agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained...

Agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained regions: a

systems analysis of horticulture cultivation in Maharashtra

Pre-synopsis Report

Submitted in partial fulfilment for PhD

By Pooja Prasad

134350003

February 2019

Under the guidance of

Prof. Milind Sohoni

Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA),

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,

Powai, Mumbai – 400076

2

Abstract

Developing countries frequently find the need for poverty reduction initiatives to be at odds

with promotion of sustainable practices. In India, where half of the population depends upon

agriculture for its livelihood, promotion of agricultural intensification through horticulture

cultivation is an important government strategy to raise farm productivity. Land under

horticulture has nearly doubled in the past two decades and the total horticulture production

has surpassed the production of food grains. At the same time, it is reported that while

horticulture cultivation raises productivity and farm incomes, it also raises social inequality

and leads to degradation of natural resources. The objective of this work, thus, is to analyze the

social and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification through

horticulture cultivation in the state of Maharashtra. We evaluate under what conditions

horticulture cultivation can raise farm productivity while ensuring social-ecological

sustainability.

An interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,

engineering, economics and systems thinking. Detailed ethnographic interviews and

biophysical surveys were conducted in Sinnar block of Nashik district, Maharashtra, over two

years: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Narratives of 121 farmers in four villages are documented with

respect to their investments and intensification trajectory.

Through the study of farm-level decisions, it is seen that intensification is a response of

individual farmers to remain economically viable in face of increasing biophysical

uncertainties, namely, the variability of monsoons, the risk in access to protective irrigation

due to high stage of groundwater development and the uncertainty created by competitive

private investments to transfer and store water, often informally, to assure irrigation. We use

Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework to model the dynamics of this human-nature

interaction and identify feedback mechanisms. We find that farm intensification and

investments to assure water appear helpful in mitigating risk for individual farmers in the short

run, but reinforce risk for the community as a whole in the long run by increasing stress on the

limited common pool resource. This creates a vicious cycle in which other farmers are then

induced to invest and intensify in order to stay viable, eroding the advantage of early movers

and eventually reverting to high uncertainty for everyone with significantly higher cost of

access. Farmers who are unable to intensify due to socio-economic constraints remain unviable

as non-farm livelihood opportunities are limited. This process is further catalyzed by

government programs that subsidize capital costs and invest in water conservation structures,

3

which, in absence of co-ordination between farmers, leads to further intensification beyond the

carrying capacity. The poor outcomes are evidenced in the high rates of crop failures and farmer

indebtedness, which contribute to the agrarian distress being witnessed in the state. An

externality is high drinking water insecurity for the landless and asset-poor farmers who depend

upon shallow dugwell-based public drinking water systems.

Our study shows that farmer distress is closely linked with biophysical vulnerability that is

exacerbated by unsustainable practices. These result from a lack of scientifically-informed

perception of risk, knowledge of resource and regulation. The challenge of simultaneously

enhancing farm resilience and incomes requires a new science to equip the state with sound

and practical tools for governance, for example in planning and regulation, and to improve the

commonly held understanding of groundwater for users so that community management and

collective crop planning is enabled. A strategy of well-regulated seasonal intensification at a

level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors, and by rotation amongst

farmers will result in a sustainable and equitable practice, and moreover, may actually increase

net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful infrastructure.

A significant contribution of this work is to support the development of such a water balance

and decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World

Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to

enhance climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone

districts of Maharashtra. Through application of this tool in specific villages, we develop a

framework to compute the extent of horticulture and water investments that can be supported

in a region. It is believed that armed with such tools, communities can follow and regulate

appropriate cropping patterns while ensuring prosperity and justice in access to the resource.

This is a concrete objective to aim for.

4

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Agricultural Intensification ......................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Frameworks for analysis ............................................................................................................ 13

2.3. Impact of agricultural intensification through horticulture cultivation ...................................... 15

3. Contours of horticulture growth in India ...................................................................................... 17

3.1 Horticulture and irrigated area .................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Exports and Imports .................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Input intensity ............................................................................................................................. 21

3.4 Horticulture market rates ............................................................................................................ 22

3.5 Horticulture by landholding class ............................................................................................... 23

3.6 Horticulture in Maharashtra ........................................................................................................ 24

3.7 Limitations of secondary data analysis ....................................................................................... 27

4. Research questions and methodology ........................................................................................... 28

4.1 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Selection of field area ................................................................................................................. 29

4.3 Field work methodology ............................................................................................................. 34

4.4 Design of survey ......................................................................................................................... 36

5. Field Area: Sinnar ......................................................................................................................... 37

5.1 Wadgaon Sinnar .......................................................................................................................... 38

5.2 Dodhi Kh. .................................................................................................................................... 40

5.3 Dapur........................................................................................................................................... 42

5.4 Pandhurli ..................................................................................................................................... 44

5.5 Villages in Northern Sinnar ........................................................................................................ 45

5.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 48

6. Findings: Uncertainty and coping mechanisms ............................................................................ 50

6.1 Operational regime ...................................................................................................................... 50

6.2 Crop Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................ 54

6.3 Manoeuvring access to water ...................................................................................................... 59

