Socio economic status of farmers and their awareness on irrigation under Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) command

K.Avil kumar, D.Kalpana and M.D.Reddy Water Technology Centre, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030

Abstract: The Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in Andhra Pradesh has low project irrigation efficiency. Under Kakatiya canal of SRSP, uncertainty and delay in release of canal water, unreliable and in-equal distribution, sub optimal cropping patterns, non adoption of recommended agronomic practices, inefficient irrigation methods, poor water and soil management are the constraints in realizing the full production potential of the crops. In order to assess the status of socio-economic conditions and knowledge on water management technologies of the farmers, a study was taken up under SRSP command (2R-2R minor of D51) during Nov 2008-Apr 2009. There were 52 per cent farmers above 40 years of age having good farming experience and rest of the farmers (32%) were between 21-40 years. Further, both men and women farmers and also children participate in agricultural operations. The average per capita land holding size of farmers was 2.05 ha. All the farmers (100%) posses owned land and residential accommodation. No farmer received training on water management in agricultural crops and hence they were not aware about different water saving crop production technologies. All the farmers do not have awareness about cost of different water management structures. Non-availability of water in time was the important problem perceived by majority of the farmers and they were not receiving any prior information about the release of canal water. Majority of the farmers opined that bringing awareness on importance of water management in agriculture through trainings and exposure visits is important for improving the water use efficiency.

Key words: Awareness in water management, Improvement in irrigation system, Land holdings, Socio economic status.

Introduction: Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), across the Godavari river is conceived with storage capacity of 90 TMC for a command area of 6.824 lakh ha, covering the districts of Adilabad, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda of Andhra Pradesh through Laxmi, Saraswathi and Kakatiya canals. The project irrigation efficiencies are low in Andhra Pradesh (<50%) compared to other projects in India. Among different projects in Andhra Pradesh, Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) has lowest project irrigation efficiency. Under Kakatiya canal of SRSP, uncertainty and delay in release of canal water, unreliable and in-equal distribution, sub optional cropping patterns, non adoption of recommended agronomic practices, inefficient irrigation methods, poor water and soil management are the constraints in realizing the full production potential of the crops. As a result, the water productivity of the hydrological unit is low. In order to assess the status of socio-economic conditions and knowledge on water management technologies of the farmers, a study was taken up under SRSP command during Nov 2008-Apr 2009. It was conducted in the command area of 2R-2R minor of D 51 distributory, Kakatiya canal, SRSP at Mythapur village, Raikal mandal of Karimnagar District having 31 farmers in all. 2. Methodology: 2.1 Study area water resources: The 2R minor takes off at 2.995 km away from the head regulatory of D51 distributor of Kakatiya canal and runs over a distance of 5.017 km, irrigating an area of 871.6ha (2179 acres). The designed discharge of 2R minor is 0.7404 Cumecs with the vent size of 155x122m. The 2R-2R minor take off at 4.7 km away from the OT of 2R minor and runs over a distance of 0.882 km, irrigating an area of 43.2ha (108 acres). The size of the inlet structure is 300 mm with a discharge capacity of 0.04 Cumec. There are two pipes on this minor to irrigate the study area. There are 24 open wells in the pilot area and a tank adjacent to the study area, which receives run off water from different pipes of the 2R minor. The depth of wells ranges from 5.8 to 8 m. The water levels in the wells ranges from 7.0 m depth below ground in summer (March / April) to ground level during August / September when canal flows with water. The water from well (dug) is used for irrigation using electric motors during scarce periods as supplementary to canal irrigation or for growing the crops completely with this water. Each well commands an area of 1.2 ha during rainy season and 0.3 ha during rabi / summer season. There are no bore wells in the pilot area.
All the farmers coming under 2R-2R sub minor of D51 were interviewed with a questionnaire prepared to collect the data that allow analyses for addressing the pre determined objectives. Given the objectives of the study, the economic components have been focused on elaborating a methodology that is capable of assessing the socio economic

status of the farmers under the minor and also their awareness about the water management technologies and need for improving the irrigation system.

