Goundwater management report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Goundwater management report

on

  • 3,602 views

An important document on community based groundwater management, semiarid areas, andhra pradesh, India

An important document on community based groundwater management, semiarid areas, andhra pradesh, India

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,602
Views on SlideShare
3,602
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
113
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Goundwater management report Goundwater management report Document Transcript

  • A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN ANDHRA PRADESH By Action for Food Production (AFPRO) Field Unit 6, Hyderabad December 2006 Irrigation & Command Area Development Department Government of Andhra Pradesh CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 1 of 74
  • Contents Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 4 1. 1 Background and Rationale of the Study.............................................................. 4 1. 2 Structure of the Report.......................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2 Objectives and Methodology of the Study ................................................... 6 2. 1 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................... 6 2. 2 The Study Area ........................................................................................................ 6 2. 3 The Methodology of the Study............................................................................ 12 Chapter 3 Groundwater Management in AP ................................................................. 15 3.1 Groundwater Contribution to the AP Economy................................................. 15 3.2 Agriculture and Groundwater Based Irrigation ................................................. 16 3.3 Groundwater Estimates, 2004-05 ........................................................................ 17 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP ........................................................................ 18 3.5 APWELL Project ...................................................................................................... 19 3.6 APFAMGS Project.................................................................................................... 27 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management......................................................... 30 Chapter 4 Objective Wise Presentation of Findings ................................................... 32 4. 1 Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use ........................................................... 32 4. 2 Communication Strategy ..................................................................................... 43 4. 3 Community Awareness and Institution Development.................................... 49 4. 4 Community Decision Making................................................................................ 52 4. 5 Improvement in Income and Livelihoods .......................................................... 54 Chapter 5 Lessons & Recommendations ....................................................................... 60 5. 1 Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP........................................................... 60 5. 2 Recommendations for community based water management...................... 65 5. 3 Summary of findings and recommendations .................................................... 71 Tables Table 2. 1 Profile of 30 sample study villages ................................................... 7 Table 2. 2 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) ................ 8 Table 2. 3 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology ..................... 8 Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04) .......16 Table 3. 2 Area irrigated under different sources in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05............16 Table 3. 3 Groundwater estimation and stage of development in AP, 2002 ...............17 Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 ..............18 Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003) .....................21 Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved ............................................................ 34 Table 4. 2 Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ............................................ 42 Table 4. 3 Communication media and tools used .......................................................... 44 Table 4. 4 Awareness & Communication tools impact .................................................. 44 Table 4. 5 Project Outcome Indicators............................................................................ 58 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 2 of 74
  • Figures Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas ........................................................................ 9 Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones 10 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology .................. 11 Figure 2. 4 Normal Rainfall Pattern: Observations from the nearest rain gauge station ......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06) ............................ 15 Figure 4.1 Trends in groundwater development: Dug wells vs Borewells .............. 33 Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in sample villages ....................... 34 Figure 4.3 Irrigated area in acres per borewell .......................................................... 35 Figure 4.4 Borewell Problems reported in 30 sample villages.................................. 37 Figure 4.5 Borewell Problems category wise ............................................................... 37 Figure 4.6 Sharing ratios of farmers per borewell ...................................................... 38 Figure 4.7 Land use percentage in 30 sample villages............................................... 39 Figure 4.8 Percentage of paddy grown per season ..................................................... 40 Figure 4.9 Percentage of farmers opting for not growing paddy ............................. 41 Figure 4.10 Percentage of irrigated crops in 30 sample villages ............................. 41 Figure 4.11Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ....................................... 42 Figure 4.12 Cost of paddy cultivation as percentage of total cost of cultivation. 43 Figure 4.13 Participation of women and men in meetings in APFAMGS villages.. 52 Figure 4.14 Decisions taken by community in APFAMGS Villages: Frequency of topics discussed......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4. 15 Overall impact of the project interventions ........................................ 55 Figure 4. 16 Total Land value/Agriculture income ratio ........................................... 56 Figure 4.17 Total income per annum/debt (cumulative) ratio ................................ 57 Figure 4.18 Total asset value/debt (cumulative) ratio.............................................. 57 Figure 5. 1 Traditional Community knowledge............................................................ 67 Figure 5. 2 Community Knowledge with external factors ......................................... 68 Figure 5. 3 Community Knowledge developed through interventions..................... 68 Figure 5. 4 Sustainable aspects of APWELL/APFAMGS Project................................. 70 Figure 5. 5 Institutional options ..................................................................................... 71 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 3 of 74
  • Chapter 1 Introduction Water is an important natural resource crucial to life supporting systems. Access to water is crucial for sustainable livelihoods. In India 69% of the people in non-irrigated areas are poor while it is only 2% in irrigated areas. Thus, there is a clear and direct link between poverty and access to irrigation. While 76% of the operational land holdings are held by small and marginal farmers (<2 ha.), they operate only 29% of the area. Small farmers constitute 38% of the net area irrigated by wells and account for 35% of the bore wells fitted with electric pump sets. The incidents of regular farmer suicides in India have often been directly attributed to groundwater-based farming in non-command areas. The National Sample Survey 59th Round 2003 found that nearly half (48.6%) of the farmer households were reported to be in debt. 1. 1 Background and Rationale of the Study Groundwater availability, utilization, issues and management options vary widely across the different typologies in Andhra Pradesh1. Unsustainable groundwater development is becoming critical in many places, especially in the hardrock areas. Options for sustainable management of groundwater must include technical and socio-economic dimensions. In the last two decades, Community Based Groundwater Management (CBGWM) has been implemented in Andhra Pradesh through bilateral projects such as the APWELL Project and its successor, the APFAMGS Project. There have also been some limited experiences in social regulation sponsored by NGOs such as CWS and its partners. From a partial assessment undertaken by AP–I&CAD and limited GW-MATE field visits, it was found that the APWELL and APFAMGS Projects represented the most significant steps in integrated groundwater resource management (using a participative approach) in Andhra Pradesh and neighboring states with similar weathered ‘hard-rock’ aquifers. GoAP envisages taking up the revival and restoration of about 3000 minor irrigation projects in the state with World Bank assistance through the SMIP. In this context it is also proposed to include CBGWM as a sub-component of this project. Lessons are to be learned from the APWELL and APFAMGS projects as well as from CWS initiatives for contributing to their sustainability and ensuring effective replication in the proposed groundwater sub-component. GoAP is also considering following up the WB-supported Andhra Pradesh Drought Adaptation & Impact (APDAI) Project through community-based implementation in about 15 pilot villages. It is likely that in some of these villages, water management (either tank rehabilitation/surface water management or GW management or both) will be identified as a priority drought adaptation measure that the community wants to invest in. In such cases, the outcomes of this assessment could inform the APDAI pilots on CBGWM management options that are being designed/implemented in other projects. 1 For details see, “Availability, Use and Strategies for Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Status Report” by Pradeep Raj, APCBTM Project Preparatory Note. 2006. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 4 of 74
  • A systematic assessment of CBGWM interventions in APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS projects was found necessary to guide the GoAP on future policy, and in particular to build a stronger case for the CBGWM components to be included in SMIP and APDAI. For this assessment a representative selection of 30 APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS villages is included to cover the range of main aquifer typologies and socio-agronomic situations. Action for Food Production (AFPRO), a multidisciplinary professional agency extending support to grassroots level Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs) on diverse matters pertaining to land and water resources and rural development was delegated the responsibility to carry out the study. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study is given in Annex 1.1. The study comprised the following steps: o A literature survey2 on CBGWM as it is emerging in AP in the context of three projects, APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS o Visits to 30 sample villages selected according to the detailed methodology provided in the ToR o Interviewing farmers and officials of various relevant departments of the GoAP o A sample survey of 15 groundwater users from each of the 30 villages to obtain primary data to quantify important socio-economic parameters for the assessment of effectiveness of interventions as per the ToR. 1. 2 Structure of the Report This Report is divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 covers the background and rationale of the study. Chapter 2 discusses the objectives and methodology of the study. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the groundwater development and management scenario in AP with special focus on the projects being studied. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study according to the two main objectives and sub-objectives. Chapter 5 gives a summary of the findings and recommendations. 2 See Annex 1.2 for a list of documents consulted for this study. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 5 of 74
  • Chapter 2 Objectives and Methodology of the Study 2. 1 Objectives of the Study The study objectives as provided in the ToR are to: Assess systematically how far the CBGWM interventions in APWELL/ APFAMGS/ CWS are contributing to achieving the long-term goal of sustainable and adaptive resource use – and in effect whether they are moving towards long-term stabilization of the water-table in the local groundwater bodies involved and improving their quality as regards use for rural domestic water-supply. Review the design and institutional structure of the CBGWM interventions that have been or are being implemented in the state, and evaluate, through parameters/approaches as quantifiable and verifiable as possible, the effectiveness of these interventions. The four dimensions for assessment of effectiveness are the following: ♦ Relevance of communication strategy regarding realistic approaches to GW management. ♦ Community awareness and level of community mobilization achieved with regards to groundwater management issues. ♦ Community decision making and collective action achieved towards sustainable groundwater management. ♦ Improvement in income and livelihoods of the farmers involved, as a result of the above. 2. 2 The Study Area The area of APEWELL and APFAMGS Projects under this study is spread across the vast geographic tracts of seven drought prone districts occupying the southern semi-arid regions of Andhra Pradesh. The socio-economic and agro-climatic situations too are varied. It was hence decided to select 30 representative villages from across these seven districts to identify the common elements in the institutional arrangement and the processes that may be common and relevant for future. The details of these villages identified for the study are given in Table 2.1 and the location of the study area is shown in Fig.2.1. The sample was selected to represent villages: 8 Villages where the APWELL Project was implemented but and APFAMGS Project did not continue groundwater interventions 6 Villages covered under the APWELL and APFAMGS has continued its activities 10 Villages newly selected for APFAMGS activities CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 6 of 74
  • 1 Village where CWS has been implementing its “Social Regulations in Water Management” project; a second (MC Thanda) has been an APWELL-APFAMGS village 5 Control villages with substantial groundwater use but not under any groundwater management programme Table 2. 1 Profile of 30 sample study villages # District Project category Village Mandal GW GW status typology 1 Anantapur APW Kalvapalli Beluguppa OE BS 2 Chittoor APW SS Puram K V B Puram OE BC 3 Chittoor APW Bandarlapalli Ramakuppam C BS 4 Kadapa APW Mudireddypalli Mydukur OE A OE 5 Kurnool APW Uyyalawada Orvakal OE AC 6 Mahbubnagar APW Kollampally Narayanpet SC A OE 7 Nalgonda APW Thimmaipalem Peddavoora SAFE B SC 8 Prakasam APW Regumanupalli Peddaraveedu OE AC 9 Kadapa APW-APF R Papireddypalli Kasinayana SC A OE 10 Kurnool APW-APF RK Puram Allagadda OE A OE 11 Mahbubnagar APW-APF Mannanur Amrabad SAFE A OE 12 Nalgonda APW-APF Dudiya thanda Damarcherla SAFE BS 13 Prakasam APW-APF Thaticherla Komarolu OE A OE 14 Anantapur APW-APF-CMS M C Thanda Tanakallu SAFE A SC 15 Anantapur APF Yengilibanda Gooty OE BS 16 Chittoor APF Nariganipalli Ramasamudram OE B SC 17 Kadapa APF Siddamurthipalli Kalasapadu OE A OE 18 Kurnool APF Muthaluru Rudravaram OE A OE 19 Mahbubnagar APF Uppunuthala Uppunuthala OE A SC 20 Nalgonda APF Ramnagar Nidmanor SAFE BS 21 Prakasam APF Vemulakota Markapur OE AC 22 Prakasam APF Akkapalli R Racherla OE BS 23 Prakasam APF Nekunambad Bestavaripeta OE A OE 24 Prakasam APF Chinna Kandukur Ardhaveedu OE A OE 25 Anantapur CONTROL Hampapuram Raptadu OE A OE 26 Kadapa CONTROL Buggaletipalli Kadapa OE BS 27 Kurnool CONTROL Thammarajupalli Panyam OE AC 28 Mahbubnagar CONTROL Appanapally Mahabubnagar SC A OE 29 Nalgonda CONTROL Haliya Anumula SAFE BS 30 Anantapur CWS Madirepally Singanamala C BS CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 7 of 74
  • The 30 villages fall in four agro-climatic regions. According to the groundwater status, 19 fall in over-exploited, 2 in critical, 3 in Semi-critical, and 6 in safe areas. (See Table 2.2 for details). Table 2. 2 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) Groundwater APWELL APWELL+APF APFAMGS Control+ Total status AMGS CWS Over-exploited 5 2 9 3 19 Critical 1 0 0 1 2 Semi-Critical 1 1 0 1 3 Safe 1 3 1 1 6 TOTAL 8 6 10 6 30 Based on groundwater typology the distribution is slightly different with only 12 falling in overexploited typology and 9 come under safe category (See Table 2.3 for details). Table 2. 3 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology Groundwater typology APWELL APWELL+ APFAMGS Control+CWS Total APFAMGS AOE Over-exploited 2 4 4 2 12 AC Critical 2 1 1 4 ASC Semi-Critical 1 1 2 AS Safe 0 BOE Over-exploited 0 BC Critical 1 1 BSC Semi-Critical 1 1 2 BS Safe 2 1 3 3 9 TOTAL 8 6 10 6 30 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 8 of 74
  • Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 9 of 74
  • 7 1 2 6 3 High Altitude & Tribal Areas 5 Krishna-Godavari Zone North Coastal Zone Northern Telangana Zone 4 Scarce Rainfall Zone Southern Telangana Zone Southern Zone Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 10 of 74
  • Alluvial Command E2 Hard rock Command E1 Hard rock Command New D Coastal Alluvium C2 Soft rock falling Wt C1 Soft rock Type A + Safe Type A + Semi Critical Type A + Critical Type A + Over Exploited Type B + Safe Type B + Semi Critical Type B + Critical Type B + Over Exploited Typology Selected A OE 10 AC 4 A SC 3 BC 2 B SC 2 BS 4 Total 25 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 11 of 74
