Impact of Participatory Irrigation Management on water availability and agricultural productivity

Mohsin Riaz and Muhammad Ashfaq

Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Agriculture, Faisalabad()

Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the 63rd AARES Annual Conference, Melbourne, Vic 12-15 February 2019

Copyright 2018 by Authors names. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Impact of Participatory Irrigation Management on water availability and agricultural productivity

Mohsin Riaz and Muhammad Ashfaq

Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Pakistan)

Abstract

Agriculture sector is the keystone of the economy of Pakistan. It contributes about 19 percent to GDP, accounts for 60 percent of its exports, and provides employment opportunities to 42.3 percent of total labor force. Increasing population is putting pressure on the agriculture sector to fulfill their basic needs related to food and fiber. Water is a key input in development of agriculture and food security in Pakistan. The per capita water availability in Pakistan is 1100 m3, below 1000 m3 water availability means water stress condition. Every coming day is putting pressure on the irrigation sector due to increase of water demand, low water supply, low irrigation efficiency, mismanagement and increasing demand of food items. Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) involves the farmers in operation and management (O&M) of irrigation system. These reforms in Pakistan are facing various challenges to achieve its objectives due to conflicts between Farmer Organizations (FOs) and Provincial Irrigation Authorities, although farmers both at head and tail reaches of study areas are in favor of these reforms. The success rate of this reform varies from place to place. This study was carried out in 2 distributaries of LCC (West) Circle, Faisalabad-Pakistan i.e. Maduana (under irrigation Department) and Nasrana (under Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority). Data were collected from 120 farmers, 60 from each distributary through random sampling technique. This study evaluated the motives of farmers to pay irrigation fees and participation in irrigation infrastructure improvement and assessed the impact of irrigation reforms on agricultural productivity and water availability. Results showed that farmers situated on distributary under reformed area were having timely and greater water availability across seasons, having more productivity, were paying more water charges and taking part in the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure.

Keywords

Participatory Irrigation Management, Water Availability, Agricultural Productivity, Generalized Cobb-Douglas Production function

Introduction

Agriculture sector is the keystone of the economy of Pakistan. Agriculture sector also provides raw material to manufacturing sector to transform into different products. Agriculture sector is big source of basic necessities of life in developing countries like Pakistan. Share of Agriculture sector to GDP has been declining for many years. During FY 2016-17, it contributed about 19 percent to National Gross Domestic Product which was 21.4 percent during FY 2012. Labor force contribution has been declining every year. During FY 2016-17, it provides the earning opportunities to 42.3 percent of the total labor force which was almost 45 percent during FY 2012. During FY 2016-17, per capita income level has been raised from $1333 to $1629 (GoP, 2018).

