Your search found 93 records
1 Hafid, A.; Hayami, Y. 1978. Mobilizing local resources for irrigation development: the subsidi desa case of Indonesia. In IRRI, Irrigation policy and management in Southeast Asia. Los Banos, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. pp.123-133.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 631.7.8 G570 IRR Record No: H02291)
The impact of national subsidies on the rehabilitation of two small-scale river-diversion irrigation systems in Indonesia is examined. One system is in West Java and the other in South Sulawesi; both serve less than 100 ha. The rehabilitation involved the repair and raising of the diversion dams and the lining of some canals. The study shows that the subsidies were substantial inducements to the mobilization of local resources, and that as a result high rates of return on the rehabilitation projects were achieved.
2 Rukuni, M. 1984. Organization and management of smallholder irrigation: The case of Zimbabwe. Agricultural Administration, 17(4):215-229.
Irrigation management ; Water rights ; Governmental interrelations ; Farmers' associations ; Land tenure ; Subsidies ; Small scale systems / Zimbabwe
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: PER Record No: H01766)
3 Foster, W. E.; Calvin, L. S.; Johns, G. M.; Rottschaefer, P. 1986. Distributional welfare implications of an irrigation water subsidy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(4):778-786.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 1270 Record No: H02926)
The distributional welfare implications of a subsidy for irrigation water for California rice producers are analyzed. A more general equilibrium approach than that used in previous studies is taken in order to determine the effects of subsidy on consumers, subsidized producers, and unsubsidized producers. The two important policy conclusions of the results are that unsubsidized producers bear part of the cost of a subsidy through lower prices, and that consumers (taxpayers) may gain by sponsoring increased production through a selective subsidy.
4 Abeyratne, F. 1991. Agricultural taxation and subsidies related to the irrigated sector. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Irrigation Management Policy Support Activity (IMPSA) Secretariat. 31p. (IMPSA Staff Working Paper 8.2)
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: P 2196 Record No: H010701)
Prepared as a paper to support IMPSA policy paper no.8 - Promoting Profitable Irrigated Agriculture: Trade and fiscal policies.
5 Ratha, D. K.; Sarma, A. 1992. Price subsidies and irrigation investment in India: Macro implications. Economic and Political Weekly, September:117-121.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 2520 Record No: H011724)
6 Abeygunawardana, P. 1992. Uplifting subsistence farming in irrigation projects: Failure of non institutional approach in Uda Walawa. Sri Lanka Journal of Agrarian Studies, 7(1&2):47-55.
Subsistence farming ; Farmer-agency interactions ; Subsidies ; Farm income ; Rural economy ; Water delivery / Sri Lanka / Uda Walawe
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 2783 Record No: H012785)
7 Kerr, J. M.; Sanghi, N. K.; Sriramappa, G. 1996; 1999. Subsidies in watershed development projects in India: Distortions and opportunities. London, UK: IIED. In Hinchcliff, F.; Thompson, J.; Pretty, J.; Guijt, I.; Shah, P. (Eds.). Fertile ground: The impacts of participatory watershed management. London, UK: IT Publications. 23p.; pp.178-193. (Gatekeeper series no.SA61)
Watershed management ; Subsidies ; Financing ; Farmers' attitudes ; Participatory management ; Rural development ; Policy ; Agricultural economics / India
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 4351, 333.91 G000 HIN Record No: H019309)
8 Shah, T. 2003. Wells and welfare in the Ganga Basin: Public policy and private initiative in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. In Prasad, K. (Ed.), Water resources and sustainable development: Challenges of 21st Century. Delhi, India: Shipra Publications. pp.393-415.
