IRRIGATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION: CONTRIBUTION, ISSUES ANDPROSPECTS IN NEPAL

TRIBHUBAN PAUDEL1

ABSTRACT

Land and water are two key natural resources that people depend for their livelihoods in the ruralagricultural society. Within agriculture, irrigation water is a vital resource and a critical component offood production, which contributes significantly to maintaining food security and to the reduction of ruralpoverty. Access to reliable irrigation water can enable farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies,intensify cultivation, leading to increased productivity, overall higher production, and greater returnsfrom farming. This opens up new both on-farm and off-farm employment opportunities, and can improveincomes, improve livelihoods, and the quality of life in rural areas. Overall, irrigation water, like land, canhave an important income-generating function in agriculture specifically, and in rural settings in general.Irrigation facilities are important socioeconomic public good with a positive role in livelihoods andpoverty alleviation. Irrigation development itself does not contribute to all categories of peoples in all thesocio economic situations. Landholding size, types of irrigation technology, irrigation managementsystem, location of farm land, institutional setting, water distribution pattern, cropping pattern,agricultural support services available and empowerment of poor are some determinants that positivelyor negatively affect the poverty. As poverty is complex and it has multi faces character. In this context, thispaper analyse the relationship between irrigation and poverty and determines how and to what extentcontributes poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement of marginalized section of the society, andwhat are the issues and prospects.

BACKGROUND

Livelihood of Nepalese rural agricultural society is based on naturalresources. Land, water and forest are most important natural resources thatpeople depend for their livelihood. Although forest is also important foragriculture, irrigation water is more vital resource and a critical componentto increase the yield of land, productivity of food crops and production,which contributes significantly to maintaining food security and reduction ofrural poverty. Irrigation facilities are socio economic public goods that arehighly subsidized from the state treasury for construction of major componentsand even services (Bhattarai et al, 2002 and Hussain, 2004). But theseimportant resources are unequally distributed to the citizens. Inadequatestate policies, unequal power relation, social norms and values based onfeudal social structure are also perpetuating to maintain this unequaldistribution of resources and services. Although every citizen have differentcapacities, but due to the unjust social structure, access to and control overresources, opportunities and services are not equal for differentsocioeconomic section of the society. As a consequence of these factors there

1 Senior Sociologist/Researcher involved in participatory irrigation and forest management since last 17 years. Presently, Mr. Paudel is Joint Secretary of INPIM Nepal.

1

are different categories of citizens; among them 31 percent are under thepoverty line. Poverty is an outcome of economic inequality, social exclusion,disparities, deprivation and backwardness of technology, which has multidimensional character. All the poor below poverty line are also not same. Nowthe concerns are growing about social justice, governance and equity in accessto and control over resources, services and opportunities. Nepal is undergoingin the process of restructuring the state through formulation of NewConstitution of Republic Nepal.

This paper will analyze the situation relationship between irrigation andpoverty and distribution determines how and to what extent contributes povertyalleviation and livelihood improvement of marginalized section of the society,and analyse the issues and prospects in general.

STATUS OF AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION AND POVERY IN NEPAL

Agriculture forms the backbone of the Nepalese economy, contributing about 32percent to the gross domestic production (MOF: 2009). Over 74 percent of thepopulation directly or indirectly derives their livelihood from agriculture,and about 80 percent of them are classified as subsistence farmers. Thepopulation living in the rural areas is more than 86 percent. The populationengaged in agriculture sector are underemployed as they do not have inadequateland and irrigation facility.

Irrigated agriculture is defined as agriculture where the supply of water isincreased by artificial means improving the use of water control technologyincluding drainage to dispose of access water (FAO, 1999). Irrigation is onemost important input for development of agriculture among many inputs andsupport services that can minimize the effects of climatic condition onagriculture. Since, the availability of water resource is also greatlyinfluenced by the climate with seasonal variation. Up to 2009, total irrigatedarea (infrastructure developed) is 12,11,245 ha out of that actual commandarea is around 70 percent and year round irrigation is available only on 38percent land (Economic Survey 2009, Three Years Interim Plan 2007 and APROSCand JMA, 1995)

