Choose Report Type
Publication Date
Report Upload
Download
(7.63 MB)
vertical
शासन और अनुसंधान
PDF Text
1
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Phone: +91-11- 25847628, +91-11- 2584873, Fax: +91-11-25842684
http://www.ncap.res.in,director.niap@icar.gov.in
Submission of final Draft report
On
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economizing water use in India:
Learning from potential and under explored states
Submitted to,
National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog,
Sansad Marg New Delhi-110 001
May 2019 2
(For official use only)
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Phone: +91-11- 25847628, +91-11- 2584873, Fax: +91-11-25842684
http://www.ncap.res.in,director.niap@icar.gov.in
Submission of final report
On
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Submitted to,
National Institution for Transforming India (NITI), Governance and Research Vertical,
Aayog, Sansad Marg New Delhi-110 001
May 2019
3
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Name of institute: ICAR- National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy
Research
Address: Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, -110012, India, Phone: 011-25847628,
Fax 011-25847633
Date of establishment: 2
nd
March 1991
Title of study: Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Objectives:
1. To study the administration processes practices adopted by the state and effectiveness
of state implementing agencies.
2. Effect of water/ energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation.
3. To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy, energy and
input economy, savings, employment and income.
4. To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of
the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
5. To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them and developing
database.
6. To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development.
7. To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in under exploited
but potential states/ regions.
8. To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure.
Period of study: August 2018 to May 2019
4
Project Team
Project Director: Dr. Subhash Chand, Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-National
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
Co-PI.: Sh. Prabhat Kishore, Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
CO-PI: Dr. Shivendra Kumar Srivastava, Scientist, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research, New Delhi.
CO-PI: Dr. R. S. Pundir, Associate Professor & Head, Present Address Department of Agribusiness
Economics & Policy international Agribusiness Management Institute, Anand Agricultural University,
Anand 388110, Gujarat.
CO-PI: Dr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat, Scientist (Agricultural Economics),IASRI, Library Avenue, Pusa,
New Delhi.
Project staff:
1. Sh. Praven Kumar (SRF)
2. Sh. Arun Kumar (SRF)
5
Acknowledgement
This study bears a deep acknowledgement to the farmers of India and their friends in the
agri-input sector who relentlessly work to feed the billion plus people in India and exportable
produces. This study was conducted with underlying objectives of collating and creating
knowledge to be useful for the farmers to address the issues like administration processes
practices adopted and effectiveness, effect of water/ energy, labour saving, income and
employment generation, extent of area covered, private investment, to estimate the amount of
private investment and area covered by them and developing database. To assess the
durability and reliability of the system and identify the major constraints in scaling up the
micro irrigation in the country? The authors bear a deep sense of gratitude to farmers of
selected states for experimenting with the technology and providing information/data which
helped us to draw logical conclusion based on experiences and opinions.
Authors thank to the NITI Aayog, Govt. of India for funding and trusting on us while
sanctioning this important study to ICAR- NIAP, Delhi. Their constant support and
administrative backup helped us to complete the study in a comprehensive manner, which
will be useful to take up policy decisions for scaling up the micro irrigation in the country.
Special thanks are due to the advisors, NITI, Aayog who had discussed time to time the
intricacies of the study at field and administration level. Their constant support and guidance
helped us to complete the study in time and comprehensive manner.
Thanks goes to Dr. PS Birthal, Dr. AK Sikka and Dr. P. Kumar for giving us time to
critique our study design, plan and also valuable advice for conducting better fieldwork.
The authors are also thankful to various Government officers, District administration,
field officers and other staffs who helped us in making effective choices for the sampling and
in identifying resources that made the survey possible. They also helped us in selection of
village, called farmers for FGD and other meetings.
Special thanks to the district collector, Chittoor, Chief Soil and Water Conservation
Secretary, Punjab, APMIP, Project Director, APD, GGRC, Director and other staffs who
helped us and also walked with us during the field survey.
Authors thank to the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Division of agricultural
Economics Head, professors, SardarKrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, KVKs,
officers and project staff for conducting survey, helping during field visits and facilitating the
project works. We thanks to the farmers of all the states who have devoted and spared their
time to provide valuable data/ information without any remuneration.
The authors also owe heartfelt gratitude of GGRCL and MD, Gujarat State for their
precious time and inputs and feedback and the help for data. The authors also express thanks
to Jain Irrigation for providing inputs on the technical and manufacturing aspects of the
technology and its application on the farms.
Acknowledgements are also due to Netafim project manager for their inputs on micro
irrigation installation procedure, duties and responsibility of company and farmers.
Gratitude is also due to for providing supply side and dealer perspectives of the supply chain.
We are also very thankful to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s
Welfare, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Govt. of India, who encouraged us to take
up this study and morally supported with generous administrative front. We would also like
to thank colleagues at the ICAR- NIAP for their inputs, feedback and support in making this
study possible and reach its conclusion.
(Subhash Chand)
6
Foreword
ICAR-NIAP regularly undertakes research studies on policy and institutional issues
related to the development. The study on impact of micro irrigation sponsored by NITI
Aayog, is of special interest for the water policy and research point of view. This study
examines the spread and adoption of micro irrigation in four states, namely, Punjab
(Unexploited region), Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.
This study combines and compares the observations across four states of India with
varied cropping pattern. The study shows that farmers are motivated to adopt drip irrigation
primarily to cope with the scarcity in at least one of three factors of production, namely
water, power and labour. Micro irrigation appears to give very good results on each of these
counts, and therefore the farmers see it as very useful technology. The survey results show
that farmers use the saved water for variety of purposes including cultivation of new crops,
giving more irrigation to other existing crops. Though rare, some farmers also share and sell
water informally. The study clearly establishes the benefit of the technology for conservation
of water and extending its use.
The study explores the adoption process beyond technology use to master the
management of micro-irrigation in agriculture and roles of stakeholders. The different phases
including purchase of the equipment, installation, getting subsidy approval and disbursements
are very important. This post adoption phase is important in getting the maximum benefits
from the system. While the initial phases are substantially influenced by friends, family and
local networks, the subsequent phase is dominated by the action of drip dealer, company sales
persons and the final phase is determined by others such as the drip after sales service staff.
The results indicate the positive impact of micro irrigation on improving the productivity of
agriculture and to cope with power, labour and water scarcity. The report makes
recommendations for redesigning the benefit of micro irrigation by farmers and higher water
productivity in sustainable manner. I hope research finding will be useful for the researchers
and other readers.
Director
7
Glimpse of activities under micro irrigation study
Plate 1: showing the micro irrigation device with fertigation unit attached
Micro irrigation system controlling unit In Fazlika, Punjab
Micro irrigation system lateral wrapped with tractor in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system in green shed net Sabarkantha Micro irrigation system with fertigation unit Abohar Punjab
Different fertilizer tanks fitter with micro irrigation system unit Abohar Punjab 8
Plate 2: Research team conducting primary survey
Discussion with farmers in Hoshiarpur solar micro irrigation system Punjab
Discussion with farmers in on micro irrigation system in Vishakhapatnam, AP
Discussion with farmers in Hoshiarpur on micro irrigation system Punjab Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Banaskantha, Gujarat
Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Visakhapatnam, AP Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Visakhapatnam, AP 9
Plate 3: Showing the micro irrigation system with attachment of various devices
Micro irrigation system fitted with opens well in Visakhapatnam, AP
Solar operated micro irrigation system in Abohar, Punjab
Micro irrigation system filter and distribution unit in Visakhapatnam, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted in Chittoor district,
AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for plantation crop Chittoor district,
AP Micro irrigation system fitted in Chittoor district, AP 10
Plates 4: Showing the micro irrigation installed in the poly houses
Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system for Banana crop in Banaskantha,
Gujarat
Micro irrigation system fitted in polyhouse for nursery rising in Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Nursery rising in Abohar, Punjab Micro irrigation system used for Kinnow crop in Abohar Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Nursery rising in Punjab
Discussion by the research team with farmers in Visakhapatnam, AP 11
Plate 5: Showing the micro irrigation system intalled in farmers field visited by the research team
Micro irrigation system fitted in mandin orange in Abohar, Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Papaya cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for Arhar cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for Guava cultivation in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system underground in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Discussion with farmers in Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh 12
Plate 6: Showing the water resouces and fitings of MIS devices in the farmers fields
Kienow plantation with drip irrigation system
Guava plantation with drip irrigation system
Arhar cultivation with drip irrigation system
In Micro irrigation system water control
system
Team visiting couconut plantation with drip system
Micro irrigation system fitted in sugarcane cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Water storage tank for feeding to micro irrigation system in Abohar Punjabam , Andhra
Pradesh
Micro irrigation system fitted in cotton cultivation in Sabarkantha, Gujarat
Farm pond constructed for storing water for Micro irrigation system in Abohar , Punjab
Fodder cultivation using underground micro irrigation system in Chittoor, AP
Farmer showing the water level in open well Gujarat 13
Plate 7: Showing the drip system fitted in sugarcane, beans and cotton
Micro irrigation system installed after sowing the crop in Punjab
Research team discussing the constraints on MIS with farmers in Banaskantha
Micro irrigation system installed in sugarcane in Chittoor district, AP
Micro irrigation system installed in cotton crop Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system installed in new crop (beans), Gujarat Beans harvested from the irrigation through MIS, Gujarat 14
Plates 8: Showing the drip irrigation system installed at farmers field under different crops
Micro irrigation system installed in maize crop in Chittoor district of AP Micro irrigation system installed in cucurbit crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in Brinjal crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in Banana crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in maize crop in Chittoor district of AP Micro irrigation system installed in horticulture crop in Chittoor district of AP 15
Executive summary
The water is one of the important and basic inputs for agriculture production. India is
having about 139.5 mha. total irrigation potential and some of the states have already
harvested the existing irrigation potential. Recognizing the importance of micro-
irrigation, first time Central Government specifically mentioned it in Eighth Five-Year
Plan in 1992. The first real thrust however came in 2006, when the government
launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for micro-irrigation. This was later
upgraded to the National Mission on Micro- irrigation (NMMI) in 2010 and was
implemented till year 2013-14. In the year 2014-15, NMMI was subsumed under the
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and was implemented under the
On Farm Water Management (OFWM) component of the scheme. Subsuming all the
schemes of irrigation, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna (PMKSY) was launched in
2015 by integrating micro irrigation in the flagship scheme as an integral component.
This study examines the experiences in spread and adoption of micro- irrigation in
selected four states, namely, Punjab (Unexploited region), Maharashtra, Gujarat and
Andhra Pradesh. This study departs from the usual supply side perspective and
provides a demand side perspective. It combines and compares the observations across
four states of India with varied cropping pattern.
The specific objectives of the study are; to study the administration processes adopted
by the states and effectiveness of state implementing agencies; effect of water/ energy
pricing on adoption of micro irrigation; effectiveness of various MI technologies for
water economy, energy and inputs use and income; estimate the total area covered
under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of the use of marginal and otherwise
uncultivable lands; estimate the amount of private investment and area covered ; assess
the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development: develop an
alternate ecosystem for promotion of micro-irrigation in under exploited but potential
states/ regions and identify the major constraints, if any, and suggest remedial
measures.
The administrative process of Micro-Irrigation System (MIS) implementation adopted
by different states is not uniform. However, the subsidy norms and selection of 16
beneficiaries are practiced following the common guidelines. The MIS implementation
model adopted by Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra states is found to be better
in terms of simplification of operational procedure, fairness in subsidy allotment,
transparency, farmers’ satisfaction and clarity in subsidy disbursement process. Punjab
state needs to adopt and refine their implementation process of MIS on lines of Andhra
Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) or Gujarat Green Revolution Company
(GGRC).However, MIS under solar irrigation project is performing, well in the state.
Operational process using ICT is very well utilized by AP, MAH and Gujarat states. Other
states can replicate some of these approaches.
The micro irrigation has created the opportunity of employment generation, income
improvement, attraction of youths towards agriculture (Chittoor, AP), reduction of out
migration of farmers (Hoshiarpur, Punjab).
The teams implementing the micro-irrigation schemes in various states (with an
exception of few) drew from different line departments. The frequent transfer of the
staffs has hampered the progress of the project especially in Punjab and Maharashtra.
Hence, a focused approach by providing separate department needs to be adopted by
other states. Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have opened dedicated separate
department/unit exclusively for micro- irrigation implementation. This has resulted in
scaling up of area under micro-irrigation in these states. Farmers face major challenges
in finding financing for micro-irrigation products and there are high collateral demands.
Adequate credit facilities to the farmers, trained human resources and infrastructure for
training of farmers were lacking in Punjab. Peoples participation in the micro-irrigation
programme was low to medium (PPI=68%). This needs to be improved by involving the
stakeholder right from the planning to implementation stage of the scheme.
Micro irrigation is generally perceived as technology intensive; hence, its acceptance by
farmers needs much persuasion. There is a lack of information on temporal and spatial
variation in soil moisture, the optimal fraction of soil to be wetted, location specific and
crop-specific irrigation and fertigation scheduling and lack of availability of low cost
water-soluble fertilizers and other agro chemicals even in AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat,
where MIS has progressed well. Farmers in Punjab and AP states are allowed to run 17
their water pumps on free and subsidized energy, i.e. electricity and solar sources
resulting in over exploitation of ground water due to the fact that method of irrigation
mostly used flood. They don’t feel the necessity of water saving technologies like MIS.
More than 75% farmers among adopters arewell aware about MIS and its benefits.
Though non- adopters are also aware about MIS but the extent of awareness is less than
40%. Most of the adopters were familiar with the process of application filling and
approaching the Programme Implementing Agency (PIA). Still efforts from the PIA are
needed to create more awareness about the benefits of the MIS, particularly in the state
like Punjab. The total coverage of area under MIS for the country as whole is about
10.25 mha which is about 7.6% to net sown area. The coverage of area under drip
irrigation was higher in Andhra Pradesh (25.3%) fallowed by Maharashtra (23.6%),
Gujarat (13.6%) and Punjab (< 1.17%). On the other hand, option in the case of
sprinkler, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have covered more area then in
Punjab and other states.
The proportion of farmers who witnessed water scarcity was higher among the adopter
category. This implies that depleting water resources is an important driving force
behind adoption of MI technology. It is to be noted that in Punjab, nearly 36 per cent of
the farmers strongly disagreed for existing water scarcity as they were facing water
logging condition in their fields. The water logging existsin South-West part of Punjab.
However, in the other selected states, majority of the farmers, particularly adopters feel
shortage of water a big problem. The inputs used, number of irrigation, sources of
irrigation, cost and net returns of the adopters were higher compared with the non-
adopters. The evidence revealed a significant increase in yield and saving of water,
energy and fertilizer as compared to the non-adopters. The fertilizer saving varies from
12.89% to 37.51% and similarly chemical used for pest and disease management saved
varies from 17.71% to 48.23% (Punjab). However, increase in yield and saving in inputs
does not vary uniformly across the crop and states. It was observed that the fund allocation
and utilization was encouraging by different states during 2013-2016. Andhra Pradesh
contributed nearly 20 per cent of total expenditure under India’s micro irrigation total
expenditure. However, for other states it was not much, except Gujarat, Maharashtra, and
Karnataka. For successful and widespread diversification of agriculture in the state (Punjab, 18
Maharashtra), the installation of Micro irrigation systems should be made an integral part of
the programme by providing special assistance in the form of subsidies and interest-free loans.
There is a tendency amongst farmers to get the Micro-irrigation system installed
from the unapproved firms without intimating the department. When there are problem
with system, farmers blame the department. To avoid such hardship to the farmers,
there should be a blanket ban on the unapproved firms in the state. However, AP,
Maharashtra and Gujarat states have already taken into account these aspects seriously.
The components like water storage tanks, electric motors and pump sets should also be
part of the micro irrigation system. Electric connection priority and assured continuous
power supply for at least 8 hours a day should be made available. To realize long-term
impact of micro-irrigation, there should be a continuous process of monitoring and
impact assessment studies.
19
Chapter 1.0
1.0 Introduction
Agriculture is one of the major contributors of Indian economy and a predominant
source of livelihood. The small and marginal farmers (0-2 ha) comprised 86.21% of total
farmer in 2015-16 against 84.97% in 2010-11 while their share in the operated area stood
47.34% in the current census as against 44.31% in 2010-11 (Agriculture census, 2015-16).
The smaller land holding is accompanied by unequal distribution of water resources
endowment and its access. Despite possessing world’s largest irrigated area, irrigation
coverage in the country is only 48.2 per cent and thus a significant portion of agriculture land
depends on rainfall. The average annual rainfall is about 117 cm, but it has wide spatial
variations from 1100 cm in Cherrapunji to 10 cm in western Rajasthan. Further, over 80% of
the annual rainfall is received only during four month of the year (June to September)
(Rainfall Statistics of India, 2016). Due to rising population and increasing demand by
various sectors, per capita water availability has declined from 5,177 m
3
in 1951 to 1,545 m
3
.
With an annual groundwater draft of 245 BCM, irrigation alone consumes nearly 91 per cent
of total draft irrigating 62 % of total irrigated area of the country (CGWB, 2014). So,
agriculture bears responsibility of using these scarce natural resources judiciously and
efficiently.
Since independence, the Government of India has made huge investments in
development of water resources. However, the performance of public funded irrigation
projects has been continually declining over the years due to system maintenance issues,
inefficient delivery systems, as well as inefficient management at field level. Further, the
expansion of irrigated area does not commensurate with the amount of capital invested.
Rising cost of cultivation and soil salinity is adversely affecting sustainability of agriculture.
Irrigation, which was one of the key factors behind green revolution in India, led to large
scale adoption of pumping technology at farmer field (T. Saha, 2009, 2011). The number of
bore wells increased from less than one million in the 1960s to 20 million by 2009 (Dewandel
et al., 2010). Further government intervention to support farming community as free or
subsidized power supply for irrigation has accelerated groundwater extraction, resulted in its
over-exploitation in few parts of country. At same time, groundwater irrigation has emerged
as a dominant source of irrigation due to its higher efficiency and reliability as compared to 20
canal irrigation. At present, groundwater development of India is 62 % but states like Punjab,
Haryana and Rajasthan it went up to 150 % (CGWB, 2016). The latest reports from the
GRACE Mission of NASA (Rodell et al., 2009, Samir Yacoubi; 2012) showed continuous
groundwater decline 17.7645 BCM/year over the Indian states of Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana
and Delhi. Such high rates of groundwater exploitation have increased the percentage of
‘unsafe’ districts from 9 % to 30 % in a span of nine years between 1995 and 2004 (Shankar
et.al, 2011). At present, almost all the easily possible ways for viable irrigation potential have
already been tapped. However, the water demand for different sectors has been growing
continuously (Saleth 1996; Vaidyanathan 1999) and demand management becomes the
overall key strategy for managing scarce water resources (Molden et al 2001, Kumar 2008).
In this context, water saving technologies like micro irrigation has emerged as a suitable
demand management measure to address the water scarcity issues. Therefore, up-scaling
water use efficiency in agriculture has become key issue for policy makers.
1.1 Government initiatives for micro irrigation system development
Recognizing the importance of micro irrigation, first time central government specifically
mentioned it in eighth five-year plan in 1992. The first real thrust however came in 2006,
when the government launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for micro irrigation.
This was later upgraded to the National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI) in 2010 and
was implemented until year 2013-14. In the year 2014-15, NMMI was subsumed under the
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and was implemented under the On
Farm Water Management (OFWM) component of the scheme. Subsuming all the schemes of
irrigation, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna (PMKSY) was launched in 2015,
integrating micro irrigation as an integral component. PMKSY main focus is to achieve
convergence of investments in irrigation sector at field level in order to provide end-to-end
solutions in irrigation supply chain, viz. water sources, distribution network and farm level
applications. This programme includes creating infrastructure to bring water to farms and
watershed development. Therefore, the micro irrigation presents a quick-win opportunity for
all the stakeholders where the implementation can be seen on ground within short period. The
timeline of intervention to accelerate micro irrigation is presented in figure 1. All these
programmes and schemes have been initiated by the government with specific objectives to
improve the water use efficiency and water productivity by raising more crop per drop of
water.
21
Figure 1: Journey of micro irrigation development in India
The guidelines issued for implementation of MIS, emphasizes on need to bring
maximum area under micro irrigation. To accomplish the intended objectives of the
government on MIS, different states follow different policies while implementing it.
However, central guidelines are common. There is wide variation in the approach adopted by
different states for implementation of the MIS. At present, total area under micro irrigation is
10. 3 million ha contributed by 4.8 million ha under drip and 5.5 million ha under sprinkler
irrigation (Agri. Stat, 2018, DACNET).
With this prelude, this study has been taken up with following Objectives:
1.2 Terms of reference/ Objectives
1. To study the administration processes practices adopted by the state and effectiveness of
state implementing agencies.
2. Effect of water/ energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation.
3. To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy, energy and
input economy, savings, employment and income.
4. To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of
the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
5. To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them and developing
database. 22
6. To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development.
7. To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in under exploited
but potential states/ regions.
8. To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure.
1.3 Rationale of the study on micro irrigation: The answer to emergence of groundwater
scarcity and continuous groundwater depletion across states is twofold- supply and demand
management of water. Since agriculture sector alone consume nearly 80% the total water in
India, it would be central to reducing the aggregate demand for water to match with the
available future supplies, thereby reducing the extent of water stress that the country is likely
to face (Kumar, 2003). Measures to increase water supply such as completion of storage
dams, interlinking of rivers, desalination of seawater and artificial recharge of groundwater
and rainwater harvesting are costly and long-term steps. A number of demand management
strategies like water pricing, water users association; turnover system, etc. have been
introduced since the late-1970s to increase the water-use efficiency. Demand management
becomes the key to the overall strategy for managing scarce water resources (Molden et al.
2001). Drip Irrigation is one of the most efficient methods of irrigation (Keller and Blisner,
1990). There are two lines of thought regarding the water-saving potential of micro irrigation
technologies. The first line of argument is that the adoption of micro irrigation technologies
results in net water savings, thereby easing the prevailing water-scarcity problems. The water
saving is attained through substantial reduction in losses due to evaporation and inefficient
field conveyance and distribution systems. This is the declared motive for the state
governments of India to embark on the massive popularization of these technologies.
However, the farmers’ rationale for adopting these technologies may be different from the
policy objectives of the state governments. Farmers may give more weight to the other
attributes of micro irrigation technologies such as improvements in yield, reduction in labor
requirement, improvement in output quality, etc. in their adoption decisions. The second line
of thought is that even though micro irrigation technologies can result in water savings at the
plot or field level, it may not translate into net water savings at a higher level of aggregation
such as the watershed or the basin (Molden et al. 2001, Naryanmoorti et al. 1997). According
to this line of thought, the net water savings could be only modest if the phenomenon of
return flows, much of which goes to recharge the underground water source, is considered as
useful. Thus the adoption of micro irrigation technologies may not automatically lead to
water savings at the basin level unless enabling institutional and economic policy instruments 23
are put in place that allow the equitable distribution or allocation of the saved water. Thus, to
understand that micro irrigation system really save water, energy, enhanced income and
employment opportunities are still debatable issue and put strains of risks on the farming
community. To address the issues like administrative process adoptee, institutions involved
benefits of micro irrigation and constraints in adoption micro irrigation, this study was
planned and findings are reported in subsequent section of this report.
24
Chapter 2.0
2.1 Evidences from the literature: The survey of literature on the impacts of micro
irrigation technologies indicate that they are usually promoted primarily for one or more of
the following objectives (1) as a means of saving water in irrigated agriculture and averting
the impending water crises (Narayanamoorthy, 2003 & Verma, 2004), (2) as a strategy to
increase income and reduce poverty among the rural poor, (3) to enhance the food and
nutritional security of rural households (Upadhyay, 2003 & 2004) and (4) as a means to
extend the limited available water over a larger cropped area, especially during drought years
or during the period before a monsoon season. Micro irrigation technologies lead to poverty
reduction through substantial increases in farm income due to an increased area of
cultivation, better crop yields, enhanced output quality, early crop maturity and hence higher
unit prices, and reduced cultivation costs, particularly for operations like irrigation and
weeding. Micro irrigation technologies enhance nutritional security by enabling the
production and consumption of vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables, which are usually
missing in the traditional staple diets of many cultures. Various studies in India have shown a
considerable return to farmers’ investments in micro irrigation technologies (Dhawan 2002).
Demand management mechanism such as micro irrigation (drip and sprinkler
irrigation) shows superiority over other traditional irrigation methods in term of water use
efficiency, energy saving, yield increase etc. (Kumar and Palanisami, 2010). The result of
high crop yield and water use efficiency in sprinkler irrigation is partly because sprinkler
irrigation can produce a favorable microclimate for crop growth (Yang et al, 2000).
Under drip irrigation, cost reduction is generally realized more in labour intensive
operations like ploughing, weeding, irrigation, etc. (Narayanamoorthy, 2005). The
environmental problems associated with surface method of irrigation like the one water
logging and salinity are effectively solved under drip method of irrigation (Narayanamoorthy,
1997). Drip method helps in achieving saving in irrigation water, increased water-use
efficiency, decreased tillage requirement, higher quality products, increased crop yields and
higher fertilizer-use efficiency (Qureshi et al., 2001; Namara et al., 2005). Evidences show
that the water-use efficiency increases up to 100 per cent in a properly designed and managed
drip irrigation system (Sivanappan, 1994). Only a few states like Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have adopted significant areas under micro-irrigation.
The poor adoption is attributed to a number of factors, such as, high cost, complexity
of the technology and other socio-economic issues, such as, lack of credit access, fragmented 25
land holdings, localized crop pattern, etc. Further, faulty design of irrigation system is
another important factor forcing poor adoption of micro-irrigation, especially among the
small and marginal farmers. The farmers adopted drip irrigation due to enhanced marginal
productivity of water, savings in water use and the net returns per unit volume of
groundwater (Chandrakanth et al., 2013). Failure of irrigation well in context of groundwater
depletion, the probability of drilling additional well was as high as 0.87 due to high
probability of well failure of 0.40 in Kolar and Bangalore district of Karnataka. This further
exacerbated negative reciprocal externality, as farmers are involved in both causing and
withstanding the worst of groundwater overdraft (Chandrakanth and Arun, 1997).
Bahinipati and Viswanathan (2016) examined the Role of Institutions and Policies in
Diffusion of Micro-irrigation in Gujarat, Western India and results revealed that the
promotion of micro irrigation in Gujarat corresponds with the national mission on micro
irrigation, an unequivocal dynamism was observed in the expansion of this in the state as
compared to the other states. This dynamism can be attributed to the specific policies and
institutional innovations that the state had vigorously adopted and followed in terms of
provision of differential subsidies targeted towards the farmers segregated by their socio-
economic status as well as the physical and economic water scarcity of the agro-ecological
regions.
A study conducted by Kiruthika (2014) has examined the determinants of adoption of
drip irrigation in sugarcane cultivation in Tamil Nadu, the results showed that age and
experience negatively and significantly influence the adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane.
Since younger farmers are more likely to be risk takers and hence perhaps more likely to be
adopters than older farmers. Access to extension service positively and significantly
influences the adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane. Palanisami et al. (2011) studied the
spread and economics of micro-irrigation in India: evidence from nine states and found that
the poor adoption can be attributed to number of factors such as high cost, complexity of the
technology and other socio-economic issues such as a lack of access to credit facilities,
fragmented landholdings, localized crop pattern, etc. Reducing the capital cost and increasing
technical expertise will help the spread of the micro irrigation in a bigger way. There is a
need to redesign low cost drip and micro irrigation systems to suit the needs of the small and
marginal farmers. There is a large time lag between the decision taken about the subsidy and
actual implementation.
Reddy et al. (2017) examined the performance evaluation of drip irrigation systems in
selected villages of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh and study revealed that many of the 26
farmers have been benefited by the use of water saving through drip irrigation and cultivation
of land holdings was increased about 55-60%. The drip irrigation system has reduced the
different operational costs by 25-40% such as (weeding, quantity of fertilizer application,
manpower for irrigation and fertilizer application). A strategy paper on future prospects of
micro irrigation in India (2016) revealed that in accelerating growth of Indian agriculture,
micro irrigation an efficient solution with the need to increase productivity and suggested that
while saving water, micro irrigation will play a key role for the future of Indian agriculture.
Baranchuluun et al. 2015 examined the cost-benefit analysis of crop production with various
irrigation systems in Mongolia and found that drip irrigation is water and labor saving
alternative to conventional irrigation strategies. Further, cost benefit analysis of drip
irrigation is the most efficient method not only reduce costs, but also to protect the
environment as well. Benefit – Cost Ratio (BCR) clearly indicates that furrow irrigation has
the lowest efficiency.
Bhaskar et al. (2005) examined the impact of micro irrigation on cotton crop in
Maharashtra, India. Results revealed that yield improvement due to micro irrigation has been
reported up to 35-50%, in cotton 5-10%, in castor 15-42%, in groundnut 20-66% and in
potato 20-26%. The yield improvement in principal crops is to the tune of 30-105%. Biswas
et al. (2015) studied the effect of drip irrigation and mulching on yield, water-use efficiency
and economics of tomato in Gazipur, Bangladesh and the result revealed that yield of tomato
increased with the increasing amount of irrigation water in un-mulched treatment. The trend
was reversed when drip irrigation was coupled with mulches. The highest yield for each
mulch (81.12 t/ha for polyethylene and 79.49 t/ha for straw) was obtained when 50% of water
requirement was applied. The highest water use efficiency of 592 kg/ha/mm was obtained
with 50% water application under polyethylene mulch. The highest net return (US$ 7098/ha),
incremental net return (US$ 1556/ha), and incremental benefit-cost ratio (7.03) were found
for 50% water application with straw mulch. Irfan et al. (2014) studied the impact of
irrigation management practices and water quality on maize production and water use
efficiency and results shows that for good quality water, the drip irrigation system produced
19% more crop production over raised-bed irrigation system. Similarly, for marginal and
hazardous water crop yield was increased by 23, 25%, respectively. Hence, drip irrigation
system was more efficient for saline water. It was recommended that drip irrigation could be
adopted where groundwater quality is marginal to hazardous quality to get high crop
production and water use efficiency.
27
Jha et al (2016) examined the impact of irrigation method on water use efficiency and
productivity of fodder crops in Nepal. Results revealed that the controlled application of
water through drip irrigation is able to produce acceptable yields of nutritionally dense fodder
species during dry seasons, leading to more effective utilization and resource conservation of
available land, fertilizer and water. The ability to grow fodder crops year-round in lowland
and hill regions of Nepal with limited water storages using low-cost, water-efficient drip
irrigation may greatly increase livestock productivity and, hence, the economic security of
smallholder farmers. Qureshi et al. (2015) studied the effect of drip and furrow irrigation
systems on sunflower yield and water use efficiency in dry area of Pakistan. Comparison of
results under drip and furrow irrigation methods revealed that drip irrigation produced 26
percent more sunflower yield with 56 percent less water compared to furrow irrigation
method. Water use efficiency of drip irrigation was about three times higher than furrow
irrigation method. While water saving due to adoption of drip irrigation was found in the
range of 12-84 percent in different crops, the same is found to be in the range of 8-60 percent
in sprinkler irrigation method. Water saving is found to be relatively higher among the water-
intensive crops like sugarcane, banana and vegetable crops.
Kumar et al. (2016) studied the effect of drip irrigation on yield and water use
efficiency on brinjal in Moradabad (U.P.). Results showed that water use efficiency (yield per
unit area per unit depth of water used) decreased with increase in irrigation levels for all the
treatments of drip irrigation system. The increase in water use efficiency for drip irrigation
system, Among the drip irrigation levels, the highest field water use efficiency (6148.31kg
ha- 1 cm-1) was found at 65% irrigation level, indicating comparatively more efficient use of
irrigation water with a possibility of water saving of 35% water by adopting brinjal plot (1.58
liter plant
-1
day
-1
). Namara et al (2005) studied the adoption and impacts of micro-irrigation
technologies empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat states of
India. The study indicates that the use of micro irrigation technologies increases the marginal
productivity of water. Study on potential for drip and sprinkler irrigation in India conducted
by Narayanamoorthy in 2006 and found that micro-irrigation (MI) is proved an efficient
method where water use efficiency is only about 35-40 percent. Paul et al. (2013) studied the
effect of drip and surface irrigation on yield, water use- efficiency and economics of
capsicum in Bhubaneswar. As a result, the use of drip irrigation system either alone or in
combination with mulching, could increase the capsicum yield up to an extent of 57 % over
surface irrigation method with the same quantity of water. The net profit could be increased
by 54 % over the normal surface method by adopting drip irrigation system with mulch. 28
Wrachienb et al. (2014) studied the potential of micro-irrigation technology for poor-
rural communities in Maharashtra, India and found that with refer to the existing traditional
irrigation systems, the implemented MIS has shown a mean increasing in productivity for
banana, grapes and sugarcane by 29%, 19% and 23%, respectively. Also, with respect to the
flood method irrigation MIS has permitted to save the 37% of water and the lower energy
expended and the reduced labor required by a MIS has a direct effect on the overall cost of
production and therefore the profit level is found to be higher than that of non- MIS adopters.
Bhamoriya and Mathew (2014) analyzed the impact of micro irrigation technology in
Gujarat state of India. Study revealed that farmers have managed to increase the yield of
vegetables like tomatoes and bottle guards by up to 20 – 30% on the same land. In addition,
the quality of produce with drip irrigation is much better than with flood irrigation there are
no mud or water spots on the fruit as is usually the case with flood irrigation. Farmers are
able to get up to 20% higher prices for their yield with drip irrigation. Chandrakanth et al.
(2013) examine the economic benefits from micro irrigation for dry land crops in Karnataka.
Results shows that by adopting drip irrigation the net returns per farm increased from 15,292
to 25,203 and the marginal productivity of water increased from 465 to 1960. Chandran &
Surendran (2016) studied the factors influencing the adoption of drip irrigation by farmers in
humid tropical Kerala, India and results indicated that socioeconomic characteristics such as
age, education, experience, land holding size, etc. have a positive influence on drip irrigation
adoption index on farmers. Farmers have realized yield improvement in the range of about
13% to 47% through drip irrigation, when compared to surface method of irrigation for
arecanut, coconut and nutmeg.
Panigrahi et al. (2010) examined the water use and yield response of tomato as
influenced by drip and furrow irrigation in Odisha state of India. The study reveals that drip
irrigation at 100% ET, replenishment in tomato can increase the yield by 15.4%, besides
saving 17.9% more costly irrigation water than the conventional furrow irrigation practiced
by most of the farmers. Priyan and Panchal (2017) examined the benefits of micro-irrigation
technology in India and found that due to adoption of micro-irrigation technology yield is
increased, water use efficiency is improved, cost of water, fertilizers and manures and weed
removal is reduced. All these added up in the increase in the overall economic benefits
accrued due optimum utilization of water. Since the technology offers higher benefits like
irrigation efficiency (50-90%), fertilizer (28.5%) and energy (30.5%), this technology is
highly relevant and praise worthy. 29
Quevenco (2015) examined the effect of drip irrigation on yield of cauliflower,
broccoli, sweet pepper and many other nutritious vegetables in Kenya, and found that the
development of a low-cost, small-scale drip irrigation system that generated 2.8 times the
yield of field grown tomatoes while using only 45% of the water traditionally applied by
hand. The use of drip irrigation provided a tea yield four times higher than that of the rain-
fed, non-irrigated tea. Tiwari et al. (2014) examined the influence of drip irrigation and
plastic mulch on yield of Sapota and soil nutrients in Kharagpur India. The biometric
observations of Sapota plants showed positive influence of the irrigation and plastic mulch
treatments on growth of Sapota crop. Due to mulch alone, the increase in Sapota yield varied
from 7.62% to 41% in different treatments. Yield of Sapota crop was increased by 21.05%
due to drip in comparison to ring basin irrigation. Narayanamoorthy (2008) examined the
Drip Irrigation and Rainfed Crop Cultivation Nexus in Maharashtra state of India. Results
revealed that withdrawal of water under DIM also helps to reduce the consumption of
electricity to the tune of about 140 Kwh/acre over the conventional irrigation method. Suresh
Kumar & Palanisami (2010), The analysis of economics of crop cultivation under drip and
conventional has revealed that the drip method of irrigation has a significant impact on
resources saving, cost of cultivation, yield of crops and farm profitability.
2.2 Meta-analysis of previous studies: The effectiveness of various MI technologies for
water economy, energy and input economy, employment and income has been studied
through both literature review and analysis of primary survey. Table 1 provides a glimpse of
benefits of micro-irrigation as reported by researchers in the past. Most of the studies reveal a
significant saving in water, energy, fertilizer, increase of yield, crop area and overall
reduction in cost of production due to adoption of micro irrigation. However, the extent of
benefits varies depending upon underlying factors such as differences in methodology,
farming system, climatic conditions, socio-economic settings, etc. The observations of
the National Committee on Plasticulture Applications in Horticulture (NCPAH) observed
based on their experiment studies that various crops reflect various input saving through
micro irrigation i.e. drip and sprinkler. The following table shows the findings of different
research studies conducted in India and abroad mostly at experimental research stations.
There is limited study on field survey basis.
30
Table 1: Meta Analysis of micro irrigation studies reported by various researchers
Studies Study Area/
region
Water
saving
(%)
Energy
saving
(%)
Fertilizer
saving (%)
Yield
increased/
Income (%)
Additional
area under
irrigation
(%)
Cost
saving
(%)
Rahul Kapur et al. 2015 Maharashtra 50-90 30.5 28.5 42.4-52.7 31.9 30-45 &
30.4
National Mission on Micro
MIS, Impact study for the
Govt. of India, June 2014
India 22.96 -
42.73
19.37-73.48 32.6-68.02
Raina et al, 2011 30-35 41.37
Narayanamoorthi, 2008,
2006
Maharashtra,
India
12-84 &
8-60
114 50
Reddy et al., 2017 Guntur District,
AP
55-60 25-40
Wrachienb et al, 2014 Maharashtra 37 19-29
Qureshi et al, 2015 Pakistan 56 26
Paul et al, 2013 Bhubaneswar,
Odisha
57 54
Biswas et al, 2015 Gazipur,
Bangladesh
50 25-27
Kumar et al, 2016 Moradabad,
Uttar Pradesh
35
Bhaskar et al, 2005 Maharashtra 40-50 30-100
Quevenco, 2015 Kenya 55 99
Tiwari et al, 2014 Kharagpur,
India
21.05
Chandrakanth et al, 2013 Karnataka 65
Priyan and Panchal, 2017 India 50-90 30.5 28.5
Panigrahi et al, 2010 Odisha 15.4 17.9
Chandran and Surendran,
2016
Kerala 13-47
Bhamoriya and Mathew,
2014
Gujarat 20 20-30
Global Agri. System and
their Impact Evaluation
Study, 2014
India 20-40 25-35 40-50 20-25
National committee on
plasticulture application in
horticulture,(https://www.n
cpahindia.com)
India 25-40 30-40 20 30 30 40
Sharda R et.al, 2017 Punjab 40-42 9.13
Govind, R etal. 2012
Vanitha and
Mohandass,2014
Tamil Nadu 50 100 19.05
Rao, KVR.,2017 MP 40 11.03
AICRP-IWM 2016 MP 33 10
Xinjang China 60 10-12
Westcott etal. 1986 USA 30-40 25
Chand.S, 2019 India 17-50 6-36 25-40 12-43 11-36
Authors have collected from the literature
31
Chapter 3.0
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Approach followed for this study: We have adopted the following steps to fulfill stated
objectives for this study
1. Intensive review of previous research, government reports, documents, policies and
programs for micro irrigation.
2. Collection of available secondary data.
3. Priming sampling framework to conduct study in four states.
4. Development of questionnaires and pretesting of questionnaires for primary data
collection.
5. Training to the project staff for field survey.
6. Continuous contact and consultations with the various concern agencies and the
stakeholder involved.
7. Field survey of adopter and non-adopter based on sampling framework in the selected
areas.
8. Interaction, focus group discussion and interview with farmers, policy makers, planners,
bureaucrats, development workers, and agencies involved for micro irrigation system.
9. Analysis of secondary and primary data using appropriate econometric tools.
3.2 Selection of study area and sampling design: Purposively four states namely Punjab,
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra have been selected for study. Stratified random
sampling technique has been followed for selection of respondents. Based on the secondary
data all districts of stated states were arranged in increasing order of area under micro
irrigation system (MIS). From each state, one district with maximum and one district with
minimum area under MIS was selected for primary survey. Further two blocks from each
district were selected randomly. Selection of villages and respondent were done randomly. A
sample was drawn consisting of equal number of micro irrigation adopter and non-adopter
from each state have targeted for intensive survey using pre-tested schedule. Based on
sampling design, intensive survey of 183, 204, 220 and 220 respondents was conducted in
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra respectively. Total sample of 827
respondents collected and it is comprised of almost equal number of adopter and non-adopter.
Location of selected of districts in preselected states have been given in figure 2 and
sampling framework have been given in table 2.
32
Figure 2: Showing the location of the study area
Table 2: Sampling design of states and respondents covered under the study
Name of
state
District
Name of
blocks
Adopter Non
adopter
Total
Sprinkler Drip Total
Punjab
Fazilka
Abohar,
Khuian Sarvar
- 37 37 61 98
Hoshiarpur
Talwara,
Hajipur
20 34 54 31 85
Total 20 71 91 92 183
Andhra
Pradesh
Visakha-
patnam
Atchutapuram,
Rambilli
5 58 63 61 124
Chittoor
Pileru,
Punganur
10 30 40 40 80
Total 15 88 103 101 204
Gujarat
Banaskantha
Deesa,
Palanpur
21 34 55 55 110
Sabarkantha
Idar,
Khedbrahma
20 35 55 55 110
Total 41 69 110 110 220
Maharashtra
Ahmednagar
Rahuri,
Sangamner
30 25 55 55 110
Satara Karad, Phaltan 4 46 50 60 110
Total 34 71 105 115 220
Grand total 148 261 409 418 827
33
3.3 Data and methodology: Primary and secondary data have been collected for the study.
The primary information was collected through personal interview method on pre-tested
questionnaire (Annexure IX). Primary data includes socio economic profile of adopter and
non-adopters, crop grown, source of irrigation, year of MIS installation, cost structure,
farmers perception on MIS use, operational procedure followed by the beneficiaries, cost of
crop cultivation with and without MIS, source of information for micro irrigation etc.
The secondary information were collected from the line departments of selected states
regarding the extent of area under MIS, operational procedure adopted by the concern
department involved in its implementation, cost and subsidy norms, selected beneficiaries,
irrigation source etc.
Based on data collected following method has been used for analysis.
1. Cost of cultivation concept
2. Logit model
3. Location coefficient
4. Peoples participation Index
5. Likert Scaling
3.4.1 Cost of cultivation and imputed value of inputs: The standard procedure on cost of
cultivation was adopted to work out total cost, gross return and net return. The value of
purchased input was taken into account as reported by the cultivators. Some of the inputs
used in the production process come from family sources. The procedures adopted for
deriving imputed value of these inputs are as under:
1. The value of family labor was worked out at the wage rate prevailing for different
agricultural operations in the selected villages.