Groundwater development ; Tube wells ; Investment ; Public policy ; Pumping ; Irrigation water ; Small scale systems ; Cost recovery ; Electricity supplies ; Energy ; Pumps ; Farmer-led irrigation ; Subsidies / India / Eastern Uttar Pradesh
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 333.91 G000 PRA, IWMI 631.7.4 G635 SHA Record No: H031084)
9 Saleth, M.; Sastry, G. S. 2003. Subsidy in water supply and sanitation sector in Karnatake: Magnitude, effects and policy issues. In Govinda Rao, M. (Ed.) 2003. Volume and composition of budgetary susbsidies in Karnatake. Bangalore, India: Institute of Social and Economic Change. pp. 47-70. (Social and economic change monographs 1)
Water supply ; Sanitation ; Subsidies ; Policy ; Reforms ; User charges ; Water rates ; Cost recovery / India / Bangalore / Karnataka
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: IWMI 628.1 G635 SAL Record No: H033021)
10 Gómez-Lobo, A.; Contreras, D. 2003. Water subsidy policies: A comparison of the Chilean and Colombian schemes. The World Bank Economic Review, 17(3):391-407.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: P 6829 Record No: H034541)
11 Komives, K.; Foster, V.; Halpern, J.; Wodon, Q. 2005. Water, electricity, and the poor: Who benefits from utility subsidies? Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. xvii, 283p. (Directions in development)
Subsidies ; Financing ; Households ; Poverty ; Water supply ; Electricity ; Cost recovery ; Social aspects ; Policy ; Developing countries
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 333.7158 G000 KOM Record No: H038322)
12 Epaarachchi, R.; Jayanetti, S.; Weliwita, A. 2002. Policies and their implications for the domestic agricultural sector of Sri Lanka: 1995- 2000. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Institute of Policy Studies. 30p. (Research studies: Agricultural policy series no.5)
Agricultural policy ; Trade policy ; Subsidies ; Institutions ; Marketing ; Private investment ; Rice ; Field crops / Sri Lanka
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 338.1 G744 EPA Record No: H039348)
13 Sri Lanka. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Lands and Irrigation. 2004. Progress 2004 & programme 2005. Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Ministry. 120p.
Agricultural policy ; Irrigation systems ; Rehabilitation ; Fertilizers ; Subsidies ; Livestock ; Plant protection ; Agricultural development ; Development plans / Sri Lanka
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 630.212 G744 SRI Record No: H039351)
14 Malik, R. P. S. 2008. Towards a common methodology for measuring irrigation subsidies. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 63p.
Irrigation water ; Costs ; Water rates ; Subsidies ; Support measures ; Government managed irrigation systems ; Water policy ; Operating costs ; Maintenance costs / China / India / Australia
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: 631.7.4 G000 MAL Record No: H041643)
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/pdf/irrigation__methodology.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H041643.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H041643.pdf
15 Minde, I.; Jayne, T. S.; Crawford, E.; Ariga, J.; Govereh, J. 2008. Promoting fertilizer use in Africa: current issues and empirical evidence from Malawi, Zambia and Kenya. Pretoria, South Africa: Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA); Pretoria, South Africa: International Water Management Institute (IWMI); Pretoria, South Africa: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 30p. (ReSAKSS-SA Working Paper 013)
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: 631.8 G100 MIN Record No: H042064)
(0.77 MB)
16 Kuppannan, Palanisami; Malik, Ravinder Paul Singh; Mohan, Kadiri. 2012. Are we over-estimating irrigation subsidies in multipurpose water resources projects in India?— methodological issues and evidence. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 25(January-June):29-38.
Water resources ; Irrigation projects ; Subsidies ; Irrigation water ; Water costs / India / Andhra Pradesh / Nagarjunasagar Irrigation Project
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H045059)
(0.04 MB)
Irrigation subsidies have become a highly contentious issue over the years and alternative approaches and conventions have been evolved in measuring the magnitude of these subsidies. Given the fact that the capital cost is a sunk cost, this paper has used the O&M cost of the project and the gross receipts in computing irrigation subsidies. Further, the paper has suggested an improvement in the subsidy estimation methods by adjusting the O&M cost of the projects to multiple benefits of the irrigation projects using the Separable Cost Remaining Benefit (SCRB) method in three major multipurpose irrigation projects in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The study has revealed that currently irrigation subsidies are over-estimated. For example, the estimated average irrigation subsidy in Nagarjunasagar Project (NRSP) Right Bank canal based on currently practised methods, works out to be ` 428 per ha, whereas using the SCRB approach, it come to be ` 111/ ha. The irrigation subsidy for NRSP is thus being currently over-estimated to the tune of almost 286 per cent. Similar is the case with the other two projects studied, though the magnitude of subsidy over-estimation could differ. The study has demonstrated how through the use of appropriate accounting methodologies, more informed and transparent estimates of irrigation subsidy can be derived. The inference from this paper is that reliable information about subsidies actually going to the irrigation sector could help in framing better pricing policies for irrigation water and in promoting more efficient use of irrigation water and utilization of subsidies. The outcome from the study will also be useful in finetuning the subsidy related discussions in the 12th Five-Year Plan documents.
