Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007


Published on

Community Based Ground Water Management Study, the study team was led by Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The APFAMGS villages stand out as high normal rainfall areas.
  • for broader understanding on the objectives and processes involved in the design and implementation of the respective projects.The
  • 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.
  • 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. In APFAMGS and control villages, average irrigated area under each borewell is 5.5 acres. This is because: No. of farmers are relatively less under each borewell There is no role for APFAMGS in the individual/group of farmers’ decision when they are going for a new borewell No infrastructure is provided under APFAMGS project (except select water harvesting structures) 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • the percentage of the improvement in income and livelihoods with respect to social and agricultural aspects. This has been analyzed by taking the weightages as poor, good, very good and excellent on a scale varying from 1 to 4. These weightages have been derived as percentage improvement for each project villages namely APWELL (8), APWELL+APFAMGS (5), APFAMGS (10), APWELL+APFAMGS + CWS (1), CWS (1) and control (5). More or less the percentage improvement in APWELL, CWS and control villages is found sustenance towards the income and livelihoods (though the project is completed) as against the APFAMGS. However, it is observed that in APFAMGS villages the percentage improvement to some extent in the following areas such as enhancement of natural resources, sustainable use of natural resources, understanding groundwater resources, cropping pattern and empowerment of women. Therefore, the percentage of income and livelihoods in APFAMGS villages can be assessed exactly after the completion of the project (As the project is ongoing), keeping in view of the sustainability aspects.
  • It is however to be borne in mind that APFAMGS project is in its mid-phase hence the impressive outlook may, to some extent, be attributed to the presence of the resource persons. It is premature to comment about the aspects of sustained operation, maintenance and rehabilitation. In all the villages that were visited, the convergence factors induced under the concerned projects have created a positive learning environment.
  • Community Knowledge and Skills This is vested upon individuals and hence community benefits if the knowledge and skill is built within the confines of the village. There are always people to back up under such situations. Back up is an essential element for sustained community based operation and maintenance needs (See Figure 5.1).
  • Community Empowerment through CBOs As products of various community based interventions such as APFMIS Act, APWELL, APRLP, Velugu, and APFAMGS a number of CBOs have emerged at the village level. These often have overlapping membership and leadership. These CBOs can be mobilized into a single village level organization with framed Bye-laws defining legal status vis-à-vis Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha. It can have formal or informal institutional linkage with the line departments under the district administration or PRI. As a matter of strategy, the agencies of the government providing resources in the form of funds, materials, assets, knowledge or disciplines act as facilitators that may be differentiated from ‘implementers’ or ‘providers’. The line departments may take the role of trouble- shooters and trainers in the field of developing village level monitoring of climatic parameters, ground and surface water quantity and quality, aspects of seed, fertilizer, pesticides bio-fertilizer and pesticides, agro-markets and a variety of relevant matters (See Figures 5.4 & 5.5).
  • Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007

    2. 2. Study steps <ul><li>A literature survey on CBGWM as it is emerging in AP, in the context of three projects, APWELL, APFAMGS http://apfamgs.org/ and CWS http://cwsy.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>Visits to 30 sample villages selected according to the detailed methodology provided in the ToR </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Interviewing farmers and officials of various relevant departments of the GoAP </li></ul>
    3. 3. Structure of Presentation <ul><li>Background and rationale of the study . </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives and methodology of the study . </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of the groundwater development and management scenario in AP with special focus on the projects being studied. </li></ul><ul><li>Findings of the study according to the two main objectives and sub-objectives. </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of the findings and recommendations. </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>Background and rationale of the study . Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>GoAP has taken up the revival and restoration of about 3000 minor irrigation projects in the State with World Bank assistance through the SMIP. </li></ul><ul><li>It is proposed to include CBGWM as a sub-component of this project. </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson learning from APWELL, APFAMGS projects and CWS initiatives for contributing to their sustainability. </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment could inform the APDAI pilots on CBGW management options. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Background and Rationale of the Study <ul><li>A systematic assessment of CBGWM interventions in APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS projects was 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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    6. 6. 2. Objectives and methodology of the study . OBJECTIVE - 1 <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    7. 7. OBJECTIVE - 2 <ul><li>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: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevance of communication strategy regarding realistic approaches to GW management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community awareness and level of community mobilization achieved with regards to groundwater management issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community decision making and collective action achieved towards sustainable groundwater management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvement in income and livelihoods of the farmers involved, as a result of the above. </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Project Districts Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Kurnool Prakasam Cuddapah Ananthapur Chittoor
    9. 9. Introduction <ul><li>Study area covers semi-arid / arid parts of seven districts in AP. </li></ul><ul><li>Geographical identities of the seven districts is : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 – Telangana, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 – Rayalaseema </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and 1 – Coastal AP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8 Villages - APWELL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6 Villages - APWELL and APFAMGS has continued its activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 Villages - newly selected for APFAMGS activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 Village - CWS has been implementing its “Social Regulations in Water Management” project; a second (MC Thanda) has been an APWELL-APFAMGS village </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 Control villages with substantial groundwater use but not under any groundwater management programme </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Location Map of Study Areas
    11. 11. Study Villages OE – Over Exploited, SC – Semi-Critical, C – Critical, S-Safe # 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-CWS M C Thanda Tanakallu SAFE A SC 15 Anantapur APF Yengilibanda Gooty OE B S
    12. 12. Study Villages (cont…) OE – Over Exploited, SC – Semi-Critical, C – Critical, S-Safe # District Project category Village Mandal GW status GW typology 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
    13. 13. Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the Agro-climatic zones
    14. 14. Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology
    15. 15. Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) Groundwater status APWELL APWELL+APFAMGS APFAMGS Control 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
    16. 16. Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology Groundwater typology APWELL APWELL+ APFAMGS APFAMGS Control 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
    18. 18. The Methodology of the Study <ul><li>Discussions with key professionals involved in APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS (Social Regulation) projects </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction with officers and consultants of the State I&CAD and the Ground Water Department both at Hyderabad and at the District level. </li></ul><ul><li>During the field visits the team had discussions with the staff of APFAMGS and its partner NGOs. </li></ul>
    19. 19. The Methodology of the Study <ul><li>Field visits - 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). </li></ul><ul><li>Officers of the Ground Water department accompanied the team to some of the villages. </li></ul><ul><li>The study was done in two phases from 19 Sep to 16 Nov 2006. On an average two days were spent in each village. </li></ul>
