2. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
2 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
cases of IMT/PIM occur only under a set of context specific factors,
which are either impossible to replicate, or very costly and there-
fore, impractical to replicate elsewhere. The authors conclude that
transferring irrigation systems to communities does not necessarily
ensure better management of such systems (Mukherji et al., 2009).
Outcomes from watershed development programs in India,
and community managed rainwater harvesting in particular, show
similarly mixed results with unsuccessful projects significantly
outnumbering successful ones (Sharma, 2009). One of the most
intractable problems in watershed development has been the lack
of sustainability. Many projects fail to include strategies to main-
tain communal assets once project support ends (Sharma, 2009),
and farmers often view the benefits as short-term, through paid
labor for construction (Joy, 2003). As a result, communities often
have little interest in the longer-term operation and maintenance
of project assets.
Individual control over available water, by contrast, can enable a
farmer to better plan agricultural operations, more efficiently and
productively use the water resources, and to maintain the struc-
tures for long-term use (Takeshima et al., 2010; Molle et al., 2003).
A limited number of efforts at constructing private rainwater
harvesting structures have been initiated in several parts of India
with encouraging results (see for example Jana, 2011; Banerjee,
2011; Pangare and Karmakar, 2003). This approach emphasizes
decentralized water harvesting structures built on farmers’ own
land with farmers’ own resources.
In this paper, we analyze the experience in Dewas district, Mad-
hya Pradesh, where there has been significant farmer investment
in on-farm ponds since 2006, following precipitous declines in
groundwater levels and, consequently, agricultural production. We
examine the impacts of the ponds on crop production and other
farmer-reported changes to the region’s agricultural and environ-
mental landscape. We also present a benefit–cost analysis of farmer
investments in the structures, together with considerations for
further replication of the approach in other parts of India and else-
where.
2. Methodology and data
We formulated this case study following an initial scoping study
and stakeholder survey in Madhya Pradesh to identify promis-
ing, existing small scale agricultural water management practices.
Several practices were highlighted through this process, includ-
ing the significant private investment in on-farm ponds in Dewas
district, Madhya Pradesh. Following initial interviews with district
officials, non-governmental agencies and farmers, we selected this
case study as one of several for further analysis.1
We collected detailed primary data through personal inter-
views in August 2010 using a customized, structured questionnaire
administered based on a random sample of 90 farmers who have
invested in decentralized rainwater harvesting structures (adopter
farmers) and 30 farmers who have not invested in such structures
(non-adopter farmers). The sample was drawn using a stratified
random sampling scheme from areas characterized by 2 major geo-
logical conditions—hard rock aquifers prevailing in the Tonkkhurd
block, and soft rock aquifers interspersed with areas of hard rock
1
This study was carried out as part of a larger project examining the oppor-
tunities and constraints of small scale agricultural water management (AWM)
technologies in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia, and in the
Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. The AgWater Solutions Project
was a 3-year, multi-institution project aimed to identify investment options
and opportunities in agricultural water management with the greatest potential
to improve incomes and food security for poor farmers. For more information
about the AgWater Solutions Project and the case studies in Madhya Pradesh see
http://www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org/home-page.aspx?reload.
Table 1
Number of farming households in the survey, conducted in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh
in August 2010.
Block Adopter
households
Non-adopter
households
Total sample
size
Khategaon 45 14 59(6)
Tonkkhurd 45 16 61(8)
Total 90 30 120(14)
Note: Figures in parentheses denote the number of villages from which the sampled
households were drawn.
prevailing in the Khategaon block of Dewas district.2 For sampling,
blocks formed the first stage unit, villages within blocks the sec-
ond stage unit, and farmer households the final unit of sampling.
The selected sample was spread over 6 villages in Khategaon block
and 8 villages in Tonkkhurd block. Assessing the structures and
their benefits and costs in these 2 contrasting geological conditions
was deemed important as the time, effort and cost required to con-
struct the water harvesting structure is likely to be higher in areas
underlain with hard rock than in soft rock conditions (Table 1).
We assessed the impacts on cropping intensity, cropping pat-
terns and yield, and the benefit–cost ratio by comparing a selected
number of indicators before and after farmer investment in on-
farm ponds. Other impacts on the agricultural and environmental
landscape, including livestock and fisheries cultivation, ground-
water recharge and changes to the surrounding environment, are
reported based on information obtained during the survey. Since
the intervening period between the project intervention and this
assessment has been very short (varying between 1 and 3 years), we
believe it is reasonable to assume that the influence of non-project
related factors, if any, has been insignificant.
