Policy Brief

Centre for World Solidarity (CWS)Secunderabad‐500 017, Telangana, India

Irrigation group wells in India: disregarded ground reality

In World War II, the British Royal Air Force planned to attach heavy platings to its airplanes to protect them from German fighter planes and land‐based aircraft guns. The mathematician‐statistician Abraham Wald took “survivorship bias” into his calculations when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Researchers had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage. Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions — the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. Wald proposed that the Air Force instead reinforce the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost.

Survivorship bias, which is a type of selection bias, often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If this bias is not taken into account, then some conclusions of the study may not be accurate.

If research were to be done on the 'water sharing groups' from the database of current Micro Irrigation Projects in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states, the groups that only survived and passed through the guidelines of the scheme would be available as subjects of the study. The Micro Irrigation Project broadly classify the water sharing as the practice of giving water by a well owner to a receiver farmer who is in his neighbourhoood and not owning a well. The researchers will never be able to examine and dwell on many invisible water sharing groups that have their tradition based on the joint‐ownership of wells for generations. Similarly, the data of minor irrigation census on wells owned by groups of farmers appears to be an insignificant part of what actually exists on the ground. Metaphorically, the wells that missed the census are like those airplanes in the above anecdote that did not return to their base.

This policy brief is small attempt to throw light on those unaccounted and invisible joint‐well groups of farmer for whom water sharing is a way of life.

* Some of the above words were extracted from the book – ‘Standard Deviations’, by Gary Smith, (Duckworth Overlook, 2014) and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Surviving the Survivorship Bias

1. Abraham Wald was a mathematician from Hungary who lived during 1902‐1950. He has spent his researching years in Columbia University, USA and known for his contributions to decision theory, geometry, and econometrics. He is credited with founding the field of statistical sequential analysis, which involves testing the hypothesis squentially by increasing the number of samples until significant results are observed.

Dedicated to the memory of

Dr. N.K.Sanghi(1943 ‐ 2015)

Policy Brief

Irrigation group wells in India: A disregarded ground reality

By

R.V.Rama Mohan

Centre for World Solidarity (CWS)Secunderabad‐500 017, Telangana, India

Policy Brief

Irrigation group wells in India: A disregarded ground reality

by

Rama Mohan RVCentre for World Solidarity (CWS)Secunderabad‐500 017, Telangana, India

With the contribution from SuGWM program team(Rajanikanth P., Sirisha D. and Ratna Kumari Y.)

April 2015

This policy brief by SuGWM project serves as a policy input on groundwater management in India. This publication takes its inspiration from the theme and case studies emerging from the workshop ‘Collective Approaches Towards Water Security’ organized during 18‐19 July 2014 by CWS, Hyderabad. More details of this w o r k s h o p a n d p r o c e e d i n g s a r e a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.cwsy.org/html/nationalworkshop2014.html. This publication relates the grass‐roots experiences of SuGWM in identifying and strengthening traditional water sharing by farmers to the current policy spectrum and public finance schemes directed to ground water use and management. Comments and feedback are welcome and may be sent to the author at . More about ramamohan@cwsy.orgSuGWM Project is at the website: .www.cwsy.org/sugwm.html

SuGWM Project is funded by the European Union and BfdW. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union and BfdW

Foreword

Coping with Water Scarcity : Building on Traditions

This small monograph has an import larger than its size may convey in the current efforts

to counter water scarcity. Acute water scarcity itself is an unimpeachable fact of our

times, reversing the perception, prevalent as late as a half‐a‐century back, of very elastic

water availability. But that perception was not true even at that time of all areas: the well‐

endowed areas, wielding overall power, gave a sense of well‐being, glossing over the

reality of large areas suffering from chronic water scarcity. Those areas were coping with

scarcity through people’s own initiatives, which veritably built some credible traditions

over the years, but ignored for long by the mainstream.

These traditions are important in themselves because scarcity of water is a secular

phenomenon in the regions which threw up those traditions, but such traditions are now

important to other areas newly becoming water scarce. The learning possibilities from

the traditionally scarce areas by the so far relatively well endowed regions is the

important message of this slim volume.

This monograph maps out the traditions of water sharing by the group‐well approach ‐‐‐

the product of long term necessity. The earlier dismissive approach towards such

traditions is slowly being replaced by a healthy respect; and civil society efforts are being

made to strengthen these, and to broadcast the traditions widely. Public policies are also

being advocated to deepen the traditions and take them forward, with some evidence of

success already. But it is necessary to see where the present official approaches may be

faulty in catching the diversity in the traditions as that can help build appropriate official

policies: this is the effort this monograph makes successfully.

For effective public policies, the monograph has some suggestions, built up from hands‐

on experience. One relates to the data collection through the on‐going censuses which

are deficient in catching all the critical ground realities. Another is regarding welding in

energy matters so that optimality can be attained in the group‐well water utilization,

taking into account the problems of power sector, like irregular supplies.

The policies built on the above basis should also recognize that whatever has developed,

to start with, as a kinship‐based group well approach, is now transcending that beginning

and moving beyond. This is something which should be told to the newer areas becoming

water‐scarce.

Social regulations on ground water use was a subject very dear to N.K. Sanghi whose

premature death in February 2015 shook the entire civil society and also ICAR institutions

like CRIDA with which Sanghi worked closely. The dedication of this small monograph to

N.K. Sanghi’s memory is apposite. In fact Sanghi was of the view that the social regulation

of ground water use, along with related subjects, has an importance that deserves the

creation of a collaborative specialist organization, given that we have to learn to live with

water scarcities all over from now on. I commend this thought to the author of this

monograph and his colleagues, whom I heartily congratulate for not losing time in sharing

with the public the important findings of their labours at the grassroot level.

