Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Karnataka VisionDraft Position paper on IrrigationJanuary 2008
Agenda/Contents
IntroductionStatus Report on Irrigation in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing the Irrigation sector
Section One
IntroductionStatus Report on Irrigation in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing the Irrigation sector
Slide 4Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Background to the assignment
• Preparation of a Vision for the Karnataka in light of its current status• Study to facilitate objective sectoral allocations in the eleventh plan
keeping in view the change in GoI priorities and priorities of the state• Project started in September 2007• Analysis of the following Ten sectors
1. Healthcare2. Education – a) School & b) Higher3. Social Sector – Woman & Child; SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minorities etc. 4. Agriculture and Allied Services 5. Rural Development 6. Irrigation & Flood Control 7. Industry – Minerals, Construction & Manufacturing8. Urban Development 9. Transport and Infrastructure10.Energy
Slide 5Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
KD 3: Macroeconomic Profile & Comparative Analysis
KD 4: Position Papers for various sectors
Agriculture
Industry & M
inerals
Irrigation
Transport &
Infrastructure
Energy
Healthcare
School Education
Social Sector
KD 2: Perspectives, Dimensions and Strategies Paper
KD 5 & 6: Enabling Strategy Paper
KD 7: Draft VisionKD 7: Draft Vision
Rural D
evelopment
Urban D
evelopment
Cross-Cutting Themes; Development Models and Case Studies
Sectors
KD 1: Inception Presentation
Higher Education
Assignment deliverables
Slide 6Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Methodology & consultations
• Both primary and secondary sources
• Primary: Interviews and focus group discussions
• Secondary: Primarily GoK publications & documents, KDR, KHDR
• Framework: Growth Diagnostic Framework used by ADB to analyse the key binding constraints
We are grateful to the following people • Mr. Chiranjeev Singh• MK Kamble, Secretary, WRD• Mr. KV Sarvesh, Add Dir, DoA• Mr. Udayashankar, Dy Secy, WRD• Mr. Parashurama, Dy Secy, WRD• Mr. Govindaraja, Dy Secy, WRD• Dr. TN Venugopal, JD, DoM&G• Prof. TN Prakash, UAS, Bangalore
Section Two
IntroductionStatus Report on Irrigation in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing the Irrigation sector
Slide 8Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Status Report on Karnataka’s Irrigation Sector
Surface Water• Krishna and Cauvery River basins account for 92% of ultimate utilisable freshwater resources• 80% of the water from west flowing rivers cannot be harnessed• Of the total allocation to irrigation, 43% utilisation has been achieved
Ground Water• Net annual GW availability 15.3 HAM• Existing stage of development (avg extraction) is 70%• Net GW available for future irrigation purposes is 6.47 HAM
734.511179.471268.302852(697.70)
42(481.77)
1001690Total
0.88102.43103.3193
(3.77)
2
(34.75)
6103Other basins
9.0413.3322.3722
(9.91)
-
(6.23)
122Godavari
239.77168.85408.62421
(91.38)
12
(217.27)
24409Cauvery
484.82259.18734.001326
(35.66)
28
(223.52)
681156KrishnaTMC NewOngoingComplete
Projects – in numbers and in TMC
% of total
Ultimate utilisableRiver Basin
TMCTMCTMC
Utilisation to be committed
Utilisation achieved
Allocation
Source: Water Resources Department and Department of Agriculture, GoK
Slide 9Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Status Report on Karnataka’s Irrigation Sector Ultimate Irrigation Potential
• 64% of geographic area cultivable • Net sown area is 122 lakh Ha• Ultimate irrigation potential is only 61
lakh Ha
⇒ Karnataka’s UIP covers only 52% of GSA and is the lowest among states after MH with 40%
⇒ 48% of the cultivable land will continue to be rain-fed
State-wise total geographic, cultivable area & ultimate irrigation potential
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
MH
AP
GJ
KN
TN
KR
lakh Ha
UIP Cultivable Geo area
Source: Central Water Commission and Indiastat
Slide 10Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Status Report on Karnataka’s Irrigation SectorProgress in potential creation• Irrigation potential created as of 2005-
06 was 32.9 lakh Ha• Percentage of NIA to NSA stands at
24% in 2005-06, much lower than national average of 40%
⇒ 76% of cropped area currently continues to be rain-fed
• Map depicts spread of irrigationPercentage of NIA to NSA (average of 2001-02 to 2003-04)
40%50%
40%30%