Land the principal source of agriculture and basic livelihood option isunevenly distributed in Nepal. Size and quality of farm land are determinantsof well being of the people. There are 45 percent small holders farmers (lessthan 0.5 ha of land) operates only 13 percent land where as 8 percent largefarmers who own more than 2 ha land operates 31 percent of total agriculturalland. Large farmers continue to operate disproportionate (38%) amount ofirrigated area (NLSS, 2004). About 93 percent of the agriculturalhouseholds own land and 7 percent do not own any land but operate landowned by others on contractual basis. On the other hand, 7 percent rentout some or all of their land to others, 31 percent rented-in some landfrom others (NLSS, 2004). A substantial portion of the rural poor have small

2

plots of land which are insufficient to provide full employment, income andlivelihoods. The state of poverty is very much related with land holdings.Landless and very small land holders often are engaged in informal creditrelationship and have to bear also with unfavourable labour relationship(Bode, 2007). Land determines both the social status and politicalparticipation. Poverty in terms of land owned also means limited capability tobenefit from public services such as education and health (Sharma, 1999).Improved land distribution accompanied with modernizing agriculture haspotential to dramatically reduce incidence of poverty (APROSC and JMA, 1995).Poverty is more pronounced in landless and small land holders.

Poverty in Nepal largely depends on structural factors, especially on themodes of ownership, production and distribution of productive assets, whichhave their own dynamics. According to the Nepal Life Standard Survey (NLSS)2003/2004, population below National Poverty line is 31 percent. More than 95percent of poor are living in rural areas. Poverty incidence with householdsheaded by agricultural wage labourers is the poorest that comprise 6 percentof total population and 11 percent of all poor. Likewise, poverty incidence is33 percent among the households headed by those self-employed in agriculturesecond poorest group that comprise 67 percent of all poor. Incidence ofpoverty among the social groups is 46, 41 and 44 percent with Dalits, Muslimshill Janajatis respectively. Poverty incidence is high among land holding lessthan 0.2 ha.

Table 1: Poverty and Access to irrigation:

Incidence of povertyamong Households

Incidence of povertyamong farmers without

IrrigationNLSS I NLSS II NLSS I NLSS II

All Farmers 37.14 % 28.67% 38.76% 36.98%Source: CBS/NPC 1995/96, 2003/04

As per the data shows in above table, poverty is more pronounced among farmhouseholds without access to irrigation. Similarly, poverty incidence is muchlower in irrigated than rain-fed areas. A study conducted in Kabhre district(Pariyar, 2004) find that the farmers with irrigation facilities, family laboris more or less fully utilized in farming, and unemployment problems areminimal, while farmers with poor irrigation facilities suffer from both under-employment and unemployment. Over time, access to irrigation and the share ofirrigated area has increased the differences in the incidence of poverty amongfarm households with and without irrigation is widen. Poverty headcount ratehad declined more for households with larger landholdings, as compared to theones with the smaller ones.

Examination of assets that poor people have such as natural- land, water,forest, human-labour, health, education, skills, physical- tools, financial-

3

cash, wage, and social- networks, norms, values, social structure, governance,determine how people can gain livelihoods and fight impoverishment. Access tothe assets also reduces the vulnerability of poor people to natural disastersand economic shocks. Irrigation development provides access to water,increases income and reduces vulnerability. Similarly, the poor are oftenexcluded from equal opportunities and equal rights due to inequality andinjustice. This in turn gives unequal access to land and water, and ofteninequitable water deliveries to the poor. Irrigation development andmanagement with strong institutional set up with full participation of poorand pro poor policy provisions and better governance support to inequality andinjustice and contribute to alleviate the poverty (FAO, 1999).

IRRIGATION RELATED POLICY PROVISIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE POVERTY

Agriculture Perspective Plan 1995, Nepal Water Resources Strategy-2002, Irrigation Policy- 2003, Nepal Water Plan 2005, Irrigation Regulation-2000, and Three Years Interim Plan are some current policy documents that give the direction for development and management irrigation.

Agricultural Perspective plan is the one comprehensive policy document that has focused on agricultural development focusing on small land holders, women and poor below poverty line and enhances the productivity and growth of agriculture sector with full employment opportunity in agriculture sector.