2. Owned bullock labor was valued at the prevailing market rate in that area. The cost of
tractor charges was considered at the market rate.
3. The value of farm produced manure and seeds were computed as the rates prevailing in
concerned villages.
4. The costs of irrigation and owned machinery charges were considered at the market rate
custom service. In drip, the cost of irrigation was worked out considering total hours of
irrigation run during the total period of crop.
5. The kind payments were evaluated at prices prevalent in the village at the time of that
operation done.
6. Interest on working capital was charged at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, according to
duration of the crops. 34
7. Depreciation of owned fixed capital was charged at the rate of 2 per cent for pakka and 5
per cent for kachcha buildings per annum for the period of crop. While it was worked out
10 per cent of drip installation cost.
8. Repair and maintenance cost of drip system was considered as opined by respondents.
3.4.2 Logit model: The logit model uses a logistic cumulative distribution function to
estimate the linear determinants of the logit (Li) or the logged odds and has the following
form:
????????????(�)=????????????[
??????
�
1−??????
�
]=�
0+�
�� ….. Eq.1
Where, (Pi /1- Pi ) is the odds expressing the conditional mean or probability of an
occurrence of the event relative to the likelihood of a non-occurrence given X; β0 is the
constant term or intercept, βk is a vector of regression coefficients to be estimated and X is a
set of independent variables determining the probability of the event. The model in terms of
Y would then be written as:
�
�=�+∑�
�
�
�=1�
�+?????? …. Eq.2
Where Yi is a binary dependent variable; and Yi equals 1 when a farm household adopted
micro-irrigation system and 0 otherwise, α is the constant term and βk are regression
coefficients of k independent variables to be estimated and ε is the error term. The important
thing is to find β that produces the logits and the conditional mean of Y given X values that
have the greatest likelihood of producing the observed data.
Empirical model specification
The logit model of adoption of micro irrigation (Yi) has been specified as a function of all
independent variables as follows:
�
�=??????(�
�)+?????? … Eq.3
Where, dependent variable is Adoption of micro irrigation and independent variables are age
(years), family size (number), working labour (number), schooling (years), mobile use
(years), caste (Gen+OBC=1 Otherwise=0), soil health card (Yes=1 No=0), income from food
grain (Rs.), income from horticulture (Rs.), total expenditure per month (Rs.), crop insurance
(Yes=1 No=0), water table depth (in feet), tube well owenership (Yes=1 No=0), Source of
energy to extract water, irrigated area (ha), rain-fed area (ha). 35
3.4.3 Estimation of location coefficients for different states: Location coefficient has been
calculated to see concentration of micro irrigation area in different states. This has been
targeted to analyse the development pattern and regional disparity of micro irrigation as all
states are growing at different rate. The location coefficient is calculated as:
??????=
Mj/M
Gj/G
… Eq.4
Where,
Mj = area under Micro-irrigation in the j
th
state
M = area under Micro irrigation at the national level
Gj = area under groundwater-based minor irrigation in the j
th
state
G = area under groundwater-based minor irrigation at the national level.
The higher the value of coefficient depicts the higher concentration of micro-irrigation. The
location coefficient was constructed using the area under MI and the area under minor
irrigation.
3.4.4 People’s Participation Index (PPI): The people’s participation index was worked out
for different stages of implementation of micro irrigation scheme. It is based on data
collected from the MIS adopter on different aspects viz.; selection of site, selection of crop,
selection of installing firm, selection of credit agency and contacts made to officials. The
entire data set was compiled under planning, implementation and maintenance categories.
The statistical tool i.e. mean score, standard deviation were computed and accordingly PPI
values were arrived.
??????????????????=∑(
??????
��
??????
��
??????
��
∗
??????
??????
)100 …. Eq. 5
Where,
??????
��= Score assigned by the i
th
farmer to the j
th
question at planning, implementation
and maintenance of MIS
�
��= Maximum attainable score of I
th
farmers to the J
th
questions at planning,
implementation and maintenance of MIS
n= Number of question answered by i
th
farmer
N= Total number of respondents
3.4.5 Likert scale: The response of the farmers was analyzed using Likert scale to draw the
logical conclusions regarding impact of micro-irrigation, constraint faced and reason for non-
adoption. Data collected were on five point scale for impact of micro irrigation, constraints
and reasons of non- adoption used as Not important =1, somewhat not important =2,
neutral=3, somewhat important =4 and very important =5 likewise. 36
3.4 An overview of agriculture and water resources in selected states:
3.4.1 Trend in irrigated areas, fertilizer consumption and cropping intensity: The share
of irrigated area (gross and net) in Punjab has been much higher since 1990s in comparison to
other selected states. This may be due to the impact of green revolution in which irrigation
was considered as one of the essential input and Punjab played significant role. Irrigation
development in Maharashtra has been minimal covering just 20 per cent of its agricultural
area. Trend of fertilizer consumption of all states have sown similar trend and leading states
are Andhra Pradesh and Punjab with fertilizer application of nearly 250 kg/ ha. Analysis of
cropping intensity revealed that in Punjab almost two crops is taken in a year. This is possible
due to assured irrigation infrastructure irrigating almost total cropped area of the state.
Overall agriculture situation of Punjab is much distinct than other selected states fig. 3.
Note: AP- Andhra Pradesh, GJ-Gujarat, MH-Maharashtra, PB-Punjab, GIA-Gross Irrigated Area, GCA-
Gross Cropped Area, NIA- Net Irrigated Area, NCA-Net Cropped Area,
Fig. 3: Trend in irrigated area, fertilizer consumption and cropping intensity
3.4.2 Temporal changes in cropping pattern: The decadal percent change in area under
different crops for the period of 2005-06 to 2015-16 was analyzed for the selected states and
it is presented in table 3. Analysis indicates that there was significant difference in cropping
pattern across states. Punjab state follow mostly Paddy-wheat cropping pattern and food grain
occupy nearly 85 per cent of total gross sown area. In spite of groundwater over exploitation, 37
area under paddy and wheat has increased by 4.09 and 0.52 per cent respectively during the
last decade. This could be due to reduction in area under cotton. In Andhra Pradesh, area
under oilseeds and maize has decreased significantly but area under fruits & vegetable and
pulses have increased since 2005. In Gujarat, significant area has been brought under
vegetables whereas area under total oilseed and bajra has significantly reduced. In
Maharashtra, area under jowar and bajra has significantly declined in last 10 years but area
under sugarcane, soybean and cotton has notable growth.
Table 3: Change in cropping pattern of selected states (2005-06 to 2015-16) (Per cent)
Crops Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Paddy 4.09 -1.11 -0.07 -0.22
Jowar -0.05 -1.01 -1.29 -7.23
Bajra -0.05 -0.12 -5.27 -2.94
Maize -0.28 -2.58 -1.01 2.56
Ragi 0.00 -0.08 -0.07 -0.21
Wheat 0.52 -0.08 -0.62 -0.21
Gram -0.03 3.30 -0.26 1.72
Arhar (Tur) -0.06 -0.78 -0.57 0.47
Others pulses -0.07 3.38 -0.55 -0.46
Total Pulses -0.16 5.91 -1.38 0.08
Sugarcane 0.08 -0.39 -0.18 2.07
Total Condiments &Spices -0.02 0.68 1.08 0.00
Total Fruits -0.17 3.01 -0.36 -0.15
Total Vegetables 0.46 0.61 2.59 1.22
Total Fruits and Vegetable 0.28 3.62 2.23 1.07
Groundnut -0.02 -3.75 -5.52 -0.63
Sesamum -0.04 -0.17 -1.89 -0.35
Rapeseed and Mustard -0.21 -0.02 -1.16 0.00
Soybean 0.00 -0.71 0.50 5.65
Total Oilseeds -0.43 -8.15 -5.35 1.91
Cotton -2.83 1.12 4.44 5.48
Total cropped area (th. ha)
2005-06 7867.52 13362.08 11494.70 22256.00
2015-16 7871.57 7531.59 12579.70 22863.20
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, MoA&FW, GoI.
3.4.3 Status of water stress in selected states: The fig. 5: depicts trend in the ground water
table in the selected states. It could be observed that Gujarat and Punjab had high depth of
water table followed by Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The data from Central Ground
Water Board (CGWB) shows that nearly 70 to 80 per cent of block in Punjab are over 38
exploited, which is much higher in comparison to other states. This may be due to over
dependency on groundwater for agricultural production. This has put exploitation of
groundwater in Punjab, just opposite to other states considered for study. Therefore, micro
irrigation technology is very much essential for such states like Punjab and Andhra Pradesh
so that further ground water depletion can be checked.
Fig 5: Trend in groundwater table in meters
3.5 Descriptive study of sample households
3.5.1 Socio economic characteristics
The table 4 shows differences in socio economic characteristics of adopters and non-adopters.
The application of t test indicates that adopter and non-adopter of MIS had a significant
difference in respect to various socio economic parameters. However, not all the parameters
considered in analysis were significant but there was certainly a mean difference.
The age of family head does not varies much across the adopters and non-adopter in the
selected states and on an average farmers were in the range of 46-54 years of age. The year of
schooling was found to be higher with the adopter. This indicates that educated people get
convinced faster for adoption of newer technology for the betterment of their farm and
environment. The number of agriculture worker available in the family indicates a significant
difference between adopter and non-adopter. There is no economic interpretation for this
phenomenon but certainly higher availability of agriculture worker in the family help in
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
In meters
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra 39
completing the work in time and they may earn off farm income to support the family. The
total income derived from various sources was higher for adopters.
Table 4: Socio economic characteristics of sample households
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Age of HH (Years) 51.96 50.57 52.10 54.28 46.40 47.71 47.49 48.14
Education of HH 7.67 7.02 8.64 5.94*** 7.30 7.57 10.96 10.19*
Family size (No) 6.57 7.03 6.36 5.49*** 5.96 5.08*** 5.34 5.72
Agriculture worker in
family (No)
2.51 2.19* 2.67 2.46* 3.55 3.24** 2.46 2.96**
*
Land holding Size (ha) 2.27 2.64 1.19 1.17 3.36 2.03*** 1.70 2.17**
irrigated area (ha) 2.25 2.55 1.13 1.04 3.36 1.88*** 1.67 2.17**
Income from food grain
(Rs. Lakhs)
0.85 2.21*** 0.49 0.79** 1.52 1.81** 1.50 1.32
Income from horticulture
(Rs. Lakhs)
1.50 0.61** 0.94 0.36*** 0.05 0.79*** 0.51 0.23*
Income from
livestock(Rs. Lakhs)
- - 0.10 0.05** 0.17 0.47*** 0.22 0.29
Income from labour (Rs.
Lakhs)
- - 0.01 0.02 0.22 3.16*** 2.08 2.19
0ff-farm income (Rs.
Lakhs)
0.83 0.58 0.28 0.35 - - -
Total income Lakhs 3.17 3.40 1.82 1.57 3.97 6.24*** 4.31 4.03
Food expenditure
(Rs.000)
3.69 4.29*** 3.81 3.64 3.00 3.03 2.94 3.46**
Non -food expenditure
(Rs.000)
3.38 3.86* 3.53 3.89 2.81 2.91 3.48 3.45
Total expenditure per
month (Rs.000)
7.07 8.15*** 7.33 7.53 5.81 5.94 6.42 6.91**
Loan taken for different
purposes (Rs. Lakhs)
2.98 3.82 1.25 0.94** 3.81 2.85 2.98 1.67
Mobile use years 9.16 9.15 7.94 6.72** 11.39 7.45*** 6.77 7.25
Member of social org
(Yes=1 no=0)
12.23*
**
- 3.82** - 18.39*
**
- 5.60** -
Crop insurance (Yes=1
no=0)
17.86*
**
4.42** - 18.52 - 16.74 -
Total number of
observations
91.00 92.00 103.00 101.00 110.00 110.00 105.00 115.00
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, HH- Household, *** is significant at 1%,** at 5% and * at 10%
This may be due to the fact, higher production and reduced cost of cultivation due to MIS
adoption. The result also indicated that those farmers who adopted micro irrigation are also
member of any social organization in their area. This might have provided them better
information and motivation for adoption.
3.5.2 Family size and work force available in sampled household: The collected data were
post classified into two categories based on family size and work force (table 5). The findings
indicate that on an average family size are nearly five to six people in the family. However,
family size was found to be little higher in the case of Punjab for no adopter (7 persons) and 40
for adopter (6.6 persons). The share of male workforce in the composition of family is about
57% to 72% across the different states in adopter family. While in non-adopter it varies from
49% to 78% for male. The remaining work force was available in the form of female. This
indicates that male work force dominate in the selected states.
Table 5: Family size distribution of respondents
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Family size
Male
2.45
(37.29)
2.52
(35.80)
2.05
(32.23)
1.95
(35.65)
2.28
(38.32)
1.68
(33.14)
1.83
(34.21)
2.04
(35.29)
Female
2.12
(32.27)
2.23
(31.68)
2.13
(33.49)
1.94
(35.47)
2.03
(34.12)
1.66
(32.74)
1.77
(33.08)
1.78
(30.80)
Children
2
(30.44)
2.29
(32.53)
2.18
(34.28)
1.58
(28.88)
1.64
(27.56)
1.73
(24.12)
1.75
(32.71)
1.96
(33.91)
Average
6.57
(100)
7.04
(100)
6.36
(100)
5.47
(100)
5.95
(100)
5.07
(100)
5.35
(100)
5.78
(100)
Work force available with households
Male
1.79
(71.60)
1.71
(78.44)
1.60
(60.38)
1.61
(65.71)
2.00
(56.50)
1.58
(48.92)
1.40
(56.68)
1.59
(53.90)
Female
0.71
(28.40)
0.47
(21.56)
1.05
(39.62)
0.84
(34.29)
1.54
(43.50)
1.65
(51.08)
1.07
(43.32)
1.36
(46.10)
Average
2.50
(100)
2.18
(100)
2.65
(100)
2.45
(100)
3.54
(100)
3.23
(100)
2.47
(100)
2.95
(100)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
3.5.3 Classification of respondents based on the age groups: It is very important to know
the age composition of the respondents. It is because mature respondents expected to reply
correctly based on their rich experience. Therefore, we have analyzed the distribution of
respondents based on age. It was observed that about 50% respondents were in age group of
35 to 50 years only about 5% were up to 35 years of age. The rest of the respondents were
above 50 years. Thus, our sample comprising of mixed aged respondents and we have used
their rich experiences, perception and self-motivating attitude towards adoption of water
saving technology for this study (Table 6).
41
Table 6: Classification of the respondents based on age
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Up to 35
5
(5.49)
3
(3.26)
1
(0.97)
4
(3.96)
6
(5.45)
3
(2.73)
5
(4.76)
6
(5.22)
35-50
41
(45.05)
51
(55.43)
50
(48.54)
41
(40.59)
82
(74.55)
80
(72.73)
70
(66.67)
65
(56.52)
>50
45
(49.45)
38
(41.30)
52
(40.49)
56
(55.45)
22
(20.00)
27
(24.55)
30
(28.57)
44
(38.26)
Total
91
(100.00)
92
(100.00)
103
(100.00)
101
(100.00)
110
(100.00)
110
(100.00)
105
(100.00)
115
(100.00)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
3.5.4 Education status of the respondents: The education plays a significant role in
adoption of improved, cost effective and modern technology. It was assumed that higher the
education level, higher would be the adoption rate. Therefore, we have analyzed the data and
classified it on education status of respondents (table 7). It was observed that the literacy
status among adopter farmer ranges from 89-98 per cent were literate whereas for non-
adopters, it ranges from 75-98 per cent. In case of Maharashtra sampled farmers among
adopter and non-adopter categories, share of literate farmers is much higher as compared to
other states. In Andhra Pradesh, share of illiterate among non-adopter is as high as 25 %.
Table 7: Classification of the respondents based on education
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Illiterate
8
(8.80)
14
(15.22)
11
(10.68)
25
(24.75)
11
(10)
9
(8.18)
2
(1.90)
2
(1.74)
Primary (up to
5th)
21
(23.07)
17
(18.49)
12
(11.65)
27
(26.73)
17
(15.45)
23
(20.91)
4
(3.81)
8
(6.96)
Secondary
(5th to 10th)
51
(56.05)
53
(57.60)
47
(45.63)
39
(38.61)
69
(62.73)
59
(53.64)
42
(40.00)
58
(50.43)
College(>10
th
)
11
(12.08)
8
(8.69)
33
(32.0)
10
(9.90)
13
(11.82)
19
(17.27)
57
(54.29)
47
(40.87)
Total
91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(10)
101
(100)
110
(100)
110
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
42
Chapter 4.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Objective 1: To study the administration and operational processes/ practices adopted by the
selected states.
4.1 Guidelines at central government level: PMKSY, Mission Directorate has been
established in Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation for
mission mode implementation of 99 major and medium irrigation projects (Table 8). The
Mission is responsible for overall coordination and outcome focused monitoring of all
components of PMKSY for achieving its target. Micro irrigation is an integral component of
the PMKSY (Per Drop More Crop) to amplify water use efficiency at farm level. Micro
irrigation is being implemented by Ministry of Agriculture, DAC& FW.
Table 8: Committee involved in Implementation of PMKSY
Committee Chairperson and Member Work
National level
National Steering
Committee (NSC)
PM as Chairperson and Union Ministers
from concerned ministries and Vice
chairman, NITI Aayog as members
To provide general policy strategic
directions for programme implementation
and overall supervision addressing
national priorities etc.
National Executive
Committee (NEC)
Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog as Chairperson
and Secretaries of concerned
ministries/departments and Chief
Secretaries of selected States as members
To oversee programme implementation,
allocation of resources, Inter-ministerial
coordination, monitoring & performance
assessment, addressing administrative
issues
State level
State Level
Sanctioning
Committee (SLSC)
Chief Secretary of the State as Chairperson To sanction projects and activities as
recommended by Inter Departmental
Working Group
Inter Departmental
Working Group
(IDWG)
Agriculture Production
Commissioner/Development Commissioner
as Chairperson and Secretaries of line
departments as members.
Recommend project and activities to
SLSC
District level
District Level
Implementation
Committee (DLIC)
the Chairmanship of Collector/District
Magistrate / CEO of Zila Parishad/ PD
DRDA as Chairperson, and JD/DD of line
departments and progressive farmers,
representative of MI industry, and leading
NGO as members
To oversee PMKSY implementation and
inter-departmental coordination.
Source: Operational Guidelines of Per Drop More Crop (Micro Irrigation) Component of PMKSY (2017)
District Irrigation Plans (DIP) present holistic irrigation development perspective of the
district outlining medium to long term development plans integrating three components viz.
water sources, distribution network and water use applications. DIP identifies gaps in
available irrigation plan after assessing presently available resources and resources which
could be added from ongoing schemes. So, DIP considered as foundation for planning and
implementation of all components of PMKSY. All communication between Ministry of 43
Agriculture (MoA) and State Government would be with and through the nodal department.
State Agriculture Department may be the Nodal Department for implementation of PMKSY
(Per Drop More Crop) as outcome of PMKSY is to ensure efficient delivery and application
of water at every farm enhancing agricultural production & productivity, However, State
Govt. is free to identify the nodal department based on the established institutional set up and
mandate of the department.
4.1.1 Assistance pattern for micro irrigation:
The unit cost of drip irrigation system varies with plant spacing and location of water
resources. Government has provided cost structure for installing micro irrigation with
different plant spacing in its guideline. On basis of this subsidy is given to farmers under
various categories. Small and marginal beneficiary farmers under micro irrigation receive 55
per cent and other beneficiary farmers receive 45 per cent as subsidy to total cost. Subsidy
amount shared by Centre and State Government in the ratio of 60:40 for all states except
North Eastern and Himalayan states where ratio is 90:10. Central government grant total fund
to the Union Territories (Table 8). Subsidy for installation of micro irrigation system is
limited to five hectares per beneficiary in the present scheme.
Based on coverage of micro irrigation states have been classified into following categories:
Category “A” states: States with comparatively better penetration of micro irrigation
system. In this category, states are Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. We
feel that Punjab should have been put in C category of states since coverage area is very less.
Category B states: States with low penetration of micro irrigation system. States are Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Union Territories. Cost
likely to be high as lesser availability of companies and after sale services. 15% higher unit
costs for micro irrigation are considered for these states.
Category C states: states with much low penetration due to poor infrastructure and difficult terrain.
These states include North Eastern and hilly region namely, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The 25% higher unit costs for micro irrigation are considered for
these states. Note: The unit cost for subsidy purpose would be exclusive of any taxes & fiscal levies.
44
Table 9: Assistance pattern in selected states
Andhra Pradesh
Category/Caste Subsidy (%) (centre
state)
Subsidy limit (Rs.)
SC/ST farmers under Small and marginal farmers
(landholding <2 ha)-drip irrigation
100(33+67) 2.00 lakh
Small and marginal farmers other than SC/ST
(landholding <2 ha)-drip irrigation
90(33+57) 2.00 lakh
Medium farmers of Coastal district (2 ha to 4 ha)-drip
irrigation
70(27+43) 2.80 lakh
Medium farmers of Rayalaseema & Prakasam districts
(2 ha to 4 ha)-drip irrigation
90(27+63) 2.00 lakh
Other Farmers-drip irrigation 50(27+23) 4.00 lakh
Small and marginal farmers for all categories- sprinkler 50(33+17) -
Others farmers-sprinkler 50(27+23) -
Gujarat
Category of Farmer Non Dark Zone area Dark Zone area for 57
talukas
Farmer: (land holding size ≥2 ha) Upto 70% (27+43) or Rs. 0.7 lakh/ha, whichever is less
Farmer: Small and Marginal farmer
(land holding size <2 ha )
Upto 70% (33+37) or Rs. 0.8
lakh/ ha, whichever is less
Upto 80% (33+47) or Rs.
0.8 lakh/ ha, whichever is
less
SC/ST Farmers Upto 85% or Rs. 1 lakh/ha,
whichever is less
Upto 90% or Rs. 1
lakh/ha, whichever is less
Punjab
SC/ ST farmers 90 per cent
Others farmer 70 per cent
Maharashtra
Small and marginal farmers 60 per cent
Small and marginal farmers in Vidarbha region 75 per cent
Other farmers 50 per cent
Source: Different state government departments (APMIP, GGRC, SCMIP, SWC and Agriculture)
report/documents 2017-18.
4.1.2 Pre-installation activities: The Implementing Agency identified by the state
government advertises schemes at block and village level through its existing networks. At
district level, it appoints a nodal officer who is responsible for coordination of the scheme
implementation. It disseminates the suppliers list and unit price approved by SLSC to the
farmers. At least one district level seminar or workshop is conducted. Implementing agency
will compile the application submitted by the farmers and scrutinize and forward the same to
the company’s/Manufacturer’s local offices as indicated by the farmer. The beneficiary share
may be deposited with manufacturer/their representative or the state nodal agency as per the
practices to be adopted by the state with the approval of SLSC. The beneficiary shall be free
to purchase MI equipment from any MI manufacture out of the approved list of registered
manufacturers. Manufacturer need to follow certain process indicated in table 10. 45
Table 10: Process need to be followed by the firms
Manufacturer
Approval
Assessment of the crop water requirement and design the system accordingly.
Prepare an estimate of cost and submit it to Implementing agency duly indicating the
time frame for installation.
The Implementing agency will approve the estimate, issue work order and ensure
installation
Installation
Quality components having BIS marking are installed at farmer’s field.
The installed system should match the water requirement of the crop earlier estimated
Necessary orientation and training is given to the beneficiary farmers for system
maintenance & irrigating the crop.
Proper warranty and a user’s manual for running & maintenance of the system are
provided to farmers.
A certificate towards successful installation/commissioning of the system is obtained
from the beneficiary
The entire data set collected from different line departments of respective state on micro
irrigation on operational and administrative procedure was compiled and analyzed to draw
the logical conclusions. The observations are presented in subsequent sections.
4.2 Guidelines on micro irrigation at state government level
4.2.1 Operational procedure adopted by Punjab: Drip and sprinkler irrigation system was
introduced in the state in the year 1992-93 under centrally sponsored scheme. In the State
of Punjab, Soil and Water Conservation Department is the nodal department for
implementing the centrally sponsored scheme of micro irrigation system. The assistance for
demonstration plots also can be given to state, Central Government farms,
State Agriculture Universities, ICAR, progressive farmers and NGO’s. The maximum area
for subsidy is 5.0 ha per beneficiary. Despite, having vast potential in the state, it is true that
promotion of Micro Irrigation in the state of Punjab has not been up to the desired level
(Annexure-IV). The State is facing very serious problem of depletion of ground water
resources and conservation of irrigation water is of utmost importance. Only 48281 hectares
area could be covered under micro irrigation system (DAC.Net, 2018) which is about 1.17
percent of the net sown area of the state. The operation procedure is presented in fig 6.
46
Figure 6: Flow diagram of Micro
Irrigation procedure adopted by
Punjab
4.2.2 Operational procedure adopted by Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) is the unique and first comprehensive
project being implemented in a big way in Andhra Pradesh for the past 13 years. APMIP was
launched in November, 2003.The Project aims at improving the economic conditions of the
Farmer
Selection
of Firm
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at tehsil
level
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at Head
Qtr,
Chandigarh
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at
District/
Mandal level
Applying
for MIS,
three files
Approved and
back to district
Direction to
the Firms
Execution
of works 47
farmers by conserving water, bringing additional area into cultivation with the available
water resources, enhancing the crop productivity and production, quality, facilitating
judicious usage of ground water, saving in power consumption and cost of cultivation.
APMIP is implemented with the assistance from government of India, state government and
farmer contribution. In view of the deficit rainfall, rain shadow regions, unpredictable rains
and considerable depletion of ground water, the farming community realized the need to
adopt the technologies of Micro Irrigation to achieve the concept of “More crop per Drop”.
Government of Andhra Pradesh has set a goal to cover the entire potential area available in
all the 13 districts of Andhra Pradesh under Micro Irrigation, by 2022. On Farm Water
Management (OFWM) is one of the four components of National mission for sustainable
Agriculture, which focus primarily on enhancing water use efficiency by promoting efficient
On Farm Water Management Technologies and equipment. The OFWM is implemented in
the state through Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP). The entire process of
application filling and processing for micro irrigation is online and mobile app based. This
help the farmers to access his information and can check the status of his application,
subsidies without visiting the office. Operational procedure adopted in Andhra Pradesh is
presented in figure 7& Annexure-I.
Figure 7: Operational process under APMIP Andhra Pradesh
4.2.2.1 Timelines of implementation of micro irrigation in AP: To achieve the targets in
time, timeline setting is very important. AP government has framed the complete guidelines 48
to increase the coverage of MIS in minimum period. Therefore, timelines was prepared and
supplied to all the functionaries in the project area (Table 11).
Table 11: Timelines for implementation of the programme
Process flow Timeline Responsible Officer
Preliminary inspection, Bench Mark Survey,
BOQ & Design
Within 30 days of after registration MI company
Technical approval Within 2 days from the date of submission of
applications in full shaper
MIE and APD
Collection of farmer Contribution Within 15 Days after issue of notice / SMS,
alert for payment of non-subsidy amount.
Farmer, MIAO. To be
monitored by APD
Processing of file for Collector approval for
release of 10% mobilization advance
Within 7 Days PD
Issue of 10% Mobilization Advance Within 3 days after Collector’s approval PD
Trench Marking Within 7 days after issue of Administrative
sanction
MI company & APD
Trenching Within 30 days after Trench marking Farmer & APD
Installation of MI Systems Within 21 days after Trenching by the Farmer MI company
Uploading of photograph and Completion
certificate and Generation of invoice in online
Within 7 days MI Company
Release 50% subsidy Within 10 days PO Office
Submission of Invoice & other required
documents for Final payment in PDs office
Within 7days in full shape after completion of
Installation and uploading
MI company
Final Inspection Within 21 days after receipt of hard copy of
invoice by MI Company
MIAO/MIE/MIDC
(70%+20%10%)
Release of final payment Within 7 days after completion of final
inspection
PD
Random Inspection Within 30 days after release of final payment to
MI Company
APD/PD
Source: APMIP, annual report, 2018
4.2.3 Operational procedure adopted by Gujarat:
During May 2005, the government of Gujarat (GOG) established a Government owned
company namely Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd. (GGRC) and made it as the sole
nodal agency to implement all types of micro irrigation projects in the state. Further, the
government also introduced a unique scheme for micro irrigation adoption in the state. The
farmers will get 50 % as subsidy and without any ceiling for the hectarage. This has been
welcomed intervention by the farmers of Gujarat and the MI adoption has become 49
comparatively faster. The Gujarat model of MI implementation is presented in fig 9. The
Annexure_II present the physical progress of the MIS coverage in the state.
4.2.3.1 Operational procedure adopted in the Gujarat state: The entire operational
procedure adopted to select the MI installation company by the Gujarat state in figure 8 as
below. The system of allocating fund and payments is very transparent.
4.2.3.2 Operational process under Gujrat Green Revolution Company Ltd
Farmer’s action as depicted in the figure 9 to get the MIS in their field required in order of
this sequence.
Fig. 8: Gujarat Model business based
approach (Source: GGRC, report, 2017-18)
GGRC
GGRC
Registered
MIS
Suppliers
Village
Meetings
Exposure
Visit
Street
Show
Electronic
& Print
Media
Mela /
Exhibition
etc.
Decides to
adopt MIS and
Chooses MIS
Supplier
MIS Supplier Does
field Survey and
Prepare Design and
Cost estimate of MIS as
per GGRC approved
rates
Farmer approves design & Signs
on all relevant documents for
online submission to GGRC
GGRC Process the file online as well
as physical, issue work order, verify
the installed MIS and disburse the
subsidy 50
Figure 9: Operational process under Gujrat Green Revolution Company Ltd. (GGRC)
4.2.4 Operational procedure adopted by Maharashtra
Government of Maharashtra has actively implemented this scheme through
Department of Agriculture to provide benefit to the farmers. The Government provides
capital subsidy of 50% to 60% for installation of Drip and Sprinkler systems. Maharashtra
has one of the highest rates of adoption of Micro-irrigation systems in the country. Main
stakeholders are citizens as beneficiaries, Manufacturers and Dealers as System Suppliers,
Government of Maharashtra and Government of India, officials as Implementing Agencies. A
special programme called Vidarbha Intensive Irrigation Development Programme (VIIDP)
has been initiated for the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra since 2012-13. Modified
operational guidelines with revised cost norms for 8 districts of Vidarbha have been issued
and accordingly assistance of 75% to small and marginal farmers is provisioned.
4.2.4.1 Documents requirement from farmers for filling application in Maharashtra:
The documentary requirement and modalities for Maharashtra state farmer need to submit
along with the application are given in the table 12.
51
Table 12: Documents required for filling MIS application Maharashtra farmer
Name of Document Nature of Document Ranking
Photo ID Proof (Driving license/PAN card/Election/adhar
card/ passport/ card/ kisan credit card / Pensioner Card
/Ration-PDS photo card/Arms license/kisan photo
passbook or any ID.
Compulsory I
Copy of form 8 A Compulsory II
Copy of form 7/12. Compulsory III
Consent letter of other Joint land holders Optional / if joint land holding-
Compulsory
IV
Form 16 /farmers self declaration If mentioned in 7-12- optional if not it
is Compulsory
V
Electric Bill / self certificate of farmer for declaring HP of
electric motor or Diesel engine respectively
Compulsory VI
Details of present passbook issued by any nationalized
bank /schedule bank/co-operatives /post office (First two
page & latest transaction page).
Optional VII
Water sharing consent letter If applicant farmer do not have own
source in that case it is Compulsory. If
own source optional
VIII
Schedule Caste / Tribe certificate (SC/ST) In case of schedule cast or tribal
farmer -compulsory
IX
Recommendation letter from respective PA's of Tribal
Area Sub Plan (TASP)
Compulsory In case of tribal farmer
from TASP area.
X
Bank loan Sanction Letter Compulsory in case of loanee case XI
GUVNL recommendation/approval letter in case of Tatkal
/ Dark Zone / PDC-RC
Compulsory in case of Tatkal-2013/
darkzone / PDC-RC (Reconnection
cases)
XII
4.3 Comparative analysis of operational procedure adopted by selected state
government: We have analyzed the strengths and weakness of the administrative procedure
adopted by different states under the study and presented in the table 13. We observed that
different states follow different norms while implementing the micro irrigation programme.
The subsidy components allotted under central government scheme was provided in addition
to state government fund to cover the maximum stakeholders. State like AP and Gujarat had
dedicated separate department for implementation of MIS in the state. However, Maharashtra
and Punjab is implementing the scheme with their own agriculture, horticulture, soil and
water conservation departments. The online application submission, monitoring and app
designing is helping the farmers and government functionaries to understand the progress and
status of their work. However, manual application submission also practiced in the state like
Punjab. The Punjab state is kept in A category of guidelines of government of India on micro
irrigation as per the coverage of area. We observed that not much work has been done in the
Punjab state on expansion of micro irrigation. Therefore, it should in the category of C. This 52
state is having potential but still could not exploited its potential and area under micro
irrigation is negligible. It may be due to subsidies electricity and high dependency on ground
water. Therefore, under exploited parts of country can be brought under the ambit of water
conservation technologies by taking policy decisions and promotional interventions.
Furthermore, there should be dedicated separate department for promotion of micro
irrigation. The model adopted by AP, Gujarat may be replicated in the country so that in
faster manner water conservation technology may reach to the all farmers.
Table 13: Comparison of administrative procedure adopted in the selected states
Particulars Selected states
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Mode of application
filling by farmers
Mostly manual Online Online Online
Dedicated department or
staff for MIS
implementation
No AP Micro Irrigation
Project (APMIP)
Gujarat Green
Revolution
company (GGRC)
State Government
Horticulture
Dept.
Quantum of subsidy (%) 70-90
50-100 70-80 &
80-90
65-90
Land celling limit (ha) 5.0 5.0 after seven year
farmer can retake
the MIS
5.0 5.0
Selection of beneficiaries Based on water
resource
availability with
individual
farmer
Own source and
sharing basis with
in the close blood
relation
Own source Own source
Financial help for creation
of water resource
Yes No No No
Selection of MI installing
agency
Registered with
department
Yes yes yes
Action against default
firms
Debar from the
list
Fine and debar
from the list
Debar from the list Debar from the
list
MIS service provided
(years)
3 3 5 3
Help in arranging the
loans for margin money
No Banks are linked
with the farmer
Farmers have to
arrange and contact
with banks
Farmers
responsibility
Disbursement of subsidy Direct Bank
Transfer (DBT)
DBT DBT DBT
Trainings for farmers Limited Yes & exposure
visits, awareness
camp, field day and
on campus
trainings given
Yes & awareness
programme
conducted
Limited extent
awareness camps
and staff trainings
given.
Trainings for staff Limited Yes Yes Yes
Trainings for youths No Yes No Yes
Strength of the
operational system
weak strong strong strong
Efficiency in
implementation of MIS
slow Fast Fast Medium
Satisfaction level of
beneficiaries
Neutral Highly satisfied Moderately
satisfied
satisfied 53
4.4 Challenges in implementation of micro-irrigation schemes
Lack of focus on micro irrigation: In the beginning of National Mission on Micro Irrigation
(NMMI-2010-2014) showed the strongest growth of micro irrigation penetration in some of
the states. However, since the scheme was merged with the component under the National
Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), there has been slowed the pace on micro
irrigation in India, which is a continuing issue with the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee
Yojna (PMKSY).
Lack of dedicated team and IT backed operations: Tracking the installation of a micro
irrigation system, step by step, from initiation of work order to installation and payment is
difficult and this is a major source of inefficiencies in the system. The programme
Implementing Agency (PIA) staff that implementing the micro-irrigation schemes in various
states is deputed from different line departments for time bound. The instability in the
postings hampers the implementation of the projects.
Delay in release of guidelines/government orders: The lack of smoother/longer-term
guidelines pose a major challenge as evidenced by the fact that operational period of the
schemes, on an average, is only 5 months where the farmers miss the utilization of the micro
irrigation system during the peak demand season (i.e., Punjab and Maharashtra state).
Subsidy disbursement process: Unavailability of funds for installations or delayed release
of funds hampers the progress of MIS coverage in the country.
Lack of easy financing mechanisms for farmers: Farmers face major challenges in finding
financing option for the micro irrigation products for depositing the margin money and in
case they do find a financing source, there are high collateral demands. Adequate credit
facilities to the farmers, trained human resources, and infrastructure for training of farmers
are lacking.
Lack of promotional and information efforts: Micro irrigation is generally perceived as
technology intensive; hence, its acceptance by farmers needed much persuasion. There was a
lack of information on temporal and spatial variation in soil moisture, the optimal fraction of
soil to be wetted, location specific and crop-specific irrigation and fertigation scheduling and
lack of availability of low cost water-soluble fertilizers and other agro chemicals. Thus, there
are several problems in implementation of micro irrigation system in terms of coverage at
larger scale in the study area. 54
Lack of integration with farm irrigation system: Micro irrigation technology was not
integrated with farm irrigation management systems, as they were generally viewed in
isolation.
Free energy sources: Farmers are allowed to run their water pumps on free and subsidized
energy i.e. electricity and solar sources resulting in over exploitation of ground water due to
the fact that method of irrigation mostly used flood. Therefore, in such circumstances farmers
are not realizing the importance of water saving technology and hesitant to invest in it.
Objective 2: Effect of water energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation
4.5 Composition of electric and diesel pumps: Before study the water energy pricing on
adoption of micro irrigation we need to understand the sources of energy and water resources
in the study area. Therefore, secondary information from the 5
th
minor irrigation census,
2017, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation were
collected and analyzed. Electricity is major source of ground water irrigation in the country
including selected states. As compared to national average, the share of electric pumps was
higher in the selected states. Higher dependency on electricity (free/ subsidized) is reason for
higher dependency. Sometimes, it leads to inefficient use of groundwater. Price policy of
electricity has significant role in sustainable and efficient ground water use. Among the
selected states, Punjab diesel as source of energy was higher as compared to Andhra Pradesh
followed by Maharashtra and Gujarat. Interestingly the electricity as a source of energy was
higher for Gujarat followed by AP and Maharashtra >96%. However, in the case of Punjab it
was about 91% (Fig. 10.). This could be observed that the dependency on electricity was
higher for irrigation in the selected states. Though, the subsidized/ free electricity may be the
reason of increasing use of more number of electric pumps for irrigation. 55
Source: 5
th
minor irrigation census, 2017, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation.
The per ha. Electricity consumption at all India basis indicates that it was increasing over the
period of time (2000-01 to 2013-14). In the case of Maharashtra, the electricity consumption
increased at faster rate as compared to Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab. Though there
was not a uniform trend in the electricity consumption for the selected states (Fig.11).
However, over the period of time electricity consumption has been increased. Therefore, this
is high time, in the scenario of demand pressure; energy conservation technology has to be
placed in. Thus, micro irrigation technology needs to be transferred to make agriculture
viable enterprise.
Fig. 11: Electricity consumption per hectare of net irrigated area (KW/Ha)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India
90.59
96.27 97.57
95.59
72.64
6.79
3.58 1.96
4.38
25.39
y = -3.6559x + 101.5
R² = 0.3122
y = 3.7991x - 2.9774
R² = 0.388
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
GujaratMaharashtra India
Percent
Fig. 10: Composition of electric and diesel pumps for irrigation
Electric
Diesel
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
KW/Ha
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra India 56
4.6 Extent of level of awareness about the micro irrigation system: The level of
awareness about the micro irrigation indicates that farmers were highly aware or not.
Therefore, we analyzed the extent of awareness and found that more than 75 % farmers
among adopter were well aware about MIS and its benefits.
Table 14: level of awareness about micro irrigation system among respondents (%)
Attributes
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Deep
knowledge of
MIS
70
(76.92)
41
(44.57)
89
(86.41)
45
(44.55)
94
(89.52)
47
(40.86)
77
(70.0)
32
(29.09)
About Agency
PIA
62
(68.13)
35
(38.04)
73
(70.87)
28
(27.72)
87
(82.86)
35
(30.43)
95
(86.36)
38
(34.55)
About
procedure of
MIS
65
(71.43)
24
(26.09)
84
(81.55)
33
(32.67)
76
(72.38)
24
(20.87)
76
(69.09)
26
(23.64)
Cumbersome
Procedure
54
(59.34)
15
(16.30)
63
(61.16)
12
(11.88)
78
(74.29)
45
(39.13)
65
(59.09)
58
(52.73)
Are you ready
to expand area
without
subsidy
37
(40.66)
0 52
(50.49)
5
(4.95)
54
(51.43)
4
(3.48)
45
(40.91)
11
(10.0)
Total 91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(100)
101
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
110
(100)
110
(100)
Note: Figures in parenthesis percent to total
Though non- adopters were also aware about MIS but the extent of awareness was less only
about 40%. Most of the adopters have found to be known the process of application filling
and approaching to PIA. It could be observed that about 51% farmers in Gujarat and Andhra
Pradesh have expressed that they will extend the area under micro irrigation even without
government support (Table 14). However, in Punjab (40%) also farmers have stated the same.
Therefore, we feel more awareness and exposure programmes needs to be executed for
increasing more areas under MIS.
4.7 Farmer’s perception on water energy pricing: The marginal effect of water/ energy
pricing on adoption of micro irrigation is evaluated based on farmers response on the
questions like, whether, water prices changed after introduction of MIS in your area. It was
observed that In AP and Gujarat about 50% respondents felt that it reduces the water price
due to surplus water available and water purchaser completion reduced for water demand.
However, there was no uniform trend across the state.
57
Table 15: Perception on effect of MIS on water and energy price in the study area
Particular Punjab
Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
MIS decrease the water
price
45 46 73 31 55 50 47 63
Free electricity has any
effect on water price
(Decrease/increase)
13 78 54 50 97 48 102 8
Free electricity has any
effect on MIS
adoption(decrease/incr
ease)
68 23 83 21 72 33 95 15
Effect of MIS on
consumption of
electricity (Less/High)
49 42 69 35 78 27 73 37
Effect of MIS water
market
( decrease/ increase)
37 54 43 61 39 66 68 42
Effect of MIS on diesel
price
(increase/decrease)
46 45 41 63 34 71 49 61
The free electricity fails to create scarcity of water resources and thus, it contributes
negatively to the adoption of micro irrigation table 15. Majority of farmers feel that
introduction of MIS decrease the electricity consumption. Further, MIS decrease the scope of
water market. It may due to the fact that less number of farmers comes to purchase the water
from water sellers. The majority of farmers feel that there was not much effect on water
energy pricing. However, farmers said that MIS introduction decrease the peak demand of
water in the pockets where MIS was adopted.
Objective 3: To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy,
energy and input economy, savings, employment and income.
