Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

337 views

Published on

A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

  1. 1. A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
  2. 2. CBGWM Study Report ii A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN ANDHRA PRADESH By Action for Food Production (AFPRO) Field Unit 6, Hyderabad February 2007 Irrigation & Command Area Development Department Government of Andhra Pradesh
  3. 3. CBGWM Study Report iii Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... v AFPRO Study Team .........................................................................................vi Glossary......................................................................................................vii Executive Summary.........................................................................................ix Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 1. 1 Background and Rationale of the Study .............................................................. 1 1. 2 Structure of the Report ................................................................................. 2 Chapter 2 Objectives and Methodology of the Study ....................................................... 3 2. 1 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................. 3 2. 2 The Study Area............................................................................................ 3 2. 3 The Methodology of the Study ......................................................................... 9 Chapter 3 Groundwater Management in AP .................................................................12 3.1 Groundwater Contribution to the AP Economy .....................................................12 3.2 Agriculture and Groundwater Based Irrigation......................................................13 3.3 Groundwater Estimates, 2004-05......................................................................14 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP......................................................................15 3.5 APWELL Project...........................................................................................16 3.6 APFAMGS Project .........................................................................................23 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management ...........................................................26 Chapter 4 Objective Wise Presentation of Findings ........................................................28 4. 1 Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use .............................................................28 4. 2 Communication Strategy ...............................................................................38 4. 3 Community Awareness and Institution Development.............................................44 4. 4 Community Decision Making ...........................................................................47 4. 5 Improvement in Income and Livelihoods ............................................................49 Chapter 5 Lessons & Recommendations ......................................................................54 5. 1 Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP ............................................................54 5. 2 Recommendations for community based water management...................................59 5. 3 Summary of findings and recommendations ........................................................65 Annexes ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Tables Table 2. 1 Profile of 30 sample study villages................................................................ 4 Table 2. 2 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) ........................... 5 Table 2. 3 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology ................................. 5 Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04)...................13 Table 3. 2 Area irrigated under different sources in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05.......................13 Table 3. 3 Groundwater estimation and stage of development in AP, 2002...........................14 Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 .........................15 Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003).................................18 Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved ............................................................30 Table 4. 2 Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ................................................38 Table 4. 3 Communication media and tools used...........................................................39 Table 4. 4 Awareness & Communication tools impact .....................................................39
  4. 4. CBGWM Study Report iv Figures Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas ...................................................................... 6 Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones ..................... 7 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology .................................. 8 Figure 2. 4 Normal Rainfall Pattern: Observations from the nearest rain gauge station ............. 9 Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06)........................................12 Figure 4.1 Trends in groundwater development: Dug wells vs Borewells ..............................29 Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in ........................................................30 Figure 4.3 Irrigated area in acres per borewell.............................................................31 Figure 4.4 Factors Affecting Functioning of Borewells ....................................................33 Figure 4.5 Borewell Problems category wise ................................................................33 Figure 4.6 Sharing ratios of farmers per borewell..........................................................34 Figure 4.7 Land use percentage in 30 sample villages.....................................................35 Figure 4.8 Percentage of paddy grown per season .........................................................36 Figure 4.9 Percentage of farmers opting for not growing paddy ........................................36 Figure 4.10 Percentage of irrigated crops in 30 sample villages.........................................37 Figure 4.11Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ...............................................38 Figure 4. 12 Participation of women and men in meetings in APFAMGS villages .....................46 Figure 4.13 Decisions taken by community in APFAMGS Villages: Frequency of topics discussed .49 Figure 4. 14 Overall impact of the project interventions ................................................50 Figure 4. 15 Total Land value/Agriculture income ratio ..................................................52 Figure 4.16 Total income per annum/debt (cumulative) ratio...........................................53 Figure 4.17 Total asset value/debt (cumulative) ratio ....................................................53 Figure 5. 1 Traditional Community knowledge..............................................................61 Figure 5. 2 Community Knowledge with external factors .................................................62 Figure 5. 3 Community Knowledge developed through interventions...................................62 Figure 5. 4 Sustainable aspects of APWELL/APFAMGS Project ...........................................64 Figure 5. 5 Institutional options ...............................................................................65
