dewas rainwater harvesting impacts

G

A

Eh

Ra

b

c

a

AA

KDIIIS

1

mf(dpha

(tadfviie22v

m

0h

ARTICLE IN PRESS Model

GWAT-3705; No. of Pages 8

Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

j ourna l h omepage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /agwat

xamining farm-level perceptions, costs, and benefits of small waterarvesting structures in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh

.P.S. Malika,∗, Meredith Giordanob, Vivek Sharmac

International Water Management Institute, 2nd Floor, CG Block C, NASC Complex, DPS Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 110012, IndiaInternational Water Management Institute, P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri LankaCentre for Advanced Research and Development, H II/195, Arvind Vihar, Baghmugallia, Madhya Pradesh, India

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:vailable online xxx

eywords:ecentralized

a b s t r a c t

A recent initiative in Madhya Pradesh, India to promote privately funded, rainwater harvesting structureson farmers’ own land has shown substantial economic and livelihood benefits. In contrast to the manypoorly functioning, community managed rainwater harvesting programs, the individual or decentralizedrainwater harvesting structures have led to significant improvements in availability of irrigation water, a

ndianvestmentrrigationmallholders

revival of the agricultural economy of the region, and substantial increases in farmer incomes and liveli-hoods. Since 2006, more than 6000 farmers in the state have invested in on-farm ponds. The investmentsare highly cost effective and farmers are able to recover their initial investment in approximately 3 years.While longer-terms impact studies are needed, this initial assessment suggests that on-farm rainwaterharvesting ponds are a promising private small irrigation option in Madhya Pradesh and similar regions
in India and elsewhere.
. Introduction

India has a long tradition of harvesting rainwater, dating backore than two millennia. Evidence of this tradition has been

ound in ancient texts, inscriptions and archeological remainshttp://www.gits4u.com/water/water6.htm). While the traditioniminished considerably in the early part of the 20th century due, inart, to an emphasis on large scale irrigation projects, the practiceas experienced a revival recently for a variety of reasons (Agarwalnd Narian, 1997).

In a country with more than 86 million ha of rainfed agricultureSharma et al., 2008), rainwater harvesting offers supplemen-ary irrigation as well as protection against climate variability. Itlso offers additional options for farmers, who were previouslyependent on groundwater resources and now are experiencingast declining water tables due to overexploitation. Rainwater har-esting is gaining favor as a positive alternative to costly large-scalerrigation infrastructure projects, particularly in light of grow-ng opposition to the impacts of these large structures on India’snvironmental, ecological and social landscapes (Rangachari et al.,

Please cite this article in press as: Malik, R.P.S., et al., Examining farm-levelin Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Agric. Water Manage. (2013), http://dx.doi.org

000; Briscoe and Malik, 2006; Shah, 2013). As a result, the last decades have witnessed a significant increase in rainwater har-esting efforts, albeit in ways that are markedly different from their

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 25840811/25840812, fax: +91 11 25842075.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.P.S. Malik),

[email protected] (M. Giordano), card [email protected] (V. Sharma).

378-3774/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

traditional prototypes, in terms of the context and purpose (Kumaret al., 2008).

Most past efforts in rainwater harvesting have been initiatedby the government, although communities, and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) have been important stakeholders. Govern-ment support for the structures has come through direct rainwaterharvesting programs or through complementary investments inwatershed development (e.g., India’s Integrated Watershed Devel-opment Program), micro-watersheds, check dams, small tankrevival, and groundwater recharge. With the support of nationaland state governments, rainwater harvesting structures are gen-erally built on communal land, and, ultimately, are collectivelymanaged through the formation of local water user groups in aneffort to promote efficient management of the structures and equi-table allocation of the resource.

While community management is often promoted as a meansto improve resource productivity, the model has been a source ofmany failed institutional interventions in India, including partic-ipatory irrigation management (PIM) and irrigation managementtransfer (IMT) (Shah, 2007). A review of the IMT/PIM literaturesuggests that community management of natural resources doesnot always produce the desired results of greater participation orempowerment of stakeholders, nor has such devolution always ledto better management, more equitable access to water resources, or

perceptions, costs, and benefits of small water harvesting structures/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

improved sustainability of the structures or the resource itself (FAO,2007; Vermillion et al., 1999; Meinzen-Dick, 1997). Mukherji et al.(2009) examine 108 cases of IMT/PIM in public irrigation systemsin India and other parts of Asia. The authors find that successful

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783774

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

http://www.gits4u.com/water/water6.htm

mailto:[email protected]



dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

IN PRESSG Model

A

2 ater Management xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

cwfte

asoiotalho

fpt

hw2dl

higefmifw

2

aiSidoc

vaif(rlb

ttIwatah

Table 1Number of farming households in the survey, conducted in Dewas, Madhya Pradeshin August 2010.

Block Adopterhouseholds

Non-adopterhouseholds

Total samplesize

Khategaon 45 14 59 (6)Tonkkhurd 45 16 61 (8)Total 90 30 120 (14)

ARTICLEGWAT-3705; No. of Pages 8

R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural W

ases of IMT/PIM occur only under a set of context specific factors,hich are either impossible to replicate, or very costly and there-

ore, impractical to replicate elsewhere. The authors conclude thatransferring irrigation systems to communities does not necessarilynsure better management of such systems (Mukherji et al., 2009).

