Farmer’s Survey in Ganga River Basin Aspiring Healthier Rivers for Safer Water and as 

More Productive Agro‐Ecosystemsthroughthrough 

Farmer Water School

Ravindra KumarRavindra KumarAdvisor, WWF‐India, New Delhi

MotivationR i t i i lt

Delineation of Resource Intensive Districts (Water and N Fertilizer)

• Resource intensive agriculture (Water & N fertiliser) in districts along river Ganga- (Ravindra & A. Pastakia, WWF-India &Germany Report-2014).p )

• In ROR projects there is gap in crop water demand & Supply viz. Rabi

d il bili • Declining Rainfall & Increasing air temperature in the Ganga River Basin (Mishra, IIT GN, 2016).

80000

90000

Crop WaterDemand Vs Availability, LGC (1985‐2013)

• Lack of real-time monitoring and forecast affects the decision making.

F ld b t li t h 50000

60000

70000

day

• Farmers could beat climate change with technology.

• Whether farmers aspire for Healthy Ganga even at cost of less benefit 20000

30000

40000Cusec‐d

Availability

Demand

Ganga even at cost of less benefit from canal water !

0

10000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov Dec

Ganga Canal System: UGC & LGCg y

Challenges in Irrigation ManagementUPID & FAO STUDY 

2008‐09

WATER BALANCE FOR UPPER GANGA CANAL SYSTEM

INPUTS = 9752 MCM = 9752 MCMCanal water Khariff 9752 MCM

33%Rainwater

39% OUTPUTS = 2702 MCM Crop ET

Canal water Rabi18%Canal water Zaid

10%

IRRIGATION WATER USE EFFICIENCY 27 7%EFFICIENCY = 27.7%

6 000

7,000

.ch110

CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC COMPARED WITH OTHERS

5,000

6,000

rea

($/h

a)

UGC= US$ 1500/ha

4,000

crop

ped

a

GLBC = US$1844/ha Jaunpur BC = US$ 770/ha

2,000

3,000

Out

put p

er c

1,000

IWM

I1. O

0

Thai

land

Dez

, Ira

n

lan,

Iran

, Tur

key

on, I

ndia

da, I

ndia

ra, I

ndia

Mal

aysi

a

Mal

aysi

a

Mor

occo

ger,

Mal

i

Alto

, DR

olom

bia

olom

bia

, Mex

ico

, Mex

ico

Vie

tnam

Lam

Pao

, T D

Gui

l

Sey

han,

Maj

alga

o

Dan

tiwad

Bha

kr

Mud

a, M

Kem

ubu,

M

Ben

i Am

ir, M

Offi

ce d

u N

ig

Rio

Yaq

ui A

Coe

llo, C

Sal

daña

, C

Cup

atitz

io,

Rio

May

o,

Cam

Sun

, V

0.45

0.50m

.)

.ch112

WATER PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC

0.35

0.40

ply

($/c

u. m

GLBC = US$0.23/m3 Jaunpur BC = US$ 0.077/m3

UGC= US$ 0.10/m3

0.25

0.30

t irr

ig. s

upp

0.15

0.20

put p

er u

nit

0.05

0.10

WM

I3.

Out

p

0.00

Thai

land

Dez

, Ira

n

ilan,

Iran

n, T

urke

y

on, I

ndia

ada,

Indi

a

kra,

Indi

a

Mal

aysi

a

Mal

aysi

a

Mor

occo

ger,

Mal

i

Alto

, DR

Col

ombi

a

Col

ombi

a

o, M

exic

o

o, M

exic

o

Vie

tnam

IW

Lam

Pao

, D

Gu

Sey

han

Maj

alga

Dan

tiwa

Bha

k

Mud

a,

Kem

ubu,

Ben

i Am

ir,

Offi

ce d

u N

i

Rio

Yaq

ui

Coe

llo, C

Sal

daña

, C

Cup

atitz

io

Rio

May

o

Cam

Sun

,

Ganga Canal capacities I

NARORA BARRAGE U/S VIEW

on IncreaseUGC= 6500 (1854), 6750 (1938), 10500 (1951), 

PUGC= 13500 (1982) 

LGC= 8500 (1878), PLGC= 4200(1982), 6800 (2014), 8900 WSRP‐II

EGC = 4850 (1980‐92), 5850 (2009) post Tehri damHR PLGC D/S VIEW

MGC‐I= 8280(1998‐2001), MGC‐II= 4200 (still u/c) 

Imbalance in Use of SW & GW:

/Contribution in irrigated area by canal system on decrease over time (from > 32% to < 20%) and contribution of Tubewells increases

HR LGC D/S VIEW

contribution of Tubewells increases up to 70% of net sown area in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

UP Water Sector Restructuring Project, Phase-IIRunning PLGC after internal section of EW completed on 31.05.2014

Item  Before Rehabilitation  After Rehabilitation

Bed width 44.00 m 49.40 m

W t d th 3 00 3 63Water depth  3.00 m 3.63 m

Top width  50.00 m 60.30 m

Bed slope  10 cm/km 10 cm/km

Analysis of Survey Data: sample size 550 farmers H M Tsample size 550 farmers‐ H, M, T

4.12 4.13

5.35

4.34.75

4.3

456

8.116.88

10

Productivity of main crops (tonne/ha) at LGC 

01234

Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach

4.42 4.115.24.75

0

2

4

6

Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach

Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy

Head Middle Tail

Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy

Cost of productionUGC in Rs/ha

7250 7171 6252 5020 11378 9139

Head Middle TailHead Middle Tail

Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy

Cost of Production LGC in Rs/ha

8187 7218 8349 9233 6351 11686

Season/Upper Ganga Canal System Lower Ganga Canal SystemIRRIGATION IRRIGATION

Source Head Middle Tail Source Head Middle TailRabiCanal 2.4 3.1 2.5 Canal 1.9 1.8 2.4Tube well 3 7 2 9 3 7

