Government of Jammu &

Evaluation Report On Igophey Canal, ( Joint Vernture of Irrigation Division Igophey and CAD Leh) (1979 – 2011)

Irrigated Land in sample farms before and after Irrigated Land in sample villages before and after the commissioing of Igophey Canal Project the commissioing of Igophey Canal Project

Before commissioning of project Before commissioning of project After commissioning of project After commissioning of project 576.00 600.00 423.00

6000.00 5061.12 400.00

4000.00 3178.12 171.00 161.00 141.00 80.00 128.00 123.00 2090.00 200.00 116.00 1648.12 1648.12 79.00 1530.00

2000.00 1073.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 - Area inHectarres

Area inHectarres 0.00 SKUAST Matho Fodder Equine Total Dev. farm sample Farm Farms Sample Villages Sample Farms

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, J&K Planning and Development Department

Contents

S.no Description of the Chapter Page Nos

I Introduction 1-4

II Scheme & Its Progress 5-13

III Field Findings 14-35

IV Summary of Main Findings 36-39

Difficulties/Bottlenecks faced 40

Suggestions 41_____

Highlights of Evaluation Study on Igophey Canal, Leh.

1. The Igophey Irrigation project situated in of J & K state was started in the year 1979. The objective of the scheme was to facilitate irrigation in the Command Area of the Canal and bring more un-irrigated land under irrigation for raising the productivity and production of the area. The ultimate aim was to decrease excessive dependence of the area on import of foodgrains from other parts of the country.

2. In the year 1992-93, the command area of the Canal was brought within the ambit of Command Area Development Scheme. The objective of the scheme was to reduce the gap between irrigation potential created and irrigation potential utilized with efficient management of irrigation water so as to raise the production and productivity level. Another objective of the scheme was to increase the agricultural production in irrigated areas through efficient management of the soil, water and crops together with the application of various recommended inputs. It is the biggest Irrigation scheme in Leh District as well as the biggest Command Area Development Project in Ladakh Division. The main canal stands constructed by the Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh and was completed after 25 years in 2005.

3. The Igophey canal was taken up for execution in 1979-80 by Igophey Irrigation Division Leh with an original approved cost of Rs 5.95 crores which was later on revised to Rs 49.03 crores (4th revised cost) in December, 2004. The cumulative expenditure ending March, 2011 works out to Rs 55.25 crores as conveyed by the concerned Department.

4. The total command area of the canal is 4873 hectares against which potential to the extent of 4300 hectares only has been created. However, out of the total created potential of 4300 Hectts only 900 Hectts have been utilized which constitutes only 21% of the potential created.

5. In 1986, the Igophey canal was converted into a composite project by way of generation of 3.4 MW of power at village Martselang in addition to provisions of assured irrigation. The power house is presently operational at village Igo being managed by Power Development Corporation. It is outside the ambit of instant evaluation study.

6. Besides, Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh, the command Area Development Department, Leh has also been engaged with construction of field channels and other allied works around the canal w.e.f 1992-93. Accordingly, against the allocation of Rs 608.35 lakhs, an amount of Rs.574.44 lakhs only was utilized by CAD upto 03/2011 representing an expenditure of 94.42%. Moreover 2403 hectares of land have been treated against the approved target of 4873 hectares through CAD Leh by way of construction of Field Channels etc. representing 49% progress on this component. Moreover, 41% physical progress has been achieved in respect of another activity viz. construction of Drains/paths in the Command Area of the canal.

7. Sample distributaries viz. D1 & D2 are located in Changa village, D15 & D16 located in Chushot Shamma and D29 & D30 located in Farka. The total length of these distributaries was recorded 1235 mts. Besides, 104 outlets were found completed on these sample distributaries. However, the field enquiry revealed that almost all the distributaries got damaged during last 25 years and need immediate repairs/renovations. Moreover, the following 4 Sample Farms were also put to field investigations:- I) SKUAST Farm at Stakna. II) Fodder Development Farm at Stakna. III) Sheep Farm at village Matho. IV) Equine Farm at village Chushot.

8. The field enquiry revealed that distributaries D1 & D2 are providing adequate irrigation facilities to Changa and Martselang Villages. However, D15 was not found useful for village Chushot Shammm as it was found in dilapidated condition and not even repaired for last so many years. D16 was found non-operational as no field channels were constructed on this distributory. D29 & D30 were also found non functional.

9. Out of total cultivable command area of 4873 hectares, 873 hectares only representing 18% have been distributed among the sample villages/sample Farms by Revenue Department Leh. The remaining land could not be distributed reportedly due to dispute among the villagers of the area.

10. During the field investigation it was observed that 109 field channels constructed at six sample Distributaries have been built with dry masonry work without leveling of land resulting in continuous wastage of irrigation water upto Distributory No. 13.

11. The annual income of sample farmers amounting to Rs.6.31 lakhs in 2004 was raised to Rs.7.73 lakhs in 2011 after commissioning of the scheme indicating 23% increase in the income level during a span of seven years. The annual increase was found out to be around 3%.

12. All the 20 sample beneficiaries contacted during the field operations were of the view that though production and income levels were increased to some extent but they consistently complained about the problem of leakage /seepage of water, low discharge of water and ill planning in the execution of the works. However, all the four sample farms were maintained and giving visible results due to the execution of the project.

13. Out of 40 knowledgeable persons 30 viz.75% of non benefitted villages were not in favour of the scheme. They reported that due to the implementation of this programme/project their woes had increased owing to the fact that during sowing Agriculture season (April – May) the water level of recedes due to lifting of water for Igophey Canal.

14. During the on-spot physical verifications, it was found that most of the structures such as gates/distributary channels, lining of canal at weak spots, Downside protection bund of supper passages etc. had got damaged during last 25 years and need to be repaired/restored immediately.

15. The field enquiry revealed that the scheme was not implemented in letter and spirit due to lack of co-ordination between line Departments viz. Irrigation Division Igophey Leh, CAD Department Leh and Revenue Department, Leh. The Irrigation Department has not commissioned all the Distributories, the Command Area has taken up its works programme on such lands which were having no irrigation and Revenue Department has not been able to distribute the land as was envisaged/planned under the project. All the three departments are required to work in close coordination for successful achievement of the objectives in respect of all the villages brought under the Project.

Chapter - I Introduction:

The Jammu & Kashmir state is predominantly an agricultural economy. Nearly 75% of total population resides in rural areas and are directly or indirectly linked with this sector for their livelihood. For the development of agriculture land, various schemes/programmes have been implemented through various Departments. Accordingly, the Igophey Irrigation project was started in the year 1979 in District Leh of J&K State.

The objective of the scheme was to facilitate irrigation in the Command area of the Canal and bring more un-irrigated land under irrigation for raising the productivity and production of the area. The ultimate aim was to decrease the excessive dependence of the area on import of food grains which was expected to lead to the economic and social well being of the people.

In the year 1992-93, the command area of the Canal was brought within the ambit of Command Area Development Scheme. The objective of the scheme was to reduce the gap between irrigation potential created and irrigation potential utilized with efficient management of irrigation water so as to raise the production and productivity levels. Another objective of the scheme was to increase agricultural production in irrigated areas by the efficient management of the soil, water and crops together with the application of various recommended inputs. Under this scheme, the sloppy land is made fit for cultivation by different processes, i. e. land leveling, bench terracing, construction of field channels, construction of field drains and anti-soil erosion works. The total length of the Igophey canal is 43.12 kilometers comprising of 30 distributaries taken up from village “Igo” upto the tail end at “”. The total command area of the canal is 4873 hectares and the potential has been created for 4300 hectares. In November, 1986, the State Government decided to make the “Igophey Irrigation Project” as composite project for generation of 3.4 MW of power in addition to provision of assured irrigation facilities to 4873 hectares of land.

The original project cost of the scheme was at Rs.5.95 crores approved by Planning Commission in the year 1979. However, fourth revision at a revised cost of Rs.49.03 crores stands submitted to Govt. in December, 2004 which has not been accorded approval as yet. The cumulative expenditure on this prestigious canal by Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh amounts to Rs.55.25 crores ending March, 2011 as reported by the concerned Department. Besides this the CAD Leh has also incurred an amount of Rs.5.74 crores on completion of various CAD works such as construction of Field Channels, field drains and other allied works.