In addition to the primary data, we gathered information also
through structured discussions with officials at the state, district
and block level. We interviewed NGO representatives, private sec-
tor entrepreneurs undertaking the construction work of water
harvesting structures, and several other individuals engaged in
complementary services, such as agricultural marketing, input sup-
ply, and equipment supply.
2.1. The study region
Dewas district is located in the moist, semi-arid region of Malwa
in west-central Madhya Pradesh (Fig. 1).3 Beginning in the mid-
1970s the region underwent a rapid expansion in irrigated area,
relying almost exclusively on groundwater. The natural rate of
recharge in the region is low, and in the absence of significant arti-
ficial recharge initiatives, Dewas and all other districts in the region
experienced significant declines in groundwater levels. Extractions
began exceeding 80% of natural recharge by the late 1990s (Shankar,
2005).
Feedback from our preliminary interviews in the region suggests
that current groundwater depths range from 60 to 90 m. Farmers
and district officials stated that the failure rate of existing tubewells
has increased significantly, and most new investments in tubewells
either do not yield any water or yield water with low discharge for
only a short period of time. Furthermore, the water yielded is often
of poor quality and unsuitable for irrigation.
In addition to problems of groundwater quantity and quality,
farmers in the region face severe constraints in availability of elec-
tricity for irrigation pumping. Even farmers whose tube wells yield
2
Dewas district is divided in six blocks. A block is a smaller administrative unit
within a district.
3
The Malwa region of Madhya Pradesh receives on average 800–1000 mm of
rainfall/year (Shankar, 2005).
3. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3
Fig. 1. District demarcated map of Madhya Pradesh and location of the study area.
water, face constraints in extracting the available water due to
inadequate and irregular electric power supply. As a result, crop
cultivation in the region is generally restricted to one rainfed crop
during the wet season, leaving much of the land uncultivated during
the dry season. Farmers report precipitous declines in income and
limitations on their ability to diversify their production activities
and manage risk. For example, lacking sufficient water, some farm-
ers are unable to produce sufficient fodder crops that would enable
them to raise livestock in an effort to diversify their activities.
In response to this situation, the district administration experi-
mented, and later launched in 2006, a decentralized approach to
rainwater harvesting, under which farmers were encouraged to
build rainwater harvesting structures on their own land. For the
construction of the ponds, the district administration suggested
farmers allocate from 6% to 10% of their land for the ponds.4 The
ponds are unlined but tractors are used to compact the soil in
order to minimize seepage. The district administration provided
the technical and logistical support, such as in siting of the struc-
tures (taking into account physical characteristics such as slope and
rainfall), arranging for digging equipment from private contractors,
and in price negotiations. The material and labor were provided by
the farmers themselves. Since its launch, the initiative has taken
the form of a movement, and the district administration reports
that more than 6000 farmers have invested in the ponds (Umrao,
2011, personal communication).
4
This “rule-of-thumb” was determined based on prevailing physical and agro-
nomic conditions in the district with the overall objective of encouraging investment
without overcapitalization.
3. Results
The pace of construction rapidly increased following the pro-
gram launch in 2006. About 87% of the sampled adopter farming
households in Khategaon and 98% in Tonkkhurd completed their
structures by 2008 (Table 2). The average area assigned for water
Table 2
Characteristics of water harvesting structures of farmers interviewed in Dewas,
Madhya Pradesh in August 2010.
Characteristic Khategaon Tonkkhurd
Proportion of water harvesting structures
constructed during
(%) (%)
2006 16 33
2007 20 20
2008 47 45
2009 13 2
2010 4 0
Proportion of operated area allocated to water
harvesting structure
10.04 8.79
Average depth of water harvesting structure
when constructed (m)
3.47 2.20
Average depth of water harvesting structure
currently (m)
3.75 2.67
Distribution of water harvesting structures
according to their current depths (m)
(%) (%)
1.52–2.13 22 36
2.44–3.05 36 47
3.35–4.57 26 13
>4.57 16 4
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,
Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59
farmers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.
45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above
data relates to these 90 households.
4. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
4 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 3
Changes in cultivated area, cropping patterns and cropping intensity.
