UNIVERSITY OF SINDH, JAMSHORO
Ph. D Thesis
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF FARMER PARTICIPATION IN
MANAGING IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM: A Case Study of
Left Bank Outfall Drainage Project (LBOD) in Sindh
Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Economics
By
AMBREEN ZEB KHASKHELLY
Department of Economics
University of Sindh
2012
i
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the research work embodied in the thesis Socio-Economic
Assessment of Farmer Participation in Managing Irrigation and Drainage
System: A Case Study of Left Bank Outfall Drainage Project (LBOD) in
Sindh carried out by Ambreen Zeb Khaskhelly under our Guidance and
supervision is original and be accepted as the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Ph.D in Economics.
Prof. Dr. Pervez Ahmed Pathan Prof. Iqbal Hussain Kazi Guide Co-Guide
Director, Sindh Development Studies Centre Sindh Development Studies Centre
University of Sindh, Jamshoro University of Sindh, Jamshoro
ii
CONTENTS
Certificate ………………………………………………………………. i
Dedication ……………………………………………………………. vii
Acknowledgement …………………………………………………….. viii
Declaration ……………………………………………………………. ix
List of Tables …………………………………………………………. x
List of Figures ………………………………………………………… xv
Abbreviation and Acronyms ………………………………………….. xvi
Abstract ……………………………………………………………… xix
Layout of Thesis ………………………………………………………. xxii
CHAPTER ONE
Left Bank Outfall Drain Stage-1 Project (LBOD)
1.1 Introduction ……………..…….…………………….………………………… 1
1.2 Background …………………………………………………………………… 1
1.3 Components ……………..………………………………………………………. 4
1.3.1 Spinal Drain and Tidal Link …………………………………………… 4
1.3.2 Nawabshah Sub-Project ……………………………………………….. 4
1.3.3 Sanghar Sub-Project ……………………………………………………. 5
1.3.4 Mirpurkhas Sub-Project
1.4 Projection …………………….………………………………………………….. 6
1.5 Financing ……………..………………………………………………………. 6
1.6 Implementation ………………………………………………………………. 7
iii
1.7 Summary of Causes in Implementation of LBOD ……………………………. 8
1.8 Transfer of Technology ……………………………………………………… 9
1.9 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………… 9
CHAPTER TWO
Research Methodology
2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………..…. 10
2.2 Study Rational ………………………………………………………………. 10
2.3 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………… 12
2.4 Hypothesis ……………………………………………………………………. 12
2.5 Research Design ……………………………………………………………….. 13
2.6 Sample Size ……………………………………………………………………. 16
2.7 The Details of Study Area ……………………………………………………… 17
2.8 Validity of Research Hypothesis ………………………………………………. 20
2.9 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 21
CHAPTER THREE
The Irrigation System
3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 22
3.1.1 Overview of the Province of Sindh ……………………………………. 22
3.1.2 Irrigation System ……………………………………………………... 25
3.2 Summary of experiences in managing Irrigation System ………………………. 29
3.3 Irrigation System in Sindh ……………………….…………………………… 32
3.4 History of the Canal Irrigation System ………………………………………… 33
3.5 Wastage of Water in the Irrigation System …………………………………… 34
3.6 Phases of Irrigation Development …………………………………………….. 35
iv
3.7 Ground Water Development …………………………………………………… 37
3.8 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 46
CHAPTER FOUR
Agricultural Performance
4.1 Introduction …………..……..………………………………………………… 47
4.2 Performance of Agriculture- Part One ………………………………………….. 47
4.3 Agriculture Growth Rate ……..………………………………………………… 50
4.4 Land Utilization and Crop Yields …………………………………………….. 51
4.4.1 Agricultural Credit …………………………………………………….. 52
4.5 Yields of Major Crops-Sugar Cane ……………………….……………………. 54
4.5.1 Wheat Production ………………….………………………………….. 55
4.5.2 Rice Production ……………………………………………………… 57
4.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 60
CHAPTER FIVE
Study Results and Findings
5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….…….. 61
5.2 Family Structure ……………………………………………..………………… 61
5.3 Population Growth Rate ………………..…………….………………………… 62
5.4 Land Reforms ……………………………………..………………………….. 67
5.5 Land Use …………………………………………..………………………….. 78
5.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 87
CHAPTER SIX
Water logging and Salinity and Depth to Water Tables in the LBOD Project Area
6.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 88
v
6.2 Water logging and Salinity ………………………………………………….… 88
6.3 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method one ……………………………… 91
6.3.1 Regression Model for Assessing Depth to Water Table at various Ranges 91
6.3.2 Depth to water table …………………..……………………………… 97
6.4 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method Two ……………………………… 104
6.4.1 Regression models for Significant Variables of Depth to Water Table
(in years) Exploratory Analysis ………………………………………… 104
6.5 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method Three …………………………….. 119
6.5.1 Regression models for significant variables impact of water table depth on
Rabi Crops …………………………………..………………………….. 119
6.6 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method Four …………………………….. 123
6.6.1 Regression models for significant variables impact of water table
depth on Kharif Crops ………………………………………………….. 123
6.7 Conclusion ………………………………………..……………………………. 126
CHAPTER SEVEN
Agro-Economic Benefits of LBOD-Stage 1 Project
7.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 127
7.2 Estimating Crop Incomes ……………………………………………………… 127
7.3 Use of Farm Inputs for Crop Production ……………………………………….. 128
7.3.1 Seed …………………………………………………………………….. 130
7.3.2 Fertilizer and Pesticides ……………………………………………….. 130
7.3.3 Use of Tractors and Animal Traction …………..……………………… 132
7.3.4 Labour Use …………………………………………….…………..….. 132
7.3.5 Irrigation, and Land and Crop Charges ………………….……………… 133
7.3.6 Cultivation Practices and Output Prices ………………………………… 133
7.3.7 Crop Yields, Gross and Net Crop Incomes …………………………….. 134
7.4 Impact on Crop Incomes by Reach …………………………………………….. 137
7.5 Livestock Equipment and Machinery ……………………………………………. 140
vi
7.6 Livestock Production and Trading ……………………………………………… 140
7.7 Ownership of Farm Assets …………………………………………………….. 142
7.8 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 145
CHAPTER EIGHT
Socio-Environmental Measures and Impacts of LBOD-Stage 1 Project
8.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….…… 146
8.2 Conceptualizing Cost-Recovery Principles …………………………………… 146
8.3 Farmers be mobilized …………………………………………………………… 148
8.4 Farmers’ share should be ensured as a pre-requisite for any further step ………. 149
8.5 Operations and Maintenance Issues related to LBOD ………………………… 151
8.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 158
CHAPTER NINE
Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………….. 159
9.2 Policy Recommendations …………………………………………….…………. 162
References ……………………………………………….………….…..……… 165
Appendix-A ……………………………………………………………………. 170
Appendix-B ……………………………..…………………………………….. 185
Appendix-C ……………………………..…………………………………….. 188
Appendix-D ……………………………..…………………………………….. 201
vii
DEDICATION
Dedicated to My
Most Respected Parents For
Their Guidance and Affection
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise due to ALLAH, and May the peace and blessings of ALLAH ALMIGHTY
be upon the messenger of ALLAH. First and foremost I thank the LORD who enabled
me with his infinite grace and mercy to attempt and accomplish this effort.
I wish to place on record my Heartfelt gratitude to my research guide, Prof. Dr. Pervez
Ahmed Pathan who has been kind, co-operative encouraging and supportive during my
research work at all times and all stages of its completion. I am also thankful to my co-
guide Prof. Iqbal Kazi for his useful assistance.
I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to Dr. Prof. Abida Tahrani for
reading the draft and offering suggestions, I am also thankful to Mr. Shahab Mughal
(SDSC) and My whole academic staff of the department of Economics for cooperation
whenever needed.
I owe a great deal to my dear father, mother and my siblings who solidly stood behind
me during the completion of this stupendous task; and have shared my stress and
happiness at all times.
Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Ghani soomro, Mr. Bisarat Ali, Mr. Khalid (SDSC),
Mr. Ramzan Khaskhelly, Mr. Aftab Bhatti, and Mr. Adnan Patoli (Economics) for
their cooperation, help during my research work.
AMBREEN ZEB KHASKHELLY
Research Scholar & Assistant Professor
Department of Economics
University of Sindh, Jamshoro
ix
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis has been composed by my self and that all the
work carried out herein, is also my own except where specially stated.
AMBREEN ZEB KHASKHELLY
Research Scholar & Assistant Professor
Department of Economics
University of Sindh, Jamshoro
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Distribution of Sub-Surface Drainage by LBOD Project Component …….. 13
Table 2.2 Sampling Frame work by Drainage Type and Size ……………………… 15
Table 2.3 Size of Land Holding ………………………………………………… 16
Table 2.4 Key Indicator Groups and their Quantification ………………………….. 19
Table 3.1 Canal Irrigation System in Pakistan by Province …………………………. 26
Table 3.2 Command and Irrigated area of Barrages in Sindh 2000-01 to 2004-05
(In Hectares) ……………………………………………………….….. 27
Table 3.3 Canal withdrawals (Rabi and Kharif) in SINDH, 2003-04 to 2005-06
(In Million Acre Feet) ………………………………………………….. 28
Table 3.4 Chronology of Canals and Associated Headwork Indus River
System …………………………………………………………………… 36
Table 3.5 Overall Water Availability (Million acre Feet) ………………………… 39
Table 3.6 Irrigated Areas by Source of Irrigation (Million Hectares) ……………… 46
Table 4.1 Policy Frame Work adopted in past 60 years …………………………… 49
Table 4.2 Production of Major Crops ……………………………………………..… 51
Table 4.3 Land Utilization Statistics of Pakistan 2000-20006 (Million Hectares) …… 52
Table 4.4 Supply of Agricultural Credit by Institutions (Rs. In Million) ……………. 53
Table 4.5 Sugarcane Production of Selected Countries ……………………………… 54
Table 4.6 Area, Production and Yield of Sugarcane Area- Million Hectares
Yield-Kg / Hectare Production- Million Tones …………………………… 55
Table 4.7 Top Ten Wheat Producers ………………………………………………... 56
Table 4.8 Area, Production and Yield of Wheat in Pakistan and India. …………….. 57
xi
Table 4.9 Top Fifteen Rice Producers …………………………..…………………… 58
Table 4.10 Area, Production and Yield of Rice Pakistan and India …………………. 59
Table 5.1 Demographic Indicators in Study Area …………………………………. 62
Table 5.2 Top Populous Countries of the World …………………………………… 63
Table 5.3 Population of Pakistan (In Millions) ……………………………………. 64
Table 5.4 Age of Respondent N = 63 ……………………………………..…….. 66
Table 5.5 Resident Status of Respondent N = 63 ………………………………… 66
Table 5.6 Impact of Land Redistribution in Pakistan- Area in 000 hectares ………… 67
Table 5.7 Summary Features of Land Reforms in Pakistan: 1959 to 1977 ………… 68
Table 5.8 Land Ownership Patterns in the LBOD Project Area ……………………. 69
Table 5.9 Land Distribution in the LBOD Project Area …………………………… 69
Table 5.10 Size Farm and Cultivated area …………………………………………… 71
Table 5.11 Total Land Owned N = 63 …………………………………………… 72.
Table 5.12 Multiple Comparisons
Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test …………………………. 72
Table 5.13 Area Owned Off Water Course N = 63 ………………………………… 73
Table 5.14 Multiple Comparisons
Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test –OFF Watercourse ……… 73
Table 5.15 Distribution of land owned ………………………………………………. 73
Table 5.16 ANOVA ………………………………………………………………….. 74
Table 5.17 Land Ownership Patterns in Study Area by Component & Drainage Type:
Area in Mean Acres- Rabi 2005-2006 & Kharif 2006 Seasons ……………. 75
Table 5.18 Land Ownership Patterns in Study Area by Component & Drainage Type:
xii
Area in Mean Acres- Rabi 2005- 2006 & Kharif 2006 Seasons ………….. 77
Table 5.19 Land Cultivation Patterns by Component and Drainage Type (%) …… 80
Table 5.20 Cropping Pattern in Kharif 2006 and Rabi 2005-06 Seasons …………….. 81
Table 5.21 ANOVA …………………………………………………………………. 81
Table 5.22 Multiple Comparisons
Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test – Drainage Type and Seasons …. 82
Table 5.23 Reasons for Land Not Cultivated by Drainage ………………………….. 84
Table 5.24 Reasons for Land Not Cultivated by Drainage ………………………….. 85
Table 5.25 Cropping Intensities by Drainage Type …………………………………… 86
Table 6.1 WAPDA Classification Standards for the Assessment of Soil Salinity …… 90
Table 6.2 Province wise Distribution of Salt Affected Area in Pakistan ……………. 91
Table 6.3 Depth to Water Table in CMs exploratory Analysis ………………………. 92
Table 6.4 ANOVA …………………………………………………………………. 94
Table 6.5 Multiple Comparisons (LSD) …………………………………………. 95
Table 6.6 Depth to water table in past Eight Years ………………………………… 105
Table 6.7 ANOVA ……………………………………………………………….. 108
Table 6.8 Multiple Comparisons (LSD) …………………………………………. 109
Table 6.9 Regression Analysis (OLS): Impact of Water table Depth on Rabi Crops .. 120
Table 6.10 Correlations ……………………………………………………………… 120
Table 6.11 Model Summary …………………………………………………………. 121
Table 6.12 ANOVA …………………………………………………………………. 121
Table 6.13 Coefficient ……………………………………………………………….. 121
Table 6.14 Residuals Statistics …………………………………………………….. 122
xiii
Table 6.15 Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………. 123
Table 6.16 Correlations ……………………………………………………………… 124
Table 6.17 Model Summary ………………………………………………………… 124
Table 6.18 ANOVA ………………………………………………………………… 124
Table 6.19 Residuals Statistics ………………………………………………………. 125
Table 6.20 Coefficient ……………………………………………………………….. 125
Table 7.1 Use of Pesticides by Sample Farmers in LBOD Area …………………… 131
Table 7.2 Market Price of Major Crops …………………………………………….. 134
Table 7.3 Average Yield, Area Cultivated and Total Yield (Major crops) …………. 135
Table 7.4 Average Yield, Area Cultivated and Total Yield (Minor crops) ………….. 135
Table 7.5 Average Gross and Net Crop Incomes in the LBOD Area ……………….. 136
Table 7.6 Gross and Net Incomes by Farm-size Rupees per Acre …………………. 137
Table 7.7 Gross and Net Crop Incomes by Location on the LBOD …………………. 138
Table 7.8 Average Gross and Net Crop Incomes in the LBOD Area by Drainage …. 139
Table 7.9 Livestock Ownership Patterns in LBOD Command Area ………………… 141
Table 7.10 Equipment Ownership Patterns in the LBOD Command Area …………. 143
Table 8.1 Farmer Response to the Importance for Propagating LBOD Objectives
and Benefits ………………………………………………………………. 148
Table 8.2 How do you utilize supplementary Source of water that comes through
LBOD? …………………………………………………………………….. 150
Table 8.3 Land Affected By LBOD Facility ……………………………………….. 152
Table 8.4 Perceptions about benefits drainage works ………………………………. 153
xiv
Table 8.5 Satisfaction levels ………………………………………………………. 154
Table 8.6 Who should take the Responsibility of O & M ………………………….. 155
Table 8.7 Causes of Poor Performance ……………………………………………. 156
Table 8.8 Perceptions about willingness to contribute towards LBOD works ………. 157
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 A Map of LBOD Project …………………………………………………. 03
1.2 Overall Project Cost & Financing Plan ………………………………….. 07
2.1 Sampling framework district wise ………………………………………. 14
3.1 Population of Sindh ……………………………………………………… 23
3.2 Sindh Demographic Indicators ………………………………………… 23
3.3 Map of Sindh …………………………………………………………….. 24
3.4 Sectoral Share in GDP …………………………………………………. 25
3.5 Areas Irrigated Method, through Canal, TW and others ………………… 37
3.6 Cropped Area/Water Availability ………………………………………… 41
3.7 Distributions of Water Losses in Pakistan ……………………………….. 43
3.8 Indus Basin, Surface and Groundwater Availability ……………………… 44
4.1 Growth of Agricultural Production and Population 1970-06 …………….. 50
5.1 Trends in literacy in the Study Area …………………………………….. 65
5.2 Lorenz Curve …………………………………………………………… 70
5.3 Concentration Coefficient ………………………………………………. 71
6.1 Average for Depth Water table for 0-90 cm …………………………….. 98
6.2 Average for Depth Water table for 90-150 cm ………………………….. 99
6.3 Average for Depth Water table for 150-300 cm ………………………… 100
6.4 Average for Depth Water table for 350-450 cm ………………………… 101
6.5 Average for Depth Water table for 450-600 cm …………………………. 102
6.6 Average for Depth Water table for >600 cm …………………………….. 103
6.7 Depth to water table in past Eight Years ……………………………….. 115
Mean of Range 5 …………………………………………………………. 116
Mean of Range 3 …………………………………………………………. 116
Mean of Range 6 …………………………………………………………. 117
Mean of Area ……………………………………………………………. 117
7.1 Crop Production and Incomes ……………………………………………. 128
xvi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AWB Area Water Board (Pakistan)
BCM Billion Cubic Meters
CCA Cultivable Command Area
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
Cm Centimeter
D/S Down Stream
D&T Development and Testing
DPOD Dhoro Puran Outfall Drain
DS/m Desi Siemn per Meter
DS Dissolved Solids
DWT Depth to Water table
ECE Electrical Conductivity of Soil (Soil Salinity)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FC Farmer Committee
FESS Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia South (Project in Pakistan)
FO Farmer Organization (Pakistan)
Ft/Sec Feet per Second
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOP Government of Pakistan
Ha Hectare
IBIS Indus Basin Irrigation Systems
ICID International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
ICSD Interceptor-Cum-Subsurface Drain
ID Irrigation Department
IDA International Development Authority
IMO Integrated Management Organization (WAPDA)
IPD Irrigation and Power Department
ILRI International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement
xvii
ISRIP International Sediment Research Institute of Pakistan (WAPDA)
Kharif Crop Season from April to September
Km Kilometer
KPOD Kadhan Pateji Outfall Drain
LBOD Left Bank Outfall Drain (Pakistan)
LIM Lower Indus Management
LIP Lower Indus Project
M Meter
Mm Millimeter
NDP National Drainage Programme
NGO Non-Government Organization
NSNS Non Saline Non Sodic
NSS Non Saline Sodic
SS Saline Sodic
OFD On farm Development
OFWM On farm Water Management
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PC Project Committee
PID Provincial Irrigation Department (Pakistan)
PIDA Provincial Irrigation Drainage Authority (Pakistan)
PIM Participatory Irrigation Management
Rabi Crop Season from October to March
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SCARP Salinity Control and Land Reclamation Project (Pakistan)
SDSC Sindh Development Studies Centre, University of Sindh, Jamshoro
SIDA Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority
SEG Socio Economic Group
SM(S) Scarps Monitoring (SOUTH)
SMO Scarps Monitoring Organization
SNS Saline Non Sodic
xviii
SS Saline Sodic
UNPD United Nations Development Authority
U/S Up/Stream
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority
WUA Water User Association
WUC Water User Committee
WUG Water User Group
xix
ABSTRACT
Agriculture is the single most driving force of Pakistan economy, with its share of 20.9
percent to the country’s GNP. Whereas Sindh’s contribution to Pakistan’s agriculture
constitutes major products, such as cotton, sugarcane, rice, wheat, and livestock. Pakistan’s
economic development is directly linked with the progress of agriculture and efficient
management of water resources used for irrigation purposes. This research confirms that over
the past several years the irrigation system has under-performed due to factors such as high
cost to government; declining economic efficiency; problems relating to the design,
construction and operation and maintenance (O & M); low cost recovery, and the lack of good
governance. It Due to these factors the Government of Pakistan realized to implement a
Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) approach through the involvement of water users
(i.e. farmers) in managing irrigation and drainage system at secondary and tertiary levels.
Over past 10 years, like many other developing countries, including India, Sri Lanka,
Philippines, Turkey, and Chile, farmer participation has become an important and evolving
component of irrigation and drainage management in Pakistan .Out of the four provinces of ,
Pakistan the devolution process of irrigation reforms and management transfer has become
significant in Sindh LBOD is one such project, cost and maintenance. This research
investigates to confirm whether the farmers have socio-economically benefited through
farmer participation process. The research also highlights the issues relating mainly to
governance in the irrigation and drainage sector in Pakistan that poses threats to the viability
of farmer participation. Further, this study aimed at examining the extent of accomplishment
of the under-going comprehensive institutional reform process including maintenance &
operations of irrigation infrastructure.
The study is scientifically designed and is based on multi-staged sampling, with clusters
pertaining to drainage types and target farmers. Total number of all drains (i.e. deep tube-
wells, scavenger wells, interceptor drains and tile drains) were stratified by their type in the
project component areas(i.e. Nawabshah, Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas).Using sampling methods
based on probability proportion to size, weighting technique were used to select sample of
drainage in each project component. While selecting number of sample drains in each drain
xx
type, a careful approach was applied to ensure that representative number was included in the
sample. For this, the sample was chosen by using a ratio of approximately 4.9 percent out of
total drain types in the LBOD project area.
Analysis of key variables such as the cropping intensities, cultivation patterns, and crop use
by types of drainage and seasons, reveals that cropping intensities remained higher in Rabi
season as compared to Kharif. Wheat in Rabi and cotton in Kharif dominates in terms of area
cultivated under these crops. These crops are further followed by rice and sugarcane. Data
also shows that all three drainage modes have substantially contributed towards cultivation of
crops in the area.
Data also shows that current performance of drainage facilities, including deep tube-wells,
scavengers, interceptors and tile drains, has increasingly raised questions as to the reliability
of irrigation supplies and control of salinity and water logging objectives of the LBOD project
are concerned. It is argued that drainage is as necessary as irrigation for land cultivation,
control of salinity and water logging, and soil fertility. Thus, application of drainage
techniques for controlling salinity and water logging as well as maintaining irrigation supplies
through sub-surface and vertical (tube-well) drainage types are necessary to address a number
of issues, such as controlling water-table depths, ground water quality, soil improvement, and
crop yields enhancement.
The study also shows that lack of water, salinity and water logging and soil fertility have
adversely affected the land cultivation patterns, cropping intensity, cropping output and crop
incomes earned by the farmers. On the whole, crop production in the LBOD area is badly
affected by the factors, mentioned above. For example, the average yield of rice (i.e. metric
ton/ hectare) is about 38 percent less in the study area as compared to Sindh Province.
Similarly, the yields of wheat and cotton (i.e. metric ton/hectare) are about 35 and 34 percent
respectively below the provincial average. The study concludes that farmer participation is a
practical solution for improving the performance of LBOD installations.
xxi
It is also observed through this research that along with planning and implementation
dimensions of the LBOD project, the farmers be given required training, assistance and
technical know how to takeover the responsibility of operation and maintenance (O&M).
Study shows that 60:40 percent ratio of distributing resources generated through abiana
would only effectively work if farmers are provided with adequate powers to use resources
for O&M. Presently, this ratio is only on paper none of the FOs currently are in a position to
utilize their 40 percent share of abiana independently.
xxii
Layout of Thesis
The thesis comprises of Nine Chapters. Chapter one is designed to review Left Bank Outfall
Drainage (LBOD) Project; the project was conceived means to improve quality of life through
Inceptor, Water table depth, Water logging and Salinity in Nawabshah, Sanghar, Mirpurkhas
of project area. The project has considerable major policy flaws and this research study
intends to link those flaws with management execution and conceptualization process.
Chapter two provides methodological details which include setting study objectives and
converting them into testable propositions. Chapter three explains overall scale and scope of
irrigation in Sindh and details name in to issues and public policy and its linkage with
irrigation system management. Chapter four describes overall performance of agricultural
sector, in terms of growth rates, yields and utilization of inputs necessary for economic gains
in agriculture. Chapter two provides methodological details which include setting study
objectives and converting them into testable propositions. Chapter five sets demographic
parameters, such as family structure, population trends, crop production and analyzed them in
LBOD Project contents. Chapter six is based on using regression analysis to estimate depth
water table in the LBOD study area. Its affects on crop productivity and monthly, yearly
fluctuations in rain or non-rains season. Regression analysis is used to explore above
relationships. Chapter Seven reviews input prices and calculates crop income interims of
gross and net crop income. It is mentioned that crop income are estimated through crop yields.
The estimate suggests that yields differences are significantly related with crop incomes by
land size and reach. Chapter Eight narrates the experiences in Pakistan and in Sindh
regarding management of irrigation and drainage. And discuss the role of Farmer
Participation in LBOD Operations and Maintenance and Cost Recovery. Finally, Chapter
Nine synchronizes entire thesis including key conclusion and policy recommendations.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Left Bank Outfall Drain Stage-1 Project (LBOD)
1.1 Introduction
The Left Bank Outfall Drainage project was started in 1986 and was completed in year 2000.1
Looking at projects physical progress it was inserted in National Drainage programmed (NDP)
by 2002. The project was estimated at Rs 8,000 million in 1986 where as it cost more than Rs
30,000 million till year 2000. The project was financed by eight donor agencies that is the
Asian Development Bank (ADB); International Development Association (IDA); the
Department for International Development of the United Kingdom; the Swiss Development
Corporation; the Saudi Fund for Development; the Islamic Development Bank; the Canadian
International Development Agency; and the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries
(OPEC).
The project was implemented at three major areas i.e. (I) addressing the problem of water-
logging and salinity in Sindh by providing stability to depth water table (ii) enhancing carrying
capacities of discharge channels and (iii) increasing crop production and to improve the quality
of life. The project comprised multiple physical actions initiated in Nawabshah, Sanghar and
Mirpurkhas.
The LBOD Project aimed to lowest Water table, enhance productivity of farm incomes. The
chapter highlights project features in terms of project area, source of funding project
boundaries and details of project physical activities.
1.2 Background
For over 100 years the Indus Irrigation System has provided year-round irrigation to farmers in
much of Pakistan. Such a continuous and intensive use of water led to a gradual rise in the
water table, and brought with it the twin problems of water logging and salinity.
Sindh province, where the project lies, is located in the lower part of the Indus Plain, where the
problems are exacerbated by the level terrain and the lack of any natural surface drainage. In
the Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) project area is spread over 30 percent of the land. With an
1 The LBOD project in 2000 was completed almost 80 - 85%.
2
average water table depth of less than 1.2 meters (3.9 feet). As a result yields of many crops
are reduced, and large areas of land are left abandoned (see chapter six for details).
LBOD was designed to address these problems in 516,000 hectares (ha) of cultivable
command area (CCA) in three project components of Nawabshah, Sanghar and Mirpurkhas.
The project, which commenced in 1986, was designed to provide a comprehensive system of
surface and subsurface drainage linked to the existing spinal drain to transport excess salt and
water out of the area. The irrigation components would increase water supplies through canal
remodeling and other irrigation investments. At farm level program of On Farm Water
Management (OFWM) was designed to increase the efficiency of water usage.
The project spread over estimated 1.274 million acres in Nawabshah, Sanghar and Mirpurkhas
districts. Network of horizontal drains were to be inserted in the project area, Saline water was
to be pumped through tube well, Scavenger through tidal link into the Arabian Sea. The project
comprised 1,673 drainage wells, 361 scavenger wells, and 1,623 km of surface drains, 1,500
km long tidal link and 295km of interceptor drains. Project included 470 km remodeling of
canals and Chotiari2 Reservoir and 2,700km electrical distribution lines. The project was
meant to dispose of up stream drainage effluents into sea via tidal link. Contrary to this the
project created problems as it started having destructive impact on echo systems along with
wetland in the area of district Badin. The project created several addition issues such as
flooding, sea intrusion and loss of crops and agriculture land. It was estimated that due to
LBOD project some 50,000 acres land spread in estimated 7 to 8 union council was affected by
salinity and water logging.
The international quarters World Bank and Asian bank and other donor agencies although
recognized losses caused by project, however failed to take responsibility and initiative on
correct measures. Under the NDP an inquiry was initiated to look after the causes of the
failures by the LBOD project, however the findings though never been made public, are given
a policy implementation face. On the softer side there have been lots of allegations regarding
mismanagement inefficiencies in delivering project output and financial handlings.
2 Chotiari: The Chotiari Water Reservoir Project, built as an integral part of the Left Bank Outfall Drain project
Stage-I
3
It is mentioned that the project presented an example of failure which is common to so many
project initiative by the public in developing countries in irrigation and drainage sector.
Figure 1.1 – A Map of LBOD Project
Source: Asian Development Bank Report # PCR: Pak 17055, Dec 2000
4
1.3 Components
1.3.1 Spinal Drain and Tidal Link
Completion under the Core Program of LBOD from RD 159 to RD815 with a capacity
of 4000 ft³/s at RD 159 and of DPOD to provide an outfall for 2000 ft³/s.
Construction of headwork at RD 159 to route up to 2000 ft³/s into KPOD including
some additional remodeling of DPOD.
Remodeling of KPOD to discharge up to 3000 ft³/s from LBOD and the existing Kotri
drains.
Construction of the Tidal Link of 3500 ft³/s capacity to Shah Samando tidal creek3.
Provision of maintenance equipment for LBOD and construction of base workshops
and depots at Badin and Mirpurkhas.
1.3.2 Nawabshah Sub-Project
Construction of surface drainage network for about 550,000 acres CCA.
Installation of 275 tube wells of 1.5 to 2.0 ft³/s capacity for sub-surface drainage.
Rehabilitation of 28 seepage wells along Rohri4 Canal.
Installation of 189 scavenger tube wells of 1.5 ft³/s capacity to provide sub-surface
drainage of 12,000 acres CCA. About 70 percent of discharge is fresh ground water for
irrigation re-use.
Installation of about 154 km of interceptor drains to recover about 30 percent of the
losses from major canals for irrigation use.
Installation of about 1000 km of 11 Kv distribution lines to provide power for tube
wells and interceptor drain pumps.
Improvement of about 550 watercourses through the On-Farm Water Management
program including precision land leveling of 35,000 acres.
Provision of maintenance equipment for the drainage network and construction of a
depot at Nawabshah.
3 Shah Samando tidal creek: Shah Samando Creek all the way up the Tidal Link to KPOD
4 Rohri Canal: Rohri is Town of Sukkar District Sindh and Rohri Canal is a irrigation Canal in Sindh
5
1.3.3 Sanghar Sub-Project
Construction of surface drainage network connected to LBOD spinal drain for about
362,000 acres CCA
Installation of 597 tube wells of 2.0 ft³/s capacity for sub-surface drainage
Installation of 175 scavenger tube wells of generally 1.5 ft³/s capacity for sub-surface
drainage. About 70 percent of discharge would be from fresh ground water for
irrigation re-use
Installation of about 141 km of interceptor drains to recover about 30 percent of the
losses from major canals for irrigation use
Installation of about 1800 km of 11 Kv distribution lines to provide power for tube
wells and interceptor drains pumps
Improvement of about 450 watercourses through the OFWM program including
precision land leveling of 20,000 acres
Provision of maintenance equipment
1.3.4 Mirpurkhas Sub-Project
Construction of surface drainage network, including Mirpurkhas main drain to connect
LBOD for about 358,000 acres CCA
Installation of 769 tube wells of 0.5 to 1.5 ft³/s capacity for subsurface drainage
Construction of tile drainage system to provide subsurface drainage of about 60,000
acres CCA
Installation of about 1300 km of 11 Kv5 distribution lines to provide power for tube
well, and tile drain pumps
Improvement of about 480 watercourses through OFWM program and precision land
leveling of 25,000 acres
Provision of maintenance equipment
5 Kv: Kilovolts
6
1.4 Projections
516,000 hectares (ha) were estimated at project area, it was estimated 439,190 ha would be
directly benefited from drainage facilities and infrastructure. Cropping intensity was estimated
120 percent annually against 80 percent ―without project‘. The estimation based upon increase
in irrigation supplies resulted from remodeling of Nara canal and enhancing storage capacity in
the shape of Chotiari Reservoir. Along with other projections it was assumed that fodder
yields, would be increased due to project intervention and would enhance live stock capacities
of the province. The project was regarded as initiative to boost employment opportunities and
improve quality of life of people in the area.
1.5 Financing
Financing of the project was sought from various international donor agencies. Project finance
was to be contributed as 19 percent from Asian development bank, 36 percent by Government
of Pakistan and remain 45 percent by other donor agencies. At the planning stage of project. It
by conceived that 36 percent of total cost would be born by the Government through internal
recourses; but it is shocking that at the end of year 2002 Government contributed only 77
percent of total projected cost. The extra burden to donor agencies including Government was
actually accrued at 19 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent to ADB, other sources and public sectors
respectively. The increase in cost was justified on the grounds of rupee, $ dollar, parity price
increases, land acquisition, ignoring the cost of resettlement, rise in administrative cost, rise in
consulting services, inflation and interest rate and the price of inputs.
During this time, the value of the special drawing rights was resisting, raising the ADB
financing in US dollars. Due to this factor share of, ADB money i.e. $169.4 million was
decreased from 19 percent to 18 percent. The financing that was estimated at $293.4 million,
which was 30 percent of total project cost was arranged by on the international donors. There
was noticeable enhancement equal to 52 percent of the total project cost by the Government.
This is attributed various factors i.e. Land acquisition, resettlement, project administration, and
interest rates.
7
Figure 1.2 – Overall Project Cost & Financing Plan
3.6 Implementation
The scale of LBOD was trimmed during its implementation phase due to financial difficulties
and progress made for constructing interceptor drains. For example in 1997 the remodeling of
Nara canal was omitted from the project objectives. The electrification work could not match
Source: (Asian Development Bank 2000)
1.6 Implementation
The scale of LBOD was trimmed during its implementation phase due to financial difficulties
and progress made for constructing interceptor drains. For example in 1997 the remodeling of
Nara canal was omitted from the project objectives. The electrification work could not match
with the plant objectives and was reduced due to difficulties in a sixties required energy from
WAPDA. Against 516,500 hectares (ha) under spinal drain 333,000 hectares were completed
by project by the project completion phase. Similarly 154 km for interceptor drain were
actually constructed against 550 km as a target. Under the project more than 33,600 ha
watercourses were to be lined out of which only 80 percent of watercourses were targeted and
lined. The Chotiari Reservoir created hue and cry among the people living in the area of
reservoir. Faulty, inadequate planning was a main reason for resettling the Chotiari Reservoir
affected people. Till the end of 2001 much of the embankment works which spread over 55km
was still to be completed, along with realistic plan for resettlement of affectees. It is reported
that huge funds were set aside for consulting services, to be with the implementation agencies;
these services were initially estimated 878 persons per month. As the project progressed entre
into implementation phase the consulting service were raised to 3,433 persons per month.
It is explained that LBOD presents a model for inappropriately assigning the roles and
responsibilities of public sector institutions in Pakistan. For example at the planning stage
8
WAPDA was conceived to carryout implementation works and hand over to department of
irrigation and power (DIP).
The newly constructed infrastructure by the WAPDA could not be handed over as planned
instead separate O&M division was created and it was only after 2001 main handing and
taking over was completed. The estimated cost of Chotiari Reservoir revised during project
implementation stage, which inflated the total cost of project.
This was mainly due to under estimation of environmental impact and unfavorable situation
that was not estimated at appraisal /forecasting stage. For example the project had to pay
higher compensation against originally forecast for the land acquisition. Similarly Scavenger
wells were installed at higher price against the actual forecasted cost. In addition the total
estimated number of scavenger wells was short by 50% of actual required number of wells.
The assumption was that fresh ground water would be recovered due to project implementation
which came out to be very limited. In addition an under estimated cost was narrated in the
project document at the stage of planning. The cost had to be revised against estimation fall in
all installations such the vertical drain and the horizontal one.
1.7 Summary of Causes in Implementation of LBOD
Originally project implementation period consisted of eight years starting from mid 1985 to
mid 1992. The project was handed over in an operating state in 2002 and overall project took
16 years instead of 8 years. Following are the factors that were responsible for project
implementation and completion delay:
(I) Delaying agreement with consulting agencies
(II) Understanding stakeholders role in at planning stage and at implementation phase
(III) Delays in requirement of services in material and non-material form.
(IV) Under estimate of compensation along with over estimation about benefits.
(V) Delays in releasing budgeted finance.
(VI) Law and orders situation resulting from political instability and chaos in the region.
(VII) Flooding during the years 1988, 1992 and 1994.
9
(VIII) Design of high take did not work specially in tidal link. For example during the
heavy rains, the tidal link caused havoc in the Badin region and was ultimately
become in operational.
1.8 Transfer of Technology
The scavenger wells, were imported from Canadian, after the installation and hand over, the
sophisticated technology was inadequately handled as some of the sump wells stopped
working. The repair, maintenance and operation were a big challenge resulting the majority of
scavenger wells in non-functional state. Irregular and inconsistent electric supply and operating
LBOD installations especially tube wells and scavengers; Corruption; mismanagement; and
nepotism especially in awarding both national and international contract agreements.
Inadequacies in fully estimating a realistic O&M costs along with cost recovery from the
project beneficiaries.
1.9 Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the features of LBOD as a means for controlling water table depth and
tackling the problems of water logging and salinity to improve irrigation supplies. It was
explained that the project has conceived to means to enhance crops productivity for improving
the quality of life of people in the project area. Chapter also highlighted source of the projected
benefits by the project and reviewed major criticism labeled with the project towards under
performance. It was concluded that the project delays, increase in financial components along
with technological weaknesses in adapting project locally were key weaknesses that under
mind the project benefits.
10
CHAPTER TWO
Research Methodology
2.1 Introduction
Chapter one reviewed the features of LBOD Project which included the geographical location,
objectives and source of finance for the project. The chapter also reviewed some factors that laid
project to become a failure. This chapter explains research methodology which was adopted to
select statistical representative‘s samples from the project area so that the project achievement
and shortcomings could be verified on scientific method. The chapter highlights the important of
research design that is used is study such large scale project achievements and failures. Chapter
also reviewed Sampling framework, Study Objectives, Hypotheses, Parameters and framework
for testing research suppositions.