With a view to assess the achievements made under the scheme, the State Level Evaluation Committee (SLEC) headed by the then Financial Commissioner, Planning & Development Department in its 4th meeting held on 17th June, 2009 decided to get the programme evaluated through RJDK with the following objectives:-

Objectives. i) To assess the progress vis-à-vis targets both financial and physical; ii) To determine the efficiency of the Department in utilizing the irrigation potential created; iii) To assess the level of increase in production and productivity of land as a result of the implementation of the programme; iv) To assess the feeling of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries about the canal and their suggestions for improvement of the same. v) To assess physically the canal and other heads constructed under the canal. vi) To identify the bottlenecks/difficulties faced in the implementation of the programme and suggest corrective measures.

Reference Period.

The reference period for the Evaluation study pertained to 2005-06 to 2010-11. However, the official data was collected from Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh and CAD Leh in respect of earlier years also.

Sample size procedure and methodology.

Out of 30 distributaries constructed, 6 distributaries were selected during the field enquiry which also includes the field channels constructed by Command Area Development. Besides, one work each from the list of major constructed structure was also taken up for detailed field enquiry. At the second stage, four villages namely Changa, Martselang, Shang & Stakna and four Govt. farms were taken under the command of distributaries upto distributory number 13. At the final stage of sampling, 05 beneficiaries each from four benefitted villages and one each from Govt. farms and 21 knowledgeable persons were selected from the benefitted village and 03 from the Govt. farms. Moreover, 40 non beneficiaries were also contacted from eight non benefitted villages.

Source of Data.

Primary data was collected in the field, whileas secondary data was obtained from the Executing Agencies viz. Irrigation Division Igophey and CAD, Leh.

Instrument of the Investigation:

Following set of 5 schedules was used for under taking the Evaluation study:- Schedule (I) for official data; Schedule (II) for sample beneficiaries; Schedule(III)for knowledgeable persons from non-benefitted villages; Schedule(IV) for knowledgeable persons from benefitted villages and farms; and Schedule (V) for physical verification of the work.

Field work/scrutiny/tabulation and supervision.

The field work, scrutiny and tabulation of the data was done by the staff of DSEO, Leh under the close supervision of DSEO. The requisite technical guidance was provided by RJDK. Moreover, the supervision was also carried out by Director, Economics & Statistics, J&K alongwith RJDK.

Analytical tools.

Simple averages and percentages were used as analytical tools. Graphic representation was also done at appropriate places to make phenomena easy to understand.

Report writing.

Field work of Evaluation study was conducted by DSEO, Leh and report drafted by RJDK on the basis of primary and secondary data provided by District Statistical Agency, Leh.

Chapter - II

The scheme and its progress

The Igo-Phey canal was taken up for execution in 1979-80 by Igophey Irrigation Division Leh with an original cost of Rs 5.95 crores which was later on revised to Rs 49.03 crores in December, 2004. Its total length is 43.12 Kms and it was conceived to irrigate 4873 hectares of land at the completion stage of the project. In fact, the canal is designed to irrigate the area between Igo and Phey villages of Leh District which are located on the right side of river Indus.

The Command area of Igo-Phey canal starts from Changa village upto Spituk. The source of the scheme is River Indus which has its source in Mansarover Lake in Tibet. It enters Ladakh District near Demjok. River Indus is a perennial river having a maximum discharge at Martselang of the order of 8000 cusecs and minimum falling to just 400 cusecs only. However, in Irrigation season average discharge of 1000 cusecs remains available.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the economy of Ladakh. Huge quantities of food grains have to be imported every year from other parts of the country. The Agriculture production is confined to one crop in a year as such food production is highly insufficient for the local population of the district. Therefore, there is a dire need to increase the production of food grains, fodder, vegetables, fruits and dairy production. The Igo-Phey Irrigation canal comprises of 30 distributaries with its head work at Igo. The construction work was started in 1979 by Igo-Phey Irrigation Division at an original cost of Rs 5.95 crores. Subsequently revised cost was set as Rs 49.03 crores submitted to Government during 2004 for approval but not accorded as yet. As reported by the Executive Engineer, Igo-Phey Division, Leh, the Project is completed in all respects and water has reached up to tail end in 2005 with full discharge of 375 cusecs. It was decided by the Govt. in 1986 to make the Igo-Phey Project as Composite Project for generation of 3.4 MW of Power in addition to provision of assured irrigation facilities to 4873 hectares of land.

The construction and maintenance of Igophey Canal was carried out by Igophey Division Leh since 1979-80. The details of allocation & expenditure under the project are reflected hereunder:-

Table No. 2.00

Year-wise allocation and expenditure by Igophey Irrigation Division Leh as on ending March, 2011. (Rs . In lakhs) source of funding Expenditure S.NoYear Igophey Division Igophey Division

District Plan CSS (AIBP) Total District Plan CSS (AIBP) Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 As on ending 4298.50 995.00 5293.50 4298.50 995.00 5293.50 3/2005 2 2005-06 25.00 45.00 70.00 25.00 45.00 70.00 3 2006-07 27.50 - 27.50 27.50 - 27.50 4 2007-08 30.00 - 30.00 30.00 - 30.00 5 2008-09 30.00 - 30.00 30.00 - 30.00 6 2009-10 42.00 - 42.00 42.00 - 42.00 7 2010-11 32.00 - 32.00 32.00 - 32.00 Total 4485.00 1040.00 5525.00 4485.00 1040.00 5525.00

The above table reflects the funds received under District Plan and AIBP and level of expenditure incurred by Igophey Irrigation Division Leh. It can be visualized that Rs 5293.50 lakhs out of a total expenditure of Rs 5525.00 lakhs were incurred upto March, 2005. The percentage of expenditure from the start of the project in 1979 upto 03/2005 had remained at a level of 95.80% of the total expenditure incurred on the Canal by the end of 2010-11. During the reference period 2005-06 to 2010-11 the allocation made to the extent of Rs 2.32 crores was fully utilized. Thus only 4.20% expenditure of the project was made during the reference period 2005-06 to 2010-11.

It is pertinent to mention here that original project cost of the scheme was Rs 5.95 crores approved by the Planning Commission in 1979. Later on 4th revised cost amounting to Rs 49.03 crores was submitted to Govt. in December 2004 but the same has not been accorded as yet.

However, the cumulative expenditure as shown in the above table works out to Rs 55.25 crores ending March 2011 as conveyed by the concerned authorities of Igophey Canal Leh. From 2005-06 onwards the funds were mostly provided under District Plan for maintenance and repair purposes of the Canal.

Availability of Funds and Expenditure under Igophey Canal Project from 1979-2011 (` in lakhs)

Funds Availability Expenditure 5525.00 5525.00 5293.50 6000.00 5293.50

5000.00

4000.00

3000.00 in Lacs `. 2000.00 70.00 42.00 30.00 30.00 70.00 1000.00 27.50 27.50 30.00 30.00 32.00 32.00 42.00

0.00 As on 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total ending 3/2005 Years

Physical Progress:

The ultimate aim and objective of the irrigation projects is to facilitate irrigation and bring more un-irrigated land under irrigation. This enables farmers to switch over to cultivation of those crops in which they possess the most comparative advantage and thus they are in a position to maximize the production/productivity. As such the most crucial parameter of physical progress of an irrigation project is the quantum of land provided irrigation and new land brought under irrigation and as a result of irrigation, quantum of land put to double cropping. However, irrigation projects itself have to undertake multifarious works for execution, the progress of which is detailed below in terms of expenditure incurred:

Table No: 2.01 Details of physical progress achieved ending 3/2005.

Expenditure %age S.No Name of Major work incurred ending 03/2005 expenditure to total (Rs . in crores) Expenditure

1 2 3 4 1 Cost of establishment/ Revenue 6.40 12.09 component 2 Const. of 2 No. aquaducts/4 No. 2.80 5.29 cover conduites/1 No. syphon barrel. 3 Const. of 5 No. bridges. 0.82 1.55

4 Const. of 70 Nos' overhead troughs 0.96 1.81 (OHT). 5 Const. of building at various spots. 0.76 1.44

6 Const. of 30 No. distributaries. 7.91 14.94

7 Lining of canal. 10.01 18.91

8 Maintenance of canal. 1.33 2.51

9 Const. of head works / falls. 0.55 1.04

10 Const. of protection works. 0.34 0.64 11 Earthwork 8.82 16.66

12 Const. of miscellaneous major 12.23 23.12 works Total 52.93 100.00

The perusal of the above information reveals that Rs 52.93 crores viz. 95.80% of overall incurred amount [viz. Rs 55.25 crores] stands utilized during 25 years ending March, 2005. The balance amount of Rs 2.32 crores representing 4.20% only stands utilized during the 5 year reference period w. e. f. 2005-06 to 2010-11. As already pointed out that the scheme was completed and commissioned during 2005, as such, bulk of allocation stands already allocated/utilized by Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh prior to 2005. The expenditure incurred from 2005 onwards was for the purposes of maintenance and repairs.

