Final presentation on

Studying Gap between

Irrigation Potential Created &
Utilized in India

IIM Ahmedabad Study Team

Mr. SK Das (adviser)
Prof. SK Datta (coordinator)
Prof. M Chakrabarti
Dr. SP Pal
Mr. S. Biswas
March 17, 2009
 Roadmap of the presentation

Posing of problem &

conceptualization
Study design
Sample design for primary data
collection
Findings as per TOR
Conclusions &
Recommendations
 Posing of the problem
Figure 1: Inter-temporal gap between irrigation potential created and utilized in
India (Surface and Ground Water)

100
Irrigation Potential (Mha)

90
Irrigation Potential
80
Created
70
60
50
40 Irrigation Potential Utilised
30
20
10
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India: 2007

A Conceptual Framework to
understand (IPC-IPU) Gap
Study design

Analysis of available secondary data

pertaining to Major/Medium and
Minor irrigation (from census)
Collection of secondary data from
states/UTs for all major/medium
projects, using a structured
questionnaire, though response is
rather poor from one or two states
Collection of primary data from
Sample design for primary data
collection (major/medium)

D istr ib u tar ie s N o te : If o u tle ts ar e

(S c he d u le III) d ir e c tl y c o n n e c te d to
d istr i b u t ar ie s , as is
so m e ti m e t h e
D1 d o m i n an t p atte r n in
P u n j a b , S c h e d u le IV
w i ll b e s u p p r e sse d .
S elected B ra n ch C a n a l
(S c he d u le II)

M a in H ead T a il
C anal /
M in or s M1
S o u rce (S c he d u le IV ) H
(S c he d u le I)
O2
M2 T H
T
O1
O utlets
(S c he d u le V )
D2
S e le c tio n c rite ria f o r o ne B ra n c h, t w o (2 x 1 ) D is t rib ut a rie s, fo u r (2 x 2 ) M in o r s a n d e ig h t
(2 x 2 x 2 ) O ut le ts is m ax im u m C C A . A villag e (S c he d u le V I) w h ic h is la rg e st b e ne f ic ia ry
of irrig a tio n f ro m a n o u t le t is se le c te d fo r d ra w ing h o u se h old s ( S c he d u le V II ) o n
ra n d o m s a m p ling b a sis fo r t h e last s tag e o f p rim a ry d a ta c o lle c t io n.
 Sample selection for minor irrigation
(48 per state/UT)

3 MOST DOMINANT SOURCES OF MINOR IRRIGATION

STATE/UT Deep tube Shallow tube Dug well Surface flow Surface lift
well well
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal
Pradesh
J&K
Punjab
Rajasthan
Chandigarh
Dadra Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
 TOR 1: To examine various issues associated with
irrigation potential created, irrigation potential
utilized, gross irrigation and net irrigation including
the definition, the reporting practices and
consistencies in data etc.
No room for ambiguity over definitions, as Task Force Report has
clearly and categorically defined and also re-checked in course of
discussion with all relevant officials.
However, data preserved and presented to the Study Team by
states raises eyebrows, different lists at two different points
which differ not only in terms of CCA, IPC and IPU figures
(though slightly), but also in terms of categorization of projects
across the three major, medium and minor categories.
Probably there is a legitimate dynamic element which allows CCA,
IPC and IPU figures to vary over time, not only due to natural
calamities and human error, but also as a result of calculated
response of farmers to changing market situation (e.g., change in
cropping pattern as compared to the assumed/projected one). In
the absence of a built-in formal mechanism to review and
formally accommodate such dynamic features, it is extremely
difficult ex post facto to differentiate between genuine causes
and opportunistic/careless mistakes.
 Several problems with regard to
perceived applications of concepts &
definitions
Absence of any clearly stipulated obligations on the part of the
State/UT Departments of Irrigation and Water Resources (DIWR) to
maintain historical records (at least for that component of irrigation
under state ownership and control). Only three out of 329
major/medium irrigation projects reported some current figures on
problem areas due to salinity, water-logging or other reasons
In three UTs covered by this study, irrigation matters are being handled
alongside such things as Public Works, Urban Development etc.-
matters inviting a lot more attention with rapid urbanization of these
areas than irrigation.
If appropriately collected and carefully recorded and maintained,
figures for NIA must coincide with the same for CCA, and the same for
GIA with its counterpart namely, IPU. Unfortunately, these cant be
matched except at state or country level, as the latter are collected at
project level, especially when the state provides irrigation services,
whereas the former are collected by Patwaris at lowest level (i.e.,
mauja/village level) with hardly any coordination between
Revenue/Agriculture Department, on the one hand, and Irrigation
Department, on the other.
Problems in applications of
concepts & definitions

