IWRM Webinar Session 3
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
347
On Slideshare
325
From Embeds
22
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 22

https://chat.bfnd.de 17
file:// 5

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. Energy provision for agricultural irrigation A case study from Andhra Pradesh, India, and the MENA region Christian Kimmich IWRM, 06-07-1106/07/2011 1
  • 2. Chapter 3:Incentives for energy efficientirrigation An analysis of the farmers perspective in Andhra Pradesh, India Christian Kimmich 06/07/2011 2
  • 3. Introduction: electricity infrastructure Andhra Pradesh Source: Shah (2009: 154) 06/07/2011 3
  • 4. Introduction: electricity infrastructure 06/07/2011 4
  • 5. Research questions• Why do inefficiencies in energy and water utilization prevail? – Which role does tube well irrigation play? – Which role does electricity use for irrigation play?• Why did this development path historically unfold? – Why and how did the policy of subsidization emerge? – Why is the policy of subsidization persistent? – Which factors contribute to this persistence?• How can efficiencies be improved? – Which incentives do the stakeholders have? – Which impediments do the stakeholders face? 06/07/2011 5
  • 6. Outline• Methods• Results of the explorative phase• Hypotheses• Descriptive results• Results: farm economics• Results: well dynamics• Statistical analysis• Discussion and conclusion 06/07/2011 6
  • 7. Methods• Explorative interviews with farmers• Semi-structured interviews with utilities staff, pump-set workshops, manufacturers, electricity regulator, NGOs, local scientists• Farm-level survey (N=305) and village-level survey (N=18) – Selection of 18 villages in 4 districts based on the Census 2001 according to irrigation conditions (groundwater/surface) and average holding size – Stratified random sample according to holding size, gender, caste• Focus Group Discussions with VRO/Sarpanch and 5-15 farmers 06/07/2011 7
  • 8. Results of the explorative phase• groundwater over-exploitation• huge risk of drilling bore wells (well failures, debts)• rice (paddy) as a versatile cropping system (market, subsistence, Minimum Support Prices)• only very few experiences with micro-irrigation and DSMs• frequent motor and transformer burn-outs – high repair costs – risk of interruption of irrigation – danger of working with the electricity grid (electricity shocks and deaths)• reasons for appliance damages – low/high voltage, position in the grid (head/tail end); weather (storms, thunderbolts, sun); – lack of groundwater (motors running dry) – difficulties to observe (e.g. electricity quality, groundwater level)-> ambiguities, vagueness, and no clear numbers 06/07/2011 8
  • 9. The drilling industry 06/07/2011 9
  • 10. Repair workshops 06/07/2011 10
  • 11. Research questions• How serious are the problems related to electricity utilization for irrigation? – What are the costs for electricity provision?• How serious is groundwater over-extraction? – What are the costs for groundwater-based irrigation?• What are the reasons for motor and transformer burn-outs? – Which role does groundwater over-exploitation play? – Which role does electricity quality play? – Which role does the pump-set play? 06/07/2011 11
  • 12. Hypotheses: pump-sets, motors 06/07/2011 12
  • 13. Institutions at work(?): legal rules-in-form• “To improve the power factor, it must be made compulsory for the farmers to use capacitors with the pumpsets.” (APERC 2001: 79)• 50% discount on tariff to incentivize implementation, and discontinuation of service, if capacitors are not installed• “the capacitor (..) has been the biggest techno operational problem encountered in the power sector”, and “the consumers have not been made party to the scheme” (APERC 2005: 74)• Free electricity will only be granted if the farmer applies DSM measures, including capacitors (APERC 2005: 192) 06/07/2011 13