6.4 Farmer decisions ......................................................................................................................... 62

6.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 65

7. A social-ecological systems analysis ............................................................................................ 67

5

7.1 Characterizing the system ........................................................................................................... 68

7.2 Uncovering feedback loops ......................................................................................................... 71

7.3 A tragedy of the commons or worse? ......................................................................................... 75

7.4 Leverage points ........................................................................................................................... 76

7.5 Conclusion: What will stop the cycle? ........................................................................................ 79

8. Farm level vulnerability assessment ............................................................................................. 81

8.1 Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 82

8.2 Farm level water balance ............................................................................................................ 83

8.3 Planning for resilience: how much intensification? .................................................................... 87

8.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 94

9. Farmponds..................................................................................................................................... 96

9.1 Conceptual model ....................................................................................................................... 97

9.2 Model setup and calibration ...................................................................................................... 100

9.3 Modeling impact of farmponds ................................................................................................. 103

9.4 Model results and discussion .................................................................................................... 108

9.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 113

10. Conclusions and Future work ................................................................................................. 114

10.1 Future work ............................................................................................................................. 116

11. References ............................................................................................................................... 117

Appendix A – Farmer survey questionnaire ....................................................................................... 124

Appendix B – Brief Farmer Narratives ............................................................................................... 130

Appendix C –GIS Mapping of Cropping Pattern in 2015-16 and 2016-17 ........................................ 156

Appendix D -Game-theoretical modeling of the SES ......................................................................... 160

Appendix E –Technical details of farm level water balance tool ....................................................... 165

Appendix F – Sample Crop-planning analysis for Paradgaon village in Jalna, Marathwada ............. 170

6

1. Introduction

It is widely known that with the structural changes in the Indian economy since independence,

the share of agriculture output has shrunk to about one-sixth of the national output. At the same

time, about half of the country’s population continues to depend on agriculture for its

livelihood. The farming sector is marked by low productivity and poor returns but increasingly

it also faces large variability due to factors such as climate change, degradation of natural

resources and inefficient markets. This has given rise to widespread farmer distress in the

country seen by way of protests against government policies, rejection of markets, demand for

farm-loan waivers and continued cases of farmer suicides (Reddy and Mishra 2010, Nadkarni

2018, Shankari 2018, Suthar 2018). Many government initiatives aim to address this, the most

recent being a call to double farmers’ income by 2022. Promotion of agricultural intensification

by shifting from food-grain to high-value horticulture cultivation is one of the prongs of this

initiative (Chand 2017, GoI 2017a).

Agricultural intensification refers to activities that intend to increase the productivity or

profitability of a given tract of agricultural land (Rasmussen et al. 2018). This includes

activities such as reducing fallow time, increasing use of inputs or changing crop type to obtain

greater return (Shaver et al. 2015, Rasmussen et al. 2018). Intensification in India has been

broadly understood to be driven by enabling factors such as improved technology, irrigation

infrastructure development, government subsidies, knowledge extension and market

conditions. For example, the agricultural intensification caused due to the green revolution, or

Gujarat’s model of horticulture cultivation driven by investments in agriculture and post-

harvest industry (Gulati and Shreedhar 2009). In this work, our focus is on the role of socio-

ecological factors in driving agricultural intensification through cultivation of horticulture

crops with the goal of increasing farm returns.

Between 2000-01 and 2012-13, India witnessed an increase in gross cropped area (GCA) under

horticulture crops by 44%, with the result that horticulture production has now outpaced total

food-grain production in the country (GoI 2017b, 2017c). This is despite the fact that food-

grains are grown in greater than 60% of the GCA and horticulture crops make up less than 8%

of the GCA. India is now the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world and

there has been a consistent rise in export of horticultural products. Moreover, fruits and

vegetables are grown disproportionally more by marginal (< 1 ha) and smallholding (1-2 ha)

7

farmers who account for 91% of fruit growing landholdings and 87% of all vegetable growing

landholdings (GoI 2015a).

India’s Niti Ayog’s policy paper on doubling farmer incomes states that shifting one hectare

area from staple crops to commercial high value crops has the potential to increase gross returns

upto Rs. 1,01,608 per hectare (Chand 2017). This popularly-believed economic promise of

horticulture sits in sharp contrast to the rising agrarian distress in the country which is partly

attributed to cash-crop farming and factors such as climate change, increasing water stress,

rising cost of cultivation, high vulnerability to market shocks and lack of alternate rural

livelihood opportunities (Birthal et al. 2008, Reddy and Mishra 2010). There are other studies

that have studied the relation between changing cropping patterns and farmer suicides.

(Thippeswamy 2016) contends that in Karnataka, unviable returns from food grain crops has

forced farmers to take up cash crops but uneconomical holdings, frequent failure of cash crops

and more volatile prices of commercial crops have increased the agrarian distress and pushed

more and more farmers to commit suicide in the state. Studies have also reported that while

horticulture cultivation raises farm incomes, it also raises social inequality and leads to

degradation of natural resources (Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007, Aragona and Orr 2011,

Shaver et al. 2015).