Season Indicator Khategaon Tonkkhurd
Beforea
(%) Aftera
(%) Beforea
(%) Aftera
(%)
Wet Operated areab
allocated to:
Soybean 68 91 97 98
Cotton 30 7 0 0
Operated area left fallow 2 2 3 2
Dry Operated area allocated to:
Wheat 18 47 9 53
Gram 4 46 15 43
Operated area left fallow 78 7 76 4
Annual Cropping Intensityc
122 194 125 198
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmers
in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above data relates to
these 90 households.
a
“Before” and “after” refer to periods before and after construction of water harvesting structures.
b
Operated area = owned area + leased-in area − leased-out area.
c
Cropping intensity is the ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area expressed as percentage.
harvesting structures varied between 10% of the operated area5 in
Khategaon to 8.8% in Tonkkhurd.
To minimize the possible risks associated with investing in a
new intervention, most of the initial adopters invested in relatively
shallow structures. Newer structures became progressively deeper
as farmers witnessed the success of the earlier investors. Initially,
the depths of the structures ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 m, with average
depths of 3.5 m in Khategaon and 2.2 m in Tonkkhurd (Table 2).
The current average depths are 3.8 m and 2.7 m, respectively. A
few farmers in the region have invested in structures as deep as
7.6 m, and farmers are increasingly constructing deeper structures
to enhance water storage potential, while minimizing the area they
set aside for that purpose.
Farmers generally adhere to the 6% to 10% land allocation
suggestion, described above, and they do not overinvest in their
structures. Most farmers (87% in Khategaon and 96% in Tonkkhurd)
report that the size of their water harvesting structure is just suffi-
cient to meet their crop water requirements, and they do not have
additional water to sell to neighboring farmers.
3.1. Impacts on crop production
The primary motivation for investing in water harvesting struc-
tures has been to store available rainwater during the wet season
and to use the stored water for irrigation in the following dry
season. The water stored in these structures can also be used for
supplemental irrigation in the wet season (i.e., during long dry
spells), thus serving as a hedge against unreliable rainfall even in
the wet season. We analyzed the direct impacts from investing in
the structures on the agricultural sector through an assessment of
changes in (i) cultivable land kept fallow, (ii) cropping intensity, (iii)
cropping pattern in wet and dry seasons, (iv) cultivation practices,
(v) water conservation practices, and (vi) crop yields.
3.1.1. Decline in fallow land and shifts in cropping intensity6
The most important consideration for investing in water har-
vesting structures has been to enable, through the provision of
irrigation water, crop cultivation during the dry season. Before
the construction of water harvesting structures, farmers cultivated
nearly their entire operated area during the wet season, but kept
fallow more than 75% of the cultivable area during dry season, due
5
Operated area = owned area + leased-in area − leased-out area.
6
Cropping intensity is defined as the ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area
expressed as a percentage.
to lack of water. Only a few farmers who had access to some source
of irrigation could cultivate part of their land during the dry sea-
son. Following the construction of water harvesting structures, the
available water in the structures has enabled farmers to overcome
this constraint. As a result, the proportion of area kept fallow in
the dry season has declined sharply to between 4% and 7%. Conse-
quently the annual cropping intensity on adopting farmers’ fields
has increased from about 122% prior to construction of these struc-
tures to about 198% afterwards (Table 3).
3.1.2. Changes in cropping pattern
The primary purpose of constructing on-farm ponds is to
provide water for irrigation during the dry season. Yet some farm-
ers use the water also for supplemental irrigation in the wet season.
Thus, we discuss the observed changes in cropping patterns during
the wet and dry seasons.
3.1.2.1. The wet season. During the last several years, most of the
sampled farmers have cultivated soybeans during the wet season,
generally as a rainfed crop. However, some farmers in Khategaon
block have also cultivated cotton on some of their land during the
wet season. Soybeans do not require supplemental irrigation. Thus,
the construction of water harvesting structures is not expected to
result in changes to cropping patterns during the wet season.
While rainwater harvesting structures are primarily intended
for use in the dry season, the water stored in the structures fol-
lowing the onset of monsoons nevertheless becomes available for
supplemental irrigation during the early wet season and allows for
a shift in the cropping pattern away from rainfed crops (e.g., soy-
beans). Further, use of the structures for supplemental irrigation
does not generally compromise dry season use, as the structures
can be refilled at the end of the monsoon season. In light of this, we
inquired if the sampled farmers have attempted to use the stored
water for cultivating irrigated crops during wet season, and, if not,
what have been the constraining factors.
Our results suggest that none of the sampled farmers (with 2
exceptions) has used the harvested water to introduce irrigated
crops in the wet season. While many reasons were given, the
non-availability and high cost of labor, and the lack of access to
technology and output markets for the sale of irrigated crops are
common constraints in both study sites (Table 4).
