIPs, respectively. The increase in cropping intensity is

observed to be more in the head than in the middle and tail

reaches.

Table VI presents the irrigated area during the pre- and

post-rehabilitation period of selected MIPs. In case of

Koska, there is about a 107% increase in irrigated area after

rehabilitation. Maximum increase in irrigated area is

Table V. Change in cultivated area in the selected MIPs

Particular Averageland- holding (ha)

Cultivated area (ha) per farmer Change (%)

Before rehabilitation After rehabilitation

Wet season Dry season Total Wet season Dry season Total

Koska, WUA 1 1.04 0.75 0.07 0.82 0.81 0.53 1.46 79.41Koska, WUA 2 1.41 1.00 0.48 1.48 1.06 0.69 1.75 18.38Koska, WUA 3 1.30 1.14 0.30 1.45 1.26 0.66 1.92 32.60Koska, WUA 4 1.72 1.38 0.29 1.66 1.38 0.33 1.72 3.12Koska, WUA 5 1.77 1.36 0.17 1.53 1.42 0.41 1.83 19.32Koska, overall 1.47 1.16 0.26 1.42 1.22 0.51 1.73 22.32Devijhar, head 1.54 1.51 0.72 2.23 1.54 1.26 2.80 25.45Devijhar, middle 1.37 1.36 0.67 2.02 1.36 1.03 2.39 18.18Devijhar, tail 1.33 1.19 0.75 1.94 1.30 0.85 2.14 10.51Devijhar, overall 1.39 1.34 0.69 2.03 1.37 1.02 2.39 17.72Analaberini, head 1.20 1.02 0.43 1.45 1.05 0.77 1.82 25.34Analaberini, tail 0.86 0.77 0.03 0.80 0.77 0.03 0.80 0.00Analaberini, overall 0.96 0.85 0.15 1.00 0.86 0.24 1.10 9.60

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 49

recorded in WUA 3 (196.03%) followed by WUA 5

(110.4%) and WUA 4 (95.83%). WUAs 4 and 5 are located

in the middle and tail reaches of the command. Thus,

rehabilitation has ensured the water reaches the tail end of

the canal, as a result of which a significant increase in

percentage of irrigated area is recorded in the middle and tail

reaches. WUA 1 which is located in the head reach recorded

the least percentage increase in irrigated area (43.97%). This

is because the command of WUA 1 was receiving irrigation

water even in the pre-rehabilitation period. Hence,

rehabilitation has made a greater impact in increasing the

percentage of irrigated area in the middle and tail reaches of

the Koska irrigation system.

The scenario is different in the case of Devijhar and

Analaberini MIPs. In the case of Devijhar, there is an overall

increase of 41.54% in the irrigated area in the post-

rehabilitation period in comparison to the pre-rehabilitation

period. Maximum increase in irrigated area was recorded in

the head reach (61.6%). The least increase in irrigated area

was recorded in the tail reach (4.92%). Thus, the problem of

spatial discrepancy in availability of irrigation water still

prevails in Devijhar. The canal network of the Devijhar MIP

is partially lined and because of the highly permeable soil,

irrigation water finds it difficult to reach the tail end. This

might be one of the reasons for the least increase in irrigated

area in the tail reach. A similar finding is also observed for

Analaberini MIP. Here, an overall increase of 17.67% in

irrigated area during the post-rehabilitation period is

recorded. The head reach registered the highest percentage

increase in irrigated area (33.96%), followed by the tail

reach (12.17%).

An increase of irrigation intensity to the tune of 57, 40 and

15% is recorded at Koska, Devijhar and Analaberini MIPs,

respectively. Perusal of the data on cultivated area and

irrigated area reveals that due to rehabilitation, the cultivated

areas which were primarily dependent on rainwater in the

pre-rehabilitation period, have now mostly changed to

irrigated areas.

During the wet season paddy remains the predominant

crop in the command areas of all three selected MIPs. The

paddy area has increased from 78.43 to 80.10% in Koska.