The need to increase farm incomes is an urgent one. At the same time, the need to practice

sustainable farming is also pressing. It is under these circumstances that we evaluate the social

and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification through horticulture

cultivation. Specifically, we evaluate under what conditions horticulture cultivation can raise

farm productivity while ensuring social-ecological sustainability.

Sinnar block in Nashik district is selected for field work because of its high horticulture

production and the diversity of agro-climatic conditions that exist within the same taluka. An

interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,

engineering, economics and systems thinking. Detailed ethnographic interviews and

biophysical surveys were conducted over two years: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Farmer narratives

with respect to investments and intensification trajectory were documented and quantitative

farm level agro-economic data was captured.

The study of farm-level decisions shows intensification to be a response of individual farmers

to remain economically viable in face of increasing biophysical uncertainties, namely, the

variability of monsoons, the risk in access to protective irrigation due to high stage of

8

groundwater development and the uncertainty created by competitive private investments to

transfer and store water, often informally, to assure irrigation. We use the social-ecological

system (SES) framework (Anderies et al. 2004, Binder et al. 2013, Stojanovic et al. 2016,

Villholth et al. 2017, Rasmussen et al. 2018) to model the dynamics of this human-nature

interaction and identify feedback mechanisms. We find that investments to assure water and

crop intensification appear helpful in mitigating risk for individual farmers in the short run, but

reinforce risk for the community as a whole by increasing stress on the limited common pool

resource. This creates a vicious cycle in which other farmers are then induced to invest and

intensify in order to stay viable, eroding the advantage of early movers and eventually reverting

to high uncertainty for everyone with significantly higher cost of access. Farmers who are

unable to intensify due to socio-economic constraints remain unviable as non-farm livelihood

opportunities are limited. This process is further catalyzed by government programs that

subsidize capital costs and invest in water conservation structures, which, in absence of co-

ordination between farmers, leads to intensification beyond the carrying capacity. The poor

outcomes are evidenced in the high rates of failures and farmer indebtedness. An externality is

high drinking water insecurity for the landless and asset-poor farmers who depend upon

shallow dugwell-based public drinking water systems.

We find that mean income rises with horticulture cultivation but so does the variance at various

levels, impacting a large number of farmers and causing failures. Limiting intensification and

investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors is key

to reducing endogenous variability and building resilience against exogenous uncertainties

such as climate. This can be achieved through scientific engagement to develop tools that are

accessible to the community to seasonally estimate the carrying capacity of available water and

arrive at a set of possible cropping scenarios and the associated risk of failure.

A significant part of this work is to support the development of such a water balance and

decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World Bank

funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to enhance

climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone districts of

Maharashtra. Application of the water balance tool to evaluate cropping patterns of model

villages such as Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi reaffirms that promotion of horticulture without

assessment of carrying capacity not only leads to unsustainability but also makes farmers more

vulnerable to uncertainties of climate. We show concrete examples of estimating water budget

9

based on biophysical factors and the use of this knowledge to compute the extent of horticulture

and water investments that can be supported in a region.

The report is organised as follows. Chapter 2 is a review of literature on the trajectory of

agricultural intensification, its impact on small holding farmers and available frameworks that

may be used to analyse stainability of socio-ecological systems in which intensification takes

place. Chapter 3 summarizes the characteristics of the horticulture boom in the country by an

analysis of secondary data. Chapter 4 goes through the scope of work and the methodology.

Village narratives for all the villages that were part of the field work in Sinnar are presented in

Chapter 5. The main findings of the work done in Sinnar are presented in Chapter 6 which

illustrates the high variability at different stages of horticulture cultivation and its relation with

assurance of water for irrigation. A system dynamic analysis of the coupled socio-ecological

system is presented in Chapter 7. The objective of this analysis is to uncover the feedback loops

within the system that explain the observed trajectory and identify points of leverage where

interventions may stop the vicious cycles at play. The recommendations from this chapter are

taken forward in the following two chapters. Chapter 8 is dedicated to the development and use

of a farm level water balance tool which can be used to assess farm vulnerability due to

biophysical factors and to quantify the need for protective irrigation. This tool is the engine

around which a regional water balance tool has been designed by the IITB-PoCRA team that

can be used by farming communities as a decision support system to plan appropriate cropping

patterns and supply side interventions. Chapter 9 takes up the specific case of farmponds and

uses system dynamic modelling to evaluate the conditions under which they can be valuable to

the farmer without impacting water security. The tools in Chapters 8 and 9 illustrate how the

water balance of the region may be used to determine the threshold of interventions and

intensification that can be supported by regional biophysical factors. Finally, conclusions and

future work are presented in Chapter 7.

10

2. Literature review

2.1 Agricultural Intensification

Agriculture intensification refers to activities that intend to increase the productivity or

profitability of a given tract of agricultural land (Rasmussen et al. 2018). This includes

activities such as increased cropping intensity (i.e. reduced fallow time), increased use of inputs

or changing crop type to obtain higher output or market value or a combination of these

activities (Shaver et al. 2015, Rasmussen et al. 2018). The trajectory of intensification from

subsistence to industrial level has been studied by many scholars across various disciplines:

economics (Malthus 1798, Boserup 1965, Cochrane 1958), anthropology (Chayanov 1966,

Scott 1976, Netting 1993) , ecology and environment , development studies etc. as well as

interdisciplinary lens such as sustainability studies, social-ecological systems etc. Depending

upon the disciplinary lens, these studies address one or more of the following concerns: food

security, climate and environmental sustainability, economic viability of farmers and rural

societies, impact on equity and social well-being, impact on ecological services. This section

provides a review of the key studies.

