Contents

Sl. No.
1

Particulars
Introduction

Page Number
1

1.1

Key features of Micro irrigation Scheme

1-2

1.2

Progress of Micro Irrigation Scheme in

2-3

1.3

Karnataka
Significance of evaluation

3-4

1.4

Presented proposal

1.5

Objectives of the study

Past studies

Methodology

3.1

Description of study are

3.2

Evaluation matrix

3.3

Sampling Design

3.4

Nature and sources of data

15

3.5

Analytical tools and techniques employed

15

Work plan

17

Duration of the project

17

References

18

Appendices

20-40

List of Tables
Sl. No.

Particulars
Sources wise area under irrigation in

Karnataka

Selection of districts

Page Number
10

11

List of Figure
Serial Number
1

Particulars
Map of Karnataka state showing
study districts

Page Number
12

EVALUATION OF MICRO IRRIGATION SCHEME IMPLEMENTED IN

KARNATAKA
1. INTRODUCTION:
Irrigation is a vital input in farming because of its facilitative role in realizing the
potentials of agronomic innovations, genetic improvements in crops and the economic
opportunities. It has played a crucial role in augmenting agricultural productivity and
inducing commercialization of agriculture by way of specialization in cultivation of
commercial and high value crops. Indias irrigated agricultural sector has been fundamental
to its economic development and poverty alleviation. Investment on irrigation has accounted
for about 40 per cent of the total outlay on agricultural and rural development in the country
during various Five Years Plans. With a growing multi-sectoral demand for water and a
limited supply, there are signs of scarcity in the country, which may aggravate further in
future. Timely supply of irrigation in adequate quantity at critical stages is a must for
achieving optimum levels of crop productivity. Constraints and limitations in the horizontal
expansion in irrigation lead to many innovations to enhance and achieve higher water use
efficiency in crop production. Of such innovations, drip and sprinkler methods of irrigation
play a key role in increasing not only the productivity of crops, but also area under irrigation.
1.1 KEY FEATURES OF MICRO IRRIGATION (MI) SCHEME:
Micro irrigation is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme under which 40 per cent of the
total cost of the System, will be borne by the Central Government, 10 per cent by the State
Government and the remaining 50 per cent by the beneficiary either through his/her own
resources or through soft loan from financial institutions. Under this scheme, assistance to
farmers will be provided for covering a maximum area of five ha per beneficiary
family. Assistance for drip and sprinkler demonstration will be to the extent of 75 per cent of
the cost for a maximum area of 0.5 ha per beneficiary, which will be met entirely by the
Central Government. The Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) will be involved in selecting the
beneficiaries. All the categories of farmers are covered under the scheme. However, it needs
to be ensured that at least 25 per cent of the beneficiaries are small and marginal farmers.
The focus will be on horticultural crops being covered under the National Horticulture
Mission (NHM). The Scheme includes both drip and sprinkler irrigation. However, sprinkler
irrigation will be applicable only for those crops where drip irrigation is uneconomical. There
will be a strong HRD input for the farmers, field functionaries and other stake holders at

different levels. Besides this, there will also be publicity campaigns, seminars/workshops at
extensive locations to develop skills and improve awareness among farmers about importance
of water conservation and management. The Precision Farming Development Centers
(PFDCs) will provide research and technical support for implementing the scheme. At the
National level, National Committee on Plasticulture Application in Horticulture (NCPAH)
will be responsible for coordinating the Scheme, while, the Executive Committee of NCPAH
will approve the Action Plans. At the State level, the State Micro Irrigation Committee will
coordinate the programme, while at the District level; the District Micro Irrigation Committee
will oversee the programme.
The Scheme will be implemented by an Implementing Agency (IA) appointed by the
State Government, which will be the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) or any
identified Agency to whom funds will be released directly on the basis of approved district
plans each year. The IA shall prepare Annual Action Plan for the District and get it forwarded
by the DMIC & SMIC for approval by the Executive Committee (EC) of NCPAH.
1.2 PROGRESS OF MICRO IRRIGATION SCHEME IN KARANTAKA
The Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka has implemented
Micro Irrigation Scheme (MIS) in the state since 2003-04. The total area covered under micro
irrigation in the state during 2003-04 was 4401 hectare with a financial allocation of Rs.
404.57 lakhs. In view of many advantages of the scheme in general and enhancing the water
use efficiency, reduction in use of electricity and labour in particular, the farm households
are responding very well to the scheme as a result the area under micro irrigation in the state
has been showing increasing trend. The second phase of implementation of the scheme was
initiated during 2009-10 and now it is in fifth year of its operation. For the last four years
(2009-10 to 2012-13) the total area covered under MI in the state is 3.17 lakh ha with a total
expenditure of 37,316 lakhs. Out of the total area brought under micro irrigation in the state,
the total area covered under two systems of micro irrigation namely sprinkler and drip
irrigation was 4.63 lakh ha and 0.22 lakh ha respectively with a total expenditure of Rs.
41,455 lakhs and Rs. 11,753 lakh respectively.
The analysis of district wise progress of implementation of the scheme in the state
revealed that the maximum number of beneficiaries, area covered under micro irrigation and
expenditure made was found to be highest in Belgaum district, which accounted on an
average 14.64 percent of the total area and 18.09 percent of the total expenditure of the state.

Across the districts in the state, the number of beneficiaries and area covered and allocation
of fund was showing wide variations. The ten districts of the state namely, Belgaum, Bijapur,
Shimoga, Bagalkot, Bidar, Chitradurga, Gulbarga, Haveri, Davanagere and Mysore covered
nearly 70 percent of the area under micro irrigation and total expenditure made in the state.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF EVALUATION:
The Department of Agriculture, Government Karnataka has implemented centrally
sponsored Micro Irrigation Scheme with the specific purpose of ensuring efficiency in the use
of irrigation water and thereby enhancing productivity and total production of crops. This
scheme needs to evaluate in terms meeting its objectives. The issues pertaining to the scheme
like coverage of area under different micro irrigation systems, coverage of number and
different types of beneficiaries, the extent of water saved and increase in productivity and
water use efficiency, extent of subsidy provided, the extent of implementation of the scheme
as per the guidelines, involvement of various agencies in supply of irrigation systems and
providing services in maintenance of micro irrigation systems, etc., are to be investigated to
understand the effectiveness of the scheme in meeting its objectives.

