Social Assessment

Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation Project

Department Irrigation

February 23, 2011

IPP503 V1

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS & TRANSLATIONS.....................................................................................ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................1

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................................4

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................5

2. Methodology for conducting the social assessment..........................................................6

2.1 Settlement maps of the command areas...............................................................................6

2.2 Survey questionnaire............................................................................................................6

2.3 Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.......................................................7

2.4 Documentation.....................................................................................................................8

2.5 Profile of committee members..............................................................................................9

2.6 Institutional profile...............................................................................................................9

3. Ethnic and Minority Communities....................................................................................9

4. Land tenure, land holding, and farming practices...........................................................11

5. Irrigation management system......................................................................................14

6. Stakeholder consultation & Analysis..............................................................................26

7. Gender and Social Inclusion............................................................................................39

8. Riparian Water Users.....................................................................................................43

i

LIST OF ACRONYMS & TRANSLATIONS

Badghar The person in charge of managing village-wide affairs including those related to irrigation at the village/sub-branch level.

CBOs Community Based OrganizationsDDC District Development CommitteeDOA Department of AgricultureDOI Department of IrrigationDOWD Department of Women’s DevelopmentFGD Focus Group DiscussionsGESI Gender, Equality and Social InclusionGRC Grievance Redress CommitteeICCCP Information, Communication, Community Consultation &

ParticipationIP Indigenous PeoplesIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIPNM Integrated Pest and Nutrient ManagementISEA Integrated Social and Environmental AssessmentIUA Irrigation Users’ Association for Rani, Jamara and KulariyaIUC Irrigation User CommitteeIUG Irrigation User GroupM&E Monitoring and EvaluationKII Key Informant InterviewsKulo Canal (Nepali word)MOWR Ministry of Water ResourcesNDC National Dalit CommissionNEFIWUAN Nepal Federation of Irrigation Users Association of NepalO&M Operation and MaintenancePAP Project Affected PersonsPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalRJK Rani, Jamara and KulariyaRP Resettlement PlanRJKIS Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation SystemSahek Chaudhary The person in charge of managing irrigation-related issues at the

village/sub-branch. VCD Vulnerable Community Development VDC Village Development Committee WB World Bank

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rani, Jamara and Kulariya Kulos (or canals) were constructed by farmers more than a hundred years go. These Kulos off-take from Jarahi Naala, western sub-course of the Karnali River. Each Kulo has many branches and sub-branches to irrigate at present approximately 24,000 ha of farmland. Since construction, the Kulo system has been traditionally operated, maintained and managed by traditional irrigation user committees and headed by Kulo Chaudhary of each Kulo1.

Nepal Government, as per the request of the irrigation users of the Rani, Jamara and Kulariya system, has planned to upgrade the system through proper intakes. The Nepal Government is also requesting the World Bank to assist in financing the project.

This assignment is a part of the project for World Bank financing. It has two components. First, a social assessment was conducted that would complete the development of a socioeconomic profile of the project; map out stakeholders in the project area; assess various social, economic and political factors that play in the design and implementation of the project; and assess likelihood of the social impacts of the project. Second, on the basis of the social assessment findings, it was to develop necessary interventions and mitigation strategies under the project in line with relevant government and World Bank requirements.

Methodology: The methodology for carrying out this assessment included the following: PRA maps of the settlement areas within Rani, Jamara and Kulariya Irrigation Systems (RJKIS); household survey; focus group and individual interviews; repeated interviews/discussions with key informants; collection of relevant documents; profile of committee members; and institutional profile of rules and regulations governing decision making and water allocation systems in RJK.

Ethnic and Minority Communities: The project areas are comprised of the following ethnic groups: Tharu, Bahun/Chettri, Hill Janajatis (including Magars), and Dalits. The Tharu population is divided into two, those who are indigenous to the Kailali/Bardiya belt and those who migrated from Dang. Mukta Kamaiyas have also been re-settled in the project areas, although 1,836 are still awaiting re-settlement packages from the government and have encroached in riverbanks and government property. Migrant hill communities started settling in area in the 1960s and when Tikapur town was being constructed.

Land tenure, land holding and farming practices: The majority of the population in the project areas rely on agriculture and seasonal male-outmigration. The sizes of landholdings are small, 1 The project team was comprised of Dr Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Team Leader; Dr Chudamani Basnet, Sociologist; and Sanjay Mahato, Research Associate. The research team has profited tremendously from the direction of Deepak Thapa, Director of the Social Science Baha as well as field-work support from and consultations with Suresh Dhakal and Roshan Pokharel of the Social Science Baha. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the following individuals in conducting the household survey: Neelam Rawat, Deepak Chaudhary, Chaman Chaudhar and Man Bahadhur Chaudhary; and the following in carrying out data entry: Nirjala Pandit, Abhinav Bhandary and Nabraj Subedi. The project team is very grateful to the members of the Rani, Jamara and Kulariya committees for their invaluable field-work and logistics support. Last but not the least, this Social Assessment would not have been possible without the hundreds of male and female users of the Rani, Jamara and Kulariya irrigation systems as well as representatives of NGOs, CBOs, line agencies, and others who spoke with us during the course of the field research.

1

especially since the Maoist Movement and ensuing civil conflict in the region. The major forms of land-tenure are ‘Battaya’ (50 – 50 division between tenant and owner) followed by ‘Thekka’ (pre-negotiated contract between tenant and owner) and ‘Bandaki’ (tenancy rights as collateral for financial obligations). Even the relatively small landholding Pahadi households give land for Battaya to Tharu tenants and prefer to migrate to India for employment opportunities. Such trends are also growing amongst Tharu households. Farming practices vary depending on availability of irrigation water.

Traditional irrigation management system: The three Kulos have been historically managed by indigenous Tharu systems of governance.

Each Kulo is/was headed by a Kulo Chaudhary and each settlement a Badghar/Sahek Chaudhary. Recent settlers have also adopted and been integrated into such a system.

In 2056/7, Irrigation User Committees (IUCs) were established in all three systems. The major responsibility of the IUCs are to mobilize labor for the operation and maintenance of the main source as well as to mediate between irrigation users and the external agencies such as the government and donors. There is considerable overlap between the IUCs and the traditional kulo management system. Furthermore, the system is highly decentralized with Badghars responsible for governing rules over allocation, appropriation, labour and cash contributions, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in their respective settlements/sub-branches. Irrigation Users Association (IUA), or an apex committee for the three Kulos, was established in 2057 B.S. But the committee continues to be marred with disputes over its membership.

The irrigation water is scarce during the winter while dangers of flooding increases over the monsoon seasons. The majority of the users depend on irrigation from the three kulos. Boring is rare and available to only the richer farmers. Allocation of water between head and tail-enders is a constant source of tension, but is generally resolved at the local level and by the Badghars themselves. Key sources of outstanding disputes are between Tharus and Non-Tharus over labour contribution to source maintenance, on the one hand, and accusations over lack of transparency between users and committee members, on the other hand.

Stakeholder Consultations and Analysis: Three layers of stakeholders were consulted – primary, secondary and territory.

The project team has held only two orientation sessions thus far where Badghars and committee members were invited. Although many users have heard about the project, only those who were able to attend the orientation sessions have understood it in much depth. Even then, the illiterate Badghars and committee members found the communication and dissemination mechanisms difficult to follow. Women, in particular, had heard the least about the project.

Secondary stakeholders with a stake in the project, and could play a role in averting potential conflicts over project design as well as employment opportunities during project construction had not been informed formally about the project. There exist many unsubstantiated myths about the project. The major political parties in general

2

and those advocating for Tharu rights in particular were very interested in the project, and could play a role in politicizing it for their political gains.

Gender and Social Inclusion Assessment:

The irrigation systems, although governed primarily by Tharus, also included other ethnic groups such as the Bahun/Chettri, Dalits and hill Janajatis (the latter to a lesser extent). Instead, the major concerns were whether the Tharu-dominated system would be able to endure in spite of the increasing migration of other ethnic groups in the project areas, and meet the skills and capacities required to manage the modernized and rehabilitated irrigation systems.

In comparison, although women’s participation has increased in recent years, it is merely 19% in the three committees combined. There were virtually no women Badghars. The major barriers that women face in participating more equally include: rules governing membership and labour contribution; lack of education and awareness; difficulties negotiating with multiple responsibilities; and male-led information and communication channels.

Riparian Users: Two focus group discussions with riparian users were carried out, in Surya Patwa Irrigation User Group and Rajapur Irrigation User Group in Bardiya district. The participants in both Suruya Patwa as well as in Rajapur did not think that the RJIK project would hamper their access to water and livelihoods. Both were ill informed about the project. Users in Rajapur in particular, expected to benefit as secondary users once the project is completed and irrigation users in RJK receive sufficient water.

3

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

4

1. Introduction

The Rani, Jamara, and Kulariya Irrigation Scheme (RJKIS) is one of the largest farmer-based irrigation systems in the Tarai. Located in Kailali District, it covers a net cultivable area of approximately 14,300 ha of which about 11,000 ha is currently irrigated. The system is a cluster of three independent kulos, or canal systems, each with its separate water intake from a natural channel of the Karnali river.2 According to focus group interviews and discussions with key informants, Rani was built by farmers in 1896, Jamara in 1960 and Kulariya 1972. At present, Rani has 18 branches, Kulariya, 17 and Jamara, 15.3 Each kulo has innumerable and an increasing number of branches and sub-branches to irrigate the command area.

The three systems are owned, managed and operated by farmer communities with little input from government and external organizations. There exist close ties between the three kulo systems. All share a common source and users are required to annually contribute to source operation and maintenance. There are three Water Users’ Association in each kulo and one apex committee (Federation) that links the three systems.

The scheme has historically suffered from frequent wash-out of temporary diversion works, large fluctuations in the river course at the head of the main diversion channel, erosion of canal banks, and sediment deposition in the canals after every flood. A major shift of in the course of the Karnali river towards the eastern bank and away from the western intake site in the recent past, has caused the following problems: (a) difficulty in diverting water to the irrigation system during low river flow periods while uncontrolled flooding and sediment entering into the system during high river flow events; (b) inability to manage water distribution equitably and efficiently; (c) poor road connections that often become inaccessible from one place to other during the monsoon season. Due to the lack of controlled and regulated flow of water, crop yields are low, and repeated sowings are often necessary for the same crop.

The project aims to enhance agricultural production by improving the performance of the irrigation system. This will be achieved by (a) modernization of the RJK system; (b) strengthening community-based water management; (c) providing support to agricultural development in the irrigated area; (d) encouraging crop diversification; and (f) facilitating market access. The modernization part will include a permanent intake structure about 120 m downstream of the Karnali Bridge; a main conveyance canal; and a new head regulator and a branch canal which will be carried out by the DOI through its own resources. The project under consideration here includes: (i) three head regulators and cross regulators set on the feeder canal, each for Rani, Jamara and Kulariya Kulos at their respective branch canals, including a provision for temporary diversion arrangement with pipe culverts and gabions boxes for river bank protection at the existing intakes; (ii) modifications, as necessary, for the three main kulos and related canal structures; and (iii) improvement of the service road network of about 40 km within the three systems, including bridges and culverts. The next two phases are also likely to include

2 Source: World bank (2010) Technical Report: Modernization of Rani-Jamara-Kulariya Irrigation Scheme Technical Report, Project Preparation Mission, June 14-23, 2010, Kathmandu. 3 Source: Department of Irrigation (2010) ‘Tree Diagram of Rani, Jamara and Kulariya Irrigation Project’, Kathmandu.

5

modernization of 48 sub-branch canals and command area development for the three kulo systems.

The aim of this report is to present the findings of a social assessment that will provide a socioeconomic profile of the project area and map out stakeholders in the project area; assess the underlying social, economic and political factors that play in the design and implementation of the project; and assess likely project impacts. On the basis of these assessments, the report also discusses the necessary interventions and mitigation action plans to be developed in line with relevant government and World Bank policies.

Section I of this report will present the findings of the social assessment. It will begin by outlining the methodology employed for conducting the assessment; identify the ethnic and minority communities in the project areas and immediate surroundings; discuss the land tenure, land holding and farming practices; provide an overview of the current configuration of and challenges in the traditional irrigation management systems; discuss the findings of the stakeholder analysis and consultations carried out as part of this assessment as well as measures taken by the DOI to disseminate information regarding the project; and highlight the issues raised by the riparian users.

2. Methodology for conducting the social assessment

The methodology design for the study focused on the following components: settlement maps of the command area, household survey, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with primary and secondary stakeholders, documentation, profile of committee members, and institutional profile of RJK.

2.1 Settlement maps of the command areas

The maps show where the main kulo and sub-kulos are located relative to the settlements, and the ethnic composition of each settlement. The Kulariya settlement map was largely based on the map provided by the Kulariya IUG committee to the RJK project staff, which in turn was verified through other informants. The other two settlement maps were drawn from scratch by the committee members, and triangulated with key informants.

