law environment and developmentjournal · 2010-05-04 · law, environment and development journal...

LEADLawEnvironment and

DevelopmentJournal

VOLUME

3/2

FUNCTIONING OF WATER USERS ASSOCIATIONS OR PANI PANCHAYAT IN ORISSA:PRINCIPLE, PROCEDURE, PERFORMANCE AND PROSPECTS

Sushanta Kumar Mahapatra

LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal)is a peer-reviewed academic publication based in New Delhi and London and jointly managed by the

School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of Londonand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC).

LEAD is published at www.lead-journal.orgISSN 1746-5893

The Managing Editor, LEAD Journal, c/o International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC), International EnvironmentHouse II, 1F, 7 Chemin de Balexert, 1219 Châtelaine-Geneva, Switzerland, Tel/fax: + 41 (0)22 79 72 623, [email protected]

This document can be cited as‘Functioning of Water Users Associations or Pani Panchayat in Orissa:

Principle, Procedure, Performance and Prospects’,3/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2007), p. 126,

available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/07126.pdf

Sushanta Kumar Mahapatra, Research Scholar, Madras Institute of Development Studies, No-79, SecondMain Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020, Tamil Nadu, India, Email [email protected]

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License

* An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the workshop entitled ‘Water, Law and the Commons’ organised in Delhi from8 to 10 December 2006 by the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC) in the context of the Researchpartnership 2006-2009 on water law sponsored by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF). I am grateful to the participantsof the workshop for their valuable comments and suggestions. An insightful discussion with S. Janakarajan, Nirmal Senguptaand Ramaswamy R. Iyer is gratefully acknowledged. However, responsibility of mistakes, if any, rests with me.

FUNFUNFUNFUNFUNCTIONINCTIONINCTIONINCTIONINCTIONING OF WAG OF WAG OF WAG OF WAG OF WATER USERS ASSOCIATER USERS ASSOCIATER USERS ASSOCIATER USERS ASSOCIATER USERS ASSOCIATIONS ORTIONS ORTIONS ORTIONS ORTIONS ORPANI PANPANI PANPANI PANPANI PANPANI PANCCCCCHAHAHAHAHAYYYYYAAAAAT IN ORISST IN ORISST IN ORISST IN ORISST IN ORISSA: PRINA: PRINA: PRINA: PRINA: PRINCIPLE, PRCIPLE, PRCIPLE, PRCIPLE, PRCIPLE, PROCEDURE,OCEDURE,OCEDURE,OCEDURE,OCEDURE,

PERFPERFPERFPERFPERFORMANORMANORMANORMANORMANCE AND PRCE AND PRCE AND PRCE AND PRCE AND PROSPECTOSPECTOSPECTOSPECTOSPECTSSSSS

Sushanta Kumar Mahapatra*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 128

2. Pani Panchayat in Orissa: Initiatives and Challenges 1292.1 Emergence of the Act 1312.2 Characterisation 1312.3 State-wide Initiation of PP Programme as of Mid-2005 1312.4 Diverse Strategy and Assignment of Pani Panchayat 1322.5 Sources of Funding and External Resource Mobilisation

for Pani Panchayat 1322.6 Government’s Control over Pani Panchayat 1322.7 Provision for Offences, Penalties and Recovery of Arrears 1332.8 Disputes Settlement 1332.9 Biju Krushak Vikask Yojana (BKVY) 1332.10 An Assessment of Orissa Pani Panchayat Act 2002 133

2.10.1Supportive Sides 1332.10.2Harmful Sides 134

3. Functioning of Water Users Associations/Pani Panchayat inHirakud Command Area (HCA) 1353.1 Methodology 1353.2 Socio economic characteristics of Pani Panchayat Members 1363.3 Distribution of Ownership of Land Patterns among Different

Categories of Households 1383.4 Cropping Pattern and Cropping Intensity among the

Farm Households 1393.5 Crop Income per Household 140

4. Water Rights, Land Rights and Pani Panchayat 1424.1 Maintenance of Water Rights in Pani Panchayat 1424.2 Impact on Other Sources of Water 1424.3 Farmers’ Assessment of Pani Panchayat 1434.4 Explanation for the Non-utilisation of the Estimated Area of PPs 143

5. Concluding Observations 146

1INTRODUCTION

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) has beenconceived as the thrust area in effective irrigationmanagement by involving and associating farmersin planning, operation and maintenance of theirrigation system. The number of organisationsregistered or in the process of formation has beenused as the scale of success of PIM. But institutionalaspects of farmer participation in irrigation receiveless attention in the current PIM policies. Similar tomany other countries, many states in India arelooking to involve farmers in the operation andmaintenance at higher levels through a variety ofPIM and Irrigation Management Transfers (IMT)Programs.1

The National Water Policy, 1987, emphasised theparticipation of farmers in different aspects of themanagement of the irrigation system, principally inwater distribution and collection of water rates. TheVaidyanathan Committee on Pricing of IrrigationWater suggested farmers’ participation in themanagement of irrigation systems.2 A separateWorking Group on PIM was set up by the PlanningCommission to re-examine and recommendstrategies for the Ninth Five Year Plan, where thelegal, financial, and institutional factors wererecognised as vital to the successful implementationof PIM programs. According to the Mid-TermAppraisal of the Ninth Five Year Plan, the progressachieved so far in PIM, in improving water-use-efficiency, is rather low. The irrigated areatransferred to WUA in India is only about sevenper cent as against 45 per cent in Indonesia, 66 percent in Philippines, and 22 per cent in Thailand.3Lately, the voluntary sector and Non- Governmental

Organisation (NGOs) have made their presence feltin the area of Common Property Resources (CPRs)focussing on participatory forms of development.4

It was probably Henry Hart, who pointed out forthe first time in 1961 the need for irrigationassociations in canal irrigation systems.5 TheMaharashtra State Irrigation Commission suggestedthe same in 1962. The Second IrrigationCommission, 1972, went to the extent of citing casesfrom all over India of what were believed to beirrigation Panchayats, and attached ‘highimportance’ to the formation of such societies.6 Italso recommended states to undertake legislation forthis purpose. The Command Area DevelopmentProgramme, launched within the Sixth Five YearPlan, 1980-81, adopted the formation of irrigationassociations as one of the strategies for theimprovement of the canal systems. Chambers (1988)has shown that the reported cases of ‘considerableachievement’ of irrigation associations were instancesof nominal success in three projects: the MohiniCooperative in Gujarat, the Pani Panchayats (MulaProject) in Maharashtra and the Pipe Committee ofPochampad in Andhra Pradesh.7 Ten years of failedattempts and exaggerated claims of success havealready convinced many experts that programmes inthis area are not worth pursuing. Sengupta (1992) haspointed out three serious deficiencies:

1. Most of the attempts intrinsically assumedthat users’ cooperation do not exist in India.

Law, Environment and Development Journal

128

1 See Ashok Gulati, Ruth Meinzen-Dick and K.V. Raju,Institutional Reforms in Indian Irrigation (New Delhi:Sage Publications, 2005).

2 Government of India, Planning Commission, Report ofthe Committee on Pricing of Irrigation Water(Vaidyanathan Committee) (1992).

3 Government of India, Planning Commission, Ninth FiveYear Plan (2000).

4 See Kanchan Chopra, Gopal Kadekodi and M.N. Murty,Participatory Development, People and Common PropertyResources (New Delhi: Sage, 1990), Kartar Singh,‘Determinants of People’s Participations in WatershedDevelopment and Management: An Exploratory CaseStudy’, 46 Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 278(1991), Kartar Singh, Managing Common Pool Resources:Principles and Case Studies (Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress, 1994), Nirmal Sengupta, Managing CommonProperty: Irrigation in India and the Philippines (NewDelhi: Sage Publications, 1991).

