Asia Pacific Water Forum (APWF)

R i l W t K l d H b f G d t M tRegional Water KnowledgeHub for Groundwater ManagementLaunch Meeting

- Bringing Groundwater Agenda on the SurfaceInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

2 3 J 2011

Rural Groundwater Management

2 - 3 June 2011

Rural Groundwater Management – approaches & issues

E i f C it b d GWExperiences from Community based GW management in Andhra Pradesh, Indiamanagement in Andhra Pradesh, India

Dr. P.S. RaoAdvisor to PS -WRD

Department of Water Resources Government of Karnataka IndiaGovernment of Karnataka, India

A i P ifi W t F (APWF)Asia Pacific Water Forum (APWF)Regional Water KnowledgeHub for Groundwater

Management

Launch MeetingBringing Groundwater Agenda on the Surface- Bringing Groundwater Agenda on the Surface

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)2 - 3 June 20112 3 June 2011

Rural Groundwater Management g– approaches & issues

Experiences from Community based GW t i A dh P d h I dimanagement in Andhra Pradesh, India

Dr P S RaoDr. P.S. RaoAdvisor to PS -WRD

Department of Water Resources Government of Karnataka IndiaGovernment of Karnataka, India

Why Groundwater is important?Why Groundwater is important?

• Increasing dependence of rural areas on• Increasing dependence of rural areas on groundwater

• 65% irrigated area under groundwater• 85% Rural Water Supply dependent on GW• 85% Rural Water Supply dependent on GW • More than 20 million wells existing now g• Large irrigation projects failing to add any

additional command area or productionadditional command area or production• New irrigated areas being possible only by g g p y y

GW structures

GW Success in Gujarat State in IndiaGW Success in Gujarat State in India

• 10% agriculture growth rate (from 2001–07) in• 10% agriculture growth rate (from 2001 07) in Gujarat possible only due to GW management

• Large dams – 38 BCM – 0 65 mln Ha• Large dams – 38 BCM – 0.65 mln Ha• GW wells – 11.5 BCM – 2.75 mln Ha

W t d ti it• Water productivity –– per 1 BCM canal water – USD 30 mln (INR 144 crores);

P 1 BCM G d t USD 200 l (INR 884– Per 1 BCM Groundwater – USD 200 mln (INR 884 crores)

• 35 lakh Ha new irrigated area in Gujarat (last 10 yrs)• 35 lakh Ha new irrigated area in Gujarat (last 10 yrs) is from GW

• Key is decentralized water harvesting & farm power• Key is decentralized water harvesting & farm power supply reforms

» (source. Tushar Shal, et all. Dec. 2009, EPW)( , , )

Minor Irrigation Census in IndiaMinor Irrigation Census in India

• The area under groundwater irrigation• The area under groundwater irrigation increased by around 89% in the last decade, in

kKarnataka state• Whereas SW irrigation increased by 11%Whereas SW irrigation increased by 11%• The contribution to state GDP in agriculture

i i l f GW i i isector is mainly from GW irrigation• New Groundwater Act (2010) in KarnatakaNew Groundwater Act (2010) in Karnataka

– (source. Report on MI census. Mar. 2011, Govt. of Karnataka)

The ChallengesThe Challenges• Increasing groundwater pollution g g p

– Flouride, Arsenic, Agric. Pesticides, Industrial WastesPesticides, Industrial Wastes (heavy metals), nitrates, Feacal

D l ti d t l l• Depleting groundwater levels

• Futile investments in failed bore wells by farmers

• Ever increasing debt traps for• Ever increasing debt traps for farmers (informal credit) leading

i i & i idto migration & suicides

• Impact on women in societyp y

The ChallengesThe Challenges

• Increasing investments by individual farmers• Increasing investments by individual farmers (private)

I A dh P d h i I di b d USD 10– In Andhra Pradesh state in India by now around USD 10 billion investments estimated in dry regions

• Farmer’s in-access to scientific information and data

• GW policies or acts in every state are impractical to implement (so only notional)to implement (so only notional)

• Emphasis on management is yet to be recognized

How these are addressed so far?