2.2 Survey questionnaire

A group of 320 households who are also users of RJK were randomly selected to participate in the survey questionnaire. Using the settlement maps as a basis, at least 4 or 5 households were selected from roughly each village in the command areas of RJK (depending on the total number of villages in each command area). Because there exists no list of users in each of the command areas, households could not be select randomly beforehand. Therefore, the survey started with the household closest to the kulo and the subsequent ones would be every fifth household along the kulo. Because of time and sample size restrictions, households that were not next to the kulo could not be covered but this was a potential bias consistent throughout the sample.

6

Every attempt was made to ensure that the major ethnic groups were represented in the sample. For instance, the field researchers were instructed that in villages with heterogeneous population, if the first two or three (depending on the total number of households to be surveyed in the village) randomly selected households belonged to the same ethnic group, the researcher would have to skip households until they reached one that belonged to a different ethnic group. This ensured that at least two separate ethnic groups were represented in ethnically heterogeneous villages.

The questionnaire was divided into four of the following sections:

Background (head of the HH, gender of HH head, number of HH members, access and ownership of land, land tenure, non-agricultural livelihood)

Institutions and water requirements (level and extent of dependence on irrigation from RJK, nature and level of access to alternative sources of irrigation water)

Participation in RJK (labour and cash contribution, attendance and voice in meetings, knowledge of rules, perceptions of the effectiveness of the committee, perceptions of the inclusiveness of the decision-making processes).

Knowledge and expectations from the DOI/WB project (whether consulted, details of consultation, perceptions of consultations, expectations from the project, perceptions of the committees’ ability to manage the project successfully).

The committee members nominated five field researchers to conduct the household survey (one in Rani and two each in Jamara and Kulariya). The research team ensured that those nominated had no previous experience as a member of the committees, had completed high school at least, had previous experience conducting surveys, and understood and were able to explain the questionnaire to potential respondents. All the field researchers had to undergo a day of training and an additional trial day before they could proceed with the survey. The Research Associate monitored the progress of the survey and the performance of the field researchers on a regular basis.

The data was entered in Excel, later transported and analyzed using SPSS. The data analysis was primarily descriptive. Where possible, relevant tests (such as chi-square tests) were conducted to check whether there are correlations between different variables – such as on gender and knowledge of the upcoming DOI and WB project.

2.3 Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions

The team conducted 30 focus group discussions, 22 individual interviews and also relied on key informants to verify findings. Each focus group discussion/semi-structured interview focused on how the current traditional and modern institutional configuration for irrigation management operate; rights, responsibilities and obligations of committee members and ordinary users; knowledge and expectations from the upcoming project. Questions were also tailored to specific groups. For instance, in focus group discussions (FGD) with Pahadis, the focus was on migration patterns, landownership and tenure system, etc. With Irrigation Users’ Committee (IUC) members and Badghars, it was on how traditional and modern systems co-exist, sources of conflict and tensions between the two, rules of water distribution, labour contribution, etc.

7

This assessment would not have been possible without the support of the IUC committee members. Initially, the influential members of the IUCs insisted that we arrange all the meetings through them. Because we were seen as representatives of the World Bank and would have a say over whether or not the Bank invests in the project, they wanted to screen the information we were able to gather beforehand. Furthermore, some of them did not want the team to be uncover ongoing disputes and points of contention within the users’ groups and IUCs. Nevertheless, the information gatekeeping tended to be less rigid as the field research progressed. Our research team also invested considerable amount of energy into building rapport with the IUCs and dispelling some of the myths they had about the social assessment team, the project and the WB.

Table 1: List of Focus Group Discussions & Interviews

Individual interviews

VDC secretary (Baliya, Patharaiya, Janakinagar, Durgauli, Munuwa, Narayanpur, Dhansinghpur, Pratappur) 4Tikpaur Municipality executive officer 1Nepali Congress (Kulariya, Jamara, Rani) 3CPN – UML (Kulariya, Jamara, Rani) 3CPN – Maoist (Kulariya, Jamara, Rani) 3Federal Democratic National Forum 1NGO (Mukta Kamaya Samaj, Backward Awareness Society’s Education, Volunteers without Borders) 3Samudayak Melmilap Kendra, Tikapur Municipality 1Institutional profile (Rani, Jamara and Kulariya) 3

Focus group discussions Kulariya Irrigation committee members 1

Rani Irrigation committee members 1Jamara Irrigation committee members 1Women committee members (RJK) 3Kulari sub-committee (head, tail) 2Rani sub-committee (head, tail) 2Jamara sub-committee (head, tail) 2Badagar (head, tail), Kulariya 2Badgar (head, tail), Rani 2Badgar (head, tail), Jamara 2Women’s groups (savings & credit/mother’s group) 3Dalit community 1Landless squatters (sukumbasi) 1Pahadi community 2Small landowners 1Riparian Users 2Women-headed HHs 1Teachers from the Birendra Campus 1

2.4 Documentation

The team collected updated profiles of many of the VDCs that lie within the RJK command area as well as that of Tikapur Municipality. Any documentation on IUGs that the committee

8

members were willing and able to share was also collected, including the constitutions (even if not recently updated) of each of the IUGs. Kulariya also shared a list of users they are in the process of updating, meeting attendance and minutes, and current state of the IUG finances.

2.5 Profile of committee members

The profile of each of the committee members in the three committees was collected. The information collected included household details, access to land (owned and tenured), history of participation in the committee, experience being a part of the traditional water management system (i.e., Badghars, Chiragi, Lekhandar), membership in other CBOs, political affiliations, etc. Each committee member was asked to complete his/her own profile which was later triangulated with our key informants.

2.6 Institutional profile

For each of the IUG and at least one sub-branch in each IUG, information pertaining to perceptions of water availability; whether such perceptions have changed in the last 5 years; rules of water allocation and distribution; and rules of labour and cash contribution was also gathered.

3. Ethnic and Minority Communities

The command area of the RJK Irrigation System falls in eight village development committees (VDCs) and Tikapur Municipality in the eastern part of Kailali district. The VDCs covered are Baliya, Patharaiya, Janakinagar, Durgauli, Munuwa, Narayanpur, Dhansingpur and Pratappur. While some of the eight VDCs lie wholly within RJK, others are only nominally within.

According to the PRA maps drawn by the users and provided to the study team as well as focus group discussions, the settlements are largely mixed with a few exceptions, where hill Dalits, hill ethnic groups and hill high-caste groups (collectively, Pahadis) are concentrated. The PRA maps in Appendix I include the major settlements in each branch as well as their ethnic composition.

The Socio Economic Environmental and Institutional Survey of Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation Systems (RJIKIS) carried out by the Department of Irrigation (DOI) found that the Tharus constitute the majority of the population (48%) followed closely by Chhetri (17%), Brahmin (10%), Dalit (15%) and others (7%). The updated VDC profiles as well as the household survey carried out as a part of this research project also suggest that Tharus constitute the majority of the population. Narayanpur VDC is the only one that has updated its population profile. As the table below depicts, approximately 48% of respondents of the population are Tharus. Table 3 shows the ethnic composition of the respondents who participated in the household survey carried out as a part of this assessment. It shows that approximately 70% of the respondents were Tharus.

Table 2: Updated VDC Population ProfileVDC Total Total HH Male Female Dalit Janajati Bahun/Chhetri TharuNarayanpur 14,016 2223 6903 7113 1954 1241 4088 6733

9

Table 3: Ethnic Composition of the RespondentsFrequency Percent

Tharus 222 69.6Hill Janajatis 11 3.4Dalits 33 10.3Hill Chhetri/Bahun 50 15.7Others 3 .9Total 319 100.0

Tharus have been recognized by the Nepali government as one of the 59 indigenous groups in the country. According to informants, there are two main types of Tharus living in the command area: Purvariya-Kathariya and Dangoria. The former are indigenous to the Kailali belt, constitute the majority of the Tharu population in the area, and can trace their history to more than 300 years. The latter, in comparison, came as daily labourers and Kamaiyas to work in the construction and development of Tikapur town. They were later allocated land by the Tikapur Development Committee and are concentrated mostly in the Ban Gaon village of Tikapur Municipality. There are differences in language, customs, and historical roots between the two types of Tharus. Despite such differences, there is an increasing sense of solidarity and common identity amongst them.

Most hill settlers are from the far- and mid-western regions who came to the area for varying reasons both individually and as part of a group, as is illustrated by the Magar community of Ban Gaon, Tikapur Municipality in Box 1. According to focus group discussions with hill communities in Rani, Jamara and Kulariya, Tarai land is considered more lucrative than in the hills. Land in the Tarai, including in the Kailali belt, tends to be more fertile and has a higher agricultural yield than the middle hills. Hill communities with sufficient income prefer to invest in the Tarai. Furthermore, living adjacent to Tikapur is a major attraction for many whose livelihood depend on seasonal male out-migration to India.

Box 1: History of Tikapur & the Migration of Hill Communities in the Command Area The modern history of Tikapur Municipality dates back to 2024 BS when King Mahendra had come to rest in the area and commissioned an approximately 400-bigha royal park to be built. In 2028 BS, the Tikapur Ain was implemented to plan and develop approximately 3,000 bigha of land and retain 1,000 bigha of forest land under the chairmanship of Khadga Bahadur Singh, the then Home Minister. Shankar Nath Rimal, an eminent town planner of the time, was commissioned to plan Blocks A–E after which Shah Associates took over and did the town planning up to Block 33 (after E, the blocks were in numerical order). An initially three-year town-planning project extended to approximately 36 years. In 2063 BS, the Tikapur Development Committee was dissolved and the responsibility for governing the town was handed over to the Municipality. Over the years, approximately 700 bigha of land has been plotted and allocated to various individuals and institutions such as government employees who were allocated between 4 bigha – 15 katha of land as part of their pensions, educational institutions, hospitals and others. The majority of the government employees were from hill communities. Due to labour shortages in the area, various ethnic groups from the far- and mid-western regions as well as Dangoria-Tharus from Dang were brought to work in the construction of Tikapur. One such group was the Magars of Ban Gaon, Tikapur Municipalty, who are also members of the Jamara water users group.

10

Khadga Bahadur Singh brought approximately 60 Magar men from two VDCs adjacent to his home village in Doti District. The men were responsible for working as labourers in the town development project and were promised land in return for their work. Many of them died and/or left due to the outbreak of malaria and the difficulties of living away from their families. Eventually, 36 of the remaining households were allowed to purchase land in Ban Gaon village for a subsidized rate of Rs 1000/bigha. The Magars purchased between 4–8 bighas of land. Only two households were able to purchase 8 bighas. Since then, the Magar locality has increased to 86 households due to population increase as well as sub-divisions within the same household. Magars generally prefer to live in nuclear households and set up their own households after marriage. According to focus group discussions with the Magar community, although many households maintain ties with their extended relatives in Doti, there has not been an increase in migration due to scarcity of land, and the community has been confined to the land they were first allocated.

Participants in focus group discussions as well as the key informants often claimed that inter-caste and ethnic group relations have always been good, and they did not report any major conflict in the recent past. One participant, for example, accused the government of creating ‘artificial’ categories like ‘Dalits’, claiming that the practice of untouchability is largely defunct in the area and these categories had been nonexistent in the area previously. In other focus group discussions, respondents participated in lively debates about Tharu-Pahadi inter-group relations. The Tharus tended to portray themselves as having become victims of a ‘clever’ and ‘powerful’ Pahadi group. The Pahadis, on the other hand, argued that it would be disingenuous to claim that any ‘discrimination’ has taken place in ‘the 21st century’. All agreed that the Maoist movement that began in 1996 gave rise to ‘consciousness’ and ‘awareness’ about group rights and amongst the Tharus in particular. During the civil conflict, many Tharu young men and women were recruited into the Maoist movement and there is a growing demand for recognition and redistribution of resources by Tharu-based political parties such as the Federal Democratic National Front.

4. Land tenure, land holding, and farming practices

The household survey incorporated a number of questions on sources of livelihood, and asked respondents their perceptions on the importance of agriculture for their livelihood. Of the respondents, 46.7% said that they were involved solely in the agriculture sector; 36% and 61% of respondents said that agriculture was ‘important’ and ‘very important’, respectively, for their livelihoods. According to participants of focus group discussions (FGD) and key informants, an overwhelming majority of the users in the command area are small landholders. The number of households with landholdings larger than 10 bighas4 was minimal. In Kulariya, FGD participants, for example, could not recall more than three households with more than 10 bighas of land. Similarly, the survey carried out by Care Consultancy as part of the ‘Socio Economic Environmental and Institutional Survey of Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation Project’ found that 45% of the respondents had less than 0.1ha, and 25% had between 0.1ha to 0.25ha.