Early work by Malthus (1798) proposed that a combination of exponential growth in population

and arithmetic growth in food supply growth would lead to shortage of food supply and

ultimately to a Malthusian catastrophe. Boserup (1965) reversed this argument to assert that

the growth in population will result in a steady intensification in agriculture. Increased

population will result in higher demand for technological changes and will also result in more

people available to work on technological advancement, leading to technology-led agricultural

intensification. Intensification is chosen over extensification (i.e. bringing new area under

agriculture) only when land becomes scarce since in non-mechanised systems intensification

increases land productivity but decreases labour productivity (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).

Chayanov (1966), drawing from his anthropological studies in Russia, placed the peasant

family farm (defined as farms that relied on family labour alone) as an economic unit and

argued that the prevailing economic theories could not explain the viability of family farm in

terms of the standard factors of production used to analyse capitalistic agriculture. He argued

that family farms did not seek to maximize profits due to “drudgery of labour” and

intensification would not follow unless the consumer-producer ratio changed (Turner and Ali

1996). In this respect, his theory was consistent with that of Boserup.

11

Induced intensification thesis (Turner and Ali 1996) states that change is often imposed on

vulnerable farmers who struggle to shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture due to lack

of access to capital and other factors. It extends the previous theories by suggesting that

intensification is moderated through conditions besides increasing population density, such that

technological, socio-economic and institutional conditions. It also accounts for biophysical

factors which can aggravate this vulnerability as poor quality farms require higher investment

while prime lands exacerbate intensification.

Cochrane's (1958) theory uses technology treadmill as a metaphor. Farmers are forced to adopt

new technology in order to improve productivity and stay competitive in the market. Early

adopters make profits for some time as investment in new technology lowers their production

cost. However, as new farmers adopt the technology the price of the produce drops, lowering

the profit even with lower input cost. The low product price, nonetheless forces the remaining

farmers to either adopt the technology to lower their production cost. Those unable to do so

because of the profit squeeze, typically smallholding farmers, become unviable and face

pressure to exit agriculture. Intensification thus acts as a polarizing force. This ultimately gives

rise to large-scale capitalized agriculture (Richard A . Levins and Willard W . Cochrane 1996)

In aggregate, the broad trajectory of techno-managerial intensification is therefore a stair-

stepped one with critical thresholds in the process which may serve as major hurdles to

intensification (Turner and Ali 1996). Absence of a technology fix is likely to lead to conditions

of involution and stagnation. Involution, as coined by Geertz (1968), implies that production

increases are made, but with significant declines in the marginal utility of inputs, and are done

so because few, if any, options exist. Stagnation, in contrast, means that production does not

increase and may even decline.

Intensification has been studied with respect to market integration. In addition to subsistence

demand due to increased population density, the market demand for agricultural produce is

also a driver of intensification. Farmers may respond to this by dedicating part of their practice

to market cultivation depending on the degree of market integration (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).

Turner and Ali (1996) note the changes in farmer aspirations and social structures as a result

of greater market integration of small-holding farmer with intensification. These changes

impact the safety nets that ensure basic needs, instead offering the opportunity for some

households to increase their material standard of living and others failing to do so, resulting in

increasing polarization of material living standards.

12

Peasant Studies from many anthropologists (Chayanov 1966, Scott 1976) have argued that

smallholding farmers may not respond “rationally” to market signals due to different

production goals. Scott (1976) describes the safety-first risk-averse attitude of subsistence

farmers that breaks down when uncertainties rise, forcing them to cultivate cash crops to stay

afloat. Netting (1993), on the other hand, analyses the smallholder household in densely

populated parts of the world as a cultural ecosystem that can outcompete industrial or collective

forms of farming. He argues that smallholding families are inherently market oriented and this

market integration does not lead to greater inequality.

Sociologist Ulrich Beck’s risk society (Chatalova et al. 2016) links agricultural intensification

(as a case of modern industry) with risk by stating that manufactured risks (as opposed to

natural disasters) have become the predominant product, and not a side-effect, of industrial

society. It informs modern agricultural economics by pointing out the circular cumulative

causation between risks, knowledge, technology, and industrialization of agriculture. The

distribution of this risk – financial, social or ecological, and not wealth, becomes the basis of

social stratification.

Ecologists studying intensification have raised concerns such as loss of biodiversity due to

increasing monoculture and impact on natural resources such as soil, water and nutrients

(Matson et al. 1997) and call for techniques such as integrated pest management and organic

farming. Agriculture is also seen as the single largest contributor to climate change (Rockström

et al. 2017). However, ecologists working on land-use science agree that intensification as a

preferred way of meeting growing demand for food, as compared to extensification (to change

land use to bring more area under agriculture) (DeFries et al. 2004, Rasmussen et al. 2018).