Irrigation water is the key input for crop production or agriculture. Agriculture sector is the keystone of the economy so long run sustainability of this sector heavily depends on the irrigation water below 1000 m3 availability of water economies experienced chronic water stress. At present, the annual availability of water in Pakistan is above 1,100 m3 so there is big challenge for Pakistan to overcome this challenge and increase the annual availability of water. There are four major sources of irrigation water in Pakistan i.e. Snow and Glaciers, Rainfall, Ground water, and surface water (Ashfaq et al., 2009). a) Surface Water is the big source of surface water resources in Pakistan. Pakistan has the largest Indus river irrigation system of the world whose length is almost 2,900,000 meters and drainage area is almost 0.96 million square kilometer. Five main tributaries i.e. , Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Jhelum join on the eastern side while three minor tributaries namely Soan, Siran and Harow drain from the mountainous areas (Ashfaq et al., 2009). The total flow from the Indus is almost 138.7 Million Acre Feet (MAF) water annually. The water availability is almost 70 percent during the three monsoon months and drastically lower down during the February and March from river flow (Raza et al., 2013) b) Ground Water Almost 113 million hectares (38 %) from 300 million hectares area is heavily dependent on groundwater for irrigated the lands (Siebert et al. 2010). In Pakistan, almost 79 percent Punjab province and 28 percent area of the Sindh province is underlain by the fresh ground water. In Pakistan, Almost 55 Million Acre Feet (MAF) contributes by the groundwater resources to the Indus (Ashfaq et al., 2009). c) Rain fall In Northern areas of Pakistan, Rain fall is the major source of irrigation. “The mean average precipitation ranges from less than 100 mm in parts of Lower Indus Plain to over 750 mm near the foothills in the Upper Indus Plain. The entire canal command areas receive an average seasonal rain fall of 212 mm and 53 mm in Kharif and Rabi seasons, respectively” (Ashfaq et al ., 2009). The share of rain fall to irrigate the areas is less than from surface and ground water in Pakistan. Irrigation water is the key input for agricultural productivity. Water availability varies from area to area, season to season and time to time. Water availability is higher at head reaches as compare to tail reaches due to water courses condition, water losses and time of provision. Due to transformation of agricultural land into non-agricultural land, high growth rate of population, rapid growth and development is creating shortage of water. Due to some uncertain climatic conditions water supply is decreasing day by day and demand for water is increasing which leads to the problem of water scarcity, competition for water and some environmental problems (Akhtar and Cepiku, 2013). Pakistan has 22 million hectare cultivatable land out of which 74 percent land is under irrigated agriculture zone. Irrigated agricultural zone uses almost 90 percent water, 80 percent flow of water is carried out during the month of June to September and produces 97 percent agricultural production (Alam, 2012). Pakistan irrigation system is almost 130 years old, covering almost 17 million hectare area which is operated and maintained by the government (Irrigation department) under Irrigation and Drainage Act 1873. IBIS consists of 3 major reservoirs dams (Tarbela, Chasma, and Mangla), 19 barrages, 19 inter river linked canals, 45 independent irrigation canal commands and over 140,000 water courses (Wescoat, 2000). The total length of canals is almost 61,000 kilometres and including the water courses, farm channels and field ditches it covers another 1.6 million kilometres. This system provides average 130 BCM surface water throughout the year and groundwater contribution is almost 53 Billion Cubic Meters. Due to poor performance mostly surface water is not available during critical period of crops (Khan et al., 2007; Ashfaq et al., 2009). Performance of irrigation sector can be evaluated by measuring the availability of water to all farmers over the year in an economy. The overall average actual surface water available for use is 103.5 MAF, out of which 67.1 MAF is available during Kharif season and 36.4 MAF during Rabi season. The highest total actual surface water availability has been achieved during the FY 2014-15 that was 102.4 MAF, 69.3 MAF was available during Kharif season and 33.1 MAF was available during Rabi season. But during the last decade or ten years, actual surface water availability has a decreasing trend which shows that the performance of irrigation department has been declining each year. If this condition prevails for next ten years actual then total water availability will be near 80 MAF (GoP, 2017). Groundwater is also a big source of irrigation after surface water in plain areas of Punjab, Pakistan. In Sindh and Punjab, about 28 percent and 79 percent area is under the fresh groundwater (Zulfiqar et al., 2017). Before the spread of the Indus Basin Irrigation System, the ground water table was ranges between 40 and 100 feet depth but now it is above 100 feet. The total potential for groundwater in Pakistan is about 55 MAF but about 41.6 MAF pumped each year and more than 90 percent pumped groundwater is used for irrigation purposes (Ashfaq et al., 2009). This poor performance is due to mismanagement of water resources, lack of operational and maintenance funds in sub-continent. Poor performance has been leading to unequal distribution and unavailability of water resources especially during critical crop growth time period (Cordery, 2009). Due to this condition large farmers are getting more benefits as compare to small and medium farmers. International Water Management institution (IWMI) pointed out unequal distribution of water resources in Pakistan, Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka along the canal schemes (Marry, 1997). Pakistan canal irrigation system was required estimated US$ 5.70/ha operational and maintenance funds but actual available operational and maintenance funds are US$2.70. So there is a big difference (almost 48 percent) between estimated and actual available operational and maintenance funds (Skutch, 1998). During early decades of irrigation system 1960s and 1970s in Pakistan water using fee collection was equal or greater than the expenditures. During the 1990s, due to flat rate of water charges, water using fee collection was 44 percent less than from the expenditures on operation and maintenance that is a big threat to sustainability of irrigation system (Vermillion, 2005). Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (PIDA) have been established in 1997 with the collaboration of World Bank with the representation of agriculture department and farming community. Area Water Boards (AWBs), Farmer Organizations (FOs) and Khal Panchayats (KPs) were established under PIDA act 1997 at canal, distributary/minor level and water courses level, respectively. Currently, 5 AWBs namely Lower Chenab Canal (East) Circle Faisalabad established in 2005, Lower Chenab Canal (West) Circle Faisalabad established in 2007, Lower Bari Doab Canal Circle Sahiwal established in 2012, Bahwalnagar Canal Circle established in 2011 and Derajaat Canal Circle D.G Khan established in 2013 have been operationalized with the representation of farming community in Punjab (PIDA, 2018).