5 See Sengupta, note 4 above at 79.6 Government of India - Ministry of Irrigation and Power,

Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission, Vol. I andII, 373-374 (1972), See Sengupta, note 4 above at 79.

7 See in this context Robert Chambers, Managing CanalIrrigation: Practical Analyses from South Asia, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1988). See Sengupta, note 4above at 79.

2. Not only were the efforts clumsy, but theirweaknesses were never reviewed.

3. In the absence of any effective coordinatingagency between various departments andthe states, the dissemination of informationpertaining to these projects was left totallyto informal methods.8

Although Pani Panchayats have been introduced andpromoted in the State of Orissa for some time now,the acceptance of the concept has been lethargic andscattered. A full census is not available and we donot know the size and nature of the PP and whetherthey are indeed functioning or not. There are noreliable figures and also a lack of data availableregarding number of WUAs in existence. In this newinstitution (PP), informal societies serve politicalpurposes; retain caste power replacing indigenouspractices. Therefore an endeavor has been made tofind out how far the new institutions will besustainable in the long run. Though there is muchtalk about people’s participation in the canalirrigation system, there has only been a transfer ofmore rights and responsibility to farmers at thetertiary level. The right to prepare all the basic designshave remained State Departmental prerogatives.9

This paper is organised in the following manner.Section one discusses important issues andexperiences of the performance of Farmer ManagedIrrigation System (FMIS), Water User Association(WUAs) and Participatory Irrigation Management(PIM) studies in different States. Section twoanalytically reviews the Orissa Farmers Managementof Irrigation Systems Act and studies the functioningof the Pani Panchayat (PP). On the whole it brieflydiscusses the status of PP in Orissa, primarymotivations for introducing PP in the State,emergence of the PP Act, and characterisation offarmers’ organisation¸ diverse strategy andassignment of PP, state-wide initiation of PP, andsalient features of Biju Krushak Vikask Yojana(BKVY). Section three briefly examines the socioeconomic characteristics of the studied PP members,

their distribution of ownership of land patterns,cropping pattern, cropping intensity, and theproduction of output and crop income. Finallysection four deals with different aspects of PP suchas the maintenance of water rights, land rights in PP,farmers’ assessment of PP, and the reasons behindthe non-utilisation of the estimated area of PPs. Theappendix contains the profiles of the selected PP.

2PANI PANCHAYAT IN ORISSA:INITIATIVES AND CHALLENGES

Government of India adopted the National WaterPolicy in 1987. The same was reviewed and updatedin 2002. Based on the policy, guidelines were issuedto all the States regarding PIM, which stressed onfarmers’ involvement in various aspects ofmanagement of irrigation system, particularly inwater distribution and collection of water rate. Thegovernment of Orissa adopted a similar policy of PIMin its State Water Policy of 1994, which emphasisestransfer of irrigation management to farmers. Frombeing a mere provider of water the state has movedinto a paradigm of sustainable water resourcesmanagement with a focus on people’s participation.

Ever since the late 1990s, the Orissa Governmenthas been demonstrating a massive interest in farmers’participation in water management. This, however,appears to be wisdom which has been received fromthe World Bank. The necessity for farmerparticipation arose from the Government’sassurance to the World Bank funded Orissa WaterResources Consolidation Project (OWRCP). As acomponent of this project, the Farmers Organisationand Turnover (FOT) programme has been givenmuch importance. FOT actions largely include somemethodical procedures through which tertiarysegments or downstream parts of the canal systemsuch as minors and sub-minors are handed over tobeneficiary farmers for their operation andmaintenance by forming PPs or WUAs. The mainpurpose of the FOT programme is to entrustresponsibility to farmers through the formation ofPPs or WUAs. These responsibilities include the

Pani Panchayat: Orissa

129

8 See Sengupta, note 4 above at 79-80.9 Nirmal Sengupta, ‘Institutions Against Change’ (Paper

presented at the workshop entitled Asian Irrigation inTransition- Responding to the Challenges Ahead organisedby Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 22-23 April 2002).

collection of water rates, distribution of canal wateramong water users, operation and maintenance ofcanal at lower level such as minor, sub-minor, anddistributary level.

In this programme, PPs are created on a three-tiersystem with two informal associations and oneformal association on hydraulic boundaries rangingfrom 300 ha to 600 ha. of command area. At thelowest level, a Chak Committee is formed takingthree farmers, one each from the head; middle andtail reach of the ayacut of an outlet. A representative,called the chak leader of each of these chakcommittees, is an executive member of executive ofthe PP. The President, Vice-President, Secretary andTreasurer of the PP or WUA are elected from theexecutive body of the concerned PP. All the waterusers are members of the general body of the PP. Atthe project level, a federation of all WUA isestablished. This body is called the Apex Committeeand has a formal but non-binding advisory role inmail system operation and maintenance. Theexecutive members of the Apex Committee areelected from the Presidents of all WUAs within thecommand area jurisdiction of the irrigation project.

The basic organisational structure of the PaniPanchayat is presented in Figure 1.

In, Orissa PIM, covers all the irrigation projects inthe state. The Orissa Farmers Management ofIrrigation Systems Act, 2002, called the Orissa PaniPanchayat Act, 2002, is the facilitating tool forfarmer participation. The first step made in thisprocess of reform was to hand over a part of thenetwork of the canal system/irrigation for itsOperation and Maintenance (O&M) to the farmersor the beneficiaries through ‘Pani Panchayat’ orWUAs. The utility and benefits of PP have beendemonstrated by the Water and Land ManagementInstitute (WALMI) to the farmers. Farmers are givensuggestions on minimising maintenance work forensuring free flow of water up to the tail reaches.They are also helped in organising waterdistribution in their jurisdiction, resolving disputes,if any, and adopting their own crop planning etc.The PPs were registered as legal bodies to providethe required legitimacy and identity.

Fig.1 Organisational Structure of the PaniPanchayat in Orissa


130

Chak Committee

Chak Leader

General Body of Pani Panchayat

Executive Body of Pani Panchayat

Voting Members Non Voting Members

Executive Members Chairman Secretary Treasurer Govt.

Officers N.G.O Rep. of

Other Body

Apex Committee

President Vice

President Secretary Member

General Body of Chak

Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach

2.1 Emergence of the Act

The Orissa Farmers Management Irrigation Actprovides for the establishment of farmersorganisations in all the irrigation systems, for theiroperation and maintenance. The Act has 43 sectionsdivided into seven chapters. Each chapter providesspecific provision for a specific objective/activity.This Act was passed by the Orissa LegislativeAssembly and was assented to by the Governor onthe 25 June 2002. The Orissa Pani Panchayat Act,2002, is an Act to provide for farmers’ participation inthe management of irrigation systems and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto (The OrissaGazette, No.1053, 8 July, Cuttack: 2002). Orissa,which is essentially an agricultural state, dependingon an efficient and equitable supply and distributionof water, needs to ensure optimum utilisation ofwater by farmers to improve agriculturalproduction.10

2.2 Characterisation

The Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002 extends to thewhole of Orissa. The Act defines ‘FarmersOrganisation’ to mean:

1. PP at the primary level consisting of allwater users, as constituted within aspecified hydraulic boundary of a major,medium, minor (flow and lift both surfaceand groundwater) and creek irrigationprojects funded by the Government asconstituted under section 3,

2. Distributary Committee at the secondarylevel, as constituted under section 5,

3. Project Committee at the project level, asconstituted under section 7;

4. Every PP shall consist of all the water userswho are land holders in the area of a PP;

a) Explanation I. - A land holdermay nominate any adult member of

his/her family to be the member ofthe Pani Panchayat;

b) Explanation II. - A minorlandholder shall be represented by his/her legal guardian.11

5. As per Section 21 (1), the Governmentmay, by notification nominate at least oneofficer each from the Department of WaterResources, Department of Agriculture andDepartment of Revenue to be the membersof the Pani Panchayat without having theright to vote.

