Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | winfred-king |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Experiences of Implementation of PIM and WUAs in Kerala
Dr George ChackacherryScientist
Centre for Water ResourcesDevelopment & Management
Kerala
-Population 32 million
-Density 819 / sq. km (national 324)
Present Status
• PIM pilot projects implemented successfully
• Model evolved
• Based on which PIM chapter in the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 to be amended
• Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2013
Changes Observed
30% increase in ayacut area irrigated
Better participation in meetings
Promptness in meetings
Involvement of women
Interest in cultivation
People agreed for need based fund
allocation
Control over misuse of canals
Improvement in farmer-officer relations
Members: all land holders & spouses
Members: all office bearers of Sluice WUAs
Members: all presidents of Branch WUAs
Members: all presidents of PMC
1/3rd leadership positions of Sluice WUA, BranchWUA & PMC reserved for women
Kerala PIM Model
Agri. Asst.
Agri. Officer
JDA/DDA
Spouses given membership in WUAs
Competent Authorities
Change in Agency Level
• Competent authority (AEE/AE – WUA; overseer – WG)
• AEE/AE posted against number of WUAs, not against length of canals
• Restructuring of Project administration (introduction of PMC and PIMIA)
• Administrative sanction for work by WUA/Rehabilitation works by WUA
• Agreement between Agency & WUAs
PIM/WUAs - Contributing Factors
- Better Education Status of Farmers
- Experience gained from Decentralisation
- Experiences of CAD & IMT in Minor Irrigation
- Scope for Women Involvement
- Replenishment of Open Wells by Canals
PIM/WUAs - Hindering Factors
Part-time Farming
Lack of Political & Administrative Orientation
Motivational Gaps
Paucity of Funds for System Rehabilitation
Insufficient Legislative Backing
Apprehension of officials
Reasons for Slow Progress of PIM Implementation
• Lack of support and assistance from officials concerned to the farmers and WUAs
• Though the administrative and technical personnel had satisfactory level of perception regarding participation, attitude towards the same was below minimal desirable level.
• Government staff found problems in adapting to the concepts and requirements of the programmes with a clear social dimension.
• Considerable reluctance, if not opposition, from the operational staff of irrigation agencies to involving users in management.
• Disinteresting attitude shown by the farmers, who are mainly part-time farmers (farming is not the major income source for most farmers) towards irrigated agriculture and PIM.
• Problem of fragmentation and subdivision of land, contributed by the high population pressures combined with the State Land Reforms Act, is a very serious problem in Kerala.
• Average land holding size in Kerala is only 0.33 ha, when it is 1.68 ha at the national level.
• Paucity of funds and resultant deferred maintenance have caused serious defects in the canal system.
• Lack of coordination at all levels• There is no incentive structure for the
officials to go for PIM. Many officials felt that if the pilot projects are successful, it might lead to retrenchment of positions.
• Another gap is the lack of sufficient legal backing for PIM/WUAs. Sustenance of PIM depends to a large extent on the enabling legal provisions.
WUA is the backbone of PIM
Sustainability of PIM &Sustainability of Irrigation Systems linked with sustainability of WUAs
Participation & Organisation
• Process through which users contribute to better management of resource
Participation
• Structure through which such activity occurs
Water User Association
How to achieve PARTICIPATION?
PartnershipOrganisation
User Organisation(s)
Agency/AgenciesChange
ABC
OPC
Confidence Building Know each other
Wave length correction
Objectives fixingCapacity Building
Users/beneficiaries
Officials
Motivation
Benefits
Incentives
Thank You