a) Structure and Responsibilities of FOs and KPs in Punjab, Pakistan i) Structure of FOs: Farmer organizations have been established at distributary level in all 5 AWBs. The FOs is composed of 9 members, out of which 4 members constitute general body and 5 members constitute executive body. ii) General Body of FOs: 1) President 2) Vice president 3) Secretary 4) Treasurer Executive committee are composed of 5 chairman of same distributary. iii) Responsibilities of FOs: The responsibilities of FOs are;  To manage, operate and maintain the distributaries and minors according to the design  To obtain the authorized water supply from main or sub branch canal from authorities  To supply the water equitably and efficiently in different settings of distributary  To collect the water charges, penalties and other fees from the water users  To deposit the collected water charges amount to government after retaining 50 percent share from collected amount  To settle the disputes of the farmers relating to irrigation water or under PIDA act 1873 iv) Structure of KPs: Khal Panchayat has been established at water courses level in all 5 AWBs. The KPs are composed of 5 members, out of which 4 members constitute Executive body and 1 members constitute General body (Chairman). v) Responsibilities of KPs: The responsibilities of KPs are;  To collect the abiana from water users at water course level  To manage, operate and maintain the water courses  To settle the disputes among farmers at water course level  To ensure the water supply equitably and efficiently at different settings of water course farmers. The Government of Pakistan launched a National Drainage Program (NDP) US$ 785 million mainly with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) assistance in 1997 to rehabilitate the irrigation and drainage system in the country. In one of the major reforms carried out by this program was the creation of farmer organizations (FOs) through the PIM in order to subsidize the operation and Maintenance in seven to ten years. Consequently the four provinces promulgated the Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (PIDA) acts in order to transfer the management roles from provincial departments to self-reliant entities. One of the major functions of PIDA was to introduce the concept of participatory irrigation management through the pilot area water boards at canal circle level and FOs at canal secondary level in about 7 years. Principally, all the four Acts propagated by the four provinces were almost alike in nature. They had provisions for farmers’ representation at the Authority and for their role in significant decision-making, but their implementation varied substantially from province to province. Absence of awareness and capacity building of the irrigation department staff before commencing the process of Area Water Board (AWB), FOs the concept of participatory irrigation management and the new role of the staff had created the impression of loss of job. The hesitancy of the government agencies for transferring authority to water users and fear of loss of job especially at the field level unit delayed the development of rules and regulations for proposed FOs. Sindh was foremost in the establishment of farmer organizations where 206 farmer organizations had been formed by the end of 2005 and Irrigation and Drainage Management Transfer (IDMT) contracts had been signed with 166 FOs along with the complete transfer of management to them. Punjab got underway late and had completed the first pilot area water board of Lower Chenab Canal Circle (LCC) East by transferring 85 secondary channels to FOs for joint management (PIDA, 2005). The ultimate objective of the irrigation and drainage sector transformations was development in water distribution equity and self-reliance of the independent provincial irrigation and drainage Authorities. Out of the total 340 farmer organizations formed by December 2005, 257 farmer organizations had taken over management responsibilities. Punjab has reported various achievements during the first 100 days of their operation as: a) water distribution improved due to theft has been controlled by 80-90% from previous years, b) 146 disputes on warabandi of watercourses were reported to farmer organizations and disposed-off c) increased the cost recovery which is essential for efficient and sustainable operation and maintenance of the centuries old irrigation system (PIDA, 2005; IWMI, 2003). During the last few decades, bad performance of irrigation system has been considering a high priority agenda at national and international level. The low efficiency irrigation system performance has declined despite heavy investments in the rehabilitation of infrastructure of irrigation system. Due to this performance after heavy investment, national and international agencies altered their strategies by arguing that international issues constrain the overall irrigation management in Pakistan (Akhtar et al., 2014). Participatory Irrigation Management in Pakistan is facing various challenges to achieve its goals and objectives, support, willingness of government and policy makers. This reform is also facing resistance from the provincial irrigation departments of public sector, which are to be transformed. The reforms process in the country is struggling requiring political will and full support of the stakeholders. This reform leads to conflicts between the concerned stakeholders i.e. FOs and Publically owned Irrigation Departments due to financial incentives (Hassan, 2013; Nagrah et al., 2016). Moreover, it is necessary to assess the impact of Participatory Irrigation Management on agricultural productivity and water availability to farmers’ at different locations and to identify the key influence of successful devolution at different scales. Such focus will provide the findings that will help the government, donors and NGOs to improve the performance of irrigation system. The overall objectives of the study are a) To evaluate what motives farmers to pay irrigation fees and participation in irrigation upgrades. b) To assess the impact of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) on agricultural productivity and water availability to farmers’ in different settings c) To design a proper policy to overcome the issues regarding PIM.

