Irrigation Potential and Drought - Maharashtra Case
iasparliament
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.
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”.
