| Abstract | Pakistan has the largest contiguous supply-based irrigation system in the world, most
notably in Punjab where arid conditions prevail. While sound management of irrigation is
necessary for agricultural development, irrigation systems in Punjab have long shown low
performance and efficiency. In order to improve irrigation systems' management and
performances, in line with the global trend of Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT), the
Government of Pakistan initiated governance refo1ms. This study investigated the
performances in water supply and services at system level, and the performances and
technical efficiency at the farming system's level. Two case study schemes under
contrasted governance conditions were selected in Punjab Province, Pakistan. One is a
Faimer-Managed Irrigation Scheme (FMIS, in Burala Canal Irrigation Scheme), and the
other is a Government-Managed Irrigation Scheme (GMIS, in Upper Pakpattan Canal
Irrigation Scheme). The Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation Techniques
(MASSCOTE) approach was used to assess the itTigation scheme-level performances
through rapid appraisal procedure, questionnaire survey and field observations. Frum
survey, crop budgeting and techno-economic analysis were used to assess fa1ming systems
perfmmances. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used for assessing the technical
efficiency of faims. The CROPWAT model was used to assess the crops' irrigation water
requirements. Volume of annual groundwater withdrawal was estimated by the number of
irrigations with tube wells and time required for each irrigation under diverse cropping
system at scheme level. Under the hypothesis that land size had a strong impact on farm
performances and efficiency in Punjab, faims were classified as per landholding size for
analysis.
Organizational structures for irrigation management of FMIS and GMIS are properly
established and have good institutional support and jurisdiction accordingly. However
implementation of rules and enforcement systems points weaknesses in the governance
systems of both irrigation schemes. Assessment of governance indicators show that FMIS
is perfmming better than that of GMIS in terms of transparency level, monitoring of water
resource, responsiveness and provision of respect and well treatment by authorities of
water users' associations (WUAs), farmers organizations (FOs), and area water board
(A WB). In average, farmers' organizations (FOs) are able to solve ~ 12 cases of water
disputes and ~ 7 cases of water disputes annually.
This study identifies and documents many weaknesses in the water supply system and
elements towai·ds modernization and improved operation are suggested of both schemes in
terms of canal operation, financial aspects, management units and infrastructure. Although
most internal indicators related to water delivery services and canal operations are well
below par in both systems, the overall performance of FMIS is better than that of GMIS.
However, the sensitivity of offtake structures is higher in FMIS (with average 3.25 m·
1 and
median 2.76 m1
) than in GMIS (with·average 2 m·
1 and median 1.83 m"
1
). As a results 0.1
m change in the water level in the r:nain canals leads to 32.5% vai'iation in the dischai·ge of
secondary canals in FMIS arid 20.1 % in GMIS. Operational, management and maintenance
(MOM) expenditures are 5 US$/ha in FMIS and 4 US$/ha in GMIS however, MOM
expenditures are higher than the collected fees for irrigation service in both schemes. Cost
recovery ratio is 0.33 in FMIS and 0.67 in GMIS. Revenue collection performance is 62%
in FMIS and 85% in GMIS. Fee collection rate has been sharply declining over the years in
FMIS, following IMT, with a standard deviation of 22.6% annually. Nevertheless, water
delivery services have improved in FMIS in terms of reliability and equity from secondary
111
to tertiary canals and at farm level while GMIS shows more equitable service at main to
secondary canals and more flexibility at secondary to tertiary canals and at tertiary to
farms. In both schemes, a significant gap is observed between water supplies and actual
ilTigation water requirements at fa1m level with multiple cropping systems. Access to
groundwater allows farmers to match their needs, especially in GMIS; overall, canal
i1Tigation only cannot sustain any intensification-diversification to improve incomes from
crop production. Agricultural output is higher in GMIS (4,013 US$/ha) than that in FMIS
with 2,271 US$/ha. Similarly, agricultural water supply per unit of water supply is higher
in GMIS (0.357 US$/m3
) than that in FMIS with 0.267 US$/m3
.
The results at fa1m level reveal a strong positive correlation between faim size, crop
diversification, cropping intensification, income; large farms perfo1m better in both
schemes, while landholding size is larger in GMIS than in FMIS. In spite of its low
profitability, wheat production remains a key strategic choice in both schemes; it is quite
specialized, requires low amounts of inputs, especially inigation water, which is crucial in
small farms with minimum direct access to groundwater due to minimum ownerships of
tube wells and expensive ground water markets. Poor financial basis and lack of extension
services contribute to hinder intensification in smaller farms. Conversely, maize and rice fit
well in the diversification and intensification strategies leading to higher farm income per
hectare, although only large farms grow these crops, especially in GMIS. Frum efficiency
analysis does not show a clear effect of farm size on technical efficiency along the whole
size range; yet, smaller farms systematically show poorer results in mobilizing production
factors to generate income. Specific sources of inefficiency are identified: pesticide use in
FMIS and land-renting in GMIS.
Overall, productivity, intensification and farm size are closely interlinked in a general
context of poor functioning of irrigation system and institutional reforms. The study
concludes that collective action on canal management, implemented through IMT in FMIS,
has not been conducive to key improvements; it cannot solve all pending, structural issues.
Infrastructural and institutional issues, and farms' low capabilities (lack of tube wells, low
capital, small size) and performances still prevail. Public intervention on, inter alia,
institutional strength, land size, financial support, extension, and marketing are necessary
in FMIS as well as in smaller fa1ms while modernization and service-oriented approaches
should be implemented in both transferred and non-transfened irrigation schemes. Policy
makers should also consider the access to and management issues of groundwater in the
future strategies of IMT. A new sharing criteria and contribution model by both external
and internal players has to be developed. |