There is a decrease in fallow area from 20.98 to 16.93%. The

vegetable area has increased from 0.59 to 1.55%. After

rehabilitation sugarcane is also grown in 1.36% of the area.

In Devijhar, before rehabilitation, about 94.77% of the

command used to be under paddy, 1.84% under vegetables

and 3.38% remained fallow. After rehabilitation there is a

major shift in the cropping pattern. There is a decrease in

paddy area; it has come down to 74.57%. Farmers have

shown interest in growing vegetables and about 23.93% of

the area has been brought under vegetables. About 0.29% of

the area is under sugarcane and 1.21% has remained fallow.

Thus, there is a shift from paddy to non-paddy crops in the

wet season that might be the result of assured water

availability and training received by the farmers on crop

diversification from different agencies during the process of

IMT. At Analaberini MIP during the wet season, paddy

continues to be the predominant crop. One or two farmers

have begun growing sugarcane recently.

During the dry season, pulses like green gram, horse

gram, black gram and Bengal gram, oilseeds like sunflower

and groundnut and vegetables like pointed gourd and Brinjal

are grown by the farmers in Koska and Devijhar MIPs. There

is a reduction in fallow area from 82.58 to 65.12% in Koska

and from 50.14 to 26.52% in Devijhar. Before rehabilitation,

pulses used to be the major crop of the command during the

Table VI. Change in irrigated area in the selected MIPs

Particular Irrigated area (ha) per farmer Change (%)

Before rehabilitation After rehabilitation

Wet season Dry season Total Wet season Dry season Total

Koska, WUA 1 0.59 0.34 0.93 0.82 0.52 1.34 43.97Koska, WUA 2 0.56 0.17 0.72 0.67 0.66 1.33 83.97Koska, WUA 3 0.41 0.20 0.60 0.96 0.83 1.79 196.03Koska, WUA 4 0.65 0.22 0.86 1.34 0.36 1.69 95.83Koska, WUA 5 0.63 0.18 0.81 1.34 0.36 1.70 110.40Koska, overall 0.56 0.22 0.78 1.07 0.54 1.61 107.73Devijhar, head 1.45 0.00 1.45 1.46 0.88 2.34 61.60Devijhar, middle 1.34 0.04 1.37 1.36 0.48 1.85 34.69Devijhar, tail 1.17 0.04 1.21 1.28 0.53 1.81 4.92Devijhar, overall 1.32 0.03 1.35 1.36 0.55 1.91 41.54Analaberini, head 0.95 0.33 1.28 0.99 0.73 1.72 33.96Analaberini, tail 0.44 0.02 0.46 0.50 0.02 0.52 12.17Analaberini, overall 0.60 0.11 0.71 0.63 0.23 0.86 17.67

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

50 A. MISHRA ET AL.

dry season in Devijhar. After rehabilitation, with the

availability of assured irrigation water, farmers have shown

interest in cultivating more remunerative crops like ground-

nut; as a result the area under oilseed has increased from 2.52

to 36.91%. There is a need to devise techniques to conserve

more rainwater in the command and judiciously use the

available irrigation water to bring more areas under dry

season cultivation.

Crop productivity is one of the most important indicators

of the agricultural impact assessment study. The pro-

ductivity of paddy, pulses, oilseed, sugarcane and vegetables

before and after rehabilitation for the selected MIPs is

assessed. In the case of paddy, yield improvement in

Devijhar MIP is remarkable. On average, the paddy yield has

increased by 37.78, 73.27 and 21.51% in Koska, Devijhar

and Analaberini MIPs respectively due to rehabilitation and

IMT. Further, at Devijhar the farmers have initiated

cultivation of high-yielding paddy varieties. It is hoped

that there will be an increasing trend towards cultivation of

high-yielding paddy not only in Devijhar but also in other

MIPs. Thus, in future years it is expected that the yield of

paddy will continue to increase.