3. Results: 3.1. Socio-economic status of farmers 3.1.1 Age composition: There were 52 per cent farmers above 40 years of age having good farming experience and rest of the farmers (32%) were between 21-40 years (Table 1). Table 1: Age-composition of farmers in study area
S. No. 1 2 3 4 Age (years <20 21-40 41-60 >60 Total Number 0 10 16 5 31 Percentage to total 0 32 52 16 100

3.1.2 Education status: The education status is an indication of the progressiveness and positive bent of mind of the farmers towards the modern technological interventions (Table 2). There were 29 per cent illiterate farmers indicating great need for motivation and creating awareness on improved technologies through training and exposure visits. Of the 71 per cent educated, 6 per cent were collegiate and 13 per cent have secondary education and remaining 52 per cent had primary education. Table 2: Education status of farmers in study area
S. No 1 2 3 4 Level of Education Illiterate Primary (upto 7th) Secondary College Total Number 9 16 4 2 31 Percentage to total 29 52 13 6 100

3.1.3 Family size: The family size indicates the work force (family labor) in accomplishing the farm operations and possibilities, if any, in attending other alternate income earning activities. This also enables the researchers to study the annual income and expenditure pattern of

the farm families. The average family size was less than four (3.5). Further, both men and women farmers and also children participate in agricultural operations. Table 3: Average Family Size in study area Category Men Women
children

Number 31 35 43 109 3.5

Percentage to total 28 32 39 100

Total
Average Family Size

3.1.4 Community wise distribution of land holdings: Community wise distribution of land holdings among the 2R-2R study area farmers highlights the predominance of different social groups in the study area (Table 4). Between two communities (OC and BC), majority (66%) of farmers comes under OC community followed by BC (12%) cultivating 54 and 46 per cent of area, respectively. The per capita land holding size was 0.71, and 0.98 ha for OC and BC communities, respectively and the overall per capita land holding was 0.81ha.
Table 4: Community-wise distribution of land holdings among farmers of study area

S. No.
1. 2. 3.

Community
OC BC SC, ST Total

Number 19 (61) 12 (39) Nil 31 (100)

Area (ha) 13.51 (54) 11.70 (46) Nil 25.21

Per capita 0.71 0.98 Nil 0.81

(Figures in the parentheses are percentage to total) 3.1.5 Size wise distribution of land holding: Size wise distribution of land holding (including area out side the pilot area) highlights both the number and area distribution under different size categories of study area farmers (Table 5). The average per capita land holding size of farmers was 2.05 ha. Large category stood first with 45 per cent of total number of land holdings followed by medium and small categories of farmers with 42 and 13 per cent, respectively. However, cultivated area was more among large category of farmers followed by medium and small categories.

Table 5: Size-wise distribution of land holdings in study area farmers

S. No 1. 2. 3. Size-Class Small (< 0.80 ha) Medium (0.81 to 2.00 ha) Large (>2.01 ha) Total Number 4 (13) 13 (42) 14 (45) 31 (100) Area (ha) 2.02 (3) 18.32 (29) 43.1 (68) 63.44 (100) Per capita 0.51 1.41 3.08 2.05

(Figures in the parentheses are percentage to total) 3.1.6 Land holding particulars: The land holding pattern highlights the extent of ownership and tenancy in the study area and also the asset (fixed) values of the farmers (Table 6). All the farmers (100%) posses owned land. The present value of land was Rs. 4, 25,000 and 4, 75,000 per hectare for irrigated and irrigated dry land respectively. Table 6: Land Holding Particulars of the farmers in 2R-2R area (ha) Item Irrigated dry Total
Irrigated

Owned Leased in Leased out

Total

7.36 (20) 7.36 (20)

17.85(25) 17.85(25)

25.21 (31) 25.21 (31)

Present Value of land (Rs ha-1) 425000 475000 -1 Rental Value of land (Rs year 20000 15000 ha-1) Land Revenue or tax (Rs ha-1) 500 500 (Figures in parentheses indicate number of farmers) 3.1.7 Farm family expenditure: Majority of the farm families expenditure falls below Rs 20,000 (6%) (Table 7 and 8). Table 7: Range of farm-families annual expenditure in study area Range of Family Expenditure Number Percentage to total (Rs.) Below 20,000 2 6 20,000-30,000 20 65 30,000-40,000 6 19 >40,000 3 10 Total 31 100 Majority of farmers spend more on food (49%) followed by clothing (11%), fuel and lighting (8%). Only 7% of the expenditure is on education.