2.3 State-wide Initiation of PPProgramme as of Mid-2005

The Government of Orissa with a view to provideequitable, timely and assured irrigation hasintroduced the concept of PPs through farmer’sawareness programmes in the irrigated commandsthroughout the State. The concept has finally leadto the transfer of tertiary irrigation networks(Minor/ Sub-minors) to registered ‘Pani Panchayats’.The responsibility of operation and maintenance (O& M) of the reservoir/diversion weir (as the casemay be) dam, spillways, sluices, primary andsecondary distribution networks , rests with theDepartment of Water Resources (DOWR), while theresponsibility of ‘O & M’ of the tertiary systems(below minor/sub-minor) is with PPs. Thegeographical extent of the programme covers theentire state comprising about 18.25 lakh hectares ofMajor, Medium & Minor irrigation command areasin all 30 districts of Orissa.

Starting from a few pilot projects, the PIM has nowbeen extended as a policy to the entire waterresources sector encompassing major, medium,minor (flow) and lift irrigation projects. As of 2001-2002, 7333 PPs have been constituted in the State.The realised irrigation potential of 75,000 hectorshas been handed over to PP for operation andmaintenance of the system. As of October 2002, 434PP have been registered having ayacut area of 3,


131

10 See Government of Orissa, The Orissa Pani PanchayatAct, 2002, The Orissa Gazette, No. 1053, 8 July 2002.

11 Section 3 (4), The Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002,available at http://www.ielrc.org/content/e0211.pdf.

operation, and to resources raised from the financingagency, income from the assets of the organisation,fees collected by the organisation and donationreceived from any other sources. The funds thusmobilised shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bankor a Co-operative Bank or the District Co-operativeCentral Bank or the Orissa State Co-operativeCentral Bank in the names of such office bearers asmay be prescribed. The Executive Committee of theFarmers’ Organisation shall maintain a sinking fundwith a view to facilitating repayment towardsborrowed funding. Resource mobilisation fromoutside the system includes cash and kind resourcesmobilised from the central or local government, orlabour contributions from other command areas inemergencies. The PP systems look for externalresources for augmenting, assuring and minimisingthe labour requirements for maintenance, and forincreasing the volume of water flow in the canal.The farmers’ organisation may levy and collect feesas may be prescribed by the government and/ordecided by the organisation from time to time. Incase of Lift Irrigation Points, the farmers’organisation shall fix a water rate which may coverthe cost of the energy charges and maintenancecharges of the Project. In case a water user does notutilise any water in a particular season, the Farmers’organisation shall be competent to fix such minimumcharges as may be decided by the General Body ofthe Farmers organisation. No water tax can becollected by the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporationfrom the members of the Farmers Organisation.

2.6 Government’s Control overPani Panchayat

In order to supervise the functions of the officerincluding the Collectors, the Government canappoint a Commissioner and give him the requiredpowers for carrying out the functions specified bythe Government. The Government also has powersto give directions to competent authorities/ farmersassociations to take such actions as may be specifiedby it. The Government shall appoint officers fromthe Department of Water Resources as special officersor as competent authorities for implementing thedecisions taken by the Executive Committees andthey have powers of direction or instruction forcarrying out the works entrusted to them within thepurview of the Act. Every Farmers’ Organisation

32,000 hectare in major and medium irrigationprojects under the Orissa Water ResourcesConsolidation Projects (OWRCP). Under minorirrigation (flow) 329 PPs have been registeredcovering an area of 76,000 hectare up to October2002. Totally 5,619 PPs have been formed, and outof those 2,847 have been handed over to farmers asof 26 January 2003. Twelve thousand six hundredand eighty eight PPs have been constituted in theState by Mid-2005, covering an area of 9.95 lakh ha.Irrigation management has been transferred to 10764PPs covering 7.11 lakh ha, out of total commandarea of 18.25 lakh ha. Four Pilot projects in the firstphase namely, Ghodahada project, RushikulyaDistributary No. 11 of Ganjam District and Aunliand Derjang Projects of Angul District wereidentified for this work during 1996 and relatedactivities of PPs started simultaneously in the projects.

2.4 Diverse Strategy andAssignment of Pani Panchayat

The different scheme of PP has certain consequencesin relation to the source of water.12 This differencemust be considered as a qualitative change from thecondition of agriculture, which is entirely rain-fed.It is obviously related to the cropping intensitythroughout the year in relation to the assurance andavailability of water. However, there is at least acertainty of irrigation during Kharif (rainy season-June to November). Sometimes it is rainfall,sometimes it is a wrong technical design, sometimesthe command is not homogenous and is scatteredand consequently there are losses in transit. Thereare number of human factors, which alsocompromise the possibilities of achieving the levelof irrigation that was originally or traditionallyintended and designed.

2.5 Sources of Funding andExternal Resource Mobilisation forPani Panchayat

According to the Act, the farmers’ organisations willget access to funding granted by the State and CentralGovernments for the development of the area of


132

12 There are three types/schemes of PP, lift irrigation, minorirrigation (flow including tank) and canal irrigation.

shall extend such cooperation or assistance as maybe required by the competent authority, and followsuch directions or instructions as may be requiredby the competent authority, from time to time, forcarrying out the purposes of the PP Act.

2.7 Provision for Offences,Penalties and Recovery of Arrears

As per Section 30 of the PP Act, those who violatethe provisions of the Act, ‘shall, on conviction, bepunished with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to one month or with fine which may extendto two hundred rupees, or with both’. It furtherprovides for recovery of money due to a Farmers’Organisation as arrears of Land Revenue.

2.8 Disputes Settlement

The Executive Committees of PPs/distributary/project/Apex Committee are the authorities for thesettlement of disputes arising among members ofsuch an organisation and the concerned committeeshall be selected by the managing committees ofimmediate higher level organisations. The concernedmembers if agreed upon by the decisions of suchcommittees shall be final. All the appeals under thisact shall be disposed off within fifteen days. It isnecessary to underline the powers of the ApexCommittee or the Government. Section 26 of PPAct says ‘any such dispute or differences arisingbetween a member and the managing committeesshall be determined by the Apex Committee, whosedecision shall be final’.

2.9 Biju Krushak Vikask Yojana(BKVY)

The subsidiary of PIM is the Biju Krushak VikaskYojana (BKVY) which is a unique model in theminor irrigation sector (flow as well as lift) ofensuring user’s participation right from the inceptionof project. The salient features of BKVY is that thereis an open invitation to farmers to form themselvesinto registered PP to derive the benefit of irrigationassistance from the Government and farmerscontribute 20 per cent of the capital cost in the shapeof cash or kind (in backward regions such asKalahandi, Bolangir and Koraput district so called

KBK and tribal sub plan areas the contribution offarmers is kept at 10 per cent). The State providesthe rest of the capital cost as one time assistance andalso executes the project on behalf of the PP. Aftercompletion of the project it is handed over to thePP for operation and maintenance. TheGovernment does not intend to collect any watertax from the farmers and the projects are to bemaintained by the PP themselves. For this schemean amount of Rs. 367.69 crores has been proposedin the Tenth Plan out of which Rs.117.69 crores hasbeen earmarked for the KBK district. Negotiatedloans amounting to Rs. 250.00 crores fromNABARD are also proposed for funding of thisscheme during Tenth Plan.