4.8 To assess the effectiveness of micro irrigation we analyzed information on different
inputs used, price paid for and received for inputs and output by adopters and non-adopters
using the primary survey. Thus, data on cost of cultivation, farm gate price of output and
quantity used in the cultivation of major crops in the respective states.
4.8.1 Impact of Micro Irrigation: We have identified ten important benefits of MIS as
presented in fig.14 based on previous studies. In view of these benefits, we have analyzed the 58
data and quantified the benefits. Few qualitative dimension of effects of micro irrigation
were also analyzed based on farmers response and previous studies (Fig. 12).
Fig 12: Benefits of Micro irrigation
4.8.2 Estimation of savings in inputs cost, improvement in yield and income: We have
collected the data on cost of Cultivation from adopter and no-adopter sample farmers. The
four selected states are cultivating major crop as indicated in the table were selected in detail
analysis.
Punjab: We have taken four major crops grown in Punjab. These crops purposively selected
since we got sufficient data for comparison with adopter and non adopters of MIS. The cost
cultivation data for each crop input price and out-put price realized at farm gate was taken
from the sample farmers for detailed analysis. Punjab indicates that seed and planting
material varies from 2.25% to 46.87%, FYM cost saving over non-adopter varies from 3.17%
to 9.78%. This saving of FYM for adopters might be due to the fact that less quantity
required as compared to non-adopter. The fertilizer saving varies from 12.89% to 37.51% and
similarly chemical used for pest and disease management, the saving varies from 17.71% to
48.23% (Table 16). This is the very important that MIS irrigation reduce the cost of
cultivation over non-adopter was positive and tangible benefits to the adopter. It might be due
to the fact that liquid fertilizer applied through MIS in right dose and right time with right
quantity. While non-adopter had applied this input in traditional way and had resulted in
higher dose application of fertilizer and chemicals leading to high cost of cultivation. The
human labour and machine used, the cost saving varies form 5.14%, 9.83% to 31.72%,
Efficient &
Flexible
Improved
crop quality
Higher Profits
Water saving
&WUE
Marginal
Soils &
Waters Reduced soil
loss
Reduced
labour costs
Less energy
costs
Higher yields
Higher FUE
Yield &
Crop
Typical
Benefits
of Drip 59
17.79%, respectively. The total cost saving varies from 1.33% to 18.06% and net return
increased in the range of 32.27% to 54.10% in the case of Punjab. The higher net return was
noticed in the case of maize cultivation followed by Kinnow and wheat.
Andhra Pradesh: Similar, five crops grown by the selected respondents were considered for
detailed analysis. It was observed that inputs savings in terms of cost of planting material for
sugarcane crop was about 8.14%. However, other crops like coconut, Papaya and Tomato
seed and planting material cost was higher as compared to non-adopter. This may due the fact
that adopters have purchased high quality and costly seeds and planting material in micro
irrigated areas. The application of Farm Yard Manure (FYM) saving in terms of cost saving
varies from 7.42% to 30.40%. However, FYM cost was higher for Papaya crop for adopter as
compared to non-adopter. This may be due to high quantity application in Papaya crop by
adopters. The fertilizer saving varies from 12.6% to maximum 68.76% in different crops
grown by AP adopter farmers. Similarly, chemicals and pesticides saving vary from 1% to
22.62% for the same crops in AP. The water is very much scare in the study area, therefore,
we found that irrigation water saving varies from 16.07% to 51.19% across the crops
cultivated by adopters. This is huge water cost saving due to adoption of micro irrigation. The
manpower cost saving varies from 22.78% to 29.41% for four crops while there was higher
cost of manpower in the case of tomato cultivation as compared to non adopters. The total
cost saving was significantly high and varies from 4.59% to 24.60% for AP adopter farmers.
The net returns vary from 12.28% to 43.02% for the same crops in AP and it clearly indicates
the profitability of agriculture due to adoption of MIS in the state.
Table 16: Saving in inputs costs, increase in yield, income adoption of micro (Percent)
Particulars
Name of crops (Punjab) Name of crops (Andhra Pradesh)
Cotton Kinno
w
Maize Wheat Brinjal Coco-
nut
Papaya Tomato Sugar-
cane
Seed/Plan-
ting material
-2.25 13.48 -29.76 -46.87 -89.40 4.43 34.87 3.90 -8.14
FYM -5.46 -3.17 -9.78 3.67 -16.10 -7.42 6.53 -7.65 -30.40
Fertilizer -12.89 -18.50 -20.73 -37.51 -68.76 -13.60 -38.12 -26.38 -21.66
Chemical -48.23 -17.71 22.11 -45.30 -22.62 -6.25 -12.48 -8.89 -0.92
Irrigation -14.77 -60.24 -35.21 -32.00 -34.63 -29.62 -51.19 -16.07 -43.59
Labour -5.14 -12.35 -31.72 -13.77 -22.78 -26.16 -26.56 3.81 -29.41
Machine use 4.69 -17.29 -14.13 -9.83 9.08 -5.08 -5.35 1.40 -25.35
Total cost -1.33 -8.14 -13.07 -18.06 -13.63 -8.52 -5.31 -4.59 -24.60
Yields 11.62 10.76 8.17 12.96 10.54 20.17 10.51 22.27 6.82
Net income 32.27 34.40 54.10 35.14 32.40 42.03 12.28 43.02 21.32
60
4.14 Gujarat: We have analyzed the data of five crops from the Gujarat. It was observed that
seed and planting material cost saved by the adopter 4.32% to 59.76% as compared to non-
adopters in Gujarat. The FYM cost saved by 13.73% to 57.94% where as fertilizer cost
saving for adopter varies from 45.45% to 63.89% and this is a huge saving. It may be due to
the fact that liquid fertigation approach is adopted by MIS adopter. This might be resulted in
less quantity requirement. Hence, cost of fertilizer reduced drastically for the MIS adopter.
Similar chemical and pesticide cost saving varies from 33.68% to 90.29% (Soybean), this
again very important for adopter that they realized the big saving across the different crops.
The water saving varies from 12.60% to 88.62%. There was saving in labour use and
machine hours used by adopters and it varies form 8.31% to 48.65% across different crop
selected for analysis in the state. The total cost saved in different crops in the states varies
from 4.15% to 30.39% and net return was higher for adopters, which varies from 17.63% to
52.01% (Table 16). Thus, it is proved that MIS adoption enhance the net income and reduces
the input costs. These finding are in conformity with the previous study on micro irrigation
(Gandhi et.al, 2014).
Maharashtra: The six major crop grown by adopters and non adopters of MIS in
Maharashtra were considered for the analysis. It was observed that seed and planting material
cost saved by the adopter 4.91% to 36.31% as compared to non-adopters in Maharashtra. The
FYM cost saved by 2.94% to 96.01% where as fertilizer cost saving for adopter varies from
12.98% to 52.09% and this is a huge saving. It may be due to the fact that liquid fertigation
approach is adopted by MIS adopter. This might have resulted in less quantity requirement.
Hence, cost of fertilizer reduced drastically for the MIS adopter. Similarly, chemical and
pesticide cost saving varies from 5.08% to 50.0% (cotton), this again very important for
adopter and resulted in they realized the big saving across the different crops. The water
saving varies from 16.43 % to 85.81%. There was saving in labour use and machine hours
used by adopters and it varies form 8.35% to 51.15% across different crop selected for
analysis in the state. The total cost saved in different crops in the states varies from 7.76% to
35.15% and net return was higher for adopters, which varies from 20.95% to 58.69% across
different crops (Table 17). Thus, it is proved that MIS adoption enhance the net income and
reduces the input costs. The inputs saving and output enhancement due to micro irrigation
was noticed in the case of Gujarat and Maharashtra.
61
Table 17: Saving in inputs costs, increase in yield, income adoption of micro (Percent)
Particulars
Name of crops (Gujarat) Name of crops (Maharashtra)
Cotto
n
Groun
dnut
Potato Soybe
an
Bajra Cotto
n
Bajra Maize Onion Soybe
an
Sugar
cane
Seed/Plant-ing
material
-6.67 8.76 -4.32 -21.28 -59.79 -32.27 -9.21 19.65 -36.31 -4.91 -11.59
FYM -13.73 -57.94 -29.21 -22.53 - -2.94 -20.45 - -10.85 -8.33 -96.01
Fertilizer -53.91 -49.76 -56.38 -63.89 -45.45 -15.04 -22.37 -16.41 -12.98 -36.10 -52.09
Chemical -57.72 -34.54 -33.20 -90.29 -33.68 -50.00 - - -5.08 -38.84 -43.66
Irrigation -12.60 -88.62 -37.21 -27.48 -39.46 -27.50 -42.14 -16.43 -85.81 -31.13 -28.33
Labour -21.48 -36.03 -21.33 -48.65 -34.66 -51.15 -12.94 -19.92 -8.25 -25.88 -10.05
Machine use -8.31 -20.84 -10.64 -20.25 -9.88 -35.81 -47.47 -12.67 -7.64 -35.61 -4.22
Total cost -26.65 -30.39 -10.35 -29.59 -4.15 -35.15 -31.31 -7.76 -12.74 -24.08 -17.10
Yields 21.72 10.00 18.49 13.09 4.82 18.64 17.37 15.56 12.54 8.69 10.01
Net income 42.80 17.63 37.86 52.01 41.64 35.26 58.69 39.35 20.95 25.88 25.74
4.8.3 Impact of Micro irrigation system attract youth in agriculture: The information
from the agriculture farmers were collected on the issues like youth interest in agriculture and
their preference. It was observed in AP, that many youths having different educational
qualification including professional degree, returned for farming in their village. The reason
being that with introduction of micro irrigation, these youths were getting better returns from
their agriculture farms. Therefor they left the job and started specialized agriculture (Table
18).
Table 18: Youth returning to agriculture due to availability of water saving technology
Level of youth education Reasons of returning to agriculture (%)
Less
remuneration
with current
job
Job is not as
per the
qualification
Distant
place
Parental land
remain fellow
due to no
caretaker
Engineering background 13.89 35.25 24.87 25.99
Science 28.60 31.52 25.24 14.64
Arts and Management 32.81 28.63 34.12 4.44
Others 27.70 32.45 25.45 14.40
Overall
4.8.4 Micro irrigation enhances income and employment opportunity: The introduction
of micro irrigation in an area, open the door of employment and income generations. We
have observed that unemployed youth have undergone different trainings organized by
programme implementing agency, NGO and MIS firms. After completion of training, they 62
were getting local job with MIS firms, doing minor repairs in local areas. It was informed by
farmers of AP that youth come for service of MIS at phone call at any time hence they are
local. These youth also informed us that we are happy and getting decent work opportunity at
our native areas. In table, 19 shows the possible opportunities created due to MIS in the study area.
We have personally visited the Chittoor area and interacted with the youths and our field visit was
covered by local newspapers (Annexure VII)
Table 19: Income and employment generation opportunities under micro irrigation
Type of activities Extent of improvement
AP Gujrat Maharashtra Punjab Overall
Direct cultivation
work
4.8
(1.53*)
4.1
(1.04*)
4.3
(1.12*)
3.8
(1.25*)
4.2
(1.16*)
Marketing of agril.
produce
4.7
(1.09*)
4.7
(0.89)
4.7
(0.78)
4.7
(1.02)
4.7
(0.86)
Supply of seed and
Planting material
4.6
(1.54*)
3.6
(1.04*)
3.8
(1.28*)
3.9
(1.34*)
3.7
(1.21*)
Supply of fertilizer
and chemicals
4.7
(089)
4.1
(1.20*)
4.3
(1.04*)
3.8
(1.12*)
3.9
(1.22*)
Service works to
MIS
4.9
(1.32*)
3.9
(0.89
3.7
(0.98)
3.9
(0.65)
3.6
(0.83)
Skill improvement 4.5
(1.14*)
3.5
(1.01*)
4.6
(1.12*)
3.7
(0.99)
3.9
(1.01*)
Self-esteem
/respect in the
society
3.5
(0.85)
4.3
(1.02*)
3.8
(0.87)
4.6
(0.92)
4.4
(0.45)
Note: Very high=5, High=4, Neutral=3, Less scope=2, No scope =1 and Figures in parenthesis in
Standard Deviation (SD), * indicate the SD more than one.
4.8.4.1 Reduction in out migration: The out migration of small and marginal farmers has
been reduced to the significant extent (Hoshiarpur Punjab) and created decent livelihood for
the farmers and youth (AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra) as informed by the respondents.
Objective 4: To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess
the extent of the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
4.9 Extent of uncultivated and fellow land in the different states: Out of 307.7 million
hectare reporting area in the country, 16.8 per cent is under uncultivated and fallow land
categories. 45.6 per cent of reporting area is under crop cultivation. Their distributions across
states have been depicted in fig 13. In the selected states, Punjab has highest area under
cultivation and least area left as uncultivated and fallow land. In Andhra Pradesh, share of
fallow land is nearly 13 per cent of total reported area whereas Gujarat has nearly 15 per cent
area as uncultivated. Maharashtra also has nearly 16 per cent area categorized as uncultivated 63
and fallow land. Every state have state specific issues for having nearly 1/6 of its reporting
area under these categories but common and most dominant factor is unavailability of
ensured irrigation. This is due to lower groundwater table since early or uncertainties of rain
have discouraged to bring these areas under cultivation. In these states, some of this area can
be brought under cultivation by introducing water conservation technologies in which MIS
can play crucial role. The uncultivated and fallow land can be put under horticulture and
forest plantation by installing of micro irrigation system. Therefore, these marginal lands can
be productive. But Punjab, where already 85 per cent of its reporting area is under cultivation
leaves minimal scope to bring more area under cultivation.
4.9.1 Estimation of the total area covered under micro irrigation: The data were collected
from different published/ unpublished sources of central and state govt. we have collected
some of the information from district statistical offices and estimated the total area under MIS
in different states until 2017-18 and presented in subsequent section.
4.9.2 Penetration of MI in relative term: The extent of coverage of MI was estimated as the
share of area under MI in net sown area. The figure 14 shows that only 7.32 per cent of the
net sown area was covered with micro-irrigation technology. However, there exists wide
spatial variation in adoption of MI technology in the country. Andhra Pradesh occupies the
top position with 25.42 per cent MI irrigation coverage followed by Haryana, Gujarat,
Rajasthan, and Karnataka. It is surprising to note that in the states like Punjab with acute
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
A & N Islands
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
ChhattisgarhD & N Haveli
Daman and Diu
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
J & K
Jharkhand Karnataka
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram Nagaland
Odisha
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand West Bengal
Fig 13: Share of uncultivated area, fallow land and net sown area to total reporting area of
respective states
Uncultivated %Fallow land %Net area sown % 64
groundwater scarcity, penetration of MI technology is only 1.17 per cent. The efforts must be
extended to promote MI in such states.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2018.
4.9.3 Estimation of Potential area and actual coverage under MIS: We used the
methodology similar to Raman, 2010 and Palanisamy, 2011 and estimated MIS area in
percent to the MIS potential across the states. Out of total 68 mha net irrigated area, 42.2 mha
area had been estimated as potential area for micro irrigation (Raman, 2010). At present 8.6
mha area is under micro irrigation which is 20.37 % of potential area and 12.6% of irrigated
area (Fig. 15). State wise calculation has indicated that AP (including Telangana) has covered
area under micro irrigation more than its estimated potential area under drip as well as
sprinkler irrigation. This may be due to government support, in form of subsidies to the
farming communities. Other states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have also
achieved more than 50 percent of its potential area. Whereas other states are picking up but
state like Punjab is in very decimal situations. Therefore, policy interventions need to
formalize to scaling up the micro irrigation in such states, which has got potential but
underutilized, Annexure –III and IV presents the physical progress of MIS in the respective
state.
25.42
16.89
12.81 12.44
10.48 10.44
8.91
6.35
5.07
3.40
1.17 1.27
7.32
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Fig. 14: Penetation of micro irrigation percent to net sown area 65
Note: Authors own calculation based on Potential area given by Raman 2010
4.9.4 Physical and financial targets and achievements under micro irrigation
Year wise actual expenditure by different states has been worked out and presented in fig 16.
The evidences indicate that Andhra Pradesh has spent highest expenditure under micro
irrigation than any other states in the country in recent past. Punjab has spent the negligible
expenditure on micro-irrigation. However, the trend of annual actual expenditure all over the
country is declining. While seeing the balance sheet it could be observed that the fund
allocation and utilization was encouraging by different states during 2013-2016. Andhra
Pradesh contributed nearly 20 per cent of total expenditure under India’s micro irrigation
total expenditure. Since last two year, share of Gujarat expenditure for micro irrigation in the
country expenditure for micro irrigation also stood at nearly 20 per cent. This indicates these
states were able to spread MIS in more area than they have targeted. The Annexures V to VI
presents the financial and physical progress of different states.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
98.76
6.19
97.25
21.05
39.08
24.89
8.08
20.64
89.23
14.64
8.16
56.94
10.28
51.44
1.43
32.46
71.68
0.92
4.33
22.82
24.28
% to total potential area
Fig 15: % area coverd to total potential area in MIS in selected states 66
4.9.5 Estimation of locational coefficient of micro irrigation in different states
The data from the successive minor irrigation census were collected and analyzed the
location coefficients using statistical tool and presented the table 20. IT shows that the status
of MI development from 2006-07 and 2017. The regional disparity is one of the key features
in MI development. As of 2017, the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
(undivided) have the largest area under MI. Close to half of the sprinkler irrigation is
accounted for by only two states, Rajasthan (35%) and Haryana (12%). The spread of drip
irrigation is concentrated mainly in states in the peninsular region. Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh (undivided) and Karnataka together account for about a third of the national area
under drip systems. Recently Gujarat has also performed commendably to increase drip-
irrigated area. One could expect a close correspondence between MI and minor irrigation
development. This aspect was quantified by using the location coefficient, which compares
the share of a state in MI to its share in minor irrigation potential used. A value higher than
one for a state would indicate a higher adoption of MI compared to minor irrigation. The
value of location coefficient for AP was 5.37 during 2017 from 0.30 during 2006-07.
Recently Gujarat 0.25 to 2.30 and for Maharashtra 0.65 to 1.74 indicating higher
concentration of MIS respectively, in their state. Which reflect that these states like Punjab,
Bihar, and UP etc. To get location coefficient value higher, these states need to put mac
efforts for scaling up MIS.
y = 124.26x + 371.26
R² = 0.7054
y = 162.07x + 85.238
R² = 0.72
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-192013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
Physical (th ha)Financial (Rs. Crore)
Fig. 16: Financial and physical targets and achievements of MIS in India
TargetsAchievement 67
Table 20: Estimation of locational coefficient of micro irrigation concentration in India
States
Location coefficient
2006-07 2014-15 2017
Ground Water Micro
Irrigation
Ground
Water
Minor
Irrigation
Ground
Water
Minor
Irrigation
Andhra Pradesh 0.30 0.25 1.62 1.22 6.28 5.37
Bihar 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.25
Chhattisgarh 0.73 0.58 1.38 1.26 2.46 2.56
Goa 4.85 3.73 3.67 2.71 4.16 2.17
Gujarat 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 1.97 2.30
Haryana 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.65 1.11 1.37
Himachal Pradesh 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.02 1.09 0.34
Jharkhand 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 1.14 0.79
Karnataka 1.85 1.85 1.51 1.57 2.70 2.73
Kerala 1.18 0.81 0.58 0.44 4.34 1.05
Madhya Pradesh 1.47 1.47 0.91 1.00 0.50 0.51
Maharashtra 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.57 1.77 1.74
Odisha 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.02 2.57 1.10
Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06
Rajasthan 8.02 8.54 5.98 6.31 1.75 2.10
Sikkim - 0.00 - 0.00 - 5.14
Tamil Nadu 0.26 0.21 0.68 0.66 0.76 0.82
Telangana - - 0.20 0.18 0.47 0.47
Uttar Pradesh 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 1.24 0.84
West Bengal 0.18 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.17
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: authors have adopted Ramaswamyet.al., 2005, methodology to work out the irrigation index
Objective 5: To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them
and developing database
4.9.7 Estimation of the Public and private investment: The public investment was
considered as the subsidy offered to different MIS systems (drip and Sprinkler). Since, the
rate of subsidies varies with community, type of farmers and location of filed and location of
farmer residing. The different state offers the different subsidy slabs for different
stakeholders. Therefore, data from adopter households were collected, analyzed and
presented in table 22. It was leant that for micro irrigation system investment worked out to
be highest about Rs. 190.13 lakh was for Gujarat followed by Andhra Pradesh. The per ha
highest cost of micro irrigation was about Rs.0.79 lakh for AP followed by Punjab (Rs.
0.59lakh) and Maharashtra and Gujarat state. The private investment was considered the
margin money deposited by the individual beneficiaries in different states. Thus, private
investment was highest for Andhra Pradesh followed by Punjab and Maharashtra and it was 68
lowest for Gujarat state. However, total private investment made by the different private
agencies, farmers and other, the data was not available with the respective state government.
Thus, this data need to be collected by the respective states to estimate the real private and
public investments.
Table 22: Public and private investment in micro irrigation (Rs. Lakh)
States
Area
under
MI
Public and private investment n
micro irrigation
Per ha basis investment
Public Private Total Public Private Total
Punjab 243.75 87.52 58.35 145.87 0.36 0.24 0.59
Andhra
Pradesh
233.26 124.04 61.10 185.14 0.53 0.26 0.79
Gujarat 458.75 123.58 66.55 190.13 0.27 0.15 0.41
Maharashtra 337.89 110.57 64.94 175.50 0.33 0.19 0.52
Note: Authors calculation based on sample households
4.9.6 Extent of use of marginal and uncultivated lands: We have collected the
information from the sample farmers on how much and type of additional area brought under
irrigation. It was observed that famers of Andhra Pradesh, Chittoor district have cultivated 50
to 200% additional land after introduction of MIS. The land use to be fellow or waste brought
under cultivation of high value crops like tomato, beans, cucurbits, pomegranate, mangoes
and others. It was informed by majority of farmers in AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat that we
use to left part of our land as fellow before MIS due to non-availability of sufficient water
(Table 21). Now we are able to cultivate complete land holding and taking two or more
crops. Therefore, cropping intensity also has been improved.
69
Table 21: Perception of farmers on utilization of marginal lands after adoption of MIS
Particulars Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat Maharashtra
Additional areas
brought under
cultivation
Very less
(4.5%)
Very high
(50% to 200%)
High
(12%-45%)
High (13-47%)
Fellow land put
under cultivation
Yes Yes and in
double crops
Yes Yes
Increased
cropping intensity
Yes but to
limited extent
Yes more than
175%)
Yes more than
188%)
Yes more than
153%)
Received higher
production
Yes and
fetched good
price for
horticulture
crops due to
appropriate size
and colour
Yes
productivity
improved for
horticulture and
other crops
Yes
productivity of
horticulture,
pulses and oil
seed crops
increased
Yes
productivity of
sugarcane,
grapes and
other crops
improved
4.9.8 Concentration of different firms supplying MIS materials in different states: The
different micro irrigation system supplying firms registered with the different programme
implementing agency are given in the fig.17 The different state have different procedure to
select and register the firm for supplying the material. The guidelines were prepared by the
concerned states department and conditions put before the material supplying firms. There is
full security deposits and an agreement signed by the firm to maintain the quality material
and services. In AP, it was observed that those firms, who could not provide reliable and
timely services, were fined heavily. Some of the firms have banned for future involvement in
the micro irrigation business in the respective district/state. The following figure indicates the
percent of the farmers served by the respective firm. It could be observed that Jain irrigation
is a dominate firm in all the states. While Kisan, Netafim were the IInd largest supplying MIS
material in the state. However, other firms were also operating in the study areas but their
coverage was less. 70
Objective 6: To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable
development.
4.9.9 People’s participation in micro irrigation scheme: The various line departments have
implemented the micro irrigation system in the respective states. We have collected the
information on the involvement of the people at different stage of the micro irrigation system
and findings are presented in the table 23. It was observed that Peoples Participation Index
(PPI) was higher for Andhra Pradesh (86.9%) followed by Gujarat and Maharashtra.
However, PPI was lower even at planning level for site selection for micro irrigation in
Punjab. At overall basis PPI was about 68% indicating at planning stage more people were
involved for stage as site selection. This trend was not the same at implementation and at
maintenance stage as PPI was still lower 34%. This may be because of people at maintenance
stage may not be happy with firm who has installed the system. Further, farmers might not be
getting service in time. To select the suitable crop under MIS is very important. We observed
that many farmers of AP and Gujarat were involved in the crop selection process. However,
in the case of Maharashtra and Punjab PPI was low. The selection of MIS installing firm
another important aspect to be considered. We found that at Overall basis AP, Gujarat and
Maharashtra farmers were involved to the maximum extent of 56%. We have received the
response on selection of credit institutions and observed higher PPI values for AP only
42.5
35.0
22.5
36.9
22.3
10.7
6.8 6.8 5.8
3.9 2.9 1.9 1.0 1.0
31.8
17.3
15.5
14.6
9.1
4.6 4.6
1.8 0.9
89.4
6.1
1.5 1.5 1.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Jain Irrigation system
Kisan Drip System
Azoodh Drip Irrigation
Jain Irrigation system
Nagarjuna
Netafim
Harvel
FINOLEX
Bhumi
Godavari Irrigation Ltd.
Nandi Plast
Signet Kranti Emtell
Netafim Paragon
Sairam
Jain Irrigation system
polysil
Nagarjuna
Bhumi
Kisan drip irrigation
Balson
Jain Irrigation system
Netafim
Pepsi
kothari
John deer
PunjabAndhra PradeshGujaratMaharastra
Percent
Fig. 17: concentration of different firms supplied MIS to the farmers in different states (%) 71
However, even in Gujarat and Maharashtra, the selection of credit institution, PPI was lover
at all the stages of project. Contact made by farmers for getting information, submission of
applications at planning, implementation and at post implementation stage. However, PPI
was higher at implementation stage but decreased at maintenance and implementation stages.
Table 23: Level of Participation (Different stage of programme)
State
Criteria of people’s participation in Micro irrigation in different states (%)
Selection of site Selection of crop Selection of
installing firm
Selection of credit
agency
Contacts made to
officials
Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp Mnt Pl. Imp. Mnt.
AP 86.9 56.7 45.8 87.7 57.1 54.3 85.2 62.5 51.2 78.6 57.1 41.2 70.9 51.2 41.3
GJ 75.6 52.3 31.8 69.8 53.2 50.7 71.2 55.2 48.7 28.2 36.5 14.8 51.1 33.7 30.4
MH 65.5 51.6 33.3 40.0 38.5 40.5 41.3 48.5 39.8 21.0 21.1 18.9 29.2 27.6 25.3
PB 35.7 39.6 28.9 30.4 33.2 12.1 31.8 34.2 5.7 No response 29.3 27.6 20.4
All 67.5 50.7 34.2 56.3 45.6 41.5 57.0 50.7 38.9 29.4 28.7 40.2 33.6 26.8
Note: Pl.: Planning, Imp.: Implementation, Mnt.: Maintenance, AP=Andhra Pradesh, GJ=Gujarat, MH= Maharashtra,
PB=Punjab
Thus, PPI at planning was higher in all the cases and it decreased at implementation and
maintenance stages respectively. The possible reason may be initially more farmers might
have shown the interest of taking MIS and later on, they might have withdrawn their
participation in the project. Another reason might be due to limited fund, time and man power
with government and private functionaries, less farmers were included in the beneficiary list.
4.9.10 Determinants of micro irrigation adoption
The estimated coefficient of the parameters and marginal effect in the logit model are
summarized in table 23. A series of logistic regression for pooled data (all states together)
and for each state separately has been used to work out determinant of micro irrigation
adoption. Independent variables have been common in each specified model. The coefficient
presented determines whether a change in independent variable considered in model makes
the event more likely or less likely.
Pooled data: Analysis of all respondents across all four states taken together, coefficient of
family size came to be positive and significant at 10 per cent in adoption of micro irrigation.
Its marginal effect indicates that the probability of adoption of micro irrigation increases by
2.1 per cent each additional member family. Years of mobile use, possession of soil health
card, insurance of crop during survey and ownership of tube well came out to be positive. 72
Marginal effect of mobile use indicates that probability of micro irrigation adoption increases
by 2.6 per cent for increase in each year of mobile use. Increase in probability of adoption if
respondent have soil health card and crop insurance is 34.9 and 55.5 per cent (Table 24).
These factor is as per expectation that if farmers are innovative then he will be going for
adoption of newer technology available. Tube well ownership of respondent increases
probability of micro irrigation adoption by 24.5 per cent in comparison to others. One of the
essential criteria of taking benefit of micro irrigation is own source of irrigation. Result
indicates that area under rainfed reduces probability to adoption by 51 per cent.
State specific findings
Punjab: Coefficient of soil health card, crop insurance and ownership of tube well are
positive and significant at 1 per cent level of significance. Their marginal effect is 56.8, 30.6,
0.3 and 63 per cent respectively.
Andhra Pradesh: Coefficient of schooling years, mobile use years, cast of respondent, depth
of water table and tube well ownership are positive and significant. Marginal effect of these
variables is 3.8, 5.9, 25.6, 0.1 and 59.2 per cent respectively.
Gujarat: Coefficient of mobile use years, soil health card, crop insurance, tube well
ownership and irrigated area came out to be significant. Marginal effect of these variables is
19.8, 80.9, 96.2, 52 and 15.3 per cent respectively.
Maharashtra: Coefficient of soil health card, crop insurance, tube well ownership and
irrigated area came out to be significant. Marginal effect of these variables is 45.3, 89.2, 44.2
and 5.2 per cent respectively.
73
Table 24: Determinant of micro irrigation adoption
Variables Pooled data Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Coef. Margin
al
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Margin
al
Effect
Family size (no) 0.090* 0.021* -0.137 -0.034 0.205 0.051 -0.009 -0.002 -0.011 -0.002
Working labour (no) -0.078 -0.016 0.133 0.033 -0.263 -0.065 -0.893 -0.211 -0.621 -0.142
Schooling (years) 0.010 0.003 0.067 0.017 0.155*** 0.038*** -0.115 -0.027 0.001 0.001
Mobile use (years) 0.103*** 0.026**
*
0.003 0.001 0.238*** 0.059*** 0.835*** 0.198** -0.065 -0.015
Caste (Gen+OBC=1
Otherwise=0)
0.246 0.062 -0.001 0.000 1.152* 0.256** -2.907 -0.565 1.087 0.215
Soil health card (Yes=1
No=0)
1.515*** 0.349**
*
3.502*
**
0.568*** 0.297 0.074 7.095** 0.809*** 1.961** 0.453**
Crop insurance (Yes=1
No=0)
2.485*** 0.555**
*
1.265*
**
0.306*** 0.643 0.158 8.049*** 0.962*** 6.03 0.892**
*
Water table depth (in
feet)
0.001 0.001 0.010*
**
0.003*** 0.005*** 0.001*** -0.003 -0.001 0.01*** 0.001
Tube well ownership
(Yes=1 No=0)
1.137*** 0.245**
*
3.366*
**
0.631*** 3.073*** 0.592*** 3.373 0.520* 2.968**
*
0.442**
*
Irrigated area (ha) -0.022 -0.005 0.031 0.008 0.073 0.018 0.646*** 0.153** 0.229** -
0.052**
Rain-fed area (ha) -0.510** -
0.125**
-0.627 -0.154 0.611 0.151 -3.6 -0.852 2.52 0.577
Energy (Diesel=1
otherwise=0)
0.253 0.06 1.671*
**
0.388*** -1.226* -0.295** -1.483 -0.353 -0.522 -0.125
Constant -4.015*** -
2.750*
*
-
9.249***
-10.58 -3.730*
Number of obs 827 183 204 220 220
LR chi2(12) 399.41 103.9 151.79 279.59 229.97
Prob > chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0
Pseudo R2 0.348 0.4095 0.5368 0.9167 0.75
Log likelihood -373.48 -74.895 -65.497 -12.696 -37.279
Note: *** significant at 1%, ** at 5% and * at 10%
Objective 7: To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in
under exploited but potential state/ region
4.9.11 The main source irrigation in Punjab state is ground water and canal, state has already
tapped its irrigation potential and having almost 100% net irrigated area. In recent past
irrigation through ground water sources is accelerating resulting in depleting ground water
level. Metrological data shows, many blocks in the state were critical and under water stress
due over exploitation of ground water. However, state is having potential of abandon water
resources but still use of water saving technology is very poor. The uncultivable land (1%)
and fellow land (1%) are not much in the state. Only the option remain that ground water
irrigation system in traditional method may be replaced with micro irrigation system.
Therefore, strong policy decision is required to restrict the ground water use through flood
irrigation. In a phased manner, first horticulture crops and then annual crops need to be
brought under micro irrigation. The Talwara project (SCIP) in Hoshiarpur district is already
progressing well and farmers have adopted solar driven micro irrigation system. Similarly 74
other states like Maharashtra, Gujarat need to take the policy decisions on whether to provide
free electricity or not and how long. Thus, we feel about 20% groundwater irrigated area
should be brought under MIS in phased manner. The figure 18 depicts the share of net
irrigated area to net sown area and cropping intensity across the states. This could be
observed that higher the cropping intensity with those states where percent net irrigated area
is high. Further, cropping intensity can he enhanced with proper utilization of water resources
including micro irrigation system.
4.12 Groundwater depletion leads to demand of micro irrigation: The reports and data
indicates that in the selected states the ground water level is being going down day by data.
During field survey also farmers have expressed that water level is going low and low since
many years. Therefore, we have asked the farmer how water table gone down during different
period. In the primary survey, information regarding groundwater has been collected from
the sampled farmer in the study area and presented in table 25.The highest depletion in
absolute term was observed in the case of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.
However, Punjab farmers have indicated about 20-30% depletion in water table from 2005-
06 to 2017-18. Therefore, farmers of selected states were aware the declining ground water.
They also said either some of the tube wells dried up or the farmers did re-deepening. They
161
123
133
144 145
156
122 123
161
122 124
186
167
155
112
122
128
155
135
100
120
100
130
116
168
191
138
176
124
121
189
158 157
185
142
0
50
100
150
200
250
A & N Island
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
Chhattisgarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kasmhmir
Jharkhand Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram Nagaland
Odisha
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttara Pradesh
Uttarakhand West Bengal
India
Percent
Fig. 18:Share of net irrigated area to net sown area, food grain area to total cropped area and cropping
intensity
Percentage of NIAto NCA Foodgrain area share to TCA (%) Cropping Intensity (%age) 75
have informed that water conservation technology may avoid such reduction in water level
since it required less water. Therefore, promotion of micro-irrigation technologies is very
much essential for states like Punjab, AP and others where already water stress and scarcity is
being pointed out by the hydrologists and researchers Srivastava etal. 2015. Since, MIS
technology save water more than 30%, which can be used to save ground water resources.
Table 25: Perception on groundwater table depletion in the study area
Time period
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Present (2017-
18)
141.45 74.00 421.17 404.06 382.11 239.07 1066.91 905.01
Before 5 Years 126.87 66.99 332.23 297.30 303.50 198.44 996.91 835.01
Before 10
Years
100.07 58.47 247.74 198.76 268.81 178.74 551.61 509.87
4.9.13 Accessibility of information: In study area, almost all sampled farmers are aware
about the micro irrigation system used in agriculture. In Punjab, nearly half of the adopter
farmers got the information of micro irrigation from government official and
Universities/Research institute/KVK still 38 per cent farmers depend of fellow farmers or
relative for the information (table 26). In Punjab under non-adopter category, half of the
framers have themselves aware for micro irrigation from fellow farmers or relatives.
Penetration of government officials and Universities/Research station/ KVK in Andhra
Pradesh is higher than in Punjab, as more number of farmers got the information from these
sources. In Andhra Pradesh farmers, dependency for information on fellow farmers or
relatives is lower in than the Punjab Farmers. The timely and accessibility of information
helps in scaling the MIS in the country. We have observed most of the farmers who adopt
MIS get information from fellow farmers, govt. departments, research institutes and print
media. We strongly feel that agricultural university/KVK/research institutions need to
increase their reach to the farmers.
76
Table 26: Source of information on micro irrigation
Particulars Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Peers/fellow
farmers
30
(38.46)
72
(78.26)
24
(23.30)
31
(31.69)
13
(11.82)
31
(28.18))
14
(13.33)
17
(14.78)
Govt. officials 32
14
(15.22)
54 (52.43) 47
(46.53)
31
(28.18)
2
(1.82)
43
(40.95)
24
(20.87)
Research
institutions
Universities/ KVK
22 0 11
(10.68)
13
(12.87)
39
(35.45)
13
(11.82)
20
(19.05)
40
(34.78)
Print media 2 0 10
(9.71)
6(5.94) 6
(5.45)
37
(33.64)
15
(14.29)
25
(21.74)
TV/Radio/Mobile 5 5
(5.44)
4
(3.88)
1(0.99) 21
(19.09)
27
(24.55)
11
(10.48)
7(6.09)
No response 0 1
(1.09)
0 3(2.97) 0 0 2
(1.94)
2
(1.74)
Total 91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(100)
101 (100) 110
(100)
110
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
Objective 8: To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure
4.9.14 Challenges of micro irrigation system
There are several demerits associated with micro irrigation system, which hinder its adoption.
Table 27 indicate demerits of MIS which have influence on adoption and corresponding
values gives the per cent of sample farmers agreed for that category in respective state. In
spite of government subsidies up to 90 per cent of cost, farmers perceived high initial capital
requirement as dominant problem. This may be due to late or untimely disbursement of
subsides and ineffective linkages with the stakeholders and other departments. Other demerits
stated by respondent were related to technical issues like clogging, handling skills,
procurement of MIS etc. Therefore, few issues, which are associated with micro irrigation,
need to be addressed in order to increase the spread of micro irrigation in respective states.
77
Table 27: Challenges of micro irrigation system (in Percent)
Particulars Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat Maharashtra
High initial capital requirement 80 58 63 68
Clogging problems 75 75 73 69
Maintenance problems 76 65 68 58
Difficult to install 65 52 54 63
Requires know-how and skills 62 65 56 59
Crop specificity 56 37 48 68
Limits crop diversification 65 67 62 75
Interferes with harvesting 53 72 54 65
Interference with agronomic
practices
54 65 58 47
Cumbersome procurement
process
68 32 49 37
4.9.15 Experience of adopters on operational procedure and subsidy support:
The experiences and perceptions of the micro irrigation adopters were assessed through open-
ended questions put before the respondents. Fig. 19 indicates the behavior of department staff
and agencies involved in processing and granting the subsidies to the farmers. The behaviour
of the staff as perceived very good varies from 18% for Punjab to 44.67% for Andhra
Pradesh. However, combined behavior good and very good varies from 28% to about 72%.
This means in AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, agencies involved, their department staff
behaved well the beneficiaries. This might be one of the reasons of better adoption rate in the
respective state (Annexure-VII).
Clarity in the subsidy and operational procedure was assessed and presented in the fig. 20. It
could be observed from the table that the process of support to the beneficiaries was clear in
the Andhra (52%), Gujarat (51%) and Maharashtra (49%) followed by Punjab 8.45% only.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very Good Good Nuetral worstVery worst
Percent
Fig. 19: Behavior of officials / agency involved in granting subsidy for MIS
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 78
The range of clarity in procedure varied from 19% (Punjab) to 75% AP and followed by other
states. There were beneficiaries who are not clear about the procedure and mechanisms of
getting subsidy and they were maximum in the case of Punjab (64%).
The fairness in availing subsidy and perception of beneficiaries were asked and presented in
fig.21. It could be observed from the table that Farmers of AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra
perceive it was very good to good. It means the subsidy distribution was fair in the states
while about 41% adopters felt very good and good in the case of Punjab. However, there
were adopter in all the states who could not say anything and they were neutral, maximum
22% in case of Punjab.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very clearClear NuetralNot clearNot clear
atall
Percent
Fig. 20: Clarity of procedure to avail subsidy for adopting Micro irrigation
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall
0
20
40
60
Very GoodGood Nuetral worstVery worst
Percent
Fig.21: Fairness in availing subsidy for adoption of MIS
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 79
The transparency in the process of subsidy distribution is also an important issue, we have
analyzed the perception of the farmers, and it is presented in the fig. 22. It could be noticed
from the table that more than 68% adopter felt that subsidy support was transparent in the
case of Andhra Pradesh flowed by Gujarat (52%), Maharashtra (46%) and for Punjab it was
only 8%. Similarly about 19%,7%, 10% and 9% adopters felt that it was worst for Punjab,
AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively. Thus, there is need to bring more transparency so
that extent of beneficiaries can be increased.
The disbursement of subsidy at soon as possible may enhance the efficiency of the PIA and
has to be in speedy manner. We have analyzed the perception of adopters on this issue and
observed that in AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra duration was very short to short for maximum
number of beneficiaries while in the case of Punjab less number of beneficiaries (16%) have
indicated the same ( Fig. 23). In Punjab, maximum numbers of respondents have perceived
that duration of availing subsidy was more. Thus, it is important that the disbursement of
subsidy should be in speedy manner to attract more stakeholders.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very Good Good Nuetral worst Very worst
Percent
Fig. 22: Transparency in the process of subsidy support
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 80
The adequacy of subsidy support for adoption of micro irrigation, farmers perception was
analyzed and presented in the fig. 24. it could be observed from the figure that maximum
adopters of Gujarat have perceived that subsidy support was adequate followed by Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra. However, in the case of Punjab maximum adopters say support is
not adequate.
4.9.16 Constraints in adoption of micro irrigation: we have collected the information
from the adopters and same is summarized in the table 28. Farmers feel process of getting MI
is lengthy. This can be settled through administrative setup of line departments involved in
MIS prgramme in respective state However, responses for all the states were not uniform
where farmers and line departments have better understanding and cooperation, process of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very shortShort Nuetral long very long
Percent
Fig. 23:Time taken in availing subsidy
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very Good Good Nuetral worst Very worst
Percent
Fig. 24: Adequacy of subsidy support for adopting micro irrigation system
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 81
MIS access is simple. In Punjab, adopters have reported that favourism based on the caste,
association with the political party and social status in the society is practiced in some of the
areas. We feel that process of granting MI can be simplified.