    20. 20. Data collection <ul><li>The topics covered in the data collection formats included information on the following subjects covering quantitative, qualitative and descriptive aspects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication and awareness strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water resources management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ground water management by community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Watershed implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Women’s participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community Based Organization (CBO) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time line analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual stakeholder formats (15 nos in each village) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case studies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data collection formats used in the study. </li></ul>
    21. 21. 3. Overview of the groundwater development and management scenario in AP with special focus on the projects being studied. APSIDC <ul><li>A State Government undertaking existing since 1974. </li></ul><ul><li>The objective is construction of Lift 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, SCs and STs in upland and drought prone areas to raise their socio– economic status. </li></ul><ul><li>So far, APSIDC has commissioned 20,040 Ground water schemes creating an irrigation potential of 334,800 acres at a cost of Rs. 244 crores. </li></ul>
    22. 22. APWELL Project <ul><li>A total of 4,480 bore wells were drilled in the 7 districts (470 habitations) under the APWELL project. </li></ul><ul><li>3,462 were successful with yield above 1,500 gph, at 77percent success rate </li></ul><ul><li>In the 15 APWELL villages selected for this study, 329 of the 393 wells drilled under the project were successful (84%). </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The establishment costs and part of the cost of electricity infrastructure were borne by the GoI/GoAP. </li></ul>
    23. 23. The implementation process followed by the APWELL Project <ul><li>The intense community organization efforts to form and nurture Water User Groups (WUGs) </li></ul><ul><li>Compulsory inclusion of women as members of WUGs and forming self help groups. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The WUGs contributed 15% of the cost (excluding administrative charges). This ensured greater sense of ownership among the WUGs. </li></ul><ul><li>Every member of the WUG was given a pipe outlet on his/her land, assuring equity in water distribution and reducing water conveyance loss. </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive capacity building through training, exposure visits, and demonstrations assured quick adoption of sustainable water management and agricultural practices. </li></ul>
    24. 24. The main lessons from the APWELL Project may be summarised as follows: <ul><li>Access to water by small and marginal farmers improves their productivity and they rise above poverty line. </li></ul><ul><li>Enhancing productivity of land and water requires substantial inputs in terms of financial and capacity building inputs. </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory groundwater management is a viable concept if introduced in conjunction with groundwater development, agricultural production, institutional development, and capacity building of farming communities. </li></ul><ul><li>All stakeholders and water users need to be involved in participatory groundwater management. </li></ul><ul><li>Government and non-government agencies need to work in collaboration for achieving sustainable results in participatory groundwater management. </li></ul><ul><li>Role of facilitating agencies should not stop at the end of a project. Post project support is essential for sustainability of any promising intervention. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    25. 25. APWELL and beyond <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul>
    26. 26. APFAMGS Project <ul><li>The objectives of the APFAMGS Project are to: </li></ul><ul><li>Create a band of skilled human resources to take up task of groundwater management </li></ul><ul><li>Make farmers vigilant to groundwater dynamics and consequences of over exploitation </li></ul><ul><li>Share concerns of farmers affected by ground water over exploitation and ensure appropriate remedial action </li></ul><ul><li>Extend popular concept of participatory management of water resources to groundwater users </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalize community management of groundwater for dealing with issues related to sustainable groundwater management </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate formation of Groundwater Management Committees (GMC) made up of well owners to monitor groundwater levels, rainfall and discharge. </li></ul><ul><li>Promote Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) as a tool to empower farmers for deciding appropriate crop system matching the available groundwater. </li></ul><ul><li>Adopt Farmers Field School (FFS) approach for promoting eco friendly farming system </li></ul><ul><li>Empower community to take up appropriate initiatives in groundwater recharge measures. </li></ul>
    27. 27. Project Activities <ul><li>The APFAMGS Project has developed a comprehensive sequence of activities to achieve the objectives. These are </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of community approaches towards observing rainfall trends, this is done through daily rainfall measurement and recording it systematically </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring of wells (yield and water levels) properly in the identified wells across the village </li></ul><ul><li>Crop water budgeting (CWB) promoted through water balance studies on the specific micro-watersheds </li></ul><ul><li>Daily Rainfall monitoring with rain gauge devices installed in Hydrological Units (HU) </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Display boards to record rainfall and water level trends in a bid to communicate among the entire village </li></ul><ul><li>Process documentation, Recording minutes of meetings and other organizational tasks. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Achievements of APFAMGS <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>More specific achievements reported are: </li></ul><ul><li>6,882 men and women farmers in a position to understand groundwater systems </li></ul><ul><li>7,029 farm families enabled for adoption of alternative agricultural practices suiting the availability of groundwater </li></ul><ul><li>574 community based institutions established for alternative management of groundwater resources with equal representation and participation of women and men covering 650 habitations. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    29. 29. IMPACTS OF THE APFAMGS PROJECT <ul><li>Empowerment of community to collect, analyse and use data and knowledge related to water </li></ul><ul><li>Change in perception of groundwater as private property to that of a common good </li></ul><ul><li>Shift from cultivation of irrigated water intensive crops to less water intensive, rainfed crops </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced losses from irrigated crops and increased profits from rainfed or less water intensive cash crops </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced groundwater draft </li></ul><ul><li>Increased groundwater recharge </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced use of chemical inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Increased use of organic methods of farming </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced migration </li></ul>
    30. 30. 4. Findings of the study according to the two main objectives and sub-objectives. Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use DUGWELLS BOREWELS
    31. 31. Cost of Groundwater Development 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 yrs. Ground Water Price Rs. 400-500 per wetting (Avg. one crop cost of irrigation Rs. 3000 – 4000 per acre for 7 to 8 wettings) Identification of potential Drilling sites Water Diviners (90%)
    32. 32. Functioning of Borewells (%AGE)
    33. 33. Borewell yields and average ayacut IRRIGATED AREA IN ACRES UNDER EACH BOREWELL (30 VILL)
    34. 34. PHM and Crop Water Budgeting <ul><li>PHM and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB), introduced by the APWELL, has been up scaled in all APFAMGS villages. </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness on these two important concepts are being imparted during FFS, GMC and HUN meetings. </li></ul><ul><li>CWS initiative in MC Thanda had been through watershed approach. 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. It has helped community to understand other sustainable cropping practices with less water for irrigation and groundwater management systems. </li></ul>
    35. 35. Problems and constraints of groundwater use
    36. 36. Problems and constraints of groundwater use
    38. 38. Land use intensity
    40. 40. Farmers not opted for Paddy
    41. 41. CROPPING PATTERN Avg. Paddy Line
    42. 42. Income per acre of gross irrigated land 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 - -
    43. 43. AWARENESS & COMMUNICATION TOOLS IMPACT   APWELL APWELL + APFAMGS (During APWELL) APWELL + APFAMGS (Current) APFAMGS CONTROL Kalajatha 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Meetings 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Workshops 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Wallwritings 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 Pamplets 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 Newsletters/Magazines 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.5 TV/Films 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 Radio 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 WallMagazines 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 NGO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 AO 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 Anyother 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3
    44. 44. Community Awareness and Institution Development <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    45. 45. Gender Equity and Women’s Participation <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Participation of women in BUAs was found to be about 30 percent . </li></ul>
    46. 46. Women and Men Participation in Meetings (APFAMGS)
    47. 47. Community Decision Making (APFAMGS) – Frequency of topics discussed
    51. 51. Overall impact of the project interventions
    52. 52. Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP Enabling Strategies <ul><li>Convergence of social and technical elements in the delivery process dominated the APWELL strategy of programme implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    53. 53. Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP Enabling Strategies <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The APWELL approach , viewed from the present context, appears transitional. Unambiguously it had created a strong ground for the APFAMGS interventions that followed. </li></ul>
    54. 54. Groundwater Sharing <ul><li>APWELL Project, through the strategy of providing group irrigation systems to small and marginal farmers provided access to the economically weaker sections to their share of the precious groundwater resource in a hydrological unit. </li></ul>
    55. 55. Groundwater Sharing <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The provision of free power by the AP government could be linked to encouraging water sharing. </li></ul>
    56. 56. Involvement of NGOs <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The institutional sustainability of groundwater management institutions is being linked to the continuing influence of local NGOs. The Hydrological Unit Networks (HUN) are proposed to be registered as Societies under the Societies Registration Act. Thus HUNs themselves become NGOs. </li></ul>