Working policies set by The Three Years Interim Plan (007/8-2009/10) to enhance the productivity of irrigated agriculture one or another way contributes to poverty reduction, however, the policies that seems directly related to poverty are as follows (NPC, 2007).

Implementation of non-conventional irrigation technologies, such as,drip, sprinkler and runoff harvesting ponds, catering to the needs ofsmall and marginal farmers, shall be continued in the areas wheredevelopment of conventional surface and groundwater irrigation areinfeasible.

Appropriate representation of the women, persons with disability, seniorcitizens and the disadvantaged groups shall be ensured in the formationof the water users association.

Regional balance and opportunities of employment generation shall beincluded in the criteria of project selection.

Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater shall be promoted in order toprovide sustainable and dependable irrigation services.

Integrated Crop and Water Management Program will be continued and newirrigation schemes shall be selected in coordination with the Departmentof Agriculture and related organizations.

Development of shallow and deep tube wells in the Terai shall bepromoted as envisioned in the Agricultural Perspective Plan.

4

Multiple water use, consistent with the principle of Integrated WaterResources Management, shall be given priority in project formulation.

Formulation of programs with adequate budget and effective implementation ofthese programs/projects will certainly contribute for reduction of poverty;however, to focus the irrigation facility as strong anti poverty it needs morefocused process and procedures.

National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS) 2002 has provided a systematicframework of water resources development to meet the water supply needs andachieving long-term sustainability. NWRS has identified issues for waterresources development and management especially in social and irrigationsector, these are; poverty and malnutrition, balanced gender participation,appropriate technology for primary target (social) groups, rural urban andhill Terai migration, poor performance of irrigation systems, farmers'dependency syndromes and sustainability, weak institutional capability, weaklinkages between agriculture and irrigation, and strengthening of Water UserAssociations (WUAs).

In order to address the identified issues, NWRS has set 3 developmentprinciples. Following principles seem directly focused the poor andmarginalized and contribute for poverty reduction which are put under socialand economic development principles. Some of the principles that support thepoor, marginalized and women are as below:

Socially and economically disadvantaged/vulnerable groups (e.g., poor, disabled) should be considered for targeted assistance to ensure they benefit significantly from projects.

There should be more balanced participation of men and women. Appropriate technology should be emphasized that is affordable,

manageable and cost effective and that generates local employment opportunities.

Water resources development should be targeted to address poverty alleviation & unemployment.

The economic benefits of water resources development should be shared equitably by region and income groups.

It is commonly recognized fact that, Nepal has set very good policies andprinciples but lack of effective implementation of these policies so it hasbecome difficult to achieve the results as envisaged. The benchmark set by theNWRS are hardly be achieved, as the target of providing year round irrigationto the 50 percent area of irrigated land, that has not been achieved duringthe stated period.

Irrigation Policy 2003 for the first time prepared the policy focusing poorand marginal farmers. One of the main rationales of policy revision was theobjective for increasing agricultural production and reduction of povertythrough creation of rural employment opportunities, as perceived by the

5

Agriculture Perspective Program, requires extension of irrigation serviceseven to marginal farms. This objective demands promoting the conjunctive useof groundwater and surface water irrigation systems along with the initiationof new and non-conventional irrigation systems such as rain water harvesting,pond, sprinkler, drip, treadle pump and other irrigation systems. Thisprovision was the major change in the policy sector to address the marginalfarms that mostly owned by poor farmers, and poverty reduction.

Water Resources Act 1992 and Irrigation Regulation 2098; do not have anyspecial provisions to address the needs of poor and marginal farmers. However,Irrigation Regulation 2000 has considered the low participation of women inWater Users Association (WUA) and provisioned that there should be at least 2women in the 9 members executive committee in Agency Managed IrrigationSystems (AMIS).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRRIGATION AND POVERTY

Irrigation has a strong contribution in agriculture to increase theproductivity of land and production of crops. National goal of reducingpoverty in the country can be achieved only through increase opportunitieswith development of agriculture. No other sector can engage the large sectionof population presently involved in agriculture for many years to come. Nonagricultural sector employment seems in decreasing trend with decreasing ofproduction sectors like garment and carpet industries. Employment is createdto some extent in service sector but the poor do not have access in thoseservices due to the required capacity. Since migration of youths foremployment is increasing in recent years. So, only the development ofagriculture can contribute to engage mass population, increase their incomeand bring out the population of below poverty line. Presently, populationinvolved in agriculture is employed for half of the year only due tounavailability of irrigation in most of the cultivated area throughout theyear. Irrigation is the primary input that leads to demand the other inputs toincrease the productivity.Reduction of poverty is possible only if efforts are made towards providingfull employment to the people depending on agriculture through development ofirrigation facilities and services.