3.1.2.2. The dry season. Wheat and gram are the 2 most important
dry season crops. Following the availability of irrigation water,
sampled farmers have started cultivating wheat and gram on land
which was hitherto uncultivated. Wheat and gram have different
5. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5
Table 4
Reasons given by farmers for not modifying cropping patterns to include irrigated
crops in the wet season.
Proportion of sampled farmers
reporting in the affirmative
Khategaon Tonkkhurd
Started cultivating any new irrigated
crop during the wet season
2 0
Reasons for not cultivating
Lack of skills in cultivating these
crops
24 56
Lack of access to technology 56 62
Lack of access to markets for these
crops
62 42
Lack of transport facilities/high cost
of transportation
2 9
Lower market price than the existing
crop
2 9
Lack of processing facilities (e.g. rice
shellers, sugar mills etc.)
78 13
Insufficient water available to grow
irrigated crops
22 2
Non-availability/high cost of labor 91 53
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,
Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59
farmers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.
45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above
data relates to these 90 households.
irrigation water requirements. Depending upon the amount of
water available in the water harvesting structure, farmers decide
how much of their available area to cultivate, and for which crop
(wheat or gram) to optimize water use during the dry season.
Farmers generally do not plan to meet the full crop water require-
ments, but rather seek to give 2 to 3 irrigations to wheat and 1
irrigation to gram. Following investment in on-farm ponds, the
proportion of area cultivated during the dry season has increased
from about 22% to about 96%. Wheat and gram are now being
cultivated on almost equal proportions of the operated area with
wheat occupying between 47% and 53% of the dry season cultivated
area and gram occupying the balance (see Table 3 above).
3.1.3. Changes in cultivation practices
In addition to extending crop cultivation to the dry season,
there has also been a significant shift in cultivation practices. With
the availability of stored water for irrigation and consequential
agricultural intensification, farmers are under increased pressure
to complete various stages of crop operations in a timely man-
ner. Farmers stated that this requirement, coupled with the severe
shortage of agricultural labor and high wage rates has encouraged
a switch toward more mechanized farming. Most of the sampled
farmers in both study locations reported moving from bullocks to
tractors (owned or hired) for land preparation and sowing. Crop
harvesting is also being increasingly mechanized, with combine
harvesters hired for harvesting and threshing operations.
3.1.4. Adoption of water conserving practices
Water stored in the structures is pumped out for irrigation
using either a small diesel engine or an electric motor. Given the
efforts made in harvesting rainwater, we would expect that farmers
would try to use the available water most efficiently and maximize
crop water productivity. Adoption of water conserving technolo-
gies such as sprinkler and drip could help in making more efficient
use of the available water. The results, however, show that farmer
adoption of water conserving technologies is still very low. Only
3 of the 45 farmers in Khategaon and none of the 45 farmers in
Tonkkhurd reported using any water conserving practices. The rea-
sons include lack of awareness, high cost of related technologies,
Table 5
Changes in crop yields reported by farmers, in quintals per ha.
Crop Khategaon
Before After
Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed
Soybean 13.1 (12) 12.6 (30) 13.6 (12) 13.1 (33)
Cotton 8.9 (12) 7.2 (19) 9.4 (3) 7.7 (9)
Wheat 20.8 (15) – 24.7 (42) –
Gram 12.6 (11) – 13.3 (42) 9.9 (1)
Crop Tonkkhurd
Before After
Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed
Soybean – 13.3 (45) – 12.1 (45)
Cotton – – – –
Wheat 19.8 (14) 18.3 (3) 23.2 (45) –
Gram 12.6 (15) 8.6 (2) 13.3 (41) –
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,
Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59
farmers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.
45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above
data relates to these 90 households.
“Before” and “after” refer to the periods before and after construction of water har-
vesting structures.
“Irrigated” refers to the area receiving irrigation water from water harvesting struc-
ture. “Rainfed” refers to area receiving no irrigation water from any source.
Figures in parentheses denote the number of observations on the basis of which
average yields have been computed.
lack of access to finance, and other technological impediments, such
as laying and removing of pipelines and damage due to rodents.
Another important reason reported for non-adoption is that the
availability of irrigation has improved water availability to such an
extent that farmers do not deem water conservation technologies
as essential. An economic analysis to compare the cost of increasing
the water storage capacity with the adoption of water conservation
technologies could provide important insights.
3.1.5. Impact on crop yields
The availability of irrigation water combined with improved
farming practices, more intensive use of inputs and improved crop
varieties have together resulted in increased crop yields (Table 5).