M.V. SASTRICentre for World Solidarity &

Knowledge in Civil Society

Secunderabad

April 2015

Contents

Sl. Chapter Page

1 Introduction 1

2 Group wells in India 1

3 Making of the SuGWM project 3

4 Enumeration of group wells in SuGWM project 5

5 Group wells and access to micro irrigation 12

5.1 Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) 13

6 Group wells and water management 15

6.1 Average area irrigated per farmer 17

6.2 Equity in access to ground water in groups 18

7 Conclusion and Recommendations 20

7.1 Census of ground water irrigation sources 20

7.2 Promoting use of micro irrigation methods 21

among group well farmers

1. Minor Irrigation Census is an exercise of enumeration of all minor irrigation sources in India every five years. The census is coordinated by Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India. More details are at http://micensus.gov.in/.

2. Andhra Pradesh state was bifurcated as Telangana and residual Andhra Pradesh on 2nd June 2014

1

Construction of wells by groups of small farmers and sharing of water by and between them has been a traditional practice in India. There are broadly three types of such group wells in vogue even today in several States of India. Following is their broad categorization:

• Brothers or successor kin inherit a well and continue to share water between them• Brothers or kin invest jointly in constructing new wells and share water from such wells• Neighbouring small farmers join together and contribute the cost of construction and

then share water among themselves

Normally, groups of two to ten farmers share the well water through informally‐developed norms. While some groups share water on a rotational basis, others make a number of channels that divert the flows equally among the members of the group and irrigate the fields at the same time. Small and marginal farmers with small land‐holdings (say, less than 0.5 Ha), who cannot invest on constructing wells on their own, are the category of farmers who generally opt for these sharing arrangements. The practice of paying ‘Crop for Water’ is also prevalent in many parts of India in which water receiving

th rdfarmer pays 1/5 to 1/3 of crop output to the well‐owning farmer for sparing water during a crop season. In contrast to the extensive studies and acknowledgement of water markets in India, these traditional systems of water sharing are a disregarded reality in practice as well as policy spheres.

1Minor Irrigation Census (MIC) classifies ownership of wells under 6 major heads, viz., Government, Cooperative Societies, Panchayats, Groups of Farmers, Individual Farmers and Others. Since 1986‐87, four censuses have been conducted in India, at intervals of

thfive years. The 5 MIC is currently underway with reference year 2013‐14.

2. Group wells in IndiathAs per the 4 Minor Irrigation Census 2006‐07, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Haryana top the

2list of States with the highest number of group wells. Undivided Andhra Pradesh stands at

ththe 6 position in terms of the number of such group wells notwithstanding a rapid decline from 1,37,919 in 1993‐94 to 44,722 in 2006‐07. All over India, there are 20,13,582 wells owned by groups of farmers, out of which 17,21,345 are in use and rest are in continuous

Irrigation group wells in India: A disregarded ground reality

1. Introduction

These six States together account for a major share of the country’s group wells (96.9% of total group wells and 96.57% of group wells that are in‐use). Andhra Pradesh has the lowest percentage of wells in‐use compared to other States. This is a disturbing trend pointing out to the urgent need for attention to the exploration of the possibilities of the revival of such wells.

thAs per the 4 MIC, classification of wells in these six States is presented in the following Table 2:

Table 2: Classification of group wells in six Indian States

Sl.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Geographical area

India

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Haryana

Maharashtra

Madhya Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh (undivided)

Total group wells in top six States

Total group wells

20,13,582

10,03,440

3,19,210

2,62,505 2,47,691

73,671

44,728

19,51,245

Group wells in-use

17,21,345

7,78,762

2,80,355

2,62,505

2,43,239

72,917

24,672

16,62,450

%age of group wells

in-use

85.48

77.61

87.83

100.00

98.20

98.98

55.16

85.20

Irrigation potential created

by group wells in-use (Ha)

77,81,309

41,62,250

5,53,493

14,27,266

6,85,730

2,08,666

81,997

71,19,402

Sl. State

Dug wellsShallow tube

wells

wellsDeep tube

Total wells

1 Rajasthan

8,63,600

63,114 76,726

10,03,440

2 Tamil Nadu

3,00,333

3,631

15,246

3,19,210

3 Haryana

1,511

2,31,820

29,174

2,62,505

4 Maharashtra

2,16,138

11,975

19,578

2,47,691

5 Madhya Pradesh

69,569

1,849

2,253

73,671

6 Andhra Pradesh (undivided) 32,843 6,763 5,122 44,728

Total 14,83,994 3,19,152 1,48,099 19,51,245* Shallow tube wells: wells having depth < 70 m, Deep tube wells: wells having depth > 70 m

2

dis‐use. Total irrigation potential created by these group wells is 77,81,309 Ha. Following Table 1 presents the number of group wells and their irrigation potential in entire India as well as top six States:

Table 1: Group wells in six Indian States

3. SuGWM project is supported by European Union (EU) and Bread for the World (BfdW). More information about the project available at www.cwsy.org/sugwm

Except in case of Haryana, dug wells (or open wells) occupy a major share of group wells in all the States. Drying up of shallow dug wells due to increased pumping from tube wells and fall in shallow water table might have resulted in a significant decline of functioning wells in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan States.

3. Making of the SuGWM project3Sustainable Ground Water Management (SuGWM) is a project being implemented in six

Gram Panchayats (GPs) in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states since July 2011. The focus of the project is on building local systems of ground water management through social regulations and involving Gram Panchayats. The project addresses equity issues in access to ground water for drinking and irrigation through a unique blend of conditional subsidies, social regulations and technological innovations.

The experience and insights from implementing the project ‘Drought Preparedness through Social Regulations in Ground Water Management’ (in short, Social Regulations Project), by CWS during 2004‐2010 influenced a lot the the design and implementation of SuGWM project during later years. The Social Regulations Project was a response to the severe drought conditions during 2000‐2003, ground water depletion and consequent drying up of wells in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. Many farmers committed suicide as a consequence of failure of agricultural wells and accumulation of debts. This pilot project was implemented in few villages in drought‐affected districts of Anantapur, Chittoor and Medak to test ‘social regulations and management of ground water’ as an alternative approach to tide over such crisis in irrigated agriculture.

