Contents



Final Draft

For comments only

Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Project:

Environmental and Social Assessment Study

Submitted by

Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources

Institute for Social and Economic Change

Bangalore

In collaboration with

Centre for Excellence in Management and Technologies Ltd.

Hyderabad

and

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History

Hyderabad

08 December 2006

Contents

I Acknowledgements

II Executive Summary

|Chapter 1: Study Objectives and Methodology |1.1 |

|1.1 |Background of the Project |1.1 |

|1.2 |Objectives of this Study |1.1 |

|1.3 |Methodology |1.1 |

| |1.3.1 Selection of tanks |1.2 |

| |1.3.2 Preparation of the Tank Profiles |1.2 |

| |1.3.3 Household Survey |1.2 |

| |1.3.4 Environmental survey (Flora and fauna) |1.2 |

| |1.3.5. Consultations |1.3 |

| | |

|Chapter 02: Tanks in Andhra Pradesh: An Overview |2.1 |

|2.1 |Background |2.1 |

|2.2 |Tanks and Rural Livelihood System |2.2 |

|2.3 |Tanks in Andhra Pradesh |2.4 |

| |2.3.1 Decline of Tank System |2.6 |

| |2.3.2 Tank Restoration Efforts |2.9 |

| |2.3.2.1 NGO Efforts |2.10 |

|2.4 |Need for Tanks Rejuvenation |2.11 |

|2.5 |Dimensions of Tank System |2.12 |

|2.6 |Performance of Tank-based WUAs: A Rapid Survey |2.13 |

|2.7 |Policy and Legal Framework |2.14 |

|2.8 |Some Critical Issues |2.15 |

| | | |

|Chapter 03: Social Assessment of tank systems |3.1 |

|3.1 |Tank irrigation in Andhra Pradesh |3.3 |

|3.2 |Resource Characteristics |3.2 |

| |3.2.1 Distribution of Tanks across agro-climatic zones |3.2 |

| |3.2.2 Distribution of tanks by their age |3.3 |

| |3.2.3 Present condition and use of tank systems |3.4 |

| |3.2.3.1 Water Availability and tank Use |3.5 |

| |3.2.3.2 Tank inflow systems |3.6 |

| |3.2.3.3 Water Storage System |3.6 |

| |3.2.3.4 Tank Command Area |3.10 |

| |3.2.3.5 Distribution System |3.11 |

|3.3 |Stakeholder Characteristics |3.11 |

| |3.3.1 Socio–Economic Profile of Sample Households |3.11 |

| |3.3.1.1 Caste-wise distribution of sample households |3.12 |

| |3.3.1.2 Housing |3.12 |

| |3.3.1.3 Asset Holding |3.13 |

| |3.3.1.4 Livestock holding |3.13 |

| |3.3.1.5 Land holding |3.14 |

| |3.3.1.6 Sources of credit |3.15 |

| |3.3.1.7 Use of land and water resources and livelihoods |3.16 |

| |3.3.2. Production |3.17 |

| |3.3.3. Tank based livelihoods |3.19 |

| |3.3.3.1. Cattle grazing |3.19 |

| |3.3.3.2. Drinking water for livestock |3.19 |

