K M I P

Concluding Observations

The factors that led to slow pace of implementation of the Project as well as failure of participatory approach to take roots in the Minor Irrigation Schemes are examined in this part of the Report.

Though the Kerala Minor Irrigation Project was launched during the second half of 1994, its pace of implementation was very slow. The Project therefore ended up spending less than Rs.20 crores as against the envisaged investment of Rs.52 crores. The Steering Committee for the Project from time to time expressed serious concern over the slow progress. The factors which led to the slow pace of implementation are:

1. Problems at infancy & delay in implementation

In the initial stages of the Project, Irrigation and Agriculture Department Field Staff and farmers were neither aware of the contents of the Scheme nor about its emphasis on studies and farmer participation. There were problems in identification of schemes at the field level. There was also frequent changes of staff posted in the Project. All these led to delay in the implementation of M. I. schemes. The Steering Committee Meeting held on 21.11 97 analysed reasons for delay in the implementation of the Project thus: "The Project was unique to Government of Kerala, totally different from conventional departmental procedures. First two years was devoted to impart training to Agricultural Department, Minor Irrigation Department and farmers about Kerala Minor Irrigation Project."

2. Staged Approach

The Project followed a staged approach and had to pass through different stages for successful completion of each and every scheme. It was indeed a lengthy exercise. "For placing the schemes before the State Level Selection Committee for approval a lot of details and data such as ayacut area, existing cropping pattern, levels at the places proposed for the various structures and field have to be collected. Then the rough cost estimate, water availability, water requirement, tentative design, economic viability etc. have to be prepared. After the State Level Selection, detailed estimates and designs have to be prepared and on that basis technical sanction were given to the schemes. A minimum of two months time is required for the process. For tendering the works a minimum of 35 days time has to be given after tender notification. Acceptance of the tender will take a further period of one or one and-a-half months."

3. Approval of Tenders

There was delay in the approval of tenders by EEC. After receipt of tenders, a summary of the evaluation had to be submitted to the EEC for approval. The details submitted included "number of bids received; price range; Engineers' estimate; Recommendation for award; explanation of reasons if the lowest bid not recommended for acceptance; and the statement that technical and financial capability of the recommended Bidder has been checked." It was also stipulated that "winner should show satisfactory performance of at least two similar contracts within the last five years." Bids were invited from 5 -10 local contractors chosen on a geographical basis, without general publication. Contractors offered by the respective Farmers Association was also accepted on the basis of Engineers' estimate.

4. Changes in Department Procedures

The main objective of the Project was to increase beneficiary farmer income and employment opportunities through the introduction of minor irrigation system. The Projects criteria for development of irrigation system introduced substantial changes in the Minor Irrigation Department's procedures. The changes effected were in the Farmer participation in the scheme design; Cost - benefit analysis of schemes; adoption of more rigorous design procedures and cost effective design. With these changes a number of constraints on scheme design development had been noted especially with regard to information flows, design procedures, time management and staff training in irrigation system design. The flow of information between the Project Management Unit and the Circle, Division and Section Offices of the Minor Irrigation Department was time consuming and on occasions designs were submitted which did not conform to the Project's policy objectives. There was no standard design procedures for the presentation of schemes.

Changes in design requested by the farming beneficiaries or by the Project Management Unit resulted in substantial amounts of work in re-drawing structures and re-calculating Bills of Quantities. Projects' centralised management Unit in Thiruvananthapuram further complicated the exchange of information.

5. Revision of cost per ha. of schemes

Government of Kerala revised Rs.35000/- per hectare for implementing Minor irrigation Schemes in plain areas and Rs.42000/- per hectare in hilly areas. But in the Work Plan of the Project Rs. 30000/- per hectare was provided as the average rate. But in the case of Lift irrigation Schemes the rate may go up to Rs.50000/- per hectare. Hence in the Steering committee meeting for the Project
held on 21.10.97, it was decided to fix a suitable limit for the cost per ha. taking into account the real cost. The changes effected in the cost per ha. led to revision of estimates and consequent delay in implementation of schemes.

6. Unrealistic physical targets

The Project set forth unrealistic physical targets in the Annual Work Plan. This was pointed out by the EEC Delegate (in the Steering Committee Meeting for the Project held on 21.4. 95) thus: "settting an unrealistic target for this year was trying to run before you can walk usually leading to falling over, bearing in mind the new and untested (in Kerala) concepts such as social screening which are being introduced. It is better to set a lower target and then achieve it, rather setting a higher target and only partly achieving it."

7. Changes in the Scope of the Project

The scheme size of the Project was initially fixed as 50 hectares. Later schemes benefiting more areas were also considered.

The Project was mainly intended for food crops. The percentage of paddy area cultivated in a particular scheme area was taken as the basic criteria in the selection of scheme. As it was not practical to follow this criteria, subsequently it was decided to include in food crops coconut, banana, vegetables etc.

When the Project started implementation, renovation of tanks was found to be less economical and therefore it was decided to reduce the number of tank schemes and to increase the number of VCBs and lift schemes.

8.Lack of coordination within and between Departments

The EEC assisted Project was implemented by the Chief Engineer, Project Management Unit. The Staff of the Minor Irrigation Wing of the Irrigation Department implementing the Project were under the control of Chief Engineer ( Irrigation & Administration ). Lack of proper coordination between the Officers affected the slow pace of implementation of the Project. There were also problems of coordination between Agriculture Department and the Project Management Unit at the village level.