  • 1200 1000 800 (in mm) 600 400 200 0 Buggaletipalli (CONTROL) Kollampalli (APWELL) Siddamurthy Palli (APFAMGS) Bandarlapalli (APWELL) Regumanipalli (APWELL) Nariganipalli (APFAMGS) Thammarajupalli (CONTROL) Kalvapalli (APWELL) R.Papi Reddy palli (APWELL+APFAMGS) Mudireddypalli (APWELL) Appanapalli (CONTROL) Thimmaipalem (APWELL) Madiraepalli (CWS) Taticherla (APWELL+APFAMGS) Vemulakota (APFAMGS) Halia (CONTROL) Akkapalli (APFAMGS) Yengilibanda (APFAMGS) Sadasivapuram (APWELL) Muttalur (APFAMGS) Uppunuthala (APFAMGS) Dudiyathanda (APWELL+APFAMGS) Uyyalawada (APWELL) Chinna kandukuru (APFAMGS) Hampapuram (CONTROL) R.K.Puram (APWELL+APFAMGS) Nekunambad (APFAMGS) Ramnagar (APFAMGS) Mannanoor (APWELL+APFAMGS) M.C.Thanda (APWELL+APFAMGS+CWS) Figure 2. 4 Normal Rainfall Pattern: Observations from the nearest rain gauge station3 The normal rainfall pattern in the 30 sample study villages shows that these villages have a good range representing various climatic regions of the state. Most of the villages are have low rainfall. For 21 of these villages, it is in the range of 600-800 mm, while for 6 villages it is below 600 mm. Beluguppa in Anantapur district receives the least average annual rainfall of 489 mm and Sadasivapuram village, KVB Puram Mandal, Chittoor district receives the highest average annual rainfall of 1097 mm. Three villages have above 800 mm rainfall. 2. 3 The Methodology of the Study The study team4 held discussions with key professionals involved in APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS SR projects for broader understanding on the objectives and processes involved in the design and implementation of the respective projects.5 The study team also 3 Respective District Hand Book of Statistics 4 List of team members involved in the study is given in Annex 2.2. 5 List of persons with whom the study team interacted is given in Annex 2.3. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 12 of 74
  • interacted with officers and consultants of the State I&CAD and the Ground Water Department both at Hyderabad and at the district level. During the field visits the team had discussions with the staff of APFAMGS and its partner NGOs. For the field visits the study team was divided into groups, each comprising three professionals with varied backgrounds (social sciences, agriculture science, and natural sciences including geography, hydro geology and engineering). Officers of the Ground Water department accompanied the team to most of the villages. The study was done in two phases from 19 Sep to 16 Nov 2006. On an average two days were spent in each village. In the first phase (26-30 Sep 06 and 6-14 Oct 2006) APWELL, CWS and Control villages were covered. In the second phase (8 -16 Nov 2006)– APFAMGS, APWELL + APFAMGS and APWELL + APFAMGS + CWS villages were covered.6 Pilot Study An orientation workshop was conducted for the team members where the objectives of the project were discussed. Draft data collection instruments were prepared during the workshop. All the team members together visited two villages in Mahabubnagar district to test the data collection formats and for common learning about the methodology of the study. After this field trip, the data collection process was reviewed by sharing the experiences and difficulties encountered. The team members were briefed about the purpose and limitations of the field study. Data collection The topics covered in the data collection formats7 included information on the following subjects covering quantitative, qualitative and descriptive aspects: Communication and awareness strategy Women’s participation Community participation Community Based Organization (CBO) Water resources management Time line analysis Ground water management by community Individual stakeholder formats Watershed implementation Case studies Agriculture Quantitative data Quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources from the village. Qualitative data All the qualitative data were quantified. Two types of scales are used for quantifying the qualitative data: Scale: Against the question posed based on a qualitative rating to measure on a 1- 4 scale. Rank: Based on the priority the parameters are ranked. 6 List of villages with dates of field visits is given in Annex 2.4 7 See Annex 2.5 for data collection formats used in the study. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 13 of 74
  • Four qualitative key indicators have been identified for quantifying primary data collected through focus group discussions (FD) and secondary data from the Minutes of GMCs and other process documents8. Community decision making Community resolving conflicts/constraints Water sharing mechanisms Agriculture and productivity Descriptive data All the other information pertaining to the village observed during the field visit is noted down, including case studies. Survey Strategy at Village Level Information on the purpose of the study and the schedule of visit by the study team were communicated in advance to key persons in the select villages. The study team followed a set process of conducting situation analysis in each village: It was ensured that all the villagers were informed in advance about the field visit through the local facilitating NGOs. Information was collected through focus group discussions using a participatory approach. Key persons in the village representing BUA/GMC/ WUGs, watershed committee, women’s groups, VAO, Anganwadi and school teachers, etc. participated in the discussions. Representatives of the poorest and other interested villagers also freely participated in the open discussions. In each village families of 15 farmers with groundwater irrigation were interviewed. After collecting the required information the team visited selected sites and fields in the village. At the end of the field visit, the gist of the information collected was shared with the villagers for triangulation and corrections. Data Compilation and Analysis Soon after field visits, the data collected were scrutinized for errors and data cleaning was done. Wherever certain information was needed field level NGOs and District Officials were contacted and the data gathered. The data were entered into a data bank. Microsoft excel was used for basic data processing, analyzing and creation of aggregate tables. The graphs were generated using Amado and Microsoft Excel software packages. 8 The records/true copies of the APFAMGS/APWELL documents were accessed for this purpose during the field visit. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 14 of 74
  • Chapter 3 Groundwater Management in AP 3.1 Groundwater Contribution to the AP Economy Andhra Pradesh’s State Domestic Product (SDP) has risen from Rs. 578.67 billions in 1993-94 to Rs 1056.73 billions in 2004-05 at constant (1993-94) prices. Contribution of agriculture sector to the SDP has decreased from 24.62% in 1993-94 to 13.14% in 2005. About 40% of area under agriculture in AP is irrigated through various sources both under rain fed and irrigated conditions. Irrigation under borewells has been growing at a rapid pace and presently more or less equals the area under surface irrigation in major commands. About 49.0 per cent (19.03 lakh hectares) is being irrigated by groundwater (2005) when compared to surface water irrigation of 34.7 per cent (13.46 lakh hectares) in Major and Medium Irrigation commands, and 12.3 per cent (4.77 lakh hectares) in Minor Irrigation. Based on the area irrigated at State level, the contribution of groundwater based irrigation to the State’s GDP was estimated to be about Rs.70.00 billion in 2004-05. Besides catering to the irrigation needs, groundwater is an important resource to meet the drinking water needs in the rural areas (estimated to be about 80%), industries and other domestic needs. (See Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 for details) 70 Surface Irri Area 19000 65 19337 18000 18405 17000 GW Area 18083 60 17339 16000 17386 Surface Value 15000 55 14000 14043 GW Value 13000 50 12000 Un irrigated 45 11000 Value Area in Lakh Ha. 10000 Total Value 40 9000 8000 Livestock 35 7000 6000 30 Value (Rs.in Crores 5000 25 4000 3000 20 2000 1000 15 0 -1000 10 -2000 5 -3000 -4000 0 -5000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 15 of 74
  • Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04) Major Basin Area Developed Actual Area Value (Rs. in Lakhs) Ground Water * (2003-04) (1998-99 Prices) (Lakh Ha) (1998-99 Prices) (Lakh Ha) Minor** PR** Total Area Actual Area * Values (2003- Developed 2003-04 (2003-04) 04) (Rs. in (ha) (ha) (lakh Ha) Lakhs) Upper Godavari 2.25 0.40 2.65 1.03 57,322 22,280 5.82 125,892 Lower Godavari 2.96 0.82 3.78 2.46 81,765 53,216 2.56 54,684 Upper Krishna 1.74 0.39 2.13 0.19 41,074 4,110 4.32 93,446 Lower Krishna 1.22 0.16 1.38 0.71 29,851 15,358 4.61 99,719 Pennar 3.05 0.45 3.50 0.87 75,709 18,819 6.92 149,687 Total 11.22 2.22 13.44 5.26 285,721 113,783 24.23 523,428 3.2 Agriculture and Groundwater Based Irrigation In AP, 51.4 percent of cultivated area is under groundwater and 48.6 percent under surface water irrigation. Crop wise area irrigated under groundwater shows that irrigated dry crops are the main crops cultivated under groundwater, though individual crop figures show that paddy is the main crop under groundwater accounting for about 30 percent. However, it should be noted that 90 percent of surface water is used for paddy cultivation only (See Table 3.2 for details). Table 3. 2 Area irrigated under different sources in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 Year 2004-05 Irrigated area under different sources (lakh ha) S. Type of Crop Bore well Dug well Groundwater Surface All sources No water (Groundwater & Surface water) Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % 1 Paddy 5.58 31.9 1.99 24.5 7.57 29.5 21.81 90.0 29.38 58.9 2 Groundnut 1.51 8.6 0.87 10.7 2.38 9.3 0.18 0.7 2.56 5.1 3 Maize 1.04 5.9 0.98 12.1 2.02 7.9 0.1 0.4 2.12 4.3 4 Sugarcane 2.25 12.9 0.42 5.2 2.67 10.4 0.86 3.5 3.53 7.1 5 Cotton 0.73 4.2 1.22 15.0 1.95 7.6 0.17 0.7 2.12 4.3 Sub-total (1- 11.11 63.5 5.48 67.4 16.59 64.7 23.12 95.4 39.71 79.6 5) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 16 of 74
  • Year 2004-05 Irrigated area under different sources (lakh ha) 6 Other crops 6.39 36.5 2.65 32.6 9.04 35.3 1.12 4.6 10.16 20.4 7 All crops 17.5 100.0 8.13 100.0 25.63 100.0 24.24 100.0 49.87 100.0 As % of total area 35.1 16.3 51.4 48.6 Source: Director of Economics and Statistics, GoAP 3.3 Groundwater Estimates, 2004-05 Net annual groundwater availability, its usage (groundwater draft under all uses ) and balance or what is referred to as availability for future use in all the assessment units has been made using a spreadsheet developed for this purpose, adhering to GEC, 1997 norms. The computations are made separately for command, non-command and poor groundwater quality areas. The watershed boundaries are revised and now they number 1229. The estimates show groundwater availability is 32.8 BCM, usage is 14.9 BCM and balance is 17.9 BCM per annum. This resource includes 1.3 BCM of net annual groundwater availability in poor quality and saline areas. The usage in saline areas is about 0.21 BCM. These results are summarized in Table 3.3. The district wise details are presented in the statements that fallow this text. A definite increase in groundwater use of about 13 percent under all sectors is seen in district wise comparison of the results with those obtained in 2002. This is corroborated by the steep decline in the mean water levels almost everywhere in the state. In many areas water level stands in fractured formation, rather than in weathered formation, as shown by the network of existing piezometers and drying up of traditional OB Wells. Table 3. 3 Groundwater estimation and stage of development in AP, 2002 Poor ground SL. Non- Description Command water Total NO command quality area 1 Area considered for recharge in Sq.kms 56,018 1,92,092 (4114) 2,48,110 2 Net annual groundwater availability in 14,964 17,794 (1307) 32,758 MCM 3 Current gross annual groundwater draft 3,330 11,525 (20.8) 14,855 for all uses in MCM 4 Current gross annual groundwater draft 3,026 10,716 - 13,742 for irrigation in MCM 5 Allocation for domestic and industrial 630 1,927 - 2,557 needs in MCM 6 Net annual groundwater availability for 11,634 6,269 - 17,903 future use in MCM 7 Stage of development (%) 22 65 - 45 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 17 of 74
  • The Estimates of 2002 were made mainly using the year 2000 database and in some cases, data for 1993 was used along with a projected growth of wells. So effectively this assessment done using 2004-05 data reflects a change that has taken place in last 5 years after 2000. The assessment shows that the districts of AP can be placed in four groups as in Table 3.4. Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 Stage of No of % of Districts development districts development 1 Very high 7 >70% 1. Ranga Reddy 5. Anantapur usage 2. Hyderabad 6. Kadapa 3. Medak 7. Chittoor 4. Nizamabad 2 High usage 5 >50% to <70% 8. Warangal 11. Karimnagar 9. Mahabubnagar 12. Nalgonda 10. Prakasam 3 Moderate 6 >30% to <50%) 13. West Godavari 16. Visakhapatnam usage 14. Nellore 17. Adilabad 15. Kurnool 18. East Godavari 4 Low usage 5 <30% 19. Vizianagaram 22. Guntur 20. Krishna 23. Srikakulam 21. Khammam Source: Water Resource 2004-05: Andhra Pradesh, Ground water department, AP, 2005 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP9 About 80% of Andhra Pradesh is underlain by hard rock10, wherein occurrence of groundwater is under unconfined to semi-confined conditions. The yields from such hard rock areas are generally moderate to poor (below 10,000 Gallons Per Hour - GPH). The agricultural sector in these regions is characterized by smallholdings11, making it difficult for farmers to obtain an adequate income through agriculture. With a view to disseminate the technology for higher benefits, the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (APSIDC) has been formed as a State Government undertaking in 1974 with an authorized share capital of Rs. 10 crores which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 125.00 crores. The objective of the APSIDC is construction of tLift Irrigation schemes to provide irrigation facility to the people placed in topographically disadvantageous upland areas and creation of irrigation potential through development of groundwater by constructing 9 The following discussion is based on Ben Witjes, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam, Farmer Managed Borewell Irrigation 10 Mainly crystallines (like Granites, Peninsular Gneiss) which form the base rock and others like Cuddapah group, Kurnool group, basalts, laterites, etc. 11 In Andhra Pradesh those who own less than 1 ha (2.5 acres) are defined as marginal farmers, and those who own between 1 and 2 ha (2.5-5 acres) of dryland are considered small farmers. In some drought prone areas, farmers who own up to 3 ha of dryland qualify as small farmers. In AP the average holding of a marginal farmer is 1.25 acres (0.5 ha) and that of small farmers is 3.75 acres (1.5 ha). CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 18 of 74
  • Borewells, Tubewells, or Infiltration wells for the benefit of small and marginal farmers, and other weaker sections such as SCs and STs in upland and drought prone areas to raise their socio– economic status. Upto 2006, the APSIDC has created irrigation potential of 774,498 acres through 1,236 lift irrigation schemes at a cost of Rs.508. 02 crores. APSIDC has also commissioned 20,040 Ground water schemes creating an irrigation potential of 334,800 acres at a cost of Rs. 244.00 crores. To alleviate the situation of poor returns from agriculture, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has promoted the exploitation of groundwater on a large scale in the last three decades. This trend started with shallow dug wells for drinking water. Well digging for irrigation was promoted by the SC Corporation in the mid-1980’s. The advent of the India Mark II hand pump resulted in a large number of borewells, in almost every village of the state. This was followed by the arrival of the submersible pump and deep drilling technology. The Water Development Society (WDS) manufactured an indigenous drilling rig (with DTH technology) which became popular overnight. Agencies like the APSIDC and the ITDA have drilled about 25,000 borewells during 1975-1999. Drilling borewells thus blossomed into a profitable business and continues to be so even today. Groundwater development in non-command areas is highest in the dry Rayalaseema, reaching 72% with 52 over-exploited assessment units, 57% in Telangana and 50% in Coastal Andhra respectively. The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Tree Act 2002 has been legislated to control over exploitation of groundwater, and to safeguard drinking water resources.12 3.5 APWELL Project In 1987, the Government of India submitted a preliminary proposal to the Netherlands Government to fund a number of minor irrigation schemes in Andhra Pradesh. After several missions from the Netherlands, a final project document was submitted in February 1993. In line with the procedures of the Netherlands Government, a Gender Impact Study and an Environmental Impact Assessment were conducted. The APWELL Project was approved for financing by the Netherlands Government in June 1994. From April 1995 to March 2003, the APWELL Project was implemented in seven districts of Andhra Pradesh: Mahbubnagar, Kurnool, Anantapur, Prakasam, Nalgonda, Chittoor and Cuddapah. The original project document estimated that 5,400 wells could be established in a six-year period.13 In 1997, this was revised to 4,400 drilled wells, of which 3,300 were expected to be successful, with a discharge of more than 1,500 GPH (i.e. nearly 2 litres per second). The project was also expected to rehabilitate 500 sick wells and establish a network of observation wells. The project took care to see that environmental problems were properly addressed. Environment viability assessments (EVAs) were undertaken and borewells were approved 12 See Draft Andhra Pradesh Water Vision Volume 1, Chapter 2, Sectoral overview of water and water management. 13 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL Project): Project Document. NEWORC, February 1993. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 19 of 74
