108

PROMOTING DRIP IRRIGATION*

WHERE AND WHY?

D. Suresh Kumar1

Abstract

This paper tries to look at the changes which drip irrigation brings to the farming system and the factorswhich limit or motivate drip irrigation. The study revealed that adoption of drip irrigation technology increased thenet sown area, net irrigated area and there by helped in achieving higher cropping intensity and irrigation intensity.Discussion with the farmers revealed that huge initial investment and small size of holding are the major constraintslimiting the adoption of drip technology. Other reasons are unsuitable cropping pattern, lack of access to subsidyand no technical support for follow up action. As cropping pattern decides the adoption and suitability of dripirrigation, widespread adoption of micro irrigation could be promoted in the regions where there is a shift towardscrops like coconut, banana, grapes etc. Further, drip irrigation is suitable in areas where there is a scarcity of waterand labour.

1. INTRODUCTION

Water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource and limiting agricultural development in manydeveloping and developed economies across the world. Developing infrastructure for water resources and theirmanagement have been the common policy agenda in many developing economies particularly in arid andsemi-arid tropical countries. Physical and economic scarcity of water across regions has forced waterresources economists and scientist to critically analyze different options for managing water. A study by theInternational Water Management Institute (IWMI) shows that around 50% of the increase in demand for waterby the year 2025 can be met by increasing the effectiveness of irrigation. Most of this gain in irrigation efficiencycan come in countries which grow high percentage of irrigated rice.

The capacity of large countries like India to efficiently develop and manage water resources is likely tobe a key determinant of global food security in the 21st century (Seckler et al., 1998). In India, almost all theeasily possible and economically viable irrigation water potential has already been developed. However, thedemand for water for different sectors has been growing continuously (Saleth, 1996; Vaidyanathan, 1999).Moreover, the water use efficiency in the agricultural sector, which still consumes over 80% of water, is only inthe range of 30-40% in India, indicating that there is considerable scope for improving the water use efficiency.

A lot has been discussed on the ever-increasing demand for water resources for multiple uses which hasled to overexploitation of groundwater. It is argued that low electricity pricing policies and shifting of electricitytariff from pro-rata to flat rate have reduced the marginal costs of water to zero. As a result, farmers use bothgroundwater and electricity inefficiently. The effect of such cheaper electricity has resulted in various negativeexternalities such as over pumping, changes in crop pattern towards more water intensive crops, welldeepening, drilling new bore wells, increase in well investments, pumping costs, well failure and abandonmentand out migration which are increasing at a much faster rate (Narayanamoorthy, 1997; Palanisami and SureshKumar, 2003).

The review of past studies shows that the solution to the problem of growing groundwater scarcity andpersistent groundwater resource degradation across regions are two fold: Firstly, the supply side management

1Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture Economics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Coimbatore. India. E-mail:rithusuresh@yahoo.com

109

practices like watershed development, water resources development through major, medium and minorirrigation projects. The second is thorough the demand management by efficient use of the available water bothin the short and long run. This includes drip irrigation and other improved water management practices.

Recognizing the importance of sustainable water use efficiency in agriculture, a number of demandmanagement strategies (like water pricing, water users association, turnover system) have been introducedsince the late seventies to increase the water use efficiency especially in the use of surface irrigation water. Whilevarious strategies introduced for improving the water use efficiency have been continuing, the net impact ofthese strategies in increasing water use efficiency is not very impressive (Narayanamoorthy, 2003).

One of the demand management mechanisms is the adoption of micro irrigation such as drip andsprinkler method of irrigation. Evidences show that the water use efficiency increases up to 100% in a properlydesigned and managed drip irrigation system (INCID, 1994; Sivanappan, 1994). Drip method of irrigation helpsto reduce the over exploitation of groundwater that partly occurs because of inefficient use of water undersurface method of irrigation. Environmental problems associated with the surface irrigation like water loggingand salinity are also completely absent under drip method of irrigation (Narayanamoorhty, 1997). In addition,drip method helps in achieving saving in irrigation water, increased water use efficiency, decreased tillagerequirement, higher quality products, increased crop yields and higher fertilizer use efficiency (Qureshi et al,2001; Sivanappan, 2002; Namara et al., 2005). In addition to the private benefits, the drip irrigation generatesubstantial social impacts in the form of enhanced food security, women participation in agriculture (http://www.ide-india.org/ide/socialimpact.shtml) and social status (Shah et al.,).