With regard to pulses, the yield increased considerably

after rehabilitation. Koska registered a yield increase of

57.14% and Devijhar 61.70%. Of course the area under

pulses has dwindled in Devijhar as farmers have shown

interest in groundnut cultivation which realizes more income

for them. A remarkable increase in yield is also noticed in

the case of oilseeds. Sunflower and groundnut are the main

oilseed crops grown in Koska and Devijhar MIPs

respectively. In Devijhar, the increase in groundnut yield

is 187.95%. Sugarcane, a perennial high-water-requiring

crop, is also cultivated in the head reach of Koska and

Devijhar MIPs. This crop recorded a yield increase of 40 and

44.15% in Koska and Devijhar MIPs respectively. Vegetable

cultivation has come up in a big way in Koska and Devijhar

MIPs. Pointed gourd and Brinjal are the two main vegetables

grown in the command. The yield increase of vegetables is

about 40 and 45.25% in Koska and Devijhar MIPs

respectively. Thus, it may be inferred that rehabilitation

and IMT have brought about a remarkable increase in crop

yield.

The impact of rehabilitation and IMT is found to be

positive with respect to cultivated area, cropping intensity,

irrigated area, irrigation intensity, crop diversification and

crop productivity in the sampled MIPs in Orissa. The above

results are corroborated by the study conducted by Svendsen

and Huppert, 2003 in the state of Andhra Pradesh

(neighbouring state of Orissa), where the changes due to

farmers’ management of irrigation systems resulted in a

significant expansion in irrigated area, reduced flooding

losses and an earlier cropping calendar as a result of

improved drainage, and higher paddy yields. By implement-

ing the modernization programme in minor irrigation tanks

in the state of Tamil Nadu, an increase in irrigation

efficiencies, paddy yield, water productivity and gross

income was reported (Anbumozhi et al., 2001). The results

of the impact assessment of IMT in the state of Maharashtra

revealed an increase in cultivated area, a shift to higher-value

crops and increased yields in one of the canal systems (Mula

minor 7). However, in another canal system (Bhima minor

10) no increase in agricultural productivity was recorded

(Naik et al., 2002).

Evaluation of IMT programmes in Asian, African and

Latin American countries by Salas and Wilson (2004)

reveals that IMT has led to positive results, viz. reduction in

the cost of irrigation to farmers and to the government,

enhanced financial self-reliance, expansion of service areas,

reduction in the amount of water delivered per hectare and

increases in crop intensity. However, Sam-Amoah and

Gowing (2001a), in a case study of management transfer of a

rice irrigation scheme in Ghana, reported that whilst both

cropping intensity and cultivated area decreased after

transfer, the relatively high yields were sustained. IMT in

Pakistan, which took place during 2000, resulted in an

increase in irrigated area of 6–7%, even under severe

drought-like conditions (Latif and Pomee, 2003). Case

studies in Nepal showed that rice productivity and overall

profits from agriculture increased significantly due to IMT

(Bhatta et al., 2005). In Turkey, Yercan et al. (2004) reported

an increase in irrigated areas compared to those in the pre-

transfer period; another study on assessment of IMT (Kucu

et al., 2008) revealed that the irrigation ratio increased by

around 4% (from 58 to 62%) after the transfer. Results from

a field study carried out in the Office du Niger Irrigation

Scheme in Mali (Vandersypen et al., 2009) revealed that

collective action at the intake level of the tertiary blocks

improved irrigation efficiency by at least 14%, but was

limited to 11 out of 36 tertiary blocks. Collective action

made water allocation much better (26 out of 36 tertiary

blocks), mitigating irrigation problems in the tertiary blocks.

Effectiveness of WUAs

Proper operation, maintenance and sustainability of the

renovated MIPs depend on effective functioning of WUAs.

The functioning of WUAs was studied with the help of a

group dynamics effectiveness index (GDEI) which explores

the involvement of members in various WUA activities on

the basis of 10 different parameters. Levels of parameters of

group dynamic effectiveness in different WUAs are

presented in Table VII.