  • only in areas where groundwater was assessed to be sufficient and was not overdeveloped. Soil and water quality analysis was conducted for every farm and borewell crop plans were made for sustainable land and water use. Land and soil management methods were taught, and the Borewell Users Association (BUA) was expected to take responsibility for overall water management including recharge measures. Physical activities such as groundwater prospecting, drilling, yield testing, and construction of the distribution systems, are done through the AP State Irrigation Development Corporation (APSIDC), with its technical staff under the Executive Engineer in each district. A technical assistance team, consisting of national and international experts on various disciplines, based in Hyderabad, advised and coordinated project activities in the field. The expatriate consultants were organised through ARCADIS Euroconsult and BKH, and the Indian consultants through IRDAS and subsequently through Priyum. In each district local NGOs were contracted to implement the social, institutional, gender, agricultural, and watershed aspects of the project. For this the NGOs appointed a dedicated team consisting of Agricultural Production Trainers (APTs), Gender Development Organisers (GDOs), Watershed Development Facilitators (WDFs), and Community Organisers (COs). A District Field Coordinator (DFC), who was part of the consultant’s team, supervised the work in each district. In the APWELL project, farmers own and maintain the groundwater borewell irrigation systems constructed as part of the project. They formed water user groups (WUGs) for construction, operation, and maintenance of the borewell systems. Women WUG members formed self-help groups for thrift and credit activities and gradually initiated land and water based agricultural and other supplementary income generating activities. Clusters of WUGs formed borewell user associations (BUAs), which in due course were legally registered, for training, conflict resolution, procuring agricultural inputs, marketing, agro-processing, and groundwater management. Important components of the project included: Groundwater resources development where feasible, land-and-water management by the users, extension and training, activities for gender integration, environment management, and monitoring and evaluation. During the Pilot Phase of the APWELL Project, the Nalgonda Pilot Project, a sub-project, prepared a detailed groundwater management plan for that district as an example of possible replication in other districts of the state. It looked at the groundwater potential village-wise and suggested means for local water resource management, in close collaboration with the State Groundwater Department and other agencies. The final report of this sub-project, published in 1997, offers several relevant suggestions on groundwater management and merits a revisit.14 In 1997, the position paper prepared for the Mid Term Review mission ,15 while strongly supporting watershed development for sustainable groundwater management, had warned that “the ultimate effect of ‘total’ watershed development, that surface water run-off to down-stream areas has ceased; the consequences for irrigation reservoirs located down-stream, the bigger ones not excluded, may be disastrous!” 14 Nalgonda District Groundwater Management Plan, Euroconsult, BKH, and IRDAS, May 1997. For a list of publications on the Nalgonda Pilot Project, see APWELL Final Report, ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2003. Pp. 69-70. 15 See “APWELL Positioned: Position Paper,” Euroconsult, May 1997. p.41 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 20 of 74
  • The Mid Term Review mission16 recommended that the APWELL Project pay greater attention to water conservation strategies especially to watershed management. In response to this APWELL gradually started a number of pilot activities related to water conservation including watershed development in two villages, participatory hydrological monitoring in all clusters with more than 10 successful groundwater irrigations systems, an experiment with people-controlled groundwater system in upper Gundlakamma sub-basin in Prakasam district, artificial recharge measures in two watersheds (with technical inputs from NGRI), introduction of drip and sprinkler irrigation, and eco-farming through application of low cost bio-fertilizers and bio- pesticides. The APWELL Project also conducted water quality testing in fluoride endemic areas. A total of 4,480 bore wells were drilled in the 7 districts under the APWELL project. Of these, 3,462 were successful with yield above 1,500 gph, at 77percent success rate whereas 75 percent is the acceptable success rate. In the 15 APWELL villages selected for this study, 329 of the 393 wells drilled under the project were successful (84%). On an average, one well would serve a command area of about 10 acres to irrigate the land owned by about 4 families for irrigated dry crops. This was a co-financing project with 15% (of total cost excluding establishment costs) being contributed by the farmers and the rest as a grant by the Royal Netherlands Government. The establishment costs and part of the cost of electricity infrastructure were borne by the GoI/GoAP17. Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003) Av. Av. Ayacut Av cost Av. Total Ayacut per Av. per Av. WUG Total Fam/ ayacut per WUG family Yield borewell contribu District Villages WUGs Families WUG (acres) (acre) (acre) (GPH) (Rs) tion (Rs) Anantapur 39 415 1,396 3.4 4,410 10.6 3.2 4,009 131,724 16,159 Chittoor 110 419 2,076 5.0 3,481 8.3 1.7 3,109 141,242 17,171 Kadapa 59 415 2,160 5.2 3,978 9.6 1.8 2,995 150,625 18,167 Kurnool 78 518 2,013 3.9 5,299 10.2 2.6 4,557 143,036 16,765 Mahbubnagar 55 821 2,741 3.3 8,605 10.5 3.1 2,604 129,987 15,610 Nalgonda 42 299 1,439 4.8 3,018 10.1 2.1 3,569 153,300 18,796 Prakasam 87 575 2,053 3.6 5,698 9.9 2.8 3,523 142,660 16,635 TOTAL 470 3,462 13,878 4.0 34,489 10.0 2.5 3,523 140,102 19,790 Source: APWELL Project: Final Report. ARCADIS EUROCONSULT. 2003. pp.76-77. The implementation process followed by the APWELL Project achieved certain important results which are good lessons for future projects: 16 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL): Mid-term review mission report. Netherlands Economic Institute, 1997. 17 For details on funding pattern, see APWELL Final Report. ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2003. Pp. 45-50. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 21 of 74
  • The intense community organization efforts to form and nurture Water User Groups (WUGs) assured the involvement of the farmers from the very inception of the project activities within the village. Compulsory inclusion of women as members of WUGs and forming self help groups helped to mainstream women into farmer management of groundwater systems. At the end of project implementation, the assets created were handed over to WUGs. Thus, the project had a distinct exit policy woven into its concept. The WUGs contributed 15% of the cost (excluding administrative charges). This ensured greater sense of ownership among the WUGs. Every member of the WUG was given a pipe outlet on his/her land, assuring equity in water distribution and reducing water conveyance loss. Intensive capacity building through training, exposure visits, and demonstrations assured quick adoption of sustainable water management and agricultural practices. The main lessons from the APWELL Project18 may be summarised as follows: Access to water by small and marginal farmers improves their productivity and they rise above poverty line. Small and marginal land holdings (as small as one acre) can become productive with availability of water and proper inputs. Enhancing productivity of land and water requires substantial inputs in terms of financial and capacity building inputs. Participatory groundwater management is a viable concept if introduced in conjunction with groundwater development, agricultural production, institutional development, and capacity building of farming communities. All stakeholders and water users need to be involved in participatory groundwater management. Government and non-government agencies need to work in collaboration for achieving sustainable results in participatory groundwater management. Role of facilitating agencies should not stop at the end of a project. Post project support is essential for sustainability of any promising intervention. Well trained and strongly motivated staff of government and non-government agencies working closely with farmers is necessary for the successful implementation of participatory groundwater management. 18 “Participatory groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh: Scope for Upscaling,” Joseph Plakkoottam and Jillilla Prasad, Development Management Network, 2006 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 22 of 74
  • Water quality display at Irrigation bore well at Regumanipalli (APWELL) 8-Feb-07 AFPRO, Hyd 9 Photo 3.1 Irrigation borewell with excess fluoride unfit for drinking water purposes are marked with warning signs in APWELL (Regumanupalli) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 23 of 74
  • CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 24 of 74
  • CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 25 of 74
  • CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 26 of 74
  • APWELL and beyond During the final year of APWELL Project, it was decided that the Indo-Dutch development assistance agreements were not to be extended to new projects. Dutch assistance to new projects, if at all, was to be through multi-lateral agencies. Thus the “APWELL and beyond” proposal to continue and extend the project into a second phase, submitted by the GoAP to the GoI was not taken forward. Instead, the Dutch government approved a far smaller capacity building initiative to support farmer managed groundwater systems for implementation through a network of NGOs in the seven APWELL districts. This was called the Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), for which funding was provided directly by the Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE) till June 2004, after which it has been transferred to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Photo 3.1 Community Raingauge set up under APWELL at Mudireddypalli: Still functioning 3.6 APFAMGS Project The APFAMGS Project is operational in the same seven drought prone districts as that of APWELL. The project is ongoing, covering 650 habitations in 66 hydrological units. It works in partnership with groundwater dependent farmers. It empowers farmers with knowledge and skills to monitor groundwater system and take up appropriate interventions towards its management. The APFAMGS Project has adopted a sub-basin approach for selection of habitations unlike APWELL which selected villages with exploitable surplus of groundwater. The philosophy of APFAMGS Project is: “farmers’ understanding of groundwater dynamics makes the difference.” This is achieved through the process of enabling CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 27 of 74
  • primary stakeholders imbibe a field tested Participatory Hydrological Monitoring methodology for sustainable use of groundwater resources. APFAMGS Project is implemented through a network of community based organisations including nine field level partner NGOs and two international resource agencies. Objectives of APFAMGS The objectives of the APFAMGS Project are to: Create a band of skilled human resources to take up task of groundwater management Make farmers vigilant to groundwater dynamics and consequences of over exploitation Share concerns of farmers affected by ground water over exploitation and ensure appropriate remedial action Extend popular concept of participatory management of water resources to groundwater users Institutionalize community management of groundwater for dealing with issues related to sustainable groundwater management Facilitate formation of Groundwater Management Committees (GMC) made up of well owners to monitor groundwater levels, rainfall and discharge. Promote Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) as a tool to empower farmers for deciding appropriate crop system matching the available groundwater. Adopt Farmers Field School (FFS) approach for promoting eco friendly farming system Empower community to take up appropriate initiatives in groundwater recharge measures. Project Activities The APFAMGS Project has developed a comprehensive sequence of activities to achieve the objectives. These are Introduction of community approaches towards observing rainfall trends, this is done through daily rainfall measurement and recording it systematically Monitoring of wells (yield and water levels) properly in the identified wells across the village Crop water budgeting (CWB) promoted through water balance studies on the specific micro-watersheds Daily Rainfall monitoring with rain gauge devices installed in Hydrological Units (HU) Women empowerment and gender sensitization by having equal representation for women in Community Based Institutions (CBIs) and by full participation of women in all project activities Display boards to record rainfall and water level trends in a bid to communicate among the entire village Process documentation, Recording minutes of meetings and other organizational tasks. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 28 of 74
  • Achievements of APFAMGS19 APFAMGS Project, now in its fourth year has already exceeded its original targets of creating a band of 3000 men and women farmers to understand groundwater systems and 6500 farm families enabled for adoption of alternative agricultural practices suiting the availability of groundwater. More specific achievements reported are: 6,882 men and women farmers in a position to understand groundwater systems 7,029 farm families enabled for adoption of alternative agricultural practices suiting the availability of groundwater 574 community based institutions established for alternative management of groundwater resources with equal representation and participation of women and men covering 650 habitations. Several water use efficiency initiatives like mulching, bunding, improved irrigation methods, large scale promotion of water saving devices etc. have been taken up by farmers. Photo 3.3 Capacity building: Staff and PHM volunteer training session at Dudiya Thanda 19 The following summaries are based on documents of APFAMGS Project such as its most recent “Half Yearly Report (January-June 2006),” September 2006 and various brochures. All these documents are available on its website http://www.apfamgs.org CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 29 of 74
  • Impact of APFAMGS Several impacts, on expected lines, are reported by the Project. These are: Empowerment of community to collect, Reduced losses from irrigated crops and analyse and use data and knowledge increased profits from rainfed or less related to water water intensive cash crops Change in perception of groundwater as Reduced groundwater draft private property to that of a common Increased groundwater recharge good Reduced use of chemical inputs Shift from cultivation of irrigated water Increased use of organic methods of intensive crops to less water intensive, farming rainfed crops Reduced migration 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management20 The Social Regulation in water management is a traditional concept. Communities came up with various ways to regulate and share water resources. Madirepally habitation, a hamlet of Akuledu village in Singanamala mandal of Ananthapur district, AP, represents mixed communities and diversified culture representing various castes. The area is drought prone with scarce rainfall (yearly average rainfall is 485 mm). Agriculture is the major source of economy in the village. Livestock rearing plays a secondary role in supplementing village economy, wage employment at near by towns and cities provides secondary source of income. The village has a history of sharing surface water resource through ‘Gonchi System’. In this system, stream water is diverted and used equally by different land owners. They work collectively for its maintenance, usage and management. In Madirepally Gonchi covers 50 acres of paddy crop owned by 40 families, with land size varying between 0.5 to 2.0 acres. To maintain and manage Gonchi, all land owners have come together to form a water users association. In every season a representative is selected (not elected). He will be treated as the elderly person for that season and will be responsible to give a final verdict. Members form norms and regulations that need to be followed by every one without exception. The responsibility of regulating water to different fields is handled to a person called Neeruganti. One of the regulations that bind all stake holders or members is to contribute labour towards desiltation and repair works of the channel to enable easy flow of water. They block water flow by constructing a temporary structure to raise water level and divert water from the main stream. This allows repairing of the channel up to five km 20 Excerpted from: “Social Regulation in Water Management: Towards Water as a Common Property,” Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), Hyderabad and Rural Integrated Development Society (RIDS), Garladinne CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 30 of 74
  • distance. This is recurring process that needs attention almost every year. At times there is additional labour demand towards its repair and other maintenance works. The norm fixed is one day labour contribution for every half an acre of land held. If somebody misses or avoids he will be punished or will pay the stipulated money, decided by the elder or the collective. Other norms are: Not using more water than the stipulated share and not changing the system of irrigation or the schedule. The process of distributing water equally is managed through a mechanism of putting gates made out of wood ‘antham’, to allow only specified amount of water for each plot/field or set of fields. This will be monitored by the ‘Neeruganti’. For doing this job, the Neeruganti will be given a specific share out of the crop yield in a unit area of cultivation which will be decided by the group. When water flow in the stream is less, people prepare a few pits locally called ‘Talipiri’ from which water will be diverted to the channel for irrigation. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 31 of 74