Since the

implementation of the scheme during 2009-10, no effort has been made to evaluate the
performance of the scheme in terms of above parameters for its effective implementation and
for taking up corrective

measures in Karnataka. In view of this, a genuine need is felt to

undertake a detailed evaluation study to through light on these issues so as to bring forward
ground realities to serve as a base to make micro irrigation scheme more users friendly and
result oriented one.
This study will also make an effort to document the adoption of micro irrigation
systems by the beneficiaries in the state and the constraints, if any, in implementation of the
scheme by the officials so that the corrective measures can be taken up as and when such
problems arise to promote better implementation of the scheme. In general, the
findings/recommendations of the study are expected to help policy makers, farmers, bankers
and other stake holders to understand issues involved in micro-irrigation investments and
impact of such investments towards improving crop productivity, crop production and farm

incomes. With every passing day, water is going to become the most critical factor in
agriculture and pattern of its use assumes greater importance in the context of its scarcity and
huge investment in its creation. Hence, the study is timely and appropriate.
1.4 PRESENT PROPOSAL:
Minor irrigation systems are introduced to use the limited available water judiciously
and to enhance the water use efficiency. As part of efforts to enhance crop productivity and
farmers incomes, micro irrigation scheme has been implemented by the Department of
Agriculture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore in the state. The scheme is in operation
since 2009-10 and now it is in its last year of implementation. During the last three years
(from 2009-10 to 2011-12), an amount of Rs.10, 607.08 lakh has been spent towards
implementation of the scheme in different districts of the state. The scheme is in operation
during 2013-14 throughout the state.
1.5 OBJECTIVES:
Keeping in view the above issues and Terms of Reference (TOR) of the project, the
present study is proposed to evaluate the performance of micro irrigation scheme
implemented in Karnataka by the Department of Agriculture with the following specific
objectives.
Specific objectives of the study are:
1) To analyse the extent of coverage of area under micro irrigation in the state
2) To document the agency wise supply of different micro irrigation systems in the state
3) To estimate the extent of subsidy provided and forecast the potential for private
investment in micro irrigation system in the state during the next five years
4) To assess the supply of micro irrigation equipments as per the prescribed quality
standards
5) To elicit the opinion of the farmers with regard to supply and services

of the

equipments provided by agencies

6) To assess the impact of Micro Irrigation Scheme on changes in cropping pattern,
cropping intensity, yield and income of farm households involved in the project
7) To analyse the economics of Micro Irrigation Scheme v/s other methods of irrigation
in the study area.
8) To suggest suitable policy measures to improve the implementation of the scheme
based on the findings of the study.

2. PAST STUDIES
Review of the past studies would enable the researcher to collect information and
subject them to sound reasoning and meaningful interpretation. It is expected that such a
review of literature would provide a basis for either confirming the earlier results or
contradicting them and thereby suggesting the appropriate policies for further improvement.
Some of the earlier studies relating to assessment of micro irrigation systems
conducted in different parts of the country are reviewed and presented hereunder.
The Centre for Budget and Policy Studies (2003) evaluated the Micro Irrigation
Scheme (MIS) implemented in Karnataka by the departments of Agriculture and Horticulture
based on the secondary data. The study reported that an area of 4.18 lakh ha. has been
covered under micro irrigation in the state during the period 2006-o7 to 2010-11. with an
expenditure of Rs. 664 crores. The overall utilization of fund was to the tune of 85 per cent.
However, the utilization of fund by the Department of Horticulture was 100 percent. The area
under different micro irrigation system wise revealed that drip irrigation accounted for 38
percent of the total area and with an expenditure of 66 per cent where as sprinkler irrigation
accounted for 62 percent of the area and 34 percent of the expenditure. The area

under

agricultural crop s was 2.71 lakh ha with an expenditure of 294 crore. The drop irrigation
accounted for 4 per cent of the area and 14 per cent of expenditure while sprinkler irrigation
accounted for 96 percent of the area and 86 percent of expenditure.
The district wise performance of the scheme in Horticulture sector in the state
reported that, ten districts accounted for 70 percent of the area. Among them, Bijapur,
Tumkur, Chitradurga, Chickmagalur and Davanagere were top in coverage of area whereas
Chitradurga, Bijapur, Kolar, Haveri and Davanagere districts topped in expenditure. Under
agriculture, Belgaum, Bijapur, Shimoga, Bidar and Bagalkot districts accounted for 45
percent of the expenditure under sprinkler irrigation. Groundnut, Maize, sugarcane, paddy
and sunflower were the major crops accounted for 70 percent of the expenditure under drip
irrigation. Sugarcane, Hybrid maize and cotton put together accounted for 86 percent of the
area under drip system of irrigation.
With regard to subsidy, although the subsidy provided as per the scheme guidelines
100 percent ( in some districts) the actual subsidy worked out to be 59 to 75 percent of the
actual cost during 2009-10 and it was worked out to 51 59 percent of the actual cost in
other districts where the subsidy rate was 75 percent. This was mainly due to non revision of

the unit cost from time to time. Some of the shortcomings reported in implementation of the
scheme were poor database management, where data on large number of parameters is
important for monitoring was not available, absence of strategic plan for implementing
scientific estimation of potential for micro irrigation in different districts to guide the
implementation of the scheme and inadequate efforts to educate the farmers on the benefits of
the MI and the proper use of equipments.
Phuke and Borle (1989) reviewed the position of installation of drip sets in the
Marathwada region of Maharashtra. They observed that Latur district ranked first in the
amount of subsidy granted (42.4%) followed by Parabhani (23.07%), Aurangabad (22.43%),
Nanded (7.65%) and Jalna (4.37%) districts. The total cost of drip unit in the region was
about

47 lakh of which the amount of subsidy given was

17 lakh.

