“DECENTRALIZATION OF WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE AND

AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE” (PAP005709)

Authors

K. Lenin Babu, Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources, Institute for Social and Economic
Change, Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao Road, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore – 560072, India. E mail: leninempri@gmail.com

Prof. E. T. Puttiaha, Vice Chancellor, Jnana Ganga, Gulburga University, Gulburga - 585 106., India E mail:
profetputtiah@rediffmail.com

Submitted to

XIV World Water Congress

25 -29 September, 2011
Brazil
Abstract
To enhance the productivity of resources invested in irrigation sector, Government of India, as the case in
other developing economies, has opted for paradigm shift in governance by forming the „Water User
Associations‟ and devolving the water governance. However, after a decade of its implementation,
performance varies from place to place with a direct implication on income levels of agrarian community. In
this study across three different states of India, results suggests that various factors such as a) lack of
political will, b) capture of rural elite, c) lack of representation of all stakeholders, d) spread of Water User
Association, e) leadership etc., are playing important role in either making or killing this meaningful shift. In
this paper, we would like to discuss these aspects in detail.

Key Words
Irrigation, Participatory Irrigation Management, Factors influencing User Group Management

1.0 Introduction
Since its independence, India has made large investments in irrigation infrastructure – both in surface and
ground water to facilitate irrigation to previously water-scarce areas. Accordingly, significant allocation of
resources was made for this sector, for instance, about 22 per cent resources were allocated in First Five
Year Plan. This has resulted in a dramatic economic growth in once rain fed and semi-arid areas. Positive
consequences of these efforts were paid off both at national and regional level. Even the poor have
benefited from it, especially in terms of wage rate and improved employment opportunity. The ultimate
irrigation potential in the country has been estimated to be 139.89 mha (major & medium - 58.46 mha and
minor - 81.43 mha), out of which irrigation potential to the extent of 99.31 mha has been created by March,
2005. But, on the other hand, water consumed for producing a unit of food grain remained quite high in India.
In other words, there is substantial scope of reducing water consumption and enhancing efficiency of
irrigation projects. Presently the typical irrigation project functions at about 35-45% efficiency while it is
possible to reach up to the 65% efficiency in an unlined open channel system. Seized of the issue, Planning
Commission of India has fixed a target of 20% improvement in water use efficiency of the irrigation projects.
In addition, allocation for irrigation from First Plan to Tenth Plan has reduced from 22.5 to 5.9 per cent and
the Eleventh Plan has set the target of achieving 20% improvement in water use efficiency in all irrigation
projects in the country. Thus, in a way, it made the State inimical to consider improving the performance of
existing irrigation projects through better operation and maintenance and modernization (if required) along
with creation of new irrigation projects.

Background
Global experience show that investments in water resources development follow three stages, viz. a) First
investment stage (Type 1) the challenges are predominantly engineering in nature. As the irrigation
infrastructure gets built up challenges of operation and maintenance starts to emerge. This is the second
investment stage (Type 2) investment in water management commences, but requirements of infrastructure
development absorb most of the investments. The uni-functional irrigation engineering bureaucracy also
gives priority to new construction at the cost of management of existing infrastructure. In the third investment
stage (Type 3), when most of the opportunity for investment in fresh irrigation infrastructure is exhausted the
focus shifts to investment in management including operation and maintenance and stakeholder
participation. However, the success of this stage depends on the ability of the irrigation engineering
bureaucracy to reform itself from its construction orientation to water management orientation (Fig 1).
Fig 1: Vicious Cycle (Adapted from K. Oblitas. Making Irrigation Pay, World Bank Workshop on Agricultural
Policy Reform in India, Dec.4,1992).