  • Chapter 4 Objective Wise Presentation of Findings This chapter discusses the findings of the study linking them to the two objectives and the four sub-objectives. Wherever possible, data are grouped according to the projects that are represented in the sample. The primary objective of the present study is to: Assess systematically how far the CBGWM interventions in APWELL/ APFAMGS/ CWS are contributing to achieving the long-term goal of sustainable and adaptive resource use – and in effect whether they are moving towards long- term stabilization of the water-table in the local groundwater bodies involved and improving their quality as regards use for rural domestic water-supply. The second objective of the present study is: To review the design and institutional structure of the CBGWM interventions that have been or are being implemented in the state and assess, through parameters/approaches as quantifiable and verifiable as possible, the effectiveness of these interventions. The four dimensions for assessment of effectiveness are the following: 1. Relevance of communication strategy regarding realistic approaches to GW management. 2. Community awareness and level of community mobilization achieved with regards to groundwater management issues 3. Community decision making and collective action achieved towards sustainable groundwater management 4. Improvement in income and livelihoods of the farmers involved, as a result of the above. 4. 1 Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use From dugwells to borewells From a trend analysis of groundwater development in the 30 sample villages some revealing findings emerge. There is a strong inverse correlation between the number of dug wells and borewells in the study areas especially in the last two decades. The number of functional open wells has declined concurrent to the increase in the number of borewells. Open wells being shallow wells are functional only when the groundwater table is shallow. Deep borewell technology which became popular in the last 25 years has made it possible to tap deep aquifers. The result of supply driven groundwater exploitation has resulted in the falling of groundwater levels as seen in Figure 4.1. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 32 of 74
  • 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 1986 1996 2006 1986 1996 2006 DUGWELLS BOREWELLS Figure 4.1 Trends in groundwater development: Dug wells vs Borewells Cost of groundwater development Drilling technology has become easily accessible leading to groundwater drilling becoming quite common. The cost of drilling is also manageable if drilling success is fairly certain. Table 4.1 gives an overview of costs involved based on the sample survey data. Most individual farmers tend to avail of credit for drilling wells. If a well is successful, the farmer recovers the cost in 1-4 years, while it takes 3-10 years for a farmer to recover costs if the drilling fails. This explains the fatal link between drilling failure and farmer suicides. One of the critical elements in this drastic scenario is that the services professional geologist is not easily accessible as the professional charges are high compared to the local water diviners; farmers are forced to engage water diviners, an indigenous practice, continued to this day by 90 percent of the farmers in the sample villages. This practice needs to be discouraged to reduce risk of failure of borewells. The APWELL Project had achieved a sound success rate of 78 percent through rigorous site selection procedures before drilling wells, followed by yield tests before appropriate pumps were designed. APWELL Project had also established norms to extract only sufficient water to grow irrigated dry crops in the designed ayacut. Where high yielding wells were drilled, WUGs were encouraged to share water with those without access to water. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 33 of 74
  • Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved Drilling cost and Installation cost (drilling Rs. 30,000 – 80,000 + pump+ motor + pipes) Drilling cost of (successful borewell) 1-4 years recovery period (if on credit) Drilling cost alone Rs. 10,000 – 35,000 If failure recovery period for the drilling 3 – 10 years cost (if on credit) Groundwater Price Rs. 400-500 per wetting (On an average cost of irrigation for one crop is Rs. 3000 – 4000 per acre for 7 to 8 wettings) Identification of potential Drilling sites Water Diviners (90%) Informal groundwater markets exist in rural areas. The average rate is between Rs. 400- 500 per wetting amounting to Rs. 3000-4000 per acre per season. Therefore, water sharing among neighbours and kin has been the secret of the high productivity and groundwater use efficiency. Functioning of borewells It was interesting to study whether the borewells commissioned under the APWELL Project were functioning or not as sustainability of groundwater sources is a major issue. It was found that about 88 percent of the wells were still in use indicating that the technical quality maintained in borewell development in APWELL has contributed to this success. It may also be noted that seasonal low groundwater yield was felt across the state during 2002-2004 due to severe droughts which changed dramatically in 2005-2006 due good monsoons. Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in sample villages APW+APF The percentage of borewell is Control APW APF seasonal and all the time is high under APFAMGS villages, this is because: Minimum acreage under each borewell as compared seasonal to APWELL villages. Percentage of gross cultivable area is less (see Fig 4.2) All_time Incidentally, the selected APFAMGS sample villages are located in high rain fall Not_Funct areas. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 34 of 74
  • Borewell yields and average ayacut In the APWELL Project, a borewell yielding 2500 GPH was designed to irrigate 10 acres of irrigated dry crops. Depending on the yield and willingness of the farmers to share water, the ayacut was fixed. No farmer was given higher HP pumps, despite requests, to extract all the potential yield of a well. In the sample survey, It is observed that the current average area irrigated in the APWELL project villages is more than 8 acres. In APFAMGS and Control villages the average area irrigated is about 5.5 acres (See Fig 4.3). The average ayacut is more for the following reasons: Effective sharing of water resources Consideration of small and marginal farmers for each borewell project with land holdings ranging from 1 to 5 acres Among the sharing farmers, the farmer with maximum area will irrigate less area and share the meager groundwater resources with partner farmers who have less land Also some times all the sharing farmers desist from cultivating a part of their land during shortage of groundwater, power shortages etc. The farmers in who share water jointly decide the type of crop (Paddy/ID/Dry) to be sown based on potential risks. Increasing irrigated area 9 APWELL and APFAMGS 8.4 8.06 promote the concept of 8 maximizing the irrigable area 7 by bringing in efficient Avg.no. of acres 6 5.36 5.44 technologies (Micro 5 irrigation), agronomic practices (Irrigated Dry 4 crops, seed production, SRI 3 paddy etc), trainings on 2 water sharing and PHM. 1 0 APW APW+APF APF CON Figure 4.3 Irrigated area in acres per borewell In APFAMGS and control villages, average irrigated area under each borewell is 5.5 acres. This is because: No. of farmers are relatively less under each borewell There is no role for APFAMGS in the individual/group of farmers’ decision when they are going for a new borewell No infrastructure is provided under APFAMGS project (except select water harvesting structures) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 35 of 74
  • PHM and Crop Water Budgeting PHM and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB), introduced by the APWELL, has been up scaled in all APFAMGS villages. As APFAMGS project is implemented on Hydrological Unit Network (HUN) basis, awareness on these two important concepts are being imparted during FFS, GMC and HUN meetings. (See Annexure 4). The GMC members, FFS participants and stake holders are mobilized towards groundwater management. CWS initiative in MC Thanda had been through watershed approach. It has created awareness and mobilized community for water recharging, soil and moisture conservation and development or natural regeneration of common pool resources in the catchment area. It also created intensive awareness to the community on social regulations for discouraging over exploitation of groundwater resources through drilling excess no. of borewells by individuals. In this regard, it has helped community to understand other sustainable cropping practices with less water for irrigation and groundwater management systems. Community awareness and level of mobilization as adopted by APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS are leading the community towards participatory groundwater management systems. However, such awareness and mobilization should be continued and followed up till the community internalizes the concepts and begin social regulations on their own. These awareness and mobilization activities should be carried out using the latest social and technical tools. In APWELL villages, the introduction of borewell technologies, provision of infrastructure like electricity poles and motivation of other farmers having seen the success of APWELL farmers led to many farmers going for new borewells on their own. Bringing all such farmers into participatory groundwater management is required for groundwater sustainability. Problems and constraints of groundwater use The problems identified with regard to borewells are given in descending order: 1. Limited Hours of Power Supply (presently only 7 hours 2. Over exploitation of groundwater in the respective villages 3. Failure of pumping motors 4. Irregular timings of Power Supply 5. Low Voltage power supply 6. Insufficient recharge structures 7. Insufficiency of Water in the aquifers 8. Low Rain fall Groundwater usage problems and borewell yields are assessed in FGD and ranked the problems on a 1 to 8 scale. The aggregated number is taken to rank for each parameter. Lower number indicates the major problem and higher one indicates low problem (See Figure 4.4). Limited hours of power supply, over exploitation of groundwater and failure of pumps are the most serious problems faced by groundwater dependent farmers. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 36 of 74
  • Irregular timings of Power Supply Limited Hours of Power Supply Lack of Recharge Structures Insufficiency of Water Over Exploitation Low Rain fall Low Voltage Any Other Figure 4.4 Borewell Problems reported in 30 sample villages BOREWELL PROBLEMS APWF_Po_%age APW_Po_%age ConWS_%age APFM_%age Over Exploitation Irregular timings of Power Supply Lack of Recharge Structures Low Rain fall Low Voltage Limited Hours of Power Supply Insufficiency of Water Any Other(BW failure & repairs) Figure 4.5 Borewell Problems category wise In APWELL and Control villages, the main problems are failure of borewell and repairs, and insufficiency of water. In APFAMGS villages problems identified are: over- CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 37 of 74
  • exploitation, irregular timings of power supply, lack of recharge structures, low rain fall, low voltage and limited hours of power supply. The depth of borewell in the project region ranges from 60-180 meters, depending on the typology. Some non APWELL farmers later benefited by not having to pay for electricity infrastructure, as the infrastructure for electricity connections was provided at the cost of APWELL project. In Control villages the cost of electricity infrastructure is not included in the borewell cost as they are located near urban areas. Water sharing 4 The number of farmers sharing 3.66 groundwater is high in APWELL 3.57 3.5 villages because of the project 3 objective, i.e., a single borewell Avg. no. of farmers is given to a group of 3-8 small 2.5 and marginal farmers. Each such 1.95 2 borewell was designed to irrigate 1.59 about 10 acres. In APFAMGS and 1.5 Control villages it is the 1 traditional practice of sharing behavior is prevalent among the 0.5 farmers, where one farmer usually 0 shares water with one more (See APW APW+APF APF CON Figure 4.6). Figure 4.6 Sharing ratios of farmers per borewell It is to be observed that in APWELL villages, farmers belonging to various castes and communities are part of WUGs, whereas in APFAMGS and control villages, farmers usually who are hare water with their family or kin group members. Land use intensity The percent of irrigated land is high in APWELL and Control villages. This could be because of certain management practices, cropping pattern and technologies introduced by APWELL project. As the farmers are small and marginal their livelihood is mainly dependent on agriculture. So there is incidentally intensive use of agriculture land in APWELL villages. In the Control villages except Thammarajupalli all other villages have more than one irrigation source (Tank, lift irrigation, canal irrigation). The percent of dry land is relatively high in APFAMGS and Control villages. Most APWELL villages fall under low rainfall area and there by fallow land is more (See Figure 4.7). There are a couple of exceptional cases in the sample: CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 38 of 74
  • In Bandarlapalli village where there is canal irrigation in addition to borewell irrigation, the irrigated area is more than in other villages. In case of Sadasivapuram all the cultivated land is under sugar cane cultivation. This is a village with high rainfall; and the cultivable land is about 3 kms from the habitation making it risky to take up horticulture and olericulture. This village was purposively selected to understand groundwater use in high rainfall areas. 100 90 FALLOW 80 70 60 50 DRYLAND 40 30 20 IRRIGATED 10 0 Uyyalawada M.C.Thanda Mudireddypalli Mannanoor Yengilibanda R.Papi Reddy palli Akkapalli Madiraepalli Appanapalli Chinna kandukuru Dudiyathanda Taticherla Uppunthala Bandarlapalli Nariganipalli Siddamurthy Palli R.K.Puram Sadasivapuram Ramnagar Muttalur Nekunambad Regumanipalli Kollampalli Kalvapalli Thammarajupalli Buggaletipalli Hampapuram Thimmaipalem Vemulakota Halia APWELL APWELL+APFAMGS APFAMGS CONTROL Figure 4.7 Land use percentage in 30 sample villages Groundwater and paddy cultivation The normal tendency of farmers is to cultivate paddy if water is available. In AP, 30 percent of groundwater use is for paddy, whereas, 90 percent of surface water goes for paddy cultivation. The study inquired into this aspect through the sample survey. There are some interesting findings from the sample. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 39 of 74
  • In groundwater usage Kharif Rabi Summer Rabi and summer 100% seasons are very 90% critical. It is observed 80% that the percentage of land irrigated in Rabi Average Percentage 70% period in control 60% villages is about 40 50% percent which is very high. This is because of 40% the access to other 30% irrigation sources like 20% lift irrigation and canal irrigation (See Figure 10% 4.8). 0% APW APW+APF APF Con Figure 4.8 Percentage of paddy grown per season Intensive groundwater use for paddy cultivation in summer is not found in APWELL and in Control villages whereas it is about 5 percent in APWELL+APFAMGS villages and about 2 percent in APFAMGS villages. In APWELL villages the concept of equitable sharing of meager water resources by about four farmers per borewell, discourages them from going for paddy cultivation except in a limited area. The Farmers Percentage not opted for Paddy percentage of irrigated area under paddy is less Control APW during the critical 14% 25% periods, i.e., Rabi and summer. APWELL also actively discouraged water intensive crops such as paddy, sugarcane and banana. In the midterm and end of project impact assessments of the APWELL Project, it was APF found that less than 5 38% APW +APF percent of cultivated area 23% was under paddy.21 21 APWELL Project: Impact Assessment 2001. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 40 of 74
  • Figure 4.9 Percentage of farmers opting for not growing paddy When asked about their crop choices, 25 percent of the farmers in APWELL villages preferred not to cultivate paddy. In APFAMGS and APWELL+ APFAMGS villages 23 percent of farmers said that they would not opt for paddy even when water is available. In the case of control villages only 14 percent did not opt for paddy. What is significant is that 38 percent of APFAMGS farmers in the sample did not opt for paddy. This may surely be the impact of the PHM and CWB exercises of the project (See Figure 4.9). 100 Paddy Ground nut Sunflower Chilli Horticulture 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 APF(Y.banda) CONTRL(T.Palli) CONTRL(H.Puram) APW(S.S.P) APW(T.Palem) CONTRL(A.Palli) CONTRL(Halia) CONTRL(B.Palli) APW+APF(Thaticherla) APW+APF(D.Thanda) APF(R.Nagar) APF(V.Kota) APF(S.M.Palli) APF(N.Palli) APF(N.bad) APF(C.Kandukur) APF(Akkapalli) CONTRL(Madirepalli) APW+APF(R.K.P) APW+APF(R.P.Palli) APF(Muttalur) APF(U.nuthala) APW(B.palli) APW(K.palli) APW(R.Palli) APW+APF(Mannanur) APW+APF(MC tnda) APW(M.palli) APW(Kalvapalli) APW(U.wada) Figure 4.10 Percentage of irrigated crops in 30 sample villages Figure 4.10 shows the cropping pattern in the 30 sample villages. It can be observed that he percentage of paddy cultivation varies between 58 percent to 3 percent in APWELL villages, 70 percent to nil in APWELL+APFAMGS villages, 65 percent to APFAMGS villages and 75 percent to 2 percent in Control villages. It may be noted that 2005-06 was an exceptionally good monsoon year with good yields in borewells. During good monsoons, farmers also go for kharif paddy using rain and seepage water using borewell water as supplementary. High paddy areas are also characterized by high rainfall and high yielding wells. In the sample villages, about half the area is covered by irrigated dry crops. Groundnut is a major crop in about half the sample villages especially in Rabi season, followed by sunflower, chillies and horticulture. The current data cannot conclusively suggest that the APWELL and APFAMGS Projects have influenced farmers to CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 41 of 74
