Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Abstract
The study has examined the impact of Water Users Associations (WUAs) on efficiency, equity and reliability
in canal irrigation. The economic and data envelopment analyses have been carried out to measure the
profitability and technical efficiency among the participating and non-participating farms. Reliability
scores are developed to assess the reliability of canal water and Garrett ranking technique has been used
to find constraints to participation in WUAs. The overall participation in WUAs has been found satisfactory
and the participation increases as farm-size increases. However, the inputs and technical know-how
supply has been found weak. The number of canal irrigation application and yield realization are higher
on participating than non-participating farms. The participating farms are technically more efficient in
crop production than the non-participating farms. The reliability scores for irrigation management
parameters are more for participating than non-participating farmers. The lack of unity, cooperation and
interest among water users has been found to be the most limiting factor, followed by the inequity in
water allocation for the active participation in the WUAs. To realize the full benefits of scarce canal water
resource, efforts should be directed towards enhancing participation of all sections of the farming
community in WUAs. The WUAs should be multifunctional to facilitate the timely supply of good quality
agricultural inputs along with irrigation water management.
Key words: Water users associations, irrigation management, paddy, Tamil Nadu
JEL Classification: O13, Q12, Q25
Introduction
Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) that
involves farmers in the planning, operation and
maintenance of the irrigation system, is considered an
effective way of enhancing efficiency and equity of
irrigation water. Setting up of organizations is accorded
a significant attention in the PIM programmes (Chopra
* Author for correspondence
410
Vol. 25
Arun et al. : Canal Irrigation Management through Water Users Associations in Tamil Nadu
411
412
Vol. 25
Participating farmers
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
Non-participating farmers
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
29
48.33
0.71
4.14
1.21
1.03
38.69
23
38.33
1.28
4.41
1.14
1.05
39.41
8
13.33
2.66
5.63
1.63
1.00
43.00
60
100
1.18
4.44
1.24
1.03
39.54
22
36.67
0.62
4.41
1.09
0.96
43.00
31
51.67
1.38
4.78
1.37
1.34
40.06
7
11.67
2.20
4.57
1.43
1.00
44.00
60
100
1.20
4.62
1.28
1.17
41.57
7
52
31
10
0
41
55
5
0
25
50
25
3
44
42
10
5
32
50
14
0
47
44
9
0
14
57
29
2
38
48
13
Arun et al. : Canal Irrigation Management through Water Users Associations in Tamil Nadu
413
Participation index
Standardized Marginal Small Medium
All
weights
farmers farmers farmers farmers
0.043
0.045
0.054
0.057
0.051
0.055
0.057
0.053
0.063
0.059
0.055
0.053
0.059
0.049
0.046
0.052
0.052
0.058
0.041
1.000
0.026
0.026
0.048
0.041
0.024
0.014
0.003
0.013
0.040
0.018
0.054
0.047
0.010
0.047
0.038
0.026
0.020
0.056
0.001
0.552
0.019
0.030
0.036
0.044
0.031
0.022
0.013
0.012
0.049
0.013
0.052
0.050
0.013
0.041
0.043
0.034
0.023
0.058
0.000
0.582
0.043
0.045
0.054
0.045
0.030
0.022
0.011
0.021
0.063
0.059
0.055
0.053
0.047
0.049
0.046
0.052
0.041
0.058
0.008
0.803
0.026
0.029
0.045
0.042
0.027
0.017
0.007
0.013
0.045
0.020
0.053
0.048
0.014
0.045
0.040
0.031
0.023
0.057
0.001
0.583
Marginal farmers
Medium farmers
All farmers
0.0
37.5
62.5
40.0
36.7
23.3
0.604
0.851
14.4
0.616
0.568
11.1
Small farmers
414
Vol. 25
Table 4. Logistic regression coefficients of factors affecting active participation of farmers in WUAs
Particulars
Coefficients
Constant
Operational holding (ha)
Education of family-head
Distance from canal to farm (km)
Age of family-head (years)
Ownership of tubewell ( yes=1 & No=0)
Adult family workers (No.)
-2 log likelihood
Chi-square
Correct prediction (0) (%)
Correct prediction (1) (%)
-17.645*
3.381**
3.487*
-0.400**
0.145
1.360
0.328
25.27
44.56*
79.2
91.4
6.528
1.446
1.116
0.199
0.102
1.097
0.693
Significance
Odds ratio
0.007
0.019
0.002
0.044
0.157
0.215
0.636
29.410
32.693
0.670
1.156
3.896
1.389
7.306
5.468
9.763
4.043
2.006
1.538
0.225
Note: * and ** indicate significant at 1 per cent and 5 per cent levels, respectively.