Tube well 3 6 4 3 3 4well 3.7 2.9 3.7 well 3.6 4.3 3.4

KharifCanal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8Canal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8Tubewell 5.9 4.2 3.6

Tube well 3.5 3.5 3.1

ZaidCanal 4.6 5.5 5.0 Canal 1.5 1.3 3.5Tubewell 6.0 3.5 5.4

Tube well 3.4 6.2 4.2

Way Out: FAOConcept of Farmer Water SchoolConcept of Farmer Water SchoolEmploying non‐formal education methods, the farm is used as the primary resource for discovery‐based learning. The process is f ili i d h i h f b i i h hfacilitative and respects the experience that farmers bring with them. Farmers work in small group (about 25 self selected) to ensure that each one’s ideas are shared. In the FWS, there is acceptance of the uniqueness of each participant The activities are designed to responduniqueness of each participant. The activities are designed to respond to the immediate needs of farmers and are geared towards encouraging creativity and independence. The FWS Facilitators play a crucial role in ensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to theensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to the farmers’ learning experience.

The FWS ses ater management and crop prod ction asThe FWS uses water management and crop production as entry points because these are closest to the farmers’ hearts. The FWS experience allows farmers to experience group formation that becomes valuable in addressing other community concerns for example nutrition and pest controlcommunity concerns, for example nutrition and pest control.

Component&Cost Activities Implementing Agency

UPWSRP‐II

Component-A($ 15 million)(2.9%)

Strengthening of state level waterinstitutions and inter- sector coordination

UP Water Management and RegulatoryCommission (UPWaMReC), Water andLand Management Institute (WALMI),State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),and State Water Resource Data AnalysisCentre (SWaRDAC)

Component-B Modernisation of irrigation and drainage UPID and GWD($ 326 M) 63.3% system, groundwater management activities

Component-C($ 42 M) 8.2%

Consolidation and enhancement of irrigationinstitutional reforms

UPID, PIM, SIRD

C D E h i i l l d i i d D f A i l FAOComponent-D($ 32 M) 6.2%

Enhancing agricultural productivity and on-farm water management

Department of Agriculture, FAO

Component-E($ 2 M) 0.4%

Feasibility studies and preparation activitiesfor Next phase

UPID

C F P j di i d i i PACT RSACComponent-F($ 23 M) 0.4%

Project coordination and monitoring:monitoring of crop performance usingremote sensing imagery

PACT, RSAC

Total $ 440 M Physical contingencies (2%) + Pricei i (15%) $ 75Mcontingencies (15%) $ 75M

Total project costs $ 515 M

Government of Uttar Pradesh share (30%)World Bank share (70%)

$155 M$360 M

Project Targets

93%

115%

85%

WOP WP DIA

49% 50%63%

52%

76% 81% 79%78%66%

85%

HG Br LGC BKND Total

Project as whole NPV FRR NPV ERRIrrigated area expansion (20%) -5.9 6.8% -4.5 7.7%Plus Agriculture intensification (71%) 10.1 16.95 14.1 19.1%C di ifi i (4%) 11 8 17 7% 15 3 19 6%Crop diversification (4%) 11.8 17.7% 15.3 19.6%Resource use impacts (3%) 13.0 18.25 16.5 20.1%Mitigation impacts (2%) 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%P j t h l 13 8 18 5% 17 2 20 4%Project as a whole 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%Source: Project Appraisal Document, WB Report No. 73422‐IN, July 17, 2013.

Concluding Remarks• 42% of GIA in Canal command is by Pvt. ShTw.‐mostly Diesel driven.• 33% of GWIA comes under conjunctive use and about 20% of the gross

cropped area is rain‐fed.• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW more pronounced in the• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW, more pronounced in the

tail and middle reaches about 4.5 million liters of diesel and 3 millionunit of power costing INR 212 million will be saved by improved canalwater supply.

S h d i i d h bili i f i i• UPWSRP –II suggests that modernization and rehabilitation of existingcanal systems of SSK, LGC & BKND at high investment @ $326 M thoughensures better water availability at outlet ends, but with lowinvestment in extension service through Farmer Water School belowC l b d @ $ 32 M i i i l dCulaba command @ $ 32 M, improvement in agriculture and waterproductivity benefits is expected 71% WP at full project developmentthan improvement in irrigated area benefits 20% by conjunctive wateravailability.

• Farmers’ survey in both LGC & UGC command suggests farmers’willingness to adopt modern technology in agriculture and irrigationbest practices provided demonstration at their door step or elsewhereis shown to them.

• Young people are moving out of agriculture from Tail and Middlereaches for greener pastor in urban areas.

Concluding Remarks Continued• Farmers appear to sacrifice use of canal water in

agriculture to maintain E‐flows in Ganges.• Canal supply could be regulated in a better way

to match the irrigation demand, i.e., forimproving Dependability while reducing thep g p y gsurface water wastage.

• Conjunctive use of Surface and Groundwater isessential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., toessential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., toascertain Adequacy.

• Proper utilization of Groundwater potential couldhelp in improving the Cropping Intensityhelp in improving the Cropping Intensity.

• Alternatively, canal supplies could be curtailed,and used to meet the tail‐end requirements, i.e.,

i ito ascertain Equity.