The yields of all the irrigated crops are higher under “after” con-
ditions as compared to those under “before”7 conditions. With
limited data available, it was not possible to isolate the impact of
availability of water per se to increases in crop yields. However,
the availability of water from the water harvesting structures has
enabled cultivation of irrigated crops during the dry season on land
which was previously fallow. Thus, crop production in the dry sea-
son is actually a net addition to annual output, facilitated by the
availability of water from these water harvesting structures.
3.2. Other reported impacts
The primary impetus for farmer investment in rainwater har-
vesting structures in Dewas district has been to provide an
alternative source for irrigation. However, other possible bene-
fits from on-farm water storage include opportunities for livestock
and fish cultivation and groundwater recharge, improved drinking
water availability in adjoining wells, and improved ecology. We
present here farmer-reported benefits related to livestock and fish
cultivation as well as farmers’ perceptions of the impact of rainwa-
7
“Before” and “after” refer to farm conditions prevailing before and after the
construction of the water harvesting structures.
6. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
6 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 6
Livestock numbers and milk production reported by farmers interviewed in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh in August 2010.
Unit Khategaon Tonkkhurd
Before After % Change Before After % Change
Buffaloes Number 67 77 15 49 39 −20
Cows Number 27 17 −37 20 26 30
Oxen Number 4 4 0 8 2 −75
Annual Milk Production Liters (‘000) 123 164 34 102 103 11
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmers
in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above data relates to
these 90 households.
“Before” and “after” refer to the periods before and after construction of water harvesting structures.
ter harvesting structures on the region’s ecology, environment and
groundwater resources.
3.2.1. Impact on livestock
The availability of fodder is important for farmers considering
investments in livestock. Previously, the lack of access to irrigation
in the study region constrained the availability of fodder and there-
fore investment by farmers in livestock. To assess the impact of
rainwater harvesting structures on livestock, we examined changes
in both livestock numbers and milk production.
Since the introduction of rainwater harvesting structures,
the cultivation of wheat by farmers in the dry season has to some
extent improved the region’s availability of fodder and conse-
quently encouraged farmers to improve and expand their livestock
activity. However, livestock activity is also capital intensive, and
thus progress on this front has been relatively slow. Rather than
increasing herd size, farmers report initially investing in improving
the quality of their herd by replacing the existing low milk yielding
stock with improved breeds (e.g., by introducing high milk yielding
cows and buffaloes from Punjab and Haryana). The results obtained
from our survey suggest that while the total livestock numbers have
either remained constant or declined somewhat, the mix of animals
has changed (Table 6). The net result has been an increase in annual
milk production by 34% in Khategaon and 11% in Tonkkhurd.
3.2.2. Impact on fish cultivation
In general the rainwater harvesting structures are not used for
fish cultivation. Only 3 farmers in the 2 study sites reported fish
farming on a limited scale in their constructed ponds. The main
constraint reported was the insufficient period during which the
tanks are inundated. The water stored in the structures is depleted
in 4–5 months. Some farmers indicated that it is possible to leave
some minimum amount of water standing in the structure for a
longer period for fish cultivation but they do not have the requi-
site technical knowledge. In addition, investment in aquaculture
in this particular region of Madhya Pradesh is likely limited as the
population largely follows a strict vegetarian diet.
3.2.3. Ecological and environmental impacts
Farmers reported several positive, local ecological impacts.
Almost 85% of the sampled respondents in both study locations
responded that the density and availability of wildlife (such as
deer, wolves and other similar large animals) have substantially
increased in the region following the construction of water harvest-
ing structures. Other ecological changes observed include a return
of migratory birds to the region, and a significant increase in the
number of resident small birds (e.g., peacocks, ducks and fowl). No
increase in mosquito populations was reported.
3.2.4. Impact on groundwater
We did not have access to any official data on the ground-
water table before and after the construction of the structures.
However, farmers in the region perceived some improvement in
groundwater availability. About 40% of the sampled farmers in
both study locations reported that seepage from the structures
had led to a rise in the groundwater table as reflected by the
relative ease in obtaining drinking water from open wells in the
region.
3.3. Benefit–cost analysis of investing in water harvesting
structures
Based on the data obtained through the surveys and described
above, we present in Table 7 estimates of annual increments in
benefits and costs on an average sampled farm in the study region.
The calculations only include all quantifiable costs and benefits, and
therefore do not include qualitative data obtained, such as the envi-
ronmental and ecological impacts described above. To help farmers
offset part of the capital cost in undertaking construction of the
structures, the Government now provides a one-time capital sub-
sidy of up to INR 80,0008 (Government of Madhya Pradesh, 2013).
