Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Decentralized rainwater harvesting structures in India: Relevance for ACP countries - Ravinder P.S.Malik, Senior Researcher-Economics, International Water Management Institute, India
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Decentralized rainwater harvesting structures in India: Relevance for ACP countries - Ravinder P.S.Malik, Senior Researcher-Economics, International Water Management Institute, India

1,760

Published on

Working Group 2

Working Group 2

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,760
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Decentralized Rainwater Harvesting Structures in India: Relevance for ACP Countries Ravinder P.S. Malik Meredith Giordano Vivek Sharma
  • 2. Location and Context
    • Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh, India
    • Water tables declined >200 ft. No surface water. No groundwater. Tube wells fail to yield water.
    • Annual rainfall - 1000 mm
    • Cultivation restricted to wet season
    • Farmer incomes fell steeply
    • Water important binding constraint
  • 3. Remedy and Action: An Idea can change life
    • Rainfall only option for augmenting water availability
    • Problems with communal water management
    • District administration introduced decentralized rainwater harvesting structures
    • Rule of thumb: Allocate 1/10 to 1/15 land
    • In 4 years farmers built more than 4000 structures
  • 4. Outcomes and Impacts - 1
    • Wet and dry season farming (soy/wheat/gram)
    • Cropping intensity increased 122% to 195%
    • Water and fodder available for livestock
    • Increased incomes from crops and livestock
    • Cost savings: electricity and irrigation
  • 5. Outcomes and Impacts - 2
    • Greater investments in agriculture, aquaculture, livestock, education, housing, and transportation
    • No conflicts over water/infrastructure sharing
    • Positive externalities: groundwater recharge, increased flora/fauna
  • 6. Benefit/Cost Ratio
    • Cost of construction: 1 acre X 7 feet deep = USD 6100
    • The benefit–cost ratio, excluding external benefits, between 1.5 to 1.9
    • Farmers recover initial investment in ~ 3 years
  • 7. Scaling up: Opportunities and Constraints
    • Opportunities:
      • High awareness and interest
      • Available technical knowledge
      • Developed output markets
    • Constraints:
      • Access to finance for investment
    • Government subsidies available, but with limitations
  • 8. Relevance for ACP Countries
    • Intervention easily replicable
    • Access to technical knowhow and construction equipment
    • Alternative to communal structures
    • Financing likely a major constraint
    • Adapt model (with/without government subsidies)
    • Crop output markets need strengthening

×