    57. 57. Elements of Communication <ul><li>The communication elements used in the APWELL and APFAMGS Projects are: </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers gaining adequate knowledge on the system of groundwater resources -– rainfall, ponds, wells, springs, soil moisture, humidity and their cyclic dynamics. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    58. 58. Elements of Communication <ul><li>Matters related to organizational development that includes building of institutions at the user’s level for the beneficial sustained use of the water assets. </li></ul><ul><li>The important communication strategies adopted by the APWELL, APFAMGS, CWS projects are contact, demonstration, outsourcing and convergence . </li></ul>
    59. 59. Contact strategy <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>It is now penetrating deeper into the areas of change in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>water levels with time and volume of irrigation, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>crop-water relationship and its application in making crop choices, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the mechanism of groundwater recharge and its relationship with rainfall </li></ul></ul>
    60. 60. Demonstration Effects <ul><li>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 . </li></ul><ul><li>To demonstrate crop-water budgeting are having lasting effect on the user. </li></ul>
    61. 61. Outsourcing <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The activities are carried out in a desirable multidisciplinary environment through a mode, which is comfortable and acceptable to the community. </li></ul>
    62. 62. Convergence <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    63. 63. Water Rights Issue <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>In APFAMGS villages there are strong indications that farmers with large land holdings are taking interest in WUA and a good number of them are the members of GMC and HUN. This could be beneficial provided the interests of all the stakeholders including marginal and small farmers, the landless, and the women are taken into account. </li></ul>
    64. 64. Water Rights Issue <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    65. 65. 5. Summary of the findings and recommendations. Recommendations for community based water management Groundwater - Surface Water integration towards IWRM <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    66. 66. Water balance issue <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>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 . </li></ul><ul><li>APCBTM Project is an ideal vehicle for introducing the concept of participatory groundwater management in tank influence areas. </li></ul>
    67. 67. Replicable elements of the approach <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>The village communities, were offered intensive training and information relation to both rainfall and actual irrigation water in quantitative terms. </li></ul>
    68. 68. Replicable elements of the approach <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Will the GoAP consider entering into the same level of investments , infrastructural network, professional resource mobilisation, technological and professional multiplicity and involved methodologies? </li></ul>
    69. 69. Rainfall pattern + Soil moisture + Irrigation (Dug wells and ponds) + Dryland crops with shift in choices + Water availability - > Cropping pattern Domestic water Less dependence on Government for water / weather issues TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE Rainfall Erratic, yet coping mechanisms at work Ground Water Trends as observed from dug wells and tanks Household area Community area Tank management by community Drinking water OBSERVATIONS Sustainability
    70. 70. COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE WITH EXTERNAL FACTORS Rainfall – erratic with damaged coping mechanisms Ground Water Trends not easily known from borewells Wider Choice of Crops Support for Subsidies – seed, fertilizers Electricity connection Cheaper Ground water technology Rich Richer Poor Poorer More water for land with money Household area Community area Tanks Dry or tending dry With land and money - increased water availability External Factor OBSERVATIONS Farmers Committing Suicide (reduced in the recent past) Sustainability
    71. 71. Rainfall pattern + Soil moisture + Water availability - > Cropping pattern Water Resources enhancement through convergence of schemes Community Organization and Institution building Addressing Gender SF & MF Priority Rainfall -> Measurement Ground Water Trends observed from Borewells HH area Community area COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPED THROUGH INTERVENTIONS OBSERVATIONS
    72. 72. Land Pattern Geology / Soils / Moisture / Water / Rainfall / Climate Cropping Pattern Land use - Village level Knowledge Social fabric and strength Self-reliant Skills, Agriculture Horticulture Livestock culture Macro and Micro – Policy matters, Democratic strength, Financial, micro-finance traditions, Infrastructural, Institutional SUSTAINABILE ASPECTS OF APWELL / APFAMGS PROJECT FACTORS NATURAL / ENVIRONMENTAL HUMAN / SOCIAL FINANCIAL / PHYSICAL Findings of the study
    73. 73. Jul 11, 2011 Financial Matters Professional support from line departments Technical Matters Village Level COMMUNITY BASED WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Recognized Through a proper Legal instrument By the GP Professional support from open market PRI CSOs Line Departments Managerial matters MONITORING Institutional Option (The CBO can be linked with standing govt. institutions) MAIN POLICIES [APWALTA] Autonomous: Within the framed legal status at village level Local decisions on 1. Operational Issues 2. Maintenance 3. Framing rules for water distribution (sharing)
    74. 74. Utilization of NGO Manpower <ul><li>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. T here has to be an exit policy specified while initiating the move to engage NGOs at the user community level actions. </li></ul>