MoA data are available separately for canals (government and

privately owned) and tanks as sources of surface water irrigation,
with tube wells and other wells as underground sources. But it also
reports a component called other sources . Ideally, IPU should be
equal to GIA, i.e., GAP =(IPU-GIA)/IPU*100 should be equal to zero.
However, there have been ups and downs in GAP. A positive value of
GAP indicates an over-estimation of IPU vis--vis GIA, or an under-
estimation of GIA vis--vis IPU.
Good number of major/medium irrigation projects have ceased to be
irrigation projects either because of conversion to high-priority
drinking water projects or because of non-availability of any irrigation
water (for reasons including inter-state feud or too much of
interception in common catchment area of several projects across
states), but unfortunately these are not properly recorded in state/UT
documents, thus overstating IPC for the country as a whole. If the
data made available to IIMA Study Team from 329 major/medium
projects are to be trusted, the extent of this diversion from irrigation
to non-irrigation one is of the order of 18% at this stage.
Problems in applications of
concepts & definitions

Within a restricted sample of 75 observations we found only slight

over-reporting (exactly 1.96%) and moderately high over-reporting
(10.27%) in state/UT data vis--vis the same on CCA and IPC figures,
respectively from CWC. But on IPU we found a fairly large order of
upward bias (42.45%) in CWC data vis--vis state/UT reported data.
Accordingly, gap between IPC and IPU as percentage of IPU turned
out to be 50.76% on the basis of exclusive state/UT level data, and
only 4.64% on the basis of exclusive CWC data for a common set of 75
major/medium projects, for which full-fledged secondary data was
available to permit a logical comparison. A fairly large order of
underestimate in IPU figures from states/UTs vis--vis the same from
CWC source is probably indicative of serious bottlenecks in supply or
in demand or in both.
Also large scale variations in possible explanatory variables as
displayed in following table, even if one restricts to a sample of 75
projects, on which full information was available.
With respect of minor irrigation projects, only meaningful way to
assess quality of data is on the basis of periodic census data available
in printed and tabular form. Unfortunately, such data are not available
in micro form against codified village level to allow comparison not
merely across space, but also over time.
TOR 2: To suggest procedure for collection of
related data to be applied uniformly throughout the
country

IIMA Study Team developed questionnaire for both secondary and

primary data collection for developing an MIS for organizing irrigation
data for the future.
Prepared one set of questionnaire (shown in Annexure 1 of the main
report) for collecting secondary data on all major/medium irrigation
projects from the states/UTs
A set of 7 questionnaires used to seek detailed information at (1)
project level (Annexure 2.1), (2) selected main/branch level
(Annexure 2.2), (3) selected distributary level (Annexure 2.3), (4)
selected minor level (Annexure 2.4), (5) selected outlet level
(Annexure 2.5), (6) selected village level, which is the largest
beneficiary from the selected outlet (Annexure 2.6A & 2.6B), and (7)
selected beneficiary household level (Annexure 2.7). In case of minor
projects, only project, village and beneficiary household level
questionnaires were canvassed for carefully selected villages (based
on 3rd census data), which were almost solely dependent on minor
irrigation facilities.
TOR-2 continues

Annexure 1 provides a format for maintaining secondary

data for each and every major/medium project, which
ought to be preserved not only by states/UTs but also by
CWC & Planning Commission along with DPR and historical
records at least at each 5-year interval.
Collection of village level data ought to be an important
component of the necessary MIS exercise for an efficient
irrigation system in the country. Such village data not only
provides a check on the functioning of irrigation supply
system at the lowest administrative or civil society level -
namely, at the level of village panchayats / water users
associations (WUAs), but also provides an opportunity to
relate possible demand-side deficiency in irrigation to
possible lack of village infrastructure and facilities, which
could boost up irrigation demand.
TOR 3: To clearly identify the irrigation
potential, which has been created but never
utilized or not regularly utilized or gone into
disuse.

As per secondary information for only 75

major and medium projects, IPC is found
50.76 % higher than IPU
In the absence of any historical records
maintained or reported, no distinction could
be made across (i) potential created; (ii)
potential created, but never utilized; (iii)
potential created and gone into disuse
whether through a conscious decision to
divert irrigation water for non-irrigational
use, or it is a case of a simple physical loss.
TOR 4: To identify the reasons for gap in the
irrigation potential created, irrigation
potential realized and gross irrigated area.