2.2 Study Rationale
Literature reviewed (see chapter three and four for details) shows that the irrigation system is
performing poorly. There are many questions that instigate to examine the inefficiencies in the
irrigation system. Some of the questions that could be explored are as under:
Inefficiencies in operating irrigation infrastructures
Low yields
Poor state of irrigation and drainage
Lack of policy in managing structure
Empowerment
Accountability
Transparency
Sustainability
Equity
The performance of agriculture in Pakistan has a mixed history (see chapter four for details).
At times agriculture has remarkably achieved ultimate goal of development, and on most
occasions it has not sufficiently met the ever increased demand for food and foreign exchange.
One of the major issues has been the inadequate policy frame work that mostly has placed
11
emphasis upon growth in industrial sector at the cost of agriculture (Pakistan economic survey
2009-2010). Irrigation and drainage are an integral part of agricultural growth and agriculture
performance. In order to increase efficiency in irrigation and drainage sector, there have been a
number of interventions in Sindh.
LBOD is one of the mega interventions to enhance the performance of irrigation (see chapter
one). It is argued that irrigation infrastructure development policy has been the area where
engineering aspect has been largely focused. The failure and success of the mega projects in
irrigation has been debated from engineering view point. This research focuses upon the role of
farmer participation which has been seldomly considered while reviewing irrigation and
drainage policy. This research primarily focuses upon the farmers‘ role in managing and
participating at the system‘s level. For example in the year 2000, farmer‘s participation has
been given greater emphasis, however project‘s success rate has not change significantly
particularly the province in Sindh; NDP (National Drainage program), SIDA (Sindh Irrigation
and Drainage Authority), OFWM (On farm Water Management) and LBOD (Left Bank
Outfall Drainage Project) are examples in which farmer‘s participation is conceived to be a
major success or failure for those projects. The study primarily investigates the farmer‘s
participation which has played important role towards management of efficient systems
operations. The research also highlights the an LBOD project achievements in terms of socio-
economic indicators such as employment, infrastructure, livelihood and income patterns, and
whether project has been a success or failure in view of the socio-economic changes that have
been resulted as an outcome of LBOD. Literature shows that some studies have been carried
out to link the role of farmer participation with irrigation system performance but the nature of
these studies have been considered as ad-hoc studies. There have been no serious research
attempts to link the success and failure of LBOD with farmer participation and socio-economic
development of the region. The primary objective of this research is to understand farmer
participation at project impletion to completion stages. It than analysis the extent to which
farmers to work consulted by the policy implementers at planning to end after completion of
the project. The research also examines to extend which water tables, water logging and
salinity were at adjust by the LBOD Project and at which levels crop incomes have changed at
the result of LBOD intervention. The research addresses some policy issues such as the land
ownership pattern in the region, farmers‘ attitude towards contribution to operation and
maintenance along with inadequate in devising work able cost recovery mechanism.
12
2.3 Objectives
Overall objectives of this research are to gauge the benefits of LBOD Project of assess the role
of farmer participation planning and execution levels area and to draw the valuable policy
lessons for future. Whereas specific objectives are narrated as under:
1. To review past performance of Irrigation System from economic efficiency
perspectives;
2. To assess performance of LBOD installations i.e., interceptor-drains, Saline tube
wells, Tile Drains, and scavenger wells in the study area;
3. To examine experience of farmer managed irrigation system in Pakistan;
4. To study the benefits accruing to the farmers of the area from LBOD Project; and
5. To explore options at policy level through beneficiaries opinion for their contribution
towards operation and maintenance(O&M) and cost recovery;
2.4 Hypotheses
1. The irrigation system in Sindh has been performing efficiently;
2. The experience of farmer in irrigation management proves that the farmers have been
able to operate irrigation system efficiently on their own;
3. The LBOD installations in terms of efficiency have significantly increased
productivity, income and quality of life;
4. The policy of involving end users in operation and maintenance of irrigation system is
necessary for higher economic gains in the region.
5. The farmers are willing to pay existing irrigation and drainage taxes;
13
2.5 Research Design
The study universe is Nawabshah, Sanghar and Mirpurkhas districts in Sindh. Which was an
agricultural crop area of approximately 1274000 acres of land, out of which 44 percent of total
land is covered by the district Nawabshah followed by 29 and 11 percent by district Sanghar
and Mirpurkhas respectively. Table 2.1 provides details of study universe.
Table 2.1: Distribution of Sub-Surface Drainage by LBOD Project Components
Tile
Drains interceptors Scavengers
Tube
wells
CCA
( 000 Acres) Project Component
-- 53 190 273 555 Nawabshah
-- 122 180 617 358 Sanghar
68 75 -- 718 361 Mirpurkhas
68 250 370 1608 1274 Total
Source: NDP-WAPDA 2001
For the study purpose, the research survey design is based on multi-staged sampling, with
clusters pertaining to drainage type and target farmers as the stages. In this regard, total
number of all drains (i.e. deep tube-wells, scavenger wells, interceptor drains and tile drains)
has been stratified by their type in the project component areas, including Nawabshah,
Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas. Using sampling methods based on probability proportion to size,
weighting technique is used to select scientific sample of drainage in each project component.
However, while selecting number of sample drains in each drain type, a careful approach is
applied to ensure that a representative number is included in the sample. For this purpose, the
sample is chosen by using a ratio of approximately 5.00 percent out of total drain types in
LBOD project. LBOD project is estimated to cover1.274 million acres in Nawabshah, Sanghar
and Mirpurkhas Districts in Sindh.
14
The project such as the LBOD that has multiple objectives6 requires a careful planning and
strategies so that maximum dimension of such a huge investment may be captured and related
with intended study objectives. The sample design for this study is multi-staged, with clusters
(i.e., drainage type; and target farmers) as the stages. For the study purpose, number of total
drains has been stratified by the type of drains that is Tube wells, Scavenger, Interceptor and
tile drains in the project area i.e. Nawabshah, Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas. Using sampling theory
of probability proportion to size, weighting technique is used to choose scientific sample of
drainage in each project component. However, while selecting number of sample drains in
each drain type care is taken to ensure that representative numbers have been included in the
sample. For this purpose, the sample is chosen by using a ratio of approximately 5.00 percent
out of total drain types in the project area.
Figure 2.1:
MirpurkhasNawabshah
Sanghar
Mirpurkhas,
N=18, 29%
Nawabshah,
N=27, 42%
Sanghar,
N=18, 29%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sampling framework district wise
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
6 For example, aiming at reducing water logging and salinity, increase in productivity, and improved quality of life of
rural poor
15
Table 2.2: Sampling Frame by Drainage Type and Size
Tube well size
CCA
in
Acres
in 000
Drainage
size Weighting
Samples
by
Weighting
Distribution by
Reach Total
by
Reach
Sample
Farmer
Head Middle Tail By Farm
size
1. Tube wells
Nawabshah 555 273 1.1 3 1 1 1 3 9
Sanghar 358 617 0.5 3 1 1 1 3 9
Mirpurkhas 361 718 0.4 3 1 1 1 3 9
Proposed
sample
1274 9 3 3 3 9 27
2. Scavengers
Nawabshah 555 190 1.6 3 1 1 1 3 9
Sanghar 358 180 1.7 3 1 1 1 3 9
Proposed
sample
6 2 2 2 6 18
3. Interceptors
Nawabshah 555 53 5.7 3 1 1 1 3 9
Proposed
sample 3 1 1 1 3 9
4. Tile Drain
Mirpurkhas 361 36 8.3 3 1 1 1 3 27
All 1274 36 0.0
Proposed
Sample
3 1 1 1 3 9
Total Proposed
Sample
(1+2+3+4)
21 7 7 7 21 63
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
16
2.6 Sample Size
The above table indicates that a total of 21 drains have been selected for research purposes.
Out of 21-sample drains, 9 drains comprise deep tube wells. Using proportionate size of total
saline tube wells in all three-project components, 3, 3, and 3 tube wells have been drawn from
each of the components of Nawabshah, Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas. Similarly, out of all 370-
scavenger wells in both Nawabshah, and Sanghar, 6 scavenger wells (3 each) from Nawabshah
and Sanghar were randomly selected. Regarding, the selection of interceptor drains which are
located only in Nawabshah component, 3 drains have been drawn for rational generalizations.
In addition, 3 tile drains in Mirpurkhas are also chosen using same random procedures. The tile
drains are only located in Mirpurkhas component.
Table 2.3: Size of Land Holding
Nawabshah Component
Farm-size
(acres)
Tube
wells in
Nos.
Scavenger
in Nos.
Interceptors
in Nos.
Tile Drain
in Nos.
All in
Nos.
Small (1-12) 3 3 3 - 9
Medium (13-50) 3 3 3 - 9
Large >50 3 3 3 - 9
All 9 9 9 - 27
Sanghar Component
Small (1-12) 3 3 - - 6
Medium (13-50) 3 3 - - 6
Large> 50 3 3 - - 6
All 9 9 - - 18
Mirpurkhas Component
Small (1-12) 3 - - 3 6
Medium (13-50) 3 - - 3 6
Large> 50 3 - - 3 6
All 9 - - 9 18
All Components
Small (1-12) 9 6 3 3 21
Medium (13-50) 9 6 3 3 21
Large> 50 9 6 3 3 21
All 27 18 9 9 63
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
The above table shows the distribution of sample farmers by drainage type in each of the
project components. A total of 63 sample farmers have been selected. This number quite
17
satisfactorily takes into account the varying farm categories. Three farmers- one each from
small, medium, and large categories have been selected in each sample drainage type unit.
2.7 The Details of Study Area
One of study sample district Sanghar is one of the largest districts of Sindh province, Pakistan.
Sanghar located in the centre of Sindh bounded to the east by India. The district capital,
Sanghar, is itself a small city roughly 35 miles (56 km) east-south-east of the city of
Nawabshah and the same distance north of MirpurKhas. Sanghar primary industry is
agriculture. According to the 1998 census of Pakistan, the district had a population of
1,453,028, of which 22.13% were located urban areas. The following cities are located in
Sanghar District: Sanghar, Tando Adam, Jam Nawaz Ali, Shahdadpur, Shahpur Chakar,
Sinjhoro, and Jhol, among others. The town of Sanghar was named after a pious fisherwoman,
Mai Sanghar. For more than a century, it remained a small village with a population of few
hundreds.
After the 1853 invasion by Charles Napier, Sindh was divided into provinces and was assigned
Zamindars, also known as "Wadera", to collect taxes for the British. Sindh was later made part
of British India's Bombay Presidency, and became a separate province in 1935.
The people of the District, specifically the Hurs, played a vital role in independence of
Pakistan.
The Mirpur Khas District one of the three samples had a population of 1,569,030 of which
18.60. After the capture of Sindh by the British, they created Thar and Parkar District in
Southeastern Sindh for administrative purposes. Later, after the creation of Pakistan, some area
on the northern side was detached from the original Tharparkar District and named Sanghar
District. Later, due to political and administrative reasons, the remaining part of Tharparkar
was divided again into three more districts: (1) Mirpurkhas District (with headquarters at
Mirpurkhas), (2) Tharparkar District (with headquarters at Mithi) and (3) Umerkot District.
Mirpurkhas District derives its name from the town of Mirpurkhas, founded by Mir Ali Murad
Talpur in 1806.
18
Nawabshah District7 is one of the districts in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. The highest
temperatures each year in Pakistan, typically rising to above 48 °C (118 °F), are usually
recorded in Shaheed Benazeerabad District from May to August. Nawabshah Taluka
Nawabshah was established in 1907, which later on in 1912 was upgraded to "Nawabshah
District". , named after Syed Nawab Shah Son of Syed Nawaz Ali Shah, who migrated from
Sann district Dadu to Nawabshah with his family in 1881. There are two Irrigation Water
Supply Divisions called "Nusrat Division" and "Dad Division" in the district. But later on the
Rulers of that period developed this area to Urban or City area. The families from some other
districts and provinces also came here and started to reside here. The Rulers named these small
developed areas as "Talukas" in Sindh. Shaheed Benazeerabad District is situated at left Bank
of River Indus. The name of the district was changed from Nawabshah District to Shaheed
Benazeerabad District in April 2008 when a resolution was passed by Provincial Assembly
Sindh unanimously to pay the tributes and regards to the Mohtarma Benazeer Bhutto 8who was
assassinated in a suicidal terrorists attack after her address delivered to the general public in
general election campaign 2008.
7 In 2008 the name was changed as Shaheed Benazirabad District
8 Mohtarma Benazeer Bhutto: The first Woman Prime Minister of Pakistan.
19
Table 2.4: Key Indicator Groups and their Quantification
Objectives Indicator Group Quantification of Parameters
Efficiency and
Operations of
Drainage
Physical Water flows; changes in irrigation discharges at secondary
and tertiary levels; effects on Salinity and water logging;
soil fertility and water table depths; Drainage conditions;
Reliable Electricity and other inputs; Technical
manpower for operation of drainage equipment; Condition
of surface drains and disposal channels; Overall status of
the spinal and tidal drains.
Impact on Crop
Production and
farm incomes by
farm size
Agro-Economic Crop yields; Crop production trends; Land and crop use
patterns; cropping and farming intensities; gross and net
crop incomes; agro-based non-farm incomes.
Economic
Benefits -
O&M and Cost
Recovery-
Assessment of
WUAs in the
Target area.
Socio-Economic
(i.e.,
Sustainability;
Equity and
Quality of Life)
Demographic details (i.e., House Hold Economy), Socio-
Economic linkages; Linking project with other
employment opportunities; Sustainability; Distribution of
benefits (i.e. income on and off project intervention) by
land and other criterion; WCAs and DBGs; FO and AWB
role in O&M and cost recovery; Assessment of input-out
costs, operations and maintenance and mechanism of
beneficiary contribution towards operation and
maintenance; Institutional and project sustainability
aspects; Beneficiary contact with other services; Existing
formal and non- formal O & M practices; Approved and
estimated O & M cost rates and ratios.
Source: Survey Data
20
2.8 Validity of Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis I: The irrigation system in Sindh has been performing efficiently.
Outcome: The study reveals that the declining performance of drainage facilities, including
deep wells, scavengers, interceptors, and tile drains, has hampered reliability of irrigation
supplies. Consequently, problems of both water logging and salinity have increased in the
LBOD project component area. Besides, the performance of irrigation is largely dependent
upon the availability of increased irrigation supplies and state of irrigation infra structure. The
study confirms that availability of supplies is poor and the state of infrastructure is also in bad
shape. Thus the hypothesis is rejected (i.e. Alternate Hypothesis).
Hypothesis II: The experience of farmer in irrigation management proves that the farmers
have been able to operate irrigation system on their own.
Outcome: The irrigation system has been looked after by the farmers since past several years.
The system has become inefficient because of inefficiencies at the policy planning and
execution levels. Farmers are still able to derive some output in spite of the problems that have
been thrust on them by the policy makers. There are however problems such as adequate
training for capacity building in terms of looking after financial aspects of agricultural
management of farmers. The hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis III: The LBOD installations in terms of efficiency have significantly increased
productivity, income and quality of life.
Outcome: The LBOD installations in terms of efficiency have significantly tackled the
problems of water logging and salinity. However actual benefit could only accrue in terms of
increase in productivity as change in the quality of life when irrigation supplies are raised. At
the moment the LBOD installations have not brought significant changes in terms of higher
crop yields and crop income. Consequently quality of life is very poor reflecting absolute and
chronic poverty cases. The hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis IV: The policy of involving end users in operation and maintenance of irrigation
system is necessary for higher economic gains in the region.
21
Outcome: Farmer participation is a practical solution for improving the performance of LBOD
installations. However in order to fully ensure estimated benefits an organization such as FOs,
SIDA and WAPDA has to perform in the spirit of the project. The hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis V: The farmers are willing to pay existing irrigation and drainage taxes.
Outcome: The farmers always foresee the short term gains. Presently, willingness is subject to
changes in crop yield. Farmers view that they would only contribute to O&M and cost
recovery when they in real terms gain in crop productivity. The hypothesis is accepted.
2.9 Conclusion
Agriculture in Pakistan is under performing, chapter revealed some of the policy issues that
could be responsible towards improving efficiencies to agriculture. The chapter highlighted
research methodology and tools that researcher used. The chapter highlighted study objectives,
hypothesis and explained methodology for collecting data it also review analytical approaches
and interpretation of primary and secondary data.
Irrigation systems performance is has directly affected the productivity, area under cultivation
and crop incomes. In past 60 years several attempt has been made to improve irrigation system
and to achieve higher gains in agriculture. LBOD is regarding as one of the mega investment
project that will end at lowering water tables through network of horizontal and vertical drains.
The ultimate objective was to enhance productivity for improving quality of life of the project
area. Looking at the scale of this project it was necessary to review project performance,
achievements and bottlenecks.
22
CHAPTER THREE
The Irrigation System
3.1 Introduction
Chapter one explains features of the LBOD Project and following this chapter two was mainly
centered on devising research methodology to validated the accomplishment level of LBOD
Project. This chapter reviews the demographic details of Pakistan-Sindh. This chapter then
moves on Irrigation system management in the country. It briefly reviewed scholarly
experiences in managing irrigation system in Pakistan. The major purpose is to formulate a
holistic picture of irrigation system within which irrigation project which assets examined
evaluated for its failure and benefits.
3.1.1 Overview of the Province of Sindh
Sindh9 has the 2nd highest Human Development Index out of all of Pakistan's provinces at
0.628. The 1998 Census of Pakistan indicated a population of 35 million; the current
population in 2009 is 51,337,129 using a compound growth in the range of 2% to 2.8% since
then. Just under half of the population are urban dwellers, mainly Living in Karachi,
Hyderabad, Sukkur, Mirpurkhas, Nawabshah, Umerkot and Larkana10
. Sindhi11
is the sole
official language of Sindh since the 19th century. According to the 2008 Pakistan Statistical
Year Book, Sindhi-speaking households make up 59.7% of Sindh's population; Urdu-speaking
households make up 21.1%; Punjabi12
7.0%; Pashto13
4.2%; Balochi14
2.1%; Saraiki15
1.0%
and other languages 4.9%. Other languages include, Memoni16
, Kutchi17
(both dialects of
Sindhi), Thari18
, Brahui19
(may also identify themselves as Sindhi) (Development Statistics of
Sindh 2008).
9 Sindh: is one of the four Provinces of Pakistan and historically is home to the Sindhi people.
10 Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur, Mirpurkhas, Nawabshah, Umerkot and Larkana: All of these are Major
Districts in Sindh. 11
Sindhi: Sindhi is the second most common language spoken in Pakistan and is the only regional. 12
Punjabi: The official Language of Punjab. 13
Pashto: The official language of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. 14
Balochi: The official Language of Balochistan. 7Saraiki: is a standardized written language of Pakistan belonging to the Indo Aryan Languages.
16Memoni: the Language of Memon Community who settled in Karachi Sindh.
17Kutchi: Indo-Aryan Language spoken in the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat as well as in Sindh.
18Thari: Thari is one of the Rajasthani Languages of the Indo-Aryan Branch of the Indo-European Language
Family.
23
Figure: 3.1 Population of Sindh
Source: Development Statistics of Sindh 2008
Figure: 3.2 Sindh Demographic Indicators
Source: Development Statistics of Sindh 2008
Sindh's population is mainly Muslim (91.32%), and Sindh is also home to nearly all (93%) of
Pakistan's Hindus, who form 7.5% of the province's population. A large number of Hindus
19
Brahui: is of uncertain origin despite the fact that the bulk of the language shares lexical similarities
to Balochi as well as Sindh.
24
migrated to India during the Partition of India in due mainly due to the influx of Muhajirs20
from India (Population Census Organization Statistics February 2000).
Figure 3.3 Map of Sindh
Source: NDP
20
People migrated from India to Pakistan after independence from British in1947.
25
Figure: 3.4: Sectoral Share in GDP
Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010-2011
Sindh has the 2nd largest economy in Pakistan. Historically, Sindh's contribution to Pakistan's
GDP has been 30% to 32.7%. Its share in the service sector has ranged from 21% to 27.8% and
in the agriculture sector from 21.4% to 27.7%. Manufacturing sector, Share has ranged from
36.7% to 46.5%. Since 1972, Sindh's GDP has increased by 3.6 times (Development Statistics
of Sindh 2008).
3.1.2 Irrigation System
Pakistan‘s irrigation system is the largest irrigation system in the world. Agriculture comprises
more than 1/5th
(20.9%) of Pakistan‘s GDP, about 2/3th of employment and an equal amount
of exports. The country‘s socio-economic welfare depends on this water system in spite of the
meager rainfall of about 240 millimeter. The province of Sindh is at the Southern end of
Pakistan, the third largest in terms of area (140935 square kilometer) and the second largest in
terms of population (40 million); and is at. The tail-of the Pakistan irrigated agriculture system
throughout Sindh. The irrigation system in Pakistan contributes more than 90 percent of the
country‘s food and fiber production. The entire system is comprised of the river Indus and two
tributaries, the Jhelum and Chenab. The system also consists of three large dams i.e. Mangla,
26
Chashma and Tarbella21
. The total storage capacity is over 18.6 billion cubic meters. The
purpose of constructing such large dams was to regularize seasonal river flow and to use it for
irrigation during winter when river flow is only 19% of that in summer. The irrigation system
also comprises 19 barrages, 43 canal commands and more than 89000 watercourses. Table 3.1
and 3.2 shows total command and irrigated area of three barrages; i.e. Sukkar, Guddu and Kotri
and canal withdrawals in Rabi and Kharif in Sindh.
Table 3.1: Canal Irrigation System in Pakistan by Province
Province
Canal
Capacity
Canal
Length
Wcs
GCA
CCA
Canal Withdrawals
(Billion Cubic-Feet)
Cusecs Kms Nos Million Hectares K R All
Punjab 120360
(47)
36950
(59)
49332
(55)
9.43
(57)
7.19
(54)
1562
(52)
884
(55)
2445
(53)
Sindh 124775
(48)
20700
(33)
35018
(39)
6.10
(37)
5.57
(42)
1313
(44)
657
(41)
1970
(43)
NWFP 5431
(2)
2420
(4)
3357
(4)
0.60
(4)
.29
(2)
82
(3)
60
(4)
142
(3)
Baluchistan 8342
(3)
2660
(4)
1303
(1)
0.40
(2)
.34
(3)
28
(1)
21
(1)
50
(1)
Total 258908 62730 89010 16.53 13.39 2985 1622 4607
Source: Asian Productivity Organization, 1989.
Notes: Length of watercourses is about one million kilometers with annual conveyance
capacity of 8197 billion cubic feet.
( ) = Percent
WCs = Watercourse or the outlet for farmers fields
GCA = Gross Command Area
CCA = Cultivable Command Area
K = Kharif the summer season
R = Rabi the winter season
21
Mangla, Chashma and Tarbella : Dams on North/Upper side of river Indus
27
Table 3.2 Command and Irrigated area of Barrages in Sindh 2000-01 to 2004-05
(In Hectares)
BARRAGES 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
SINDH 133.87 89.97 72.51 66.56 64.14
SUKKUR
BARRAGE 25.04 45.42 42.73 42.73 42.73
Command
Area 13.13 23.93 22.43 22.43 22.43
Irrigated Area 11.91 21.49 20.30 20.30 20.30
GUDDU
BARRAGE 58.18 19.11 21.94 10.97 8.55
Command
Area 29.93 10.08 11.35 5.67 5.49
Irrigated Area 28.25 9.03 10.59 5.30 3.06
KOTRI
BARRAGE 50.65 25.44 7.84 12.86 12.86
Command
Area 25.80 12.96 6.33 6353 6.53
Irrigated Area 24.85 12.48 1.51 6.33 6.33
Source: Chief Engineer Sukkur, Guddu and Kotri Barrage
28
Table 3.3 Canal withdrawals (Rabi and Kharif) in SINDH, 2003-04 to 2005-06
(In Million Acre Feet)
Barrage/Canal
2003-04 2004-06 2005-06
Kharif Rabi
Total
Kharif Rabi
Total
Kharif Rabi Total
2003 2003
-04 2004
2004-
05 2005
2005-
06
SINDH TOTAL 29.3 13.6 42.9 25.3 10.3 35.6 30.9 11.8 42.7
GUDDU BARRAGE 7.2 2.2 9.4 4.7 1.1 5.8 5.5 1.4 6.9
Ghotki Feeder 2.2 1.1 3.3 2.4 0.2 2.6 2.1 1.0 3.1
Begari Feeder 2.6 0.1 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 2.5 0.2 2.7
Desert Part Feeder 2.4 1.0 3.4 1.7 0.8 2.5 0.9 0.2 1.1
SUKKUR
BARRAGE 15.8 8.8 24.6 13.8 7.0 20.8 16.2 8.0 24.2
Nara Canal 4.5 3.0 7.5 1.0 0.6 1.6 5.0 3.0 8.0
Rohri Canal 4.3 3.0 7.3 3.1 0.3 3.4 4.5 2.27 7.2
Khairpur 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.8
FEEDER (WEST)
Khairpur 0.7 0.5 1.2 4.0 2.6 6.6 0.7 0.4 1.1
Feeder (East)
Dadu Canal 1.0 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.5
Rice Canal 3.1 0.2 3.3 3.8 2.2 6.0 3.4 0.3 3.7
North West
Canal 1.7 1.1 2.8 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.9
KOTRI
BARRAGE 6.3 2.6 8.9 6.8 2.2 9.0 9.2 2.4 11.6
K. B. Feeder 1.8 1.1 2.9 1.6 0.9 2.5 1.9 0.9 2.8
Fuleli Canal 2.5 0.6 3.1 0.7 0.4 1.1 4.1 0.5 4.6
Pinyari Canal 1.4 0.4 1.8 2.8 0.5 3.3 2.3 0.4 2.7
Akram
Wah(Lined
Canal)
2.6 2.5 1.1 1.7 0.4 2.1 0.9 0.6 1.5
Source: Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi
29
3.2 Summary of experiences in managing Irrigation System
Ashraf Mohammad (1978) has pointed out in his report entitled ―Pakistan Water and Power
Development Authority‖ that Pakistan rightly claims to own the largest network of irrigation
system in the world. Canal irrigation has been in operation in different provinces for almost
three quarters of a century. The barrages, canals, branches, distributaries, minors, and
watercourses are almost household terms in our rural areas. However, the basic information
within respect to this biggest irrigation system is badly lacking in a concise, consolidated and
methodical form. With the present stress on development oriented research for efficient and
maximum utilization of surface water, the field research workers and the planners require
correct and updated basic data about these different irrigation units.
Amanullah (2004) has investigated in his article entitled ―water Crisis‖ that the water has laid
the foundation of all the known civilizations on our earth. Contrary to the positive role water
plays to bring harmony and prosperity to the nations, the scarcity of water is equally dangerous
and plays a negative role of high intensity. Consequently, the scarcity of water unleashes
hatred among the communities and the individuals as well. Hence this highly sensitive issue
calls for careful handling by all the stake holders.
It is not the government alone to deal with the issue of judicious distribution and use of the
available water resources, it is the responsibility of all social and political forces to contribute
positively in the shape of moral, professional, social and political support for evolving a
consensual mechanism for productive management of water resources in the collective interest
of the people of this country (Pakistan Gulf Economists 2000).
Idris (2002) explains that water is an essential factor that is required for life environment and
echo system. Use of water has many aspects, it is vital for crops as well as industry. In Sindh
the agriculture is dependent on the irrigation supplies as rain fall is very erratic. 77% water
resources is comprised of glaciers that make way through Indus River into the Arabian Sea,
where as remaining supplies comprise rain fall and ground water which is recharged through
seepage and scanty rain.
Bashir (2007) supported the idea floated by Idris that the scanty water has multiple dimensions
which includes supply issues as water is not abundance. The author highlighted two major
factors that add to water scarcity i.e. supply deficiency to meet demand for water and water
30
resources contamination as a result of water logging and salinity. Water resources have
depleted, and pressure on pumping has affected water balance and has reduced the quantity of
water that could be used for agriculture. He argued that initiative on management and policy
level be taken so that further depletion is avoided or controlled.
Kazi (2004) emphasizes that water supplies for urban use have been affected as a result of over
pumping and inadequacies at supply regime. Example of Karachi city could be cited where
estimated 15 Million people live into already has accessibility to drinking water. Over the
years consumption of water has decreased and most of the slum areas already have scanty
water facilities and limited access to clean water.
Asghar (2004) estimated water consumption for human needs as more than 2025 million liter
for people living in Karachi. According to his estimate only 40 percent of total population has
some access over clean water; the remaining 60 percent are living without access to the clean
water. He predicted that in future. This percent are could increase to80 percent; if new supplies
are not added to the system or else future growth in population is not checked and controlled.
Qureshi (2003) reported that by 2025 volumetric increase in present supplies need to be raised
by 50 percent. The justifications were based upon population projection and changes in
expected living standards. It is mentioned that predictions are that population of Pakistan and
the amount of water used in irrigation may double by 2025. Therefore new water resources
must be explored or else pressure on water for crops be reduced. The other challenge would be
that expansion in industry has also implications on water use that need to be controlled by
minimizing the waste of water and mixing of affluent from industry into main channels and
distributaries.
Lashari (1998) suggested that water was necessary for agriculture as well as for industry.
Agriculture sector ensures regular food supply to its human beings, where as industry is major
source of earning. Estimating per day consumption he quoted WHO (World Health
Organization) figures and recommended that use of water for crops, be minimized and savings
be applied for the consumption purposes to urban and rural dwellers.
Chodhry (2003) reported that Pakistan‘s water resources are a limiting factor for economic
growth especially when Pakistan has high population growth rate. The water shortage in future
31
would create an alarming situation for the well being of the people. In addition the water
resources are not properly operated and maintained for example the large scale leakages in the
irrigation system, result in shortage of available water resources. Further large scale dams i.e.
Mangla and Tarbella operate the 30 percent below capacity largely due to sedimentation.
Rahat (2004) emphasaies that public sector expands heavily on operation and maintenance of
the irrigation system, yet it is fails to operate in an efficient manner. Most of the canal system
in Pakistan runs below their capacity due to sedimentation. The irrigation system due to supply
limitations adopts Warahbandi22
system which also has substantial drawback in ensuring
equitable supply of water to end users. The top Enders on the system under Warabandi have
leverage in exploiting and restricting supplies to tail Enders. According to his estimates 35 to
40 percent of water received by irrigation system is lost in the seepage from channels.
Dahar (2003) mentioned that the entire economy and agriculture growth heavily depends upon
irrigation system. Irrigation system comprises 98 percent of crops produced in Pakistan.
Pakistan in most of the years suffers from drought situation as rainfall is very low and it based
upon monsoon cycle. Monsoon cycle starts from July 15 to September 15. During these three
months there is season where heavy rains are witnessed which causes loss of property and life.
Farah and Meynell (2006) pointed out that Indus river system was life of Pakistan but due to
inadequate maintenance the system is collapsing eventually it may represent a very desert like
situation.
Ahmed (2003) mentioned scarcity of water is common throughout Pakistan. The system in
supplies water to estimated 14 million hectare area through irrigation network. The dams were
constructed for the purpose of providing and storage of water that could be utilized in water
scarcity months during the crop calendar. However these rains are filled with sedimentation
due to inefficient water management at system level and policy of ignorance adopted by the
public sector. The experience of constructing large scale dams and reservoirs for storage of
water has failed to achieve its intended objectives.
There is need to construct small scale dams in most important locations throughout Pakistan.
The water received in rainy season and left over during high supply times from canals could be
stored for optimum use during water scarcity periods. To summarize, the agriculture sector has
22
Warahbandi: Can briefly be described as a proportionate time allocation in Canal Water Supply
32
never been able to make optimum advantage of the available water resources mainly due to
inefficient water management at systems level. Pakistan has to adopt a strategy of conserving
available irrigation supplies; one way could be the crop per drop policy. The water resources
development agenda should include the effectiveness of irrigation; and the water needs should
be met by dams and conjunctive use of aquifers. For effectiveness of irrigation, lining of
canals, watercourses, construction of water storage at farm level and research, development,
and joint venture in sprinkler, drip, trickle, micro-spray, center pivot irrigation and hydroponics
green house production is necessary.
3.3 Irrigation System in Sindh
The old Sindhi system was to use the natural river channels thus formed dig small water-
courses from them, excavate ―Khuhados23
‖ at which Persian wheels worked, and made the
utmost possible use, by means of wheels and wells, of low-lying places where the flood waters
collected. In these low lying hollows, which go by vast variety of names in the Sindhi
language, much cultivation was possible, and even where the circumstances made irrigation
impossible, there were great expanses called ―Chhans24
‖ where grass and jungle scrub grew
luxuriantly, nourishing the vast numbers of camels, buffaloes and bullocks which supported a
large population and were the foundation of the milk, curds and ghee business and of the
leather and hide industry described by travelers. In olden days the area under flow irrigation
was incomparably smaller than it is today when canals have been dug on scientific principles
and the levels of a canal, from its head to its tail, have been worked out to fractions of an inch.
Thus rice, which is a ‗flow‘ crop, was confined to areas where flood water could be conducted
without much difficulty of control so as to provide the depth of stagnant water that this crop
required. These areas where chiefly in the Larkana 25
district of Upper Sind, called
Chandookah 26
in the old records, and in the low-lying land nearer to the delta in Lower Sindh
on what is now the lower alluvial tract of the Hyderabad and Thatta districts.
23
Khuhados: Big ditches. 24
Chhans :Local term for water collection seeped from river 25
Larkana: Big City and district Head Quarter in Sindh and old historical name is Chandookah. 26
Chandookah: old historical name of Larkana.
33
3.4 History of the Canal Irrigation System
Since the surface irrigation system from the Indus and its tributaries is the life line of
agriculture in Pakistan, an excursion into the history of its development seems appropriate.
Water from the Indus and its tributaries has played a key role in building the ancient and
modern civilizations in this part of the world. There is archaeological evidence that surface
irrigation has been practiced, particularly in the lower Indus basin, from about 3,000 BCE. For
centuries, the narrow strips along the riverbanks were irrigated. With time, irrigation was
extended by breaching the banks or the natural levies of rivers, during the high water periods,
to bring water to the low-lying fields. The irrigation system which exists today, is regarded as
the largest single integrated river basin system is the world and was started by the British
colonial administration in the second half of the 1800s.
The first barrage on the Indus was started at Sukkur in 1923 and commissioned for irrigation in
1932. In 1921 the Sultej27
valley project was sanctioned for the development of areas in
Bikaner (now in India) and Bahawalpur states in Punjab. The project on completion in 1933
consisted of four weirs on the Sutlej River at Firozpur28
, Sulekmanki, Islam, and Panjand29
and
eleven canals. The Trimmu30
Barrage-located below the junction of the Jhelum and Chenab-
was completed in 1939 just before the Second World War began. At the time of independence
in 1947, the Kalabagh (Jinnah) Barrage, Kotri Barrage on the Indus and Bhakra31
Dam on the
Sutlej in India were under Construction.
The Kalabagh Barrage, Kotri barrage and Guddu 32
barrage were completed in the Indus in
1947, 1955, and 1962, respectively. In addition, the lower Sindh inundation canals were
converted into weir-controlled canals to command 809,400 ha of cultivable command area and
to serve additional 1.13 m ha of cultivable command area with the construction of the Kotri
barrage. With the construction of Guddu barrage at the head of the upper Sindh inundation
canals, they were converted into a perennial canal system to irrigate 1.13 million ha of land.
27
Sultej: A name of River. 28
Firozpur, Sulekmanki: Name of Barrages of the River Sultej. 29
Panjand: A name of River. 30
Trimmu: A name of barrage on river Chenab. 31
Bhakra: Bhakra dam is a concrete gravity dam across the Sutlej River, and is near the border between Punjab
and Himachal Pradesh 32
Kotri(Ghulam Muhammad), Guddu, Kalabagh(Jinnah): Name of the Barrages of the River Indus from
North to South
34
The Taunsa33
barrage (1953-58) on the Indus provides weir-controlled water supply to Cultural
able command area of 688,000 ha. It is a multipurpose barrage and also provides bridges for
roads and railways and regulates the water for the Taunsa-panjand link canals. The
replacement works (Indus Basin Project) were redefined in 1964 and consisted of link dams,
barrages, and canals. One earth-fill Dam (Mangla Dam) on the Jhelum River too store water
for irrigation and electricity.
In addition to the new works, the Indus irrigation system, as part of the Indus basin project,
were the Tarbela Dam-a reservoir to store water for irrigation and electricity and the Chasma
barrage. The irrigation system until the construction of Tarbela dam was based on unregulated
flow of Indus water and its tributaries. Seasonal variation in the river flow and absence of the
storage reservoirs to conserve surplus water during the high river discharge limited the supply
of irrigation in winter for crop production. The World Bank approved the construction of
Tarbela Dam in 1965; its construction started in 1968 and was completed in July 1974.
However, the reservoir had to be depleted because of serious problems in all four of the
tunnels. The problem was rectified three years time and the water started to flow in summer
1978. The Chasma barrage was constructed to divert the water released from Terbela into
Jhelum 34
through the Chasma-Jhelum. It was completed in 1971. Two additional developments
took place on the Indus in Chasma: the Chashma Right-Bank canal was added in the 1990s and
the Chashma Dam started to produce electricity in 2001.
3.5 Wastage of Water in the Irrigation System
Pakistan has the largest contiguous irrigation system in the world. It is estimated that 40 to 50
per cent of water is lost between the canal head works to the farm gate. Lining of Canals is
considered a good solution to this problem. But lining of canals in Sindh is a great issue as
canals will need to be closed long enough to deprive the farmers of at least one crop and the
farmers are not willing to pay this price for Canal Lining. The irrigation application rates
within the farms are also high because of reliance on the conventional flood irrigation. With
the passage of time, water as a commodity is becoming more and more precious. Above all it is
a finite source. This high percentage of wastage, therefore, cannot be afforded for long.
Wastage of water through poor infrastructure or poor water management constitutes a major
33
Taunsa: A name of Barrage on River Indus 34
Jhelum: A name of River.
35
issue related to the water resources of Pakistan. Another aspect of this issue is the productivity
of the farms against per cusec of irrigation water. Pakistan has a much lower rate of
production. The irrigation efficiency, therefore, needs to be enhanced.
3.6 Phases of Irrigation Development
Pakistan‘s agricultural land is irrigated through water which is supplied by systems of canals.