2.10 An Assessment of OrissaPani Panchayat Act 2002

2.10.1 Supportive Sides

The Act provides a legal framework for a betterparticipation by farmers in water management forthe first time in the history of irrigation legislationin Orissa. The Act enables farmers’ participation,not only at a lower level but also in a restrictedmanner at the main system level. The farmers’collective action is enabled through the formationof PPs, the office bearers for which have to be electedthrough a democratic process. The Act also providesfor the autonomous management of the irrigationsystem by Farmers Organisations in their respectiveareas for both the maintenance of the system andfor the distribution of water supply. The annualgrants allocated by the Government for variouspurposes, such as for operation and maintenance cannow be better utilised by PP. Also the PPs have legalpowers to levy and collect additional water charges,which would enhance their financial positions. Thisprovision would go a long way in improving thecost recovery. With regard to the settlement ofdisputes, since the decisions taken by the concernedcommittees or their higher level committees arefinal, the Courts are forbidden to entertain anyfurther appeal. A major breakthrough in relation tothe management of Farmers Organisations is thatthe members of the association are vested withpowers to recall the committee members. Thisprovision would contribute towards the


133

accountability of the elected leaders and restrainthem from mismanagement. Further, theGovernment does not have the power to wind upthe executive committees of PPs unlike incooperatives and Panchayats.

2.10.2 Harmful Sides

It is important to take a critical view of the provisionsof the PP Act and such a view may help in correctingthe inadequacies in the Act. Due to compelling socio-economic, technological and institutional factors,many traditional irrigation institutions (TII) are inthe process of decaying or already defunct in manyvillages of the state and country, TIIs are stillfunctioning to a reasonable degree.13 In such villagesocieties,

• Is it essential to superimpose a newinstitution (e.g. PP), through legislation, onthe existing ones?

• Is it actually empowering to alter the normsand institutionalised practices, which haveevolved over a long period of time?

• How can the State impose a non-functioning or a mal-functioning irrigationsystem to the people through an Act?

• Even if the State imposes it through law,to what extent will people accept it, andwhat kind of a collective action can weexpect from them?

As per the Orissa PP Act 2002, ‘every PaniPanchayat shall consist of all water users who arelandholders in the area of PP’.14 The way farmersare defined in the Act is somewhat narrow. If oneconcludes from the above section that a PP includesonly those cultivators who own or cultivate land,then the Act excludes the landless population frombecoming members of a PP.

The government has to constitute an ApexCommittee, which will have an overall control over


PPs. But the constituent members of this Committeehave not been spelt out. The ambiguity lies, whetherthe members of Apex Committee are primarily fromPP or from the Department of Water Resources orfrom any other section. This is important becausethe Apex Committee takes most of the finaldecisions, and if this Committee is dominated bythe WRO, then the strength and autonomy of PPswill get diluted. On the other hand, if the membersof the Apex Committee are nominated from politicalparties, there is every possibility of misuse of thisprovision in favour of the ruling parties.

Section 21 (1) of the PP Act provides for theappointment of personnel from the Department ofWater Resources of the Orissa Government ascompetent authorities for implementing thedecisions of the Farmers’ Organisation. However,their role is not specified. The Act is vague indefining the powers of the ‘competent authorities’and requires the Farmers’ Organisation to give effectto such orders. The Government may issue suchorders and directions of a general character as it mayconsider necessary in respect of any matter relatingto the powers and duties of the competent authorityand the Farmers’ Organisation shall give effect tosuch orders and directions. Such undefined powersgiven to the Department of Water Resourcespersonnel may result in the misuse of power. Inwhich case, the whole purpose of empowering waterusers will be defeated. Further, such powers givento the Department of Water Resources personnelmay weaken or dilute the autonomy given toFarmers Organisations. In the final analysis, the PPsmay be reduced to following directions given by theDepartment of Water Resources.

Section 26 of PP Act says ‘any such dispute ordifferences arising between a member and themanaging committees shall be determined by theApex Committee, whose decision shall be final’. Itis significant that even in the case of a settlement ofdisputes among water users, the final decision in thehands of the Department of Water Resources.Currently, the matters concerning water disputes areresolved through local institutional mechanisms.The main idea of the 73rd amendment to theConstitution of India is to strengthen thedemocratically elected government which representsall sections of the village population. However, the

134

13 See S. Janakarajan, ‘In Search of Tanks: Some HiddenFacts’, 28/26 Economic and Political Weekly 53-60 (1993).

14 Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002, Section 3 (4) (i).

formation of PPs weakens this very elementaryobjective.

Despite the fact that the State Water Policy mentionsfarmers’ participation in irrigation management,their rights over water are not clearly defined. Theextent of users’ participation is limited to theoperation and maintenance at local levels only. Theinvolvement of the community in the system leveldesigns and construction are neglected. As the waterpolicy is an important document that spells out thedevelopment strategy of a state, such neglect is aserious flaw and needs to be revised.

The State has resorted to turning over to peopleirrigation systems that are beset with problems suchas an absolute deviation from the original operationalrules, a gross disparity between the availability ofwater supply and the demand for it, low recoveryrates, the availability of very little resources foroperation and maintenance, corruption at all levels,fragmented community action and so on. For a longtime, the State played a major role in deciding therules and regulations of water management. Therewere no provisions for user’s participation. Thoughthere have been some attempts made in recent timestowards promoting user participation, theselegislations are not comprehensive. Moreover, thereis no scope for involving farmers in the plan anddesign of the system right from the projectformulation stage. Even the existing rules andregulations of irrigation systems, which aremanagerial in nature, suffer from a number ofproblems.15 The more crucial issue of therelationship between water and water users wasnever a part of the State’s agenda.

The next section of the paper deals with anevaluation of water management throughcommunity participation and the emergence of PPin a case study of Vir Bajrang Bali Pani Panchayatunder Lift Irrigation Point (LIP) of the HirakudCommand Area (HCA).16

3FUNCTIONING OF WATER USERSASSOCIATIONS/PANI PANCHAYATIN HIRAKUD COMMAND AREA (HCA)

This section examines the functioning of the VirBajrang Bali Pani Panchayat by observing the socio-economic condition of PP members, theirdistribution of ownership of land patterns, croppingpattern, cropping intensity, production of outputand crop income.

3.1 Methodology

In order to examine the functioning and impact oftransfer of irrigation management to the water users,a detail survey of 70 households (HH) has been donein a case study of Vir Bajrang Bali Pani Panchayatunder Lift Irrigation Point (LIP) of the HirakudCommand area, Orissa. The Primary data has beencollected from Bandhapali village of KardolaPanchayat in Dhankauda Block of Sambalpurdistrict. Bandhapali village is 32 KM away from thedistrict headquarter Sambalpur. The nearest railwaystation is at Hirakud, at a distance of 24 km fromthe village. Bandhapali is a revenue village of KardolaPanchayat comprising of one ward.

Both quantitative and qualitative information havebeen obtained in order to observe the efficacy ofdifferent types of institutional arrangements.Qualitative information was obtained by way ofParticipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), such as focusgroup discussions, and interviews of senior citizensand officials in the irrigation department.Discussions were also held with the office bearersof the concerned PP, in addition to those outsidethe PP i.e. women and landless people. Twostructured questionnaires; one related to WUAs andanother related to households were prepared tocollect quantitative information. These interviewswere unscheduled and carried out in variety oflocations like in a school house or Panchayatbuilding, on a temple veranda, under a tree, or inprivate homes. ‘Before and after’ scenarios wereexploited to evaluate the impact as there is no option


135

15 See K.V. Raju, Legislative Framework for FarmersParticipation in Irrigation Management (Ahemedabad:Indian Institute of Management, 1994).