In addition to small landholders, local farmers also practised battaya, thekka and bandaki forms of tenancy. Battaya refers to 50:50 in the Tharu language, and is a system whereby landowner and tenant equally share all the costs and profits from the agricultural cycle. But landowners are

4 It well could be the case that land is registered in the names of different members of households to avoid law.

11

generally responsible for providing the capital (such as agricultural input and seeds) whereas tenants provide the labour. In the thekka system the tenant leases land from the landowner in return for a pre-negotiated amount of agricultural produce regardless of agricultural yield. Bandaki is a system in which landowners borrow money using their land as collateral for a pre-negotiated period of time. The tenant who is also the moneylender in many instances is allowed to plant whatever he pleases and retain the entire agricultural yield for himself.

Because of an explosion of and relative ease in accessing banks, cooperatives, (women’s) credit groups that have sprung up throughout the settlements, bandaki is now very rare. Key informants generally said that they preferred thekka to battaya. In the majority of instances, the tenant is able to retain more than 50% of the crop yield, and is allowed to plant and retain all the profits from non-paddy crops such as maize and vegetables.

Nevertheless, battaya is by far the most prevalent practice. In Jamara, for example, FGD participants and KIIs said that over 50% of the total households were engaged in battaya form of farming. Similar figures were estimated in the other two kulo systems as well. It is not, however, that those who give their land in battaya are necessarily big landholders. Many able-bodied men from all communities have migrated to India for work; in such cases, even small landholders give their land in battaya, and households engaged in small businesses also make use of battaya to make productive use of their land while retaining an alternative source of income.

Traditionally, the tenant in the battaya system was also expected to ‘help’ the landowner in other non-farm activities (firewood collection, household chores, etc). This unpaid labour system actually makes battaya attractive to landowners. As this system of unpaid labour is more entrenched among the Tharus than hill migrants, the latter also preferred Tharus to hill people as their tenants. Informants from both the Tharu and hill communities said that Tharus were ‘obedient’ in this matter, while although Tharu men are increasingly opting to work as seasonal labourers in India, Tharus consider themselves as agricultural people and more rooted to the land. Many of the hill communities, in comparison, have a longer history of and access to well-established, migrant networks they can tap into, with relative ease, for finding employment.

There is an increasing awareness of and political action towards ending inequalities and the de-valuation of labour embedded in the land tenure systems. For instance, the Government of Nepal abolished the Kamaiya system in 2000 in the face of rising demands from Kamaiya social movements and allied NGOs. Kamaiya is a traditional form of bonded labour found amongst the Tharus and Dalits in western Nepal, including in Kailali. Traditionally, people without land or work could get loans from landowners in return for living and working for landowners as quasi-slaves. Exorbitant interest rates and accumulated debts meant whole families were forced into labour for years and even generations. Following the eradication of malaria in the Tarai, the system took an ethnic dimension as a large influx of hill migrants further marginalized traditionally landowning Tharu by registering their lands, claiming unprecedented shares of previously forested land, and forcing Tharus to work as Kamaiyas. Although most Kamaiyas have been freed and their debts cancelled, many have been pushed into penury without any support from the state and former landowners. The government, too, has been unable to extend a proper rehabilitation and relief package.

12

The government has divided the former Kamaiyas into four categories according to amount of land they owned and level of their dependence on the landlords: red, blue, yellow and white. For instance, the ‘red’ cardholders are those who did not have any land of their own, and lived and relied entirely on their landlords. ‘Blue’ owned very small quantities of land and had to rely on bonded work for landlords to make ends meet. ‘Yellow’ owned 1 to 2 katha of land. Initially, the government was willing to allocate no more than 5 katha and Rs 10,000 to those falling in the ‘red’ category, but has since agreed to extend the same benefits to those in the ‘blue’ category as well. Organizations advocating Kamaiya rights are demanding an end to such categorizations and calling for an extension of equal rights to everyone classified as a Kamaiya. While the majority of the former Kamaiyas have been allocated land, 1,836 households are still awaiting packages from the government. Many have encroached on government or forested land and are demanding that their right to the land they have occupied be recognized. Kamaiyas living close to Tikapur Municipality, where there are opportunities for alternative sources of income, for instance, are allocated less land (as little as 1 katha) than those living further away. According to the leader of the Kamaiya Mukta Samaj, former Kamaiyas tend to live in clusters so that they have a ‘critical mass’ and are able to organize themselves in collectively bargaining with the state.

In spite of the government declaring an end to the Kamaiya system, as Box 2 below demonstrates, variations of the systems persist.

Box 2: ‘Pargyani Pratha’ and the persistence of inequalities in the land tenure systems

Many individuals who live inside Tikapur town also own landed property in the adjacent rural areas that lie within Tikapur Municipalty and/or in the nearby VDCs. Depending on the proximity of their rural land to the town, significance of non-agricultural income, and availability to work on and supervise land, landowners either hire daily wage labourers for specific activities and/or give the land to tenants to farm. The final agricultural produce is shared equally between landlords and tenants. In return, the tenant has to provide a male household member to work on the land as well as a female member to do all the household chores. The latter is ‘free labour’, a form of collateral to allow the tenant to work on the owners’ land. In effect, the entire able-bodied members of the tenant households work for the landlord as bonded laborers for the duration of the contract.

According to a representative of the CPN (Maoist) in the area, the Maoist party has revolted against such an exploitative system, and even threatened to levy fines on both tenants and landlords who continue to participate in it. But the system still persists because of lack of employment opportunities in the village, the attractiveness of the system to the landlord, and unequal relationships between labour and land. Farming practices vary based on the availability of irrigation water. Water is normally available only during the rainy months, April to June being the worst period. Generally, farmers in all three kulo systems grow summer paddy (Ashad to Mansir). During the dry months, crops requiring less water such as mustard and Dalhans, are grown (Paush to Phalgun). Summer paddy and vegetables are grown from Chaitra to Jestha. These findings are also consistent with the survey carried out by Care Consultancy. The majority of the participants in FGDs, irrespective of

13

gender and ethnicity, lamented that despite the ‘good’ soil, they have not been able to produce three or four crops a year.

5. Irrigation management system

5.1 Traditional Irrigation Management System

Indigenous Tharu institutions have traditionally managed these three Kulos. In this system, each Kulo is headed by a Kulo Chuadhari. The first Chaudharies were those who had taken initiatives to establish the Kulos. They usually came from well-to-do families and the position was often passed from one generation to the next (e.g., Ravi L Chaudhari, the current chairperson of Kulariya Kulo). Chaudharis held the position and remained active as long as they wanted to. Chaudhari has been a voluntary position. Each Chaudhari appointed and were supported by the following members:

Box 3: Members of the traditional irrigation management systemDeshawar Responsible for mobilizing labour during operation and maintenance of the main

and sub-canals. Chiragi Responsible for disseminating information regarding irrigation management. There

existed two layers of ‘Chiragi’ – one is responsible for disseminating information at the sub-branch level whereas the other is at the mauja (or settlement) level.

Guruwa Responsible for conducting irrigation related rituals. Nandarwa Responsible for assessing how much work is needed for operation and maintenance

of the mains source and sub-canals, and determining which village is responsible for contributing how much labour depending on the size of the village and its total population.

If the Chaudhari system worked at the Kulo level, a Badghar or Sahek-Chaudhary system had been in place to manage the Maujas (settlements) thus headed each Mauja and worked as an interlocutor between the users and the Chaudhari. 5 Rani and Jamara call the individual responsible for managing the kulo system a ‘Badghar’. For users in Kulariya, a ‘Badghar’ is the person responsible for managing village-wide affairs and ‘Sahek-Chaudhary’ solely for managing kulo. Hence, this report will use ‘Badghar’ and ‘Sahek-Chaudhary’ interchangeably. However, in many instances, both Badghar and Sahek-Chaudhary tended to be the same individual.

Like the position of Chaudhari, a Badghar usually came from a relatively better-off family, and the position was voluntary, but unlike the Chaudhari, a Badghar was subject to annual dismissal or re-election. Each year on the day of Maghi (or the first day of Maagh), users in each Mauja (settlement) elected their Badghar. The Badghar looked after community affairs, discharging

5 Note: In Kulariya, a ‘Badghar’ is someone is responsible for overseeing the management of a mauja whereas ‘Sahek Chaudhary’ is solely responsible for the kulo. In many instances, an individual is both a ‘Badgar’ and simultaneously a ‘Sahek Chaudhary’. Although this is an important distinction, we will use ‘Badghar’ to refer to the responsible for overseeing the management of the kulo at the mauja level.

14

political as well as judicial duties. In each Mauja, under the Badghar worked chiragis who canvassed the settlements relaying important messages to the villagers. Chiragis were paid in kind (certain amount of paddy harvest from each household). Since no higher authority dictated the precise form of the Badghar system, local villagers in each settlement often made their own rules and regulations.

The population of the command area and number of sub-canals has increased significantly since the kulos were first built to service a limited pool and scale of predominantly Tharu population. As new settlements were established and existing ones expanded, residents started diverting water as per where they lived and their water requirements. The irrigation management system, too, evolved alongside such demographic shifts. The transformation in the demographic profile of the Badghar system serves as an example.

Even though the Badghar system is an indigenous Tharu institution, recent settlers from the hills too have adopted it. We spoke with at least five Badghars who were of hill origin. The hill Badghars included persons from the hill Dalit community as well as those from higher castes, although there was no evidence of women being ‘badgars’. Participants generally agreed that although women were equally capable of or more likely to do a better job of being Badghars, this was a traditionally male-led practice that was difficult to challenge and change. Women focus group participants also felt that they would face more difficulties in ensuring that rules and regulations are followed and fines are imposed on transgressors.

The majority of the hill Badgars tend to be confined to Pahadi-only villages. But there were also instances where mixed settlements had two Badhgars, designated as a main and assistant Badghar, one of Pahadi and the other Tharu ethnic origin. This system evolved since the Badghars are also required to participate in traditional Tharu rituals, and some Tharu communities were unwilling to employ a Pahadi Badghar in their rituals. The Pahadi Badgars, too, were reluctant to participate in many of the Tharu rituals involving water buffalo sacrifice, which were considered to be against their religious beliefs. Our informants did not report serious disputes about this dual-Badghar arrangement.

5.2 Irrigation Users Committees (IUCS)

Beginning in the mid-1980s, a rudimentary form of formal irrigation users' committees (IUCs) appeared in all three Kulo systems. Local users established these committees following the government policies of ensuring people's "participation" in local development. It was only in 2056-7 v.s., however, that formal users' committees were instituted almost simultaneously in all three Kulos. (Refer to the Box 4 for an overview of how and why Rani IUC was established). These committees were duly registered with the Department of Irrigation, and they have also joined the National Federation of Irrigation Water Users Association of Nepal (NEFIWUAN). All three committees have written constitutions, and all have their offices in rented rooms. The committees are in the process of revising their respective constitutions. In addition to the post of Chairperson, the major positions in the committee include vice chairperson, secretary, and treasurer. The length of tenure of the IUCs varied from 3 to 5 years in three Kulos. Whereas Rani does not compensate IUC memb`ers for their service, Kulariya offers compensation to IUC members (Chairperson and secretary at Rs. 8400 and members at Rs. 1200 per annum). Jamara

15

has also decided to compensate its chairperson and secretary, but the decision has not yet been implemented.

Box 4: Establishment of Rani IUCRani IUC was the first one to be registered amongst three kulos. In 2055, the first chairperson of the committee, Mr. Damaodhar Khadka, had returned from working abroad. He had experience working with and understanding the structure and functioning of a number of different community-led organizations. Furthermore, there was discussion of a modernization and rehabilitation project starting in RJKIS at the time. He felt that an establishment of a user committee would help the irrigation users negotiate and work more effectively with the government and donors. This was particularly important since the apex committee was largely defunct. He mobilized support for establishing the Rani IUC. When nobody else volunteered to assume the responsibility of the chairperson, he took on that role himself. The IUC was registered in 2056 B.S. (approximately 2000 AD).

According to IUC members, all three Kulos have instructed their branches to establish "branch committees," mirroring the same organizational form as the Kulo committee. But FGD participants and KIIs revealed that barring a few exceptions in Kulariaya, these branch committees are hardly active. In addition, such "branch committees" were formed whenever external agencies such as the VDC or DDC supported repair works. Since government regulation required formation of a users' committee, such committees often gained a semi-permanent status.

Box 5: Relationship between branch and main IUC in Kulariya

The ‘Munuwa IUC’ is located in the tail-end of the Kulariya irrigation system. It was established approximately 35 years ago and was registered at the Department of Irrigation around the same time that the Kulariya IUC was. It functions as both a subsidiary of the Kulariya IUC as well as a separate entity. The committee is composed of 16 individuals, including a Badghar and a Chiragi. Like every other sub-branch, Munuwa IUC has to rely on the main committee to allocate irrigation water, but exercises complete discretion over how water is allocated within Munuwa. A Munuwa committee is also in the main IUC. The main committee also calls the committee to mobilize its users to contribute labour to operation and maintenance of the main and branch kulo. At the same time, as an independently registered entity, the Munuwa IUC can approach the DOI directly and without the advance approval of the main IUC.