24%17% 16%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
AllIndia
TN AP GJ KN KR MH
Source: Central Water Commission
Slide 11Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Status Report on Karnataka’s Irrigation SectorTrends in IrrigationBetween 1960-61 to 2005-06• Ground Water: Increased 10 times (1.35 lakh ha to
13.52 lakh ha)- Close to 45% of NIA through pvt. Sourcing- Environmental concerns due to lack of regulation
• 107 watersheds have reached exploitation levels above 70%
• In 80 water sheds, exploitation > 100%• Canal: increased by 4 times (2.41 lakh ha to 10.66
lakh ha)- 64 taluks / 17 districts benefiting 26% of NSA- Cropping intensity at 1.17 is low- Commensurate investment in on-farm works
lacking• Tank: declined by 43% (3.44 lakh ha to 1.76 lakh ha)
- 30-50% of storage capacity lost to siltation- User participation lacking
⇒ The main source of irrigation in the state in Minor Ground Water
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2005-06
Canals Tanks Wells Others
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, GoK
Percentage share of each type of irrigation
LIS4%
Tanks6%
Wells13%
Other9%
Tube/Bore Wells
32%
Canals36%
Percentage of NIA by source (2004-05)
Slide 12Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Status Report on Karnataka’s Irrigation SectorTrends in irrigation - comparing with other states
Source: Indiastat
Andhra Pradesh
010002000300040005000
1995-96 1999-00 2003-04
Gujarat
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1995-96 1999-00 2003-04
Karnataka
0500
10001500200025003000
1995-96 1999-00 2003-04
Tamil Nadu
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1995-96 1999-00 2003-04
Canals OthersTubewells BorewellsTanks
All comparable states have followed similar trends • Canal irrigated area has either declined or increased marginally• Dependence on minor ground water irrigation has increased• Significant shift away from tanks in southern states
Section Three
IntroductionStatus Report on Irrigation in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing the Irrigation sector
Slide 14Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Sectoral spending on major sector across plans
Source: Department of Planning and Statistics
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
3.8
1.9
7.9
2.5
2.5
2.9
3.0
3.1
4.2
6.7
7.3
16.9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Agriculture & Allied activities
Rural Development
Urban Development
Water supply & Sanitation
Other Social Services
Education
Energy
Transport
Irrigation & Flood Control
Rs Thousand crores
10th plan expenditure
9th plan expenditure
Irrigation accounts for the largest share of plan expenditure across sectors
Slide 15Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Focus areas of Public Expenditure
• Total investment in irrigation since commencement of plans amounts to Rs.32,546 Cr
• Major and medium irrigation has been the priority area- 94% of public investment since
1991
During the Tenth Plan, • Estimated government spending per
agricultural holding (from surface water) was Rs. 95,809*
• Estimated government spending per Ha of Irrigated land (from surface water) was Rs. 1,08,704**
37 30 34 139 188 582 8404068
8946
16862
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Plans
Rs C
rore
Plan-wise expenditure on major and medium irrigation (Rs. crore)
*Note: The graph does not include the expenditures under the annual plans
Tenth PlanCADA
1%
Major &
medium
92%
minor7%
Ninth Plan
Major and
Medium
90%
CADA2%Minor
8%
* (10th plan expd)/(agri holdings x %irrigated x % of NIA from SW)** (10th plan expd)/(NIA x % of NIA from Surface Water)
Percentage of plan expenditure per sub-sector
Source: Planning and Statistics Department, GoK
Slide 16Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Achievement
• Physical achievement has lagged behind while financial performance has exceeded planned targets
• Major & Medium (90% & 92% of total expenditure) shows huge gap between financial and physical progress
• Raju & Amarnath: Almost all non-plan capital expenditure on economic services is on the irrigation sector
9th Plan
36%
79%
85%
78%
164%
96%
104%
84%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
10th Plan
47%
132%
27%
74%
117%
153%
96%
103%
0%50%100%150%200%
Major and Medium
Minor
CADA
FC
Physical Financial
Source: Planning, Statistics and Science and Technology Department, GoK
Plan-wise Financial and Physical performance in irrigation in Karnataka
Section Four