Table 28: Constraints related to administrative process faced by adopter
Particulars Punjab
(n=91)
Andhra
Pradesh
(n=103)
Gujarat
(n=105)
Maharashtra
(n=110)
In process of getting MI
Very lengthy 23 19 27 19
Lengthy 9 14 10 16
Neutral 5 1 3 2
Good 13 17 19 23
Very good 41 52 46 50
Favouritism /nepotism
Very much prevalent 18 15 21 19
Prevalent 13 11 13 17
Neutral 9 18 7 4
No Favoritism 28 39 40 45
Not at all Favoritism 23 20 24 25
Post installation service is available
Yes 49 94 86 78
No
After installation problem Faced by farmers
No problem 13 45 72 25
Clogging 49 63 43 86
Animal damage 37 45 27 67
Unreliable energy supply 48 78 66 47
Difficult in repair and
maintenance
78 36 94 81
Problem of theft 23 12 17 24
The question of nepotism is also found to be prevailed in the study area as few farmers of
each state have said, it is very much prevalent in village. The post installation of MIS,
farmers face several constraints like clogging of laterals and pipes. Though state line
departments involved in MIS implementation have supplied the acid and instructed to the
installing firms to do the service time to time. Still farmers feel clogging and chocking of
lateral is big problem. In AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, PIA and firms on post maintenance
organized series training progarmmes for farmers and field level staff. The state like Punjab
training and awareness component was lacking. The damage to the MIS by own or wild
animals was noticed in all the state. Farmers have reported that once laterals are damaged, it
is very difficult to replace or to get serviced due remotely location of the fields. In the state of
Maharashtra and Gujarat there were the cases of theft of MIS However, difficulties in 82
maintenance and unreliable energy source were the other constraints. Therefore, scaling up
the MIS in larger areas these constraints need to be minimized.
4.9.17 Reasons of non-adoption of micro irrigation: The information from the non-
adopters was analyzed and is summarized in the fig. 25. The non-adopters of MIS were
asked open-ended questions like whether MIS involved high initial cost or not? and
perception gaged on Likert type scale. About 55% non-adopter s perceived that MIS required
high initial investment. Only 19% farmers have indicated that it is not required high
investment. About the time required for getting MIS, more than 71% farmers have said
process is very lengthy. The question like the availability of free energy hamper the adoption
rate of MIS or not? The free sources of energy discourage the adoption of MIS. It may be due
to the fact that once water is available at nominal cost why farmers should adopt high cost
irrigation system. Thus, they do not come forward to take up MIS on their fields. The
perception on drudgery involved in the MIS operations and handling indicate that MIS
involve some drudgery as more than 44% farmers were in this opinion. The question like
whether skilled person needed for working with MIS or not? It was informed by the farmers
that MIS need the skilled persons (47 responded for it). Difficulty in maintenance of MIS,
about 85% farmers said this is the problem. Further farmers have pointed out that during farm
operations, they face the problem of damage and break down during operation and delay in
getting the service in time. Thus, it can be inferred from the above discussion that farmers
were hesitant to install MIS due to several operational and maintenance associated problems.
We feel that associated problems/constraints with MIS can be minimized through policy
intervention, creating awareness conducting the exposure programmes for the farmers so that
they may understand the benefits of micro irrigation. The annexure VIII present the typical
questionnaire prepared for the collection of primary data.
83
1.7
17.2
25.8
32.3
23.0
1.2
12.4
14.6
43.5
28.2
2.9
45.9
29.0
20.1
2.2
21.3
5.0
24.2
40.2
9.3
7.4
36.8
28.7
22.3
4.8
2.9
35.7
14.1
26.1
21.3
1.2
3.1
11.0
16.5
68.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
High initial
investment
Lenthy process
to avail subsidy
Free electricity
avaialbility
Post purchase
service support
Drudgery in
operations
Skiled labour
requiremnet
Maintenace is
difficult
Fig. 25: Reasons of non adoption of micro irrigation 84
Chapter 5.0
Recommendation and lesson learnt
1. The administrative and operation process of APIMP, GGRC and Maharashtra states was found to
be effective therefore; it should be replicated in other part of country.
2. The free electricity can be avoided so that ground water exploitation can be minimized.
3. The easy availability of Loan to the farmers is more beneficial. However, in case loan is not
possible a lump sum grant by the department may be given for time bound and refundable manner.
4. For successful and widespread diversification of agriculture in the state, the installation of Micro
irrigation systems should be made an integral part of the programme.
5. There is a tendency amongst farmers to get the Micro-irrigation system installed from the
unapproved firms without intimating the Department. When the system fails due to substandard
components, the farmers lay blame on the department officials. To avoid such difficulty to the farmers,
a blanket ban on the unapproved firms in the state should be enforced.
6. The components like Water storage tanks, electric motors and pump sets should also be part of the
micro irrigation system.
7. The data on private investment is not available with the programme implementing agencies. It is
suggested that data may be collected and maintained at least district level so that exact private efforts
can be quantified.
8. The constraints in MIS implementation and operational process need to be narrowed.
9. The rate of subsidy provided under NMMI through central government is fixed uniformly for
different categories of farmer with a limit of 5.0 ha, this needs to be restructured as about 15% of the
large and medium farmers’ accounts for more than 55.42% of the land in India. Therefore, this limit of
five hectares needs to be enhanced for extending the subsidy.
10. The maintenance of the system after installation and training to the farmers must also be assured
so that the system works regularly without interruption. The firms supplying the system must be made
responsible for the maintenance and supply of spares at least for fiver years.
11. Some R&D system may be developed at the central or the State research organization level to make
recommendations regarding Drip/ Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System.
12. Region & climatic specific demonstration of the system may be developed for successful
implementation of the Drip/ Micro Irrigation Systems.
85
Chapter 6.0
Limitations of the Study
1. Limited timeframe for the study since extensive survey is required from different
locations of four states to meet the requirement of the study. Study should have been
more than one year.
2. The survey was used to collect perception data and perception data has its own
limitation of number and types of analysis methods available. The use of perception
data makes it more difficult to establish causality as compared to research farm data.
3. The programme implementing agencies could not provide some of the data /
information.
4. The impacts of micro irrigation are best studied through observation of actual
ground water and surface water data. Monitoring of these data is time consuming,
costly and the monitoring needs to be done on a larger duration across seasons, years
to get authentic results. The time frame of 6 months does not allow these advance
econometric methods. Therefore, perception data based study methodology was
decided used as the best option.
5. The sampling design based on the study design conducted the survey in selected
pockets or clusters of high adoption of micro irrigation. These selection criteria can
cause bias on the data collected variables such as awareness.
6. The survey instrument collected perceptions as responses on a five-point scale.
This is theoretically a case of censoring a measurement and therefore induces some
limitations on the measures and the analysis.
7. Another limitation was the survey questionnaire was prepared in one languages
since our study area belong to different lingual states, field investigators have faced
some problems. However, field staffs were also trained on the questionnaire filling
prior to the survey. However, some error may have remained due to fieldwork across
multiple language locations.
8. Administrative process of project has taken more time. It should be simplified to
speed up the project works.
9. In spite of these limitations, efforts were made by the research team to complete
the study in time.
Bibliography 86
1. Bahinipati, C.S. and Viswanathan, P.K. (2016). Role of Institutions and Policies in Diffusion
of Micro-irrigation in Gujarat, Western India. GIDR Working Papers no. 231.
2. Baranchuluun, S.H., Bayanjargal,D. and Adiyabadam, G. (2015) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Crop production with various irrigation systems in Mongolia. International Federation of
East Asian Management Associations (IFEAMA), 5: 146-156.
3. Bhamoriya, V. & Mathew, S. (2014). An analysis of resource conservation technology (a
case of micro-irrigation system) in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil-Nadu
states of India.Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad.
4. Bhaskar, K.S., Rao, M.R.K., Mendhe, P.M. and Suryavanshi, M.R. (2005). Micro Irrigation
Management in Cotton. Technical Bulletin from Central Institute for Cotton Research
Nagpur (www.cicr.org.in).
5. Biswas, S.K., Akanda, A.R., Rahman, M.S. and Hossain, M.A. (2015). Effect of drip
irrigation and mulching on yield, water-use efficiency and economics of tomato. Plant, Soil
and Environment, 61(3): 97-102.
6. Chandrakanth, M.G. and V. Arun (1997). “Externalities in Groundwater Irrigation in Hard
Rock Areas”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(4):761-771.
7. Chandrakanth, M.G., Priyanka, C.N., Mamatha, P. and Patil, K.K. (2013). Economic
Benefits from Micro Irrigation for Dry Land Crops in Karnataka. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics,68(3):426-338.
8. Chandran, M.K. and Surendran, U. (2016). Study on factors influencing the adoption of drip
irrigation by farmers in humid tropical Kerala, India. International Journal of Plant
Production,10 (3): 347-364.
9. Dewandel, B., Perrin, J., Ahmed S., Aulong, H. Z., Lachassagne, P., Samad, M. and Massuel,
S. (2010). “Development of a tool for managing groundwater resources in semi-arid hard
rock regions: application to a rural watershed in South India”, Hydrological Processes, 24:
2784–2797.
10. Dhawan, BD. (2002). Technological Change in Indian Irrigated Agriculture: A Study Of
Water Saving Methods Hardcover – 2002 Publisher: Commonwealth Publishers, ISBN-10:
8171696813, ISBN-13: 978-8171696819.
11. Irfan, M., Arshad, M., Shakoor, A. and Anjum, L. (2014). Impact of Irrigation Management
Practices and Water Quality on Maize Production and Water Use Efficiency. The Journal of
Animal & Plant Sciences,24(5): 1518-1524. 87
12. J. Keller and R. D. Bliesner, “Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation,” Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1990.
13. Jha, A.K., Malla, R.,Sharma, M., Panthi, J., Lakhankar, T., Krakauer, N.Y., Pradhanang,
S.M., Dahal, P. and Shrestha, M.L. (2016). Impact of Irrigation Method on Water Use
Efficiency and Productivity of Fodder Crops in Nepal. Climate,4(4): 1-13.
14. K Palanisami, Kadiri Mohan, K R Kakumanu, S Raman. (2011). Spread and Economics of
Micro-irrigation in India: Evidence from Nine States. Economic & Political Weekly EPW
vol.xlvi (26 & 27):81-86.
15. Kiruthika, N. (2014). Determinants of adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane cultivation in
Tamil-Nadu.American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences, 5(2)143-146.
16. Kumar, D.S. & Palanisami, K. (2010). Impact of drip irrigation on farming system in
southern part of India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 23: 265-272.
17. Kumar, Suresh, D and K Palanisami (2010): “Impact of Drip Irrigation on Farming System:
Evidences from Southern India,” Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol 23, pp 265–72.
18. Kumar, M. D. (2003). “Micro Management of Groundwater in North Gujarat”, Water Policy
Research Highlight # 5: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Programme, Anand.
19. Kumar, R., Trivedi, H., Yadav, R., Das, B. and Bist, A.S. (2016). Effect of Drip Irrigation on
Yield and Water Use Efficiency on Brinjal (Solanum Melongena) Cv. Pant Samrat.
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 5(10): 7-17.
20. Kumar, Suresh (2008): Promoting Drip Irrigation: Where and Why? Managing Water in the
Face of Growing Scarcity, Inequity and Declining Returns: Exploring Fresh Approaches,
IWMI TATA 7
th
Annual Partner Meet, Vol 1, pp 108-20.
21. Molden, D.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Habib, Z. (2001). “Basin-Level Use and Productivity of
Water: Examples from South Asia”. IWMI Research Report 49, Colombo: International
Water Management Institute.
22. Namara, R. E., Upadhyay, B., Nagar, R. K. (2005). Adoption and impacts of micro-irrigation
technologies: Empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat states of
India. Research Report 93. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
23. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2003). Averting water crisis by drip method of irrigation: A study of
two water-intensive crops, Ind. J. agri. Econ. 58(3):427
24. Narayanamoorthy, A. (1997). “Drip irrigation: A viable option for future irrigation
development”, Productivity, 38 (3): 504-511. 88
25. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2005). “Economics of Drip Irrigation in Sugarcane Cultivation: Case
Study of a Farmer from Tamil Nadu”, Ind. Jn. of Agri. Econ. 60(2):235-48.
26. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2006). Potential For Drip And Sprinkler Irrigation In India.
27. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2008).Drip Irrigation and Rainfed Crop Cultivation Nexus: The Case
of Cotton Crop. IndianJournalofAgriculturalEconomics,63(3):487-501.
28. Panigrahi, B., Roy, D.P. and Panda, S. N. (2015). Water use and yield response of tomato as
influenced by drip and furrow irrigation. International Agricultural Engineering Journal,
19(1): 19-30.
29. Paul, J.C., Mishra, J.N. and Pradhan, P.L. and Panigrahi, B. (2013). Effect of drip and
surface irrigation on yield, water-use-efficiency and economics of capsicum. Grown under
mulch and non mulch conditions in eastern coastal India. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 2(1) 99-108.
30. Priyan, K. and Panchal, R. (2017). Micro-Irrigation: An Efficient Technology for India’s
Sustainable Agricultural Growth. International Conference on Research and Innovations in
Science, Engineering &Technology, 1: 398-402.
31. Patrick G.F., Musser W.N. (1997): Sources of and responses to risk: factor analysis of large scale US
Corn belt farmers. In: Huirne R.B.M., Hardaker J.B., Dijkhuizen A.A. (eds.): Risk
ManagementStrategies in Agriculture, State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Wageningen
Agricultural University.
32. Quevenco, R. (2015). Bountiful crop with every drop: using drip irrigation to increase yields
and conserve water. International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, March 2015. 24-25.
33. Qureshi, A.L., Gadehi, M., Mahessar, A., Memon, N., Soomro, A. and Memon, A.(2015).
Effect of Drip and Furrow Irrigation Systems on Sunflower Yield and Water Use Efficiency
in Dry Area of Pakistan.American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture & Environmental
Science, 15(10): 1947-1952.
34. Qureshi, M.E, Wegener, M.K., Harrison, S.R. and Bristow, K.L. (2001). “Economic
evaluation of alternate irrigation systems for sugarcane in the Burdekin delta in North
Queensland, Australia”, In: Water ResourceManagement, Eds: C.A. Brebbia, K.
Anagnostopoulos, K. Katsifarakis and A.H.D. Cheng, WIT Press, Boston, pp. 47-57.
35. Rahul Kapur, Sukrit Gulati and Swarnima Chouhan (2015). Accelerating growth of Indian
agriculture: Micro irrigation an efficient solution Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce & Industry (FICCI), Strategy paper - Future prospects of micro irrigation in India. 89
36. Raina, J.N., Sharma, T. and Suman, S. (2011) Effect of drip fertigation with different
fertilizers on nutrient distribution in soil, leaf nutrient content and yield of apricot (Prunus
aremeniaca L.). Journal of Indian Society Soil Science, 59: 268-77.
37. Raman, S. 2010. State-wise micro-irrigation potential in India - An Assessment. Unpublished
paper, Natural Resources Management Institute, Mumbai.
38. Reddy, K.Y.V., Adamala, S., and Harish Babu, B. (2017). Case Study on Performance
Evaluation of Drip Irrigation Systems in Selected Villages of Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(2):
437-445.
39. Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. and Famiglietti, J. S. (2009). “Satellite‐based estimates of
groundwater depletion in India”, Nature, 460:999–1002, doi:10.1038/nature08238.
40. Saleth, R M (1996): Water Institutions in India: Economics, Law and Policy (New Delhi:
Commonwealth Publishers).
41. Samir Yacoubi, Khemaies Zayani, Adel Slatni, Enrique Playan (2012). Assessing Sprinkler
Irrigation Performance Using Field Evaluations at the Medjerda Lower Valley of Tunisia,
Journal of Engineering, 4(10): 682-691
42. Shah, T. (2009). “Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia. Resources
for the Future, Washington DC and International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
43. Shah, T. (2011). “Past, Present, and the Future of Canal Irrigation in India”, India
Infrastructure Report, 70-87.
44. Shankar, P.S.V., Kulkarni, H. and Sunderrajan Krishnan, S. (2011). “India’s Groundwater
Challenge and the Way Forward”, Economic & Political Weekly, 45(2):37-45.
45. Sivanappan, R.K. (1994). “Prospects of micro-irrigation in India”, Irrigation and Drainage
Systems, 8(1):49-58.
46. Subhash Chand, Prabhat Kishore and SK. Srivastava (2019) Pressurized irrigation system:
Policies and implications in India, Soil conservation society of Indian Journal of Soil
Conservation, New Delhi pp:42-50Conference issue.
47. Tiwari, K.N., Kumar, M., Santosh, D.T., Singh, V.K., Maji M.K. and Karan A.K.
(2014).Influence of Drip Irrigation and Plastic Mulch on Yield of Sapota (Achraszapota) and
Soil.
48. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Susan Mathew (2014). An Analysis of Resource Conservation
Technology: A Case of Micro-Irrigation System (Drip Irrigation), IIM, Ahmadabad project
report.
90
49. Upadhyay, B. 2003. Drip irrigation: An appropriate technology for women. Appropriate
Technology Vol. 30 (4).
50. Upadhyay, B.; Samad, M. 2004. Livelihoods and gender roles in drip-irrigation technology:
A case of Nepal. Working Paper 87. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management
Institute.
51. Vaidyanathan, A (1999): Water Resources Management: Institutions and Irrigation
Development in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
52. Verma, S.; Tsephal, S.; and Jose, T. 2004. Pepsee systems: Grass root innovation under
groundwater stress.Water policy 6 (2004): 1-16.
53. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Susan Mathew (2014). An Analysis of Resource
ConservationTechnology: A Case of Micro-Irrigation System (Drip Irrigation), IIM,
Ahmadabad project report.
54. Westcott, M. P. and Vines, K. W., A comparison of sprinkler and flood irrigation for rice.
Agron. J., 1986, 78, 637–640.
55. Wrachienb, D., Medicia, M.and Lorenzinia (2014). The Great Potential of Micro-Irrigation
Technology for Poor-Rural Communities. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering, 3(2):
1-2.
56. Yang, X., Chen, F., Gong, F., Song, D., (2000). “Physiological and ecological characteristics
of winter wheat under sprinkler irrigation condition”. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 16
(3):35– 37.
57. Zhu, Q. C., Wei, C. Z., Li, M. N., Zhu, J. L. and Wang, J., Nutrient availability in the
rhizosphere of rice grown with plastic film mulch and drip irrigation. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.,
2013, 13(4), 943–953.
58. Directorate of Economics and statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare,
Governmnet of India-https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/.
59. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation- http://cgwb.gov.in/.
60. India Water Portal-https://www.indiawaterportal.org/
Rainfall, Central Statistics Office (2016), Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation -http://mospi.nic.in/statistical-year-book-india/2017/203.
61. Census, Government of India.-http://www.censusindia.gov.in/
62. Minor irrigation census, Government of India-http://micensus.gov.in/
91
63. Input Survey, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, India- http://inputsurvey.dacnet
.nic.in/
64. Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab- http://dswcpunjab.gov.in.
65. Department of agriculture, Punjab- http://punjab.gov.in/agriculture-department
66. Department of Horticulture, Punjab.
67. Gujarat Green Revolution Company Limited, Gujarat- http://ggrc.co.in/.
68. Department of Agriculture, Maharashtra- http://krishi.maharashtra.gov.in/1001/Home.
69. Department of Horticulture, Maharashtra-http://mahanhm.in/Home.aspx.
70. Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project, Andhra Pradesh- http://horticulturedept.ap.gov.in/
Department of Horticulture, Andhra Pradesh-http://horticulturedept.ap.gov.in/
71. Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh- http://www.apagrisnet.gov.in/
72. Guideline, Prime Minister Krishi Sinchayee Yojanahttps://pmksy.gov.in/
92
Annexures
93
Annexures -I
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in Andhra Pradesh 2017-18
DISTRICT
SPRINKLER DRIP TOTAL
No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha)
Ananthapuramu 11215 13997.63 81060 89936.55 92274 103933.4
Chittoor 6946 6392.35 82727 78857.17 89673 85249.52
East Godavari 5347 6949.74 5468 7181.87 10815 14131.61
Guntur 12729 13207.57 7368 5647.22 20097 18854.79
Krishna 6823 7306.86 10432 11480.09 17255 18786.95
Kurnool 21158 28174.03 28540 29415.73 49698 57589.76
Prakasam 13184 14614.69 29252 32256.44 42436 46871.13
SPS Nellore 10601 11187.81 11031 12812.06 21632 23999.87
Srikakulam 7183 6234.92 3476 3436.64 10659 9671.56
Visakhapatnam 5507 5170.96 4645 4977.34 10152 10148.3
Vizianagaram 4566 4743.08 3805 5424.95 8371 10168.03
West Godavari 5759 7602.62 30226 38706.85 35984 46308.68
YSR Kadapa 14309 20158.23 55497 64755.13 69806 84913.36
Total 125327 145740.5 353527 384888 478852 530627
Source: APMIP, progress report, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 2017-18
94
Annexure II
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in Gujarat up to 2017-18
DISTRICT
DRIP
SPRINKLER
TOTAL
2017
UP TO March
2018
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
Ahmedabad 1411 3165 7654 20203 9065 23368 10262 26592
Amreli 22344 33940 25710 39720 48054 73660 52510 81739
Anand 3477 4272 28 60 3505 4332 3672 4548
Arvalli 22711 45009 16630 18224 39341 63234 41829 67516
Banaskantha 109810 181077 69115 127850 178925 308927 191536 328858
Bharuch 9506 16931 3746 6512 13252 23442 14208 24957
Bhavnagar 22501 31138 21137 27299 43638 58437 48119 65239
Botad 21852 35678 1010 2503 22862 38181 26471 44843
Chhotaudepur 6528 9571 29098 38627 35626 48198 37569 50868
Dahod 935 1875 23120 32849 24055 34723 25242 36745
Dangs 207 132 5707 5796 5914 5928 6378 6479
D. Dwarka 4724 6444 14122 31758 18846 38202 23683 50065
Gandhinagar 5904 10061 3034 3771 8938 13832 9714 15029
Gir Somnath 9444 13909 26389 30799 35833 44708 39563 49109
Jamnagar 15429 23225 7644 14846 23073 38071 25896 43992
Junagadh 12459 17746 70645 99513 83104 117259 90447 127383
Kheda 5014 9349 7684 9392 12698 18740 13411 19804
Kutch 21202 50989 8808 18459 30010 69448 32999 76448
Mahisagar 1915 3532 5398 7446 7313 10978 8035 12208
Mehsana 7746 11014 11647 14358 19393 25372 20930 27108
Morbi 11716 18199 3436 6765 15152 24963 16703 27713
Narmada 8252 11889 7725 10218 15977 22107 17568 24640
Navsari 4170 5644 9750 13635 13920 19280 15093 20668
Panchmahal 1483 2249 5489 9180 6972 11429 7412 12106
Patan 3204 5607 9568 23951 12772 29558 13950 31898
Porbandar 1532 2152 16166 28125 17698 30276 19496 33434
Rajkot 34891 48242 16820 28822 51711 77064 57205 86499
Sabarkantha 33163 55178 11349 12102 44512 67281 47721 72279
Surat 6630 10571 8786 14975 15416 25546 16676 27680
Surendranagar 17060 31432 10078 27998 27138 59430 30980 68022
Tapi 4197 8420 19654 25220 23851 33640 26304 37518
Vadodara 7183 12652 1689 3895 8872 16547 9415 17485
Valsad 3346 5514 11010 13202 14356 18716 15160 19609
Gross total
441946 726804.6 489846 768073.1 931792 1494877.7 1016157 1639081
Source: GGRC, 2017-18 report
95
Annexure -III
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in in Maharashtra 2010-11 to 2016-17
District Drip Irrigation
Number Percent Area in ha Percent
Ahmednagar 20470 61.36 13925.85 54.32
Akola 5 0.01 7.67 0.03
Amaravati 8 0.02 10.75 0.04
Aurangabad 142 0.43 122.49 0.48
Beed 90 0.27 90.63 0.35
Bhandara 78 0.23 74.94 0.29
Buldhana 13 0.04 17.34 0.07
Chandarpur 253 0.76 369.05 1.44
Dhule 60 0.18 84.36 0.33
Gadchiroli 18 0.05 20.37 0.08
Gondia 42 0.13 41.05 0.16
Hingoli 2623 7.86 2120.59 8.27
Jalgaon 101 0.30 128.03 0.50
Jalna 24 0.07 18.34 0.07
Kolhapur 2800 8.39 1569.13 6.12
Latur 40 0.12 38.13 0.15
Nagpur 782 2.34 932.37 3.64
Nanded 3223 9.66 3357.51 13.10
Nandurbar 13 0.04 20.11 0.08
Nashik 52 0.16 30.03 0.12
Osmanabad 173 0.52 132.37 0.52
Palghar 76 0.23 103.36 0.40
Parbhani 4 0.01 5.09 0.02
Pune 56 0.17 42.39 0.17
Raigadh 1 0.00 2 0.01
Ratnagiri 6 0.02 3.34 0.01
Sangli 128 0.38 55.19 0.22
Satara 81 0.24 54.14 0.21
Sindhudurg 21 0.06 30 0.12
Solapur 68 0.20 62.36 0.24
Thane 246 0.74 218.54 0.85
Wardha 831 2.49 1054.45 4.11
Washim 824 2.47 884.16 3.45
Yavatmal 9 0.03 9.69 0.04
Total 33361 100 25635.82 100
Source: Directorate of Economics and statistics Govt. of Maharashtra 2016-18
96
Annexure IV
Progress of Micro Irrigation System coverage in Punjab state
S. No.
Name of scheme
2013-14 2014-15 2017-18
Amount
Utilized
(lacs)
Area
benefitte
d (ha)
Amount
Utilized
(lacs)
Area
benefitt
ed (ha)
Area
benefitt
ed (ha)
1. Centrally Sponsored Scheme
on Micro Irrigation
(PMKSY)
604.89 2008 404.78 875
GOI 60% 591.15
145.36
State 40% 13.74 259.42
Sub-Total (A) 1209.78 2008 404.78 875
B STATE PLAN SCHEMES
2. Project for Promotion of
Micro Irrigation in Punjab
(RIDF-16)
216.16
3. Project for Promotion of
Micro Irrigation in Punjab
(RIDF-20)
4. Community Micro Irrigation
Project in Kandi-belt of
Talwara and Hajipur blocks
of District Hoshiarpur
(NABARD-RIDF-18)
631.58 134 1000 65
Grand Total 2057.52 2142 1404.78 940 48281
Source: http://dswcpunjab.gov.in/contents/SCMIP and (DAC.Net, 2018).
97
Annexure V
Actual expenditure by state and theirs share in expenditure under micro irrigation
States Expenditure
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18*
Andhra Pradesh 265.6
(20.9)
351.1
(30.4)
197.8
(21.1)
177.5
(21.8)
425
(22.21)
Gujarat 203.1
(16.0)
137.1
(11.9)
208.4
(22.2)
181.5
(22.3)
275
(14.37)
Karnataka 186.2
(14.7)
117.4
(10.2)
110.5
(11.8)
60.6
(7.4)
300
(15.68)
Madhya Pradesh 96.8
(7.6)
67.1
(5.8)
92.7
(9.9)
70.7
(8.7)
150
(7.84)
Maharashtra 124.7
(9.8)
177.5
(15.5)
70.0
(7.5)
105.7
(13.0)
285
(14.90)
Tamil Nadu 167.9
(13.2)
87.6
(7.6)
59.9
(6.4)
64.7
(7.9)
171
(8.94)
Telangana - 66.0
(5.7)
100.1
(10.7)
112.8
(13.8)
207
(10.82)
Punjab 5.9
(0.5)
0.9
(0.1)
2.4
(0.3)
3.9
(0.5)
-
Others 217.7
(17.2)
151.8
(13.1)
96.1
(10.2)
37.8
(4.6)
100.31
(5.24)
India 1267.9
(100)
1156.5
(100)
937.9
(100)
815.0
(100)
1913.31
(100)
Note: * released fund till 20.03.2018 in year 2017-18
Note: figure in parenthesis is percent expenditure to total expenditure made in that year under micro irrigation
98
Annexure –VI
Year-wise financial and physical targets and achievements for micro irrigation in
India.
Year
Physical Financial
Target
(Ha)
Achievement
(Ha)
Achievement
%
Target
(Rs.)
Achievement
(Rs.)
Achievement
%
2005-06 180223 11817 6.56 23284 1635 7.02
2006-07 397365 334301 84.13 44576 36590 82.09
2007-08 324049 421174 129.97 39896 47294 118.54
2008-09 423095 516338 122.04 41725 46784 112.13
2009-10 425764 554753 130.30 43536 56640 130.11
2010-11 667700 640069 95.86 90084 91737 101.83
2011-12 698197 557521 79.85 108290 108076 99.80
2012-13 714788 526485 73.66 109893 111888 101.82
2013-14 656000 423000 64.48 1273 1181 92.83
2014-15 574000 426000 74.22 964 986 102.28
2015-16 500000 573000 114.60 1001 1091 108.98
2016-17 800000 84000 10.50 1470 1489 101.26
2017-18 120000
0
1049000 87.42 2025 1642 81.05
2018-19 160000
0
1158000 72.38 2264 1751 77.32
Total 916118
1
7275458 510277 508784
Source: DAC.net, Ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare
99
Annexure-VII
Showing the media coverage of visits of reaeach team in Chittoor district of AP
100
Annexure -VIII
(Survey Schedule)
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Efficiency of Micro-irrigation in economizing water use in India-learning from potential
and unexplored area
1. Village profile
i) Name: __________________ ii) Block:____________ iii) District: __________
iv) No. of households------- SC---------, ST--------------, OBC----, General___________
iv) Pucca Road connectivity (Yes = 1 No=0): ____ if no then distance from village (km):
v) Telephone line (Yes=1, No=0):_______ vi) internet connection (Yes=1, No=0):____
Year:
vii) Rail connectivity (Yes =1 No=0):______ if no then distance from village (km):
vi) Distance from the nearest city/town (km): ____
vii) Availability of inputs in the village (Yes =1 No=0):______ if no then distance from
village(km):
ix) Electricity connection year: ________
x) Banking facility (Yes = 1 No=0):______ xi) Primary health facilities (Yes =1
No=0):______
xii) School (Yes =1, No=0):__________ if yes then Primary, Middle, Secondary, senior
secondary
xiii) Agricultural extension support (Yes =1 No=0):______ xiv) Soil type: sandy/loam/clay
2. General information
i) Name of household head: _________________________ ii) Aadhar card (Y/N):
___________
iii) Age: iv) Gender (Male=1
Female=0):_______
v) Education level (schooling Yrs.): _______ vi) Caste: Gen/OBC/MBC/SC/ST/Any____
vii) Family size: M __F__C__ viii) No of working members (agril): Male_____
Female______ ix) Mobile : ______ Since how
many years using mobile: _____________
xii) Diversification of income:
Particular Food grains Horticulture Livestock Agri-labour off farm Total income
Annual
Income (Rs.)
xiii) Member of social organization/cooperatives (Yes=1 No=0):___ if yes then specify:
__________
xiv) Food expenditure (month):___________ xv) Non-food expenditure
(month):_______
xvi) Kisan Credit Card (Yes=1, No=0):__________ Year: ______ xvii) Total loan
(Rs.):_________ 101
xviii) Crop insurance (Yes=1, No=0):_______ if yes then premium rate:________
xix) Types of ration card (Yes=1, No=0):_____ If Yes then type: ________
xx) Soil health card (Yes=1, No=0):________ if no then
why:_________________________
3. Land (Acres):O____ Leased-in:________ Leased-out:_________ Fallow:_________
Particulars Sources of irrigation
Owned Leased-in
Irrigated
P1 P2 P1 P2
Canal
Pond
Open Well
Tubewell
Un-irrigated Rainfed
*P=Plot
4. Micro-irrigation (MI)
A. General
i. Do you feel water scarcity: Strongly agree: Agree: Neutral: Disagree: Strongly
Disagree:
ii. Depth of water table (feet) (now): ________before 10 years: _________ before 5
years_____
iii. Reasons for deepening water table: Since early water table is low: Extraction rate is high:
High temperature: low rainfall: Others specify: ________________
iv. Reason for high extraction rate:_________________
1. High dependence on groundwater 2. Water intensive cropping pattern 3. Subsidized
energy source 4. Electricity supply during night hours 5. Any others_________________
v. Decline in water level will be problem for me in next 5-10 years: 1.Strongly agrees: 2.
Agree: 3. Neutral: 4. Disagree: 5. Strongly Disagree:
vi. Are you aware of MI (Yes=1 No=0):
vii. Source of information: Peers/Government official/ Universities/ KVK/ news paper /TV/
radio/Mobile.
viii. Do you have micro-irrigation system (Yes=1 No=0):
ix. If yes then year of installation:____________
x. Name MI System and installation year: i) Sprinkler year___ ii) Drip year____
xi. Is it under government scheme (Yes=1 No=0):______
xii. if yes then name of scheme
xiii. To whom you have approached
Particulars No. of visits Distance
(Km)
Time in Man-
days
Expenses
incurred (Rs.)
Pradhan/Sarpanch and PRI members
NGOs or others
Local dealers/contractor
Block level Dept.
District level Dept.
Other
xiv. Average time taken for getting micro-irrigation and installation (days):
xv. How much total cost you incurred (Rs):__________ subsidy 102
amount(Rs):__________
xvi. Your contribution: Cash______ Kind______
xvii. How you got subsidy (Code A):______
xviii. How much time taken in getting subsidy credited (days):
xix. How you have managed rest money for MI installation (Code B): ________
xx. If installed then still continuing with MI (Yes=1 No=0):_________
xxi. If no then why (Code C):__________
xxii. If yes then Are you willing to continue MI if subsidy removed (Yes=1
No=0):_________
xxiii. Are you aware of fertigation (Yes=1 No=0):_________
xxiv. If yes then do you follow (Yes=1 No=0):_______
Code A: Account transfer (BDT) =1 Bank cheque=2 private company installed=3 other mode=4
Code B: paid himself=1, took loan from bank=2, loan from money lender=3, from relative/friends etc=4
Code C: post installation service/care was not given=1 quality of MI system was not good=2 consumed more
labour in shifting pipes=3 other specify=4
B. People’s participation in MI
Particulars Level of participation (Different stage of programme)
Planning Implementation Maintenance
Selection of site
Selection of crop
Selection of installing
firm
Selection of credit
agency
Contacts made to
officials
1. Not at all 2. Less participation 3. Moderate 4. High participation 5. Very high participation
C. Problems faced by farmers:
a. Process of getting MI (Code D):
b. Favouritism/nepotism in getting MI (Code E):
c. Post installation service is available (Yes=1 No=0):
d. Main problem faced after installation (Code F):
e. Do you face problem of seed/planting material (Yes=1 No=0):
D. Reason for non-adoption
S
no
Particulars strongly
agree
agree neutral disagree strongly
disagree
1 High initial investment
2 Lengthy process for availing subsidy
3 Free electricity getting so why sprinkler
4 No proper support after purchase of MI from
distributors
5 Not aware of MI
6 Small size of land holdings
7 Drudgery in operation
8 Lack of skilled manpower required
9 Maintenance is difficult 103
E. Area under different crops grown by farmers
Kharif Rabi Annual/plantation/orchards
10 years back
Crop name
Crop Area
At present time
Crop name
Crop Area
At time of MI installation
Crop name
Crop Area
At present time crop and area under MI
Crop name
Crop Area
Any new area brought under MI
Crop name
Crop Area
Code D: Very lengthy=1 lengthy=2 Neutral=3 Good=4 Very good=5, Code E: Very much prevalent=1 Prevalent=2 Neutral=3 No=4 Not at
all=5, Code F: Clogging=1 animal damage=3 Unreliable energy supply=4 Difficult in repair & maintenance=5 problem of MI system theft= 6 any
others= 7 specify
5. Farmers experience for MI Technology
S
no
Crop
s
Particulars Improvement Increase Saving
Yiel
d
Qualit
y
Pric
e
Net
income
Gross
income
Wate
r
Energ
y
Labo
ur
Fertiliz
er
1
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
2
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
3
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
4
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
5
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
6. Irrigation details:
Traditional irrigation Micro-irrigation
Na
me
of
Cro
ps
Tot
al
are
a
Irrigat
ed
Area
No of
irrig.
Sour
ce of
irrig
*
Irri
g.
Ti
me
(hr)
/
are
a
Ener
gy
sourc
e
(E/D
)#
Energ
y
consu
me/ hr
Engi
ne
BHP
Engi
ne
(O/H
)
Ar
ea
No
of
irri
g.
Sour
ce of
irrig
*
Irrig.
Time
(hr)/ar
ea
Ener
gy
sourc
e
(E/D
)#
Energ
y
consu
me/ hr
Engi
ne
BHP
Engi
ne
(O/H
)
Note: *:1= Owned TW, 2= Hired TW, 3=Canal, 4= Pond or others, #: E= Electric D=
Diesel O= Owned, H= Hired. 104
Cost and return of crop production (Crop A)
i Production:
i. Point of sale: Farm gate/Local Market or Mandi/ District market/
Home/Godown/Storage place/other, please specify:__________
ii. Distance to be covered for sale:
iii. Transportation mode:
iv. Storage facilities (Yes=1 No=0):
v. Any type of processing (Yes=1 No=0): if yes then specify:
____________________
vi. Packaging: traditional or modern
Operations
Traditionally irrigated :---------- Sprinkler/Drip Irrigated:---------
Human Labour Machine Material used Human Labour
Machine
Material used
Man Day Wage Hrs. Rate Qty Rate
Man
Day Wage Hrs Rate Qty Rate
Land Prep.
Pre. Sowing
irri.
Ploughing
Ridging
Sowing/
planting
Manure &Fert.
FYM
Urea
NPK
DAP
Others
Plant Prot.
Chemical
Human
Irrigation
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Other
Yield
Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q) Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q)
Main product
By product 105
Cost and return of crop production (Crop B)
i Production:
i. Point of sale: Farm gate/Local Market or Mandi/ District market/ Home/Godown/Storage
place/other, please specify:__________
ii. Distance to be covered for sale:
iii. Transportation mode:
iv. Storage facilities (Yes=1 No=0):
v. Any type of processing (Yes=1 No=0): if yes then specify: ____________________
vi. Packaging: traditional or modern
10. Cost of installing MI
S. no.
Crops Name
Cost of MI (Rs.)
Drip company name Sprinkler company name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Operations Traditionally irrigated :---------- Sprinkler/Drip Irrigated:---------
Human Labour Machine Material used Human Labour Machine Material used
Man Day Wage Hrs. Rate Qty Rate Man
Day
Wage Hrs Rate Qty Rate
Land Prep.
Pre. Sowing irri.
Ploughing
Ridging
Sowing/ planting
Manure &Fert.
FYM
Urea
NPK
DAP
Others
Plant Prot.
Chemical
Human
Irrigation
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Other
Yield Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q) Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q)
Main product
By product 106
11. Level of satisfaction for MI
S. no Particulars
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly.
Dissatisfied
Govt. level drivers
1. Advice for MI
2. Awareness creation
3. Line dept. supports
4. Subsidies by Government
Dealer/ distributor
1.
Technical support from
agencies
2. Quality material supply
3. Quality installation
4. Clogging resistance
5. Compatibility with crops
Farmer level
1. User friendly
2. Water saving
3. Energy saving
4. Labour saving
5. Quality product
6. High production
7. High return
8. Production round the year
9. wasteland area can be put to use
12. Assets of households
Assets Yes= 1 No=0 Number Assets Yes =1 No=0 Number
Cattle shed Cow
Store & equipment’s Buffalo
Tractor TV
Harrow Mobile
Power tiller Motorcycle
Thresher Car
Any other specify
107
Annexure-IX
Sanction order
108
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
FORM G FR - 12- C
lSee
Ru le 2391
Form of Utilization Certificate
Projectffictncv of Micro-lrrieation in Economizins Water use in lndia- Learnlnfrom Potential andE ee
U nder Exp lored States.
S,NO
Letter No. & date
Amount
F.No. O- 15012/31/17-
O&R dr. 01.07.2018
647 sgs l-
TOTAL
out of Rs. 7,71,2761- (Rupees
Seventv One Thousand Two
Hundred T*'entv Six Onlv) ofgrants-in-aid
sanctioned during the year 2018-19 in favour of
ICAR-NIAP under this Ministry/Department
Letter.No. given in the margin and Rs, NIL on
account of unspent balance of the previous year, a
sum of Rs. 7712261- has been utilized for the
purpose of Proiect Activitv for which it was
sanctioned and that the balance of Rs. -123631/-
(Rupees Negative One Lakh Twenty Three
ThousandSix Hundred Thirtr One Onlv).
1. Certified that I have satisfied myself that the conditions on which the grants-in-aid was
sanctioned have been duly fulfilled/are being fulfilled and that I have exercised the following
checks to see that the money was actually utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned.
Kinds of checks exercised
aid Vouchers
anction Order
urchase Order
elevant Register
Signature
I
Js/!r )-ai
Designation
Certified that
Seven Lakh
i. P
-2,. S
3.P
4.R
1
,.'Lol
1
Date s,
I
I
I
647sss/-]
:..r::' S.No. Items of Expenditure
Opening
Balance
Funds Received
Expenditure
Incurred during the
Closing balance
as on 31't March
1
Salaries/'I onorarium,/[ell owhip
etc.
0.00
647595.00
162000.00
-123631.007 Travelling Allowance197846.00
Recurring Contingencies416380.00
4 Chcmicals and Consumables 0.000.00
Sub Total (A)0.00 647595.00 77L226.00 -123631.00
National lnstitute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research D.P.S. Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 11O012
Statement of Expenditure (SOE) in respect of project "Efficiency of M icro-lrrigation..........in India" for the year 2018-19
\,r
.\
Assistant Ftnance& Acco unts Officer
q.20 l.
1
(Dr. Subhash Chan
Principal Scientist & Pl
0.00
0.00 Breakup of closinq balances in various Proiects. Externallv Funded
Schemes,Contractual and ConsultancV Resea rc h Proqrams
llLrdgetOpen ing
BalanceReceived
Headwise
Remittance
Received
Made
Refunds
411 Efficiency ofMicro-lrrigation in Economisinq Water use in lndia- Learninq from Dote[tial and under Explored States
Salaries/l lonm./Fellowships0.00 0.00 0.00000
Travelling Allowances400000.000.00
'192846.00
0.00
Recurring Contingencies1250000.000.00 000 4'16380.00 0.00
Receipts0.00 647595.00 0.000.00
Chemicals and Consumables748500.000.00 0.0c0.00 0.00
B@EEEItliEtlt:rr
0.00 2398500.00 647595.00771226.A0 0.00 -'123s31.000.00
-^-t
Lrosrnq I
uatance
I
Coordinator: Dr. Subhash Chand
qr6q_ qfiqlqiTq
Externallv Funded Schemes
162000.00
0.00
0.00
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Phone: +91-11- 25847628, +91-11- 2584873, Fax: +91-11-25842684
http://www.ncap.res.in,director.niap@icar.gov.in
Submission of final Draft report
On
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economizing water use in India:
Learning from potential and under explored states
Submitted to,
National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog,
Sansad Marg New Delhi-110 001
May 2019 2
(For official use only)
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Phone: +91-11- 25847628, +91-11- 2584873, Fax: +91-11-25842684
http://www.ncap.res.in,director.niap@icar.gov.in
Submission of final report
On
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Submitted to,
National Institution for Transforming India (NITI), Governance and Research Vertical,
Aayog, Sansad Marg New Delhi-110 001
May 2019
3
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012
Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Name of institute: ICAR- National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy
Research
Address: Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, -110012, India, Phone: 011-25847628,
Fax 011-25847633
Date of establishment: 2
nd
March 1991
Title of study: Efficiency of Micro-Irrigation in economising water use in India: Learning
from potential and under explored states
Objectives:
1. To study the administration processes practices adopted by the state and effectiveness
of state implementing agencies.