Though the potential benefits generated by the drip irrigation methods are apparent, the adoption of dripirrigation is yet to be widely promoted across regions and states. Though there are many studies attempted toidentify factors limiting the adoption of drip irrigation, still, it is not clear where we should promote microirrigation. The issue of promoting micro irrigation forms one of key policy agendas in many developing countriesincluding India. Keeping these issues in view, the present paper addresses three important issues: (i.) whatchanges the drip irrigation brings to the farming system?, (ii) whether the adoption of drip irrigation is motivatedby the cropping pattern or the cropping pattern is followed by the drip adoption? and (iii) what factors limit ormotivate drip adoption?.

2. METHODOLOGY

The present study aims to analyze the adoption and impact of drip irrigation. To identify the factorsdriving adoption of drip irrigation and assess the associated positive and negative externalities, one control regionwhere there is no drip adoption was selected.

The study was conducted in Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu state where groundwater resourcedegradation is alarming. Two blocks each representing water scarcity were selected and studied. From theselected block, two revenue villages were selected purposely where the adoption of drip irrigation is widespread.Farm households in the selected villages constituted the sample units. To examine the adoption and impact ofdrip irrigation on resource use, agricultural production and farm income, 25 drip adopting farmers were selectedin each village and correspondingly 25 non-drip adopters were selected in control villages. In additon to drawingsample farmers in the control village, farmers who did not adopt from the drip village were also studied. A sampleof 10 non-drip adopters in the same village was studied. Thus, we studied two set of control farmers. One set ofcontrol farmers with in the drip village and another set of farmers from the control village. Total samples of 120farmers were studied.

2.1 Source of data

For the purpose of the study, both secondary and primary information were collected from differentsources. The secondary information included rainfall trends, growth in number of wells, wells functioning,number of defunct wells, cropping pattern, crop yields, occupational structure, area irrigated and socio-eco-nomic conditions like migration, employment. The general particulars of the area were collected from the

110

assistant director of statistics, and assistant director of agriculture of the respective regions. Interview scheduleswere formulated and pretested. The needed information were gathered by personal interview of the respondents.The primary information collected from the farm households include details on well investment, groundwateruse, extraction and management, crop production including input use and output realized, farm income, adoptionof drip irrigation, and investment on drip irrigation. This also includes asset position, education, consumptionand other socio-economic conditions.

2.2 Factors influencing adoption of drip irrigation

A key concern of policy makers is to make farm households adopt micro irrigation technologies in orderto manage the growing groundwater scarcity. Thus, an important research question is what factors influencefarm households’ decision to adopt drip irrigation. For the purpose, area covered under drip irrigation isconsidered as the dependent variable.

The dependent variable for adoption of drip irrigation would be zero for those households who do notadopt drip irrigation. If the dependent variable is censored, values in a certain range may all be recorded as singlevalue. Given that dependent variable is censored at zero, a Tobit estimation rather than OLS is appropriate(Madalla, 1989; Tobin, 1958). In such a case, Tobit estimators may be used. Thus, the functional form of themodel specified in the present study with a Tobit model, with an error term (Ui) which is independently, normallydistributed with zero mean and constant covariance, is

T*i = Xi b + UiTi = T*i = 0 if, Xi b + Ui > 0

if Xi b + Ui <= 0i = 1....n

……………(1)where,

Ti = Area covered under drip irrigation in hectaresXi = Vector of independent variablesb = Vector of unknown coefficientsn = Number of observations

In the above functional relationship, the Ti is the endogenous variable which is expected to be influencedby other exogenous variables viz., age of the farmer in years (AGE), educational level of the farmer in years ofschooling (EDUCATION), farm size in hectares (FSIZE), proportion of wider spaced crop ( WIDERCROP),participation in off-farm and non-farm income activities (OFFFARM) and percentage of area irrigated by wells(AWELLS).