• Technical solutions very sound but did not y

reduce the problem

• Knowledge about the extent and intensity of

the pollution, available

L i l ti il bl• Legislations available

• Top down approach (Bureaucratic)• Top down approach (Bureaucratic)

The Conventional Approachpp

• Controlling (denying) access g ( y g)

• Regulating/legislating

• Providing technical advise/extension

• designing projects/schemes for recharge,

watershed – Supply side focus

T d h (B ti )• Top down approach (Bureaucratic)

• Make easy choices• Make easy choices

The Alternate Approachpp

• Free access

• Stakeholder Institution Building

• Provide Knowledge and Skills

• Manage water use Improve efficiency increase• Manage water use -Improve efficiency, increase water productivity-without negative economic impacts – Demand side focus

• Bottom up approach (Stake holder driven)• Bottom up approach (Stake holder driven) -Change the way we think about groundwater

• Make Difficult choices

Community Based GW mgmty g

ANDHRA PRADESH FARMERS MANAGED GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS PROJECT

(APFAMGS project)

Government of Netherlands fundedFAO of UN managedFAO of UN managed

Implemented by network of 9 NGOs & 63 Farmers societies63 Farmers societies

The Idea

• Users should be encouraged to monitor and gmanage their own groundwater system

• Blending of science and indigenous wisdom• Blending of science and indigenous wisdom is possible

• Introduction of simple tools and skills would enable users to manage their groundwaterenable users to manage their groundwater systems

Location63 delineated Hydrological Units, covering about 633covering about 633 habitations, in seven d hdrought-prone districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh in S th I diSouthern India

Key Strategies• Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM)

y g

• Demystifying science for the benefit of farmers• Farmer Water Schools (FWS) – community capacityFarmer Water Schools (FWS) community capacity

building • Crop Water B dgeting (CWB) farm le el decision• Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) – farm level decision

making• Reducing the water demand for crops• Linkage building: farmers-scientist and farmer-g g

government• Building gender-balanced community based institutionsBuilding gender balanced community based institutions

around groundwater management

PHM

• Participatory Hydrological Monitoring or p y y g gPHM refers to a set of activities carried out to k t k f th h i h d l i lkeep track of the changes in a hydrological unit by the users themselves with little input y pfrom outsiders

PHM

1 Staff training/1. Staff training/ orientation

2. Reconnaissance/ meeting with themeeting with the opinion leaders

3. Delineation of the Hydrological UnitHydrological Unit

4. Resource Inventoryy

5. Base Document

PHM

6. Site identification: RG6. Site identification: RG stations and observation wellswells

7. Social feasibility study

8. Procurement of equipment/materialequipment/material

9. Establishing RG Stations d Ob ti lland Observation wells

10. Supply of equipment to pp y q pthe community

PHM

11. Farmer training: PHM11. Farmer training: PHM Module 1

12 F d t ll ti /12. Farmer data collection/ handholding

13. Farmer training: PHM Module 2Module 2

14. Farmer data recording/ h dh ldihandholding

15. Erection of Display p yboards/data display

Demystifying sciencey y g

• Rural Folk-loreRural Folk lore• Audios• Newsletter• Exposure Visits• Exposure Visits• Scientist-Farmer

meeting• Farmer ExhibitionFarmer Exhibition• Clay/Wooden models• Working models• Banners/Posters• Banners/Posters

Hydrologic cycle

HU area calculationCrop Water requirement

Tools developed by farmersBorewell dischargeTools developed by farmersgmeasurement Pumping wells

In a basin Recharge Rate

Hydrologic Basin

Land Use PatternAnnual Water Balance

Farmer Water School (FWS)( )

• Lasts a full hydrological yeary g y

• 25 and 30 farmer participants

• Once every 15/20 days

• Primary learning material: HU• Primary learning material: HU & farmer field

• Sessions at farmer plots

• Small groups of five to• Small groups of five to maximize participation

• Experiential, and participatory methodsmethods

FWS• Hydro-ecosystem analysis,

special topic, and group dynamics activityy y

• Compare farmer and experimental plotsexperimental plots

• Several additional field studies depending on local field problemsp

• Ballot Box Exercise: Pre- and post testpost-test

• Field Day: share learning and results of their studies

Crop Water Budgetingp g g

• A set of activities carried out to compare estimated groundwater balancegroundwater balance available for Rabi season with farmer crop plans in awith farmer crop plans, in a Hydrological Unit

• Estimations are based on: – Farmer collected data – GEC of GoI norms– ANGRAU norms

Pre-CWB Workshop Activitiesp• Computation of hydrological p y g

data• Resource Inventory UpdatingResource Inventory Updating• Crop Plan meetings

ki i h h C• Working with the CWB Package

• CWB Workshop Planning Sessions

• Material preparation• Invitations (all the• Invitations (all the

groundwater users in the HU)

Pre-CWB Workshop Activitiesp

• Farmer Crop PlanFarmer Crop Plan

– Well-wise, farmer-wise record kept

– Data updated through group exercises

• Crop-Water RequirementArial extent of each crop computed– Arial extent of each crop computed