Narda and Lubana (1996) carried out a study on the scope of drip irrigation in Khandi
region of Punjab and reported that the government provided subsidy to farmers under
centrally sponsored scheme Use of plastic in agriculture for installation of drip irrigation
system. The subsidy sanctioned was to the extent of 50 per cent of the actual cost or
15000/ha, whichever was less. This indicated that there was a great scope for installing drip
irrigation system for high value crops.
Anonymous (2010) conducted study on Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project
(APMIP) in Medak district and revealed that farmers were utilizing this opportunity to
minimize the water and electricity consumption and increase yields with less cost of
cultivation. Thus APMIP was getting popularized gradually winning over farmers during the
previous 6 years. Drip irrigation ranks near the top of measures with substantial untapped
potential. Flooded field allowed a large share of water to evaporate without benefiting the
crop which drip irrigation resulted in negligible evaporation losses. When combined with soil
moisture monitoring, drip irrigation could achieve efficiencies as high as 95 per cent,
compared with 50-70 per cent for more conventional flood or furrow irrigation
Kulkarni (2012) evaluated Integrated Micro Irrigation project sanctioned by state
government near Shiggaon in Haveri district of Karnataka. This project irrigated an area of
9,900 hectares and used monsoon floods of the Varada River in Karnataka. The project
covered three taluks of Haveri namely Shiggaon, Savanur and Hangal and benefited around
8,200 farmers from nearly 30 villages. The crops included sunflower, maize, groundnut,
chilli, pulses and jowar. A total of 17,057 hydrants have been provided in the command area

to ensure effective sprinkler irrigation. This system will save water up to 50 per cent, increase
crop productivity and increase water usage efficiency by 75 per cent.
Singh and Kaushal (1994) conducted a study on comparative economics of drip and
furrow irrigation for potato. The yield in the case of drip irrigation was 32.1 t/ha as compared
to 25.4 t/ha in furrow irrigation. The net benefits realized in the case of drip irrigation were
37,975/ha as compared to

28,425 /ha in the case of furrow irrigation.

Reddy and Thimmegouda (1997) conducted a study on economic analysis of different

drip irrigation systems of main and ratoon hybrid cotton grown at Main Research Station
(MRS), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. They estimated the Net Present Value
from drip irrigation as

4022 which Benefit Cost ratio was 1.04, Internal Rate of Return to

the investment worked out to 16.10 per cent and Pay Back Period was 5 years.
Shiyani (1999) conducted a study on economic impact of drip irrigation technology
on cotton growers of Saurashtra region. Four districts of Saurashtra region namely Amreli,
Bhavanagar, Junagadh and Rajkot were purposively selected. The results of the study showed
that cost-A for drip farmers was
drip farmers; it was

16,956 accounting for 60.70 per cent and in the case of non

16,907 which was 69.13 per cent of the total cost. Despite innumerable

advantages, some constraints were faced by the farmers like higher initial investment,
maintenance of proper pressure in the whole system of drip, lack of technical knowledge
about chemical treatment, operation of drip etc.
Shiva Kumar et al. (2000) conducted a study on economic analysis of drip irrigation
system in sunflower. A field experiment was conducted at the main research station,
University of Agriculture science, Bangalore. The results of the study revealed that the
average establishment cost of drip layout under normal and paired row planting was
35,000/ha and

17,500/ha respectively. Under paired row method of planting (45X90-45

30 cm), discounted B: C ratio of 1.82 and positive net present value of

14,285 were

estimated with shortest payback period of 0.49 years.

Jalajakshi and Jagadish (2009) conducted a study on economics of Krishik Bandhu
(KB) drip irrigation scheme in Tamil Nadu. Results of the study revealed that there was
saving of

6,450 and

6,313 in sugarcane and banana respectively in KB drip irrigation.

Benefit cost ratio in sugarcane was observed to be 1.55 in KB drip irrigation and 1.12 in

conventional flood irrigation method. B: C ratio under KB drip irrigation and conventional
flood irrigation was 4.58 and 1.85 in banana and 5.68 and 2.95 in chilli, respectively
Narayanamoorthy (2003) conducted a study on potential for drip and sprinkler
irrigation in India. The study showed that the benefits of micro-irrigation in terms of water
saving and productivity gains were substantial in comparison to the flood method of
irrigation. Micro-irrigation was also found to be reducing energy (electricity) requirement,
weed problems, soil erosion and cost of cultivation. Investment in micro-irrigation also
appeared to be economically viable, even without availing subsidy. Despite this, the coverage
of drip (2.13%) and sprinkler (3.30%) method of irrigation was very meager compared to its
total potential, which was estimated to be 21.01 mha for drip and 50.22 mha for sprinkler
irrigation. It was identified that slow spread was not mainly due to economic reasons, but due
to less awareness among the farmers about the real economic and revenue-related benefits.
Therefore, apart from promotional schemes, the study suggested various technical and policy
interventions for increasing the adoption of these two water saving technologies
Yogi (2008) conducted a study on the use of drip and sprinkler irrigation in India.
The information collected in the last two minor irrigation (MI) census regarding trend in
growth. It was found that the rate of growth in deep tube well scheme using micro irrigation
devices was the highest (346%) followed by surface flow schemes (194%).In the case of
coverage of irrigation area, the prominent states were Rajasthan (9%), Madhya Pradesh
(16%) Karnataka (16%). With respect to ownership of micro irrigation devices, 81 per cent
were owned by individual farmers, 12 per cent by group of farmers, 2 per cent by government
and less than one per cent by the Panchayat.
Suresh et al. (2010) studied the impact of drip irrigation on farming system in terms
of cropping pattern, resources use and yield. The drip method of irrigation was found to have
a significant impact on resource saving, cost of cultivation, yield of crops and farm
profitability. Hence, they held that the policy should be focused on promotion of drip
irrigation in those regions where scarcity of water and labour was alarming and shift towards
wider-spaced crops was taking place.
Anita (2011) conducted a study on drip irrigation based intercropping system in Tamil
Nadu. The experiment comprised nine fertigation levels and four inter crops in sub plots.S1-