Outcomes from watershed development programs in India,nd community managed rainwater harvesting in particular, showimilarly mixed results with unsuccessful projects significantlyutnumbering successful ones (Sharma, 2009). One of the mostntractable problems in watershed development has been the lackf sustainability. Many projects fail to include strategies to main-ain communal assets once project support ends (Sharma, 2009),nd farmers often view the benefits as short-term, through paidabor for construction (Joy, 2003). As a result, communities oftenave little interest in the longer-term operation and maintenancef project assets.

Individual control over available water, by contrast, can enable aarmer to better plan agricultural operations, more efficiently androductively use the water resources, and to maintain the struc-ures for long-term use (Takeshima et al., 2010; Molle et al., 2003).

A limited number of efforts at constructing private rainwaterarvesting structures have been initiated in several parts of Indiaith encouraging results (see for example Jana, 2011; Banerjee,

011; Pangare and Karmakar, 2003). This approach emphasizesecentralized water harvesting structures built on farmers’ ownand with farmers’ own resources.

In this paper, we analyze the experience in Dewas district, Mad-ya Pradesh, where there has been significant farmer investment

n on-farm ponds since 2006, following precipitous declines inroundwater levels and, consequently, agricultural production. Wexamine the impacts of the ponds on crop production and otherarmer-reported changes to the region’s agricultural and environ-

ental landscape. We also present a benefit–cost analysis of farmernvestments in the structures, together with considerations forurther replication of the approach in other parts of India and else-here.

. Methodology and data

We formulated this case study following an initial scoping studynd stakeholder survey in Madhya Pradesh to identify promis-ng, existing small scale agricultural water management practices.everal practices were highlighted through this process, includ-ng the significant private investment in on-farm ponds in Dewasistrict, Madhya Pradesh. Following initial interviews with districtfficials, non-governmental agencies and farmers, we selected thisase study as one of several for further analysis.1

We collected detailed primary data through personal inter-iews in August 2010 using a customized, structured questionnairedministered based on a random sample of 90 farmers who havenvested in decentralized rainwater harvesting structures (adopterarmers) and 30 farmers who have not invested in such structuresnon-adopter farmers). The sample was drawn using a stratified


andom sampling scheme from areas characterized by 2 major geo-ogical conditions—hard rock aquifers prevailing in the Tonkkhurdlock, and soft rock aquifers interspersed with areas of hard rock

1 This study was carried out as part of a larger project examining the oppor-unities and constraints of small scale agricultural water management (AWM)echnologies in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia, and in thendian states of Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. The AgWater Solutions Project

as a 3-year, multi-institution project aimed to identify investment optionsnd opportunities in agricultural water management with the greatest potentialo improve incomes and food security for poor farmers. For more informationbout the AgWater Solutions Project and the case studies in Madhya Pradesh seettp://www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org/home-page.aspx?reload.

Note: Figures in parentheses denote the number of villages from which the sampledhouseholds were drawn.

prevailing in the Khategaon block of Dewas district.2 For sampling,blocks formed the first stage unit, villages within blocks the sec-ond stage unit, and farmer households the final unit of sampling.The selected sample was spread over 6 villages in Khategaon blockand 8 villages in Tonkkhurd block. Assessing the structures andtheir benefits and costs in these 2 contrasting geological conditionswas deemed important as the time, effort and cost required to con-struct the water harvesting structure is likely to be higher in areasunderlain with hard rock than in soft rock conditions (Table 1).

We assessed the impacts on cropping intensity, cropping pat-terns and yield, and the benefit–cost ratio by comparing a selectednumber of indicators before and after farmer investment in on-farm ponds. Other impacts on the agricultural and environmentallandscape, including livestock and fisheries cultivation, ground-water recharge and changes to the surrounding environment, arereported based on information obtained during the survey. Sincethe intervening period between the project intervention and thisassessment has been very short (varying between 1 and 3 years), webelieve it is reasonable to assume that the influence of non-projectrelated factors, if any, has been insignificant.

In addition to the primary data, we gathered information alsothrough structured discussions with officials at the state, districtand block level. We interviewed NGO representatives, private sec-tor entrepreneurs undertaking the construction work of waterharvesting structures, and several other individuals engaged incomplementary services, such as agricultural marketing, input sup-ply, and equipment supply.

2.1. The study region

Dewas district is located in the moist, semi-arid region of Malwain west-central Madhya Pradesh (Fig. 1).3 Beginning in the mid-1970s the region underwent a rapid expansion in irrigated area,relying almost exclusively on groundwater. The natural rate ofrecharge in the region is low, and in the absence of significant arti-ficial recharge initiatives, Dewas and all other districts in the regionexperienced significant declines in groundwater levels. Extractionsbegan exceeding 80% of natural recharge by the late 1990s (Shankar,2005).

Feedback from our preliminary interviews in the region suggeststhat current groundwater depths range from 60 to 90 m. Farmersand district officials stated that the failure rate of existing tubewellshas increased significantly, and most new investments in tubewellseither do not yield any water or yield water with low discharge foronly a short period of time. Furthermore, the water yielded is oftenof poor quality and unsuitable for irrigation.