– Standards of the ANGRAU

• Projection of water requirement for Rabifor Rabi

• Projection of groundwater requirement for Rabi

CWB Workshopp• Conducted at HU Level

• Anchor and Presenters

• Large banners, clay/wooden models, posters, flexi-Large banners, clay/wooden models, posters, flexiboards

• Sequence of presentations:• Sequence of presentations:– Groundwater Recharge (June-September)

G d f ( S b )– Groundwater Draft (June-September)

– Groundwater Balance, end of September

– Farmer Crop Plan for Rabi

– Projected Water requirement for Rabi crops

– Comparison of demand-supply (deficit or surplus)

– Comparison with situation in preceding CWB workshops

• Brainstorming: Probable changes in crop-plan

• Scheduling of habitation level follow up meetings

Pictures - CWB WorkshopPictures CWB Workshop

Post-CWB Workshop Activitiesp• Habitation level sharing of CWBW

resultsresults

• Creating platform for decision making

• Listing of agreed changes

• Encouraging women participationg g p p

• Crop Adoption Survey (CAS)

• Analysis of changes in cropping• Analysis of changes in cropping, irrigation, etc.

C i f d b l• Computation of groundwater balance, based on CAS

• Comparison of CAS data of the present year with that of previous year

Reducing water demandReducing water demand• CWB and later GMC

meetings used as platform to trigger discussion on demandtrigger discussion on demand and availability

• Introducing water saving techniques/methodsq

• Introducing water saving d idevices

• Long-term experiments as part of FWS

Linkage buildingge bu d g• For post-intervention

sustainability

• Between CBOs and theBetween CBOs and the Government for accessing programsprograms

• Between CBOs and the scientific community to forge partnership for mutual benefitpartnership for mutual benefit

• Raising resources for O ti d M i t fOperation and Maintenance of community assets

Community based institutionsCo u y b sed s u o s• Farmer VolunteersFarmer Volunteers

• Groundwater Monitoring Committee

Habitation– Habitation

• Hydrological Unit y gNetwork – HU

• District Level Network

• State Level Network• State Level Network

Institutional FrameworkInstitutional FrameworkGROUNDWATER MONITORING/MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CONCEPT

GRAMA SABHAProgressive farmer

SHG leaderOpinion leader Rythu mitra Landless water user

GP members

GMC GMCGroundwater Monitoring Committee at Habitation

BUA leader

(50% Women)

HU level GMC network (HUN) 50% women HUNHUN

1W+1M

1W+1M

1W+1M

( )

NGO level GMC network NGO level GMC network(50% women)

NGO level GMC network

1W+1M 1W+1M1W+1M

District/Basin level GMC Network at Gundlakamma

(DLN) 50% women

3W+3M

1W+1M1W+1M

State/Nodal level network(Steering Committee 50% )

(DLN) 50% women

3W+3M

(Steering Committee – 50% women)

Results of the Approach-1pp• Hydrological Monitoring Networks

t bli h destablished– 190 rain gauge stations

1948 b i ll f i l l– 1948 observation wells for measuring water levels– 890 observation wells for measuring water levels and

dischargedischarge– 90 observation wells for measuring daily water levels– 60 Stream Gauge Stations for measuring daily run-off60 Stream Gauge Stations for measuring daily run-off

from 63 HUs

• Farmers trained in groundwater managementFarmers trained in groundwater management tasks– 4436 farmers in data collection– 4436 farmers in data collection– 3163 farmers in data recording and display– 1192 farmers in book keeping1192 farmers in book keeping– 1866 farmers in Crop Water Budgeting

Results of the Approach-2pp

• Hydrological Information shared openly• Hydrological Information shared openly through:

l l d di l b d– 580 water level data display boards– 589 rain fall data display boardsp y– 123 HU information display boards

Trained farmers cond cted Crop Water• Trained farmers conducted Crop Water Budgeting exercise with all groundwater users (about half a million) in 63 HUs

• Farmers identified 47 over exploited aquiferFarmers identified 47 over exploited aquifer zones

Results of the Approach-3pp

• Extensive debate on groundwater levels quantities &• Extensive debate on groundwater levels, quantities & crop-water relationship by farmers in various fora

• Farmers changed pump placement based on hydrological data, cutting the costs on electricity bill y g g yand motor repairs

• Farmers reprimanded more water using farmers• Farmers reprimanded more water using farmers

• Bore well drilling holidays in villages

• Crop diversity from 7 to 16 crops

• Reduction of paddy cultivation in around 6000 acres• Reduction of paddy cultivation in around 6000 acres