Irrigation brings a range of changes in agriculture and contributes to upliftsocio economic condition of individuals through direct and indirect way. Inanother word we can say, irrigation benefits at primary as direct effect andspill over effect at secondary level (FAO, 1999, Hussain et al, 2004). Most ofthe studies and project impact eveluation studies in irrigation have shownthat productivity per unit of land and overall production in the irrigatedarea is increased and contributed to the poverty. An analysis 4 years data(2003-2006) of Kathmandu district show that there is 175 -215 percent croppingintensity that range 33 -60 percent increase with irrigation facility.Likewise the income increased during that period was 127 – 200 percent

6

(Shivakoti, 2007). The primary as well secondary level benefits of irrigationcan be summarized as below:

Primary level benefits:

Increased the productivity of land and overall crop production. Production of crops under irrigated is often higher than of under irrigated and rainfed condition that enable poor and small holder farmers to achieve high yield.

Increased cropping intensity and crop diversification opportunities and the feasibility of year round crop production activities that support toreduce the vulnerability and risks.

Increased production and farm income that support to increase the consumption at household level that increases the nutrition intake of poor farmers and improve in health condition with enhanced capabilities,

Increased opportunity of crop switching with substitution low yield and low profitable crops with high yielding and more profitable crops.

Increased the opportunity of multiple use of water for bathing, washing,livestock and home gardens.

Increased livelihoods capital, like human skills, houses, clothes, health and even social assets with involvement in WUA and participation in other different interaction related to the irrigation.

Secondary level benefits:

Increased farm employment, more employment opportunities for farming families as well as for hired labourers in the locality, increased the wage income and rates also, but wage rate always not happened in favour of poor that is more related with power relation. Powerful exploit the powerless.

Reduced food (crop) prices allowing access to food for all, that benefitmore to landless and subsistence families of the rural areas and urban poor, since they spend more than 50 percent of their daily income on food items.

As non farm increased demand for inputs (fertilizer, seeds, pesticides etc) and supply of outputs (processing, storage and transportation) and create the opportunity that enhance rural urban network.

Increased recharge of groundwater, easy access to groundwater and less drudgery for women in fetching water for daily household needs.

Reduced transaction costs including reduced farm marketing costs due to increased access to farm link roads and to other improved farm.

Increased the value of land with access to water for irrigation. Reduced out-migration and increased return migration with opportunities

of irrigated agriculture. Improved security against impoverishment with increased opportunities, Increase the flow of invest of government and private sector with

irrigation infrastructures

7

However, irrigation development itself does not contribute to all categoriesof peoples in all the socio economic situations. In fact irrigation can bestrongly pro poor, neutral or even anti poor depending on various factors(Hussain 2007a, INPIM Nepal 2007) Landholding size, types of irrigationtechnology, irrigation management system, location of farm land, institutionalsetting, water distribution pattern, cropping pattern, agricultural supportservices available and empowerment of poor are some determinants thatpositively or negatively affect the poverty.