An emerging paradigm is that of sustainable intensification (SI). It attempts to address the

problem of feeding a growing population and doing it without any adverse environmental

impact and without any additional conversion of non-agricultural land (Pretty and Bharucha

2014). The concept has been controversial with some hailing it as the only strategy to meet

rising food needs within the planetary limits (Rockström et al. 2017) and others being critical

of its neutrality towards all type of agriculture from organic farming to genetically modified

crops and industrial agriculture. (Godfray and Garnett 2014). “Ecological intensification” has

been contrasted with sustainable intensification to imply intensive use of natural functionalities

of the ecosystem to produce food in a sustainable way. It constitutes models such as agro-

ecology and organic farming (Tittonell 2014).

13

FAO (2014) extended the definition of sustainability beyond protection of the natural resource

base by including the need for decent and resilient livelihoods for rural populations by ensuring

profitability, environmental health, and social and economic equity. FAO (2011) address the

need for intensification by calling for “greening” of green revolution by increasing higher

productivity and profitability through an ecosystem approach drawing on contribution of soil

organic matter, water flow regulation and bio-control of pests. On the consumption side, it also

asks for the need for consumers to shift to nutritious diets with smaller environmental footprint.

It thus calls for “climate-smart” agriculture: one that sustainably increases productivity,

resilience to climate (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation), and

enhances achievement of national food security and development goals’(Godfray and Garnett

2014).

2.2. Frameworks for analysis

The two-way relationship between environmental problems such as climate change,

degradation of natural resources, biodiversity loss and human actions has been the subject of

increasing interest in the scientific community. Until a few decades ago there was limited

overlap between social sciences and natural sciences where mainstream ecology largely

excluded humans from their study and many social sciences disciplines ignored the

environment and limited their scope to humans (Berkes et al. 2003). This changed in the 1970s

and 80s with the realization that the complexity of the social and ecological systems mandate

an integrative and inter-disciplinary approach for analysis and modelling (Binder et al. 2013).

The term social-ecological system (SES) is used to emphasize the integrated concept of

humans-in-nature (Berkes et al. 2003)

Many frameworks have been developed by scholars and practitioners for analysis of coupled

SES. Binder et al. (2013) present a comparative analysis of ten such established frameworks.

Depending upon the objective and disciplinary origin, they differ in their primary focus, that

is, some are anthropocentric (i.e. pivot on human-wellbeing and social aspects and define

ecological systems based on human utility) while others are eco-centric (they hinge on

ecological systems as their primary concern and focus on human-action that affect the

ecosystem) (Binder et al. 2013).

Two notable anthropocentric frameworks relevant for our work include the sustainable

livelihoods approach (SLA) (Scoones 1998) and the SES framework (SESF) (Ostrom 1990,

Anderies et al. 2004).

14

The SLA framework has its roots in the development studies. The key question that is asked in

an analysis of sustainable livelihoods is: Given a particular context, what combination of

livelihood resources (natural, economic, human, social, and other kind of capital) result in the

ability to follow what combination of livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification/

extensification, livelihood diversification and migration) with what outcomes? Of particular

interest in this framework are the institutional processes which mediate the ability to carry out

such strategies and achieve (or not) such outcomes (Scoones 1998).

The social-ecological systems framework (SESF) has been used to provide a common language

for organising various variables that characterize an SES and to compare different case studies.

It is used to understand under what conditions users of a common property resource come

together to sustainably manage the resource and avoid a tragedy of the commons (Hardin

1968). The origin of SESF is in the social sciences (political science), and is based on theories

of collective action, common pool resource and natural resource management. It is used

extensively in the area of management of fisheries, forests, pastures and water (Binder et al.

2013). The richness of the SESF framework comes from the fact that it allows description of

dynamics within and between the social and ecological systems and thus allows a study over

time and space. The SES is conceived as a hierarchical multi-tiered system which may be

packed or unpacked at the desired level (Ostrom 1990). The SESF is firmly rooted in the

systems thinking.

Resilience of social-ecological systems in face of rising uncertainty due to climate and other

factors is the subject of great importance and current interest. Resilience is defined as the

capacity of a system to experience disturbance while reorganizing to retain essentially the same

function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al. 2004) and it follows from Holling

(1973). Social-ecological systems exhibit thresholds that, when exceeded, result in changed

system feedbacks that lead to changes in function and structure. The more resilient a system,

the larger the disturbance it can absorb without shifting into an alternate regime. Resilience

theory (Sinclair et al. 2014) offers a framework to understand the processes of change in SESs.

The theory focuses on the dynamics of systems by exploring linkages across time and space,

and the interplay between social, economic, and biophysical domains. In the context of

sustainable food and agriculture, resilience is the capacity of agro ecosystems, farming

communities, households or individuals to maintain or enhance system productivity by

preventing, mitigating or coping with risks, adapting to change, and recovering from shocks.