Further, it can be seen that 18.91% funds were utilized on lining of canal, 16.66% utilized on earth work, 14.94% on construction of 30 No. distributaries. Moreover, 12.09% funds worth Rs 6.40 crores were spent on payment of salaries, OE, TE and other revenue items to the staff engaged in the Igophey Division. The rest of the amount was utilized on some major works such as construction of 2 No. concrete aqueducts, 4 No. cover conduits, 2 No. escape channels, 1 No. siphon barrel, 70 No. overhead troughs (OHT), construction of buildings/link roads, drainage crossing etc.

The year-wise physical progress during the reference period is given separately hereunder:- Table No: 2.02 year-wise physical progress

S. Year Target Achievement Amount incurred. No (Rs .in lacs) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2005-06 Maintenance of canal, spl T&P & Works completed 70.00 within the (25.00 Distt. Plan) miscellaneous estimated cost (45.00 AIBP) 2 2006-07 Damaged distributaries, lining at Works 27.5 completed within weak spots, inspection road the estimated training of Nallah partly, cost strengthening of main canal etc. 3 2007-08 Training of Chanjar nallah in partly Works 30.00 completed within the estimated cost 4 2008-09 Lining of weak spots, training of Works 30.00 completed within Chanjar nallah, const. of 1.50 mtr. the estimated Supper passage & minor cross cost drainage work. 5 2009-10 Protection work to Chanjar nallah, Works completed 42.00 within the permanent restoration of canal at estimated cost RD 31900 M,supper passage over Stakna, Z/khul escape at Chanjar nallah, Channelization at Spituk Pharka nallah, lining of main canal at weak spots protection work to Chanjar nallah U/S, D/S Chuchot Z/khul & super passage 6 2010-11 Protection work to Chanjar nallah, Works 32.00 Channelization at Spituk Pharka completed nallah, lining of main canal at weak within the estimated cost spots, protection work to Chanjar nallah U/S, D/S Chuchot Z/khul & super passage. Total 232.00

It could be seen from the above details that the irrigation canal Igo- Phey was almost completed prior to the year 2005-06. All major components of the project were completed and commissioned by the Irrigation Department. After 2005-06, the works undertaken by the Irrigation Department were only of the nature of repairs, maintenance and treatment of weak and damaged spots. Given the fact that the irrigation project initiated in the year 1979 and the canal being 43.12 Kilometers in length, its maintenance would naturally involve handsome resources in terms of money to ensure its functionality. Thus in the 6 years of the reference period from 2005-06 to 2010-11 an amount of Rs 2.32 crores was utilized by the Irrigation Department on various works of minor nature. These included maintenance, repairs, protection works, lining of main canal and treatment of damaged and weak spots etc.

Command Area Development:

The Igo-Phey Irrigation Canal was brought under the Command Area Development Programme in the year 1992-93. The objective of the Command Area Development programme was to reduce the gap between the irrigation potential created and irrigation potential utilized with efficient management of irrigation water so as to raise the production and productivity levels in the Command areas. It also had within its fold some components with regard to efficient management of soil, water and crops which also aimed at increasing the production and productivity levels. Under the programme the main activities are construction of field channels, field drains which facilitate irrigation by reducing leakages/seepages and also drain-out excess water from the fields to make them fit for cultivation. The other activities of the programme include land leveling, bench terracing, anti-soil erosion works etc.

Igophey is the biggest Irrigation scheme as well as biggest Command Area Development Project in Leh District. Deputy Director, Command Area, Leh is the implementing agency for undertaking different components of the programme. It started its activities from 11th Km (Changa Village) upto 43rd Km. Construction of field channels, the main activity of CAD was started in the year 1992-93. Out of the total Command Area of 4873 hectares, an area of 2403 hectares was covered under different OFD works (Construction of field irrigation channels). The Programme is funded mainly through District Plan and partly a portion of funds had come from the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of ).

The outlays and expenditure incurred under Command Area Development, Leh w. e. f. 1992-93 upto 2010-11 is reflected in the following table:-

Table No. 2.03

Year-wise allocation and expenditure by Command Area Development Department as on ending 03/2010 (Rs . In lakhs) source of funding Expenditure S.No Year Command Area Development Deptt. Command Area Development Deptt.

District Plan CSS ) Total District Plan CSS Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 As on 285.80 - 285.80 295.08 - 295.08 ending 3/2005 Total 285.80 - 285.80 295.08 - 295.08 2 2005-06 39.00 - 39.00 38.99 - 38.99 3 2006-07 53.00 - 53.00 52.99 - 52.99 4 2007-08 35.00 23.05 58.05 35.00 23.00 58.00 5 2008-09 22.50 40.00 62.50 22.00 37.48 59.48 6 2009-10 10.00 100.00 110.00 10.00 59.90 69.90 7 2010-11 - - - 0.00 - - Total 159.50 163.05 322.55 158.98 120.38 279.36

G. Total 445.30 163.05 608.35 454.06 120.38 574.44 The perusal of the above table reveals that a total allocation of Rs 574.44 lakhs stands utilized out of an approved allocation of Rs 608.35 lakhs since the inception of the scheme. The overall percentage of expenditure works out to 94.42% reflecting a healthy trend. However no funds were provided during 2010-11 as reported by the Implementing Agency. The CAD Leh had constructed Field channels in the command area of the Igophey Canal. These Channels are used to facilitate irrigation water with maximum flow by plugging all leakages/seepages.

Year wise physical target and achievements of Command Area Development Leh are reflected in the following table:-

Table – 2.04 Year-wise physical targets/achievements for the last five years.

S.No Year Name of Activity Unit Target Achievement Percentage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2005-06 Field channels Hect. 195.00 195.00 100.00 2 2006-07 -do- Hect. 265.00 265.00 100.00 3 2007-08 -do- Hect. 290.00 290.00 100.00 4 2008-09 -do- Hect. 310.00 295.00 95.00 5 2009-10 -do- Hect. 550.00 350.00 64.00 6 2010-11 -do- Hect. - - - Total 1610.00 1395.00 87.00

The above table reflects the physical targets and achievements during the period 2005-06 to 2010-11. It can be observed from the above table that the set targets were increased gradually as a result of satisfactory achievements. The achievements during the first three years of reference period were 100% of the targets. In the year 2008-09, the achievements against the target of 310 hectares were 295 hectare i.e. less by 5%. In the subsequent year of 2009-10, the achievements were 64% of the targets. Thus the pace of achievements acquired in the initial years could not be maintained only due to paucity of funds made available under the programme. In aggregate against the set target of 1610 hectares, 1395 hectares i.e. 87% area was brought under the ambit of CAD during the period under reference. As per the official claims of CAD Leh 2403 hectares of land was treated by the end of 2010-11 under various CAD measures representing approximately 50% physical achievement. However, this achievement under physical progress was inclusive of 1395 hectares of which year-wise details have been given in Table 2.04. What sort of treatment was given to the remaining area of 1008 hectares, no details were provided by the CAD authorities in spite of vigorous persuasion by the Evaluation Agency. This was obviously either due to non maintenance of records by the concerned agency or was a deliberate attempt of concealment of information.

Chapter – III

Field Findings

The essence of Evaluation studies are the field findings, based on observations, inspection and interactions with all the stake-holders and of course the views of knowledgeable persons as an independent and unbiased source of assessment. Many conclusions and inferences are pleasantly drawn from official data itself both of positive and negative nature but the actual status of the programme is ascertained from the field by applying all possible and appropriate tools and techniques. In the instant Evaluation study a field enquiry was launched keeping in view the objectives of the Evaluation study. As reported earlier Igophey Irrigation Division Leh and Command Area Development Leh are the two main executors of Igophey Canal Project. The Igophey Irrigation Division Leh had constructed the canal along with 30 distributaries and Command Area Development had taken up On-Farm Development Works in the fields in order to utilize the created potential of irrigation water to the maximum. A sample of 20% viz. 6 distributaries numbering D1,D2, D15, D16, D29 and D30 were selected for detailed field enquiry. The criteria for selection was based on giving representation to head, middle and tail of the distributary network of the canal. At the second sampling stage, following four villages and four Govt. Farms were selected for detailed field enquiry:-

The names of the sample villages are:-\

i) Changa ii) Martselang iii) Shang iv) Stakna.

Names of Govt. Farms are:-

v) Animal Husbandary Farm at Matho. vi) Sheep Farm at Matho. vii) SKUAST Farm at Stakna. viii) Fodder Development Farm Stakna.