  5. 5. CBGWM Study Report v Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mr. S. P. Tucker, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & Command Area Development (I & CAD) Department, and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, IFS, Special Commissioner, I & CAD for assigning this study to AFPRO and for their support and advice. Dr. Joseph Plakkoottam, Consultant, I & CAD provided coordination and constant guidance. We received crucial inputs from Dr. Sanjay Pahuja of the World Bank during the Study. Mr. B R Kishen, Mr. Suhas Raje and Dr. Pradeep Raj from the State Ground Water Department and Mr. P. Narendra, Consultant, I & CAD gave us valuable suggestions and information on groundwater. We are grateful to the State Ground Water Department for extending full cooperation during the field study. We are immensely grateful to Dr. P. Somasekhara Rao, FAO, Dr. K. A. S. Mani, Project Leader APFAMGS, Dr. T. N. Reddy of CARE-APFAMGS and Mr. C. Uday Shankar, CWS for their critical inputs. And thanks for the cooperation from the respective NGO field teams who facilitated the field visits. Finally we thank the participation of community members but for whose dedicated work on CBGWM this learning would not have been possible. Study Team Action for Food Production (AFPRO) Hyderabad
  6. 6. CBGWM Study Report vi Action for Food Production (AFPRO), Hyderabad AFPRO Study Team A Systematic Assessment of Community Based Groundwater Management Experiences in Andhra Pradesh Name Specialization 1. D. K. Manavalan, IAS (Retd.) Development Administration 2. K. Siva Prasad Social Institutions 3. Dilip Kumar Fouzdar Hydrogeology and Water Environment 4. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy, PhD Environmental and Earth Sciences (Lead Author & Coordinated the study team) 5. S. C. Jain Hydrogeology 6. M. Manjulatha Agriculture 7. B. Sridhar Reddy Geology 8. C. Siva Parvathi Rural Sociology 9. T. Katyayani Rural Sociology 10. V. Srilakshmi Agriculture 11. Y. Venkat Reddy Agriculture Geography 12. J. Seshadri Naidu Social Sciences 13. Y. Anand Water Resources Geography 14. Narsimha Computers (data entry)
  7. 7. CBGWM Study Report vii Glossary AF Agriculture Facilitator AFPRO Action for Food Production AO Agriculture Officer APDAI Andhra Pradesh Drought Adaptation & Impact APFAMGS Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Project APRLP Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme APSIDC Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited APT Agricultural Production Trainer APWELL Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Borewell Irrigation Schemes BCs Backward Caste BIRDS Bharati Integrated Rural Development Society (NGO) BUA Borewell Users Association CBGWM Community Based Groundwater Management CBO Community Based Organisation CBI Community Based Institution CMS Community Mobilisation Specialist CO Community Organiser CSO Civil Society Organization CWB Crop water budgeting DFC District Field Coordinator DoA Department of Agriculture DPAP Drought Prone Areas Programme DWMA District Water Management Agency EC Executive Committee EVA Environment viability assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FFS Farmers Field School FGD Focus group discussion FIRRs Financial Internal Rate of Returns GDO Gender Development Organiser GDP Gross Domestic Project GF Gender Facilitator GIDO Gender and Institutional Development Organiser GMC Groundwater Management Committee GMS Groundwater Management Systems GoAP Government of Andhra Pradesh GOI Government of India GP Gram Panchayat GPH Gallons per Hour GWD (AP) Ground Water Department, Andhra Pradesh HFs Hydrological Facilitators HU Hydrological Units HUN Hydrological Unit Network I & CAD Dept. Irrigation & Command Area Development Department ID Crop Irrigated dry crop IDF Institutional Development Facilitator IKP Indira Kranthi Patham IPM Integrated Pest Management
  8. 8. CBGWM Study Report viii ITDA Integrated Tribal Development Agency IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management MF Marginal Farmers NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NGRI National Geophysical Research Institute NRM Natural Resource Management OB Well Observation Borewell OE Over-exploited PHM Participatory Hydrological Monitoring PIT Project Implementation Team PM Project Management PNGO Partner Non Governmental Organisation PRI Panchayat Raj Institution PRM Participatory Rural Mapping RMG Rythu Mitra Group RNE Royal Netherlands Embassy Rs. Rupees S Safe SA Sustainable Agriculture SC Semi-Critical SC Schedule Caste SDP State Domestic Product SHG Self-help group SMIP Small and Medium Irrigation Projects ST Schedule Tribe ToR Terms of Reference VC Village Coordinator WB World Bank WDF Watershed Development Facilitator WDS Water Development Society WUG Water User Group