The climate of Pakistan is semi-arid to arid and irrigation is considered essential to maintain
levels of adequate agricultural production. Pakistan has a cultivated area of around
approximately 16.58 million hectares, of which some 15.73 million hectares are irrigated.
Almost 1.5 million hectares are irrigated through spate irrigation (FAO, 1997), while most of
the irrigated area is supplied with water through surface canal systems. Indus Basin Irrigation
System (IBIS) is the largest contiguous gravity flow system in the world. The initial
development of the canal irrigation systems took place under the auspices of British colonial
administrators and engineers. The areas in Punjab were the first to be developed for large-scale
canal irrigation. Irrigation in Pakistan is generally based on the concept of protective irrigation,
i.e. irrigation is designed to prevent crop failure by spreading water over a large area and thus
optimizing crop production per unit of water, rather than optimizing crop production per unit
of land.
The system is comprises nineteen barrages, twelve inter-link canals, three large dams and
approximately eighty five small dams. In addition there are forty-five canals covering area and
running through a crosses Pakistan. The vertical irrigation system is also operation where by
0.7 million Tube wells are in operations.
There system comprises of major three sources:
1: about 140 million acre feet (MAF) out of which 105 MAF is diverted for irrigation used.
2: Around 35 to 40 millions acre feet is collected annually through rain fall.
3: 35 to40 percent water is pumped through Ground water and added to IBIS system.
Development of the modern irrigation system began with the opening of Upper Bari Doab
Canal near the Upper Indus Plains which diverted Indus waters to the Ravi River. Since then
36
continuing development added major canals such as, the Sindhnai35
, Lower Jhelum, and Lower
Chenab canals. By early 1900, the controlled irrigation system was extended to a triple canal
project which integrated three rivers- the Jhelum; Chenab; and Ravi with control works at
Mangla (Source: Mundroff at el 1976). Evidence is given in the following Table 3.4
Table 3.4: Chronology of Canals and Associated Headwork Indus River System
River
Headwork’s/ Barrages No. of
Canals Years
Capacity of Canals
(Cubic Feet/second)
Sawat Amandarra & Munda 2 1890-1915 2600
Kabul Warsak Dam 3 1890-1960 950
Jhelum Mangla and Rasul 3 1901-1968 26200
Chenab Marala;Chenab; Khanki;
Qadirabad; and Trimmu 9 1862-1956 87000
Ravi Madhopur; Baloki; and
Sidhnai 7 1859-1968 49900
Sutlej Ferozepur; Sulemanke;
Islam; Mailsi Syphon 8 1922- 1966 35900
Panjnad Panjnad 2 1929 10100
Indus
Kalabagh; Chasma; Tunsa;
Guddu; Sukkur; Ghulam
Mohammed
21 1932- 1970 194500
Source: Mundroff at el 1976.
After the Indus Water Treaty sophisticated series of new inter-river link canals, were constructed in
the 1950‘s and 1960‘s to feed water more effectively to the irrigation canal system that was
developed by the British in the 19th century. The treaty also authorized six barrages to divert river
water to the canals, and it provided for remodeling of some existing structures, after the partition
of the Indian sub-continent Pakistan‘s ability to increase the area for cultivation has
appreciably increased. This required increased availability of irrigation water, achieved by
35
Sindhnai: A name of barrage on river Ravi
37
constructing large capacity storage dams, and a substantial number of barrages combined with
canal networks. This involved both foreign and domestic financial resources.
3.7 Groundwater Development
Hand-pumps to draw water for domestic purposes and water lifted by draft animals for agriculture
have been used in Pakistan for more than 160 years, but the development of groundwater for
agricultural purposes on a large scale is much more recent. The development of groundwater
resources for large scale agricultural purposes first started in the province of Punjab in 1938, when
government introduced some 200 tube wells in Lahore (close to Shalimar Gardens) for irrigation
purposes(Nazir 1962). The next schemes for pumping groundwater were the Rasual36
Project and
the Central Tube well Project, under which about 1500 tube wells were installed in the Rechna37
and Chaj 38
Doabs39
between 1944-1953, with a view to lowering the water table and providing
additional water for irrigation. Groundwater has since been regarded as a potential source to
meet the growing agricultural demand (Economic Survey 1994-1995).
36
Rasual: A name of Barrage on the river Jhelum 37
Rechna: The Rechna may include the area between the Chenab and Ravi rivers. 38
Chaj: Chaj Doab lying between Jhelum and Chenab. 39
Doabs: A Doab is a term used in India and Pakistan for a tongue or tract of Land lying between two confluent
rivers.
38
Area Irrigated by Method
0
20
40
60
80
10059
-60
64
-65
69
-70
74
-75
79
-80
84
-85
89
-90
94
-95
%
Canal
TW
Others
Figure 3.5: Areas Irrigated Method, through Canal, TW and others
Source: Economic Survey, 1994-95
Note: Others include tanks, wells and ponds.
Tube wells were introduced under Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) by
Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), which initially installed 2000 tube
wells under (SCARP I) in the Rechna Doab, Punjab and then 400 tube wells in the command
areas of Chaj Doab, Punjab. In the early 1970‘s, government adopted an official policy of public
tube well development for irrigation/ drainage purposes for all Pakistan. Estimates provided by
(Pakistan Economic Survey 1994-95), show approximately 500,000 tube wells were installed,
including both public and private tube wells. These provided a little over 20 percent of total
irrigation supply at the farm gate, see figure 3.5
The advantages of groundwater resources in Pakistan‘s agricultural development embodied
that groundwater storage required no maintenance, is protected from evaporation losses, and
delivers water when required. The availability of water through different sources; that is
surface water and ground water is given in table 3.5
39
Table 3.5: Overall Water Availability (Million acre Feet)
Year Season
Surface Water Ground Water
Total water
Availability At
Canal
Head
At
Farm
Gate
Public
T.Wells40
Private
T.wells
SCRAO
T.wells
1996-97
Kharif 72.72 51.22 6.47 18.68 0.00 76.37
Rabi 34.80 30.47 6.49 18.72 0.00 55.68
Total 111.12 81.69 12.96 37.40 0.00 132.05
1997-98
Kharif 67.50 51.30 0.96 19.11 0.00 71.37
Rabi 35.64 30.65 0.97 19.16 0.00 50.78
Total 103.14 81.95 1.93 38.27 0.00 122.15
1998-99
Kharif 72.79 51.73 0.96 19.25 5.25 77.19
Rabi 37.91 30.98 0.97 19.38 5.26 56.59
Total 110.70 82.71 1.93 38.63 10.51 133.78
1999-00
Kharif 74.71 51.97 0.96 19.11 4.86 76.90
Rabi 31.99 31.40 0.97 19.16 4.85 56.38
Total 106.70 83.37 1.93 38.27 9.71 133.28
2000-01
Kharif 62.85 52.57 0.96 19.53 4.63 77.69
Rabi 23.32 31.65 0.97 19.62 4.64 57.08
Total 86.17 84.22 1.93 39.35 9.27 134.77
2001-02
Kharif 58.11 52.62 0.96 19.67 4.32 77.57
Rabi 21.50 31.72 0.97 20.04 4.33 57.06
Total 79.61 84.34 1.93 39.71 8.65 134.63
40
T.Wells: Tube wells
40
2002-03
Kharif 68.19 52.68 0.96 19.81 4.00 77.45
Rabi 28.22 31.78 0.97 20.27 4.01 57.03
Total 96.41 84.46 1.93 40.08 8.01 134.48
2003-04
Kharif 69.59 52.86 0.96 19.81 4.00 77.63
Rabi 33.56 31.90 0.97 20.27 4.01 57.16
Total 103.15 84.76 1.93 40.08 8.01 134.78
2004-05
Kharif 61.39 59.96 0.96 19.81 4.00 84.73
Rabi 24.53 25.70 0.97 2027 4.01 5095
Total 85.92 85.66 1.93 40.08 8.01 135.68
2005-06
Kharif 73.02 60.94 0.96 19.70 4.00 85.60
Rabi 31.51 26.12 0.97 20.28 4.01 51.38
Total 104.53 87.06 1.93 39.98 8.01 136.98
Source: Water Resource Section, Planning and Development Division 2006
41
Figure 3.6: Cropped Area/Water Availability
Cropped Area/ Water Availability
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1960-61 1965-66 1970-71 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1994-95 2000-
2001
2005-
2006
Total Cropped Area Million Hectares Million Acre Feet MAF
Note: Area is indicated in Million Hectares, Water is indicated in Million Acre Feet (MAF)
Source: Government of Pakistan (2005-06) Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, Ministry of
Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Economic Wing, Islamabad.pp.178-79
In order to sustain a five percent growth rate in agricultural GDP from year 2000, the growth
rate of water supplies availability had to increase by at least 1.6% per annum to achieve an
annual supply of approximately 137.38 MAF of water diverted for agriculture in 2005-06( see
figure 3.6). The current availability of water supplies, i.e. 105 MAF per annum inclusive of
losses, would therefore not be enough to sustain a five percent growth rate in the future. An
increase of 20 MAF in annual water supply would be needed to balance the growing food
demand of the population. However, adding to this, need for additional water to control the
siltation of the existing reservoirs at Tarbella, Mangla, and Chasma, the need for additional
supply may well exceed 20 MAF Even though the total availability in the river system is
estimated at 137 MAF, it will require large investments to generate the additional water for
agricultural purposes.
Similarly, the Seventh Five Year Plan 1988-93, suggested that there was an absolute limit to the
amount of water available in the Indus Basin. The mean value, over 64 years, of water
42
availability at the rim stations i.e. entering the Indus basin within Pakistan was 137 MAF. PNCS
1992 reported that annual inflow over the last 64 years was as high as 186.8 MAF and as low as
100.3 MAF but in the long-run, only 135 MAF can be made available for irrigation each year.
They reported that the construction of additional storage dams could not increase the amount
available, but would only reduce the fluctuation between the Kharif and Rabi seasons.
It is thus argued that Pakistan‘s water resources are not only finite but exhaustible.
Development of additional potential will improve water availability but in the short run only,
and with substantial costs. However, demand on the other hand will be at a faster rate due to
growing population. The gap between demand and supply will be widening at an increasing
pace in future. Besides agriculture, the water is also required for other uses. Estimates given by
Malik 1986, suggest that the adequacy of supply to meet the requirement in terms of per capita
water availability will drop from the present 1160 m3/ year to 980 m
3/ year by the year 2000.
He argued that depending upon the level of development of additional water resources, the
man: water ratio will further drop to 780 m3/ year, by the year 2010 and continue to fall sharply
thereafter, primarily due to rapid population growth.
IPD 1993 mentioned that the management of irrigation systems requires consideration, of the
various resources: water, land and people. Both land and people are far in excess of available
water resources; therefore there is a need to improve the efficiency of use of available water
resources to meet the growing demands of agriculture in future.
43
Figure 3.7 Distributions of Water Losses in Pakistan
Distribution of Water Losses in Pakistan
0
20
40
60
80
Canal-WC* WC*-Fields Application All
%
River
Ground
Water
Rain
Source: PNCS, 1992
Note: * = Watercourse
It is evident from the above Figure 3.7 that the WAPDA in 1990, and PNCS 1992, suggested that
only 30% of total diversion to canals is received for crop use, the rest is being lost at various
stages. According to their estimates, approximately 105 MAF of water are diverted at the canal
head, of which only 43 MAF are delivered to the farm gate. One-quarter of the total water
diverted between the canal head and the watercourse head is lost. Another 34% disappears within
the watercourses themselves. A further 11.5% is lost within the farmers‘ fields through
inefficient on-farm application (see figure 3.7). Thus only about 30% of the total diverted water
supply actually reaches the crops. A significant proportion of canal, watercourse, and farm field
water losses serve to recharge groundwater resources. Some 41 MAF of 40 % groundwater is
pumped up each year, as 28.5% and these 70% in total reaches the crops. The availability of
flood water is limited to a period of about two months, or less in drier years, and the variation in
the timing of the monsoon and rainfall means that the high flow in the rivers does not occur at
the same time each year. The high flow in the Indus River is controlled by the Tarbella Dam
which does not allow water in excess of the downstream irrigation requirements to be released
until the Tarbella has been filled. This further complicates any pre-season prediction of the
availability of flood water especially in Sindh which is situated at the ―tail‖ of the River Indus.
44
Mohammed 1965 reported that the discharge of Pakistan‘s rivers generally begins to increase in
April, culminating in high peaks in July and August, after which the flow abruptly decreases,
reaching a low but fairly constant level from October to March. About 84 percent of the annual
river flow occurs during the six summer (Kharif) months and only 16 percent during the six Rabi
months. Nearly 44% of the flow occurs during July and August. The river system in Pakistan is
thus suited to a higher Kharif cropping intensity and low Rabi intensity. The British engineers,
who designed the Pakistan canal system, fixed the capacity of most canals to provide for a
cropping intensity of about 25 to 30% in Kharif and 50 to 55% in Rabi. In this way most canals
could be fed more or less evenly throughout the year. In order to make use of the extra summer
river water supply, additional non-perennial canals were designed to convey water to some areas
during the Kharif season only. See figure 3.8 Indus Basin, Surface and Groundwater availability
45
Figure 3.8: Indus Basin, Surface and Groundwater Availability
CANAL WATER
Source: PNCS, 2002
Source: Survey Data 2005-06
Total Available for crop use 29 MAF
Diversion of Canals 105 MAF
Conveyance Losses in Canal Supplies 27 MAF
Conveyance Losses
35 MAF
At Field Nukkas 43 MAF
Annual Flow Available in Rivers
30 MAF Flow to Sea
Watercourse Head 78 MAF
Head of Watercourse SCARP tubewells 9 MAF
Non-SCARP Resource 35 MAF
At Field Nukkas 13 MAF
Conveyance Losses at Watercourse 3 MAF
At Field Nukkas 41 MAF
Field Application
Losses
29 MAF
Water available for
crops 31 MAF
Water available
for crop use
12 MAF
Field Losses
9 MAF
Water available 4
MAF
Field Losses
12 MAF
46
Table 3.6 Irrigated Areas by Source of Irrigation (Million Hectares)
Period
Average Canals
Tube
Wells
Canals &
Tube wells Wells Others
Total
Area
Pakistan
1950-53 7.58 - - 1.03 0.62 9.23
1960-63 8.86 0.32 - 0.89 0.65 10.72
1970-73 9.51 2.20 - 0.62 0.67 13.00
1980-83 8.16 1.93 4.22 0.29 0.61 15.21
1990-93 7.88 2.61 6.01 0.25 0.22 16.97
2000-03 6.95 3.34 7.22 0.33 0.18 18.02
Source: Economic Survey 2004-2005
3.8 Conclusion
Chapter reviewed Population trends in Pakistan and explains that in future. Irrigation system
must be operating at its economic optimum to feed the increasing population and also to
contribute to the GDP. The experiences in this regard show that irrigation system in Pakistan is
underperforming.
The World Bank, 1994, reported that since the early 1980‘s irrigated area has hardly expanded,
mainly due to inefficiencies in water use. Despite the increase of approximately 42% in the
availability of water from 1971-76 to 1981-86, water use efficiency has not been increasing
satisfactorily. This is largely explained by the problems such as surface water losses at various
stages of distribution. On the other hand, availability of improved crop varieties has improved
and increased use of fertilizer per unit of water available at the farm gate. The past increase in
agricultural output was largely due to the expansion of area as a result of more liberal availability
of irrigation. However, in future further growth cannot rely only on increased irrigation supplies.
The irrigation resource base is depleting, management of water resources is poor, and damage to
soil is considerable. The land available for cropping is being reduced by water logging and
salinity, resulting from drainage problems associated with the expansion of irrigation.
47
CHAPTER FOUR
Agricultural Performance
4.1 Introduction
It is mentioned that poor performance significantly has a negative impact overly agricultural
productivity in Pakistan. The preceding chapter reviewed cause of under performance of
irrigation system in Pakistan-Sindh. This chapter elaborates policy framework spread over last
five decades and its implications on the progress of agricultural. The growth in agriculture is
important on account of increasing population pressure to grow more food and earn livelihood.
This chapter at first instance relates to increasing population pressure with need to grow more.
Secondly, it reviews major areas such as; agriculture inputs and comparison of crop yields with
neighboring economies with the focus on improved efficiencies on per acre yields as some of
the regional economies record higher yields as compared to that of Pakistan. The policy
framework over past decades has been ineffective which could be related with significantly
decreasing contributions to GDP.
4.2 Performance of Agriculture- Part One
Agriculture is the largest single sector of the economy. Only agriculture sector contributes 20.9
percent of the GDP41
. Agriculture employs 46 percent of country‘s workforce and agriculture
is also a major source of foreign exchange earnings. In Pakistan Approximately 68 percent of
the population lives in rural area and they heavily depend on agriculture sector as this sector
provides them a source of food and cash earnings. In 1990s the average annual growth rate of
agriculture was 4.5 percent and during this period the highest growth rate of 11.7 percent was
achieved in 1995-9642
(Pakistan Economic Survey 1995-1996 Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs
Division, Government Of Pakistan Islamabad).
The Agriculture sector touched its lowest negative growth rates in 1992-93 are 5.3percent. The
Wheat, Cotton, Rice, Sugarcane and maize all Major crops account for 41 percent of value
added and Minor crops 10 percent in overall agriculture. In agriculture sector the Livestock has
emerged as an important sub-sector. It accounts for 37.5percent of agriculture value added and
contributes 9.4 percent of the GDP of Pakistan (Pakistan Economic Survey 1995-1996 Ministry of
Finance Economic Affairs Division, Government Of Pakistan Islamabad).
41
The resources are earned domestically by all sectors of economy. 42
Mainly due to increase in cotton, grams, milk and meat production
48
Fisheries are also important sub sector of Agriculture play an important role in national income
through export earnings43
. In the year (2000-01 and 2001-02) due to draught Pakistan‘s
agriculture shows negative growth rates. However the modest recovery in (2002-03 and 2004-
05) the agricultures contribution recovered from satisfactory to very satisfactory recovery. For
example agriculture showed 7.5 percent increased in Cotton production, Wheat production and
some major crops production.
The Table summarizes policy options with emphasis upon key factors that minimize the
overall performance (i.e. in terms of food security and earnings of foreign exchange). These
factors are largely; land ownership pattern; and accessibility over inputs (such as rural credit)
used for increasing crop productivity. Consequently agriculture performance has been affected
(i.e. historically contribution of agriculture has been fallen down from 1960 – 2008).
Agricultural policy has remained inconsistent for the past six decades (see table 4.1). In the 60
emphasis was upon the need to grow more food, so as to feed the growing population and
generate foreign exchange earnings contribute of agriculture.
43
The sell cash cops by product to different country and earn the foreign exchange.
49
Table: 4.1 Policy Frame Work adopted in past 60 years
S. No Year Key Policy Aspects
1
2
3
4
5
6
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010+
Key Policy shift to centralization Green Revolution
Private to Public shift.
Land reforms ceiling + political riots focus on crop intensity.
Water resources policy of handling system to end user.
Inconsistent with national goals with too much focus on industry at the cost of
Agriculture. Facing competition under the emergence of WTO. Quota restrictions
after 9/11. Slow down of agricultural growth due to both external and internal
environment. Agriculture growth rate falls below 7 percent NDP to uplift irrigation
and agricultural sector.
Concept of NDP and SIDA to uplift irrigation infrastructure for higher gains. Water
vision 2025. Search for new avenues to supplement water resources much needed
for higher agricultural gains. Political uncertainty leading to riots on Roti. Net
agricultural growth especially in the staple food crops fall blow demand.
Agricultural growth rate fall below 4 percent. Electricity crises aggravate further as
technology depended up on electricity. Tube wells pump run at a lesser capacity
effecting.
crop consumption rates and lowers area under crops and yields.
Land tenure; accessibility on informal credit is much geared towards large land
owners; Less than 20 percent of total land owners own more than 60 percent of
land; large scale irregularities in disbursement of agricultural loan. Agricultural
pricing of crops; poor wages leading to labor displacement. Rising rural poverty at
alarming rates of more than 44 percent.
Source: (Mahmood Hassan, 2006) and Pathan, 2009
Last 60 years in Pakistan we see a noticeable increase in production of the major crops in
agriculture sector has been recorded. For example, wheat production rose from 3.3 million
tones in 1950/51 to 18.6 million tones in 1997/98. Similarly, rice production rose from 0.86
million tones in 1950/51 to 4.32 million tones in 1997/1998. There was also a record increase
in cereal production. The production of cotton reached 9.4 million bales during 1996/97.
Sugarcane production reached 5.3 million tons during 1997/98 (Pakistan Economic Survey 1999-
2000 Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs Division, Government Of Pakistan Islamabad).
50
According to Mahmood, 2006, the production in agriculture could have been more to that of
recent increases in production of major crops; had Pakistan adopted more wise approach
towards tackling the and devising agricultural related policy. The track record of policy
framework in Pakistan suggests industrial sector has been given undue favor and the growth in
industrial sector is achieved at the cost of agriculture.
It is mentioned that the input prices used for industrial production has remained low to that of
input used for agriculture production. In addition to that agriculture requires sound policy
reforms including better support prices and soil preparations, timely by availability of
fertilizers and land reforms in its two senses. Further, livestock has emerged as one of the most
dynamic sub-sector of agriculture, it contributes more than one- third of agriculture GDP but it
is ignored in terms of policy and public implementation dimensions. It is mentioned that per
liter yields of cow and a buffalo has remained low to that of yields elsewhere in the world
specifically even India. Lack of scientific and sound methods; inadequate rearing of animal and
providing them ineffective feeds to achieve enhancement in milk yield been policy from public
point of view (Hassan, 2006).
4.3 Agriculture Growth Rate
Table 4.1 and figure 4.1 shows agricultural growth rate; Agriculture production in relation to
growth rate in population and major crops grown. One can easily ascertain that since 1960 -
2007 growth in agriculture has been inconsistent and has never gone beyond 7 percent (see
tables 4.1 and fig 4.1).
51
Figure: 4.1: Growth of Agricultural Production and Population 1970-06
Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007
Table 4.2: Production of Major Crops
Year Cotton
Sugarcane Rice Maize Wheat (000 Bales)
2003-04 10048 53419 4848 1897 19500
2004-05 14265 47244 5025 2797 21612
2005-06 13019 44666 5547 3110 21277
2006-07 12856 54742 5438 3088 23295
2007-08(P) 11655 63920 5563 3313 21749
(-9.3) (-9.3) -2.3 -7.3 (-6.6)
Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007
4.4 Land Utilization and Crop Yields
The cropping intensity has increased from 87.21 in 2001 to 101.13 in 2005-06, see Table 4.3.
This is encouraging however literature in this regards suggested that crop yield per acre of
major staple and cash crops has remained significantly low to that of many neighboring
countries like India, China and Bangladesh.
52
Table 4.3: Land Utilization Statistics of Pakistan 2000-20006 (Million Hectares)
Year Cultivated Current Net area Area sown
more than
Once
Total
Cropped Cropping
Area Fallow Sown Area Intensity
2000-01 19.24 4.7 14.54 2.24 16.78 87.21
2001-02 19.82 4.77 15.06 2.96 18.02 91
2002-03 20.23 4.62 15.61 3.31 19.22 95.01
2003-04 20.61 5 15.61 4.31 19.92 97.01
2004-05 21 4.98 16.1 5.2 21.3 101.04
2005-06 21.11 4.96 16.14 5.21 21.35 101.13
Source: Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, 2006-07
4.4.1 Agricultural Credit
Pakistan agriculture is largely suffered from the lack of liquidity which is must for the sectors
growth and overall prosperity of the region. After 1960‘s at the beginning of Green Revolution
area the credit to agriculture sector by formal institutions was realized. 1972 State Bank of
Pakistan introduced loan Scheme (Taccavi loans) 44
foe agriculture purposes. This scheme with
some gain much appreciation with some criticism however due to institutional failures, racism
behavior, and public response the scheme is widely criticized on account of too much focused
on large farm holders. The scheme introduced pass-book system to expedite the approval of
institutional credit against land mortgage. Under this scheme rules, 70 percent of institutional
loans must be advanced to farms of less than 12.5 acres, 20 percent to farms between 12.5
acres and 50 acres, and 10 percent to farms larger than 50 acres.
44
Taccavi loans: Advance loans to the villagers for rehabilitation
53
Table 4.4: Supply of Agricultural Credit by Institutions (Rs. In Million)
Year ZTBL45
Commercia
l Banks PPCBL
46
Domestic
Private
Banks
Total
Rs. Million Percentage
change
2003-04 29933.07 33247.45 7563.54 2701.8 73445.9 24.6
2004-05 37408.84 51309.78 7607.47 12406.82 108733 48
2005-06 47594.14 67967.4 5889.49 16023.38 137474 26.4
2006-07 56473.05 80393.19 7988.06 23976.16 168830 22.8
2006-07 (July-
March) 40881.42 48962.19 5269.57 16081.99 111195 -
2007-08 (July-
March) 39561.17 65124.83 3935.16 29975.57 138597 24.6
Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007
In 2008 total agricultural credit supplied by institutions has increased to rupees 138.6 billion
against rupees 73.4 billion in 2002 ( see table 4.4) but as percentage change it has almost
remain same with the exception of the 2004-2005 where it increased to 48percent. This
increasing was due to government encouraging policy of lending to the farmers in the
agricultural sector.
45
ZTBL: Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited 46
PPCBL: Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited
54
4.5 Yields of Major Crops - Sugarcane Production
Sugarcane is a major cash crop in Pakistan. Sugarcane is the main source of generating income
and employment for the farming community. Sugarcane share its value added in agriculture
and GDP are 4.5 percent and 0.9 percent respectively. Pakistan ranked fifth largest producer of
Sugarcane in 2007-2008. However per acre yield has remained low compared to neighboring
countries such as India. For example per hectare yield in kilograms was 51,507 in 2008 in
Pakistan compared to 68 thousands in India for the same years. .
Table 4.5: Sugarcane Production of Selected Countries
Country Production (in million tons)
Thailand 64,365,682
Pakistan 54,752,000
Mexico 50,680,000
Colombia 40,000,000
Australia 36,000,000
United States of America 27,750,000
Philippines 25,300,000
World 1,557,664,978
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics 2008.
It is reported that the yield differences between Pakistan and India are largely because of
differences in policies, seed varieties, applying pest control mechanism. In Pakistan water
scarcity is a major issue, due to irrigation system under performance. In addition to that power
supply to agriculture, poor crop practices and inadequate lending to farmer sector are the key
issues. The production has remained very low due to the fact that most of sugar mills operate
below designed capacity, chief reason being a control over price of sugar through supply
restrictions.
55
Table 4.6: Area, Production and Yield of Sugarcane Area- Million Hectares Yield-
Kg / Hectare Production- Million Tones
Year Area Production Yield
Pakistan India Pakistan
2000-01 0.96 4.32 43.61
2001-02 1 4.41 48.04
2002-03 1.1 4.52 52.06
2003-04 1.07 3.93 53.42
2004-05 0.97 3.66 47.24
2005-06 0.91 4.2 44.67
2006-07 1.03 4.83 54.74
2007-08 1.24 5.04 63.92
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics.
4.5.1 Wheat Production
Wheat is the most popular crop in terms of its consumption all over the world. It covers
approximately 18 percent of total arable land in the world. China and India are considered as
the top producing countries in the world. Pakistan is placed at number eight in terms of
production.
56
Table 4.7 Top Ten Wheat Producers
Country Production (metric
tons) Yield Kg (hec)
China 91.33 4202
India 72.06 2639
USA 52.881 2898
Russian Federation 42.2 1900
Canada 24.462 2469
Australia 22.500 1844
Turkey 21.000 2234
Pakistan 19.670 2418
Argentina 14.800 2114
Kazakhstan 9.600 9143
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics.
Wheat is considered as major staple food crop in Pakistan, it is cultivated across the country
from hilly tracks of Gilgit Balistan 47
to flat lands in Badin and Thatta. Wheat contributes more
than 12.7 percent 2.6 percent to the value added in agriculture and GDP respectively. Table 4.7
confirms that over that over the last period of eight years there has been no increase in area for
wheat crop. It also reveals significant growth in yields i.e. 19.02percent in year 2000-2001 21
percent in year 2007-2008. Insignificant increase in wheat crop area and insignificant yields
could be explained by the:
(i) Delay start of sugar crushing season
(ii) Late harvesting/picking of cotton
(iii)Fluctuating price
47
Gilgit Balistan: formerly known as the Northern Areas. It borders Pakistan‘s Khyber Pukhtunkhwa province to
the west.
57
Table 4.8: Area, Production and Yield of Wheat in Pakistan and India.
Year
Area Production Yield
India Pakistan India
Pakistan India Pakistan
2000-01 8.18 25.73 19.02 69.68 2325 2708
2001-02 8.06 26.34 18.23 72.77 2262 2762
2002-03 8.03 25.2 19.18 65.76 2388 2610
2003-04 8.22 26.6 19.5 72.16 2375 2713
2004-05 8.36 26.38 21.61 68.64 2568 2602
2005-06 8.45 26.48 21.28 69.35 2519 2619
2006-07 8.58 27.99 23.3 75.8 2716 2708
2007-08 8.55 28.15 20.96 78.4 2451 2785
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics.
Unlike situation in Pakistan, there is a marked differences in area cultivated under wheat from
26% in 2000-2001 and 28% in 2007-2008 in India. The chief reason has been India is priority
towards adopting farmer friendly policy. The major attraction for farmer has been policy of
adopting flat rate electricity, encouraging mechanization process use of certified seed along
with necessary inputs including cheap and easily available credit.
4.5.2 Rice Production
Rice is considered as staple and cash crop in the world. Some fifteen countries in the world
produce major quantity of rice in the world; these include China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan
among others. Thailand occupies one of top five positions among the rice exporting countries
in the world followed by Vietnam, United States, Pakistan and India. Philippine is the biggest
rice buyer in international market and imports about 10 percent of its annual needs.
58
Table 4.9: Top Fifteen Rice Producers
Country Production(Million Tones) %
China 182 31.3
India 136.5 23.5
Indonesia 54.4 9.3
Bangladesh 43.7 7.5
Vietnam 35.8 6.1
Thailand 29.3 5.05
Myanmar 25.2 4.3
Philippines 15.3 2.6
Brazil 11.5 1.9
Japan 10.7 1.8
United States 8.8 1.5
Pakistan 8.1 1.3
Korea Republic 6.3 1.08
Cambodia 6.3 1.08
Egypt 6.1 1.05
Total 580 99.36
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics.
Rice is regarded as the second major cash crop in Pakistan after cotton. Rice crop is cultivated
on 11 percent of total cropped area. Pakistan specializes in quantity of coarse rice. Rice
accounts for 6 percent and 1.1 percent of value added in agriculture and GDP respectively.
59
Table 4.10: Area, Production and Yield of Rice Pakistan and India.
Year Area Production Yield
India Pakistan India Pakistan India Pakistan
2000-01 23.77 44.71 48.03 84.98 2021 1901
2001-02 21.14 44.9 38.82 93.34 1836 2079
2002-03 22.25 41.18 44.79 71.82 2013 1744
2003-04 24.61 42.59 48.48 88.53 1970 2077
2004-05 25.19 41.91 50.25 83.13 1995 1984
2005-06 26.21 43.65 55.47 91.79 2116 2102
2006-07 25.81 43.81 54.38 93.35 2107 2131
2007-08 25.15 43.77 55.63 96.43 2211 2203
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Federal Bureau of Statistics.
Table 4.10 depicts that per acre yield of rice grown in Pakistan is less compared crop grown in
many countries in world. This could be due to many factors. The two main reasons for low
productivity are.
(i) The shortage of irrigation supplies
(ii) Continuous draught condition.
Substantial improvement both in yield and in production was observed in the year 2002-03.
After a decrease in yield in the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 there had been an improvement of
6.1 percent growth in yield and 10.4 percent in production in 2005-06. This was achieved due
to main efforts in rice research and development, favorable environment condition, high prices
and better economic returns to farmers. Both production and yield increased in 2007-08 after a
drop in yield and production in 2006-07.
Pakistan was able to raise rice yield of only 190 Kg /hectare from 2000-01 to 2007-08.
Throughout the review period there was no consistency in growth. The low yield was partially
due to several limitations in the adaptation of technology. Farmers were faced with problems
like limited supply of good seeds, unbalanced use of fertilizers, scarcity of irrigation water,
insect diseases and pest infestation, social and economic constraints.
60
Due to lack of aggressive marketing approach and other issues Pakistan was not to able to
compete with India in export of rice. Pakistan export is likely to be effected badly as India has
very recently abolished export duty of $200 per on basmati rice. In order to improve rice yield
the Indian scientists are rigorously testing and doing research in the objection of introducing
new technology suited to their local environmental condition.
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter four highlights agricultural performance of Pakistan. Literature suggests that
agriculture is largest single sector in the economy of Pakistan; Agriculture sector contributes
more than 20 percent to GDP48
. However the growth of agriculture witnessed mixed trends.
There have been various policy frame work to provide boost to agriculture, which included
policy of Green revolution, improved land holding laws and water management at system level
Pakistan‘s population growth rate has been a big issue it has increase at rate of over 3% which
has rated Pakistan as sixth most populous country of world. The yield compared to neighboring
countries has remained low.
48
Gross Domestic Product
61
CHAPTER FIVE
Demographic Details in the Project Area
5.1 Introduction
This chapter highlights population, land utilizations and land ownership pattern in the LBOD
project areas of the sample respondents. It is mentioned that per acre yield of major crops in
Pakistan and in the project area has remained very low when compare to neighboring
economies of world. Factors like, availability of water, scale of mechanization and soil profile
have already been discussed in the previous chapters. This chapter therefore creates a linkage
between absentee farmers in the project area with crop yields and also explains that land
fragmentation has close and significant relationship with crop yields.
The demographic trends in Sindh follow the growth pattern of approximately 3.6 percent per
annum. One of the contributing sources towards rapid increase in the population has been large
influx of migrants in the province. The migration has taken largely due to: a) Rural- Urban
migration; b) International migration; and, c) influx of upcountry migrants. This has been the
key factor that has put greater pressure on resources such as land and other natural recourses.
The survey data indicate that agriculture is the major activity of all sample farmers in the
project area as 76 percent of total sample farmers reported that they were full time engaged
with agriculture and remaining 24 percent mentioned that they were part time involved with
agriculture. The land operations were largely looked after by the Kamdars49
for those farms
who opted to be part time growers.
5.2 Family Structure
It is mentioned that agrarian society is largely comprised of a semi-feudal structure in rural and
of capitalistic characteristics in urban areas. The structure of responsibilities makes the family an
important factor for all social processes in the community. Family is the major source of identity,
support and protection. The LBOD sample areas has Muslims and Non- Muslims being and that
there way of life is not much different in terms of social organisation, because they also live in
joint families, which is common in rural set-up. Tribes and clans are the next for identification,
support and reference. Caste and class boundaries do confuse but not much. In Sindh, caste and
49
Kamdars: A Employ Labour supervisors of Land lord
62
ethnic affiliations are very strong and override familial bondage, but with changing socio-political
structure, family has emerged more binding and useful than one‘s ethnic group.
The joint rural family set-up is preferred over nuclear family. It is believed that this set-up
gives more protection and social support along with political influence in the kinship-oriented
system of agrarian communities. It is argued that for any intended impact of development, it is
essential that the family set-up in the rural areas is clearly understood as it has a greater
influence and control over resource use, decision-making and preference of the family
members.
Table 5.1: Demographic Indicators in Study Area
Indicators Statistics
Urban Population 57.50%
Rural Population 42.50%
Population Growth Rate 2.80%
Gender Ratio (Male per 100 Female) 112.24
Economically Active Population 22.75%
Source: Development Statistics of Sindh 2008
5.3 Population Growth Rate
Pakistan is rated as seventh most populous country in the world. This has created an increasing
pressure on the economy and the resources generated do not match with the demands.
Consequently, this has put an added stress on agriculture to grow more. The real GDP growth
rate in past five to ten years has remained below 3 percent whereas; the population growth rate
has touch around 2.9% in same period. The increasing population growth rate has opened up
several issues pertaining to the development of the economy. For example, it has increased
poverty and the number of people living below poverty line has rapidly increased in past ten
years (Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2008).
Table 5.2 provides the population ranking of the Pakistan in world (Source: United Nations
Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2008). Table 5.3 provides population trends
by urban and rural division in the Pakistan. It is mentioned that from 1981 to 2005 (i.e., in past
four decades) population has witnessed proportionately 47.8 percent increase. The data
63
suggested that the population growth rate has been 2.5 to 3 percent in the last five decades
(Economic Survey 2004-05).
Table: 5.2 Top Populous Countries of the World
Rank Country / Territory Population Percent of world
Population
1 China 1,336,690,000 19.62
2 India 1,178,790,000 17.3
3 United States 308,984,000 4.54
4 Indonesia 231,369,500 3.4
5 Brazil 192,698,000 2.83
6 Pakistan 169,121,000 2.48
7 Bangladesh 162,221,000 2.38
8 Nigeria 154,729,000 2.27
9 Russia 141,927,297 2.08
10 Japan 127,530,000 1.87
11 Mexico 107,550,697 1.58
12 Philippines 92,226,600 1.35
13 Vietnam 85,789,573 1.26
14 Germany 81,882,342 1.2
15 Ethiopia 79,221,000 1.16
16 Egypt 78,055,000 1.15
Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2008.
64
Table: 5.3 Population of Pakistan (In Millions)
Year Population Rural Urban Male Female
1981 85.09 61.01 24.08 44.67 40.42
1991 112.61 77.95 34.66 58.82 53.79
1992 115.54 79.6 35.94 60.31 55.23
1993 118.5 81.45 37.05 61.83 56.67
1994 121.48 93.19 28.29 63.35 58.13
1995 124.49 94.95 29.54 64.86 59.61
1996 127.51 86.69 40.82 66.42 61.09
1997 130.58 88.44 42.12 67.98 62.58
1998 133.46 89.98 43.52 69.45 64.03
1999 136.69 91.91 44.78 71.09 65.6
2000 139.96 93.63 46.13 72.65 67.11
2001 142.86 95.36 47.5 74.23 68.63
2002 146.75 97.06 48.89 75.79 70.17
2003 149.65 99.12 49.91 77.38 71.65
2004 152.53 101.55 52.41 77.6 76.36
2005 160.96 106.23 54.73 82.08 78.88
Source: (GOP 2004-2005 Pakistan Economic Survey-Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs
Division, Government of Pakistan Islamabad.)
