Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Intizar Hussain, Ph.D.Executive Director, INPIM
WELCOMEIrrigation and Poverty AlleviationIrrigation and Poverty Alleviation
Pro-poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigated Agriculture in Asia
Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam
INPIM
Acknowledgements: IWMI, CA, National Partners, Individual Researchers, Donors
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 Three Major Studies
• Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia
• Impact assessment of irrigation infrastructure development on poverty alleviation
• Assessment of water and poverty linkages in hilly, dry/drought prone and wet areas
www.iwmi.org/propoor
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Issues – performance of irrigation
systems /agriculture below expectations/vicious circle
– sustainability, environmental issues, management and governance issues
– ‘trickle down’ impacts on poverty limited
– controversy over the role of irrigation, extreme views
Background: On-going debate, controversies
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
World Bank Lending
ADB Lending
Background: Decline in Irrigation investments
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Key questions
– Does irrigation reduce poverty ? What factors influence anti-poverty impacts of irrigation and its performance?
– What are the implications of on-going irrigation reforms for the poor?
– How can we enhance anti-poverty impacts of irrigation and related interventions/ investments?
Objective– Determine realistic options to
improve the returns to poor farmers in the low productivity irrigated areas within the context of improving the overall performance and sustainability of the established irrigation systems
• Focus– Medium and large scale canal
irrigation systems
• Location– Bangladesh, China, India,
Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India
China
Vietnam
Indonesia
Uda Walawe Uda Walawe Irrigation System Irrigation System
Sri LankaSri Lanka
Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated
agriculture in Asia
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 Outline
• Background
• Benefits and dis-benefits of irrigation
• Poverty reducing impacts of irrigation, linkages, framework
• Factors that influence poverty reduction impacts of irrigation
• Key conclusions and recommendations
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Displacement of the poor households, and potential for land encroachments.
Expansion in employment from construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of irrigation systems, placements of the poor people.
Type – 1 (Direct)
Land degradation from salinity, water logging, overuse of chemicals resulting in reduced agricultural productivity.
Expansion in crop productivity.Type – 2(Direct)
Local level dis-benefits due to irrigation-induced land degradation resulting in labor displacement; irrigation-led mechanization and use of labor-saving methods of cultivation - leading to unemployment.
Local level productivity-induced benefits from increases in employment, wages, income and consumption in local settings.
Type – 3(Indirect)
Other local level dis-benefits—public-health risks, loss of biodiversity, water pollution.
Other local level benefits from multiple uses of water, GW recharge, increased private investments in irrigated agric.
Type – 4(Indirect)
Broader-level dis-benefits—water transfer for irrigation with potential negative impacts on the health and sustainability of river systems, potential adverse impacts on livelihoods of river-dependent poor communities.
Broader-level multiplier benefits from linkages with nonagricultural sectors.
Type – 5(Indirect)
Potential Dis-benefits/costsBenefitsType
Typology of irrigation benefits and dis-benefits/costs
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 • Land augmenting impact
• Productivity in irrigated areas is more than twice that in reference areasNet Crop Income in Irrigated and Reference Areas
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
US$
/ha/
year
Irrigated Reference Area
Productivity Benefits of Irrigation