  9. 9. CBGWM Study Report ix Executive Summary A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN ANDHRA PRADESH The Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken up the revival and restoration of about 3000 minor irrigation projects in the State with World Bank assistance through the SMIP. This study would guide the GoAP on future policy, and in particular to build a stronger case for the Community Based Groundwater Management (CBGWM) component to be included in SMIP and APDAI. For this assessment a representative selection of 30 APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS villages are included to cover the range of main aquifer typologies and socio-agronomic situations. These villages represent seven districts where CBGWM projects were/are under way, viz., Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor, Kurnool and Prakasam, with normal annual rainfall ranging from less than 500 to 1097 mm. Methodology A multi-disciplinary study team carried out the data collection, analysis and report writing. First, a literature survey on CBGWM as it is emerging in AP in the context of the three projects -- APWELL, APFAMGS and Social regulation (by CWS) -- was carried out. 30 sample villages were selected according to the detailed methodology provided in the Terms of Reference. The sample included: 8 APWELL villages, 6 APWELL villages where APFAMGS has continued its activities including one where CWS is active, 10 Villages which were newly selected for APFAMGS activities, one CWS village, and 5 Control villages with substantial groundwater use but not under any groundwater management programme. Information from 15 groundwater users from each of the 30 villages was obtained to quantify important socio-economic parameters for the assessment of effectiveness of interventions. The study team also interviewed farmers as well as officials of various relevant departments of the GoAP. The study team members visited all the 30 villages and collected data in respect of communication and awareness strategy, community participation, water resources, water resources management, groundwater management by community, watershed implementation, agriculture, women, Community Based Organization (CBO), time line analysis, individual stakeholder formats and case studies. The information collected was quantitative, qualitative and descriptive. It is to be noted that APWELL, APFAMGS, CWS and Control villages were chosen for the study, although the project objectives / interventions / approaches were diverse. Moreover APFAMGS project is ongoing; it is too early to expect concrete results as in the case of APWELL project which was completed in 2003. This systematic study is to bring out the positive learnings and experiences rather than for comparison or evaluation of APFAMGS.
  10. 10. CBGWM Study Report x APWELL Project APWELL Project focused on small and marginal farmers including women farmers to increase their agricultural production through the provision of groundwater irrigation facilities. A total of 4,480 bore wells were drilled in the 7 districts (470 habitations) under the APWELL project. Of these, 3,462 were successful with yield above 1,500 gph, at 77 percent 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. The establishment costs and part of the cost of electricity infrastructure were borne by the GoI /GoAP. At the end of APWELL Project, the proposal made by the GoAP to upscale it could not materialize due to changes in bilateral project financing. Therefore, 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). APFAMGS Project APFAMGS Project works in partnership with groundwater dependent farmers. It empowers the farmers with knowledge and skills to monitor groundwater system and take up appropriate interventions towards its management. 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. 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
  11. 11. CBGWM Study Report xi  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 Social regulations in water management CWS has taken up social regulation in water management towards, water as a common property in two villages, viz., Madirepally and M.C. Thanda in Anantapur District. Important aspects of CBGWM projects Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM) and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB): Piloted in APWELL, PHM and CWB have been up scaled in all APFAMGS villages. Awareness on these two important concepts is being imparted during Farmer Field School (FFS), Groundwater Management Committee (GMC) and Hydrological Unit Network (HUN) meetings. CWS initiative in MC Thanda had been through watershed approach. It also created intensive awareness in the community on social regulations for discouraging over exploitation of groundwater resources through drilling excess number of borewells by individuals. It has helped community to understand other sustainable cropping practices with less water for irrigation and groundwater management systems. Community Awareness and Institution Development: 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. Gender Equity and Women’s Participation: 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. APFAMGS has continued to foster active participation of women in GMCs and HUN. Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP Enabling Strategies Convergence of social and technical elements: Delivery process dominated the APWELL strategy of programme implementation. 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 APWELL approach, viewed in the present context, appears transitional. Unambiguously it had created a strong ground for the APFAMGS interventions that followed. 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
  12. 12. CBGWM Study Report xii unit. 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. 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. 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 APFAMGS project with greater role for partner NGOs. 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 under the Societies Registration Act. Thus HUNs themselves could become NGOs. Communication strategies 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  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, APFAMGS, and CWS projects are contact, demonstration, outsourcing, and convergence. Contact strategy: The user is in direct contact of the resource persons provided by the NGOs as are seen in the APFAMGS 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 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. Demonstration Effects: The processes that are in place in the APFAMGS project are registering in the mind when people are actually writing the results of rainfall and water level monitoring on display boards. To demonstrate crop-water budgeting are having lasting effect on 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
  13. 13. CBGWM Study Report xiii 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 APFAMGS, the community is still quite motivated, while it is not very distinct in the villages where APWELL was the only factor. In APFAMGS 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. Water Rights Issues People may, with the level of understanding that has developed in the coverage areas of APWELL/APFAMGS 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. 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 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. CBGWM: 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 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. 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.