| |3.3.3.3. Fisheries |3.20 |

| |3.3.4 Other tank based livelihoods |3.20 |

| |3.3.5. Water Sources and use |3.20 |

| |3.3.5.1. Drinking Water |3.20 |

| |3.3.5.2. Water for Irrigation |3.21 |

| |3.3.5.3. Zone-wise distribution of water sources |3.22 |

| |3.3.5.4. Availability of borewells |3.23 |

|3.4 |The Stakeholders |3.24 |

|3.5 |Organizational and Institutional Arrangements |3.26 |

| |3.5.1 Representation of farmers in WUA |3.26 |

| |3.5.2. Water Management |3.27 |

| |3.5.3. Indicators of good water management |3.28 |

| |3.5.4. Willingness to contribute to tank improvement |3.28 |

| |3.5.5. Willingness to pay water charges |3.29 |

| |3.5.6. Functioning of WUA |3.29 |

| |3.5.7. Conflict Resolution |3.30 |

|3.6 |Conclusion |3.31 |

| |3.6.1. Key Issues and action areas |3.32 |

| | | |

|Chapter 04: Review of Environmental Baseline and possible impacts |4.1 |

|4.1 |Introduction |4.1 |

|4.2 |Context |4.1 |

|4.3 |Legal and Policy framework |4.5 |

| |4.3.1 National Legal Regime |4.5 |

| |4.3.2 State legal regime |4.6 |

| |4.3.3 Safeguard Policies of the World Bank |4.8 |

|4.4 |Institutional Arrangements at State Level |4.8 |

|4.5 |Tank environment |4.9 |

| |4.5.1 Water Quality |4.9 |

| |4.5.2 Forests and Biodiversity |4.12 |

| |4.5.3 Floristic diversity |4.12 |

| |4.5.4 Agrochemicals |4.13 |

| |4.5.5 Fertilizer Consumption |4.14 |

| |4.5.6 Livestock |4.15 |

|4.6 |Key findings |4.16 |

|4.7 |Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Project |4.16 |

| | | |

|Chapter 05: Social and Environmental Management Framework |5.1 |

|5.1 |Introduction |5.1 |

|5.2 |Key Social and environment concerns |5.2 |

|5.3 |Stage-specific SEMF interventions and outcomes |5.2 |

|5.4 |Project Level SEMF Activities |5.7 |

|5.5 |Processes for Implementation of SEMF activities |5.7 |

|5.6 |Guidelines for selection of appropriate social and environmental management measures |5.8 |

|5.7 |Institutional Arrangement |5.12 |

|5.8 |Monitoring of environment and social aspects |5.12 |

| |5.8.1 Internal Monitoring |5.13 |

| |5.8.2 External Monitoring |5.13 |

| |5.8.3 Impact Evaluation |5.13 |

|5.9 |Activity Specific Plans |5.14 |

| |5.9.1 Integrated Nutrient Management Plan |5.14 |

| |5.9.2 Integrated Pest Management Plan |5.15 |

| |5.9.3 Cultural Property Plan (CPP) |5.16 |

| |5.9.4 Dam Safety Plan (DSP) |5.17 |

|Chapter 06: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy Framework |6.1 |