Table 8: Farm Family Expenditure pattern in study area (Rs. year-1) Item Amount Percentage to total Food 8979 49 Clothing 2012 11 Fuel and Lightning 1559 8 House rent and repairs 1016 6 Foot wear 398 2 Recreations & functions 1276 7 Education 1370 7 Medicines 876 5 Comforts and luxuries 956 5 Total Expenditure 18442 100 3.1.8 Asset position of the farmers: All the farmers (100%) had own residential accommodation (Table 9). However, the agricultural implements number was quite low, as the farmers belong to small and medium categories. The farmers often share their equipment / implements on mutual / hire basis for carrying out the agricultural operations in time. Table 9: Asset Position of the farmers in study area Asset Number 1. Residential accommodation 31 2. Cattle sheds 20 3. Tractors 1 4. Hand Sprayers 5 5. Power sprayers 1 6. Pump sets 20 7. Ploughs 30 8. Cultivators 1 9. Any other 12 Percentage 100 65 3 16 3 65 97 3 39

Table 10: Operation-wise human labour utilization in major crops (per ha) at study area Operation Rice Maize M+T Groundnu Sesame t M W M W M W M W M W Land Preparation 5 3 5 3 5 3 3 Application of FYM 2 2 2 2 5 5 Puddling Tracto Bunding & Leveling 5 5 2 2 Nursery raising 5 3 Sowing 3 5 8 10 3 5 3 Fertilizer Application 3 5 5 3 Transplanting 5 25 Weeding 38 35 38 5 28 10

Irrigation Spraying Bird Scaring Harvesting Threshing Dehusking & Stripping Cleaning & Bagging Digging Curing & drying
Total

15 3 8 Tracto 8 54

3 20 11 102

10 3 5 8 3 49

15 10 10 18 3 101

16 3 3 8 10 13 78

3 15 8 8 8 3 18 11 130

15 5 3 39 86

5 25 5 71

10 3 3 5 3 31 52

10 8 3 31

Average* 122 110 165 * 2 men = 3 women; M + T = Maize + Turmeric intercropping

3.1.9 Average on farm labour utilization in cultivating different crop enterprises: In rice (transplanted) the number of man days of employment per hectare was nearly four months period (Table 10). The number of man days per hectare of maize, maize + turmeric intercropping, groundnut and sesame were 110, 165, 86 and 52, respectively. Weeding operation needs more number of labour followed by harvesting operations and transplanting in rice. The employment of women labour found more significant in cultivation of different crops as their participation was more as compared with men labour. However, the wage rates, they vary from operation to operation and for the same operation, men wage rate was more compared to women. For rice, the farmers are employing machinery for ploughing and threshing operations, as it saves time and labour costs due to higher demand of labour. Maize shelling is done with the shellors. 3.2. Irrigation management 3.2.1. Awareness on irrigation Only few farmers (35%) were aware about the critical moisture sensitive stages (Table 11). No farmer received training on water management in agricultural crops and hence they were not aware about different water saving crop production technologies. All the farmers do not have awareness about cost of different water management structures. Table 11: Awareness of farmers in study area on irrigation water management Item Member of Water Users Association (WUA) Training in water management Knowledge about Critical Moisture Sensitive Stages Knowledge about cost of different water management structures Yes 3 0 11 0 Percentage to total 10 0 35 0

3.2.2 Problems in present irrigation water delivery system: Non-availability of water in time was the important problem perceived by majority of the farmers (Table 12). This was because; it was affecting the farmers to plan their production programme in advance. As the farmers were not trained in practicing water saving production technologies, they are adopting age old practices only. With the late release of canal water, the timely crop sowings and performance were affected, besides declining the area under kharif season. The farmers were not receiving any prior information about the release of canal water. This was mainly due to lack of coordination between the agricultural department and irrigation department in the study area. Further, no action plan was also prepared to plan the actual water requirement. Table 12: Opinion of the farmers on problems in present system Problems Yes Not Receiving any information regarding supply 25 of water Non availability of water in time 24 Inadequate availability of water 26 Present irrigation service was not dependable 26 Conflicts arising with other farmers regarding water 20
distribution.