As discussed above, land distribution pattern in Nepal is unequal. Farmers whoown less than 0.5 ha land comprise more than 45 percent small land holdersoperate only 13 percent of total agriculture land where as 8 percent largefarmers operate more than 31 percent of agriculture land. Large farmersoperates 38 percent amount of irrigated area that is disproportionate. Unlikein South Asian systems, in Chinese and Vietnamese systems, overall landdistribution is fairly equitable. Generally there are no landless that isbasically an outcome of land equity policy adopted in the past decades(Hussain, 2007b). Irrigation distribution generally follow land distribution,water distribution also tends to be equitable or even pro poor where land isequitably distributed. The anti poverty impacts of land and irrigationdistribution are stronger than the productivity performance of the systems(ibid). Most of the small farmers and poor own marginal and degraded land,where irrigation facility is not available. Mostly, the traditional surfacecanal irrigation systems do not cover these marginal lands. Small landholders, within the irrigated areas are sometimes compelled to sell theirsmall piece of land due to the increase of family size, over debt and limitedlivelihood options. It is general practice that poor peoples live in steepslopes, uplands, marginal barren lands and lands of fragile Churia area wherewater sources are limited. Generally, the power dynamics of the localcommunity push those peoples to the marginal areas who have limited skills,education, week health and physical condition and week influence in the socialcapital. Due to this marginalization, they do have limited access to theservices provided by the governmental and non governmental sector. So, thepoor have not access in the traditional surface irrigation systems. It may notbe fair to generalize that poor and marginal farmers are not getting benefitsfrom surface canal irrigation schemes, but it is clear that these poor andmarginal farmers are benefitted very rare. It is obvious that irrigated ruralareas will have less poverty than adjoining unirrigated area (Lipton, 2007,Pariyar 2002). Data of Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems (FMIS) and AgencyManaged Irrigation Systems (AMIS), are not analyzed, however, based on generalobservation FMIS has contributed more for poverty alleviation than AMIS. Performance of irrigation system and its management pattern is anotherimportant factor that has implication on poor and marginalized peoples.Effective irrigation service provides the environment for productive andsustainable agriculture for income and employment, economic growth and lifting

8

people out of poverty, but poorly managed irrigation can have opposite effect(Molden et al, 2007). In AMIS water charge collected meets less than 10% ofthe O&M requirement and also the water charge collection is very poor (WECS,2005). As a result the public irrigation systems are operated and maintainedpoorly and finally poor performance of irrigation services. Generally most ofthe irrigation systems in Nepal are under performance, more specifically theAMISs are unable to deliver the water adequately to the tail end section ofthe canal. Inequitable distribution and head tail problems are often theresult of poor irrigation services. Locational differences in poverty are morepronounced in larger systems where locational inequities in water distributionand productivity differences are also high (Hussain, 2007a) Poor irrigationservices resulting into inefficient water use, low cropping intensity, and theproductivity are the predominant factors of poverty incidence in the farmingcommunity (Sharma, 2008). Problem of inequitable distribution of water havebeen found to be directly affect the poor and ultimately negative implicationon poverty reduction (Hussain, 2007a).

Similarly, organization, mobilization, empowerment and institutionalmechanisms set to address the inequality and injustice can support the poorand poverty reduction. An institution that have adequate representation of allthe category – marginal, medium and large farmers on the basis of landholding, men and women from gender perspective, head, middle and tail of thecanal section with equal power relations helps to set the fair and equitablenorms, that could positively contribute in the national target of povertyreduction. Identification, mobilization and inclusion of poor and marginalizedin the decision making positions in those institutions which are related totheir livelihoods support to empower the poor and bring out from the poverty.Strengthened governance with mechanisms of promoting transparency in financialtransaction and decision making process and accountability of stakeholders tofulfill their duties and empowerment of women, poor and marginalized sectionis also important for poverty alleviation through irrigation. With targetedprograms to promote inclusion and empowerment of women poor and marginalizedsupport to increase the participation in decision making positions of WUAs atdifferent level (Neupane, 2008). Identification of poor to implement thetargeted programs with empowerment the poor not only improve the humancondition through income but also to promote the social position throughenhanced capacity of poor and marginal section to make the responsibilitybearers more accountable to their duties (Bhandari, 2008, Bode, 2009).

9

Figure adopted from Intazar Hussain and Munier A. Hanjra, 2004

Cropping patterns andagricultural supportservices are otherdominant factors thatimpacts on poverty.High yield varietiesand cash crops providemore income ratherthan conventionalcereal cropproduction, which isdependent on marketfacility and access ofagricultural supportservices. Access andcondition offertilizers, improvedseeds, credit facilityand availability ofagricultural extensionservices are importantto the poor forgetting more incomeeven from small pieceof land whereirrigation facility is available. An assessment of rehabilitated irrigationsystems with management transfer overall agriculture has not beensignificantly increased and there was not any changes in cropping patters andintensity (Sharma, 2007). This situation was observed due to the lack ofagricultural support services.

IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY AND POVERTY REDUCTION:

In irrigated agriculture system, different irrigation technologies have beenused. Most common technology is the gravity flow surface irrigation system.Ground water extraction through deep tubewells, swallow tubewells are thetechnologies that widely used after surface irrigation. Besides, nonconventional irrigation technologies or micro irrigation technology such astreadle pumps, water harvesting/collection ponds/tank, sprinkle and dripirrigation technology are the recent invention that focuses the small andmarginal farmers. Technology itself is neither neutral nor biased. But due tothe nature and characteristics of social structure, power relationship andinequality in the land holding size, and skewed land distribution thesetechnologies have different level of contribution to the poor and povertyreduction.

10

Irrigation induced inequality depends on several locally specific factors,like the structure of irrigation whether it is surface system (canal or tank)or ground water system (deep tubewells, micro pump sets). Several studies havereported that surface flow irrigation has produced higher inequality in thedistribution of benefits across farms than lift irrigation (Bhattarai 2002).The effect of unequal distribution of irrigation benefits becomes severe whenit is coupled with inequality in land holding. Due to the high skewed landdistribution, large farmers can obtain disproportionately large share ofincremental benefits from irrigation development (Bhattarai, 2002). Vastmajority of the irrigation investment was directed towards relatively largeand technologically sophisticated systems in more favourable agro ecologicalregions populated by more well endowed farmers. As result, poorer farmers withsmall plots of land in the marginal areas were by and large, left on sideline(Magistro, 2007).

Ground water irrigation can be developed in intended area with targeting thespecific farmers. Due to its relatively controlled structures, more costeffective in comparison to surface irrigation2, it can increase the access topoor and marginal farmers so it contributes more on poverty reduction. Groundwater can be developed at private level also and its management structure iseasy. As cited by Bhattarai (2002) in India and Bangladesh, privately operatedlift irrigation is more equitable in irrigation distribution than in canalirrigation in general. On the other hand Ground water increases theopportunity for year round irrigation, hence people with small land holderscan also benefit from the ground water irrigation. Therefore, development ofswallow tubewells targeting the small and marginal holders with the subsidyfor installation cost from government and credit facility for capital costwould contribute in poverty reduction. There is limitation that thetraditional surface canal irrigation can not be targeted to the specificmarginal farmers. In those areas ground water irrigation through deeptubewells or swallow tubewells can be developed for irrigation facility theseare more accessible to the poor and marginal farmers.

It is imperative to focus on the non conventional irrigation technologies -rain water harvesting ponds, water storage tanks including jars, drip andsprinkle irrigation- that provide irrigation facilities more efficiently tothose areas and farmers who are beyond the access to the traditional canalirrigation technology. Where the traditional canal irrigation is infeasibleappropriate irrigation technology and with special targeted programs areneeded to uplift the marginal and small land holders. Lots of implementingmodalities are also developed by different organizations. Experiences ofdifferent governmental and non governmental organization has shows that nonconventional micro irrigations and multiple water use systems have morecontributed to poverty reduction through targeting the poor and marginal2 As analysed by Nepal Water Plan 2005, the cost per ha for surface irrigationdevelopment is Rs. 150,000.00 and cost per ha for ground water is Rs. 20,000.00

11

farmers. As a survey (Bhattarai 2009) different institutions including nonconventional irrigation technology project (NITP) under department ofirrigation, Agriculture Development Bank and I/NGOs have been involved indevelopment of non conventional irrigation facility. The area developed up to2008, a land area of 44,774 ha has been developed and the average landholdingper house holds among the beneficiary 0.262 ha. These irrigation facilitiesare more appropriate and to reach the poor and overcome the poverty which hashigh potentials of year round irrigation. Irrigation facility with empowermentprograms and agricultural support services have changes the cropping patternswith high yield varieties increase the production and income. It has createdthe increased the employment opportunities among farming communities. ISSUES RELATED IN IRRIGATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION

• Equitable benefit to the poor and marginal farmers is affected by technology of irrigation, conventional, large and technically sophisticated and favourable agro ecological regions and populated by relatively well off and inflectional persons excluded the poor and marginalized farmers of marginal areas to the access of irrigation.