In addition to problems of groundwater quantity and quality,farmers in the region face severe constraints in availability of elec-tricity for irrigation pumping. Even farmers whose tube wells yield

2 Dewas district is divided in six blocks. A block is a smaller administrative unitwithin a district.

3 The Malwa region of Madhya Pradesh receives on average 800–1000 mm ofrainfall/year (Shankar, 2005).

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

http://www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org/home-page.aspx?reload

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

AGWAT-3705; No. of Pages 8

R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx– xxx 3

dhya P

wicdtlaet

mrbcfpottrattt2

nw

The pace of construction rapidly increased following the pro-gram launch in 2006. About 87% of the sampled adopter farminghouseholds in Khategaon and 98% in Tonkkhurd completed theirstructures by 2008 (Table 2). The average area assigned for water

Table 2Characteristics of water harvesting structures of farmers interviewed in Dewas,Madhya Pradesh in August 2010.

Characteristic Khategaon Tonkkhurd

Proportion of water harvesting structuresconstructed during

(%) (%)

2006 16 332007 20 202008 47 452009 13 22010 4 0

Proportion of operated area allocated to waterharvesting structure

10.04 8.79

Average depth of water harvesting structurewhen constructed (m)

3.47 2.20

Average depth of water harvesting structurecurrently (m)

3.75 2.67

Distribution of water harvesting structuresaccording to their current depths (m)

(%) (%)

1.52–2.13 22 36

Fig. 1. District demarcated map of Ma

ater, face constraints in extracting the available water due tonadequate and irregular electric power supply. As a result, cropultivation in the region is generally restricted to one rainfed cropuring the wet season, leaving much of the land uncultivated duringhe dry season. Farmers report precipitous declines in income andimitations on their ability to diversify their production activitiesnd manage risk. For example, lacking sufficient water, some farm-rs are unable to produce sufficient fodder crops that would enablehem to raise livestock in an effort to diversify their activities.

In response to this situation, the district administration experi-ented, and later launched in 2006, a decentralized approach to

ainwater harvesting, under which farmers were encouraged touild rainwater harvesting structures on their own land. For theonstruction of the ponds, the district administration suggestedarmers allocate from 6% to 10% of their land for the ponds.4 Theonds are unlined but tractors are used to compact the soil inrder to minimize seepage. The district administration providedhe technical and logistical support, such as in siting of the struc-ures (taking into account physical characteristics such as slope andainfall), arranging for digging equipment from private contractors,nd in price negotiations. The material and labor were provided byhe farmers themselves. Since its launch, the initiative has takenhe form of a movement, and the district administration reportshat more than 6000 farmers have invested in the ponds (Umrao,011, personal communication).


4 This “rule-of-thumb” was determined based on prevailing physical and agro-omic conditions in the district with the overall objective of encouraging investmentithout overcapitalization.

radesh and location of the study area.

3. Results


2.44–3.05 36 473.35–4.57 26 13>4.57 16 4

Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59farmers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The abovedata relates to these 90 households.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002



4 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Table 3Changes in cultivated area, cropping patterns and cropping intensity.

Season Indicator Khategaon Tonkkhurd

Beforea (%) Aftera (%) Beforea (%) Aftera (%)

Wet Operated areab allocated to:Soybean 68 91 97 98Cotton 30 7 0 0

Operated area left fallow 2 2 3 2

Dry Operated area allocated to:Wheat 18 47 9 53Gram 4 46 15 43

Operated area left fallow 78 7 76 4

Annual Cropping Intensityc 122 194 125 198

Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmersin Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above data relates tothese 90 households.

esting

as pe

hK

nsatdTf7ts

ssrca

3

tasssttcc(

3

vitnf

e

a “Before” and “after” refer to periods before and after construction of water harvb Operated area = owned area + leased-in area − leased-out area.c Cropping intensity is the ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area expressed

arvesting structures varied between 10% of the operated area5 inhategaon to 8.8% in Tonkkhurd.

To minimize the possible risks associated with investing in aew intervention, most of the initial adopters invested in relativelyhallow structures. Newer structures became progressively deepers farmers witnessed the success of the earlier investors. Initially,he depths of the structures ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 m, with averageepths of 3.5 m in Khategaon and 2.2 m in Tonkkhurd (Table 2).he current average depths are 3.8 m and 2.7 m, respectively. Aew farmers in the region have invested in structures as deep as.6 m, and farmers are increasingly constructing deeper structureso enhance water storage potential, while minimizing the area theyet aside for that purpose.

Farmers generally adhere to the 6% to 10% land allocationuggestion, described above, and they do not overinvest in theirtructures. Most farmers (87% in Khategaon and 96% in Tonkkhurd)eport that the size of their water harvesting structure is just suffi-ient to meet their crop water requirements, and they do not havedditional water to sell to neighboring farmers.

.1. Impacts on crop production

The primary motivation for investing in water harvesting struc-ures has been to store available rainwater during the wet seasonnd to use the stored water for irrigation in the following dryeason. The water stored in these structures can also be used forupplemental irrigation in the wet season (i.e., during long drypells), thus serving as a hedge against unreliable rainfall even inhe wet season. We analyzed the direct impacts from investing inhe structures on the agricultural sector through an assessment ofhanges in (i) cultivable land kept fallow, (ii) cropping intensity, (iii)ropping pattern in wet and dry seasons, (iv) cultivation practices,v) water conservation practices, and (vi) crop yields.