Indian Context
Inadequate funding for O&M over years has resulted in the neglect of maintenance and upkeep of the
irrigation system leading to deterioration in the quality of irrigation service. Physically, the irrigation and
drainage system is not able to receive and deliver the planned quantity of water matching with the demand
pattern. Poor irrigation service, often not matching with the crop water requirements over space and time,
results in low productivity of crops and income to the irrigators. Resultant dissatisfaction coupled with weak
institutional linkage leads to under assessment of demand for water rates as well as low recovery of
whatever is assessed. Progressive fall in the cost recovery increases revenue deficit causing adverse impact
on O&M funding for maintenance works. Deferred maintenance of surface irrigation infrastructure over years
has led to further deterioration of its physical service. This is witnessed by stagnating or falling irrigation
coverage affecting agricultural growth in several regions. In this backdrop, Government of India (GOI)
adopted PIM in the National Water Policy in 1987. The GOI issued guidelines towards farmer‟s participation
in water management for centrally sponsored Command Area Development Programmes in April 1987.
Later, the coverage increased across different states with official recognition of farmer‟s participation in
irrigation management. This led to the formation of around 56,539 Water Users Associations (WUAs) in the
country covering 13.16 million hectares of cultivable land (GoI, 2008). To create a sense of ownership of
water resources and the irrigation system among the users, so as
 To promote economy in water use and preservation of the system.
 To improve service deliveries through better operation and maintenance.
 To achieve optimum utilization of available resources through sophisticated deliveries, precisely as
per crop needs.
 To achieve equity in water distribution.
 To increase production per unit of water, where water is scarce and to increase production per unit
of land where water is adequate.
 To make best use of natural precipitation and ground water in conjunction with flow irrigation for
increasing irrigation and cropping intensity.
 To facilitate the users to have a choice of crops, cropping sequence, timing of water supply, period of
supply and also frequency of supply, depending on soils, climate and other infrastructure facilities
available in the commands such as roads, markets cold storages, etc., so as to maximize the
incomes and returns.
 To encourage collective and community responsibility on the farmers to collect water charges and
payment to Irrigation Agency.
 To create healthy atmosphere between the Irrigation Agency personnel and the users.

Provision in National Water Policy (2002)

Following modifications were made in the National Water Policy (2002) regarding the participatory approach
to water resources management: “Management of the water resources for diverse uses should incorporate a
participatory approach: by involving not only the various governmental agencies but also the users’ and other
stakeholders, in an effective and decisive manner, in various aspects of planning, design, development and
management of the water resources schemes. Necessary legal and institutional changes should be made at
various levels for the purpose, duly ensuring appropriate role for women. Water Users’ Association and local
bodies such as municipalities and Gram-Panchayats should particularly be involved in the operation,
maintenance and management of water infrastructures/facilities at appropriate levels progressively, with a
view to eventually transfer the management of such facilities to the user groups/ local bodies”

Provisions in PIM Acts

Recognising the need for sound legal framework for PIM in the country, the Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India brought out and circulated in 1998 a model act to be adopted by the State Legislatures
for enacting new irrigation acts/amending the existing irrigation acts for facilitating PIM. In accordance with
the model act eight State Governments, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka,
Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have enacted new acts. The legal framework provides for
creation of farmers organisations at different levels of irrigation system as under:

a. Water Users’ Association (WUA): will have a delineated command area on a hydraulic basis, which shall
be administratively viable. Generally a WUA would cover a group of outlets or a minor.
b. Distributary Committee: will comprise of 5 or more WUAs. All the presidents of WUAs will comprise
general body of the distributary committee.
c. Project Committee: will be an apex committee of an irrigation system and presidents of the
Distributary committees in the project area shall constitute general body of this committee. The Associations
at different levels are expected to be actively involved in: (i) maintenance of irrigation system in their area of
operation; (ii) distribution of irrigation water to the beneficiary farmers as per the warabandi schedule; (iii)
assisting the irrigation department in the preparation of water demand and collection of water charges; (iv)
resolve disputes among the members and WUA; (v) monitoring flow of water in the irrigation system etc.

As a result of various conferences/ seminars organised by the Ministry, there has been an increased
consciousness in States about the need for actively involving farmers in management of irrigation system
and acrrodingly, they formulated state legislation (Table 1).