Social Regulations Project had primarily focussed on equitable access and efficient use of ground water by forming groups of 2‐4 farmers and encouraged sharing ground water among themselves. Due to the limited area coverage of the project, it could not capture the traditional water sharing practices in vogue, such as joint‐well irrigation. Though huge amount of cropping and ground water level data was gathered from each village every crop season, social regulations were evolved through constant and intensive interactions as well as re‐inforcing farmer perceptions of ground water depletion. Gram Panchayats offered support and cooperation to the Social Regulations Project, but the regulations evolved, such as ‘no new wells’, could not be institutionalized at Gram Panchayat level. Since a habitation within the Gram Panchayat area was taken as a unit, GP representatives viewed it as a local affair relevant to that particular village. As the project did not envisage any formal institution that could carry forward the culture of the social regulations, these were left to the willingness and commitment of individual farmers of the farming community.

3

Nevertheless, the project succeeded in underlining the importance of community participation for effective ground water governance. Later years saw many Government schemes, such as watershed management and irrigation tank management, incorporated the elements of participatory hydrological monitoring and efficient use of ground water. The project also attempted to develop deeper understanding of the relevance of electricity quality and supply issues to the ground water resource management. It was found that poor quality electricity supply is resulting in burning of agricultural motors and burdening the distribution companies with more energy losses. Thus, the importance of electricity supply to agriculture and need for integrating this aspect was first established through the Social Regulations Project.

The second project that profoundly influenced the design of SuGWM project is the ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Project’ which was a sub‐project of National Agricultural Innovations Project (NAIP). CWS implemented this project in Thummalacheruvu Gram Panchayat in Khammam district in current Telangana State under the consortium lead by Central Research Institute on Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad. The project was implemented during 2007‐2012. The project envisaged to test‐run innovative technologies related to natural resources conservation and crop production with the participation of small farmers.

The project area is a remote tribal populated area with most of the agriculture land under rainfed cultivation. Cotton was the predominant crop in the project areas at the time of project inception in 2007. Poor state of existing water harvesting structures, such as checkdams and ponds, and lack of three‐phase electricity supply for agriculture wells impaired farmers to provide critical irrigation to crops and enhance farm incomes.

While working on reviving the existing water infrastructure and hand‐holding farmers to diversify their crops with pulses and vegetables, the project team made sincere effort to activate the Gram Panchayat and institutionalize repair and maintenance of water harvesting structures. Radical ideas, such as negotiating with private cotton buyers in the area to provide remunerative prices to farmers for their produce, were successfully done but could not be institutionalized. Though the project created a good degree of physical infrastructure for water harvesting and crop storage to stop distress sale, limited capacities of Gram Panchayat to anchor them, and continue doing maintenance, affected the project success negatively to some extent. However, the project succeeded in introducing new varities of pulses (red gram and green gram), and farmers doubled the area under pulses and vegetables without any financial support from the project.

Thus, the Social Regulations Project and the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Project‐NAIP influenced and shaped the formulation of actions, the composition as well as

4

implementation strategies of the SuGWM project to a great extent. Learning from these previous experiences, the SuGWM project evolved the following specific strategies:

• Holistic approach to addressing water issues, closely integrating drinking, sanitation and irrigation needs of communities

• Blending awareness building with incentives and conditional subsidies for de‐intensifying the processes required for introducing new technologies and evolving social regulations on equitable and efficient water use

• Balancing both supply‐side and demand‐side water management practices for best results

4• Adopted the ‘periphery to centre approach’ in planning and implementation to

make project actions more inclusive• Going beyond participation of institutions of local governance and institutionalizing

regulations at GP level• Developing innovative and need‐based technologies that are scalable and bankable

with relevance to other areas that are in ground water distress• Addressing electricity quality issues in agriculture from the perspective of farmers

and evolving new ways of saving energy and water• Competetive access of project funds by six project Gram Panchayats in need‐based

and demand‐driven approach• Mainstreaming of project technologies and processes envisaged within the project

implementation period

4. Enumeration of group wells in SuGWM projectIn order to enhance the access of farmers to ground water, the project identified and strengthened existing traditional group well system mostly with kin‐ship based members but also with participation of a few neighbourhood farmers. Changes in land ownership transformed some kin‐ship based wells into neighbourhood wells over a few generations. New groups were formed by neighbouring farmers coming together and investing on a common dug well or bore well as irrigation source. While the project did not provide any financial assistance for digging a well, partial financial support was provided to such

5farmers to access Micro Irrigation (MI) units from various Government schemes.

4. Assigning first priority to marginalized communities on the fringes of project GPs in giving better acess to water supply and sanitation. Village leaders from better‐off communities were convinced the need for addressing the problems of marginalized and deployed the funds in peripheral habitations

5. Micro irrigation is the method of water application directly to plant roots resulting in water saving and increased crop productivity. Sprinklers, drips and rain guns are the three types of micro irrigation units that are very popular in India

5

Group open and bore wells in project villages

The findings of this enumeration of group wells by SuGWM project were revealing. Against the initial expectation of hardly finding any functional group well in the project GPs, 435 group wells existed (33% being open wells and rest bore wells) covering 1190 farmers out of the 3317 project target households. Due to innovative ground water recharge measures (see Box 1), many defunct ground water sources, particularly dry bore wells, got revived and started yielding water. With increased yield from the revived group wells additionally, by December 2014, as many as 74 groups of farmers (162 farmers) came together again and resumed irrigation from shared sources lying defunct until that time. In addition, 123 individual farmers, who did not have their own well, joined existing water sharing groups and got access to irrigation water.

Following Table 3 presents the annual progress of project in identifying and strengthening water sharing practices from 2011 to 2014:

Table 3: group wells and MI coverage

Sl. Indicator 2011-12* 2014-15**

1 Total water-sharing groups and farmers identified and revived

435 (1,190)

571 (1,608)

2 Farmers who joined existing sharing groups

0 123

3 Water sharing farmers got access to micro irrigation kits

226 788

4 Total irrigated land owned by group well farmers (acres) and % under micro irrigation

2,337 (14%)

3,609 (77%)

* Status in 2011, before the beginning of SuGWM interventions ** All figures are cumulative from 2011‐12

6

For the purpose of enumeration as well as supporting them in accessing micro irrigation kits, the SuGWM project was liberal in its definition of ‘water sharing’ by groups of farmers. It is not only those groups of farmers who jointly‐owned the wells which were counted; the enumeration included also the individually‐owned wells which had water‐sharing between the owner and his fellow farmers. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the ownership and the right to water entitlement on the well of the farmers in the group are customary in nature, with no evidence on paper, in contrast to right on land. For all official purposes, group‐ownership of wells is not formally recognized yet. The owner of the land in which the well is located or the farmer on whose name the agricultural electricity connection of the well exists, is being treated as the individual owner of the well. An empirical analysis of composition of 571 group wells enumerated by the project revealed that, 100% of the open wells and about 55% of bore wells are jointly‐owned by the farmers.

In case of many open wells in SuGWM project villages and elsewhere in Anantapur district, farmers in the group have individual pump‐sets and electricity connections. But, in Warangal district, farmers in group mostly use a common pump‐set and share the pumped water through a system of channels (locally called, Gandi) whose dimensions are proportionate to the area that it irrigates.

It was also found that some farmers are part of more than one well group in the same village. Also, change of land ownership due to selling by some members of the groups resulted in some water sharing groups having farmers from different castes, religions and villages. This fortuitous diversity in ownership is to be welcomed. Oldest of the group wells is an open well dug in 1965 and most of the dug wells served three generations of farmers. Land fragmentation among brothers and kin resulted in smaller individual holdings and greater number of farmers that each well serves. Due to reduction in water yield in open wells, some of these groups dug bore wells in last 10‐15 years and continued to share from both the sources.

7

Water distribution through

Gandi channels

Community‐based Sustainable Ground Water Management (SuGWM) project was initiated in July 2011 in six Gram Panchayats (Gps), covering 11 villages in Anantapur and Warangal districts of undivided Andhra Pradesh in India. The project is being implemented by Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) and three local partners and supported by European Union and Bread for the World. Project areas face recurring drought conditions with an average annual rainfall of 520 mm in Anantapur and 994 mm in Warangal district. Total geographical coverage of this project is approximately 80 sq. km covering about 3317 families (approx. population 12,000).

SuGWM project has been striving to achieve sustainability in ground water management by addressing drinking water, sanitation and agricultural needs in a holistic approach. Addressing inequalities in access to water, innovating new technologies that are affordable and eco‐friendly, formal collaboration with Government Departments and Institutions are some of the novel features of the project. The Project emphasizes on participatory and collective approaches; community ownership and partnership in governance; and institutionalizing social regulations at Gram Panchayat level.

Bore well recharge techniqueThe baseline study on the status of groundwater irrigation in project areas revealed that there were 418 dry and defunct bore wells out of the total of 1151 in year 2011. The Project thought of utilizing this infrastructure to augment recharge to groundwater by converting them as recharge wells. This technique involves digging a pit of size 10 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft around the existing bore well and filling the pit with filter material (such as boulders, stones, pebbles and sand) in layers. Small holes are made on the casing pipe of the bore well before filling the filter material for allowing the water to seep in. Surface run‐off from rainfall from the upstream catchment areas is diverted towards this bore well recharge structure. Thus, the rain water passes through the filter material and clear water enters the bore well and directly reaches the underground aquifers.

Conventional methods of water conservation and harvesting work on the principle of catching and storing the rain water on the ground surface. Major portion of stored water is lost as evaporation and about 10‐15% of that only percolates through the soil medium to the sub‐surface with a considerable lag period. In this innovative bore well recharge technique, most of the water flows from the catchment directly reaches the hard‐rock aquifers without any losses. Each such structure costs around INR 40,000 with higher benefit‐cost ratio compared to the conventional methods.

8

Box 1: Innovative Bore Well Recharge Method

9

Venkataramanappa, a farmer in Masakavankapalli village in Nallamada mandal of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, lost hope on making any income from agriculture in 3 acres of his land once his bore well dried up in June 2012. As drought stared at him, he has standing crop of groundnut and sunflower in 2 acres and 150 mango trees in remaining his land. When he was contemplating to migrate to Benguluru, a nearby city, SuGWM project convinced him to recharge his bore well using the innovative technique. Soon after the construction, rains during September 2012 were harvested and there was a dramatic improvement in the water level in the well. He could not only save mango trees but also earned good income from vegetable cultivation using drip irrigation system thereafter. After his success story spread around, many more farmers came forward to contribute and build the recharge structures. So far 70 such structures have been built in project areas with about 40% cost contribution from farmers.

Kotanka village in Garladinne mandal of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh has many drinking water hand‐pumps and two bore well sources that feed the water supply system to entire village. But, most of them were not yielding sufficient water in 2011, forcing women from 70% of total 634 households to either walk long distances to fetch water or to buy water from private suppliers. The defunct bore well upstream of the two drinking water sources was taken up for recharge in December 2011. As a result of augmented recharge to ground water, by December 2013, most of the hand‐pumps started functioning and bore wells began yielding a good quantity of water. Water now reaches remote corners of the village including the scheduled caste people living on the periphery. This dramatic change in the situation attracted many NGOs and Government Departments to visit the village and replicate the technique in other areas.

Construction of a recharge structure around existing bore well

10

Efforts to upscale the techniqueRecognizing the effectiveness of this technique, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), an agency of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India included the design in the Unit Cost Report for 2014‐15 and recommended to commercial and rural banks in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states to finance farmers at affordable interest rates. Many small‐holding farmers who depend on ground water for their agricultural operations and livelihoods will be able to access finance, over and above the crop loans that they get in the ordinary course from banks, and make agriculture more rewarding through augmenting ground water resources. This is a major recognition and breakthrough for the project, which is hopefully expected to facilitate the spread of this technique to thousands of farmers in coming years. Many farmers and NGOs, involved in implementing natural resources management projects such as watersheds, visited the project areas and are replicating the technique. SuGWM is making efforts to mainstream this technique through various community based organization such as cooperative societies, water user associations, watershed committees, NGOs, urban residential welfare associations etc.

Bore well recharge structure for functional agriculture wells

6Through RTI requests , the author requested Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, to zoom‐in at GP level and provide data related to group wells, specifically for the six GPs where SuGWM project is being implemented. Following are the major points from the response received:

• All ground water sources owned by more than one farmer are included under the definition of ‘group wells’, and that group may or may not include farmers in any family relationship

• In undivided Andhra Pradesh, 13,372 group wells are permanently not‐in‐use out of ththe total 44,728 group wells as per the 4 MIC (2006‐07)

• Since information on Gram Panchayat is not collected in the schedules of MIC , GP‐wise number of group wells is not available

• The information on number of farmers and names of farmers for each group of farmers was not collected as a part of census and hence the information is not available

nd th• However, block level number of group wells for 2 to 4 censuses is available as aggregate numbers for each of dug wells, shallow tube wells and deep tube wells.

7The block level data of group wells for project blocks, as provided by the Ministry, are given in the following Table 4:

Table 4: Total group wells in‐use in SuGWM project blocks

11

District Block Wells owned by groups of farmers

2nd MIC 3rd MIC 4th MIC

Total In-use Total In-use Total In-use

Anantapur 4 0 6 6 0 0

6 1 0 0 0 0

401 292 338 252 0 0

Nallamada 345 275 353 291 0 0

Warangal Lingala Ghanpur 2 1 97 93 0 0

758 569 794 642 0 0Total

6. F.No. I‐11/2014‐MI (Stat.)/ 288 and I‐11/2014‐MI (Stat.)/ 1131 of Minor Irrigation (Sat.) Wing, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India

7. Called ‘mandal’ in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States

Garladinne

Singanamala

Gandlapenta

In contrast to a larger number of group wells found by the SuGWM project, the above data from the Ministry reported much fewer group wells even at the block level. From Table 4

nd rd thwe find that 2 and 3 census data are closer to each other, but 4 MIC reported a blank for number of group wells. Total group wells are zero during 2006‐07, which leaves us to interpret that all the groups of farmers that existed earlier disintegrated by 2006‐07. Despite the normal annual rainfall in the State during 2005‐06 (1147 mm) and 2006‐07 (858 mm), the data reported none of the group wells in use by 2006‐07. Comparing the micro level data of SuGWM project and the census data of the Ministry, one could easily conclude that the later is not adequately suited or designed to capture field realities. There appear to be many more number of group wells than reported by the MIC.

5. Group wells and access to micro irrigationA study of group wells and their access to micro irrigation equipment revealed interesting details. Many States in India are receiving support from Central Government under National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Some of them, like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana etc., are offering additional subsidies to farmers so as to promote micro irrigation vigorously. Recent State schemes like Indira Jalaprabha scheme in Andhra Pradesh and Vanabandhu

8Kalyan Yojana in Gujarat leveraged NREGS funds and dug new bore wells; supported SC / ST farmers to develop their lands; and use micro irrigation for better water and crop productivity.

But, coverage of existing traditional group well farmers under micro irrigation schemes of various State Governments is not very significant. Some States like Tamil Nadu terms

9'land‐pooling by neighbouring farmers' eligible for accessing micro irrigation systems . This implies that a joint well or a group well belonging to more than one farmer is acceptable to the scheme. Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP) included

10farmers having 'shared water sources' as eligible under the scheme in 2011 . Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) permitted MI units to both water‐giving and water‐receiving farmers through a sharing agreement, but water sharing by farmers who jointly own the

11well is not explicitly mentioned .

12

8. More details about IJP and VKY are available at http://ijp.ap.gov.in/ and http://www.vanbandhukalyanyojana.gujarat.gov.in/ respectively.

th9. GO (Ms) No.221 dated 25 November 2011 accessed from http://cms.tn.gov.in/sites/default/files/gos/agri_e_221_2011.pdf

nd10. GO Ms No.251 dated 22 October 2011 accessed from http://aphorticulture.nic.in/Enclosures/251.docx

11. Operational Guidelines, RKVY scheme from http://anantapur.gov.in/images/inner/agri/schemes/22.RKVY.pdf

13

All these schemes pay no additional attention or offer priority or offer differential subsidy to these groups. At the implementation level, they are the last priority, basically due to the informal nature of water sharing and technical limitations. For example, when the yield of the well is considered, only part of the land belonging to group of farmers gets the eligibility, even though farmers could irrigate entire pool of land on rotation basis. When group well farmers together apply for MI units, a single file number is assigned to the group and processed. But, when the water sharing farmers apply separately at different points of time, these Government schemes treat them as individual farmers. Thus, it is not possible to retrieve or re‐construct the data about the coverage of group well farmers under MI schemes accurately.

5.1. Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project (APMIP)APMIP was launched in 2003 and one of the earliest initiatives backed by NMMI in India. APMIP reported achieving an impressive coverage of about 1 million Ha by March 2013.

12Data related to APMIP coverage of water sharing farmers was obtained for nine districts of undivided Andhra Pradesh for the period 2011 to 2014. Table 5 below presents the data

thjuxtaposing it with the number of group wells as per the 4 MIC:

13Table 5: Coverage of water sharing farmers under APMIP

th12. RTI request dated 14 March 2014 to O/o Project Officer, APMIP, Hyderabad

13. The erstwhile APMIP was bifurcated into APMIP and TSMIP for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States respectively, after the formation of these two States on 02 June 2014. Since the data and analysis is related to the period prior to the bifurcation, the micro irrigation scheme is still mentioned as APMIP, which refers the erstwhile APMIP in undivided Andhra Pradesh.

Coverage of farmers sourcing water from shared wells under APMIP (During Oct 2011 to Mar 2014)

Water sharing

farmers*Area covered (Ha)

Sl.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

District

Kurnool

Chittoor

Karimnagar

Khammam

Ranga Reddy

Krishna**

Prakasam

East Godavari

Guntur$

Total

Total group wells

(as per 4th

MIC

2006-07)

634

7,838

106

250

3,616

398

3,581

125

7

16,555

2,385

751

1,302

1,983

13,258

1587

805

2,732

1,137 25,940

1,831

1,502

1,062

1,350

11,219

1,004

790

3,024

614

22,369

* Including non‐well‐owning farmers received water from well‐owning farmers under sharing arrangement** Additional 1,927 water sharing farmers (1,741 Ha) covered during 2009‐11 in Krishna District$ Additional 5,758 water sharing farmers (4,723.64 Ha) covered during 2007‐11 in Guntur District

14

Some points on column (3) on the number of group wells and column (4) on number of water sharing farmers: Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh has highest number of group‐owned wells among the nine districts listed above. But, the number of water sharing farmers under APMIP is the lowest. The number of water sharing farmers under APMIP is reported to be highest in Ranga Reddy district. Karimnagar, Khammam and East Godavari have fewer group wells but APMIP provided MI kits to large number of water sharing farmers.

Generally, coverage of much higher number of water sharing farmers is due to the fact that APMIP recognizes any group of farmers who comes forward to share water from a common well. They only need to submit a water sharing agreement signed by those farmers and certified by the village level revenue officials. The farmer in whose land the well is located or in whose name the agricultural electrical connection exists is treated as the owner of the well and rest of the farmers are treated as water receivers. When all these farmers apply together, APMIP seems to identify them as a group and assign a common ID. In case of a well jointly‐owned by group of farmers also, they fit into this system of owner‐receiver relationship. When the farmers belonging to these groups apply separately instead of as a group, they are treated as individual farmers and assigned different IDs in the APMIP database. Thus, it may be inferred that APMIP might have covered many more number of water sharing farmers but this fact could not be captured as water sharing groups.

On the other hand, there is no authentic method that separates the 'joint‐well owners' from the pool of water sharing farmers listed with the APMIP. Since water rights are not formal in nature, no documentary evidence will be available for each individual farmer's right on the joint wells. When a piece of land is divided between a farmer's siblings, the sibling in whose land the well is located is recognized as the well‐owner and others are treated as receivers. But, customarily, all these siblings continue to have right over the well as well as a share of water from the well. For the purpose of APMIP, since all these siblings have land on their names and have a water‐sharing agreement amongst them, they are eligible to apply for MI kits. When the farmer did not divide his land among the siblings, they need a partition deed executed for all of them to be eligible. Otherwise, only the farmer is eligible as individual owner of land and well.

Within the agriculture category, a sub‐category of group‐owned well may be introduced by the electricity distribution companies (Discoms). This helps to identify the group wells more precisely. Since anything that is not measurable, cannot be efficiently manageable, this measure not only helps to identify them but also to direct actions specific to them by various government schemes. Unique group ID and farmer IDs under the group ID may be

15

given, as done by SuGWM project to identify water sharing groups, by the Discoms. It is also essential to encourage an entire group to apply to Government MI scheme in one go, instead of individual applications at different points of time. The MIP guidelines of Telangana State for 2014‐15 reflect this view by saying that design of MI units is to be done taking entire area under the sharing arrangement as ‘one unit’.

A small additional financial incentive (say, to the extent of 5%) may be introduced in the MI schemes, when the farmers of group wells apply together, over and above the subsidy offered to the individual farmer. This will result in strengthening of water sharing groups; discouraging digging new individual wells; saving of 6‐10% of the total unit cost to the

14farmers due to common Head Control Unit (HCU) and saving of time of processing for both APMIP and the drip installing company.

6. Group wells and water managementSince most of the group wells are energized by electricity supply from the grid, farmers in the group need to cope with the limited hours of electricity supply and low recuperation rates for irrigating their lands on an equitable basis. Thus, each one’s access to water is limited further in group wells compared to an individually‐owned well. This necessitates group well farmers to be more judicious with water use, particularly in Rabi and Summer seasons; each should cultivate only a limited extent of land and opt to sow short‐duration crops that are less water‐intensive.

Group wells are found to be more efficient in water use; ensuring access more equitably, and avoiding over‐loading of power distribution network. Making a new well on a sharing basis leads to sharing the consequences of the well failure and investment losses. Incurring initial capital expenditure and maintenance expenditure later will be alike shared by the group, reducing the burden on the individual farmers in the group. Thus, group wells reduce capital costs in agriculture and benefit farmers and Government (Power Distribution Companies) equally in a win‐win manner.

There are primarily, two methods of water extraction from group wells by farmers, viz., (i) 15

separate pump‐sets but use on rotation basis and (ii) using common pump‐sets on 16rotation or distribution basis. Normal pump capacity in both these cases varies from 5 HP

to 7.5 HP. Micro Irrigation (MI) methods, such as drips and sprinklers, have gained popularity in several States with Governments promoting them by offering a good

14. HCU is a major component installed next to the well in a drip irrigation system. It contains generally sub‐components such as pressure valve, gauges, venturi, filtration unit etc.

15. Using water one after the other farmer, normally rotating on daily basis

16. Distribution of water that is being pumped to plots belonging to different farmers in the group

16

amount of subsidies on the unit costs. A few States like Andhra Pradesh, included group well farmers also as eligible for accessing MI kits.

To study the pattern of water usage among water sharing farmers in groups and to ascertain how micro irrigation units alter the water access and utilization, a sample study is being done by SuGWM project in its project villages since 2011. A total of 20 groups (with 50 farmers) were identified in Kotanka, Maddivarigondi and Masakavankapalli GPs in Anantapur district for this study. 13 of the 20 sample group wells are bore wells each having single pump‐set for lifting and sharing water by the farmers in the group. Remaining 7 are open wells, each with farmers having separate pump‐sets for lifting water. Number of farmers in individual groups varies from two to seven. In terms of usage of sprinkler irrigation kits, the sample is composed of 8 groups with all 17 farmers using sprinkler kits; 6 groups with 8 farmers using sprinkler kits and 10 farmers using flood irrigation method; and 6 groups with all 15 farmers using flood irrigation method. Following Table 6 illustrates this composition.

Table 6: Composition of sample groups and farmers

Category

Total

13 (27)

7 (23)

(3) Groups with all farmers

following flood irrigation

3 (6)

2 (10)

(2) Groups with some farmers

using sprinkler kits and some following

flood irrigation

4 (8)

2 (10)

(1) Groups with all farmers

using sprinkler kits

6 (13)

2 (4)

Bore Wells (BWs) Open Wells (OWs)

Total

8 (17) 6 (18$) 6 (15) 20 (50)* figures in brackets indicate number of farmers in those groups$ out of the 18 farmers, eight are using sprinkler kits and remaining 10 followed flood irrigation

Rabi 2011 is taken as baseline season with all 50 farmers following flood irrigation method. But, by accessing sprinkler kits from Government schemes and SuGWM project, all together 25 of them started using sprinklers for irrigation from Rabi 2012 and continued in Rabi 2013 also.

Rabi or winter cultivation season in a year starts from December and goes upto February. During Rabi rainfall is scanty and most of the irrigation needs are met from ground water. Due to limited water in wells most of these farmers cultivate only one Groundnut crop and abstain from cultivation during Rabi and summer seasons. Therefore, extent of cultivation and irrigation during Rabi is the real indicator of the impact of water recharge works done by the project as well the utility of sprinkler kits. Predominant crop cultivated by these

17

farmers is Groundnut (about 95% of total irrigated area of the sample farmers) and therefore ‘total area irrigated’ by them is considered instead of crop‐wise areas for comparison across groups and seasons.

Out of the total 20 sample wells, 13 are bore wells and remaining are open wells. Since it is possible to pump using more than one pump‐set in the case of open wells, total pump‐hours available to open well groups is theoretically more than that to bore well farmers. Since there is an over‐all ceiling on the duration of electricity supply to seven hours a day, a bore well group has a limitation of 49 pump‐hours a week, but an open well group with three pump‐sets, for example, could pump for a maximum of 147 hours a week. This distinguishes bore wells from open wells. To check whether open well farmers took this to their advantage, and irrigated more area, separate analysis is attempted for these two types of wells.

This study analysed two key parameters: (1) average irrigated area per farmer, and (2) equity in access to ground water for three consecutive Rabi seasons during 2011‐13, for both sprinkler‐using and flood irrigation farmers. Year 2011 data is the baseline during which none of these 50 farmers used sprinkler irrigation.

6.1. Average area irrigated per farmerAverage area irrigated per farmer from shared water source for the seasons Rabi 2011, 2012 and 2013 was calculated for three distinct categories (given in Table 6) within group bore wells and group open wells. Following Fig. 1 and 2 illustrate the results for bore wells and open wells respectively:

Fig.1: Average irrigated area per farmer ‐ Bore Wells

2.77

2.53

2.38

1.69

1.37(Average of all

27 farmers in 13 groups)

1.33

1.58

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Rabi 2011

Rabi 2012

Rabi 2013

Average area irrigated per farmer (acres)

Groups with none of

the farmers using sprinklers (3 no.)

Groups with some farmers using sprinklers (4 no.)

Groups with all

farmers using sprinklers (6 no.)

18

Fig.2: Average irrigated area per farmer ‐ Open Wells

2.38

2.75

2.15

2.15

1.20

(Average of all 23 farmers in 7 groups)

1.67

1.94

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Rabi 2011

Rabi 2012

Rabi 2013

Average area irrigated per farmer (acres)

Groups with none of

the farmers using sprinklers (3 no.)

Groups with some farmers using sprinklers (2 no.)

Groups with all

farmers using sprinklers (2 no.)

Obviously, with the use of sprinklers, area irrigated increased upto 129% compared to the base line areas irrigated (in flood irrigation method) in Rabi 2011 for both bore wells and open wells. Against the assumption that open well farmers have the advantage of more pump‐hours per week which may result in more irrigated area per farmer, there is no significant difference in area irrigated in bore wells and open wells. Limited water availability and recuperation rates of these wells as well as capacity of one sprinkler unit seemed to be the influencing factors. Farmers benefited by increasing area irrigated and improved quality as well as quantity of crop produced. 26 out of the sample 50 farmers, who did not cultivate any crop in Rabi 2011, resumed cultivation of second crop and benefited from additional incomes.

6.2. Equity in access to ground water in groupsIdeally ground water is to be treated as a naturally occurring common property resource. But, the extraction and use for agriculture are mostly through private investments by large number of small farmers in India and many other developing countries. Since the occurance and availability of ground water is not uniform in all the areas, there is a nature‐imposed inequality in access to ground water. Since access to ground water is linked to right on land, those farmers who makes a well in their lands first, could appropriate a perpetual right on ground water before others.

Group wells exist traditionally in many areas and have been providing invaluable irrigation water to small and marginal farmers. In group wells, all those farmers in the group access water equitably, based on the land area they hold. Thus, one group well provides access to

19

water to many small farmers. The current study of 50 sample farmers in 20 water sharing groups is further extended to understand the ‘equity in access to water’ by group members. For this purpose all 50 farmers were taken as a single set and average area irrigated per farmer as well as standard deviation were calculated before and after the introduction of sprinkler irrigation practice. Following Table 7 presents this information:

Table 7: Mean area irrigated and Standard Deviation for 2011 & 2013

Parameter Rabi 2011 Rabi 2013

No. of farmers using sprinklers 0 25

Total area irrigated (acres) 41.5 106

Mean area irrigated per farmer (acres) 0.83 2.12

Standard Deviation 1.00 0.64

Total area irrigated by all sample farmers together increased from 41.5 acres to 106 acres in 2013, which is about 155%. Not only the average area irrigated per farmer increased from 0.83 to 2.12 acres, but also the number of all farmers who cultivated second crop during Rabi during 2012 and 2013. Thus the revival of traditional water sharing groups and providing them with sprinkler kits helped them to resume cultivation of second crop and revive the practice of water sharing by all farmers in the group. By using sprinkler kits, farmers used the available water more efficiently and cultivated more area of crop in Rabi season. Thus, there may not be an over‐all saving in the quantity of water used but the quantity of water used to cultivate an acre considerably reduced. Though expansion of area irrigated might have nullified the savings of water achieved using sprinkler kits, water is now used more efficiently within the available pump‐hours.

Standard deviation (SD) of areas irrigated by individual sample farmers reduced from 1.00 in 2011 to 0.64 in 2013. As SD is a measure of deviation from the mean, more SD indicates more inequality among the farmers. With resumption of cultivation by farmers in groups and utilization of water entitlements by all, these inequalities have reduced to 0.64. Since farmers having different land holdings around these wells have unequal water entitlements inherited from their forefathers, the SD may not further taper in future years or by any other interventions. Here, area irrigated is taken as the proxy for measuring the equity in access to water, which is fairly reasonable when a single crop type (Groundnut) dominates the cropping pattern with about 97%. Equity in access to ground water is more among water sharing farmers compared to the whole farmer population in a village. This is further enhanced by the application of micro irrigation methods. Sprinkler kit given by SuGWM project helped as a tool in reviving and binding the group together. Thus, these efforts of enhanced ground water recharge; revival of traditional water sharing practices

20

and efficient use of ground water taken the villages a step forward towards building the notion of ‘ground water as a common property resource’.

Since sprinkler kits are portable, expansion of area under irrigation was possible. Similarly, once the drip systems are installed for enhanced areas in conjunction with the water yield from the well, farmers will be able to cultivate more area with the same amount of water that he / she was using earlier. Also, harvesting multiple crops in a year is a possibility depending on the water availability in the well. Therefore, similar results may be observed in water use in groups in case of drip systems as well. However, there is a need for systematic studies in this direction.

7. Conclusion and RecommendationsThis policy brief is an attempt to decipher the traditional practice of water sharing from wells existing in parts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States and to relate the same with mainstream practices and schemes. Customary nature of well ownership and water entitlements among the group well farmers limited their visibility and access to Government schemes. A more accurate census of jointly‐owned wells among ground water sources is essential for triggering appropriate policy actions related to this traditional practice by National and State Governments. Once the practice is recognized and census of these groups is accurately done, their access to better irrigation technologies such as micro irrigation also could be improved not only achieving better water use efficiency but also more equitable access to water among farmers. The study points towards two major areas for policy action, viz., (i) improving the accuracy of data about group wells from the ground and (ii) financial incentives to encourage water sharing.

7.1. Census of ground water irrigation sourcesThough the Minor Irrigation Census (MIC) seems to offer the big picture of group wells in India, they are far from accurate and removed from ground reality. Micro level studies in limited number of villages revealed the existence of many more numbers of group wells and farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states. Data from MIC appeared to be inaccurate and not so meticulous in enumerating the farmers under each group well. Such meticulous information is more useful to extend micro irrigation schemes of Government to reach‐out to deserving water sharing farmers in the groups. In this context, the following are the two specific recommendations to current practice of the census of ground water sources in India:

• A more accurate method of enumerating jointly‐owned wells to be evolved in future census operations that captures the ground realities more completely. Such a method should record the number of farmers accessing water per each group well

21

• Also a broad categorization of electrified and non‐electrified group wells should be done by the census among the total group wells in a given village.

• In case of the electrified group wells, Discoms may provide for a separate category within the category of ‘agricultural electricity supply’ and additional tariff concessions may be provided to them. This also helps genuine group well farmers to come forward and register as a ‘jointly‐owned well’. Cesus operations could draw from such a database of electrified individual and group wells in order to verify the accuracy of primary data from the field.

7.2. Promoting use of micro irrigation methods among group well farmersWhen an individual irrigation well farmer is provided with micro irrigation unit, water use efficiency alone improves. But, when group well farmers are provided with micro irrigation units, not only water use efficiency but also equity in access and distribution to ground water improves. Currently, some farmers who are part of the joint‐well groups are applying individually and availing the MI subsidy first for the entire area that the bore well can support, denying opportunities to other farmers in the joint‐well groups. Group well farmers rotate water application, use water more judiciously and irrigate about 2‐4 times the area a well could irrigate at a time. Provided there is sufficient yield, MI schemes should consider entire group as one unit and design for 2‐4 times the area that the well yield could support. Revival and sustainability of wells is very vital for deriving lasting benefits from micro irrigation systems. The importance of source sustainability measures using well recharge techniques needs to be promoted among the farmers who adopt to micro irrigation methods. Introducing a differential incentive to group‐owned wells and a separate category in the MI schemes will be a win‐win‐win situation to farmers, Department as well as companies. In this context, below are the key points that deserve the attention of policy makers:

• Micro Irrigation Schemes of State Governments shall make a distinction between ‘owner‐receiver’ type of sharing and those wells that are ‘jointly‐owned’ and shared by groups of farmers traditionally for generations

• If all the farmers in a group well avail subsidy for Micro Irrigation units under MI schemes at one go, the MI scheme may offer additional subsidy, say about 5%, passing on the savings due to lesser costs of over‐sight, documentation and monitoring. Farmers further benefit due to reduced cost of head‐control units and piping

• Finally, integrating bore well and open well recharge measures also as part of MI package offered by the MIP schemes would help in sustainability and better economic viability.

CWS-SuGWM Project Office12-13-451, Street no.1, Tarnaka

Secunderabad, Telangana State, IndiaTel: +91 40 27007906

e-mail: projectsugwm@cwsy.org

CWS Central Office12-13-438, Street no.1, Tarnaka

Secunderabad, Telangana State, IndiaTel: +91 40 27018257, Fax: +91 40 27005243

e-mail: info@cwsy.org

for private circulation only.