.1.1. Decline in fallow land and shifts in cropping intensity6

The most important consideration for investing in water har-esting structures has been to enable, through the provision ofrrigation water, crop cultivation during the dry season. Before


he construction of water harvesting structures, farmers cultivatedearly their entire operated area during the wet season, but kept

allow more than 75% of the cultivable area during dry season, due

5 Operated area = owned area + leased-in area − leased-out area.6 Cropping intensity is defined as the ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area

xpressed as a percentage.

structures.

rcentage.

to lack of water. Only a few farmers who had access to some sourceof irrigation could cultivate part of their land during the dry sea-son. Following the construction of water harvesting structures, theavailable water in the structures has enabled farmers to overcomethis constraint. As a result, the proportion of area kept fallow inthe dry season has declined sharply to between 4% and 7%. Conse-quently the annual cropping intensity on adopting farmers’ fieldshas increased from about 122% prior to construction of these struc-tures to about 198% afterwards (Table 3).

3.1.2. Changes in cropping patternThe primary purpose of constructing on-farm ponds is to

provide water for irrigation during the dry season. Yet some farm-ers use the water also for supplemental irrigation in the wet season.Thus, we discuss the observed changes in cropping patterns duringthe wet and dry seasons.

3.1.2.1. The wet season. During the last several years, most of thesampled farmers have cultivated soybeans during the wet season,generally as a rainfed crop. However, some farmers in Khategaonblock have also cultivated cotton on some of their land during thewet season. Soybeans do not require supplemental irrigation. Thus,the construction of water harvesting structures is not expected toresult in changes to cropping patterns during the wet season.

While rainwater harvesting structures are primarily intendedfor use in the dry season, the water stored in the structures fol-lowing the onset of monsoons nevertheless becomes available forsupplemental irrigation during the early wet season and allows fora shift in the cropping pattern away from rainfed crops (e.g., soy-beans). Further, use of the structures for supplemental irrigationdoes not generally compromise dry season use, as the structurescan be refilled at the end of the monsoon season. In light of this, weinquired if the sampled farmers have attempted to use the storedwater for cultivating irrigated crops during wet season, and, if not,what have been the constraining factors.

Our results suggest that none of the sampled farmers (with 2exceptions) has used the harvested water to introduce irrigatedcrops in the wet season. While many reasons were given, thenon-availability and high cost of labor, and the lack of access totechnology and output markets for the sale of irrigated crops arecommon constraints in both study sites (Table 4).


3.1.2.2. The dry season. Wheat and gram are the 2 most importantdry season crops. Following the availability of irrigation water,sampled farmers have started cultivating wheat and gram on landwhich was hitherto uncultivated. Wheat and gram have different

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002




Table 4Reasons given by farmers for not modifying cropping patterns to include irrigatedcrops in the wet season.

Proportion of sampled farmersreporting in the affirmative

Khategaon Tonkkhurd

Started cultivating any new irrigatedcrop during the wet season

2 0

Reasons for not cultivatingLack of skills in cultivating thesecrops

24 56

Lack of access to technology 56 62Lack of access to markets for thesecrops

62 42

Lack of transport facilities/high costof transportation

2 9

Lower market price than the existingcrop

2 9

Lack of processing facilities (e.g. riceshellers, sugar mills etc.)

78 13

Insufficient water available to growirrigated crops

22 2

Non-availability/high cost of labor 91 53

Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59f4d

iwh(Fmipfcwa

3

ttatnsafthh

3

uewcgua3Ts

Table 5Changes in crop yields reported by farmers, in quintals per ha.

Crop Khategaon

Before After

Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed

Soybean 13.1 (12) 12.6 (30) 13.6 (12) 13.1 (33)Cotton 8.9 (12) 7.2 (19) 9.4 (3) 7.7 (9)Wheat 20.8 (15) – 24.7 (42) –Gram 12.6 (11) – 13.3 (42) 9.9 (1)

Crop Tonkkhurd

Before After

Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed

Soybean – 13.3 (45) – 12.1 (45)Cotton – – – –Wheat 19.8 (14) 18.3 (3) 23.2 (45) –Gram 12.6 (15) 8.6 (2) 13.3 (41) –

Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district,Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59farmers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.45 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The abovedata relates to these 90 households.“Before” and “after” refer to the periods before and after construction of water har-vesting structures.“Irrigated” refers to the area receiving irrigation water from water harvesting struc-

water availability in adjoining wells, and improved ecology. Wepresent here farmer-reported benefits related to livestock and fishcultivation as well as farmers’ perceptions of the impact of rainwa-

armers in Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households.5 households within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The aboveata relates to these 90 households.

rrigation water requirements. Depending upon the amount ofater available in the water harvesting structure, farmers decideow much of their available area to cultivate, and for which cropwheat or gram) to optimize water use during the dry season.armers generally do not plan to meet the full crop water require-ents, but rather seek to give 2 to 3 irrigations to wheat and 1

rrigation to gram. Following investment in on-farm ponds, theroportion of area cultivated during the dry season has increasedrom about 22% to about 96%. Wheat and gram are now beingultivated on almost equal proportions of the operated area withheat occupying between 47% and 53% of the dry season cultivated

rea and gram occupying the balance (see Table 3 above).

