Beneficiary Participation in Irrigation Water Management: The Kerala

details on irrigation improvement programmes and strategies adopted to involve the farmers,
the major problems faced by NIA, and the lessons learnt from the participatory experience
in irrigation water management.
The 1977 general policy on beneficiary participation apportioned the cost of irrigation
between NIA and the government corporate body 34 on the one hand and the irrigators, on
the other. The NIA constructed NIS and CIS, and bore the interest cost. The beneficiaries
bore the O&M cost; the capital free of interest was to be recovered from irrigators in 50
years’ time. Also, the cost on roads, flood-control, reforestation, etc., was excluded from
computation of water fees.
Prior to 1982, in the national systems as well as in the communal systems assisted by NIA,
the planning, design, and construction had been undertaken by NIA. But, from 1982 onwards
a shift in policy was effected and beneficiary participation was sought for renovation of the
existing system, from the stages of planning via, construction to rehabilitation and
improvement of minor distributory canals and farm level facilities. Once these were over
IAs assumed certain responsibilities of O&M, which varied with the capability of the IAs
concerned. Thus the tasks they took up ranged from clearing and maintenance of canals to
water distribution and collection of irrigation fees. In CIS, farmers’ involvement in these
processes was extensive. Farmer participation ranged from the location of the site for diversion
to operation and maintenance. In the case of National Systems, planning, design, construction,
O&M were performed by NIA.
The management in NIS was carried out by NIA; in CIS, it is by IAs, drawing the assistance
from NIA, as and when required by them. The most pressing problem faced in NIS was
inadequate collection of water fees, relative to the cost of O&M. The major reasons for the
low collection of water fees were: (i) dissatisfaction of the farmer-clientele with adequacy
and timing of water supply; (ii) water shortage due to damaged distribution structures and
(iii) poor maintenance and general deterioration in facilities; (iv) the low paying capacity of
farmers (v) difficulty in forcing collection from the rich and powerful farmers; (vi) the
attitude prevalent among a significant number of farmers that irrigation facilities should be
a free good to be provided by the government; and (vii) health problems arising from
schistosomiasis, primarily a waterborne disease in some areas. In communal systems, the
main problem was the non-viability of irrigation associations 35 .
The most noteworthy constraint was the difficulty of ‘organising the irrigation association’,
despite its glorious past 36 . The series of efforts 37 made by NIA, to form farmers’ associations,
eventually gave birth to the Participatory Approach.
The achievements, which the IA acquired were impressive 38 . IA.s mobilised labour for
construction by sectors and made Counterpart Contributions.
Important lessons, learnt from the experience of these projects are the following: (i) COs
should be given enough lead time for organising, motivating, and mobilising farmers before
construction; (ii) Engineers should have fair understanding of the role of institutional
25