• Net Productivity benefits vary greatly across settings from US$ 23 – 600/ha
Net Productivity Benefits of Irrigation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
$/ha
/yea
r
Benefits are low where access to other associated inputs, support
services, management institutions and policy linkages
have not been effective
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Annual labor use (person days/ha), Bangladesh
251
171
225
109
050
100150200250300
Irrigated Non-irrigated
Labo
r day
s pe
r ha
G-K Pabna
Irrigation generates jobs
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
Non-Irrigated Irrigated
Rs/
day
Wage rate (Rs.) per person/dayWalawe Left Bank System, Sri Lanka
Employment and Wage Benefits of Irrigation
Higher demand for labor leads to high wage rates
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Household monthly consumption expenditure significantly higher in irrigated settings – household consumption security
Household average monthly consumption expenditure (real)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
Irrigated RF-T
Income, consumption benefits of irrigation
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Multiple Use Benefits of Canal Water
– Domestic uses– Livestock raising– Fish farming– Rural micro-enterprises
• Small watermill in a Nepalese village grinds 300-400 kg of grains
• Multiplier Benefits of Irrigation
– Multiplier benefits from irrigation induced expansion in economic activities vary widely across settings and can be large (e.g. 3.15 for India)
Value of Irrigation Water, Pakistan
Farm Level
System Level
Basin Level
National Level
0123456789
1011121314
Crop/FarmValue
AgriculturalValue
Rural EconomicValue
Macro EconomicValue
Type of valueva
lue
(Rs/
m3)
Multiple Use and Multiplier Benefits of Canal Water
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Irrigation reduces poverty
– 21 percent less poverty in irrigated areas
– impact varies (2-53 percent) – irrigation reduces ‘chronic
poverty’– duration of seasonal
/temporary poverty is also lower in in irrigated settings
• For poverty reduction, not only total benefits, but their distribution matters
Average number of months the poor experienced poverty in Walawe system, Sri Lanka
0
2
4
6
8
10
Irrigated Non-irrigated
Setting
Mon
ths
Poverty % in irrigated and non irrigated settings
0102030405060708090
Rur
al In
dia
Philip
pine
sIn
dia-
Thai
land
Viet
nam
Sri L
anka
In
dia-
Biha
r
Indi
a-KD
SPa
kist
anBa
ngla
des
Indo
nesi
aIn
dia-
NSL
CIn
dia-
Har
siIn
dia-
Hal
ali
Bang
lade
sPove
rty
head
cou
nt (%
)
Poverty Headcount (%) Irrigated
Poverty Headcount (%) Non-irrigated
Evidence from our settingsMore evidence from other settings
Irrigation reduces poverty
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
In South Asian systems, poverty is higher at downstream / tail reaches, especially in areas where
– access to canal water is the least
– groundwater quality is poor
– alternate sources of livelihoods are more limited.
Difference in poverty incidence between upstream-downstream
02468
1012
Indi
a
Paki
stan
Indo
nesi
a
Viet
nam
Chi
na
Perc
enta
ge P
oint
s
Higher Poverty in Downstream Reaches of Canals in South Asian Systems
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
9-R
Khad
irH
alal
iKa
kow
alH
akra
-4H
arsi
Lalia
n10
-RPh
alia
Khik
hi14
-RPa
bna
13-R
G-K
Gla
pan
Klam
bu K
iriKa
libaw
ang
Krog
owan
aN
SLC
Nam
Tha
chQ
ID-N
PW
ID-N
PLI
D-H
PN
am D
uang
PID
-HP
KDS
Prod
uctiv
ity (S
GVP
/ ha)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pove
rty
head
cou
nt %
Productivity in SGVP (US$/ha/yr.) Poverty headcount (%)
Low System Performance = High Poverty
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Water policies, Laws & regulationsInput subsidies/ taxes policiesPrices/ market/ trade policies
Irrigation-Poverty Impacts
Institutional arrangements
Managerial PatternsWater allocation criteriaMicro-Meso market linkagesInfrastructure
Land-access, quality, distributionWater-access, quality, distributionIrrigation technology, cultivation methodsCropping patterns; Crop diversificationAccess to non water production inputs
(fertilizer, credit, …)non land assetseconomic opportunitieshousehold attributes - gender
(education, family size.)