  • 14. Hypotheses: electricity infrastructureSource: Provided by the Cooperative Electricity Supply Society Ltd. Sircilla 06/07/2011 14
  • 15. Hypotheses• H1: The better the quality of the pump-set, the lower the frequency of motor burn-outs.• H2: The use of a capacitor reduces the frequency of appliance damages.• H3: The use of an automatic starter increases the frequency of appliance damages.• H4: The higher the DTR capacity ratio per farmer, the lower the frequency of appliance damages.• H5: The higher groundwater availability, the lower the frequency of appliance damages. 06/07/2011 15
  • 16. The surveyApprox. 60 questions, 30-40 min, e.g.– Which type of pump-set do you use? (manufacturer, power, labels, price, etc.)– How much did you pay for .. ? (pump-set, bore well, repair, etc.)– How often ..?– When ..?– .. 06/07/2011 16
  • 17. The survey 06/07/2011 17
  • 18. The surveyI would like to thank Philip Kumar, his colleagues, and all field investigators for the support! 06/07/2011 18
  • 19. Descriptive resultsTable: Descriptive statistics(a) pump-set variables n mean sd median min maxMotor burn-outs per year 305 1,86 1,64 2 0 12Costs for motor repair 270 2693,15 1513,11 2500 200 8500Branded pump-set (1=yes) 305 0,67 0,47 1 0 1ISI-marked pump-set (1=yes) 305 0,37 0,48 0 0 1BEE-rated pump-set (1=yes) 305 0,06 0,23 0 0 1Age of the pump-set (years) 285 7,21 5,94 5 0 30Capacitor successfully installed (1=yes) 305 0,10 0,29 0 0 1Automatic starter installed (1=yes) 305 0,85 0,36 1 0 1Investment costs for the pump-set (Rs.) 303 22342,90 8998,48 20000 2000 72000Depth of the well (feet) 302 166,79 69,82 160 13 400Investment costs for the well (Rs.) 298 23324,51 18647,77 18750 1000 150000Well runs dry in summer (1=yes) 305 0,95 0,21 1 0 1Months without water 303 4,91 1,60 5 0 71 EUR = 60 INR (Rs.) 06/07/2011 19
  • 20. Descriptive resultsTable: Descriptive statistics (contd.)(b) DTR variables n mean sd median min maxDTR burn-outs per year 270 1,02 1,04 0,70 0 7Costs for DTR repair for the farmer (Rs.) 297 620,58 869,65 400 0 8000Number of farmers connected to the DTR 299 17,30 8,12 18 1 50Position to DTR (0=head, 1=middle or tail) 305 0,69 0,46 1 0 1Owner of the DTR (1=farmer, 0=utility) 305 0,03 0,18 0 0 1Costs for authorization of connection (Rs.) 298 7180,11 8742,22 5000 0 100000Bribes paid for receiving connection (Rs.) 300 946,60 1456,48 500 0 10000 06/07/2011 20
  • 21. Descriptive resultsTable: Descriptive statistics (contd.)(c) farm/household variables n mean sd median min maxAcres irrigated in kharif season 305 3,66 4,45 2,60 0 56,5Costs for fertilizers and pesticides/yr (Rs.) 305 19792,72 20395,03 14000 500 200000Additional income of household (1=yes) 305 0,65 0,48 1 0 1Participation in any agr. training (1=yes) 305 0,33 0,47 0 0 1Participation in the Gram Sabha5 (1=yes) 305 0,54 0,50 1 0 1Member of a farmers association (1=yes) 305 0,22 0,41 0 0 1Education (Years) 304 3,80 5,06 0 0 18Age (Years) 304 44,34 13,58 45 19 83Gender (1=male) 305 0,81 0,39 1 0 1Caste (0=SC/ST) 305 0,65 0,48 1 0 1Expenditure for education of children (Rs.) 305 10465,08 15674,11 3000 0 100000 06/07/2011 21
  • 22. Results: some farm economicsTable 1: Costs of groundwater-based irrigation Table 2: Costs of canal-based irrigationType of cost Rs. Nature of Crop Rs.Annuity tube well drilling 4531 First or single wet crop 200Annuity pump-set 4600 Second & third wet crop 150Annuity connection 1608 Firtst dry crop 100Maintenance 414 Second & third dry crop 100Pump-set repair 5412 Aqua-culture per year 500DTR repair 547Total 17112Acres irrigated 3,99INR / acre / year 4285Calculation based on average interest rate: 19,2%Average recovery period: 20 years for drilling & connection; 15 years for pump-set 06/07/2011 22