Methods

Though this study deserves to be conducted at provincial level but due to time and resource constraints this study was carried out in Lower Chenab Canal (East), Faisalabad Area Water Board which was established in 2005 (PIDA, 2018). Faisalabad is the 2nd most populous city with about 7.87 million population of eastern Punjab and 3rd most populous city of Pakistan after Lahore, Karachi (PBS, 2017). LCC is the main source of irrigation. The Lower Chenab Canal (East) was constructed in 1892, branching from river Chenab at Khanki Headworks in Gujrat. This system comprises of upper Gogera branch, lower Gogera branch, Burala branch and upper . LCC (East) AWB comprised on 85 FOs and 223 distributaries with 3601 outlets (PIDA, 2018). Primary data were collected by using comprehensive questionnaire through survey. The survey was undertaken through interview with randomly selected farmers from those areas where PIM was functional (Nasrana) and not functional (Maduana). Canal water is one of the biggest source of irrigation in district Faisalabad. Faisalabad is located at the middle tail reach of LCC (East), Faisalabad AWB. Due to time and financial constraint this study was carried out in 2 distributaries i.e Nasrana and Maduana Distributary. Nasrana distributary is still operational and working under PIDA. Maduana distributary is not operational and working under care taker setup. In order to select a representative sample for this study, a multi-stage sampling technique was used to select sample farmers with PIM and without PIM. To determine the sample farmers from district Faisalabad the following three stages were used. In the first stage, out of 2 AWBs one AWB i.e. LCC (West), Faisalabad were selected purposively which was established in 2007. In the second stage, with help of PIDA experts and progressive farmers 2 distributaries were selected from 2 FOs of LCC (West), Faisalabad. In the third stage, from the selected distributaries, 60 farmers were randomly selected from each distributary with and without PIM. A total of 120 farmers were selected randomly and interviewed. Economic analysis of the data includes the statistical model applied on the data and the interpretation of the results. Econometric analysis was carried on primary data collected from 120 (60 from Nasrana and 60 from Maduana) farmers of study area. Since LCC (West) area has spread in two cropping zones i.e. Sugarcane-Wheat cropping zone and mixed cropping zone. Both wheat and sugarcane crops were grown by almost all the farmers in both situations i.e. with PIM and without PIM. Therefore, econometric analysis was carried out only for wheat crop in present study. Cobb-Douglas production function was estimated due to its certain advantages for use in agriculture sector. Cobb-Douglas production function has some assumptions which are: i) Assumptions 1. Production function is time invariant i.e. there is no change in production pattern. 2. Socio-economic and ecological conditions remain the same. 3. Production function includes only one phase of return to scale 4. Production in one time period is independent of the production in other time periods or production in one sector of economy is independent of production in other sectors of economy (Baigh et al., 2009). Following production function was estimated for wheat crop independently to capture the impact of irrigation reforms on GVP of wheat crop in study area.