Table-1: State-wise Position of Enactment of New Act / Amendment of existing Irrigation Act
Sl. Name of State Position of issue / amendment of Irrigation Act
No.
1. Andhra Enacted “Andhra Pradesh Farmers‟ Management of Irrigation Systems
Pradesh Act, March, 1997”
2. Assam The Assam Irrigation Water Users Act 2004
3. Bihar “The Bihar Irrigation, Flood Management and Drainage Rules, 2003”
under the Bihar irrigation Act, 1997
4. Chhattisgarh Enacted “Chhatisgarh Sinchai Prabandhan Me Krishkon Ki Bhagidari
Adhiniyam, 2006”.
5. Goa Enacted “Goa Command Area Development Act 1997 (Goa Act 27 of
1997)”
6. Gujarat Gujarat Water Users Participation Management Act, 2007
7. Karnataka Promulgated an Ordinance on 7th June 2000 for amendment of the
existing Karnataka Irrigation Act 1957.
8. Kerala Enacted “The Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003”.
9. Madhya Enacted “Madhya Pradesh Sinchai Prabandhan Me Krishkon Ki Bhagidari
Pradesh Adhiniyam, 1999” during September 1999.
10. Maharashtra “The Maharashtra Management of Irrigation Systems by Farmers Act,
2005”
11. Orissa Enacted “The Orissa Pani Panchayat Act, 2002”.
12. Rajasthan Passed the “Rajasthan Sinchai Pranali Ke Prabandh Me Krishkon Ki
Sahabhagita Adhiniyam, 2000”.
13. Sikkim “Sikkim Irrigation Water Tax 2002” and “Sikkim Irrigation Water Tax
(Amendment) Act 2008”
14. Tamil Nadu Enacted the “Tamil Nadu Farmers‟ Management of Irrigation Systems Act,
2000”.
15. Uttar Pradesh Enacted the “ Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Management Act, 2009”

With promoting the formation of User Groups, as of 2008, there are 56539 WUAs were formed covering the
area of 13.156 million hectares in various states (Table 2).

Table 2: Number of WUAs and Area Covered by WUAs across States in India
State Number of WUAs Area covered („000. Ha)
Andhra Pradesh 10800 4169.00
Arunachal Pradesh 39 9.02
Assam 720 47.04
Bihar 46 147.76
Chhatishgarh 1324 1244.56
Goa 57 7.01
Gujarat 576 69.68
Haryana 2800 200.00
Himachal Pradesh 876 35
Jammu & Kashmir 1* 1.00*
Jharakhand NA NA
Karnataka 2515 1295.19
Kerala 4126 255.27
Madhya Pradesh 1687 1691.80
Maharashtra 1593 667.00
Manipur 73 49.27
 MeghalayaS 123 16.45
Mizoram NA NA
Nagaland 23 3.15
Orissa 16196 1537.92
Punjab 957 116.95
Rajasthan 506 619.65
Sikkim NA NA
Tamil Nadu 1310 787.96
Tripura NA NA
Uttar Pradesh 245 121.21
Uttranchal NA NA
West Bengal 10000** 37.00**
Total 56539 13155.89
Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India (*under verification; ** under MI, RIDF scheme)

Brief description about study states

PIM in Andhra Pradesh

Irrigation in Andhra Pradesh was under immense pressure to meet the rise in wate demand during early 90s.
At that point of time, AP Government prepared a „White Paper‟ identifying and addressing key problems in
the irrigation sector (APERP, 1998) and outcome of this exercise was enactment of „The Andhra Pradesh
Farmer Management of Irrigation System Act (APFMIS) 1997‟ empowering farmers to undertake
responsibilities of irrigation management. The progress of the PIM was based on „Big Bang‟ (about 10,000
WUAs were formed at one point of time), The structure of WUA depends upon the scheme size: one-tiered
WUA for minor irrigation; two-tiered WUA and DC system for medium irrigation, and three-tier – WUA,
Distributory Committee (DC) and Project Committee (PC) system for major irrigation. PIM in Karnataka State
also follows the similar model.