However, as budgetary constraints limit the number of farmers eli-
gible for this activity, the benefit–cost ratios include 2 scenarios—1
without a subsidy and 1 with a capital subsidy of INR 80,000. From
a farmer’s perspective, the availability of a government subsidy
implies a corresponding reduction in the farmer’s financial cost to
invest in the structure.
Due primarily to differences in the capital cost of the struc-
tures between Khategaon (soft rock region) and Tonkkhurd (hard
rock region), the benefit–cost ratios differ between the 2 blocks.
Without a government subsidy the benefit–cost ratio works out to
between 1.92 in Khategaon and 1.48 in Tonkkhurd. The estimated
payback period in the 2 cases is 2.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. With
a government subsidy of INR 80,000 the farmer’s capital cost of
investment is reduced. As a result, the benefit–cost ratio improves
to between 2.39 and 1.72 in the case of Khategaon and Tonkkhurd,
respectively. The respective payback period also declines to 1.9 and
2.6 years for the 2 locations.
3.4. Scaling up: what constrains farmers from investing in
structures?
If the investment in decentralized water harvesting structures
has been so profitable, why is it that a large number of farmers,
especially some of those located in the vicinity of the adopting
households, have not so far invested in this activity? The results
from our survey identified the following 2 key reasons:
(i) lack of access to financial resources to pay for the initial cost of
constructing the water harvesting structures; and
8
Equivalent to USD 1480 at an exchange rate of 1 USD = 54 INR.
7. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7
Table 7
Farm level estimates of benefits and costs of investments in water harvesting structures.
Parameter Characteristics Khategaon Tonkkhurd
Farm and structure Average size of farm (ha) 8.1 10.1
Average size of water harvesting structure (ha) 0.84 0.89
Average depth of water harvesting structure (m) 3.47 2.20
Benefits Net annual increase in income from crop production (Rs)
(gross value of output-operating costs)
135,041 154,673
Net annual increase in income from livestock production
(Rs)
11,122 2,720
Total annual increase in net income (Rs) 146,163 157,393
Scenario 1—no government subsidy
Cost Capital cost of structure (Rs) 361,330 484,675
Life of structure (assumed) (years) 15 15
Annual depreciation (Rs) 24,089 32,312
Annual interest cost (at 10% of capital cost) (Rs) 36,133 48,468
Annual maintenance cost (at 2% of capital cost) (Rs) 7,227 9,694
Opportunity cost of land where the structure built
(=annual loss of net value of crop production on land
where harvesting structure built) (Rs)
8,597 16,064
Total annual cost (Rs) 76,046 106,537
Benefit: cost ratio 1.92 1.48
Pay back period (years) 2.5 3.1
Scenario 2—capital subsidy of Rs 80,000 by the government
Cost Capital cost of structure (Rs) 281,330 404,675
Total annual cost (Rs) 61,112 91,604
Benefit: cost ratio 2.39 1.72
Pay back period (years) 1.9 2.6
Table 8
Awareness of and willingness to invest in water harvesting structures by sampled non-adopting households.
Characteristic Khategaon (n = 16) Tonkkhurd (n = 14) Total (n = 30)
Awareness of water harvesting structures 13 13 26
Knowledge of someone who has constructed such structures 12 13 25
Ever seen/visited such structures 12 13 25
Number of respondents who would not like to invest in similar structures on their farm 11 14 25
Reasons for unwillingness to construct structures
Lack of funds to invest 11 10 21
Difficult to part with land for the purpose 10 11 21
Access to alternative irrigation sources 6 2 8
Unsure about economics of investment 0 2 2
Unsure about sufficient water availability to fill a structure 2 3 5
Unconvinced about long-term implication of such investment 0 2 2
Unsure about technical feasibility of structures 2 0 2
Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmers
in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 90 of these households adopted water harvesting structures. These results pertain only to the
remaining 30 households we interviewed that did not invested in rainwater harvesting structures.
(ii) reluctance of farmers, especially those with very small land-
holdings, to set aside part of their already small cultivable area
for construction of such a structure (Table 8).
4. Conclusions
Decentralized rainwater harvesting structures have played a
positive role in alleviating severe water scarcity challenges in
Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. Given the small landholdings
in India, farmers are generally sensitive about either diverting or
utilizing a part of their land for non-cultivation purposes. However,
farmers who have invested in the structures have experienced
improved water availability through rainwater harvesting, which
in turn has directly and indirectly improved the socio-economic
conditions of rural population and environmental landscape of the
region. Furthermore, the decentralized nature of the structures
has avoided many of the management and sustainability issues
faced in community approaches to rainwater harvesting, including
the allocation of shared resources and the maintenance of the
supporting assets.