     Lack of detailed planning before implementation, delay caused in the approval of schemes due to EEC procedures over and above the existing departmental ones, unrealistic targets, changes effected subsequently in the scope of the Project as well as lack of coordination even within the Irrigation Department and between PMU and Agriculture Department at the field level led to the reduction in the number of approved schemes from 575 to 251 and thereby resulting in non- utilization of over 60 per cent of the full amount of Rs.52 crores originally envisaged for the Project.

     Successful development of irrigation projects depend upon effective participation/ involvement of farmers. Farmers, as participants in irrigation projects, have knowledge about local needs and perception of local problems. The EEC assisted Kerala Minor Irrigation schemes aimed at participatory approach in the various stages of implementation. With a view to ensure farmers participation in the project, Beneficiary Farmers Associations ( BFAs) were registered in each of the scheme areas. Community Organisers played a dominant role in educating the farmers and organising them in the scheme areas. The Scheme Designs prepared are shown to the beneficiary farmers and signature of 3 Ad hoc Committee members and two other farmers obtained before placing them in the State Level Selection Committee. BFAs were given priority while tendering works relating to the Project at the implementation level. It was reported that construction works of more than 50% of the Schemes were undertaken by the BFAs. As per agreement entered into between Beneficiary Farmers Associations registered in the scheme areas and the Minor Irrigation Wing of the Irrigation Department before the commencement of construction works, the schemes on completion were handed over to the BFAs to carry out future periodical maintenance of assets and structures created as part of the Project.

     There have been problems in the formation of BFAs. In the Steering committee Meeting held on 26.3.1999, Councellor to European Union remarked: "the formation of BFA is a key issue. BFAs must be properly constituted ( which will take two months ) and be sustainable to ensure the future maintenance of the schemes."

     The success of completed minor irrigation schemes depend upon provision of irrigation facilities without interruption to the beneficiaries over a period of time. The EEC assistance to the Kerala Minor Irrigation Project ceased on December 2000. An assessment made by the State Planning Board on a sample of completed schemes cast shadow on the sustainability of these schemes. The BFAs functioned satisfactorily in the early stages and till the completion of construction works of the Project. Later it was noted that the crux of participatory planning failed. Farmers were divided as to the question of pooling financial resources for maintenance of assets/ structures. Political interference and problems of leadership in the BFA committees (e.g. Kodiyattu in Kollam) also led to the non-effectiveness of BFAs. In certain scheme areas (e.g. Kadalichira in Thrissur) the BFA registered for the scheme merged with the Farmers Association formed at the Panchayat level as part of the People's Campaign for Ninth Plan. In some cases, the farmers are not permitted to take water from the tanks which are used for fish culture by the Panchayat being the legal owner. In such cases, directions were given to execute agreement between the Panchayat and the BFA for exclusive water rights. In a few schemes, it was reported that the Office bearers of BFA do not possess any land in the ayacut. For instance in Ampithodu ( Kollam District ), the Secretary of BFA do not possess any land in the ayacut of that scheme. Faulty design and implementation also led to the non cooperation of farmers in the BFAs. In Kuttankulam (Thrissur District) it was reported that the channel was constructed in the downward slope of the ayacut with the result that water will not flow in the higher reaches. Leakages of tanks/ VCBs are reported in a few scheme areas. The shutters/ planks in tanks/ VCBs to regulate flow of water are stolen/ tampered with by miscreants in a few schemes.

     Despite these, EEC assisted Kerala Minor Irrigation Project benefited the farmers. In the ayacut of completed schemes there has been an increase the productivity of crops. The irrigation efficiency of M. I. Schemes which was hardly 20 per cent before the implementation of Project increased to more than 80 per cent. With the completion of M. I. works of the EEC assisted Kerala Minor Irrigation Project, there has been a rise in the water table in the nearby wells of the schemes. This in turn helped to solve the problem of drinking water in these localities in the summer season.The hydrological instruments installed in the M. I. Scheme areas are useful in so far as they provide sufficient feedback facilitating further improvements in the planning and execution of Minor Irrigation programmes, making appropriate design, operation and maintenance of the ongoing Minor Irrigation Schemes. The hydrological data helps to predict the yield of tanks/ VCBs /Weirs on the basis of availability of water, storage structures/ capacity etc. The rainfall data throw light on the ecological changes in the areas of Minor Irrigation Schemes and also helps in proper scheduling of irrigation water. Agriculture Department using hydrological data can prepare crop plans in the ayacut and advocate appropriate management practices for optimum utilization of irrigation water. The Department can also streamline the system for supply of seeds, fertilizers and evolve cost effective cultivation techniques for paddy. The findings of hydrological studies help the Department to understand the social preferences for various crops consequent to the introduction of irrigation. It also throw light on the economics of irrigation management with reference to different crops and systems. As part of decentralization of the planning process, Government of Kerala has earmarked 37 percent of the State sector outlay in the Ninth Five Year Plan and 33.3 per cent during the Tenth Plan as grant in aid for projects and programmes drawn up by local bodies. The hydrological studies and its results will help the local bodies to make realistic plans in the productive sector especially under agriculture and irrigation.

Farmers at present feel that since the EEC assistance is over, it is not necessary to maintain these assets/ structures. It is highly essential to maintain these assets, otherwise the investment made as a consequence of EEC assistance will turn out to be infructuous. Hence it is suggested that local bodies may be directed to carry out the future maintenance of these assets with the involvement of beneficiary farmers. There are possibilities for increasing the ayacut of a few schemes by constructing additional channels/ raising the height of the VCBs.