The 1970‘s witnessed changes in the political scenario with a political government replacing
the military regime. This gave a way shift to public-private policy. It was conceived that than
efficient way towards economic prosperity would be the option of change of hands in property
rights. Large scale private property was resumed by the public sector.
The purpose was initiating a social revolution by providing property rights to destitute among
the population. The outcome of this policy in its economic terms has been debated and many
believe this was a counter-productive strategy. However, others agreed over mixed result.
Endowed with coastal access, Sindh is a major centre of economic activity in Pakistan and has
a highly diversified economy ranging from heavy industry and finance centered in and around
Karachi to a substantial agricultural base along the River Indus. Manufacturing includes
65
machine products, cement, plastics, and various other goods (Development Statistics of Sindh
2008, Bureau of Statistics Planning and Development Department, Govt of Sindh Karachi).
Figure 5.1: Trends in literacy in the Study Area
Source: Development Statistics of Sindh 2008
Table 5.4 and 5.5 shows that the age of respondents and their resident status. The table 5.5
highlights resident and non-resident status of the sample respondents. Statistically significant
differences could be observed between the resident respondents in all three study components.
66
Table 5.4: Age of Respondent N = 63
District Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Mirpurkhas 30 70 50.72 10.900
Nawabshah 20 70 43.30 12.609
Sanghar 25 80 47.11 13.911
Overall 20 80 46.51 12.730
Survey Data 2005-2006
Table 5.5: Resident Status of Respondent N = 63
Sample Districts
Mirpurkhas (%) Nawabshah (%) Sanghar (%)
Resident 24.4 44.4 31.1
Non-Resident 38.9 38.9 22.2
All 28.6 42.9 28.6
Survey Data 2005-2006
Data demonstrates no statistical difference in mean ownership by all three study components.
The land ownership is also highlighted by farmer‘s land that was owned off- sample water
course. These figures confirm that land ownership patterns are settled throughout the study
area as no significant differences could be seen in the data.
67
5.4 Land Reforms
In January 1959, accepting the recommendations of a special commission on the subject,
government issued new land reform regulations that aimed to boost agricultural output,
promote social justice, and ensure security of tenure.
A ceiling of about 200 hectares of irrigated land and 400 hectares of non irrigated land was
placed on individual ownership; compensation was paid to owners for land surrendered.
Numerous exemptions, including title transfers to family members, limited the impact of the
ceilings. Slightly fewer than 1 million hectares of land were surrendered, of which a little more
than 250,000 hectares were sold to about 50,000 tenants. The land reform regulations made no
serious attempt to break up large estates or to lessen the power or privileges of the landed elite.
However, the measures attempted to provide some security of tenure to tenants, consolidated
existing holdings, and prevented fragmentation of farm plots. An average holding of about five
hectares was considered necessary for a family's subsistence, and a holding of about twenty to
twenty-five hectares was pronounced as a desirable "economic" holding.
Table 5.6: Impact of Land Redistribution in Pakistan- Area in 000 hectares
Total Area Operated
Area
Estimated
Surplus
Acquired
through
Legislation
Percent
Redistributi
on
by Reform
%
(1) (2) (3) (3/1)*100 (5) (5/1)*100
1959 202
06
221
7
771 3.9 252* 1.2
1972 198
54
432 239 1.2 125* 0.6
Source: Mehmood Hasan Khan, 2006.
Note: * = Sold to landless tenants or to tenants who were small owners. An additional
74,700 hectares were sold to others in 1959. In 1972 the area was allocated without cost.
The literature shows that the land reforms was aimed reducing the large land owner on policy
issues. Although the number of agriculture reforms 1960 to1980 have been reduced to sixty
hectares. However the objective of these land reforms especially in achievement level has
always be debated.
68
Table 5.7: Summary Features of Land Reforms in Pakistan: 1959 to 1977
Year Description Key Features and Recommendations
1959 Land and Tenancy
Reform - Martial
Law Regulation
64,64 A and 64 B
Ceiling on holdings: 500 acres irrigated, 1000 acres un-
irrigated; additional land allowed to bring land holding to
the equivalent of 36000 PIUs50
; resumed land to be sold
first to tenants and then to small farmers; abolition of
jagirs51
; occupancy tenants made owners; all tenants
haris52
and tenants-at-will given protection; rents to be
paid in kind and all charges other than crop share
abolished.
1972 Land and Tenancy
Reforms- Martial
Law Regulation 115
and amendments
Ceiling on landholding: 150 acres irrigated, 300 acres un-
irrigated or equivalent 12000 PIUs plus 2000 PIUS for
tractor and tubewell owners; no compensation to
landowner, land distribution without charge to landless
tenants with below subsistence holdings; share system
remains unchanged; land revenue, water rates, and
pesticides to be shared equally; tenant eviction decided by
revenue courts if tenant failed to pay rent, failed to
cultivate land, sublet tenancy, rendered land unfit for
cultivation.
1977 Land Reform Act Landholding: 100 acres irrigated, 200 acres un-irrigated or
8000 PIUs equivalent; compensation to landowners on
resumed land at Rs. 30 per PIU; redistribution as in 1972.
This Act was completely ignored by the government after
July 1977.
Source: Nabi et al 1986.
The most fundamental flaw in legislation was that the ceilings above which land was to be
declared surplus were too high in relation to the inequities of exiting patterns of land
50
Produce Index Unit 51
Large number of land size that was mainly allotted to allies of British rule before the partition of sub-continent
as reward of their services. 52
Haris: In Sindhi language haris means farmers
69
ownership. In addition, exemptions to even these high ceilings provided loopholes. As a result,
the amount of surplus land available for redistribution was too small to secure a meaningful
livelihood per capita for the landless. Table 5.7 presents a summary of features of land reforms
in Pakistan. To sum up, the literature review ( Mehmood Hasan) revealed that land ownership
patterns in Sindh are extremely skewed and favor large farmers. Since the nature of input
markets is imperfect, and the institutions serving agriculture have been biased against the
resource poor (i.e. small farmers), any gains from innovations in agriculture tend to be
unevenly distributed between large and small farmers.
Table 5.8 Land Ownership Patterns in the LBOD Project Area
Gini Coefficient and Lorenz Curve Analysis
Land Ownership Patterns in the LBOD Project Area
Gini Coefficient 0.643644
Concentration Coefficient 0.654195
Sample Size 68
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Table 5.9 Land Distribution in the LBOD Project Area
Concentration 4 - Lorenz Curve
Cumulative % of population Cumulative % Land Distribution in the LBOD Project Area
Expected Observed
21% 0.209677 0.023132
40% 0.403226 0.067834
60% 0.596774 0.133792
81% 0.806452 0.318537
90% 0.903226 0.496718
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Much debated Land ownership patterns in the country are examined through primary data in
the study districts. It is mentioned that data suggest as squeezed distribution of land ownership
patterns in the study area as 20 percent of population own less the 1 percent of the land where
as 80 percent of respondent owned 32 percent of the land. Where as remaining 20 percent
70
owned 49 percent off land. The Lorenz curve is further analysis through Gini Coefficient
suggest the inequity in land ownership. Highlighting 4.64 Gini Coefficient reveals that
inequity/unequal distribution of land prevails in the study area.
Figure 5.2: Lorenz Curve
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
71
Figure 5.3: Concentration Coefficient
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Table 5.10: Size Farm and Cultivated area,
Size of Farm (ha) Cultivated Area (percent)
Under 0.5 92
0.5 to 1.0 92
1.0 to 2.0 91
2.0 to 3.0 91
3.0 to 5.0 90
5.0 to 10.0 86
10.0 to 20.0 79
20.0 to 60.0 70
Above 60.0 54
Source: Census of Agriculture, 2007
Table 5.10 brings out some interesting finding. It reveals that the farms under five hectares up
to 60 hectares, tend to be more efficient in terms of per hectare land utilization than that of
72
farms, above 60 hectares of land. This decreasing in land use efficiency could explain with the
farmers in terms being resident or non-resident absentee. Much of the literature confirmed that
absentees among large farmers has remained very high which affects their efficiency in terms
of per hectare Land utilization.
Table 5.11: Total Land Owned N = 63
District Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Mirpurkhas 4 500 69.72 119.857
Nawabshah 4 360 51.04 84.714
Sanghar 3 130 50.4 35.943
Overall 3 500 57 86.621
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Table 5.12 Multiple Comparisons
Total Least Significant Difference ( LSD) Test
(I) Code
(J)
Code
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Mirpurkha
s
400 27.583 37.634 .468 -48.60 103.77
500 -19.318 38.647 .620 -97.55 58.92
Nawabsha
h
100 -27.583 37.634 .468 -103.77 48.60
500 -46.902 42.153 .273 -132.23 38.43
Sanghar 100 19.318 38.647 .620 -58.92 97.55
400 46.902 42.153 .273 -38.43 132.23
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
73
Table 5.13: Area Owned Off Water Course N = 63
District Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Mirpurkhas 1 1000 56.33 235.521
Nawabshah 1 600 27.26 115.701
Sanghar 1 100 24.3 29.787
Overall 1 1000 35.96 146.026
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Table 5.14: Multiple Comparisons
Total Least Significant Difference ( LSD) Test –OFF Watercourse
(I) Code (J) Code
Mean
Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Mirpurkha
s
400 25.800 257.032 .923 -581.98 633.58
500 -295.000 280.445 .328 -958.15 368.15
Nawabsha
h
100 -25.800 257.032 .923 -633.58 581.98
500 -320.800 224.356 .196 -851.32 209.72
Sanghar 100 295.000 280.445 .328 -368.15 958.15
400 320.800 224.356 .196 -209.72 851.32
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Table 5.15: Distribution of land owned N = 63
Name Of District Distribution Mean Std. Deviation
Mirpurkhas
Inherited Land 59.72 120.487
Rented Land 6.28 22.559
Purchased Land 3.72 11.871
Nawabshah Inherited Land 46.56 86.227
Rented Land 0.07 0.385
Purchased Land 4.41 11.988
Sanghar Inherited Land 19.28 32.181
Rented Land 7.72 18.585
Purchased Land 5.56 13.815
Total Inherited Land 42.52 87.363
Rented Land 4.03 15.702
Purchased Land 4.54 12.318
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
74
Table 5.16: ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Inherited Between Groups 16223.763 2 8111.882 .590 .561
Within Groups 371001.037 27 13740.779
Total 387224.800 29
Rented Between Groups 1211.333 2 605.667 .359 .719
Within Groups 6750.667 4 1687.667
Total 7962.000 6
Purchase Between Groups 733.500 2 366.750 .799 .492
Within Groups 2754.500 6 459.083
Total 3488.000 8
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Land ownership patterns in the study area at table 5.11 and 5.12 highlights that there are no
mean differences in ownership in land pattern throughout the sample villages. There are no
statistical significant differences found by Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test. It is
mentioned that the validity of the data is further confirmed through table 5.13 and 5.14. Data
provided on ownership patterns for Off-Watercourse. This data also represents Mirpurkhas,
Nawabshah and Sanghar districts. Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test validates that
ownership patterns are similar through out study area. Data is also provided on Land
distribution pattern by sample districts and distribution pattern that is Inherited Land, Rented
Land, and Purchased Land respectively. The F Taste shows that there are no significant
differences at 95 percent Confidence Interval.
Table 5.11and 5.13 and 5.15 show area owned on end off water course of the sample
respondents. The researcher observed that the overall changes in the land price have occurred;
this could be due to many reasons one being, the demand of land caused by land becoming a
shrinking commodity. Therefore, changes in price must be taken with caution especially
relating with LBOD benefits could be misleading at this stage. No significant differences at 95
% Confidence Interval were found in the patterns of land inherited, purchased and rented by
study components (i.e., Nawabsbah, Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas).
75
Table 5.17: Land Ownership Patterns in Study Area by Component & Drainage Type:
Area in Mean Acres- Rabi 2005-2006 & Kharif 2006 Seasons N=63
STUDY AREA DRAINAGE TYPE OWNED INHERITED RENTED PURCHASED
NAWABSHAH Tube wells
Mean 72 64 44 79
Minimum 4 4 45 12
Maximum 750 750 45 200
Scavenger Wells
Mean 89 72 48 112
Minimum 3 5 35 3
Maximum 900 400 60 900
Interceptor
Mean 54 54 18 65
Minimum 2 2 4 4
Maximum 450 450 48 165
N 117 92 10 24
Percentages 79 8 21
SANGHAR Tube wells
Mean 110 102 14 131
Minimum 2 3 3 2
Maximum 1200 1200 30 700
Scavenger
Mean 37 24 56 38
Minimum 2 2 3 8
Maximum 125 80 120 125
N 81 51 11 27
Percentages 63 13 33
76
MIRPURKHAS Tube wells
Mean 91 121 17 40
Minimum 3 3 8 8
Maximum 900 900 30 127
N 63 41 8 16
Tile Drain
Mean 75 86 64 35
Minimum 4 6 48 4
Maximum 600 600 75 95
N 27 19 3 6
Percentages 66 12 24
Mean 79 81 30 74
Minimum 2 2 3 2
Maximum 1200 1200 120 900
N 288 203 32 73
Percentages 70 11 25
Source: Survey Data Season Rabi 2005-2006 & Kharif 2006
77
Table 5.18: Land Ownership Patterns in Study Area by Component & Drainage Type:
Area in Mean Acres- Rabi 2005- 2006 & Kharif 2006 Seasons N=63
STUDY AREA DRAINAGE TYPE PURCHASED OWNED INHERITED RENTED
NAWABSHAH Tubewells
Mean 65 55 24 76
Minimum 4 8 2 4
Maximum 400 350 45 400
Scavenger Wells
Mean 73 54 37 100
Minimum 5 4 14 4
Maximum 900 290 60 900
Interceptor
Mean 50 52 17 47
Minimum 2 2 4 4
Maximum 400 400 38 225
N 117 80 10 38
Percentages 79 8 21
SANGHAR Tubewells
Mean 84 52 20 196
Minimum 2 3 4 2
Maximum 1200 600 65 700
Scavenger
Mean 32 32 60 26
Minimum 4 4 60 4
Maximum 100 100 60 60
78
N 81 49 13 21
Percentages 63 13 33
MIRPURKHAS Tube wells
Mean 98 117 19 47
Minimum 3 4 8 3
Maximum 900 900 30 127
Tile Drain
Mean 75 87 64 35
Minimum 4 4 48 4
Maximum 600 600 75 95
N 90 66 6 21
Percentages 66 12 24
Mean 72 69 24 81
Minimum 2 2 2 2
Maximum 1200 900 75 900
N 288 195 29 80
Percentages 70 11 25
Source: Survey Data Season Rabi 2005-2006 & Kharif 2006
Table 5.17, and 5.18, shows land ownership and drainage type i.e. tube wells, scavenger wells
and interceptor drains in the sample area, during Rabi 2005-2006 and kharif 2006.
5.5 Land Use
It is argued that an improved water supply can increase output by facilitating the irrigation of
additional land and permitting increased cropping intensities. It can also support changes in
cropping patterns, especially crops with heavy water demands like rice and sugarcane, or
cropping patterns, which allow farmers to optimize their combinations of crops. The reduced
uncertainty of poor or irregular supply from surface water allows farmers to risk investments in
water intensive and higher value cash crops.
Further, the decision about cultivating a portion of land and type of crops in a given crop
season by the farmer is significantly influenced by the availability of reliable irrigation
79
supplies. Farmer opinion of a strong relationship between land use and irrigation reliability was
also observed in the research area. It was a widely accepted notion in the area that ‘more water
means more land under crops’. Availability and reliability of water supply are clearly key
determinants of land use patterns.
The tables also show land cultivation patterns. The figures are provided in terms of project
component i.e. Nawabshah, Sanghar, Mirpurkhas, and by drainage type for both Kharif 2006
and Rabi 2005-06 seasons. The data indicate that scavenger wells both in Rabi and Kharif are
performing high as compared to all other drainage types. However, the figures are not
statistically significant. The abandoned land also indicates a uniform pattern in both Kharif and
Rabi seasons in all tube well types and components. Overall area under crops is significantly
lower in Mirpurkhas especially under tile drains i.e. 63.8 percent in Kharif and 65.6 percent in
Rabi. The tables also show that area under abandoned land is also on a higher side in tile drain
command areas compared to all other types of drains in same season for the components of
Nawabshah and Sanghar respectively (Table 5.17).
This is an important finding and could easily be related with the availability of reliable
irrigation supplies. Low rainfall and minimal recharge with hot climate in the region has also
attributed in lowering down the water tables along with the operations of tile drains. The
farmers in the tile drainage command areas reported that problems of efficiency of drains is
due to limited irrigation supplies as a result they cannot increase acreage under crops.
Pakistan has one of the largest canal irrigation systems in the world, but seepage from canals
and poor irrigation practices has resulted in widespread problems of water logging and salinity,
which has been adversely affecting the agricultural productivity, land value, farmer‘s income
and their overall quality of life. It is only in the recent past that the extent of damages caused
by these problems was identified. Large-scale drainage was used as a strategy to control
increasing water tables and salinity.
For this purpose, different drainage projects were implemented, including Left Bank Outfall
Drainage (LBOD) project in Sindh, to address the problem of water logging and salinity in the
country. But, poor performance of these projects, mainly due to inadequate operation and
maintenance (O & M) and failure of public institutions in handling the drainage structures,
could not achieve the envisaged objectives (Pathan, 1999 and 2000). There is a need to address
80
the issues through related to the sustainable and viable involvement of farmer organizations
(FOs) for the overall success of LBOD project from both water equity and sustainability
perspectives. Keeping in view the above aspects of participatory irrigation and drainage
management transfer (IDMT) process in Pakistan, this research therefore aims at (1) assessing
potential of farmer participation in managing irrigation and drainage system in the LBOD
project area of Sindh province and (2) examining farmer contribution for operating and
maintaining of the LBOD project drainage facilities as well as their response in cost recovery
in that area. In this regard, the paper also aims at assessing socio-economic overall quality of
life, which on the whole is envisaged to help in achieving self-reliance in agricultural
commodities, providing food security and alleviating poverty in Pakistan.
Table 5.19 Land Cultivation Patterns by Component and Drainage Type (%) N=63
Study Area Land Patterns Kharif 2006 Rabi 2005-2006
Nawabshah
Crops 76 82.5
Fallow 10 4.5
Abandoned 9.9 9.9
Others 3.1 3.1
All 100 100
Sanghar
Crops 70 69.5
Fallow 6.3 6.2
Abandoned 23.7 23.3
Others --- ---
All 100 100
Mirpurkhas
Crops 45.7 47
Fallow 2.8 1.2
Abandoned 51.5 51.8
Others --- ---
All 100 100
Source: Survey Data, 2005-06
The difference is significant at 95% crop intensity i.e. crops by each study area
81
Table 5.20: Cropping Pattern in Kharif 2006 and Rabi 2005-06 Seasons N = 63
Kharif 2006 Season Rabi 2005-06 Season
Crops Area (Acres) Percent Crops Area
(Acres)
Percent
Cotton 305 51 Wheat 317 51
Rice 76 13 Oilseeds 93 15
Sugar 82 14 Sugarcane 82 13
Vegetables 21 3.5 Vegetables 14 2.5
Orchards 53 8.5 Orchards 53 8.5
Fodder 62 10 Fodder 64 10
All 599 100 All 623 100
Source: Survey Data, 2005-06
Table 5.21: ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
R_area Between Groups 43483.724 3 14494.575 5.611 .002
Within Groups 260905.021 47 5551.171
Total 304388.745 50
K_area Between Groups 23589.948 3 7863.316 4.712 .007
Within Groups 215916.758 47 4593.974
Total 239506.706 50
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Cropping Pattern in the season (I.e. Kharif 2006 and Rabi 2005-2006) disputed at table 5-20
and 5-21 in the sample study area. The tables indicate that significantly Rabi area occupies
more crop land to that of Kharif season. The data analyzed further to confirm the validity for
which ANNOVA was applied F value and P value are given suggesting that significance
Mean difference in Rabi crop area that in Kharif crop area at 95 percent confidence interval.
82
Table 5.22: Multiple Comparisons
Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test – Drainage Type and Seasons
Dependent
Variable
(I) Drainage
Type (J) D_Type
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Rabi area 1 2 -57.421* 24.948 .026 -107.61 -7.23
3 -12.717 32.619 .698 -78.34 52.90
4 15.367 35.990 .671 -57.04 87.77
2 1 57.421* 24.948 .026 7.23 107.61
3 44.705 30.761 .153 -17.18 106.59
4 72.788* 34.315 .039 3.75 141.82
3 1 12.717 32.619 .698 -52.90 78.34
2 -44.705 30.761 .153 -106.59 17.18
4 28.083 40.238 .489 -52.86 109.03
4 1 -15.367 35.990 .671 -87.77 57.04
2 -72.788* 34.315 .039 -141.82 -3.75
3 -28.083 40.238 .489 -109.03 52.86
Kharif area 1 2 -41.470* 22.695 .004 -87.13 4.19
3 -9.833 29.673 .742 -69.53 49.86
4 13.833 32.740 .675 -52.03 79.70
2 1 41.470 22.695 .074 -4.19 87.13
3 31.636 27.983 .264 -24.66 87.93
4 55.303 31.217 .083 -7.50 118.10
3 1 9.833 29.673 .742 -49.86 69.53
2 -31.636 27.983 .264 -87.93 24.66
4 23.667 36.605 .521 -49.97 97.31
4 1 -13.833 32.740 .675 -79.70 52.03
2 -55.303 31.217 .083 -118.10 7.50
3 -23.667 36.605 .521 -97.31 49.97
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Drainage Type: 1 = Interceptor Drain, 2= Tube Well, 3=Scavenger and 4= Tile Drain
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
83
The table at 5-22 and shows crop area by season that is Rabi and Kharif and by the drainage
type (i.e. Interceptor, Tube wells, Scavenger and Tile drains). The data suggest that tube well
in both Rabi and Kharif season are significantly efficient that of other types of drain in both
Rabi and Kharif seasons. Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Teste in dipped at 5-22
tables to indicate the drains.
Table 5.20 shows that cotton and wheat are the two main major crops cultivated during the
Kharif and Rabi seasons respectably. The varieties in crops by both Kharif and Rabi Seasons
are not significant at 95% Crop Intensities. Table 5.18 demonstrates that lack of water seems
key problem towards crop cultivation in all types of drainage in the area. There are no
significant variations at 95% CI specially shortage of water. However, one may notice that
respondent‘s uses of tube well water are due to heavy canal water short falls.
84
Table 5.23: Reasons for Land Not Cultivated by Drainage N = 63
Drainage Type Reasons for Land Not Cultivated Percent (%)
Kharif 2006 Season
Tube-wells Lack of Water 76
Salinity and Water logging 10.6
Soil Fertility 10.5
Other (Lack of money/labour) 2.9
All 100
Scavengers Lack of Water 51.1
Salinity and Water logging 25
Soil Fertility 19.5
Other (Lack of money/labour) 4.4
All 100
Interceptors Lack of Water 72.4
Salinity and Water logging 8.85
Soil Fertility 17.7
Other (Lack of money/labour) 1.05
All 100
Tile Drains Lack of Water 63
Salinity and Water logging 22.88
Soil Fertility 13.2
Other (Lack of money/labour) 0.92
All 100
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Table 5-23 and 5-24 explain the land not cultivated by drainage type in both Rabi and Kharif
season. This is vary in testing finding as 76 percent off total sample respondent reported that
lack of water was the major reason for not cultivating/expanding acreage in both Rabi and
Kharif season. These responses are common are under each drainage types. This finding would
be related efficiency of LBOD Project and one the major LBOD Project was enhance
availability of water supplies for agricultural purposes. Contrary to this respondent opinion is
85
symmetrical indicating that there has been no increase availability of irrigation supplies as the
result of LBOD intervention. Similarly majority of the respondent as highlighted above table
reported the menace of water logging and salinity was the other problem the restricted them
enhance acreages for cultivation. This is across the season and type of drainage.
Table 5.24: Reasons for Land Not Cultivated by Drainage N = 63
Drainage Type Reasons %
Rabi 2005-06 Season
Tube-wells Lack of Water 76
Salinity and Water logging 10.7
Soil Fertility 10.5
Other (Lack of money/labour) 2.72
All 100
Scavengers Lack of Water 58.7
Salinity and Water logging 28.6
Soil Fertility 7.67
Other (Lack of money/labour) 5.03
All 100
Interceptors Lack of Water 86
Salinity and Water logging 10.5
Soil Fertility 2.23
Other (Lack of money/labour) 1.27
All 100
Tile Drains Lack of Water 69
Salinity and Water logging 25.1
Soil Fertility 4.89
Other (Lack of money/labour) 1.01
All 100
Source: Survey Data, 2005-06
Table 5.25 shows difference in seasonal and annual cropping intensities by drainage type. Tube
wells tend to perform significantly better in two components Sanghar and Nawabshah, in both
Kharif and Rabi seasons. The tile drains which are located only in Mirpurkhas have the
cropping intensity of 98% in Kharif and 72% in Rabi.
86
Table 5.25: Cropping Intensities by Drainage Type N = 63
Drainage Type Land Cultivation % in Kharif % in Rabi Annual
Nawabshah component
Tube wells Cropping Intensity 63 77 140
Scavengers Cropping Intensity 84 3 87
Interceptor Drains Cropping Intensity 88 21 109
Sanghar component
Tube wells Cropping Intensity 93 93 186
Scavengers Cropping Intensity 60 59 119
Mirpurkhas component
Tube wells Cropping Intensity 28.5 28.6 57.1
Tile Drains Cropping Intensity 98 62 160
Source: Survey Data, 2005-06
87
5.6 Conclusion
Chapter one to four highlighted the present state of irrigation drainage and agricultural in
Pakistan. It was found that agriculture share was reduced to 22 percent to GDP because of poor
performance of irrigation and drainage. The chapter also reviewed methodological details to
examine the performance of LBOD Project. This chapter provides primary data analysis along
with some secondary source information on the parameters, such as demography, Land
ownerships pattern, Cropped Area and Cropping Intensities. There were number of statistical
task perform in this chapter to confirm the validity of Land Ownership, Drainage efficiencies
and etc. The chapter concludes that land ownership pattern are highly skewed and four large
farmers and the Land reforms ire- regulation did not make a serious attempt to break us large
farmers however, land reforms provided some security of tenure to tenants, consolidated
existing holdings, and provided fragmentation of farm plots, the over all picture of the
components revealed same land ownership pattern, with the initial changes of land increasing
due to land sinking because of water-logging and salinity. Farmer‘s opinion in the 3 project
components was that more water means more land under crops. Data also reveals that Cotton
and Wheat are the two major crops cultivated during Kharif and Rabi seasons. The chapter also
concludes that Tube wells tend to perform better efficiently in Sanghar and Nawabshah, when
the annual cropping intensity was higher.
88
CHAPTER SIX
Water logging and Salinity and Depth to Water Tables
in the LBOD Project Area
6.1 Introduction
Chapter one provided cursory look on the performance of agriculture in Pakistan. It was
emphasized that irrigation and agriculture in Pakistan go hand in hand. As more than 90%
agriculture output is dependent on irrigation system in Pakistan. In the past policies have been
revised to enhance the performance of irrigation sector. Chapter four narrates those policy
interventions. LBOD was conceived to be a project geared towards reducing water table
depths, controlling issues of water logging and salinity for increase in agriculture production
along with improvement in quality of life of people, through largely farmer‘s participation.
This chapter analyzed primary and secondary data regarding water logging and salinity along
with depth water tables. The objective is to confirm and validate soil quality after the project
interventions.
6.2 Water logging and Salinity
Water logging has remained major issues especially after the construction of some 17 barrages
on the Indus River. The water logging and salinity is largely caused by salts, flown into the
river system. It is estimated that some 33mg every year into the system. Besides seepage from
river and canals also provide a supplementary source for water logging and salinity.
Lack of proper drainage is another factor that contributes towards water logging and salinity.
In most regions that are under the command of Indus system runs on the basis of horizontal
floor with minimum recharge i.e. (as rainfall is low). Each year salt deposing is added and
depth to water table converts into salty lands which are not suitable for agricultural crop
cultivation.
It is suggested that rising depths to water table leading to increasing water logging and salinity
issues are related with changes in ground water recharge and the absent of drainage. It is must
that in order to maintain water quality, ground water pumping should be kept below the
recharge levels, when exceeded it causes issues such as water logging and salinity. It is
therefore in project that ground water balance should be kept in a priority while pumping
ground water.
89
The installation of interceptor drains, shallow tube wells, Tile Drain is one the option that were
used in Left Bank Outfall Drainage(LBOD) project(for details see the Chapter Five). The
introductory corrective measures; i.e. intercepting water logging and salinity was first
identified in 1960 under LIP (Lower Indus Plan) study.
It was recommended that horizontal flow of river must be controlled through constructing
parallel drainage facilities. At tertiary level that is water course lining was suggested to avoid
water losses and those losses adding to water depth converting these depths into water logging
and salinity issues.
The new sense of Salinization along with Water logging of fertile land has been challenged.
The affects of both Water logging and Salinity are quite subs tensional as farmers with small
holdings, who‘s land has been affected by Water logging and Salinity or been seen on the
receiving end. Water logging and salinity is largely caused by seepage from irrigation outlets
including Water course and primary to territory Canals/Distributaries/Minors. It is also caused
by the in effective Warabandi system which causes water shortages, also it is a prime point
factor towards wastage of water especially Head reaches of the Water course or else Tail
reaches, where land owner happened to be politically and economically influential.
The Water logging and Salinity also caused by Hydonic Fertilitor leaching by salts excess
pumping and inefficient irrigation supplies. Recent figures by WAPDA 2010, suggests that
more than 6 Million hectares of land is directly affected by Water logging and Salinity, this is
little less than half percent of total Agriculture land in Pakistan.53
There has been a sub tensional effort by the public sector is compacting with the issues of
Water logging and Salinity. For example since 1960 mega studies were carried out by the
National and International Organization of Water logging and Salinity. However since then the
initiative has a mix bag of success and failures. Largely implementation delays because of lack
of finances and or lack of commitment. In 1960 project like SCARP were launched just to
lower down Water tables, so that agriculture would the cultivated.
53
Pakistan‘s total agriculture crop land was 22.2 hectares during 2010-2011.
90
The LBOD Project is also one of the major efforts whose objective has discussed in Chapter
three was to reaches crop land which was affected by Water logging and Salinity. It is
mentioned that there have been efforts carried out on Biological fronts as well. These efforts
include use of Gypsum, acids and Organic matters. It is explained that despite of large Scale
public sector initiative the problem of Water logging is growing and alarming levels.
Table 6.1: WAPDA Classification Standards for the Assessment of Soil Salinity
Soil Classification Salinity Range (Ds54
/m) SAR%
Non Saline/Non-Sodic55
(S1) < 4 < 13
Saline Non-Sodic (S2) < 4 > 13
Non Saline-Sodic (S3) > 4 < 13
Saline-Sodic (S4) > 4 > 13
Source: (WAPDA)
The table shows the degree of Salinization is based on the well known WAPDA classification
corresponding to categories S1, S2, S3, and S4. The soil classification parameters are listed in
table 6.1.
The estimated figures by (WAPDA, 2003) suggest that approximately 20 to 30 percent of crop
in terms of fields and area are lost due to that Salinization along with Water logging problems.
Water logging and salinity has been major factors triggering poverty through less of expected
crop incomes and be affecting the quality of life. In the survey area about to 10 to 15 percent
reported that they were moving to urban centers due to loss of crop land caused by Water
logging and Salinity. There are incidence that Ground Water is polluted at extend that it is hot
flexible for crop cultivation or else drinking purposes.
54
Ds: Depth of Soil 55
Sodic: of relating to or containing sodium
91
Table 6.2: Province wise Distribution of Salt Affected Area in Pakistan
Description Punjab Sindh NWFP Baluchistan All Pakistan
Cultivated area (Mha56
) 12,27 5.65 2.11 1.84 21.87
Salt-affected area (Mha) 1,234 3.04 0.11 0.12 4.50
% Area affected 10 54 5 7 21
Source: (WAPDA, 2003)
6.3 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method
6.3.1 Regression Model for Assessing Depth to Water Table at various Ranges.
Regression Model
A regression model is used to seek relationship between LBOD Project with depths to water
tables. The data is collected from WAPDA‘s source.
EQUATION
Y=depth to water table in LBOD component (in Cms57
)
Y=abx1+bx2+bx3+bx4+bx5+bx6…..e
abx1=range1 (0-90)
bx2=range2 (90-150)
bx3=range3 (150-300)
bx4=range4 (350-450)
bx5=range5 (450-600)
bx6=range6 (>600)
e= Disturbance Term
56
Mha: Millions Hectare Acres 57
Cms: Content Management System a collection of procedures used to manage work. The procedures can be
manual or computer based
92
Table 6.3: Depth to Water Table in CMs exploratory Analysis
Range
Cms Component N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95%
Confi
dence
Interv
al
95%
Confiden
ce
Interval Minimum Maximum
Lowe
r
Boun
d
Upper
Bound
Range 1
(0-90)
Nawabshah
11
10.52636
364
19.35090813
5.834518
329
-
2.4737
5334
23.52648
061
0.2
66.14
Sanghar 15 9.418666
667
11.15455504
2.880093
726
3.2414
79982
15.59585
335
0.07
34.14
Mirpurkhas 13 8.731538
462
16.02778465
4.445307
645
-
0.9539
5487
18.41703
179
0.18
60.04
Total 39 9.502051
282
15.03378304
2.407331
923
4.6286
62586
14.37543
998
0.07
66.14
Range2
(90-150)
Nawabshah 15 38.43066
667
34.49131184
8.905618
423
19.330
01483
57.53131
851
0.28
115.1
Sanghar 15 65.57466
667
50.65473506
13.07899
635
37.523
0094
93.62632
393
4.15
124.56
Mirpurkhas 15 45.70866
667
36.66341323
9.466452
59
25.405
14517
66.01218
816
3.65
105.48
Total 45 49.90466
667
41.91949561
6.248989
45
37.310
65596
62.49867
738
0.28
124.56
Range3
(150-300)
Nawabshah 15 137.694
40.45188461
10.44463
169
115.29
2493
160.0955
07
67.3
198.16
Sanghar 15 76.9
42.93287119
11.08521
967
53.124
56841
100.6754
316
13.92
139.78
Mirpurkhas 15 66.89133
333
29.46288994
7.607285
472
50.575
32872
83.20733
795
14.84
119.38
Total 45
93.82844
444
48.83008182
7.279158
82
79.158
26379
108.4986
251
13.92
198.16
Range 4
(350-450)
Nawabshah 15 54.81533
333
41.39800424
10.68891
873
31.889
88273
77.74078
394
2.8
128.49
93
Sanghar 9 31.9
30.60834078
10.20278
026
8.3723
46534
55.42765
347
0.47
85.71
Mirpurkhas 13 31.58307
692
36.85495927
10.22172
657
9.3118
4793
53.85430
592
0.49
96.98
Total 37 41.07864
865
38.20572217
6.280982
034
28.340
22667
53.81707
063
0.47
128.49
Range5
(450-
Nawabshah 12 14.46333
333
14.322639
4.134589
741
5.3631
62671
23.56350
4
0.74
34.02
Sanghar 2 4.06
1.371787156
0.97
-
8.2650
1859
16.38501
859
3.09
5.03
Mirpurkhas 4 13.815
8.614303996
4.307151
998
0.1077
20038
27.52227
996
5.63
25.97
Total 18 13.16333
333
12.52935001
2.953196
12
6.9326
34156
19.39403
251
0.74
34.02
Range6
(>600)
Nawabshah 7 6.378571
429
7.746172019
2.927777
825
-
0.7854
4283
13.54258
569
0.14
16.6
Sanghar 0
Mirpurkhas 4 1.3
0.926858493
0.463429
247
-
0.1748
3869
2.774838
694
0.81
2.69
Total 11 4.531818
182
6.544068793
1.973110
981
0.1354
52946
8.928183
417
0.14
16.6
Area Nawabshah 15 253.34
1.99101E-14
5.14077E
-15
253.34
253.34
253.34
253.34
Sanghar 15 171.59
2.53516E-14
6.54575E
-15
171.59
171.59
171.59
171.59
Mirpurkhas 15 152.17
1.52865E-14
3.94695E
-15
152.17
152.17
152.17
152.17
Total 45 192.3666
667
44.33289334
6.608757
543
179.04
7591
205.6857
423
152.17
253.34
94
Table 6.4: Anova58
ANOVA Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Range1(0-
90)
Between
Groups 19.36363879 2 9.681819394 0.040674253 0.960185901
Within Groups 8569.192397 36 238.0331221
Total 8588.556036 38
Range2(90-
150)
Between
Groups 5922.11988 2 2961.05994 1.741882398 0.187607671
Within Groups 71396.62104 42 1699.919549
Total 77318.74092 44
Range3(150-
300)
Between
Groups 44045.50726 2 22022.75363 15.19632146 1.08306E-05
Within Groups 60867.07593 42 1449.216094
Total 104912.5832 44
Range4(350-
450)
Between
Groups 4760.832382 2 2380.416191 1.693624291 0.198994923
Within Groups 47787.54705 34 1405.51609
Total 52548.37943 36
Range5(450-
600)
Between
Groups 187.7200333 2 93.86001667 0.567468693 0.578668457
Within Groups 2481.018367 15 165.4012244
Total 2668.7384 17
Range6(>60
0)
Between
Groups 65.65207792 1 65.65207792 1.62954979 0.233718522
Within Groups 362.5962857 9 40.28847619
Total 428.2483636 10
Area
Between
Groups 86477.839 2 43238.9195
1.01915E+3
2
Within Groups 1.78191E-26 42 4.24264E-28
Total 86477.839 44
58
Anova: Analysis of Variance
95
Table 6.5: Multiples Comparisons (LSD)
Dependent
Variable
I
Code J Code
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error
Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper Bound
Range 1 (0-90) 1
2
1.10769697
6.12439
7893
0.85748
6961
-11.3131577
13.5285516
3 1.794825175
6.32057
0774
0.77806
3571
-11.0238865
14.61353684
2 1 -1.10769697
6.12439
7893
0.85748
6961
-13.5285516
11.31315766
3 0.687128205
5.84629
0702
0.90709
1527
-11.1696989
12.54395531
3 1 -1.794825175
6.32057
0774
0.77806
3571
-14.6135368
11.02388649
2 -0.687128205
5.84629
0702
0.90709
1527
-12.5439553
11.1696989
Range2 (90-
150)
1 2 -27.144
15.0550
9681
0.07856
9593
-57.5264154
3.238415396
3 -7.278
15.0550
9681
0.63130
5275
-37.6604154
23.1044154
2 1 27.144
15.0550
9681
0.07856
9593
-3.2384154
57.5264154
3 19.866
15.0550
9681
0.19413
2411
-10.5164154
50.2484154
3 1 7.278
15.0550
9681
0.63130
5275
-23.1044154
37.6604154
2 -19.866
15.0550
9681
0.19413
2411
-50.2484154
10.5164154
Range3(150-
300)
1 2 60.79400*
13.9006
7669
7.903E-
05
32.74129871
88.84670129
3 70.80267* 13.9006
7669
7.85516
E-06
42.74996538 98.85536795
2 1 -60.79400*
13.9006
7669
7.903E-
05
-88.8467013
-32.74129871
3 10.00866667
13.9006
7669
0.47550
5089
-18.0440346
38.06136795
96
3 1 -70.80267*
13.9006
7669
7.85516
E-06
-98.855368
-42.74996538
2 -10.00866667
13.9006
7669
0.47550
5089
-38.061368
18.04403462
Range 4 (350-
450)
1 1 22.91533333
15.8072
6185
0.15631
2476
-9.20888776
55.03955443
2 23.23225641 14.2062
5549
0.11120
0758
-5.6383283
52.10284112
2 2 -22.91533333
15.8072
6185
0.15631
2476
-55.0395544
9.20888776
3 0.316923077
16.2568
4707
0.98456
0387
-32.7209651
33.35481128
3 1 -23.23225641 14.2062
5549
0.11120
0758
-52.1028411
5.638328299
3 -0.316923077
16.2568
4707
0.98456
0387
-33.3548113
32.72096512
Range5 (450- 1 2 10.40333333
9.82262
9362
0.30630
3497
-10.5331056
31.33977222
3 0.648333333
7.42520
9861
0.93157
5985
-15.1781269
16.47479352
2 1 -10.40333333
9.82262
9362
0.30630
3497
-31.3397722
10.53310556
3 -9.755
11.1378
1479
0.39492
3732
-33.4946903
13.98469028
3 1 -0.648333333
7.42520
9861
0.93157
5985
-16.4747935
15.17812685
2 9.755
11.1378
1479
0.39492
3732
-13.9846903
33.49469028
*=Significant @ 95% CI
97
6.3.2 Depth to water table:
Depth to water table was analyzed using six categories of water tables. The unit of comparison
was used at CM the six categories included:
(1) 0-90
(2) 90-150
(3) 150-350
(4) 350-450
(5) 450-600
(6) >600
The data was comprised of eight years from 1994 to 2003 covering all three components of
LBOD that is Nawabshah, Sanghar, and Mirpurkhas. The data indicates that Nawabshah
recorded lowest water table under 0.9cm in all years. Similarly in the category of 350-450
Sanghar was recorded at .47 which was lowest among all three components. On the whole
statistically range 3 that is 150-300 with F values at 15.196 was the statistically significant
depth among all three components. This suggests excluding this, the LBOD presents
uniformity into water table depth at 95% confidence interval. The data is further presented in
graphical manner that covers range 1 to range 6. The graphical charts explicitly explain the
three components of LBOD Project area
98
Figure 6.1 Average for Depth Water table for 0-90 cm
99
Figure 6.2 Average for Depth Water table for 90-150 cm
100
Figure 6.3 Average for Depth Water table for 150-300 cm
101
Figure 6.4 Average for Depth Water table for 350-450 cm
102
Figure 6.5 Average for Depth Water table for 450-600 cm
103
Figure 6.6 Average for Depth Water table for >600 cm
104
6.4 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method
6.4.1 Regression models for Significant Variables of Depth to Water Table (in years)
Exploratory Analysis.