The rule for the election of IUCs is similar in all three systems in that all three committees follow an indirect system of representation; thus irrigation users do not directly elect the executive committee. In Rani, Badghars elect the IUC. Jamara and Kuleria follow a different procedure. First elections are held at the Maujas in each branch. The numbers of representatives depend on the land size at the settlement. Members thus elected form a "branch committee" [also referred to as Parshads]. These branch committee members then elect the IUC.

16

The IUC meetings are held as and when necessary. According to FGDs and KIIs, decisions are generally made with consensus, but they have also followed the majority rule in the past. Members are suspended or expelled if he or she fails to attend three consecutive meetings. At the time of our field work, Kulariya had suspended two of its women members as they did not show up in three consecutive meetings. But FGD and KII pointed out that Kulariya was the only IUC which held regular meetings. This is also consistent with the household survey findings. Respondents were asked how capable their IUCs were in holding regular meetings. As the table below illustrates, 56% of the respondents felt that they were either ‘little capable’ or ‘not capable’.

Table 4: IUC’s Ability to hold regular meetingsFrequency Percent

No response 3 0.9Do not Know 97 30.4Little Capable 82 25.7Not Capable 95 29.8Capable 42 13.2Total 319 100.0

Following the state policy of inclusiveness, all IUCs have reserved seats for women although none of them have been able to meet the 33% benchmark for women’s representation. According to the profiles collected of each of the IUC members, there are currently 3 female members in the Rani IUC, and 4 each in Rani and Jamara. Similarly, both Rani and Kulariya have 1 Dalit committee member whereas Jamara has 2. Kulariya is the only one that has 2 ‘Janjati’ committee members. All three include a combination of Tharu and Pahadi committee members. For instance, Rani has an equal number of Bahun/Chettri and Tharu members (8 each); Kulariya has 10 Tharu and 9 Bahun/Chettri; and Jamara has 13 Tharu and 5 Bahun/Chhetri.

According to KIIs, users also try to maintain a fair representation of all the major political parties, although the majority were members of the Nepali Congress Party. Surprisingly, committee members disclosed their political affiliations in the committee profiles we asked them to fill out. Out of the 9 members who disclosed their political affiliations in Rani, 8 belonged to the ‘Nepali Congress’ and only one to the CPN (UML). All the 21 committee members in Kulariya said they were affiliated to a political party. The majority belonged to the Nepali Congress (13) followed by 2 CPN (UML), 2 CPN (Maoist), 2 Raprapa, 1 Forum and 1 Na Ma Ke Pa. In Jamara, 14 out of 20 committee members were Nepali Congress, 3 UML, and 1 each for Raprapa, Rastriya Prajatantra party, Tharuhat, and CPN (Maoist). The majority of those who disclosed their party affiliations considered themselves to be ‘active’ members. A few also occupied powerful positions such as that of an ‘Area in Charge’.

Since the basic units of representation are settlements, both headenders and talienders stand fair chances of being elected in the IUC. But in practice, according to KIIs at Rani, people "close to Tikapur" mostly end up holding the major portfolios.

17

All three committees have instituted rules for collecting funds. Kularia collects Rs. 4/- per kattha per year. Jamara collects Rs. 5 per Kathha every five year and Rani Rs. 5 per kathha per year. Except for Kularia, which has established elaborate procedures for record keeping, we could not access account details and other records of Rani and Jamara.6 All IUCs have maintained Bank accounts. In addition, the regular income includes penalties collected from free riders [those who fail to show up at source maintenance]. Since the money thus collected goes to Badghars and is traditionally spent on community feasts, the contribution of penalties to the IUC funds is negligible. In addition, since a large number of local farmers are engaged in Battaya farming and they cannot be sure if they will be doing the same in coming years, Battaya farmers have little incentive to set up a permanent fund; they thus prefer community feasts to setting up such a fund.

At present the IUCs have evolved into hybrid institutions—a mix of traditional and new IUC systems. According to the committee profiles, many current and former badgars have been integrated into the existing IUCs. There are 9 committee members who are/were Badghars in Rani, 6 in Kulariya and 11 in Jamara. Participants in focus group discussions generally felt that Badghars had more experience in and were better able to manage the irrigation systems. The IUCs interact closely with Badghars whenever they make important decisions. According to IUC members, Badhars are invited to express their views at IUC meetings even if they are not executive members. This arrangement decreases the prospect of conflict between the formally instituted IUCs and informally elected Badghars. Only in a few places are Badghars nominally paid, but Chiragis get paid in kind in all settlements. The rate of payment is decided by the local communities and hence it varies from settlement to settlement. Kularia is the only IUC which pays Rs. 6000 per annum to its Chiragi. In some settlements, Badghars are paid in kind and they can claim portions of the penalty amount collected from recalcitrant users (about 20% in one settlement, according to one KII).

The current system is highly decentralized. The IUCs work in three major areas—management of annual source maintenance, management of inter-branch issues and concerns, and communication with external agencies like the DOI. IUCs hardly ever intervene in Mauja (settlement) affairs. If the IUCs have to make major decisions at the settlement level, which is rare, they work closely with the local Badghars. In Maujas, Badghars thus more or less autonomously manage the irrigation system and community affairs even if there are branch committees. The IUCs and Badghars, for example, collectively manage annual source maintenance work when tens of thousands of users are mobilized at the source near Chisapani. The committee is also sometimes asked to assist in resolving conflicts between different sub-branches and/or settlements, where the jurisdiction of any one Badghar does not apply. Even in such instances, the committee works very closely with the concerned Badghars to come to a solution, which is amenable to both parties.

In recent years the Badghar system has proved to be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it bestows on the Badghar prestige and power at the local level. On the other hand, Badghars feel that people have become "unruly" in recent years. Almost every former Badghar rued the old "good" days when everyone obeyed them without question. In addition, many Badghars feel that

6 The current secretary of Kulariya is a former Agriculture Development Bank employee. Kulariya has taken advantage of his experience. KIIs said that before the arrival of the secretary, the Kulariaya IUC did not maintain systematic records.

18

they should be appropriately compensated. They are the ones who need to travel to different places, ensure rules and regulations are adhered to, fines are imposed on transgressors and guests are fed in community feasts whenever necessary. In addition, men of working age are increasingly migrating to cities and/or crossing border to India in search of employment. Consequently, in many settlements users are increasingly finding it increasingly difficult to elect capable and willing person to hold the position of Badghar. In such situations either villagers force a trustworthy person to hold the position or they have developed a lottery system. In the latter instance whoever is selected must abide by the community decision.

FGD participants repeatedly said that the problem of non-compliance and/or reluctance to comply with traditional institutional arrangement is particularly common among the recent Pahadi migrants. Many Pahadis did not understand the importance of and did not feel a part of the traditional irrigation system. Many are reluctant to pay to ‘pankar’ (or the water tax) when they are not receiving a regular supply of irrigation water. Furthermore, as participants in focus group discussions with Tharu, small landholders agreed that it is easier to use social pressure to get the Tharu population to comply with irrigation-related rules and regulations than it is for the Pahadi, even in stances where there is little or no irrigation water available.

As part of the household survey, irrigation users were asked a series of questions on how effective they perceived their IUC to be on a series of issues ranging from water allocation to maintaining and managing documentation. In terms of the ability to implement decisions, as the Table below demonstrates, the majority of the respondents (41.1%) thought they were ‘not capable’ or only ‘little capable’ (23%).

Table 5: IUC’s Effectiveness in Implementing DecisionsFrequency Percent

No response 3 .9Do not know 89 27.9Little capable 70 21.9Not capable 131 41.1Capable 26 8.2Total 319 100.0

5.3 The Irrigation Users Association

The three Kulos have historically cooperated with each other since they worked together at the source. With the growing prospect of external funding for the upgrading and renovation of the RJK system and the encouragement from DOI officials, a formal apex committee or irrigation users association (IUA) comprising three Kulo IUCs, was formed in 2057 v.s. But the apex committee has remained inactive due to various reasons including the Maoist movement, ensuing civil conflict and disputes over who would occupy the key positions within the IUC.

At the time of fieldwork for this assessment, the three IUCs were trying to revive the apex body. All three committee members have agreed to follow the process outlined below in appointing members of the apex body:

19

The IUA committee should be comprised of a total of 19 members. Each of the three committees should nominate 6 existing committee members to join

the IUA committee. These must include the existing chairperson and vice-chairperson. Any of the remaining members of the three committees can contest to be the

chairperson of the IUA committee. However, the contestants must not be from the 18 individuals mentioned above.

A secretary and a treasurer must be appointed from the 18 individuals who are in the IUA committee.

Only existing committee members in the three kulos are allowed to take part in the nomination and election processes for appointing the IUA committee.

There is an intense conflict between two factions, however. The ad hoc committee formed in 2057 v.s. is trying to revive the committee and ensure the former members are appointed once again. But others argue that it had outlived its purpose and that there should be a fresh committee. Further, rival factions accuse the individuals who are leading the revival of the 2057B.S. IUA committee of corruption and claim appointment of individuals facing corruption charges is unconstitutional. They further argue that the Badghars should be present during the election process, even if they are not directly taking part in it. Otherwise, the committee will not have any legitimacy in the eyes of the ordinary users.

The IUA committee positions are highly contested because the persons occupying them will have considerable authority and influence over decisions related to governance of the irrigation systems. They will also act as the major interlocutors between the users, on the one hand, and the government and donors, on the other hand. There is a growing assumption, amongst committee members in Rani and Jamara in particular, that the apex committee will have influence over the awarding of contracts, and could be financially rewarded once donor and government funding comes through.

5.4 Water availability, allocation, and use

All the participants in FGDs and KIIs complained that water is scare in all three systems, especially during dry months. In fact the prospect of a year round supply of irrigation water is the chief attraction of the proposed project. Availability of water, however, varies across time and location. Rani Kulo, for example, has been receiving water from an alternative source located at the Bardia district since the last three years. Compared to Jamara and Kulariya, the alternative source has improved the situation in many parts of the Rani command area. Similarly, in some places natural springs burst in the downstream of the Kulos, and partially albeit temporarily improve the availability of water in part of the downstream areas.

When there is enough water, especially during the monsoon, water allocation is hardly a problem both for head and tail-enders. In fact excess water from ‘jaharan’ or drainage during periods of abundant water was raised as a major concern particularly by users living in the tail-end of the irrigation system. In general, however, due to their strategic location close to the source of the water, headenders tend to have greater access to water. The head-enders also impose diversions to prevent the irrigation water from flowing down-stream. The tail-enders claimed that they have to work significantly harder than the head-enders do for operation and maintenance and should,

20

therefore, have equal claims on the water during periods of scarcity. When tail-enders go to Chispani for source maintenance, they have to stay over night whereas many of the head-enders can commute easily by foot or bicycle.

Head-enders, too, faced distinct challenges. Since they are located close to the source, the Kulo carries a heavy amount of sand and silt, which is disposed at their land. In addition, because of their location at higher elevation, they usually need a good amount of water and additional diversion works to irrigate their lands, especially those pieces of land located far off the Kulos.

Since the Kulos have historically practiced a highly decentralized form of governance, the rules for the allocation of water are entirely determined by local communities (refer to the IUC constitutions). Once the source at Chisapani is repaired and water diverted to the Kulos, the IUCs are normally out of sight and the burden of water allocation falls on Badghars and users themselves. In each settlement, Badghars set up rules of water allocation based on the amount of available water and the size of land to be irrigated. FGD participants and KIIs did not report any fixed rule that is followed annually. During Badghars, for example, allocate water to part of the settlement for certain days. This process continues until the whole settlement is irrigated. Badghars reported that disputes do occur, but most often these disputes are managed amicably and locally.

Since the IUCs have not instituted water allocation rules [refer to the IUC constitution], head-enders and tail-enders frequently engage in water allocation disputes, particularly when water is scarce. In such cases, if the tailenders feel that the headenders have used water unfairly, they have the right to go up to the diversion structure upstream and remove the structure. At times headenders resist and reconstruct the diversion structure. If the tailenders still feel that they have been unfairly treated, they repeat the same procedure, that is, sabotaging the diversion structure put up by the headenders. If serious disputes occur, the Badhars normally sit down and set up new allocation rules. According to KIIs and FGD participants, the IUCs may intervene in serious cases, but formal interventions are rare.

The users also depend on alternative sources of irrigation water. Ground water boring is particularly common. Water is drawn using diesel or electricity-powered motors. Although Jamara users in BanGaon village reported having received subsidies from the government, boring is a largely self-initiative in most of the village. There are a number of problems with this alternative source. First, all households, particularly those living far off the main streets, do not have access to electricity. Second, there is a problem of regular power outage. Third, both diesel and electricity are too expensive for the average farmer. Even those who have access to boring water employ it only partially (for example, for planting paddy seeds or kitchen gardens). Box 6 provides an example of the potential costs associated with boring according to one of the Jamara users in Ban Gaon village.

