Water Related Subsidies in Agriculture: Environmental and Equity Consequences .

Uploaded on:
Category: Education / Career
Presentation. Water-related endowments in farming are basically an all inclusive phenomenon.They are of concern in light of the fact that they are:fiscally unsustainable;environmentally hurtful; andhave a value measurement. Truth be told, endowments that influence the earth may be more hurtful when we take the value measurement into consideration.Broad arrangement and institutional changes are expected to address the outcome
Slide 1

Water Related Subsidies in Agriculture: Environmental and Equity Consequences Mona Sur, Dina Umali-Deininger & Ariel Dinar World Bank Paper displayed at the OECD workshop on Environmentally Harmful Subsidies-Paris, Nov.7-8, 2002.

Slide 2

Introduction Water-related sponsorships in agribusiness are for all intents and purposes a general wonder. They are of concern since they are: monetarily unsustainable; ecologically destructive; and have a value measurement. Truth be told, sponsorships that influence the earth might be more hurtful when we think about the value measurement. Wide strategy and institutional changes are expected to address the outcomes of water-related appropriations. A superior comprehension of the way of water-related appropriations, their size, natural effect and related issues of value is required.

Slide 3

Outline of Presentation How do water-related appropriations influence the conduct of irrigators? The different pretenses of water-related sponsorships. The conceivable effect of these endowments on the earth and poor people. How we measure these endowments. Inspecting the value measurement of these endowments. Estimation and value issues are talked about with regards to waterway water system endowments in India. Closing remarks.

Slide 4

How do irrigators react to water sponsorships? Situation 1: Water is financed however the expenses related with the natural externality are not disguised. Situation 2: Water is sponsored and the irrigator disguises the ecological cost. w ND >w D , w S&ND >w S&D and above all w ND <w S&ND and w D <w S&D In numerous nations the social expenses related with treating ecological externalities are not borne by the clients of sponsored water. Consequently irrigators advantage from both an immediate endowment by means of the cost of water and a roundabout sponsorship identified with the relief of externalities by the citizen.

Slide 5

The different appearances of water-related sponsorships Crop cost and exchange insurance (CP & TP) Surface water cost (SP) Electricity cost (EP) Pesticide costs (PP) Fertilizer costs (FP)

Slide 6

The Possible Environmental Consequences CP&TP : Incentives for developing water-wasteful yields in unseemly locales bringing about contamination and exhaustion of water bodies. SP : Overuse of water, development of water-wasteful harvests and utilization of wasteful advancements. EP : Substitution of SW with GW. Abuse of GW prompting to drained aquifers, and tainting from interruption of salt water. PP : Overuse of pesticides and wasteful administration works on bringing on high rates of pesticide draining defilement GW aquifers, unfavorable wellbeing results for people. FP : Overuse of compost and wasteful mgmt rehearses. Composts can build soil saltiness and defile aquifers, unfriendly wellbeing results for people.

Slide 7

The Measurement of Irrigation Subsidies The Context-Canal Irrigation Subsidies in India Subsidies for trench water system emerge from two components: water duties that are set well beneath the supply cost of water (or not charged by any means) and gathering wasteful aspects. The most recent National Water Policy (2002) advocates for estimating water in order to at first take care of O&M expenses, and suggests in the long run charging for some portion of the capital expenses. Be that as it may, practically speaking water taxes have been set at low rates.

Slide 8

The Measurement of Irrigation Subsidies The Context-Canal Irrigation Subsidies in India For the most part, state governments set costs utilizing non-volumetric techniques. Most generally on a for every unit zone premise. Not exclusively are water duties too low to take care of O&M expenses, habitually states have neglected to overhaul charges all the time. Careless authorization of expense gathering, disengage between client charge and administration arrangement and absence of coordination between divisions in the area have exacerbated the issue. With expanding staff and managerial costs the extent of O&M assets spent for repair and upkeep have declined.

Slide 9

Irrigation Expenditures and Revenues Capital consumptions on water system (major and medium) at the national level have expanded from Rs 7.65 billion in 1985 to Rs 110 billion in 2000. Income consumptions have additionally expanded. Income Expenditures Per Hectare

Slide 10

Irrigation Expenditures and Revenues Revenue receipts however have reliably fallen beneath uses. Normal Share of Revenue Expenditures Recovered (1990-2000)

Slide 11

Measuring Canal Irrigation Subsidies

Slide 12

Measuring Canal Irrigation Subsidies Simplifying Assumptions Per hectare sponsorship figured as: Data: State spending information and the 54 th round of the Indian National Sample Survey. Per ha endowment ascertained for 5 states: RJ, MH, AP, KN, UP.

Slide 13

Example from Maharashtra Actual O&M spending in 1997/98: Rs. 4.31 billion 82% of surface water utilized as a part of water system. O&M share of ranchers Rs. 3.52 billion. Receipts from water income: Rs. 816 million; Cost recuperation from water system Rs. 246.5 million. 60% accumulation proficiency. Appropriation = Rs. 3.27 billion. Normal sponsorship Rs. 10,685/ha. Accepting 100% gathering effectiveness normal appropriation Rs. 10,149/ha.

Slide 14

The Magnitude of Canal Irrigation Subsidies (1997/98) * Assumes 100% gathering productivity and assesses non-rural clients.

Slide 15

The Equity Dimension of Canal Irrigation Subsidies The circulation of appropriations inspected utilizing the 54 th round of the Indian NSS. Just 13% of farming families utilize trench water system. 64% of these HH are minor ranchers, 19% are little agriculturists, 11% are medium ranchers and 7% are vast agriculturists. Minimal agriculturists get 27% of waterway water system appropriations. Roughly 32% of the endowments collect to huge ranchers.

Slide 16

The Equity Dimension of Canal Irrigation Subsidies Few poor family units advantage. Just 28% of the poor have entry to water system Less than 6% of provincial SC/ST HHs utilize trench irrigation.The normal endowment got by SC/ST is a large portion of the estimation of that collecting to non SC/ST families.

Slide 17

Summary Sizeable endowments descending predisposition since assessments don\'t represent intrigue and deterioration costs. Dhawan (1997) gauges that intrigue and devaluation represented 53% and 31% of unit expenses. Hence, genuine sponsorships might be five circumstances bigger than those figured here. Expansive share of foundation charges in O&M. So some portion of the sponsorship is caught by state water system offices. Advantages of the endowments not appropriated fairly.

Slide 18

Conclusion Water related endowments may hurt nature. They likewise have a value measurement. Negative results of the appropriations are opened up due to the value issues. We have introduced extremely adapted cases. Ag. Approach by and large has numerous targets which muddles the figuring of the endowment, natural mischief and dissemination. Taking a gander at appropriations past \'cost\'.

View more...