Regression Model
Equation
Y=depth to water table in LBOD component
Y=abx1+bx2+bx3+bx4+bx5+bx6+bx7+bx8…..e
abx1=Year1 (1994)
bx2 = Year2 (1997)
bx3 = Year3 (1998)
bx4=Year4 (1999)
bx5=Year5 (2000)
bx6=Year6 (2001)
bx7=Year7 (2002)
bx8=Year8 (2003)
e= Disturbance Term
105
Table 6.6: Depth to water table in past Eight Years
Range Cms Years N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean Mean
Min: Max: Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Range 1 (0-90)
1994 6 32.5367 25.34862 10.349 5.9349 59.1384 9.11 66.14
1997 6 11.6467 10.70296 4.3695 0.4146 22.8787 0.7 28.76
1998 6 9.23 8.3273 3.3996 0.491 17.969 1.23 23.36
1999 6 5.2433 4.11723 1.6809 0.9226 9.5641 1.14 11.59
2000 4 1.6875 2.05683 1.0284 -1.5854 4.9604 0.23 4.63
2001 4 1.83 1.54268 0.7713 -0.6248 4.2848 0.24 3.78
2002 5 0.864 0.81258 0.3634 -0.1449 1.8729 0.18 2.08
2003 2 0.125 0.07778 0.055 -0.5738 0.8238 0.07 0.18
Total 39 9.5021 15.03378 2.4073 4.6287 14.3754 0.07 66.14
Range2 (90-150)
1994 6 103.91 17.63607 7.1999 85.4021 122.4179 77.29 123.53
1997 6 81.9017 34.57603 14.116 45.6164 118.187 46.82 122.69
1998 6 83.51 31.33339 12.792 50.6276 116.3924 42.43 124.56
1999 6 59.6967 25.76783 10.52 32.655 86.7383 44.73 111.76
2000 6 19.4533 8.20987 3.3517 10.8376 28.0691 8.18 29.14
2001 6 9.355 7.80864 3.1879 1.1603 17.5497 0.28 18.65
2002 6 8.9017 7.89889 3.2247 0.6123 17.191 0.93 23.08
2003 3 15.1133 15.19479 8.7727 -22.6326 52.8593 4.78 32.56
Total 45 49.9047 41.9195 6.249 37.3107 62.4987 0.28 124.56
106
Range3 (150-300)
1994 6 52.11 45.06987 18.4 4.8121 99.4079 13.92 134.7
1997 6 90.8083 64.41962 26.299 23.2041 158.4126 32.49 186.15
1998 6 89.2167 62.67893 25.589 23.4392 154.9942 35.3 170.65
1999 6 113.9633 46.81026 19.11 64.839 163.0877 48.24 183.48
2000 6 141.7633 32.66976 13.337 107.4785 176.0481 103 198.16
2001 6 96.6267 29.83365 12.18 65.3182 127.9352 51.54 121.77
2002 6 72.5183 18.00268 7.3496
2003 3 93.4133 34.52553 19.933
Total 45 93.8284 48.83008 7.2792
Range 4 (350-450)
1994 3 6.9533 8.09322 4.6726 -13.1513 27.058 1.78 16.28
1997 4 11.5325 13.13701 6.5685 -9.3714 32.4364 0.49 26.54
1998 4 14.3 18.55654 9.2783 -15.2276 43.8276 0.62 39.97
1999 5 14.246 19.01569 8.5041 -9.3651 37.8571 0.47 45.4
2000 6 29.1933 26.24303 10.714 1.653 56.7337 1.09 73.54
2001 6 72.9033 30.13648 12.303 41.277 104.5296 30.97 106.73
2002 6 86.525 30.81196 12.579 54.1898 118.8602 48.68 128.49
2003 3 64.2533 33.96402 19.609 -20.118 148.6246 25.17 86.61
Total 37 41.0786 38.20572 6.281 28.3402 53.8171 0.47 128.49
Range5 (450- 1994 0
1997 1 1.93 1.93 1.93
1998 2 2.525 2.52437 1.785 -20.1556 25.2056 0.74 4.31
1999 2 4.69 0.62225 0.44 -0.9007 10.2807 4.25 5.13
107
2000 2 2.275 1.61927 1.145 -12.2736 16.8236 1.13 3.42
2001 3 20.8533 13.18391 7.6117 -11.8973 53.604 5.63 28.52
2002 6 18.735 13.81954 5.6418 4.2323 33.2377 3.09 34.02
2003 2 20.53 12.30366 8.7 -90.014 131.074 11.83 29.23
Total 18 13.1633 12.52935 2.9532 6.9326 19.394 0.74 34.02
Range6 (>600)
1994 0
1997 0
1998 0
1999 1 0.17 0.17 0.17
2000 1 0.42 0.42 0.42
2001 3 0.67 0.47571 0.2747 -0.5117 1.8517 0.14 1.06
2002 4 7.45 7.16153 3.5808 -3.9456 18.8456 0.85 16.53
2003 2 8.725 11.13693 7.875
-91.3364 108.7864 0.85 16.6
Total 11 4.5318 6.54407 1.9731 0.1355 8.9282 0.14 16.6
108
Table 6.7: ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Range1
Between Groups 4349.07 7 621.296 4.543 0.001
Within Groups 4239.486 31 136.758
Total 8588.556 38
Range2
Between Groups 60141.656 7 8591.665 18.507 0
Within Groups 17177.085 37 464.246
Total 77318.741 44
Range3
Between Groups 29616.135 7 4230.876 2.079 0.071
Within Groups 75296.448 37 2035.039
Total 104912.583 44
Range4
Between Groups 34381.701 7 4911.672 7.841 0
Within Groups 18166.678 29 626.437
Total 52548.379 36
Range5
Between Groups 1205.447 6 200.908 1.51 0.262
Within Groups 1463.291 11 133.026
Total 2668.738 17
Range6
Between Groups 149.902 4 37.476 0.808 0.563
Within Groups 278.346 6 46.391
Total 428.248 10
109
Table-6.8: Multiple Comparisons LSD.
Dependent Variable
(I) Years (J) Years Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
0-90 Cms 1994 2 20.89000* 6.75173 0.004 7.1198 34.6602
3 23.30667* 6.75173 0.002 9.5364 37.0769
4 27.29333* 6.75173 0 13.5231 41.0636
5 30.84917* 7.54867 0 15.4536 46.2448
6 30.70667* 7.54867 0 15.3111 46.1023
7 31.67267* 7.08128 0 17.2303 46.115
8 32.41167* 9.54839 0.002 12.9376 51.8857
1997 1 -20.89000* 6.75173 0.004 -34.6602 -7.1198
3 2.41667 6.75173 0.723 -11.3536 16.1869
4 6.40333 6.75173 0.35 -7.3669 20.1736
5 9.95917 7.54867 0.197 -5.4364 25.3548
6 9.81667 7.54867 0.203 -5.5789 25.2123
7 10.78267 7.08128 0.138 -3.6597 25.225
8 11.52167 9.54839 0.237 -7.9524 30.9957
1998 1 -23.30667* 6.75173 0.002 -37.0769 -9.5364
2 -2.41667 6.75173 0.723 -16.1869 11.3536
4 3.98667 6.75173 0.559 -9.7836 17.7569
5 7.5425 7.54867 0.325 -7.8531 22.9381
6 7.4 7.54867 0.335 -7.9956 22.7956
7 8.366 7.08128 0.246 -6.0764 22.8084
8 9.105 9.54839 0.348 -10.3691 28.5791
1999 1 -27.29333* 6.75173 0 -41.0636 -13.5231
2 -6.40333 6.75173 0.35 -20.1736 7.3669
3 -3.98667 6.75173 0.559 -17.7569 9.7836
5 3.55583 7.54867 0.641 -11.8398 18.9514
6 3.41333 7.54867 0.654 -11.9823 18.8089
7 4.37933 7.08128 0.541 -10.063 18.8217
8 5.11833 9.54839 0.596 -14.3557 24.5924
2000 1 -30.84917* 7.54867 0 -46.2448 -15.4536
2 -9.95917 7.54867 0.197 -25.3548 5.4364
3 -7.5425 7.54867 0.325 -22.9381 7.8531
4 -3.55583 7.54867 0.641 -18.9514 11.8398
6 -0.1425 8.26915 0.986 -17.0075 16.7225
7 0.8235 7.8448 0.917 -15.1761 16.8231
110
8 1.5625 10.1276 0.878 -19.0929 22.2179
2001 1 -30.70667* 7.54867 0 -46.1023 -15.3111
2 -9.81667 7.54867 0.203 -25.2123 5.5789
3 -7.4 7.54867 0.335 -22.7956 7.9956
4 -3.41333 7.54867 0.654 -18.8089 11.9823
5 0.1425 8.26915 0.986 -16.7225 17.0075
7 0.966 7.8448 0.903 -15.0336 16.9656
8 1.705 10.1276 0.867 -18.9504 22.3604
2002 1 -31.67267* 7.08128 0 -46.115 -17.2303
2 -10.7827 7.08128 0.138 -25.225 3.6597
3 -8.366 7.08128 0.246 -22.8084 6.0764
4 -4.37933 7.08128 0.541 -18.8217 10.063
5 -0.8235 7.8448 0.917 -16.8231 15.1761
6 -0.966 7.8448 0.903 -16.9656 15.0336
8 0.739 9.78419 0.94 -19.216 20.694
2003 1 -32.41167* 9.54839 0.002 -51.8857 -12.9376
2 -11.5217 9.54839 0.237 -30.9957 7.9524
3 -9.105 9.54839 0.348 -28.5791 10.3691
4 -5.11833 9.54839 0.596 -24.5924 14.3557
5 -1.5625 10.1276 0.878 -22.2179 19.0929
6 -1.705 10.1276 0.867 -22.3604 18.9504
7 -0.739 9.78419 0.94 -20.694 19.216
90-150 Cms 1994 2 22.00833 12.4398 0.085 -3.1971 47.2138
3 20.4 12.4398 0.11 -4.8054 45.6054
4 44.21333* 12.4398 0.001 19.0079 69.4188
5 84.45667* 12.4398 0 59.2512 109.6621
6 94.55500* 12.4398 0 69.3496 119.7604
7 95.00833* 12.4398 0 69.8029 120.2138
8 88.79667* 15.23558 0 57.9265 119.6669
1997 1 -22.0083 12.4398 0.085 -47.2138 3.1971
3 -1.60833 12.4398 0.898 -26.8138 23.5971
4 22.205 12.4398 0.082 -3.0004 47.4104
5 62.44833* 12.4398 0 37.2429 87.6538
6 72.54667* 12.4398 0 47.3412 97.7521
7 73.00000* 12.4398 0 47.7946 98.2054
8 66.78833* 15.23558 0 35.9181 97.6585
1998 1 -20.4 12.4398 0.11 -45.6054 4.8054
2 1.60833 12.4398 0.898 -23.5971 26.8138
4 23.81333 12.4398 0.063 -1.3921 49.0188
111
5 64.05667* 12.4398 0 38.8512 89.2621
6 74.15500* 12.4398 0 48.9496 99.3604
7 74.60833* 12.4398 0 49.4029 99.8138
8 68.39667* 15.23558 0 37.5265 99.2669
1999 1 -44.21333* 12.4398 0.001 -69.4188 -19.0079
2 -22.205 12.4398 0.082 -47.4104 3.0004
3 -23.8133 12.4398 0.063 -49.0188 1.3921
5 40.24333* 12.4398 0.003 15.0379 65.4488
6 50.34167* 12.4398 0 25.1362 75.5471
7 50.79500* 12.4398 0 25.5896 76.0004
8 44.58333* 15.23558 0.006 13.7131 75.4535
2000 1 -84.45667* 12.4398 0 -109.662 -59.2512
2 -62.44833* 12.4398 0 -87.6538 -37.2429
3 -64.05667* 12.4398 0 -89.2621 -38.8512
4 -40.24333* 12.4398 0.003 -65.4488 -15.0379
6 10.09833 12.4398 0.422 -15.1071 35.3038
7 10.55167 12.4398 0.402 -14.6538 35.7571
8 4.34 15.23558 0.777 -26.5302 35.2102
2001 1 -94.55500* 12.4398 0 -119.76 -69.3496
2 -72.54667* 12.4398 0 -97.7521 -47.3412
3 -74.15500* 12.4398 0 -99.3604 -48.9496
4 -50.34167* 12.4398 0 -75.5471 -25.1362
5 -10.0983 12.4398 0.422 -35.3038 15.1071
7 0.45333 12.4398 0.971 -24.7521 25.6588
8 -5.75833 15.23558 0.708 -36.6285 25.1119
2002 1 -95.00833* 12.4398 0 -120.214 -69.8029
2 -73.00000* 12.4398 0 -98.2054 -47.7946
3 -74.60833* 12.4398 0 -99.8138 -49.4029
4 -50.79500* 12.4398 0 -76.0004 -25.5896
5 -10.5517 12.4398 0.402 -35.7571 14.6538
6 -0.45333 12.4398 0.971 -25.6588 24.7521
8 -6.21167 15.23558 0.686 -37.0819 24.6585
2003 1 -88.79667* 15.23558 0 -119.667 -57.9265
2 -66.78833* 15.23558 0 -97.6585 -35.9181
3 -68.39667* 15.23558 0 -99.2669 -37.5265
4 -44.58333* 15.23558 0.006 -75.4535 -13.7131
5 -4.34 15.23558 0.777 -35.2102 26.5302
6 5.75833 15.23558 0.708 -25.1119 36.6285
112
7 6.21167 15.23558 0.686 -24.6585 37.0819
150-300 Cms 1994 2 -38.6983 26.04508 0.146 -91.4707 14.074
3 -37.1067 26.04508 0.163 -89.879 15.6657
4 -61.85333* 26.04508 0.023 -114.626 -9.081
5 -89.65333* 26.04508 0.001 -142.426 -36.881
6 -44.5167 26.04508 0.096 -97.289 8.2557
7 -20.4083 26.04508 0.438 -73.1807 32.364
8 -41.3033 31.89858 0.203 -105.936 23.3293
1997 1 38.69833 26.04508 0.146 -14.074 91.4707
3 1.59167 26.04508 0.952 -51.1807 54.364
4 -23.155 26.04508 0.38 -75.9274 29.6174
5 -50.955 26.04508 0.058 -103.727 1.8174
6 -5.81833 26.04508 0.824 -58.5907 46.954
7 18.29 26.04508 0.487 -34.4824 71.0624
8 -2.605 31.89858 0.935 -67.2377 62.0277
1998 1 37.10667 26.04508 0.163 -15.6657 89.879
2 -1.59167 26.04508 0.952 -54.364 51.1807
4 -24.7467 26.04508 0.348 -77.519 28.0257
5 -52.5467 26.04508 0.051 -105.319 0.2257
6 -7.41 26.04508 0.778 -60.1824 45.3624
7 16.69833 26.04508 0.525 -36.074 69.4707
8 -4.19667 31.89858 0.896 -68.8293 60.436
1999 1 61.85333* 26.04508 0.023 9.081 114.6257
2 23.155 26.04508 0.38 -29.6174 75.9274
3 24.74667 26.04508 0.348 -28.0257 77.519
5 -27.8 26.04508 0.293 -80.5724 24.9724
6 17.33667 26.04508 0.51 -35.4357 70.109
7 41.445 26.04508 0.12 -11.3274 94.2174
8 20.55 31.89858 0.523 -44.0827 85.1827
2000 1 89.65333* 26.04508 0.001 36.881 142.4257
2 50.955 26.04508 0.058 -1.8174 103.7274
3 52.54667 26.04508 0.051 -0.2257 105.319
4 27.8 26.04508 0.293 -24.9724 80.5724
6 45.13667 26.04508 0.091 -7.6357 97.909
7 69.24500* 26.04508 0.012 16.4726 122.0174
8 48.35 31.89858 0.138 -16.2827 112.9827
2001 1 44.51667 26.04508 0.096 -8.2557 97.289
2 5.81833 26.04508 0.824 -46.954 58.5907
3 7.41 26.04508 0.778 -45.3624 60.1824
113
4 -17.3367 26.04508 0.51 -70.109 35.4357
5 -45.1367 26.04508 0.091 -97.909 7.6357
7 24.10833 26.04508 0.361 -28.664 76.8807
8 3.21333 31.89858 0.92 -61.4193 67.846
2002 1 20.40833 26.04508 0.438 -32.364 73.1807
2 -18.29 26.04508 0.487 -71.0624 34.4824
3 -16.6983 26.04508 0.525 -69.4707 36.074
4 -41.445 26.04508 0.12 -94.2174 11.3274
5 -69.24500* 26.04508 0.012 -122.017 -16.4726
6 -24.1083 26.04508 0.361 -76.8807 28.664
8 -20.895 31.89858 0.516 -85.5277 43.7377
2003 1 41.30333 31.89858 0.203 -23.3293 105.936
2 2.605 31.89858 0.935 -62.0277 67.2377
3 4.19667 31.89858 0.896 -60.436 68.8293
4 -20.55 31.89858 0.523 -85.1827 44.0827
5 -48.35 31.89858 0.138 -112.983 16.2827
6 -3.21333 31.89858 0.92 -67.846 61.4193
7 20.895 31.89858 0.516 -43.7377 85.5277
350-450 Cms 1994 2 -4.57917 19.11601 0.812 -43.6758 34.5175
3 -7.34667 19.11601 0.704 -46.4433 31.75
4 -7.29267 18.2784 0.693 -44.6762 30.0909
5 -22.24 17.69798 0.219 -58.4364 13.9564
6 -65.95000* 17.69798 0.001 -102.146 -29.7536
7 -79.57167* 17.69798 0 -115.768 -43.3752
8 -57.30000* 20.43587 0.009 -99.096 -15.504
1997 1 4.57917 19.11601 0.812 -34.5175 43.6758
3 -2.7675 17.69798 0.877 -38.9639 33.4289
4 -2.7135 16.78978 0.873 -37.0525 31.6255
5 -17.6608 16.15597 0.283 -50.7035 15.3818
6 -61.37083* 16.15597 0.001 -94.4135 -28.3282
7 -74.99250* 16.15597 0 -108.035 -41.9498
8 -52.72083* 19.11601 0.01 -91.8175 -13.6242
1998 1 7.34667 19.11601 0.704 -31.75 46.4433
2 2.7675 17.69798 0.877 -33.4289 38.9639
4 0.054 16.78978 0.997 -34.285 34.393
5 -14.8933 16.15597 0.364 -47.936 18.1493
6 -58.60333* 16.15597 0.001 -91.646 -25.5607
7 -72.22500* 16.15597 0 -105.268 -39.1823
8 -49.95333* 19.11601 0.014 -89.05 -10.8567
114
1999 1 7.29267 18.2784 0.693 -30.0909 44.6762
2 2.7135 16.78978 0.873 -31.6255 37.0525
3 -0.054 16.78978 0.997 -34.393 34.285
5 -14.9473 15.15565 0.332 -45.9441 16.0494
6 -58.65733* 15.15565 0.001 -89.6541 -27.6606
7 -72.27900* 15.15565 0 -103.276 -41.2822
8 -50.00733* 18.2784 0.011 -87.3909 -12.6238
2000 1 22.24 17.69798 0.219 -13.9564 58.4364
2 17.66083 16.15597 0.283 -15.3818 50.7035
3 14.89333 16.15597 0.364 -18.1493 47.936
4 14.94733 15.15565 0.332 -16.0494 45.9441
6 -43.71000* 14.45034 0.005 -73.2643 -14.1557
7 -57.33167* 14.45034 0 -86.8859 -27.7774
8 -35.06 17.69798 0.057 -71.2564 1.1364
2001 1 65.95000* 17.69798 0.001 29.7536 102.1464
2 61.37083* 16.15597 0.001 28.3282 94.4135
3 58.60333* 16.15597 0.001 25.5607 91.646
4 58.65733* 15.15565 0.001 27.6606 89.6541
5 43.71000* 14.45034 0.005 14.1557 73.2643
7 -13.6217 14.45034 0.354 -43.1759 15.9326
8 8.65 17.69798 0.629 -27.5464 44.8464
2002 1 79.57167* 17.69798 0 43.3752 115.7681
2 74.99250* 16.15597 0 41.9498 108.0352
3 72.22500* 16.15597 0 39.1823 105.2677
4 72.27900* 15.15565 0 41.2822 103.2758
5 57.33167* 14.45034 0 27.7774 86.8859
6 13.62167 14.45034 0.354 -15.9326 43.1759
8 22.27167 17.69798 0.218 -13.9248 58.4681
2003 1 57.30000* 20.43587 0.009 15.504 99.096
2 52.72083* 19.11601 0.01 13.6242 91.8175
3 49.95333* 19.11601 0.014 10.8567 89.05
4 50.00733* 18.2784 0.011 12.6238 87.3909
5 35.06 17.69798 0.057 -1.1364 71.2564
6 -8.65 17.69798 0.629 -44.8464 27.5464
7 -22.2717 17.69798 0.218 -58.4681 13.9248
*=Significant @ 95% CI
115
The water table ranging from 0-90 to >the 600 cm was analyzed for eight years the data was
collected through (Government of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Physical
Monitoring Left Bank outfall Drain Stage-I Project Under National Drainage Program, Annual Report
2002-03, Volume-I). It is observed that significance differences within range and years could be
seen. Table ANOVA indicates that excluding range3 (150-300), range5 (450-600) and range6
(>600) there are significant statistical difference in the mean ranges in all three years. Year to
year comparison suggest that throughout there are significant differences in the 0-90 cm range
to depth to water table. It is suggested that 1994 remained rainy season and there were
widespread floods caused by those rains. It could be observed further that variation in those
remaining years could be efficient with the LBOD installations as a means for maintaining
water table depth. It is argued that after 1994 especially in the years after 1998-1999 LBOD
was fully operational and it contributed and significantly maintained water tables, at below
tolerance level where crop could be damaged.
Figure 6.7: Depth to water table in past Eight Years
116
117
118
6.5 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method
6.5.1 Regression models for significant variables impact of water table depth on Rabi
Crops.
Equation
Y=depth water table on Rabi crops
Y=abx1+bx2+bx3+bx4+bx5+bx6
abx1=range1 (0-90)
bx2=range2 (90-150)
bx3=range3 (150-300)
bx4=range4 (350-450)
bx5=range5 (450-600)
bx6=range6 (>600)
119
*Rabi Crops
Table 6.10: Correlations
R.Crops 0-90 90-150 150-300 300-
450
450-
600 >600
Pearson
Correlation
Rcrops 1.000 -.144 .077 .911 -.055 .009 .075
0-90 -.144 1.000 .925 .159 -.475 -.402 -.326
90-150 .077 .925 1.000 .379 -.667 -.569 -.301
150-
300
.911 .159 .379 1.000 -.330 -.263 -.117
300-
450
-.055 -.475 -.667 -.330 1.000 .847 .553
450-
600
.009 -.402 -.569 -.263 .847 1.000 .638
>600 .075 -.326 -.301 -.117 .553 .638 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Rcrops . .336 .411 .000 .436 .490 .413
0-90 .336 . .000 .320 .070 .110 .164
90-150 .411 .000 . .125 .013 .034 .184
150-
300
.000 .320 .125 . .161 .217 .366
300-
450
.436 .070 .013 .161 . .001 .039
450-
600
.490 .110 .034 .217 .001 . .017
>600 .413 .164 .184 .366 .039 .017 .
N Rcrops 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
0-90 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
90-150 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
150-
300
11 11 11 11 11 11 11
300-
450
11 11 11 11 11 11 11
450-
600
11 11 11 11 11 11 11
>600 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Table 6.9: Regression Analysis (OLS): Impact of Water table Depth on Rabi Crops
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Rcrops* 75.18 49.578 11
0-90 1.6691 2.54864 11
90-150 11.8564 13.48770 11
150-300 98.456 46.0049 11
300-450 79.6600 30.10218 11
450-600 19.6782 12.04609 11
>600 4.5318 6.54407 11
120
Table 6.11: Model Summaryb
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .775a 0.751 0.778 17.292 0.751 13.034 6 4 0.013
a. Predictors: (Constant), >600, 150-300, 0-90, 300-450, 450-600, 90-150
b. Dependent Variable: Rcrops
Table 6.12: ANOVAb
Model Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 23383.65 6 3897.274 13.034 .013a
Residual 1195.991 4 298.998
Total 24579.64 10
a. Predictors: (Constant), >600, 150-300, 0-90, 300-450, 450-600, 90-150
b. Dependent Variable: Rcrops
Table 6.13: Coefficienta
Model
Un-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std.
Error Beta
1 (Constant) -60.149 34.653 -1.736 0.158
0-90 -12.961 10.305 -0.666 -1.258 0.277
90-150 2.038 2.363 0.554 0.862 0.437
150-300 0.979 0.171 0.908 5.736 0.005
300-450 0.284 0.431 0.172 0.659 0.546
450-600 0.877 0.995 0.213 0.881 0.428
>600 -0.754 1.427 -0.1 -0.528 0.625
a. Dependent Variable: Rcrops
121
Table 6.14: Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation N
Predicted Value 13.68 175.57 75.18 48.357 11
Residual -19.375 15.628 0 10.936 11
Std. Predicted Value -1.272 2.076 0 1 11
Std. Residual -1.121 0.904 0 0.632 11
122
6.6 Regression Analysis Using (OLS) Method
6.6.1 Regression models for significant variables impact of water table depth on Kharif
Crops.
Equation
Y=depth water table on Kharif crops
Y=abx1+bx2+bx3+bx4+bx5+bx6
abx1=range1 (0-90)
bx2=range2 (90-150)
bx3=range3 (150-300)
bx4=range4 (350-450)
bx5=range5 (450-600)
bx6=range6 (>600)
Table 6.15: Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Kcrops59
51.18 48.949 11
0-90 1.6691 2.54864 11
90-150 11.8564 13.48770 11
150-300 98.456 46.0049 11
300-450 79.6600 30.10218 11
450-600 19.6782 12.04609 11
>600 4.5318 6.54407 11
59
K.crops: Kharif Crops
123
Table 6.16: Correlations
K.Crops 0-90 90-150 150-300 300-450 450-600 >600
Pearson Correlation Kcrops 1.000 .060 .342 .888 -.613 -.510 -.340
0-90 .060 1.000 .925 .159 -.475 -.402 -.326
90-150 .342 .925 1.000 .379 -.667 -.569 -.301
150-300 .888 .159 .379 1.000 -.330 -.263 -.117
300-450 -.613 -.475 -.667 -.330 1.000 .847 .553
450-600 -.510 -.402 -.569 -.263 .847 1.000 .638
>600 -.340 -.326 -.301 -.117 .553 .638 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Kcrops . .431 .152 .000 .022 .055 .153
0-90 .431 . .000 .320 .070 .110 .164
90-150 .152 .000 . .125 .013 .034 .184
150-300 .000 .320 .125 . .161 .217 .366
300-450 .022 .070 .013 .161 . .001 .039
450-600 .055 .110 .034 .217 .001 . .017
>600 .153 .164 .184 .366 .039 .017 .
N Kcrops 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
0-90 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
90-150 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
150-300 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
300-450 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
450-600 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
>600 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Table 6.17: Model Summaryb
Model R R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .792a 0.783 0.758 10.01 0.783 39.183 6 4 0.002 1.7532
a. Predictors: (Constant), >600, 150-300, 0-90, 300-450, 450-600, 90-150
b. Dependent Variable: Kcrops
Table 6.18: ANOVAb
Model Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 23558.807 6 3926.468 39.183 .002a
Residual 400.83 4 100.207
Total 23959.636 10
a. Predictors: (Constant), >600, 150-300, 0-90, 300-450, 450-600, 90-150
b. Dependent Variable: Kcrops
124
Table 6.20: Coefficients
Model
Un-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std.
Error Beta
1 (Constant) 35.259 20.061
1.758 .154
0-90 -9.203 5.966 -.479 -1.543 .198
90-150 .764 1.368 .211 .559 .606
150-300 .791 .099 .743 8.004 .001
300-450 -.720 .249 -.443 -2.890 .045
450-600 .358 .576 .088 .621 .568
>600 -1.171 .826 -.157 -1.417 .229
Table 6.19: Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation N
Predicted Value -4.45 176.46 51.18 48.537 11
Residual -11.697 9.449 0 6.331 11
Std. Predicted Value -1.146 2.581 0 1 11
Std. Residual -1.168 0.944 0 0.632 11
a. Dependent Variable: Kcrops
125
6.7 Conclusions
Chapter reviewed the historical prospective of the depth of water table and water logging in
relation to crops in both Rabi and Kharif seasons. The two problems of water logging and
salinity has significant impact upon water table rise and decrease in crop production. LBOD
was conceived to be an investment to reduce the water logging and enhance crop production.
Data through regression confirms that during the implementation phase water table depth was
high especially at 150 – 300cms range. This has negative effects on crops like sugarcane,
orchard and vegetables. Mirpurkhas significantly depicted lower water table to that of other
component under the range of 0-90cms. Excluding 450 - 600cms range, Mirpurkhs
components shows that depth of water has remained low to that of Nawabshah and Sanghar.
The chapter also looked into variation to depth of water table in eight years that is 1994 to
2002 which was used for regression analysis. It was revealed that 1994 data showed high
variations in depth water table at 0 – 90cms ranges, whereas 1997 was high depth water table
in terms of variation at 90 – 130cms ranges. The ANOVA results indicate that F values at
ranges 1, 2, 4 were significantly different in all eight years. This indicates that crops that have
shallow roots were susceptible to depths to water table. This is confirmed from the crop
averages for cotton and vegetable that required lowest yield on per acre crop basis. It is
revealed that depth of water table during the past eight years i.e. from 1994 to 2002 has
significantly risen. Regression model reviewed a relationship between both Rabi and Kharif
crops with water table depth. 0.75 changes in depth water table were explained through
changes in yield, per acre in Rabi. Water table depth at 150 – 300cms has significant bearing
upon crops that fall into this depth. T values were significant at 0.95 confidence intervals for
this depth. Similarly Kharif crop such as Cotton, Sugarcane, Fodder, Orchard and Vegetables
were compared with different levels of water tables. The result indicates that 75% changes
were explained by the changes in depth of water table in various levels. Kharif also indicates
that depth in 150 -300cms has direct relationship with crop production and 300 – 450cms depth
was inversely proportionate with crop productivity, with 95% confidence interval.
126
CHAPTER SEVEN
Crop and Livestock Income
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides details about the gross and net crop incomes in the Left Bank Outfall
project area, the estimates are based upon the survey data that was collected during the study
period. It describes issues involved in estimating accurate farm income as an indicator of
project benefits. It explains the key inputs their costs and describes the reasons for varying
costs by parent channels, season, and location on the sample command areas. The chapter also
explains the patterns of ownership of livestock, household assets, and farm machinery in the
project area.
7.2 Estimating Crop Incomes
Farming or production of crops and livestock products is the largest and most important source of
income for the majority of households in the project area. Research experience in estimating
livestock and crop incomes in similar project related studies shows that crop and livestock
incomes are one of the most difficult indicators to monitor and assess project related benefits. The
complexities such as land tenure, crop production home consumed by the household and the lack
of farm records contribute to this difficulty even when great care is taken in collecting the primary
data. For one thing, a high proportion of the household income, or what the household produces,
particularly grains and livestock products are consumed within the household. Then there are
often a large number of non-cash transactions between households during the crop cultivation
periods. Finally, there is a widespread tendency among respondents to under-report outputs and
income, because they suspect that either the collected information would be used to tax them in
some way or will bring no pecuniary benefits to them. These same feelings affect data about the
farm and family expenses, which tend to be over/under reported. These cautionary notes are very
important to interpret the data that follow.
The survey confirms these issues, and also confirms that crop and livestock incomes were by far
the most important source of household income in the sample area. Data on incomes was, more
difficult to collect than for output or yields because they required information on both quantities
of output and input and their prices. The first problem had to do with outputs that were not sold
127
and the inputs that a household owned and used to produce various crops and livestock products.
It is suggested that if the prices for outputs sold are known, they can be used to value the unsold
part as well for estimating the total value of production. The problem was more serious in the case
of owned inputs used in the production process. How far should the owned land services of family
labour and animals be valued? Similarly, how should the value of farm assets, like machines,
structures and livestock, used in production be valued? These problems arise because it was
important to know the cost of producing a given level of income from farming. For analysis
purposes crop incomes do not include loans taken by the sample farmers in cash or kind during
the survey period.
Crop production is the major activity to which farm households allocate most of their resources
and from which they derive most of their income. There are a variety of inputs that go into the
production of crops. The analysis is carried out for all major and minor crops during each
cultivation season. Details of costs and crop incomes have been provided at three levels i.e. crop
income of sample farmers by parent channels, location on the entire barrage system and farm size
divisions. These are used in this chapter because they largely explain the differences in crop
income as a response to inadequate irrigation supplies in the area. It is mentioned here that
analysis mainly focuses on crop income achieved under all three levels as mentioned above. The
objective is to show how income varies by these levels in the project area.
7.3 Use of Farm Inputs for Crop Production
For the major inputs on which this analysis will be focused, valuation has been based on the
market price of these inputs. A selective number of crop inputs were used in estimating the cost of
production mainly because of their direct relation with the crop incomes of the sample farmers.
Their cost has been divided into two groups (fixed and variable costs), this is largely because of
their nature and effects on the production process. Figure 7.1 presents a summary of variables that
were used to estimate average cost production.
128
Figure 7.1 Crop Production and Incomes
Total Crop Output
Figure 8.1 Crop Production and Incomes
Less Variable Costs
Seed
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Tractor /Plough
Picking
Labour
Ushar Charges Harvesting
Land Charges
Management
Less Fixed Costs
Gross Crop Income
Irrigation
Gross Income Net Income
129
8.3.1 Seed
The quantity of seed sown by the majority of farmers was 10 kilogram (kg) per acre of seed for
cotton at Rs 20 per kg. The average seed rate of wheat used by the sample farmers was 50 kg per
acre and for rice it was 20 kg. Similarly, the farmers reported that they used 80 Maunds of seed
cane per acre for sugarcane and 15 kg for Rabi fodder (i.e. Berseem). The survey data indicated
that there were no significant differences60
in the seed rates used throughout the project area.
