Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
0 j'aime•692 vues
This document summarizes a study assessing community-based groundwater management experiences in Andhra Pradesh, India. 30 villages across 7 districts were visited to collect data through interviews and surveys. Key findings include: participatory groundwater management improved small farmer productivity and incomes; intensive capacity building and post-project support are needed for sustainability; projects helped shift perceptions and practices towards sustainable use, recharge conservation. Recommendations informed policies to strengthen community management in state-run irrigation projects and pilots to ensure long-term adaptive groundwater governance.
![Study steps ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (17)
En vedette
Similaire à Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007
Similaire à Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007 (20)
Plus de Sai Bhaskar Reddy Nakka
Plus de Sai Bhaskar Reddy Nakka (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Cbgwms findings 2nd may 2007
- 1. SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE IN ANDHRA PRADESH Study for DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH / WORLD BANK BY AFPRO September – December 2006 Presentation by: Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy http://saibhaskar.com
- 8. Project Districts Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Kurnool Prakasam Cuddapah Ananthapur Chittoor
- 10. Location Map of Study Areas
- 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. 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. Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the Agro-climatic zones
- 14. Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology
- 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. 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
- 30. 4. Findings of the study according to the two main objectives and sub-objectives. Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use DUGWELLS BOREWELS
- 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. Functioning of Borewells (%AGE)
- 33. Borewell yields and average ayacut IRRIGATED AREA IN ACRES UNDER EACH BOREWELL (30 VILL)
- 35. Problems and constraints of groundwater use
- 36. Problems and constraints of groundwater use
- 37. No. OF FARMERS PER BOREWELL – SHARING RATIO (30 VILLAGES)
- 39. PADDY GROWN IN – KHARIF, RABI AND SUMMER %AGE.
- 40. Farmers not opted for Paddy
- 41. CROPPING PATTERN Avg. Paddy Line
- 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. 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
- 46. Women and Men Participation in Meetings (APFAMGS)
- 47. Community Decision Making (APFAMGS) – Frequency of topics discussed
- 48. TOTAL LAND VALUE / AGRICULTURE INCOME RATIO
- 49. TOTAL INCOME PER ANNUM / DEBT (CUMULATIVE) RATIO
- 50. TOTAL ASSET VALUE / DEBT (CUMULATIVE) RATIO
- 51. Overall impact of the project interventions
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)
Notes de l'éditeur
- 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).