IntroductionStatus Report on Irrigation in KarnatakaRole of GovernmentKey issues and challenges facing the Irrigation sector
1. Increased dependence on groundwater2. Large gap between potential created and potential utilised3. Poor financial health4. Large number of on-going projects
Framework for analysis
Increase crop yieldsthrough
sustainable use of water resources
Quantum of water supply
Quality ofwater supply
Create potential
Utilise potential created
Efficiency in water usage
Financial healthof sector
Efficient management of sector
Completion of Ongoing projects
New projects
Complete CADA works
Modern methods of irrigation
Water conservation measures
Regulation of usage and cropping pattern
Groundwater recharge
Revival of tanks
Recharge measures
Define property rights and Regulate water draft
Revision of water rates
Improve collectionefficiency
Rationalise Administrative costs
Water user participation
Integrated approach To water resources
Repair and maintenance
Increase crop yieldsthrough
sustainable use of water resources
Quantum of water supply
Quality ofwater supply
Create potential
Utilise potential created
Efficiency in water usage
Financial healthof sector
Efficient management of sector
Completion of Ongoing projects
New projects
Complete CADA works
Modern methods of irrigation
Water conservation measures
Regulation of usage and cropping pattern
Groundwater recharge
Revival of tanks
Recharge measures
Define property rights and Regulate water draft
Revision of water rates
Improve collectionefficiency
Rationalise Administrative costs
Water user participation
Integrated approach To water resources
Repair and maintenance
The main challenge facing the state in irrigation is the efficient management and usage of its water resources to ensure timely and reliable availability of adequate quantity of water in order to increase crop yields, while ensuring sustainability of the source.
Slide 19Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 1: Increased dependence on groundwater
• The share of GW in NIA grown alarmingly from 15% in 1960-61 to 45% in 2005-06
• GW draft exceeds 100% in 80 watersheds and 90% in 10 watersheds
• GEM-97 estimates, b/w 1992 and 2004,- Total replenishable water resources
fallen: 1.63 lakh HAM to 1.53 lakh HAM - Draft from wells increased 2.5 times - GW balance available for future
development has fallen by 33% from 9.7 lakh HAM to 6.5 lakh HAM
- Deterioration of water quality⇒ Declining GW table requires deeper wells
and use of pump-sets meaning additional burden on farmers, infrastructure and state govt.
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, GoK
Slide 20Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 1: Increased dependence on groundwater
Main reasons • Indiscriminate drilling of bore-wells and
over draft of GW - Lack of regulation regarding GW
draft and critical distance b/w wells- Three fold increase in bore-well
irrigated area driven by • Financial assistance from FIs
during 70s• Quick returns on investment • Availability and awareness of
bore-well technology• increase of pump-sets from 2.07
lakh to 13.9 lakh b/w 1983-2006• Free / subsidised power
• Rapid urbanisation and change in land use pattern
• Decline in usage of tanks, which are an important source of GW recharge
Source: Department of Mines & Geology
Slide 21Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 2: Large gap between potential created and potential utilisedEmphasis has been on creating potential; and not on increasing utilisation of already created potential• Major and medium
- Progress under CADA slow due to low funding; CAD constitutes only 1% of plan expenditure on irrigation
- In 10 programmes currently under CADWM, 25% area still to be covered
- Aging assets and poor maintenance leading to decreasing utilisation
• Minor- Tanks: Rate of utilisation=29%; 30 to
50% Siltation; KCBTMP to revive 2005 tanks since 2002; Only 4% tanks handed over
- Failure or drying up of existing wells
Planning10%
Post-implementation
23%
Handed over4%
Implementation
60%
Pre-planning
3%
Planning10%
Post-implementation
23%
Handed over4%
Implementation
60%
Pre-planning
3%
Status of tanks under KCBTMP
1%2%
% of total
0.8%14213710th Plan1%1011209th Plan
% of total Plan Exp.Plan Outlay
Plan outlay and expenditure on CADA (Rs Crore)
Source: Planning and statistics department
Source: Annual Report, Water Resources Department (Minor)
Slide 22Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 3: Poor financial health of sector
• The current water rates are highly subsidised and fail to reflect the true cost of water supply