As evident from Table VII, the GDEI values for all three

MIPs are almost the same. It is interesting to note that in

spite of the large size of the WUA at Devijhar, member-

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 51

farmers perceived most of the parameters favourably.

Prevalence of village water user groups at each village

and their representation on the management committee of

the WUA might have catered for the needs of the farmers

better, thereby influencing their perceptions relatively more

favourably. It is also evident from the standard deviation

values that the variation in the responses of farmers was less

in the case of Devijhar (0.26) compared to other two

projects, indicating homogeneity in their perceptions.

Parameters such as participation, group atmosphere and

membership feeling were perceived relatively highly by the

member-farmers of WUAs at all three MIPs. A lower value

for the empathy parameter indicates a lack of understanding

of each other’s situation among the members of the WUAs.

At Koska, farmers perceived fund generation activities,

O&M functions and empathy at a lower level (with mean

score < 5.0) compared to other parameters of GDEI. Social

support and empathy were perceived as below average at

Analabereni. Member-farmers of the WUA at Devijhar

perceived most of the parameters relatively highly barring

empathy, leading to the highest GDEI value (6.82) followed

by Analabereni (6.70) and Koska (6.28). In case of three

parameters, viz. participation, decision making and mem-

bership feeling, farmers of the WUA at Analabereni and

Koska had a better opinion than that of Devijhar. This fact

may be attributed to the smaller size of WUAs both at Koska

and Analabereni, leading to better interactions among the

members compared to the WUA at Devijhar with 934

members.

The parameters of GDEI are observed to vary amongst the

WUAs at Koska. The GDEI derived for each respondent of

the five WUAs is presented in a radar diagram (Figure 3).

The scale ranges from 0.00 to 10.00 which is divided into

three categories, viz. low (0.00–3.33), medium (3.34–6.66)

and high (6.67–10.00). The highest GDEI is found in WUA

1 (7.58) followed by WUA 3 (6.66), WUA 2 (6.63), WUA 4

(5.50) and WUA 5 (5.34). This may be attributed to the

locational advantage of the WUA’s jurisdiction (WUAs 1

and 3 in the head reach, WUAs 2 and 4 in the middle reach

and WUA 5 in the tail reach). As the WUA revolves around

the management of irrigation water, better access to the

resource influences its effectiveness.

It can be generalized that decision-making, fund

generation, empathy and social support are the parameters

which need attention to improve the overall effectiveness

of WUAs. During the interaction with farmer-respondents,

it is learnt that small and marginal farmers are unaware of

Table VII. Assessment of GDEI and its parameters for WUAs of selected MIPs

Parameters of GDEI Koska (Mean of five WUAs) Devijhar Analabereni

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

Participation 8.05 1.93 7.99 0.10 8.10 1.02Decision making 6.86 2.09 5.37 1.55 7.10 2.13O & M functions 4.47 2.03 6.84 0.58 5.20 1.64Fund generation 3.44 1.90 6.93 0.74 7.10 1.74Group atmosphere 7.80 1.83 9.20 1.29 7.60 1.79Membership feeling 8.89 1.39 7.88 0.47 8.45 2.01Norms 5.51 2.16 6.45 0.85 7.60 1.79Empathy 3.40 2.58 3.32 0.73 2.05 0.69Interpersonal trust 6.74 2.71 6.02 0.30 5.85 1.46Social support 5.09 2.83 6.01 0.10 4.00 1.12GDEI 6.28 1.30 6.82 0.26 6.70 1.26

Maximum and minimum possible mean score is 10 and 0, respectively.

Figure 3. GDEI of member-respondents of the WUAs at Koska MIP

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

52 A. MISHRA ET AL.

many WUA activities. There is a difference in awareness

level between small and large farmers within the same

WUA which influences decision-making. The gap in the

need and awareness of farmers depending on their socio-

economic conditions also results in poor empathy despite

being the members of the same WUA. The government

water rates have been abysmally low over the years;

therefore, collection of water tax by the WUA suffers from

the earlier mindset of farmers in many cases. This affects

the fund generation process of WUAs. Water entitlements

in canal irrigation are singular, that is they only refer to

agricultural production, and they are exclusive, that is only

landholders in the command area can enjoy them

(Mollinga, 2005). However, water as a common resource

has other functions such as domestic and industrial use.