Economic implications can be drawn by using the results of the empirical model. Following a Tobitdecomposition framework suggested by Mc Donald and Moffitt (1980), the effects of the changes in theexplanatory variables on the elasticity of adoption of drip irrigation and intensity of adoption could be obtained.

The basic relationship between the expected value of all observations, E(T), the expected valueconditional upon being above the limit, E(T*), and the probability of being above the limit, F(z), is

……..…(2)

The effect of a given change in the level of the explanatory variables on the dependent variables can beobtained by decomposing the equation (2) is,

………...(3)

111

Thus, the total elasticity of change in the level of the explanatory variable consists of two effects: (i)change in T of those above the limit (i.e. elasticity of intensity of adoption, for those households who already areadopter) and (ii) the change in the probability of being above the limit (i.e. probability of adoption).

To assess the physical, and socio-economic impact of adoption of drip irrigation, the impacts ondifferent domains were compared between the regions of high degree of adoption with the region of no dripadoption (control region). Both, with and without and before and after approaches were employed to assess theimpact of drip irrigation technologies.

The adoption of micro irrigation is expected to have impacts on resource use (water, labour, fertilizersin agricultural crop production), area irrigated, cropping pattern, cropping intensity, water potential of the wells,crop yield, farm household income, asset position, consumption, education, livestock possession and labourabsorption etc. It will also have bearing on the wage rate, prices of cereals, migration and mobility of labour. Inaddition, the additional employment created through development of allied industries. Inter-temporal comparisonwas also made to study the impact of drip irrigation.

2.3 Social impacts

The adoption of drip irrigation has significant bearing on the society as a whole and generates variouspositive and negative externalities (Dhawan, 2000). The positive externalities may include reduction in wellfailure rate, reduction in deepening of existing wells or cost of drilling new wells, and increased availability ofirrigation water. Similarly, the adoption of drip irrigation also generates negative externalities such as reduction inhuman labour employment due to cropping pattern changes i.e. labour intensive annual cereal crop production toless labour intensive trees, and additional consumption expenditure incurred by the local villagers because ofincreased local price of cereals due to reduced local production. Generally, externalities arise when certainactions of producers or consumers have unintended external (indirect) effects on other producers orconsumers. Externalities exist when not all costs or benefits are taken into consideration by consumers andproducers while conducting their consumption and production activities (Markandya et al., 2002). Externalitiesmay be positive or negative. Positive externalities arise when an action by an individual or a group confersbenefits to others. Negative externalities arise when an action by an individual or group of producers givesharmful effects to others. In an activity generating positive externality, social benefit is higher than private benefitand in an activity generating negative externality, social cost is higher than private cost.

2.4 Quantification of benefits and double difference methodology

Farm level data was collected for both drip adopters and non-adopters before and after drip irrigationtechnology. This enables the use of the double difference method to quantify the impacts due to adoption of dripirrigation. The framework was adapted from the program evaluation literature (Maluccio and Flores, 2005).

Table.1: Double Difference Method of Quantifying Impacts Due to Drip Technology

Particulars Drip adopters Non-drip adopters Difference across groups

After drip D1 C1 D1-C1

Baseline/Before drip D0 C0 D0-C0

Difference across time D1-D0 C1-C0 Double difference(D1-C1)-(D0-C0)

The columns distinguish between the groups between drip adopters and non-drip adopters and the rowsdistinguish between before and after the drip adoption. This is best explained in the Figure.1.

In order to quantify various positive and negative externalities caused by the drip irrigation technology,it is essential to enumerate and differentiate between the private and social cost and benefits. Since the social costis the sum of private cost and external cost and the social benefit is the sum of private benefit and externalbenefit, it is crucial to enumerate these costs and benefits (Markandya et al., 2002).