|6.1 |Introduction |6.1 |

|6.2 |Lessons Drawn from Field Experiences |6.1 |

|6.3 |Type of Likely Impacts |6.1 |

|6.4 |Minimizing Resettlement |6.1 |

|6.5 |Land Required for the Project |6.2 |

|6.6 |Procedures for Voluntary Surrender of Land |6.2 |

|6.7 |Procedure for Land Acquisition |6.4 |

|6.8 |Determining Compensation Norms |6.4 |

|6.9 |Compensation for structures and other assets |6.5 |

|6.10 |R&R Entitlement Framework |6.6 |

|6.11 |R&R Entitlement Framework for APCBTMP |6.6 |

|6.12 |Resettlement Action Plan - D Agraharam Tank (Tank 10) |6.13 |

| |6.12.1 Need for RAP |6.13 |

| |6.12.2 Census Survey of PAFs |6.14 |

| |6.12.3 Resettlement Plan |6.14 |

| |6.12.4 Compensation and Budget |6.14 |

| |6.12.5 Implementation Arrangements |6.15 |

| |6.12.6 Redressal of Grievances |6.15 |

| |6.12.7 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting |6.15 |

| |6.12.8 Disclosure of Tank Level |6.15 |

|6.13 |Resettlement Action Plan - D Agraharam Tank (Tank 10) |6.18 |

| |6.13.1 Need for RAP |6.18 |

| |6.13.2 Census Survey of PAFs |6.18 |

| |6.13.3 Resettlement Plan |6.19 |

| |6.13.4 Compensation and Budget |6.19 |

| |6.13.5 Implementation Arrangements |6.19 |

| |6.13.6 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting |6.19 |

| |6.13.7 Disclosure of Tank Level |6.19 |

|6.14 |Resettlement Action Plan - D Agraharam Tank (Tank 10) |6.23 |

| |6.14.1 Need for RAP |6.23 |

| |6.14.2 Census Survey of PAFs |6.23 |

| |6.14.3 Resettlement Plan |6.24 |

| |6.14.4 Budget |6.24 |

| |6.14.5 Implementation Arrangements |6.24 |

| |6.14.6 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting |6.24 |

| |6.14.7 Disclosure of Tank Level |6.24 |

|6.15 |Resettlement Action Plan - D Agraharam Tank (Tank 10) |6.27 |

| |6.15.1 Need for RAP |6.27 |

| |6.15.2 Census Survey of PAFs |6.27 |

| |6.15.3 Resettlement Plan |6.28 |

| |6.15.4 Budget |6.28 |

| |6.15.5 Implementation Arrangements |6.28 |

| |6.15.6 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting |6.28 |

| |6.15.7 Disclosure of Tank Level |6.28 |

|6.16 |Resettlement Action Plan - D Agraharam Tank (Tank 10) |6.34 |

| |6.16.1 Need for RAP |6.34 |

| |6.16.2 Census Survey of PAFs |6.34 |

| |6.16.3 Resettlement Plan |6.35 |

| |6.16.4 Budget |6.35 |

| |6.16.5 Implementation Arrangements |6.35 |

| |6.16.6 Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting |6.35 |

| |6.16.7 Disclosure of Tank Level |6.35 |

|Chapter 07: Indigenous People Development Strategy |7.1 |

|7.1 |Background |7.1 |

|7.2 |Definition of Tribal in the Constitution |7.1 |

|7.3 |Safeguard Policies of GoI and GoAP |7.1 |

|7.4 |Tribal Development Programmes |7.3 |

| |7.4.1 Tribal Sub-Plan |7.3 |

|7.5 |Agencies Involved in Tribal Development |7.3 |

| |7.5.1 Tribal Development Agency |7.3 |

| |7.5.2 Modified Area Development Agencies |7.3 |

| |7.5.3 Tribal Cooperative Corporation |7.4 |

| |7.5.4 Girijan Cooperative Corporation (GCC) |7.4 |

|7.6 |Programmes for Tribal Development |7.4 |

| |7.6.1 Jawahar Gram Samruddhi Yojana |7.4 |

| |7.6.2 Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) |7.4 |

| |7.6.3 Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) |7.4 |

| |7.6.4 Community Forest Management |7.4 |

|7.7 |Socio-Economic Profile of Tribals |7.4 |

|7.8 |The present study |7.5 |

|7.9 |Issues |7.6 |

|7.10 |Tribal Development Strategy |7.6 |

| |7.10.1 Introduction |7.6 |

| |7.10.2 Objectives |7.7 |

| |7.10.3 Tribal development through Project Cycle |7.10 |

|7.11 |Tribal Development Plans |7.12 |

| |7.11.1 Preparation and Implementation |7.12 |

|7.12 |Institutional arrangement |7.12 |

|7.13 |Monitoring and Evaluation |7.12 |

|7.14 |Budget |7.12 |

|7.15 |Model Plan |7.12 |

