Multiple Use Water Systems for Alleviating Water Poverty in the

Northeast Himalayas

Bharat SharmaWith contributions from

M V Riaz, D Pant, BP Bhatt, H Rahman

MUS MeetingDe Haagsche Kluis, The Hague, The Netherlands

22-23 November, 2010

Northeastern Himalayan Region – India, Nepal

The physical settings

The People

The Place

•Ang •Langsym•Wang Nao•Wangsa•Khaman•Naham•Nyemam•Wangsu•Khanlau•Tomkhu•Wanglang•Longnye•Gamma

Village Clans

Period (quarter) (Guwahati

)

Arunachal Pradesh(Basar)

Manipur(Imphal)

Meghalaya(Barapani)

Mizoram(Kolasib)

Nagaland(Jharnapani)

Tripura(Lembucherra)

(Gangtok)

Dec.-February

2.7 7.6 19.6 0.6 2.3 5.8 3.8 6.0

March-May

22.0 28.4 30.6 30.0 20.9 26.2 37.7 22.0

June-August

54.9 44.9 43.4 29.0 58.7 53.2 43.0 40.0

Sept.-Nov.

20.3 19.1 7.0 40.4 18.7 14.8 15.5 32.0

Total rainfall (mm)

2,416 2,125 2,170 2,459 1,139 1,294 1,588 3,067

Percent distribution of rainfall in different states of northeeastern region, India

Two extremes of water availability in the hills!!

Too Much Water !!! Too Little Water !!!

State Net Sown Area

NIA % Irrigated area

Asom 2,774 140 5.0

Arun. Pra. 164 46 28.0

Manipur 215 48 22.3

Meghalaya 229 59 25.8

Mizoram 94 15 15.9

Nagaland 321 66 20.6

Sikkim 110 8 7.3

Tripura 280 61 21.8

NE Region 4,187 443 10.6

Irrigated Area in the Northeastern States of India

Jhum Cultivation in Northeastern Uplands……

Low productivity and continuous degradation…

Access to water is a serious issue and everyone must contribute…..

Water bottle

Project Hypothesis:

“Should the rural poor in the region use the water and land resources more fully and surplus food can be easily marketed, household incomes would rise leading to save and invest in agriculture and other economic activities on one hand and to an increased demand for goods and services not produced by the household on the other. Should both these happen, the level of the rural poor in the region would go an upward ratchet.”

Major Objectives

• Generate and employ social and water poverty maps.

• Design (and help in implementation of) appropriate water harvesting and multiple water use systems and assess their impacts on livelihood security.

• Build capacity of consortium partners and stakeholders.

Prevalence of Diseases in the Village

For the construction of the Index, five components were identified:

•Resource: The physical availability of water supplied.

•Access: This implies access to water for household use.

•Capacity: Capacity implies the effectiveness of people's ability to manage water.

•Use: The ways in which water is used for different purposes.

• Environment: Environmental integrity related to water and of ecosystem goods and services from flora and fauna in the area.

Water Poverty Index

Cluster/ Colony Resource Access Capacity Use Environment WPI

New side

Colony0 0.310 0.393 0.113 0.968 0.349

Upper Colony 0.500 0.457 0.424 0.198 0.826 0.477

Middle Colony 0.833 0.479 0.414 0.172 0.909 0.546

Lower Colony 0.500 0.312 0.342 0.081 0.989 0.422

New Upper

Colony1.0 0.341 0.412 0.100 0.980 0.529

Lampong

Sheanghah0.383 0.406 0.402 0.147 0.916 0.444

Water Poverty Index (WPI) Composite Index Scores for each cluster of the village Lempong Sheanghah, Mon, Nagaland

WPI Pentagram for the Study Villages in Nagaland

The “Access to Water Resource” Component has the most significant impact on water poverty since the correlation coefficient of that component (0.68) is the maximum among all the components. This explicitly explains that it is not the resource per se, but the provision of access to water resource which is most important for alleviating water poverty. It is true even in so called ‘water abundant’ villages of Nagaland and north east region.

The general conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that ‘Access’ and ‘Capacity’ are the two major factors contributing to water poverty in the village of Lampong Sheanghah. In the two most water poor clusters ( Ching Lan, Ching Chong) and the entire village as a whole, improving the per capita income and the accessibility to water resource would lead to a much improved Water Poverty Index and thus improved livelihoods.

Strategies to Improve Access for Consumptive and Productive Use of Water:

Cross-Learning from other International Experiences

Multiple Water Use Systems in Nepal Hills

Numerous small but precious water resources…

Remain largely untapped for consumptive and productive purposes.

Water harvesting……

Water Harvesting and Utilisation………..

Defunct Drinking Water Projects Outnumber the Functional Projects

Homesteads have the potential to provide main nutrition and livelihoods to the families, especially women if these are provided with small but assured sources of water and related inputs and some markets and thus act as instruments for alleviating poverty. 

Entry Point: The Homestead Gardens

And Meeting the Vital Drinking Water Needs………

“MUS is small and small is beautiful.”

MUS Water Storages in the Study Village

Productive Use of the Harvested Water with Simple Technologies

Outcomes

• Provides adequate domestic water supply

• Time saved for women & girls in water collection

• Improved health and use of toilets • Increased veg. consumption (10-20%

of total production)

• Increased cropping intensity• Increased annual income ($ 198)• Income increases incentive and ability to

maintain the systems• MUS enable density of micro irrigation

adoption and production which facilitates development of collection centers and local service providers

“MUS is an entry point for empowering people.”

Improved Agriculture- Improved Livelihoods

• Collection Centers:• Key intervention to enable

access in remote and weak markets

• PPP: MOAC/DOA, Local Government, Smallholders, VC actors,

• Collection centers are run by entrepreneurs and cooperatives

• Develop crop calendars with traders

• Provide TA, credit, and support to smallholders

• Over 120 CC serving over 100,00 HHs (about 600,000 people)

Two Way: Interactive Learning

• MUS has benefited users in terms of availability of water both in terms of quality and quantity.

• MUS has benefited the users' in terms of increased income through vegetable farming.

• MUS has helped in improving water productivity through intensive use of available water.

• Upscaling of mus through improved technology to cover more areas needs to be explored. This has been achieved to some extent by integrating the drinking water and homestead gardens’ (+livestock) supply schemes.

Conclusions

Thank you!!