16 It is realised that, it is too early to assess and evaluate theformal PP in Hirakud Command Area, Orissa, as theprocess of implementation is just falling in line.

for ‘with and without scenarios’, as all the farmersgetting irrigation water are covered under PP. Thefield work was conducted during the month ofJanuary- February 2005.

The PP is named as Vir Bajrang Bali PP andregistered under the Society Registration Act, 1860.Vir Bajrang Bali PP refers to the organised effort ofgroups of farmers of Bandhapali village to formulateand implement community irrigation projects basedon certain mutually agreed upon principles for watersharing. During the survey we found that there areno women members in the organisation. The namesof members have been mentioned in the MinuteBook, Cash Book, and Receipt Book. There are 30members enrolled by depositing a membership feeof ten rupees. The members have decided toconcentrate on the all round development of the

villages under PP and protect the resources and rightsof the members. Since PP deals with water which isa Common Property Resource, they present aninteresting instance of Participatory development ofCommon Property Resources. Thoughparticipatory, they are different from co-operatives.This difference manifests itself in their organisationsstructure and functioning.

3.2 Socio economic characteristicsof Pani Panchayat Members

This section explains the socio-economic characteristicsof the selected PP members that include classificationof house hold, family size, working members, levelof education, housing condition, provision ofelectricity, characteristics of ownership of holdings,cropping pattern, cropping intensity etc.


136

Size of Land holdings SC ST OC TOTAL

(in Acres)

0.01-2.50 18 04 09 31 (44.2)

2.51-5.00 06 03 11 20 (28.6)

5.01-10.00 - - 10 10 (14.3)

10.01 & above - 01 08 09 (12.9)

Overall 24 (34.30) 8 (11.40) 38 (54.30) 70 (100.0)

Source: Field Survey (2004-05)

Note: i) Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentages of the respective categories.

ii) Blank entries in the Table denote nil.

iii) SC- Scheduled castes, ST-Scheduled tribes, OC-Other castes (which includes OBC-other backwardcastes, FC-Forward castes).

Table-1: Classification of Households by Caste and Size of Holdings among Different Size Groups of PaniPanchayat Members


137

Table- 2: Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics among Different Size Groups of Pani PanchayatMembers

Size of Land No of Average Average Average Working Working Illiteracy Quality of house (in %)holdings Hhs family male female member member of the(in Acres) size member member male female head of Thatched Kuchha Pucca Electrified

(per HH) (per HH) (per HH) (in %) (in %) the HH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0.01-2.50 31 5.85 3.27 2.58 89 11 58 54 46 - 100

2.51-5.00 20 5.39 2.50 2.89 95 05 20 55 25 20 100

5.01-10.00 10 4.50 2.50 2.00 100 - - - 30 70 100

10.01 & 09 4.20 2.15 2.05 - - - - 20 80 100above

Overall 70 5.24 2.77 2.47 87 13 35 49 33 18 92

Source: Field Survey (2004-05)Note: Blank entries in the Table denote nil.

Table- 3 Characteristics of Ownership of Land Holding among Different Size Groups of Pani PanchayatMembers

Size of No % Total Average Total Average Total Average Total Average Total Average Total AverageLand of of area of amount area of area PP area PP Non non PP PP PP Non- Non- PPholdings HHs HH ownership of land operat operated owned land to PP land to land to land to PP land to(in Acres) holding owned ional land per (in acre) owned area owned operated operated area operated

(in acre) per HH holdings HH land owned land land land operated land(in acre) (in acre) (in acre)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0.01-2.50 31 44.30 33.36 01.07 133.97 04.32 21.56 00.69 10.75 00.34 45.81 01.47 30.30 00.97

2.51-5.00 20 28.60 77.20 03.86 68.91 03.44 46.10 02.30 31.23 01.56 62.40 03.12 57.80 02.89

5.01-10.00 10 14.30 74.00 07.40 84.30 08.43 24.92 02.49 49.04 04.90 37.50 03.75 24.50 02.45

10.01 & 09 12.90 134.01 14.89 51.24 05.69 31.08 03.45 102.89 11.43 47.25 05.25 41.85 04.65above

Overall 70 100.0 318.5 04.55 338.42 04.83 123.66 01.77 193.91 02.77 180.60 02.58 154.45 02.20


Table-1 indicates that, 44 per cent of householdsbelonged to marginal farmers, and 29 per centbelonged to small farmers. Thus the small andmarginal farmers together formed around 73 per centof the farmers. The medium farmers constitutedfourteen per cent of the farm households. By contrastthe large farm households constituted thirteen percent of farm households. Thus, a majority of the PPmembers belong to the marginal and small farmers.In the village, there are groups of 2-3 farmersoperating their personal lift. Apparently, they belongto the well-to-do segments of land holding hierarchy.On the contrary, small and marginal farmers cannotafford to invest in private lift schemes, as they areshort of surplus capital. The SC and ST populationtogether constituted 46 per cent of the totalhouseholds and the remaining 54 per cent belongsto other castes population. Thus, there is a biastowards upper classes in terms of membership.

Table-2 indicates that the average size of familyamong the member was 5.24. It is as low as 4.20 incases of large farmers and as high as 5.85 in cases ofmarginal farmers. Thus the family size decreaseswith the rise in the status of household. The averagenumber of male members in the family was 2.77 andthat of female member was 2.47 among the memberof PP. There are some variations among differentclass of PP member. The level of education of thehead of the households has been classified intoilliterate and literate. The level of literacy amongthe head of the household has been given in col. 8 ofthe Table- 2. It is seen that 35 per cent of the headrespondent were illiterate among the PP membersin aggregate. The composition of workers in ahousehold is important as far as the socio economiccondition of a household is concerned. Table-2shows that, of the total number of workers 87 percent are male. It is observed that percentage of malemember increases with increase in class size. In themarginal farmers group 89 per cent are male workingmembers, whereas in the case of small farmers it is95 per cent. On the other hand in the case of mediumgroup farmers all the working members are maleand there is no female participation. Thus it isobserved that as the class size increases, thepercentage of working female members decreases.Eleven per cent of the working female memberscontribute in the marginal farmers group, whereasit is five per cent in the case of the small farmer

group. By contrast, it becomes nil in the case ofmedium and large farmer group.

The quality of houses of PP members is provided incol. 9-11 in Table-2. The residential arrangements ofhouseholds are influenced by their ability to generatesurplus. Utilisation of that surplus contributes to thebetter quality of house. Generally a person is likelyto construct better quality of house, if they havesurpluses. There will be surplus if the personconcerned has more production and less familymembers. It is observed that those members whohave more land under Pani Panchayats have thebetter quality of house facilities. Table- 2 shows that49 per cent of the households ate thatched, whichare of a lower quality. Marginal and small farmersgroup possess this type of house. Hardly 18 per centare pucca houses and 33 per cent are kuchha houses.It is observed that the medium farmer group contains70 per cent pucca house and 30 per cent kuchhahouses, whereas the small farmer group contains 55per cent thatched, 20 per cent pucca and 25 per centkuchha. Thus we see that, with the increase in sizeof holding the quality of the house increases. All themembers of the PP, be they though marginal, smallor medium have provisions of electricity.