  • reduce paddy cultivation drastically except in exceptional cases such as M C Thanda where no paddy is cultivated at all due to the influence of several factors. (See Box 4.1 Social regulations in action: The case of MC Thanda). It may be argued that paddy cultivation cannot be entirely stopped but can only be reduced and productivity increased under prevailing cultural and economic compulsions for cultivating some paddy for home consumption and for fodder. Rate of returns from groundwater based agriculture Table 4. 2 Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) PERCENTILE APWELL APW + APF APFAMGS CONTROL 95TH 21,203 20,541 22,069 28,769 75TH 10,183 11,115 13,900 15,850 50TH 6,251 6,722 8,386 9,746 25TH 3,566 3,792 3,770 3,698 5TH 246 1,578 - - 95TH 75TH 50TH 25TH 5TH (in Percentile) 35000 30000 25000 (in Rs.) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 A ELL M S L M S PFA G O TRO PFA G PW C N A ELL+A A PW Figure 4.11Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) From Figure 4.11 it is clear that groundwater based agriculture is risky especially for small and marginal farmers. Groundwater farmers are highly vulnerable because their income from crop production is uncertain. In APWELL villages, since the farmers are small and marginal, the labour cost (such as weeding, harvesting and other activities) are not explicit because most often all the works are carried out by the members of the respective families making their livelihoods sustainable. In Control and APFAMGS villages the farmers are more dependent on external labour for various farm activities. There is no special pattern observed between the percentage of cost on fertilizer and pesticides. It depends on the crop production CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 42 of 74
  • practices followed in the respective villages. Labour costs are very high in Control villages due to their proximity to urban areas. Figure 4.12 Cost of paddy cultivation as percentage of total cost of cultivation Figure 4.12 further corroborates the general view that mostly cost of inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) for paddy cultivation is somewhat low. Besides the minimum support price for paddy, the need for less labour are also factors encouraging paddy cultivation. The recent government initiative to provide support price for new crops such as maize may reduce paddy cultivation and grow more water efficient crops. 4. 2 Communication Strategy The relevance of the communication strategy regarding realistic approach to Groundwater management is made through the following parameters for the quantifiable and verifiable analysis as follows. The various communication media and tools used in these projects are listed below: CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 43 of 74
  • Table 4. 3 Communication media and tools used Communication media Communication tools Local folk media Local folk media Print media Pamphlets, Manuals, Newsletters, Magazines, Posters, Banners Social display Wall writings, Wall magazine Facilitators Meetings, Workshops, NGOs, Agricultural Officers Electronic media T.V / Films, Radio Other projects APRLP/DAPA etc. In the study area, the awareness and communication tools used are presented graphically in Table 4.4. Table 4. 4 Awareness & Communication tools impact AWARENESS & COMMUNICATION TOOLS IMPACT APW_Pr APWF_Pr APWF_Po APF ConWS Local folks-Kalajatha (Street plays/drama, songs etc.) 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Meetings 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Workshops 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Wall writings 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Pamphlets 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 Newsletters/Magazines 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.5 TV/Films 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 Radio 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 Wall Magazines 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 NGO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 AO 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 Any other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 44 of 74
  • Kalajatha Kalajatha (Street play, Skits, Songs, Dance, Drama etc) is one of the folk media performed by a troupe of about 3-10 artists with musical instruments on a particular theme for about 2-3 hours. This is generally adopted as an entry level activity of a project for mass dissemination about the project details. In the APWELL villages, this folk media had been adopted to disseminate the project objectives, implementation process, environmental pollution, depleting groundwater, PHM, and organic farming. In APFAMGS villages this folk media was used to cover four thematic areas: Water management, Agriculture, Institutional development and Gender sensitization/ participation. Hence, in both APWELL and APFAMGS villages Kalajatha is found as one of the effective communication tools. As this communication tool also provides entertainment and is understandable to the entire community, such popular folk media can be situation specific and appropriate with respect to the themes. This was found in Control villages on Watershed concepts, water management and social conflict resolution themes. Meetings and Workshops Meetings are generally conducted to discuss issues and problems with respect to situation specific/project interventions to evolve a resolution to carry out the project interventions smoothly. Based on the issues/problems these meetings were held between the community, NGOs, facilitating and implementing agencies. These meetings were generally planned monthly, bimonthly or as required to discuss any urgent issue. This was the pattern during the APWELL project period. Presently regular meetings are convened in APFAMGS villages to discuss about the implementation process, depleting groundwater, PHM, organic farming, review of the progress of the works and other social issues. Resolutions to overcome the specific issues or problems are adopted in a participatory way in such meetings. This has been verified from the minutes of the monthly meetings in APFAMGS villages (ANNEXURE). The main topics of discussion revolve around Water management, Agriculture, Institutional development and Gender sensitization / participation are major contents - Refer to Fig no.2. Regular structured meetings with clear agendas conducted in a participatory fashion are effective tools for community mobilisation and involvement of various stakeholders for suitable and sustainable solutions. Once such resolutions and strategies are evolved the process of decision making, implementation, and follow up is effective. Workshops are conducted to share the project interventions, case studies, success stories, project experiences and future programmes. Earlier in the APWELL Project and now in APFAMGS villages such workshops are organised for PHM data analysis and for crop water budgeting. If organised properly such workshops can be an effective communication tool which can be adopted for smooth implementation of any project. However, community expressed that workshops and meetings are informative and useful only for a certain period. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 45 of 74
  • Pamphlets and Wall Writings Pamphlets are another communication tool mostly used to communicate a success story, case study, notification or information with simple catchy words, cartoons and figures in local dialect (Telugu). These pamphlets are generally distributed within the project areas such that the respective information is propagated widely upto the grass root level. In APWELL project villages such pamphlets on PHM and Crop Water Budgeting were distributed during the project period. Pamphlets on vermiculture were also given to trainees. Based on this information, community has followed sustainable practices (as recommended in the booklets) during the project period. These steps are on hydrological monitoring, crop water estimation and conservation measures. However, in the APFAMGS villages also pamphlets are being distributed on the thematic issues and case studies in local dialect. These issues are basically on crop water budgeting, PHM, Sustainable agriculture and gender issues. Similarly pamphlets have been distributed in CWS villages also on social regulations in water management (“Towards water as common property”). The main contents in this pamphlet are on social regulations and case studies about water sharing, water equity and types of crops. As these pamphlets provide the important information along with successful case studies in local dialect, it is reported to be very effective at individual and grass root level. Hence, such communication tool is relevant with respect to the project, project objectives, project area and situation specific issues. These pamphlets some times can also be used as wall poster at important locations (schools, libraries, mandal office, agriculture office etc.). Wall writings and display boards are also being adopted by APFAMGS and CWS. One of the wall writings observed in APFAMGS villages is: “Sendriya eruvulane vadandi - Use organic manure.” Newsletters, Magazines and Manuals Newsletters, Magazines and Manuals cover wider information compared to pamphlet and wall magazines. Generally, the information will be in detail along with photographs, statistics, case studies and scientific details. These can cover only a limited audience who are literate. In APWELL villages, such newsletters have not been used. During the project period some manuals and reports on technical subjects were published. Under a series called Farmer Management: Training Manual, Books in Telugu on IPM, Borewell O&M, and Floriculture were printed and distributed to BUAs22. As 3000 copies of each of these low cost books were printed and distributed to BUAs free of cost and to WUGs at 50 percent subsidy, relevant information had reached the individual farmers and grass root level. These were found to very popular among the farmers and also among development professionals. 22 K Satyanarayana and R Ratnakar, Farmer Management: Borewell Repairs and Maintenance, ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH and IRDAS. August 2000; T V K Singh and R Ratnakar, Farmer Management: Integrated Pest Management, ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH and IRDAS. September 2000; and T Janakiram and R Ratnakar, Farmer Management: Commercial Cultivation of Flower Crops, September 2001. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 46 of 74
  • In the case APFAMGS villages a newsletter called “Neellamuchchata (Chat on water)” published thrice a year is being circulated with current knowledge of project activities, case studies, strategies along with photographs and statistics in local dialect. As the local dialect is being used, this may not be fully understood properly by the larger community. “Annadatha” (Food Donator) and “Vyavasaya panchangam” (Agriculture calendar) are magazines published by “EENADU” group and Acharya N. G. Ranga Agriculture University respectively which were supplied by the APWELL Project and being continued by APFAMGS in the project villages. These magazines provide information on agriculture, conservation methods, pesticides and fertilizers and details pertaining to the different departments and agencies (Annadata) and crop production technologies (Vyavasaya panchangam). These magazines are in Telugu with photographs, statistics and recommendations, from which farmers can take suitable measures. Hence, newsletters, magazines, and manuals are found effective. Therefore, rural development and natural resource management projects need to publish such type of newsletters, magazines, and manuals regularly throughout project period to update the farmers’ knowledge base on the on going interventions in order to take suitable measures. Electronic media: TV, Radio and Films TV, radio and films are other types of communication tools, which can be understood by the entire community as this will disseminate the information with audio and video signals. As this communication tool is available in all the villages, the usage of this information pertaining to rural development and natural resource management depends on the individual interest. In some APWELL villages, video films on crop production technologies have been shown. In case of APFAMGS villages, video films as a part of awareness and FFS are being regularly shown covering issues such as IPM, CWB, Biopesticides and organic manures. Electronic media have wider impact across the community with visual interpretation. And also, this tool has got immediate impact on the ground in CWS village on social regulation themes. As this communication tool is effective and useful for farmers, this can be adopted in villages for wider dissemination of information. The Role of NGO The APWELL project was implemented with partner NGOs at the district level. APWELL had two types of partnerships with NGOs, one at the technical assistance level and another at supporting and implementation level. These NGOs organised the WUGs and facilitated the formation of SHGs and BUAs. NGOs provided about 10 staff members for APWELL activities. These staff members comprised Community Organisers (COs), Gender Development Organisers (GDOs, later changed into Gender and Institutional Development Organisers, GIDOs), Agriculture Production Trainers (APTs), Hydrological Facilitators (HFs) and Community Mobilisation Specialists (CMSs). These staff were given trainings and guidance in their respective subjects. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 47 of 74
  • These NGOs were monitored by District Field Coordinators (DFCs) who were appointed at the district level by APWELL. These DFCs were responsible for coordinating all the activities of the project at the district and reported directly to the consultant team in Hyderabad. These DFCs were one of the crucial aspects for the successful coordination among the project activities. The district project teams built effective linkages with district administration and other agencies to take the benefit of other on going schemes and programmes. APFAMGS further extended the role of NGOs by making them partners in implementation without a government agency such as the APSIDC being involved. APFAMGS project is facilitated and monitored through a nodal NGO – BIRDS and is being implemented by 9 Partner Non Governmental Organisations (PNGOs). The main responsibilities of this nodal NGO are coordination with the donor and project partners, receiving funds from donor and distributing to the partners, reporting to the donor, reviewing the progress made by the PNGOs, preparation of annual plans and budget, conducting internal auditing and overall monitoring and evaluation of the project. Whereas, the PNGOs roles and responsibilities are coordinating with nodal NGO and other partners, receiving funds from nodal NGO, utilisation of funds for project implementation, execution of project activities at village level, building up of linkages with CBOs and line departments, reporting to the nodal NGOs, managing project implementation teams and other PNGO staff, reviewing the progress of the work and preparation of annual plans and budgets of their respective project areas. One PNGO is responsible for managing one implementation team consisting of a NGO coordinator, professional team comprising - Institutional Development Facilitator (IDF), Gender Facilitator (GF), Agriculture Facilitator (AF) and Hydrological Facilitator (HF) and one Village Coordinator (VC) each for about 12 villages. Each PNGO appointed a coordinator for routine coordination of project related matters, with the project leader. His/her responsibility is for the field operations, personnel matters, routine administrative and financial tasks. S/he also coordinates with the project leader for technical guidance of subject experts, process documentation, staff appraisal and technical/regular monitoring/reporting. S/he also conducts monthly meetings to draw monthly action plans of each of the staff and informs the project leader. S/he also responsible for procurement and physical execution of all project related works, with technical guidance of the related member of Project Implementation Team (PIT). Agriculture Officer (AO) The extension services provided by the Agriculture Officer are one of the main sources of information in rural areas. The AO’s role is mainly seen as convergence to bring in learnings, technology, subsidies and other agricultural schemes launched by the Department of Agriculture. During the APWELL project period, the APWELL team facilitated the AO’s services in their villages. These services were utilized for training, capacity building and to streamline the subsidies for agricultural activities. Similarly the APFAMGS utilizes the services of AOs in its project areas. In case of Control villages, the AO’s services are rarely available at the village level. Here the farmers themselves have to approach the AO for availing subsidies. But in the case of CWS and APRLP villages, AO’s services have been used as resource person for trainings. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 48 of 74
  • Effective harnessing of available resources from government agencies by APWELL and APFAMGS enhances the project impact. This is a lesson that can be easily incorporated in new project design. Other programmes There are several other ongoing programmes in the state with due advertising (News papers, TV, Radio) about the projects (APRLP, DPAP, Indira Kranthi Patham etc.). As these project components relate to the sustainable use of groundwater and agriculture, the awareness about these projects has impact on the community. These projects use display boards, wall writings, pamphlets and facilitating staff to disseminate knowledge to the community. In Madirepally village, CWS along with a local NGO, is using the above communication tools for social regulations in water management. In APRLP villages, similar type of communication tools have been used for creating awareness on watershed based livelihoods development. Overall in these projects, the communication tools used are similar to those used in APWELL and APFAMGS. 4. 3 Community Awareness and Institution Development Community awareness is the result of communication strategy and tools adopted during the intervention period. This awareness is useful to manage the resources effectively. The communication tools viz., Kalajatha, meetings, workshops, wall writings, pamphlets, newsletters/magazines/manuals, TV, Radio, Films and other projects advertisements make an impact on the community about various social and technical issues. In the APWELL villages this has been observed among the community towards the water sharing, rainfall measurement and sustenance of the SHG concepts. It has been observed that in APWELL villages, out of the 329 Water User Groups (WUGs), 290 WUGs are still practicing water sharing. The level of such community mobilization in groundwater management towards water sharing is 88 percent which is a sustainable impact. During the last phase of APWELL project, the concept of PHM and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) has been introduced as a pilot initiative involving the entire community in watershed or micro basin for demand side management for groundwater. During this study a rain gauge has been observed in Mudireddypalli, Kadapa district, from which rainfall is being monitored and recorded by volunteers who were trained during the APWELL project period. This experience on PHM is being seen as a potentially powerful intervention for water conservation and groundwater management initiatives. APWELL project paid special attention to community awareness and mobilization. The campaign to mobilize the community towards positive directions was taken up intensively. The APFAMGS project has begun to show positive outcomes in community awareness and level of mobilization. The involvement of users is gaining intensity due to the processes involved, daily rainfall records are displayed on a board that each villager can see and internalize the rainfall trends. The actual rainfall and the quantified digit registered on the display boards lead to discussion on the implications for irrigation and water use. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 49 of 74