Chairman GB MC
Effects Effects Max. 8+1
of Members
Min. Nil

President MC Max. 4+1

GB
Effects Effects Member
of Min. 1+1
DC

President TCs MC
Max. 10+1
Members
Min. 4+1

TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 4 to 10 Tcs

Farmers (Land Holders)

Fig 2: WUA Structure - 3 Tiers

Source: Irrigation and Command Area Development Department,GoAP

PIM in Madhya Pradesh

Government of Madhya Pradesh enacted the legislation „Madhya Pradesh Sinchai Prabandhan Mein
Krishkonka Bhagidhari Adhiniyan 1999‟, facilitating democratic election for WUAs, with the main focus on
transferring of responsibilities of management to users. It is is the second state after Andhra Pradesh to
enact the Farmer Management Irrigation System Act. Currently, there are a total of 1,687 WUAs in the state.
Table: Number of WUAs in the state and their coverage across systems
Irrigation systems Number or WUAs formed Area Covered (Million ha)
Major 542 0.894
Medium 209 0.225
Minor 936 0.573
Total 1687 1.692
Source: Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, GoMP, 2010
Madhya Pradesh opted for three tier model of farmer organization demarcated as Water User Association
(WUA), the Distributory Committee (DC), and the Project Committee (PC) as legal entities. It envisages a
three tier structure for all the major and medium irrigation projects while minor irrigation projects will have two
tier structures. The WRD Engineers is the secretary of the farmer‟s organization at different level as
presented below:

Project Committee(PC) Executive Engineer

Secretary

Distributary Committee(DC) Sub divisional Officer,

Water Users Association (WUA)
Sub-Engineer,
Secretary
Secretary
Fig 3: Organization of WUA – 3 Tier, MP

Brief Description Study Projects

Sree Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), Andhra Pradesh was formed in the year 1997 and it belongs to D 74/3
channel of Nizam Sagar Project (NSP). Earlier, command area of this Association got water supplied from
the NSP to meet irrigation requirements and was categorized as a tail end. It has 1398 hectares of land by
covering 4 villages. The average landholdings size is around 5 acres while few of them own upto 20 acres.
There is significant present of marginal farmers owning 1 acre land too. Paddy, Maize and Sunflower are the
major crops and vegetables (Tomato, Ladies Finger, Brinjal, Cucumber etc) are minor crops. Paddy is the
major crop grown (60 per cent) in the Kharif and less (30 per cent) in the Rabi. With formation of WUA and
its later connection with Sree Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) (distance wise close to SRSP (15 Km) compared to
NSP (120 km), this has become one of the well performing WUAs in Nizamabad district, Andhra Pradesh.

Madhya Pradesh is the third largest state of India. It has a total potential irrigable area of 6.72 million
hectare, but only 2.09 million ha has been realized. Samrat Ashok Sagar Irrigation Project (SAS), named
after Emperor Ashok, has its command area in Vidisha and Raisen districts. River Halali, tributary of Betwa
river was harnessed. Its command area falls in parts of Vidisha and Raisen districts. The dam constructed
on the Halali River, which is a tributary of Betwa River about 40 km. from Bhopal (capital of Madhya
Pradesh). Construction work was commenced in 1973 and completed in 1977 and main canal is in 1978.
Envisaged gross command area is 37,419 ha and the culturable command area is 27,924 ha. After its
completion, its O&M was with the Water Resources Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
However from July 2000 the responsibility of operation and maintenance has been transferred to the newly
formed Water User Associations. Soya bean is main crop in Kharif while Wheat, Gram and some pulses are
grown in Rabi with average land holding is 2 hectares.

Karnataka: Bhadra

Methods
To evaluate the overall performance of the Water User Association, we have chosen three categories of
indicators, viz. a) Process Indicators, b) Impact Indicators, and c) Environmental Indicators and details are
given graphically in Fig 4.
 INDICATORS

Process Indicators Impact Indicators Environmental

Indicators

Irrigation Water Users Irrigation Water Users

Department Associations Department Associations

 Policy  Institutional  Water Delivery,  Institututiona  Soil

initiatives Processes Maintenance l Processes quality
 Enabling (Policy gaps, farmers and Technical  Institutional
Environment perceptions, social issues) Performance Sustainability
 Area and  Participation  Water
Coverage  Operational  WUAs Irrigation and Decision related
 Physical processes (Physical and Financial making issues
achievement structures and performance  Agricultural
 Financial maintenance, and
 Capacity Financial, conflict Economic  Health
building resolution etc.) Productivity and
 Capacity Building water
 Awareness levels related
Fig 4: Indicators Type

Across the study sites in three states, discussions with individual members and officials from irrigation
Department were carried out. Structured questionnaire was used to elicit the information. As mentioned in
Fig 4, while collecting information, stress was given to the indicators selected. Information from about 50
WUAs across the study projects, spread over head reach, mid reach and tail end were collected and
analysed.