Farmers reported that traditionally, use of ‗own seed’ for the majority of crops was always
practical. This practice is now much more limited in the area since the introduction of improved
varieties. Initially, farmers were attracted by improved varieties because they showed a positive
impact on crop production. However, over the past several years, the quality of seed obtainable
has deteriorated, because of lack of reliable certification procedures and large-scale adulteration in
production and marketing. In addition, it is now realized that new varieties demand increased
irrigation supplies and large quantities of both fertilizer and pesticides. It was observed that for
wheat, some farmers were using more than one variety of seed (e.g. Uakora, Sarsabz, and
Bluesilver61
). They reported that partly it was a problem of getting quality seed on time, also that
some varieties produced higher crop output compared to others. For this reason it was a matter of
confidence in one variety compared to others.
7.3.1 Fertilizer and Pesticides
Two fertilizers Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Urea are commonly used in the area for
crop production purposes. However, their application by crop use varied throughout the area.
DAP was commonly used at the rate of one bag per acre, which was almost universal for all
crops, excluding sugarcane and banana. Urea application was identical for both Kharif and Rabi
fodder crops at a rate of one bag per acre. For the other main crops there was some variation, but
most farmers apply two and half bags per acre for cotton, four bags per acre for sugarcane and 2-3
bags per acre for wheat. These statistics show that very few farmers vary fertilizer application
according to actual soil conditions and crop needs. Virtually no soil testing takes place. As a
result, it has been recognized that most soils are deficient in essential nutrients.
It is mentioned as phosphorus is not naturally abundant in soil and water supply (rain or surface
supplies) and is inadequate, crop losses can be great. This is be confirmed by the sample data,
60
At .05 significance level. 61
Uakora, Sarsabz, Bluesilver: the name of different Seeds of land
130
which suggests that water shortages at these middle tail reaches were significantly high. Sample
farmers reported that they have learnt through practice and were advised by extension officials to
use a larger quantity of DAP so that crop output losses can be minimized. Relating the use of
DAP by parent channel it was revealed that the average cost per acre (or use) of DAP in
producing crops did not vary significantly62
. Estimates show Rs. 650 per acre as the average costs
DAP.
The usage of pesticide has increased in the area, especially in the case of high value crops of
vegetable, sugarcane, cotton and orchards. Manual sprayers are widely used for crops, while
power sprayers are used for orchards and more generally by some larger and progressive growers.
Table 7.1 shows the percentage of farmers using sprays by the major crops. All farmers reported
that none used sprays for fodder and oilseed crops. Incidence of pests and disease attack was
almost common for all crops, but found to be more substantial for cotton, rice and banana. A
majority of farmers reported that the pests that usually attacked at the flowering stage of crops
such as cotton were the most serious ones and sometimes resulted in total loss of the crop.
Table 7.1 Use of Pesticides by Sample Farmers in LBOD Area
Kharif 2006 & Rabi 2005-06 Kharif 2006 & Rabi 2005-06
Crops Cases
Number
Of farmers
Using
Pesticides
% Farmers Cases
Number of
farmers
using
Pesticides
%
Farmers
Cotton 14 14 100 13 13 100
Rice 129 92 71 136 85 62
Sugarcane 41 8 19 43 29 67
Orchard 15 3 20 15 8 53
Wheat 209 2 0.9 204 5 2
Onion 12 12 100 14 14 100
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
62
At .05 significance level
131
7.3.2 Use of Tractors and Animal Traction
The traditional agriculture in Sindh has been slowly changing from a livestock power based to a
mechanized system. With the introduction of tractors a number of agricultural operations are
being carried out through tractor use, particular primary cultivation and land leveling. Over 80
percent of all pre-sowing cultivation operations are being carried out with tractors. Tractors are
used for primary cultivation by almost by all farmers. Tractor usage per acre is 1-3 hours for
fodder crops, 2-6 hours for cotton, 2-6 hours for wheat, 3-5 hours for rice and 2 -6 hours for sugar
cane.
Bullocks are still a major source of draft power on the farm. Most farmers, large and small, own at
least a pair of bullocks. However, they are now combined with machines particularly tractors for
the pre-sowing Ploughing63
and leveling of land. While tractors are owned by only small fraction
of farmers their use is now a common sight in every village. Hiring tractor services is both an
important source of income for some and draft power for others, particularly when preparing land
for new crops. Ploughing and leveling are among the two most important activities for which
tractors are now commonly used, either alone or in combination with bullocks.
Other machinery apart from lift pumps is still not common, except for operations such as wheat
threshing. Use of a tractor driven wheat thresher has become almost universal in the project area.
7.3.3 Labour Use
Human labour use in producing crops comes from two sources. The first one is the farm family
itself. Additional labour services are provided from outside the household. The two outside
sources are: hired labour and exchange labour. Hired labour is paid predetermined wages, paid in
kind or cash.
More than 90 percent of land in the area was cultivated under sharecropping tenancy
arrangements, and sharecroppers tend to rely on their own household family labour as far as
possible. The large family size in the area is related with this arrangement, as it assists
sharecroppers to substantially reduce that part of the production cost which the sharecropping
contract requires them to fully pay. Therefore, a very limited number of the sample farmers hired
63
Ploughing: IS A TOOL USED IN FARMING FOR INITIAL CULTIVATION OF SOIL IN PREPARATION FOR SOWING SEED OR
PLANTING
132
labour, and mainly at harvest time, Average wage rates for harvesting in the project area were as
follows:
Wheat Rs. 600 per Maund64
Sugarcane Rs. 4 per Maund
Rice Rs 18 per Maund
Cotton Rs. 90 per Maund
Exchange labor is a form of service provided on the basis of mutual understanding between
farmers. The common incidence reported was the times of ‗Wangar65
‘ when all farmers on a
watercourse are required to de-silt the entire watercourse at least once in a three month period.
Again the labour provided is almost entirely that of sharecropper households, coordinated by the
landowners.
7.3.4 Irrigation, and Land and Crop Charges
Irrigation charges meant to cover the cost of supplying surface irrigation are commonly known
‗Abiana. These are fixed by the Sindh Board of Revenue. Literature has shown concerns site
regarding the very nominal irrigation charges levied on farmers, which cover only a part of the
authors operating and maintenance costs of canal irrigation.
A crop charge or productivity levy, commonly known as ‘Ushar66
or Dhal67
‘ in the area, is
charged on the assumed yields and total returns per acre. These Ushar rates hardly change as
farmers tend not to declare higher yields or total returns, and in the process corruption on a large
scale takes place. The Ushar rates along with land revenue, agriculture tax, and local cess used in
this analysis are provided.
7.3.5 Cultivation Practices and Output Prices
Traditionally, there are only a limited number of operations performed by the majority of farmers
in the life cycle of crops. Farmers plough their fields before and after irrigating the land for a new
64
Maund: A name of traditional unit of Weight varying in different countries of Asia 65
Wangar: is community participatory help especially for maintaining Distributory and water courses 66
Ushar: Is Islam Levy on Agriculture production. 5% levy on irrigated land product and 10% on non-irrigated.: 67
Dhal: Agricultural land Tax
133
crop. Farmers commonly irrigate their lands by flooding i.e. opening Nukkas68
to fields. This
follows the practice of broadcasting the crop seed, especially of grains, at the time of sowing.
Finally, before drawing any conclusions about crop production patterns and their subsequent
effects on crop incomes in the area, a note of caution should be added here. The figures for
products reportedly used in the household include a part used as inputs into the production process
of crops (as seed) and livestock products (as fodder). Some of it may go into producing a new
product altogether, as in the case of sugarcane that is crushed and processed into ‗Gur69
’ for sale.
Finally, a large part of by-products (cotton sticks) are used as fuel in the kitchen, livestock feed,
and in the manufacture of products such as ‗Gur‘. Table 7.2 provides data on the market prices of
crops used in this analysis.
Table 7.2 Market Price of Major Crops
Crops Price in Rs. Per Maund
Cotton 496
Wheat 300
Sugarcane 40
Rice 215
Oilseed 500
R-Fodder 15
K-Fodder 15
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
7.3.6 Crop Yields, Gross and Net Crop Incomes
The gross crop income is the total crop output of sample farmers less variable costs. Whereas, net
crop incomes are the sum of deductions of fixed costs form gross crop incomes. The list of both
variable and fixed costs used in this analysis is provided at figure 7.1.
Table 7.3 highlights gross and net income figures by the project command area. Data indicates
Rs.2387 and Rs.2038 as gross and net incomes for cotton, Rs.2069 and Rs.1769 as the gross and
net incomes for wheat in the project area. Net returns in terms of percentages on the gross crop
68
Nukas: 69
Gur: A Sugarcane Product of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, an alternate of sugar
134
output (i.e. excluding variable and fixed costs) was reported markedly identical for both cotton
and wheat crops. Whereas, compared to both cotton and wheat crops rice and sugarcane shows
highest returns (i.e. rice 33 percent and sugarcane 34 percent).
The lowest returns on cotton crop can be explained by the public intervention that reduced farm-
gate prices of cotton since 1998-99 seasons. Further, input costs for cotton crop tend to be higher
compared to the cost incurred upon rice or wheat crops.
Table 7.3: Average Yield, Area Cultivated and Total Yield (Major crops) N=63
Cotton Rice Sugarcane Wheat
Mirpur Khas Yield m/acre 23 52* 900* 35
Nawabshah Yield m/acre 18 38 721 36
Sanghar Yield m/acre 24 58 788 44
All Yield m/acre 22 49* 803 38
Differences are significant at 95 percent CI
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Table 7.4: Average Yield, Area Cultivated and Total Yield (Minor crops) N=63
District Vegetable Oil Seed
Mirpurkhas yield m/Acre 40* 11
Nawabshah yield m/Acre 70* 12
Sanghar yield m/Acre 109* 11
Overall yield m/Acre 73 11
Differences are significant at 95 percent CI (Confidence Interval)
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Tables 7.3 & 7.4 provide yield of various crops by each project component. The differences in
yields have substantial impact on crop incomes. These differences are further elaborated in the
succeeding sections.
135
Table 7.5 Average Gross and Net Crop Incomes in the LBOD Area- N=63
Rs per Acre
Crop Output
Maunds
Price/
Maund
Total
Output
Production
Costs
Gross
Income
Fixed
Costs
Net
Income
% Net Return
On Total
Output
Cotton 22 496 10912 5053 5859 348.48 5511 51
Rice 49 215 10535 3592 6943 169.19 6773.81 64
Sugar 803 40 32120 17323 14797 512 14285 44
Wheat 38 270 10260 5831 4429 300.02 4129 40
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
136
Table 7.6 Gross and Net Incomes by Farm-size Rupees per Acre N=63
Crop
Output Price/ Total Production Gross Fixed Net % Net Return
Maunds Maund output Costs Income Costs Income On Total
Output
Large
Farmer
Cotton 19 496 9424 5053 4371 348.48 4022.52* 43
Rice 26 215 5590 3592 1998 169.19 1828.81 33
Sugar 652 40 26080 14323 11757 512 11245 43
Wheat 28 270 7560 4831 2729 300.02 2428.98* 32
Medium
Cotton 18 496 8928 5053 3875 348.48 3526.52* 39
Rice 25 215 5375 3592 1783 169.19 1613.81 30
Sugar 613 40 24520 14323 10197 512 9685 39
Wheat 22 270 5940 4831 1109 300.02 808.98* 14
Small
Cotton 14 496 6944 5053 1891 348.48 1542.52* 22
Rice 27 215 5805 3592 2213 169.19 2043.81 35
Sugar 582 40 23280 14323 8957 512 8445 36
Wheat 24 270 6480 4831 1649 300.02 1348.98* 21
Source: Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
*= Significant differences by head to tail reaches at 95% CI
7.4 Impact on Crop Incomes by Reach
Tables 7.6 and 7.7 show estimate of gross and net crop income by the reach on the LBOD. This
table confirms that in terms of crop income the head reach farmers earned noticeably higher gross
and net incomes than farmers located at the middle and tail reaches in the command areas of the
LBOD. Substantially lower returns by the sample farmers in the tail reaches of the barrage suggest
that while relating rehabilitation works with benefits in terms of crop incomes one must take in to
account the proposed barrage head differential limitations along with the present water crises in
Sindh. As mentioned earlier that supplies throughout the irrigation network in Sindh have been
severely affected by the inadequate irrigation supplies. The sample farmers along with some
137
influential people while explaining any future benefits due to barrage rehabilitation works
reported that the intended benefits have been drastically reduced due to unavailability of reliable
irrigation in the area. In their opinion the rehabilitation works were important to safeguard future
development. However, reliable supplies throughout the system have greater importance in terms
of efficiency. It is suggested that sustainable water policy ensuring transparent water management
is needed to tackle the situation such as unprecedented drought or else flood. For example Sindh
before 2010 faced severe drought situation that significantly affected the agriculture productivity,
where as after 2010 heavy flood caused by the Rainfall. Water vision 2020 to 2025 tackles the
demand and supply aspect of water; it highlight the import ants of small dams in case of drought
and large expansion of drainage facilities in situation where flood water needed to be escape
through drainage to the Sea. However there is problem of commitment and dedication while
implementing the water vision policy.
Table 7.7 Gross and Net Crop Incomes by Location on the LBOD N=63
Crop
Output
Maunds
Price/
Maund
Rs per Acre % Net Return
On Total
Output Total Production Gross Fixed Net
Output Costs Income Costs Income Head
Cotton 22 496 10912 5053 5859 348.48 5510.52* 50
Rice 25 215 5375 3592 1783 169.19 1613.81 30
Sugar 594 40 23760 14323 9437 512 8925 38
Wheat 25 270 6750 4831 1919 300.02 1618.98* 24
Middle
Cotton 13 496 6448 5053 1395 348.48 1046.52 16
Rice 25 215 5375 3592 1783 169.19 1613.81 30
Sugar 540 40 21600 14323 7277 512 6765 31
Wheat 22 270 5940 4831 1109 300.02 808.98 14
Tail
Cotton 13 496 6448 5053 1395 348.48 1046.52 16
Rice 27 215 5805 3592 2213 169.19 2043.81 35
Sugar 532 40 21280 14323 6957 512 6445 30
Wheat 22 270 5940 4831 1109 300.02 808.98 14
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
*= Significant differences by head to tail reaches at 95% CI
138
Table 7.8: Average Gross and Net Crop Incomes in the LBOD Area by Drainage Type N = 63
Crop
Rs. Per Acre On
Total
Output Price/ Total Production Gross Fixed Net Output
Maunds Maund Output Costs Income Costs Income
Tube-wells
Cotton 22 496 10912 5053 5859 348.48 5510.52* 50
Rice 39 215 8385 3592 4793 319 4474 53
Sugarcane 782 40 31280 14323 16957 457 16500* 53
Wheat 35 270 9450 4831 4619 93.3 4525.7 49
Scavengers
Cotton 18 496 8928 5053 3875 368 3507 39
Rice 42 215 9030 3592 5438 319 5119 57
Sugarcane 639 40 25560 14323 11237 457 10780 42
Wheat 38 270 10260 4831 5429 93.3 5335.7* 52
Interceptors
Cotton 17 496 8432 5053 3379 368 3011 35
Rice 38 215 8170 3592 4578 319 4259 52
Sugarcane 746 40 29840 14323 15517 457 15060 50
Wheat 41 270 11070 4831 6239 93.3 6145.7* 55
Tile Drains
Cotton 21 496 10416 5053 5363 368 4995 47
Sugarcane 785 40 31400 14323 17077 457 16620 52
Wheat 30 270 8100 4831 3269 93.3 3175.7 39
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
*= Significant differences by head to tail reaches at 95% CI
139
7.5 Livestock Equipment and Machinery
Livestock products make up approximately 24 percent by value of the agricultural production
of the irrigated areas in the region. They could and should contribute far more but in general
the farmers of the irrigated area are crop growers and have not fully considered the commercial
potentialities of livestock production. It is the most common form of capital accumulation
among rural households in the research area. The women within the households mainly look
after it. They graze them on `fallow' and ‗recently harvested lands‘ and keep them in their
homesteads. Income from livestock sales are usually spent on special needs such as buying
clothes, dowries, visiting parents and attending festivals. Livestock is also regarded as a ‗liquid
asset‘, as it is sold very quickly, depending on the farmer‘s needs to meet both agricultural and
non-agricultural cash requirements.
Traditionally, cattle and buffaloes are regarded as the most valuable form of livestock in the area
because of their importance not only in accumulating capital but their contribution in agricultural
activities. The majority of male buffaloes are slaughtered before the age of three whereas the
majority of male cattle are reared to make working oxen used for transporting purposes and also a
source of draft animals for land preparation. Buffaloes outnumber cows in the project area.
7.6 Livestock Production and Trading
Most of the cattle beef comes from worn-out working bullocks and milk cows. Whereas, buffalo
beef comes from younger animals, as most of the males are slaughtered in their second year. In
addition to cattle and buffaloes, sheep and goats are also a major source of income in the area. The
main products from these animals in order of importance are: for sheep, mutton, wool and skins,
and for goats, mutton, milk, skins and hair. Mutton, particularly from the goat is the most popular
meat in the region.
The trading (buying and selling) of the majority of livestock takes place once in every week at the
nearest towns by livestock owners. This includes the trading of a wide range of animals including
cows; buffaloes; sheep; and goats. These animals are purchased during trading by
middlemen/contractors who then transport them to other large towns and cities for slaughtering
other purposes.
140
Regarding the distribution of direct benefits on livestock development as a result of LBOD project
it is pointed out that it is too early to estimate project impact on livestock or the production of
livestock products. The earlier sections on crop incomes described that the project‘s direct impact
on income has yet to be realized, given that the net crop incomes of farmers were not significantly
high due to project intervention. Therefore, it will be realistic to assume that project activities do
not determine the patterns of livestock ownership; rather it would be some other factors such as
the deteriorating quality of land that influences farmers to invest in livestock.
Survey data (Table 7.9) shows that among all types of livestock, buffaloes were the most popular
animals in the project area because as compared to cows, they produced a high yield of milk70
.
The comparison of livestock ownership by farm-size categories does not indicate discrepancies to
the extent found in the case of land distribution. The reason, for this may be that livestock
ownership by the small farm size category is regarded as a source of ‗self employment’. Farmers,
especially those, who see crop production as non-profitable because of increasing costs,
inadequate irrigation supplies, and low returns, shift towards buying animals when they are born
or at their younger age.
These animals then are kept on grazing till the time they are ready to be sold during the religious
festivities such as Eid ul Azha71
. This earns them better profit margins compared to the prevailing
low returns from crop cultivation.
70
According to their estimates the annual yield of buffaloes was about 40 to 45 percent higher compared to cows 71
Eid ul Azha :Because of the higher demands for livestock (such as cows, buffaloes, goats) during this festival and
farmers can earn a handsome amount
141
Table 7.9: Livestock Ownership Patterns in LBOD Command Area
Average Livestock Ownership Average Market Price
Farmer Type Mean Minimum Maximum Std
Dev Mean Minimum Maximum N
Large Farmers
Cows 2 1 13 2.26 10196 1200 15000 29
Bulls 1 1 3 0.66 3885 1000 10000 13
Calf 2 1 8 1.36 2718 1200 5000 27
Buffaloes 3 1 10 1.97 19060 12000 28000 50
Oxen 2 2 2 0 14875 7000 20000 24
Sheep‘s 7 3 12 4.73 1433 800 2000 3
Goats 4 2 10 2.26 2108 600 16000 23
Other 1 1 1 0 7750 5000 10000 4
Medium Farmers
Cows 3 1 12 2.24 11953 1500 60000 32
Bulls 2 1 6 1.45 4050 2500 10000 10
Calf 2 1 8 1.41 2868 2000 5000 35
Buffaloes 4 1 15 2.96 18874 2700 35000 58
Oxen 2 2 4 0.56 17740 10000 42000 27
Sheep‘s 7 5 10 3.54 1000 1000 1000 2
Goats 5 1 12 3.17 1480 500 2000 25
Other 1 1 1 . 5000 5000 5000 1
Small Farmers
Cows 5 1 20 3.95 11675 5000 36000 40
Bulls 2 1 6 1.41 6118 1100 20000 11
Calf 2 1 5 1.02 2110 1200 3000 38
Buffaloes 6 1 35 5.88 20272 11000 30000 57
Oxen 3 2 6 1.12 15468 9000 20000 31
Sheep 4 2 8 2.83 1425 1200 1500 4
Goats 8 2 25 5.17 1534 500 2000 32
Camel 4 4 4 . 30000 30000 30000 1
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
142
7.7 Ownership of Farm Assets
Farm assets besides land consist of livestock, machines (and implements) and other physical
structures used to keep livestock and machines. The data on the ownership of selected items of
farm equipment and household assets provides information on two important issues: a) it
indicates the degree of mechanization; b) it helps to explain the standard of living of people in the
project area.
Table 7.10 Equipment Ownership Patterns in the LBOD Command Area
Item Details Small Farmers Medium-size Farmers Large Farmers
Average
Owned Cases
Average
Owned Cases
Average
Owned Cases
Vehicle 1 5 1 10 1 25
Ox-Plough 1 32 1 39 2 37
Ox- Cart 1 30 1 30 1 30
Hand Pump 1 8 1 21 1 24
Tractor 1 5 1 14 1 33
Trailer 1 3 1 6 1 24
Mechanical Thresher 1 1 1 2 1 15
Fodder Chopper 1 17 1 26 1 43
Motorcycle 1 10 1 23 1 28
Bicycle 1 12 1 18 2 30
Radio/Cassette 1 36 1 47 1 42
Fan Electric 3 16 4 25 5 32
Television 1 8 1 17 1 30
Dish Antenna - - 1 4 1 11
Fridge - - 1 1 1 11
Air-Conditioner - - 2 1 2 4
Air-Cooler - - 1 8 2 4
Pump Engine Driven - - - - 1 1
Other 1 2 1 3 1 25
Source: Survey Data, 2005-2006
Table 7.10 shows the extent of mechanization and distribution of farm machinery by the Farm-
size categories in the area. It records that large farms own considerably more agricultural
machinery such as, tractors, trailers; and threshers as compared to medium and small farmers. It
143
must be mentioned here that the ownership of tractors and threshers does not only assist in
adopting mechanized methods of agricultural production, but it also enables them to generate
additional resources through renting out during the peak crop periods. The data on household
items like, washing machine; television sets; motorcycle; air-conditioners; and vehicles suggests
that large farm household is relatively better off compared to small land owners in the region.
It is mentioned that overall performance of these drainage types has considerable impact on
varying crop output and incomes. The sample data reveals that the majority of farmers were
not found to be satisfied with the overall performance of LBOD drainage infrastructure,
including deep tube-wells, scavengers, interceptors and tile drains. This indicates that farmers,
who are beneficiaries in terms of increased crop production and incomes as well as increased
price of their land, are found to be highly concerned with the overall performance of drainage
infrastructure that controls salinity and water logging in the project area. Further confirms that
the majority of farmers have complains regarding O & M of drainage facilities and electricity
failures.
144
7.8 Conclusion
Chapter seven is a continuously of primary data analysis as in the preceding chapters (I.e. chapter
four, five, six). This chapter analysis interprets study results for cropping yields, farm income and
livestock ownership details. Chapter also discuss links water table depths (I.e. discussed in
Chapter Six), with crop incomes by land size drainage type and location on sample water courses.
The Total Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test has been applied to show the significant
level at 99 percent confidence interval would suggest Mirpurkhas District enjoying
significantly high per acre land to Sugarcane to that of the other two districts, also Rice crop in
per acre yields was reported significantly high that of Nawabshah and Sanghar. It was further
reveal that net return on total output was 64 percent high for Rice crop compare to other major
crops ( such as Cotton, Wheat, Sugarcane). It was also reveals that large Farmers are the
maximum recipient in the Project area net incomes of study area. Therefore the objective of
LBOD (I.e. increase in crop income) is partially fulfilled as it benefits large farmers which are
very common to that of other investment in Agriculture sector. Gross net incomes were reported
high at head of Water-course to that of Middle and Tail reaches. This further confirms the
dividends benefits emerging from the LBOD Project. The chapter reveals that farmer reported
significantly higher yields on the Tube wells to that any other drainage type (excluding Wheat in
Scavenger). Livestock ownership pattern suggested that project area/Study area is dominates by
Agriculture to that of any mode of earning livelihood. This LBOD region in Sindh like any other
region in Sindh has shifted from is slowly from conventional modes of Agriculture. Majority of
farmers reported that they used Ox-Plough only at initial stage of land leveling where as they have
shifted Ox-Plough to Tractor. 70 percent samples farmers own Bicycle, 60 percent Motorcycle
and 60percent Radio player, where as 17 percent had Air-conditioner and Dish Antenna in there
houses.
145
CHAPTER EIGHT
Farmer Participation in LBOD Operations, Maintenance and Cost Recovery
8.1 Introduction
The cost recovery of LBOD project that is capital, Operation and maintenance cost has been in
debate since the start of the project. This debate improves charges against drainage facilities
and mode of recovery from small and large farmers. It is mentioned that the experience in
similar project shows that the project will not recovered for all costs and being operated
through public sector funding. Ideally any drainage cost either capital or operation and
maintenance cost has been recovered through the beneficiaries. In the case of LBOD, the
farmers see no immediate increase in availability of water supplies, reliable electricity for
operating drainage facilities, therefore the farmer‘s opinion that their will be no immediate
increase in crop production and crop income. Thus there is no question for charging them for
LBOD cost. This chapter proves in to this very important question and assesses the farmer
response towards participation in project through the contribution towards operation
maintenance and cost recovery of LBOD installations.
8.2 Conceptualizing Cost-Recovery Principles
Cost recovery has discussed earlier include cost comprising total capital cost of project along
with future operation and maintenance cost of newly established installations such as LBOD
facilities. In the case LBOD capital cost include the cost of Scavenger wells, Horizontal
drainage facilities including payment to farmers, where the horizontal drainage runs through
farmer fields, and total cost of installation of Sump wells, the Tile drainage and the shallow
Tube wells. Where as the operational and maintenance costs include management costs, labor
costs and costs of horizontal drainage. It also includes the costs of maintaining future operation
costs in running the drainage system; the scholars (Massarutto 2002, Pathan P.A. 2001, Pathan
P.A. Perrera J 1995,) debated that.
The marginal cost method in appropriate way estimating user cost, where as marginal cost is
the cost that is charged against the present value of any future sum that forgone due to current
used of resources (Howe 1979). The next component of estimating cost recovery is the
determination of total cost. In the case of LBOD this is a challenge as the total cost has been
changed repeatedly since the project inception and the stage where LBOD structure has been
146
handed over to IPD/SIDA. The major problems relating to delays estimating project costs has
been delays implementation that trigged pricing projections. The delays are subject to various
projects such as public project priority in actually putting money in per plant for the project
implementation, political pressure and etc. Decided estimation regarding farmers willingness to
participate towards total and O-M Costs has been has estimated which resulted varying
number through out the project life there will number of farmers has to been link between
performance. Where as performance is estimated through the increases in available water
supplies, the enhance acreage for crop cultivation, yield difference and finally that possible
changes in crop income pattern. Overall experience in the similar project suggests that 25 to 30
percent O-M cost recovered. Where as it is also seen in similar project that the gap between
recovery and actual cost wideness resulting in poor maintenance leading to project failure. It is
explained that LBOD Project provides similar situations where by ownership of drainage
facilities is questioned by farmers/users.
Cornish and Perry 2003 suggested that, even if there are no immediate benefits accruing the
drainage installations in minimum rate of 2 percent. Total crop income be recovered has the
portion o cost towards O&M. in order to ensure the efficiency through which LBOD performs
in future Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (SIDA), was established. SIDA maiden was
to enhance the farmer willingness in participating of O&M activity through their contribution
towards cost recovery and operation and maintenance cost. The SIDA also aim that estimating
real income crop on which pricing can be estimated. Since its inception in 2003 SIDA has
failed to achieve its objectives.
The difficulty to convince farmers for the need to contribute towards construction cost need to
be addressed through repeating the message to farmers and using various analogies that cost
contribution was must. Farmers be explained that projects of similar nature would be carried
out on cost sharing basis. In order to prorogate the objectives and benefits of the project, social
units, field experience gained through contacting sample farmers has been summarized in
Table 8.1.
147
Table 8.1: Farmer Response to the Importance for Propagating LBOD Objectives and
Benefits
SNO %
Response Areas in Focus
1 87 Awareness of the problems and possible solutions in the project area
2 88 Frequent contact with the farmers, establishing a relationship of trust,
confidence and friendship.
3 67 Listening to farmers to identify problems as perceived by the farmers,
and to identify the farmers‘ sources of motivation.
4 87 Clear and repeated explanation of the functioning of the drainage
benefits, as well as the requirements for farmers participation.
5 78 Continuous contact with farmers at all times, for the duration of the
LBOD Project.
6 70 Prepare tailor made training sessions on the basis of farmers‘ questions
and apprehensions, and keep the sessions short and practical
7 81 Identify ‗village activists‘ and encourage them to organize and motivate
the farmers at the site, gradually taking over the role of the project staff.
8 83 Visit or otherwise contact absentee landlords to encourage their support
for construction, finding ways for these landlords to play a positive role
in the Planning and implementation process.
All 80
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
8.3 Farmers be mobilized
Farmers should be organized in a functional drainage organization. All the aspects regarding
benefits and responsibilities should be cleared to all concerned; if possible, it is highly
necessary to provide a kind of legal cover to fulfill the responsibilities of all concerned. Stall of
the implementing agency should only take the role of a good facilitator. The community should
not feel over-ruled. There should be no misunderstanding and ambiguity in passing on the
messages to the farming community. Messages given by different persons on different
occasions should not contain any contradictions, otherwise the farmers will be confused and
their confidence in the implementing agency and the staff will be shattered. There should
148
always be a two way communication, take feedback and appreciate to the opinion and ideas of
the community. Clarify all the expected inputs, for pre-project, during the execution and after-
care operation & maintenance role and responsibilities of farmers and the department. Also
about the capital cost, beneficiary‘s share and department‘s share should be indicated. Detail of
arrangements for O&M phase should be worked out, such as, who will operate the system?
Who will pay for operational costs and how much towards O&M and operator(s)
8.4 Farmers’ share should be ensured as a pre-requisite for any further step
Farmers‘ contribution, by means of labour, cash and kind (land and crop compensation) should
be ensured before any works are implemented. This should be on proportionate basis of land
holding. Who should pay and in what proportion, in case of share cropper or contract farmer is
to be left up to the community to decide, because this is still a point of discussion.
The farmers should not object to have permanent structures, such as a sump, pump house and
manholes in their fields. Project should not pay for crops to be damaged in case of use of
machines. The farmers should decide themselves mutually about this matter also.
Government of Sindh‘s current objective is to increase both water and drainage charges so that
the full costs of both irrigation and drainage system O&M are recovered in a phased manner
from the direct beneficiaries (SAR, LBOD Stage-I Project 1984). Under agreements for other
Bank Group operations, full recovery of irrigation system expenditures in Sindh province is
expected. Total irrigation system O&M expenditures currently are estimated to be Rs. 100 per
cropped ha. In FY84, GO Sindh also introduced a ‗drainage charge‘ in areas currently provided
with drainage, averaging about Rs. 40 per cropped ha. (Or about 20 % of the current Sub-
optimal drainage O&M expenditures of about Rs. 200 per hectare in areas with public Tube
well facilities, and a nominal charge for areas with surface drainage only). In addition,
Government of Sindh recovers cash costs of – and farmers supply donated labor for – OFWM
works.
149
Table 8.2: How do you utilize supplementary Source of water that comes through LBOD?
S. No Description
Kharif 2006 Rabi 2005-2006
1 Cultivated land Additional Acres
81 80
2 Cultivated same acreage 2 2
3 Additional Source is not Useable 13 14
4 Used water to Grow Higher Yield Crops 3 3
5 Others 1 2
All 100 100
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Irrigation charges are collected on the basis of area cropped and vary for different crops
according to their water requirements. The determination of water charge assessments and
collections for a specific area at any time is therefore difficult. However, available aggregate
data shows that water charges collected in Sindh during 1984 averaged about Rs. 45 per ha of
CCA, or about Rs. 55 per cropped ha. Estimates for the project area are somewhat higher
(about Rs. 60 per cropped ha), because of the higher proportion of cotton grown. During the
past four years through FY84, the Government of Sindh has increased irrigation water charges
by about 150% (or an average of 25% per year in nominal terms). Despite these substantial
increases, in FY84 irrigation charges collected amounted to only about 44% of total irrigation
O&M expenditures.
It is proposed that the initial recovery of combined charges for irrigation and drainage O&M
for this sub area in 1990 be about Rs.245 per cropped ha in 1984 prices (Rs.120 for irrigation
and Rs.125 for drainage). This amount would be about 300% higher than current recoveries of
about Rs.60 per ha for irrigation only. Although full irrigation O&M cost recovery of Rs.120
per ha is expected to be 1988, drainage charges would continue to increase periodically until
the equivalent of full drainage O&M cost recovery, currently estimated at over Rs.600 per
cropped ha. In 1984 prices, this may be achieved in about year 2005 (SAR, LBOD, 1984).
150
According to WAPDA (1999), LBOD Stage-I project is intended to provide surface and
priority subsurface drainage for an area of nearly 1.3 million acres covering parts of
Nawabshah, Sanghar and Mirpurkhas districts. It includes complementary investments in
irrigation improvement, both on-farm and in the main and distributary systems. The project
would utilize the LBOD spinal drain and KPOD constructed earlier by irrigation department
and remodeled by WAPDA and will provide a new outfall in the form of the Tidal Link. The
project seeks to address the irrigation and drainage problems which had led to the deterioration
of agricultural productivity and quality of land over a 516,000 hectares area within the Sukkur
Command of the left bank of River Indus. It has an investment cost of over US $ 800 million
with annual operations and maintenance cost of over US $ 30 million. A key element of the
project to be successful is that a satisfactory and workable system of cost recovery is put in
place once construction is completed, to generate sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
irrigation and drainage network.
8.5 Operations and Maintenance Issues related to LBOD
Survey data reveals that pumping units for interceptor drains / sump-wells under LBOD Stage
Project were imported from Canada, and farmers had no experience for their operation and
maintenance. O&M has been regarded as a problem to be solved by engineers through better
organization and more resources, with the farmers limited to paying for new irrigation and
drainage facility only. It was only in 1992 following the preparation of the ODAs
Reassessment Studies, the MTR of 1992/93 and later Joint Donor Review Missions, that the
growing concern that beneficiaries did in fact have a key role in the O&M process was
articulated. LBOD is still perceived by Farmers as a ―government-owned‖ project. The major
factor for this has been the limited or no sharing offered to farmers at physical process of the
project. If farmer participation is to become institutionalized in LBOD, it will require a major
effort in reorientation and training of engineering staff.
Considerable insight into the drainage problems in the area was evident among the sample
farmers. Many provided perspective and useful comments regarding the cost and sophistication
of the works. Others suggested alternative drainage strategies, the most common being that
canals should be lined to reduce seepage. Whether or not their ideas and proposals were in fact
feasible, the planners and designers of LBOD have missed a major opportunity to incorporate
local views into the scheme.
151
Table 8.3: Land Affected By LBOD Facility- N=63
S:No Affects of LBOD Response
1 Loss of Land Reducing Crop Area
12
2 Water logging and Salinity 66
3 Increased Shortage of Water 15
4 Effects on Crop Yields 7
All 100
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Farmers either pay no tax or levies at all or pay very little. This is possible because of the weak
institutional structure at various levels in the public sector. Corruption in irrigation allocation
along with under-reporting of area and type of crops is common. The analysis of crop budget
(i.e., chapter seven) showed that farmers could pay much higher Abiana72
rates than the
existing rates they are charged. Besides, farmers are also willing to pay increased taxes
provided they receive higher benefits in terms of area under cultivation, equitable irrigation
allocations, and higher crop production; and WUAs should be strengthened and their roles
broadened and enhanced. However, there are many real obstacles that need to be tackled.
Poor O&M is the primary cause of the deteriorating performance of LBOD drainage facilities.
The NDP Feasibility Study Consultants‘ Report indicates that 74% of Punjab Provincial
Irrigation Department‘s (PID‘s) drainage O&M goes to administrative expenses and only 26%
of the budget is available for maintenance, which translates to about Rs. 4 per acre. In Sindh
the respective shares are 45% and 55%. The drainage facilities are deteriorating because of ad
hoc and insufficient allocation of funds for their maintenance. Insufficient cost recovery further
aggravates the O&M problem by reducing the resources available to finance O&M and
encouraging inefficient utilization of irrigation and drainage resources. In Punjab, Sindh,
NWFP, and Baluchistan, cost recovery in FY92 amounted to only 35%, 20%, 9%, and 21%,
respectively, of total expenditures on O&M. Clearly, all four provinces need to increase the
72
Abiana: Water charges
152
amount, improve the quality (use) and cost recovery, of O&M resources for irrigation and
drainage. Beneficiary contribution to drainage O&M also needs to be increased as the farm
budget analysis shows substantial benefits to the farmers. The beneficiaries will be responsible
for O&M of on-farm drainage facilities such as surface drains, tile drains, and FGW tube well
and of watercourses. On-farm surface drains would not require much O&M; farmers‘
contributions would be very small. Average annual O&M cost of on-farm tile drains is
estimated at Rs. 420 per ha.
Table 8.4: Perceptions about benefits drainage works N=63
SNO
Type of Drainage
works
Farmer Perceptions
Benefits in %
Highly
Beneficial
Quite
Beneficial
Somewhat
Beneficial No impact
1 Interceptors 19 22 48 11
2 Scavengers 15 47 21 17
3 Tile Drainage 17 22 38 23
4 Tube wells 61 12 19 8
5 All 28 25.75 31.5 14.75
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
The farmers are expected to form drainage and beneficiary groups for each sump and share the
O&M cost of the sump in proportion to each member‘s land holding size. The average annual
O&M cost of FGW tube wells is estimated at Rs. 372 per ha. The farmers are expected to pay
for the O&M cost through volumetric price charged for water by Farmer‘s Organizations.