Production
Consumption
Income & assets
Employment and wages
Investments
Other impacts
Magnitude of benefits and costs - size of the pie
Distribution of benefits and costs -Distribution of pieConstraints –factors constraining size and distribution of pieOpportunitie
s– factors facilitating expansion in size and distribution of pie
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
– (In) equity in land distribution
– Infrastructure condition/management
– Irrigation water management, rights, allocation/distribution procedures and practices, irrigation charging/cost recovery
– Production technology, cropping patterns, crop diversification
– Support measures, e.g., input and output marketing, information
Main factors determining productivity and poverty impacts of Irrigation
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Inequities in land and water distribution reduce productivity performance of systems, resulting in reduced anti-poverty impacts of irrigation investments
• Estimates suggest that elasticity of poverty reduction wrt crop productivity is much lower in settings with high inequities in resource distribution –
• Farm sizes are relatively smaller in systems with less inequitable distribution, and their productivity performance is better
• For irrigation investments to be directly pro-poor, they should benefit large number of smaller farms rather than small number of large farms
Cropping intensity (%) across farm size categories, upper Indus basin, Pakistan
(2002)
0
50
100
150
200
< 1 ha 1.1 to <3ha
3.1 to <5ha
5.1 to <10 ha
10 haand
aboveFarm Size
(%)
Factor 1. In (equity) in land distribution
>> Invest in systems with larger number of smaller size farms
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 Factor 2: Infrastructure Condition and
its Maintenance Matters
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Conveyance losses across improved and un-improved Watercourses
-0.100
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
2440
0 - L
6750
0 - R
6879
8 - R
7765
0 - L
3100
0 - L
3361
0 - L
1253
92-R
2030
00-R
9580
- L
9700
- R
2083
0-R
2828
8 - R
2950
0 - T
L
8780
- R
9900
- R
2300
1 - L
II
1701
7 - L
1804
0 - R
1806
0 - R
2164
2 - R
8109
0 - L
8609
0 - L
9753
9 - L
1324
16 -
R
1324
16 -
R
Watercourse # (un-improved)
Con
veya
nce
Loss
es p
er 1
000
ft (c
uses
)
2400
0- L
2440
0 - L
6879
8 - R
7712
9 - R
3100
0 - L
1250
61-L
1460
0-L
2004
9 - L
2250
0 - R
2300
0 - L
I
2300
0 - L
II
2794
0 - R
8109
0 - L
8609
0 - L
9499
6 - L
1299
15 -
L
Watercourse # (improved)
CL per 1000ft (Cusec)CL per 1000ft (cus) Imp
Investments in infrastructure improvements may be ineffective in the absence of continued maintenance, an outcome of weak
institutions inadequate funding, low charges
Investments in irrigation infrastructure improvements may be ineffective ….if…
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Factor 3: Production Technologies and Cropping Patterns
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Irrigation Management Reforms Motives/Objectives
• Reduce cost to government• Improve water use, productivity, profitability of
farming, …and overall performance of irrigation systems
• Relate irrigation management more adequately to actual needs of water users.
Focus Areas
• Formulation of water/ irrigation policies• Formulation of legal and regulatory
frameworks• Establishment of new institutions – for
IMT, PIM • Changes in irrigation financing/charging
Factor 4: Irrigation Management
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Irrigation reforms generate benefits
• Empowerment of farmers
• Improvement of infrastructure, O&M, water delivery service, and water distribution, water charge collection
• Increased cropped areas, crop productivity and profitability
• Reduced water theft, conflicts over water, rent seeking
• Increased funding availability and spending on systems
• Poor have also benefited (employment from increased O&M works, increased water supplies at tail ends, other benefits)
1.8
1.23
2
2.5
1.09
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
10-R Kakowal Lalian Khadir Hakra-4
26079
25614 25575
27115 27115
24500
25000
25500
26000
26500
27000
27500
1997 1998 1999 2001 2002
Hec
tare
s
Improvements in water waterdistribution and crop areas
Hakra 4-R System in Punjab, Pakistan
Benefits of Irrigation Management Reforms – IMT/PIM
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
– Partial implementation – geographically, organizationally, functionally, overall progress is slow
– Resistance from irrigation agencies, conflicts– Focus mainly on the hardware side– Incentives to organizations through O&M
grants….issue of sustainability
– Increased cost to farmers
– Concerns about over empowerment and dominance of local influentials especially in settings with high inequities in land distribution
– Exclusion of small farmers from management decisions
– Women participation in management very poor
Irrigation Management Reforms………Issues
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Reforms are likely to be effective and deliver greater benefits to the poor where:
– Inequity in resource distribution (land) and socio-economic differentiation and heterogeneity among user communities is less
– Benefits of irrigation are significant and agriculture is significantly profitable