Results of the Approach-4pp

• Farmers reduced groundwater draft in 36 over• Farmers reduced groundwater draft in 36 over exploited aquifer zones through:– Switching to low water consuming crops

Practicing water efficient irrigation practices– Practicing water efficient irrigation practices

– Use of water saving devices

– Organic farming

Results of the Approach-5esu s o e pp o c 5

8000000

100000002006/07-2007/08

2007/08-2008/09

2000000

4000000

6000000

-4000000

-2000000

0

Dra

ft i

n c

u.m

-8000000

-6000000

D

-14000000

-12000000

-10000000

-20000000

-18000000

-16000000

-22000000 HU Name

Results of the Approach-6pp

• Gender balanceRG station Volunteers

Gender balance

• Groundwater Management C itt f d

55%45%

Committees formed:– 559 at habitation level

GMC-Leadership

Male Female

– 63 at Hydrological Unit level (Registered)

p

60%40%

OB well Volunteers

46% 54%FWS Graduates

Male Female

39% 61%

Male Female Male Female

Unforeseen Benefits

• Farmers used hydrological data to lobby with the Government

• Farmers benefited indirectly through linkage building y g g gactivity in terms of – Seed and other agricultural inputsSeed and other agricultural inputs– Subsidy on water saving devices

• Farmers share hydrological data freely with several• Farmers share hydrological data freely with several government departments for scientific interpretationsHUN i d (US$ 3 000)th h d t l t• HUNs raised money (US$ 3,000)through data sales to:– The World Bank Study Team– National Geophysical Research Institute– Australian Council of International Agricultural Research

Relevance of this initiativeRelevance of this initiative

• Puts scientific knowledge in user’s hand• Puts scientific knowledge in user s hand

• Makes best use of traditional knowledgeg

• Micro-level analysis of hydrological system

• Farmers collect, collate and interpret data

F t k d i i f• Farmers take decisions for

• demand side managementdemand side management

• Artificial groundwater recharge

• Users come together as a functional group

F i l li k i h l i• Functional linkages with relevant agencies

Response from External Environment

• Nominated for the Japan

p

pWater Prize in the World Water Forum IV at MexicoWater Forum IV at Mexico

• The World Bank carried out i d d t E l tian independent Evaluation

of the initiative

• The initiative featured in the World Development ReportWorld Development Report

• The Economist covered as a i l i l i M 2010special article in May 2010

Response from External Environment• International Training on

Demand Side Management

p

Demand Side Management of Groundwater conducted for Officers from 14for Officers from 14 countries

• Officers/farmers from five• Officers/farmers from five State Governments (AP, Orissa MaharashtraOrissa, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu & Rajasthan) trainedtrained

• Exposure trip organized for the Hon’ble Speaker of the Rajasthan Assembly and 14 MLAs

Replicability

• Similar aquifer settings

p y

q g

• Where farmers feel the need for groundwater managementmanagement

• Willing local leadership

• Support of the Government/Donor

• The approach can also be adapted in large aquifer• The approach can also be adapted in large aquifer systems with needed changes (scientific and i i i l)institutional)

• Concepts that are relevant anywhere: HU, PHM, p y , ,CWB, FWS and methods of rural communication

A recent positive fallout

• Government of Andhra Pradesh (India) drafted

p

( )new Groundwater law drawing experiences on this initiative (consultations still ongoing)this initiative (consultations still ongoing)

– empower local bodies for groundwater governance G l f ili idi h i l– Government role as a facilitator providing technical, financial and legal support

– Groundwater Councils at the State, District, Sub-division and Gram Panchayat (GP) levelsy ( )

– Funds allocation to various level bodies

Planning Commission GoI incl ding this• Planning Commission, GoI including this approach in next 5 year plan

Women powered professionalismWomen powered professionalism

Acknowledgements

• Farmers of Andhra Pradesh who patiently

g

p yexperimented with us evolving over a period of 8 to 10 years & turned into hydrogeologists8 to 10 years & turned into hydrogeologists

• Government of Andhra Pradesh agencies at di i & ill h l ldistrict & village panchayat level

• Dr Samala V Govardhan Das who hasDr. Samala V. Govardhan Das who has conceptualized this idea and partnered all through along with other colleaguesthrough along with other colleagues

• Ir. Paul ter Weel (GoN) & Dr. Daniel Gustafson ( )(FAO) who gave a fillip to this novel initiative

ThankThankUUUU

For further details, visit htt // fhttp://www.apfamgs.org

Email: drpsrao88@gmail.com