2. Effect of water/ energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation.
3. To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy, energy and
input economy, savings, employment and income.
4. To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of
the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
5. To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them and developing
database.
6. To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development.
7. To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in under exploited
but potential states/ regions.
8. To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure.
Period of study: August 2018 to May 2019
4
Project Team
Project Director: Dr. Subhash Chand, Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-National
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
Co-PI.: Sh. Prabhat Kishore, Scientist (Agricultural Economics), ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
CO-PI: Dr. Shivendra Kumar Srivastava, Scientist, ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research, New Delhi.
CO-PI: Dr. R. S. Pundir, Associate Professor & Head, Present Address Department of Agribusiness
Economics & Policy international Agribusiness Management Institute, Anand Agricultural University,
Anand 388110, Gujarat.
CO-PI: Dr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat, Scientist (Agricultural Economics),IASRI, Library Avenue, Pusa,
New Delhi.
Project staff:
1. Sh. Praven Kumar (SRF)
2. Sh. Arun Kumar (SRF)
5
Acknowledgement
This study bears a deep acknowledgement to the farmers of India and their friends in the
agri-input sector who relentlessly work to feed the billion plus people in India and exportable
produces. This study was conducted with underlying objectives of collating and creating
knowledge to be useful for the farmers to address the issues like administration processes
practices adopted and effectiveness, effect of water/ energy, labour saving, income and
employment generation, extent of area covered, private investment, to estimate the amount of
private investment and area covered by them and developing database. To assess the
durability and reliability of the system and identify the major constraints in scaling up the
micro irrigation in the country? The authors bear a deep sense of gratitude to farmers of
selected states for experimenting with the technology and providing information/data which
helped us to draw logical conclusion based on experiences and opinions.
Authors thank to the NITI Aayog, Govt. of India for funding and trusting on us while
sanctioning this important study to ICAR- NIAP, Delhi. Their constant support and
administrative backup helped us to complete the study in a comprehensive manner, which
will be useful to take up policy decisions for scaling up the micro irrigation in the country.
Special thanks are due to the advisors, NITI, Aayog who had discussed time to time the
intricacies of the study at field and administration level. Their constant support and guidance
helped us to complete the study in time and comprehensive manner.
Thanks goes to Dr. PS Birthal, Dr. AK Sikka and Dr. P. Kumar for giving us time to
critique our study design, plan and also valuable advice for conducting better fieldwork.
The authors are also thankful to various Government officers, District administration,
field officers and other staffs who helped us in making effective choices for the sampling and
in identifying resources that made the survey possible. They also helped us in selection of
village, called farmers for FGD and other meetings.
Special thanks to the district collector, Chittoor, Chief Soil and Water Conservation
Secretary, Punjab, APMIP, Project Director, APD, GGRC, Director and other staffs who
helped us and also walked with us during the field survey.
Authors thank to the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Division of agricultural
Economics Head, professors, SardarKrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, KVKs,
officers and project staff for conducting survey, helping during field visits and facilitating the
project works. We thanks to the farmers of all the states who have devoted and spared their
time to provide valuable data/ information without any remuneration.
The authors also owe heartfelt gratitude of GGRCL and MD, Gujarat State for their
precious time and inputs and feedback and the help for data. The authors also express thanks
to Jain Irrigation for providing inputs on the technical and manufacturing aspects of the
technology and its application on the farms.
Acknowledgements are also due to Netafim project manager for their inputs on micro
irrigation installation procedure, duties and responsibility of company and farmers.
Gratitude is also due to for providing supply side and dealer perspectives of the supply chain.
We are also very thankful to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s
Welfare, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Govt. of India, who encouraged us to take
up this study and morally supported with generous administrative front. We would also like
to thank colleagues at the ICAR- NIAP for their inputs, feedback and support in making this
study possible and reach its conclusion.
(Subhash Chand)
6
Foreword
ICAR-NIAP regularly undertakes research studies on policy and institutional issues
related to the development. The study on impact of micro irrigation sponsored by NITI
Aayog, is of special interest for the water policy and research point of view. This study
examines the spread and adoption of micro irrigation in four states, namely, Punjab
(Unexploited region), Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.
This study combines and compares the observations across four states of India with
varied cropping pattern. The study shows that farmers are motivated to adopt drip irrigation
primarily to cope with the scarcity in at least one of three factors of production, namely
water, power and labour. Micro irrigation appears to give very good results on each of these
counts, and therefore the farmers see it as very useful technology. The survey results show
that farmers use the saved water for variety of purposes including cultivation of new crops,
giving more irrigation to other existing crops. Though rare, some farmers also share and sell
water informally. The study clearly establishes the benefit of the technology for conservation
of water and extending its use.
The study explores the adoption process beyond technology use to master the
management of micro-irrigation in agriculture and roles of stakeholders. The different phases
including purchase of the equipment, installation, getting subsidy approval and disbursements
are very important. This post adoption phase is important in getting the maximum benefits
from the system. While the initial phases are substantially influenced by friends, family and
local networks, the subsequent phase is dominated by the action of drip dealer, company sales
persons and the final phase is determined by others such as the drip after sales service staff.
The results indicate the positive impact of micro irrigation on improving the productivity of
agriculture and to cope with power, labour and water scarcity. The report makes
recommendations for redesigning the benefit of micro irrigation by farmers and higher water
productivity in sustainable manner. I hope research finding will be useful for the researchers
and other readers.
Director
7
Glimpse of activities under micro irrigation study
Plate 1: showing the micro irrigation device with fertigation unit attached
Micro irrigation system controlling unit In Fazlika, Punjab
Micro irrigation system lateral wrapped with tractor in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system in green shed net Sabarkantha Micro irrigation system with fertigation unit Abohar Punjab
Different fertilizer tanks fitter with micro irrigation system unit Abohar Punjab 8
Plate 2: Research team conducting primary survey
Discussion with farmers in Hoshiarpur solar micro irrigation system Punjab
Discussion with farmers in on micro irrigation system in Vishakhapatnam, AP
Discussion with farmers in Hoshiarpur on micro irrigation system Punjab Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Banaskantha, Gujarat
Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Visakhapatnam, AP Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system Visakhapatnam, AP 9
Plate 3: Showing the micro irrigation system with attachment of various devices
Micro irrigation system fitted with opens well in Visakhapatnam, AP
Solar operated micro irrigation system in Abohar, Punjab
Micro irrigation system filter and distribution unit in Visakhapatnam, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted in Chittoor district,
AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for plantation crop Chittoor district,
AP Micro irrigation system fitted in Chittoor district, AP 10
Plates 4: Showing the micro irrigation installed in the poly houses
Discussion with farmers on micro irrigation system for Banana crop in Banaskantha,
Gujarat
Micro irrigation system fitted in polyhouse for nursery rising in Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Nursery rising in Abohar, Punjab Micro irrigation system used for Kinnow crop in Abohar Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Nursery rising in Punjab
Discussion by the research team with farmers in Visakhapatnam, AP 11
Plate 5: Showing the micro irrigation system intalled in farmers field visited by the research team
Micro irrigation system fitted in mandin orange in Abohar, Punjab
Micro irrigation system fitted for Papaya cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for Arhar cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Micro irrigation system fitted for Guava cultivation in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system underground in Banaskantha, Gujarat
Discussion with farmers in Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh 12
Plate 6: Showing the water resouces and fitings of MIS devices in the farmers fields
Kienow plantation with drip irrigation system
Guava plantation with drip irrigation system
Arhar cultivation with drip irrigation system
In Micro irrigation system water control
system
Team visiting couconut plantation with drip system
Micro irrigation system fitted in sugarcane cultivation in Chittoor, AP
Water storage tank for feeding to micro irrigation system in Abohar Punjabam , Andhra
Pradesh
Micro irrigation system fitted in cotton cultivation in Sabarkantha, Gujarat
Farm pond constructed for storing water for Micro irrigation system in Abohar , Punjab
Fodder cultivation using underground micro irrigation system in Chittoor, AP
Farmer showing the water level in open well Gujarat 13
Plate 7: Showing the drip system fitted in sugarcane, beans and cotton
Micro irrigation system installed after sowing the crop in Punjab
Research team discussing the constraints on MIS with farmers in Banaskantha
Micro irrigation system installed in sugarcane in Chittoor district, AP
Micro irrigation system installed in cotton crop Banaskantha, Gujarat
Micro irrigation system installed in new crop (beans), Gujarat Beans harvested from the irrigation through MIS, Gujarat 14
Plates 8: Showing the drip irrigation system installed at farmers field under different crops
Micro irrigation system installed in maize crop in Chittoor district of AP Micro irrigation system installed in cucurbit crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in Brinjal crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in Banana crop in Chittoor district of AP
Micro irrigation system installed in maize crop in Chittoor district of AP Micro irrigation system installed in horticulture crop in Chittoor district of AP 15
Executive summary
The water is one of the important and basic inputs for agriculture production. India is
having about 139.5 mha. total irrigation potential and some of the states have already
harvested the existing irrigation potential. Recognizing the importance of micro-
irrigation, first time Central Government specifically mentioned it in Eighth Five-Year
Plan in 1992. The first real thrust however came in 2006, when the government
launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for micro-irrigation. This was later
upgraded to the National Mission on Micro- irrigation (NMMI) in 2010 and was
implemented till year 2013-14. In the year 2014-15, NMMI was subsumed under the
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and was implemented under the
On Farm Water Management (OFWM) component of the scheme. Subsuming all the
schemes of irrigation, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna (PMKSY) was launched in
2015 by integrating micro irrigation in the flagship scheme as an integral component.
This study examines the experiences in spread and adoption of micro- irrigation in
selected four states, namely, Punjab (Unexploited region), Maharashtra, Gujarat and
Andhra Pradesh. This study departs from the usual supply side perspective and
provides a demand side perspective. It combines and compares the observations across
four states of India with varied cropping pattern.
The specific objectives of the study are; to study the administration processes adopted
by the states and effectiveness of state implementing agencies; effect of water/ energy
pricing on adoption of micro irrigation; effectiveness of various MI technologies for
water economy, energy and inputs use and income; estimate the total area covered
under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of the use of marginal and otherwise
uncultivable lands; estimate the amount of private investment and area covered ; assess
the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development: develop an
alternate ecosystem for promotion of micro-irrigation in under exploited but potential
states/ regions and identify the major constraints, if any, and suggest remedial
measures.
The administrative process of Micro-Irrigation System (MIS) implementation adopted
by different states is not uniform. However, the subsidy norms and selection of 16
beneficiaries are practiced following the common guidelines. The MIS implementation
model adopted by Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra states is found to be better
in terms of simplification of operational procedure, fairness in subsidy allotment,
transparency, farmers’ satisfaction and clarity in subsidy disbursement process. Punjab
state needs to adopt and refine their implementation process of MIS on lines of Andhra
Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) or Gujarat Green Revolution Company
(GGRC).However, MIS under solar irrigation project is performing, well in the state.
Operational process using ICT is very well utilized by AP, MAH and Gujarat states. Other
states can replicate some of these approaches.
The micro irrigation has created the opportunity of employment generation, income
improvement, attraction of youths towards agriculture (Chittoor, AP), reduction of out
migration of farmers (Hoshiarpur, Punjab).
The teams implementing the micro-irrigation schemes in various states (with an
exception of few) drew from different line departments. The frequent transfer of the
staffs has hampered the progress of the project especially in Punjab and Maharashtra.
Hence, a focused approach by providing separate department needs to be adopted by
other states. Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have opened dedicated separate
department/unit exclusively for micro- irrigation implementation. This has resulted in
scaling up of area under micro-irrigation in these states. Farmers face major challenges
in finding financing for micro-irrigation products and there are high collateral demands.
Adequate credit facilities to the farmers, trained human resources and infrastructure for
training of farmers were lacking in Punjab. Peoples participation in the micro-irrigation
programme was low to medium (PPI=68%). This needs to be improved by involving the
stakeholder right from the planning to implementation stage of the scheme.
Micro irrigation is generally perceived as technology intensive; hence, its acceptance by
farmers needs much persuasion. There is a lack of information on temporal and spatial
variation in soil moisture, the optimal fraction of soil to be wetted, location specific and
crop-specific irrigation and fertigation scheduling and lack of availability of low cost
water-soluble fertilizers and other agro chemicals even in AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat,
where MIS has progressed well. Farmers in Punjab and AP states are allowed to run 17
their water pumps on free and subsidized energy, i.e. electricity and solar sources
resulting in over exploitation of ground water due to the fact that method of irrigation
mostly used flood. They don’t feel the necessity of water saving technologies like MIS.
More than 75% farmers among adopters arewell aware about MIS and its benefits.
Though non- adopters are also aware about MIS but the extent of awareness is less than
40%. Most of the adopters were familiar with the process of application filling and
approaching the Programme Implementing Agency (PIA). Still efforts from the PIA are
needed to create more awareness about the benefits of the MIS, particularly in the state
like Punjab. The total coverage of area under MIS for the country as whole is about
10.25 mha which is about 7.6% to net sown area. The coverage of area under drip
irrigation was higher in Andhra Pradesh (25.3%) fallowed by Maharashtra (23.6%),
Gujarat (13.6%) and Punjab (< 1.17%). On the other hand, option in the case of
sprinkler, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have covered more area then in
Punjab and other states.
The proportion of farmers who witnessed water scarcity was higher among the adopter
category. This implies that depleting water resources is an important driving force
behind adoption of MI technology. It is to be noted that in Punjab, nearly 36 per cent of
the farmers strongly disagreed for existing water scarcity as they were facing water
logging condition in their fields. The water logging existsin South-West part of Punjab.
However, in the other selected states, majority of the farmers, particularly adopters feel
shortage of water a big problem. The inputs used, number of irrigation, sources of
irrigation, cost and net returns of the adopters were higher compared with the non-
adopters. The evidence revealed a significant increase in yield and saving of water,
energy and fertilizer as compared to the non-adopters. The fertilizer saving varies from
12.89% to 37.51% and similarly chemical used for pest and disease management saved
varies from 17.71% to 48.23% (Punjab). However, increase in yield and saving in inputs
does not vary uniformly across the crop and states. It was observed that the fund allocation
and utilization was encouraging by different states during 2013-2016. Andhra Pradesh
contributed nearly 20 per cent of total expenditure under India’s micro irrigation total
expenditure. However, for other states it was not much, except Gujarat, Maharashtra, and
Karnataka. For successful and widespread diversification of agriculture in the state (Punjab, 18
Maharashtra), the installation of Micro irrigation systems should be made an integral part of
the programme by providing special assistance in the form of subsidies and interest-free loans.
There is a tendency amongst farmers to get the Micro-irrigation system installed
from the unapproved firms without intimating the department. When there are problem
with system, farmers blame the department. To avoid such hardship to the farmers,
there should be a blanket ban on the unapproved firms in the state. However, AP,
Maharashtra and Gujarat states have already taken into account these aspects seriously.
The components like water storage tanks, electric motors and pump sets should also be
part of the micro irrigation system. Electric connection priority and assured continuous
power supply for at least 8 hours a day should be made available. To realize long-term
impact of micro-irrigation, there should be a continuous process of monitoring and
impact assessment studies.
19
Chapter 1.0
1.0 Introduction
Agriculture is one of the major contributors of Indian economy and a predominant
source of livelihood. The small and marginal farmers (0-2 ha) comprised 86.21% of total
farmer in 2015-16 against 84.97% in 2010-11 while their share in the operated area stood
47.34% in the current census as against 44.31% in 2010-11 (Agriculture census, 2015-16).
The smaller land holding is accompanied by unequal distribution of water resources
endowment and its access. Despite possessing world’s largest irrigated area, irrigation
coverage in the country is only 48.2 per cent and thus a significant portion of agriculture land
depends on rainfall. The average annual rainfall is about 117 cm, but it has wide spatial
variations from 1100 cm in Cherrapunji to 10 cm in western Rajasthan. Further, over 80% of
the annual rainfall is received only during four month of the year (June to September)
(Rainfall Statistics of India, 2016). Due to rising population and increasing demand by
various sectors, per capita water availability has declined from 5,177 m
3
in 1951 to 1,545 m
3
.
With an annual groundwater draft of 245 BCM, irrigation alone consumes nearly 91 per cent
of total draft irrigating 62 % of total irrigated area of the country (CGWB, 2014). So,
agriculture bears responsibility of using these scarce natural resources judiciously and
efficiently.
Since independence, the Government of India has made huge investments in
development of water resources. However, the performance of public funded irrigation
projects has been continually declining over the years due to system maintenance issues,
inefficient delivery systems, as well as inefficient management at field level. Further, the
expansion of irrigated area does not commensurate with the amount of capital invested.
Rising cost of cultivation and soil salinity is adversely affecting sustainability of agriculture.
Irrigation, which was one of the key factors behind green revolution in India, led to large
scale adoption of pumping technology at farmer field (T. Saha, 2009, 2011). The number of
bore wells increased from less than one million in the 1960s to 20 million by 2009 (Dewandel
et al., 2010). Further government intervention to support farming community as free or
subsidized power supply for irrigation has accelerated groundwater extraction, resulted in its
over-exploitation in few parts of country. At same time, groundwater irrigation has emerged
as a dominant source of irrigation due to its higher efficiency and reliability as compared to 20
canal irrigation. At present, groundwater development of India is 62 % but states like Punjab,
Haryana and Rajasthan it went up to 150 % (CGWB, 2016). The latest reports from the
GRACE Mission of NASA (Rodell et al., 2009, Samir Yacoubi; 2012) showed continuous
groundwater decline 17.7645 BCM/year over the Indian states of Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana
and Delhi. Such high rates of groundwater exploitation have increased the percentage of
‘unsafe’ districts from 9 % to 30 % in a span of nine years between 1995 and 2004 (Shankar
et.al, 2011). At present, almost all the easily possible ways for viable irrigation potential have
already been tapped. However, the water demand for different sectors has been growing
continuously (Saleth 1996; Vaidyanathan 1999) and demand management becomes the
overall key strategy for managing scarce water resources (Molden et al 2001, Kumar 2008).
In this context, water saving technologies like micro irrigation has emerged as a suitable
demand management measure to address the water scarcity issues. Therefore, up-scaling
water use efficiency in agriculture has become key issue for policy makers.
1.1 Government initiatives for micro irrigation system development
Recognizing the importance of micro irrigation, first time central government specifically
mentioned it in eighth five-year plan in 1992. The first real thrust however came in 2006,
when the government launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for micro irrigation.
This was later upgraded to the National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI) in 2010 and
was implemented until year 2013-14. In the year 2014-15, NMMI was subsumed under the
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and was implemented under the On
Farm Water Management (OFWM) component of the scheme. Subsuming all the schemes of
irrigation, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojna (PMKSY) was launched in 2015,
integrating micro irrigation as an integral component. PMKSY main focus is to achieve
convergence of investments in irrigation sector at field level in order to provide end-to-end
solutions in irrigation supply chain, viz. water sources, distribution network and farm level
applications. This programme includes creating infrastructure to bring water to farms and
watershed development. Therefore, the micro irrigation presents a quick-win opportunity for
all the stakeholders where the implementation can be seen on ground within short period. The
timeline of intervention to accelerate micro irrigation is presented in figure 1. All these
programmes and schemes have been initiated by the government with specific objectives to
improve the water use efficiency and water productivity by raising more crop per drop of
water.
21
Figure 1: Journey of micro irrigation development in India
The guidelines issued for implementation of MIS, emphasizes on need to bring
maximum area under micro irrigation. To accomplish the intended objectives of the
government on MIS, different states follow different policies while implementing it.
However, central guidelines are common. There is wide variation in the approach adopted by
different states for implementation of the MIS. At present, total area under micro irrigation is
10. 3 million ha contributed by 4.8 million ha under drip and 5.5 million ha under sprinkler
irrigation (Agri. Stat, 2018, DACNET).
With this prelude, this study has been taken up with following Objectives:
1.2 Terms of reference/ Objectives
1. To study the administration processes practices adopted by the state and effectiveness of
state implementing agencies.
2. Effect of water/ energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation.
3. To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy, energy and
input economy, savings, employment and income.
4. To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess the extent of
the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
5. To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them and developing
database. 22
6. To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable development.
7. To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in under exploited
but potential states/ regions.
8. To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure.
1.3 Rationale of the study on micro irrigation: The answer to emergence of groundwater
scarcity and continuous groundwater depletion across states is twofold- supply and demand
management of water. Since agriculture sector alone consume nearly 80% the total water in
India, it would be central to reducing the aggregate demand for water to match with the
available future supplies, thereby reducing the extent of water stress that the country is likely
to face (Kumar, 2003). Measures to increase water supply such as completion of storage
dams, interlinking of rivers, desalination of seawater and artificial recharge of groundwater
and rainwater harvesting are costly and long-term steps. A number of demand management
strategies like water pricing, water users association; turnover system, etc. have been
introduced since the late-1970s to increase the water-use efficiency. Demand management
becomes the key to the overall strategy for managing scarce water resources (Molden et al.
2001). Drip Irrigation is one of the most efficient methods of irrigation (Keller and Blisner,
1990). There are two lines of thought regarding the water-saving potential of micro irrigation
technologies. The first line of argument is that the adoption of micro irrigation technologies
results in net water savings, thereby easing the prevailing water-scarcity problems. The water
saving is attained through substantial reduction in losses due to evaporation and inefficient
field conveyance and distribution systems. This is the declared motive for the state
governments of India to embark on the massive popularization of these technologies.
However, the farmers’ rationale for adopting these technologies may be different from the
policy objectives of the state governments. Farmers may give more weight to the other
attributes of micro irrigation technologies such as improvements in yield, reduction in labor
requirement, improvement in output quality, etc. in their adoption decisions. The second line
of thought is that even though micro irrigation technologies can result in water savings at the
plot or field level, it may not translate into net water savings at a higher level of aggregation
such as the watershed or the basin (Molden et al. 2001, Naryanmoorti et al. 1997). According
to this line of thought, the net water savings could be only modest if the phenomenon of
return flows, much of which goes to recharge the underground water source, is considered as
useful. Thus the adoption of micro irrigation technologies may not automatically lead to
water savings at the basin level unless enabling institutional and economic policy instruments 23
are put in place that allow the equitable distribution or allocation of the saved water. Thus, to
understand that micro irrigation system really save water, energy, enhanced income and
employment opportunities are still debatable issue and put strains of risks on the farming
community. To address the issues like administrative process adoptee, institutions involved
benefits of micro irrigation and constraints in adoption micro irrigation, this study was
planned and findings are reported in subsequent section of this report.
24
Chapter 2.0
2.1 Evidences from the literature: The survey of literature on the impacts of micro
irrigation technologies indicate that they are usually promoted primarily for one or more of
the following objectives (1) as a means of saving water in irrigated agriculture and averting
the impending water crises (Narayanamoorthy, 2003 & Verma, 2004), (2) as a strategy to
increase income and reduce poverty among the rural poor, (3) to enhance the food and
nutritional security of rural households (Upadhyay, 2003 & 2004) and (4) as a means to
extend the limited available water over a larger cropped area, especially during drought years
or during the period before a monsoon season. Micro irrigation technologies lead to poverty
reduction through substantial increases in farm income due to an increased area of
cultivation, better crop yields, enhanced output quality, early crop maturity and hence higher
unit prices, and reduced cultivation costs, particularly for operations like irrigation and
weeding. Micro irrigation technologies enhance nutritional security by enabling the
production and consumption of vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables, which are usually
missing in the traditional staple diets of many cultures. Various studies in India have shown a
considerable return to farmers’ investments in micro irrigation technologies (Dhawan 2002).
Demand management mechanism such as micro irrigation (drip and sprinkler
irrigation) shows superiority over other traditional irrigation methods in term of water use
efficiency, energy saving, yield increase etc. (Kumar and Palanisami, 2010). The result of
high crop yield and water use efficiency in sprinkler irrigation is partly because sprinkler
irrigation can produce a favorable microclimate for crop growth (Yang et al, 2000).
Under drip irrigation, cost reduction is generally realized more in labour intensive
operations like ploughing, weeding, irrigation, etc. (Narayanamoorthy, 2005). The
environmental problems associated with surface method of irrigation like the one water
logging and salinity are effectively solved under drip method of irrigation (Narayanamoorthy,
1997). Drip method helps in achieving saving in irrigation water, increased water-use
efficiency, decreased tillage requirement, higher quality products, increased crop yields and
higher fertilizer-use efficiency (Qureshi et al., 2001; Namara et al., 2005). Evidences show
that the water-use efficiency increases up to 100 per cent in a properly designed and managed
drip irrigation system (Sivanappan, 1994). Only a few states like Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have adopted significant areas under micro-irrigation.
The poor adoption is attributed to a number of factors, such as, high cost, complexity
of the technology and other socio-economic issues, such as, lack of credit access, fragmented 25
land holdings, localized crop pattern, etc. Further, faulty design of irrigation system is
another important factor forcing poor adoption of micro-irrigation, especially among the
small and marginal farmers. The farmers adopted drip irrigation due to enhanced marginal
productivity of water, savings in water use and the net returns per unit volume of
groundwater (Chandrakanth et al., 2013). Failure of irrigation well in context of groundwater
depletion, the probability of drilling additional well was as high as 0.87 due to high
probability of well failure of 0.40 in Kolar and Bangalore district of Karnataka. This further
exacerbated negative reciprocal externality, as farmers are involved in both causing and
withstanding the worst of groundwater overdraft (Chandrakanth and Arun, 1997).
Bahinipati and Viswanathan (2016) examined the Role of Institutions and Policies in
Diffusion of Micro-irrigation in Gujarat, Western India and results revealed that the
promotion of micro irrigation in Gujarat corresponds with the national mission on micro
irrigation, an unequivocal dynamism was observed in the expansion of this in the state as
compared to the other states. This dynamism can be attributed to the specific policies and
institutional innovations that the state had vigorously adopted and followed in terms of
provision of differential subsidies targeted towards the farmers segregated by their socio-
economic status as well as the physical and economic water scarcity of the agro-ecological
regions.
A study conducted by Kiruthika (2014) has examined the determinants of adoption of
drip irrigation in sugarcane cultivation in Tamil Nadu, the results showed that age and
experience negatively and significantly influence the adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane.
Since younger farmers are more likely to be risk takers and hence perhaps more likely to be
adopters than older farmers. Access to extension service positively and significantly
influences the adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane. Palanisami et al. (2011) studied the
spread and economics of micro-irrigation in India: evidence from nine states and found that
the poor adoption can be attributed to number of factors such as high cost, complexity of the
technology and other socio-economic issues such as a lack of access to credit facilities,
fragmented landholdings, localized crop pattern, etc. Reducing the capital cost and increasing
technical expertise will help the spread of the micro irrigation in a bigger way. There is a
need to redesign low cost drip and micro irrigation systems to suit the needs of the small and
marginal farmers. There is a large time lag between the decision taken about the subsidy and
actual implementation.
Reddy et al. (2017) examined the performance evaluation of drip irrigation systems in
selected villages of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh and study revealed that many of the 26
farmers have been benefited by the use of water saving through drip irrigation and cultivation
of land holdings was increased about 55-60%. The drip irrigation system has reduced the
different operational costs by 25-40% such as (weeding, quantity of fertilizer application,
manpower for irrigation and fertilizer application). A strategy paper on future prospects of
micro irrigation in India (2016) revealed that in accelerating growth of Indian agriculture,
micro irrigation an efficient solution with the need to increase productivity and suggested that
while saving water, micro irrigation will play a key role for the future of Indian agriculture.
Baranchuluun et al. 2015 examined the cost-benefit analysis of crop production with various
irrigation systems in Mongolia and found that drip irrigation is water and labor saving
alternative to conventional irrigation strategies. Further, cost benefit analysis of drip
irrigation is the most efficient method not only reduce costs, but also to protect the
environment as well. Benefit – Cost Ratio (BCR) clearly indicates that furrow irrigation has
the lowest efficiency.
Bhaskar et al. (2005) examined the impact of micro irrigation on cotton crop in
Maharashtra, India. Results revealed that yield improvement due to micro irrigation has been
reported up to 35-50%, in cotton 5-10%, in castor 15-42%, in groundnut 20-66% and in
potato 20-26%. The yield improvement in principal crops is to the tune of 30-105%. Biswas
et al. (2015) studied the effect of drip irrigation and mulching on yield, water-use efficiency
and economics of tomato in Gazipur, Bangladesh and the result revealed that yield of tomato
increased with the increasing amount of irrigation water in un-mulched treatment. The trend
was reversed when drip irrigation was coupled with mulches. The highest yield for each
mulch (81.12 t/ha for polyethylene and 79.49 t/ha for straw) was obtained when 50% of water
requirement was applied. The highest water use efficiency of 592 kg/ha/mm was obtained
with 50% water application under polyethylene mulch. The highest net return (US$ 7098/ha),
incremental net return (US$ 1556/ha), and incremental benefit-cost ratio (7.03) were found
for 50% water application with straw mulch. Irfan et al. (2014) studied the impact of
irrigation management practices and water quality on maize production and water use
efficiency and results shows that for good quality water, the drip irrigation system produced
19% more crop production over raised-bed irrigation system. Similarly, for marginal and
hazardous water crop yield was increased by 23, 25%, respectively. Hence, drip irrigation
system was more efficient for saline water. It was recommended that drip irrigation could be
adopted where groundwater quality is marginal to hazardous quality to get high crop
production and water use efficiency.
27
Jha et al (2016) examined the impact of irrigation method on water use efficiency and
productivity of fodder crops in Nepal. Results revealed that the controlled application of
water through drip irrigation is able to produce acceptable yields of nutritionally dense fodder
species during dry seasons, leading to more effective utilization and resource conservation of
available land, fertilizer and water. The ability to grow fodder crops year-round in lowland
and hill regions of Nepal with limited water storages using low-cost, water-efficient drip
irrigation may greatly increase livestock productivity and, hence, the economic security of
smallholder farmers. Qureshi et al. (2015) studied the effect of drip and furrow irrigation
systems on sunflower yield and water use efficiency in dry area of Pakistan. Comparison of
results under drip and furrow irrigation methods revealed that drip irrigation produced 26
percent more sunflower yield with 56 percent less water compared to furrow irrigation
method. Water use efficiency of drip irrigation was about three times higher than furrow
irrigation method. While water saving due to adoption of drip irrigation was found in the
range of 12-84 percent in different crops, the same is found to be in the range of 8-60 percent
in sprinkler irrigation method. Water saving is found to be relatively higher among the water-
intensive crops like sugarcane, banana and vegetable crops.
Kumar et al. (2016) studied the effect of drip irrigation on yield and water use
efficiency on brinjal in Moradabad (U.P.). Results showed that water use efficiency (yield per
unit area per unit depth of water used) decreased with increase in irrigation levels for all the
treatments of drip irrigation system. The increase in water use efficiency for drip irrigation
system, Among the drip irrigation levels, the highest field water use efficiency (6148.31kg
ha- 1 cm-1) was found at 65% irrigation level, indicating comparatively more efficient use of
irrigation water with a possibility of water saving of 35% water by adopting brinjal plot (1.58
liter plant
-1
day
-1
). Namara et al (2005) studied the adoption and impacts of micro-irrigation
technologies empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat states of
India. The study indicates that the use of micro irrigation technologies increases the marginal
productivity of water. Study on potential for drip and sprinkler irrigation in India conducted
by Narayanamoorthy in 2006 and found that micro-irrigation (MI) is proved an efficient
method where water use efficiency is only about 35-40 percent. Paul et al. (2013) studied the
effect of drip and surface irrigation on yield, water use- efficiency and economics of
capsicum in Bhubaneswar. As a result, the use of drip irrigation system either alone or in
combination with mulching, could increase the capsicum yield up to an extent of 57 % over
surface irrigation method with the same quantity of water. The net profit could be increased
by 54 % over the normal surface method by adopting drip irrigation system with mulch. 28
Wrachienb et al. (2014) studied the potential of micro-irrigation technology for poor-
rural communities in Maharashtra, India and found that with refer to the existing traditional
irrigation systems, the implemented MIS has shown a mean increasing in productivity for
banana, grapes and sugarcane by 29%, 19% and 23%, respectively. Also, with respect to the
flood method irrigation MIS has permitted to save the 37% of water and the lower energy
expended and the reduced labor required by a MIS has a direct effect on the overall cost of
production and therefore the profit level is found to be higher than that of non- MIS adopters.
Bhamoriya and Mathew (2014) analyzed the impact of micro irrigation technology in
Gujarat state of India. Study revealed that farmers have managed to increase the yield of
vegetables like tomatoes and bottle guards by up to 20 – 30% on the same land. In addition,
the quality of produce with drip irrigation is much better than with flood irrigation there are
no mud or water spots on the fruit as is usually the case with flood irrigation. Farmers are
able to get up to 20% higher prices for their yield with drip irrigation. Chandrakanth et al.
(2013) examine the economic benefits from micro irrigation for dry land crops in Karnataka.
Results shows that by adopting drip irrigation the net returns per farm increased from 15,292
to 25,203 and the marginal productivity of water increased from 465 to 1960. Chandran &
Surendran (2016) studied the factors influencing the adoption of drip irrigation by farmers in
humid tropical Kerala, India and results indicated that socioeconomic characteristics such as
age, education, experience, land holding size, etc. have a positive influence on drip irrigation
adoption index on farmers. Farmers have realized yield improvement in the range of about
13% to 47% through drip irrigation, when compared to surface method of irrigation for
arecanut, coconut and nutmeg.
Panigrahi et al. (2010) examined the water use and yield response of tomato as
influenced by drip and furrow irrigation in Odisha state of India. The study reveals that drip
irrigation at 100% ET, replenishment in tomato can increase the yield by 15.4%, besides
saving 17.9% more costly irrigation water than the conventional furrow irrigation practiced
by most of the farmers. Priyan and Panchal (2017) examined the benefits of micro-irrigation
technology in India and found that due to adoption of micro-irrigation technology yield is
increased, water use efficiency is improved, cost of water, fertilizers and manures and weed
removal is reduced. All these added up in the increase in the overall economic benefits
accrued due optimum utilization of water. Since the technology offers higher benefits like
irrigation efficiency (50-90%), fertilizer (28.5%) and energy (30.5%), this technology is
highly relevant and praise worthy. 29
Quevenco (2015) examined the effect of drip irrigation on yield of cauliflower,
broccoli, sweet pepper and many other nutritious vegetables in Kenya, and found that the
development of a low-cost, small-scale drip irrigation system that generated 2.8 times the
yield of field grown tomatoes while using only 45% of the water traditionally applied by
hand. The use of drip irrigation provided a tea yield four times higher than that of the rain-
fed, non-irrigated tea. Tiwari et al. (2014) examined the influence of drip irrigation and
plastic mulch on yield of Sapota and soil nutrients in Kharagpur India. The biometric
observations of Sapota plants showed positive influence of the irrigation and plastic mulch
treatments on growth of Sapota crop. Due to mulch alone, the increase in Sapota yield varied
from 7.62% to 41% in different treatments. Yield of Sapota crop was increased by 21.05%
due to drip in comparison to ring basin irrigation. Narayanamoorthy (2008) examined the
Drip Irrigation and Rainfed Crop Cultivation Nexus in Maharashtra state of India. Results
revealed that withdrawal of water under DIM also helps to reduce the consumption of
electricity to the tune of about 140 Kwh/acre over the conventional irrigation method. Suresh
Kumar & Palanisami (2010), The analysis of economics of crop cultivation under drip and
conventional has revealed that the drip method of irrigation has a significant impact on
resources saving, cost of cultivation, yield of crops and farm profitability.
2.2 Meta-analysis of previous studies: The effectiveness of various MI technologies for
water economy, energy and input economy, employment and income has been studied
through both literature review and analysis of primary survey. Table 1 provides a glimpse of
benefits of micro-irrigation as reported by researchers in the past. Most of the studies reveal a
significant saving in water, energy, fertilizer, increase of yield, crop area and overall
reduction in cost of production due to adoption of micro irrigation. However, the extent of
benefits varies depending upon underlying factors such as differences in methodology,
farming system, climatic conditions, socio-economic settings, etc. The observations of
the National Committee on Plasticulture Applications in Horticulture (NCPAH) observed
based on their experiment studies that various crops reflect various input saving through
micro irrigation i.e. drip and sprinkler. The following table shows the findings of different
research studies conducted in India and abroad mostly at experimental research stations.
There is limited study on field survey basis.
30
Table 1: Meta Analysis of micro irrigation studies reported by various researchers
Studies Study Area/
region
Water
saving
(%)
Energy
saving
(%)
Fertilizer
saving (%)
Yield
increased/
Income (%)
Additional
area under
irrigation
(%)
Cost
saving
(%)
Rahul Kapur et al. 2015 Maharashtra 50-90 30.5 28.5 42.4-52.7 31.9 30-45 &
30.4
National Mission on Micro
MIS, Impact study for the
Govt. of India, June 2014
India 22.96 -
42.73
19.37-73.48 32.6-68.02
Raina et al, 2011 30-35 41.37
Narayanamoorthi, 2008,
2006
Maharashtra,
India
12-84 &
8-60
114 50
Reddy et al., 2017 Guntur District,
AP
55-60 25-40
Wrachienb et al, 2014 Maharashtra 37 19-29
Qureshi et al, 2015 Pakistan 56 26
Paul et al, 2013 Bhubaneswar,
Odisha
57 54
Biswas et al, 2015 Gazipur,
Bangladesh
50 25-27
Kumar et al, 2016 Moradabad,
Uttar Pradesh
35
Bhaskar et al, 2005 Maharashtra 40-50 30-100
Quevenco, 2015 Kenya 55 99
Tiwari et al, 2014 Kharagpur,
India
21.05
Chandrakanth et al, 2013 Karnataka 65
Priyan and Panchal, 2017 India 50-90 30.5 28.5
Panigrahi et al, 2010 Odisha 15.4 17.9
Chandran and Surendran,
2016
Kerala 13-47
Bhamoriya and Mathew,
2014
Gujarat 20 20-30
Global Agri. System and
their Impact Evaluation
Study, 2014
India 20-40 25-35 40-50 20-25
National committee on
plasticulture application in
horticulture,(https://www.n
cpahindia.com)
India 25-40 30-40 20 30 30 40
Sharda R et.al, 2017 Punjab 40-42 9.13
Govind, R etal. 2012
Vanitha and
Mohandass,2014
Tamil Nadu 50 100 19.05
Rao, KVR.,2017 MP 40 11.03
AICRP-IWM 2016 MP 33 10
Xinjang China 60 10-12
Westcott etal. 1986 USA 30-40 25
Chand.S, 2019 India 17-50 6-36 25-40 12-43 11-36
Authors have collected from the literature
31
Chapter 3.0
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Approach followed for this study: We have adopted the following steps to fulfill stated
objectives for this study
1. Intensive review of previous research, government reports, documents, policies and
programs for micro irrigation.
2. Collection of available secondary data.
3. Priming sampling framework to conduct study in four states.
4. Development of questionnaires and pretesting of questionnaires for primary data
collection.
5. Training to the project staff for field survey.
6. Continuous contact and consultations with the various concern agencies and the
stakeholder involved.
7. Field survey of adopter and non-adopter based on sampling framework in the selected
areas.
8. Interaction, focus group discussion and interview with farmers, policy makers, planners,
bureaucrats, development workers, and agencies involved for micro irrigation system.
9. Analysis of secondary and primary data using appropriate econometric tools.
3.2 Selection of study area and sampling design: Purposively four states namely Punjab,
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra have been selected for study. Stratified random
sampling technique has been followed for selection of respondents. Based on the secondary
data all districts of stated states were arranged in increasing order of area under micro
irrigation system (MIS). From each state, one district with maximum and one district with
minimum area under MIS was selected for primary survey. Further two blocks from each
district were selected randomly. Selection of villages and respondent were done randomly. A
sample was drawn consisting of equal number of micro irrigation adopter and non-adopter
from each state have targeted for intensive survey using pre-tested schedule. Based on
sampling design, intensive survey of 183, 204, 220 and 220 respondents was conducted in
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra respectively. Total sample of 827
respondents collected and it is comprised of almost equal number of adopter and non-adopter.
Location of selected of districts in preselected states have been given in figure 2 and
sampling framework have been given in table 2.
32
Figure 2: Showing the location of the study area
Table 2: Sampling design of states and respondents covered under the study
Name of
state
District
Name of
blocks
Adopter Non
adopter
Total
Sprinkler Drip Total
Punjab
Fazilka
Abohar,
Khuian Sarvar
- 37 37 61 98
Hoshiarpur
Talwara,
Hajipur
20 34 54 31 85
Total 20 71 91 92 183
Andhra
Pradesh
Visakha-
patnam
Atchutapuram,
Rambilli
5 58 63 61 124
Chittoor
Pileru,
Punganur
10 30 40 40 80
Total 15 88 103 101 204
Gujarat
Banaskantha
Deesa,
Palanpur
21 34 55 55 110
Sabarkantha
Idar,
Khedbrahma
20 35 55 55 110
Total 41 69 110 110 220
Maharashtra
Ahmednagar
Rahuri,
Sangamner
30 25 55 55 110
Satara Karad, Phaltan 4 46 50 60 110
Total 34 71 105 115 220
Grand total 148 261 409 418 827
33
3.3 Data and methodology: Primary and secondary data have been collected for the study.
The primary information was collected through personal interview method on pre-tested
questionnaire (Annexure IX). Primary data includes socio economic profile of adopter and
non-adopters, crop grown, source of irrigation, year of MIS installation, cost structure,
farmers perception on MIS use, operational procedure followed by the beneficiaries, cost of
crop cultivation with and without MIS, source of information for micro irrigation etc.
The secondary information were collected from the line departments of selected states
regarding the extent of area under MIS, operational procedure adopted by the concern
department involved in its implementation, cost and subsidy norms, selected beneficiaries,
irrigation source etc.
Based on data collected following method has been used for analysis.
1. Cost of cultivation concept
2. Logit model
3. Location coefficient
4. Peoples participation Index
5. Likert Scaling
3.4.1 Cost of cultivation and imputed value of inputs: The standard procedure on cost of
cultivation was adopted to work out total cost, gross return and net return. The value of
purchased input was taken into account as reported by the cultivators. Some of the inputs
used in the production process come from family sources. The procedures adopted for
deriving imputed value of these inputs are as under:
1. The value of family labor was worked out at the wage rate prevailing for different
agricultural operations in the selected villages.
2. Owned bullock labor was valued at the prevailing market rate in that area. The cost of
tractor charges was considered at the market rate.
3. The value of farm produced manure and seeds were computed as the rates prevailing in
concerned villages.
4. The costs of irrigation and owned machinery charges were considered at the market rate
custom service. In drip, the cost of irrigation was worked out considering total hours of
irrigation run during the total period of crop.