The WUA does not consider these uses and the needs of the

landless residing in the command, which may hamper

the issue of social support.

A similar evaluation study in the Philippines showed

limitations on farmers’ collecting irrigation fees (Turral,

1995). In Sri Lanka long-range funding of O&M was found

to be problematic (Kloezen, 1995). Yercan (2003) reported

that farmers were dissatisfied with water fees in Turkey.

Another study conducted by Gal et al. (2003) in the Senegal

River Delta revealed that low water charges decided on by

WUAs have underestimated the long-term maintenance

costs of the irrigation system. Combined with the difficulty

of collecting and managing farmers’ fees, this choice has

drawn them into a vicious circle leading to scheme

deterioration and poor water service.

Most of the parameters of GDEI were perceived

favourably by the member-farmers of WUAs at all three

MIPs. This may be attributed to the fact that rehabilitation

and the IMT process were initiated together and member-

farmers were involved in assessing rehabilitation require-

ments, planning, implementation and decision-making from

the start rather than being included as an afterthought (as is

too often the case). It has empowered them and given them

rights and responsibility for water and infrastructure.

Government functionaries have played the role of motivators

and facilitators in the entire process of rehabilitation and

IMT. This lesson might be taken into consideration for future

IMT programmes. A similar process and end results are also

reported in the case of the US Bureau of Reclamation’s

programme (Svendsen and Vermillion, 1994) and in the

Rajapur irrigation systems, Nepal (Howarth and Lal, 2002).

Thus, it is realized that the IMT process should preferably be

initiated with the rehabilitation and/or hydraulic testing of

the system in participatory mode, giving a feeling to the

beneficiaries that the system they are taking over is in good

working condition. It would also inculcate a sense of

ownership, empowerment and responsibility among the

farmers.

SCOPE FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT

Better hydrological regime in the command

During the wet season, of the irrigation impact assessment

indicators considered, equitable distribution of water among

farmers per hectare of cultivated land (P5), prior knowledge/

awareness about water supply schedules (P8) in Koska MIP;

equitable distribution of water among farmers per hectare of

cultivated land (P5), management decisions on cultivation

practices based on irrigation water supply (P9) and timing of

irrigation water availability (P4) in Devijhar MIP; frequency

of getting irrigation water (P7) and certainty of irrigation

water availability (P10) in Analaberini MIP scored the least.

Thus, during the wet season, equitable distribution of

irrigation water among the farmers per hectare of cultivated

land is the prime concern. A mechanism needs to be

developed and implemented in the outlet command of the

rehabilitated MIPs for equitable distribution of water among

the farmers. An assured supply of irrigation water through a

well-defined delivery schedule and provision of field

channels in the command needs to be ensured so that

farmers can be certain about timing of irrigation, to plan the

agricultural operation, invest in inputs, etc.

During the dry season, adequacy of irrigation water

availability (P1) and timing of irrigation water supply (P4) in

Koska MIP; stream size of water/outlet stream size (P3) and

timing of irrigation water supply (P4) in Devijhar MIP; point

of delivery of water (P2) and stream size of water/outlet

stream size (P3) in Analaberini MIP scored the least. Thus,

during the dry season, stream size of water and timing of

irrigation water supply are the two most important indicators

for which farmers have shown concern. Thus, there is a need

to determine the unit command area of each MIP. The unit

command area in turn will decide the optimum stream size

of each outlet leading to efficient application of irrigation

water without wastage.