  • 23. Results: well dynamicsFigure 1: Scatter plot of depth vs. age of well400 Depth of the well (feet) Fitted values300200100 Figure 2: Histogram of nr. of failed bore wells 0 30 1980 1990 2000 2010 Age of the well 20 Percent 10 0 0 5 10 15 Nr of failed bore wells 06/07/2011 23
  • 24. Statistical analysis • Poisson 40 30 distribution, 30 20 discrete probabilityPercent Percent 20 distribution, count 10 10 data (“The law of 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 15 Table: Dependent variables and classes rare events”) DTR burn-outs per year Burn-outs per year DTR burn-outs per year Motor burn-outs per year • Low number of Lower bound Upper bound Value Ordinal rank 0 0.1 0 1 0.2 0.4 1 2 0.5 1 2 3 1.1 2 3 4 2.1 3 ≥4 5 3.1 7 06/07/2011 24
  • 25. ResultsTable: Regression results for DTR (1) and motor (2) burn-out frequencies Frequency of DTR burn-outs per year of motor burn-outs per year Independent variable (1) Interval regression (2) Ordered multinomial logit ISI-marked (1=y) 0.60*** (0.14) 0.90** (0.41) BEE-rated (1=y) -0.78*** (0.13) -0.88 (0.82) Capacitor installed (1=y) -0.27** (0.12) 0.58* (0.31) Automatic starter (1=y) 0.15 (0.17) 0.38 (0.39) Age of the pump-set 0.04 (0.04) Pump- set cost (1000Rs) -0.05*** (0.02) Repair costs (1000Rs) 0.28*** (0.09) ln (farmers per DTR) 0.39*** (0.12) 0.77 (0.60) ln (DTR capacity/farmer) 0.11 (0.12) 0.52 (0.67) DTR head/tail (1=head) -0.20** (0.09) Well depth (100 feet) -0.15** (0.07) Months without water 0.37*** (0.13) Runs dry (1=y) -2.00*** (0.59) Standard errors in parentheses; * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01 06/07/2011 25
  • 26. ResultsTable: Regression results (contd.) Frequency of DTR burn-outs per year of motor burn-outs per year Independent variable (1) Interval regression (2) Ordered multinomial logit .. DTR owner (1=farmers) -0.48*** (0.12) Other income (1=y) -0.29** (0.12) Caste (0=SC/ST) -0.25* (0.13) Years of education -0.03*** (0.01) -0.05* (0.03) Member of a Fa.Assoc. 0.86*** (0.31) Partic. in agr. training 0.37 (0.37) Household size -0.12** (0.06) N 230 222 Nagelkerke R2 0.306 Ll -425.56 -231.59Standard errors in parentheses; * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01These statistical results are preliminary and subject to review and revisions 06/07/2011 26
  • 27. Hypotheses• H1: The better the quality of the pump-set, the lower the frequency of motor burn-outs.• H2: The use of a capacitor reduces the frequency of appliance damages.-> Hypotheses rejected!• Characteristics of the electricity grid: Figure: aggr. electricity quality vs. contrib. Only a simultaneous use of high quality pump-sets and capacitors by all farmers, and sufficient capacity of the electricity grid, will reduce the frequency of appliance damages. 06/07/2011 27
  • 28. Discussion and conclusion• The quantitative results reveal the magnitudes of costs, frequencies• Statistical analyses can help to test hypotheses, but also generate new hypotheses – Correlation is not causality. Statistical analyses require foundational qualitative research to understand the causalities – The analysis shows what difference individual changes make, but not the impact of simultaneous changes (methodological individualism) – You can simulate simultaneous changes of the independent variables, but not simultaneous changes of units of observation (only individual changes against the given population; ceteris paribus)• Statistical analyses do not necessarily point to the solution (interdependences)• In the given case, the statistical analysis helps to highlight the dilemma of the situation 06/07/2011 28
  • 29. Chapter 3:Incentives for energy efficientirrigation An analysis of the farmers perspective in Andhra Pradesh, India Christian Kimmich 06/07/2011 29