112

Figure.1: Illustration of impact of drip adoption by double difference method

Table.2: Cost and Benefits Associated with Drip Adoption

Cost Benefit Private External Private External

Capital cost Reduction in labour Value of saved water Increased water availability(investment cost) absorption per ha of for irrigation purposes

traditionally irrigatedcrop replaced by dripsystem

Maintenance cost Reduction in food Value of labour saved Reduced power energysecurity due to consumption in agriculturereplacement of traditionalcereals by high valuedvegetables, cash cropsand fruits

Depreciation on Additional cost incurred Increase in value of Reduction in cost ofdrip equipments towards purchase of outputs (due to well deepening

cereals because of increased yield)drip adoption

Interest on fixed Expansion in cropped Reduction in cost ofcapital - area drilling new bore wells

/ wellsReduction in well failure

It is apparent that the adoption of drip irrigation generates various positive externalities. They includeincrease in water availability for irrigation, reduction in cost of electricity, reduction in cost of well deepening,reduction in cost of drilling new wells/bore wells and reduction in well failure.

3. STUDY AREA

The study area comprises Coimbatore district of western zone of Tamil Nadu state. The average annualrainfall of this district is 647.2 mm from winter, hot weather, southwest monsoons and northeast monsoons.

113

There are six different soil types viz., red calcareous soil, black soil, red non-calcareous soil, alluvial and colluvialsoil, brown soil and forest soil. The chief source of irrigation in the district is through wells, which play asignificant role in the irrigation of the district followed by surface water structures. The district also receiveswater through tanks. There are 66 irrigation tanks in the district.

A wide range of high-grade metamorphic rocks of the peninsular gneissic complex covers the district.These rocks are extensively weathered and overlain by recent valley fills and alluviam at places. The major rocktypes present in the district are charnockites, granites, complex gneisses mainly hornblende biotite and sillimanitegneiss with basic and ultra basic intrusives, crystalline limestone, syenite, pegmatite and quartz veins.

3.1 Groundwater potential

The importance and need of water, particularly, for agriculture and its role in augmenting foodproduction needs no emphasis since water is the basic input. Prudential planning for systematic and scientificdevelopment of groundwater resources by means of various types of groundwater abstraction structuresrequires balanced estimation of groundwater potential.

The groundwater potential as on January 2003 indicates that the total groundwater recharge is 880.97million cubic meter (MCM). Net groundwater availability (90% of total groundwater recharge) is 792.87 MCM.Domestic and industrial draft is 40.57 MCM and irrigation draft is 779.13 MCM. Balance available for futuredevelopment is 0 MCM and the stage of development is 103%. The level of groundwater development exceeds100% of the utilisable groundwater recharge in eleven blocks, between 90-100% in four blocks and between70-90% in four blocks. The groundwater potential, net draft, balance potential available and stages of groundwa-ter development are furnished in Table.3. The stages of groundwater development is 169% in Thondamuthurblock and 173% in Annur block. Well failure is found to be about 20% - 60%. This led farmers to adopt variousdemand side coping strategies like adoption of drip irrigation, shifting agricultural crops to trees, etc.

Table.3: Groundwater potential, utilization and balance potential in the study area (as on 2003)

Name of the Total Annual Natural Net GW Irrigation Net Stage of Stages ofBlocks groundwater recharge availability draft groundwater groundwater groundwater

recharge during non (MCM) as on availability development development(MCM) monsoon 2003 for future as on 1998 As on 2003

(MCM) (MCM) irrigationdevelopment

(MCM)

Thondamuthur 37.92 3.79 28.21 46.47 0.00 167 169

Annur 38.77 3.88 34.13 56.84 0.00 170 173

Coimbatore 880.98 88.09 792.87 779.13 112.34 - -district

3.2 Source wise area irrigated

The area irrigated by different sources has significant bearing on the adoption of micro irrigation. Heavydependence on groundwater necessitates the farmers to go for wide adoption of micro irrigation to cope withgrowing groundwater scarcity. The trend in source wise area irrigated shows a significant decline in tankirrigation. This is augmented by groundwater as evidenced by increasing area under both open well and bore wellirrigation. The groundwater irrigation is to some extent reliable as the co-efficient of variation is small (14.63%in open well). Farmers in this district rely heavily on groundwater for irrigation.

3.3 Groundwater irrigation in selected blocks

Dependence on groundwater for irrigation is a common phenomenon in both the study blocks. Thesource wise area irrigated indicates that groundwater accounts 88.7% and 52% to the total area irrigated

114

respectively in Thondamuthur and Annur blocks. This confirms the importance of groundwater for agriculturalcrop production. The area irrigated by different abstraction structures is much more than that of surface watersources. The irrigation system often suffers due to inadequate supply of surface water and depends upongroundwater sources to supplement surface water to stabilize irrigation.