InWYield = β0+ β1 lnWAreai + β2 lnWSRi + β3 lnWUreai + β4 lnWWeedi + β5 lnAgei + β6 lrmanurei + β7 lnCannirrii + β8 LocTi + β9 LocHi + β10 DRi + µit Where lnWYield = Average per acre yield of wheat of the farm. lnWArea = Area of i-th farm under wheat crop (Acres) lnWSRi = Average Per acre seed rate of the i-th farm for wheat crop lnWUreai = Number of Urea bags of the i-th farm for wheat crop lnWWeedi = Amount of chemical treatment/plant protection measures of the i-th farm lnAgei = Age of the i-th farmer in years lnmanurei = No. of trollies of manure per acre LnCannirri = No. of Canal irrigations per acre LocT = Dummy variable for location of outlet of specific farm. LocT = 1 it is located at tail of the distributary otherwise zero. LocH = Dummy variable for location of outlet of specific farm. LocH = 1 it is located at tail of the distributary otherwise zero. DR = Dummy variable for taking into account the implementation of reform process. If DR = 1 for with PIM otherwise DR=0

µ ij = Error terms

Results

1. Motives farmers to pay irrigation fees and participation in irrigation upgrades Table 1: Total Abiana Collection

FO Name Total Abiana Collection (Rs.) Total (no.) Maduana (no.) Nasrana (no.)

Less than 500 16 14 30

500 to 800 14 3 17

801 to 1100 10 6 16 1101 to 1400 8 16 24

1401 to 1700 1 7 8

Above 1700 11 14 25

Total 60 60 120

Table 2: Labour Participation for maintaining the irrigation system

FO Name Total (no.) Labour Participation (Rs.) Maduana (no.) Nasrana (no.)

Less than 300 1 0 1

300 to 500 10 6 16

501 to 700 3 7 10

701 to 1000 46 41 87

Above 1000 0 6 6

Total 60 60 120

2. Impact of PIM on Water availability Table 3: Greater Water Availability

FO Name Response Total (no.) Maduana (no.) Nasrana (no.)

Strongly Disagree 3 5 8

Disagree 8 12 20

Partly Agree 37 23 60 Agree 11 20 31

Strongly Agree 1 0 1

Total 60 60 120

Table 4: Timely Water Availability

FO Name Response Total (no.) Maduana (no.) Nasrana (no.)

Strongly Disagree 2 1 3

Disagree 8 6 14

Partly Agree 38 25 63

Agree 10 28 38

Strongly Agree 2 0 2

Total 60 60 120

Table 5: Better Availability across seasons

FO Name Response Total (no.) Maduana (no.) Nasrana (no.)

Strongly Disagree 3 0 3

Disagree 7 7 14

Partly agree 37 36 73 Agree 12 17 29

Strongly Agree 1 0 1

Total 60 60 120

3. Impact of PIM on agricultural productivity Table 6: Yield of Sugarcane (Monds/Acre)

FO Name Mean N Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Maduana 696.33 49 142.941 400 1100

Nasrana 808.86 44 136.556 600 1100

Total 749.57 93 150.224 400 1100

Table 7: Yield of Wheat (Monds/Acre)

FO Name Mean N Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Maduana 41.22 59 5.703 30 55

Nasrana 43.86 56 6.428 20 55

Total 42.50 115 6.183 20 55

LnYield = 2.397 + 0.427 LnSR + 0.36 LnArea – 0.036 LnUrea – 0.029 LnManure + 0.025 LnWeed + 0.102 LnAge + 0.130 LnCanWater + 0.046 D1 (LocH) – 0.041 D2 (LocM) + 0.007 D3 (distributaries) + µi