.1.3. Changes in cultivation practicesIn addition to extending crop cultivation to the dry season,

here has also been a significant shift in cultivation practices. Withhe availability of stored water for irrigation and consequentialgricultural intensification, farmers are under increased pressureo complete various stages of crop operations in a timely man-er. Farmers stated that this requirement, coupled with the severehortage of agricultural labor and high wage rates has encouraged

switch toward more mechanized farming. Most of the sampledarmers in both study locations reported moving from bullocks toractors (owned or hired) for land preparation and sowing. Croparvesting is also being increasingly mechanized, with combinearvesters hired for harvesting and threshing operations.

.1.4. Adoption of water conserving practicesWater stored in the structures is pumped out for irrigation

sing either a small diesel engine or an electric motor. Given thefforts made in harvesting rainwater, we would expect that farmersould try to use the available water most efficiently and maximize

rop water productivity. Adoption of water conserving technolo-ies such as sprinkler and drip could help in making more efficientse of the available water. The results, however, show that farmer


doption of water conserving technologies is still very low. Only of the 45 farmers in Khategaon and none of the 45 farmers inonkkhurd reported using any water conserving practices. The rea-ons include lack of awareness, high cost of related technologies,

ture. “Rainfed” refers to area receiving no irrigation water from any source.Figures in parentheses denote the number of observations on the basis of whichaverage yields have been computed.

lack of access to finance, and other technological impediments, suchas laying and removing of pipelines and damage due to rodents.Another important reason reported for non-adoption is that theavailability of irrigation has improved water availability to such anextent that farmers do not deem water conservation technologiesas essential. An economic analysis to compare the cost of increasingthe water storage capacity with the adoption of water conservationtechnologies could provide important insights.

3.1.5. Impact on crop yieldsThe availability of irrigation water combined with improved

farming practices, more intensive use of inputs and improved cropvarieties have together resulted in increased crop yields (Table 5).The yields of all the irrigated crops are higher under “after” con-ditions as compared to those under “before”7 conditions. Withlimited data available, it was not possible to isolate the impact ofavailability of water per se to increases in crop yields. However,the availability of water from the water harvesting structures hasenabled cultivation of irrigated crops during the dry season on landwhich was previously fallow. Thus, crop production in the dry sea-son is actually a net addition to annual output, facilitated by theavailability of water from these water harvesting structures.

3.2. Other reported impacts

The primary impetus for farmer investment in rainwater har-vesting structures in Dewas district has been to provide analternative source for irrigation. However, other possible bene-fits from on-farm water storage include opportunities for livestockand fish cultivation and groundwater recharge, improved drinking


7 “Before” and “after” refer to farm conditions prevailing before and after theconstruction of the water harvesting structures.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002



6 R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

Table 6Livestock numbers and milk production reported by farmers interviewed in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh in August 2010.

Unit Khategaon Tonkkhurd

Before After % Change Before After % Change

Buffaloes Number 67 77 15 49 39 −20Cows Number 27 17 −37 20 26 30Oxen Number 4 4 0 8 2 −75Annual Milk Production Liters (‘000) 123 164 34 102 103 11

Note: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Madhya Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmersi holdst“ esting

tg

3

iifri

teqatitscfehm

3

fifctislsip

3

Ardiioni

3

w

(i) lack of access to financial resources to pay for the initial cost of

n Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 45 househese 90 households.Before” and “after” refer to the periods before and after construction of water harv

er harvesting structures on the region’s ecology, environment androundwater resources.

.2.1. Impact on livestockThe availability of fodder is important for farmers considering

nvestments in livestock. Previously, the lack of access to irrigationn the study region constrained the availability of fodder and there-ore investment by farmers in livestock. To assess the impact ofainwater harvesting structures on livestock, we examined changesn both livestock numbers and milk production.

Since the introduction of rainwater harvesting structures,he cultivation of wheat by farmers in the dry season has to somextent improved the region’s availability of fodder and conse-uently encouraged farmers to improve and expand their livestockctivity. However, livestock activity is also capital intensive, andhus progress on this front has been relatively slow. Rather thanncreasing herd size, farmers report initially investing in improvinghe quality of their herd by replacing the existing low milk yieldingtock with improved breeds (e.g., by introducing high milk yieldingows and buffaloes from Punjab and Haryana). The results obtainedrom our survey suggest that while the total livestock numbers haveither remained constant or declined somewhat, the mix of animalsas changed (Table 6). The net result has been an increase in annualilk production by 34% in Khategaon and 11% in Tonkkhurd.

.2.2. Impact on fish cultivationIn general the rainwater harvesting structures are not used for

sh cultivation. Only 3 farmers in the 2 study sites reported fisharming on a limited scale in their constructed ponds. The mainonstraint reported was the insufficient period during which theanks are inundated. The water stored in the structures is depletedn 4–5 months. Some farmers indicated that it is possible to leaveome minimum amount of water standing in the structure for aonger period for fish cultivation but they do not have the requi-ite technical knowledge. In addition, investment in aquaculturen this particular region of Madhya Pradesh is likely limited as theopulation largely follows a strict vegetarian diet.