Figure 2: Sourcewise Area Irrigated in Coimbatore District

Figure 3: Groundwater Irrigation in Selected Blocks

4. RESULTS FROM FIELD STUDIES

Development of micro irrigation helps the agricultural sector in many ways. Evidence shows that dripirrigation achieves resource saving, enhances yield of various crops and generates various positive externalities.This section examines the spatial and temporal changes in farming system as a result of adoption of microirrigation.

4.1 What changes the drip method brought in to the farming system?

Key indicators about the impact of drip irrigation across regions over a period were analyzed. Here ouraim is to observe any significant changes in land holdings, cropped area, irrigated area due to the introduction ofdrip irrigation. For the purpose, the drip adopters are compared with two types of control households. It is seenfrom the Table.4 that the size of holding is worked out to 5.69 hectares for drip adopters and 2.14 hectares fornon-drip adopters and 2.3 hectares in control village. It can be seen that the average size of holding among thedrip adopters is significantly large when compared to non-adopters both in the same village and in control village.Since drip method of irrigation involves huge initial investment, large farmers adopt widely when compared tosmall and marginal farmers.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Canal Tank Ordinary w ell Tube w ell

115

It is argued that drip irrigation increases cropped area and area under irrigation as it is a viable watersaving technology. Our study confirms the earlier findings that the drip irrigation technology increased the netsown area, net irrigated area and there by helps in achieving higher cropping intensity and irrigation intensity. Forinstance, in the drip village, the net sown area increased from 4.63 ha to 5.39 ha where as the gross cropped areaincreased from 4.88 ha to 6.44 ha. Similar trend was observed in net irrigated area and gross irrigated area.During the survey, we found that drip irrigation technology resulted in significant impacts. It led to 40-50%water saving and helped double the irrigated area and cropped area.

Table.4: Drip irrigation and its impact on farming

Drip village

Drip adopters Non-adopters

Before After Before After Before After

Number of farm households 50 20 50

Number of workers in the 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3household

Farm size (ha) 5.69 5.69 2.14 2.14 2.48 2.48

Net sown area (ha) 4.63 5.39 1.95 2.05 2.12 2.08

Gross cropped area (ha) 4.88 6.44 2.06 2.11 2.30 2.13

Cropping intensity (%)a 105.37 124.84 102.44 102.26 108.49 108.87

Net irrigated area (ha) 3.65 4.97 1.46 1.78 1.80 1.75

Gross irrigated area (ha) 3.84 6.26 1.53 1.85 2.03 1.84

Irrigation intensity (%)b 104.88 130.16 117.0 116.83 112.78 109.97

% of area irrigated 80.21 96.73 91.77 88.92 88.26 86.38by wells to the total croppedarea

% of area irrigated 66.35 .. ..under drip to grosscropped area

% of area irrigated 68.57 .. ..under drip to gross irrigatedarea

Source : Field survey during 2007-08Notes:a : Cropping intensity is defined as the ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area and expressed as

percentageb : irrigation intensity is the ratio of gross irrigated area to net irrigated area and expressed as percentage

It is interesting to note that drip irrigation not only resulted in private benefits to the drip adopters, butalso generate positive externalities. Debate is going on among the hydrologists, water resource managers andagronomists whether drip technology helped in water saving at meso level i.e at village level or watershed levelor basin level. Though it is not based on experiments like pumping test, our discussion with the farmers revealedthat water level in the wells adjacent to the drip adopters field were raised in many cases or maintained at thesame level. It is evidenced that the net irrigated area among non-adopters in the drip village increased from 1.46ha to 1.78 ha where as the gross irrigated area increased from 1.53 ha to 1.85 ha. Growing groundwater scarcity

CropsControl village

116

is a common phenomenon in the entire state of Tamil Nadu and declining groundwater table is alarming. In spiteof frequent failure of monsoon coupled with growing groundwater scarcity, the net irrigated area has increasedslightly over the years. This increase might be due to several reasons like rise in water table due to rainfall,reduction in groundwater extraction due to shift from agricultural to non-agricultural use of land, water savingtechnologies such as drip irrigation and so on. However, it is not immediately apparent that the increase inirrigated area among non-adopters is due to wider adoption of drip irrigation, one cannot ignore that it is also dueto drip irrigation. The net irrigated area has declined from 1.80 ha to 1.75 ha over the years in the control village.

