Beneficiary Participation in Irrigation Water Management: The Kerala

To sum up: past experience of the working of BFAs has convincingly shown that the existing
legal frame work, within which they function, is inadequate. The futility of depending upon
the police to act against malpractices is already proved. Conferment of legal status necessary
to take action against malpractices would elevate BFAs in the eyes of the farming community
and CADA officials. Alternatively, judicial powers may be conferred to officials of the
appropriate level in the irrigation department.
Financing irrigation projects
In India, the responsibility for providing irrigation facilities vested primarily with the
government: construction, operation, and maintenance of the system up to the sluice /
outlet level was the governments’ job. The beneficiary farmers either individually or
collectively shared neither responsibility nor the cost burden. Their responsibility was
confined to constructing field channels, their maintenance, and allocation of water among
beneficiaries. Such an approach resulted in the virtual alienation of farmers from the projects
and inculcation in them of a feeling that they have the right to get everything gratis from the
public authority, they themselves having no role to play nor any burden to share. They
looked up to the Department of Irrigation for all services, even for very minor repairs of
channels, which they themselves could very well do locally.
In several other countries active involvement of the beneficiary groups at almost all stages
of construction and maintenance of irrigation is encouraged. However, capital costs are
borne by government. Only the costs of maintenance of field channels, minors and
distributaries fall directly on the beneficiaries. There was of course the Chinese experience
of peasants contributing to capital costs where local communities constructed and maintained
major and medium irrigation projects 54 .
In the Philippines 55 , following the new general policy promulgated in 1977, the capital costs
of irrigation projects were incurred first by the government but recovered from the beneficiaries
in annual instalments spread over a period of up to 50 years. In cases where capital cost
was not large, a counterpart contribution amounting to 10 percent was also required from
beneficiaries. Operation and maintenance costs were met in full by the irrigation association
formed before the construction began.
In Nepal 56 , a contribution from beneficiaries, of 25 percent of the capital cost, (5 percent
in cash in advance and 20 percent in voluntary labour contribution) were regarded prerequisites
for construction of irrigation schemes. In the Indonesian case 57 , all the four
models of the irrigation organisation had beneficiary participation, but in varying degrees;
that in the Subak system was almost total while it was partial in the village irrigation
system. There also exist cases of other nations in which capital cost, either in part or in
full are incurred by irrigators. One noteworthy feature in these countries is that the
farmers themselves are the owners of the irrigation systems and are responsible for
maintaining them.
The question of bearing the costs of irrigation projects was posed to our respondents –
whether the projects should be financed exclusively by government or by government and
72