Distribution of benefits of irrigation as a public good and servicesamong various socio economic groups is determined by distribution ofland resources, unequal distribution of land unequal access toirrigation and unequal return of benefits from irrigation.

Investment of public funds on development of irrigation facility throughgeneral programs (none targeted) without assessment of socio economiccondition of the farmers increases the inequality.

Exclusion, poor governance and unequal power relation influence theallocation and distribution of irrigation services and benefits.

Poor irrigation management within the system level affects the poor andmarginalized. Inequality in canal water distribution thru out theirrigation system impacts on productivity and livelihoods of tail endfarmers.

Negative environmental externalities –water logging, poor drainage, andsalinity affect more the poor and marginalized in large irrigationssystems.

Irrigation as an input for agriculture and access to irrigation is a necessary where people depend to a great extent on agriculture for theirlivelihoods, but irrigation only is not a sufficient condition for poverty alleviation.

Poor and marginal households have extremely limited access to institutional credit for other and agricultural inputs and market linkages.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrigation and poverty reduction has strong linkages which are both direct andindirect effects. Irrigation benefits the poor through increased productivity

12

of land and overall crop production. Production of crops under irrigated isoften higher than of under irrigated and rainfed condition that enable poorand small holder farmers to achieve high yield. It enables poor and marginalfarmers to increase the cropping intensity, crop diversification opportunitieswith feasibility of year round crop production activities. Increasedproduction and income has many impacts on household consumption and improvethe livelihoods capital and living quality of poor families in rural areas. Asindirect benefit, irrigation increases on-farm employment, more employmentopportunities for farming families as well as for hired laborers in thelocality, increased the wage income and rates also, but wage rate always nothappened in favor of poor that is more related with power relation. As nonfarm sector increased demand for inputs (fertilizer, seeds, pesticides etc)and supply of outputs (processing, storage and transportation) and create theopportunity that enhance rural urban network. Value of land increased withaccess to water for irrigation and support to reduce out-migration.

Irrigation facilities and services are important socio economic public goodwith a high contribution in livelihoods improvement and poverty reduction. Butdue to the other determinants irrigation itself does not contribute to all thecategories of people in all the socio economic situations. Benefits ofirrigation are based on land, size of land holding and its distribution isunequal benefits from irrigation are also unequal. Marginalized farmers ofmarginal areas are very often excluded from access to irrigation facilitiesdue to neglect by the mainstream conventional irrigation policies. Inequalityincreases with the investment of public funds on development of irrigationfacility and services without assessment of socio economic condition of thefarmers. Exclusion and poor governance influences the benefits of irrigation.It is argued that there is not a single silver bullet to reduce poverty thoughirrigation development or management, as it is one primary input. Benefits ofirrigation have been higher in areas where intensive agricultural supports areprovided. In areas where these supports could not reach simultaneously, thebenefits of irrigation were only nominal. Poor management and poor performanceof irrigation systems has negative implication poverty reduction.

Improved land management with equitable access marginal farmers to theagricultural land is the primary task to increase the benefits of irrigationto the marginalized peoples. A small, low cost and simple technology increasesthe access of poor and marginalized peoples in irrigation. Sprinklerirrigation, drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting/ Water harvesting Tank seemsthe appropriate technologies for hills and manual pumps, dugwells, simplesurface systems, Swallow tubewells, Lift Pump with electricity whereaffordable seems more convenient for Terai. Similarly, targeted programs needsto be developed to address the specific section of people with appropriateprocess and technology support to deliver the services equitably. Moreover,strengthened governance and effective organization, mobilization andempowerment of poor and marginal farmers support to increase theirparticipation in decision making bodies supports to make the policies,

13

institutions and process more inclusive and change in power relation. Enhencemanagement and improved performance of irrigation services and relocation ofcanal water to the areas with high deficit water supply area and its potentialto tail end farmers is essential to benefit the poor and marginalized in largeand medium irrigation systems. Access to other production inputs and servicesi. e. on-farm water management, credit facility, access to market,availability of improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, plant protectionchemicals and technology and extension services are essential along withirrigation facility to enhance benefits of irrigation for poverty alleviation.