(FAO 2014)

15

2.3. Impact of agricultural intensification through horticulture cultivation

A study in Kenya (McCulloch and Ota 2002) that sampled smallholder farmers to study the

impact of export-oriented horticulture cultivation on farm incomes concluded that farm

incomes were five times more per family member compared to smallholding farmers that did

not grow horticulture crops.(Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007) collated results from several

studies of horticulture cultivation in Asia and Africa and concluded that profitability from

vegetable cultivation compared to that for cereal cultivation, is largest when seen as profit per

cropping day. It is also significantly high when land is limiting and profit is calculated per unit

area. The difference in profitability is lower (though significant) when seen with respect to

labour input (as vegetable cultivation is more labour intensive). They thus conclude that

vegetable production is most profitable under conditions where arable land is scarce and labour

is abundant. With respect to poverty alleviation, (Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007) report that

while there is potential for horticulture cultivation to have large effect on poverty alleviation,

current studies show that small-holding farmers are largely excluded from high-value markets.

(Turner and Ali 1996) studied the evidence of induced intensification in smallholding farmers

in six villages in Bangladesh during 1950-1986 due to factors such as land pressure, water,

market and state policies. The first wave of intensification in the 1960s was driven by a shift

to high yielding crop varieties and the second wave in the 80s was led by a shift to high market

value crops (“market gardening”). They find that although intensification resulted in a small

increase in surplus, it did so under increasingly polarizing conditions such that by the end of

the study period, the larger landholding farmers accounted for the surplus production and the

increasing landless households suffered from chronic shortage in production as well as

malnutrition.

(Aragona and Orr 2011) analysed the process of intensification in Bolivia’s Tipajara watershed

which led to a monoculture of onion cultivation and an eventual environmental and economic

collapse seen through land and water scarcity and massive emigration. They observe that even

when economic and agronomic forces may push farmers to abandon one type of cash crop,

there is a strong possibility that one monoculture will be replaced by another. The authors call

for active community engagement for sustainable governance of natural resources.

(Shaver et al. 2015), in their interdisciplinary study of agricultural intensification, study the

social-ecological impact of large scale pineapple cultivation in the tropical region of Costa Rica

and show how pineapple expansion produces social and environmental change with local

16

conservation implications. The authors find that the existing rural development model, with

emphasis on large-scale production resulting in exclusion of smallholders, illustrates the effort

to meet national economic objectives for export growth and job creation at the cost of regional

concerns of equity, household food security and rural poverty alleviation.

Many scholars have commented on the strategy of promotion of horticulture cultivation in the

Indian context and its implication on smallholding farmers (Joshi et al. 2004, 2006, Birthal et

al. 2007, 2008, Roy and Thorat 2008, Chand 2017). These studies unanimously state that

viability of small farms can be improved through diversification of cropping pattern towards

fruits and vegetables. The labour-intensity of horticulture crops make them very amenable to

cultivation by smallholding farmers. At the same time, they highlight current impediments to

be lack of efficient marketing system and large production risk due to poor quality seeds (Joshi

et al. 2006). They call for greater investment in agricultural research and public infrastructure

(Birthal et al. 2008). (Birthal et al. 2007) bring up lack of knowledge as a concern that puts

smallholders at a disadvantage in horticulture cultivation. They also raise the issue of

insufficient savings or credit access that prevents smallholders from investing in horticulture

cultivation. In general, vegetables, with their quick returns and low capital requirement

compared to fruit crops are more suitable for smallholding farmers.

(Chand 2017) in India’s Niti Ayog’s policy paper on doubling farmer incomes states that

shifting one hectare area from staple crops to commercial high value crops has the potential to

increase gross returns upto Rs. 1,01,608 per hectare. With respect to cropping intensity, Chand

notes that currently the cropping intensity in irrigated area is not very different from that in

rainfed areas which shows that irrigation is not available through out the year and hence,

suggests that making irrigation available around the year will be useful in increasing cropping

intensity. Increase in crop intensity at the same rate as observed in the recent past has the

potential to raise farmers' income by 3.4 per cent in 7 years and 4.9 per cent in ten years. (Chand

2017).

In the next chapter, we analyse secondary data to review the horticulture growth in India and

specifically in the state of Maharashtra.

17

3. Contours of horticulture growth in India

India has seen a steady increase in the area under horticulture and the horticulture production

over last several decades. The share of gross cropped area (GCA) under horticulture increased

by 44% from 16.5 million ha in 2000-01 to 23.7 million ha in 2012-13 (GoI 2014a).

Horticulture comprises of fruits, vegetables, flowers, plantations and spice crops. Of this, fruits

and vegetables (F&V) account for about 68% of all area under horticulture. Figure 3.1 shows

the gross cropped area and the production levels of horticulture crops, as well as fruits and

vegetables in the past two and half decades.

Figure 3.1: Trends in Horticulture Produce

Since 2011-12, horticulture production has outpaced total food-grain production in the country.

This is in spite of the fact that food grains are grown in greater than 60% of the GCA and

horticulture crops are grown in less than 8% of the country’s GCA. This is indicative of the

high yields (production per unit land) of horticulture crops. In terms of value of output,

vegetable and fruits accounted for Rs 1572 billion in 2010-11 making up 23% of the total

agricultural output value while cereals accounted for 27%. (GoI 2014b).

Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of the gross cropped area under different types of crops (GoI

2015b).

18

Six fruits make up 80% of the total fruit production in the country (as shown in Table 3.1).

These are mango, citrus fruits, banana, papaya, guava and grapes. They account for 68% of the

area sown under fruits. Eight vegetables make up 80% of the vegetable production in the

country (and 68% in terms of area sown under vegetables).

Table 3.1: Fruits and vegetables that make 80% of production

Figure 3.3 from (CSO 2013) shows the value of output of selected fruits and vegetables (at

constant price).

Fruits Area '000 ha % Area

Production '000

tonnes % Produce

Total Fruits 7,216 100% 88,977 100%

Mango 2,516 35% 18,431 21%

Citrus total 1,078 15% 11,147 13%

Banana 803 11% 29,725 33%

Papaya 133 2% 5,639 6%

Guava 268 4% 3,668 4%

Grapes 119 2% 2,585 3%

Vegetables Area '000 ha % Area

Production '000

tonnes % Produce

Total Vegetables 9396 100% 162897 100%

Potato 1973 21% 41555 26%

Onion 1204 13% 19402 12%

Tomato 882 9% 18736 12%

Brinjal 711 8% 13558 8%

Cabbage 400 4% 9039 6%

Cauliflower 434 5% 8573 5%

Tapioca 228 2% 8139 5%

Okra 533 6% 6346 4%

Fruits and Vegetables that make up 80% of production

Source: Pocketbook of Agricultural Statistics, 2015

Figure 3.2: Share of crops in Gross Cropped Area and Gross Irrigated Area

19

Figure 3.3: Value of output of selected fruits (CSO 2013)

3.1 Horticulture and irrigated area

The gross irrigated area of the country is 88.89 million ha (2010-11), which is 45% of the gross

cropped area. Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of the gross irrigated area of the country

amongst different crop-types. 51% of the country’s gross cropped area is under cereals and

millets but they form 64% of the gross irrigated area. This is primarily driven by wheat (95%

of the crop is irrigated) and paddy (59% of the crop is irrigated). On the other hand, coarse

cereals make up 10% of the GCA but only 3% of the GIA. Similarly, pulses are grown on 13%

of the GCA but only on 4% of the GIA. Fruits and vegetables, which tend to be grown under

assured irrigation have a high share under irrigation. 51% of area under onions, 71% in case of

tomatoes, 86% in case of potato and cauliflower is irrigated (see Figure 3.4). Similarly, 76%

of area under banana and 96% under grapes is irrigated. Overall, 73% of area under top eight

vegetables and 55% of area under top six fruits is irrigated.

20

Figure 3.4: Crop wise area under irrigation

3.2 Exports and Imports

Horticulture produce is also increasingly contributing towards the county’s exports. Currently

it stands at about 5% of the total agricultural export value. Grapes occupies the premier position

in exports with 107.3 thousand tonnes valued Rs 1086 crores. Other fruits which have attained

significant position in exports are banana and mango. Exports of fresh vegetables such as peas,

potatoes and onions has also been significant.

Table 3.2 shows the top agricultural and allied products that are imported or exported. We find

that 10% of our annual rice production and 6% of the country’s wheat production was exported

in 2013-14. In contrast, 16% of the country’s total pulses consumption was fulfilled through

imports. Edible vegetable oil is the largest proportion of our agricultural import. Given that

wheat and paddy make up the largest part of our gross irrigated area and pulses and oilseeds

are largely grown in unirrigated areas, this points to a concern in the cropping pattern currently

followed. The failure of the state to adjust the MSPs of pulses and oilseeds appropriately even

21

as the country grows surplus of wheat and paddy and is deficit in pulses and oilseeds has been

cited as the primary reason for this skewed pattern (Chand 2012).

Table 3.2: Top agricultural imports and exports (2013-14)

3.3 Input intensity

Fruits and vegetables are input-intensive not only with respect to water, but also in terms of

other inputs such as fertilizers. As Table 3.3 shows, in general, pulses consume 40kg of

fertilizers per ha of GCA as compared to an average of 110kg for foodgrains, 159kg for fruits

and 254 kg for vegetables (FAI 2012). The difference is even more stark if we focus the

comparison only on the fertilizer consumption per ha of area treated. Fruits and vegetables

require double the amount of fertilizer per unit area of treatment as compared to foodgrains and

three times that for pulses.

Qty '000 tonnes Value in crores % of total

Total agricultural imports 87,466 100%

Vegetable Oils (edible) 7,943 44,038 50%

Pulses 3,644 12,793 15%

Fresh Fruits 769 7,716 9%

Cashew nuts 776 4,668 5%

Spices 156 3,452 4%

Cotton raw & waste 181 2,376 3%

Sugar 881 2,287 3%

Others 10,136 12%

Total agricultural exports 262,779 100%

Marine Products 1,193 30,627 12%

Basmati rice 3,754 29,292 11%

Meat and preparations 1,389 27,163 10%

Cotton raw including waste 1,948 22,338 9%

Rice non-Basmati 7,136 17,795 7%

Oil Meals 9,830 17,070 6%

Spices 896 15,146 6%

F&V and products - 14,068 5%

Wheat 5,572 9,278 4%

Sugar 2,535 7,179 3%

Top Agricultural imports and exports 2013-14

Source: : Pocketbook of agricultural statistics 2015

22

Table 3.3: Fertilizer consumption for different crops

3.4 Horticulture market rates

Fruits and vegetables tend to have higher price fluctuations than food grains and other non-

perishable produce. An analysis of the wholesale market rate of different crops in the year

2015-16 is shown in Table 3.4. The data is for produce that was sold in different APMC markets

of Nashik district.