A call for broader pro-poor agricultural reforms for irrigation reforms to benefit the poor
……..pre-conditions for management reforms to be effective for the poor
– Incentives for managers and management organizations to improve on service delivery
– Cost of canal irrigation is significant, service delivery, cost recovery/adequate funding is ensured
– Performance is linked to not only overall growth benefits but also to poverty alleviation
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
1. Institutional framework - legislative backing, clear and strong legal status of FOs/WUAs
2. Representation and partnership – Supportive links, effective partnerships and interactions with relevant government agencies, NGOs and private sector organizations
3. Political Support - Strong political will, commitment & support4. Leadership - Strong multiple local leadership
…………Conditions that determine success and sustainability of IMT/ PIM reforms
9. Effective system of Accountability, transparency, incentives, and conflict resolution10. Homogeneity of community – there is homogeneity of community in terms of caste,
incomes, and resources.11. Dependence on Agriculture and agricultural profitability – higher degree of
dependence on irrigated agriculture for livelihoods, productivity level is high12. Cost and benefits to farmers – cost to farmers is small proportion of the benefits13. Condition of irrigation infrastructure - infrastructure Physically sound and well-
functioning irrigation system, better control over irrigation supplies
5. Financial strength – healthy financial status, adequacy of resources6. Capacity building and support- Long term capacity building, support
services
7. Water and land rights - Clear water use rights, land tenure security8. Authority and powers - Full management authority and power transfer
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
There are several elements of irrigation charging system that matter for cost recovery– Level, Structure, Assessment, Collection, Spending,
O&M Cost, System of Incentives/ Penalties/Rewards
Irrigation Charging and Cost Recovery:One of the Core Problems
Where Irrigation Service Charging system is bad, irrigation water produces less and it rarely reaches the poor
• Irrigation service charge (ISC) level varied from 4-67 US$/ha/year; it is lower in South Asian systems where than in Southeast Asian and Chinese systems
• On average, ISC constitutes around 3 % of GVP/ha (0.2 to 7.5 %) and 15 % (2.5 to 24%) of average net benefit of irrigation
• Collection rate varies from 12 to 95 percent• Canal water is many times cheaper than groundwater (9
times in Pakistan)
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Reasons supporting Reasons supporting propositionproposition
0
200
400
600800
1000
1200
1400
16009-
RH
arsi
Khad
irKa
kow
alPa
bna
Hal
ali
10-R
Hak
ra-4
Lalia
nPh
alia
14-R
G-K
Khik
hi13
-RN
SLC
KDS
Gla
pan
Klam
bu K
iriKa
libaw
ang
Krog
owan
Nam
Tha
chQ
ID-N
PN
am D
uang
WID
-NP
LID
-HP
PID
-HP
Prod
uctiv
ity/ h
a (U
S$)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
Pove
rty
Hea
d C
ount
%/ W
ater
ch
arge
s ($
)
GVP ($/ha) HC (%) Irrigation Charge (US$/ha)
Where productivity performance is low, irrigation charge level is low and poverty is high
Productivity Performance, Irrigation Charge and Poverty
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Low level of canal irrigation charges hurt the poor, mostly indirectly ………but also directly where charge structure is inappropriate ………… particularly in settings with inequitable land distribution
Annual irrigation cost for various land size categories, Punjab, Pakistan
49954477
39803594
3146
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
<1 1.1 -<3 3.1 - <5 5.1 - <10 >10
Land Size Categories
Rs/
ha/y
ear
Annual irrigation cost to the poor and the non-poor, Punjab Pakistan
4152
4096
4050
4100
4150
4200
Poor Non-poor
Rs/
ha/y
ear
Small farmers and the Poor pay more than the Large farmers/ Non-poor (Punjab – Pakistan)
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
How can we design a Charging System that serves multiple objectives of:
- improved cost recovery- improved system O&M- enhanced benefits to the poor
12 Essential Components
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
L. Incentives to improved performanceK. Incentives for ISC system implementation J. Incentives to farmers for ISC paymentsI. Mode of paymentH. Irrigation service charge collection/payment
G. Arrangements for ISC assessments, collection and spending
F. Service delivery and ISC contracts
E. Uniform or differential charging (in settings with high inequity in land and water distribution)
D. Level of irrigation service chargeC. Structure of irrigation service charge
B. Irrigation institutions for managing irrigation finance
A. Irrigation financing
Ease of Implem-entation
Benefits to the Poor
Cost recovery/ Revenue Reliability
Options
Options and good practices for deigning and implementing ISC for improved cost recovery and benefits to the poor
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Irrigation reduces more poverty in some settings than in others,depending on a number of conditioning factors– Irrigation investments can be strongly pro-poor, pro-poor, neutral
or anti-poor
• Equity in land and water distribution matter for productivity and poverty impacts of irrigation.