|Chapter 8: Gender Strategy and Action Plan |8.1 |

|8.1 |Introduction |8.1 |

|8.2 |Current Status in study tanks |8.1 |

|8.3 |Identification of gender concerns |8.2 |

|8.4 |Gender Action Plan |8.2 |

|8.5 |Objectives |8.2 |

|8.6 |The Approach |8.2 |

|8.7 |Implementation Strategy |8.3 |

| |8.7.1. Long term actions needing amendments to the APFMIS Act |8.5 |

|8.8 |Gender and Project Cycle Relationship |8.5 |

|8.9 |Institutional Arrangement |8.6 |

|8.10 |Budget |8.6 |

|Chapter 9: Community Participation and the Need for Communication |9.1 |

|Strategy | |

|9.1 |Introduction |9.1 |

|9.2 |Need for Communication Strategy |9.1 |

|9.3 |Current Communication Practices |9.2 |

|9.4 |Key Issues influencing Communication Strategy |9.3 |

|9.5 |Objectives of the Communication Strategy |9.3 |

|9.6 |Approach and Strategy |9.4 |

|9.7 |Communication Activities |9.4 |

|9.8 |Communication and Project Cycle Relationship |9.7 |

|9.9 |Budget |9.8 |

|Chapter 10: Additional Studies Required |10.1 |

| | | |

References

Annexures

List of Tables

|Table 1.1 |: |Category of sample tanks across the regions of Andhra Pradesh |1.1 |

|Table 1.2 |: |Distribution of tanks and households surveyed across tank types and agro-climatic regions of |1.3 |

| | |Andhra Pradesh | |

|Table 2.1 |: |Tank and Various Stakeholders |2.3 |

|Table 2.2 |: |Sizewise category and number of Tanks in Andhra Pradesh |2.5 |

|Table 2.3 |: |List of some of the stakeholders and informal agreements among them |2.12 |

| | | | |

|Table 3.1 |: |Tanks across Agro-climatic Zones (Units are in average to total sample tanks) |3.3 |

|Table 3.2 |: |Age of the Tanks |3.3 |

|Table 3.3 |: |Water Availability in tanks |3.5 |

|Table 3.4 |: |Water use and conditions of tanks |3.5 |

|Table 3.5 |: |Vegetative Cover in the Catchment Area |3.6 |

|Table 3.6 |: |Perceived Water Spread Area of the Tanks (In Acres) |3.7 |

|Table 3.7 |: |Actual Water Spread Area of the Tanks |3.7 |

|Table 3.8 |: |Frequency of tanks by level of standing water |3.8 |

|Table 3.9 |: |Area of the tank bed encroached |3.8 |

|Table 3.10 |: |Siltation of the tank bed and weed infestation |3.9 |

|Table 3.11 |: |Condition of bunds and sluice gates |3.10 |

|Table 3.12 |: |Average command of the tanks in acres |3.10 |

|Table 3.13 |: |Distribution of the Sample Households across Agro Climatic Zones |3.11 |

|Table 3.14 |: |Spread of the Sample Households across Reaches |3.11 |

|Table 3.15 |: |Demographi Characteristics of HH across Agro-climatic Zones |3.12 |

|Table 3.16 |: |Percent of Households Owning Assets |3.13 |

|Table 3.17 |: |Livestock across Agro-climatic Zones |3.14 |

|Table 3.18 |: |Distribution of land holdings across social groups |3.14 |

|Table 3.18(a) |: |Extent of cultivated land with out Patta according to respondents |3.14 |

|Table 3.19 |: |Cropping Pattern in the Command Area |3.16 |

|Table 3.20 |: |Cropping Pattern Across Agro Climatic Regions |3.17 |

|Table 3.21(a) |: | Average Productivity of Crops |3.17 |

|Table 3.21 (b) |: | National and State Level Crop Productivity (2003-04) |3.18 |

|Table 3.22 |: |Percent distribution of households by ranges of yield of paddy in Kgs per acre |3.18 |

|Table 3.23 |: |Livestock grazing in the tank catchments |3.19 |

|Table 3.24 |: |Water for Livestock |3.20 |

|Table 3.25 |: |Household Dependency on Tank for Fisheries |3.20 |

|Table 3.26 |: |Percent of household by main sources of drinking water |3.21 |

|Table 3.27 |: |Percent of HH depending on various sources of water: Kharif Season |3.23 |

|Table 3.28 |: |Percent of HH depending on various sources of water: Rabi Season |3.23 |

|Table 3.29 |: |Percent of households using Pump sets of different HP in each category |3.24 |