The percentage of area irrigated by wells to the total cropped area has increased significantly amongdrip adopters in drip village. It is evidenced that the percentage of area irrigated by wells to gross cropped areahas increased from 80.21% to 96.73% due to the drip intervention. From the analysis, it is clear that drip has twoeffects: (i) it saves water both at farm level and at meso level if there is limited/or no scope for further expansioni.e. when land is limited and (ii) it helps in expansion of cropped area when there is unlimited land resource. Inthis case, drip method may not be a water saving technology at meso level.

Whether drip irrigation had followed a certain new cropping system or the crops had followed driptechnology which is a response to growing water scarcity?.

Changes in cropping pattern due to drip adoption are analyzed and discussed here. The cropping patterni.e. proportion of area under different crops is a good indicator of resources development and agriculturalproduction. It is expected that drip method of irrigation helps in developing water resource potential and therebyhelps the farmers to get more crop and income per drop of water.

Table.5: Drip irrigation and cropping pattern (Percentage)

Drip village

Drip adopters Non-adopters

Before After Before After Before After

Banana 15.00 15.97 23.12 29.72

Turmeric 6.99 10.56

Sorghum 14.70 14.61 8.70 17.39

Ragi 4.17 7.41 13.04 21.74

Maize 8.75 8.84 6.72 8.88

Cotton 3.15

Sugarcane 26.09 8.70

Coconut 4.92 22.48 6.09 7.48 17.39 34.78

Grapes 18.82 24.01 3.89 9.58

Vegetables including tomato 30.47 21.69 38.05 33.77 34.78 17.39

The longitudinal analysis of cropping pattern across farm households and villages revealed that theadoption of drip irrigation is motivated by many factors. The two major constraints limiting agriculturalproduction are human labour and water scarcity. These made the farmers alter their cropping pattern towardsless labour and water intensive crops. Resource poor farmers go in for rain-fed crops like sorghum and maize.However, the big farmers who have adequate access to capital adopt various coping strategies. One suchstrategy is adoption of drip irrigation. In regions where there is severe water and labour scarcity, first there is ashift from labour and water intensive crops such as vegetables, sugarcane, cotton, paddy to less labor intensivecrops such as coconut and the next is drip adoption. As drip irrigation saves human labor substantially, byreduction in irrigation labor and weeding labor, water intensive crops such as banana and grapes are planted.

Experiences from the survey revealed that there is a significant shift towards crops such as coconut andgrapes in the drip villages. Similarly, there is a reduction in vegetable crops. The percentage of area under

CropsControl village

117

vegetables declined from 22% - 30% among drip adopters. In the control village, there is a reduction invegetable, sugarcane and increase in coconut, and rain fed cereals. It is thus clear that micro irrigation can bepromoted in regions with high water and labour scarcity. As cropping pattern decides the adoption and suitabilityof drip irrigation, widespread adoption of micro irrigation can be promoted in the regions where shift towardscrops like coconut, banana, grapes etc. are common.

4.2 What influences adoption of drip irrigation?

Estimation of the factors that determine adoption of drip irrigation is presented in Table.6. The sampleincludes 70 farmers both the drip adopters and non-adopters in the drip village. Given the significance of thecoefficients obtained for the different variables hypothesized to determine adoption of drip method of irrigation,we have greater confidence in our results.

It could be seen that the variables of age, education, family size, widercrop, and off-farm are found tobe significant determinants of adoption of drip irrigation on the expected positive line. Age of head of thehousehold influences the adoption of drip irrigation positively. The age, which reflects the experience in farminghas significant bearing on adoption of various agricultural crop production technologies. Our results confirmthat the experience in farming significantly influences the drip adoption. The educational level of the head of thehousehold has a positive and significant impact on adoption of drip method of irrigation. Education improvesawareness about the positive externalities generated by drip irrigation and motivates farmers to initiate action.The size of the farm reflects the wealth status of the farmers, which is expected to influence drip irrigationpositively as drip involves huge initial investment.