vegetable coriander, S2-Radish, S3-Beet root, S4-onion. The results of the study showed that
crops responded to higher dose of fertigation in water soluble forms through fertigation under
maize+ vegetable coriander intercropping system with yield of 6,522 kg/ha. Drip irrigation at
150 per cent of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) recorded higher water use efficiency.
Maize based inter-cropping system recorded higher net returns ( 56,858/ha) and B: C ratio
(3.24) under drip fertigation at 150 per cent RDF+ Radish as intercrop.
Somnath (2011) conducted on impact assessment of Micro Irrigation Scheme in
Madhya Pradesh and reported that sprinkler systems were more suitable for cereals and for
nurseries whereas drip was highly recommended for high value crops. Sprinkler systems
didnt have much of technical intricacies. They were easy to move and didnt have a fixed
layout plan. In drip irrigation system there was an increase in yield (30-40%) in tomatoes,
onion, chilli, banana, cotton, etc. Also better quality and uniform grade produce was obtained.
Saving of water (70-80%), fertilizer (30-40%), labour (80-90%), time and electricity (about
20%) was noticed. The problem of weeds was also taken care of in the case of drip irrigation
as water entered directly to the roots of the plants. The year wise progress of Micro Irrigation
in Madhya Pradesh showed that the area under MI had been increasing over the years. In the
initial years the demand for sprinkler was higher, but from 2009-10 the demand for drip
systems had been increasing and there had been a dip in sprinkler systems. This was clearly
due to the advantages that drip had over sprinkler.
Nanaware (2013) examined the impact of drip irrigation on the yield of sugarcane in
Barshi tahsila. The study revealed that there was a high positive correlation between
percentage of drip irrigated area and per hectare yield of sugarcane in the Barshi tahasil. It
was found that increase in one per cent of irrigated area could cause an increase of 0.705 ton
per hectare yield of sugarcane in sample farmers.
The above studies reported about the extent of subsidy provided for micro irrigation
in different states. The past studies have compared micro irrigation and surface irrigation and
reported that water saving, water use efficiency and yield in various crops was more in micro
irrigation. Micro irrigation was found to be helpful in reducing electricity requirement, weed
problems, soil erosion and cost of cultivation against other surface irrigation. They also
reported the constraints faced by farmers in adopting micro irrigation.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area
Karnataka State is the eighth largest state in the country and is located in the Deccan
plateau. The total area of Karnataka is 191791 Square kilometers and accounts for 5.83% of
the total area of the country. About 38724 km (or 20% of Karnataka's geographic) are
covered by forests. It is situated towards west of the Indian Deccan Plateau and it lies along
the seashore of one side. It is a fertile land situated in the tropical region of the Northern
Hemisphere, stretching between 11 degree and 18 degree Northern Longitude and between
74 degree and 78 degree Eastern Latitude. The state is bordered by the Arabian Sea to the
west, Goa to the northwest, Maharashtra to the north, Andhra Pradesh to the east, Tamil
Nadu to the east and southeast, and Kerala to the southwest.
3.1.1 Demographics
According to the 2011 census of India, the total population of Karnataka is 61130704,
of which 31057742 (50.9%) are male and 30072962 (49.1%) are female, or 1000 males for
every 968 females. The population density is 319 per km. The literacy rate is 75.60 per cent
with 82.85 per cent of males and 68.13 per cent of females being literate. 83 per cent of the
population are Hindu, 11 per cent are Muslim, 4 per cent are Christian, 0.8 per cent are Jains,
0.7 per cent are Buddhist, and with the remainder belonging to other religions.
3.1.2 Climate
Karnataka state enjoys a salubrious climate throughout the year. Weather in the state is
however dynamic and changes from place to place owning to its altitude, topography and its
distance from the sea. It is influenced by four major seasons such as winter season (December
to February), the summer season (March to May), monsoon season (June to September), and
post-monsoon season (October to November).
The southwest monsoon accounts for almost 80 per cent of the rainfall the state
receives. The annual rainfall across the state ranges from low 50 to 250 cm. The districts of
Bijapur, Raichur, Bellary and Southern half of Gulbarga experience the lowest rainfall
ranging from 50 to 60 cm, while the west coast region and Malnad enjoy the highest rainfall.

3.1.3 Soil and irrigation facility

Depending on the agricultural capability of the soil, the soil types in the state are
divided into six types via., red, lateritic, black, alluvial, forest and coastal soils.
Karnataka accounts for about six percent of the country's surface water resources.
Around 60% of this is provided by the west flowing rivers while the remaining comes from
the east flowing rivers. There are seven river basins in all formed by the Godavari, Cauvery,
Krishna, the west-flowing rivers, South Pennar and Paler.
Table 1: Sources wise area under irrigation in Karnataka
Sl.
Source of
No.
irrigation
1 Canals

Net area
irrigated
1105038

% to the state
total
32.6(32.8)

Gross area
irrigated
1447409

% to state
total
35.3(35.6)

Tanks

195698

5.8(6.4)

214848

5.2(5.9)

Wells

424836

12.5(12.5)

478945

11.7(11.6)

Tube/Bore Wells

1251643

36.9(35.2)

1473835

36.0(34.2)

Lift Irrigation

106081

3.1(3.5)

132675

3.2(3.7)

Other Sources

307180

9.1(9.5)

348304

8.5(9.0)

Total

3390476

100(100.00)

4096016

100(100.00)

(Source: Karnataka at a glance 2010)

3.2 Evaluation Matrix : Appendix -I
3.3 Sampling Design
The centrally sponsored Micro Irrigation Scheme has been implemented in the state
by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore during 2009-10 and
is in its last year of implementation. During the last four years, the scheme covered almost
all districts in the state. Multistage sampling procedure will be adopted for selection of study
districts, taluks, villages and farmers.
3.3.1 Selection of districts
For detailed evaluation of the scheme, 10 districts in the state were selected based on
five parameters suggested in the inception review meeting namely, 1. Agro-climatic Zones,
2.Area under micro irrigation, 3. Expenditure on different systems of micro irrigation, 4.
Number of beneficiaries covered under the scheme and 5. Irrigation potential in each district
of the state. The districts selected for the study are presented in Table 2.

Table -2 Selection of study districts based on five parameters

SL NO
DISTRICTS
1
BELGAUM
2
GULBURGA
3
MYSORE
4
BIJAPUR
5
BAGLKOTE
6
DAVANGERE
7
SHIVAMOGA
8
BIDAR
9
HAVERI
10
CHIK MANGLORE
Note: Five parameters considered were
1. Agro-climatic zones
2. Area under micro irrigation
3. Expenditure
4. No of beneficiaries
5 Irrigation potential

Fig 1: Map of Karnataka state showing study districts

3.3.2 Selection of taluks

In each selected districts, three taluks have been selected based on maximum number
of beneficiaries covered under each system of irrigation. Accordingly in the study area totally
30 taluks were selected as suggested in inception review meeting.
3.3.3 Selection of villages
As per the suggestion in inception review meeting, from each selected taluk, three
villages which are having maximum number of beneficiaries under the scheme will be
selected. Following this criteria, totally 90 villages will be selected.
3.3.4 Selection of farmers
As per the suggestion in the inception review meeting, the proportionate sampling
procedure will be followed in selection of sample farmers. In all, 900 sample beneficiary
farmers will be selected in the study area. Besides selection of above beneficiary farmers,
about 50 non beneficiary farmers and 50 farmers who have adopted micro irrigation systems
on their own without availing the benefits of the scheme will be selected. In all, 1000
farmers will be selected for the study.
3.3.5 Selection of Scheme Implementing Agencies
Totally, 41 Officials involved in implementing the scheme will be selected. One at
State head quarter, 10 District level Officials - One each at selected district head quarter and
30 taluk level officials one from each selected taluk.
3.3.6 Selection of Agencies supplying micro irrigations systems
There are 28 agencies, who have supplied micro irrigation systems to the beneficiaries
in ten selected districts of the state. Among these agencies, top ten agencies that covered
more than 90 percent of the beneficiary farmers in the selected districts. These 10 micro
irrigation supplying agencies will be selected for detailed study.

