Experiences of Implementation of PIM and WUAs in Kerala

Dr George ChackacherryScientist

Centre for Water ResourcesDevelopment & Management

Kerala

george.chackacherry@gmail.com

-Population 32 million

-Density 819 / sq. km (national 324)

Present Status

• PIM pilot projects implemented successfully

• Model evolved

• Based on which PIM chapter in the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 to be amended

• Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2013

Changes Observed

30% increase in ayacut area irrigated

Better participation in meetings

Promptness in meetings

Involvement of women

Interest in cultivation

People agreed for need based fund

allocation

Control over misuse of canals

Improvement in farmer-officer relations

Members: all land holders & spouses

Members: all office bearers of Sluice WUAs

Members: all presidents of Branch WUAs

Members: all presidents of PMC

1/3rd leadership positions of Sluice WUA, BranchWUA & PMC reserved for women

Kerala PIM Model

Agri. Asst.

Agri. Officer

JDA/DDA

Spouses given membership in WUAs

Competent Authorities

Change in Agency Level

• Competent authority (AEE/AE – WUA; overseer – WG)

• AEE/AE posted against number of WUAs, not against length of canals

• Restructuring of Project administration (introduction of PMC and PIMIA)

• Administrative sanction for work by WUA/Rehabilitation works by WUA

• Agreement between Agency & WUAs

PIM/WUAs - Contributing Factors

- Better Education Status of Farmers

- Experience gained from Decentralisation

- Experiences of CAD & IMT in Minor Irrigation

- Scope for Women Involvement

- Replenishment of Open Wells by Canals

PIM/WUAs - Hindering Factors

Part-time Farming

Lack of Political & Administrative Orientation

Motivational Gaps

Paucity of Funds for System Rehabilitation

Insufficient Legislative Backing

Apprehension of officials

Reasons for Slow Progress of PIM Implementation

• Lack of support and assistance from officials concerned to the farmers and WUAs

• Though the administrative and technical personnel had satisfactory level of perception regarding participation, attitude towards the same was below minimal desirable level.

• Government staff found problems in adapting to the concepts and requirements of the programmes with a clear social dimension.

• Considerable reluctance, if not opposition, from the operational staff of irrigation agencies to involving users in management.

• Disinteresting attitude shown by the farmers, who are mainly part-time farmers (farming is not the major income source for most farmers) towards irrigated agriculture and PIM.

• Problem of fragmentation and subdivision of land, contributed by the high population pressures combined with the State Land Reforms Act, is a very serious problem in Kerala.

• Average land holding size in Kerala is only 0.33 ha, when it is 1.68 ha at the national level.

• Paucity of funds and resultant deferred maintenance have caused serious defects in the canal system.

• Lack of coordination at all levels• There is no incentive structure for the

officials to go for PIM. Many officials felt that if the pilot projects are successful, it might lead to retrenchment of positions.

• Another gap is the lack of sufficient legal backing for PIM/WUAs. Sustenance of PIM depends to a large extent on the enabling legal provisions.

WUA is the backbone of PIM

Sustainability of PIM &Sustainability of Irrigation Systems linked with sustainability of WUAs

Participation & Organisation

• Process through which users contribute to better management of resource

Participation

• Structure through which such activity occurs

Water User Association

How to achieve PARTICIPATION?

PartnershipOrganisation

User Organisation(s)

Agency/AgenciesChange

ABC

OPC

Confidence Building Know each other

Wave length correction

Objectives fixingCapacity Building

Users/beneficiaries

Officials

Motivation

Benefits

Incentives

Thank You