Table.6: Factors influencing adoption of drip irrigation

Regression Elasticity of Elasticity ofCoefficient Intensity of Adoption Adoption

CONSTANT - 8.025 .. ..(-4.515)

AGE 0.0219 * 0.3762 0.4407(1.904)

EDUCATION 0.3251 *** 1.0190 1.1937(4.968)

FISIZE 0.6187 *** 0.9359 1.0963(7.383)

WIDERCROP 0.0172 *** 0.6092 0.7136(2.814)

OFFFARM 1.0145 *** 0.3238 0.3793(2.870)

AWELLS 0.0199 0.1780 0.2085(1.202)

Log-likelihood function - 80.7137

Number of observations 70

Dependent variable DAREA

Model TOBIT

Source: Field Survey 2007-2008Note: *** significance at 1 % level; ** significance at 5 % level; * significance at 10 % levelFigures in parentheses indicate estimated ‘t’ ratios

Variables

118

We found that size of the farm exerts a significant and positive influence on adoption of drip irrigation.However, few small and marginal farmers also show inclination towards adoption of drip irrigation. However,for want of initial investment all low income farmers do not opt for drip irrigation.

Cropping pattern in any region has significant bearing on the adoption of drip technology. It is knownthat drip technology is more suitable when the cropping pattern is dominated by wider spaced crops such asbanana, coconut, grapes, sugarcane and so on. It is clear from the analysis that the proportion of wider spacedcrop significantly influences drip adoption. In our study area, the farmers prefer to grow crops like coconut,grapes and banana. This change in cropping pattern again motivates the farm households to adopt driptechnology.

One can expect that participation in off-farm and non-farm income activities enabled the households togenerate additional income to manage both their households and make adequate investments on farmdevelopment. It is evident that the variable off-farm is found to significantly and positively influence dripadoption. Participation in off-farm and non-farm activities is more when the number of workers is more in thehousehold.

It is evidenced that the variable education has the highest impact on both probability of adoption andintensity of adoption followed by fsize and widercrop. The total elasticity for the variable fsize is estimated to be2.0322 which is divided into 1.0963 for probability of adoption and 0.9359 for intensity of adoption. Thissuggests that a 10% increase in farm size is expected to result in about 20% increase in adoption of driptechnology and extent of drip irrigation. Similarly, the other factors viz., educational level of the head of thehousehold and area under wider spaced crops have significant influence on drip adoption and extent of adoption.

Enough efforts have also been made to know the impact of drip irrigation on agricultural cropproduction and farming system. Almost 100% of the farmers reported that drip irrigation helps in resourcesaving, expansion in irrigated area, reduction in cultivation cost, increase in groundwater table, labour saving andreduction in pumping hours. Nearly, 32% of the farmers reported that there is increase in yield of crops.

Table.7: Opinion of farmers about drip irrigation and their like impact

Particulars % of farmers

Resource saving 100.00

Expansion in area irrigated 100.00

Increase in crop yield 32.00

Increase in cropping intensity 85.65

Reduction in cost of cultivation 100.00

Increase in groundwater table 100.00

Reduction in pumping hours 100.00

Labour saving 100.00

Altered cropping pattern 76.54

Discussion with the farmers also revealed that huge initial investment and small size of holding are themajor constraints limiting the adoption of drip technology. Other reasons are unsuitable cropping pattern, lack ofaccess to subsidy and no technical support for follow up action.

5. CONCLUSION

The present paper aimed to study the adoption and impact of drip irrigation both spatially andtemporally. The study revealed that adoption of drip irrigation technology increased the net sown area, netirrigated area and there by helped in achieving higher cropping intensity and irrigation intensity. As croppingpattern decides the adoption and suitability of drip irrigation, widespread adoption of micro irrigation could be

119

promoted in the regions where there is a shift towards crops like coconut, banana, grapes etc. The analysis offactors influencing drip adoption revealed that the age of the farmer, educational level, farm size, area underwider spaced crops and participation in off-farm and non-farm activities found to significantly influenceadoption of drip technology. Thus, our policy focus may be tilted towards promotion of drip irrigation in regionswhere water and labour scarcities are predominant and regions where shift towards wider spaced crops hastaken place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on an ongoing study titled “An Analysis of Social Cost and Benefits of Drip Irrigationin Tamil Nadu” funded by IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program, International Water Management Institute.