3.4 Nature and sources of data

Both primary and secondary data from various sources will be used for the study. The
primary data will be collected from the selected beneficiaries and non beneficiary farmers,
agencies that supply irrigation systems and officials involved in implementation of the scheme by
personal interview method using pre tested schedules prepared for the purpose. The secondary
data will be collected from all 10 selected

District offices, Office of the Directorate of

Agriculture, Bangalore, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore and Offices of the
Joint Director of Agriculture of selected districts. To assess the performance of the scheme,
Before and After approach will be adopted.
3.5 Analytical tools and techniques employed
3.5.1 Tabular analysis will be used to analyse the socio-economic profile, changes in cropping
pattern, crop productivity, cropping intensity of the sample farmers.
3.5.2 Budgeting technique will be employed to analyse cost and returns of crops under different
irrigation methods and income of the farmers.
3.5.3 Production function analysis will be made to assess the resource use efficiency in
production of major crops under different systems of irrigation by the beneficiary and non
beneficiary farmers in the study area.
3.5.4 Decomposition analysis will be used to analyse the contribution of new irrigation
technology in enhancing the crop productivity.
3.5.5 Logit and Garrett Ranking Techniques will be used to analyse the constraints in
adoption/implementation of the scheme.

4. Work Plan:
Sl.No.

Particulars

Recruitment of staff

Collection of secondary data

Selection of study area

4
5

Conducting survey in the study area

Editing and digitization of data

Analysis of data

Preparation of draft report

11

3-5 months

6-7 month

8th month

Inception workshop & submission of

inception report
Preparation of survey instrument and
pre testing

10

1-2 month

Conducting mid term review

workshop to present draft report
Finalization of report and
submission

5. DURATION: Eight months from July 2013 to February 2014

3
4

6. REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2010, Evaluation study of centrally sponsored scheme of Micro Irrigation,
NABARD consultancy services Private Limited (NABCONS) , Mumbai.
Anonymous, 2010, Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project.
Anita Fanish, S., Muthukrishnan, P. and Manoharan, S., 2011, Drip fertigation in maize based
intercropping system. Indian Jn. Agric. Res., 45(3): 233-238.
Jalajakshi, C. K. and Jagadish, N., 2009, Economics of Krishi Bandhu drip irrigation: An
empirical analysis. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 22: 161-164.
Mahesh Kulkarni, 2010, Integrated Micro Irrigation Project near Shiggaon in Haveri district of
Karnataka. Business standard. 20:28-29.
Nanaware, A. H., 2013, Impact of drip irrigation on sugarcane productivity in drought prone area,
Research Front (1) 79-84
Narayanamoorthy, A., 2003, Potential for drip and sprinkler irrigation in India. Indian J. Agri.
Econ., 58(3), July-September, pp. 427-437.
Narda, N. K. and Lubrana, P. S., 1996, Scope of drip irrigation in Khandi region. Progressive
Farming, 33(4): 3-5.
Phuke, K. D. and Borle, J. N., 1989, Position in drip irrigation system in Marathwada region of
Maharashtra. Agresco Report, Department of Economics and Statistics, Marathwada
Agric. Univ., Parbhani (India).
Reddy, D. V. S. and Thimmegouda, S., 1997, Economic analysis of different drip irrigation
systems of main and ratoon hybrid cotton. Mysore Jn. Agric. Sci., 31(1): 17-22.
Shivakumar, H. K., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Nanjappa, H. V., 2000, Economic analysis of drip
irrigation system in sunflower. Karnataka Jn. Agric. Sci., 14(4): 924-927
Shiyani, R. L., Kuchhadiya, D. B. and Patel, M. V., 1999, Economic impact of drip irrigation
technology on cotton growers of Saurashtra region. Agric. Sit. India, 56(7): 407-412.
Singh, S. and Kaushal, M. P., 1994, Drip irrigation system is better than furrow irrigation for
potato crop. Indian Farming, 43(9): 11-12.

Somnath Sen, 2011, Impact Assessment of Micro Irrigation Scheme in Madhya Pradesh, Project
report, Department of Horticulture, Government of Madya Pradesh.
Suresh Kumar, D. and Palanisami, K., 2010, Impact of drip irrigation on farming system:
evidence from Southern India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 23: 265-272.
Yogi, A. K., 2008, Use of drip and sprinkler irrigation in India: An analysis based on third minor
irrigation census. Agric. Sit. India, 65(3): 117-133.

Appendix I Evaluation Matrix

Main evolution question

Sub questions
Indicator(s)
Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected
Who will collect the data
Time line for collecting of the
data
Method of data analysis
Expected results

1. To analyse the extent of coverage of area under micro

irrigation in the state
i.
Year wise area covered under MIS since 20010-11 to
2012-13
ii.
District wise area covered under MIS in the state
i.
Area covered under drip
ii.
Area covered under Sprinkler
iii.
Total area covered under MIS
Secondary data from the Department of Agriculture, Bangalore
Recording the data from reports maintained in the Department
of Agriculture
Personal visit to the Department/ correspondence through e-mail
Project staff and Research staff involved in the project
One week ( if the required data provided by the Department)
Tabular presentation by working out averages and percentages
Extent of coverage of area under micro irrigation in the state will
be known

Main evolution question

Sub questions

Indicator(s)

Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected
Who will collect the data
Time line for collecting the
data
Method of data analysis
Expected results

Main evolution question

2.. To document the agency wise supply of different micro

irrigation systems in the state
i.
Who are the supplier of MIS
ii.
How many have supplied drip irrigation system
iii.
How many have supplied sprinkler irrigation system
iv.
How many have supplied both irrigation systems
i.
No. of agencies involved in supply of MIS
ii.
Agency wise supply of number of drip irrigation
systems
iii.
Agency wise supply of number of sprinkler
irrigation systems
iv.
Agency wise total number of MIS supplied
Secondary data from the Department of Agriculture, Bangalore
Recording the data from reports maintained in the Department
of Agriculture
Personal visit to the Department/ correspondence through email
Project staff and Research staff involved in the project
Two days( if the required data provided by the Department
timely)
Tabular presentation by working out averages and percentages
Number of MIS supplied by different agency in the state will be
knon