O&M for watercourses is not a major issue. The beneficiaries will be responsible for part of
the O&M cost of off-farm drainage facilities on a cost-sharing basis.
Major causes of the under-maintenance and inadequate operation of the drainage (and
irrigation) systems are the present shortfalls in the former O&M- specific public revenue
generation system (abiana; drainage cess); and, the general paucity of Government funds for
both water management and flood protection system maintenance and for system development
purposes including reconstruction, modernization and extension. It was emphasized in the
study that the emerging autonomous SIDA, AWBs and FOs will require an O & M budget
level, which assures that on a yearly basis recurrent drainage system operation and
153
maintenance activities can properly be planned, prioritized and implemented to maximize in
the first place the area with potentially good and sustained agricultural crop yields. At the
same time, it is obvious that the present level of O & M outlays for both the irrigation and
drainage systems are falling short of what is required to reach the intended agricultural ( and
wherever possible environmental ) benefits.
Table 8.5: Satisfaction levels
S No. Description Ranking
1 Fully Satisfied from the benefits of LBOD facility 3
2 Moderately Satisfied from the benefits of LBOD facility 1
3 Not satisfied due to its poor performance 2
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
From the point of view of the available technical and managerial capabilities of the water
management staff- irrespective of the institutions they belong to- there are no major constraints
as to why the irrigation, drainage and flood protection systems should not be in a good and safe
shape in Sindh. The study recommended that in order to boost savings in O & M expenses,
efforts may be made to introduce modern and world wide tested cost-effective channel
maintenance machinery, tractor attachments and methods. Potential future O & M cost
reductions are further attainable if major maintenance and/or rehabilitation/ extension works of
channels and structures are identified within the context of a Master Plan encompassing all the
participating institutions including WAPDA, the Sindh IPD, the SIDA, the AWBs and the
farmer organizations.
The effects of such master plan and effective water quality control and system maintenance
activities, is expected to increase the willingness of the often hard-hit tail Enders to soften their
negative attitude towards the payment of any such water management charges.
Other constraints and difficulties in mobilizing farmers‘ participation were noted as deep
seated feeling of dependency on Government, lack of interaction, cooperation, confidence and
trust among farmers, and skepticism among farmers towards success of projects due to
154
previous experiences with unsuccessful and unsustainable government projects in their
communities.
The study recommended that the following variables may be given due consideration while
seeking farmer participation to achieve the objectives of irrigation systems management
projects and programs: location (head, middle and tail); Gender (active participation of
women); land holding (large, medium and small farmers and their quality of land); economic
activity (tenants, part time farmers, peasant proprietors in terms of availability of time with
them); and other differentials such as age, ethnic background, and education. It was stated that
the important features of the new organizations are autonomy and working on business
principles notably cost effectiveness, transparency, accountability and customer orientation.
Table 8.6: Who should take the Responsibility of O & M N=63
S No O&M Responsibility
Response
1 Government Agency
36
2 Farmers Organization 42
3 Both 22
4 All 100
Source: Survey Data 2005-6
For users, the delivery charges covering full O & M costs are financially feasible, not
burdensome. Current O & M charges are only 5 percent of either cost of production or farm
income, while recoveries average 70 percent of the charges. With full recovery of the current
O & M charges, the rate charges will only need to be doubled to meet full O&M requirements-
still less than 10 percent of farm income. It may be noted here that the WAPDA‘s costs are
attributed mainly to power production and supply. Irrigation related O & M costs are less than
5 percent of total provincial O & M costs; and so these are readily covered under a doubling of
the current O & M charges.
155
With no increase in delivery efficiencies, the increased charge amounts to Rs. 40 per acre foot
at the Mogha and Rs. 70 per acre foot in the field. The O & M charges will be reduced further
to the extent that the Farmers‘ Organizations take over the O & M at the distributary level and
improve delivery efficiency there. Also significant recovery gains can be made below the
Mogha through the FOs. Possibilities of following more closely the Long Run Marginal - Cost
Pricing Approach may, therefore, be explored – that is charging the different blocks of buyers
some fixed connection charge and attempting to price the unit of water at its marginal cost,
while taking into account the possible future investment projects.
Table 8.7: Causes of Poor Performance
S No. Description Ranking
1 Operational Faults 2
2 Lack of Adequate Supervision- No Regular Staff 3
3 Electricity Problems 1
4 Theft & Stealing of parts 7
5 Theft & Stealing of Electricity installations 6
6 Lack of interest by the farmers 8
7 Too sophisticated technology 4
8 Lack of training to Farmers to operate & maintain 10
9 Inadequate willingness to own facilities 5
10 Too much dependent on public initiatives 9
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Replacement of PIDs with public utilities, coupled with development of water markets based
on water property rights, permits not only efficient water pricing but also sustainable cost
recovery. Cost recovery is essentially a delivery charge per unit volume of water which
covers Current Full O & M Cost only, including those of federal and provincial water
156
authorities. It is not proposed to include past capital expenditures. All future investments,
however, both for additional and replacement capital, storage and delivery, are expected to be
fully recovered from either delivery charges or sale of rights, or both. Long term development
planning must allow for this in estimating future irrigation demand; and, these costs must be
made explicit by utilities in delivery contracts with user organizations.
Table 8.8: Perceptions about willingness to contribute towards LBOD works
N=63
S.No.
Type of
Drainage
works
Willingness to contribute towards LBOD works from benefits
IN PERCENT
0 1 5 10 20
1 Interceptors 2
2 Scavengers
3 Tile Drainage 1
4 Tube wells 6
5 All - 9 - - -
Source: Survey Data 2005-2006
Cost sharing and recovery have two aspects under the NDP project: to recover the (a)
investment cost and (b) operation and maintenance costs (O&M). Historically, neither the GOP
nor the Provinces have attempted to recover the costs of drainage investments or O&M from
beneficiaries; the only exception being under the Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) Project
wherein the Province of Sindh has a commitment with the IDA to recover 25-50 percent of the
O&M costs from beneficiaries of the project, once benefits become evident, through a
Drainage Cess. Cost recovery for irrigation investment is almost nil, but for O&M it is higher,
at about 44%.
157
8.6 Conclusion
This chapter explains the important of charging farmers operational and maintenance cost
along with exploring possibilities from cost recovery mechanism. The chapter reviews that
there is no link between fees collected and funds allocated to LBOD Project. The farmers
should have been provided awareness about the problems and possible solution in the project
area intended benefits of LBOD at planning levels. Famers at this stage see limited benefits
link with LBOD drainage, therefore there are reluctant contribute portion of there income
towards operation and maintenance cost recovery. The samples farmers suggested that
confidante measurement continuous indirection by policy makers/implementers was one of the
issue that slow response towards O-M and Cost recovery. Eighty percent farmers suggested
that if there was any land reclaimed by LBOD and if there were increase present water supplies
they would cultivate more land. The situation that increase in land is a novel idea therefore
they don‘t see to contribute towards the cost. The chapter also reviews some of the factors
towards poor performance of LBOD; these have been listed among which 98 percent sample
respondents reported that operational fault were the major causes towards under mining LBOD
performance.
158
CHAPTER NINE
Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 Conclusions
The research confirms that over past several years the irrigation under-performed due to
factors such as high cost to government; declining economic efficiency; problems
relating to the design, construction and operation and maintenance (O & M); low cost
recovery, and the lack of good governance.
Data shows that current performance of drainage facilities, including deep tube-wells,
scavengers, interceptors and tile drains, has increasingly raised questions as to the
reliability of irrigation supplies and control of salinity and water logging objectives of
the LBOD project are concerned. It is recommended that drainage is necessary
especially, in the context of controlling water logging and salinity issues for improving
quality irrigation supplies improving soil fertility.
Over past 15 years, in developing countries, including India, Sri Lanka, Philippines,
Turkey, and Chile, farmer participation has become an important tool to address the
issues relating to irrigation and drainage management. The approach has been evolving in
Pakistan and it is at an infancy stage. LBOD project was designed and implemented without
consulting end-users. The farmer‘s participation in policy formulation and decision about
choice of appropriate technology was ignored. Consequently, LBOD project is regarded as
public investment, the ownership of project by the farming community is drastically missing.
Analysis of key variables such as the cropping intensities, cultivation patterns, and crop
use by types of drainage and seasons, reveals that cropping intensities remained high in
Rabi season to that of Kharif. Wheat in Rabi and cotton in Kharif dominates in terms of
area cultivated under these crops.
Data shows that all three drainage modes have substantially contributed towards
cultivation of crops in the area. However, in the long term any sustainable benefits
derived from LBOD project will be linked with operation and maintenance of drainage
installation. Presently, LBOD installations are in poor state. Most of the scavenger tube
wells have been closed due to operation and maintenance problems. Similarly, the
159
shallow tube well that have been very useful in providing supplementary source of
irrigation have been out of operations due to unreliable supply of electricity.
The survey data indicates that Nawabshah among the three components of the project
recorded lowest water table i.e., under 0.9cm. On the whole statistically range 3 that is
150-300 with F values at 15.196 was the statistically significant depth among all three
components. This suggests that excluding this range, the LBOD presents uniformity of
water table depth at 95% confidence interval.
Based upon ANOVA analysis year to year comparison suggests significant differences
in the 0-90 cm range to depth to water table. It is to be mentioned here that 1994
remained rainy season and there were widespread floods caused by those rains. It could
be observed further that variation in those remaining years could be linked with
efficiency of LBOD installations as a means for maintaining water table depth. It is
argued that after 1994 especially in the years after 1998-1999 LBOD was fully
operational and it contributed significantly in maintaining the water tables, at below
crop tolerance levels.
Data through regression Analysis confirms that during the implementation phase water
table depth was high especially at 150 – 300cms range. This has negative effects on
crops like sugarcane, orchard and vegetables. Mirpurkhas significantly depicted lower
water table to that of other component under the range of 0-90cms. Excluding 450 -
600cms range, Mirpurkhs components shows that depth of water has remained low to
that of Nawabshah and Sanghar.
The survey data confirms that joint rural family set-up is preferred over nuclear family. It is
believed that this set-up gives more protection and social support along with political influence
in the kinship-oriented system of agrarian communities. It is argued that for any intended
impact of LBOD, it is essential that the family set-up in the project area is clearly understood as
it has a greater influence and control over resource use, and decision-making.
Data demonstrates no statistical difference in mean ownership of land by all three study
components. The land ownership is also highlighted by farmer‘s land that was owned
off- sample water course. These figures confirm that land ownership patterns are settled
throughout the study area as no significant differences could be seen. The data shows
160
that 81 percent of the farmers own less then 5-acress which amount to 39 percent of the
total area were as 12 percent farmers have medium size land holding 5 to 10 percent
covering the 21 percent of total area. Whereas the 7 percent of the farmers who have
the land holding between ten acres to sixty acres control or own the 40 percent of the
area.
Data reveals that cropping intensity have increased from 87.21 in 2001 to 101.13 in
year 2005-6. The scavengers well both in Rabi and Kharif are performing high as
compared to all other drainage types and components. However, the figures are not
statistically significant. The abandoned land also indicates a uniform pattern in both
Kharif and Rabi seasons in all tube well types and components. Overall area under
crops is significantly lower in Mirpurkhas especially under tile drains i.e. 63.8 percent
in Kharif and 65.6 percent in Rabi. The figures also show that area under abandoned
land is also on a higher side in tile drainage command areas compared to all other types
of drains in same season for the components of Nawabshah and Sanghar respectively.
Data indicates Rs. 5859 and Rs. 5511 as gross and net incomes for cotton, Rs. 4429 and
Rs. 4129 as the gross and net incomes for wheat in the project area. Net returns in terms of
percentages on the gross crop output (i.e. excluding variable and fixed costs) was reported
markedly identical for both cotton and wheat crops. Whereas, compared to both cotton
and wheat crops rice and sugarcane shows highest returns (i.e. rice 64 percent and
sugarcane 44 percent). The lowest returns on cotton crop can be explained by the public
intervention that reduced farm-gate prices of cotton since 1998-99 seasons. Further, input
costs for cotton crop tend to be higher compared to the cost incurred upon rice or wheat
crops.
161
9.2 Policy Recommendations
The research study proposes the most appropriate suggestions useful for future policy
measures:
I. Beneficiary farmers should identify the problem area
II. The Beneficiary farmers should be mobilized and organized before the actual
Implementation of any activity
III. Communication with the farmers should be systematic and clear
IV. Better results achieved by working with own social organizer
V. Farmers‘ share should be ensured as a pre-requisite for any further step
I. Beneficiary farmers should identify the problem area
The first and foremost thing is that beneficiary farmers themselves should be able to identify
the affected area to be taken for development and improvement activities. After visiting the
area physically on the ground, a complete list of beneficiary farmers indicating ownership,
tenure ship with land holding should be made precisely. This will project enable manages to
put the responsibilities upon each member of the beneficiary group. This group should be
converted into Farmers Drainage Organization (FDO). The other basic question which needs
attention at this stage is who should contribute (owner or tenant) and in what proportion.
Further there are two types of tenants i.e. share croppers and contract farmers.
If the beneficiary farmers indicate need and identify affected area themselves, then it gives
added benefit that you know beforehand quite well, the technical possibilities to solve the
problem. Boundaries of the selected area should be on the basis of hydrologic features, such as,
in between the watercourses‘ commands. The size of the selected area should also be
manageable by a group of farmers.
162
II. The Beneficiary farmers should be mobilized and organized before actual
implementation of any activity
Farmers should be organized in a functional drainage organization. All the aspects regarding
benefits and responsibilities should be cleared to all concerned; if possible, it is highly
necessary to provide a kind of legal cover to fulfill the responsibilities of all concerned. Stall of
the implementing agency should only take the role of a good facilitator. The community should
not feel over-ruled.
III. Communication with the farmers should be systematic and clear
There should be no misunderstanding and ambiguity in passing on the messages to the farming
community. Messages given by different persons on different occasions should not contain any
contradictions, otherwise the farmers will be confused and their confidence in the
implementing agency and the staff will be shattered. There should always be a two way
communication, take feedback and appreciate to the opinion and ideas of the community.
Clarify all the expected inputs, for pre-project, during the execution and after-care operation &
maintenance role and responsibilities of farmers and the department. Also about the capital
cost, beneficiary‘s share and department‘s share should be indicated. Detail of arrangements
for O&M phase should be worked out, such as, who will operate the system? Who will pay for
operational costs and how much towards O&M and operator(s).
IV. Better results achieved by working with own social organizer
It has been proved that working with an own social organizer from the farmer community give
better results than through other outside organizations. The social organizers, while working
directly with the community, gain their full confidence. Project director‘s control over social
organizer reduces the number of communication channels. Consequently, quicker and proper
communication with the farmers will be possible.
V. Farmers’ share should be ensured as a pre-requisite for any further step
Farmers‘ contribution, by means of labor, cash and kind (land and crop compensation) should
be ensured before any works are implemented. This should be on proportionate basis of land
holding. Who should pay and in what proportion, in case of share cropper or contract farmer is
to be left up to the community to decide, because this is still a point of discussion. The farmers
163
should not object to have permanent structures, such as a sump, pump house and manholes in
their fields. Project should not pay for crops to be damaged in case of use of machines. The
farmers should decide themselves mutually about this matter also.
Thus, these recommendations simply state the following observations:
There should be farmer participation in project planning and management.
Farmers should have full control over, when, how and how much water they use.
The amount of water used should be recorded accurately.
There should be participatory management of water users association for involving the
farmers in decision making process for improving communications between water
suppliers and users.
Public education programs should be used to increase water use efficiency.
There should be no corruption of irrigation officials.
The system has to reduce administrative costs.
Water charges should be transparent.
The water charges should be volumetric basis for encouraging the reduction of water
use.
Poor water delivery service in terms of timing and duration should be improved in
efficient water use.
Irrigation farms should be large size because small size farms create lower incomes.
There should be penalties for managers and irrigation project personnel who provide
poor services.
164
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy, C. L., Sally, H. Lonsway, K. and Maman, C., (2000). ―Farmer-based
Financing of Operations in the Niger Valley, Irrigation Scheme.‖ Research report 37,
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
2. Agricultural Statistics (2006-2007) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
3. Agriculture Statistics (1993-1994) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
4. Ahmad, B. (2002) ―Implications of Water Pricing in Pakistan.‖ FAO Regional Office
for the near East. Cairo, Egypt.
5. Alaerts, G., (2003) ―Indonesia: Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of the First Phase
of Its Irrigation Reform (1999-2002)‖. Jakarta Office, Rural Development and Natural
Resources Unit, World Bank.
6. Amin Sohani, (1997) Financial Feasibility Analysis of O & M Costs for Water User
Federations on Three Pilot Distributaries in the Province of Sindh, Pakistan. Pakistan
National Program, IIMI, Lahore.
7. Ashraf Muhammad (1978) Pakistan Water Power Development Authority, Survey and
Research Organization, Master Planning & Review Division pp-1-4.
8. Awati County Government, (2002). Report of Water Management Institutional Reform
in Fengshou Irrigation District. Awati County, Xinjiang, China.
http://www.xjawt.gov.cn/xianqing/jinji/fsgq.htm (in Chinese).
9. Azevedo, L.G., (1997). ―Brazil.‖ In Water Pricing Experiences An International
Perspective, ed. A. Dinar and A. Subramanian. Technical Paper Number 386, World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
10. Badruddin M. (1993): An Overview of Irrigation in Pakistan. Pakistan National
Program. International Irrigation Management Institute, Lahore
11. Bashar Amanullah (2004) Water crises, Pak & Gulf Economist Vol-XXV- No 12.
12. Belsare, Er. S., (2001) ―Participatory Irrigation Management in Katepurna Irrigation
Project: A Success Story.‖ ICID Watsave Young Professional Award Winning Paper.
New Delhi, India. http://www.icid.org/belsare_2001.pdf
13. Berbel, J. and Gomez-Limon, J.A., (2000) ―Multicriteria analysis of derived water
demand functions: a Spanish case study.‖Agricultural Systems 63(1):49-72, January.
14. Bhutta M.N. , and E.J Vander Velde, (1992) ―Equity of Water Distribution along
Secondary canals in the Punjab, Pakistan‖. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Vol. 6
No.2, pp: 161-177
165
15. Bosworth, B. G. Cornish, C. Perry, and F. van Steenbergen. (2002). ―Water Charging in
Irrigated Agriculture: Lessons from the Literature.‖ Report OD 145, HR Wallingford
Ltd, Wallingford, UK.
16. Bruns, B., and Helmi. (1996) ―Participatory irrigation management in Indonesia:
lessons from experience and issues for the future.‖ Paper presented at the Indonesian
National Workshop on participatory irrigation management, November 4–8.
17. Bueren M. and MacDonald D.H., (2004) ―Addressing water-related externalities: issues
for consideration. ‖Paper presented at the Water Policy Workshop convened by the
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne, Australia.
18. Byrnes, Kerry J. (1992) Water User Associations in World Bank- Assisted Irrigation
Projects in Pakistan. World Bank Technical paper No. 173. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
19. Censes of Agriculture (2007) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
20. Chaudhry, M. Ghaffar. (2001). Taxation of Agriculture; Current Practice,
Recommended Policies and Optimal Tax System for Pakistan. Institute of Developing
Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, Japan.
21. Cornish, G. A. and Perry, C. J., (2003) ―Water Charging in Irrigated Agriculture:
Lessons from the Field.‖ Report OD 150. HR Wallingford Ltd, Wallingford, UK.
22. Coward, E.W. (1980) ―Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Asia‖. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University Press.
23. Del Amor Garcia, F., (2000) ―Modernization Plan of Mula Traditional Irrigation.‖ ICID
WatSave Award 2000: Innovative Water Management Award. New Delhi, India.
http://www.icid.org/ws1_2000.pdf
24. Destro, S., (1997) ―Italy.‖ In: Water Pricing Experiences: An International Perspective.
ed. A. Dinar and A. Subramanian. Technical Paper Number 386, World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
25. Dinar, A. and Mody, J., (2004) ―Irrigation water management policies: Allocation and
pricing principles and implementation experience‖ Natural Resources Forum 28 (2)
112.
26. Dinar, A., (1994) ―Impact of Energy Cost and Water Resource Availability and Quality
on Agriculture and Groundwater Quality in California.‖ Resources and Energy
Economics 16: 47-66.
27. Easter, K. W., (2003) ―Cost Allocation and the Distribution of Costs For Irrigation in
Andhra Pradesh, India.‖ Unpublished paper, University of Minnesota, Department of
Applied Economics.
28. Easter, K. W., (1993) ―Economic Failure Plagues Developing Countries‘ Public
Irrigation: An Assurance Problem.‖ Water Resources Research 29(7): 1913-22.
166
29. Economic Development Institute (1996) Handbook on Participatory Irrigation
Management, Washington, DC: EDI/World Bank.
30. EDC, (1992). Local Capacity Support Project for Agricultural Development in the
LBOD Area; Vols. I and II. EDC (Pvt.) Limited and the Swiss Development
Cooperation, Islamabad, Pakistan.
31. FAO, (1999), Guidelines for the transfer of management of irrigation systems,
Irrigation and Drainage Paper series 58
32. FAO, (1999). Irrigation in Asia in figues. FAO Water Reports No 18. FAO, Rome
33. Geijer, J. C. M. A., Svendsen. M. and Vermillion, D. L. 1996. Transferring Irrigation
Management Responsibility in Asia: Results of a Workshop, Short Report Series on
Locally Managed Irrigation No. 13, International Management Institute, Colombo.
34. Gorriz, C. M., Subramanian. A., and Simas, J. 1995. Irrigation Management Transfer in
Mexico: Process and Progress, paper presented at the International Seminar on
Participatory Irrigation Management, Mexico, 8-15 February 1995.
35. GOS (Government of Sindh).2001. Irrigation and Drainage System in the Nara Canal
Command Institutional Development Pilot Project. Irrigation and Power Department,
Government of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan.
36. Government of Pakistan (1994-95) Economic Survey, Ministry of Finance, Economic
Advisor wing, Islamabad.
37. Government of Pakistan (2008-2009) Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan, Ministry Of
Food and Agriculture, Islamabad
38. Govt. of the People‘s Republic of Bangladesh (2000). ―National Water Management
Plan Project.‖ Draft Development Strategy, Vol. 5. Ministry of Water Resources.
Dhaka.
39. Government of Sindh (1992) Development Statistics of Sindh, Bureau of Statistics
planning and Development Department, Karachi.
40. Hamdane, A., (2002) ―Irrigation Water Pricing Policy in Tunisia.‖ FAO Regional
Office for the Near East, Cairo, Egypt.
41. Hatzius, T., (2002) ―The case of new water fee system in the Republic of Macedonia.‖
Series paper of MAINTAIN-case studies. Eschborn, Germany.
42. Hatzius, T., (2000) ―The Case of New Water Fee System in the Republic of
Macedonia: Market and Non-Market Failure in Path Dependent Institutional Reform,
Division 45-Rural Development.‖ MAINTAIN-Case Study no.7. Eschborn, Germany.
167
43. Hearne, R. R. and Easter, K.W., (1995) ―Water Allocation and Water Markets: An
Analysis of Gains-from-Trade in Chile.‖ Technical Paper 315. World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
44. Howe, C.W., (1979) ―Natural Resource Economics‖. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
45. Howe, C.W., (1997) ―Increasing Efficiency in Water Markets: Examples from the
Western United States.‖ In Water Marketing—the Next Generation, ed. T. Anderson
and P.J. Hill. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
46. Huppert, W. and Urban, K., (1999) ―Institutional Analysis of Water Delivery and
Maintenance Service Provision in Irrigation: The Example of the Jordan Valley.‖ Series
paper of MAINTAIN-case studies. Eschborn, Germany.
47. IBRD (1995) Participation in Irrigation. Environment Development Papers:
Participation Series- Paper No. 003. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
48. IBRD (1994) Pakistan Irrigation and Drainage: Issues and Options. Agricultural
Operations Division, South Asia Region, the World Bank, Washington, D.C.
49. IBRD (1984) Staff Appraisal Report of the LBOD Stage- I Project. South Asia Projects
Department, Irrigation- I Division, the World Bank, Washington, D.C.
50. IBRD. (1997) Pakistan National Drainage Program- Implementation Volume-I to the
Staff Appraisal Report. Rural Development Sector Management Unit, South Asia
Region, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
51. IRC (2004) Farmers‘ Organizations Development Plan. Institutional Reforms
Consultants, ARCADIS BMB - ECPAK/BMB, Hyderabad, Sindh.
52. IRC (2003) Cost-effective Operation and Maintenance of Water Management Systems
in Sindh (with special reference to the AWBs). Institutional Reforms Consultants,
ARCADIS BMB- ECPAK/ BMB, Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
53. IWMI. FAO, IPTRID, World Bank, (1999) Modern water control and management
practices in irrigation, impact on performance, Water Report 19.
54. Johansson R.C., Tsur Y., Roe, T.L., Doukkali R. and Dinar A., (2002) ―Pricing
irrigation water: a review of theory and practice.‖ Water Policy, 4: 173-199.
55. Johnson III, S. H., Vermillion, D., Svendsen, M., Wang, X., Zhang, X. and Mao, X.,
(1996) ―Management Reform and Performance Changes in Two Irrigation Districts in
the North China Plain.‖ Short Report Series on Locally Managed Irrigation, Irrigation
Water Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
56. Jones, W. I., (1995) ―The World Bank and Irrigation.‖ Operations Evaluation Study,
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
168
57. Kamal Simi (1999) ‖Farmers‘ Participation in NDP/ LBOD: Problems in Handing over
Operation and Maintenance to Communities‖ Proceedings of Second National Experts
Consultation on Farmer‘s Participation in Drainage. IWASRI- WAPDA, Lahore.
58. Kazi Asadullah (2004) An Analysis of inflow at River Stations of Western Rivers in
Pakistan‖ Published by Dr. Mumtaz Ali Kazi Institute of Chemistry, University of
Sindh, Jamshoro PP 64-73
59. Kazi Asadullah (2004) Degradation of the Indus Delta‖ Water scarcity in Sindh,
Published by Dr. Mumtaz Ali Kazi Institute of Chemistry, University of Sindh,
Jamshoro PP 78-86
60. Kazi Asadullah (2004) Management of water, Published in Daily Dawn, January,12,
P.7
61. Kemper, K, Goncalves, J. and Bezerra, F.W.B., (1999) ―Water allocation and trading in
the Cariri Region—Cerar, Brazil‖. In ―Institutional frameworks in successful Water
Markets: Brazil, Spain and Colorado, USA. Technical Paper Number 427,‖ ed. M.
Marino and K. Kemper. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
62. Kemper, K, and L.D. Simpson, (1999) ―The Water Market in the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District-Institutional Implications.‖ In ―Institutional frameworks in
successful Water Markets: Brazil, Spain and Colorado, USA. Technical Paper Number
427,‖ ed. M. Marino and K. Kemper. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
63. Kloezen, W. H., Garces-Restrepo, C. and Johnson III, S. H., (1997) ―Impact assessment
of irrigation management transfer in the Alto Rio Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico.‖
Research Report 15, International Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka.
64. Lashary MBK (1988) Sukkur Barrage: its impact on social life of the people of Sindh,
Published in Grassroots Bi-Annual Research Journal, Pakistan Study Center,
Jamshoro.
65. LED Smith and PA Pathan (1995) ―Private Groundwater in the Lower Indus: Policy
Issues‖. In Water Policy: Allocation and Management in Practice (edited) P. Howsam
and R. Carter. E&FN Spon London.
66. Lemos, M.C. and Oliveira, J.L.F., (2004) ―Can Water Reform Survive Politics?
Institutional Change and River Basin Management in Ceará, Northeast Brazil.‖ World
Development 32 (12).
67. Lin, Z., (2003) ―Participatory management by farmers - Local Incentives for Self-
financing Irrigation and Drainage Districts in China.‖ Environment and Social
Development East Asia and Pacific Region Discussion Paper, World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
68. Maass, A., Anderson, R.L., (1978) ―…And the Desert Shall Rejoice Conflict, Growth,
and Justice in Arid Environments‖. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
169
69. Mahmood Hasan Khan (2006) ―Agriculture in Pakistan Change and Progress 1947-
2005‖
70. Mahmood Hasan Khan (1994) ―Underdevelopment and Agrarian Structure in Pakistan‖
71. Malano, H. and van Hofwegen, P., (1999) ―Management of Irrigation and drainage
systems- a service approach‖, IHE monograph 3, A.a.. Balkema/Brookfield, Rotterdam.
72. Marino, M., and K. Kemper, eds., (1999) ―Institutional Frameworks in Successful
Water Markets: Brazil, Spain, and Colorado USA.‖ Technical Paper 427, World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
73. Martha B. et al ―New Approach to Solve Drainage Problems in Seepage Zones‖
support Notes. National Drainage Programme, Lahore.
74. Massarutto, A., (2002) ―Irrigation Water Demand in Europe: The Impact of Agenda
2000 and the `Water Framework Directive.‖ Economics Working Paper Series,
Università degli Studi di Udine, Italy.
75. McNeill, R. and Tate, D. 1991. ―Guidelines for Municipal Water Pricing.‖ Social
Sciences Series No. 25, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ONT.
76. Memon Y., Hammond Murray-Rust, Bakhsal Lashari and Mustafa Talpur. 2000.
Farmer Organizations in Participatory Irrigation Management in Sindh, Pakistan. 2000.
Final Report of ―Farmer Managed Irrigated Agriculture‖ Project. International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), Pakistan.
77. Monthly Progress Report April 2004, Social Development Cell, Post Transfer
Management Support, SIDA
78. Morris J., E.K. Weatherhead, J. Mills, J.A. Dunderdale, A.M. Hess, D.J. Gowing, C.
Sanders, and J.W. Knox, (1997) ―Spray Irrigation Cost-Benefit Study.‖ Cranfield
University, UK.
79. Muhammad Afzal (1996) ―Managing Water Resources for Environmentally
80. Mundrof alel (1976) Type of salinity was introduced with accelerated use of ground
Water.
81. National Drainage Programme (NDP) Project (Cr.2999-Pak) Implementation Review
Mission, April 29, 2003, World Bank
82. National Drainage Programmed (NDP) Project (Cr.2999-Pak) Review Mission: Aide
Memoire , July 10, 2003, World Bank
83. National Taxation Reforms Commission (1986) Final Report,
84. NDP- WAPDA. 2001. Proceedings of the 2nd National Seminar on Drainage in
Pakistan; April 18-19, 2001. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
170
85. Palacios, E.V. 1999. ―Benefits and Second Generation Problems of Irrigation
Management Transfer in Mexico.‖ Economic Development Institute Participatory
Irrigation Management Case Studies Series, Economic Development Institute, World
Bank and Irrigation Water Management Institute.
86. Pakistan Drainage Consultants. 2001. Operation and Maintenance Implementation and
Management Plan LBOD Stage- I Project. WAPDA Central Offices Complex,
Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan.
87. Pakistan Economic Survey, (2007-08) Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs Division,
Government of Pakistan Islamabad
88. Pakistan Economic Survey, (2006-07) Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs Division,
Government of Pakistan Islamabad
89. Pakistan Economic Survey (2004-2005) Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs
Division, Government of Pakistan Islamabad
90. Pakistan Economic Survey (1995-1996) Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs
Division, Government of Pakistan Islamabad.
91. Pathan, P. A., (2000) ―Farmers' Participation in the Irrigation and Drainage
Management: A Case Study of SCARP North Rohri Transition Pilot Project in Sindh‖
National Conference on Irrigation and Drainage Organized by the Irrigation and
Drainage Institute, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro,
IWASRI, WAPDA, Lahore.
92. Pathan, P. A. (1999) ―An Assessment of an Impact of Corruption on Conjunctive Use
of Surface and Ground Water Irrigation: A Case study in the lower Indus Region‖.
Sustainable and Development Policy. Institute Islamabad. The paper was presented in
the two days conference organized by SDPI, Islamabad.
93. Pathan, P. A., Perrera, j., (1995) ‖Operation and Maintenance and Cost
94. Pathan, P. A., (1999) ―Farmer Participation in Operation and Maintenance and Cost
Recovery of Irrigation and Drainage under LBOD project‖. In Proceedings of National
Experts Consultation on Farmers' Participation in Drainage International Water logging
and Salinity Institute (IWASRI)/ WAPDA, Lahore
95. Pathan P. A., Perrera J and et al (1995) ‖Operation and Maintenance and Cost
Recovery: With Reference to Farmer Participation in Drainage Activities‖ Sindh
Development Studies Centre, ITAD, and Wye College.
96. Pathan P. A., (2001) ―Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Study, Kotri Barrage
Rehabilitation Project. SDSC & Irrigation and Power Department. Government of
Sindh
97. PNCS, (1992) Distribution of Water loss in Pakistan Indus Basin, Surface 7 Ground
Water Availability. A Report No 48. Islamabad.
171
98. Qureshi Aijaz (1988) Sukkur Barrage and its Role in the Economy of Sindh, Arts
Research Journal Vol. XIX- No 12, University of Sindh Jamshoro
99. Raby, N., From Participatory Irrigation Management to Irrigation Management
Transfer: The Process and Progress In Sri Lanka. Consultant Report to the Economic
Development Institute. The World Bank
100. Raby, N., Participatory Irrigation Management in the Philippines: National Irrigation
Systems. EDI Participatory Irrigation Management Case Studies Series.
101. Rafique.M (1999) ―Farmers Participation in Drainage: Lessons Learnt from the
Bhawalnagar Pilot Project Area. IWASRI- WAPDA Lahore.
102. Rajput M. Idriss (2002) Water is fundamental of Natural Resources: Exploitation and
Regulation of Fresh water, Lahore.
103. Ratnayake, R. 1995. Irrigation Management Transfer in Sri Lanka, pp 79-87 in
J.C.M.A. Geijer, ed., Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia: Papers from the Expert
Consultation on Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia, Bangkok and Chiang Mai,
25-29 September 1995.
104. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture (1988) Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad
105. Report on Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Award and Training on the Theme of
Conservation Measures in Irrigation Systems. Kathmandu, Nepal, 1999, 22 pages.
Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust.
106. S. Akbar Zaidi (2009) ―Issues in Pakistan‘s Economy‖ Second edition revised and
expended
107. SCARP (1973) water and power development authority, Rechna Doab. Punjab a
Report. Vol.2. no.2. Lahore.
108. Shaikh Asghar (2005) Pakistan Water Development Authority: Pakistan claims to own
the Largest Net of irrigation system in world, Development & Management Islamabad:
Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources.
109. Shaikh M. Ayoob (2007) Shortage of water Day by Day Published in Journal of
Irrigation.
110. Shaikh Marvi (2006) Water crises: some issue and implication‖ Masters Dissertation
Isra University, Hyderabad
111. Shaikh Shafi Muhammad (2008) Problem of Water Management, Irrigation
Department of Karachi, Published in Dissertation.
112. SIDA. 2002. Water Management Ordinance. Sindh Irrigation and Drainage
Authority, Hyderabad, Pakistan.
172
113. Soenarno, (1995) Irrigation Management Transfer in Indonesia, pp 89-98 in J.C.M.A.
Geijer, ed., Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia: Papers from the Expert
Consultation on Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia, Bangkok and Chiang Mai,
25-29 September 1995.
114. Svendsen, M., Trava, J. and S.H. Johnson III. Participatory Irrigation Management:
Benefits and Second Generation Problems, Economic Development Institute of the
World Bank International Irrigation Management Institute.
115. The Agrarian Economy of Pakistan (1986) Issues and Policies Oxford University press
Karachi
116. Vermillion, D.., 2000. Management Devolution and the Sustainability of Irrigation:
Results of Comprehensive versus Partial Strategies. Presented at the FAO/World Bank
Technical Consultation on Decentralization and Rural Development, 16-18 December
1997, Rome.
117. WAPDA. 1999. Left Bank Outfall Drain Stage- I Project. Pakistan water and Power
Development Authority, Lahore.
118. Wijayaratna, C. M., and Vermillion, D. L. 1994. Irrigation Management Turnover in
the Philippines: Strategy of the National Irrigation Administration, Short Report Series
on Locally Managed Irrigation No. 4, International Irrigation Management Institute,
Colombo.
119. World Bank. 1994: Pakistan Irrigation and Drainage: issues and Options. Report No.
11884-Pak. The World Bank, Washington DC.
120. World Population Prospects (2008) United Nations Population Division, Nabi et al
1986
173
APPENDIX-A
Q UES TIO N NA I RE
Research Title
Socio-Economic Impact of Farmer Participation in O&M of Saline Tube wells, Scavenger
Wells, Tile Drainage, and Interceptor Drains in LBOD Area
Codes ________
1. REGISTERATION
1.1 Researcher’s Name____________________ 1.2 Date
1.3 Respondent’s name____________________ 1.4 Age
1.5 Village______________________________ 1.6 Deh
1.7 Taluka______________________________ 1.8 District
1.9 Water course No
1.10 Name of Distributory/Minor
1.11 Registered farmers on this Watercourse
174
2. DEMOGRAPHY
Respondents Family Member
Relationship Age Education
Marital Status
1. Resident, 2. Non Resident, 3. Part –Time, 4. Full Time, 5. Nuclear, 6. Joint.
3. Land Ownership Patterns
3.1 Total area owned _______________________on this watercourse acres
3.2 Distribution of land owned
This Watercourse Inherited Rented Land Purchased Land Total
Off Watercourse
Total
3.3 If leased how much was seasonal rent charges (per acre)____________________
3.4 State the average value of land on per acre basis___________________________
3.5 Do you think the price of your land has increased in past five years?
1 = Yes
2 = No
If yes, explain reasons
175
Mode of Land Cultivation
S. No Description Kharif 2006 Rabi 2005 -2006 Total Acres
1 Self cultivation
2 Rented/leased out
3 Share cropped
4 Contract basis
5 Wage basis
6 Others
7 Total
3.6 If share crop number of haris in Kharif __________ in Rabi ___________
3.7 Wage rate per season / Acer ______________
3.8 Crops Grown During Kharif season 2006
Kharif 2006
Acres Cotton Rice Sugarcane Vegetable Orchard Fodder Other
Rabi 2005-06
Acres
Wheat Oilseeds Sugarcane Vegetable Orchard Fodder Other
176
3.9 Land Use
S.No. Description Kharif 2006 Rabi 2005-2006
1 Area cultivated
2 Fallow
3 Abandoned
4 Others
3.10 Reason for Land Not Cultivated
S.No Reasons
Area in Acres
Kharif 2006 Rabi 2005-06
1 Lack of water
2 Salinity & Water logging
3 Soil Fertility (Sahee/Fallow
4 Lack of Money
5 Lack of Labor
6 Other ______________
7 Other ______________
177
4. Timing
Crops
Sowing
/planting
dates
No. of
irrigation
turns
required
No. of
turns
received
Seed
varieties
Plough No
tractors
Precision &
leveling
Wheat
Sugar cane
Cotton
Rice
Oil seeds
Vegetable K
Vegetable R
Fodder K
Fodder R
4.1 The Sowing was on time, early, late
4.2 Reason for shortage of irrigation
178
4.3 How do you utilize supplementary Source of water that comes through LBOD?
S. No Description
Kharif
2006
Rabi
2005-2006
1 Cultivated land Additional Acres
2 Cultivated same acreage
3 Additional Source is not Useable
4 Used water to Grow Higher Yield Crops
5 Others
5. Input Use Kharif 2006
S.No Cotton Rice
S.Cane Vegetable Orchard Onion Fodder Unit cost Total cost
Tractor
Seed
Plough
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Leveling
Labour
Wedciding
Abiana
Usher
Land tax
Drainage
Electericity
Others
Note: Explain electricity rates & procedure
179
6. Input Use Rabi 2005 - 2006
S.No Wheat Oil Seeds
S.Cane Vegetable Orchard Onion Fodder Unit cost Total cost
Tractor
Seed
Plough
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Leveling
Labour
Weeding
Abiana
Usher
Land tax
Drainage
Electericity
Maintain
Note: Explain electricity rates & procedure
180
7. Water Course Maintenance
How often you contribute your labor for WC cleaning and maintenance?