• Karnataka has one of the lowest ranges of water rates among comparable states
This has led to three problems:
a) Poor financial recoveries• Direct cost recoveries from irrigation
schemes has been abysmally low• Cost of water = Rs.2600-4800/Ha• O&M costs = Rs.500-600/Ha⇒ For all crops besides sugarcane, current
rates do not even cover O&M expenses, let alone full recovery
⇒ With a recovery rate of 3% to total working expenses, collections fall far short of requirement
37.05Fodder crops
86.50Jowar, maize, bajra, ragi and semi-dry crops; Pulses, Tobacco and others
148.25Cotton, Horticulture crops, Wheat, Groundnut, Sunflower
247.10Paddy
988.45Sugarcane
Water rates(Rs/Ha)
Crop
Source: Department of Minor irrigation, 2001
Water rates on crop-area basis (2001)
0.4261556148-1235AP
3.02278463-62TN
3.071303050238-6297MH
37-99
37-988
70-2750
Range of water rates
-33442KR
3.22532014KN
-3464768GJ
Recovery rateslate 90s
Gross receipts (Rs/Ha)
Working Expense (Rs/Ha)
StateState-wise financials of Multipurpose River Valley Projects
Source: Central Water Commission
Slide 23Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 3: Poor financial health of sector
b) Salary expense significant• Delays in project completion have led
to escalating costs• However, salary is main components
of O&M• Insufficient funds left for physical
maintenance
c) Inefficiency in water usage• Excessive usage in command areas
- Water logging and salination- Inequity in distribution- Inappropriate irrigation practices
72286425
44203713
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Major and Medium Minor
Rev Exp Salaries
Share of salaries in revenue expenditure
55%
17% 12.50%6% 9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
TB
Cau
very
Bha
dra
UK
P
M&
G
Levels of soil degradation in command areas
Source: CADA, MysoreSource: KV Raju & Amarnath HK; Irrigation subsidies in Karnataka
Slide 24Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue 4: Large number of on-going projects
• Planned 115 projects -> completed so far 42
• The state has 23 major and 29 medium ongoing projects which has have a planned potential of 23.06 lakh Ha and 1.14 lakh Ha respectively
• Inordinate delays in project completion
• Costs per Ha has gone up from Rs.7,930/Ha to Rs.4,10,546/Ha b/w the first and tenth plan*
4015463.881558010th3063552.928945.579th
2064871.974067.88th
559741.5839.617th
298411.95581.96th
106421.77188.365th
631820.221394th
19101.7833.993rd
21931.3629.822nd
79300.4737.271st
Cost per Ha (Rs/Ha)
Potential created
(lakh Ha)
Expenditure (Rs. Crore)
Plan
Source: Water Resources Department* Does not take not account the inflationary effect
Slide 25Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue: Large number of on-going projects
016825701979Varahi2302602182004Ramthala Lift22068595951998Singatlur21024482761993Bhima Lift20415821241992Dudhganga1908056416441991Upper Tunga18
13192813421991Markendeya172151883551983Yagachi16023083501979K.R.S.Modn.15
28323263521979D.D.Urs Canal1407516911131973Hipparagi13
18202673151973Bennithora1212417891811161972Ghataprabha-III1122294304801970Karanja10
1995U.K.P. Stage-II9 519622847394801969U.K.P. Stage-I844553894121969Harangi7199284186626351968Hemavathy61982208029341960Malaprabha570815375105001959TB RB HLC4419446210491959Kabini3106106274711947Bhadra (+ Modn.)224424429412671945TB LBC + Modn.1
Potential created up to 12/05
Planned potentialExp. Up to 12/05Est. costsYr of
commencementProject
Status of ongoing projects (Major) (Cost in Rs. Cr) (Potential in Lakh Ha)
Slide 26Irrigation in KarnatakaPricewaterhouseCoopers
January 2008
Key Issue: Large number of on-going projects
• Some projects have been ongoing since the second plan period
• Project execution and CADA works not simultaneous
• Cumulative expenditure to far exceed the original estimated costs e.g., some projects, like Malaprabha(1960) and Harangi (1969), the cumulative expenditure is almost over 40 times the original costs.
• Large carry-over of incomplete projects have resulted in locking up capital and land without commensurate returns
• Reasons cited for delays- inadequate funds due to thin spread of funds over many projects,- revision in the estimated costs- change in scope of works - unforeseen bottlenecks involving other agencies- land acquisition, forest
clearance, delays in securing sanctions, inter-state water disputes - opposition by the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) etc.
© 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).
PwC
Thank you!