3 .To estimate the extent of subsidy provided and forecast the

potential for private investment in micro irrigation system in

Sub question

Indicator(s)

the state during the next five year

i.
What is the extent of subsidy provided for drip
ii.
What is the extent of subsidy provided for sprinkler
iii.
What is extent of coverage of different category of
beneficiaries
iv.
The amount of subsidy provided over a period of
time to the beneficiaries
v.
To estimate the beneficiary wise amount contributed
(private investment) in different MIS in the state
i.
The amount of subsidy released/provided to different
category of beneficiaries
ii.
The amount of subsidy released/ provided for
different MIS
iii.
The estimate the total amount of private investment
made under micro irrigation/systems in the state over

the years
Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected
Who will collect the data
Time line for collecting the
data
Method of data analysis
Expected results

Main evolution question

Sub question

Secondary data from the Department of Agriculture, Bangalore

Recording the data from reports maintained in the Department
of Agriculture
Personal visit to the Department/ correspondence through email
Project staff and Research staff involved in the project
One week ( if the required data provided by the Department
timely)
Tabular presentation by working out averages and percentages
To estimate the extent of total subsidy provided and to forecast
the extent of private investment in the state during next five
years under MIS

4. To assess the supply of micro irrigation equipments as per

the prescribed quality standard
i.
ii.

Indicator(s)

i.
ii.

To identify prescribed quality standards for the drip

irrigation equipments supplied for different category
of beneficiaries in the state
To identify prescribed quality standards for the
sprinkler irrigation equipments supplied for different
category of beneficiaries in the state

List the quality parameters prescribed for the drip

irrigation equipments
List the quality parameters prescribed for the
sprinkler irrigation equipments

Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources

Primary data: MIS supplying agencies and beneficiary

farmers

Data collection method

Personal interview method

How data will be collected

By personal interaction with MIS supplying agencies and

beneficiary farmers

Who will collect the data

Research staff with help of irrigation specialists involved in

the project

Time line for collecting the

data

Three months for collection of primary data in the entire

study area

Method of data analysis

Tabular presentation by working out averages and

percentages

Expected results

To understand the extent of supply of MI equipments as per

the prescribed quality standards

Main evolution question

Sub questions

5. To elicit the opinion of the farmers with regard to supply and

services of the equipments provided by agencies
i.
To collect the opinion of the farmers with regard to the
timely supply of MI equipments
ii.
To collect the opinion of the farmers regard to the timely

services provided by agencies

Indicator(s)

iii.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected
Who will collect the data
Time line for collecting the
data
Method of data analysis
Expected results

Time taken by the agency to supply equipment after

sanction
Frequency of visit to monetary the working condition of
the equipments by MIS
Level of satisfaction of the farmers with regard of
supply of equipments
Level of satisfaction of the farmers with regard of
services of the agencies

Primary data will be collected from the beneficiary farmers

Personal interview method using schedules
Personal interaction with beneficiary farmers
Project staff and Research staff involved in the project
Three months for collection of primary data in the entire study area
Tabular presentation by working out averages and percentages
To assess the level of satisfaction of farmers with regards to supply
and services of the equipments provided by agencies.

Main evolution question

6. To assess the impact of Micro Irrigation Scheme on changes

in cropping pattern, cropping intensity, yield and income of
farm households involved in the project
i.
To analyze the change in cropping pattern before and
after implementation of MIS.
ii.
To workout the extent of cropping intensity before and
after MIS
iii.
To workout the extent of yield and increase in income of
farm household before and after implementation of MIS.
i.
Season wise area under different crops before and after
implementation of MIS
ii.
Yield of different crops before and after implementation
of MIS
iii.
Change in the income of the farm household before and
after implementation of MIS

Sub questions

Indicator(s)

Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected
Who will collect the data
Time line for collecting the
data
Method of data analysis
Expected results
Main evolution question

Sub questions
Indicator(s)

Primary data from the beneficiary farmers

Personal interview method
By personal interaction with farmers using schedules
Research staff of the project under the supervision of project staff
Three months for collection of primary data in the entire study area
Tabular presentation by working out averages and percentages
Expansion of area under micro irrigation results in increase in
yield,.
7. To analyse the economics of Micro Irrigation method v/s other
methods of irrigation in the study area
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

To identify the different methods of irrigation followed by

beneficiary farmers before and after implementation of MIS
To assess the area under different crops and under different
methods of irrigation in the study area
Method of irrigation followed before and after
implementation of MIS
The extent of reduction in labour, electricity, water and time
saving
The extent of reduction in cost of cultivation under MI
method v/s other methods of irrigation
The extent of increase in the income of the farm house holds

Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Data collection method
How data will be collected

Primary data
Personal interview method
Personal interaction with beneficiary farmers

Who will collect the data

Time line for collecting
the data
Method of data analysis
Expected results

Research staff under the supervision of project staff

Three months for collection of primary data in the entire study area

Budgeting Technique
The extent of profitability of adoption of MI methods as compared to
traditional methods of irrigation cropping intensity and farm
households.

Main evolution question 8 .To identify constraints faced by farmers, implementing

agencies and equipment supplying agencies in Implementing the
scheme
Sub questions
i .Constraints faced by farmers in adoption of MI methods
ii. Constraints faced by MIS supplying agencies
iii. Constraints faced by officials of the Department of Agriculture in
implementing the scheme
Indicator(s)
i.
Knowledge level of the farmers in operating the MI
equipments
ii.
Problems in contribution of margin money
iii.
Problems in maintenance of equipments in the field
iv.
Delay in release of funds
v.
Poor skill of the farmers regarding technical knowledge
of micro irrigation equipments
Normative/baseline value
Success threshold
Data sources
Opinion of beneficiary farmers, MIS supplying agencies and
Scheme Implementing Department officials will be collected.
Data collection method
Personal interview method
How data will be
Personal interaction with beneficiary farmers
collected
Who will collect the data Research staff under the supervision of project staff
Time line for collecting
Three months for collection of primary data in the entire study area
the data
Method of data analysis
Garret ranking method will be used
Expected results
Based on constraints identified, suitable policy can be suggested to
improve the implementation of scheme in the state.