At the final stage of sampling five beneficiaries from each of the four villages and one respondent from each Govt. Farm were selected. Besides this, 24 knowledgeable persons were selected from benefitted villages and 40 knowledgeable persons contacted from non benefitted villages to ascertain their views on the positive/negative aspects of the project as per their perspective.

The details about sample distributaries constructed by Igophey Leh with physical parameters are reflected in the following table:-

Table – 3.00 Length, channel section and Nos. of outlet at each of the sample distributaries under Igophey canal.

Parameters Spcecification S.No Name of the work Location Distribut Span No. of Channel Section (mtrs) Type of work ory length outlet Top Bottom Depth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Distributries D1 & D2 i) Changa RR Massonary D1 550.00 20.00 1.90 1.10 0.70 Tripizoidal ii) Martselang in cement mortam and linning D2 570.00 18.00 1.90 1.10 0.70 -do- D15 & D16 Chushot -do- D15 1660.00 92.00 1.90 1.10 0.70 Tripizoidal Shamma D16 1175.00 86.00 1.90 1.10 0.70 -do- D29 & D30 Spituk -do- D29 1430.00 122.00 2.20 1.10 0.55 Tripizoidal Pharka D30 1235.00 104.00 2.20 1.10 0.55 -do-

The Evaluation team verified the aforementioned works in four sample villages viz. i) Changa, ii) Martselang, iii) Chuchhot Shamma and iv) Sputik Pharka. The works were existing on ground. However, it was verified that irrigation facility was being provided upto channel No. D13 only out of 30 distributaries. Thus only 43% Distributaries were functional and major portion of the Command Area was not provided any irrigation facility though distributories were constructed by the Irrigation Department. This visibly seems a technical fault as the Canal was designed/estimated to provide irrigation upto the tail end of the Canal i.e. upto 30th distributor. This state of situation had virtually rendered the construction of Canal and the construction of distributaries beyond 13th number distributory useless, absurd and wastage of Govt. resources. At the conceptualization of the project, the capacity of the Canal, the available water resources and the irrigation needs of other villages having Indus River as the only source of irrigation does not seem to had been conceived by the designers of the Project. The concerned agency should learn lessons for designing projects of same or similar dimensions in future. This needs to be taken note of seriously at least for future planning to ensure maximization of benefits from public resources.

It is pertinent to mention here that the headwork of this canal is situated on River Indus opposite to village Igo. During the peak sowing season non-benefitted villages of low lying areas such as i) ii) iii) Ranbirpur iv) v) Sputik and vi) Chahchoot Shamma show resentment over lifting of water from river Indus owing to the fact that these villages face shortage of water as River Indus being only source of irrigation for the aforementioned villages. The Evaluation team observed and came to the conclusion that this was one of the important reasons of low performance of this prestigious project of Ladakh area. The second reason of low performance could be attributed to the non distribution of agriculture land amongst the villagers falling beyond distributory No. D17 due to litigations and family disputes. The 3rd reason of low performance was the lack of coordination between two line departments viz. CAD and Igophey Irrigation Division. Pursuing their activities in isolation without any regard to the ultimate objective of the programme.

The villages provided with irrigation facility upto 13th Distributory have been able to cultivate Barley, Fodder, Vegetables, Plantations and Alfa Alfa on their fields.

The Command Area of Igophey Irrigation scheme in District Leh comprises of following 11 villages:-

S.no Name of the Village i) Changa ii) iii) Chochot Gongma iv) Chochot Yokma v) Chochot Shamma vi) Stakna vii) Matho viii) ix) Spituk Pharkha x) Shang xi) Palam

Out of these 11 villages, 100 Field Channels were physically verified in three sample villages viz. i) Changa ii) Chochot Gongma iii) Palam. The relevant details are reflected in table No. 3.01:-

Table – 3.01 Details of Command Area Development works under the Igophey Irrigation Canal Leh executed in Sample Villages.

Parameter (mtr) S. Name of work/ Location Specification Span/ Channel Section No. of field No particulars. of work. length Top Bottom Depth channels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 D-1 Changa Dry Stone 2,109 1.20 0.45 0.45 7 2 D-2 massonary 1,083 1.20 0.45 0.45 5 3 D-15 Chuchot 1,393 1.20 0.45 0.45 35 4 D-16 Gongma 6,816 1.20 0.45 0.45 17 5 D-26 Palam 13,173 1.20 0.45 0.45 29 1,115 1.20 0.45 0.45 7 6 D-27

The field channels constructed by the Command Area Development were also verified by the Evaluation team on sample basis. All the aforementioned 100 field channels were found constructed by way of dry stone masonry. However, during field survey it was found that only 12 field channels (9%) were in use. This again tantamounts to wastage of Govt resources. Mere construction of Field Channels without any scope speaks a lot about the technical ability of the Department and the supervisory system under which the Construction Programme was undertaken without any regard to the ultimate objectives of their construction.

Moreover, it was observed by the team that there was lack of co-ordination between the Igo-Phey Division and Command Area Development Department with regard to construction of field channels and outlets. For example in case of distributory No. D1, 20 number of outlet stand constructed by the Igo-Phey Division, where as only 7 field channels were constructed without leveling of land, terracing and reshaping of field with the result all the outlets made by Igo-Phey Division on the distributory were not used by Command Area Development Department till date. As such the benefits envisaged in the scheme could not percolate to the targeted population. Thus it can be concluded that the non-cooperation between two departments hampered badly the smooth functioning of the scheme. It was also observed by the Evaluation team that due to deposition of silt in the field channels, irrigation water facility could not be provided to the tail end of the targeted villages. It was reported by the concerned field agencies that no desilting could take place in the field channels after their construction. The desiliting of Channels should have been done by the Water Users themselves. The modalities of the Command Area Programme provide for formation of Water User Association which, among other functions ensures maintenance of created assets. But in the instant project there was no existence of these Associations. The schemes are required to be implemented in totality, otherwise it becomes almost impossible to achieve postulated objectives in a desired manner and to the desired extent. The CAD Programme comprises of various components which are required to be implemented in a balanced manner. The construction of Field Channels with no supporting system in the form of Water User Association definitely created imbalance in the implementation. This seems one of the main factors responsible for under utilization of created assets.

Warandi System:

Rotational Water Supply(Warabandi) means equitable distribution of water available in Command Outlets based on predetermined date/day and time in proportion to the size of land holdings among the farmers so that every farmer can get his share of water to avoid head-tail differences. The system has to be enforced with the farmers participation through Water User Associations, well spread among the farmers of head, middle and tail end. The modalities of the CAD programme provide for formation of Water User Association, which, among other functions has to enforce the Warabandi System. But in the instant project there was no existence of these Associations. The Schemes are required to be implemented in totality, otherwise it becomes almost impossible to achieve postulated objectives in a desired manner and to the desired extent. The most unfortunate state of situation seems not taking congnizance of the non-implementation of Warabandi Component of the Scheme by the monitoring and controlling authorities. Implementation of Govt programmes with scant regard to the stipulated guidelines would not help in achieving the objectives in a desired manner. The monitoring mechanism is required to be strengthened and empowered to exercise full financial and administrative control over the implementation of the programme.

Land Distribution:

The district Leh represents two sections of society bearing different cultures and religions viz. Muslims and Buddhists. However, the Buddhists in the area are in majority who believe that Plateau as a whole does not belong to any individual. The idea of Igophey Canal was conceived with an aim to irrigate the barren and uncultivable land left unattended for decades together to make the region self sufficient in agricultural production. However the Revenue Department had made some efforts by way of distributing 873 hectares of culturable land amongst the beneficiary villages, the details of which are reflected in the following table:-

Table – 3.02 Land allotted/distributed among the following Villages & Farms under Igophey canal as on 03/2010 Village/farm Area benefitted from S.No Name of sample village/Farm the distributaries No.

Kanal Marla 1 2 3 4 5 1 Changa D-1 489 19 2 Martselang D-2 771 14 3 Hemis D-3-5 482 4 4 Shang D-6 760 18 5 SKUAST D-7 2500 0 6 Fodder Dev. Farm Stakna D-8 2900 0 7 Russian Mernine Sheep Farm Matho D-8 1648 12 8 Stakna D-9 1981 17 9 Equine Farm Chushot D-13 1150 0 10 Chushot Gongma D-14-16 4780 9 Total 17461 93

The perusal of the above table reveals that out of total cultivable area of 4873 hectares, only 873 hectares (17461 Kanals) of land representing 18% stands distributed so far amongst the benefitted villages/Farms. The Evaluation team found that irrigation water from the canal was being distributed upto D13 only although land was distributed upto D16. It needs special mention that Revenue Department could not effect further distribution of land due to various litigations and disputes among families and adjoining villages.