Impact assessment indicators on irrigation reveal that

during the dry season irrigation water availability is limited

in all the MIPs. Because of this, a limited area in the

command of Devijhar and Koska MIPs was put under

cultivation. It is realized that there is ample scope for

capturing rainwater in the command through creation of

secondary reservoirs to augment irrigation water avail-

ability. In addition to storing the canal water during excess

supply periods, these reservoirs can also harvest rainwater

during the wet season. The productivity of the stored water

in the secondary reservoir can be enhanced through multiple

use management by way of fish culture and raising ducks,

horticulture on the embankment, etc. One of the possible

locations of these reservoirs could be downstream of each

outlet. The institutional mechanism for operation and

maintenance of the proposed secondary reservoirs also

needs to be developed.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 53

There is a need for judicious use of available irrigation

water. As far as possible the conveyance system needs to be

seepage-proof. Lining of the entire canal network is required

to achieve this goal. This will bring an additional area under

cultivation during the dry season. Lining of the entire canal

network will bring down the periodic maintenance cost;

however, the funding requirements for repair and mainten-

ance of these lined canals when damaged will be substantial.

An exercise is required to work out the benefits accruing and

costs required for complete lining of the conveyance system.

The feasibility of utilizing groundwater resources through

dug wells particularly in the tail reach command of the canal

system may be explored to save the crops at critical growth

stages and in dry spells. If it is found feasible, this

intervention may be implemented extensively to bring more

area under cultivation in the tail reach command especially

during the dry season.

The issues discussed above such as a mechanism of water

distribution below the outlet, optimum stream size,

augmentation of water resources through secondary

reservoirs, reduction of conveyance losses through lining

of canals and utilization of groundwater through dug wells

are site-specific, which are to be addressed within the

existing system’s constraints. Case studies from other

countries also report similar such issues. An assessment

study of IMT in Turkey by Kucu et al. (2008), revealed that

relative water supply had not shown any important change

before and after transfer. Similarly, Vandersypen et al.

(2009) mentioned in the Office du Niger Irrigation Scheme

inMali that collective action at the intake level of the tertiary

blocks improved irrigation efficiency, but was limited to

11 out of 36 tertiary blocks. These call for further improve-

ment in post-IMT to have a better hydrological regime in

the command.

Improved crop planning activity

Appropriate crop planning taking into account the water

availability in the reservoir should be carried out at the

beginning of each cropping season. Services of line

departments may be utilized to assist WUAs in this exercise.

High-water-requiring crops such as sugarcane, etc. should

be discouraged and may be taken up only in pockets where

there is plenty of water available. By and large heavy duty

crops may be discouraged to bring more area under low-

water-requiring crops. This will improve the equitable

distribution of water among the farmers and generate more

employment. Sam-Amoah and Gowing (2001a) in a case

study of management transfer of a rice irrigation scheme in

Ghana, reported that both cropping intensity and cultivated

area decreased after transfer. Thus, proper crop planning

plays an important role in the post-IMT period.

The right to fish farming in the reservoir may be given to

theWUA body so that the income generated from this activity

can be utilized for maintenance of the reservoir and head

regulators/sluices. Income-generating activities like growing

of horticultural crops on canal embankments, rearing of fish

in community water bodies and selling of agricultural inputs,

hiring out of agricultural machinery, etc. may be explored and

introduced. Fund generation ofWUAs has been reported to be

problematic in several places (Turral, 1995; Kloezen, 1995;

Yercan, 2003; Gal et al., 2003); therefore, the above-

mentioned avenues for additional fund generation may be

explored to make WUAs financially self-sufficient.

Strengthening WUA functioning

It is worth mentioning that a paradigm shift from

participatory irrigation management to participatory irriga-

tion governance giving the farmers (WUA) real decision-

making power in managing the irrigation system has made a

positive impact. However; decision-making, fund gener-

ation, empathy and social support are some of the issues

which are to be improved for further strengthening of

WUAs’ functioning. Representation of marginal and small

farmers on the management committees of WUAs should be

made mandatory to bridge the gap between awareness levels

of different categories of farmers. This will lead to better

decision making and empathy, avoiding conflicts and

influence of resource-rich farmers. It is reported that some

farmer groups in Mali do not succeed in establishing

collective action; hence, a mix of incentives and measures

are proposed to resolve the conflict between farmers and

central management to their mutual benefit (Vandersypen

et al., 2009). Awareness and motivational training for

farmers to pay water taxes regularly may solve the problem

of the periodical fund generation process of WUAs. Similar

suggestions on training and institutional support pro-

grammes were advocated by Wester et al. (1995) to

strengthen WUAs in Senegal. Moreover, WUAs may widen

their activities through linkage with other agencies for

strengthening technical know-how and financial support.