1) Once in season
2 ) Twice in season
3) Thrice in season
4) Others
7.1 Explain Type of Contribution For Watercourse Maintenance
7.2 Is your land affected by LBOD facility?
1) Yes
2) No
If Yes Explain
7.3 Are there are any benefits from LBOD facility?
If Yes Explain
181
8. Crop Yields
S. No Name of crop Yield m/ acre Area cultivated Total yield
1 Cotton
2 Rice
3 Sugar cane
4 Vegetable
5 Onion
6 Orchard
7 Fodder
9. Income From Agriculture
S. No Kharif
Crops
Total Products
in Maunds
Price /
Maund
Consumed
at home
Not sold in
market
1 Cotton
2 Rice
3 Sugar cane
4 Onion
5 Vegetable
6 Orchard
7 Fodder
182
8 Other
RABI CROPS
9 Wheat
10 Oil seeds
11 Vegetable
12 Orchard
13 Fodder
14 Other
10. Income from Other Sources
S. No Type of Economic
activities
Duration past
over year
Excess Earning
per month
Net Earning per
year monthly basis
1
2
3
4
5
183
11. Please tick Agencies that you came across during past one year
S. No Type No of visits during Past one
year
Ranking Satisfaction
1 to 4
1 Agriculture extension
2 IPPD
3 WAPDA
4 Fertilizer Agent
5 Chemical Agent
6 OFWM
7 Soil Scientist
8 Others
Comments
184
11.1 How often in a season you interact with Extension Agents?
State times in season
12. Perceptions & Willingness
12.1 Satisfaction levels
S No. Description Ranking
1 Fully Satisfied from the benefits of LBOD facility
2 Moderately Satisfied from the benefits of LBOD facility
3 Not satisfied due to its poor performance
4 Other ________________________________
12. 2 Do you level your land ? 1) Yes 2) No
If No state reasons
12.3 Are you to give your services and or pay contribution if needed, while maintaining
and operating the drainage system 1) Yes 2) No
If No reasons
12.4 Do you think O & M is the responsibility of:
1. Government Agency
2. Farmers Organization
3. Both
4. Any Other
185
12. 5 Causes of Poor Performance
S No. Description Ranking
1 Operational Faults
2 Lack of Adequate Supervision- No Regular Staff
3 Electricity Problems
4 Theft & Stealing of parts
5 Theft & Stealing of Electricity installations
6 Lack of interest by the farmers
7 Too sophisticated technology
8 Lack of training to Farmers to operate & maintain
9 Inadequate willingness to own facilities
10 Too much dependent on public initiatives
11 Other
186
12.6 Perceptions about benefits drainage works
S.No.
Type of
Drainage
works
Farmer Perceptions
Ranking Benefits Negative Impact
Highly
Beneficial
Quit
Beneficial
Some what
Beneficial Indifferent No impact
1. SCARP TWs
(FGW)
2. SCARP TWs
( SGW)
3. Interceptors
4. Scavengers
5. Tile Drainage
6. Surface
7. Spinal
8. Other
187
12.7.1 Perceptions about willingness to contribute towards LBOD works
S.No.
Type of
Drainage
works
Ranking Willingness to contribute towards LBOD works from
benefits
IN PERCENT
0 2.5 5 10 20
1. SCARP TWs
(FGW)
2. SCARP TWs
( SGW)
3. Interceptors
4. Scavengers
5. Tile Drainage
6. Surface
7. Spinal
8. Other
13 Soils & Depth to Water table
13.1 Quality of water used for agricultural purposes 1) Marginal Quality 2) Usable
13.2 Do you think that the LBOD facility has improved the quality of water for
agricultural use?
1) Yes 2) No
13.3 What was the impact of LBOD facility during recent rains in your area
13.4 1) Highly effective in pumping-out rain water
2) Relatively Effective
3) Poor performance
13.5 Depth to water Table in Rabi ________ Kharif ___________
13.6 Do you think LBOD installations have lowered down the water tables
1) Yes 2) No
13.7 Tube well working Hrs/Day __________________________________
13.8 Consumption of Electricity Per Day ___________________________
188
APPENDIX-B
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
S.No. Name Age Village Deh Taluka District Dist: Minor
1 Ali Gul 54 Muharam
Sher Kot Laloo Faiz Ganj Khairpur Amarji
2 Aleem 44 Muharam
Sher Kot Laloo faiz ganj Khairpur Nasrat
3 Manzoor 35 Muharam
Sher Kot Laloo Faiz Ganj Khairpur Nasrat
4 Khamiso
Khan 55
Dur Mohd
Brohi 58 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Right Jari
5 Saiful 55 Dur Mohd
Brohi 58 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Right Jari
6 Shafi Mohd 48 Dur Mohd
Brohi 58 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Right Jari
7 Ali Hassan 40 Usman
chutto 12 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Shinar
8 Gul Hassan 45 Usman
chutto 12 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Shinar
9 Mukhtiar
Ali 30
Usman
chutto 12 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Shinar
10 Hakim
Kamdar 26
Waryal
Brohi 20 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Nasrat
11 Liaquat Ali
Brohi 42
Ali M.
Brohi 20 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Nasrat
12 Ghulam
Nabi 55
Ali
Mohammad 20 Nasrat Nawabshah Nawabshah Nasrat
13 Shabir
kalari 45
Taj Mohd
Mirjat Jari Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Amarji
14 Juman 35 Taj Mohd
Mirjat Jari Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Amarji
15 Mohammad
Hussain 34
Taj Mohd
Mirjat Jari Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Amarji
16 Abdul
Fatah 30
Noor
Ahmed 73 Nasrat Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Nasrat
17 Sulaman
Chhuto 70
Sulaman
Chhuto 73 Nasrat Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Nasrat
18 Usman
Chhuto 65
Sulaman
Chhuto 73 Nasrat Nowshahroferoz Nowshahroferoz Nasrat
19 Ali Ghulam 35 Jhole Ghuj
Hiran Sinjhoro Sanghar Jhole
20 Ghullam
Rasool 48 Jhole
Ghuj
Hiran Sinjhoro Sanghar Jhole
21 Sobharo
Shar 48 Jhole
Ghuj
Hiran Sinjhoro Sanghar Jhole
189
22 Ali Gul
Jakhiro 50
Ali Gul
Jakhro 42 Jamrao Sinjhoro Sanghar Jamrao
23 Loung
Bhanbhro 36
Ali Gul
Jakhro 42 Jamrao Sinjhoro Sanghar Jamrao
24 Sahib
Bozdar 40
Ali Gul
Jakhro 42 Jamrao Sinjhoro Sanghar Jamrao
25 Abdul
Hamid 33
M.Ramzan
Baig
40
A.Jamraio Sinjhoro Sanghar Shahoo
26 Ghullam
Qadir 45
Gh.Qadir
Brohi
40
A.Jamraio Sinjhoro Sanghar Shahoo
27 Abdullah
Leghari 48
Abdullah
Baig
40
A.Jamraio Sinjhoro Sanghar Shahoo
28 Ali Nawaz
Bugti 60
Ali Nawaz
Bugti
16
Jamario Sinjhoro Sanghar Dim
29 Bhawal
Khan 50 16 Dim 16 Dim Sinjhoro Sanghar Dim
30 Ali Hassain 40 16 Dim 16 Dim Sinjhoro Sanghar Dim
31 Mohandas 45 Mohandas
chetan Mal chelari Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Mir Minor
32 Tagoo Mal 30 Mohandas
chetan Mal chelari Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Mir Minor
33 Harjoomal 45 Mohandas
chetan Mal chelari Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Mir Minor
34 Ahmed
Magsi 55 Baloachabad 241 Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Sanhiro Minor
35 Shafi
Mohammad 50
Shafi
Mohammad
Mahar
241 Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Sanhiro Minor
36 Ghulam
Rasool 55
Sahibdino
sahto 241 Mipurkhas Mipurkhas Sanhiro Minor
37 Saboo
Khan 45
Degan
Bhurgari Marhari K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
38 Bagh
Hussain 40
Degan
Bhurgari Marhari K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
39 Khalid Jat 55 Degan
Bhurgari Marhari K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
40 Mir
Mohammad 30 Boro Khan 235 K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
41 Boro Khan 70 Boro Khan 235 K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
42 Haji Allah
Rakhiyo 50 Boro Khan 235 K.G .M Mipurkhas Mithraoo
43 Budhal
Khan 52
Mir Budhal
Talpur
14
Jamraoo sinjhoro Sanghar Jamrao
44 Noman
Malik 25 Khadro
14
Jamraoo Sinjhoro Sanghar Jamrao
45 Mir Elahi B
ux 58 Budhal khan
14
Jamraoo Sinjhoro Sanghar Mahi Muneer
190
46 Misri
Pagrani 80 Miran 19 Jamrao Singhoro Sanghar Mahi Minor
47 Faiz Aiam 70 Faiz Alam 19Jamrao Singhoro Sanghar Mahi Munor
48 Jan
Mohammed 30 Miran 19Jamrao Singhoro Sanghar Mahi Munor
49 Arbab 48 Maula Dino
Khaskhali
Chand
Morio M P khas M P khas Chahoo
50 Mureed 55 Maula Dino
Khaskhali
Chand
Morio M P khas M P khas Chahoo
51 Eaden
Samo 60
Makhan
samo
Chand
Morio M P khas M P khas Chahoo
52 Ch.Bashir 50 Ch.Bashir
Ahmed M P khas M P khas Jarwari
53 A. Aziz 70 Gh Mohd
Laghari M P khas M P khas Jarwari
54 Mashir
Sikandar 55
Gh Mohd
Laghari M P khas M P khas Jarwari
55 Ejaz Ali 48 Mir
Mubarak Ali
Hamzo
Bagrani Shedadpur Sanghar Jamroo
56 Mir Taj
Mohammed 54
Mir Mubrak
Talpur
Hamzo
Bagrani Shedadpur Sanghar Jamroo
57 Sajari 20 Mubarak Hamzo
Bagrani Shedadpur Sanghar Jamroo
58 Makhan 30 Dili Jan
Rind 86 Nasral N shah N shah Gajra
59 Sharif 39 Dili Jan
Rind 86 Nasral N shah N shah Gajra
60 Qurban 37 Dili Jan
Rind 86 Nasral N shah N shah Gajra
61 Qasim
Solagi 47 Jam sahab 26 Nasral Dour N shah Chandbandeni
62 Lagat Zardi 60 Jam sahab 26 Nasral Dour N shah Chandbandeni
63 Gul
Mohammed 26 Jam sahab 26 Nasral Dour N shah Jam Sahab
191
APPENDIX-C
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT IN SINDH,
2002-03 TO 2003-04 (IN Hectares)
Province/
District
2002-03 2003-04
Total Irrigated Un-
Irrigated Total Irrigated
Un-
Irrigated
SINDH 2,270,792 2,160,751 110,041 2,762,711 2,335,474 427,237
Sukkur 80,975 78,486 2,489 91,854 88,984 2,870
Khairpur 215,995 214,163 1,832 228,210 224,289 3,921
Ghotki 162,332 160,591 1,741 163,897 160,708 3,189
Nawabshah 157,005 155,633 1,372 174,192 171,727 2,465
Larkana 202,739 193,803 8,936 219,682 198,724 20,958
Jacobabad 121,267 102,943 18,324 134,909 112,237 22,672
Shikarpur 88,491 76,832 11,659 103,083 83,641 19,442
Mirpurkhas 185,720 172,396 13,324 225,862 209,862 16,762
Sanghar 223,134 213,412 9,722 244,945 232,453 12,492
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 19,323 19,323 .. 241,980 23,081 218,899
Hyderabad 199,470 197,939 1,531 218,158 215,202 2,956
Badin 190,922 178,196 12,726 227,263 190,872 36,391
Thatta 103,946 96,550 7,396 132,934 100,758 32,176
Dadu 140,086 129,190 10,896 172,424 148,485 23,939
Karachi 4,799 4,799 .. 5,478 4,519 959
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
192
CROPS
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT IN SINDH,
2004-05 TO 2005-06 (IN Hectares)
Province/ District
2004-05 2005-06
Total Irrigated Un-
Irrigated Total Irrigated
Un-
Irrigated
SINDH 2,450,653 2,177,972 272,681 2,642,722 2,277,788 364,934
Sukkur 83,164 75,207 7,957 85,047 77,512 7,535
Khairpur 217,750 214,472 3,278 216,752 211,632 5,120
Ghotki 149,869 145,450 4,419 151,731 146,802 4,929
Nawabshah 160,464 155,633 4,831 154,456 150,237 4,219
Naushero Feroze 169,133 164,053 5,080 155,790 150,069 5,721
Larkana 209,116 178,387 30,729 234,274 202,124 32,150
Shahdadkot@Kambar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Jacobabad 135,271 89,335 45,936 134,684 85,739 48,945
Kashmore .. .. .. .. .. ..
Shikarpur 98,165 61,472 36,693 106,802 65,592 41,210
Mirpurkhas 202,582 182,534 20,048 232,073 208,554 23,519
Sanghar 246,098 239,232 6,866 253,918 249,589 4,329
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 26,760 10,541 16,219 100,144 13,748 86,396
Hyderabad 218,023 212,973 5,050 210,243 203,493 6,750
Matiari .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tando Allah Yar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tando Mohd Khan .. .. .. .. .. ..
Badin 250,049 207,889 42,160 288,037 246,506 41,531
193
Thatta 130,499 100,842 29,657 150,018 115,868 34,150
Dadu 148,819 135,366 13,453 164,059 145,839 18,220
Jamshoro .. .. .. .. .. ..
Karachi 4,891 4,586 305 4,694 4,484 210
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (IN Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
Total Canal Well Tube
well
SINDH 2,270,792 110,041 2,160,751 1,963,850 1,471 195,430
Sukkur 80,975 2,489 78,486 65,723 ;; 12,763
Khairpur 215,995 1,832 214,163 197,321 .. 16,842
Ghotki 162,332 1,741 160,591 147,052 .. 13,539
Nawabshah
Naushero Feroze
Larkana
Shahdadkot@Kambar
Jacobabad
Kashmore
Shikarpur
Mirpurkhas
Sanghar
Umerkot
194
Tharparkar
Hyderabad
Matiari
Tando Allah Yar
Tando Mohd Khan
Badin
Thatta
Dadu
Jamshoro
Karachi
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
195
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,270,792 110,041 2,160,751 1,963,850 1,471 195,430
Sukkur 80,975 2,489 78,486 65,723 .. 12,763
Khairpur 215,995 1,832 214,163 197,321 .. 16,842
Ghotki 162,332 1,741 160,591 147,052 .. 13,539
Nawabshah 174,588 8,093 166,495 153,842 .. 12,653
Naushero
feroze 157,oo5 1,372 155,633 150,842 .. 4,791
Larkana 202,739 8,936 193,803 191,707 .. 2,096
Jacobabad 121,267 18,324 102,943 99,012 142 3,789
Shikarpur 88,491 11,659 76,832 75,606 .. 1,226
Mirpurkhas 185,720 13,324 172,396 170,664 .. 1,732
Sanghar 223,134 9,722 213,412 211,684 .. 1,728
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 19,323 .. 19,323 16,336 .. 2,987
Hyderabad 199,470 1,531 197,939 129,580 .. 68,359
Badin 190,922 12,726 178,196 169,020 .. 9,176
Thatta 103,946 7,396 96,550 94,461 .. 2,089
Dadu 140,086 10,896 129,190 91,000 1,329 36,861
Karachi 4,799 .. 4,799 .. .. 4,799
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
196
CROPS
Tables: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND
MODE OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,948,730 427,237 2,521,493 2,314,179 1,185 206,129
Sukkur 91,854 2,870 88,984 75,753 .. 13,231
Khairpur 228,210 3,921 224,,289 204,359 .. 19,930
Ghotki 163,897 3,189 160,708 146,489 .. 13,539
Nawabshah 177,840 7,146 170,694 156,973 .. 13,721
Naushero
feroze 174,192 2,465 171,727 165,777 .. 5,950
Larkana 219,682 20,958 198,724 196,354 .. 2,370
Jacobabad 134,909 22,672 112,237 107,917 130 4,190
Shikarpur 103,083 19,442 83,641 82,236 .. 1,405
Mirpurkhas 225,862 16,762 209,100 206,925 .. 2,175
Sanghar 244,945 12,492 232,453 230,490 .. 1,963
Umerkot .. .. .. ... .. ..
Tharparkar 241,980 218,899 209,100 206,925 .. 2,175
Hyderabad 218,158 2,956 215,202 146,182 .. 69,020
Badin 227,263 36,391 190,872 180,142 .. 10,730
Thatta 132,934 32,176 100,758 97,437 .. 3,321
Dadu 172,424 23,939 148,485 110,220 1,055 37,210
Karachi 5,478 959 4,519 .. .. 4,519
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
197
CROPS
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,450,653 272,681 2,177,972 1,954,919 610 222,443
Sukkur 83,164 7,957 75,20760,888 .. 14,319
Khairpur 217,750 3,278 214,472 193,422 .. 21,050
Ghotki 149,869 4,419 145,450 129,401 .. 16,049
Nawabshah 160,464 4,831 155,633 141,712 .. 13,921
Naushero
feroze
169,133 5080 164,053 158,022 .. 6,031
Larkana 209,116 30,729 178,387 175,297 .. 3,090
Jacobabad 135,271 45,936 89,335 84,980 85 4,270
Shikarpur 98,165 36,693 61,472 59,991 .. 1,481
Mirpurkhas 202,582 20,048 182,534 180,044 .. 2,490
Sanghar 246,098 6,866 239,232 237,053 .. 2,179
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 26,760 16,219 10,541 7,232 .. 3,309
Hyderabad 218,023 5,050 212,973 141,154 .. 71,819
Badin 250,049 42,160 207,889 196,859 .. 11,030
Thatta 130,499 29,657 100,842 97,232 .. 3,610
Dadu 148,819 13,453 135,366 91,632 525 43,209
Karachi 4,891 305 4,586 .. .. 4,586
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
198
CROPS
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATE
D
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WEL
L
TUBEWEL
L
SINDH 2,642,722 364,934 2,277,788 2,045,89
6 470 231,422
Sukkur 58,047 7,535 77,512 63,663 .. 13,849
Khairpur 216,752 5,120 211,632 189,813 .. 21,819
Ghotki 151,731 4,929 146,802 130,853 .. 15,949
Nawabshah 154,456 4,219 150,069 141,704 .. 3,420
Naushero Feroze 155,790 5,721 150,069 141,859 .. 8,210
Shahdadkot@kam
ber
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Larkana 234,274 32,150 202,124 198,704 .. 3,420
Jacobabad 134,684 48,945 85,739 80,554 65 5,120
Kashmore .. .. .. .. .. ..
Shikarpur 106,802 41,210 65,592 63,771 .. 1,821
Mirpurkhas 232,073 23,519 208,554 204,933 .. 3,621
Sanghar 253,918 4,329 249,589 248,068 .. 1,521
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 100,144 86,396 13,748 8,219 .. 5,529
Hyderabad 210,243 6,750 203,493 130,264 .. 73,229
199
Matiari .. .. .. .. .. ..
Badin 288,037 41,531 246,506 236,967 .. 9539
Tando Allah Yar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Thatta 150,018 34,150 115,868 111,718 .. 4,150
Tando Mohd
Khan
... .. .. .. .. ..
Dadu 164,059 18,220 145,839 99,224 405 46,210
Karachi 4,694 210 4,484 .. .. 4,484
200
TABLE: PHYSICAL MONITORING OF LBOD STAGE I PROJECT UNDER NDP-I
SOIL & DWT DATA FOR THE PERIOD (JANUARY 2003-MARCH 2003)
Plot
No.
July 2002 August 2002 September 2002
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
Ece
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
NAWABSHAH COMPONENT
Average 11.5 18.1 320.9 10.6 17.1 340.6 9.5 15.4 301.5
Std 9.2 13.7 104.0 8.3 12.9 98.5 6.8 10.3 124.3
Min 2.5 4.1 182.0 2.7 3.5 180.0 2.8 5.7 71.0
Max 30.0 52.5 507.0 30.0 49.5 516.0 25.0 39.9 512.0
SANGHAR COMPONENT
Average 6.3 12.2 309.5 8.6 12.1 309.8 6.5 12.1 291.9
Std 2.9 5.6 121.5 6.6 6.0 120.2 3.1 6.0 124.0
Min 2.5 6.1 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.2 4.5 0.0
Max 13.0 21.8 472.0 25.0 21.8 465.0 12.6 21.8 472.0
MIRPURKHAS COMPONENT
Average 9.8 15.2 396.3 8.7 14.4 383.3 7.0 15.4 374.1
Std 7.4 10.3 135.9 7.6 11.3 150.5 5.2 13.9 149.0
Min 3.0 2.8 175.0 2.5 2.7 118.0 2.5 3.9 132.0
Max 25.0 36.8 685.0 25.0 41.0 685.0 18.5 61.1 665.0
All
Average 10.3 16.6 284.1 11.5 16.6 280.6 8.6 17.5 268.1
Std 8.9 14.7 200.9 9.6 14.8 204.3 7 16.9 203.7
Min 2.5 2.8 0.0 2.5 2.7 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0
Max 30.0 52.5 685.0 30.0 49.9 685.0 25.0 39.9 665.0
201
TABLE: PHYSICAL MONITORING OF LBOD STAGE I PROJECT UNDER NDP-I
SOIL & DWT DATA FOR THE PERIOD (OCTOBERJULY 2002-DECEMBER 2002)
Plot No.
October 2002 Novemebr 2002 December 2002
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
Ece
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
NAWABSHAH COMPONENT
Aveare 8.4 14.4 296.7 9.3 15.7 238.3 8.4 11.8 261.5
Std 6.3 8.6 117.6 8.3 10.9 121.4 7.4 7.8 122.6
Min 2.5 3.4 102.0 2.6 3.5 92.0 2.5 4.7 75.0
Max 21.5 31.5 502.0 40.0 45.4 495.0 30.0 35.8 482.0
SANGHAR COMPONENT
Aveare 5.0 9.8 292.2 6.7 11.9 271.7 6.4 15.0 259.2
Std 4.8 4.7 120.3 3.6 5.7 114.1 6.5 28.3 118.2
Min 3.5 6.1 0.0 3.5 5.4 0.0 3.2 3.7 0.0
Max 6.5 22.8 465.0 16.9 23.9 440.0 27.0 108.8 428.0
MIRPURKHAS COMPONENT
Aveare 6.3 12.1 369.6 10.7 10.8 356.5 8.6 14.9 343.9
Std 4.8 9.7 147.8 12.0 11.9 154.9 8.9 14.3 159.8
Min 2.6 3.7 145.0 3.1 3.1 114.0 2.5 3.9 110.0
Max 17.1 40.0 670.0 55.9 55.9 663.0 29.0 43.0 665.0
All
Aveare 7.4 13.9 269.0 14.4 17.0 155.1 11.7 24.3 252.1
Std 5.9 11.7 200.1 16.6 16.9 197.3 10.5 29.5 195.7
Min 2.5 3.4 0.0 2.6 3.1 0.0 2.5 3.7 0.0
Max 21.5 40.0 670.0 55.9 55.9 663.0 30.0 108.8 665.0
202
TABLE: PHYSICAL MONITORING OF LBOD STAGE I PROJECT UNDER NDP-I
SOIL & DWT DATA FOR THE PERIOD (JANUARY 2003-MARCH 2003)
Plot
No.
January 2003 February 2003 March 2003
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
Ece
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
NAWABSHAH COMPONENT
Aveare 7.4 16.8 278.5 8.9 14.2 243.0 11.4 14.8 283.7
Std 7.3 15.8 100.0 10.1 13.1 147.7 12.2 11.5 102.7
Min 2.4 5.1 136.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.1 105.0
Max 30.0 71.2 465.0 33.0 43.2 469.0 50.0 46.6 458.0
SANGHAR COMPONENT
Aveare 6.4 8.7 254.8 6.2 10.7 269.5 5.9 9.4 247.5
Std 6.5 6.1 114.3 6.1 5.2 114.7 3.3 6.2 116.5
Min 3.2 3.7 0.0 3.5 5.8 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.0
Max 27.0 26.8 418.0 26.2 25.6 434.0 14.1 26.0 445.0
MIRPURKHAS COMPONENT
Aveare 7.4 15.3 356.3 8.2 15.3 328.7 10.3 13.2 315.2
Std 7.3 12.9 150.0 7.4 11.3 179.9 9.5 11.5 174.9
Min 2.5 4.8 125.0 2.7 5.1 0.0 2.6 4.0 0.0
Max 26.0 43.2 657.0 32.0 45.0 662.0 33.0 44.7 655.0
All
Aveare 11.1 19.2 254.6 12.0 16.2 337.4 13.0 16.2 242.0
Std 10.2 19.8 189.3 11.5 14.6 208.3 14.4 15.1 200.3
Min 2.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.0
Max 30.0 71.2 657 33.0 45.0 662 50.0 46.6 655
203
TABLE: PHYSICAL MONITORING OF LBOD STAGE I PROJECT UNDER NDP-I
SOIL & DWT DATA FOR THE PERIOD (APRIL 2003-JUNE 2003)
Plot
No.
APRIL 2003 MAY 2003 JUNE 2003
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
ECe
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
Ece
(dS/m)
SAR DWT
(cms)
Salinity
status
NAWABSHAH COMPONENT
Aveare 10.6 12.7 286.3 7.1 11.8 290.3 8.3 13.4 263.6
Std 11.2 9.6 101.6 5.5 9.3 102.6 8.0 11.7 116.9
Min 2.2 4.3 118.0 1.6 2.6 140.0 2.4 3.6 75.0
Max 41.5 39.4 460.0 22.2 47.6 455.0 34.0 46.4 453.0
SANGHAR COMPONENT
Aveare 8.2 13.0 189.6 6.7 9.1 234.0 4.9 9.1 179.9
Std 8.0 9.4 142.7 7.3 4.6 138.0 4.3 5.4 142.6
Min 3.0 4.2 0.0 2.2 3.2 0.0 2.2 3.2 0.0
Max 26.0 31.1 450.0 30.0 17.6 480.0 18.0 23.0 460.0
MIRPURKHAS COMPONENT
Aveare 7.5 12.2 347.1 6.7 9.9 323.3 5.4 9.2 329.0
Std 7.4 8.3 158.3 8.6 8.1 170.5 5.1 6.3 166.9
Min 1.7 4.8 105.0 1.4 3.7 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0
Max 27.5 32.8 657.0 40.0 30.0 660.0 19.0 26.4 664.0
All
Aveare 12.9 15.2 251.3 11.6 13.1 149.2 9.5 13.5 237.6
Std 13.3 12.2 192.4 12.4 13.3 201.8 9.6 12.8
204.0
Min 1.7 4.2 0.0 1.4 2.6 0.0 2.0 3.2 0.0
Max 41.5 39.4 657.0 40.0 47.6 660.0 34.0 46.4 664
204
APPENDIX-D
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT
IN SINDH, 2002-03 TO 2003-04 (IN Hectares)
Province/
District
2002-03 2003-04
Total Irri- gated Un-Irri-
gated Total Irri- gated
Un-Irri-
gated
SINDH 2,270,792 2,160,751 110,041 2,762,711 2,335,474 427,237
Sukkur 80,975 78,486 2,489 91,854 88,984 2,870
Khairpur 215,995 214,163 1,832 228,210 224,289 3,921
Ghotki 162,332 160,591 1,741 163,897 160,708 3,189
Nawabshah 157,005 155,633 1,372 174,192 171,727 2,465
Larkana 202,739 193,803 8,936 219,682 198,724 20,958
Jacobabad 121,267 102,943 18,324 134,909 112,237 22,672
Shikarpur 88,491 76,832 11,659 103,083 83,641 19,442
Mirpurkhas 185,720 172,396 13,324 225,862 209,862 16,762
Sanghar 223,134 213,412 9,722 244,945 232,453 12,492
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 19,323 19,323 .. 241,980 23,081 218,899
Hyderabad 199,470 197,939 1,531 218,158 215,202 2,956
Badin 190,922 178,196 12,726 227,263 190,872 36,391
Thatta 103,946 96,550 7,396 132,934 100,758 32,176
Dadu 140,086 129,190 10,896 172,424 148,485 23,939
Karachi 4,799 4,799 .. 5,478 4,519 959
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
205
CROPS
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT
IN SINDH, 2004-05 TO 2005-06 (IN Hectares)
Province/ District
2004-05 2005-06
Total Irri-
gated
Un-Irri-
gated Total
Irri-
gated
Un-Irri-
gated
SINDH 2,450,653 2,177,972 272,681 2,642,722 2,277,788 364,934
Sukkur 83,164 75,207 7,957 85,047 77,512 7,535
Khairpur 217,750 214,472 3,278 216,752 211,632 5,120
Ghotki 149,869 145,450 4,419 151,731 146,802 4,929
Nawabshah 160,464 155,633 4,831 154,456 150,237 4,219
Naushero Feroze 169,133 164,053 5,080 155,790 150,069 5,721
Larkana 209,116 178,387 30,729 234,274 202,124 32,150
Shahdadkot@Kambar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Jacobabad 135,271 89,335 45,936 134,684 85,739 48,945
Kashmore .. .. .. .. .. ..
Shikarpur 98,165 61,472 36,693 106,802 65,592 41,210
Mirpurkhas 202,582 182,534 20,048 232,073 208,554 23,519
Sanghar 246,098 239,232 6,866 253,918 249,589 4,329
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 26,760 10,541 16,219 100,144 13,748 86,396
Hyderabad 218,023 212,973 5,050 210,243 203,493 6,750
Matiari .. .. .. .. .. ..
206
Tando Allah Yar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tando Mohd Khan .. .. .. .. .. ..
Badin 250,049 207,889 42,160 288,037 246,506 41,531
Thatta 130,499 100,842 29,657 150,018 115,868 34,150
Dadu 148,819 135,366 13,453 164,059 145,839 18,220
Jamshoro .. .. .. .. .. ..
Karachi 4,891 4,586 305 4,694 4,484 210
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
Table: AREA SHOWN (IRRIGATED & UN-IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT
AND MODE OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (IN Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
Total Canal Well Tube
well
SINDH 2,270,792 110,041 2,160,751 1,963,850 1,471 195,430
Sukkur 80,975 2,489 78,486 65,723 ;; 12,763
Khairpur 215,995 1,832 214,163 197,321 .. 16,842
Ghotki 162,332 1,741 160,591 147,052 .. 13,539
Nawabshah
Naushero Feroze
Larkana
Shahdadkot@Kambar
Jacobabad
Kashmore
Shikarpur
207
Mirpurkhas
Sanghar
Umerkot
Tharparkar
Hyderabad
Matiari
Tando Allah Yar
Tando Mohd Khan
Badin
Thatta
Dadu
Jamshoro
Karachi
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
208
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,270,792 110,041 2,160,751 1,963,850 1,471 195,430
Sukkur 80,975 2,489 78,486 65,723 .. 12,763
Khairpur 215,995 1,832 214,163 197,321 .. 16,842
Ghotki 162,332 1,741 160,591 147,052 .. 13,539
Nawabshah 174,588 8,093 166,495 153,842 .. 12,653
Naushero
feroze 157,oo5 1,372 155,633 150,842 .. 4,791
Larkana 202,739 8,936 193,803 191,707 .. 2,096
Jacobabad 121,267 18,324 102,943 99,012 142 3,789
Shikarpur 88,491 11,659 76,832 75,606 .. 1,226
Mirpurkhas 185,720 13,324 172,396 170,664 .. 1,732
Sanghar 223,134 9,722 213,412 211,684 .. 1,728
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 19,323 .. 19,323 16,336 .. 2,987
Hyderabad 199,470 1,531 197,939 129,580 .. 68,359
Badin 190,922 12,726 178,196 169,020 .. 9,176
Thatta 103,946 7,396 96,550 94,461 .. 2,089
Dadu 140,086 10,896 129,190 91,000 1,329 36,861
Karachi 4,799 .. 4,799 .. .. 4,799
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
209
CROPS
Tables: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND
MODE OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,948,730 427,237 2,521,493 2,314,179 1,185 206,129
Sukkur 91,854 2,870 88,984 75,753 .. 13,231
Khairpur 228,210 3,921 224,,289 204,359 .. 19,930
Ghotki 163,897 3,189 160,708 146,489 .. 13,539
Nawabshah 177,840 7,146 170,694 156,973 .. 13,721
Naushero
feroze 174,192 2,465 171,727 165,777 .. 5,950
Larkana 219,682 20,958 198,724 196,354 .. 2,370
Jacobabad 134,909 22,672 112,237 107,917 130 4,190
Shikarpur 103,083 19,442 83,641 82,236 .. 1,405
Mirpurkhas 225,862 16,762 209,100 206,925 .. 2,175
Sanghar 244,945 12,492 232,453 230,490 .. 1,963
Umerkot .. .. .. ... .. ..
Tharparkar 241,980 218,899 209,100 206,925 .. 2,175
Hyderabad 218,158 2,956 215,202 146,182 .. 69,020
Badin 227,263 36,391 190,872 180,142 .. 10,730
Thatta 132,934 32,176 100,758 97,437 .. 3,321
Dadu 172,424 23,939 148,485 110,220 1,055 37,210
Karachi 5,478 959 4,519 .. .. 4,519
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
210
CROPS
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03 (In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,450,653 272,681 2,177,972 1,954,919 610 222,443
Sukkur 83,164 7,957 75,20760,888 .. 14,319
Khairpur 217,750 3,278 214,472 193,422 .. 21,050
Ghotki 149,869 4,419 145,450 129,401 .. 16,049
Nawabshah 160,464 4,831 155,633 141,712 .. 13,921
Naushero
feroze
169,133 5080 164,053 158,022 .. 6,031
Larkana 209,116 30,729 178,387 175,297 .. 3,090
Jacobabad 135,271 45,936 89,335 84,980 85 4,270
Shikarpur 98,165 36,693 61,472 59,991 .. 1,481
Mirpurkhas 202,582 20,048 182,534 180,044 .. 2,490
Sanghar 246,098 6,866 239,232 237,053 .. 2,179
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 26,760 16,219 10,541 7,232 .. 3,309
Hyderabad 218,023 5,050 212,973 141,154 .. 71,819
Badin 250,049 42,160 207,889 196,859 .. 11,030
Thatta 130,499 29,657 100,842 97,232 .. 3,610
Dadu 148,819 13,453 135,366 91,632 525 43,209
Karachi 4,891 305 4,586 .. .. 4,586
Source: Directorate of agriculture Extension Sindh, Hyderabad
211
CROPS
Table: AREAQ SOWN (UN-IRRIGATED & IRRIGATED) BY DISTRICT AND MODE
OF IRRIGATION IN SINDH, 2002-03
(In Hectares)
CROPS
TOTAL
AREA
SOWN
UN-
IRRIGATED
I R R I G A T E D
TOTAL CANAL WELL TUBEWELL
SINDH 2,642,722 364,934 2,277,788 2,045,89
6 470 231,422
Sukkur 58,047 7,535 77,512 63,663 .. 13,849
Khairpur 216,752 5,120 211,632 189,813 .. 21,819
Ghotki 151,731 4,929 146,802 130,853 .. 15,949
Nawabshah 154,456 4,219 150,069 141,704 .. 3,420
Naushero Feroze 155,790 5,721 150,069 141,859 .. 8,210
Shahdadkot@kam
ber
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Larkana 234,274 32,150 202,124 198,704 .. 3,420
Jacobabad 134,684 48,945 85,739 80,554 65 5,120
Kashmore .. .. .. .. .. ..
Shikarpur 106,802 41,210 65,592 63,771 .. 1,821
Mirpurkhas 232,073 23,519 208,554 204,933 .. 3,621
Sanghar 253,918 4,329 249,589 248,068 .. 1,521
Umerkot .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tharparkar 100,144 86,396 13,748 8,219 .. 5,529
212
Hyderabad 210,243 6,750 203,493 130,264 .. 73,229
Matiari .. .. .. .. .. ..
Badin 288,037 41,531 246,506 236,967 .. 9539
Tando Allah Yar .. .. .. .. .. ..
Thatta 150,018 34,150 115,868 111,718 .. 4,150
Tando Mohd
Khan
... .. .. .. .. ..
Dadu 164,059 18,220 145,839 99,224 405 46,210
Karachi 4,694 210 4,484 .. .. 4,484
213
Study Area
214
215
Different Drainages Tube wells, Interceptor, Scavenger, Tile Drain
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