(A) Impact of the project on Agriculture Production:

Agriculture is the main source of income of the people of Ladakh. It witnesses semi arctic climatic conditions during winters and hence agricultural activities remain confined to the short lived summer. In addition to this, only limited crops are grown in the region on account of difficult topography of the region & nature of the soil. The Igophey canal being an ambitious project coupled with efficiency management and utilization of created irrigation potential through CAD programme was conceived to increase the production and productivity levels of the area in order to reduce excessive dependence on import of food grains from outside. In Evaluation Studies, it is generally impossible to calculate the actual quantum of change in production due to implementation of a particular programme due to many factors. Firstly, it involves calculation of production at two time points; before and after. The calculation of production before the programme implementation is out of question unless baseline survey data was collected at the beginning. Secondly, it involves an independent study within the survey and financial and manpower availability doesn’t allow it to happen. Thirdly, the time schedule of the study and crop season/harvesting are unlikely to coincide. Owing to these constraints, there seems no option for the evaluators but to rely on the statements of beneficiaries in respect of quantum of production grown “before” and “after” the implementation of the project. Though the data so elicited from beneficiaries could not be authenticated with desirable accuracy, but it no doubt gives an idea about the usefulness of the project from beneficiary perspective. The following table reflects the position of different crops grown before and after the commissioning of the Igophey canal in the sample farms. In respect of sample farms, the data is cent percent authentic and based on the official records of the concerned farm management. Thus it is free from any memory bias or recall lapses. However, the data elicited from the individual farmers could suffer a bit from these limitations and, obviously, the Evaluation Agency possess no other flaw-free option to arrive at the precise estimates. Table – 3.03 Production before & after the commission of Igophey canal of sample. S.No Village/Farms No. of Before commission After commission sample Year 2004 Year 2011 farm Irrigated Production (Qtls.) Irrigated Production (Qtls.) land land (kanal) (kanal) Barley Alfalfa Veg Barley Alfalfa Veg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 SKUAST 1 - - - - 1073.00 120 320.00 70 2 Matho 1 1648.00 0 315 0 1648.00 0 539.00 0 3 Fodder Dev. 1 1496.00 0 1574 0 2064.00 0 3959.45 0 Farm Stakna 4 Equine farm 1 0.00 0 0 0 250.00 0 300.00 0

Total 4 3144.00 0 1889 0 5035.00 120 5118.45 70

All the four farms owned by Govt. agencies were selected for detailed field enquiry. It can be easily seen from the above table that 1891(60%) kanals of land have additionally been brought under the agricultural activities after the commissioning of the scheme. As reflected in the above table the SKUAST farm and Equine Farm became operational after the commissioning of the Igophey canal. The SKUAST farm brought 1073 kanals of land under cultivation with production of 120 Qtls of Barley, 320 qtls of Alfa-Alfa grass & 70 Qtls of vegetables during crop season 2011. While as in Equine farm only 300 Qtls of Alfa-Alfa grass were cultivated by covering 250 kanals of land. Infact the establishment and development of these farms without Igophey Canal was beyond imagination. It was only due to Irrigation facility created through the Canal that the establishment of Farms was possible. These Farms could go a long way in the improvement of cultivation in Ladakh area on modern lines for ultimate socio-economic development of the Farming Community.

Fodder Development Farm Stakna is the only farm which witnessed increase in respect of both area covered & production therefrom. In respect of this farm the land holding increased from 1496 kanals to 2064 kanals registering an increase of 38.00% and production increased from 1574 Qtls to 3959 Qtls and thus registering an increase of 151.52%. In case of Matho Farm there was no increase in the coverage of land but production increased by 71.11%. These production figures are documented figures of the concerned Farms and had also been subsequently authenticated by the DSEO Leh. This increase had been possible due to the fact that frequency and discharge of irrigation water increased considerably impacting favourably the production, yield rate and the income level.

Irrigated Land in sample farms before and after the commissioing of Igophey Canal Project Before commissioning of project

10000.00 5061.12 3178.12 2090.00 1648.12 1648.12 1530.00 1073.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area in Hectarres SKUAST Matho Fodder Equine Total Dev. farm sample Farm Farms Stakna Sample Farms

Irrigated Land in sample villages before and after the commissioing of Igophey Canal Project

Before commissioning of project

After commissioning of project 576.00 600.00 423.00

400.00 171.00 161.00 141.00 128.00 80.00 123.00 200.00 116.00 79.00

Area inHectarres - Martselang Shang Stakna Changa Total sample villages

Sample Villages

The Evaluation team contacted 20 sample beneficiaries of 04 sample villages to ascertain the impact of Igophey Canal on the increase of irrigated land/production and collected the field data for purpose of analysis as given below.

Table – 3.03(A) Production before & after the commission of Igophey canal of sample villages.

S.N Village/Farm No. of Before commission After commission o s sample Year 2004 Year 2011 farmers/ beneficia Irrigated Production (Qtls.) Irrigate Production (Qtls.) ries land d (kanal) land Barle Alflf Veg (kanal) Barle Alflfa Veg y a y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Martselang 5 141.00 23.00 31.00 25.00 171.00 24.00 35.00 70.00 2 Shang 5 80.00 17.00 15.00 18.00 128.00 18.00 55.00 28.00 3 Stanka 5 123.00 25.00 42.00 41.00 164.00 25.00 90.00 45.00

4 Changa 5 79.00 17.00 5.00 6.00 116.00 22.00 9.00 12.00

Total 20 423.00 82.00 93.00 90.00 579.00 89.00 189.00 103.00 After commissioning of the Igophey project 156 kanals of additional land accounting to 36.87% was brought under irrigation by the sample beneficiaries of 04 villages. The increase in production was of the order of 116 qtls accounting to 44% increase. The area brought under irrigation was the independent achievement of the project and anything positive on this score could well be attributed to the project alone. But the increase in production involves other factors interms of new technologies, HYV seeds, new cropping patters etc. and therefore there in no reason to attribute it independently to the Project interventions alone. However, the intensity of irrigation and brining more land under irrigation does have a significant role in the production increase.

(B) Impact of the scheme on Income levels of sample beneficiaries.

At the time of execution of Igophey Canal it was conceived to provide adequate irrigation facility to the farming community of Leh District by changing the status of barren and uncultivable land resulting in the subsequent increase in the income levels of the targeted population.

Following table reveals the change in income levels of the sample villages/Farms in the domain of the igophey canal:-

Table – 3.04 Impact of the Igophey Canal on Annual Income of the sample beneficiaries T No. of Annual Income(Rs in Lacs) Name of the sample he beneficiaries Before adoption of After adoption of scheme village/Farm S.NO. contacted scheme 2004 2011 abo ve 1 SKUAST 1 Nil 20.00 tabl 2 Matho 1 3.15 5.18 e 3 Fodder Dev. Farm 1 4.00 36.71 Stakna refl 4 Equine Farm 1 Nil 0.35 ects Total 4 7.15 62.24 the 5 Marsalang 5 2.15 2.15 imp 6 Shang 5 1.05 1.45 act 7 Stakna 5 1.35 1.66 of 8 Changa 5 1.76 2.47 Igo Total 20 6.31 7.73 phe Grand Total 24 13.46 69.97 y can al on change in economic condition of the sample beneficiaries. As discussed earlier four Govt. farms along with four sample villages were taken for field enquiry. It can be seen from the above table that Equine Horse Farm remained at the bottom by raising its income by Rs 0.35 lakhs only while as SKUAST witnessed the highest growth by way of generating Rs 20.00 lakhs. The sample Farmers/beneficiaries of the Martselang village did not witness any change in their income level as reported by them, while as the beneficiaries of the village Shang remained at the top where the growth was recorded as 38%. Although the improvement has been observed in financial position of the beneficiaries but it was not upto the desired level as envisaged in the scheme. It needs special mention that the income levels ascertained from the sample beneficiaries were purely based on their statements. Secondly, the increase was over a period of seven years from base 2004 and related to the income of year 2011. It could be claimed without any hesitation that the project was capable of changing the socio-economic condition of the farming Community of the area, but due to partial operationalisation of the Canal, the conceived objectives remained under- utilised. The overall increase in respect of sample beneficiaries was just below 23% during a span of seven long years. However, the Govt Farms were able to increase their production from Rs 7.15 lakhs in 2004 to Rs 62.24 lakhs in 2011.