REFERENCES: APROSC and JMA, 1995: Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan, Main Document, Agricultural Project Service Center and John Mellor Associates, Inc. Nepal.

Bhandari, R. P, K R Sharma, and M. Bhandari 2007: IMPIM Nepal: Way Forward Proceedings of the Interaction Program, International Network on ParticipatoryIrrigation Management, Nepal Chapter.

Bhandari, R. P, 2008: Well Being Ranking: A Tool for Inclusive Irrigation. In Proceeding Report of Irrigation National Report Irrigation in the Changing Context: From Concept to Actions, DOI/NEA/INPIM Nepal and IWMI Nepal.

Bhattarai K. K, 2009: Micro Irrigation in Nepal: An effective tool to fight against poverty, an unpublished article. Non conventional Irrigation Technology Project, Department of Irrigation, Jawalakhel, Bhattarai, M.; R. Sakthivadivel; and I. Hussain, 2002: Irrigation Impacts on Income Inequalityand Poverty Alleviation: Policy Issues and Options for Improved Management of Irrigation Systems. Working Paper 39, International Water Management Institute, Colombo Sri Lanka.

Bode, Brigitta, 2009: Underlying Causes of Poverty Analysis and ContributionsTowards a Program Approach, CARE Nepal

FAO, 1999: Poverty Reduction and Irrigated Agriculture, International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Issue Paper No.1, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Molden, D. Martin Burton, and MG Bos, 2007: Performance Assessment, IrrigationService Delivery and Poverty Reduction: Benefits of Improved System management, Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ird.114, In Irrigation and DrainageVolume 56, Number 2-3,

Hussain, Intazar and Hanjra, Murar A, 2004: Irrigation and Poverty Alleviation: Review

14

of The Empirical Evidence, Published online in Wiley Inter Science (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ird.114, In Irrigation and DrainageVolume 53.

Hussain Intazar, 2007b: Poverty Reducing Impacts of Irrigation: Evidences and Lessons, Published online in Wiley Inter Science (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/ird.114, In Irrigation and Drainage Volume 56, Number 2-3,

Lipton, Michael, 2007: Farm Water and Rural Poverty Reduction in Developing Asia. In Irrigation and Drainage, The Journal of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 56, Number 2-3, , Published online in WileyInter Science www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ird.114.

MOF, 2009: Economic Survey of 2008/2009, Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal, July 2009.

Neupane, RRS 2008: Inclusive and Gender Development Strategy: Experiences formSAGUN Irrigation. In Proceeding Report of Irrigation National Report Irrigation in the Changing Context: From Concept to Actions, DOI/NEA/INPIM Nepal and IWMI Nepal.

NPC, 2007: Three Years Interim Plan (2007/8-2009/10), National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, Government of Nepal.

CBS, 2003/04: Nepal Living Standard Survey, Statistical Repoart Volume 1 and 2, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission

Pariyar, Madan P, 2004: Water and Poverty Linkages in Mountainous Areas: A Case Study from Nepal 2004. In Water and Poverty Linkages: Case Studies from Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Editors, Intizar Hussain and Mark Giordano, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (Project Report).

Sharma, K R, 2008: Enhancement of Irrigation System Efficiency and Service Delivery. In Proceeding Report of Irrigation National Report Irrigation in theChanging Context: From Concept to Actions, DOI/NEA/INPIM Nepal and IWMI Nepal.

Sharma, Shiva 1999: Paper presented in WDR-2000 consultation meeting organizedby the World Bank, April 4-6, 1999, Dhaka. www.

Shivakoti, S 2007: Effects of Small Irrigation Special Program: A case study from Kathmandu District. In Pradhan edited Irrigation in Transition: Interfacing with Internal and External Factors and Setting the Strategic Actions, Proceeding of Fourth International Seminar, Farmer Managed IrrigationSystem Promotion Trust, April 2007 Kathmandu, Nepal.

WECS, 2001: Nepal Water Resources Strategy, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal.

15

WECS, 2005: Nepal Water Plan, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal.

16