economics of on-farm development - Institute for Social and ...

under CAD programmes. But three partially commissioned projects. viz .. Pamba.
Periyar Valley and Kuttiadi were included under the programme since 1992-93
and an amount <strong>of</strong> about Rs. 26 crores was spent (CAGI. 1998: 220). Obviously.
the targeted works in other projects could get adequate funds and therefore. their
implementation got delayed adding further to the alleged inefficiency in
irrigation management in canal command areas. The ad-hoc and unscientific way
<strong>of</strong> implementing the OFO works. without preparing systematic project reports
and operational plans have led to increase in transaction costs involved in the
programmes. Furthermore. it has also led to lesser productivity than what was
expected. For instance, the mean yield <strong>of</strong> summer irrigated paddy from
demonstration plots in four projects. viz., Walayar. Malampuzha. Peechi and
Vazhani. was lesser than those from the normal plots. Such results tend to
Jemotivate farmers from undertaking scientific OFO and application <strong>of</strong> optimum
doses <strong>of</strong> yield-enhancing inputs like fertilisers and pesticides. It will have a
negative impact on modern farm technology adoption by the farmers.
As mentioned earlier. subsidy was given to small and marginal farmers
and also for Water Users' Associations (WUAs) to meet the managerial and other
operational costs in the formative years. But. it is unfortunate that only 34 per
cent <strong>of</strong> the associations formed as <strong>of</strong> 1997 had received management subsidy
(CAGl, 1998:220). Further, the amount allocated by the government <strong>of</strong> India to
be released to the farmers to meet OFO expenditure needs was not even
disbursed to the farmers. The state government. therefore. had to bear the debt
servlcll1g charges. Same was the case with subsidy to be given to small and
marginal farmers for digging wells and installing pumpsets to encourage
233