.2.3. Ecological and environmental impactsFarmers reported several positive, local ecological impacts.

lmost 85% of the sampled respondents in both study locationsesponded that the density and availability of wildlife (such aseer, wolves and other similar large animals) have substantially

ncreased in the region following the construction of water harvest-ng structures. Other ecological changes observed include a returnf migratory birds to the region, and a significant increase in theumber of resident small birds (e.g., peacocks, ducks and fowl). No

ncrease in mosquito populations was reported.


.2.4. Impact on groundwaterWe did not have access to any official data on the ground-

ater table before and after the construction of the structures.

within each block adopted water harvesting structures. The above data relates to

structures.

However, farmers in the region perceived some improvement ingroundwater availability. About 40% of the sampled farmers inboth study locations reported that seepage from the structureshad led to a rise in the groundwater table as reflected by therelative ease in obtaining drinking water from open wells in theregion.

3.3. Benefit–cost analysis of investing in water harvestingstructures

Based on the data obtained through the surveys and describedabove, we present in Table 7 estimates of annual increments inbenefits and costs on an average sampled farm in the study region.The calculations only include all quantifiable costs and benefits, andtherefore do not include qualitative data obtained, such as the envi-ronmental and ecological impacts described above. To help farmersoffset part of the capital cost in undertaking construction of thestructures, the Government now provides a one-time capital sub-sidy of up to INR 80,0008 (Government of Madhya Pradesh, 2013).However, as budgetary constraints limit the number of farmers eli-gible for this activity, the benefit–cost ratios include 2 scenarios—1without a subsidy and 1 with a capital subsidy of INR 80,000. Froma farmer’s perspective, the availability of a government subsidyimplies a corresponding reduction in the farmer’s financial cost toinvest in the structure.

Due primarily to differences in the capital cost of the struc-tures between Khategaon (soft rock region) and Tonkkhurd (hardrock region), the benefit–cost ratios differ between the 2 blocks.Without a government subsidy the benefit–cost ratio works out tobetween 1.92 in Khategaon and 1.48 in Tonkkhurd. The estimatedpayback period in the 2 cases is 2.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. Witha government subsidy of INR 80,000 the farmer’s capital cost ofinvestment is reduced. As a result, the benefit–cost ratio improvesto between 2.39 and 1.72 in the case of Khategaon and Tonkkhurd,respectively. The respective payback period also declines to 1.9 and2.6 years for the 2 locations.

3.4. Scaling up: what constrains farmers from investing instructures?

If the investment in decentralized water harvesting structureshas been so profitable, why is it that a large number of farmers,especially some of those located in the vicinity of the adoptinghouseholds, have not so far invested in this activity? The resultsfrom our survey identified the following 2 key reasons:


constructing the water harvesting structures; and

8 Equivalent to USD 1480 at an exchange rate of 1 USD = 54 INR.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002




Table 7Farm level estimates of benefits and costs of investments in water harvesting structures.

Parameter Characteristics Khategaon Tonkkhurd

Farm and structure Average size of farm (ha) 8.1 10.1Average size of water harvesting structure (ha) 0.84 0.89Average depth of water harvesting structure (m) 3.47 2.20

Benefits Net annual increase in income from crop production (Rs)(gross value of output-operating costs)

135,041 154,673

Net annual increase in income from livestock production(Rs)

11,122 2,720

Total annual increase in net income (Rs) 146,163 157,393

Scenario 1—no government subsidyCost Capital cost of structure (Rs) 361,330 484,675

Life of structure (assumed) (years) 15 15Annual depreciation (Rs) 24,089 32,312Annual interest cost (at 10% of capital cost) (Rs) 36,133 48,468Annual maintenance cost (at 2% of capital cost) (Rs) 7,227 9,694Opportunity cost of land where the structure built(=annual loss of net value of crop production on landwhere harvesting structure built) (Rs)

8,597 16,064

Total annual cost (Rs) 76,046 106,537Benefit: cost ratio 1.92 1.48Pay back period (years) 2.5 3.1

Scenario 2—capital subsidy of Rs 80,000 by the governmentCost Capital cost of structure (Rs) 281,330 404,675

Total annual cost (Rs) 61,112 91,604Benefit: cost ratio 2.39 1.72Pay back period (years) 1.9 2.6

Table 8Awareness of and willingness to invest in water harvesting structures by sampled non-adopting households.

Characteristic Khategaon (n = 16) Tonkkhurd (n = 14) Total (n = 30)

Awareness of water harvesting structures 13 13 26Knowledge of someone who has constructed such structures 12 13 25Ever seen/visited such structures 12 13 25Number of respondents who would not like to invest in similar structures on their farm 11 14 25Reasons for unwillingness to construct structuresLack of funds to invest 11 10 21Difficult to part with land for the purpose 10 11 21Access to alternative irrigation sources 6 2 8Unsure about economics of investment 0 2 2Unsure about sufficient water availability to fill a structure 2 3 5Unconvinced about long-term implication of such investment 0 2 2Unsure about technical feasibility of structures 2 0 2

N adhyi ese hr ting s

(

4

pDiufiicrhfts

o

ote: Khategaon and Tonkkhurd are administrative blocks within Dewas district, Mn Khategaon and 61 farmers in Tonkkhurd, for a total of 120 households. 90 of themaining 30 households we interviewed that did not invested in rainwater harves

ii) reluctance of farmers, especially those with very small land-holdings, to set aside part of their already small cultivable areafor construction of such a structure (Table 8).