|Table 3.30 |: |Typology of stakeholders and implications |3.25 |

|Table 3.31 |: |Representation of farmers in WUA |3.27 |

|Table 3.32 |: |Decision Maker for Tank Water Distribution |3.27 |

|Table 3.33 |: |Responsibility of Water Distribution |3.28 |

|Table 3.34 |: |Indicators of good Management of Tank Water |3.28 |

|Table 3.35 |: |Responses on institutional arrangements for O &M after tank improvement |3.29 |

|Table 3.36 |: |Organizational Set up and Institutional Arrangements |3.30 |

|Table 3.37 |: |Conflict Scenario |3.31 |

|Table 3.38 |: |Conflict Resolution in Water Supply |3.31 |

|Table 3.39 |: |Conflict Resolution Measures |3.31 |

| | | | |

|Table 4.1 |: |Sizewise category and number of Tanks in Andhra Pradesh |4.2 |

|Table 4.2 |: |Status of ground water in Andhra Pradesh |4.3 |

|Table 4.3 |: |Consumption pattern of pesticides in State |4.5 |

|Table 4.4 |: |Highlights of AP WALT ACT, 2002 related to Tanks |4.6 |

|Table 4.5 |: |Government Orders related to Irrigation tanks |4.7 |

|Table 4.6 |: |Ground Water Quality Problems4.10 |4.10 |

|Table 4.7 |: |Water Quality parameters (BIS norms in parenthesis. Units are mg/l and for E coli in numbers)|4.10 |

|Table 4.8 |: |Perceptions about the ground water quality |4.11 |

|Table 4.9 |: |Drinking water sources |4.11 |

|Table 4.10 |: |Perceptions of households regarding the Waterborne diseases |4.12 |

|Table 4.11 |: |Number of Avian Species observed |4.12 |

|Table 4.12 |: |Details of Floristic diversity |4.13 |

|Table 4.13 |: |Common pests of Paddy |4.13 |

|Table 4.14 |: |Percentage of HHs sampled and quantum of pesticide (in liters) use |4.13 |

|Table 4.15 |: |Pesticides used in the study area and their toxicity |4.14 |

|Table 4.16 |: |Nutrient supplements observed in the study area |4.14 |

|Table 4.17 |: |Fertilizer Consumption details (per crop per season per acre in kgs) |4.14 |

|Table 4.18 |: |Details of Fertilizer procurement |4.15 |

|Table 4.19 |: |Details of Organic Manure consumption |4.15 |

|Table 4.20 |: |Details of water source for livestock in various agro Climatic zone |4.16 |

|Table 4.21 |: |Anticipated Impacts during construction stage |4.18 |

|Table 4.22 |: |Anticipated induced changes owing to proposed intervention |4.20 |

| | | | |

|Table 5.1 |: |Social and Environmental Concerns |5.2 |

|Table 5.2 |: |Schematic Plan of SEMF in various stages of sub-project cycle |5.3 |

|Table 5.3 |: |Mitigation measures |5.9 |

|Table 5.4 |: |Indicators for Monitoring |5.13 |

| | | | |

|Table 8.1 |: |Strategies and activities under Gender Action Plan |8.4 |

List of Figures

|Figure 2.1 |: |Map of various regions in A.P |2.3 |

| | | | |

|Figure 3.1 |: |Analytical Framework for the Tank Resources-Stakeholders-Livelihood Linkages |3.2 |

|Figure 3.2 |: |Castes Structure across Tank Types |3.12 |

|Figure 3.3 |: |Household Dependent on Livestock Activities |3.13 |

|Figure 3.4 |: |Sources of Borrowing across Agro-climatic Zones |3.16 |

|Figure 3.5 |: |Paddy Production |3.18 |

|Figure 3.6 |: |Stakeholders’ Perception on Drinking water Scarcity |3.21 |

|Figure 3.7(a) |: | Dependence on Sources of Water for Agriculture in Kharif Season |3.22 |

|Figure 3.7(b) |: |Dependence on Sources of Water for Agriculture in Rabi Season |3.22 |

