PIM in India - Bhakra Scheme

PIM in the Bhakra Scheme, India: A Cautionary Tale

Farmers in the Bhakra Scheme, a protective irrigation scheme in the Northwest corner of India, consider themselves extremely fortunate that they can irrigate their fields. With irrigation, their incomes more than double. They are also exceptionally conscious of the value of irrigation water. This is one explanation for the existence of a particularly successful tertiary-level water-distribution system: the warabandi system. This is a system of allotting time slots for irrigation turns to individual farmers. Distribution schedules have been made that define irrigation periods in minutes (!), and they are carefully adhered to in the field.

It is in this irrigation environment that a PIM experiment was started. A minor was selected that eventually will be taken over by the farmers. This is the Nagrana Minor, which irrigates the farms of some 300 farmers in three villages. The Nagrana Minor covers roughly 1,200 ha, which are subdivided into four tertiary units. If all goes well, the Minor can be transferred to the farmers by the end of this year (1998). A Farmers' Committee has been set up to assume responsibility over the Minor. Before the transfer can take place, however, the Minor will need to be repaired and upgraded. It will be reshaped and the flow channel will be lined.

The PIM experiment started in 1996 with an initiative from the World Bank, which has been the motivating force behind several other PIM experiments in the State of Rajahstan. One of the first steps was to select a canal. The Nagrana Minor was selected because it is a small canal, irrigating a small area, and so allowing for more control over the experiment. Subsequently, a Farmers' Committee was set up and preparations for the physical work on the Minor started. However, the way in which the Farmers' Committee was set up and the lack of actual involvement of the Farmers' Committee in the experiment are reasons for concern.

The Farmers' Committee was the initiative of junior engineers of the Irrigation Department who had received instructions from their superiors to organize the farmers. Accordingly, these engineers called together the farmers. They explained to them the purpose of the meeting and of the experiment, suggested names of farmers who would become President, Secretary, and ordinary members, read detailed articles of organization to the farmers, and without there being major objections, declared the Farmers' Committee to be officially established. In short, they more or less imposed the Farmers' Committee on the farmers. Thus far, this has been the only time the farmers have came together to discuss the experiment; indeed, it is the only time the Farmers' Committee has been active.

In a parallel effort, the physical work on the Minor was prepared. This was done in the same way as it has always been done, i.e. the Irrigation Department prepared and floated a tender and a contractor executed the work. Farmers, or the Farmers' Committee, were not involved. They did not organise the work. This would have been desirable, as the farmers are the ones who will take over the Minor. It would have been a first opportunity for the farmers to learn to cooperate and for the authorities to test the farmers' willingness to assume new responsibilities, work together, and solve problems among themselves. However, neither the farmers nor the Farmers' Committee were consulted on the choice of designs and contractor. Nor did the plans call for a joint inspection of the canal after the work is completed.

It is argued here that the PIM experiment in the Bhakra Scheme could have got off to a better start. The experiment suffers from four main weaknesses:

A top-down approach is being followed. Ideas, standardized formats, and concepts are being parachuted into a community of irrigators;

Irrigation engineers are the main actors instead of farmers and community development experts, who are more sensitive to initiatives from the farmers;

The processes of improving the canal and organising the farmers were not linked; and

The timing of the steps in the experiment is unfortunate and consequently much time and momentum has been lost already during the three years that the experiment has been running.

Given the extreme importance that the farmers in the Bhakra Scheme attach to irrigation water, and given their excellent performance in distributing water in the tertiary units, there is great potential for successfully introducing PIM in the Scheme. It is therefore unfortunate that the PIM experiment is suffering from the weaknesses listed above. And it is even more unfortunate because the idea of introducing PIM in the Bhakra Scheme is sound.

Possible corrective actions at this stage include formulating new tasks for farmers, discussing the tasks with them, and inviting representatives of the Farmers' Committee to participate in the inspection of the physical work under execution. The hope is that the authorities responsible for introducing PIM in Rajasthan will learn from these lessons.

Dr. A. Schrevel
ILRI, PO Box 45
6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
tel. 31 317 490941, fax. 31 317 417187
email schrevel@ilri.agro.nl.