  14. 14. CBGWM Study Report xiv APCBTM Project is an ideal vehicle for introducing the concept of participatory groundwater management in tank influence areas. Replicable elements of the approach Both APWELL and APFAMGS 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. The village communities were offered intensive training and information 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. Will the GoAP consider entering into the same level of investments, infrastructural network, professional resource mobilisation, technological and professional multiplicity and involved methodologies? 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 are external. There has to be an exit policy specified while initiating the move to engage NGOs at the user community level actions. In summary Based on the studies taken up, it can be summarized that all the objectives aimed at by the respective projects have been successfully achieved. The communication strategies used in the study area such as Kalajatha, meetings, workshops, wall writings, pamphlets, newsletters, TV/films, radio, wall magazines NGOs and AOs have played a very crucial and important role so far and have the same future, too. These were instrumental in creating community awareness leading to successful working of WUGs. The findings of this study show that the concept of Participatory Groundwater Management (PHM and CWB) is very viable. The community decision making capacity has strengthened the villagers towards their health, wealth and prosperity. This has brought in a great improvement in the income and livelihoods of the villages. Another important finding of the present study is that gender equity has been achieved leading to women participation in all the activities in the sample villages.
  15. 15. 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 Groundwater Management Advisory Team (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 CBGW 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.
  16. 16. CBGWM Study Report 2 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.
  17. 17. CBGWM Study Report 3 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  1 Village where CWS has been implementing its “Social Regulations in Water Management” project; a second (MC Thanda) has been an APWELL-APFAMGS village
  18. 18. CBGWM Study Report 4  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 status GW typology 1 Anantapur APW Kalvapalli Beluguppa OE B S 2 Chittoor APW SS Puram K V B Puram OE B C 3 Chittoor APW Bandarlapalli Ramakuppam C B S 4 Kadapa APW Mudireddypalli Mydukur OE A OE 5 Kurnool APW Uyyalawada Orvakal OE A C 6 Mahbubnagar APW Kollampally Narayanpet SC A OE 7 Nalgonda APW Thimmaipalem Peddavoora SAFE B SC 8 Prakasam APW Regumanupalli Peddaraveedu OE A C 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 B S 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 B S 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 B S 21 Prakasam APF Vemulakota Markapur OE A C 22 Prakasam APF Akkapalli R Racherla OE B S 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 B S 27 Kurnool CONTROL Thammarajupalli Panyam OE A C 28 Mahbubnagar CONTROL Appanapally Mahabubnagar SC A OE 29 Nalgonda CONTROL Haliya Anumula SAFE B S 30 Anantapur CWS Madirepally Singanamala C B S
  19. 19. CBGWM Study Report 5 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 status APWELL APWELL+APF AMGS APFAMGS Control+ CWS Total 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 APFAMGS Control+CWS Total 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
  20. 20. CBGWM Study Report 6 Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas
  21. 21. CBGWM Study Report 7 Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones
  22. 22. CBGWM Study Report 8 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology
  23. 23. CBGWM Study Report 9 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 team 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. The study team also 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. 3 Respective District Hand Book of Statistics 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Sadasivapuram(APWELL) Muttalur(APFAMGS) SiddamurthyPalli(APFAMGS) R.PapiReddypalli(APWELL+APFAMGS) R.K.Puram(APWELL+APFAMGS) Nekunambad(APFAMGS) Mannanoor(APWELL+APFAMGS) Bandarlapalli(APWELL) Uppunuthala(APFAMGS) Taticherla(APWELL+APFAMGS) Dudiyathanda(APWELL+APFAMGS) Chinnakandukuru(APFAMGS) Ramnagar(APFAMGS) Buggaletipalli(CONTROL) Vemulakota(APFAMGS) Mudireddypalli(APWELL) Appanapalli(CONTROL) Regumanipalli(APWELL) Halia(CONTROL) Nariganipalli(APFAMGS) Thimmaipalem(APWELL) Thammarajupalli(CONTROL) Akkapalli(APFAMGS) M.C.Thanda(APWELL+APFAMGS+CWS) Kollampalli(APWELL) Yengilibanda(APFAMGS) Uyyalawada(APWELL) Madiraepalli(CWS) Hampapuram(CONTROL) Kalvapalli(APWELL) (inmm)
  24. 24. CBGWM Study Report 10 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. 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 formats4 included information on the following subjects covering quantitative, qualitative and descriptive aspects:  Communication and awareness strategy  Community participation  Water resources management  Ground water management by community  Watershed implementation  Agriculture  Women’s participation  Community Based Organization (CBO)  Time line analysis  Individual stakeholder formats  Case studies 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. 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 documents5 . 4 See Annex - 2, 3 and 4 formats used in the study
  25. 25. CBGWM Study Report 11  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. 5 The records/true copies of the APFAMGS/APWELL documents were accessed for this purpose during the field visit.