|Figure 3.8 |: |Bore-wells across Tank Types |3.24 |

|Figure 3.9 |: |Bore-well across Agro-climatic zones |3.24 |

| | | | |

|Figure 4.1 |: |Consumption of pesticides crop wise |4.4 |

Acknowledgements

We owe special thanks for giving this opportunity to carry out the study and providing us with all necessary support and co-operation to Mr. S.P. Tucker, Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Special Commissioner, I&CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and to Ms. Madhuri S. Newale, Social Development Expert for co-ordinating the study and for constantly helping us to refine the study. Dr. Mohd. Hasan and Dr. Sanjay Pahuja of The World Bank interacted constantly with us and provided constructive criticisms and encouragement to complete the study. Both senior and field officials of the Minor Irrigation Department and the Revenue Department were very helpful during our field work. We are highly thankful to all of them.

We propose our sincere thanks to the members of the Tank Community in all the villages that we visited across the State. We are thankful to all the field investigators for their hard work.

This report would not have been possible without the active support and putting in hard work from Mr. B.K.D. Raja, Mr. Narayan Bhat and Mr. Md. Shakeel of Centre for Excellence in Management and Technology Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Dr S .Narendra Prasad, Senior Principal Scientist and his field team from Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Hyderabad. We are highly grateful for all their help and continuous persistence to bringing this study in the present shape. We are highly thankful to Ms. S. Padmavathy for her meticulous work in completing all the versions on time and to carry out all corrections.

The support and encouragement given by the former Director of our Institute Prof. Gopal K. Kadekodi and the present Director Prof. N. Jayaram and the Incharge Director Dr. G.K. Karanth provided enabling environment to complete the study. Mr. V. Ramappa, Registrar I/c and Accounts Officer in the Institute helped in all administrative and accounts work. To all of them, we remain indebted.

The Authors

Institute for Social and Economic Change

Bangalore

December 8, 2006

Draft

Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Project:

Environmental and Social Assessment Study

Submitted by

Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources

Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore

In collaboration with

Centre for Excellence in Management and Technologies Ltd., Hyderabad

and Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Hyderabad

Executive Summary

The Construct

Andhra Pradesh is the fifth biggest State in India. Tanks have been, a major source of water supply for irrigation, drinking water and other uses. According to one estimate, tanks contribute to as much as 67 percent of the sste’s total irrigable area. Over the years, many of the tanks, due to a variety of problems in popoer functioning. At the State level, 69 percent of estimated 77, 000 tanks, of the tanks are under repair, accounting for 82% of the area irrigated by tanks.

Andhra Pradesh is the first state in India to promulgate a long-term vision through the document, Vision 2020: Swarna Andhra Pradesh. Both the irrigation policy and legal framework were in tune with the long-term vision adopted by the State. It envisages that an effective way to provide quality and responsive services is to decentralise them and ensure that people have a role in managing them. Andhra Pradesh's own experiment in water management reform demonstrates the power of peoples participation.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh has initiated a community based action plan to rehabilitate about 4 lakh ha of command area under minor irrigation tank systems in a project mode to improve tank-based livelihoods on technical, socio-economic and environmental sound principles. The State government has proposed to set up a Project Monitoring Unit that would house the multi-disciplinary skills necessary to implement the plan.

The present study was undertaken to develop a framework and to assess the social and environmental impacts of the proposed project interventions; develop measures to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts; and examine the legal, policy and institutional aspects. This assessment used a combination of Participatory Transect Walks, PRAs and Focus Group Discussions, Questionnaire Canvassing, Consultations with SC and ST members of the community and with the officials of various line-departments, and PRAs with the community. To validate the findings, a series of internal and external consultative reviews and public consultations were held at four places.

Across the State, 50 tanks have been identified for the social and environmental assessment and for the compilation of the tank profiles. The list of 50 tanks was provided by the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department. The tanks were distributed over three regions and are spread over 17 districts of the state.