21

Box 6: Costs associated with boring

The Department of Land Reform has initiated a Rs.830,000 boring support programme for farmers living within an area of 80 biga radius in Ban Gaon Village, Tikapur (users of Jamara). 1 motor has been granted for every 8 biga. The farmers living within each of the 8 bigas of land have to collectively use the motors, and incur all the running costs associated with it. Prior to the launch of the programme, none of the households in the village could afford a motor. While having one has certainly allowed farmers to grow crops and vegetables during the dry/winter season, the costs associated with boring is very high. The motor consumes 1 liter of fuel every hour. Paddy requires approximately 35 hours of borring per season. Millet requires less, but paddy is a more sought after and profitable crop. Therefore, only those farmers who can afford its operating costs use boring. Due to its high costs, even the relatively well-off farmers consider it as a complement to but not a substitute for irrigation from kulos.

The water from the Kulos is generally used for irrigation purposes only. In certain communities, women, in particular, use the water for washing and cleaning purposes (clothes and livestock). But this practice is largely in the decline in areas adjacent to the Tikapur town center due to sanitation problems as many households in Tikapur, as reported by our informants, has connected their drainage to the Kulo. Individually or collectively owned water pumps are used for drinking water. Even those users who did not live adjacent to Tikapur village did not feel that the irrigation water was suitable for drinking purposes.

5.4 Operation and maintenance

There are three types of major maintenance works—source, Kulo, and branches and sub-branches. The IUCs are responsible for the management of source maintenance. Unless the branches and sub-branches face significant problems needing external help, the IUCs do not normally intervene in local affairs and Badghars and branch committees (if functional) manage all the problems occurring in branches and sub-branches.

Source maintenance is held every year from Paush/Magh to Baisakh/Jestha; other types of repair work are carried out as and when necessary. In fact, the Kulos hardly require maintenance (except for the erosion of the embankment, which is not too frequent). Similarly, branches and sub-branches at times have problems of siltation. In such maintenance works, only those who are directly affected by the problem contribute to maintenance work. Normally if there is a problem in the branch or sub-branch serving settlement A, only those in the settlement contribute to maintenance work.

In addition, contribution to source maintenance is much more demanding than other repair and maintenance works. Source maintenance requires several days (in the past several months, thanks to the use of dozers, excavators, gabion, and wired nets in recent years) with people spending several days and nights at the source near Chisapani. According to FGD participants and KIIs, during the source maintenance period each year, community feasts are organized and elaborate Tharu rituals held, giving the maintenance work a quasi-religious character.

22

Badghars are responsible for mobilizing users in their settlements for source maintenance. Specific duties and responsibilities for source maintenance vary depending on historical practices, the size of landholding, tenure patterns, and gender. Whereas in Rani, the contribution to source maintenance is based on household or halls (a pair of oxen), irrespective of the size of land owned, in Jamara and Kulariya, users contribute to source maintenance based on the size of land owned.

In the case of the Battayas system, the tenants rather than the owners is required to contribute to source maintenance. According to FGD participants and KIIs, this arrangement has given rise to the serious problem of free riding since a large number of farmers are engaged in Battaya farming and the land owners often intentionally make their decisions about whether or not to lend their land for Addaya only after the source maintenance period has come to an end, i.e. after Jestha. Both the Battaya and the tenant benefit from the system, but the system as a whole has thus suffered from the free riding problem.

Operation and maintenance, particularly source maintenance, are viewed through a gendered lenses. It is generally men who contribute their labour to source maintenance. In recent years and due to increasing rates of migration, women, too, have been participating in source maintenance although many prefer to pay the cash equivalent instead. Nevertheless, FGD participants pointed out that there is an observable gender division of labour at work. Whereas men contribute to "heavy" works, (e.g. clearing big boulders), women contribute to "light" works (e.g., disposing sands, kitchen works etc.).But Badghars complained that they found women more "difficult" than men. Tharu informants often claimed that the Pahadis were "clear" at maneuvering, but this was also in part because the Tharus have a longer history of Kulo management than the recently migrated Pahadis. Labor contribution also varies by ethnicity. In open discussion during FGDs, participants said that the Pahadis tended to contribute less than the Tharu communities. Particularly, the problem was said to be acute among the hill households in which men are absent. But some KIIs claimed that since the Pahadis actually paid cash in lieu of labor contribution, the reported free-riding problem among the Pahadis is overestimated. Others claimed that the Pahadi settlements are concentrated on areas where Kulo water is scarce; the Pahadis are thus less motivated to contribute to source and other maintenance works.

In spite of these changes and challenges, most participants agreed that the only reason why the irrigation system has been operating as effectively as it has for so many generations is precisely because the majority of users do contribute their labour to operation and maintenance. This was in turn, verified by the findings of the household survey. As depicted in Table 5 below, 98% of the respondents said they contribute to maintenance of the irrigation system. The ensuing questions in turn disaggregated ‘contribution’ to cash and labour. 90% of the respondents said they contribute labour, and 67% contribute cash.

23

Table 5: Contribution to Irrigation maintenanceFrequency Percent

No 6 1.9Yes 312 97.8Total 318 99.7Missing 1 .3

5.5 Conflicts and their resolution

As described above, even though local farmers have managed these Kulos for generations, several types of conflict take place annually. Key types of conflict include labor dispute between Pahadi and Tharu communities; headenders and tailenders dispute regarding water allocation; and disputes between the main committee and Badghars regarding roles and responsibilities and jurisdictions. Increasingly common were disputes over lack of accountability between users and committee members, in Rani and Jamara in particular, as highlighted through examples in Box 7.

Box 7: Disputes over Lack of Accountability in Rani and Jamara

All the households in a Janjati tole in Jamara7 are protesting against the lack of accountability of the Jamara IUC by refusing to pay their share of ‘pankar’ or water tax. According to focus group discussions with village elders as well as present and past badghars, the Jamara IUC has not been able to account for Rs.300,000 or more of ‘pankar’ collected in the previous 5 years. Instead of holding a General Assembly of all the users to disclose its finances and hold individuals accountable for mis-management of user funds, the major position holders in the committee called a meeting of Badghars and attempted to pass it as a General Assembly.

Rani is in the process of dismissing its current committee and establishing a new one. According to participants in different focus group discussions, the current committee had unilaterally decided to dismiss the previous one and elect new committee members. The majority of the Badghars and users in Rani were unaware of what was happening. Although it has been a year since the committee was established, the majority of the users have not accepted committee members as legitimate representatives of the users.

Since the governance structure is highly decentralized, the Badghars have the complete authority over how locally based conflicts are resolved. In the past Badghars imposed heavy fines on free riders. If a household, for example, failed to appear for operation and maintenance as decided by the community, the Badghar, in consultation with the local users, was entitled to forcefully take away whatever the disobedient user possessed, including goats, roosters, pigs, and even bullock carts. If the person did not pay the fine on time, the community would either sell the confiscated goods (or animals) or kill the animal to organize community feasts. But according to our respondents, such strict practices have decreased in recent years, and this has created the problem of free-riding. FGD participants and KIIs related to us a few instances in which the free riders went to court and the police against the traditional rule. Even though the police eventually

7 The name of the tole and the ethnic groups living there have not been disclosed. However, the community wanted us to raise this issue in the main report. The lack of accountability of the IUC committee members were in turn, verified through a number of discussions with key informants in Jamara and beyond.

24

returned the case to the community, Badghars said that their roles have become much more problematic than they used to be a few years ago.

The conflict between the IUCs and Badghars are also rare, and Badhars could hardly recall such instances that had taken place in the past. As indicated above, this was so in part because the Badghars are part of the IUC decision making process and many of them are actually elected to the IUCs. They accept that the IUCs are a higher authority, and they have to abide by IUC decisions. Badghars who were not a part of the committee, however, did suggest that they felt side-lined by the IUCs of Rani and Jamara in particular where certain powerful members practiced dictatorial decision-makign practices.

Some of the branch committees have been separately registered with the DOI. Although users claimed that this situation did not create any problem since all were dependent on the common source, in the future when the permanent structure is constructed at the source, these independent branches could try to free themselves of the IUCs. Kulariya has at least three freely-registered branch committee. Similarly Jamara has one separately registered branch committee.

Conflicts between headenders and tailenders and Pahadi and Tharu have been discussed above.

25

6. Stakeholder consultation & Analysis

We identified three categories of stakeholders: primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary stakeholders include the direct beneficiaries of the project such as users and IUCs. We have identified the latter two categories of stakeholders in terms of those who have a stake in the project and/or will influence the outcomes of the project. The secondary are local-level actors such as political parties, CBOs, VDCs, NGOs, and government line agencies. The territory stakeholders are those based on district headquarters or elsewhere; they include agencies such as the DDC and the Federation of Irrigation Water Users. Given the time and resource constraints of this assessment, we have focused in particular on the primary and secondary stakeholders.

Our discussions with or survey of the stakeholders focused on the following: (1) extent and level of knowledge of the upcoming RJIK project; (2) sources of knowledge; (3) expectations from the project; (4) perceptions of the adequacy of communication and inforamtion strategies adopted by the DOI, and (5) recommendations for how to improve the current communication and information dissemination strategies. But before providing an overview of the findings, we will present the stock-take of the major communication and information dissemination strategies adopted by the DOI since the establishment of the project office in Tikapur.

6.1 Stock-take of DOI’s Communication & Information Dissemination Strategies

The design of the main canal and intakes as well as environmental and social assessments were being finalized and approved were being finalized at the time of the writing of this report. According to discussions with project officials, the DOI will be undertaking and overseeing the preparatory and initial stages of the project. Participation from local users is likely to be minimal during this phase. The design and approval of the main canals and intakes require skilled labor and is beyond the capacity of the users. Furthermore, this is envisaged to be a multi-million USD project. Even a 3% contribution to the project would be a significant amount for the IUGs. The users are contributing to the operation and maintenance, but the project is likely to require specific technical skills for the construction of the main canal. Information about the type of work and skills required have already been disseminated to the users. But it is likely that much of the initial construction work will be sub-contracted to experts outside of the command area and the user groups.

The major position holders in the committee were first informed that the RJIK project would commence and that the projct officie would be housed in Tikapur. The IUC position holders approach the project office directly and no longer direct irrigation related matters and concerns to the Irrigation Division Office in Kanchanpur. Two sets of orientations were held during the months of Magh and Fagun of 2010. The first included separate orientations in each of three command areas starting from Rani and followed with Jamara and Kulariya. Approximately 25 committee members and active/concerned farmers in each of the three command areas attended these orientations.

26

After a week, a mixed-IUG workshop was held in the Banana Hotel, Tikapur. Approximately150 individuals (50 from each command area) comprising of Badghars and active farmers who were not present in the first orientation were invited. The details of the project as well as construction related issues were discussed in these orientations. The major rationale behind the conducting a mixed-IUG workshop was to allow different IUG members to discuss the project-related questions and concerns with each other as well as with the officials.

The DOI project office has not carried out any more orientation sessions since then.

The World Bank officials overseeing the project also arranged a separate information and dissemination session with committee members and farmers. They addressed many of the myths surrounding WB’s potential involvement in the project.

The major issues covered in these workshops included: project design; budget; construction contracts; World Bank and DOI’s involvement and division of responsibilities; and how to transform a traditional irrigation management system into one capable of overseeing a modernized system. According to the project officials as well as participants in FGD and KII who had also attended these orientations, the technical aspects of the project such as the construction of head and cross-regulators were conveyed in user-friendly language and through diagrams and charts. Visuals were particularly useful for those who had little prior understanding what is involved in a modernized irrigation project, and/or could not understand the texts and language used in the presentations. Participants who attended these orientation workshops raised some of the following issues and concerns: phases in the implementation of the project; processes and progress made in handing construction contracts; employment opportunities for local users; potential for siltation problems to arise once the project is completed; potential roles and responsibilities of the IUCs; structure and composition of the apex committee; whether the 35 lakhs allocated by the DDC be spent on the project etc.

The project office does not have any elaborate procedure to deal with different stakeholders. In fact, project staff told us that lack of time and resources are likely to limit their consultations with stakeholders. But it seems the DOI is also reluctant to use the means that it has in its disposal. For instance, the DOI commissioned a documentary on the project. But it has no plans to air it on TV because the project is solely focused on RJK and would not be relevant for wider viewers. The DOI might consider airing it as a ‘success story’ once the project is completed, and the new irrigation system is operating effectively. The project officials also think that all the primary and secondary stakeholders know about the project. Many may not know the details of the project design, but those who say they do not know anything about it are biased. A certain degree of blurriness about the project is inevitable.

Instead, the project office is intends to carry out future communication and information dissemination activities through the Apex committee, which is in the process of being established. The apex committee will responsible for increasing awareness of the project, and

27

dispelling any myths. The DOI is facilitating the existing IUCs decide on the structure and the composition of the apex committee.