3.3 Distribution of Ownership ofLand Patterns among DifferentCategories of Households

Land is an important form of asset of the householdsin rural areas. It not only provides self-employmentto its owners, but is also utilised as collateral whilegetting loans from formal or informal credit sources.The pattern of ownership of land holding amongmembers of the PP is provided in Table-3. Theaverage area owned per household is 4.55 acres forthe overall PP members. The average size of landowned by a marginal farmer is 1.07 acres, and that ofthe small farmer was 3.86 acres. On the other hand,for the medium farmer it was 7.40 acres and for largefarmer it was 14.89 acres. The analyses of distributionof ownership of land revealed that there is highinequality of land ownership among different groupsof PP members. The landlord groups weredominating the decision making process of the PP.The distribution of operated areas among differentgroup of households is given in the Table-3, column6 and 7.


138

It is seen that there is a slight variation in thedistribution of operated area in comparison with thatof owned areas. Irrigation facilities are importantfor crop production and it assures the yield of crops.The average size of PP land to operated land is 2.58acres whereas to own land is 1.77. This is becausemany farmers have leased land under PP. Themarginal farmer has 1.47, the small farmers have 3.12lands under PP. whereas the medium farmer has 3.75and the large farmer has 5.25. Likewise the averageNon-Pani Panchayat land is shown in Table-3column 14 and 15.

Table- 4: Cropping Pattern and Cropping Intensityby Different Size Groups under Pani Panchayat


Cropping intensity = [Gross Cropped Area(GCA)/Net Sown Area (NSA)] * 100.

3.4 Cropping Pattern andCropping Intensity among theFarm Households

In this section we analyse the cropping patternadopted by different categories of households amongthe PP members. It also discusses the croppingintensity of cultivated land among these householdsin their operated area. A discussion on croppingpattern and cropping intensity is important because

it has bearing on demand for PP by the cultivators.For instance, there is a certain crop like HYV paddy,which requires more fertiliser in comparison withother crops. Similarly cultivation of vegetables alsorequires high dose of chemical fertiliser. To showthe average gross cropped area and cropping intensityof the PP member two Tables (4 and 5) are given.These Tables are provided because those membershave land both under PP and also under Non-PaniPanchayat. A peculiar situation is noticed in Table-4that, under PP the overall cropping intensity amongthe member is 200. The cropping intensity for alltypes of farmers is equal. In this type of land, onlyone crop is produced that is paddy. Here farmersgrow paddy in both the Kharif and Rabi seasons.

Table-5 shows that though the PP members haveland outside the PP, their overall cropping intensityis 222.66. Out of the total gross cropped area, 91.12per cent of it is devoted to paddy followed by pulses(3.59 per cent), Oilseeds (2.26 per cent), vegetables(1.97 per cent) during Kharif seasons. On the otherhand during Rabi season the same percentage that is91.12 per cent is devoted to paddy followed by pulses3.60 per cent, oilseeds 2.31 per cent, and vegetable1.97 per cent. So multiple cropping is done here.

Paddy is the major crop in both the Kharif and Rabiseason. There is a small crop diversification. Thusin both the Table 4 and 5, it is observed that paddyis the dominant crop. When both the Tables are


139

Size of Land No. of Average Gross Of the total Of the total Croppingholdings HH Cropped area Gross Cropped Gross Cropped Intensity(in Acres) under PP of Kharif, per of Rabi, per (CI)

(in acres) centage of area centage of areadevoted to Paddy devoted to Paddy

1 2 3 4 5 6

0.01-2.50 31 04.16 100 100 200

2.51-5.00 20 05.56 100 100 200

5.01-10.00 10 06.66 100 100 200

10.01 & above 09 07.86 100 100 200

Overall 70 04.82 100 100 200

compared, it is seen that the cropping intensity ofarea under PP scheme is lower than the Non-PPland. In the case of PP land there is prevalence ofmono-crop (only paddy), while there is cropdiversification in the case of Non-PP land. It appearsthat despite irrigation facilities available, thecropping intensity is generally low among allcategories of household.

3.5 Crop Income per Household

This section discusses the average crop incomeearned by different categories of farm households.It also describes the composition of income comingfrom different varieties of crop produced by farmers.The expenditure incurred by different categories offarmers in order to produce this crop has not beendeducted from the gross income. In view of this, theincome discussed here is a rough indicator of theliving conditions of the farmers. A discussion on theincome derived from the farm activity is importantbecause it will indicate whether a farmer hassufficient amount of income to be able to live in acondition better than before formation of PP.

The average annual income is derived from bothKharif and Rabi crops. In the irrigated area, farmershave cultivated crops both in the Kharif and Rabiseason. It is important to note that the income earnedper acre of paddy cultivation during the Rabi seasonis higher in comparison with income earned per acrein the Kharif season. This is due to the risk anduncertainty associated with crop production inKharif season is relatively higher and hence totaloutput produce is lower.

Table-6 shows both the average amount of cropincome earned by members under PP and by thesame member under Non-PP. It can be seen fromthe Table-6 that the average amount of incomeearned by members having land under PP is Rs.18,712.09. It is as low as Rs. 11, 630 in case ofmarginal farmers who have leased land and as highas Rs.45, 890 in case of large farmers. In case of smallfarmers it is Rs. 14,711.81 and in case of mediumfarmers it is Rs.35, 440.60. So the annual incomeincreases with the increase in farm size. It isnoteworthy that, monthly income for average PPmembers is about Rs. 1559.34 (calculated from

column 3, Table-6). Land under PP produces onlypaddy. So paddy constitutes the total income.

On the other hand, for the same members owningland under Non-Pani Panchayat areas, the averageincome from that land is Rs. 44,888.57. Here alsothe average crop income is increasing with increasein farm size. The monthly income for the averageNon-PP member is Rs. 3740.72 (Calculated fromcolumn 5, Table-6). The Table-6 also depicts thecomposition of income coming from different crops.The composition of income from various categoriesof households reveals that about 90.18 per cent ofthe crop incomes have come from paddy cultivation,followed by pulses (3.58 per cent). Contribution ofvegetables is about 3.32 per cent followed by oilseeds(2.10 per cent) and others 0.82 per cent.

It appears that the members of PP households havederived more than half of paddy cultivation in boththe Kharif and Rabi season. The analyses of patternof income generated from crop production revealedthat, the average per household income derived fromcrop by different categories of households havingland in the Non-PP is much higher than that fromPP land. The studied PP, which was established in1997 with a view to promoting scientific watermanagement techniques, with full users’participation, does not seem to suggest that the maingoal of forming PP has been attained. For instance,available data shows that in Non-PP we get betteropportunities compared to PP.


140

141

Size of No Average Of the total Gross Cropped of Of the total Gross Cropped of Land of Gross Kharif, % of area devoted to Rabi, % of area devoted to holdings HH Cropped Paddy Pulses Veget Oil Others Total Paddy Pulses Veget Oil Others Total CI(in Acres) area under (in %) (in %) ables Seeds (in %) (in %) (in %) ables Seeds (in %)

Non-PP (in %) (in %) (in %) (in %)(in acres)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0.01-2.50 31 01.60 18.99 01.57 01.00 01.26 - 22.82 18.99 01.37 00.87 01.18 - 22.41 212.00

2.51-5.00 20 02.53 18.69 - - 01.00 - 19.69 18.69 - - - - 18.69 247.44

5.01-10.00 10 03.45 21.26 02.02 00.97 - - 24.25 21.26 02.23 - 01.13 01.00 25.62 236.55

10.01 & 09 05.36 32.18 - - - 01.06 33.25 32.18 - 01.10 - - 33.28 205.55above

Overall 70 02.41 91.12 03.59 01.97 02.26 01.06 100 91.12 03.60 01.97 02.31 01.00 100 222.66(168.5) (153.52) (6.06) (3.32) (3.81) (1.79) (168.5) (153.52) (6.06) (3.32) (3.90) (1.68) (168.5)

Table- 5: Cropping Pattern and Cropping Intensity by Different Size Groups under Non-Pani Panchayat

Source: Field Survey (2004-05)Note: i) Figures in the parentheses indicate the absolute figures in acres.

ii) Blank entries in the Table denote nil.