  26. 26. CBGWM Study Report 12 18083 14043 19337 17386 17339 18405 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AreainLakhHa. -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 Value(Rs.inCrores Surface Irri Area GW Area Surface Value GW Value Un irrigated Value Total Value Livestock 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) Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06)
  27. 27. CBGWM Study Report 13 Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04) Major Basin Area Developed (Lakh Ha) Actual Area * (2003-04) (Lakh Ha) Value (Rs. in Lakhs) (1998-99 Prices) Ground Water (1998-99 Prices) Minor** PR** Total Area Developed (ha) Actual 2003-04 (ha) Area * (2003-04) (lakh Ha) Values (2003- 04) (Rs. in 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. No Type of Crop Bore well Dug well Groundwater Surface water All sources (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 (1-5) 11.11 63.5 5.48 67.4 16.59 64.7 23.12 95.4 39.71 79.6 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
  28. 28. CBGWM Study Report 14 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 SL. NO Description Command Non- command Poor ground water quality area Total 1 Area considered for recharge in Sq.kms 56,018 1,92,092 (4114) 2,48,110 2 Net annual groundwater availability in MCM 14,964 17,794 (1307) 32,758 3 Current gross annual groundwater draft for all uses in MCM 3,330 11,525 (20.8) 14,855 4 Current gross annual groundwater draft for irrigation in MCM 3,026 10,716 - 13,742 5 Allocation for domestic and industrial needs in MCM 630 1,927 - 2,557 6 Net annual groundwater availability for future use in MCM 11,634 6,269 - 17,903 7 Stage of development (%) 22 65 - 45 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.
  29. 29. CBGWM Study Report 15 Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 Stage of development No of districts % of development Districts 1 Very high usage 7 >70% 1. Ranga Reddy 2. Hyderabad 3. Medak 4. Nizamabad 5. Anantapur 6. Kadapa 7. Chittoor 2 High usage 5 >50% to <70% 8. Warangal 9. Mahabubnagar 10. Prakasam 11. Karimnagar 12. Nalgonda 3 Moderate usage 6 >30% to <50%) 13. West Godavari 14. Nellore 15. Kurnool 16. Visakhapatnam 17. Adilabad 18. East Godavari 4 Low usage 5 <30% 19. Vizianagaram 20. Krishna 21. Khammam 22. Guntur 23. Srikakulam Source: Water Resource 2004-05: Andhra Pradesh, Ground Water Department, AP, 2005 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP6 About 80% of Andhra Pradesh is underlain by hard rock7 , 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 smallholdings8 , 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 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 6 The following discussion is based on Ben Witjes, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam, Farmer Managed Borewell Irrigation Systems. ARCADIS Euroconsult, 1999. 7 Mainly crystallines (like Granites, Peninsular Gneiss) which form the base rock and others like Cuddapah group, Kurnool group, basalts, laterites, etc. 8 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).
  30. 30. CBGWM Study Report 16 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-1980s. 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.9 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.10 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 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. 9 See Draft Andhra Pradesh Water Vision Volume 1, Chapter 2, Sectoral overview of water and water management. 10 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL Project): Project Document. NEWORC, February 1993.