. Conclusions

Decentralized rainwater harvesting structures have played aositive role in alleviating severe water scarcity challenges inewas district, Madhya Pradesh. Given the small landholdings

n India, farmers are generally sensitive about either diverting ortilizing a part of their land for non-cultivation purposes. However,armers who have invested in the structures have experiencedmproved water availability through rainwater harvesting, whichn turn has directly and indirectly improved the socio-economiconditions of rural population and environmental landscape of theegion. Furthermore, the decentralized nature of the structuresas avoided many of the management and sustainability issues

aced in community approaches to rainwater harvesting, including


he allocation of shared resources and the maintenance of theupporting assets.

Further upscaling this option, however, requires considerationf 2 key issues. The first relates to resource sustainability. As noted

a Pradesh. The survey was conducted in August 2010. We interviewed 59 farmersouseholds adopted water harvesting structures. These results pertain only to thetructures.

above, positive environmental impacts were noted by farmers inthe district following the implementation of rainwater harvest-ing structures, related to the surrounding ecology as well as, andimportantly for the region, groundwater recharge. The potentialdownstream impacts need to be further studied, however, beforeimplementing the model on a larger scale. An assessment in asemi-arid watershed in Andhra Pradesh, for example, found thatwhile rainwater harvesting improved crop yields and groundwaterrecharge locally, water outflows from the developed area declinedsignificantly resulting in potentially large negative impacts fordownstream users (Garg et al., 2011). Moreover, within the studyregion itself, increased cropping intensity following the introduc-tion of rainwater harvesting, may in fact result in less water beingavailable to recharge groundwater supplies.

The second issue relates to equity. To date, the adopters ofthe structures have been financially better-off farmers in Dewasdistrict with relatively larger landholdings. While the 10% rain-water harvesting model is profitable even after accounting for


the loss in productive land due to construction of the structures,poorer farmers with smaller landholdings are reluctant to adoptthe model for both risk- and financial-related reasons. Setting asideeven small portions of land is a risk for smallholder farmers. In

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

ING Model

A

8 ater M

amIraffi

tmh2mh

fstcatfal

NgtNadtuceliAhcs

nteaanrrtte

A

Ga

iif

ARTICLEGWAT-3705; No. of Pages 8

R.P.S. Malik et al. / Agricultural W

ddition, access to and financing of the significant initial invest-ent cost associated with structures—between INR 360,000 and

NR 485,000 for a 0.8 ha structure9—is a significant challenge aseported by many non-adopting farmers. Government subsidies arevailable to support farmers on a limited basis, but not all eligiblearmers are able to access the subsidy or other forms of externalnancing.

Complementary interventions could be explored to overcomehese constraints. First, in terms of the size of the structures, similar

odels, such as the 5% hapas10 structures prevalent in West Bengal,ave shown promise among all social classes of farmers (Banerjee,011; Jana, 2011). Further investigation of structure size and cropix may open up a greater spectrum of decentralized rainwater

arvesting options.Expanding or extending existing credit options for smallholder

armers is another possible intervention. Currently, India’s publicector banking system treats loans for rainwater harvesting struc-ures as commercial loans, with a higher interest rate than theoncessionary rate offered for other types of agricultural loans, suchs crop loans. Treating rainwater harvesting structures as part ofhe agricultural loan portfolio would allow a wider spectrum ofarmers to finance the structures. Microcredit, cooperative banksnd/or the donor community may also become involved throughoan guarantees or revolving lines of credit.

A third option is to develop links with the Mahatma Gandhiational Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), whichuarantees employment to rural households on construction workhat addresses the causes of chronic poverty. Initiated by theational Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the program seeks,mong other things, to provide a growth engine for sustainableevelopment of an agricultural economy. MGNREGS now covershe entire country with the exception of districts that have 100%rban populations. The majority of the permissible works beingarried out under MGNREGS relate to building infrastructure tonhance water security in rural areas. Building structures on privateand, however, is permitted for only a subset of farmers belong-ng to certain socio-economic categories, as defined under thect, and therefore excludes all but the poorest farming house-olds. Extension of this facility to wider strata of the rural poorould accelerate adoption of decentralized rainwater harvestingtructures.

Decentralized rainwater harvesting is a financially viable alter-ative to large scale, centralized irrigation infrastructure ando community managed structures. Starting on a small scale tonsure “proof of concept”, the initiative quickly took the form of

movement in Dewas district, where the practice has improvedgricultural incomes, expanded livelihood options and providedon-agricultural benefits to the broader community and envi-onment. It is applicable to regions of India and elsewhere thateceive moderately high rainfall, and offer a potentially more sus-ainable option to groundwater irrigation. Further examination ofhe research and investment opportunities described here couldxpand the reach of this promising small private irrigation solution.

cknowledgments


“This report was funded by a grant from the Bill & Melindaates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained withinre those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or

9 Between USD 6600 and 9000 at an exchange rate of 1 USD = 54 INR.10 Hapas are water harvesting structures which have been promoted by some NGOsn West Bengal (India) following a criterion somewhat similar to the one reportedn the present study. Most of these structures in West Bengal have been built on thearms of small farmers.