  • Gender Equity and Women’s Participation The development of institutional impacts can be effectively and efficiently achieved with the integration of gender equity concerns. Though the projects and programmes may focus on different activities with respect to the specific situation, the integration of gender concerns should be made for the suitable activities within the project framework. In the APWELL project, this has been taken up to make women farmers equal partners with male farmers in agriculture, groundwater management and allied activities. It has been observed that the project has propagated gender relations across the community for equitable participation and benefits through development and management of groundwater irrigation systems in which participation of women in BUAs was found to be about 30 percent. However, this integration of gender concepts has made the project to face two obstacles: One in the irrigation system and the other in shift in cropping pattern. This has been overcome through adjustment in division of labour between men and women and introduction of new agricultural practices. Men used to go to town to arrange for loans, inputs and marketing of the production and women used to do the major part of the agriculture activity. Women were encouraged to attend the meetings, trainings, exposure visits, and demonstrations. For this GIDOs and Community Organizers made effort to encourage and motivate eligible women to apply the concepts developed pertaining to agriculture and groundwater management system. Care has been taken that at least one woman from each household would join as a member of the Water User Group (WUGs) and participate in the related trainings from the field level to the district level). Active Participation of Women in FGD, MC Thanda To follow up and motivate, these women were organized into SHGs with additional activities such as thrift and credits. Thus 50 percent women participation was achieved in WUG level also. During the initial phase of the project, this SHG concept (through thrift and credits) acted as a cementing factor towards this gender integration. In the development and management of groundwater irrigation systems women were the main applicants (as in the case for women headed household) or women were co-applicants (in cases where their spouse or male relative is the main applicants). One SHG has been formed for 3-5 WUGs, directly benefiting 10-20 families. However, villages with more groundwater irrigation systems have proportionately higher number of SHGs. In all, 603 SHGs comprising 7045 members were formed under APWELL. The cumulative savings of these groups was Rs. 10,050,960/- and the cumulative external assistance was Rs. 15,096,969/- (up to March 31st, 2003). These savings and external assistance facilitated the SHGs to undertake various supplementary income generation activities. This intensification of gender integration has been successfully made in the project. It was also observed that the women participation in the meetings was judged to be satisfactory, ranging from medium to high. Various government and non governmental agencies have also acknowledged that the APWELL SHGs are better CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 50 of 74
  • organized, trained and motivated to take up income generation activities and has acted as a catalyst for the village development. 23 In APFAMGS project, gender mainstreaming is aimed at providing access to all water related decision making bodies at different levels apart from providing women equal access to water and related resources along with men. It has been observed that gender mainstreaming is focusing equal powers to women, their concerns related to drinking water, sanitation, migration, food, nutrition and health compared to technical and other social issues. It has been facilitating the creation of groundwater institutions where women are playing their roles with active participation, presenting and discussing the issues, measuring the water levels, well aquatinted with the project activities and objectives and decision making. This facilitation and involvement are enhancing the knowledge, skills and confidence of the women. They are not only participating in groundwater data gathering, computing groundwater balance, and evolving crop plans but also have influence in the decision making, leadership roles (as observed in EC meetings with 44.8%) and in the appropriate investments related to the groundwater irrigation systems. The main focus of this gender integration in APFAMGS project observed is in crop planning (keeping in mind, the food and nutrition requirements of the family), water distribution that avoids wastage, promoting organic agriculture (that does not contaminate the groundwater resources), prioritizing continued availability of water resources and recycling waste water. This has been carried out through various communication tools, community awareness and sensitivity towards gender issues that ensures participatory processes for the leadership role of the women (See Figure 4.13). Overall, it has been observed that the gender integration is focused at the three levels viz., Programme level, Organization level and Policy level and also promoting women as agents of change in the restoration of groundwater resources. A Gender Facilitator (GF) has been appointed at each PNGO level and also at state level for strengthening the gender equity aspects. The gender activities have been planned at the respective levels where equity is focusing. Though the project is centered on gender balanced approach but the staff is facing difficulties in implementation. Some of the reasons for these difficulties were observed to be Women & Men Participation in Meetings distanced to venue, timings of 100% trainings and coercion of spouse. In order to overcome these Women difficulties, three important 50% decisions were taken in one of the quarterly review meeting Men during mid 2005. These three decisions are on women friendly 0% venue, women friendly timings Siddamurthypalli R.Papireddypalli Thaticherla Vemulakota Muttalur Dudyathanda Nariganipalli Ramnagar RK Puram Nekunambad Yengilibanda China Kandukur MC Thanda and inviting both wife and husband for trainings and meetings. With these decisions, it was stated that women participation was improved by 10 23 APWELL final document CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 51 of 74
  • percent24 (refer: Publication: APFM/CP/52/2006). Figure 4.13 Participation of women and men in meetings in APFAMGS villages The intensification of gender integration can be achieved effectively and efficiently in different projects and programmes, with the similar efforts which are being made in APWELL and APFAMGS projects. These gender activities are found to be satisfactory wherein women alone can take suitable decision for the respective issues. Involvement of women in different activities helps in mobilization and participation and also increases their level of awareness and leadership qualities. This also helps in self esteem and confidence development. Scaling up of women’s participation through federations (like SHGs, WUGs and BUAs) in technical and social issues needs to be continued for overall development. 4. 4 Community Decision Making Communication tools, community awareness and situation specific issues make the community ready for effective decision making. This not only resolves a problem, but also evolves a sustainable solution and gives the community a sense of ownership. Such solutions through community decision making not only resolves but also makes the community to sustain the assets created and also binds towards the resolution, norms and procedures that are being adopted. The communication tools and community awareness adopted by APWELL in an intensified manner during the project period made the community to take suitable and effective decisions with regard to groundwater management systems. These communication tools, community awareness along with the regular meetings had educated the community to think in positive directions. During these meetings, community used to discuss collectively about the issues like water sharing, borewell failures, contribution (amount towards maintenance of the assets), conflict resolutions, yield in the borewells, crop planning and crop water budgeting. The decision towards these issues were taken in such a way that some of the sustenance of the assets and group functioning are visible even today (rain gauge in Mudireddypalli village, group functioning and water sharing in all the villages - (refer Annexure 3). This has resulted in the sustenance of the assets created and procedures that are being followed. These assets are: borewells, electricity, pipes and pumps and rain gauges. Decisions are collectively taken by men and women during their meetings and the same has been followed and implemented. Some of the key community decision outcomes are resolution towards water sharing, timing and pumping operation of the pumps and maintenance of the log books towards the water sharing. Overall, this decision making concept has resulted in enhanced awareness, knowledge and skills on agriculture, irrigation and water monitoring. This impact has been observed through their confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility, recognition and self esteem. 24 Publication: APFM/CP/52/2006 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 52 of 74
  • In the APFAMGS project, during their meetings the discussions are focused on Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM), Agriculture, Farmer Field School (FFS), Crop Water Budgeting (CWB), GMC formation (EC), Project objectives, Hydrological Unit Network (HUN), Gram Sabha, News letters/Magazines, Drinking water problems, Horticulture, Cropping pattern, Volunteers identification, Role clarification, Preparation of Base document, Soil and moisture conservation, Participatory Rural Mapping (PRM) and Civil society Organizations (CSOs). Presently, the discussions and decisions on PHM, Agriculture, FFS, CWB and GMC (EC) are the important topics which are being discussed in their regular meetings (See Figure 4.14). The data collected on water levels and rain fall contribute towards Crop Water Budgeting which is discussed in GMC meetings. These decisions are collectively taken by men and women in their meetings and the same decisions are discussed at HUN workshops/meetings where a collective resolution will be evolved. Resolutions will be implemented throughout the HUN. The outcomes of these decisions and resolutions are resulting in collective use of the assets and resources that are being generated. Though the decision making depends on specific situations and the type of community, the communication tools, community awareness and community mobilization has a major role for sustainable solutions. These decision making concepts will result in awareness towards the technical and social issues, development of knowledge and skills, ownership feeling and maintenance and managements of the assets and resources that are created. Hence, the projects and programmes should be justifiable with adequate capacity building, technological interventions and equitable concepts. This decision making impact can be seen among the community towards confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility, recognition, and self esteem (See Figure 4.14). Photo …Records maintenance in APWELL Project Photo Crop Water Budgeting, Nariganipalli 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 PHM Agriculture FFS CWB GMC formation(EC) Project objectives visits others HUN Grama sabha News letter/magazines Drinking water-flouride problem Horticulture Cropping pattern Volunteers Base documentation Role clarification soil moisture conservation CSO Drainage PRM CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 53 of 74
  • Figure 4.14 Decisions taken by community in APFAMGS Villages: Frequency of topics discussed 4. 5 Improvement in Income and Livelihoods The activities (Participatory Hydrological Monitoring for community managed groundwater systems, artificial recharge of local aquifers for ensuring sustainability of groundwater irrigation sources and eco-farming for sustainable irrigated and dry land farming) of APWELL project have been transferred into sustainable rural livelihoods through environmentally sound interventions. Community mobilization (through trainings, capacity building, display boards, pamphlets, exposure visits), gender integration and the development of community based organizations are the key areas focused for the improvement in the income and livelihoods of the community. Socio-economic impacts There were direct and tangible benefits achieved substantially at the family level during the project period for the community. In addition to these benefits, there was 200% increase in land value, higher income accruals through sale of livestock and non farming activities.25 There was also increase in value of lands adjacent the APWELL ayacuts with the expectation of groundwater availability. This increase in land value was about Rs.80,000/- for a typical farmer with 3.8 acres of which 2.4 acres is irrigated. The most visible impact of increased family income have been observed in the improvement of living conditions of farmers, with food supplies had become more assured (because of higher production as well as higher purchasing power). This increased income also helped farmers to obtain better education, better housing and better farm implements. House values also typically increased by about Rs.10000/- or 38%, presumably due to additions and improvements. There were also improvements in house hold assets with purchase of TV sets, tape- recorders, clothes, stoves and furniture. 94% of respondents reported increased family income since the project interventions.26 These income levels vary from Rs.5000- Rs.15000 between the districts. Most of this income came from crop production, but some from sale of animals and animal products such as milk and meat. There was also other income raised by the community through non farming activities such as selling clothes and running small petty shops. Broad estimates, show that net worth (wealth) of a typical farmer had increased by about Rs.100,000/- (from about to Rs.80000/- to about Rs.1,80000/-), mostly from the increased in land values. 25 APWELL final report 26 APWELL Project: Second impact assessment survey report - 2001 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 54 of 74
  • APW+APF Control APW APF Enhancement of naturalresources sustainableuseofnatural resorces Understanding on groundwater resources Equitabl esharing of waterresource Empowerment of women Cropping pattern Children Attending Schools Increased wellbeing Income Reduced Poverty Figure 4. 15 Overall impact of the project interventions The APWELL project also contributed towards reduction of migration in the project areas. The project has generated employment opportunities in the agricultural farms resulting in the dramatic reduction of off-farm migration. It has been reported that due to increased wage employment created in APWELL villages especially along foothills of the Nallamala range, antisocial activities such as liquor brewing, extortion and tree felling have been reduced. It was also reported by district officials that the similar developmental projects and activities would not only improve the socio-economic conditions of the poor, but also help in maintenance of law and order situation, which is a major drain on government resources27. There also had been a variety of social and unquantifiable benefits, in particular, increased expenditure on children’s education and improvement in health standards through better diets. Financial Internal Rate of Returns (FIRRs) based on land value increases are estimated to be in the range of 30-40%. FIRRs based on crop production are estimated to be in the range of 13-40% for districts. Observing these benefits through APWELL borewells and easy availability of technology, the number of borewells has increased in the respective areas after the withdrawal of APWELL project. This has resulted into over exploitation of groundwater and reduction in the yield. However during the sample survey, the community expressed that had the activities implemented during the APWELL project continued, over exploitation and reduction in the yield would have been better managed. APWELL project through its trainings, awareness, field visits, demonstrations, follow up and continuous education on extension techniques, selection of feasible and alternate 27 APWELL Project: Agricultural and Socio-Economic impact study, Technical note 37. 2002. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 55 of 74
  • sites and exposure visits educated the farmers on alternate agricultural options for more profitable ID crops. This has resulted into cropping trends viz., a vast majority of small and marginal farmers with groundwater irrigation facilities do cultivate profitable cash crops like cotton, chilly, sunflower, groundnut and vegetables. This has been achieved through effective utilization and maintenance of improved seeds supplied by the APWELL project. At the end of the APWELL Project, about 95% of the groundwater irrigation system ayacuts is covered by ID crops and area under paddy is less than 5%. The success of this project activity made the farmers cultivate ID crops and ensured food security for their livelihoods. In the present assessment, it was found that about 90 percent of the APWELL farmers are still sharing water and engaged in profitable agriculture. The cropping patterns are more diversified though more farmers now cultivate at least some paddy. TOTAL LAND VALUE / AGRICULTURE INCOME RATIO 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 APWELL APW+APF APW+APF+CWS APF CWS CONT Figure 4. 16 Total Land value/Agriculture income ratio The ratio between total land value and agriculture income is above average in APWELL+APFAMGS villages followed by control and APFAMGS. Project outcomes – current scenario The risk of community falling in debt trap in CWS, APWELL+APFAMGS is very high. In those cases if the farmer is forced to pay all his debt (cumulative)in the same year, he will have very little amount for other living costs therefore farmers are at the risk of disposing their assets. It is observed that the people having bigger asset value are opting to take more loans and thereby the debt is more. Although it is not matching with their annual income, they are at the risk of falling in debt trap and are forced to sell their assets if it continues further. The risk of community falling in debt trap is less in CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 56 of 74