  31. 31. CBGWM Study Report 17 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.11 In 1997, the position paper prepared for the Mid Term Review mission ,12 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!” The Mid Term Review mission13 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 11 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. 12 See “APWELL Positioned: Position Paper,” Euroconsult, May 1997. p.41 13 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL): Mid-term review mission report. Netherlands Economic Institute, 1997
  32. 32. CBGWM Study Report 18 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/GoAP14 . Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003) District Villages WUGs Total Families Av. Fam/ WUG Total ayacut (acres) Av. Ayacut per WUG (acre) Av. Ayacut per family (acre) Av. Yield (GPH) Av cost per borewell (Rs) Av. WUG contribu 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:  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. 14 For details on funding pattern, see APWELL Final Report. ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2003, Pp. 45-50.
  33. 33. CBGWM Study Report 19  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 Project15 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. 15 “Participatory groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh: Scope for Upscaling,” Joseph Plakkoottam and Jillilla Prasad, Development Management Network, 2006
  34. 34. CBGWM Study Report 20
  35. 35. CBGWM Study Report 21
  36. 36. CBGWM Study Report 22
  37. 37. CBGWM Study Report 23 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). 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 Photo 3.1 Community Raingauge set up under APWELL at Mudireddypalli: Still functioning
  38. 38. CBGWM Study Report 24 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.
  39. 39. CBGWM Study Report 25 Achievements of APFAMGS 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
  40. 40. CBGWM Study Report 26 Impact of APFAMGS Several impacts, on expected lines, are reported by the Project. These are:  Empowerment of community to collect, analyse and use data and knowledge related to water  Change in perception of groundwater as private property to that of a common good  Shift from cultivation of irrigated water intensive crops to less water intensive, rainfed crops  Reduced losses from irrigated crops and increased profits from rainfed or less water intensive cash crops  Reduced groundwater draft  Increased groundwater recharge  Reduced use of chemical inputs  Increased use of organic methods of farming  Reduced migration 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management16 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 Anantapur 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 disiltation 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 16 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
  41. 41. CBGWM Study Report 27 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.
  42. 42. CBGWM Study Report 28 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. The APFAMGS has not committed to make resources sustainable.
  43. 43. CBGWM Study Report 29 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1986 1996 2006 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1986 1996 2006 DUGWELLS BOREWELLS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1986 1996 2006 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 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.
  44. 44. CBGWM Study Report 30 seasonal All_time Not_Funct APF APW+APF Control APW Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved Drilling cost and Installation cost (drilling + pump+ motor + pipes) Rs. 30,000 – 80,000 Drilling cost of (successful borewell) recovery period (if on credit) 1-4 years Drilling cost alone Rs. 10,000 – 35,000 If failure recovery period for the drilling cost (if on credit) 3 – 10 years Groundwater Price Rs. 400-500 per wetting per acre (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. The percentage of borewell is seasonal and all the time is high under APFAMGS villages, this is because:  Minimum acreage under each borewell as compared to APWELL villages.  Percentage of gross cultivable area is less.  Incidentally, the selected APFAMGS sample villages are located in high rain fall areas. Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in sample villages
  45. 45. CBGWM Study Report 31 8.06 8.4 5.36 5.44 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 APW APW+APF APF CON Avg.no.ofacres 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 whose share water jointly decide the type of crop (Paddy/ID/Dry) to be sown based on potential risks. Increasing irrigated area APWELL and APFAMGS promote the concept of maximizing the irrigable area by bringing in efficient technologies (Micro irrigation), agronomic practices (Irrigated Dry crops, seed production, SRI paddy etc), trainings on water sharing and PHM. 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, because 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).
  46. 46. CBGWM Study Report 32 Note: The area shared under each borewell does not indicate the yield of borewells, although each borewell under APFAMGS could have the capacity to irrigate larger area, it is not possible because the sharing is exclusively individual /a group decision. PHM and Crop Water Budgeting PHM and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB), introduced by the APWELL, have 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. 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 ascending order: Rank Problem 1 Low Rain fall 2 Limited Hours of Power Supply (presently only 7 hours 3 Over exploitation of groundwater in the respective villages 4 Failure of pumping motors 5 Irregular timings of Power Supply 6 Low Voltage power supply 7 Insufficient recharge structures 8 Insufficiency of Water in the aquifers
  47. 47. CBGWM Study Report 33 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 lower problem (See Figure 4.4). Figure 4.4 Factors Affecting Functioning of Borewells Figure 4.5 Borewell Problems category wise 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 LowRainfall InsufficiencyofWater LackofRechargeStructures LowVoltage IrregulartimingsofPower Supply BWfailureandrepairs OverExploitation LimitedHoursofPowerSupply Borewell Water Usage Problems PercentageofWeightage APWELL APWELL+APFAMGS APFAMGS CONTROL LimitedHoursofPowerSupply LowVoltage IrregulartimingsofPowerSupply OverExploitation Motorsfailureandrepairs LackofRechargeStructures InsufficiencyofWater LowRainfall
  48. 48. CBGWM Study Report 34 3.57 3.66 1.59 1.95 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 APW APW+APF APF CON Avg.no.offarmers 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- 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 The number of farmers sharing groundwater is high in APWELL villages because of the project objective, i.e., a single borewell is given to a group of 3-8 small and marginal farmers. Each such borewell was designed to irrigate about 10 acres. In APFAMGS and Control villages it is the traditional practice of sharing behavior is prevalent among the farmers, where one farmer usually shares water with one more (See 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 share 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).