Further upscaling this option, however, requires consideration
of 2 key issues. The first relates to resource sustainability. As noted
above, positive environmental impacts were noted by farmers in
the district following the implementation of rainwater harvest-
ing structures, related to the surrounding ecology as well as, and
importantly for the region, groundwater recharge. The potential
downstream impacts need to be further studied, however, before
implementing the model on a larger scale. An assessment in a
semi-arid watershed in Andhra Pradesh, for example, found that
while rainwater harvesting improved crop yields and groundwater
recharge locally, water outflows from the developed area declined
significantly resulting in potentially large negative impacts for
downstream users (Garg et al., 2011). Moreover, within the study
region itself, increased cropping intensity following the introduc-
tion of rainwater harvesting, may in fact result in less water being
available to recharge groundwater supplies.
The second issue relates to equity. To date, the adopters of
the structures have been financially better-off farmers in Dewas
district with relatively larger landholdings. While the 10% rain-
water harvesting model is profitable even after accounting for
the loss in productive land due to construction of the structures,
poorer farmers with smaller landholdings are reluctant to adopt
the model for both risk- and financial-related reasons. Setting aside
even small portions of land is a risk for smallholder farmers. In
8. Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures
in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
GModel
AGWAT-3705; No.of Pages8
8 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
addition, access to and financing of the significant initial invest-
ment cost associated with structures—between INR 360,000 and
INR 485,000 for a 0.8 ha structure9—is a significant challenge as
reported by many non-adopting farmers. Government subsidies are
available to support farmers on a limited basis, but not all eligible
farmers are able to access the subsidy or other forms of external
financing.
Complementary interventions could be explored to overcome
these constraints. First, in terms of the size of the structures, similar
models, such as the 5% hapas10 structures prevalent in West Bengal,
have shown promise among all social classes of farmers (Banerjee,
2011; Jana, 2011). Further investigation of structure size and crop
mix may open up a greater spectrum of decentralized rainwater
harvesting options.
Expanding or extending existing credit options for smallholder
farmers is another possible intervention. Currently, India’s public
sector banking system treats loans for rainwater harvesting struc-
tures as commercial loans, with a higher interest rate than the
concessionary rate offered for other types of agricultural loans, such
as crop loans. Treating rainwater harvesting structures as part of
the agricultural loan portfolio would allow a wider spectrum of
farmers to finance the structures. Microcredit, cooperative banks
and/or the donor community may also become involved through
loan guarantees or revolving lines of credit.
A third option is to develop links with the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), which
guarantees employment to rural households on construction work
that addresses the causes of chronic poverty. Initiated by the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the program seeks,
among other things, to provide a growth engine for sustainable
development of an agricultural economy. MGNREGS now covers
the entire country with the exception of districts that have 100%
urban populations. The majority of the permissible works being
carried out under MGNREGS relate to building infrastructure to
enhance water security in rural areas. Building structures on private
land, however, is permitted for only a subset of farmers belong-
ing to certain socio-economic categories, as defined under the
Act, and therefore excludes all but the poorest farming house-
holds. Extension of this facility to wider strata of the rural poor
could accelerate adoption of decentralized rainwater harvesting
structures.
Decentralized rainwater harvesting is a financially viable alter-
native to large scale, centralized irrigation infrastructure and
to community managed structures. Starting on a small scale to
ensure “proof of concept”, the initiative quickly took the form of
a movement in Dewas district, where the practice has improved
agricultural incomes, expanded livelihood options and provided
non-agricultural benefits to the broader community and envi-
ronment. It is applicable to regions of India and elsewhere that
receive moderately high rainfall, and offer a potentially more sus-
tainable option to groundwater irrigation. Further examination of
the research and investment opportunities described here could
expand the reach of this promising small private irrigation solution.
Acknowledgments
“This report was funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or
9
Between USD 6600 and 9000 at an exchange rate of 1 USD = 54 INR.
10
Hapas are water harvesting structures which have been promoted by some NGOs
in West Bengal (India) following a criterion somewhat similar to the one reported
in the present study. Most of these structures in West Bengal have been built on the
farms of small farmers.
policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” We appreciate
also the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous
reviewers.
References
Agarwal, A., Narian, S., 1997. Dying Wisdom: Rise and Fall of Traditional Water
Harvesting Systems. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.