17 Hanjra, M. A.; Culas, R. J. 2011. The political economy of maize production and poverty reduction in Zambia: analysis of the last 50 years. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 46(6):546-566. [doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909611402161]
Political aspects ; Economic aspects ; Maize ; Agricultural production ; Poverty ; Hunger ; Fertilizers ; Subsidies ; Food security ; Smallholders ; Investment ; Public sector ; Private sector ; Agricultural policy ; Environmental effects ; Models / Zambia
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H045591)
(0.65 MB)
Poverty and food security are endemic issues in much of sub-Saharan Africa. To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger in the region remains a key Millennium Development Goal. Many African governments have pursued economic reforms and agricultural policy interventions in order to accelerate economic growth that reduces poverty faster. Agricultural policy regimes in Zambia in the last 50 years (1964–2008) are examined here to better understand their likely impact on food security and poverty, with an emphasis on the political economy of maize subsidy policies. The empirical work draws on secondary sources and an evaluation of farm household data from three villages in the Kasama District of Zambia from 1986/87 and 1992/93 to estimate a two-period econometric model to examine the impact on household welfare in a pre- and post-reform period. The analysis shows that past interventions had mixed effects on enhancing the production of food crops such as maize. While such reforms were politically popular, it did not necessarily translate into household-level productivity or welfare gains in the short term. The political economy of reforms needs to respond to the inherent diversity among the poor rural and urban households. The potential of agriculture to generate a more pro-poor growth process depends on the creation of new market opportunities that most benefit the rural poor. The state should encourage private sector investments for addressing infrastructure constraints to improve market access and accelerate more pro-poor growth through renewed investments in agriculture, rural infrastructure, gender inclusion, smarter subsidies and regional food trade. However, the financing of such investments poses significant challenges. There is a need to address impediments to the effective participation of public private investors to generate more effective poverty reduction and hunger eradication programmes. This article also explores the opportunities for new public–private investments through South–South cooperation and Asia-driven growth for reducing poverty in Zambia.
18 Kishore, A.; Shah, Tushaar; Tewari, N. P. 2014. Solar irrigation pumps: farmers’ experience and state policy in Rajasthan [India]. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(10):55-62.
Solar energy ; Drip irrigation ; Pumps ; Farmers ; State intervention ; Subsidies ; Prices ; Water use efficiency / India / Rajasthan
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H046323)
(0.24 MB)
19 Shah, Tushaar; Pattnaik, I.; Bhatt, S.; Kopa, G. G.; Shah, A. 2013. Impact of Gujarat's Krishi Mahotsava (Agrarian Festival) campaigns: results of a perception survey of 1445 farmers from 25 districts. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(4):583-593.
Agricultural economics ; Farmers ; Farmer participation ; Farm inputs ; Households ; Wells ; Surveys ; Exhibitions ; Marketing techniques ; Campaigns ; Technology transfer ; Innovation adoption ; Subsidies / India / Gujarat
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H046355)
(3.64 MB)
Since 2005, Government of Gujarat has been organising an annual, month-long, pre-monsoon Krishi Mahotsava (Agrarian Festival) campaign to expose farmer to new farming technologies and market opportunities, enhance their interaction with scientists and input suppliers, and improve their access to various government schemes. Krishi Mahotsava entails mobilisation of government machinery on a massive scale. But does it reach out to the farmer? This paper presents the results of a sample survey of 1445 farmers from across Gujarat to understand their perceptions about the Krishi Mahotsava campaign, its impact on them and their suggestions about how to enhance its usefulness to them.
20 Amarasinghe, Upali. 2014. Disentangling the water, food and energy nexus in agriculture: a policy option for India [Abstract only] In University of North Carolina. The Water Institute. Nexus 2014: Water, Food, Climate and Energy Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, 5-8 March 2014. Abstract book. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina. The Water Institute. pp.5-6.
