0.1634
900 319 0030
x

Irrigation Potential and Drought - Maharashtra Case

iasparliament Logo
November 12, 2018

What is the issue?

  • Announcing that the state has suffered a drought in 2018, Maharashtra has sought a relief of Rs 7,000 crore from the Centre.
  • This has raised several questions on the effectiveness of the existing agricultural programmes in the state.

Why is drought relief from Centre questionable?

  • PMFBY - The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) was supposed to compensate farmers in case of a drought year.
  • So the state approaching the Centre for relief despite having crop insurance in place becomes illogical.
  • Investments - The state had been making massive irrigation investments over the years in drought-proofing its agriculture.
  • All these have failed to make an effective impact in making agriculture remunerative, again burdening the Centre.
  • Other states - The other states that have suffered similar drought also need attention.
  • E.g. during 2018 monsoon (June-September), Maharashtra’s Marathwada region received 22% lower rainfall than normal and Madhya Maharashtra was only 9% below normal.
  • In comparison, rainfall in the Gujarat region was 24% below normal; in Saurashtra and Kutch region, it was 34%.
  • In Rajasthan it was 23% below normal; and, in North Interior Karnataka, 29% below normal.
  • Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh too experienced deficiency of more than 20%.
  • Thus, if Maharashtra is to be compensated for drought, the other states should also be approaching the Centre for relief.

What is the public irrigation scenario?

  • Public expenditures on irrigation cover primarily canals through major and medium irrigation schemes (MMI).
  • The capital costs of canal irrigation in certain states during the 2002-03 to 2013-14 period reveal a certain trend.

https://images.indianexpress.com/2018/11/graph4.jpg

  • Graph 1 gives the state-wise capital cost of public irrigation (canals, primarily through MMI schemes).
  • Here, Maharashtra tops the list with Rs 20.4 lakh/ha of irrigation potential utilised (IPU).
  • Notably, the all-India average cost is just Rs 6.3 lakh/ha of IPU.
  • The costs per ha of irrigation potential created (IPC) are somewhat lower.
  • Nevertheless, the highest is for Maharashtra at Rs 13.5 lakh/ha.
  • Engineers and contractors are quick to announce IPC after construction of reservoirs and main canals.
  • However, farmers benefit only when this potential created is converted to potential utilised.
  • The utilisation parameter is to be ensured by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.

What is the concern with Maharashtra?

  • Maharashtra witnesses high costs of public irrigation, which is due to several regional and administrative reasons.
  • They include the tough topography, the widening gap between the IPC and IPU, and rampant corruption too.
  • The profitability in crop cultivation from public irrigation hardly matches with the opportunity cost of public irrigation.
  • E.g. let Rs 20 lakh be the sum equivalent to the cost of public irrigation on IPU basis.
  • Consider this being given to each farmer on per ha basis as long-term bonds with a fixed interest of say 8% per annum.
  • In this case, the farmer would have got a net annual income of Rs 1.6 lakh without any risk.
  • But if that sum is actually invested in public irrigation, farmers are less likely to make Rs 1.6 lakh/ha as the net income.
  • So clearly, the benefit cost (B/C) ratios of most of these projects do not justify these projects.
  • But, as the system functions, the B/C ratios are highly inflated in feasibility reports to justify starting several projects.
  • Resultantly, investments are made, but hardly any ex-post analysis is done to check the outcome.

What lies ahead?

  • Public irrigation needs major overhauling in the country, especially in states like Maharashtra.
  • Transparency and accountability in terms of benefits and costs are essential to make worthy the irrigation investments.
  • Also, the issue of massive inequity in the distribution of irrigation water has to be addressed.
  • E.g. in Maharashtra, about 19% of gross cropped area is irrigated. But it is 100% in case of sugarcane, and just 3% in case of cotton.
  • The government should distribute irrigation water from public canals more equitably amongst farmers, on per ha basis.
  • This could lead to efficient cropping patterns with respect to water and materialise the goal of “more crop per drop”.

 

Source: Indian Express

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme