Assessment of GWRDCs Tubewell Transfer Programme in Anand District

1
Assessment of GWRDCs Tubewell Transfer Programme
in Anand District
Aditi Deb Roy Avinash Kishore
2
Four Illustrative Cases

• Ashi-3, taken over by co-operative formed by
  Umedgiri Goswami in 1989
• Sarsa 2, taken over by a group or juth formed
  by Guntbant Sinh Jadeja in 1998
• Duleta-Tubewell (TW) can not be taken over due to
  group disharmony
• Navakhal TW returned back to GWRDC due to bad
  physical condtion of the tubewell

3
Central Research Questions

• 1 What are the factors that encourage successful
  transfer?
• 2. What are the factors that impede transfer?
• 3. How have the transferred TWs performed in
  relation to GWRDC tubewells and private
  tubewells?
• 4. What are the lessons learnt from GWRDCs
  experience with TW transfer in Anand district?
• 5. How can this be replicated in other states,
  both for public tubewell transfer as well as for
  canal irrigation transfer?

4
Research Hypotheses

• Turnover will induce management changes, which in
  turn will be reflected in terms of longer hours
  of operation and larger area irrigated for the
  transferred TWs than GWRDC TWs
• Taking over tubewells and selling water will be
  profitable business to the farmers. In this
  regard, the TWs with flat rate will earn higher
  profits
• Cost of irrigation to farmers will decline and
  GWRDC will be able to cut its cost at the same
  time
• The more flexible the management regime and more
  assured the lease term, the better will be the
  performance. Private tubewells will perform best,
  followed by turned over ones and then GWRDC

5
Sources of Data

• Secondary data for all GWRDC and turned over
  tubewells in the district from Anand and Borsad
  office for a total of 304 operating TWs (149
  transferred 155 with GWRDC)
• Primary quantitative data collected from 43
  villages and 110 tubewells for GWRDC (27), Turned
  over (48) and Private TWs (35)
• Qualitative discussions held with few Chairmen
  and Secretaries of management committee of Turned
  over TWs, users of utility, GWRDC operators and
  GWRDC officials
• Walk through inspection for few tubewells to
  obtain data on functional condition of the
  tubewell network.

6
Methodology

• With-Without Analysis GWRDC, Co-op, Juth and
  Private
• a) Operational efficiency area irrigated and
  hours operated for 4 different categories
• b) Financial viability and economic returns for
  these 4 groups
• c) OM comparisons among tubewells of 4
  categories
• 2. Before-After Analysis GWRDC TWs before and
  after transfer
• a) Operational indicators area irrigated and
  hours operated before and after
• b) Farmers perception about OM of tubewells
  before and after
• c) Farmers perception about cost of
  irrigation before and after

7
Time line Progress of Transfer
8
Why is 1998 the Dividing Year

• Professional attitude Target setting by GWRDC
• Serious power crisis in the state and difficulty
  in getting new GEB connections
• Stoppage of Mahi canal water in last 2 years

9
Operational Indicators Area irrigated, hours
operated

• GWRDC vs. Turned over wells (based on GWRDC data)
• GWRDC vs. Turned over vs. Private wells (based on
  primary survey data)
• Co-operative vs. Juths
• Turned over Tubewells Before and after

10
GWRDC vs. Turned Over Tubewells

• Area irrigated
• Hours operated
• Time needed to irrigated 1 hectare

11
Area irrigated by GWRDC and Turned over TWs,
1999-2001
Based on GWRDC data
12
Hours operated in a year by GWRDC and Turned over
TWs, 1999-2001
Based on GWRDC data
13
Hours Needed to Irrigate One Hectare GWRDC and
Turned Over Tubewells, 1999-2001
14
GWRDC, Turned over and Private Tubewells

• Area irrigated
• Hours operated

15
Area irrigated by GWRDC, Turned over and Private
Tubewells, 2000-2001
Based on sample primary survey
16
Hours operated by GWRDC, Turned over and Private
tubewells, 2000-01
Based on sample primary survey
17
Co-operative vs. Juth Managed Tubewells