WUAs may consider involving the landless in some of the

income-generating activities on common lands falling in the

command, ensuring better social support.

The aforesaid suggestions may be considered by other

implementing agencies in a location- specific manner if

found suitable for their systems to make irrigation

rehabilitation/transfer programmes more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation and the IMT process have been initiated

together, involving beneficiary-farmers in planning, imple-

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

54 A. MISHRA ET AL.

mentation and decision-making since inception which

ensured empowerment and responsibility among the farm-

ers. It has made a significant positive impact on irrigation

water availability, the agricultural scenario and capacity

building of the farming community in managing the

irrigation system. There is an improvement in irrigation

water storage and deliveries, making the water available

even in the tail reach of the command. As a result of this, the

cultivated area, irrigated area, cropping intensity and

irrigation intensity have increased considerably. There is

a change in cropping pattern. The productivity of different

crops has gone up. Farmers have opted for growing more

remunerative crops and high-yielding varieties due to the

assured availability of irrigation water. The responsibility of

irrigation system management has been undertaken by

WUAs. The effective functioning of WUAs has been

reflected through better operation and maintenance of the

system. Further improvement through provision of second-

ary reservoirs, multiple use management, lining of the

conveyance system, provision of field channels, a mechan-

ism for equitable distribution of irrigation water in the outlet

command and proper crop planning will ensure overall

development of the farming system and quality of life of the

beneficiaries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support by the

Project Management Unit, Department of Water Resources,

Government of Orissa, India, from the aid of the European

Commission for undertaking this study. The support and

help extended by the officials of Department of Water

Resources, Orissa, and member-farmers of WUAs are

greatly appreciated. Finally, the authors would like to thank

the anonymous referees and editor for their valuable sugges-

tions in improving the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Anbumozhi1 V, Matsumoto K, Yamaji1 E. 2001. Towards improved

performance of irrigation tanks in semi-arid regions of India: modern-

ization opportunities and challenges. Irrigation and Drainage Systems

15: 293–309.

Bagadion BU, Korten FF. 1991. Developing irrigators’ organizations: a

learning process approach. In Putting People First: Sociological Vari-

ables in Rural Development, 2nd edn Cernea MM (ed.). World Bank:

Washington, DC; 73–112.

Bhatta KP, Ishida A, Taniguchi K, Sharma R. 2005. Performance of agency-

managed and farmer-managed irrigation systems: a comparative case

study at Chitwan, Nepal. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 20: 177–191.

Clemmens AJ, Bos MG. 1990. Statistical methods for irrigation system

water delivery performance evaluation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems

4(4): 345–365.

Gal PYL, Rieu T, Fall C. 2003. Water pricing and sustainability of self-

governing irrigation schemes. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 17: 213–

238.

Ghosh S, Singh R, Kundu DK. 2005. Evaluation of irrigation-service utility

from the perspective of farmers.Water Resources Management 19: 467–

482.

Ghosh S, Nanda P, Mishra A, Kumar A. 2006. Group effectiveness of water

user associations. Indian Journal of Extension Education 42(3/4): 14–18.

Horst L. 1999. The failure of adjustable irrigation technology, the options

for change and the consequences for research. Agricultural Water Man-

agement 40: 101–105.

Howarth SE, Lal NK. 2002. Irrigation and participation: rehabilitation of the

Rajapur project in Nepal. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 111–138.