Findings and discussion

Crop productivity is a function of several variables such as climate, pest incidence, time and extent of
irrigation, fertilizer application. Thus productivity is influenced by several factors. Assuming that the other
components are similar across two situations (before and after) and the difference, if any, is largely due to
improved irrigation management, a majority of user-farmers are of the opinion that with the presence of
WUAs, they could take effective decisions at the local level, for instance, the collective decision of weed
removal in sub-minors or even minor repairs of canal structures resulting in an increase in crop productivity.
Thus increase in agricultural productivity has led to an improvement resulted in more production and thereby,
positively influencing household incomes. However, in the larger context of meeting the designed targets, the
process of PIM needs to be further strengthened. Some factors that needs to be focussed are

Inequity in water distribution: One of the vital factors determining effectiveness of PIM is equity in water
distribution through WUAs. Unless this is ensured, participation will remain limited to a small elite group with
other user-members remaining outside the process. It has been observed that due to technical problems
involved and illegal diversion of water to fields falling outside the command area, tail enders are not getting
sufficient water. As observed in the Rajghat Canal Project, earlier the tail end user-farmers used to blame
their own fate, but now they blame the irrigation department and illegal extraction of water by farmers in the
head reaches. This is a shift in the perception observed and in years to come, they may get their due share
of water due to the emphasis on two aspects –a) illegal extraction of water, and b) proper maintenance of
canal network.

Designed area Vs actual area irrigated: It has been pointed out several researchers that there exists a
clear gap between the area designed for irrigation and the actual area irrigated. This stems from two facts
that head reach farmers indulge in a) violation of cropping pattern, and b) irrigation of area falling beyond the
command area. These two factors, cumulatively affect the availability of water at tail end reaches. Earlier, as
reported by user-farmers, although it was the responsibility of the irrigation department to ensure a proper
water supply, no remedial action had been taken against such violations. However, with the formation of
WUAs, at least some pressure is being exerted by user-members against such violations

Operation and Maintenance: In the initial stages of WUA formation, it had been envisaged that the
Irrigation department would hand over the distributory canal network to farmer association after completing
necessary repair works and also that user-member associations would take over the O&M thereafter.
However, that this was not adhered to has been borne out by the fact that most of the canal network needs
extensive restructuring and user-member associations are not aware of the technical requirements either.
Further, for user-members, it becomes evitable to depend on the irrigation department for necessary steps,
failing which the consequences could be adverse. Thus, O&M as well as coordination with Irrigation
Department form an intricative factor of the performance of PIM. To ensure proper O&M, it had been decided
by the respective state governments to release a fixed amount of money to user-member associations for
carrying out physical works through the irrigation department. Here we present some ground realities in this
respect based on our field observations. In field studies, several scenarios were: a) presidents of WUAs
have been using force to collect money from the Irrigation Department for sub-standard physical works that
they have carried out as contractors, b) grants are released by the Irrigation Department at inappropriate
times, thus hampering the physical works to be undertaken, c) user-members contribute money to get some
physical works carried out by themselves. These observations suggest that the process of physical works
undertaken needs proper attention for ensuring better performance of WUAs.

Co-ordination with the Irrigation Department: Although there prevail several snags with regard to
coordination between ID and the farmers, there are some good signs also indicating some improvements. It
is expected that the Irrigation Department and WUAs work in partnership towards establishing PIM as a
process. With respect to the irrigation management transfer at the field level, one of the significant aspects
observed after WUAs formation relates to the date of water release. Earlier, it was solely the Irrigation
Department which used to fix a certain date for water release into canals depending on the volume of water
available in the reservoir. As observed in the case of Distributory 48 in KC canal (after the formation of
WUAs), the Distributory Chairman is consulted and the information regarding water release is then passed
on to WUA chairman who in turn disseminates the information to user-farmers. This enables user-farmers to
be better equipped, besides increasing water use efficiency.