Appendix -II
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES, DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
SCHEDULE FOR COLLECTION OF PRIMARY DATA FROM FARMERS
Evaluation of Micro Irrigation Scheme Implemented in Karnataka
Schedule No:______________

Date:____________

Name of the Enumerator: _______________________________________

I General information of the respondent
1. Name:______________________________Age:__________Education:________
2. Village :______________Taluk: _____________District:_______________
3. Family type: Nucleus/ Joint ________________
4. Occupation: Main: __________________

Subsidiary: _________________

5. Association with social organization: ZP/TP/VP/NGO/SHG/Water use groups

6. Community: General/SC/ST/Cat-I/OBC
7. Category under which benefit received: MF/SM/BF/SC/ST/OBC/Minority
8. Annual income: i) Main occupation: _______ ii) Subsidiary occupation:_______
II Family composition: Total members:
Sl.

Name

Age

Male:
Sex

Female:___ Children: ___

Education Occupation Others, if

No.

nay

1
2
3
4
5
6
III 1. Land Holdings:
Sl. No.

acre 2. Area under cultivation: _______ acre

Particulars

Owned

Leased in

Leased Out

Irrigated

Dry land

Total

Total

IV Sources of Irrigation

V a.

Sl.
No.

Sources

1
2
3
4
5
6

Open well
Bore well
Canal
Tank
Farm pond
Others

Availability of water
Year round
Kharif
Rabi

Summer

Adequacy/
Inadequacy

Method of irrigation followed

Sl.
No

1
2
3
4
5

Before MIS

After MIS

Method Quantity
Time
Method Quantity
Time
of
of
required for
of
of
required for
irrigation water/ha irrigation/ha irrigation water/ha irrigation/ha
Flood
Furrow
Border
strip
Drip
Sprinkler

Others

b. Electricity charge for irrigation

Sl.No.

Particulars

Quantity of water required /ha

Electricity charge per irrigation

Before MIS

After MIS

VII Details on Micro Irrigation System

1. How did you get to know about the MI scheme?
Implementing agency/Company/Advertisements/Friends/Relatives/Neighbors/Others
2. Type of MIS adopted: Drip/Sprinkler/Both
3. Why did you go for this kind of Micro Irrigation?
Saving water/ electricity/ labour/ time/ increasing yield
4. Did you get any technical advice for choosing the right equipment? Yes/No,
If yes, by whom: Implementing agency/Company/Advertisements/Friends/Relatives/Neighbors/Others
5. Brand of MI equipments used: __________________
6. Why did you choose this particular brand?
Low cost/ good quality material/ Easy to adopt/ Subsidy available
7. What are the other brands you know (name them):_________________________
8. Have you influenced by anyone while selecting this brand? Yes /No
If yes, then by whom: Implementing agency/Company/Advertisements/Friends/Relatives/Neighbors/Others

10. Did you get liberty in bargaining for price of this brand? Yes /No
If yes, how less was it compared to market price: _____________________
11. Are you aware of quality standards of MI equipments? Yes /No
If yes, what quality parameters you considered: ______________
12. Was equipment tested before installation? Yes /No
If yes, then by whom: Implementing agency/Company/Advertisements/Friends/Relatives/Neighbors/Others

13. Have you been trained in using MI equipments? Yes /No

a. If yes, then by whom: Implementing agency/Company/Advertisements/Friends/Relatives/Neighbors/Others

b. Duration of the training: Week/ 15 days/ Month

c. Are you satisfied with the type of training given? Yes /No
If yes, what is the level of satisfaction? poor/ satisfactory/ good
14. Have you adopted the anti-choking measures: Yes /No
If yes, then, Self/ company representative/ others, and how they helped?
15. What are the problems faced by you in the structural design of the MI system installed in your
farm? a. ____________ b. ___________________ c.________________ d. _________________

16. What are the benefits of Micro irrigation system?

a. ____________ b. ___________________ c.________________ d. _________________

17. Are you satisfied with after sale service of the company? Yes /No
If yes, then how frequently they visit your farm: immediately after call/ a day/ 2 days
18. What is the cost of service for each visit? Rs:_____________
19. Have you insured your MI equipments? Yes /No
If yes, what is the period _________and premium amount ___________/annum and agency
___________
20. Would you like to extend area under MI in future years? Yes /No
If yes, Drip area with subsidy___________ Drip area without subsidy___________
Sprinkler area with subsidy____________ Sprinkler area without subsidy____________
VIII Investment made on Micro Irrigation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Area covered by: Drip _______Sprinkler _______

Area covered by Crop: Drip _______Sprinkler _______
Total expenditure_________
Per acre expenditure_________
Total subsidy __________
Per acre subsidy _________

IX a) Cropping pattern followed Before MIS

Sl.
No.
I

Particulars

Sole crop
Crop
Area

Mixed crop
Crop
area

Kharif
i
ii
iii
Rabi

II

i
ii
III

iii
Summer
i
ii
iii
Total

b)

Cropping pattern followed After MIS

Intercropping
Crop
area

Total

Sl.
No.
I

II

III

Particulars

Sole crop
Crop
Area

Mixed crop
Crop
area

Intercropping
Crop
area

Total

Kharif
i
ii
iii
iv
Rabi
i
ii
iii
iv
Summer
i
ii
iii
iv
Total

X. a) Installation cost of Drip/Sprinkler set

Sl.No.

Particulars

Investment on Micro Irrigation Unit

Quantity
(No.)

I)

Fixed cost

A)

Compulsory

Screen filter

Control Values

Flush Values
Total- A

B)

Optional items

Complete ventury assembly

Bypass assembly

Sand filters

Screen filters
Total- B

Cost per item( )

Total cost( )

C)

Variable cost

PVC pipes

Main line pipe

Sub main line pipes

Laterals

Drippers/ sprinkler jets

Connecters

Accessories
Total- C
Total(I+II)

b) Annual working cost of Drip /Sprinkler

Sl.no.

Items

A)

Annual fixed cost

Depreciation on
investment
Interest

Sub total
B)
1

Annual operating and

maintenance cost
Electricity charge

Repair and maintenance

Miscellaneous
Sub total

C)

Labour cost
Total(A+B+C)

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

Average

Sl.
No
.

Materials

Particulars
1.
2
3.
4.

6
7.
8
9

Ploughing
Harrowing
Sowing
Seed/Sapling
Seed
Treatment
FYM
Fertilizer
Bio-fertilizers
Transplanting

10

PPC

5.