5. The kind payments were evaluated at prices prevalent in the village at the time of that
operation done.
6. Interest on working capital was charged at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, according to
duration of the crops. 34
7. Depreciation of owned fixed capital was charged at the rate of 2 per cent for pakka and 5
per cent for kachcha buildings per annum for the period of crop. While it was worked out
10 per cent of drip installation cost.
8. Repair and maintenance cost of drip system was considered as opined by respondents.
3.4.2 Logit model: The logit model uses a logistic cumulative distribution function to
estimate the linear determinants of the logit (Li) or the logged odds and has the following
form:
????????????(�)=????????????[
??????
�
1−??????
�
]=�
0+�
�� ….. Eq.1
Where, (Pi /1- Pi ) is the odds expressing the conditional mean or probability of an
occurrence of the event relative to the likelihood of a non-occurrence given X; β0 is the
constant term or intercept, βk is a vector of regression coefficients to be estimated and X is a
set of independent variables determining the probability of the event. The model in terms of
Y would then be written as:
�
�=�+∑�
�
�
�=1�
�+?????? …. Eq.2
Where Yi is a binary dependent variable; and Yi equals 1 when a farm household adopted
micro-irrigation system and 0 otherwise, α is the constant term and βk are regression
coefficients of k independent variables to be estimated and ε is the error term. The important
thing is to find β that produces the logits and the conditional mean of Y given X values that
have the greatest likelihood of producing the observed data.
Empirical model specification
The logit model of adoption of micro irrigation (Yi) has been specified as a function of all
independent variables as follows:
�
�=??????(�
�)+?????? … Eq.3
Where, dependent variable is Adoption of micro irrigation and independent variables are age
(years), family size (number), working labour (number), schooling (years), mobile use
(years), caste (Gen+OBC=1 Otherwise=0), soil health card (Yes=1 No=0), income from food
grain (Rs.), income from horticulture (Rs.), total expenditure per month (Rs.), crop insurance
(Yes=1 No=0), water table depth (in feet), tube well owenership (Yes=1 No=0), Source of
energy to extract water, irrigated area (ha), rain-fed area (ha). 35
3.4.3 Estimation of location coefficients for different states: Location coefficient has been
calculated to see concentration of micro irrigation area in different states. This has been
targeted to analyse the development pattern and regional disparity of micro irrigation as all
states are growing at different rate. The location coefficient is calculated as:
??????=
Mj/M
Gj/G
… Eq.4
Where,
Mj = area under Micro-irrigation in the j
th
state
M = area under Micro irrigation at the national level
Gj = area under groundwater-based minor irrigation in the j
th
state
G = area under groundwater-based minor irrigation at the national level.
The higher the value of coefficient depicts the higher concentration of micro-irrigation. The
location coefficient was constructed using the area under MI and the area under minor
irrigation.
3.4.4 People’s Participation Index (PPI): The people’s participation index was worked out
for different stages of implementation of micro irrigation scheme. It is based on data
collected from the MIS adopter on different aspects viz.; selection of site, selection of crop,
selection of installing firm, selection of credit agency and contacts made to officials. The
entire data set was compiled under planning, implementation and maintenance categories.
The statistical tool i.e. mean score, standard deviation were computed and accordingly PPI
values were arrived.
??????????????????=∑(
??????
��
??????
��
??????
��
∗
??????
??????
)100 …. Eq. 5
Where,
??????
��= Score assigned by the i
th
farmer to the j
th
question at planning, implementation
and maintenance of MIS
�
��= Maximum attainable score of I
th
farmers to the J
th
questions at planning,
implementation and maintenance of MIS
n= Number of question answered by i
th
farmer
N= Total number of respondents
3.4.5 Likert scale: The response of the farmers was analyzed using Likert scale to draw the
logical conclusions regarding impact of micro-irrigation, constraint faced and reason for non-
adoption. Data collected were on five point scale for impact of micro irrigation, constraints
and reasons of non- adoption used as Not important =1, somewhat not important =2,
neutral=3, somewhat important =4 and very important =5 likewise. 36
3.4 An overview of agriculture and water resources in selected states:
3.4.1 Trend in irrigated areas, fertilizer consumption and cropping intensity: The share
of irrigated area (gross and net) in Punjab has been much higher since 1990s in comparison to
other selected states. This may be due to the impact of green revolution in which irrigation
was considered as one of the essential input and Punjab played significant role. Irrigation
development in Maharashtra has been minimal covering just 20 per cent of its agricultural
area. Trend of fertilizer consumption of all states have sown similar trend and leading states
are Andhra Pradesh and Punjab with fertilizer application of nearly 250 kg/ ha. Analysis of
cropping intensity revealed that in Punjab almost two crops is taken in a year. This is possible
due to assured irrigation infrastructure irrigating almost total cropped area of the state.
Overall agriculture situation of Punjab is much distinct than other selected states fig. 3.
Note: AP- Andhra Pradesh, GJ-Gujarat, MH-Maharashtra, PB-Punjab, GIA-Gross Irrigated Area, GCA-
Gross Cropped Area, NIA- Net Irrigated Area, NCA-Net Cropped Area,
Fig. 3: Trend in irrigated area, fertilizer consumption and cropping intensity
3.4.2 Temporal changes in cropping pattern: The decadal percent change in area under
different crops for the period of 2005-06 to 2015-16 was analyzed for the selected states and
it is presented in table 3. Analysis indicates that there was significant difference in cropping
pattern across states. Punjab state follow mostly Paddy-wheat cropping pattern and food grain
occupy nearly 85 per cent of total gross sown area. In spite of groundwater over exploitation, 37
area under paddy and wheat has increased by 4.09 and 0.52 per cent respectively during the
last decade. This could be due to reduction in area under cotton. In Andhra Pradesh, area
under oilseeds and maize has decreased significantly but area under fruits & vegetable and
pulses have increased since 2005. In Gujarat, significant area has been brought under
vegetables whereas area under total oilseed and bajra has significantly reduced. In
Maharashtra, area under jowar and bajra has significantly declined in last 10 years but area
under sugarcane, soybean and cotton has notable growth.
Table 3: Change in cropping pattern of selected states (2005-06 to 2015-16) (Per cent)
Crops Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Paddy 4.09 -1.11 -0.07 -0.22
Jowar -0.05 -1.01 -1.29 -7.23
Bajra -0.05 -0.12 -5.27 -2.94
Maize -0.28 -2.58 -1.01 2.56
Ragi 0.00 -0.08 -0.07 -0.21
Wheat 0.52 -0.08 -0.62 -0.21
Gram -0.03 3.30 -0.26 1.72
Arhar (Tur) -0.06 -0.78 -0.57 0.47
Others pulses -0.07 3.38 -0.55 -0.46
Total Pulses -0.16 5.91 -1.38 0.08
Sugarcane 0.08 -0.39 -0.18 2.07
Total Condiments &Spices -0.02 0.68 1.08 0.00
Total Fruits -0.17 3.01 -0.36 -0.15
Total Vegetables 0.46 0.61 2.59 1.22
Total Fruits and Vegetable 0.28 3.62 2.23 1.07
Groundnut -0.02 -3.75 -5.52 -0.63
Sesamum -0.04 -0.17 -1.89 -0.35
Rapeseed and Mustard -0.21 -0.02 -1.16 0.00
Soybean 0.00 -0.71 0.50 5.65
Total Oilseeds -0.43 -8.15 -5.35 1.91
Cotton -2.83 1.12 4.44 5.48
Total cropped area (th. ha)
2005-06 7867.52 13362.08 11494.70 22256.00
2015-16 7871.57 7531.59 12579.70 22863.20
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, MoA&FW, GoI.
3.4.3 Status of water stress in selected states: The fig. 5: depicts trend in the ground water
table in the selected states. It could be observed that Gujarat and Punjab had high depth of
water table followed by Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The data from Central Ground
Water Board (CGWB) shows that nearly 70 to 80 per cent of block in Punjab are over 38
exploited, which is much higher in comparison to other states. This may be due to over
dependency on groundwater for agricultural production. This has put exploitation of
groundwater in Punjab, just opposite to other states considered for study. Therefore, micro
irrigation technology is very much essential for such states like Punjab and Andhra Pradesh
so that further ground water depletion can be checked.
Fig 5: Trend in groundwater table in meters
3.5 Descriptive study of sample households
3.5.1 Socio economic characteristics
The table 4 shows differences in socio economic characteristics of adopters and non-adopters.
The application of t test indicates that adopter and non-adopter of MIS had a significant
difference in respect to various socio economic parameters. However, not all the parameters
considered in analysis were significant but there was certainly a mean difference.
The age of family head does not varies much across the adopters and non-adopter in the
selected states and on an average farmers were in the range of 46-54 years of age. The year of
schooling was found to be higher with the adopter. This indicates that educated people get
convinced faster for adoption of newer technology for the betterment of their farm and
environment. The number of agriculture worker available in the family indicates a significant
difference between adopter and non-adopter. There is no economic interpretation for this
phenomenon but certainly higher availability of agriculture worker in the family help in
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
In meters
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra 39
completing the work in time and they may earn off farm income to support the family. The
total income derived from various sources was higher for adopters.
Table 4: Socio economic characteristics of sample households
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Age of HH (Years) 51.96 50.57 52.10 54.28 46.40 47.71 47.49 48.14
Education of HH 7.67 7.02 8.64 5.94*** 7.30 7.57 10.96 10.19*
Family size (No) 6.57 7.03 6.36 5.49*** 5.96 5.08*** 5.34 5.72
Agriculture worker in
family (No)
2.51 2.19* 2.67 2.46* 3.55 3.24** 2.46 2.96**
*
Land holding Size (ha) 2.27 2.64 1.19 1.17 3.36 2.03*** 1.70 2.17**
irrigated area (ha) 2.25 2.55 1.13 1.04 3.36 1.88*** 1.67 2.17**
Income from food grain
(Rs. Lakhs)
0.85 2.21*** 0.49 0.79** 1.52 1.81** 1.50 1.32
Income from horticulture
(Rs. Lakhs)
1.50 0.61** 0.94 0.36*** 0.05 0.79*** 0.51 0.23*
Income from
livestock(Rs. Lakhs)
- - 0.10 0.05** 0.17 0.47*** 0.22 0.29
Income from labour (Rs.
Lakhs)
- - 0.01 0.02 0.22 3.16*** 2.08 2.19
0ff-farm income (Rs.
Lakhs)
0.83 0.58 0.28 0.35 - - -
Total income Lakhs 3.17 3.40 1.82 1.57 3.97 6.24*** 4.31 4.03
Food expenditure
(Rs.000)
3.69 4.29*** 3.81 3.64 3.00 3.03 2.94 3.46**
Non -food expenditure
(Rs.000)
3.38 3.86* 3.53 3.89 2.81 2.91 3.48 3.45
Total expenditure per
month (Rs.000)
7.07 8.15*** 7.33 7.53 5.81 5.94 6.42 6.91**
Loan taken for different
purposes (Rs. Lakhs)
2.98 3.82 1.25 0.94** 3.81 2.85 2.98 1.67
Mobile use years 9.16 9.15 7.94 6.72** 11.39 7.45*** 6.77 7.25
Member of social org
(Yes=1 no=0)
12.23*
**
- 3.82** - 18.39*
**
- 5.60** -
Crop insurance (Yes=1
no=0)
17.86*
**
4.42** - 18.52 - 16.74 -
Total number of
observations
91.00 92.00 103.00 101.00 110.00 110.00 105.00 115.00
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, HH- Household, *** is significant at 1%,** at 5% and * at 10%
This may be due to the fact, higher production and reduced cost of cultivation due to MIS
adoption. The result also indicated that those farmers who adopted micro irrigation are also
member of any social organization in their area. This might have provided them better
information and motivation for adoption.
3.5.2 Family size and work force available in sampled household: The collected data were
post classified into two categories based on family size and work force (table 5). The findings
indicate that on an average family size are nearly five to six people in the family. However,
family size was found to be little higher in the case of Punjab for no adopter (7 persons) and 40
for adopter (6.6 persons). The share of male workforce in the composition of family is about
57% to 72% across the different states in adopter family. While in non-adopter it varies from
49% to 78% for male. The remaining work force was available in the form of female. This
indicates that male work force dominate in the selected states.
Table 5: Family size distribution of respondents
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Family size
Male
2.45
(37.29)
2.52
(35.80)
2.05
(32.23)
1.95
(35.65)
2.28
(38.32)
1.68
(33.14)
1.83
(34.21)
2.04
(35.29)
Female
2.12
(32.27)
2.23
(31.68)
2.13
(33.49)
1.94
(35.47)
2.03
(34.12)
1.66
(32.74)
1.77
(33.08)
1.78
(30.80)
Children
2
(30.44)
2.29
(32.53)
2.18
(34.28)
1.58
(28.88)
1.64
(27.56)
1.73
(24.12)
1.75
(32.71)
1.96
(33.91)
Average
6.57
(100)
7.04
(100)
6.36
(100)
5.47
(100)
5.95
(100)
5.07
(100)
5.35
(100)
5.78
(100)
Work force available with households
Male
1.79
(71.60)
1.71
(78.44)
1.60
(60.38)
1.61
(65.71)
2.00
(56.50)
1.58
(48.92)
1.40
(56.68)
1.59
(53.90)
Female
0.71
(28.40)
0.47
(21.56)
1.05
(39.62)
0.84
(34.29)
1.54
(43.50)
1.65
(51.08)
1.07
(43.32)
1.36
(46.10)
Average
2.50
(100)
2.18
(100)
2.65
(100)
2.45
(100)
3.54
(100)
3.23
(100)
2.47
(100)
2.95
(100)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
3.5.3 Classification of respondents based on the age groups: It is very important to know
the age composition of the respondents. It is because mature respondents expected to reply
correctly based on their rich experience. Therefore, we have analyzed the distribution of
respondents based on age. It was observed that about 50% respondents were in age group of
35 to 50 years only about 5% were up to 35 years of age. The rest of the respondents were
above 50 years. Thus, our sample comprising of mixed aged respondents and we have used
their rich experiences, perception and self-motivating attitude towards adoption of water
saving technology for this study (Table 6).
41
Table 6: Classification of the respondents based on age
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Up to 35
5
(5.49)
3
(3.26)
1
(0.97)
4
(3.96)
6
(5.45)
3
(2.73)
5
(4.76)
6
(5.22)
35-50
41
(45.05)
51
(55.43)
50
(48.54)
41
(40.59)
82
(74.55)
80
(72.73)
70
(66.67)
65
(56.52)
>50
45
(49.45)
38
(41.30)
52
(40.49)
56
(55.45)
22
(20.00)
27
(24.55)
30
(28.57)
44
(38.26)
Total
91
(100.00)
92
(100.00)
103
(100.00)
101
(100.00)
110
(100.00)
110
(100.00)
105
(100.00)
115
(100.00)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
3.5.4 Education status of the respondents: The education plays a significant role in
adoption of improved, cost effective and modern technology. It was assumed that higher the
education level, higher would be the adoption rate. Therefore, we have analyzed the data and
classified it on education status of respondents (table 7). It was observed that the literacy
status among adopter farmer ranges from 89-98 per cent were literate whereas for non-
adopters, it ranges from 75-98 per cent. In case of Maharashtra sampled farmers among
adopter and non-adopter categories, share of literate farmers is much higher as compared to
other states. In Andhra Pradesh, share of illiterate among non-adopter is as high as 25 %.
Table 7: Classification of the respondents based on education
Particulars
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
A NA A NA A NA A NA
Illiterate
8
(8.80)
14
(15.22)
11
(10.68)
25
(24.75)
11
(10)
9
(8.18)
2
(1.90)
2
(1.74)
Primary (up to
5th)
21
(23.07)
17
(18.49)
12
(11.65)
27
(26.73)
17
(15.45)
23
(20.91)
4
(3.81)
8
(6.96)
Secondary
(5th to 10th)
51
(56.05)
53
(57.60)
47
(45.63)
39
(38.61)
69
(62.73)
59
(53.64)
42
(40.00)
58
(50.43)
College(>10
th
)
11
(12.08)
8
(8.69)
33
(32.0)
10
(9.90)
13
(11.82)
19
(17.27)
57
(54.29)
47
(40.87)
Total
91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(10)
101
(100)
110
(100)
110
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
Note: A-Adopter, NA- Non adopter, Figures in parenthesis indicate the percent to total
42
Chapter 4.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Objective 1: To study the administration and operational processes/ practices adopted by the
selected states.
4.1 Guidelines at central government level: PMKSY, Mission Directorate has been
established in Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation for
mission mode implementation of 99 major and medium irrigation projects (Table 8). The
Mission is responsible for overall coordination and outcome focused monitoring of all
components of PMKSY for achieving its target. Micro irrigation is an integral component of
the PMKSY (Per Drop More Crop) to amplify water use efficiency at farm level. Micro
irrigation is being implemented by Ministry of Agriculture, DAC& FW.
Table 8: Committee involved in Implementation of PMKSY
Committee Chairperson and Member Work
National level
National Steering
Committee (NSC)
PM as Chairperson and Union Ministers
from concerned ministries and Vice
chairman, NITI Aayog as members
To provide general policy strategic
directions for programme implementation
and overall supervision addressing
national priorities etc.
National Executive
Committee (NEC)
Vice Chairman, Niti Aayog as Chairperson
and Secretaries of concerned
ministries/departments and Chief
Secretaries of selected States as members
To oversee programme implementation,
allocation of resources, Inter-ministerial
coordination, monitoring & performance
assessment, addressing administrative
issues
State level
State Level
Sanctioning
Committee (SLSC)
Chief Secretary of the State as Chairperson To sanction projects and activities as
recommended by Inter Departmental
Working Group
Inter Departmental
Working Group
(IDWG)
Agriculture Production
Commissioner/Development Commissioner
as Chairperson and Secretaries of line
departments as members.
Recommend project and activities to
SLSC
District level
District Level
Implementation
Committee (DLIC)
the Chairmanship of Collector/District
Magistrate / CEO of Zila Parishad/ PD
DRDA as Chairperson, and JD/DD of line
departments and progressive farmers,
representative of MI industry, and leading
NGO as members
To oversee PMKSY implementation and
inter-departmental coordination.
Source: Operational Guidelines of Per Drop More Crop (Micro Irrigation) Component of PMKSY (2017)
District Irrigation Plans (DIP) present holistic irrigation development perspective of the
district outlining medium to long term development plans integrating three components viz.
water sources, distribution network and water use applications. DIP identifies gaps in
available irrigation plan after assessing presently available resources and resources which
could be added from ongoing schemes. So, DIP considered as foundation for planning and
implementation of all components of PMKSY. All communication between Ministry of 43
Agriculture (MoA) and State Government would be with and through the nodal department.
State Agriculture Department may be the Nodal Department for implementation of PMKSY
(Per Drop More Crop) as outcome of PMKSY is to ensure efficient delivery and application
of water at every farm enhancing agricultural production & productivity, However, State
Govt. is free to identify the nodal department based on the established institutional set up and
mandate of the department.
4.1.1 Assistance pattern for micro irrigation:
The unit cost of drip irrigation system varies with plant spacing and location of water
resources. Government has provided cost structure for installing micro irrigation with
different plant spacing in its guideline. On basis of this subsidy is given to farmers under
various categories. Small and marginal beneficiary farmers under micro irrigation receive 55
per cent and other beneficiary farmers receive 45 per cent as subsidy to total cost. Subsidy
amount shared by Centre and State Government in the ratio of 60:40 for all states except
North Eastern and Himalayan states where ratio is 90:10. Central government grant total fund
to the Union Territories (Table 8). Subsidy for installation of micro irrigation system is
limited to five hectares per beneficiary in the present scheme.
Based on coverage of micro irrigation states have been classified into following categories:
Category “A” states: States with comparatively better penetration of micro irrigation
system. In this category, states are Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telangana. We
feel that Punjab should have been put in C category of states since coverage area is very less.
Category B states: States with low penetration of micro irrigation system. States are Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Union Territories. Cost
likely to be high as lesser availability of companies and after sale services. 15% higher unit
costs for micro irrigation are considered for these states.
Category C states: states with much low penetration due to poor infrastructure and difficult terrain.
These states include North Eastern and hilly region namely, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The 25% higher unit costs for micro irrigation are considered for
these states. Note: The unit cost for subsidy purpose would be exclusive of any taxes & fiscal levies.
44
Table 9: Assistance pattern in selected states
Andhra Pradesh
Category/Caste Subsidy (%) (centre
state)
Subsidy limit (Rs.)
SC/ST farmers under Small and marginal farmers
(landholding <2 ha)-drip irrigation
100(33+67) 2.00 lakh
Small and marginal farmers other than SC/ST
(landholding <2 ha)-drip irrigation
90(33+57) 2.00 lakh
Medium farmers of Coastal district (2 ha to 4 ha)-drip
irrigation
70(27+43) 2.80 lakh
Medium farmers of Rayalaseema & Prakasam districts
(2 ha to 4 ha)-drip irrigation
90(27+63) 2.00 lakh
Other Farmers-drip irrigation 50(27+23) 4.00 lakh
Small and marginal farmers for all categories- sprinkler 50(33+17) -
Others farmers-sprinkler 50(27+23) -
Gujarat
Category of Farmer Non Dark Zone area Dark Zone area for 57
talukas
Farmer: (land holding size ≥2 ha) Upto 70% (27+43) or Rs. 0.7 lakh/ha, whichever is less
Farmer: Small and Marginal farmer
(land holding size <2 ha )
Upto 70% (33+37) or Rs. 0.8
lakh/ ha, whichever is less
Upto 80% (33+47) or Rs.
0.8 lakh/ ha, whichever is
less
SC/ST Farmers Upto 85% or Rs. 1 lakh/ha,
whichever is less
Upto 90% or Rs. 1
lakh/ha, whichever is less
Punjab
SC/ ST farmers 90 per cent
Others farmer 70 per cent
Maharashtra
Small and marginal farmers 60 per cent
Small and marginal farmers in Vidarbha region 75 per cent
Other farmers 50 per cent
Source: Different state government departments (APMIP, GGRC, SCMIP, SWC and Agriculture)
report/documents 2017-18.
4.1.2 Pre-installation activities: The Implementing Agency identified by the state
government advertises schemes at block and village level through its existing networks. At
district level, it appoints a nodal officer who is responsible for coordination of the scheme
implementation. It disseminates the suppliers list and unit price approved by SLSC to the
farmers. At least one district level seminar or workshop is conducted. Implementing agency
will compile the application submitted by the farmers and scrutinize and forward the same to
the company’s/Manufacturer’s local offices as indicated by the farmer. The beneficiary share
may be deposited with manufacturer/their representative or the state nodal agency as per the
practices to be adopted by the state with the approval of SLSC. The beneficiary shall be free
to purchase MI equipment from any MI manufacture out of the approved list of registered
manufacturers. Manufacturer need to follow certain process indicated in table 10. 45
Table 10: Process need to be followed by the firms
Manufacturer
Approval
Assessment of the crop water requirement and design the system accordingly.
Prepare an estimate of cost and submit it to Implementing agency duly indicating the
time frame for installation.
The Implementing agency will approve the estimate, issue work order and ensure
installation
Installation
Quality components having BIS marking are installed at farmer’s field.
The installed system should match the water requirement of the crop earlier estimated
Necessary orientation and training is given to the beneficiary farmers for system
maintenance & irrigating the crop.
Proper warranty and a user’s manual for running & maintenance of the system are
provided to farmers.
A certificate towards successful installation/commissioning of the system is obtained
from the beneficiary
The entire data set collected from different line departments of respective state on micro
irrigation on operational and administrative procedure was compiled and analyzed to draw
the logical conclusions. The observations are presented in subsequent sections.
4.2 Guidelines on micro irrigation at state government level
4.2.1 Operational procedure adopted by Punjab: Drip and sprinkler irrigation system was
introduced in the state in the year 1992-93 under centrally sponsored scheme. In the State
of Punjab, Soil and Water Conservation Department is the nodal department for
implementing the centrally sponsored scheme of micro irrigation system. The assistance for
demonstration plots also can be given to state, Central Government farms,
State Agriculture Universities, ICAR, progressive farmers and NGO’s. The maximum area
for subsidy is 5.0 ha per beneficiary. Despite, having vast potential in the state, it is true that
promotion of Micro Irrigation in the state of Punjab has not been up to the desired level
(Annexure-IV). The State is facing very serious problem of depletion of ground water
resources and conservation of irrigation water is of utmost importance. Only 48281 hectares
area could be covered under micro irrigation system (DAC.Net, 2018) which is about 1.17
percent of the net sown area of the state. The operation procedure is presented in fig 6.
46
Figure 6: Flow diagram of Micro
Irrigation procedure adopted by
Punjab
4.2.2 Operational procedure adopted by Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) is the unique and first comprehensive
project being implemented in a big way in Andhra Pradesh for the past 13 years. APMIP was
launched in November, 2003.The Project aims at improving the economic conditions of the
Farmer
Selection
of Firm
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at tehsil
level
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at Head
Qtr,
Chandigarh
Soil & water
conservation
Dept. at
District/
Mandal level
Applying
for MIS,
three files
Approved and
back to district
Direction to
the Firms
Execution
of works 47
farmers by conserving water, bringing additional area into cultivation with the available
water resources, enhancing the crop productivity and production, quality, facilitating
judicious usage of ground water, saving in power consumption and cost of cultivation.
APMIP is implemented with the assistance from government of India, state government and
farmer contribution. In view of the deficit rainfall, rain shadow regions, unpredictable rains
and considerable depletion of ground water, the farming community realized the need to
adopt the technologies of Micro Irrigation to achieve the concept of “More crop per Drop”.
Government of Andhra Pradesh has set a goal to cover the entire potential area available in
all the 13 districts of Andhra Pradesh under Micro Irrigation, by 2022. On Farm Water
Management (OFWM) is one of the four components of National mission for sustainable
Agriculture, which focus primarily on enhancing water use efficiency by promoting efficient
On Farm Water Management Technologies and equipment. The OFWM is implemented in
the state through Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP). The entire process of
application filling and processing for micro irrigation is online and mobile app based. This
help the farmers to access his information and can check the status of his application,
subsidies without visiting the office. Operational procedure adopted in Andhra Pradesh is
presented in figure 7& Annexure-I.
Figure 7: Operational process under APMIP Andhra Pradesh
4.2.2.1 Timelines of implementation of micro irrigation in AP: To achieve the targets in
time, timeline setting is very important. AP government has framed the complete guidelines 48
to increase the coverage of MIS in minimum period. Therefore, timelines was prepared and
supplied to all the functionaries in the project area (Table 11).
Table 11: Timelines for implementation of the programme
Process flow Timeline Responsible Officer
Preliminary inspection, Bench Mark Survey,
BOQ & Design
Within 30 days of after registration MI company
Technical approval Within 2 days from the date of submission of
applications in full shaper
MIE and APD
Collection of farmer Contribution Within 15 Days after issue of notice / SMS,
alert for payment of non-subsidy amount.
Farmer, MIAO. To be
monitored by APD
Processing of file for Collector approval for
release of 10% mobilization advance
Within 7 Days PD
Issue of 10% Mobilization Advance Within 3 days after Collector’s approval PD
Trench Marking Within 7 days after issue of Administrative
sanction
MI company & APD
Trenching Within 30 days after Trench marking Farmer & APD
Installation of MI Systems Within 21 days after Trenching by the Farmer MI company
Uploading of photograph and Completion
certificate and Generation of invoice in online
Within 7 days MI Company
Release 50% subsidy Within 10 days PO Office
Submission of Invoice & other required
documents for Final payment in PDs office
Within 7days in full shape after completion of
Installation and uploading
MI company
Final Inspection Within 21 days after receipt of hard copy of
invoice by MI Company
MIAO/MIE/MIDC
(70%+20%10%)
Release of final payment Within 7 days after completion of final
inspection
PD
Random Inspection Within 30 days after release of final payment to
MI Company
APD/PD
Source: APMIP, annual report, 2018
4.2.3 Operational procedure adopted by Gujarat:
During May 2005, the government of Gujarat (GOG) established a Government owned
company namely Gujarat Green Revolution Company Ltd. (GGRC) and made it as the sole
nodal agency to implement all types of micro irrigation projects in the state. Further, the
government also introduced a unique scheme for micro irrigation adoption in the state. The
farmers will get 50 % as subsidy and without any ceiling for the hectarage. This has been
welcomed intervention by the farmers of Gujarat and the MI adoption has become 49
comparatively faster. The Gujarat model of MI implementation is presented in fig 9. The
Annexure_II present the physical progress of the MIS coverage in the state.
4.2.3.1 Operational procedure adopted in the Gujarat state: The entire operational
procedure adopted to select the MI installation company by the Gujarat state in figure 8 as
below. The system of allocating fund and payments is very transparent.
4.2.3.2 Operational process under Gujrat Green Revolution Company Ltd
Farmer’s action as depicted in the figure 9 to get the MIS in their field required in order of
this sequence.
Fig. 8: Gujarat Model business based
approach (Source: GGRC, report, 2017-18)
GGRC
GGRC
Registered
MIS
Suppliers
Village
Meetings
Exposure
Visit
Street
Show
Electronic
Media
Mela /
Exhibition
etc.
Decides to
adopt MIS and
Chooses MIS
Supplier
MIS Supplier Does
field Survey and
Prepare Design and
Cost estimate of MIS as
per GGRC approved
rates
Farmer approves design & Signs
on all relevant documents for
online submission to GGRC
GGRC Process the file online as well
as physical, issue work order, verify
the installed MIS and disburse the
subsidy 50
Figure 9: Operational process under Gujrat Green Revolution Company Ltd. (GGRC)
4.2.4 Operational procedure adopted by Maharashtra
Government of Maharashtra has actively implemented this scheme through
Department of Agriculture to provide benefit to the farmers. The Government provides
capital subsidy of 50% to 60% for installation of Drip and Sprinkler systems. Maharashtra
has one of the highest rates of adoption of Micro-irrigation systems in the country. Main
stakeholders are citizens as beneficiaries, Manufacturers and Dealers as System Suppliers,
Government of Maharashtra and Government of India, officials as Implementing Agencies. A
special programme called Vidarbha Intensive Irrigation Development Programme (VIIDP)
has been initiated for the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra since 2012-13. Modified
operational guidelines with revised cost norms for 8 districts of Vidarbha have been issued
and accordingly assistance of 75% to small and marginal farmers is provisioned.
4.2.4.1 Documents requirement from farmers for filling application in Maharashtra:
The documentary requirement and modalities for Maharashtra state farmer need to submit
along with the application are given in the table 12.
51
Table 12: Documents required for filling MIS application Maharashtra farmer
Name of Document Nature of Document Ranking
Photo ID Proof (Driving license/PAN card/Election/adhar
card/ passport/ card/ kisan credit card / Pensioner Card
/Ration-PDS photo card/Arms license/kisan photo
passbook or any ID.
Compulsory I
Copy of form 8 A Compulsory II
Copy of form 7/12. Compulsory III
Consent letter of other Joint land holders Optional / if joint land holding-
Compulsory
IV
Form 16 /farmers self declaration If mentioned in 7-12- optional if not it
is Compulsory
V
Electric Bill / self certificate of farmer for declaring HP of
electric motor or Diesel engine respectively
Compulsory VI
Details of present passbook issued by any nationalized
bank /schedule bank/co-operatives /post office (First two
page & latest transaction page).
Optional VII
Water sharing consent letter If applicant farmer do not have own
source in that case it is Compulsory. If
own source optional
VIII
Schedule Caste / Tribe certificate (SC/ST) In case of schedule cast or tribal
farmer -compulsory
IX
Recommendation letter from respective PA's of Tribal
Area Sub Plan (TASP)
Compulsory In case of tribal farmer
from TASP area.
X
Bank loan Sanction Letter Compulsory in case of loanee case XI
GUVNL recommendation/approval letter in case of Tatkal
/ Dark Zone / PDC-RC
Compulsory in case of Tatkal-2013/
darkzone / PDC-RC (Reconnection
cases)
XII
4.3 Comparative analysis of operational procedure adopted by selected state
government: We have analyzed the strengths and weakness of the administrative procedure
adopted by different states under the study and presented in the table 13. We observed that
different states follow different norms while implementing the micro irrigation programme.
The subsidy components allotted under central government scheme was provided in addition
to state government fund to cover the maximum stakeholders. State like AP and Gujarat had
dedicated separate department for implementation of MIS in the state. However, Maharashtra
and Punjab is implementing the scheme with their own agriculture, horticulture, soil and
water conservation departments. The online application submission, monitoring and app
designing is helping the farmers and government functionaries to understand the progress and
status of their work. However, manual application submission also practiced in the state like
Punjab. The Punjab state is kept in A category of guidelines of government of India on micro
irrigation as per the coverage of area. We observed that not much work has been done in the
Punjab state on expansion of micro irrigation. Therefore, it should in the category of C. This 52
state is having potential but still could not exploited its potential and area under micro
irrigation is negligible. It may be due to subsidies electricity and high dependency on ground
water. Therefore, under exploited parts of country can be brought under the ambit of water
conservation technologies by taking policy decisions and promotional interventions.
Furthermore, there should be dedicated separate department for promotion of micro
irrigation. The model adopted by AP, Gujarat may be replicated in the country so that in
faster manner water conservation technology may reach to the all farmers.
Table 13: Comparison of administrative procedure adopted in the selected states
Particulars Selected states
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Mode of application
filling by farmers
Mostly manual Online Online Online
Dedicated department or
staff for MIS
implementation
No AP Micro Irrigation
Project (APMIP)
Gujarat Green
Revolution
company (GGRC)
State Government
Horticulture
Dept.
Quantum of subsidy (%) 70-90
50-100 70-80 &
80-90
65-90
Land celling limit (ha) 5.0 5.0 after seven year
farmer can retake
the MIS
5.0 5.0
Selection of beneficiaries Based on water
resource
availability with
individual
farmer
Own source and
sharing basis with
in the close blood
relation
Own source Own source
Financial help for creation
of water resource
Yes No No No
Selection of MI installing
agency
Registered with
department
Yes yes yes
Action against default
firms
Debar from the
list
Fine and debar
from the list
Debar from the list Debar from the
list
MIS service provided
(years)
3 3 5 3
Help in arranging the
loans for margin money
No Banks are linked
with the farmer
Farmers have to
arrange and contact
with banks
Farmers
responsibility
Disbursement of subsidy Direct Bank
Transfer (DBT)
DBT DBT DBT
Trainings for farmers Limited Yes & exposure
visits, awareness
camp, field day and
on campus
trainings given
Yes & awareness
programme
conducted
Limited extent
awareness camps
and staff trainings
given.
Trainings for staff Limited Yes Yes Yes
Trainings for youths No Yes No Yes
Strength of the
operational system
weak strong strong strong
Efficiency in
implementation of MIS
slow Fast Fast Medium
Satisfaction level of
beneficiaries
Neutral Highly satisfied Moderately
satisfied
satisfied 53
4.4 Challenges in implementation of micro-irrigation schemes
Lack of focus on micro irrigation: In the beginning of National Mission on Micro Irrigation
(NMMI-2010-2014) showed the strongest growth of micro irrigation penetration in some of
the states. However, since the scheme was merged with the component under the National
Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), there has been slowed the pace on micro
irrigation in India, which is a continuing issue with the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee
Yojna (PMKSY).
Lack of dedicated team and IT backed operations: Tracking the installation of a micro
irrigation system, step by step, from initiation of work order to installation and payment is
difficult and this is a major source of inefficiencies in the system. The programme
Implementing Agency (PIA) staff that implementing the micro-irrigation schemes in various
states is deputed from different line departments for time bound. The instability in the
postings hampers the implementation of the projects.
Delay in release of guidelines/government orders: The lack of smoother/longer-term
guidelines pose a major challenge as evidenced by the fact that operational period of the
schemes, on an average, is only 5 months where the farmers miss the utilization of the micro
irrigation system during the peak demand season (i.e., Punjab and Maharashtra state).
Subsidy disbursement process: Unavailability of funds for installations or delayed release
of funds hampers the progress of MIS coverage in the country.
Lack of easy financing mechanisms for farmers: Farmers face major challenges in finding
financing option for the micro irrigation products for depositing the margin money and in
case they do find a financing source, there are high collateral demands. Adequate credit
facilities to the farmers, trained human resources, and infrastructure for training of farmers
are lacking.
Lack of promotional and information efforts: Micro irrigation is generally perceived as
technology intensive; hence, its acceptance by farmers needed much persuasion. There was a
lack of information on temporal and spatial variation in soil moisture, the optimal fraction of
soil to be wetted, location specific and crop-specific irrigation and fertigation scheduling and
lack of availability of low cost water-soluble fertilizers and other agro chemicals. Thus, there
are several problems in implementation of micro irrigation system in terms of coverage at
larger scale in the study area. 54
Lack of integration with farm irrigation system: Micro irrigation technology was not
integrated with farm irrigation management systems, as they were generally viewed in
isolation.
Free energy sources: Farmers are allowed to run their water pumps on free and subsidized
energy i.e. electricity and solar sources resulting in over exploitation of ground water due to
the fact that method of irrigation mostly used flood. Therefore, in such circumstances farmers
are not realizing the importance of water saving technology and hesitant to invest in it.
Objective 2: Effect of water energy pricing on adoption of micro irrigation
4.5 Composition of electric and diesel pumps: Before study the water energy pricing on
adoption of micro irrigation we need to understand the sources of energy and water resources
in the study area. Therefore, secondary information from the 5
th
minor irrigation census,
2017, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation were
collected and analyzed. Electricity is major source of ground water irrigation in the country
including selected states. As compared to national average, the share of electric pumps was
higher in the selected states. Higher dependency on electricity (free/ subsidized) is reason for
higher dependency. Sometimes, it leads to inefficient use of groundwater. Price policy of
electricity has significant role in sustainable and efficient ground water use. Among the
selected states, Punjab diesel as source of energy was higher as compared to Andhra Pradesh
followed by Maharashtra and Gujarat. Interestingly the electricity as a source of energy was
higher for Gujarat followed by AP and Maharashtra >96%. However, in the case of Punjab it
was about 91% (Fig. 10.). This could be observed that the dependency on electricity was
higher for irrigation in the selected states. Though, the subsidized/ free electricity may be the
reason of increasing use of more number of electric pumps for irrigation. 55
Source: 5
th
minor irrigation census, 2017, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation.
The per ha. Electricity consumption at all India basis indicates that it was increasing over the
period of time (2000-01 to 2013-14). In the case of Maharashtra, the electricity consumption
increased at faster rate as compared to Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab. Though there
was not a uniform trend in the electricity consumption for the selected states (Fig.11).
However, over the period of time electricity consumption has been increased. Therefore, this
is high time, in the scenario of demand pressure; energy conservation technology has to be
placed in. Thus, micro irrigation technology needs to be transferred to make agriculture
viable enterprise.
Fig. 11: Electricity consumption per hectare of net irrigated area (KW/Ha)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India
90.59
96.27 97.57
95.59
72.64
6.79
3.58 1.96
4.38
25.39
y = -3.6559x + 101.5
R² = 0.3122
y = 3.7991x - 2.9774
R² = 0.388
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
GujaratMaharashtra India
Percent
Fig. 10: Composition of electric and diesel pumps for irrigation
Electric
Diesel
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
KW/Ha
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra India 56
4.6 Extent of level of awareness about the micro irrigation system: The level of
awareness about the micro irrigation indicates that farmers were highly aware or not.
Therefore, we analyzed the extent of awareness and found that more than 75 % farmers
among adopter were well aware about MIS and its benefits.
Table 14: level of awareness about micro irrigation system among respondents (%)
Attributes
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Deep
knowledge of
MIS
70
(76.92)
41
(44.57)
89
(86.41)
45
(44.55)
94
(89.52)
47
(40.86)
77
(70.0)
32
(29.09)
About Agency
PIA
62
(68.13)
35
(38.04)
73
(70.87)
28
(27.72)
87
(82.86)
35
(30.43)
95
(86.36)
38
(34.55)
About
procedure of
MIS
65
(71.43)
24
(26.09)
84
(81.55)
33
(32.67)
76
(72.38)
24
(20.87)
76
(69.09)
26
(23.64)
Cumbersome
Procedure
54
(59.34)
15
(16.30)
63
(61.16)
12
(11.88)
78
(74.29)
45
(39.13)
65
(59.09)
58
(52.73)
Are you ready
to expand area
without
subsidy
37
(40.66)
0 52
(50.49)
5
(4.95)
54
(51.43)
4
(3.48)
45
(40.91)
11
(10.0)
Total 91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(100)
101
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
110
(100)
110
(100)
Note: Figures in parenthesis percent to total
Though non- adopters were also aware about MIS but the extent of awareness was less only
about 40%. Most of the adopters have found to be known the process of application filling
and approaching to PIA. It could be observed that about 51% farmers in Gujarat and Andhra
Pradesh have expressed that they will extend the area under micro irrigation even without
government support (Table 14). However, in Punjab (40%) also farmers have stated the same.
Therefore, we feel more awareness and exposure programmes needs to be executed for
increasing more areas under MIS.
4.7 Farmer’s perception on water energy pricing: The marginal effect of water/ energy
pricing on adoption of micro irrigation is evaluated based on farmers response on the
questions like, whether, water prices changed after introduction of MIS in your area. It was
observed that In AP and Gujarat about 50% respondents felt that it reduces the water price
due to surplus water available and water purchaser completion reduced for water demand.
However, there was no uniform trend across the state.
57
Table 15: Perception on effect of MIS on water and energy price in the study area
Particular Punjab
Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
MIS decrease the water
price
45 46 73 31 55 50 47 63
Free electricity has any
effect on water price
(Decrease/increase)
13 78 54 50 97 48 102 8
Free electricity has any
effect on MIS
adoption(decrease/incr
ease)
68 23 83 21 72 33 95 15
Effect of MIS on
consumption of
electricity (Less/High)
49 42 69 35 78 27 73 37
Effect of MIS water
market
( decrease/ increase)
37 54 43 61 39 66 68 42
Effect of MIS on diesel
price
(increase/decrease)
46 45 41 63 34 71 49 61
The free electricity fails to create scarcity of water resources and thus, it contributes
negatively to the adoption of micro irrigation table 15. Majority of farmers feel that
introduction of MIS decrease the electricity consumption. Further, MIS decrease the scope of
water market. It may due to the fact that less number of farmers comes to purchase the water
from water sellers. The majority of farmers feel that there was not much effect on water
energy pricing. However, farmers said that MIS introduction decrease the peak demand of
water in the pockets where MIS was adopted.
Objective 3: To find out the effectiveness of various MI technologies for water economy,
energy and input economy, savings, employment and income.
4.8 To assess the effectiveness of micro irrigation we analyzed information on different
inputs used, price paid for and received for inputs and output by adopters and non-adopters
using the primary survey. Thus, data on cost of cultivation, farm gate price of output and
quantity used in the cultivation of major crops in the respective states.