    75. 75. Summary of findings and recommendations Communication strategies and tools <ul><li>Kalajatha is found to be an effective communication medium in rural areas. This communication tool provides awareness with more clarity and is understandable by the entire community. </li></ul><ul><li>Meetings play an important role in gathering the community for resolving issues and problems in a participatory manner for suitable and sustainable solutions. Once such resolutions and strategies are evolved, decision making, implementation and the follow up is effective. </li></ul>
    76. 76. Communication strategies and tools <ul><li>Workshops are another mechanism for smooth implementation of the projects in discussion and to review the progress of the project and for chalking out future strategies. Well organised workshops with proper documentation are vital for effective project management . </li></ul>
    77. 77. Communication strategies and tools <ul><li>Wall writings and display boards : The viewer response to these boards is excellent. They became places where farmers and others occasionally gather and discuss various groundwater related issues. This tool has continuous awareness impact. </li></ul><ul><li>Pamphlets: The main contents in the pamphlet “Neelamuchchata” (APFAMGS) covered issues of social regulations and case studies about water sharing, water equity, types of sustainable crops and case studies in the local dialect, it is found to be very effective at individual and grass root level. </li></ul>
    78. 78. Communication strategies and tools <ul><li>Newsletters, Magazines and Manuals are found to be very effective. Projects on natural resource management and sustainable agriculture practices need to publish such type of newsletters/magazines/manuals regularly throughout the project period to keep the farmers knowledge abreast on the on going interventions in order to take suitable measures. </li></ul><ul><li>TV/Radio/Films : This tool has wider impact across the community with visual interpretation and immediate. As an effective and efficient communication tool this is good for the farmers. This can be adopted in villages for wider dissemination of relevant information. </li></ul>
    79. 79. Institutional aspects <ul><li>NGOs play a very important and crucial role of coordination with the donor and project partners., </li></ul><ul><ul><li>receiving funds from donor and distributing to the partners, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reporting to the donor, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reviewing the progress made by the PNGOs, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preparation of annual plans and budget, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>conducting internal auditing and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>overall monitoring and evaluation of the project. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Agriculture Officers have an important role and their services are utilized for the training, capacity building and streamline the subsidies for the agricultural activities. </li></ul>
    80. 80. Capacity building for participatory groundwater management <ul><li>Synergy of projects: When there are more than two programmes under implementation, the dissemination of information has got additional impact if efforts are coordinated and supplemented. </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional set up of GMC and HUN: The BUAs set up under APWELL are hardly functional as they were merged into GMCs or Rythu Mitra Groups . The present institutional arrangement of GMC and HUN followed by APFAMGS does not include all groundwater users. The PHM effort tends to remain voluntary and staff driven. The sustainability of institutional arrangement proposed for PGM needs to be studied more carefully. </li></ul>
    81. 81. Capacity building for participatory groundwater management <ul><li>Community awareness and level of mobilization have got the impact towards the groundwater management systems. These awareness and mobilization activities should be carried out with the updated social and technical issues. </li></ul><ul><li>Communication tools , community awareness and situation specific issues make the community for effective decision making. A sustainable solution and makes the community to feel ownership. It resolves but also makes the community to sustain the assets created and also binds towards the resolution, norms and procedures that are being adopted. </li></ul>
    82. 82. Capacity building for participatory groundwater management <ul><li>Community decision outcomes: Some of the key community decision outcomes are resolution towards water sharing, timing and pumping operation of the pumps and maintenance of the log books towards the water sharing . This impact has been observed through their confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility recognition and self esteem. </li></ul>
    83. 83. Sustaining impacts <ul><li>Community decision impact : The decision making concepts will result in awareness towards the technical and social issues, development of knowledge and skills, ownership feeling and maintenance and managements of the assets and resources that are created. This decision making impact can be seen among the community towards confidence, articulation, economic independence, mobility, recognition and self esteem. </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on livelihoods : Improvement in income and livelihoods, community mobilization, gender integration and the development of community based organizations are key areas focused for the improvement in the income and livelihoods of the community. </li></ul>
    84. 84. Sustaining impacts <ul><li>Gender equity concerns: There is good participation of women. </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement of women in different activities helps in mobilization and participation and also increases their level of awareness and leadership qualities. Scaling up of women participation through federations (like SHGs, WUGs and BUAs) in technical and social issues needs to be continued for the overall development. </li></ul>