A series of discussions were held with the representatives of the World Bank, MI and CAD of GoAP, and members of the research team, and review team members frequently, to firm up the method, objectives and pattern of analysis. Extensive consultations were also carried out with a variety of stakeholders (including farmers, representatives from the PRIs, women and other vulnerable groups, and other local organizations), government agencies, researchers, expert groups and NGOs.

Public Consultations

Public consultations were held at two stages, viz. Stage-1 at Tank Level - consultations with stakeholders in the form of Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Stage-2 at Regional Level at four different locations (Vijayanagaram, Ongole, Karimnagar and Kadapa) of the State was held on 27th September and 5th October 2006.

Survey Findings

The key findings include both environmental and social relevance (significance) of tank irrigation systems and various key concerns.

a) More than 79% of the interviewed farmers belong to small and marginal farmer category; 55% of the total farmers hold less than 1 acre of land.

b) Majority of the farmers complained about the high siltation levels, thereby, affecting their crop cultivation and in turn their livelihood.

c) Owing to poor condition of the tank supplies, exclusive dependency on tank water is confined to 43% in Kharif season and 45% in Rabi season. However, these are critical crop-saving irrigations.

d) In spite of poor condition of the tanks, water intensive crops like paddy is cultivated in 49% of tank command area. However, in recent years, with fast growth in groundwater exploitation and subsidized power supply, crop diversification is picking up towards horticultural crops and cash crops (Sugarcane, chillies).

e) Despite significant presence of formal credit facilities 31% of the interviewed farmers reported to be borrowing from moneylenders; it ranges from 22% in South Telangana region to 47% in Krishna Godavari basin region.

f) Farmers belong to backward communities are 38%, followed by 22% from SC and 13% belonging to ST.

g) One of the key constraints for high productivity and efficient use of land and water resources is practice of tenancy. Tank command areas across 50 tanks are not free from this constraint. High levels of tenancy were reported across the reaches of the tank command; High tenancy levels have also affected the tank system maintenance, repairs, and payment of water charges, and participation in collective action.

h) Interestingly, the age-old traditional institution of neerganti (water distributor appointed locally) is preferred by 73% of the interviewed farmers.

i) In case of willingness to pay for the water supplies, 69% indicated around Rs.100/acre/season, and 7% indicated to go beyond Rs.300/acre/season. Majority (57%) of them have clearly stressed on equitable distribution of water across the crop-seasons as main focus for a good management of the tank.

j) Unfortunately, 95% of the study tank based WUAs do not have women representatives in their Management committees.

k) According to the National Environmental Protection Act 1986, the minor irrigation project does not warrant formal environmental assessment procedure. Sub-project specific analysis based on the field visits to tank sites indicates that environmental impacts of proposed tank improvement are short-term in nature and/or reversible.

From detailed survey of select tanks, following key concerns emerge.

Social Concerns

• Encroachment (based on census survey of 5 tanks): a) Area/tank range from 7 to 57 acres and Number of PAPs 5 to 30 per tank, b) Two-third families are nuclear, c) 83% PAFs are illiterates, d) 3% PAFs are women, and e) All PAFs are below poverty line

• Inadequate and poor participation of WUA members in: a) Tank Management covering regular O&M, b) Payment of Water charges, c) Collective action as WUA, d) Water distribution, and e) Maintenance of distribution network and sluices

• Conflicts on water use: a) Head and tail enders, b) Fisherman and tank bed cultivators, c) Tankbed and command area cultivators, d) Upstream and down stream users in cascade system of tanks

• Tail end issues: a) Less number of irrigations compare to head enders, b) Poor distribution system, c) Poor maintenance, d) Head and middle reach farmers store up during scarcities

• Status and returns from tank based livelihoods: a) Reduced over time, b) High levels of siltation has reduced storage levels, c) Less number of irrigations, d) Less groundwater recharge

• Poor participation in WUA: a) Lack of consultation process, b) Low participation of women in tank management, c) Poor representation in WUA

Environmental Concerns

• Quality (based on water quality tests in 10 tanks): a) Coliform range 50-1600 (std 40 hectare command), Panchayat Raj Tanks ( ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download