Annual Income of Sample Farms and beneficiaries before and after adoption of scheme

Before adoption of scheme

After adoption of scheme 69.97 70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00 36.71

30.00 20.00

Amount inLacs 20.00 13.46

10.00 5.18 4.00 3.15 2.47 2.15 2.15 1.76 1.66 1.45 1.35 1.05 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 SKUAST Matho Fodder Equine Marsalang Shang Stakna Changa Total Dev. Farm Farm Stakna

Sample Farms and Sample beneficiaries

(C) Land status of sample beneficiaries

The basic objective of Command Area Development Porgramme was to reduce the gap between irrigation potential created and utilized with efficient management of irrigation water so as to raise the production and productivity level. As already discussed in the report the Igophey Canal potential was already under-utilised as the irrigation water was not provided beyond distributory 13 inspite of created/designed potential for 30 distributaries. Thus the created potential was already under-utilized by 57% at the execution level.

The following table depicts the information in respect of four Govt. Farms and twenty sample beneficiaries of four sample villages. It throws light on land owned before commissioning of canal and after commissioning of canal and overall improvement in irrigation scenario.

Table – 3.05 Impact of Igophey canal on holding size of sample beneficiaries. (in kanals) Land owned before Land owned after Name of sample No. of sample S.No commissioning of canal commissioning of canal village/Farm beneficiaries Irrigated Un-irrigated Total Irrigated Un-irrigated Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Matho (Horse Farm) 1 - 1150 1150 250 900 1150 2 Russian Mernine Sheep Farm Matho 1 1648 0 1648 1648 0 1648 3 SKUAST Farm 1 0 2500 2500 1073 1427 2500 4 Fodder Dev. Farm Stakna 1 1496 1392 2888 2064 824 2888 5 Changa 5 79 37 116 116 0 116 6 Martselang 5 141 30 171 171 0 171 7 Shang 5 80 48 128 128 0 128 8 Stakna 5 123 41 164 164 0 164 Total 24 3567 5198 8,765 5,614 3151 8,765

On spot visits by the Evaluation team revealed that 2047 Kanals of un-irrigated land were provided irrigation facility due to the execution of the Igophey canal. The figure related to four sample Farms and 20 sample beneficiaries of four sample villages reflected in the above table. Thus it can be concluded that 57.38% of uncultivable land was irrigated which facilitated production of various local crops.

(D) Views expressed by sample beneficiaries.

One of the objectives of the Evaluation study was to assess the feeling of beneficiaries about the functioning of canal and their suggestions for further improvement. Accordingly five beneficiaries each from four sample villages and treating one Government farm as single beneficiary aggregating to 24 were asked to express their level of satisfaction and also offer suggestions for further improvements. Their views were recorded on spot and have been analysed in the table reproduced hereunder:-

Table – 3.06 Views expressed by sample beneficiaries of sample villages of District Leh.

No. of beneficiaries reporting about No. of sample Leakage/seepage Low discharge Poor Planning S.No Name of sample village/Farm beneficiries of water from of water in the in the execution the canal canal of the work done

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Martho Horse Farm 1 0 0 0 2 Russian Mernine Sheep Farm Matho 1 0 0 0 3 SKUAST Farm 1 0 0 0 4 Fodder Dev. Farm Stakna 1 0 0 0 5 Changa 5 5 5 5 6 Marchalang 5 5 5 5 7 Shang 5 5 5 5 8 Stakna 5 5 5 5

Total 24 20 20 20

The views expressed by all the 20 sample beneficiaries of four sample villages viz. Changa, Marchalang, Shang and Stakna are summarized as under:- I) The sample beneficiaries reported that there has been a persistent leakage /seepage of water from the canal which affects badly the smooth functioning of the canal. The flow of water gets decreased. II) The sample beneficiaries also reported that the discharge of water in the canal during the peak season remains very low which needs to be intensified by plugging all the seepages/leakages. III) The sample beneficiaries reported that proper planning has not been followed during the execution of various works. This obviously was the result of casual approach of the executing agency in carrying out its legitimate activities.

However all Govt. Farms enlisted above from S. No 1 to 4 reported that the canal has been beneficial in every aspect for their Farms. Had there been no canal, the existence of farms and their development was impossible, particularly that of SKAUST.

(E) Views of knowledgeable persons of non benefitted villages.

In order to know the views of people of non benefitted villages, the Evaluation team contacted 40 knowledgeable persons of 8 villages in the field. The views expressed by them have been reflected in the following table:- Table – 3.07

Views expressed by knowledgeable persons of Non benefitted villages.

No. of No. in No. against Number persons favour of the project reporting Water S.No Name of the village contacted the project level recedes 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Shey 5 0 5 5 2 Thiksry 5 0 5 5 3 Ranbirpur 5 0 5 5 4 Choglamsar 5 0 5 5 5 Spituk 5 0 5 5 6 Chushot Gongma 5 0 5 5 7 Chushot Shamma 5 3 2 5 8 Chushot Yokma 5 4 1 5 Total 40 7 33 40 During the course of field enquiry, out of 40 knowledgeable persons 33 representing (82%) of aforementioned non benefitted villages were against the commissioning of Igophey Canal. It is a matter of fact that Indus River is the only source of Igophey Canal as well for the above cited non-benefitted villages. During the sowing season (March-May) water level of Indus River remains very low. When water gets diverted to the Igophey canal, naturally the above mentioned villages face acute shortage of irrigation water for their fields. This aspect of the project does not seem was conceputalised at the designing stage of the project. This again puts a question mark on the technical ability of the Project designers, not taking congnizance of the water shortages of other villages as a result of water diversion/commissioning of the project.

The same can be authenticated by the facts and figures reflected in the following table:-

Table- 3.08 Details of Non-benefitted villages which are totally dependent on Indus River for irrigation.

Requirement of water S.No. Name of the Village Total Area (Hect.) (Cusecs) 1. Ranbirpur 212 17 2. Thiksay 646 50 3. Shey 647 50 4. Choglamsar 483 37 5. Spituk 1059 82 6. Choshot Gongma 730 56 7. Chushot Shama 488 38 8. Chushot Yokma 471 36 Total 5031 389

It can be seen from the above table that for irrigation of 5031 hectares of land in above mentioned eight villages, 389 cusecs of water are required for irrigation purpose during the peak season. But due to diversion of water into the Igophey Canal, the availability of water gets largely reduced with the result the farmers of these villages face acute shortage of irrigation water. This situation had badly affected the farming operations in these villages as reported by the respondents.

Views of knowledgeable persons:

The farmers of benefitted villages were in favour of the Project to be continued. But the farmers from non-benefitting villages who, in fact remain on receiving end, expressed dissatisfaction over the project as it resulted in acute shortage of irrigation water to their fields. Both the reactions were genuine and there was need to address the problems and aspirations of both the sections of stakeholders on justified grounds. In order to have a fair assessment of the project, some Knowledgeable persons of the benefitted area were also contacted and their view point was ascertained. The views expressed by them are given in the following tabular form:-

Table No.-3.09 Views expressed by knowledgeable persons

No. reporting that No. satisfied with quality/site of No. of No. in Income Irrigation location of the canal Knowledgeable favour level facilities S. Persons of the increase Production improved No. Village/Farm contacted scheme d increased 1 Changa 8 7 7 8 7 8 2 Marselang 4 0 0 3 0 2 3 Shang 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 Stakna 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 Matho farm 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 SKUAST 1 1 1 1 - 1 7 Equine Farm 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 24 19 19 22 17 22

21 knowledgeable persons were contacted from the following four benefitted villages i) Changa ii) Marshelang iii) Shang iv) Stakna and one knowledgeable person from each benefitted Farm was also contacted during the course of field survey.

The interaction with Knowledgeable persons on different aspects of the Igophey Project brought the following facts to the fore:-

i) 19 (79%) knowledgeable persons reported that production increased due to commissioning of the Canal and consequently the income level also got enhanced.

ii) 22 (91%) knowledgeable persons reported that irrigation facilities have improved due to the commissioning of the Igophey canal and they were satisfied with the quality /site of location.

iii) 17(71%) beneficiaries were in favour of commissioning of the canal while as remaining 29% were not in favour of the canal.

Physical Verification:

One of the main objectives of the Evaluation study was to make ground assessment/ physical verification of Igophey canal and other important works constructed under the project. Keeping in view this objective of the study the Evaluation team inspected various heads of six sample distributaries of the canal. The details along with on spot assessment is reflected in the table given below:-

Table – 3.10 Details of Physical Verification about sample Distributaries and other Major works.