• Past irrigation investments in South Asia have only partially benefited the poor.
• In South Asia, while irrigation management reforms have generated some benefits, significant benefits to the poor are yet to be realized ……on-going reforms are not sufficient….
• Low and uniform charging for irrigation can be disadvantageous to the poor, particularly in settings with high inequities in land and water distribution
• Chinese experiences in resource distribution, institutional/management reforms, and technological interventions offer important learning opportunities for South Asia
……some of the key conclusions
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Irrigation related interventions can (and should) be targeted for larger poverty reducing impacts; need different models across irrigation systems (and locations within large systems), accounting specifically for land and water distribution patterns
• Target investments in settings/ systems with relatively less inequity in land distribution and less incidence of landlessness
• Combine investments in improving system performance -infrastructure, management and service delivery in irrigation
Account for major direct and indirect (dis) benefits, specifically to the poor, as identified in this study, in selecting projects/interventions.
……some of the key recommendations
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Promote conjunctive use and management of surface and ground water resources
• Promote system designs that favor the poor
• Promote integrated approach to delivery of agricultural inputs and related services through PPP
Account for major direct and indirect (dis) benefits, specifically to the poor, as identified in this study, in selecting projects/interventions.
……some of the key recommendations
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
– Prioritize settings for investments as poverty differs across settings
– Poverty reduction objective may justify investments in agricultural dependent areas, in developing new systems or improving existing system, which cannot be justified in standard financial analysis terms
– Invest in improving existing irrigation systems (where in most cases only partial benefits have been realized) as it takes advantage of the previous irrigation facilities and supporting infrastructure
– Design models for interventions according to local conditions, specifically resource (land and water) distribution patterns
Poverty incidence and severity differs across
Irrigated areas vs. non-irrigated areasHigh productivity vs. marginal/low productivity systems/partsUpstream vs. downstream systems/partsSystems/parts with less vs. more inequitySystem/parts with good-quality vs. poor quality groundwaterLand rich/land poor vs. landlessHigh-caste/majorities vs. low-caste minoritiesTemporary vs. permanent poor
1. Irrigation related interventions can be (and should be) targeted for larger poverty reducing impacts; design interventions according to local conditions
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
– Invest in systems with larger number of smaller size (viable) farms rather in those with small number of large farms
– Criteria should not be only number of hectares developed/rehabilitated and overall productivity increased but also the number of households/persons benefited; the types of benefits delivered and the share of the poor in total benefits
2. Target investments in settings/ systems with relatively less inequity in land distribution and less incidence of landlessness
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Withrehabilitation
only
With improvedmanagement
only
With both
US$
Value of incremental farm output per 1 US$ investment in irrigation (US$) in Vietnam
Source: Source: AldasAldas JanaiahJanaiah (2004)(2004)
• Combine investments/ interventions for new systems or for improving performance of existing systems – Infrastructure– Management
3. Combine investments/ interventions for larger poverty reduction impacts
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
4. Promote conjunctive use and management of surface and ground water resources
1710016367
12901
9713
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Base case ChangeR
s/H
aHead Tail
This amount is equivalent to PPP$ 194, sufficient to ensure security of basic grain
consumption (wheat) for family of 4-5 throughout the year.