Table-6: Average Amount of Crop Income Earned by Different Size Group of Members underPani Panchayat and Non Pani Panchayat Land

Size of No. Average Paddy Average crop Paddy Pulses Oilseeds VegetablesLand of crop Contribution income per Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution Others

holdings HH income per (in %) HH under (in %) (in %) (in %) (in %)(in Acres) HH under Non PP

PP land land (in Rs.)(in Rs.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0.01-2.50 31 11630 16.28 35130 11.45 01.43 00.56 01.14 -

2.51-5.00 20 14711 25.18 48990 18.89 - 01.54 02.18 -

5.01-10.00 10 35440 33.50 69090 24.66 02.15 - - 00.82

10.01 & 09 45890 25.24 93450 35.18 - - - -above

Overall 70 18712 100% 44889. 90.18 03.58 02.10 03.32 0.82

Source: Field Survey (2004-05)Note: Blank entries in the Table denote nil.


4WATER RIGHTS, LAND RIGHTS ANDPANI PANCHAYAT

This section concentrates on the issues ofmaintenance of water rights, land rights in PP,farmers’ assessment of PP, and reasons forexplanation of the non-utilisation of the estimatedarea of PPs.

The beneficiaries of PPs are only those who havelands.17 That means it is based on ownership of landand rights in land. This demonstrates that the poorand the landless could not be given access to water,which is a common property resource. It isunreasonable to expect a landless labourer to investin PP in the hope of some future benefit whensomeone might grant him sharecropping rights. Forthe landless, 25 per cent of the project cost is toohigh to be invested in a PP. This demonstrates theimpracticability of the provision in granting waterrights to the landless. But rainfall belongs to theentire village community and all must have equalaccess to this water. The rights in land are rigid andinflexible and there is a basic inequity in the meansof production and social structure. Earlier all thepoor were given equal access to water, which in factis the only way to sustain our traditional waterbodies. Thus, it was possible to share water inrelation to the needs of subsistence and it couldcounter the inequality based on the rights of land.This is how the water as a common propertyresource developed as a community asset to protectthe interests of the entire community. Traditionally,access to water was free every body and not inrelation to the rights in the lands. After PPs cameinto picture, only the members who have rights inland, have rights on water. This is likely to give riseto a ‘Panidar’ (water lords) class. Hence, a naturalright for irrigation water has become insecure andineffective.

In 2002, the Orissa Chief Minister Nabin Pattanaiktold the eminent journalist P. Sainath that ‘We want

142

to hand over control to the community, to thefarmers themselves’.18 But not quite the way thingsare working out on the ground. In the real world,community control of water is now a cover forprivate control. P. Sainath (during his visit to Aunliproject, 2002) adds that the concept of ‘Panchayat’is meant to be a democratic one.19 However, thereis no farmer in it at all. People do not participate inthe scheme. A few big farmers have captured thewhole thing. The idea of PP has failed totally in allthe areas visited area and in all of Orissa. It does notmake sense socially, institutionally, culturally,economically or politically. Water is becomingprivate property. If we look at the principles of PPfrom the point of view of water as a commonproperty resource, then we should keep in mind thatwater rights should be given to every one includinglandless, women and that every one has an equalright to share this common natural resource.20

4.1 Maintenance of Water Rightsin Pani Panchayat

The PP committees are not concerned with themaintenance of water rights for the members of thecommand area or with the protection of the rightsagainst intrusions from outside the system. Thereare some water shares for the landlord. There is norelation between the size of the individuals landholding and the number of water shares that heholds. Land and water are separate entities. There isno such situation where one can sell one’s share ofwater or buy water from a shareholder.

4.2 Impact on Other Sources ofWater

A substantial area in Orissa is irrigated by sourcesother than canals, tanks and lift points. Rivers (bymanual lift), dug wells, springs, and other traditionalwater harvesting structures are quite common intribal/mountainous tracts, dry-land areas of Western

17 See Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002, Section 4 (i).

18 See P. Sainath, ‘Little Pani, Less Panchayat’, The Hindu,22 September 2002, available at http://www.hindu.com/t h e h i n d u / m a g / 2 0 0 2 / 0 9 / 2 2 / s t o r i e s /2002092200250100.htm.

19 Id..20 Id..


http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/09/22/stories/2002092200250100.htm

Orissa and in all those areas where canal irrigationhas not reached. With the setting up of the WaterService Agencies (WSAs- a euphemism for Privatecompanies trading in water) it is feared that graduallythe entire water resources of the State, zone afterzone, will be usurped by these WSAs through creativeinterpretations of the agreements signed for thepurpose. Farmers then would be heavily charged fordrawing water from the canals, as according to thegovernment’s Water Policy PPs would beaccountable to the WSAs and the Government wouldbe only playing a mediatory role without anyinterference in pricing of services as is the casepresently with the power sector reforms. Furtherpeople would have to pay service charges for drawingor using water from their own wells, ponds, and otherwater bodies as the WSAs would claim ownership ofthe entire water resource under their geographicaljurisdiction as happened in Bolivia and Argentina.

4.3 Farmers’ Assessment of PaniPanchayat

Water supply is not fully guaranteed. Disputes aredue to insufficient water. Old and unlined canalsexaggerate this trouble further. Necessary on–farmdevelopment works were not carried out in the villageand improved methods of irrigation were not taught.PP also desires support with other inputs. Currently,non-availability of agricultural inputs on time, limitsthe farmers’ returns. Production losses are claimedto be a contributory factor to defaults in payment.

Only 42 per cent of the farmers surveyed knew thename of the PP President, hardly any one knew thenames of managing committee members (See Table-7). Awareness about the formation of formal PP inthe village was less (30 per cent) [Fig.2]. Manyfarmers had no idea about the PP Programme. Mostof them had very little information about theactivities of the PP. Seventy eight per cent of thefarmers responded that there was no change in areairrigated after the formation of PP. (fig.3). Withregard to the women’s participation in the PPactivities, 82 per cent responded negatively (fig.4).The claim for better control devices like installationof sluices, repairs of shutters is replicated in theresponses of the farmers surveyed during the fieldwork on the changes in the water availability afterformations of PP. Seventy five per cent of the sample

farmers recommended the installation of shutters toimprove regulation and 66 per cent also wish fordisciplinary action against violators. Technicalstructures like shutters had been installed at thesepoints during the initial stages for controlling theflow into these inlets. The flow could be reduced ortotally cut off depending on the water available andthe requirements of equal distribution within thecommand areas. This was done through institutinga system of rotation of water supply. Instituting thefunctioning of the rotation system however requiresa complementary technical function of the controlstructures, unauthorised withdrawals of water byupstream farmers using engines for pumping water,further accentuate the unequal distribution whichis to some extent inbuilt in the delivery systems dueto increased losses. This has resulted in continuationof the head tail discrimination in access to irrigationwater from public sources due to systemic andtechnical features as well as the violations of rulesof water distribution. Eighty six per cent of thefarmers surveyed responded that, there was nochange in per acre yield of rice due to PP (fig.5).The majority of the farmers (72 per cent) respondedthat maintenance after the formation of PP alsoremained the same (fig.6). Again with regard to theavailability of water, a majority of the farmers (65per cent) responded that there is inadequacy of water(fig.7).