11
12

Irrigation(N
o)

14

Fencing
Watch and
Ward
Harvesting

16

Machines
(H
rs)

Price/Unit Total Cost Men Women

(Rs)
(Rs) (MD) (MD)

Intercultivation
Weeding

13

15

Quantity/
(No)

Labour Units

Bullock
labo
ur(p
air
day
s)

17

Threshing
Other(Specify
18
)
XI Costs and Returns of Crop Enterprise under Micro Irrigation

Wage rate:
Labour/Day=Men__Women____Bullock:Ploughing____Harrowing____Machine(Tractor)/hr___
Returns structure
Sl.
Crops
No.
1

Yield (quintals)

Returns/quintal

Total returns

Total

2
3
4
XII. Quality Assessment of Drip/ Sprinkler Components:
Sl.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Drip/ Sprinkler
Components
I. Drip Components
Sand filter
Screen filter
Main
Sub main
Lateral
Dripper (In &On)
Micro tube
Air relief valve
Pressure gauge
Fertigation Unit
Valves
End cap
II. Sprinkler Components
Main
Sub main
Lateral
Risers
Nozzles
Couplings
Washer

Good

Beneficiary Opinion
Better
Bad

XIII. Constraints in maintenance of micro irrigation system

Sl. No.

Particulars

A)

Technical problems

Clogging of emitters

Quality of product

Lack of information about design and

layout

Siltation of tank

B)

Financial problems

High cost of installment

Inadequate installment cost

Insufficient subsidy from government

Miss-utilization of funds

C)

Administrative problems

Delay in sanctioning of loans

Delay in approval of subsidy

Lack of technical help

D)

Field related problems

Problems in installation

Problem of theft

Stray of cattles/rodents

Inadequate irrigation water supply

Lack of awareness about fertigation

Decline in ground water level

Yes

No

Improper cropping pattern

Appendix - III
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES, DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Questionnaire For Implementing Agency (Officials Of Department Of Agriculture)
Project Title: Evaluation of Micro Irrigation Scheme Implemented in Karnataka
Schedule No._________
I. General information
1. Name of the respondent:_________

Name of enumerator__________
Designation:____________

2. Age:____________ Education:_________________ Experiences:______________

3. Place: Village:_____________ Taluk:____________ District:________________
4. Special training Micro Irrigation Technology:

Yes/No

If Yes, what kind of training?

II. Identification of beneficiary
1. Experience as Implementing Agency in MIS:1 yr/2yr/3yr/4yr/5yr
2. Procedure followed in the identification of beneficiaries: Gramsabha/Department level
meeting/As per the guide lines/First cum first service basis/Nomination /By village panchayath
3. Procedure followed in the installation of MI system________________
4. How long does it take to process an application and finally install the equipment? 3
Month/6 month/1 yr/ more
5. How many applications are processed every year?
6. How many applications are pending?
7. Initiation taken to promote this scheme in your District/Taluk/RSK
i) ________________ ii) _____________ iii) __________________iv)_________________
8. Total number of beneficiaries in your area
III. Amount provided for implementation of MI scheme

1. Grants provided: adequate/ Inadequate

2. Release of fund: Timely/As and when required /delay
3. Utilization of fund: Fully/ partially/ not utilized
4. Type of the MIS covered: Drip/Sprinkler/Bolt (Indicate No.)
5. Crops covered: (List) Drip:_____________,____________,_______________
Sprinkler:_____________,_____________,_____________
6. Working condition of the MIS Installed: Good /Satisfactory/Poor
7. How many MIS provided are in good working condition: All/ 50%/25%/<25%
8. What efforts made to keep MIS in working condition? Creation of awareness among farmers/
Regular visit by company personnel/others
9. Period of use of MIS: Kharif /Rabi/Summer/Year round
IV. Constraints in scheme implementation and suggestions for improvement
1. What problems faced in Implementation of the scheme?
1. Selection of the farmers
2. Selection of agency:
3. Release of grants/ Subsidy
4.
5.
2 Suggestion for improvement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Name of the Implementing Agencies:
Designation:
Office address:
Contact No.:
Signature:

Appendix IV
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES, DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MIS SUPPLIERS/ COMPANY/ SERVICE PROVIDER
Project Title: Evaluation of Micro Irrigation Scheme Implemented in Karnataka
Questionnaire No:______________

Date:____________

Name of the Company: ______________________

Brand name:_____________

I General information of the respondent

9. Name:______________________________
10. Designation :______________
11. Experience: ________________
12. Age :__________

Education:________

13. Special qualification: Training/ Experience in company/ Others, if any

14. Place: ___________________Area coverage: Taluk/ District/ State
II Details regarding supply of Micro Irrigation Systems:
1. How many beneficiaries are covered since inception of the scheme by your company?
(Provide year wise, category wise and area wise number of beneficiaries covered under
MI)
No of farmers covered
Drip
Sprinkler
Small &
Medium
Large
Small &
Medium
Large
Period
Marginal
Farmers
Farmers
Marginal
Farmers
Farmers
Farmers
Farmers
No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2.1 Investment made and amount claimed with scheme

Period

Per unit
cost of

Drip
Total amount

Per unit
cost of

Sprinkler
Total amount

MIS

MIS

Govt/Subsidy FarmersShare

Govt/Subsidy FarmersShare

2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14

2.2 Investment made and amount claimed without scheme

Drip
Per unit cost of
Total amount
MIS

Period
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14

Sprinkler
Per unit cost of
Total amount

claimed

MIS

claimed

3. What are the quality standards adhered to under different systems of MI units
supplied?
Sl.No
1
2
3
4
5

Drip

Sl.No

Sprinkler

4. What is the time period required for installation of MI unit from the date of
application?

3 months/ 6 months/ 9 months/ 12 months

5. Which factors considered while deciding particular MI system (drip/sprinkler)?

Availability of water/ Sources of water supply/ Depth of bore well /Availability of
electricity supply/ Capacity of the pump set/Crops grown/ others if any,
6. What is the knowledge level of farmers about Micro Irrigation System?
Poor/ Satisfactory /Good/ Excellent
15. Have you made any effort to create awareness among the farmers about MIS?
Yes/No
If yes, Awareness camps/ Advertisements/ Importing trainings/ Exposure visits/
Demonstrations/ Others if any,
16. What are the problems faced in processing application of beneficiaries
17. Any suggestions for improvement/ solutions.
Signature of the surveyor

Signature of the respondent

Place:
Date: