Alexandra Clemett and Annette Huber-LeeAlexandra Clemett and Annette Huber-LeeStockholm Environment Institute (SEI)Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

WEAP-LivelihoodsWEAP-LivelihoodsCase StudiesCase Studies

Kalametiya Lagoon

Livelihoods ChangesLivelihoods Changes

44 % of households in 3 study villages changed their 44 % of households in 3 study villages changed their primary livelihood activity in the past 10 yearsprimary livelihood activity in the past 10 years

50 % of these did so because of changes to the 50 % of these did so because of changes to the natural resource basenatural resource base

010203040506070

Gurupokuna Wew eagoda Tuduw a TotalVillage

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

Percentage of households that changed primary livelihood activity

in the past 10 years

Water Resources

Kachchigal Ara

Uda Walawe Right Bank

Canal

Outlet to sea

Kalametiya KalapuwaKalametiya Kalapuwa

Permanent outlet to Permanent outlet to seasea

Fishing along Kachchigal Fishing along Kachchigal AraAra

Kalametiya MethodologyKalametiya Methodology

Background information, wealth Background information, wealth ranking and questionnaires ranking and questionnaires regarding changes to livelihoods regarding changes to livelihoods and natural resources had and natural resources had already been collectedalready been collected..

In 3 villages poor and better-off In 3 villages poor and better-off fisher and farmer groups were fisher and farmer groups were selected for FGDs to discuss selected for FGDs to discuss changes to the water changes to the water management, the lagoon and management, the lagoon and livelihoods. livelihoods.

Perceptions of Natural Resource User Groups

Perception of Lagoon Fishers

Now30 years ago

Lagoon Fisher Perceptions of Causes of Changes

Socio-economic Impacts

•Decline in the number of lagoon fishermen

•Diversification of livelihoods – lagoon fishing now only 28 % of income

•Reduction in income from lagoon fishing from RS 2000 to RS 100-150 per day (average in the area for all livelihoods RS 4350)

•Average income from paddy is RS 3097

Farmer PerceptionsFarmer PerceptionsScoring by wealthy farmers in Hatagala of problems that Scoring by wealthy farmers in Hatagala of problems that affect paddy farming affect paddy farming

ProblemProblem

Excess water in Kachchigal Ara and cracked Excess water in Kachchigal Ara and cracked bundsbunds

2323

Blocking of Mini Ethiliya causing floodingBlocking of Mini Ethiliya causing flooding 1717

No proper irrigation systemNo proper irrigation system 2626

Clogging of anicut with water hyacinth and Clogging of anicut with water hyacinth and reedsreeds

1010

Lagoon mouth is getting smallerLagoon mouth is getting smaller 1212

No access road to the fieldsNo access road to the fields 1010

Destruction by feral cattleDestruction by feral cattle 22

Total %

Natural resource drawn by Hatagala farmers (left) and

Tuduwa lagoon fishermen (right)

Disparity between FarmersDisparity between Farmers

15000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

HathagalaWealthy Group

Batatha SouthWealthy Group

Hathagala PoorGroup

Batatha SouthPoor Group

Discussion groups

Ave

rage

mon

thly

inco

me

Respondent 1

Respondent 2

Respondent 3

Respondent 4

Respondent 5

Average monthly incomes for farmers who participated in FGDs

•Average yield in Hatagala 6350 – 3050 kg per Average yield in Hatagala 6350 – 3050 kg per harvestharvest•Average in Bataatha South 1270 – 635 kgAverage in Bataatha South 1270 – 635 kg

Perception of FarmersPerception of Farmers

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5

Respondent

Score

No legal ow nershipof land

Only one drainagecanalNo proper irrigationdeliveryScoring of the

problems leading to low paddy yields in

Batatha South

WEAP - Scenarios

• Discussed scenarios based on water Discussed scenarios based on water sources sources and and demanddemandwith FGD participantswith FGD participants

e.g. WEAP-Livelihoods scenario – if 10 % less water is available e.g. WEAP-Livelihoods scenario – if 10 % less water is available for irrigation and yield decreases by 20 %, then rich farmer’s for irrigation and yield decreases by 20 %, then rich farmer’s income will decrease and poor farmers will diversify into income will decrease and poor farmers will diversify into labour work labour work

““If the lagoon returns to its original size the number If the lagoon returns to its original size the number of households in Thuduwa engaging in lagoon of households in Thuduwa engaging in lagoon fishing as a primary livelihood activity will increase fishing as a primary livelihood activity will increase from 20 % to 90 %”from 20 % to 90 %”

WEAP - Model

Canal Development – Canal Development – Sooriyawewa (MD17)Sooriyawewa (MD17)

Eline Boelee and Wim van der Eline Boelee and Wim van der HoekHoek

Irrigation extension – lining of Irrigation extension – lining of MD17 with concrete to reduce MD17 with concrete to reduce losseslosses

Water levels were measured in Water levels were measured in 28 shallow wells and 30 28 shallow wells and 30 piezometers at various distances piezometers at various distances from the main and field canals.from the main and field canals.

Groundwater levels closely Groundwater levels closely followed changes in canal water followed changes in canal water releasesreleases

Canal seepage accounted for 74 Canal seepage accounted for 74 % of ground water recharge% of ground water recharge

Groundwater FluctuationsGroundwater Fluctuations

Eline Boelee and Wim van der HoekEline Boelee and Wim van der Hoek

Livelihood ImpactsLivelihood Impacts

Rapid appraisal (4 days)Rapid appraisal (4 days)

Selected – farmers and women Selected – farmers and women from “wealthy” and “poor” from “wealthy” and “poor” households households

Female FGDsFemale FGDs

• Before MD17Before MD17 was constructed domestic water was constructed domestic water collected from canal and wells but wells became dry and collected from canal and wells but wells became dry and water quality was poorwater quality was poor

•After constructionAfter construction well water was better quality and well water was better quality and did not become dry. Groundwater levels were able to did not become dry. Groundwater levels were able to support homestead gardens including coconut.support homestead gardens including coconut.

•After concrete liningAfter concrete lining water levels went down. water levels went down. People returned to using canal waterPeople returned to using canal waterHomestead gardens suffered and people had to Homestead gardens suffered and people had to buy vegetables and coconut buy vegetables and coconut Poor people suffered the most Poor people suffered the most as they did not as they did not have access to piped water. have access to piped water.

Farmer FGDsFarmer FGDs

•Water managementWater management – “wealthy” or “influential” – “wealthy” or “influential” farmers controlled the distribution of water and “poor” farmers controlled the distribution of water and “poor” farmers did not receive their rightful allocation.farmers did not receive their rightful allocation.

•Absolute water availability was not the issue, only water Absolute water availability was not the issue, only water sharing.sharing.

•““If the water sharing problem is not solved people will If the water sharing problem is not solved people will be killed over water!”be killed over water!”

Sooriyawewa (MD17)Sooriyawewa (MD17)

Thank You