6.2 Primary Stakeholders: Users & Committee members

We found that IUC members, and Badghars have a good understanding of the upcoming project. Some of the major position holders in the IUC could draw precise line diagrams of the proposed construction sites and alignment. However, there was an observable gulf between knowledge of the upcoming project both within and outside of the committee. The majority of the participants said that they had heard about the project either through word of mouth, from the Badgar or Chiragi, and/or noticed that the RJK project office had been set up in Tikapur. Only some (mainly women) said they had not heard about it until we had approached to speak with them. Still others said that they had heard that the DOI and the WB were in the process of finalizing the project, but because it has been in the pipeline for so long (at least since 1995 when the Multi Disciplinary Consultancy company carried out a feasibility study) that they would only believe that it is actually happening when they see observable construction activities taking place.

Contrary to what the focus group participants said, the majority of respondents who participated in the household survey said they had not heard about the project (71%), as is reflected in the Table 7 below. The finding must be analyzed with caution, however. It could have been the case that respondents knew about the project but did not think that they had sufficient knowledge of it. We had not anticipated such as issue would arise when we first designed the questionnaire.

Table 7: Knowledge of the Upcoming ProjectFrequency Percent

Yes 92 28.8No 227 71.2

Total 319 100.0

This data was in turn disaggregated by gender. The majority of men and women said that they did not know about the project. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 8, only 3.4% of women in comparison to 25% of the men said that they knew about the project.

Table 8: Knowledge of Upcoming Project disaggregated by GenderGender of respondent Total

Yes 81 (25.4%)

11 (3.4%)

92 (28.8%)

No 125(39.2%)

102(32.0%)

227(71.2%)

Total 206(64.6%)

113(35.4%)

319100%

When asked who their source of project knowledge were, only 6% said the DOI, and 20% said Badghars. Responses for Chiragi, NGO, Radio and other types of media as sources of project knowledge were negligible.

28

Most of the users had learned about the upcoming project by word of mouth. The users valued face-to-face interaction and wished the project office organized such interaction programs in lieu of public hearing. Similarly, users said that the news of the proposed project could have been broadcast over the local FM radio stations (there are two; one, privately owned and the other owned by the community). Although people did not complain about the use of the Nepali language in communication materials, they said that the use of the local Tharu language, along with the Nepali, would have been better. In addition, the IUCs were critical of the project office including the World Bank for not informing them in writing about project activities.

The following matrix provides an overview of the major issues highlighted by the differentially situated primary and secondary stakeholders.

Nevertheless, the majority of the users were very supportive of the project. Ordinary users as well as IUC officials told us about the possible impact of the project in great detail. The most citied benefit of the project was the expected increase in crop intensity and possible crop diversification. Most users are excited about the prospect of growing three or four crops a year. Similarly even small landholders, who make up the largest group, said that they could produce a lot of seasonal and off-seasonal vegetables, which they could sell in the town of Tikapur. Others discussed with us about the prospects of possible employment opportunities once the project comes into operation. Many users actually said that the locals should given priority over outsiders when it comes to hiring workers in the course of the implementation of the project. Finally, users believed that once the project is implemented, the trend of increasing migration of large number of men for employment purposes will stop or decrease.

The household questionnaire also asked respondents what they felt about the potential impact of the project on the following: irrigated land, agricultural practice, flood control, and the availability of sophisticated and modern equipment. The results are depicted in the Table 9 below. As discussed in the FGDs, respondents generally thought that the impact of the new project would be positive on irrigated land, agricultural practices, flood control, and current practices of maintenance.

Table 9: Perceptions towards the potential implications of the project (in %)Irrigated land

Agricultural practices

Flood control

Current practice of maintenance

New technicians/skills

Modern equipments

No Response

6.5 6.3 7.5 6.9 6.3 7.5

Do not know

4.1 0.9 19.7 17.9 28.5 37.9

No effect 2.8 0 7.8 9.4 4.4 7.5Not good 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.2Good 85.3 91.8 63.0 64.3 58.9 44.8

29

Furthermore, users were also asked whether the existing irrigation management systems would alter as a consequence of the project. As expected and consistent with the focus group discussion findings, the responses were positive. 64% of the respondents thought that the impact on the current practice of irrigation maintenance would be ‘good’. In focus groups, participants unanimously agreed that they would no longer have to contribute as much labour to source maintenance as they have had. With regards to the impact on the need of more technicians, 29% said they did not know but 59% said ‘good’. Participants in focus group discussions felt that the modernized system would require new technicians and skills that the community members do not yet possess. But that this could be easily rectified by training promising young individuals within the community together with the hiring of external technicians. They expected the DOI to provide support on this matter, at least during the initial years. Such findings suggest that there exist broad-based support for the project.

Finally, respondents were asked what the impact of the project would be on the existingt Badghar system, and whether the current IUC is capable of effectively running the upcoming project. With regards to the Badghar system, 33% of the respondents said they there would be ‘no effect’ whereas 43% said the effect would be ‘good’. 56% of the respondents thought that the current IUC is capable of running the upcoming project whereas 39% said they did not know. In focus group discussions, respondents generally argued that the very fact that the IUCs continues to mobilize such large number of individuals for source maintenance, have adopted to and evovled in line with the changing ethnic and social fabric of the command area serves as sufficient indication of their abilities to manage the new system effectively. Others, in comparison, argued that disputes over lack of transparency of the committee is likely to become more commonplace once the committee members are entrusted with the responsibilities of overseeing such a large scale and multi-million dollar project.

6.3 Secondary Stakeholders: VDC, Political Parties, NGOs and CBOs

VDC secretaries were positive about the upcoming project. There was no formal rules in place that set up a framework of interaction between the VDCs/DDC and the IUCs. There were also practical difficulties. Since the Kulos are spread over many VDCs, the VDCs directly consulted users located in their VDC area. Thus usually VDCs and local users rather than IUCs interacted in matters of irrigation (mostly small repair works). The VDCs do not annually allocate budget for irrigation, but they occasionally helped IUCs in the areas such as renting an excavator and bearing part of the fuel cost. Similarly, IUCs have in the past approached the DDC for help in areas such as gabion, wired nets, and excavators. VDC secretaries expressed commitment to helping the IUCs and the project office in areas such as information dissemination and conflict resolution. VDC secretaries complained that they were not formally informed about project activities, and wished that the project office regularly and formally contact them.

Political party leaders too expressed extremely positive views about the upcoming project. They would refrain from "politicizing" the field of development. The IUCs already include members from all the major parties. The political parties thought that they were the "true" representatives of the people, but they did not question the legitimate and leading roles of the IUCs and the project office in the management of irrigation affairs.

30

Despite an upbeat mood about the project, we could identify possible arenas of conflict. The political climate in the country and increasing fragmentation of society along party and ethnic lines are likely to affect the implementation the project. As discussed above, the formation of the Apex committee is marred by controversies with two factions vying for legitimacy. The Project office does not seem to have any clear guidelines on the formation of the Apex body. Similarly, a few IUC members raised the issue of growing political party interests, especially when the project involves a significant amount of money. One participant, for example, said that a certain political party wants to monopolize construction works and raise "taxes" through them. Similarly, other informants said that contractors often misuse IUCs. In many instances, local contractors usually find legal loopholes through which they find ways to get involved in construction works on behalf of the user committee. In such cases the contractors bear all or part of the cost (including labor contribution) that should have come from the users.

A few influential Tharu leaders are articulating their rights over "local resources." In practical terms, this claim could mean that the local Tharu community wants to lay claim over the formation of IUCs. Others were apprehensive about the possible large in-flux of hill people, which, according to Tharu informants, was already on the rise. A few Tharu leaders feared that they could be outnumbered by the hill migrant communities.

Box 8: Political Parties & the Potential for the Politicization of the Project

According to the Area in Charge of the Federal Democratic National Party, the party is ecstatic that the DOI and the WB are finally going to implement the long-awaited project to modernize and the rehabilitate the RJKIS. There is little irrigation water available during the winter/dry season. Some are able to use expensive mediums of accessing water such as boring. But the majority have to keep their fields barren. And in the monsoon, flooding is commonplace.

At the same time, because the party represents and advocates for ‘adivasi rights’ in land, forestry and water, it is interested in securing the rights of the indigenous Tharu population in the irrigation sector. According to the representative, the Tharu population has already been deprived of their rights to forests. The form of Community forestry programmes initiated in the area and in the Tarai region in general awards ‘forest destroyers’ (i.e. Pahadi communities who live adjacent to the forests) while penalizing Indigenous Tharus who have historically practiced sustainable uses of forests. The party is concerned that the Tharu population will be excluded from the decision-making and benefit-sharing processes of the new irrigation project as well.

The Tharu population have contributed their ‘sweat and hard work’ in establishing and managing the irrigation systems in RJK. The responsibilities of governing the irrigation should not be taken away from them when the new project is initiated and technicians and modern equipments are introduced. Furthermore, the Tharu people should not be excluded from the lucrative contracts and employment opportunities that will surely emerge once the construction works begin.

The Federal Democratic National Party is a relatively small organization relative to the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist) and CPN (UML). The party is strategically aligning itself with major parties, such as the Nepali Congress, which understands the plight of and advocates the rights of indigenous Tharus, irrespective of similarities and differences in core ideologies.

31

There is a lack of coordination between the local agriculture extension office and IUCs.

Tikapur residents also feared that because of the large elevation difference between Chisapani and the town of Tikapur (they say it is 22 m), a large storage structure, if not properly and sturdily built, could flood the town (in case of disaster). Others were similarly apprehensive about possible floods from the alternative source which Rani has been using.

The stakeholder matrix provides an overview of the major issues raised by a wide range differently situated primary and secondary stakeholders. As will be highlighted below, the majority of the stakeholers perceived that there have not been adequate communication and consultation with the project office. Women, in particular, seemed to know least about the project. The stakeholders proposed different ways that the project office could rectify its communication and information dissemination strategies. The majority felt that face-to-face discussions from the branch, sub-branch and village levels would be the most effective way of ensuring everyone had adequate information about and understanding of the project (design, contracts and employment opportunities).

32

Table 10: Examples of findings from the Stakeholder Consultations & Assessment of their Knowledge about the ProjectStakeholders Knowledge of the RJK modernization & rehabilitation

project & perceptions towards the information and dissemination strategies employed by project staff

Recommendations for future improvement of information and communication channels

Women committee members, Jamara IUG

The three women committee members who participated in the FGD said they attended the one-day workshop organized by the DOI on the project in Tikapur. They have understood the basics of what the project is going to entail. They found the maps and diagrams (visual aid) used to discuss the project very useful. But the majority of women users in Jamara either do not know about the project and/or understand to the same extent that they or their male counterparts do. This is mostly because it was primarily men who were invited to and attended the orientation workshops. There are three active committee members in Jamara, who are themselves new to the committee and are struggling to understand how the governance mechanisms operate. They cannot be tasked with and will not be able to bear the added responsibility of informing other women about the project.

Efforts must be made to ensure that both men and women are able to participate in the orientation meetings. Women will require additional effort precisely because many do not have the experience of interacting with and, therefore, understanding non-locals such as government officials. Women suffer a ‘double day burden’ and will have a more difficult time than men to attend the meetings as and when it is appropriate for men and government officials. Many of the Tharu women in particular do not understand the Nepali language. Nevertheless, women-separate information and communication forums should be discouraged because women and men will be better able to discuss and build a consensus around the issues if they are together. If they are separated, it will be more difficult for women to understand and explain their concerns to men.

Dalit village, Jamara IUG

Have basic knowledge about the project, and know that the WB will be involved in it as well. Major source of information is FM. Have yet to hear about the project from either the committee or the project staff. Know that this is likely to be a 8-year project and that there will be construction jobs required for it. No matter who gets the contract, it must be stipulated that local people are hired for the construction work and that the Dalits are prioritized. Furthermore, as one of the participants put it: “it is also our “right” to get these jobs because we have been contributing for all these years for the operation and maintenance of the main and sub-branch kulos but have yet to receive secure access to water.”

In order to minimize disputes between different ethnic groups, local and non-local labourers, the apex and branch committees should send their representatives to each tole to inform citizens of the details of the project design, how much construction work will be required, and the kind of opportunities that will be available to marginalized groups such as Dalits.

Small landholders (Tharu), Rani

All the five small landholders said that they have heard about the project from their respective Badghar. They do not know the details of the project but have a rough idea of what is

The participants felt that because the project has been on the pipeline for almost two decades, they will not believe that it has been approved until and unless the project

33

being proposed by the WB and the DOI. They are particularly interested in this project because all of them have less than 5 katha of land, and have to supplement their livelihoods with seasonal or longer-term migration in India. They think that if the persistent shortages and fluctuations in water supply were to be addressed, they will be able to grow and sell vegetables and make a sufficient income from their own land. They will no longer have to face the drudgeries of finding employment and working abroad.

officials reassure them of otherwise and they see construction work begin. Because the project is very likely to alter the livelihood of small-landholders like themselves, they have the right to access accurate and up-to-date information on it. The project office, therefore, must hold face-to-face orientation meetings with users at the tole level. Disseminating information through radio and FM will not be as effective as and will be substitute face-to-face meetings at the very grass-roots level.

Teachers are the Birendra Campus

At the moment the information and dissemination efforts have been confined to the IUG committee, badghars and users (to a lesser extent) - i.e. those related directly to irrigation. The DOI has not made any effort to reach out to wider stakeholders who may have a stake in the project and could play a vital role in resolving future conflicts related to the project. The modernization and rehabilitation project is not limited to the irrigation sector. There will be mass inflow of individuals who will come in varying capacities to work on the project once it is up and running (such as construction workers). Such inflows are likely to change the fabric of the society and introduce new problems (such as HIV/AIDs). Furthermore, a number of potential conflicts are likely to arise as a result of the project such as resettlement claims and packages as well as disputes over construction contracts. By having a more inclusive body informed and present from the very beginning, potential problems might be avoided and/or addressed on a timely manner.

The DOI should consider housing or incorporating in the existing project office an ‘information and dissemination’ center whereby users and other stakeholders are able to access details on the project. The circulation of newspapers is limited. The majority of the population in RJK listens to the private and community radios operating out of Tikapur and Lumki. Radio is, therefore, an effective way of disseminating information about the project to a wider audience.

VDC Secretary, Narayanpur

The project office has not approached any of the VDCs whose jurisdictions fall within the command area. The VDC has not been formally informed about the project details such as budget, design, when it will be approved etc. All the information that the VDC Secretary knows comes from informal discussions with some of the committee members as well as the project staff who are based in Tikapur.

The project office should hold an orientation workshop/session for all the VDCs that fall within the RJIK command area. Every time a new development project is initiated, all the stakeholders, including the VDCs, are formally informed. By not following such established protocol, the project office may risk loosing its credibility in the future. The VDC can play a number of roles vital for ensuring the

34

success of the project such as by increasing awareness about the details of the project to citizens and users; highlighting the role of cross-cutting issues in the project design; better co-ordinating parallel and potentially complementing development interventions; and facilitating the resolution of disputes and conflicts of interests within users/citizens and political parties.

Mother’s Group, KulariyaMother’s Group, Jamara Women’s & Mother’s Groups, Rani

The women participants (over 50 in all three groups) seemed to possess the least amount of information on the project. The Mother’s Group in Kulariya said that they heard about the project for the first time when we asked to hold the focus group discussion with them. The participants felt that women should be informed about the project because they too are irrigation users, and are increasingly contributing their labour for kulo maintenance. Their kulo-related responsibilities tend to increase substantially when their male folks are migrating outside for employment purposes. Furthermore, many of the members have started and/or are deriving healthy profits from vegetable farming. There is a big market for vegetables in Tikapur. One of the major constraints women face in expanding vegetable farming is shortages of water.

It is clear from their lack of knowledge about the project that the information and communication activities conducted by the DOI are (even if unintentionally) targeted at men and are not trickling down to the women users. Many of the women in the RJK command area are members of either the mother’s groups (which work on health-related activities) and/or the women’s group (savings and credit, income generation activities). The FGD participants suggested that such groups might be an effective way of ensuring that women users, too, have access to information about the project. This can be done either directly (i.e. through the project office holding face-to-face discussions with the project office) and/or indirectly (i.e. by strengthening linkages between the IUC and women’s organizations). Women participants in the FGD in Jamara suggested that the targeting of women’s and mother’s groups could complemented with face-to-face discussions by Badghars, committee members and/or project office at the tole-level. The Tikapur Municipality, for instance, has established committees, with men and women members, at the Tole level. Tole level committee members would be entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring an equal number of men and women attend these orientation programmes.

Mixed caste Pahadi community, Bhoksi-Pahadi Pur, Pathariya -4

According to the participants, everyone knows about the upcoming RJIK project and that the WB will be providing technical and financial support for it. The Badghar/Sahek Chaudhary, a Pahadi himself, had attended the one day

The project office should hold at least one orientation meeting at the tole-level. Relying on the Badghars to pass the information to the users is not effective. Furthermore, the project should prioritize local

35

(Kulariya) workshop provided by the DOI, and held a community-wide information dissemination meeting upon his return. But the Badghar was not clear about the details of the project (i.e. when it would start, the key components of the project, budget, WB’s involvement etc.). He was under the assumption that the DOI officials would be in charge of managing the project. Many of the current roles and responsibilities of the IUC as well as the Badghars/Sahek Chaudharies would be defunct.

users/residents for construction-related contracts and employment opportunities. Such contracts and and employment opportunities are likely to be highly disputed if not made transparent from the very outset. This makes the holding of face-to-face tole level meetings by the project office all the more important.

District member of Mukta Kamaya Samaj, Shaktipur (Free Kamaiya Community)

The project office has not directly reached out to the Kamaiyas but we have heard about the WB and DOI project through the major political parties. The majority of the former Kamaiyas have been given between 1 to 5 katha of land, although 1,836 are still awaiting for land. The households who live closest to the Tikapur town are given the least amount of land because of the relative ease with which they can find alternative sources of income. Therefore, many of the Kamaiyas living close to town are no longer involved solely in agriculture. They work as carpenters, construction workers and daily wage labourers. Despite these developments, the irrigation programme is likely to benefit of the former kamaiyas in the following three main ways:- The Mukta Kamaiya Samaj has demanded that the state distribute at least 2biga land per HH. If that happens agriculture will once again become an important component of livelihood. - Many Mukta Kamaiyas, especially those living further away from Tikapur, work as addiyas, contractors, and daily wage agricultural workers. The irrigation project will allow landlords to increase production, and the demand for agricultural labourers will increase. - The duration of the project is likely to be 8 years. Many different types of semi-skilled labourers will be sought. The Mukta Kamaiya Samaj will try to ensure that fromer Kamaiyas are also employed.

The project office should keep the Kamaiya community informed of the details of the project design, and potential opportunities for employment. Any possibilities of land resettlement should also be discussed and made transparent from the outset. The Mukta Kamaiya community should be able to participate in decisions over re-settlement packages.

36

- With secure and steady access to irrigation water, even those who own 1 katha will be able to grow vegetables. - Many Kamaiyas have encroached in and/or settled in flood-prone areas. Such households may have to be compensated and/or chances of their houses being submerged by floods may decrease.

Chiranjivi Khanal, Representative of the Nepal Congress Party (Rani)

The Nepali Congress Party has been concerned with the lack of irrigation water, unproductivity of land and the frequency of floods. The party has been sending delegations to request for a modernized and rehabilitated system from the government for many years. Furthermore, the majority of the committee members are also a part of the Nepal Congress Party. Hence, many of the active members of the party have been following very closely and have a through understanding of the proposed DOI and WB project. However, neither the Project Office nor the IUCs have formally informed the Nepal Congress Party. The project office needs to improve its communication and information dissemination strategies. Many of the users and project beneficiaries still do not know about the project. Users have been maintaining and governing the irrigation system for many generations. The new project design should build on existing knowledge base as well as address the challenges that are currently faced, on the one hand. On the other hand, since the modernized and rehabilitated project will be handed over to the users to manage, they must be kept informed at the very outset and in each subsequent stages.

The project office should organize three layers of information and communication activities: branch level (i.e. separate for Rani, Jamara and Kulariya), sub-branch level (i.e. sub-committee, users and badgars of each sub-branch); and village level (i.e. two-three village at a time depending on the population and land size). The focus of these sessions should be on informing the users of the project as well as getting their advice and input. Information should also be disseminated through modern communication mediums, such as FM and newspaper. But this should not be at the absence of face-to-face consultations.

CPN (Maoist) Party, in charge of Narayanpur VDC (Jamara)

According to the party member: We had heard that the project office had organized a workshop for all the Badgars at the Hotel Banana in Tikapur. But the party was not invited. We do not know that much about the project. Only that the government has agreed to a budget of about 5 crore to build the intake at the main source. But our party strongly believes that this is not sufficient. There should be walls built from head to the tail end of each branch kulo.

The information about the project should be communicated first and foremost to the political parties because they are the ones who engage most directly with and represent citizens and users in the command area. The project office should also consult NGOs and CBOs. It should make use of the media such as FM and newspaper to keep all stakeholders updated on the latest developments.

37

Tirtha Raj UpadhyaCPN (UML) also member of IUC

The party is particularly interested in the project because the most important development concerns in this region are agricultural development, poor transportation and flood and disaster management. Ordinary citizens living in this area will not be able to address these concerns without state and international support. A large-scale project could potentially offer employment opportunities for those who remain unemployed and/or are forced to migrate outside the country for meager wages and low living standars.

Despite such keen interest on the project and the fact that majority political parties (such as the UML) are governing this country, the project office has yet to consult the party directly. Most of the party members know of the project but they are not aware of the details of the project design, when and how construction activities will be organized.

As a member of the IUC, I have attended one of the workshops organized by the project office at the branch level. I am the source of information about the project to the party. But I am still struggling to grasp the technical dimensions of the project. Apart from holding one-off workshops where a larger and more diverse group was invited, the project office merely liaisons with the major position holders in the IUC.

The project office should recognize the importance of informing and consulting with the major political parties. The most effective way of ensuring that everyone knows about the project is for the project office to follow the organizational structure of the kulo governance system (branch, sub-branch, and village) in its communication and information dissemination activities.Lack of communication can easily be re-interpreted and politicized as a lack of transparency. And this could lead to disputes over construction contracts and employment opportunities in the near future.

38

7. Gender and Social Inclusion Participation of women in the management of these Kulos has been historically low. All traditional positions discussed above went to men. But new state policies have forced IUCs to not only induct women into the committees, but also ensure they represent 33% of the IUC. Despite this, FGD participants and KIIs said that the participation of women in the management remains low. The institutional profile collected of all the committee members in Rani, Jamara and Kulariya shows that only 8 out of 59 (or 19% of the committee) are women. The representation of women in the committees are the following: 4 out of 17 (23%) in Rani, 3 out of 21 (14%) in Kulariya, and 4 out of 21 (19%) in Jamara. Furthermore, men have always occupied all the major positions within the committee (such as chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary and treasurer). Respondents who participated in the household survey were asked whether or not the committee was gender-inclusive. 57% of the responses thought only ‘a little bit’.

Both men and women advanced the narrative of (lack of) education and awareness as major causes of women’s low participation. For instance, women committee members in Kulariya said there were no other women contesting against them in the committee elections. They used this as evidence to suggest that the women themselves were not making an effort to participate in the committee decision-making processes. The majority of the female committee members, even if ‘nominated’ by power brokers in the committee, were either educated and/or leaders in community-based organizations. For instance, three out of four committee members in Rani held important positions in at least two other CBOs (such as sub-health post, community forestry user group, mother’s group, and hospital) even as they were either ‘uneducated’ and/or had not completed the School Leaving Certificate (SLC). One of them was a SLC graduate.

Despite this, women were also aware of the impact of the state policies and the constraints they faced in their homes and families. In Jamara FGD, for example, women members openly challenged men claiming that it was only the state intervention that had forced the IUC to induct women into the IUC. They also agreed that women have greater difficulties in actively participating in the IUC because they face a ‘triple burden’ – as mothers/wives, daily wageworkers, and community development participants. Juggling and negotiating these various responsibilities were more difficult for women than their male counterparts. On the one hand, the IUCs are generally considered ‘male arena’ and women are actively discouraged from transgressing gendered norms by members of their household. On the other hand, women committee members frequently said that their male counterparts did not cooperate with women and acknowledge the difficulties they faced in participating actively in the IUC. In Kulariya, for example, two women members were "suspended" since they failed to attend more than three consecutive meetings. There have been little efforts to ensure that the meeting times, venue and duration are sensitive to women’s differential interests and constraints.

The three women who were above the age of 37 suggested that intersections between gender and life cycle processes played a critical role in determining whether and how they could participate in the IUC. Because their positions in their respective households were more firmly rooted after over ten years of marriage, they enjoyed greater autonomy to travel outside of the household,

39

participate and voice their concerns in community decision-making arena than their counterparts who were younger and newly married did. The new communication form involving an extensive use of mobile phones also puts women committee members and users alike at disadvantage. For instance, the participants in focus group discussions with women users in Kulariya said that traditionally, Badghars would delegate the responsibility of disseminating irrigation-related information at the village level to Chiragis. Chiragis were reprimanded and/or fined if they did not go to each and every household in the village. The mobile phone has been replacing the traditional household canvassing. Due to differential access to resources, men tend to own mobile phones more often than women do. Since men dominate both the project office and IUCs, mobile phones unintentionally facilitate communication between men. This new form of communication thus tends to keep women out of the communication loop.