Promoting equity in canal water distribution is both productivity
enhancing and poverty reducing: win-win situation
Impact of improved management of surface and
ground water on incomes and poverty– Punjab, Pakistan
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
- Invest in improving systems that allow for multiple uses of water – domestic, livestock, irrigation and other farm and non-farm uses –by involving local men and women
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Goodaccess to
both
Goodaccess toirrigationwater only
Goodaccess todrinking
water only
Poor accessto both
N R
s/ye
ar
Household annual average income (in rupees) in Kavre District, Nepal (2002)
Average farm income of households with good access to water for both irrigation and drinking is twice of those with poor access
5. Promote system designs that favor the poor
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Invest in improving systems that enable diversification to higher value, more labor intensive enterprises (high value crops, livestock) with supporting investments in the value chain of input and output markets – with aim of increasing secondary/ multiplier benefits, especially in the local settings
Crop diversification index and severity of poverty
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
GL-H KR-T GL-M RF KK-T KK-M KK-H KL-T KR-M KR-H KL-M GL-T KL-H
Location w ith systems
Pove
rty
gap
00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.82
Cro
p di
vers
ifica
tion
inde
x
PovG CDI
Crop diversifcation and severity of poverty
irrigated
Crop diversification index
1.00.81.75.69.63.56.50.44.38.31.25.19.13.06.00
Squa
red
pove
rty g
ap
.2
.1
0.0
5. Promote system designs that favor the poor
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
– Improve poor farmers access to agricultural support services (inputs, technologies, information, finance, markets) through integrated services provision (ISP) by involving private sector.
There are examples of such initiatives
– FAO project in Chaj Doab, Punjab, Pakistan
– Emerging Farmer Companies in Sri Lanka – WUAs used as vehicles
– New Agrimalls in Pakistan– New Agri. Clinics in India
6. Promote integrated approach to delivery of agricultural inputs and related services through PPP
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Irrigation offers significant opportunities for improving productivity, growth, incomes and poverty reduction, under appropriate conditions
• South Asia has only partially benefited from past investments in irrigation systems, large potential exists that has not yet been realized…..and there is a significant scope to improve performance of irrigation systems in the region
• …but future investments be made differently
• For improving irrigation, interventions are needed at all levels – macro, meso and micro levels – under a tri-level framework of this study
The objective of poverty reduction should drive irrigation interventions and investments and not the other way round
….. Some of the Main Messages
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Do irrigation investments under pro-poor framework
• Design interventions that generate benefits of investments on more sustainable basis
• Promote Integrated and participatoryapproaches to ‘Resource Management’ and ‘Service Delivery’
• Further pilot test and promote ‘Multifunctionality’ concept for local level institutions (such as FOs, WUAs).
……..finally……
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
ANNOUNCEMENT
INPIM’s Tenth International Seminar on
Participatory Irrigation Management
2-5 May 2007Tehran, Iran
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
INPIM Cordially Invites you to become its Lifetime Member
Special Invitation
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 • Low irrigation charges coupled with ineffective charging structures
and inefficient collection and spending mechanisms lead to poor service delivery, and overall poor performance of irrigation, reducing availability and access to water, adversely affecting sustainability of the systems and the poor suffer the most,
• Need to increase irrigation service charge to a realistic level (that is sufficient to cover cost of service delivery), – charges be linked to service delivery, – charging be based on commercial principals,
• Need for institutional arrangements for irrigation management be made more:– decentralized, participatory, and financially autonomous - for greater
accountability and improved service delivery, – incentive oriented for efficient collection and spending of revenues
• Service providers should be required to meet certain standards in relation irrigation performance.
Irrigation Charging - Key Messages
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Access to water makes a difference;
• “Irrigation water is a divide between poverty and prosperity”
• Higher irrigation charges and improved service delivery improves access
• Need to break the vicious circle, simultaneously addressing the problems of poor service delivery and low irrigation charges
• Irrigation water or the related service is no longer free or cheap, and where it is made free or cheap:– It produces less– It rarely reaches the poor
Irrigation Charging - Key Messages
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Option- 1: Present policy- no change in the structure and level of irrigation charges, charges are based on cropped areas and cropping incentives.
Option- 2: Flat rate policy- flat rate of per unit of land based on land size, independent of crop type and cropping incentives, with present average irrigation charge applied uniformly across all farm size categories.
Option- 3: Differential rate policy- differential rate per unit of land based on land size , applied differentially across various farm size categories- progressive rate structure (similar to increasing block rate charging). Lower ISC for the first two hectares (subsistence level holding) applied uniformly to all land-size categories, and ISC is increased progressively with increase in size of holdings above two hectares, by Rs. 50/ha (=US$0.80) for each successive category of land size.