Considering conceptual differences between the two broad

categories of irrigation in terms of life-span, ownership and
control, further confirmed by our analysis of published
secondary data, innocent and inadvertent addition of all
irrigation capacities may compound the confusion over
widening gap between IPC and IPU, rather than help
explain the same.
Time lag between creation of irrigation capacity in the form
of IPC and its realization in the form of IPU is much larger
in case of major/medium projects than in minor ones, as
much larger order of public investment are involved in the
former than in the latter in creating the necessary
infrastructure network to effectively tap the benefits of
capacity created. It is necessary to have a systematic and
disciplined approach towards drastically cutting down
costly time lags.
 TOR-4 continued

Application of modern econometric testing on IPC-IPU gap

figures at the end of each plan period reveals that
structural change during 1992-97 Plan period was the
highest and supported by statistics of structural change
popularly known as Chow test. As per the statistical rule of
maximum value of F, the most major structural change
seems to have taken place during 1992-97. If one performs
Augmented Dicky Fuller (ADF) test, it is found that this gap
is expected to increase during the next plan period.
If irrigation engineers do really believe in a finite lifespan
of 100 years for major/medium projects, as they proclaim,
they cant shy away from applying a discount rate of 12.9%
per annum to cumulative IPC figures. Ignoring discounting
of past figures of IPC simply boils down to deliberate
overstating of the cumulative IPC figures and then looking
frantically for reasons to explain the implications of
overstated IPC figures!
 A Sample of Annual Discount Rates
applied while evaluating Irrigation
Projects elsewhere in the World
Serial Discount References
# rates
applied

1 15-20% Maniruzzaman, M et al:Water-saving Techniques through Improved Water

Distribution System in Deep Tubewell Area of Bangladesh, Online Journal of
Biological Sciences, 2(3), pp.178-82, 2002.

2 15% www.parc.gov.pk/data/CatPak/ (Pakistan Government database as of 8.11.08)

3 10% Folmer, Henk and van Kooten, G. Cornelis - Resource Economics and Policy Analysis
Research Group, University of Victoria, Working paper 2006-07
4 15% Thiruchelvam, Selliah and Pathmarajah, S.: An Economic Analysis of Salinity
Problems in the Mahaweli River System H Irrigation Scheme in Sri Lanka in
http://www.crdi.ca/en/ev-8418-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
5 5-12% (7% M Ali, JH Narciso: "Economic evaluation and farmers' perception of green manure use
for India) in rice-based farming systems", Green Manure Production Systems for Asian
Ricelands. International Rice Research Institute, Philipines, 1994.

6 10% Cline, William R.:"Cost Benefit Analysis of Irrigation Projects in Northeastern Brazil",
American Journal of Agriculture Economics, Vol 55 No.4, pp 622-627, 1973.
Behavior of Gap (Cgap) between IPC
& IPU during Plan Periods
 TOR-4 continues

To bring out the role of factors governing the supply and

demand side of irrigation services in an operational
manner, the IIMA Study Team introduced an
intermediary concept, IPR irrigation potential realized
at any point in time by the suppliers of irrigation.
This means the gap between IPC and IPU can be
decomposed as IPC IPU = (IPC IPR) + (IPR IPU),
where the first component refers to supply side shortage
as compared to installed capacity, whereas the second
component refers to deficiency of demand if farmers fail
to utilize the potential made available to them by
suppliers.
 Secondary data based estimation of (IPC-IPU)
gaps in ha. for major/medium projects
Variables (in ha) N Mean Median Sum
Rather small
Gap as per CWC Pretty large 75 723.64 420.00 54273.00
Gap as per state <0 : excess supply 75 8813.86 3095.15 661039.52
Supply side gap as per state 75 -360.06 0 -27004.46
>0 :deficient demand
Demand side gap as per state 75 9173.92 3228.59 688043.98

Note 1: All distributions (except supply side gap) are humped on the left hand side with median<mean

Primary data based estimation of (IPC-IPU) gaps in ha. for major/medium projects

Variable N Mean Minimum Maximum Median

Gap normalized by IPC 1922 0.0943470 -4.5000000 1.0000000 0

Supply side gap normalized by IPC 1922 0.3952333 -4.5000000 1.0000000 0.4807407
Demand side gap normalized by IPC 1922 -0.3008863 -2.0000000 1.9354839 -0.1666667

Note 2: Figures in two tables dont match; normalized gap from primary data <10%, but >50% from secondary state-level da

Note 3: Primary farmer level data shows deficient supply (>0) as well as deficient demand (>0); secondary data
puts entire burden on demand failure to match excess supply
 Primary data based estimation of (IPC-IPU) gaps in ha. for minor groundwater projects