4.8.1 Impact of Micro Irrigation: We have identified ten important benefits of MIS as
presented in fig.14 based on previous studies. In view of these benefits, we have analyzed the 58
data and quantified the benefits. Few qualitative dimension of effects of micro irrigation
were also analyzed based on farmers response and previous studies (Fig. 12).
Fig 12: Benefits of Micro irrigation
4.8.2 Estimation of savings in inputs cost, improvement in yield and income: We have
collected the data on cost of Cultivation from adopter and no-adopter sample farmers. The
four selected states are cultivating major crop as indicated in the table were selected in detail
analysis.
Punjab: We have taken four major crops grown in Punjab. These crops purposively selected
since we got sufficient data for comparison with adopter and non adopters of MIS. The cost
cultivation data for each crop input price and out-put price realized at farm gate was taken
from the sample farmers for detailed analysis. Punjab indicates that seed and planting
material varies from 2.25% to 46.87%, FYM cost saving over non-adopter varies from 3.17%
to 9.78%. This saving of FYM for adopters might be due to the fact that less quantity
required as compared to non-adopter. The fertilizer saving varies from 12.89% to 37.51% and
similarly chemical used for pest and disease management, the saving varies from 17.71% to
48.23% (Table 16). This is the very important that MIS irrigation reduce the cost of
cultivation over non-adopter was positive and tangible benefits to the adopter. It might be due
to the fact that liquid fertilizer applied through MIS in right dose and right time with right
quantity. While non-adopter had applied this input in traditional way and had resulted in
higher dose application of fertilizer and chemicals leading to high cost of cultivation. The
human labour and machine used, the cost saving varies form 5.14%, 9.83% to 31.72%,
Efficient &
Flexible
Improved
crop quality
Higher Profits
Water saving
&WUE
Marginal
Soils &
Waters Reduced soil
loss
Reduced
labour costs
Less energy
costs
Higher yields
Higher FUE
Yield &
Crop
Typical
Benefits
of Drip 59
17.79%, respectively. The total cost saving varies from 1.33% to 18.06% and net return
increased in the range of 32.27% to 54.10% in the case of Punjab. The higher net return was
noticed in the case of maize cultivation followed by Kinnow and wheat.
Andhra Pradesh: Similar, five crops grown by the selected respondents were considered for
detailed analysis. It was observed that inputs savings in terms of cost of planting material for
sugarcane crop was about 8.14%. However, other crops like coconut, Papaya and Tomato
seed and planting material cost was higher as compared to non-adopter. This may due the fact
that adopters have purchased high quality and costly seeds and planting material in micro
irrigated areas. The application of Farm Yard Manure (FYM) saving in terms of cost saving
varies from 7.42% to 30.40%. However, FYM cost was higher for Papaya crop for adopter as
compared to non-adopter. This may be due to high quantity application in Papaya crop by
adopters. The fertilizer saving varies from 12.6% to maximum 68.76% in different crops
grown by AP adopter farmers. Similarly, chemicals and pesticides saving vary from 1% to
22.62% for the same crops in AP. The water is very much scare in the study area, therefore,
we found that irrigation water saving varies from 16.07% to 51.19% across the crops
cultivated by adopters. This is huge water cost saving due to adoption of micro irrigation. The
manpower cost saving varies from 22.78% to 29.41% for four crops while there was higher
cost of manpower in the case of tomato cultivation as compared to non adopters. The total
cost saving was significantly high and varies from 4.59% to 24.60% for AP adopter farmers.
The net returns vary from 12.28% to 43.02% for the same crops in AP and it clearly indicates
the profitability of agriculture due to adoption of MIS in the state.
Table 16: Saving in inputs costs, increase in yield, income adoption of micro (Percent)
Particulars
Name of crops (Punjab) Name of crops (Andhra Pradesh)
Cotton Kinno
w
Maize Wheat Brinjal Coco-
nut
Papaya Tomato Sugar-
cane
Seed/Plan-
ting material
-2.25 13.48 -29.76 -46.87 -89.40 4.43 34.87 3.90 -8.14
FYM -5.46 -3.17 -9.78 3.67 -16.10 -7.42 6.53 -7.65 -30.40
Fertilizer -12.89 -18.50 -20.73 -37.51 -68.76 -13.60 -38.12 -26.38 -21.66
Chemical -48.23 -17.71 22.11 -45.30 -22.62 -6.25 -12.48 -8.89 -0.92
Irrigation -14.77 -60.24 -35.21 -32.00 -34.63 -29.62 -51.19 -16.07 -43.59
Labour -5.14 -12.35 -31.72 -13.77 -22.78 -26.16 -26.56 3.81 -29.41
Machine use 4.69 -17.29 -14.13 -9.83 9.08 -5.08 -5.35 1.40 -25.35
Total cost -1.33 -8.14 -13.07 -18.06 -13.63 -8.52 -5.31 -4.59 -24.60
Yields 11.62 10.76 8.17 12.96 10.54 20.17 10.51 22.27 6.82
Net income 32.27 34.40 54.10 35.14 32.40 42.03 12.28 43.02 21.32
60
4.14 Gujarat: We have analyzed the data of five crops from the Gujarat. It was observed that
seed and planting material cost saved by the adopter 4.32% to 59.76% as compared to non-
adopters in Gujarat. The FYM cost saved by 13.73% to 57.94% where as fertilizer cost
saving for adopter varies from 45.45% to 63.89% and this is a huge saving. It may be due to
the fact that liquid fertigation approach is adopted by MIS adopter. This might be resulted in
less quantity requirement. Hence, cost of fertilizer reduced drastically for the MIS adopter.
Similar chemical and pesticide cost saving varies from 33.68% to 90.29% (Soybean), this
again very important for adopter that they realized the big saving across the different crops.
The water saving varies from 12.60% to 88.62%. There was saving in labour use and
machine hours used by adopters and it varies form 8.31% to 48.65% across different crop
selected for analysis in the state. The total cost saved in different crops in the states varies
from 4.15% to 30.39% and net return was higher for adopters, which varies from 17.63% to
52.01% (Table 16). Thus, it is proved that MIS adoption enhance the net income and reduces
the input costs. These finding are in conformity with the previous study on micro irrigation
(Gandhi et.al, 2014).
Maharashtra: The six major crop grown by adopters and non adopters of MIS in
Maharashtra were considered for the analysis. It was observed that seed and planting material
cost saved by the adopter 4.91% to 36.31% as compared to non-adopters in Maharashtra. The
FYM cost saved by 2.94% to 96.01% where as fertilizer cost saving for adopter varies from
12.98% to 52.09% and this is a huge saving. It may be due to the fact that liquid fertigation
approach is adopted by MIS adopter. This might have resulted in less quantity requirement.
Hence, cost of fertilizer reduced drastically for the MIS adopter. Similarly, chemical and
pesticide cost saving varies from 5.08% to 50.0% (cotton), this again very important for
adopter and resulted in they realized the big saving across the different crops. The water
saving varies from 16.43 % to 85.81%. There was saving in labour use and machine hours
used by adopters and it varies form 8.35% to 51.15% across different crop selected for
analysis in the state. The total cost saved in different crops in the states varies from 7.76% to
35.15% and net return was higher for adopters, which varies from 20.95% to 58.69% across
different crops (Table 17). Thus, it is proved that MIS adoption enhance the net income and
reduces the input costs. The inputs saving and output enhancement due to micro irrigation
was noticed in the case of Gujarat and Maharashtra.
61
Table 17: Saving in inputs costs, increase in yield, income adoption of micro (Percent)
Particulars
Name of crops (Gujarat) Name of crops (Maharashtra)
Cotto
n
Groun
dnut
Potato Soybe
an
Bajra Cotto
n
Bajra Maize Onion Soybe
an
Sugar
cane
Seed/Plant-ing
material
-6.67 8.76 -4.32 -21.28 -59.79 -32.27 -9.21 19.65 -36.31 -4.91 -11.59
FYM -13.73 -57.94 -29.21 -22.53 - -2.94 -20.45 - -10.85 -8.33 -96.01
Fertilizer -53.91 -49.76 -56.38 -63.89 -45.45 -15.04 -22.37 -16.41 -12.98 -36.10 -52.09
Chemical -57.72 -34.54 -33.20 -90.29 -33.68 -50.00 - - -5.08 -38.84 -43.66
Irrigation -12.60 -88.62 -37.21 -27.48 -39.46 -27.50 -42.14 -16.43 -85.81 -31.13 -28.33
Labour -21.48 -36.03 -21.33 -48.65 -34.66 -51.15 -12.94 -19.92 -8.25 -25.88 -10.05
Machine use -8.31 -20.84 -10.64 -20.25 -9.88 -35.81 -47.47 -12.67 -7.64 -35.61 -4.22
Total cost -26.65 -30.39 -10.35 -29.59 -4.15 -35.15 -31.31 -7.76 -12.74 -24.08 -17.10
Yields 21.72 10.00 18.49 13.09 4.82 18.64 17.37 15.56 12.54 8.69 10.01
Net income 42.80 17.63 37.86 52.01 41.64 35.26 58.69 39.35 20.95 25.88 25.74
4.8.3 Impact of Micro irrigation system attract youth in agriculture: The information
from the agriculture farmers were collected on the issues like youth interest in agriculture and
their preference. It was observed in AP, that many youths having different educational
qualification including professional degree, returned for farming in their village. The reason
being that with introduction of micro irrigation, these youths were getting better returns from
their agriculture farms. Therefor they left the job and started specialized agriculture (Table
18).
Table 18: Youth returning to agriculture due to availability of water saving technology
Level of youth education Reasons of returning to agriculture (%)
Less
remuneration
with current
job
Job is not as
per the
qualification
Distant
place
Parental land
remain fellow
due to no
caretaker
Engineering background 13.89 35.25 24.87 25.99
Science 28.60 31.52 25.24 14.64
Arts and Management 32.81 28.63 34.12 4.44
Others 27.70 32.45 25.45 14.40
Overall
4.8.4 Micro irrigation enhances income and employment opportunity: The introduction
of micro irrigation in an area, open the door of employment and income generations. We
have observed that unemployed youth have undergone different trainings organized by
programme implementing agency, NGO and MIS firms. After completion of training, they 62
were getting local job with MIS firms, doing minor repairs in local areas. It was informed by
farmers of AP that youth come for service of MIS at phone call at any time hence they are
local. These youth also informed us that we are happy and getting decent work opportunity at
our native areas. In table, 19 shows the possible opportunities created due to MIS in the study area.
We have personally visited the Chittoor area and interacted with the youths and our field visit was
covered by local newspapers (Annexure VII)
Table 19: Income and employment generation opportunities under micro irrigation
Type of activities Extent of improvement
AP Gujrat Maharashtra Punjab Overall
Direct cultivation
work
4.8
(1.53*)
4.1
(1.04*)
4.3
(1.12*)
3.8
(1.25*)
4.2
(1.16*)
Marketing of agril.
produce
4.7
(1.09*)
4.7
(0.89)
4.7
(0.78)
4.7
(1.02)
4.7
(0.86)
Supply of seed and
Planting material
4.6
(1.54*)
3.6
(1.04*)
3.8
(1.28*)
3.9
(1.34*)
3.7
(1.21*)
Supply of fertilizer
and chemicals
4.7
(089)
4.1
(1.20*)
4.3
(1.04*)
3.8
(1.12*)
3.9
(1.22*)
Service works to
MIS
4.9
(1.32*)
3.9
(0.89
3.7
(0.98)
3.9
(0.65)
3.6
(0.83)
Skill improvement 4.5
(1.14*)
3.5
(1.01*)
4.6
(1.12*)
3.7
(0.99)
3.9
(1.01*)
Self-esteem
/respect in the
society
3.5
(0.85)
4.3
(1.02*)
3.8
(0.87)
4.6
(0.92)
4.4
(0.45)
Note: Very high=5, High=4, Neutral=3, Less scope=2, No scope =1 and Figures in parenthesis in
Standard Deviation (SD), * indicate the SD more than one.
4.8.4.1 Reduction in out migration: The out migration of small and marginal farmers has
been reduced to the significant extent (Hoshiarpur Punjab) and created decent livelihood for
the farmers and youth (AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra) as informed by the respondents.
Objective 4: To estimate the total area covered under MI in selected states and to assess
the extent of the use of marginal and otherwise uncultivable lands.
4.9 Extent of uncultivated and fellow land in the different states: Out of 307.7 million
hectare reporting area in the country, 16.8 per cent is under uncultivated and fallow land
categories. 45.6 per cent of reporting area is under crop cultivation. Their distributions across
states have been depicted in fig 13. In the selected states, Punjab has highest area under
cultivation and least area left as uncultivated and fallow land. In Andhra Pradesh, share of
fallow land is nearly 13 per cent of total reported area whereas Gujarat has nearly 15 per cent
area as uncultivated. Maharashtra also has nearly 16 per cent area categorized as uncultivated 63
and fallow land. Every state have state specific issues for having nearly 1/6 of its reporting
area under these categories but common and most dominant factor is unavailability of
ensured irrigation. This is due to lower groundwater table since early or uncertainties of rain
have discouraged to bring these areas under cultivation. In these states, some of this area can
be brought under cultivation by introducing water conservation technologies in which MIS
can play crucial role. The uncultivated and fallow land can be put under horticulture and
forest plantation by installing of micro irrigation system. Therefore, these marginal lands can
be productive. But Punjab, where already 85 per cent of its reporting area is under cultivation
leaves minimal scope to bring more area under cultivation.
4.9.1 Estimation of the total area covered under micro irrigation: The data were collected
from different published/ unpublished sources of central and state govt. we have collected
some of the information from district statistical offices and estimated the total area under MIS
in different states until 2017-18 and presented in subsequent section.
4.9.2 Penetration of MI in relative term: The extent of coverage of MI was estimated as the
share of area under MI in net sown area. The figure 14 shows that only 7.32 per cent of the
net sown area was covered with micro-irrigation technology. However, there exists wide
spatial variation in adoption of MI technology in the country. Andhra Pradesh occupies the
top position with 25.42 per cent MI irrigation coverage followed by Haryana, Gujarat,
Rajasthan, and Karnataka. It is surprising to note that in the states like Punjab with acute
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
A & N Islands
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
ChhattisgarhD & N Haveli
Daman and Diu
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
J & K
Jharkhand Karnataka
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram Nagaland
Odisha
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand West Bengal
Fig 13: Share of uncultivated area, fallow land and net sown area to total reporting area of
respective states
Uncultivated %Fallow land %Net area sown % 64
groundwater scarcity, penetration of MI technology is only 1.17 per cent. The efforts must be
extended to promote MI in such states.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2018.
4.9.3 Estimation of Potential area and actual coverage under MIS: We used the
methodology similar to Raman, 2010 and Palanisamy, 2011 and estimated MIS area in
percent to the MIS potential across the states. Out of total 68 mha net irrigated area, 42.2 mha
area had been estimated as potential area for micro irrigation (Raman, 2010). At present 8.6
mha area is under micro irrigation which is 20.37 % of potential area and 12.6% of irrigated
area (Fig. 15). State wise calculation has indicated that AP (including Telangana) has covered
area under micro irrigation more than its estimated potential area under drip as well as
sprinkler irrigation. This may be due to government support, in form of subsidies to the
farming communities. Other states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have also
achieved more than 50 percent of its potential area. Whereas other states are picking up but
state like Punjab is in very decimal situations. Therefore, policy interventions need to
formalize to scaling up the micro irrigation in such states, which has got potential but
underutilized, Annexure –III and IV presents the physical progress of MIS in the respective
state.
25.42
16.89
12.81 12.44
10.48 10.44
8.91
6.35
5.07
3.40
1.17 1.27
7.32
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Fig. 14: Penetation of micro irrigation percent to net sown area 65
Note: Authors own calculation based on Potential area given by Raman 2010
4.9.4 Physical and financial targets and achievements under micro irrigation
Year wise actual expenditure by different states has been worked out and presented in fig 16.
The evidences indicate that Andhra Pradesh has spent highest expenditure under micro
irrigation than any other states in the country in recent past. Punjab has spent the negligible
expenditure on micro-irrigation. However, the trend of annual actual expenditure all over the
country is declining. While seeing the balance sheet it could be observed that the fund
allocation and utilization was encouraging by different states during 2013-2016. Andhra
Pradesh contributed nearly 20 per cent of total expenditure under India’s micro irrigation
total expenditure. Since last two year, share of Gujarat expenditure for micro irrigation in the
country expenditure for micro irrigation also stood at nearly 20 per cent. This indicates these
states were able to spread MIS in more area than they have targeted. The Annexures V to VI
presents the financial and physical progress of different states.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
98.76
6.19
97.25
21.05
39.08
24.89
8.08
20.64
89.23
14.64
8.16
56.94
10.28
51.44
1.43
32.46
71.68
0.92
4.33
22.82
24.28
% to total potential area
Fig 15: % area coverd to total potential area in MIS in selected states 66
4.9.5 Estimation of locational coefficient of micro irrigation in different states
The data from the successive minor irrigation census were collected and analyzed the
location coefficients using statistical tool and presented the table 20. IT shows that the status
of MI development from 2006-07 and 2017. The regional disparity is one of the key features
in MI development. As of 2017, the states of Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
(undivided) have the largest area under MI. Close to half of the sprinkler irrigation is
accounted for by only two states, Rajasthan (35%) and Haryana (12%). The spread of drip
irrigation is concentrated mainly in states in the peninsular region. Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh (undivided) and Karnataka together account for about a third of the national area
under drip systems. Recently Gujarat has also performed commendably to increase drip-
irrigated area. One could expect a close correspondence between MI and minor irrigation
development. This aspect was quantified by using the location coefficient, which compares
the share of a state in MI to its share in minor irrigation potential used. A value higher than
one for a state would indicate a higher adoption of MI compared to minor irrigation. The
value of location coefficient for AP was 5.37 during 2017 from 0.30 during 2006-07.
Recently Gujarat 0.25 to 2.30 and for Maharashtra 0.65 to 1.74 indicating higher
concentration of MIS respectively, in their state. Which reflect that these states like Punjab,
Bihar, and UP etc. To get location coefficient value higher, these states need to put mac
efforts for scaling up MIS.
y = 124.26x + 371.26
R² = 0.7054
y = 162.07x + 85.238
R² = 0.72
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-192013-142014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19
Physical (th ha)Financial (Rs. Crore)
Fig. 16: Financial and physical targets and achievements of MIS in India
TargetsAchievement 67
Table 20: Estimation of locational coefficient of micro irrigation concentration in India
States
Location coefficient
2006-07 2014-15 2017
Ground Water Micro
Irrigation
Ground
Water
Minor
Irrigation
Ground
Water
Minor
Irrigation
Andhra Pradesh 0.30 0.25 1.62 1.22 6.28 5.37
Bihar 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.25
Chhattisgarh 0.73 0.58 1.38 1.26 2.46 2.56
Goa 4.85 3.73 3.67 2.71 4.16 2.17
Gujarat 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.25 1.97 2.30
Haryana 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.65 1.11 1.37
Himachal Pradesh 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.02 1.09 0.34
Jharkhand 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 1.14 0.79
Karnataka 1.85 1.85 1.51 1.57 2.70 2.73
Kerala 1.18 0.81 0.58 0.44 4.34 1.05
Madhya Pradesh 1.47 1.47 0.91 1.00 0.50 0.51
Maharashtra 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.57 1.77 1.74
Odisha 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.02 2.57 1.10
Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06
Rajasthan 8.02 8.54 5.98 6.31 1.75 2.10
Sikkim - 0.00 - 0.00 - 5.14
Tamil Nadu 0.26 0.21 0.68 0.66 0.76 0.82
Telangana - - 0.20 0.18 0.47 0.47
Uttar Pradesh 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 1.24 0.84
West Bengal 0.18 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.17
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Note: authors have adopted Ramaswamyet.al., 2005, methodology to work out the irrigation index
Objective 5: To estimate the amount of private investment and area covered by them
and developing database
4.9.7 Estimation of the Public and private investment: The public investment was
considered as the subsidy offered to different MIS systems (drip and Sprinkler). Since, the
rate of subsidies varies with community, type of farmers and location of filed and location of
farmer residing. The different state offers the different subsidy slabs for different
stakeholders. Therefore, data from adopter households were collected, analyzed and
presented in table 22. It was leant that for micro irrigation system investment worked out to
be highest about Rs. 190.13 lakh was for Gujarat followed by Andhra Pradesh. The per ha
highest cost of micro irrigation was about Rs.0.79 lakh for AP followed by Punjab (Rs.
0.59lakh) and Maharashtra and Gujarat state. The private investment was considered the
margin money deposited by the individual beneficiaries in different states. Thus, private
investment was highest for Andhra Pradesh followed by Punjab and Maharashtra and it was 68
lowest for Gujarat state. However, total private investment made by the different private
agencies, farmers and other, the data was not available with the respective state government.
Thus, this data need to be collected by the respective states to estimate the real private and
public investments.
Table 22: Public and private investment in micro irrigation (Rs. Lakh)
States
Area
under
MI
Public and private investment n
micro irrigation
Per ha basis investment
Public Private Total Public Private Total
Punjab 243.75 87.52 58.35 145.87 0.36 0.24 0.59
Andhra
Pradesh
233.26 124.04 61.10 185.14 0.53 0.26 0.79
Gujarat 458.75 123.58 66.55 190.13 0.27 0.15 0.41
Maharashtra 337.89 110.57 64.94 175.50 0.33 0.19 0.52
Note: Authors calculation based on sample households
4.9.6 Extent of use of marginal and uncultivated lands: We have collected the
information from the sample farmers on how much and type of additional area brought under
irrigation. It was observed that famers of Andhra Pradesh, Chittoor district have cultivated 50
to 200% additional land after introduction of MIS. The land use to be fellow or waste brought
under cultivation of high value crops like tomato, beans, cucurbits, pomegranate, mangoes
and others. It was informed by majority of farmers in AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat that we
use to left part of our land as fellow before MIS due to non-availability of sufficient water
(Table 21). Now we are able to cultivate complete land holding and taking two or more
crops. Therefore, cropping intensity also has been improved.
69
Table 21: Perception of farmers on utilization of marginal lands after adoption of MIS
Particulars Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat Maharashtra
Additional areas
brought under
cultivation
Very less
(4.5%)
Very high
(50% to 200%)
High
(12%-45%)
High (13-47%)
Fellow land put
under cultivation
Yes Yes and in
double crops
Yes Yes
Increased
cropping intensity
Yes but to
limited extent
Yes more than
175%)
Yes more than
188%)
Yes more than
153%)
Received higher
production
Yes and
fetched good
price for
horticulture
crops due to
appropriate size
and colour
Yes
productivity
improved for
horticulture and
other crops
Yes
productivity of
horticulture,
pulses and oil
seed crops
increased
Yes
productivity of
sugarcane,
grapes and
other crops
improved
4.9.8 Concentration of different firms supplying MIS materials in different states: The
different micro irrigation system supplying firms registered with the different programme
implementing agency are given in the fig.17 The different state have different procedure to
select and register the firm for supplying the material. The guidelines were prepared by the
concerned states department and conditions put before the material supplying firms. There is
full security deposits and an agreement signed by the firm to maintain the quality material
and services. In AP, it was observed that those firms, who could not provide reliable and
timely services, were fined heavily. Some of the firms have banned for future involvement in
the micro irrigation business in the respective district/state. The following figure indicates the
percent of the farmers served by the respective firm. It could be observed that Jain irrigation
is a dominate firm in all the states. While Kisan, Netafim were the IInd largest supplying MIS
material in the state. However, other firms were also operating in the study areas but their
coverage was less. 70
Objective 6: To assess the reliability and durability of the system for sustainable
development.
4.9.9 People’s participation in micro irrigation scheme: The various line departments have
implemented the micro irrigation system in the respective states. We have collected the
information on the involvement of the people at different stage of the micro irrigation system
and findings are presented in the table 23. It was observed that Peoples Participation Index
(PPI) was higher for Andhra Pradesh (86.9%) followed by Gujarat and Maharashtra.
However, PPI was lower even at planning level for site selection for micro irrigation in
Punjab. At overall basis PPI was about 68% indicating at planning stage more people were
involved for stage as site selection. This trend was not the same at implementation and at
maintenance stage as PPI was still lower 34%. This may be because of people at maintenance
stage may not be happy with firm who has installed the system. Further, farmers might not be
getting service in time. To select the suitable crop under MIS is very important. We observed
that many farmers of AP and Gujarat were involved in the crop selection process. However,
in the case of Maharashtra and Punjab PPI was low. The selection of MIS installing firm
another important aspect to be considered. We found that at Overall basis AP, Gujarat and
Maharashtra farmers were involved to the maximum extent of 56%. We have received the
response on selection of credit institutions and observed higher PPI values for AP only
42.5
35.0
22.5
36.9
22.3
10.7
6.8 6.8 5.8
3.9 2.9 1.9 1.0 1.0
31.8
17.3
15.5
14.6
9.1
4.6 4.6
1.8 0.9
89.4
6.1
1.5 1.5 1.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Jain Irrigation system
Kisan Drip System
Azoodh Drip Irrigation
Jain Irrigation system
Nagarjuna
Netafim
Harvel
FINOLEX
Bhumi
Godavari Irrigation Ltd.
Nandi Plast
Signet Kranti Emtell
Netafim Paragon
Sairam
Jain Irrigation system
polysil
Nagarjuna
Bhumi
Kisan drip irrigation
Balson
Jain Irrigation system
Netafim
Pepsi
kothari
John deer
PunjabAndhra PradeshGujaratMaharastra
Percent
Fig. 17: concentration of different firms supplied MIS to the farmers in different states (%) 71
However, even in Gujarat and Maharashtra, the selection of credit institution, PPI was lover
at all the stages of project. Contact made by farmers for getting information, submission of
applications at planning, implementation and at post implementation stage. However, PPI
was higher at implementation stage but decreased at maintenance and implementation stages.
Table 23: Level of Participation (Different stage of programme)
State
Criteria of people’s participation in Micro irrigation in different states (%)
Selection of site Selection of crop Selection of
installing firm
Selection of credit
agency
Contacts made to
officials
Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp. Mnt. Pl. Imp Mnt Pl. Imp. Mnt.
AP 86.9 56.7 45.8 87.7 57.1 54.3 85.2 62.5 51.2 78.6 57.1 41.2 70.9 51.2 41.3
GJ 75.6 52.3 31.8 69.8 53.2 50.7 71.2 55.2 48.7 28.2 36.5 14.8 51.1 33.7 30.4
MH 65.5 51.6 33.3 40.0 38.5 40.5 41.3 48.5 39.8 21.0 21.1 18.9 29.2 27.6 25.3
PB 35.7 39.6 28.9 30.4 33.2 12.1 31.8 34.2 5.7 No response 29.3 27.6 20.4
All 67.5 50.7 34.2 56.3 45.6 41.5 57.0 50.7 38.9 29.4 28.7 40.2 33.6 26.8
Note: Pl.: Planning, Imp.: Implementation, Mnt.: Maintenance, AP=Andhra Pradesh, GJ=Gujarat, MH= Maharashtra,
PB=Punjab
Thus, PPI at planning was higher in all the cases and it decreased at implementation and
maintenance stages respectively. The possible reason may be initially more farmers might
have shown the interest of taking MIS and later on, they might have withdrawn their
participation in the project. Another reason might be due to limited fund, time and man power
with government and private functionaries, less farmers were included in the beneficiary list.
4.9.10 Determinants of micro irrigation adoption
The estimated coefficient of the parameters and marginal effect in the logit model are
summarized in table 23. A series of logistic regression for pooled data (all states together)
and for each state separately has been used to work out determinant of micro irrigation
adoption. Independent variables have been common in each specified model. The coefficient
presented determines whether a change in independent variable considered in model makes
the event more likely or less likely.
Pooled data: Analysis of all respondents across all four states taken together, coefficient of
family size came to be positive and significant at 10 per cent in adoption of micro irrigation.
Its marginal effect indicates that the probability of adoption of micro irrigation increases by
2.1 per cent each additional member family. Years of mobile use, possession of soil health
card, insurance of crop during survey and ownership of tube well came out to be positive. 72
Marginal effect of mobile use indicates that probability of micro irrigation adoption increases
by 2.6 per cent for increase in each year of mobile use. Increase in probability of adoption if
respondent have soil health card and crop insurance is 34.9 and 55.5 per cent (Table 24).
These factor is as per expectation that if farmers are innovative then he will be going for
adoption of newer technology available. Tube well ownership of respondent increases
probability of micro irrigation adoption by 24.5 per cent in comparison to others. One of the
essential criteria of taking benefit of micro irrigation is own source of irrigation. Result
indicates that area under rainfed reduces probability to adoption by 51 per cent.
State specific findings
Punjab: Coefficient of soil health card, crop insurance and ownership of tube well are
positive and significant at 1 per cent level of significance. Their marginal effect is 56.8, 30.6,
0.3 and 63 per cent respectively.
Andhra Pradesh: Coefficient of schooling years, mobile use years, cast of respondent, depth
of water table and tube well ownership are positive and significant. Marginal effect of these
variables is 3.8, 5.9, 25.6, 0.1 and 59.2 per cent respectively.
Gujarat: Coefficient of mobile use years, soil health card, crop insurance, tube well
ownership and irrigated area came out to be significant. Marginal effect of these variables is
19.8, 80.9, 96.2, 52 and 15.3 per cent respectively.
Maharashtra: Coefficient of soil health card, crop insurance, tube well ownership and
irrigated area came out to be significant. Marginal effect of these variables is 45.3, 89.2, 44.2
and 5.2 per cent respectively.
73
Table 24: Determinant of micro irrigation adoption
Variables Pooled data Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Coef. Margin
al
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Marginal
Effect
Coef. Margin
al
Effect
Family size (no) 0.090* 0.021* -0.137 -0.034 0.205 0.051 -0.009 -0.002 -0.011 -0.002
Working labour (no) -0.078 -0.016 0.133 0.033 -0.263 -0.065 -0.893 -0.211 -0.621 -0.142
Schooling (years) 0.010 0.003 0.067 0.017 0.155*** 0.038*** -0.115 -0.027 0.001 0.001
Mobile use (years) 0.103*** 0.026**
*
0.003 0.001 0.238*** 0.059*** 0.835*** 0.198** -0.065 -0.015
Caste (Gen+OBC=1
Otherwise=0)
0.246 0.062 -0.001 0.000 1.152* 0.256** -2.907 -0.565 1.087 0.215
Soil health card (Yes=1
No=0)
1.515*** 0.349**
*
3.502*
**
0.568*** 0.297 0.074 7.095** 0.809*** 1.961** 0.453**
Crop insurance (Yes=1
No=0)
2.485*** 0.555**
*
1.265*
**
0.306*** 0.643 0.158 8.049*** 0.962*** 6.03 0.892**
*
Water table depth (in
feet)
0.001 0.001 0.010*
**
0.003*** 0.005*** 0.001*** -0.003 -0.001 0.01*** 0.001
Tube well ownership
(Yes=1 No=0)
1.137*** 0.245**
*
3.366*
**
0.631*** 3.073*** 0.592*** 3.373 0.520* 2.968**
*
0.442**
*
Irrigated area (ha) -0.022 -0.005 0.031 0.008 0.073 0.018 0.646*** 0.153** 0.229** -
0.052**
Rain-fed area (ha) -0.510** -
0.125**
-0.627 -0.154 0.611 0.151 -3.6 -0.852 2.52 0.577
Energy (Diesel=1
otherwise=0)
0.253 0.06 1.671*
**
0.388*** -1.226* -0.295** -1.483 -0.353 -0.522 -0.125
Constant -4.015*** -
2.750*
*
-
9.249***
-10.58 -3.730*
Number of obs 827 183 204 220 220
LR chi2(12) 399.41 103.9 151.79 279.59 229.97
Prob > chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0
Pseudo R2 0.348 0.4095 0.5368 0.9167 0.75
Log likelihood -373.48 -74.895 -65.497 -12.696 -37.279
Note: *** significant at 1%, ** at 5% and * at 10%
Objective 7: To develop an alternate eco system for promotion of micro irrigation in
under exploited but potential state/ region
4.9.11 The main source irrigation in Punjab state is ground water and canal, state has already
tapped its irrigation potential and having almost 100% net irrigated area. In recent past
irrigation through ground water sources is accelerating resulting in depleting ground water
level. Metrological data shows, many blocks in the state were critical and under water stress
due over exploitation of ground water. However, state is having potential of abandon water
resources but still use of water saving technology is very poor. The uncultivable land (1%)
and fellow land (1%) are not much in the state. Only the option remain that ground water
irrigation system in traditional method may be replaced with micro irrigation system.
Therefore, strong policy decision is required to restrict the ground water use through flood
irrigation. In a phased manner, first horticulture crops and then annual crops need to be
brought under micro irrigation. The Talwara project (SCIP) in Hoshiarpur district is already
progressing well and farmers have adopted solar driven micro irrigation system. Similarly 74
other states like Maharashtra, Gujarat need to take the policy decisions on whether to provide
free electricity or not and how long. Thus, we feel about 20% groundwater irrigated area
should be brought under MIS in phased manner. The figure 18 depicts the share of net
irrigated area to net sown area and cropping intensity across the states. This could be
observed that higher the cropping intensity with those states where percent net irrigated area
is high. Further, cropping intensity can he enhanced with proper utilization of water resources
including micro irrigation system.
4.12 Groundwater depletion leads to demand of micro irrigation: The reports and data
indicates that in the selected states the ground water level is being going down day by data.
During field survey also farmers have expressed that water level is going low and low since
many years. Therefore, we have asked the farmer how water table gone down during different
period. In the primary survey, information regarding groundwater has been collected from
the sampled farmer in the study area and presented in table 25.The highest depletion in
absolute term was observed in the case of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.
However, Punjab farmers have indicated about 20-30% depletion in water table from 2005-
06 to 2017-18. Therefore, farmers of selected states were aware the declining ground water.
They also said either some of the tube wells dried up or the farmers did re-deepening. They
161
123
133
144 145
156
122 123
161
122 124
186
167
155
112
122
128
155
135
100
120
100
130
116
168
191
138
176
124
121
189
158 157
185
142
0
50
100
150
200
250
A & N Island
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
Chhattisgarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kasmhmir
Jharkhand Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram Nagaland
Odisha
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttara Pradesh
Uttarakhand West Bengal
India
Percent
Fig. 18:Share of net irrigated area to net sown area, food grain area to total cropped area and cropping
intensity
Percentage of NIAto NCA Foodgrain area share to TCA (%) Cropping Intensity (%age) 75
have informed that water conservation technology may avoid such reduction in water level
since it required less water. Therefore, promotion of micro-irrigation technologies is very
much essential for states like Punjab, AP and others where already water stress and scarcity is
being pointed out by the hydrologists and researchers Srivastava etal. 2015. Since, MIS
technology save water more than 30%, which can be used to save ground water resources.
Table 25: Perception on groundwater table depletion in the study area
Time period
Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Present (2017-
18)
141.45 74.00 421.17 404.06 382.11 239.07 1066.91 905.01
Before 5 Years 126.87 66.99 332.23 297.30 303.50 198.44 996.91 835.01
Before 10
Years
100.07 58.47 247.74 198.76 268.81 178.74 551.61 509.87
4.9.13 Accessibility of information: In study area, almost all sampled farmers are aware
about the micro irrigation system used in agriculture. In Punjab, nearly half of the adopter
farmers got the information of micro irrigation from government official and
Universities/Research institute/KVK still 38 per cent farmers depend of fellow farmers or
relative for the information (table 26). In Punjab under non-adopter category, half of the
framers have themselves aware for micro irrigation from fellow farmers or relatives.
Penetration of government officials and Universities/Research station/ KVK in Andhra
Pradesh is higher than in Punjab, as more number of farmers got the information from these
sources. In Andhra Pradesh farmers, dependency for information on fellow farmers or
relatives is lower in than the Punjab Farmers. The timely and accessibility of information
helps in scaling the MIS in the country. We have observed most of the farmers who adopt
MIS get information from fellow farmers, govt. departments, research institutes and print
media. We strongly feel that agricultural university/KVK/research institutions need to
increase their reach to the farmers.
76
Table 26: Source of information on micro irrigation
Particulars Punjab Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Adopter Non
adopter
Peers/fellow
farmers
30
(38.46)
72
(78.26)
24
(23.30)
31
(31.69)
13
(11.82)
31
(28.18))
14
(13.33)
17
(14.78)
Govt. officials 32
14
(15.22)
54 (52.43) 47
(46.53)
31
(28.18)
2
(1.82)
43
(40.95)
24
(20.87)
Research
institutions
Universities/ KVK
22 0 11
(10.68)
13
(12.87)
39
(35.45)
13
(11.82)
20
(19.05)
40
(34.78)
Print media 2 0 10
(9.71)
6(5.94) 6
(5.45)
37
(33.64)
15
(14.29)
25
(21.74)
TV/Radio/Mobile 5 5
(5.44)
4
(3.88)
1(0.99) 21
(19.09)
27
(24.55)
11
(10.48)
7(6.09)
No response 0 1
(1.09)
0 3(2.97) 0 0 2
(1.94)
2
(1.74)
Total 91
(100)
92
(100)
103
(100)
101 (100) 110
(100)
110
(100)
105
(100)
115
(100)
Objective 8: To identify the major constraints, if any and suggest remedial measure
4.9.14 Challenges of micro irrigation system
There are several demerits associated with micro irrigation system, which hinder its adoption.
Table 27 indicate demerits of MIS which have influence on adoption and corresponding
values gives the per cent of sample farmers agreed for that category in respective state. In
spite of government subsidies up to 90 per cent of cost, farmers perceived high initial capital
requirement as dominant problem. This may be due to late or untimely disbursement of
subsides and ineffective linkages with the stakeholders and other departments. Other demerits
stated by respondent were related to technical issues like clogging, handling skills,
procurement of MIS etc. Therefore, few issues, which are associated with micro irrigation,
need to be addressed in order to increase the spread of micro irrigation in respective states.
77
Table 27: Challenges of micro irrigation system (in Percent)
Particulars Punjab Andhra
Pradesh
Gujarat Maharashtra
High initial capital requirement 80 58 63 68
Clogging problems 75 75 73 69
Maintenance problems 76 65 68 58
Difficult to install 65 52 54 63
Requires know-how and skills 62 65 56 59
Crop specificity 56 37 48 68
Limits crop diversification 65 67 62 75
Interferes with harvesting 53 72 54 65
Interference with agronomic
practices
54 65 58 47
Cumbersome procurement
process
68 32 49 37
4.9.15 Experience of adopters on operational procedure and subsidy support:
The experiences and perceptions of the micro irrigation adopters were assessed through open-
ended questions put before the respondents. Fig. 19 indicates the behavior of department staff
and agencies involved in processing and granting the subsidies to the farmers. The behaviour
of the staff as perceived very good varies from 18% for Punjab to 44.67% for Andhra
Pradesh. However, combined behavior good and very good varies from 28% to about 72%.
This means in AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, agencies involved, their department staff
behaved well the beneficiaries. This might be one of the reasons of better adoption rate in the
respective state (Annexure-VII).
Clarity in the subsidy and operational procedure was assessed and presented in the fig. 20. It
could be observed from the table that the process of support to the beneficiaries was clear in
the Andhra (52%), Gujarat (51%) and Maharashtra (49%) followed by Punjab 8.45% only.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very Good Good Nuetral worstVery worst
Percent
Fig. 19: Behavior of officials / agency involved in granting subsidy for MIS
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 78
The range of clarity in procedure varied from 19% (Punjab) to 75% AP and followed by other
states. There were beneficiaries who are not clear about the procedure and mechanisms of
getting subsidy and they were maximum in the case of Punjab (64%).
The fairness in availing subsidy and perception of beneficiaries were asked and presented in
fig.21. It could be observed from the table that Farmers of AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra
perceive it was very good to good. It means the subsidy distribution was fair in the states
while about 41% adopters felt very good and good in the case of Punjab. However, there
were adopter in all the states who could not say anything and they were neutral, maximum
22% in case of Punjab.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very clearClear NuetralNot clearNot clear
atall
Percent
Fig. 20: Clarity of procedure to avail subsidy for adopting Micro irrigation
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall
0
20
40
60
Very GoodGood Nuetral worstVery worst
Percent
Fig.21: Fairness in availing subsidy for adoption of MIS
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 79
The transparency in the process of subsidy distribution is also an important issue, we have
analyzed the perception of the farmers, and it is presented in the fig. 22. It could be noticed
from the table that more than 68% adopter felt that subsidy support was transparent in the
case of Andhra Pradesh flowed by Gujarat (52%), Maharashtra (46%) and for Punjab it was
only 8%. Similarly about 19%,7%, 10% and 9% adopters felt that it was worst for Punjab,
AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, respectively. Thus, there is need to bring more transparency so
that extent of beneficiaries can be increased.
The disbursement of subsidy at soon as possible may enhance the efficiency of the PIA and
has to be in speedy manner. We have analyzed the perception of adopters on this issue and
observed that in AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra duration was very short to short for maximum
number of beneficiaries while in the case of Punjab less number of beneficiaries (16%) have
indicated the same ( Fig. 23). In Punjab, maximum numbers of respondents have perceived
that duration of availing subsidy was more. Thus, it is important that the disbursement of
subsidy should be in speedy manner to attract more stakeholders.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very Good Good Nuetral worst Very worst
Percent
Fig. 22: Transparency in the process of subsidy support
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 80
The adequacy of subsidy support for adoption of micro irrigation, farmers perception was
analyzed and presented in the fig. 24. it could be observed from the figure that maximum
adopters of Gujarat have perceived that subsidy support was adequate followed by Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra. However, in the case of Punjab maximum adopters say support is
not adequate.
4.9.16 Constraints in adoption of micro irrigation: we have collected the information
from the adopters and same is summarized in the table 28. Farmers feel process of getting MI
is lengthy. This can be settled through administrative setup of line departments involved in
MIS prgramme in respective state However, responses for all the states were not uniform
where farmers and line departments have better understanding and cooperation, process of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very shortShort Nuetral long very long
Percent
Fig. 23:Time taken in availing subsidy
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very Good Good Nuetral worst Very worst
Percent
Fig. 24: Adequacy of subsidy support for adopting micro irrigation system
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Overall 81
MIS access is simple. In Punjab, adopters have reported that favourism based on the caste,
association with the political party and social status in the society is practiced in some of the
areas. We feel that process of granting MI can be simplified.