In spite of the lack of gender inclusion in the IUCs, women faced greater challenges in being a part of the traditional irrigation management systems. There are no female Badghar. Because ‘badghars’ have traditionally been men, and still command considerable decision-making power at the village level, there were greater barriers to women taking on the role, on the one hand. Women and men in focus group discussions agreed that women Badghars would face more difficulties in dictating terms and conditions of labour contribution for operation and maintenance of kulos, and levying fines to rule transgressors, on the other hand. In only one case in Kulariaya did we find a female Chiragi. She had bequeathed the position from her dead husband. It was thus out of sympathy rather than an inherent interest in making the IUC more gender equitable that she was appointed a chiragi.

Similarly patriarchal cultural practices prevalent among all communities affect women's meaningful participation. Women and men, for example, reported that women have to face the problem of "foul language," especially during the source maintenance period in which a large number of men gather and participate in community feasts. According to KIIs and FGD participants, alcohol is widely used on these occasions, and foul language is often cheerfully tolerated. Whereas women resented these practices, male IUC members were quite unapologetic about them as "it has always been the tradition and men always do that."

Equally problematic were rules governing membership in the IUGs. Kulariya was the only IUC that was putting together a list of all its members/users, the rest relied on the Badghars’ informal knowledge. In both instances, members were the head of the household who were invariably male. Women were rarely considered members unless they were widowed and/or unmarried and were, therefore, able to set up a separate household. There was no system of recognizing women as co-members in general and in households experiencing male out-migration in particular. This meant that women’s representation in the committees were considered something that the male committee members had to extend rather than as a fundamental right that women, as equal members, were allowed to exercise. Without membership rights, women could not elect committee members, voice their concerns over rules and other developments in the way that men could. However, women as a part of households who were members had to contribute their to the management of irrigation systems. in other words, women’s labour was appropriated without adequate compensation and recognition.

40

A user households’ claims over the irrigation water is determined, to a large extent, by whether or not members of the household contribute labour to source maintenance. As pointed out in Section 3.8, in Jamara and Kulariya a household’s responsibilities are defined in proportion to the size of land owned (i.e. the more land a HH owns, the more its members have to contribute). In contrast, in Rani, everyone has to contribute equally, irrespective of the amount of land is owned. Source maintenance has historically been the responsibilities of male household members. Women were considered too weak physically to do the required manual labour for it (i.e. clear big boulders and dig). Men would have to stay in Deshawar for a month or longer at a time, and this was considered neither suitable nor feasible for women. The amount of time and effort required for source maintenance has decreased dramatically because of access to modern technology and to excavators in particular. Recently and increasingly, women whose husbands are migrant workers in India are also contributing to source maintenance. Women’s increasing participation in source maintenance have, therefore, destabilized many of the gendered stereotypes of men and women’s capabilities.

Every time we have to do work on the sub-kulo, the Chiragi and Badghar do the measurements and inform us when and how much we have to dig. They form groups of 6. Approximately 3-4 people are women in each group. The women are generally from households where male members are either ill, dead and/or working in India. Both men and women are allocated equal digging responsibilities. Some people think that women cannot dig but no longer say it aloud. (Focus group discussions with women household heads in Rani)

Nevertheless, it is mostly women from Jamara who form large groups and contribute their labour for source maintenance. The others prefer to pay the cash equivalent of and/or hire labourers instead of contributing themselves. The participants in a focus group discussion with such women users from Rani mentioned that they felt intimidated and violated by what they considered to be rampant male ill behavior during source maintenance. It was difficult to form a ‘critical mass’ of like-minded and positioned women to go for main source maintenance work together. But more importantly, other household members, community leaders and Badghars also discouraged women from going. The Badghar would instruct them to pay the cash equivalent for the days their households were meant to work in the main source and contribute extra labour to the maintenance of the sub-branch kulo instead. While women preferred not to go to the main source themselves, they did not think that asking them to contribute extra labour for sub-kulo maintenance was fair especially if they owned little land. There was an ethnic dimension to the rule too in the sense that it was primarily the Tharu women who contributed their labour to kulo-maintenance. The high-caste women could get away with paying Rs.150/day in fine whereas the Tharu women are told that “if you don’t go, then who is going to dig the kulo?” According to the Tharu women, every time they contribute their labour for kulo-maintenance, they have to forgo daily wage work, generally Rs.200/day. In other words, it is cheaper for them to pay the fine than it is to contribute their labour. Nevertheless, despite such ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ rules, it is difficult to voice their criticisms against and demand to change the rules. Non-Tharu women have little stake in non-cooperation whereas Tharu women’s position in the community as well as the support they are able to access in male absence is tied to whether and how they abide by communal rules. In other words, the irrigation rules are part of and enforced through these broader social norms and relations.

41

The dynamics between Tharus and non-Tharus have been discussed throughout this report. Nevertheless, focusing specifically on representation in the IUC, the committee includes representatives from different segments of the society. According to the profile of committee member, 32 out of a total of 59 (54%) committee members in Rani, Jamara and Kulariya are of ‘Tharu’ origin. Although there is a high presence of Tharus in all three IUCs, there is almost double the member of Tharus than non-Tharus in Jamara. The ratio of Tharus to Non-Tharus is the following: 9 to 8 in Rani, 10 to 12 in Kulariya, and 13 to 7 in Jamara. The majority of non-Tharus belong to high-caste Brahmin/Chhetri communities. They constitute 8 out of the 9 Non-Tharus in Rani; 7 out of 10 in Kulariya; and 5 out of 7 in Jamara. Interestingly, the representation of ‘Juniata’ is lower than that of Dalits. There are four Dalits in total in the three committees (1 each in Rani and Kulariya and 2 in Jamara), and only two Janajati in Kulariya. Dalit users have been elected to the position of Badghars, although in Dalit only villages.

Respondents who participated in the household survey were asked how inclusive the IUGs are of the following groups: Tharu, Pahadi, Dalit and landless. The majority thought that the IUG was most inclusive of “Tharus”. 88% of the respondents thought the IUG were “fairly inclusive” of Tharus. 64% thought the IUG was only “a little bit” inclusive of Pahadi. 66% said only “a little bit” inclusive of Dalit. The majority were divided between “do not know” (31%) to only “a little inclusive” (33%) of landless.

Instead, the major concerns were whether the Tharu-dominated system would be able to endure and the increasing migration of other ethnic groups in the project areas and meet the skills and capacities required to manage the modernized and rehabilitated irrigation systems.

42

8. Riparian Water Users

According to project officials, since the project merely included the upgrading or renovation of an existing system, the riparian user issue is unlikely to become a problem. However we carried out two focus group discussions with users in Surya Patwa Irrigation User Group and Rajapur Irrigation User Group in Bardiya districts, which serve to reconfirm these hypotheses. The riparian users were selected in consultation with the DOI project officials. As will be demonstrated below, the participants in both Suruya Patwa IUG as well as the Rajapur Irrigation System did not think that the RJIK project would have any impact on their water availability and livelihoods. Although Rajapur seemed to have better albeit informal ties with users in RJIK, their knowledge of the project was limited and questionable. Unlike the users in Suruya Patwa, those in Rajapur expect to be benefit as secondary users through the RJIK project.

The following provide overviews of the location of these user groups vis-à-vis RJKIP, history and availability of water, knowledge of the proposed modernization and rehabilitation project in RJKIP, and the potential implications of the project.

8.1 Suruya Patwa IUG

The command area of Suruya Patwa IUG is located in Wards 1 to 5 Suruya Patwa VDC, 5 to 9 Wards of Thakur Dwar VDC comprising a total of 14 villages. RJKIS’s command area is more than ten times larger than that of Suruya Patwa. The latter is approximately 2000 ha. The major source of livelihood in the command area is agriculture. The irrigation water is diverted from “Batapu” and “Lalmati” branches of the Karnali river, approximately 5 km behind of Chisapani (RJKIS). Suruya Patwa is located in the east of Karnali whereas RJIKP is on the west.

Suruya Patwa is Farmer-Managed Irrigation System and was first constructed 107 years ago. It was modernized and rehabilitated through an approximately Rs 22.5 million LIC project of the Department of Irrigation between 1993-1997. Since then, water is available in abundance throughout the year (including in the winter) and flooding is rare. Nevertheless, each user household has to contribute to operation and maintenance at the main intake around the 15th of December every year due to shifts in the river course, and to clear siltation and boulder deposits. Using excavators for source maintenance is very rare, and not necessary.

The focus group participants said they have very basic knowledge of the RJKIS – i.e. it is comprised of three main canals, users have to go to Deshawar for operation and maintenance of the Kulo every year, and that the total command area of RJKIP is significantly larger than that of Suruya Patwa. They also had little information about the upcoming modernization and rehabilitation project. They have heard, through various sources in Tikapur, that the government has allocated budget for the project. But they do not know how much and what it will be spent on. They did not know that the World Bank would also be involved. We were the first persons related to the project who have consulted them.

According to the participants, there exist very little inter-linkages or inter-dependences between RJKIP and Suruya Pata. They do not anticipate the project will affect the agricultural systems,

43

flooding patterns and water availability in Suruya Patwa. As one of the respondents put it: “Only if the river is closed down will we be affected. The Karnali river is vast. And although RJKIS has a much bigger command area than we do, it is still insignificant for the Karnali River.” Others suggested that because the two irrigation systems are located on the opposite sides of the Karnali river they do not see how the project would have any impact on them.

Instead the users had advice for the RJKIS: “the biggest lesson we would like to share from our experiences of managing a modernized system is the users will have continued albeit different sets of responsibilities once the project is completed. If the permanent structure gets destroyed then it will be very expensive to re-build it”.

8.2 Rajapur Irrigation System

Rajapur irrigation system comprises of seven separate intakes that are sourced from the same branch called ‘Gorupak’ off of the Karnali River. According to the focus group participants, there are eight other branches between Chisapani and Gorupak. Rajapur is located in the east of Karnali whereas Rajapur in the West.

Eleven VDCs make up the command area of Rajapur. The major Kulos include ‘Pathabhar’, ‘Babaipur’, ‘Janaknagar’, ‘Khare Chandan’ and ‘Bodikula’. Each of the Kulos has separate intakes although all of them were built under the Rajapur Irrigation Project. An apex committee, comprised of seven sub-irrigation user groups, governs the irrigation system.

The Rajapur modernization and rehabilitation project started in 1991, construction work began in 1992 and was completed in 1998/999. The project included the following components: seven intakes leading up to the sub-branches; a seven km embankment built for flood control; the construction of a 12 km road and gravelling an additional 26 km existing road to service the eleven VDCs in the command area; and three bridges. The Department of Irrigation together with the World Bank support initiated another 5-year project once the first phase came to an end. But the project was suspended after the disturbances and targeting of project vehicles during the civil conflict. It has not re-started since then. The DDC allocates annually Rs.10 lakhs for the maintenance of the irrigation system. But the majority is spent on administrative expenses. Very little amount is trickled down to the irrigation users themselves. The DOI office responsible for overseeing Rajapur irrigation system has shifted to Babaipur.

Despite such an extensive project, water remains scarce. The system relies on overflow water during the Monsoon. Irrigation water is in limited supply during the dry seasons. Maintenance is a major and recurrent problem, attributed to frequent boulder and siltation deposits as well as diversions in the river branch. The committees have to raise finances from the users to hire excavators. Users are increasingly reluctant to contribute due to frequent water shortages.

The focus group participants said they first heard about the RJK project when Bal Singh Khand(?) from the Congress Party came to inaugurate the project office in Tikapur. RJIK and Rajapur hire the same excavator, which they use in turns. The major position holders in RJIK and Rajapur also travel together to the district and regional irrigation offices for irrigation related purposes. Therefore, the little knowledge they posses of the project design comes from these

44

informal inter-linkages with RJK. They have neither received any information nor consulted/been consulted by the RJKIS project staff.

The participants thought that this would be a government-led project and did not know that the World Bank would also be involved.

The participants said that the project would mainly involve the construction of a new intake at Chisapani. Once the users of RJK receive sufficient water, the remaining will be re-diverted through a siphon to Rajapur. In other words, they expect to be the secondary users (primary being those in the command area) and benefit from the RJKIS project.

They do not expect the project will have any negative implications on the availability of water and livelihood in Rajapur. They said that the Karnali river is vast, and small diversions such as the one required for RJK would not make much difference on the quantity of water available. Furthermore, the majority of the water they depend on is overflow during the Monsoon anyways.

Instead, the participants had the following advice: “we face three problems at the moment despite the Rajapur project. It is likely that RJK will face similar issues since the source is the same”. These included: (1) siltation deposits the cover the kulos after 12-13 days of maintenance work; and excessive fluctuations during the monsoon and the winter. The project officials as well as users will have to think carefully about the potential implications of frequent changes as well as a general regression of the Karnali river belt on the project design. If the Karnali diverts to the east then there will be a problem in Chisapani where the main intake is likely to be built by the DOI.

45