PRESSanagement xxx (2013) xxx– xxx

policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” We appreciatealso the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymousreviewers.

References

Agarwal, A., Narian, S., 1997. Dying Wisdom: Rise and Fall of Traditional WaterHarvesting Systems. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

Banerjee, P.S., 2011. Impact study of hapa and its multiple uses in Bankura dis-trict. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka(AgWater Solutions Project Case Study Report).

Briscoe, J., Malik, R.P.S., 2006. India’s Water Economy: Bracing for a Turbulent Future.The World Bank.

FAO, 2007. Irrigation management transfer: worldwide efforts and results. FAOWater Reports# 32. International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka andFood and Agricultural Organisation, Rome.

Government of Madhya Pradesh, 2013. Official website of the Government of Mad-hya Pradesh. www.mp.gov.in/spb (Last accessed January 2013).

Garg, K.K., Karlberg, L., Barron, J., Wani, S.P., Rockstrom, J., 2011. Assessing impactsof agricultural water interventions in the Kothapally watershed, Southern India.Hydrological Processes, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138.

Jana, S.K., 2011. Sustainable Small Scale Irrigation Experiment in the Dry Zones: ACase Study on Happa (Small Tank) Model in the State of West Bengal, India,Available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29553/, MPRA Paper No. 29553,posted 12 March 2011.

Joy, K.J., 2003. Watershed development review: issues and prospects. Centre forInterdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED), Bangalore.

Kumar, D.M., Patel, A., Singh, O.P., 2008. Rainwater harvesting in the water-scarceregions of India: potential and pitfalls. In: Amarasighe, U., et al. (Eds.), StrategicAnalysis of National River Linking Project of India, Series 2. International WaterManagement Institute, Colombo.

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, 1997. Farmer participation in irrigation: 20 years of expe-rience and lessons for the future. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 11,103–118.

Molle, F., Shah, T., Barker, R., 2003. The groundswell of pumps: multilevelimpact of a silent revolution. In: ICID Asian Regional Workshop, Sustain-able Development of Water Resources and Management and Operation ofParticipatory Irrigation Organizations, The Grand Hotel, Taipei, November10–12, 2003, vol. 1. ICID, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 464–480, Available athttp://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H033367.pdf

Mukherji, A., Fuleki, B., Shah, T., Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., Weligamage, P., 2009.Irrigation Reforms in Asia: A Review of 108 Cases of Irrigation ManagementTransfer. International Water Management Institute, Colombo.

Pangare, V., Karmakar, D., 2003. Impact on livelihoods: PRADAN’s collabora-tion study of the 5% technology Purulia, West Bengal, India. Poverty-FocusedSmallholder Water Management: An IWMI Research Project Supportedby DFID. Final report document 3 of 9. International Water Manage-ment Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lank, 83 pp. + appendices. Available athttp://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H043992.pdf

Rangachari, R., Sengupta, N., Iyer, R.R., Banergy, P., Singh, S., 2000. Large Dams:India’s Experience, Final report, prepared for the World Commission on Dams.Secretariat of World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, South Africa.

Shah, M., 2013. Water: Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Twelfth Plan. Economic andPolitical Weekly, January 19, vol. xlviiI 46, no. 3.

Shah, T., 2007. Issues in reforming informal water economies of low-incomecountries: examples from India and elsewhere. In: van Koppen, B., Giordano,M., Butterworth, J. (Eds.), Community-based Water Law and Water ResourceManagement Reform in Developing Countries. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 65–95(Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 5).

Shankar, P.S.V., 2005. Four decades of agricultural development in MP: an agro-ecological sub-region approach. Economic and Political Weekly, November 26.

Sharma, S., 2009. Rethinking watershed development in India: strategy for thetwenty first century. In: Achouri, M., Tennyson, K., Upadhyay, K., White, R.(Eds.), Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop on Watershed Manage-ment. Preparing for the next generation of watershed management programsand projects. Proceedings of the Asian Workshop. Kathmandu, 11–13 September2003. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.

Sharma, B.R., Rao, K.V., Vittal, K.P.R., Amarasinghe, U., 2008. Converting rain intograin: opportunities for realising the potential rainfed agriculture in India. In:Proceedings of the National Workshop of National River Linking Project of India,International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp. 239–252, Availableat http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/PDF/NRLP%20Proceeding-2%20Paper%2010.pdf

Takeshima, H., Salau, S., Adeoti, A., Okoli, S., 2010. Economics of Farmer’s Demandfor Private Irrigation in Nigeria. Policy Note No. 23. International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Nigeria.

Umrao, U., 2011. Former Deputy Commissioner of Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh.


Personal communication.Vermillion, D.L., Samad, M., Pusposutardjo, P., Arif, S.S., Rochdyanto, S., 1999.

An assessment of the small scale irrigation management turnover programin Indonesia. Research Report 38. International Water Management Institute,Colombo.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.002

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-3774(13)00183-2/sbref0005













































































http://www.mp.gov.in/spb

dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29553/








































































http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H033367.pdf



















http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H043992.pdf




































































































































http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/PDF/NRLP Proceeding-2 Paper 10.pdf

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Other/PDF/NRLP Proceeding-2 Paper 10.pdf








































dewas rainwater harvesting impacts

Documents