REFERENCES

Dhawan, B.D (2000), Drip Irrigation:Evaluating Returns, Economic and Political Weekly, 35 (42) : 3775-3780.

GOTN (1994), A Profile of Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, State Ground and Surface Water Resources DataCentre, Water Resources Organisation, P.W.D, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600113. http://www.ide-india.org/ide/socialimpact.shtml

GOI (1994), Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Drip irrigation in India, Government ofIndia, New Delhi.

Maddala, G S (1989), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Econometric Society Mono-graphs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Maluccio, A. John and Rafael Flores (2005), Impact Evaluation of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program : TheNicaraguan Red de Social, Research Report 141, International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington.D.C.

Markandya, Anil; P.Harou; L. G. Bellu and V. Cistulli (2002), Environmental Economics for Sustainable Growth:A Handbook for Practitioners, Edward Elgar, USA.

Mc Donald J. F.and R. A. Moffitt (1980), The Uses of Tobit Analysis, The Review of Economics and Statistics,62(2) : 318-321, 1980.

Namara, Regassa E; Bhawana Upadhyay and R. K. Nagar. (2005); Adoption and Impacts of MicroirrigationTechnologies : Empirical Results from Selected Localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat States of India,research Report 93, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Narayanamoorthy, A. (1997), Impact of Tariff Policies on the use of electricity and Groundwater:Argumentsand Facts Artha Vijnana, 34 (3):323-340.

Narayanamoorthy, A. (1997), Drip Irrigation: A Viable Option for Future Irrigation Development, Productivity,38 (3):504-511.

Narayanamoorthy, A. (2003), Averting Water Crisis by Drip method of Irrigation: A Study of Two water inten-sive crops, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58 (3) :427-437.

Palanisami, K.and D.Suresh Kumar, Power Pricing, Groundwater Extraction, Use and Management: Compari-son of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu states, Water, Livelihoods and Environment in India: FrontlineIssues in Water and Land Management and Policy, January 27-29, 2003, IRMA, Gujarat.

Qureshi, M. E; M. K. Wegener, S. R. Harrison, and K. L. Bristow (2001), Economic Evaluation of AlternateIrrigation Systems for Sugarcane in the Burdekin delta in North Queensland, Australia in in: C.A.Brebbia;K, Anagnostopoulos; K.Katsifarakis; and A. H. D.Cheng (Eds.), Water Resource Management, WIT

120

Press, Boston, pp. 47-57.

Saleth, R. Maria (1996), Water Institutions in India:Economics, Law and Policy, Commonwealth Publishers,New Delhi.

Seckler, David; U. Amarasinghe; D. Molden; Radhika de Silva and R. Barker (1998), World Water Demand andSupply,1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues, Research Report 19, International Water ManagementInstitute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Shah, Tushaar; Shilp Verma; V. Bhamoria; S. Ghosh and R. Sakthivadivel, Social Impact of Technical Innova-tions : Study of Organic Cotton and Low Cost Drip Irrigation in the Agrarian Economy of West NimarRegion.

Sivanappan, R.K. (1994), Prospects of Micro-irrigation in India, irrigation and Drainage Systems, 8(1):49-58.

Sivanappan, R.K. (2002), Strengths and weaknesses of growth of drip irrigation in India, In Proc. Micro irriga-tion for sustainable agriculture. GOI Short – term training 19-21 June 2002, WTC, Tamil Nadu, Agricul-tural University, Coimbatore.

Tobin, J (1958), Estimation of Relationship for Limited Dependent Variables, Econometrica, 26 (10): 24-36.

Vaidyanathan, A. (1999), Water Resources Management: Institutions and Irrigation Development in India, Ox-ford University Press, New Delhi.