Energy consumption ; Electricity ; Groundwater irrigation ; Agricultural production ; Farmers ; Wells ; Water use ; Subsidies / India / Andhra Pradesh
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H046361)
http://nexusconference.web.unc.edu/files/2014/03/nexus-2014-abstract-book.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H046361.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H046361.pdf
(0.07 MB) (596.49 KB)
In India, the nexus between water, food and energy has reached a tipping point. The country can no longer underestimate the crises or delay addressing the issues emanating from the nexus, which already constrain sustainable economic growth in many regions. This paper assesses the trends and turning points of groundwater irrigation, agricultural production and energy consumption in the state of Andhra Pradesh (AP), India, which exemplifies the dire situation that prevails elsewhere in the country. It also shows that the state can reduce agricultural electricity consumption and still achieve a Pareto optimal solution for all stakeholders: farmers, utility companies, the government and, most importantly, the environment. AP has an important place in economic, agricultural land- and water-scape in India. In 2011, the total population of India was 1.2 billion, of which AP accounted for 84 million people. Among the 32 major states in India, AP has the fifth largest population, fourth largest geographical area, second largest economy and 5 million hectares of net irrigated area (NIA), which is 9% of the total NIA of the country. The state has 23 administrative districts in three agro-climatic zones: Telangana, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra. Three distinct growth periods depict groundwater irrigation development during the last four decades. Dug wells, along with canals, were the main sources of irrigated area expansion in the 1970s and 1980s. A decline in the number of dug wells and the rapidly increasing number of tube wells were the main features of irrigation development trends in the 1990s. Post-2000 trends show a significant slowdown in the expansion of even the tube well irrigated area. Yet, groundwater depletion is an issue in many regions. Groundwater contributes to 69%, 67% and 23% of NIA in the Telangana, Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra regions, respectively, and to 48% of the net sown area in AP. In some regions, the consumptive water use (CWU) (evapotranspiration) of crop production alone is a significant part of natural groundwater recharge. With depletion from other sectors, groundwater CWU in many locations are at or above the thresholds of natural groundwater recharge. Electricity consumption increased rapidly with groundwater use. The share of electric pumps in the state increased from 64% to 94% between 1991 and 2008. As a result, agricultural electricity consumption increased by 138% between 1991 and 2008, compared to a 57% growth in NIA using groundwater. Electricity supply is free to farmers, but a high cost has to be borne by the governments. Utility companies estimate the cost of agricultural electricity supply at a flat rate of about USD 0.08/kWh. The government transfers the estimated subsidy to the utility companies to mitigate their losses. The estimated farm power subsidy at the national level is more than USD 6 billion, which is more than the expenditure for health and education in some states. Econometric analyses of district-level data between 1999 and 2008 show that, every 1% growth in groundwater CWU has contributed to a 0.82% increase in agricultural electricity consumption and only a 0.12% gross value of crop output. Thus, a 1% reduction in agricultural electricity consumption will reduce 1.14% of groundwater CWU and will, in turn, reduce 0.14% of the gross value of output. At present, the marginal loss of gross value of output due to a reduction in electricity consumption is far less than the increase in subsidy for that amount of electricity consumed. In many districts, due to high production costs, marginal profits are much less than the subsidy that the government has to payout. Thus, the direct transfer of the electricity subsidy to farmers for reducing electricity consumption is a financially attractive option, rather than the value generated in agricultural production at present. Such a solution can generate even higher environmental and socioeconomic benefits to all stakeholders. It will maintain, at least, the present level of benefits to farmers - the most important stakeholder in the nexus. Power utility companies can reduce losses by selling power to other sectors at a higher incremental rate. The state government can reduce the agricultural power subsidy. Domestic and industrial sectors can increase their productivity and output, for which inadequate power supply is a severe constraint at present. The environment will benefit by reduced groundwater depletion, which contributes to the drying of wetlands and streams, and water quality issues, at present. It is an incentive for farmers to increase efficiency of groundwater use and diversify cropping patterns to high-value low water-intensive crops. The utility companies will have to reduce losses in power transmission and distribution, which, at present, is conveniently included in the subsidy estimation
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
