Why monsoon-dependent India still struggles to scale micro irrigation

IMD's weak monsoon forecast revives a key question why India's push for drip and sprinkler irrigation has not translated into widespread adoption despite years of policy support

The India Meteorological Department’s first long-range forecast for the 2026 southwest monsoon has brought back an old anxiety. The Met department expects seasonal rainfall at 92 per cent of the long-period average and says the season is most likely to be below normal, while also flagging the possible development of El Niño conditions during the monsoon months.

 

In a country where farm output, rural demand and food prices still move with the rhythm of the rains, such a forecast should have made one policy answer look obvious: use water more carefully, expand drip and sprinkler irrigation, and reduce the risks of uneven rainfall. Yet that is not what India has done at scale.

   

While the numbers show both progress and the gap, they also point to a highly uneven adoption across states.

 

This paradox is at the heart of India’s irrigation debate. The country’s farm economy remains exposed to the monsoon, but micro irrigation has spread far more slowly than the policy urgency around it.

 

How micro irrigation helps farmers

 

Micro irrigation, which includes technologies such as drip and sprinkler, can help farmers use available water more precisely, stretch supplies over a longer period, improve fertiliser use and reduce crop stress during dry spells.

 

Drip irrigation delivers water slowly and directly to the plant root zone through a network of pipes, valves and emitters. Sprinkler irrigation sprays water over crops through pressurised pipes and nozzles, mimicking rainfall.

 

Professor Pratap Singh Birthal, director of the ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NIAP), explains why the regional picture matters. “States such as Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh are largely dryland, semi-arid, and dependent on the monsoon. In these regions, both state initiatives and support from the Centre for micro-irrigation have been significant,” he told Business Standard in a telephonic conversation. 

 

What has the govt done to promote micro irrigation?

 

Government schemes to promote micro irrigation have existed for over two decades. A Centrally Sponsored Scheme on Micro Irrigation was launched in January 2006, which was later scaled up as the National Mission on Micro Irrigation in June 2010. It was further subsumed under the National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture as On Farm Water Management in 2014-15, and then folded into Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (PMKSY) from April 2015.

 

A more notable shift came after the launch of the Per Drop More Crop scheme in 2015-16. The scheme provides financial assistance for installing micro irrigation systems at 55 per cent of unit cost for small and marginal farmers and 45 per cent for other farmers. Its stated focus is to improve water-use efficiency at the farm level through drip and sprinkler systems.

 

Its achievements are visible in the headline numbers. By March 2025, 96.97 lakh hectares had been covered under PDMC, including 46.37 lakh hectares under drip irrigation and 50.60 lakh hectares under sprinkler irrigation.

 

The Economic Survey 2024-25 said ₹21,968.75 crore had been released to states for PDMC implementation from FY16 to the end of December 2024, covering 95.58 lakh hectares, about 104.67 per cent higher than the pre-PDMC period.

 

The Centre also created a Micro-Irrigation Fund with NABARD to help states expand coverage through special and innovative projects. Official data show loans worth ₹4,709 crore were approved and ₹3,640 crore disbursed under the fund.

 

Still, the gains remain uneven. PDMC has expanded coverage nationally, but state-wise data show a sharp gap between states.

 

Case studies: Punjab vs Gujarat

 

Punjab and Gujarat show why micro irrigation has advanced unevenly across India.

 

Punjab’s weakness is not just low adoption, but weak incentive alignment. Official data placed Punjab’s PDMC coverage at just 15,173 hectares between 2015-16 and 2023-24, only 0.18 per cent of the country’s total coverage under the scheme. Gujarat, by contrast, covered 10.87 lakh hectares in the same period, or 13.02 per cent of national PDMC coverage.

 

Birthal linked Punjab’s poor uptake to power subsidies. “Adoption has been particularly poor in Punjab and some parts of Haryana, where hardly 2 per cent of the area is under micro-irrigation. A major reason is the availability of free electricity for groundwater irrigation,” he said. “As long as free or highly subsidised electricity continues, the adoption of such technologies will remain very difficult.”

 

Adding to this, Avinash Kishore, senior research fellow at International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), said, "Why would a farmer want to save water if water itself is free and neighbours are not conserving it? There are costs to pumping—mainly energy, but water itself has no price. So there is no immediate incentive to conserve it."

 

Gujarat offers the opposite lesson. The state has implemented its Micro Irrigation Scheme through the Gujarat Green Revolution Company (GGRC) since May 2005, on behalf of the Government of Gujarat and the Centre. The scheme covers drip, sprinkler, rain guns and porous pipes, and was built around subsidy delivery, farmer choice, supplier empanelment, third-party inspection and after-sales support.

 

The Gujarat model also added incentives beyond basic subsidy. GGRC says farmers adopting micro irrigation were given priority for electricity connections, while the scheme provided bank-loan facilitation and insurance cover for both the system and the beneficiary farmer for one year. Suppliers were also required to provide agronomical services for one year and maintain the system for five years.

 

Current Gujarat subsidy norms, effective April 2025, provide assistance of up to 70 per cent of the micro irrigation unit cost for general farmers, up to 80 per cent for small and marginal farmers in dark-zone areas, and up to 85–90 per cent for SC/ST farmers depending on location.

 

Kishore said Gujarat’s experience shows that micro irrigation works better when subsidy delivery is backed by institutions. The state created GGRC around 15 to 20 years ago and “did a relatively good job of distributing subsidies and supporting adoption”, he said. Combined with water stress and crops better suited to drip, that helped Gujarat build stronger uptake than many other states.

 

Limitations of drip irrigation

 

Kishore said policy discussions often overlook the limits of drip irrigation. “Certain crops do not lend themselves easily to drip irrigation. For example, dense crops like rice or wheat are not a natural fit for drip. Sprinklers may work in some cases, but even that is limited for crops like rice,” he said.

 

This is significant as paddy dominates the kharif season. “If you look at the kharif season, the biggest crop is paddy, which does not lend itself to drip irrigation,” he added.

 

Infrastructure is another constraint. Drip systems require pressure, pumps and reliable water access—often lacking for small farmers. Fragmented landholdings further raise costs and reduce efficiency.

 

Kishore also clarified a common misconception: “Drip irrigation has been promoted in India as a water-saving technology. But drip does not necessarily save water; it improves water-use efficiency,” he said. “It is like a fuel-efficient car—it does not mean you will consume less fuel overall, because you might end up driving more.”

 

He added that drip cannot directly address monsoon dependence in rainfed areas: “The areas most dependent on the monsoon are rainfed regions—places without irrigation infrastructure. You cannot directly use drip irrigation there because drip requires a reliable water source.”

 

Why subsidisation alone is not the answer

 

Cost remains a major barrier. “The investment required to set up micro-irrigation is quite high, at around ₹3–4 lakh per hectare. Even after a subsidy of 70–80 per cent, the farmer still has to bear a cost of about ₹1 lakh,” Birthal said.

 

He also raised concerns about equipment quality and recurring maintenance costs.

 

However, Kishore argued that cost alone does not explain slow adoption. Farmers invest in pumps and other infrastructure when returns are clear. The key issue is whether drip delivers consistent and visible benefits.

 

He was also critical of subsidy design. “Poorly designed and poorly implemented subsidy schemes have led to slower adoption than what could have been achieved otherwise,” he said.

 

Birthal stressed that deeper reforms are needed. “No matter how much subsidy the government provides, it will not be effective without broader reforms,” he said.