  • APWELL villages because the value of credit is based on asset value, capability to repay and social status (small and marginal farmers mostly SCs, STs, BCs). TOTAL INCOME PER ANNUM / DEBT (CUMULATIVE) RATIO 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 APWELL APW+APF APW+APF+CWS APF CWS CONT Figure 4.17 Total income per annum/debt (cumulative) ratio TOTAL ASSET VALUE / DEBT (CUMULATIVE) RATIO 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 APWELL APW+APF APW+APF+CWS APF CWS CONT Figure 4.18 Total asset value/debt (cumulative) ratio CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 57 of 74
  • Similarly the ratios of asset to debt and income to debt are comparable. Ratio between total asset values to debt is more in control villages followed by APFAMGS villages. When compared, the records of income to debt ratio and asset to debt ratio are par except in case of the APWELL villages. This shows that farmers get more benefits from their lands. (See Figures 4.17 and 4.18) Table 4. 5 Project Outcome Indicators APWELL APWELL + Control APFAMGS Unit (8)-Present APFAMGS (5)+CWS(1) (10) status (5)+CWS(1) Total-6 S. Total-(6) INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR No Observed Value Post- APFAMGS In the last APFAMGS (Total / Yes APWELL Period 10 years Period (total) / Rank (after (March for CWS (March 2003 weight / Priority March 2003 - and others - present) scale) 2003) present) since 2003 No. of 8 6 10 6 villages Improvement in Income and livelihoods 1.0 % improvement i Income 66.7 50.0 50.0 54.5 ii Reduced Poverty 50.0 41.7 50.0 70.0 Increased iii 64.3 50.0 50.0 54.5 wellbeing Children iv 52.9 40.0 60.9 46.2 Attending Schools Empowerment of v 57.1 100.0 86.7 77.8 women 2.0 % improvement vi Cropping pattern 47.1 80.0 76.5 66.7 Enhancement of vii 38.5 77.8 84.6 0.0 natural resources Sustainable use viii of natural 41.7 66.7 92.9 0.0 resources Equitable sharing ix 76.9 80.0 60.0 50.0 of water resource Understanding on x groundwater 66.7 137.7 146.2 36.4 resources Figures 4.17 and 4.18 and Table No. 4.5 depict the percentage of the improvement in income and livelihoods with respect to social and agricultural aspects. This has been analyzed by taking the weightages as poor, good, very good and excellent on a scale varying from 1 to 4. These weightages have been derived as percentage improvement for each project villages namely APWELL (8), APWELL+APFAMGS (5), APFAMGS (10), APWELL+APFAMGS + CWS (1), CWS (1) and control (5). More or less the percentage CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 58 of 74
  • improvement in APWELL, CWS and control villages is found sustenance towards the income and livelihoods (though the project is completed) as against the APFAMGS. However, it is observed that in APFAMGS villages the percentage improvement to some extent in the following areas such as enhancement of natural resources, sustainable use of natural resources, understanding groundwater resources, cropping pattern and empowerment of women. Therefore, the percentage of income and livelihoods in APFAMGS villages can be assessed exactly after the completion of the project (As the project is ongoing), keeping in view of the sustainability aspects. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 59 of 74
  • Chapter 5 Lessons & Recommendations The systematic assessment of CBGWM experiences in AP bring to focus a number of lessons that can be valuable while formulating new participatory water management initiatives. Communication strategy for community mobilisation, enabling institutional arrangements, capacity building approaches, and strategies for sustaining impacts are the main areas of learnings. This chapter first summarizes the conclusions before discussing recommendations for consideration while participatory groundwater management is to be implemented in the APCBTM Project. 5. 1 Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP Enabling Strategies Right from the beginning, convergence of social and technical elements in the delivery process dominated the APWELL strategy of programme implementation. Firstly, an organizational development process was involved based on the strategy that small and marginal farmers may access the high cost irrigation systems that are being created. Hence WUGs, SHGs and BUAs were formed aiming to offer sustainability to social and technical aspects including operation and maintenance of groundwater irrigation systems by the farmers themselves. The project implementers adopted the strategy of changing roles to facilitators with some success. The APWELL approach, viewed from the present context, appears transitional. Unambiguously it had created a strong ground for the APFMGS interventions that followed. This point is important as replication of lessons from CBGWM experiences in other areas s an objective of this study. Groundwater Sharing APWELL Project, through the strategy of providing group irrigation systems to small and marginal farmers provided access to the economically weaker sections to their share of the precious groundwater resource in a hydrological unit. It is very likely that most of the WUG members who benefited from the APWELL Project would not have been capable of developing groundwater irrigation source on their own. The APWELL project brought economic prosperity to small and marginal farmers who could join the project and get a successful borewell. The sample survey of 15 APWELL villages found that about 88 percent of the wells were still functional and water was being shared among the members. A few WUGs whose systems failed could rehabilitate it with an alternate borewell at a new site, often in the same ayacut by bearing just the drilling cost. It may be noted that while feasible sites were being identified for drilling, two or three sites were selected and the best among them was built. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 60 of 74
  • The rate of recovery of the capital investment was faster in every case. There is no doubt that grouping strategy worked and it can be successfully replicated in new projects. Water sharing for irrigation is a common practice in AP in areas and times of scarcity. There is scope for institutionalizing this arrangement and enhancing water productivity by providing incentives such as providing co-finance for distribution systems to reduce conveyance losses. The provision of free power by the AP government could be linked to encouraging water sharing considerations to improve productivity and enhance equity. Involvement of NGOs The process of involving NGOs worked well in mobilizing appropriate human resources to facilitate community mobilization in a positive way in the APWELL project. The same strategy is followed in the APFMGS project with greater role for partner NGOs. The institutional sustainability of groundwater management institutions is being linked to the continuing influence of local NGOs. The Hydrological Unit Networks (HUN) are proposed to be registered as Societies under the Societies Registration Act.28 Thus HUNs themselves become NGOs. Elements of Communication The communication elements used in the APWELL and APFAMGS Projects are: Farmers gaining adequate knowledge on the system of groundwater resources -– rainfall, ponds, wells, springs, soil moisture, humidity and their cyclic dynamics. All relevant matters pertaining to ground water technology. The technology delivery of the irrigation system installation at the farmers’ land, its quality and the quality of its eventual operation and maintenance. Agriculture and other livelihood activities that are closely linked with water use practices that can be and should be adjusted with the limitations and advantages the nature of water resources offers. Matters related to organizational development that includes building of institutions at the user’s level for the beneficial sustained use of the water assets. The important communication strategies adopted by the APWELL, APFMGS, CWS projects are contact, demonstration, outsourcing and convergence. These are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Contact strategy The user is in direct contact of the resource persons provided by the NGOs as are seen in the APFMGS project area. The resource teams comprise multidisciplinary professionals. The entire process of knowledge building at the groundwater users’ level started meaningfully during APWELL interventions. Initially the knowledge 28 Report on Participatory Process of Designing Bye-laws of Hydrological Unit Network. APFAMGS Project. Priyum Advisory and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 2006. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 61 of 74
  • building was in the form of knowing about the processes involved in well drilling, pumps installation, and operation and maintenance. It is now penetrating deeper into the areas of change in water levels with time and volume of irrigation, crop- water relationship and its application in making crop choices, the mechanism of groundwater recharge and its relationship with rainfall and the influence of rainfall on overall practices of agriculture were among the major components of knowledge building in a village specific situation. This has reflected in the confidence level of the user. Demonstration Effects The strategy of demonstrating the enabling devices for CBGWM have worked positively. They have created a situation for the groundwater users to learn and internalize while the device is being installed, operated and maintained as was displayed during the APWELL project period. The processes that are in place in the APFMGS project are registering in the mind when people are actually writing the results of rainfall and water level monitoring on display boards. Such boards showing the location of project area and the banners used to demonstrate crop-water budgeting are having lasting effect on the mind of the user. Outsourcing The strategy of outsourcing professional activities to the NGOs too has its positive effects on the quality of interventions. First of all, it has provided adequate and, by and large, quality manpower to do the job. The activities are carried out in a desirable multidisciplinary environment through a mode, which is comfortable and acceptable to the community. Convergence The villages where all the three interventions have converged (Village MC Thanda, District Anantapur) gives the impression that the community mobilization factor has reached a visible level of success. The villages where APWELL interventions preceded APFMGS, the community is still quite motivated, while it is not very distinct in the villages where APWELL was the only factor. Yet, APWELL project looks impressive in the aspects of operation, maintenance and rehabilitation because of the convergence factors that were built in. As far as the villages where APFMGS is operating alone without prior groundwater interventions, the motivation level is not as impressive except for those villages where the densities of irrigation wells are very high. It is however to be borne in mind that APFMGS project is in its mid-phase hence the impressive outlook may, to some extent, be attributed to the presence of the resource persons. It is premature to comment about the aspects of sustained operation, maintenance and rehabilitation. In all the villages that were visited, the convergence factors induced under the concerned projects have created a positive learning environment. In APFMGS villages the process of learning is showing up in the GMC and HUN meetings in the form of a knowledge synergy where the process of learning from each other has taken root. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 62 of 74
  • MC Thanda: Sustainable community groundwater management The village MC Thanda, Tanakallu mandal, Anantapur district had a history of being poverty stricken. In only three out of ten years proper rainfall occurs in the village. In 2006 also rainfall was less than average. Rainfall in this village is irregular and this situation persists. The social fabric of MC Thanda is homogeneous, all the residents being from Lambadi Tribes. A number of people from this village used to work for years as agricultural laborers for the big farmers in other villages. In 1994, Jan Jagruthi, an NGO, started to interact with the people on the possibilities of initiating a watershed development project in the village. In terms of activities, it was aimed MC Thanda at the height of summer (May 2006) at extensive soil-water conservation with Nala plugging, check dams and creation of irrigation An elder put it succinctly: “Birds and wild facilities. By 1998, the village could grow animals now flock to our village. Even clouds adequate food for its needs. gather above our lands.” In 1997, the village was included under the With the influence of the PHM concept and APWELL scheme. Based on preliminary surveys the ideas of social regulation proposed by and groundwater development feasibility, it CWS and Jan Jagruthi, MC Thanda today was decided that 14 borewells covering about stands as a unique case of sustainable 55 families could be drilled. Of the 14 wells groundwater and profitable agriculture. It is drilled, 12 were successful covering 47 perhaps the only APWELL village that has families. Of the 12 successful wells, only one given up paddy cultivation and depends was a low yielding (1500 GH), and five of them solely on irrigated dry crops, mainly yield more than 6000 GPH. With paddy being a groundnut, sunflower, horticulture. By taking preferred crop when high yielding wells were up profitable seed production, many farmers available, this would have been a natural have enhanced their productivity and candidate for more paddy crops, as was visible incomes. in the neighbouring village. In 2003, APFAMGS included MC Thanda and In 2000, APWELL Project selected this village RN Thanda the adjoining village under its for its pilots on PHM and artificial recharge. programme. One may view this as a process The two checkdams constructed on sites of continuity in external support. The BUA of selected after extensive study by a team of MC Thanda was transformed into the new scientists from NGRI, proved to be beneficial GMC which is managing the referred matters immediately. The aquifer is now stabilized. in the village displaying a CBGWM model. The community eventually drilled four more wells at their cost. As per the assessment of MC Thanda is today seen as model in the BUA these 16 wells were regarded sustainable groundwater use with all farmers sufficient to cover the entire village. The land engaged in profitable agriculture. All the development activities and tree plantation in communication and capacity building the catchment areas has also benefited strategies have been involved in MC Thanda. groundwater recharge and stabilization. Over The only complaint one of the farmers had 11,000 neem trees have been numbered and was that they did not have enough local protected. labour to cope with the year round agricultural activities. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 63 of 74
  • Water Rights Issue People may, with the level of understanding that has developed in the coverage areas of APWELL/APFMGS and CWS while understanding the limitations of the system of groundwater and that of the water resources as a whole may also develop the insight on sharing as a matter of right. The farmer enjoying the benefits of groundwater irrigation may have the initial reaction of being pushed to a new adjustment – the farmers joining the club of groundwater users in the village have the legal and moral support of the state machinery that they can exercise their option to access ground water to irrigate their land. In the same manner a person who may not even have land to irrigate but the society provides her/him the right to access water for domestic, sanitation and drinking purposes. These projects have not merely developed the strategy for accessing the expensive technology of ground water, but are entering the knowledge regions that promise to provide insights to the responsible community in a variety of domains: o Equitable sharing of water within the confines of its regime – this is fundamentally attainable with the community’s traditional values and wisdom. It is also an enabling step to attain sustainability of the irrigation system in the village. o The community can perceive invisible groundwater in a tangible manner by observing the rise and fall in water table levels. o With clearer understanding it may be that water users will also be in a position to link their water use practices over the cycle of an year, link droughts not only with rainfall patterns but the added influence of irrigation water use as well. o With closer groundwater monitoring and continued practice of computing ‘crop water relationship’ it is also not ambitious to expect that the stronger community organizations, with their strength of knowledge and institutions will be in a position to identify and restrain the violators or abusers of the system. Such abuses lead to crop drying in some location while harvesting water intensive crops within the regime of the hydrological unit. It may also manifest in drinking water shortage during the summer months that immediately follow the rabi cropping season. In APFAMGS villages there are strong indications that farmers with large land holdings are taking interest in WUA and a good number of them are the members of GMC and HUN. This could be beneficial provided the interests of all the stakeholders including marginal and small farmers, the landless, and the women are taken into account. Diversity in socio-economic conditions of any habitation and overall social behavior that includes farming and non-farming households, land owners and the landless, different segments of water users, use pattern of domestic and irrigation water users adds a dimension of its own to the issue of CBGWM.