• Area irrigated
• Hours operated

18
Area irrigated by Co-operative and Juth
Tubewells, 1999-2001
19
Hours of operation of Co-operative and Juth
Tubewells, 1999-2001
20
Performance of Tubewells Before and After Transfer

• Area irrigated
• Hours operated
• Farmers perception
• Area irrigated and hour operated
• Adequacy and timeliness of water supplied

21
Area irrigated by Turned over tubewells, before
and after transfer
22
Average hours of operation before and after
transfer
23
Farmers perception about area irrigated before
and after transfer
24
Farmers perception about hours operated before
and after transfer
25
Farmers perception about adequacy of irrigation
water before and after transfer
26
Farmers perception about timeliness of irrigation
water before and after transfer
27
A summary of graphs shown so far

• Private TWs run the longest, followed by
  Transferred and GWRDC
• Turned over TWs irrigate maximum area, followed
  by GWRDC and private. This is because private TWs
  have lower HP and lesser length of distribution
  network, and lower command area
• Co-operative TWs operate for longer hours and
  irrigate more land than juths, possibly because
  they are have 5 year lease and can make
  reasonable investments in OM and expect to get
  them back in 5 years
• The TWs have performed much better after transfer
  than before

28
Financial and Economic Viability

• For a IMT programme to be called successful and
  financially viable, it should
• Lead to reduction in losses to the public agency
  that was providing irrigation so far
• Should lead to increased profitability to the
  farmers, either in term of cropping pattern
  changes (NA here) or through selling water as in
  this case
• In this case, there should also be reduction in
  cost of irrigation to farmers as they would have
  to bear the overhead charges of GWRDC anymore

29
Gross returns, Operating costs and Net profit in
different categories of TWS, 2000-2001
30
Change in Cost of Irrigation to GWRDC and Farmers
after Turnover

• On an average GWRDC saves Rs 20,000 to Rs 35,000
  on electricity bills and repair and maintenance
  and earns Rs 5000 rent.
• However, it does not quite save the huge
  operators salary as he is relocated somewhere
  else with GWRDC
• Majority of the farmers feel that their cost of
  irrigation after transfer is lower due to lower
  hourly rates

31
Hourly water rates across systems
32
Farmers perception about irrigation costs before
and after transfer
33
Operational and Management Changes

• GWRDCs regulation in allotting water is rather
  long and cumbersome
• After turnover, the process becomes much simpler
  and similar to that of private tubewell owners
• Mode of collection of fees is also similar
  between turned over and private TW owners
• The time taken to repair comes down from average
  of 8 days in GWRDC to 3 days for transferred,
  though it is only 1 day for private

34
Farmers perception about changes in TW
maintenance before and after transfer
35
Farmers perception about physical state of the
tubewell and distribution network
36
Merits of GWRDC Model

• Simple Process
• Flexible Approach- Learning from Experience
• Low Interference with Smart Monitoring
• Secure Lease
• No Hang-over

37
Supportive Context

• Increasing Demand for tubewells
• Skilled Experienced Farmers
• Manageable Size
• Competitive Market
• Equitable Land-holding

38
What Drives Farmers to Take-over?

• Fear of Closure
• or
• Lure of Profit Salience (Centrality
  prominence)

39
What Impedes Transfer?

• Good Tubewells Competition
• Sick Tubewells Unwillingness to Invest
• Absence of an Entrepreneur

40
Replicability

• Intention
• Marketing Approach
• Good Value Proposition
• Bias for Speed Scale
• Simple and Direct Process

41
Replication in Canal Systems?

• Need to Raise Price and Redistribute Water
• Linkage-Dependence
• Poor Distribution Infrastructure and Head-Tail
  Trade-off
• Ineffective Coordination and Poor Quality Linkage
• Uncertain Environment

42
THANK YOU!
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)