Discussion

Table 3 shows that overall about 50 percent respondents were partly agreed, about 26 percent were agreed, about 16 percent were disagreed, about 7 percent were strongly disagreed and about only 1 percent were strongly agreed that water availability had been increased as compare to the Traditional system. In Maduana distributary, about 62 percent were partly agreed, about 18 percent were agreed, about 13 percent were disagreed, about 5 percent were strongly disagreed and only 2 percent were strongly agreed that water availability had been increased as compare to PIM system. In Nasrana distributary, about 38 percent were partly agreed, about 34 percent were agreed, about 20 percent were disagreed and 9 percent were strongly disagreed that water availability had been increased as compare to the traditional system. Table 4 shows that overall about 53 percent respondents were partly agreed, about 32 percent were agreed, about 12 percent were disagreed, about 2 percent were strongly disagreed and about 2 percent were strongly agreed that timely water availability had been ensured in both Maduana and Nasrana distributaries. In Maduana distributary, about 64 percent respondents were partly agreed, about 16 percent were agreed, about 14 percent were disagreed, about 3 percent were strongly disagreed and about 3 percent were strongly agreed that timely water availability had been ensured. In Nasrana distributary, about 47 percent were agreed, about 42 percent were partly agreed, about 10 percent were disagreed and about 1 percent were strongly disagreed that timely water availability had been ensured by the PIM system. Table 5 shows that overall about 61 percent respondents were partly agreed, about 24 percent were agreed, about 12 percent were disagreed, about 2 percent were strongly disagreed and only about 1 percent was strongly agreed that water availability across seasons had been increased in both distributaries. In Maduana distributary, about 62 percent respondents were partly agreed, about 20 percent were agreed, about 12 percent were disagreed, about 5 percent were strongly disagreed and only 1 percent was strongly agreed that water availability across seasons had been increased in traditional system. In Nasrana distributary, about 60 percent were partly agreed, about 28 percent were agreed and about 12 percent were disagreed that water availability across the seasons had been increased in PIM system. Table 6 shows that the overall average productivity of sugarcane was 749.57 monds per acre with standard deviation of 150.224. The minimum per acre yield of sugarcane was 400 monds per acre and maximum was 1100 monds per acre. In Maduana distributary, the average productivity of sugarcane was 696.33 monds per acre with standard deviation of 142.941. The minimum per acre yield of sugarcane was 400 monds per acre and maximum was 1100 monds per acre. In Nasrana distributary, the average productivity of sugarcane was 808.86 monds per acre with standard deviation of 136.556. The minimum per acre yield was 600 monds and maximum was 1100 monds. Table 7 shows that the overall average wheat productivity was 42.50 monds per acre with standard deviation of 6.183. The minimum per acre yield of wheat was 20 monds and maximum was 55 monds. In Maduana distributary, the average yield of wheat was 41.22 monds per acre with standard deviation of 5.703. The minimum per acre yield was 30 monds per acre and maximum was 55 monds per acre. In Nasrana distributary, the average yield of wheat was 43.86 monds per acre with standard deviation was 6.428. The minimum per acre average yield of wheat was 20 monds and maximum per acre average yield was 55 monds. Table 8 indicated that the seed rate and area under wheat cultivation was positively related with the wheat productivity that was statistically significant at less than 5 percent level of significance. Results indicated that by increasing 1 percent level of seed rate of wheat has been increased the .427 percent per acre yield of wheat that was statistically significant at 5 percent level of significance. . The farmers having large land holdings have more assets and also financially strong to purchase all quality inputs and farm equipment’s as compare to the small farmers that’s why seed rate and area under wheat cultivation has positive relation with the wheat productivity. Results indicated that urea application and weedicide application has been negatively related with the wheat productivity that was statistically insignificant. Results also revealed that age of farmers, canal irrigations and farmers at head reach have been positively related to the wheat productivity that was statistically significant at 5 percent level of significance. Results revealed that by increasing 1 percent age of farmers has been increased .102 percent per acre yield of wheat that was statistically significant at 3 percent level of significance. Results indicated that by increasing 1 percent canal water irrigation has been increased the .130 percent wheat productivity that was statistically highly significant at less than 1 percent level of significance. The old farmers have more farming experience to cultivate wheat. Experienced persons have more practical knowledge about the sowing time, cultural practice, fertilizer application, weedicide application and about the irrigation required for wheat cultivation that’s why age was positively related to the wheat productivity. Results indicated that the wheat productivity of head reach farmers was .046 percent higher than the middle reach farmers that were statistically significant at 9 percent level of significance. Canal irrigation is the main factor that influences the agricultural productivity especially in Faisalabad district because ground water is not fit for irrigation. The head reach farmers was more close to the canal irrigation source that’s why water availability for head reach farmers was more than middle reach farmers. So, canal irrigation and head reach location farmers has positively related with the wheat productivity. Results indicated that the farmers in Nasrana distributary (under PIDA) has more agricultural productivity than the farmers in Maduana distributary (Under PID) that was statistically significant at 9 percent level of significance. Results revealed that the wheat productivity in Nasrana distributary was .007 percent more than Maduana distributary that was statistically significant at 9 percent level of significance. It is suggested that operation and maintenance of irrigation system should be handed over to the PIDA in true spirit and supported by the irrigation department staff. Farmers were paying irrigation charges in true spirit to the PIDA staff and participated in rehabilitation of irrigation structure in reformed area so financial support and authority should be provided to PIDA staff.

