Your search found 9 records
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 4599 Record No: H021420)
2 1995. North Bengal Terai Development Project: An overview. Unpublished report of the Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Jalpaiguri Range and Project Authority. NBTDP Department of Agriculture. 21p.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 4681 Record No: H021870)
3 Chakraborty, S. 1998. Minor irrigation, input response and crop output: The study of a block in a north Bengal district, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, 8(1):87-94.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: PER Record No: H022655)
4 Shah, T. 1999. Pump irrigation and equity: Machine reform and agrarian transformation in water abundant Eastern India. Unpublished paper. IDE-Ford Foundation supported "Irrigation Against Rural Poverty Research Programme." Anand, India: Policy School. 18p. (Policy School working papers 6)
(Location: IWMI-SA Call no: P 5017 Record No: H023831)
5 Shah, Tushaar. 2001. Elixir or opiate?: an assessment of minor irrigation policies in North Bengal. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI) 99p. (IWMI Working Paper 007) [doi: https://doi.org/10.3910/2009.135]
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 5128, IWMI 631.7.8 G635 SHA Record No: H024272)
(772 KB)
Provides a socioeconomic analysis of Minor Irrigation (MI) investments in North Bengal. The study addresses the following questions: whether there is justification and rationale for MI subsidies in North Bengal; whether the North Bengal Terai Development Project's current subsidy policy achieves the Project's MI objectives in an efficient, sustainable and livelihood intensive manner, and if there is scope for modifying the current policies for better impact.
6 Shah, T. 1998. Irrigation institution and technology dynamics in North Bengal: social impact and marketing dynamics of the treadle pump technology. Anand, India: Policy School. 38p. (Policy School Working Paper 5)
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: P 5130 Record No: H024274)
7 van Steenbergen, F. 2003. Creating markets with the poor: Selling treadle pumps in India. London, UK: IIED. 22p. (Gatekeeper series no.107)
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 631.7.4 G635 VAN Record No: H037364)
8 Shah, Tushaar. 2009. Groundwater irrigation and livelihoods in the Ganga Basin: analysis of minor irrigation policy in north Bengal, India. International Journal of River Basin Management, 7(2):125-133.
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H042203)
(0.17 MB)
9 Malik, Ravinder Paul Singh; de Fraiture, Charlotte; Ray, D. 2013. Technologies for smallholder irrigation appropriate for whom: promoters or beneficiaries? In Jean-Claude, B.; Silvia, H.; Eileen, H. (Eds.). Technologies for sustainable development: a way to reduce poverty?. Proceedings of 2012 Conference of the EPFL-UNESCO Chair in Technologies for Development, Lausanne, Switzerland, 29-31 May 2012. London, UK: Springer. pp.73-84.
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy SF Record No: H046100)
Fifteen years after the successful introduction of treadle pumps for small farm irrigation in the North Bengal region of India, the socio-economic and technological landscape has changed dramatically. However, donors have continued to support treadle pump programs. Revisiting the factors that contributed to its initial success, the authors in this paper examine whether the use of treadle pumps continues to be an appropriate technology for smallholder irrigation. The results suggest that treadle pumps, when introduced during the mid-1990s, were successful because of a near technological vacuum at that time. Over the years, with the advent of small affordable diesel engines, motorized pumps have become widely available and a large rental market for water and pumping equipment has emerged. The farmers started abandoning the treadle pumps. Growing labor scarcity, rising labor wages, and increasing concerns over drudgery also dissuaded farmers from using the labor-intensive treadle pumps. The study reaffirms that the adoption of a technology is a dynamic process and that a technology that was appropriate at one point in time will not necessarily remain so at other times. It underlines the need for regularly revisiting technology choices and independent monitoring to understand better the changing landscapes of smallholder irrigation. This will ensure that the technologies desired most by beneficiaries—not just by promoters—get the support and promotional backing of the donors and governments for effective poverty reduction.
Powered by DB/Text
WebPublisher, from