  • 5. 2 Recommendations for community based water management Groundwater - Surface Water integration towards IWRM The approach taken by APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS to create CBGWM in the villages visited, the efforts are dedicated to groundwater use alone. There is a visible gap in the direction of integrated water resources management taking advantage by relating available surface water facilities with that of created groundwater facilities together with soil-moisture conditions. The proposed APCBTMP provides an excellent opportunity to fill this gap and work towards IWRM in a basin context, especially with the integration of groundwater management in the tank influence zone. Water balance issue Normally when there are both tank and well irrigation practiced in a village, the tanks are expected to be filled during the rainy season particularly by the end of October. Hereafter groundwater gets activated for rabi irrigation. During the Rabi season it is expected that both type of irrigation practices will be active due to the recharge mechanism that is active in the tank influence areas. The tank water will deplete with increasing pumping volume, this is irrespective of the fact whether the wells are located upstream or downstream of the tanks. When such a situation occurs, conflict between the groundwater users and tank users is likely unless social regulations are in practice. The potential conflict may motivate all the water users to work together under a single CBO that determines the water shares in the village. It may also steer the ground mechanism towards the issues of crop water balance. Thus the APCBTM Project is an ideal vehicle for introducing the concept of participatory groundwater management in tank influence areas. Replicable elements of the approach In APWELL and APFAMGS approach no fundamental difference can be seen from the point of view of future GoAP concerns. Both are extraneous, though APFAMGS may appear more intensive and detailed in its current form and status. But APFAMGS has the advantage of having the APWELL’s experience of eight years and most of its groundwater systems are functional. For harvesting the gains from the experience of APWELL and APFAMGS, GoAP has to evaluate the following: To arrive at a replicable process if APFAMGS model provides enough encouragement since its synergy is persuasive for the farmers to go into a thinking process. The hardware ingredients of APFAMGS are not meant for individual use but for collecting data for community use on a voluntary basis. These are: o Installation of Rain gauge stations o Installation of devices for water level monitoring for water balance studies o Making provisions for measurement of quantity of water, while it is being pumped. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 65 of 74
  • o Providing display boards making the information on rainfall and water level trends available to the general constituency of the village. The village communities, against the above provisions were offered intensive training and information on linking the findings with the system of groundwater that acts upon the village wells, recharge mechanisms in relation to rainfall and crop water relationship in relation to both rainfall and actual irrigation water in quantitative terms. Each of the APFAMGS local extension units cover 70-85 villages of a single cluster of watersheds or in two or three identified watersheds that are nearby. Each of the professional units of the network of NGOs providing the manpower resources working under the leadership of BIRDS has 10-13 staff members. The estimated cost of the project per village comes to about Rs. 300,000 per year. A few questions may be raised: • Will the GoAP consider entering into the same level of investments, infrastructural network, professional resource mobilisation, technological and professional multiplicity and involved methodologies? If yes, then the opportunities need to be assessed over its 21 target districts within the line departments, professional institutions, NGOs and civil society at large at all identified habitation levels and create enabling policies to engage the entire work force. • Such action is likely to create a new synergy impacting on the system of water resources. GoAP may decide to take strategy lines that encourage a regeneration of the water resource system rather than further damaging it by inviting actions (happening outside the purview of the GoAP) that tend to damage it further. • The farmers with large land holding and with their exposure to hybrid seed, chemical fertilizer and irrigation devices will per force pursue paddy cultivtion. Rice is a high water intensive crop and it has the potential of unbalancing the groundwater equation in any hydrological unit. Replicable Elements under CBGWM Concept It would actually be more comfortable to broaden the scope of CBGWM to community Based Water Resources Management – the total interventions of APWELL & APFAMGS perhaps point towards this direction. Handing over The foremost element that can be replicable under any situation is the prospect of ‘Handing Over’ of the project assets that are created during the project interventions and the management responsibilities that was evolved through constant training, orientations, monitoring and interactions. A project handing over takes place through the true exit of the implementation / facilitation group. Pre-conditions: 1. The involved community is organized within the frame work of disciplines where a democratic set up has been created and local leadership deliberates constantly on impending issues. 2. The indicators of an organized community are: CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 66 of 74
  • Regular meeting that deal with all relevant issues of the CBM e.g. operations of the assets that are in place. Ponds, wells, land, data, observation tools and their records, organizations records & their maintenance accounts books and so on are all documented at the village level and are accessible to the user. Booking of all accounts/ expenses that belong to the Community Organization. Display of status on account and assets. Community Knowledge and Skills This is vested upon individuals and hence community benefits if the knowledge and skill is built within the confines of the village. There are always people to back up under such situations. Back up is an essential element for sustained community based operation and maintenance needs (See Figure 5.1). OBSERVATIONS TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE Community area Rainfall Erratic, yet coping mechanisms at work Rainfall pattern + Soil moisture Sustainability + Irrigation (Dug wells and ponds) + Dryland crops with shift in choices Tank + Water availability Drinking management - > Cropping pattern water by community Domestic water Less dependence on Government for water / weather issues Ground Water Trends as observed from dug wells and tanks Household area Figure 5. 1 Traditional Community knowledge CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 67 of 74
  • OBSERVATIONS COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE WITH EXTERNAL FACTORS Community area Rainfall – erratic with damaged coping mechanisms Farmers Rich Richer Committing Tanks Dry or Suicide Poor Poorer tending to dry (reduced in the More water for farmer With land and money recent past) Sustainability Wider Choice of Crops Support for Subsidies – seed, fertilizers External Factor Electricity connection Cheaper Ground water technology With land and money - increased water Ground Water availability Trends not easily known from Household area borewells Figure 5. 2 Community Knowledge with external factors OBSERVATIONS COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPED THROUGH INTERVENTIONS Community area Rainfall -> Measurement Rainfall pattern + Soil moisture + Water availability - > Cropping pattern Water Resources enhancement through convergence of schemes Community Organization and Institution building Addressing Gender SF & MF Priority Ground Water Trends observed from Borewells HH area Figure 5. 3 Community Knowledge developed through interventions CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 68 of 74
  • Utilization of NGO Manpower It is now an accepted fact in AP that NGOs have the necessary attitude and the manpower pool for community mobilization to ensure community involvement in development projects. It should also be implied while considering NGO inputs that such inputs too are external. Hence there has to be an exit policy specified while initiating the move to engage NGOs at the user community level actions. It may amount to taking policy views in the light of ensuing larger interventions. The pro- user policy may promote greater user participation in the form of entrusting implementation jobs to community organizations instead of contractors from outside; the community may be encouraged to repay the entire investment cost on a pro-rata sharing basis in a common fund operated by it. Community Empowerment through CBOs As products of various community based interventions such as APFMIS Act, APWELL, APRLP, Velugu, and APFAMGS a number of CBOs have emerged at the village level. These often have overlapping membership and leadership. These CBOs can be mobilized into a single village level organization with framed Bye-laws defining legal status vis-à-vis Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha. It can have formal or informal institutional linkage with the line departments under the district administration or PRI. As a matter of strategy, the agencies of the government providing resources in the form of funds, materials, assets, knowledge or disciplines act as facilitators that may be differentiated from ‘implementers’ or ‘providers’. The line departments may take the role of trouble- shooters and trainers in the field of developing village level monitoring of climatic parameters, ground and surface water quantity and quality, aspects of seed, fertilizer, pesticides bio-fertilizer and pesticides, agro-markets and a variety of relevant matters (See Figures 5.4 & 5.5). CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 69 of 74
  • Findings of the study SUSTAINABILE ASPECTS OF APWELL / APFAMGS PROJECT FACTORS NATURAL / ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN / SOCIAL FINANCIAL / PHYSICAL Cropping Pattern Macro and Micro – Land use - Policy matters, Land Pattern Village level Knowledge Democratic strength, Geology / Soils / Social fabric and strength Financial, Moisture / Water / Self-reliant Skills, micro-finance traditions, Rainfall / Climate Agriculture Infrastructural, Horticulture Institutional Livestock culture Figure 5. 4 Sustainable aspects of APWELL/APFAMGS Project CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 70 of 74
  • Institutional Option (The CBO can be linked with standing govt. institutions) PRI PRI Professional support Professional support from open market from open market Recognized Recognized Village Level Village Level Through aa proper POLICIES Through proper COMMUNITY BASED COMMUNITY BASED Line Line POLICIES Legal instrument Departments [APWALTA] Legal instrument WATER MANAGEMENT WATER MANAGEMENT Departments [APWALTA] By the GP By the GP SYSTEM SYSTEM Autonomous: Autonomous: Within the framed legal Within the framed legal status at village level status at village level Local decisions on Local decisions on Professional support 1. Operational Issues 1. Operational Issues Professional support from line departments from line departments 2. Maintenance 2. Maintenance 3. Framing rules for water 3. Framing rules for water distribution (sharing) distribution (sharing) CSOs CSOs Financial Matters Financial Matters Managerial matters Technical Matters Technical Matters Managerial matters MONITORING MONITORING Figure 5. 5 Institutional options 5. 3 Summary of findings and recommendations Communication strategies and tools 1. Kalajatha is found to be an effective communication medium in rural areas. This communication tool provides awareness with more clarity and is understandable by the entire community. This popular folk medium is situation specific and hence adaptable to local conditions. 2. Meetings play an important role in gathering the community for resolving issues and problems in a participatory manner for suitable and sustainable solutions. Once such resolutions and strategies are evolved the process of decision making, implementation and the follow up is effective. 3. Workshops are another mechanism for smooth implementation of the projects in discussion and to review the progress of the project and for chalking out future strategies. Well organised workshops with proper documentation are vital for effective project management. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 71 of 74
  • 4. Wall writings and display boards: The viewer response to these boards is excellent. They became places where farmers and others occasionally gather and discuss various groundwater related issues. This tool has continuous awareness impact. 5. Pamphlets: The main contents in the pamphlet “Neelamuchchata” covered issues of social regulations and case studies about water sharing, water equity and types of sustainable crops. As these pamphlets provide important information along with successful case studies in the local dialect, it is found to be very effective at individual and grass root level. Hence, such communication tools are relevant with respective to the project, project objectives, project area and situation specific. These pamphlets can also be used as wall posters at important locations. 6. Newsletters, Magazines and Manuals are found to be very effective. Projects on natural resource management and sustainable agriculture practices need to publish such type of newsletters/magazines/manuals regularly throughout the project period to keep the farmers knowledge abreast on the on going interventions in order to take suitable measures. 7. TV/Radio/Films: This tool has wider impact across the community with visual interpretation and immediate. As an effective and efficient communication tool this is good for the farmers. This can be adopted in villages for wider dissemination of relevant information. Institutional aspects 8. NGOs play a very important and crucial role of coordination with the donor and project partners, receiving funds from donor and distributing to the partners, reporting to the donor, reviewing the progress made by the PNGOs, preparation of annual plans and budget, conducting internal auditing and overall monitoring and evaluation of the project. 9. Agriculture Officers have an important role and their services are utilized for the training, capacity building and streamline the subsidies for the agricultural activities. 10. Synergy of projects: When there are more than two programmes under implementation, the dissemination of information has got additional impact if efforts are coordinated and supplemented. Capacity building for participatory groundwater management 11. Institutional set up of GMC and HUN: The BUAs set up under APWELL are hardly functional as they were merged into GMCs or Rythu Mitra Groups. The present institutional arrangement of GMC and HUN followed by APFAMGS does not include all groundwater users. The PHM effort tends to remain voluntary and staff driven. The sustainability of institutional arrangement proposed for PGM needs to be studied more carefully. 12. Community awareness and level of mobilization have got the impact towards the groundwater management systems. Awareness and mobilization should be continued and followed up till the community internalise the concepts and is able to apply at the CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 72 of 74
  • ground level. These awareness and mobilization activities should be carried out with the updated social and technical issues. 13. Communication tools, community awareness and situation specific issues make the community for effective decision making. This not only finds the solution for a problem, but also evolves a sustainable solution and makes the community to feel ownership. Such solutions through community decision making not only resolves but also makes the community to sustain the assets created and also binds towards the resolution, norms and procedures that are being adopted. 14. Community decision outcomes: Some of the key community decision outcomes are resolution towards water sharing, timing and pumping operation of the pumps and maintenance of the log books towards the water sharing. Overall, this decision making concept has resulted into enhanced awareness, knowledge and skills on agriculture, irrigation and water monitoring. This impact has been observed through their confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility recognition and self esteem. Sustaining impacts 15. Community decision impact: The decision making concepts will result in awareness towards the technical and social issues, development of knowledge and skills, ownership feeling and maintenance and managements of the assets and resources that are created. This decision making impact can be seen among the community towards confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility, recognition and self esteem. 16. Impact on livelihoods: Improvement in income and livelihoods, community mobilization, gender integration and the development of community based organizations are key areas focused for the improvement in the income and livelihoods of the community. However community expressed that if activities implemented during the APWELL project had continued, over exploitation and reduction in the yield would have been overcome. 17. Gender equity concerns: With women friendly venue, women friendly timings and inviting both wife and husband for trainings and meetings, it was stated that women participation was improved by 10%. 18. Involvement of women in different activities helps in mobilization and participation and also increases their level of awareness and leadership qualities. This also helps in the self esteem and confidence development. Scaling up of women participation through federations (like SHGs, WUGs and BUAs) in technical and social issues needs to be continued for the overall development. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 73 of 74
  • CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 74 of 74