References

Akhtar, M.J.U. and D. Cepiku. 2013. Participatory irrigation management in Pakistan: Initial results of a pilot project. South Asia Water Studies. 4: 4-22.

Akhtar, M.J.U., D. Cepiku and A. Lapenta. 2014. Public participation and co-production in the irrigation sector of Punjab, Pakistan. Public sector reforms in developing countries: Paradoxes and practices. 39. Alam, A. 2012. A comparative study of improved and traditional irrigation system in the gilgit district of northern areas of Pakistan: from the farm management perspectives (Doctoral dissertation).

Ashfaq, M., G. Griffith and I. Hussain. 2009. Water in Pakistan: an overview. Book on economics of water resources in Pakistan. Pak TM Printers. 1: 1-13

Baig, I.A., M. Ashfaq, S. Hassan, K. Mushtaq and M.A. Raza. 2009. An analysis of irrigation reforms and their impact on rural livelihood in Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Research. 47(3).

Cordery, I., 2009. Water productivity in a rigid irrigation delivery system. Water Resources Management. 23(6): 1025-1040.

GoP, 2017. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2016-17, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan.

GoP, 2018. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2017-18, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Hassan, M.M.U. 2011. Analyzing governance reforms in irrigation: Central, South and West Asian experience. Irrigation and Drainage. 60: 151–162.

IWMI. 2003. A compendium of Information on Water Resources: Uses and Costs. IWMI, Lahore

Marry, D.J. 1997. Expending the frontiers of irrigation management research Colombo, Sri Lanka. International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI).

Nagrah, A., A.M. Chaudhry and M. Giordano. 2016. Collective action in decentralized irrigation systems: Evidence from Pakistan. World Development. 84: 282-298.

PIDA, 2018. Institutional reforms in Punjab. Punjab Irrigation & Drainage Authority (PIDA), Lahore. (http://www.punjab.gov.pk/irrigation/pida)

PIDAa, 2005. Institutional reforms in Punjab. Punjab Irrigation & Drainage Authority (PIDA), Lahore. (http://www.punjab.gov.pk/irrigation/pida)

Raza, A., M. Latif and A.S. Shakir. 2013. Long‐term effectiveness of lining tertiary canals in the Indus basin of Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage. 62(1): 16-24.

Skutch, J.C. 1998. Maintaining the value of irrigation and drainage projects. (Report OD/TN 90) Wallingford, UK. HR Wallingford Ltd. Vermillion, D.Z. 2005. Irrigation sector reform in Asia: From participation with patronage to empowerment with accountability. Book on Asian Irrigation in Transition: Responding to Challenges (Ed). Sage Publications, New Delhi/ Thousand Oaks/ London.

Wescoat, J.L., S.J. Halvorson and D. Mustafa. 2000. Water management in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: A half-century perspective. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 16(3):391-406.

Zulfiqar, F., S. Shahzad, M. Abid and R. Ullah. 2017. Managing water commons and the extent of their climate resilience in Punjab, Pakistan