Banerjee, P.S., 2011. Impact study of hapa and its multiple uses in Bankura dis-
trict. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka
(AgWater Solutions Project Case Study Report).
Briscoe, J., Malik, R.P.S., 2006. India’s Water Economy: Bracing for a Turbulent Future.
The World Bank.
FAO, 2007. Irrigation management transfer: worldwide efforts and results. FAO
Water Reports# 32. International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka and
Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome.
Government of Madhya Pradesh, 2013. Official website of the Government of Mad-
hya Pradesh. www.mp.gov.in/spb (Last accessed January 2013).
Garg, K.K., Karlberg, L., Barron, J., Wani, S.P., Rockstrom, J., 2011. Assessing impacts
of agricultural water interventions in the Kothapally watershed, Southern India.
Hydrological Processes, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138.
Jana, S.K., 2011. Sustainable Small Scale Irrigation Experiment in the Dry Zones: A
Case Study on Happa (Small Tank) Model in the State of West Bengal, India,
Available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29553/, MPRA Paper No. 29553,
posted 12 March 2011.
Joy, K.J., 2003. Watershed development review: issues and prospects. Centre for
Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED), Bangalore.
Kumar, D.M., Patel, A., Singh, O.P., 2008. Rainwater harvesting in the water-scarce
regions of India: potential and pitfalls. In: Amarasighe, U., et al. (Eds.), Strategic
Analysis of National River Linking Project of India, Series 2. International Water
Management Institute, Colombo.
Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, 1997. Farmer participation in irrigation: 20 years of expe-
rience and lessons for the future. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 11,
103–118.
Molle, F., Shah, T., Barker, R., 2003. The groundswell of pumps: multilevel
impact of a silent revolution. In: ICID Asian Regional Workshop, Sustain-
able Development of Water Resources and Management and Operation of
Participatory Irrigation Organizations, The Grand Hotel, Taipei, November
10–12, 2003, vol. 1. ICID, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 464–480, Available at
http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H033367.pdf
Mukherji, A., Fuleki, B., Shah, T., Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., Weligamage, P., 2009.
Irrigation Reforms in Asia: A Review of 108 Cases of Irrigation Management
Transfer. International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
Pangare, V., Karmakar, D., 2003. Impact on livelihoods: PRADAN’s collabora-
tion study of the 5% technology Purulia, West Bengal, India. Poverty-Focused
Smallholder Water Management: An IWMI Research Project Supported
by DFID. Final report document 3 of 9. International Water Manage-
ment Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lank, 83 pp. + appendices. Available at
http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H043992.pdf
Rangachari, R., Sengupta, N., Iyer, R.R., Banergy, P., Singh, S., 2000. Large Dams:
India’s Experience, Final report, prepared for the World Commission on Dams.
Secretariat of World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, South Africa.
Shah, M., 2013. Water: Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Twelfth Plan. Economic and
Political Weekly, January 19, vol. xlviiI 46, no. 3.
Shah, T., 2007. Issues in reforming informal water economies of low-income
countries: examples from India and elsewhere. In: van Koppen, B., Giordano,
M., Butterworth, J. (Eds.), Community-based Water Law and Water Resource
Management Reform in Developing Countries. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 65–95
(Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 5).
Shankar, P.S.V., 2005. Four decades of agricultural development in MP: an agro-
ecological sub-region approach. Economic and Political Weekly, November 26.
Sharma, S., 2009. Rethinking watershed development in India: strategy for the
twenty first century. In: Achouri, M., Tennyson, K., Upadhyay, K., White, R.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop on Watershed Manage-
ment. Preparing for the next generation of watershed management programs
and projects. Proceedings of the Asian Workshop. Kathmandu, 11–13 September
2003. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.
Sharma, B.R., Rao, K.V., Vittal, K.P.R., Amarasinghe, U., 2008. Converting rain into
grain: opportunities for realising the potential rainfed agriculture in India. In:
Proceedings of the National Workshop of National River Linking Project of India,
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp. 239–252, Available
at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/PDF/NRLP%20Proceeding-2
%20Paper%2010.pdf
Takeshima, H., Salau, S., Adeoti, A., Okoli, S., 2010. Economics of Farmer’s Demand
for Private Irrigation in Nigeria. Policy Note No. 23. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Nigeria.
Umrao, U., 2011. Former Deputy Commissioner of Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh.
Personal communication.
Vermillion, D.L., Samad, M., Pusposutardjo, P., Arif, S.S., Rochdyanto, S., 1999.
An assessment of the small scale irrigation management turnover program
in Indonesia. Research Report 38. International Water Management Institute,
Colombo.
