Transcript Slide 1
Experiences of Implementation of PIM and WUAs in Kerala Dr George Chackacherry Scientist Centre for Water Resources Development & Management Kerala [email protected] -Population 32 million -Density 819 / sq. km (national 324) Present Status • PIM pilot projects implemented successfully • Model evolved • Based on which PIM chapter in the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 to be amended • Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2013 Changes Observed 30% increase in ayacut area irrigated Better participation in meetings Promptness in meetings Involvement of women Interest in cultivation People agreed for need based fund allocation Control over misuse of canals Improvement in farmer-officer relations Spouses given membership in WUAs Kerala PIM Model Members: all presidents of PMC Members: all presidents of Branch WUAs Competent Authorities JDA/DDA Agri. Officer Members: all office bearers of Sluice WUAs Agri. Asst. Members: all land holders & spouses 1/3rd leadership positions of Sluice WUA, Branch WUA & PMC reserved for women • Competent authority (AEE/AE – WUA; overseer – WG) Change in Agency Level • AEE/AE posted against number of WUAs, not against length of canals • Restructuring of Project administration (introduction of PMC and PIMIA) • Administrative sanction for work by WUA/Rehabilitation works by WUA • Agreement between Agency & WUAs PIM/WUAs - Contributing Factors - Better Education Status of Farmers - Experience gained from Decentralisation - Experiences of CAD & IMT in Minor Irrigation - Scope for Women Involvement - Replenishment of Open Wells by Canals PIM/WUAs - Hindering Factors Part-time Farming Lack of Political & Administrative Orientation Motivational Gaps Paucity of Funds for System Rehabilitation Insufficient Legislative Backing Apprehension of officials Reasons for Slow Progress of PIM Implementation • Lack of support and assistance from officials concerned to the farmers and WUAs • Though the administrative and technical personnel had satisfactory level of perception regarding participation, attitude towards the same was below minimal desirable level. • Government staff found problems in adapting to the concepts and requirements of the programmes with a clear social dimension. • Considerable reluctance, if not opposition, from the operational staff of irrigation agencies to involving users in management. • Disinteresting attitude shown by the farmers, who are mainly part-time farmers (farming is not the major income source for most farmers) towards irrigated agriculture and PIM. • Problem of fragmentation and subdivision of land, contributed by the high population pressures combined with the State Land Reforms Act, is a very serious problem in Kerala. • Average land holding size in Kerala is only 0.33 ha, when it is 1.68 ha at the national level. • Paucity of funds and resultant deferred maintenance have caused serious defects in the canal system. • Lack of coordination at all levels • There is no incentive structure for the officials to go for PIM. Many officials felt that if the pilot projects are successful, it might lead to retrenchment of positions. • Another gap is the lack of sufficient legal backing for PIM/WUAs. Sustenance of PIM depends to a large extent on the enabling legal provisions. WUA is the backbone of PIM Sustainability of PIM & Sustainability of Irrigation Systems linked with sustainability of WUAs Participation & Organisation • Process through which users contribute to better management of resource Participation • Structure through which such activity occurs Water User Association How to achieve PARTICIPATION? Partnership Change ABC Organisation Agency/Agencies OPC User Organisation(s) Confidence Building Know each other Wave length correction Capacity Building Users/beneficiaries Officials Objectives fixing Motivation Benefits Incentives Thank You