  49. 49. CBGWM Study Report 35 There are a couple of exceptional cases in the sample:  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. 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. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Bandarlapalli Sadasivapuram Regumanipalli Thimmaipalem Mudireddypalli Uyyalawada Kollampalli Kalvapalli R.K.Puram Dudiyathanda Mannanoor R.PapiReddypalli Taticherla M.C.Thanda Akkapalli Vemulakota Nariganipalli Ramnagar Muttalur Nekunambad Yengilibanda SiddamurthyPalli Chinnakandukuru Uppunthala Thammarajupalli Hampapuram Halia Buggaletipalli Madiraepalli Appanapalli APWELL APWELL+APFAMGS APFAMGS CONTROL FALLOW DRYLAND IRRIGATED
  50. 50. CBGWM Study Report 36 Farmers Percentage not opted for Paddy APW 25% APW+APF 23% APF 38% Control 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% APW APW+APF APF Con AveragePercentage Kharif Rabi Summer In groundwater usage Rabi and summer seasons are very critical. It is observed that the percentage of land irrigated in Rabi period in control villages is about 40 percent which is very high. This is because of the access to other irrigation sources like lift irrigation and canal irrigation (See Figure 4.8). 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 percentage of irrigated area under paddy is less during the critical 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 found that less than 5 percent of cultivated area was under paddy.17 Figure 4.9 Percentage of farmers opting for not growing paddy 17 APWELL Project: Impact Assessment 2001, ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2002.
  51. 51. CBGWM Study Report 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 APW(Kalvapalli) APW(S.S.P) APW(B.palli) APW(M.palli) APW(K.palli) APW(T.Palem) APW(U.wada) APW(R.Palli) APW+APF(Thaticherla) APW+APF(Mannanur) APW+APF(D.Thanda) APW+APF(R.K.P) APW+APF(R.P.Palli) APW+APF(MCtnda) APF(R.Nagar) APF(Muttalur) APF(V.Kota) APF(S.M.Palli) APF(N.Palli) APF(U.nuthala) APF(N.bad) APF(Akkapalli) APF(C.Kandukur) APF(Y.banda) CONTRL(A.Palli) CONTRL(Halia) CONTRL(Madirepalli) CONTRL(B.Palli) CONTRL(T.Palli) CONTRL(H.Puram) Paddy Ground nut Sunflower Chilli Horticulture 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). 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 the 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 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. It may be argued that paddy cultivation cannot be entirely stopped but can only be reduced and
  52. 52. CBGWM Study Report 38 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 - - 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 APWELL APWELL+APFAMGS APFAMGS CONTROL (inRs.) 95TH 75TH 50TH 25TH 5TH (in Percentile) 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. 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:
  53. 53. CBGWM Study Report 39 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 0.30.20.00.00.0Any other 1.01.00.71.01.0AO 0.31.01.01.01.0NGO 0.00.00.20.00.0Wall Magazines 0.00.10.30.00.0Radio 0.50.80.80.70.5TV/Films 0.51.00.70.50.3Newsletters/Magazines 0.21.00.71.01.0Pamphlets 0.31.01.01.01.0Wall writings 0.01.01.01.00.8Workshops 0.31.01.01.01.0Meetings 0.31.01.01.00.8 Local folks-Kalajatha (Street plays/drama, songs etc.) ConWSAPFAPWF_PoAPWF_PrAPW_Pr
  54. 54. CBGWM Study Report 40 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. The main topics of discussion revolve around Water management, Agriculture, Institutional development and Gender sensitization / participation are major contents. 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.

×