Kloezen WH. 1995. Financing participatory irrigation management in Sri

Lanka. In Irrigation Management Transfer: Selected Papers from the

International Conference on Irrigation Management Transfer, Johnson

SH, Vermillion DL, Sagardoy JA (eds). IIMI and FAO: Rome; 243–264.

Kucu H, Demir AO, Korukcu A. 2008. An assessment of the irrigation

management transfer programme: case study in the Mustafake-

malpaa Irrigation Scheme in Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage

57(1): 15–22.

Latif M, Pomee MS. 2003. Impacts of institutional reforms on irrigated

agriculture in Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 17: 195–

212.

McKay J, Keremane GB. 2006. Farmers’ perception on self created water

management rules in a pioneer scheme: the mula irrigation scheme, India.

Irrigation and Drainage Systems 20: 205–223.

Mollinga P. 2005. Towards domestically generated irrigation reform: canal

and tank irrigation in south India. Paper presented during International

Conference on Irrigation Management – Policies and Practices, 19–22

June 2005, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India.

Murray Rust DH, SnellenWB. 1993. Irrigation performance assessment and

diagnosis. Research Paper, International IrrigationManagement Institute,

Colombo, Sri Lanka; 168 pp.

Naik G, Kalro AH, Brewer JD, Samad M, Sakthivadivel R. 2002. Assessing

the Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer: Case Studies from

Maharashtra. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd: New Delhi;

157 pp.

Parthasarathy R. 2000. Participatory irrigation management programme:

institutional and financial issues. Economic and Political Weekly Aug.–

Sept., 3147–3154.

Pitts D, Peterson K, Gilbert G, Fastenau R. 1996. Field assessment of

irrigation system performance. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12(3):

307–313.

Sam-Amoah LK, Gowing JW. 2001a. The experience of irrigation manage-

ment transfer in Ghana: a case study of Dawhenya Irrigation Scheme.

Irrigation and Drainage Systems 15: 21–38.

Sam-Amoah LK, Gowing JW. 2001b. Assessing the performance of irriga-

tion schemes with minimum data on water deliveries. Irrigation and

Drainage 50: 31–39.

Salas SMA, Wilson PN. 2004. A farmer-centered analysis of irrigation

management transfer in Mexico. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 18:

89–107.

SamadM, Vermillion D. 1999. An assessment of the impact of participatory

irrigation management in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Water

Resources Development 15(1/2): 219–240.

Svendsen M, Small LE. 1990. Farmers’ perspective on irrigation perform-

ance. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 4: 385–402.

Svendsen M, Vermillion D. 1994. Irrigation Management Transfer in the

Columbia River Basin (USA) Project. IIMI Research Report. IIMI:

Colombo.

Svendsen M, Huppert W. 2003. Maintenance under institutional reform in

Andhra Pradesh. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 17: 23–46.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

REHABILITATION AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER IN ORISSA, INDIA 55

Turral H. 1995. Devolution of management in public irrigation systems: cost

shedding, empowerment and performance. Working Paper 80. Overseas

Development Institute: London.

Vandersypen K, Verbist B, Keita ACT, Raes D, Jamin JY. 2009. Linking

performance and collective action – the case of the Office du Niger

Irrigation Scheme in Mali. Water Resources Management 23: 153–168.

Wester P, During A, Oorthuizen J. 1995. Locally Managed Irrigation in the

Senegal River Valley in the Aftermath of State Disengagement. Short

Report Series on Locally Managed Irrigation No. 9. IIMI: Colombo.

Wijayaratna CM, Valdez MDM. 1996. Participatory action research:

strengthening farmer organizations and agency–farmer relations. IIMI

Country Paper - Philippines. 6(13): 155.

Yercan M. 2003. Management turning-over and participatory management

of irrigation schemes: a case study of the Gediz River Basin in Turkey.

Agricultural Water Management 62: 205–214.

Yercan M, Dorsan F, Ul MA. 2004. Comparative analysis of performance

criteria in irrigation schemes: a case study of Gediz River Basin in

Turkey. Agricultural Water Management 66: 259–266.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 42–56 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

56 A. MISHRA ET AL.