Alternate Policy Options
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
76158043
9341
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Opt-1 Opt-2 Opt-3
Policy Options
Rs.
mill
ion
Option -2 would result in annual redistribution of Rs 736 million
Option - 3 would result in annual redistribution of Rs 1362 million
Alternate Policy Options
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Crops irrigated by drip show water savings of up to 50 percent and yield increases of 30 to 50 percent.
High Efficiency Systems (drip/sprinkler)
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
Improve poor farmers access to agricultural support services (inputs, technologies, information, finance, markets) through integrated services provision (ISP) by involving private sector.
Promote integrated approach to delivery of agricultural inputs and related services through PPP
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• It is not one input, but several inputs and services that matter for productivity in agriculture,
• New information, technology, production inputs, finance, …. are available….but not necessarily accessible when and where they are needed.
– …..so the issue is not of availability but of access to these factors and services
• Institutional mechanisms that can help provide access to these factors and services
– Either do not exist or – if they exist, they are
• Fragmentary• Poor quality• Limited in capacity or scope• Inefficient, exploitative and anti-poor
• Transaction cost of providing and accessing key inputs and services is often very high, when these are provided/accessed in dis-integrated manner
Why Integrated Services Provision through PPP?
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007 Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated
agriculture in Asia
– Financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB)– Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Vietnam– Study completed in May 2005
Impact assessment of irrigation infrastructure development on poverty alleviation
– Financed by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
– Pakistan, Sri Lnaka– Study completed in 2003/2004
Assessment of water and poverty linkages in hilly, dry/drought prone and wet areas
– Financed by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) and other partners
– Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka– Study completed in 2003/2004
Three Major Studies
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
PovertyAlleviation
Growth
Direct
Indirect
Production
Consumption
Employmentand wages
Other Impacts
Income
MacroBasin
System
HH
Water- poverty Linkages– Micro pathway– Meso pathway– Macro pathway
WaterIndirect
Irrigation - poverty linkages
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Laser land leveling• Zero tillage• Bed and Furrow Planting• System of Rice Intensification
Resource Conservation Technologies
• Benefits
– Water saving – 20- 25 percent
– Yield increases – 20 percent
– Production cost saving (labor, other inputs)
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
95.02.50.2 to 4.312.61001.8Indonesia
94.523.55.559.51577.0Vietnam
80.010.83.646.51661.3China
87.710.02.57.4448.5Pakistan
45.315.32.710.0985.5India
12.014.55.921.0692.5Bangladesh
ISC Collection
rate (%)
ISC as % of
Irrigation benefit
ISC as percent of GVP
Annual ISC
(US$/ha)
SGVP per hectare
Country
Irrigation Service Charging in Selected Irrigation Systems in Asian Countries
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9-R
Hak
ra-4
Lalia
nK
hadi
r10
-RKr
ogow
anK
hikh
iPh
alia
14-R
Kak
owal
Har
siH
alal
iN
SLC
KD
S13
-RK
lam
bu K
iriG
lapa
nG
-KK
alib
awan
gP
abna
LID
-HP
PID
-HP
Nam
QID
-NP
Nam
Tha
chW
ID-N
P
System
Irrig
atio
n C
harg
e (U
S$/h
a)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Colle
ctio
n ra
te (%
)
Irrigation Charge (US$/ha)Collection Rate (%)
Irrigation Charge (US$/ha) and Collection rate in Selected Systems
Wor
ld B
ank
Wat
er W
eek
2007
• Design effective charging system – simple, transparent, accountable, incentive oriented reflecting local
conditions/ costs and benefits of irrigation
Measures to Improve Charging and Cost Recovery
Technological– Introduce computerized system – land and water
records, finance, billing– Other measures – Infrastructure/ control; Pre-paid
card system (China)
Institutional– Involve farmer organizations/ WUAs (e.g. China,
India, Indonesia, Pakistan)– Introduce system of incentives/ dis-incentives
(incentives for advance payments, collection)