S. Name of Work Work If yes does Broad specification. As claimed As found Remarks of the Any specific No work/Sub inspect located the work by the executing agency by the beneficiaries problem Head/ ed claimed inspection about observed Constructio (Locati exists. team usefulness by the n on & of the project Evaluation address team. ) Yes No Yes No Top Bot De Total tom ptt. length (in mtrs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 Distributor Chang Yes - Yes - 1.9 1.1 0.7 550 As per Very useful Constructed y a Col. for Changa about S. No: 1 village 8, 9, 10 village 20 years back but no maintenance of channel 2 Distributar -do- Yes - Yes - 1.9 1.1 0.7 570 As per Useful for - y Col. village S. No: 2 8, 9, 10 3 Distributar Chush Yes - Yes - 1.9 1.1 0.7 1660 As per Not useful At many y ot Col. for places S.No: 15 Sham 8, 9, 10 village water distributaries ma couldn't broken & reach destroyed & upto this not distri- repair since butaries many years 4 Distributari -do- Yes - Yes - 1.9 1.1 0.7 1175 As per Useless, No Useless e Col. field because S.No: 16 8, 9, 10 channel is field channel created is on this not made on distribu- this taries distributaries . 5 Distributari Palam Yes - Yes - 2.20 1.1 0.5 1430 As per Useless - e 0 5 Col. because S.No: 29 8, 9, 10 water could not reach upto this point 6 Distributari Palam Yes - Yes - 2.20 1.1 0.5 1235 As per No benefit e 0 5 Col. because S.No: 30 8, 9, 10 water could not reach upto this canal 7 Concrete Hamis Yes - Yes - 2.00 2.0 3.0 32 As per Said canal is Acqudent Nallah 0 0 Col. very 8, 9, 10 useful to Changa village 8 Cover 20 Km Yes - Yes - 3.15 3.1 2.6 50 As per - - Condute from 5 5 Col. head 8, 9, 10 work 9 Escape Matho Yes - Yes - a) 1.75 1.7 3.0 14.50 As per - - channel nallah b) 6.20 5 0 56.50 Col. Part-II) 1.9 1.1 8, 9, 10 0 5 10 Syphon Matho Yes - Yes - 1.6 1.6 3 26 As per - - Barrel nallah Col. Part-I) 8, 9, 10 11 Over head Locate Yes - Yes - 1 1 1 10.1 As per - - Trough d at Col. many 8, 9, 10 places but one at Matho nallah 12 Bridges At RD Yes - Yes - - - - Length As per - - 8.40 1000 Col. Km mts 8, 9, 10 (Hemis width road) 6.00 mts 13 Inspection At Yes - Yes - - - - Differe As per - - road many nt Col. from places length 8, 9, 10 various at places differe nt places 14 Field Chang Yes - Yes - - - - 36 Nos As per - - channel a of Col. at D1 village channe 8, 9, 10 l, total length 1500 mts 15 Field Chang Yes - Yes - - - - 34 Nos As per - - channel at a of Col. D2 village channe 8, 9, 10 l, total length 13900 mts 16 Field Chush Yes - Yes - - - - 42 Nos As per - - channel at ot of Col. D15 Gong channe 8, 9, 10 ma l, total length 13650 mts 17 Field Chush Yes - Yes - - - - - As per - - channel at ot Col. D16 Gong 8, 9, 10 ma 18 Field Spituk Yes - Yes - - - - 47 Nos As per - - channel at Farka of Col. D24 channe 8, 9, 10 l, total length 1500 mts 19 Field Spituk Yes - Yes - - - - 49 Nos As per - - channel at Farka of Col. D24 channe 8, 9, 10 l,total length 1500 mts

As can be perused from the table, distributory No.’s D1 and D2 constructed about 20 years back are very useful for village Changa and Martselang. However they need to be maintained properly. Distributory No.D15 located in village Chochot Shamma is not useful for the village as the irrigation water has not been provided upto this distributory as on the date of field enquiry. It was observed that the distributory was broken at many places even destroyed but not repaired since years. Moreover, no field channels were constructed on D16 reportedly due to the dispute among villages about land distribution. Similarly D29 and D30 were found non functional because of non availability of Irrigation water.

However, following major works inspected by the Evaluation team were found existing on ground on the date of field survey:- I) Aquaduct constructed on Hemis Nallah in RCC Structure. II) Cover conduit constructed 20 Km from head work. III) Escape channel constructed at Matho Nallah. IV) Syphon Barrel constructed at Matho Nallah. V) Over Head Trough constructed near Matho Nallah. VI) Bridges constructed at RD 8.40 Km.

Field channels constructed by Command Area Development near D1 and D2 were found existing on ground. However, deposition of silt was found in all field channels at site. The Command Area Authorities should have formed Water User Associations as provided in the scheme modalities. These Association, among other functions were also supposed to clean-up the channels and ensure their safety and maintenance. It needs special mention here that programmes are required to be implemented in totality. The programmes are designed in the most appropriate manner with justified balance among its various components for realizing the postulate objectives. The Evaluation Exercise undertaken in the recent past had amply established this fact that one of the major reasons of failure or under-achievement of programmes had been the imbalanced implementation. The CAD authorities seem to have pursued the same path in respect of Igophey Project giving main emphasis on the construction of field channels and ignoring the component of formation of Water User Associations. The Associations, besides managing water distribution would have also been instrumental in maintaining and cleaning the Channels as provided in the Scheme Modalities.

Chapter – IV

Summary of Field Findings

1. The Igophey canal was taken up for execution in 1979-80 by Igophey Irrigation Division Leh with an original approved cost of Rs 5.95 crores which was later on revised to Rs 49.03 crores (4th revised cost) in December, 2004. The cumulative expenditure ending March, 2011 works out to Rs 55.25 crores as conveyed by the concerned Department. This included Rs 1.87 crores released under District Plan for maintenance and repairs from the year 2005-06 to 2010-11.

2. The total command area of the canal is 4873 hectares but the potential has been created for 4300 hectares only. However, 900 hectares out of Potential created representing 21% stands utilized till date in the villages/Farms benefitted under the scheme.

3. The total length of the canal is 43.12 Kms and it consists of 30 distributaries. The source of the canal is the River Indus. The canal stands completed and commissioned in 2005.

4. During 1986, the Igophey canal was converted into a composite project by way of generation of 3.4 MW of power at village Martselang in addition to provisions of assured irrigation. The power house is presently operational at village Igo being managed by Power Development Corporation. It is outside the ambit of instant evaluation study.

5. Besides, Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh, the command Area Development Department, Leh was also engaged with construction of field channels and other allied works around the canal w. e. f 1992- 93. Accordingly, against the allocation of Rs 608.35 lakhs, an amount of Rs 574.44 lakhs only stands utilized by CAD upto 03/2011 representing an expenditure of 94.42%. An area of 2403 hectares of land was reportedly treated against the approved target of 4873 hectares. The construction of Field Channels, the major component of the programme showed 49% progress against the set targets. Moreover, 41% physical progress was reported achieved in respect of another activity viz. construction of Drains/paths in the Command Area of the canal.

6. In case of Land Reclamation and Renovation/Desilting, low progress viz. 24% and 3% respectively was recorded reportedly due to the slashing down of approved allocations in respect of these components.

7. Out of total 30 Distributaries, 6 (20%) distributaries named D1, D2, D15, D16, D29, D30 giving representation to head, middle and tail were put to field investigations. It was found during the field survey that irrigation facility is being provided upto Distributory No.13 only.

8. Sample distributaries viz. D1 & D2 are located in Changa village, D15 & D16 are located in Chushot Shamma and D29 & D30 are located in Spituk Farka. The total length of these distributaries was recorded to be 1235 mts. Besides, 104 outlets were found completed on these sample distributaries. The field enquiry revealed that all the distributaries got damaged during last 25 years as such need immediate repairs/renovations. Moreover, the following 4 Sample Farms were put to field investigations:-

I) SKUAST Farm at Stakna. II) Fodder Development Farm at Stakna. III) Sheep Farm at village Matho. IV) Equine Farm at village Chushot.

9. The field enquiry revealed that distributaries D1 & D2 were very useful for Changa and Martselang Villages. However, D15 was not found useful for village Chushot Shamma. It was found that D15 was broken and destroyed and not even repaired for so many years. D16 was found useless as no field channels were constructed on this distributory. D29 & D30 were found non functional.

10. Out of 11 villages falling in the domain of Command Area Project, 4 villages (36%) were selected for detailed field enquiry. The villages were:- i) Changa ii) Chushot iii) Gongma vi) Palam

11. Out of total cultivable command area of 4873 hectares, 873 hectares only representing 18% were distributed among the sample villages/sample Farms by Revenue Department Leh. The remaining land could not be distributed reportedly due to dispute between villagers of the area.