Table 5. Season-wise and source-wise net irrigated area on WUA-participating and non-participating farms
(Per cent)
Particulars
Participating farms
Marginal
93.1
6.9
100.0
11.9
49.5
61.4
57.4
57.4
Small
Medium
Rabi season
88.1
87.6
11.9
12.4
100.0
100.0
Kharif season
12.9
31.4
55.4
61.0
68.3
92.4
Zaid season
69.1
92.4
69.1
92.4
Non-participating farms
All
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
89.3
10.7
100.0
88.1
11.9
100.0
28.4
71.6
100.0
15.8
84.2
100.0
36.8
63.2
100.0
18.3
55.4
73.6
11.9
11.9
23.8
71.6
26.6
98.2
84.2
15.8
100
63.2
21.6
84.8
72.8
72.8
23.9
23.9
98.2
98.2
100
100
84.8
84.8
Arun et al. : Canal Irrigation Management through Water Users Associations in Tamil Nadu
415
Table 6. Reliability scores of canal irrigation for WUA-participating and non-participating farmers
Variable
Participating farmers
Marginal Small Medium
2.61
1.97
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.81
3.00
2.81
2.44
1.89
2.89
2.00
3.00
2.67
2.94
2.50
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.80
3.00
2.60
3.00
3.00
Non-participating farmers
All Marginal Small Medium
All
2.59
1.95
2.97
1.98
3.00
2.75
2.98
2.73
1.69
1.28
2.57
1.11
2.54
1.98
2.20
1.85
1.79
1.36
2.64
1.18
2.61
1.89
2.32
1.89
1.60
1.23
2.53
1.07
2.47
2.00
2.07
1.80
1.67
1.00
2.33
1.00
2.67
2.67
2.33
2.00
Table 7. Number of irrigations applied and yield realized for paddy (rabi) crop on WUA-participating and nonparticipating farms
Particulars
Participating farms
Marginal
Small
Medium
33.3
6.4
55.2
47.1
30.7
7.2
52.9
45.9
32.5
7.0
52.1
45.4
All
32.0*
6.9#
53.4*
46.1*
Non-participating farms
Marginal
Small Medium
33.4
2.0
47.1
40.0
19.5
18.0
51.0
43.2
18.0
18.0
47.4
37.1
All
25.5
10.9
49.0
41.2
Note: * and # denote significantly higher and lower at 1 per cent level on participating farms in comparison to nonparticipating farms, respectively.
416
Vol. 25
Table 8. Number of irrigations applied and yield realized for paddy (rabi) on exclusively canal irrigated WUAparticipating and non-participating farms
Particulars
Canal irrigations (No.)
Grain yield(q/ha)
Straw yield (qtl/ha)
Participating farms
Non-participating farms
Marginal
Small
Medium
Total
Marginal
Small
Medium
Total
41.7
56.62
47.28
38.9
51.41
45.05
40.6
48.54
44.25
40.4*
52.26*
45.55*
35.9
47.00
39.67
35.0
45.94
39.52
35.8
46.92
39.65
Note: * denotes significantly higher at 1 per cent level on participating farms in comparison to non-participating farms.
Table 9. Returns from paddy (rabi) cultivation on participating and non-participating farms
(`/ha)
Participating farms
Particulars
Gross income
Farm business income
Family labour income
Net income
Non-participating farms
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
65541
29839
18910
8437
62835
26033
16641
6753
62245
26708
10182
-991
63533
27390
15740
5349
55607
19573
7912
-3541
61410
23641
9258
-2121
60175
24711
6045
-5685
59960
22925
8467
-2982
Note: Farm business income = Gross income Cost A1; Family labour income= Gross income Cost B 2 and
Net income= Gross income Cost C3.
Arun et al. : Canal Irrigation Management through Water Users Associations in Tamil Nadu
417
Table 10. Returns from paddy (rabi) cultivation on exclusively canal and canal-cum-tubewell irrigated participating
and non-participating farms
(`/ha)
Particulars
Gross income
Farm business income
Family labour income
Net income
Participating farms
Non-participating farms
Exclusively
canal
Canal+
tubewell
Exclusively
canal
Canal+
tubewell
Exclusively
tubewell
62377
27737
17573
7360
64611
27067
14031
3472
55540
20749
7953
-3398
59664
21230
8502
-2837
61541
24398
8620
-2911
Note: Farm business income = Gross income Cost A 1, Family labour income= Gross income Cost B 2 and
Net income= gross income Cost C3.
Table 11. Average technical inefficiencies and distribution of farms according to technical inefficiencies in paddy
(rabi) cultivation
(Per cent)
Particulars
Average technical
inefficiency (%)
Inefficiency range
0-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
Participating farms
Non-participating farms
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
Marginal
Small
Medium
All
12.80
(7.56)
14.73
(7.79)
18.40
(10.88)
14.28
(8.21)
23.46
(9.81)
19.02
(8.89)
19.53
(11.40)
20.68
(9.59)
41.38
41.38
13.79
3.45
26.09
43.48
30.43
-
25.00
12.50
62.50
-
33.33
38.33
26.67
1.67
9.09
27.27
40.91
22.73
22.58
29.03
45.16
3.23
42.86
28.57
28.57
20.00
25.00
41.67
13.33
418
Vol. 25
All farmers
70.12
73.47
71.01
71.8
44.51
51.14
51.27
48.63
44.01
47.58
50.07
48.19
41.44
48.17
55.58
47.05
32.45
29.14
29.17
30
30.02
8.09
24.49
28.1
10.18
30.47
8.87
9.86
8.45
7.45
7.11
7.78
4.78
3.58
2.33
3.19
0.58
10
0.24
10
0.37
10
Arun et al. : Canal Irrigation Management through Water Users Associations in Tamil Nadu
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Review Committee of AERR
for the suggestions which helped in improving the
earlier version of this paper.
References
Arun, G. (2011) An economic analysis of water users
associations in canal irrigated area in Tamil Nadu,
unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Division of Agricultural
Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi. 72 p.
Asghar, S. A. and Chizari, M. (2008) Factors influencing
farmers participation in irrigation networks
management (A case study of Khorasan-e-Razavi
Province, Iran). Iranian Journal of Agricultural
Economics and Development Research, 39 (1):63-75.
Chambers, Robert (1988) Managing Canal Irrigation: A
Practical Analysis from South Asia, Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
419