Conclusiones del modelo global

In both Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the second research hypothesis: ‘under existing conditions, small, marginal and poor farmers receive less benefits from irrigation than large and non-poor farmers,’ was more difficult to prove. However, in the water scarce irrigation systems a relationship between landholding size and access to irrigation seemed to exist.

Table 3.3.24. Distribution of landholding size over the irrigation system. % of respondents Category

NSLC KDS Halali Harsi

Landless 51 60 27 12

Marginal farmers (0-1 ha) 23 22 20 26 Small farmers (1-2 ha) 10 7 22 24 Large farmers (2 ha and above) 16 11 31 38

Size of landholding basically increases when moving from head to tail, together with the percentage of landlessness, which, especially in the tail-end of water scarce systems, is relatively high. Although this might indicate that small holders have actually received less benefits from irrigation and have been forced to leave their lands, in the short term the differences in income cannot be explained by landholding size alone. Clearly, marginal landholders in water-abundant systems are better-off than marginal landholders in water-scarce systems: the benefits that can be derived from a small plot of land with secure access to water are clearly higher than the benefits from lands with no water security.

Table 3.3.25. Socio-economic indicators for marginal, small, large farmers in NSLC.

NSLC Marginal farmers Small farmers Large farmers

Poverty levels (HCI (PG/ SGP)) 32% (0.14/ 0.08) 26% (0.10/ 0.05) 17 % (0.08/ 0.05) Net value produced per household area (rs/ha) 12,792 13,178 10,738 Net value produced per cultivated area (rs/ha) 13,334 11,911 12,724 Output per unit of Labor (Rs./days) 321.1 428.8 684.9

Family labor/total labor (%) 14.6 17.3 12.9

In NSLC, poverty and landholding size are related, the larger the landholding size, the lower the poverty levels. The direction of this relation is another question however, as is the extent to which small landholding have less access to the benefits of irrigation.

From the productivity figures however, an important result follows from the difference between household and cultivated area for the different landholding sizes: Whereas marginal households have a higher productivity per cultivated area, large landowners have a higher productivity per household area. This, in fact, reflects the cropping intensity of agricultural productivity; large landowners apparently having more often a successful second crop than small and marginal landowners. Although, theoretically, this could be related to the availability of other agricultural inputs too, the most important factor for double-cropping is access to water. Thus, large farmers seem to have better access to irrigation water than small and marginal farmers, regardless of their location in the irrigation system. Irrigation benefits in NSLC thus, seem related to landholding size, large landowners having higher productivity per household area and because of more intensive cropping rates.

The labor productivity of small and marginal farmers is lower than that of large farmers (< 2 ha) as well, but this can be explained by the higher percentage of family labor employed. Small farmers do have some other sources of income, but its less than marginal farmers (0-1 ha) who only get 50 percent of their income from farming. The higher value produced per cultivated area is related to crop choice too: some of the small and marginal landowners to grow high-value, non-cereal crops like chillies, that have a high value per hectare, but are in effect grown only on very small plots of land.

Table 3.3.26. Socio-economic indicators for marginal, small, large farmers in KDS.

KDS Marginal farmers Small farmers Large

farmers

Poverty levels (HCI (PG/SPG)) 13% (0.05/0.03) 12% (2 HH only) 0 Net value produced per household area (Rs./ha) 11738 12375 14099 Net value produced per cultivated area (Rs./ha) 18374 22264 24319 Output per unit of Labour (Rs./days) 451.0 476.7 551.3 Family labor/total labor (%) 17.0 19.4 17.0 Income from farm prod/total income (%) 0.8 1.0 1.1

For the Krishna Delta, the picture that emerges is different: here, for all categories, net value produced per household area is larger than the value produced per cultivated area; all types of households on average produce more than one crop. Interestingly, marginal farmers are most productive, even with a lower output per unit of labor. Again, small farmers use relatively more labor, and even marginal farmers gain most of their income from agriculture. The fact that large farmers receive more then 100 percent of their income from agriculture reflects a measurement error, households probably having underestimated the total income gained.

Table 3.3.27. Socio-economic indicators for poor and non-poor farmers in Halali and Harsi. Halali Harsi Indicator Poor Non- poor Poor Non- poor

Average landholding size (in ha) 0.83 6.16 1.22 2.76 Average household income (in Rs.) 5,547 41,957 7,872 30,507 Farm income as a percentage of household income 33.0 77.0 39.0 59.0 Labor income as a percentage of household income 50.6 11.8 31.3 6.9 Other sources of income as a percentage of household income 11.4 2.2 9.7 5.6

Other benefits recorded in Madhya Pradesh as related to the benefits from irrigation were that neither in the Halali nor Harsi system, significant outward migration has been reported. Comparison of investment in health and education for the command area as compared with the control area also give a picture of the benefits from irrigation: table 3.3.28 below shows that command areas have higher expenditure in both these vital social areas.

Table 3.3.28. Average household expenditure on medicines and education in Halali and Harsi.

Halali Harsi

System Control System Control

Medical 1673 1272 2094 2695

Education 1703 1290 1878 579

Total 3376 2562 3972 3274