Variable N Mean Minimum Maximum Median

Gap normalized by IPC 269 0.5465388 0 1.0000000 0.5000000

Supply side gap normalized by IPC 269 0.0918591 -0.2000000 1.0000000 0
Demand side gap normalized by IPC 269 0.4546797 -1.0000000 1.2000000 0.5000000
From1993-94 to 2000-01, normalized gap changed from 19 to 28% for groundwater and from 50 to 41% for surface

Primary data based estimation of (IPC-IPU) gaps in ha. for minor surface water projects

Variable N Mean Minimum Maximum Median

Gap normalized by IPC 85 0.2146353 -15.6666667 1.0000000 0.5000000

Supply side gap normalized by IPC 85 0.0586469 -9.0000000 1.0000000 0
Demand side gap normalized by IPC 85 0.1559884 -16.1666667 9.0000000 0.4000000

Primary data shows normalized gap of 55% for groundwater & of 21% for surface water, besides both supply &
demand side deficiencies
 TOR 5: To suggest measures for
minimizing the gap between IPC and
IPU

Considering the fact that different

sources of irrigation have different
life span, besides having different
regimes of property rights, not only
do we need to create unambiguous
property rights as much as possible
on irrigation sources, but also to
report (IPC-IPU) gaps separately for
different irrigation systems and apply
 TOR 5 continues

Probably high time to put irrigation resources on the

concurrent list rather than leaving the matter to be
decided by mere local level considerations by
respective states/UTs. Moreover, loss of irrigation
resources need to be subject to a compensatory
program just as loss of forests even for developmental
projects is subject to a compensatory afforestation
program.
There needs to be enough teeth in irrigation laws to
protect these resources from inadvertent or
opportunistic destruction/encroachment.
Several tasks for proposed High
Power Committee

1. It must deliberate on inter-temporal behavior of IPC and IPU curves

to undertake monitoring to minimize time gap between
commissioning of an irrigation project and its completion.
2. It must highlight and attempt to estimate the social rate of return on
investment in irrigation, considering its linkages with livelihood,
food-safety and ecological safety issues. It must also take a
reasonable stand on the discounting factor to avoid exaggeration of
the (IPC-IPU) gap.
3. This committee must develop a water use efficiency index at
aggregative level for projects, areas, districts and states, so that such
indices can be used to provide incentives by CWC in sanction of fresh
projects, on the one hand, and by the Central government to provide
fiscal incentives to such constituencies.
4. Innovative schemes must be developed under NREGA to provide
necessary operation and maintenance support to existing and fresh
irrigation projects.
5. Considering inter-linkages between agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
irrigation, urban and industrial land use, a comprehensive long-term
land use planning and to put an end to fragmented and short-sighted
land use policy.
 TOR 5 continues

To assimilate and reconcile data discrepancies, a Standing

District Level Water Planning & Utilization Committee under
chairmanship of Zilla Pramukh under joint convener-ship of
District Executive Engineer and Project Officer, DRDA to
ensure data reconciliation at mauja/village level for command
areas of major/medium projects not only at project level, but
also source-wise, irrespective of source (i.e., inclusive of minor
irrigation sources whether state or privately owned) with
concerted efforts of Irrigation, Agriculture and Revenue
Department officials at the lowest level.
The proposed High Power Committee of Planning Commission
will act as the think-tank and overall monitoring authority of
District Level Standing Committees, though at the initial stage
this exercise may be performed on pilot basis for selected
areas and projects, so that the experiences gathered there
from can be applied to the country as a whole.
 TOR 5 continues

The constitution of District Level Standing Committee must allow

for enough flexibility in the inclusion of core members as well as
invitees to suit varying contexts across the length and breadth of
the country. Besides Zilla Pramukh as Chairman and District
Executive Engineer and Project Officer, DRDA as joint conveners,
this Committee must include suitable officials from District
Departments of Environment and Forestry, Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry & Fisheries and Agri-mechanical Engineering so as to
ensure suitable conservation, usage and efficient use of water
resources.
Resolve conflicts between conservation and development goals
with respect to water resources.
Inclusion of several other line department district level officials
from Urban Development, District Industries Center etc.,
depending upon contextual features, as invitees to ensure planned
allocation of scarce water resources across alternative uses and
minimize its wastage.
Steps are urgently needed through effective involvement of WUAs
and PRIs to boost up demand side deficiency in irrigation.
 Further suggestions on TOR 5

Available data must facilitate movement from

discrete binary variables to continuous
quantitative variables to achieve greater variation
in them and thus to explain their percentage
contributions to the various gaps in irrigation
system.
A suitable combination of improvement schemes
as well as fresh irrigation schemes is necessary at
this juncture.
Marriage between management and technology a
must for refined and further research in this field
Thank you