12. During the field investigation it was observed that 109 field channels constructed at six sample Distributaries were built in dry masonry without leveling of land resulting in continuous wastage of irrigation water thereby defeating the very purpose of maximizing the full irrigation potential.

13. The annual income of sample farmers amounting to Rs 6.31 lakhs in 2004 was raised to Rs 7.73 lakhs in 2011 after commissioning of the scheme indicating 23% increase in the income level during a span of seven years. This dismal 3% annual increase could not be regarded as satisfactory by any standards. However, the four Govt Farms were able to incerease their production from Rs 7.15 lakhs in 2004 to Rs 62.24 lakhs in 2011.

14. Due to the implementation of the Project/programme, it was assessed that more than 57% of un-irrigated land was converted into irrigated land in respect of sample beneficiaries and thus it changed the cropping pattern favourably and resultantly there was increase in the production.

15. All the 20 sample beneficiaries contacted during the field operations were of the view that though production and income levels were increased but they consistently complained about the problem of leakage /seepage of water, low discharge of water and ill planning in the execution of the works. However, the respondents of all the four sample farms were fully satisfied over the execution of the project.

16. Out of 40 knowledgeable persons 30 viz.75% of non benefitted villages were not in the favour of the scheme. They reported that due to the implementation of this programme/project their woes had increased owing to the fact that during sowing Agriculture season (April – May) the water level of Indus River recedes due to lifting of water for Igophey Canal.

17. During the on-spot physical verifications, it was found that most of the structures such as gates/distributory’s channels, lining of canal at weak spots, Downside protection bund of supper passages etc. were damaged during last 25 years and need to be repaired/restored immediately.

18. The field enquiry revealed that the scheme was implemented in letter and spirit due to lack of co-ordination between line Departments viz. Irrigation Division Igophey Leh, CAD Department Leh and Revenue Department, Leh.

19. Taking all the studied aspects of the project in consideration, the evaluation team had come to the conclusion that the Project was under-functional and most of the construction components remained un-utilised mainly due to poor estimations on the part of Project Designers. The Project objectives could have been fully achieved provided the Project was fully made functional by successful cooperation and coordination of all the involved departments.

APPENDIX

Response of the Implementing Departments.

As per the Evaluation Process in vogue, the draft evaluation reports once prepared are simultaneously sent to the members of the Technical Advisory Committee for their experts comments and to the concerned Implementing Department(s) for their viewpoint on the findings of the Report. The views of the Implementing Department invariably serves as a token of authentication of the official data presented in the report. While finalizing the evaluation reports for placement before the State Level Evaluation Committee(SLEC) for approval and release, the comments of the implementing Department are taken in-to consideration and the Evaluation Agency feels no hesitation in revising/rectifying the figures/contents of the Report on justified grounds.

Accordingly, in respect of Evaluation Report on Igophey canal Leh the Director command area Development Kashmir and the Chief Engineer Irrigation Kashmir were asked to offer comments on the report vide Directorate’s letter No: DES/Evl/SLEC/ICL/2012-13/1057-60 dated:28-03-2013. The concerned Heads of the Departments, instead of offering their comments have endorsed the view point of their district level officers vide letter No: IPD/RK/53-55 dated:13-05-2013 from Executive Engineer Igophey division Leh and No: CAKK/Plg- 54/Igophey/2013 Dated: 08-06-2013 from Director Command Area Development Kashmir. The issue came under discussion in the SLEC review meeting on 21-10-2013 at civil Secretariat Srinagar held under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary to Govt. Planning and Development Deptt. It was decided in the meeting to request the concerned Administrative secretaries / HODs to offer comments on the report within 20 days. As a follow-up action of the decision, the Administrative secretaries of Agriculture production Deptt, Revenue Deptt and Irrigation Deptts were asked vide this office communication No:even dated:25-10-2013 to offer their comments/response on the report. By the end of the stipulated time-frame no comments could be received by this office and as such the DES took recourse of the comments of the concerned district officers. The officers concerned have virtually accepted the findings of the report and have putforth reasons behind the shortfalls identified in the report. The response of the concerned Departments is given hereunder separately.

Response of Irrigation Division Leh:

1. The project was approved by Planning Commission Govt. of India in the year 1979 for an amount of Rs 5.95 crores and the revised project cost stands submitted to Govt in Dec 2004 for Rs 49.03 crores. Later on the project was made a multipurpose project for producing 3 MW power and as such the first 7.70 Kms of the canal including head work at village Igo is being maintained by the power development corporation. 2. The carrying capacity of canal as reported by the Executive Engineer concerned is detailed below: a) RDO – Desilting tank 900 Cusecs b) From desilting tank to 7.70 kms 750 Cusecs c) Beyond 7.70 Kms 375 Cusecs d) Tail end 88.3 Cusecs However, the concerned Executive Engineer had admitted the evaluation finding that the potential utilized was just around 960 hectares only which is within 25 kms of the canal from head works. The reason for not utilizing full potential of the canal was due to partial distribution of land to the farmers by the Revenue Department.

3. Some structures constructed during the long span of 25 years have got damaged and need repairs. There is also need for some additional structures such as construction of disposal channel, escape at Hemis Nallah, channelization, protection works, widening of cross drainage works, protection work of active Nallah and connecting them to water bodies. For this purpose the proposal costing Rs 12.91 crores stand submitted to the Govt. under NABARD for accord of approval.

4. The officer concerned also admitted that due to the commissioning of the canal the villages down the main river face acute shortage of water in the month of April and May due to less discharge of water. The matter reportedly has been taken care of by mutual agreement to share the water from river Indus.

Response of Command Area Development Leh:

1. The Deptt. Constructed some field channels at distributory No. 15 and 16 and stopped execution process due to objections raised by the villagers of due to land dispute. The case is pending in court of law and concerned Soil Conservation Assistant has been directed to stop work in the area and wait for court directions.

2. The area for which distributory No: 29 and 30 were constructed has not been distributed among the prospective beneficiaries by the Revenue Deptt. as such no field channels were constructed by the CAD either. The igophey canal is virtually non functional beyond distributory No. 13 due to siltation as per the reports of CAD Department.

3. Without taking any responsibility for faulty construction of field channels the Deptt. views that after treatment of land by the CAD it was the responsibility of concerned farmers to cultivate crops. The CAD also reported to have persuaded them for cultivation of land and even approached the Agriculture Deptt. for conducting awareness camps.

4. Regarding treated area of 1008 hectares, for which no details were provided by the CAD Department, no cogent clarification has been provided which tantaments to virtual acceptance of the fact.

5. Regarding the non-functionality of field channels the CAD authorities blame the farmers for not cultivating the land after obtaining it from the administration which has rendered the channels unused. The CAD suggested that the Govt should cancel the allotment of land in favour of those farmers who fail to cultivate the land within a span of 5 years.

Bottlenecks faced by the Department in the execution of the scheme.

One of the objectives of the Evaluation study was to identify bottlenecks/difficulties faced in the implementation of the programme and to suggest the corrective measures for ensuring smooth functioning.

As such the Evaluation team tried to know the bottle necks and difficulties being faced during and after the implementation of this scheme. For this purpose, Executive Engineer, Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh and CAD Leh were approached and feedback obtained which is reflected hereunder:-

1. The project was started in 1979-80 and most of the structures such as gates/distributary’s channels, lining of canal at weak spots, D/S protection bund of supper passages etc. damaged during the last 25 years need to be repaired/restored. Also some distributary channels need to be taken up for connecting them to water source.

2. With the passage of time the main igo-phey canal upto 25 km deposited silt of about 2 to 3 feet in stretches, which has reduced the flowing capacity of the Canal as such needs to be removed in full. Under Non-plan maintenance every year only 25% of deposited silt was possible for the department to be removed.

3. During rainy days the mud water from active nallahs enter into the main canal. To avoid the siltation in main canal, the mud water needs to be disposed from the widened as well as newly constructed over-head troughs. Also the active nallahs need to be channelized upto Over Head Troughs.

4. Total cultivable command area consisting of barren land infested with boulders and coarse fragments could not be distributed by Revenue Department in full amongst the villages/farmers due to disputes between the stakeholders.

Suggestions

1. The Government should consider sanctioning of NABARD 16th Project worth Rs 12.91 crores submitted by Igophey Irrigation Division, Leh so that impediments/bottlenecks as reflected above could be removed.

2. The Revenue Department Leh should take speedy measures for ensuring distribution of remaining command land.

3. Funds should be provided to CAD Leh for developing of field channels/land leveling/OFD works at various spots.