Table 28: Constraints related to administrative process faced by adopter
Particulars Punjab
(n=91)
Andhra
Pradesh
(n=103)
Gujarat
(n=105)
Maharashtra
(n=110)
In process of getting MI
Very lengthy 23 19 27 19
Lengthy 9 14 10 16
Neutral 5 1 3 2
Good 13 17 19 23
Very good 41 52 46 50
Favouritism /nepotism
Very much prevalent 18 15 21 19
Prevalent 13 11 13 17
Neutral 9 18 7 4
No Favoritism 28 39 40 45
Not at all Favoritism 23 20 24 25
Post installation service is available
Yes 49 94 86 78
No
After installation problem Faced by farmers
No problem 13 45 72 25
Clogging 49 63 43 86
Animal damage 37 45 27 67
Unreliable energy supply 48 78 66 47
Difficult in repair and
maintenance
78 36 94 81
Problem of theft 23 12 17 24
The question of nepotism is also found to be prevailed in the study area as few farmers of
each state have said, it is very much prevalent in village. The post installation of MIS,
farmers face several constraints like clogging of laterals and pipes. Though state line
departments involved in MIS implementation have supplied the acid and instructed to the
installing firms to do the service time to time. Still farmers feel clogging and chocking of
lateral is big problem. In AP, Gujarat and Maharashtra, PIA and firms on post maintenance
organized series training progarmmes for farmers and field level staff. The state like Punjab
training and awareness component was lacking. The damage to the MIS by own or wild
animals was noticed in all the state. Farmers have reported that once laterals are damaged, it
is very difficult to replace or to get serviced due remotely location of the fields. In the state of
Maharashtra and Gujarat there were the cases of theft of MIS However, difficulties in 82
maintenance and unreliable energy source were the other constraints. Therefore, scaling up
the MIS in larger areas these constraints need to be minimized.
4.9.17 Reasons of non-adoption of micro irrigation: The information from the non-
adopters was analyzed and is summarized in the fig. 25. The non-adopters of MIS were
asked open-ended questions like whether MIS involved high initial cost or not? and
perception gaged on Likert type scale. About 55% non-adopter s perceived that MIS required
high initial investment. Only 19% farmers have indicated that it is not required high
investment. About the time required for getting MIS, more than 71% farmers have said
process is very lengthy. The question like the availability of free energy hamper the adoption
rate of MIS or not? The free sources of energy discourage the adoption of MIS. It may be due
to the fact that once water is available at nominal cost why farmers should adopt high cost
irrigation system. Thus, they do not come forward to take up MIS on their fields. The
perception on drudgery involved in the MIS operations and handling indicate that MIS
involve some drudgery as more than 44% farmers were in this opinion. The question like
whether skilled person needed for working with MIS or not? It was informed by the farmers
that MIS need the skilled persons (47 responded for it). Difficulty in maintenance of MIS,
about 85% farmers said this is the problem. Further farmers have pointed out that during farm
operations, they face the problem of damage and break down during operation and delay in
getting the service in time. Thus, it can be inferred from the above discussion that farmers
were hesitant to install MIS due to several operational and maintenance associated problems.
We feel that associated problems/constraints with MIS can be minimized through policy
intervention, creating awareness conducting the exposure programmes for the farmers so that
they may understand the benefits of micro irrigation. The annexure VIII present the typical
questionnaire prepared for the collection of primary data.
83
1.7
17.2
25.8
32.3
23.0
1.2
12.4
14.6
43.5
28.2
2.9
45.9
29.0
20.1
2.2
21.3
5.0
24.2
40.2
9.3
7.4
36.8
28.7
22.3
4.8
2.9
35.7
14.1
26.1
21.3
1.2
3.1
11.0
16.5
68.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
High initial
investment
Lenthy process
to avail subsidy
Free electricity
avaialbility
Post purchase
service support
Drudgery in
operations
Skiled labour
requiremnet
Maintenace is
difficult
Fig. 25: Reasons of non adoption of micro irrigation 84
Chapter 5.0
Recommendation and lesson learnt
1. The administrative and operation process of APIMP, GGRC and Maharashtra states was found to
be effective therefore; it should be replicated in other part of country.
2. The free electricity can be avoided so that ground water exploitation can be minimized.
3. The easy availability of Loan to the farmers is more beneficial. However, in case loan is not
possible a lump sum grant by the department may be given for time bound and refundable manner.
4. For successful and widespread diversification of agriculture in the state, the installation of Micro
irrigation systems should be made an integral part of the programme.
5. There is a tendency amongst farmers to get the Micro-irrigation system installed from the
unapproved firms without intimating the Department. When the system fails due to substandard
components, the farmers lay blame on the department officials. To avoid such difficulty to the farmers,
a blanket ban on the unapproved firms in the state should be enforced.
6. The components like Water storage tanks, electric motors and pump sets should also be part of the
micro irrigation system.
7. The data on private investment is not available with the programme implementing agencies. It is
suggested that data may be collected and maintained at least district level so that exact private efforts
can be quantified.
8. The constraints in MIS implementation and operational process need to be narrowed.
9. The rate of subsidy provided under NMMI through central government is fixed uniformly for
different categories of farmer with a limit of 5.0 ha, this needs to be restructured as about 15% of the
large and medium farmers’ accounts for more than 55.42% of the land in India. Therefore, this limit of
five hectares needs to be enhanced for extending the subsidy.
10. The maintenance of the system after installation and training to the farmers must also be assured
so that the system works regularly without interruption. The firms supplying the system must be made
responsible for the maintenance and supply of spares at least for fiver years.
11. Some R&D system may be developed at the central or the State research organization level to make
recommendations regarding Drip/ Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System.
12. Region & climatic specific demonstration of the system may be developed for successful
implementation of the Drip/ Micro Irrigation Systems.
85
Chapter 6.0
Limitations of the Study
1. Limited timeframe for the study since extensive survey is required from different
locations of four states to meet the requirement of the study. Study should have been
more than one year.
2. The survey was used to collect perception data and perception data has its own
limitation of number and types of analysis methods available. The use of perception
data makes it more difficult to establish causality as compared to research farm data.
3. The programme implementing agencies could not provide some of the data /
information.
4. The impacts of micro irrigation are best studied through observation of actual
ground water and surface water data. Monitoring of these data is time consuming,
costly and the monitoring needs to be done on a larger duration across seasons, years
to get authentic results. The time frame of 6 months does not allow these advance
econometric methods. Therefore, perception data based study methodology was
decided used as the best option.
5. The sampling design based on the study design conducted the survey in selected
pockets or clusters of high adoption of micro irrigation. These selection criteria can
cause bias on the data collected variables such as awareness.
6. The survey instrument collected perceptions as responses on a five-point scale.
This is theoretically a case of censoring a measurement and therefore induces some
limitations on the measures and the analysis.
7. Another limitation was the survey questionnaire was prepared in one languages
since our study area belong to different lingual states, field investigators have faced
some problems. However, field staffs were also trained on the questionnaire filling
prior to the survey. However, some error may have remained due to fieldwork across
multiple language locations.
8. Administrative process of project has taken more time. It should be simplified to
speed up the project works.
9. In spite of these limitations, efforts were made by the research team to complete
the study in time.
Bibliography 86
1. Bahinipati, C.S. and Viswanathan, P.K. (2016). Role of Institutions and Policies in Diffusion
of Micro-irrigation in Gujarat, Western India. GIDR Working Papers no. 231.
2. Baranchuluun, S.H., Bayanjargal,D. and Adiyabadam, G. (2015) A Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Crop production with various irrigation systems in Mongolia. International Federation of
East Asian Management Associations (IFEAMA), 5: 146-156.
3. Bhamoriya, V. & Mathew, S. (2014). An analysis of resource conservation technology (a
case of micro-irrigation system) in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil-Nadu
states of India.Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad.
4. Bhaskar, K.S., Rao, M.R.K., Mendhe, P.M. and Suryavanshi, M.R. (2005). Micro Irrigation
Management in Cotton. Technical Bulletin from Central Institute for Cotton Research
Nagpur (www.cicr.org.in).
5. Biswas, S.K., Akanda, A.R., Rahman, M.S. and Hossain, M.A. (2015). Effect of drip
irrigation and mulching on yield, water-use efficiency and economics of tomato. Plant, Soil
and Environment, 61(3): 97-102.
6. Chandrakanth, M.G. and V. Arun (1997). “Externalities in Groundwater Irrigation in Hard
Rock Areas”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(4):761-771.
7. Chandrakanth, M.G., Priyanka, C.N., Mamatha, P. and Patil, K.K. (2013). Economic
Benefits from Micro Irrigation for Dry Land Crops in Karnataka. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics,68(3):426-338.
8. Chandran, M.K. and Surendran, U. (2016). Study on factors influencing the adoption of drip
irrigation by farmers in humid tropical Kerala, India. International Journal of Plant
Production,10 (3): 347-364.
9. Dewandel, B., Perrin, J., Ahmed S., Aulong, H. Z., Lachassagne, P., Samad, M. and Massuel,
S. (2010). “Development of a tool for managing groundwater resources in semi-arid hard
rock regions: application to a rural watershed in South India”, Hydrological Processes, 24:
2784–2797.
10. Dhawan, BD. (2002). Technological Change in Indian Irrigated Agriculture: A Study Of
Water Saving Methods Hardcover – 2002 Publisher: Commonwealth Publishers, ISBN-10:
8171696813, ISBN-13: 978-8171696819.
11. Irfan, M., Arshad, M., Shakoor, A. and Anjum, L. (2014). Impact of Irrigation Management
Practices and Water Quality on Maize Production and Water Use Efficiency. The Journal of
Animal & Plant Sciences,24(5): 1518-1524. 87
12. J. Keller and R. D. Bliesner, “Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation,” Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1990.
13. Jha, A.K., Malla, R.,Sharma, M., Panthi, J., Lakhankar, T., Krakauer, N.Y., Pradhanang,
S.M., Dahal, P. and Shrestha, M.L. (2016). Impact of Irrigation Method on Water Use
Efficiency and Productivity of Fodder Crops in Nepal. Climate,4(4): 1-13.
14. K Palanisami, Kadiri Mohan, K R Kakumanu, S Raman. (2011). Spread and Economics of
Micro-irrigation in India: Evidence from Nine States. Economic & Political Weekly EPW
vol.xlvi (26 & 27):81-86.
15. Kiruthika, N. (2014). Determinants of adoption of drip irrigation in sugarcane cultivation in
Tamil-Nadu.American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences, 5(2)143-146.
16. Kumar, D.S. & Palanisami, K. (2010). Impact of drip irrigation on farming system in
southern part of India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 23: 265-272.
17. Kumar, Suresh, D and K Palanisami (2010): “Impact of Drip Irrigation on Farming System:
Evidences from Southern India,” Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol 23, pp 265–72.
18. Kumar, M. D. (2003). “Micro Management of Groundwater in North Gujarat”, Water Policy
Research Highlight # 5: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Programme, Anand.
19. Kumar, R., Trivedi, H., Yadav, R., Das, B. and Bist, A.S. (2016). Effect of Drip Irrigation on
Yield and Water Use Efficiency on Brinjal (Solanum Melongena) Cv. Pant Samrat.
International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 5(10): 7-17.
20. Kumar, Suresh (2008): Promoting Drip Irrigation: Where and Why? Managing Water in the
Face of Growing Scarcity, Inequity and Declining Returns: Exploring Fresh Approaches,
IWMI TATA 7
th
Annual Partner Meet, Vol 1, pp 108-20.
21. Molden, D.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Habib, Z. (2001). “Basin-Level Use and Productivity of
Water: Examples from South Asia”. IWMI Research Report 49, Colombo: International
Water Management Institute.
22. Namara, R. E., Upadhyay, B., Nagar, R. K. (2005). Adoption and impacts of micro-irrigation
technologies: Empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat states of
India. Research Report 93. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
23. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2003). Averting water crisis by drip method of irrigation: A study of
two water-intensive crops, Ind. J. agri. Econ. 58(3):427
24. Narayanamoorthy, A. (1997). “Drip irrigation: A viable option for future irrigation
development”, Productivity, 38 (3): 504-511. 88
25. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2005). “Economics of Drip Irrigation in Sugarcane Cultivation: Case
Study of a Farmer from Tamil Nadu”, Ind. Jn. of Agri. Econ. 60(2):235-48.
26. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2006). Potential For Drip And Sprinkler Irrigation In India.
27. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2008).Drip Irrigation and Rainfed Crop Cultivation Nexus: The Case
of Cotton Crop. IndianJournalofAgriculturalEconomics,63(3):487-501.
28. Panigrahi, B., Roy, D.P. and Panda, S. N. (2015). Water use and yield response of tomato as
influenced by drip and furrow irrigation. International Agricultural Engineering Journal,
19(1): 19-30.
29. Paul, J.C., Mishra, J.N. and Pradhan, P.L. and Panigrahi, B. (2013). Effect of drip and
surface irrigation on yield, water-use-efficiency and economics of capsicum. Grown under
mulch and non mulch conditions in eastern coastal India. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 2(1) 99-108.
30. Priyan, K. and Panchal, R. (2017). Micro-Irrigation: An Efficient Technology for India’s
Sustainable Agricultural Growth. International Conference on Research and Innovations in
Science, Engineering &Technology, 1: 398-402.
31. Patrick G.F., Musser W.N. (1997): Sources of and responses to risk: factor analysis of large scale US
Corn belt farmers. In: Huirne R.B.M., Hardaker J.B., Dijkhuizen A.A. (eds.): Risk
ManagementStrategies in Agriculture, State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Wageningen
Agricultural University.
32. Quevenco, R. (2015). Bountiful crop with every drop: using drip irrigation to increase yields
and conserve water. International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, March 2015. 24-25.
33. Qureshi, A.L., Gadehi, M., Mahessar, A., Memon, N., Soomro, A. and Memon, A.(2015).
Effect of Drip and Furrow Irrigation Systems on Sunflower Yield and Water Use Efficiency
in Dry Area of Pakistan.American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture & Environmental
Science, 15(10): 1947-1952.
34. Qureshi, M.E, Wegener, M.K., Harrison, S.R. and Bristow, K.L. (2001). “Economic
evaluation of alternate irrigation systems for sugarcane in the Burdekin delta in North
Queensland, Australia”, In: Water ResourceManagement, Eds: C.A. Brebbia, K.
Anagnostopoulos, K. Katsifarakis and A.H.D. Cheng, WIT Press, Boston, pp. 47-57.
35. Rahul Kapur, Sukrit Gulati and Swarnima Chouhan (2015). Accelerating growth of Indian
agriculture: Micro irrigation an efficient solution Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce & Industry (FICCI), Strategy paper - Future prospects of micro irrigation in India. 89
36. Raina, J.N., Sharma, T. and Suman, S. (2011) Effect of drip fertigation with different
fertilizers on nutrient distribution in soil, leaf nutrient content and yield of apricot (Prunus
aremeniaca L.). Journal of Indian Society Soil Science, 59: 268-77.
37. Raman, S. 2010. State-wise micro-irrigation potential in India - An Assessment. Unpublished
paper, Natural Resources Management Institute, Mumbai.
38. Reddy, K.Y.V., Adamala, S., and Harish Babu, B. (2017). Case Study on Performance
Evaluation of Drip Irrigation Systems in Selected Villages of Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(2):
437-445.
39. Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. and Famiglietti, J. S. (2009). “Satellite‐based estimates of
groundwater depletion in India”, Nature, 460:999–1002, doi:10.1038/nature08238.
40. Saleth, R M (1996): Water Institutions in India: Economics, Law and Policy (New Delhi:
Commonwealth Publishers).
41. Samir Yacoubi, Khemaies Zayani, Adel Slatni, Enrique Playan (2012). Assessing Sprinkler
Irrigation Performance Using Field Evaluations at the Medjerda Lower Valley of Tunisia,
Journal of Engineering, 4(10): 682-691
42. Shah, T. (2009). “Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia. Resources
for the Future, Washington DC and International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
43. Shah, T. (2011). “Past, Present, and the Future of Canal Irrigation in India”, India
Infrastructure Report, 70-87.
44. Shankar, P.S.V., Kulkarni, H. and Sunderrajan Krishnan, S. (2011). “India’s Groundwater
Challenge and the Way Forward”, Economic & Political Weekly, 45(2):37-45.
45. Sivanappan, R.K. (1994). “Prospects of micro-irrigation in India”, Irrigation and Drainage
Systems, 8(1):49-58.
46. Subhash Chand, Prabhat Kishore and SK. Srivastava (2019) Pressurized irrigation system:
Policies and implications in India, Soil conservation society of Indian Journal of Soil
Conservation, New Delhi pp:42-50Conference issue.
47. Tiwari, K.N., Kumar, M., Santosh, D.T., Singh, V.K., Maji M.K. and Karan A.K.
(2014).Influence of Drip Irrigation and Plastic Mulch on Yield of Sapota (Achraszapota) and
Soil.
48. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Susan Mathew (2014). An Analysis of Resource Conservation
Technology: A Case of Micro-Irrigation System (Drip Irrigation), IIM, Ahmadabad project
report.
90
49. Upadhyay, B. 2003. Drip irrigation: An appropriate technology for women. Appropriate
Technology Vol. 30 (4).
50. Upadhyay, B.; Samad, M. 2004. Livelihoods and gender roles in drip-irrigation technology:
A case of Nepal. Working Paper 87. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management
Institute.
51. Vaidyanathan, A (1999): Water Resources Management: Institutions and Irrigation
Development in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).
52. Verma, S.; Tsephal, S.; and Jose, T. 2004. Pepsee systems: Grass root innovation under
groundwater stress.Water policy 6 (2004): 1-16.
53. Vaibhav Bhamoriya and Susan Mathew (2014). An Analysis of Resource
ConservationTechnology: A Case of Micro-Irrigation System (Drip Irrigation), IIM,
Ahmadabad project report.
54. Westcott, M. P. and Vines, K. W., A comparison of sprinkler and flood irrigation for rice.
Agron. J., 1986, 78, 637–640.
55. Wrachienb, D., Medicia, M.and Lorenzinia (2014). The Great Potential of Micro-Irrigation
Technology for Poor-Rural Communities. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering, 3(2):
1-2.
56. Yang, X., Chen, F., Gong, F., Song, D., (2000). “Physiological and ecological characteristics
of winter wheat under sprinkler irrigation condition”. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 16
(3):35– 37.
57. Zhu, Q. C., Wei, C. Z., Li, M. N., Zhu, J. L. and Wang, J., Nutrient availability in the
rhizosphere of rice grown with plastic film mulch and drip irrigation. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.,
2013, 13(4), 943–953.
58. Directorate of Economics and statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare,
Governmnet of India-https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/.
59. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation- http://cgwb.gov.in/.
60. India Water Portal-https://www.indiawaterportal.org/
Rainfall, Central Statistics Office (2016), Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation -http://mospi.nic.in/statistical-year-book-india/2017/203.
61. Census, Government of India.-http://www.censusindia.gov.in/
62. Minor irrigation census, Government of India-http://micensus.gov.in/
91
63. Input Survey, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, India- http://inputsurvey.dacnet
.nic.in/
64. Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Punjab- http://dswcpunjab.gov.in.
65. Department of agriculture, Punjab- http://punjab.gov.in/agriculture-department
66. Department of Horticulture, Punjab.
67. Gujarat Green Revolution Company Limited, Gujarat- http://ggrc.co.in/.
68. Department of Agriculture, Maharashtra- http://krishi.maharashtra.gov.in/1001/Home.
69. Department of Horticulture, Maharashtra-http://mahanhm.in/Home.aspx.
70. Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project, Andhra Pradesh- http://horticulturedept.ap.gov.in/
Department of Horticulture, Andhra Pradesh-http://horticulturedept.ap.gov.in/
71. Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh- http://www.apagrisnet.gov.in/
72. Guideline, Prime Minister Krishi Sinchayee Yojanahttps://pmksy.gov.in/
92
Annexures
93
Annexures -I
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in Andhra Pradesh 2017-18
DISTRICT
SPRINKLER DRIP TOTAL
No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha)
Ananthapuramu 11215 13997.63 81060 89936.55 92274 103933.4
Chittoor 6946 6392.35 82727 78857.17 89673 85249.52
East Godavari 5347 6949.74 5468 7181.87 10815 14131.61
Guntur 12729 13207.57 7368 5647.22 20097 18854.79
Krishna 6823 7306.86 10432 11480.09 17255 18786.95
Kurnool 21158 28174.03 28540 29415.73 49698 57589.76
Prakasam 13184 14614.69 29252 32256.44 42436 46871.13
SPS Nellore 10601 11187.81 11031 12812.06 21632 23999.87
Srikakulam 7183 6234.92 3476 3436.64 10659 9671.56
Visakhapatnam 5507 5170.96 4645 4977.34 10152 10148.3
Vizianagaram 4566 4743.08 3805 5424.95 8371 10168.03
West Godavari 5759 7602.62 30226 38706.85 35984 46308.68
YSR Kadapa 14309 20158.23 55497 64755.13 69806 84913.36
Total 125327 145740.5 353527 384888 478852 530627
Source: APMIP, progress report, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 2017-18
94
Annexure II
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in Gujarat up to 2017-18
DISTRICT
DRIP
SPRINKLER
TOTAL
2017
UP TO March
2018
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
No. of
farmer
Area
(Ha)
Ahmedabad 1411 3165 7654 20203 9065 23368 10262 26592
Amreli 22344 33940 25710 39720 48054 73660 52510 81739
Anand 3477 4272 28 60 3505 4332 3672 4548
Arvalli 22711 45009 16630 18224 39341 63234 41829 67516
Banaskantha 109810 181077 69115 127850 178925 308927 191536 328858
Bharuch 9506 16931 3746 6512 13252 23442 14208 24957
Bhavnagar 22501 31138 21137 27299 43638 58437 48119 65239
Botad 21852 35678 1010 2503 22862 38181 26471 44843
Chhotaudepur 6528 9571 29098 38627 35626 48198 37569 50868
Dahod 935 1875 23120 32849 24055 34723 25242 36745
Dangs 207 132 5707 5796 5914 5928 6378 6479
D. Dwarka 4724 6444 14122 31758 18846 38202 23683 50065
Gandhinagar 5904 10061 3034 3771 8938 13832 9714 15029
Gir Somnath 9444 13909 26389 30799 35833 44708 39563 49109
Jamnagar 15429 23225 7644 14846 23073 38071 25896 43992
Junagadh 12459 17746 70645 99513 83104 117259 90447 127383
Kheda 5014 9349 7684 9392 12698 18740 13411 19804
Kutch 21202 50989 8808 18459 30010 69448 32999 76448
Mahisagar 1915 3532 5398 7446 7313 10978 8035 12208
Mehsana 7746 11014 11647 14358 19393 25372 20930 27108
Morbi 11716 18199 3436 6765 15152 24963 16703 27713
Narmada 8252 11889 7725 10218 15977 22107 17568 24640
Navsari 4170 5644 9750 13635 13920 19280 15093 20668
Panchmahal 1483 2249 5489 9180 6972 11429 7412 12106
Patan 3204 5607 9568 23951 12772 29558 13950 31898
Porbandar 1532 2152 16166 28125 17698 30276 19496 33434
Rajkot 34891 48242 16820 28822 51711 77064 57205 86499
Sabarkantha 33163 55178 11349 12102 44512 67281 47721 72279
Surat 6630 10571 8786 14975 15416 25546 16676 27680
Surendranagar 17060 31432 10078 27998 27138 59430 30980 68022
Tapi 4197 8420 19654 25220 23851 33640 26304 37518
Vadodara 7183 12652 1689 3895 8872 16547 9415 17485
Valsad 3346 5514 11010 13202 14356 18716 15160 19609
Gross total
441946 726804.6 489846 768073.1 931792 1494877.7 1016157 1639081
Source: GGRC, 2017-18 report
95
Annexure -III
Progress of micro irrigation coverage in in Maharashtra 2010-11 to 2016-17
District Drip Irrigation
Number Percent Area in ha Percent
Ahmednagar 20470 61.36 13925.85 54.32
Akola 5 0.01 7.67 0.03
Amaravati 8 0.02 10.75 0.04
Aurangabad 142 0.43 122.49 0.48
Beed 90 0.27 90.63 0.35
Bhandara 78 0.23 74.94 0.29
Buldhana 13 0.04 17.34 0.07
Chandarpur 253 0.76 369.05 1.44
Dhule 60 0.18 84.36 0.33
Gadchiroli 18 0.05 20.37 0.08
Gondia 42 0.13 41.05 0.16
Hingoli 2623 7.86 2120.59 8.27
Jalgaon 101 0.30 128.03 0.50
Jalna 24 0.07 18.34 0.07
Kolhapur 2800 8.39 1569.13 6.12
Latur 40 0.12 38.13 0.15
Nagpur 782 2.34 932.37 3.64
Nanded 3223 9.66 3357.51 13.10
Nandurbar 13 0.04 20.11 0.08
Nashik 52 0.16 30.03 0.12
Osmanabad 173 0.52 132.37 0.52
Palghar 76 0.23 103.36 0.40
Parbhani 4 0.01 5.09 0.02
Pune 56 0.17 42.39 0.17
Raigadh 1 0.00 2 0.01
Ratnagiri 6 0.02 3.34 0.01
Sangli 128 0.38 55.19 0.22
Satara 81 0.24 54.14 0.21
Sindhudurg 21 0.06 30 0.12
Solapur 68 0.20 62.36 0.24
Thane 246 0.74 218.54 0.85
Wardha 831 2.49 1054.45 4.11
Washim 824 2.47 884.16 3.45
Yavatmal 9 0.03 9.69 0.04
Total 33361 100 25635.82 100
Source: Directorate of Economics and statistics Govt. of Maharashtra 2016-18
96
Annexure IV
Progress of Micro Irrigation System coverage in Punjab state
S. No.
Name of scheme
2013-14 2014-15 2017-18
Amount
Utilized
(lacs)
Area
benefitte
d (ha)
Amount
Utilized
(lacs)
Area
benefitt
ed (ha)
Area
benefitt
ed (ha)
1. Centrally Sponsored Scheme
on Micro Irrigation
(PMKSY)
604.89 2008 404.78 875
GOI 60% 591.15
145.36
State 40% 13.74 259.42
Sub-Total (A) 1209.78 2008 404.78 875
B STATE PLAN SCHEMES
2. Project for Promotion of
Micro Irrigation in Punjab
(RIDF-16)
216.16
3. Project for Promotion of
Micro Irrigation in Punjab
(RIDF-20)
4. Community Micro Irrigation
Project in Kandi-belt of
Talwara and Hajipur blocks
of District Hoshiarpur
(NABARD-RIDF-18)
631.58 134 1000 65
Grand Total 2057.52 2142 1404.78 940 48281
Source: http://dswcpunjab.gov.in/contents/SCMIP and (DAC.Net, 2018).
97
Annexure V
Actual expenditure by state and theirs share in expenditure under micro irrigation
States Expenditure
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18*
Andhra Pradesh 265.6
(20.9)
351.1
(30.4)
197.8
(21.1)
177.5
(21.8)
425
(22.21)
Gujarat 203.1
(16.0)
137.1
(11.9)
208.4
(22.2)
181.5
(22.3)
275
(14.37)
Karnataka 186.2
(14.7)
117.4
(10.2)
110.5
(11.8)
60.6
(7.4)
300
(15.68)
Madhya Pradesh 96.8
(7.6)
67.1
(5.8)
92.7
(9.9)
70.7
(8.7)
150
(7.84)
Maharashtra 124.7
(9.8)
177.5
(15.5)
70.0
(7.5)
105.7
(13.0)
285
(14.90)
Tamil Nadu 167.9
(13.2)
87.6
(7.6)
59.9
(6.4)
64.7
(7.9)
171
(8.94)
Telangana - 66.0
(5.7)
100.1
(10.7)
112.8
(13.8)
207
(10.82)
Punjab 5.9
(0.5)
0.9
(0.1)
2.4
(0.3)
3.9
(0.5)
-
Others 217.7
(17.2)
151.8
(13.1)
96.1
(10.2)
37.8
(4.6)
100.31
(5.24)
India 1267.9
(100)
1156.5
(100)
937.9
(100)
815.0
(100)
1913.31
(100)
Note: * released fund till 20.03.2018 in year 2017-18
Note: figure in parenthesis is percent expenditure to total expenditure made in that year under micro irrigation
98
Annexure –VI
Year-wise financial and physical targets and achievements for micro irrigation in
India.
Year
Physical Financial
Target
(Ha)
Achievement
(Ha)
Achievement
%
Target
(Rs.)
Achievement
(Rs.)
Achievement
%
2005-06 180223 11817 6.56 23284 1635 7.02
2006-07 397365 334301 84.13 44576 36590 82.09
2007-08 324049 421174 129.97 39896 47294 118.54
2008-09 423095 516338 122.04 41725 46784 112.13
2009-10 425764 554753 130.30 43536 56640 130.11
2010-11 667700 640069 95.86 90084 91737 101.83
2011-12 698197 557521 79.85 108290 108076 99.80
2012-13 714788 526485 73.66 109893 111888 101.82
2013-14 656000 423000 64.48 1273 1181 92.83
2014-15 574000 426000 74.22 964 986 102.28
2015-16 500000 573000 114.60 1001 1091 108.98
2016-17 800000 84000 10.50 1470 1489 101.26
2017-18 120000
0
1049000 87.42 2025 1642 81.05
2018-19 160000
0
1158000 72.38 2264 1751 77.32
Total 916118
1
7275458 510277 508784
Source: DAC.net, Ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare
99
Annexure-VII
Showing the media coverage of visits of reaeach team in Chittoor district of AP
100
Annexure -VIII
(Survey Schedule)
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
Efficiency of Micro-irrigation in economizing water use in India-learning from potential
and unexplored area
1. Village profile
i) Name: __________________ ii) Block:____________ iii) District: __________
iv) No. of households------- SC---------, ST--------------, OBC----, General___________
iv) Pucca Road connectivity (Yes = 1 No=0): ____ if no then distance from village (km):
v) Telephone line (Yes=1, No=0):_______ vi) internet connection (Yes=1, No=0):____
Year:
vii) Rail connectivity (Yes =1 No=0):______ if no then distance from village (km):
vi) Distance from the nearest city/town (km): ____
vii) Availability of inputs in the village (Yes =1 No=0):______ if no then distance from
village(km):
ix) Electricity connection year: ________
x) Banking facility (Yes = 1 No=0):______ xi) Primary health facilities (Yes =1
No=0):______
xii) School (Yes =1, No=0):__________ if yes then Primary, Middle, Secondary, senior
secondary
xiii) Agricultural extension support (Yes =1 No=0):______ xiv) Soil type: sandy/loam/clay
2. General information
i) Name of household head: _________________________ ii) Aadhar card (Y/N):
___________
iii) Age: iv) Gender (Male=1
Female=0):_______
v) Education level (schooling Yrs.): _______ vi) Caste: Gen/OBC/MBC/SC/ST/Any____
vii) Family size: M __F__C__ viii) No of working members (agril): Male_____
Female______ ix) Mobile : ______ Since how
many years using mobile: _____________
xii) Diversification of income:
Particular Food grains Horticulture Livestock Agri-labour off farm Total income
Annual
Income (Rs.)
xiii) Member of social organization/cooperatives (Yes=1 No=0):___ if yes then specify:
__________
xiv) Food expenditure (month):___________ xv) Non-food expenditure
(month):_______
xvi) Kisan Credit Card (Yes=1, No=0):__________ Year: ______ xvii) Total loan
(Rs.):_________ 101
xviii) Crop insurance (Yes=1, No=0):_______ if yes then premium rate:________
xix) Types of ration card (Yes=1, No=0):_____ If Yes then type: ________
xx) Soil health card (Yes=1, No=0):________ if no then
why:_________________________
3. Land (Acres):O____ Leased-in:________ Leased-out:_________ Fallow:_________
Particulars Sources of irrigation
Owned Leased-in
Irrigated
P1 P2 P1 P2
Canal
Pond
Open Well
Tubewell
Un-irrigated Rainfed
*P=Plot
4. Micro-irrigation (MI)
A. General
i. Do you feel water scarcity: Strongly agree: Agree: Neutral: Disagree: Strongly
Disagree:
ii. Depth of water table (feet) (now): ________before 10 years: _________ before 5
years_____
iii. Reasons for deepening water table: Since early water table is low: Extraction rate is high:
High temperature: low rainfall: Others specify: ________________
iv. Reason for high extraction rate:_________________
1. High dependence on groundwater 2. Water intensive cropping pattern 3. Subsidized
energy source 4. Electricity supply during night hours 5. Any others_________________
v. Decline in water level will be problem for me in next 5-10 years: 1.Strongly agrees: 2.
Agree: 3. Neutral: 4. Disagree: 5. Strongly Disagree:
vi. Are you aware of MI (Yes=1 No=0):
vii. Source of information: Peers/Government official/ Universities/ KVK/ news paper /TV/
radio/Mobile.
viii. Do you have micro-irrigation system (Yes=1 No=0):
ix. If yes then year of installation:____________
x. Name MI System and installation year: i) Sprinkler year___ ii) Drip year____
xi. Is it under government scheme (Yes=1 No=0):______
xii. if yes then name of scheme
xiii. To whom you have approached
Particulars No. of visits Distance
(Km)
Time in Man-
days
Expenses
incurred (Rs.)
Pradhan/Sarpanch and PRI members
NGOs or others
Local dealers/contractor
Block level Dept.
District level Dept.
Other
xiv. Average time taken for getting micro-irrigation and installation (days):
xv. How much total cost you incurred (Rs):__________ subsidy 102
amount(Rs):__________
xvi. Your contribution: Cash______ Kind______
xvii. How you got subsidy (Code A):______
xviii. How much time taken in getting subsidy credited (days):
xix. How you have managed rest money for MI installation (Code B): ________
xx. If installed then still continuing with MI (Yes=1 No=0):_________
xxi. If no then why (Code C):__________
xxii. If yes then Are you willing to continue MI if subsidy removed (Yes=1
No=0):_________
xxiii. Are you aware of fertigation (Yes=1 No=0):_________
xxiv. If yes then do you follow (Yes=1 No=0):_______
Code A: Account transfer (BDT) =1 Bank cheque=2 private company installed=3 other mode=4
Code B: paid himself=1, took loan from bank=2, loan from money lender=3, from relative/friends etc=4
Code C: post installation service/care was not given=1 quality of MI system was not good=2 consumed more
labour in shifting pipes=3 other specify=4
B. People’s participation in MI
Particulars Level of participation (Different stage of programme)
Planning Implementation Maintenance
Selection of site
Selection of crop
Selection of installing
firm
Selection of credit
agency
Contacts made to
officials
1. Not at all 2. Less participation 3. Moderate 4. High participation 5. Very high participation
C. Problems faced by farmers:
a. Process of getting MI (Code D):
b. Favouritism/nepotism in getting MI (Code E):
c. Post installation service is available (Yes=1 No=0):
d. Main problem faced after installation (Code F):
e. Do you face problem of seed/planting material (Yes=1 No=0):
D. Reason for non-adoption
S
no
Particulars strongly
agree
agree neutral disagree strongly
disagree
1 High initial investment
2 Lengthy process for availing subsidy
3 Free electricity getting so why sprinkler
4 No proper support after purchase of MI from
distributors
5 Not aware of MI
6 Small size of land holdings
7 Drudgery in operation
8 Lack of skilled manpower required
9 Maintenance is difficult 103
E. Area under different crops grown by farmers
Kharif Rabi Annual/plantation/orchards
10 years back
Crop name
Crop Area
At present time
Crop name
Crop Area
At time of MI installation
Crop name
Crop Area
At present time crop and area under MI
Crop name
Crop Area
Any new area brought under MI
Crop name
Crop Area
Code D: Very lengthy=1 lengthy=2 Neutral=3 Good=4 Very good=5, Code E: Very much prevalent=1 Prevalent=2 Neutral=3 No=4 Not at
all=5, Code F: Clogging=1 animal damage=3 Unreliable energy supply=4 Difficult in repair & maintenance=5 problem of MI system theft= 6 any
others= 7 specify
5. Farmers experience for MI Technology
S
no
Crop
s
Particulars Improvement Increase Saving
Yiel
d
Qualit
y
Pric
e
Net
income
Gross
income
Wate
r
Energ
y
Labo
ur
Fertiliz
er
1
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
2
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
3
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
4
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
5
Yes=1 No=0
If yes then by
what %
6. Irrigation details:
Traditional irrigation Micro-irrigation
Na
me
of
Cro
ps
Tot
al
are
a
Irrigat
ed
Area
No of
irrig.
Sour
ce of
irrig
*
Irri
g.
Ti
me
(hr)
/
are
a
Ener
gy
sourc
e
(E/D
)#
Energ
y
consu
me/ hr
Engi
ne
BHP
Engi
ne
(O/H
)
Ar
ea
No
of
irri
g.
Sour
ce of
irrig
*
Irrig.
Time
(hr)/ar
ea
Ener
gy
sourc
e
(E/D
)#
Energ
y
consu
me/ hr
Engi
ne
BHP
Engi
ne
(O/H
)
Note: *:1= Owned TW, 2= Hired TW, 3=Canal, 4= Pond or others, #: E= Electric D=
Diesel O= Owned, H= Hired. 104
Cost and return of crop production (Crop A)
i Production:
i. Point of sale: Farm gate/Local Market or Mandi/ District market/
Home/Godown/Storage place/other, please specify:__________
ii. Distance to be covered for sale:
iii. Transportation mode:
iv. Storage facilities (Yes=1 No=0):
v. Any type of processing (Yes=1 No=0): if yes then specify:
____________________
vi. Packaging: traditional or modern
Operations
Traditionally irrigated :---------- Sprinkler/Drip Irrigated:---------
Human Labour Machine Material used Human Labour
Machine
Material used
Man Day Wage Hrs. Rate Qty Rate
Man
Day Wage Hrs Rate Qty Rate
Land Prep.
Pre. Sowing
irri.
Ploughing
Ridging
Sowing/
planting
Manure &Fert.
FYM
Urea
NPK
DAP
Others
Plant Prot.
Chemical
Human
Irrigation
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Other
Yield
Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q) Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q)
Main product
By product 105
Cost and return of crop production (Crop B)
i Production:
i. Point of sale: Farm gate/Local Market or Mandi/ District market/ Home/Godown/Storage
place/other, please specify:__________
ii. Distance to be covered for sale:
iii. Transportation mode:
iv. Storage facilities (Yes=1 No=0):
v. Any type of processing (Yes=1 No=0): if yes then specify: ____________________
vi. Packaging: traditional or modern
10. Cost of installing MI
S. no.
Crops Name
Cost of MI (Rs.)
Drip company name Sprinkler company name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Operations Traditionally irrigated :---------- Sprinkler/Drip Irrigated:---------
Human Labour Machine Material used Human Labour Machine Material used
Man Day Wage Hrs. Rate Qty Rate Man
Day
Wage Hrs Rate Qty Rate
Land Prep.
Pre. Sowing irri.
Ploughing
Ridging
Sowing/ planting
Manure &Fert.
FYM
Urea
NPK
DAP
Others
Plant Prot.
Chemical
Human
Irrigation
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Other
Yield Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q) Production (q) Sold (q) Rate (Rs./q)
Main product
By product 106
11. Level of satisfaction for MI
S. no Particulars
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly.
Dissatisfied
Govt. level drivers
1. Advice for MI
2. Awareness creation
3. Line dept. supports
4. Subsidies by Government
Dealer/ distributor
1.
Technical support from
agencies
2. Quality material supply
3. Quality installation
4. Clogging resistance
5. Compatibility with crops
Farmer level
1. User friendly
2. Water saving
3. Energy saving
4. Labour saving
5. Quality product
6. High production
7. High return
8. Production round the year
9. wasteland area can be put to use
12. Assets of households
Assets Yes= 1 No=0 Number Assets Yes =1 No=0 Number
Cattle shed Cow
Store & equipment’s Buffalo
Tractor TV
Harrow Mobile
Power tiller Motorcycle
Thresher Car
Any other specify
107
Annexure-IX
Sanction order
108
Hkkñd`ñvuqñiñ & jk"Vªh; Ñf"k vkfFkZdh ,oa uhfr vuqla/kku laLFkku
Mh-ih-,l- ekxZ] iwlk] ubZ fnYyh - 110012
ICAR - National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research
Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, Pusa, New Delhi – 110012
FORM G FR - 12- C
lSee
Ru le 2391
Form of Utilization Certificate
Projectffictncv of Micro-lrrieation in Economizins Water use in lndia- Learnlnfrom Potential andE ee
U nder Exp lored States.
S,NO
Letter No. & date
Amount
F.No. O- 15012/31/17-
O&R dr. 01.07.2018
647 sgs l-
TOTAL
out of Rs. 7,71,2761- (Rupees
Seventv One Thousand Two
Hundred T*'entv Six Onlv) ofgrants-in-aid
sanctioned during the year 2018-19 in favour of
ICAR-NIAP under this Ministry/Department
Letter.No. given in the margin and Rs, NIL on
account of unspent balance of the previous year, a
sum of Rs. 7712261- has been utilized for the
purpose of Proiect Activitv for which it was
sanctioned and that the balance of Rs. -123631/-
(Rupees Negative One Lakh Twenty Three
ThousandSix Hundred Thirtr One Onlv).
1. Certified that I have satisfied myself that the conditions on which the grants-in-aid was
sanctioned have been duly fulfilled/are being fulfilled and that I have exercised the following
checks to see that the money was actually utilized for the purpose for which it was sanctioned.
Kinds of checks exercised
aid Vouchers
anction Order
urchase Order
elevant Register
Signature
I
Js/!r )-ai
Designation
Certified that
Seven Lakh
i. P
-2,. S
3.P
4.R
1
,.'Lol
1
Date s,
I
I
I
647sss/-]
:..r::' S.No. Items of Expenditure
Opening
Balance
Funds Received
Expenditure
Incurred during the
Closing balance
as on 31't March
1
Salaries/'I onorarium,/[ell owhip
etc.
0.00
647595.00
162000.00
-123631.007 Travelling Allowance197846.00
Recurring Contingencies416380.00
4 Chcmicals and Consumables 0.000.00
Sub Total (A)0.00 647595.00 77L226.00 -123631.00
National lnstitute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research D.P.S. Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 11O012
Statement of Expenditure (SOE) in respect of project "Efficiency of M icro-lrrigation..........in India" for the year 2018-19
\,r
.\
Assistant Ftnance& Acco unts Officer
q.20 l.
1
(Dr. Subhash Chan
Principal Scientist & Pl
0.00
0.00 Breakup of closinq balances in various Proiects. Externallv Funded
Schemes,Contractual and ConsultancV Resea rc h Proqrams
llLrdgetOpen ing
BalanceReceived
Headwise
Remittance
Received
Made
Refunds
411 Efficiency ofMicro-lrrigation in Economisinq Water use in lndia- Learninq from Dote[tial and under Explored States
Salaries/l lonm./Fellowships0.00 0.00 0.00000
Travelling Allowances400000.000.00
'192846.00
0.00
Recurring Contingencies1250000.000.00 000 4'16380.00 0.00
Receipts0.00 647595.00 0.000.00
Chemicals and Consumables748500.000.00 0.0c0.00 0.00
B@EEEItliEtlt:rr
0.00 2398500.00 647595.00771226.A0 0.00 -'123s31.000.00
-^-t
Lrosrnq I
uatance
I
Coordinator: Dr. Subhash Chand
qr6q_ qfiqlqiTq
Externallv Funded Schemes
162000.00
0.00
0.00