irrigation water delivery Percentage to total 81 77 84 84 65

3.2.3 Reasons for the decline in water supply from the present irrigation sources in study area: The farmers feel that the decline in water supply from the present irrigation sources was due to, in the order of excess use of water by head reach farmers followed by weed infestation, poor maintenance of field channels and lack of water in reservoirs (Table 13). Table 13: Reasons for the decline in water supply from the present irrigation sources in study area Reasons Yes Percentage to total Lack of water in reservoirs 22 71 Unauthorized outlets 24 77 Excessive usage at head reaches 30 97 No lining of irrigation channel 22 71 Weed infestation in field channel (poor maintenance) 26 84 Poor maintenance of channels 25 84 3.2.4 Perception of study area farmers regarding water management: The perception of the farmers on irrigation water usage was that it is a free resource in agriculture due to top down approach in designing the water management interventions

with little / no participatory approach in addition to lack of extension services regarding irrigation water management (Table 14). Table 14: Perception of study area farmers regarding water management in agriculture Reasons Yes
Percentage

Top-down approach i.e. lack of involvement of community / stakeholder in the planning process Linkages with other potential partners like NGOs, local entrepreneurs, local bodies, private sector etc., were non- existent Villagers opined water as a free / social good rather than a scarce good. Lack of share on the part of the villagers both in installing and maintenance of irrigation structures Lack of training on the part of the farmers / villagers to attend maintenance works of the established irrigation structures
Adoption of non-userfriendly technologies which were difficult to afford and maintain by the villagers Lack of extension services regarding the importance of water management.

29 24 28 20 25 22 27

94 77 90 65 81 71 87

3.2.5 Problems due to poor irrigation supplies: Majority of the farmers opined that low yields (90%) and low returns (87%) were the important problems in the study area. A significant number of farmers (68%) opined that, due to decline in water supplies, the chances of taking up second crop were low under assured irrigation condition, there by affecting the cropping intensity. Fifty eight per cent of the farmers reported that due to delayed and low water supplies, the weed menace will be severe in their fields, there by increasing their on farm expenditure. Table 15: Problems in study area due to poor irrigation supplies Problem Yes Percentage to total Low yields 28 90 Poor quality of produce and fodder 19 61 Low returns 27 87 Decreased Cropping Intensity 18 58 Increased labour costs 16 52 Increased costs 12 39
4.6 Improving the present irrigation system:

Majority of the farmers opined that bringing awareness among the farmers about the importance of water in agriculture through trainings and exposure visits. Further, these

initiatives will improve irrigation scenario (Table 14). They suggested the strengthening the existing WUA in their command, such that, its activities were more transparent and representative from the farmers (Table 16). Further, strengthening extension network was important to mitigate the irrigation problems in addition to strict supervision of gross root level field men (Luskars) who regulate the water. Table16: Suggestions rendered by the farmers in study area for improving the present irrigation system Reasons Yes Percentage to Total Further empowerment of WUAs 27 87 Community mobilization & Capacity building 30 97 Community ownership & control 25 81 Educating the farmers on proper water harvesting 29 94 techniques Implementation of State Government schemes 28 90 effectively Extension services should be strengthened to 22 71
overcome present irrigation problems Water charges should be raised and they should be linked to the quantity of water used Gross root level managers (luskars) should be supervised properly

5 25

16 84

4. Conclusions: From this study it has been observed that the farmers under the project command feel that non availability of water in time and inadequate supply are the important problems. Further, the low efficiencies are due to over use of water at head reach and lack of training and extension services regarding water management are the constraints in improving water use efficiency. The farmers opined that by strengthening the Water Users associations, community mobilization and capacity building, implementation of Govt. programmes effectively and managing the gross root level field men (Luskars) properly will improve efficiency of irrigation system.