Sustainability: There have been instances observed of good leadership in various project areas that
indicate higher levels of motivation of elected members. Those WUAs with motivated members have
invariably performed better. However, the motivation of elected members may stem from various factors
such as overall community benefits, trickling benefits, good will, political aspirations etc. Observations made
during field visits indicate that it is mostly farmer members are quite enthusiastic and motivated.

Transparency and Accountability: Transparency and Accountability are crucial for the success of PIM.
Understanding the importance of user-members in the process of WUAs, be it elections for WUAs, or
financial book keeping, is essential for successful operation and sustainability. Estimating the required
quantum of finances for upkeep of various structures, close monitoring of financial expenses, funds
generated and other related activities by user-members ensure transparency and accountability. It has been
observed that this aspect requires a significant input. It is also observed that general awareness across
various projects is poor and context specific. For instance, in Rajghat project area, where feudalism is
prominent, the rich land owners are very much aware of WUAs, while the other stakeholders, mostly
marginal and small farmers are not. On the other hand, in KC canal, where average land holding is more
than 2 ha, farmers are more aware of WUAs than farmer members in MP and Orissa. Further, tail enders
have evinced less interest in WUAs as some of them feel that formation of WUA has not helped them get
adequate water. One interesting factor observed across all project areas is that wherever, the president of a
WUA is pro-active, the interest of user-farmers in WUA/ PIM happens to be significant.
If an enabling environment by empowering farmers with information regarding the purpose and other aspects
of PIM is created, WUAs can be successful. In reality, WUA process is new to user-members and to
overcome these shortcomings, several training programs/ awareness programs were conducted for user-
community. It has been observed during field work that user participation is limited on account of four factors
namely a) they are meant only for elected members, b) communication gap with respect to dissemination of
conducting training programs, c) unfavorable timings, d) overcrowding in training programs.

Acknowledgements: This paper is based on various research studies carried out Institute for Social and
Economic Change, Bangalore (www.isec.ac.in)
References
Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring Project (APERP). (1998). Project Implementation Plan.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management Irrigation System Act. (1997). With Updated Amendments as on April
2007. Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Andhra Pradesh, Water Resources. (Undated). http://demo.cgg.gov.in/apwater/irrigationprojects.jsp
Deshpande, R.S., Ratna Reddy, V., Erappa, S., Chandrakanth, M.G., Prudhvikar Reddy, P., and Geetha
Appachu. (2008). Rating Assessment of Water User Associations in KC Canal Modernization Project.
Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
Ganesh, P., Rajat, H., and Nitin, K. (2003). Survey on Irrigation Modernization, Samrat Ashoka Sagar
Project. MP.
Gulati, A, Meinzen-Dick, R & Raju, KV 2005, Institutional Reforms in Indian Irrigation, Sage Publications,
Delhi, India.
Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). (1987). National Water Policy, 1987.
Raju, K.V. (2000). Participatory Irrigation Management in Andhra Pradesh: Promise, Practice and A Way
Forward. ISEC Working Paper, 65, Bangalore.
Raju K.V. and R. Rajagopalan, (2007), „Systems by the Water Users‟, Srijan, working area of Samrat Ashok
Sagar, Vidisha.
Saleth, R.M., (2004), Strategic Analysis of Water Institutions in India: Application of a New Research
Paradigm. Research Report 79. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Samad Madar, (2001), Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer on the Performance of Irrigation Systems:
A Review of Selected Asian Experiences. Proceedings of the ACIAR Water Policy Workshop, on June 8-9
Bangkok, Thailand.
Samal, K. C. (1998). Poverty Alleviation after Liberalization: A Tribal Block in Orissa. Economic and Political
Weekly, 23(28).
Small, L.E., and Svendson, M. (1992). A Framework for Assessing Irrigation Performance, Working Paper
on Irrigation Performance 1. IFPRI, Washingtdon D.C.
SRIJAN. (2008). Strategic Evolution. IIWI Review 6 (2).
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Dimensions of need: An atlas of food and
agriculture. Rome, FAO, 1995. p. 16-98.