4.4 Explanation for the Non-utilisation of the Estimated Areaof PPs

In many cases, the initial formalities have beenconcluded. There is no follow-up action due to lackof motivation and leadership amongst the members.In some situations the irrigation water does not reachup to far off fields either because the intermediarynon-members do not allow the watercourse or theland is at a higher elevation. In few cases, it is observedthat some of the technical decisions were wrong andhence even though there is relatively an easieravailability of water, the water lifting mechanicaldevices have a limited capacity and to that extent theintensity of farming over the two to three seasons ina year cannot be achieved. In the absence of the rightto decide on dead storage, the occupational groupsmay not have incentive to participate, leading toinefficient and underutilisation of PPs.

143


Sl. No. Question Asked Options Response as per cent

1 Election/Selection Fair 35of PP members Unfair 65

2 Maintenance after Same 72PP was formed Worse —

Distinct improvement 28

3 Changes in Area irrigated Yes 22after PP formation No 78

4 Change in Per acre yield Yes 14rice due to PP No 86

5 Have you been paying Revised rates 28water dues as per Old rates 34

Not paying 38

6 Suggestions for controlling Installation of Shutters 75water distribution Disciplinary action 66

Miscellaneous*

7 Whether woman should Yes 18involve in PP activities No 82

8 Your preference is for PP 45Irrigation Dept. Personnel 18Traditional Irrigation Institution 23Indifferent 14

9 Do you know the name of Yes 42your PP president No 58

10 How many General Body Two- Four 18(GB) meetings have More than four 08been held in your PP None 34

Do not know 40

11 Were you informed about Informed & attended 08the GB meetings Informed but did not attended 22and did you attend Not informed 70

12 Are you aware of formal PP Yes 30functioning in the village No 70

13 Water availability Adequate 35Inadequate 65

Source: Field Survey (2004-05)* Controls necessitate not only for letting the water in but also for preventing the flow.Note: Blank entries in the Table denote nil.

Table-7: Farmers Responses in the Pani Panchayat Field Study Areas

144




Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Fig. 4 Fig. 5

Fig. 6 Fig. 7

145

5CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

An analysis of land holding pattern reveals thatmajority (73 per cent) of the PP members is themarginal and small farmers. The proportion ofmedium farmers and large farm householdsconstitute 14 per cent and 13 per cent of the farmhouseholds respectively. The category and caste-wisedistribution of households reveals that there is biastowards upper classes in terms of membership.Unusually, under PP the overall cropping intensityamong members is 200 per cent. The croppingintensity for all types of farmers is equal. Paddy isthe only major crop which is produced in both theKharif and Rabi seasons, since through the formationof PP water is provided throughout the year. Despitethe fact that the PP members have land outside thePP, their overall cropping intensity is 222.77 percent. While comparing cropping intensity betweenPP area and Non-Pani Panchayat area, it is observedthat the cropping intensity of area under PP schemeis lower (i.e. 200 per cent) than the Non-PaniPanchayat land (i.e. 222.77 per cent).

Awareness about the formation of formal PP in thevillage was less (30 per cent). Many farmers had noidea about the PP Programme. 62 per cent of the smallfarmers are not satisfied with the functioning of thePP Committee. The State should act as a facilitatornot controller. PP do not imply that the state shouldcompletely withdraw from irrigation, but wouldcontinue to provide critical services, particularlywater supply at the main delivery points, providinginformation, training and accounting. The poor andlandless should have the right and access to waterand this right should be linked with their right toemployment. After PPs came into picture, themembers who have rights on land, have only rightson water, which is likely to give rise to a ‘Panidar’(water lords) class. Hence, the natural rights forirrigation water become insecure and unsuccessful.

From the above discussion we can conclude that theperformance of PPs as regulatory institutions incharge of water distribution on an equitable basishas been weak and unsuccessful. This raises doubts

with regard to their capacity to generate resourcesthrough collection of water cess. Researchers havedrawn up a strategy for policy makers to ensure IMTprograms become more pro-poor stressing the needto clearly define the rights of farmers, raise awarenessof these rights, reform the election process, andmonitor participation in water user authorities.21

Despite the irrigation agency in Orissa having takena policy decision to encourage farmer’s participationand attempts being underway to motivate farmersto form WUAs, the farmer’s response in this regardis not of a satisfactory level.22

It is also argued by Swain that farmers will be comeforward to form WUAs and will be ready to takeup the additional responsibility if they are convincedthat benefits due to participatory management willexceed their cost of participation. As most of ourfarmers are not educated and lack vision tocomprehend the future benefits due to participation,special care should be taken while motivating thefarmers. They have to be convinced that the benefitdue to participation will be substantial, tangible,quick yielding and sustainable. Though water is themost crucial input required for plant growth, theproductivity impact of irrigation depends on the useof other yield enhancing complementary inputs likeHYV seeds, fertilizer, manure and modernagronomic practices. Therefore other agriculturalinputs should be made available to the farmers intime and as per requirement through WUAs. Thefarmers having different political affiliations mayhave a conflict of interest and difference in opinion.Learning by doing approach should be followed todetermine the model and modalities of formingWUAs.23

21 For detailed discussions, see International WaterManagement Institute, Irrigation Management Transfer:How to Make it Work for Africa’s Small Holders? (IWMI,Water Policy Briefing Series 11, 2003), available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/wpb11.pdf.

22 Mamata Swain, ‘Turning Over Irrigation Managementto Farmers – Issues for Concern’, in Gyana Chandra Karand Mamata Swain eds, Farmer and Local Participationin Irrigation Management 128 (New Delhi:Commonwealth Publishers, 2000).

23 Id.

146


http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Water_Policy_Briefs/PDF/wpb11.pdf

Even though PP has been initiated and endorsed inthe State for more than a couple of years, theacceptance of the model has been lethargic andscattered. There is no easily accessible data toevaluate this performance. As a whole PP isunexecutable and unacceptable. PP is not in theinterest of the people. There are so many constraintslike selfishness, illiteracy, and a lack of interest onpart of the big landowners, which hinders theimprovement of PP. Many registration actions ofPP are complex and long, raising the costs ofparticipation for the farmers. Simpler procedures areneeded that will provide the PP organisations withsufficient legal standing to deal with governmentagencies, contract with private firms, contractors,and control resources within the group.

A detailed action plan should be prepared inconsultation with the water users through aParticipatory Rural Appraisal method. A feasibilitystudy should be undertaken by examining the casteclass conflict, groupism, political differences andhistory of confrontation and conflict, if any. It isnecessary to apply a bottom-up approach instead oftop-down for sustainability. There must also bemechanisms to ensure that the benefits of the projectare equally distributed among all concernedstakeholders.

Appendix

Profiles of the Selected Pani Panchayat (PP)

Name of the PP: Vir Bajrang Bali PaniPanchayat (Lift- I & II)

Location: Village: BandhapaliGram Panchayat: Kardola,Post office: ChiplimaBlock: DhankaudaDistrict: Sambalpur, State-Orissa

Age of the system: Old registration 1996-97 asWUA, Newly formatted in2001-02 as PP

Type of the system: Lift Irrigation (LI)

Total No of LI Points: Lift I and II

Name of the Source: Mahanadi River

Area in acre (ayacut): 123.66 Acre

Horse Power Used: 15 HP (Horse Power)

Office Bearers: Total No. of PP members: 63No. of Committee members:Four

President Election: Nomination

147


LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal) is jointly managed by theSchool of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London

http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC)

http://www.ielrc.org

law environment and developmentjournal · 2010-05-04 · law, environment and development journal...

Documents