Table 3.4: Analysis of daily wholesale prices in Nashik

The APMC wholesale rates are published as (Min rate, Modal rate, Max rate) for each day and

each crop. The % stdev column shows the variation in the modal rate from day to day. It shows

that the variation in the daily modal rate is significantly higher for horticulture produce than

Crop N P K Total

Paddy 82 29.8 17.3 129.1 165.2

Wheat 112.9 42.9 6.8 162.6 176.7

Jowar 40.2 22 3.6 65.8 102.6

Bajra 20.3 4.5 0.5 25.3 56.2

Maize 62.7 23.7 3.5 89.9 121.9

Gram 23 21.6 3.2 47.8 92.1

Total pulses 19.5 17.5 2.5 39.5 97.6

Total foodgrains 71.8 28.3 9.9 110 152.6

Soyabean 32.3 31.4 0.8 64.5 83.8

Sugarcane 149 56.4 29.5 234.9 239.3

Cotton 118.9 49.9 14.5 183.3 192.6

Total Fruits 73.2 40.3 45 158.5 310.2

Potato 131.9 110.8 77.6 320.3 347.2

Onion 109.3 79.2 60.7 249.2 274.8

Cabbage 58.4 33.2 146.2 237.8 406.7

Total vegetables 106.4 87.1 60.3 253.8 312.8

All crops 70.3 30.9 11.6 112.8 155.3

Kg of fertiliser Consumption per ha of gross cropped area

(2006-07)

Total Kg of

fertiliser

Consumption per

ha of area treated

with fertilizers

Source: I-118 Table 6.12 Fertilizer Statistics 2011-12

Crop MSP

Average of

annual modal

price

distribution

Rs/Q

% stdev

Average of daily

price spread left of

modal price due to

produce quality

% daily

spread to

left due to

quality

difference

Average of daily price

spread right of modal

price due to produce

quality

% daily

spread to

right due

to quality

difference

Wheat 1525 1637.1 8% 96.4 6% 197.6 12%

Bajra 1275 1552.9 11% 139.9 9% 125.9 8%

Jowar 1570 1775.5 15% 24.8 1% 41.1 2%

Maize 1325 1451.4 16% 47.3 3% 27.9 2%

Tur 4625 7379.2 12% 391.4 5% 164.1 2%

Gram 3425 4434.4 14% 522.2 12% 374.0 8%

Soyabean 2600 3691.1 6% 284.8 8% 185.5 5%

Onions NA 1728.7 73% 905.5 52% 386.1 22%

Tomato NA 1343.8 51% 571.8 43% 545.6 41%

Pomegranate NA 3971.9 26% 3597.9 91% 3369.1 85%

Analysis of daily wholesale prices across all APMC markets for Nashik distict (2015-16)

Data source: agmarket.gov.in

23

for non-perishable produce (73% for onions, 51% for tomato as compared to 6% for soyabean

and 8-16% for food grains). The difference between the modal rate and the min rate of the day

gives the price spread to the left and the difference between the max rate for the day and the

modal rate gives the price spread to the right for any day. These variations are typically caused

due to a difference in quality of the produce. Example, for onions, on average the minimum

price was 52% lower than the modal price and the maximum price was 22% higher than the

modal rate. For pomegranate this was even higher at 91% on the lower side and 85% on the

higher side. This means that while the modal rate for pomegranate on a day may be Rs. 4000

per quintal, there are farmers who are getting a rate that is 91% lower than this – i.e. they are

having to sell produce at throw-away price. In contrast, price variation due to quality spread on

any day in a market is significantly lower for non-perishable produce. This shows that fruits

and vegetables carry a higher market risk than other produce for the farmer.

3.5 Horticulture by landholding class

Data from agricultural census 2010-11

(GoI 2015a) is used to understand which

class of farmers grow fruit and

vegetables. Overall, 67% of all

landholdings are marginal (<1 ha), 18%

are small (between 1 to 2 ha), 10% are in

the semi-medium class (2 to 4 ha), and the

remaining 5% are medium or large. As

shown in Figure 3.5, 80% of the

landholdings that are used to grow fruits

and 72% of landholdings used for

growing vegetables belong to the marginal (< 1 ha) category. Area wise, 26% of the area under

fruits and 34% of area under vegetables is made up by marginal landholdings. This suggests

that fruits and vegetables are grown by disproportionally more marginal and small farmers.

Together, they account for 91% of fruit growing landholdings and 87% of all vegetable

growing landholdings. By area, they account for 50% of all area under fruits and 58% of all

area under vegetables.

At first glance this is a surprising finding given that fruits and vegetables are more water-

intensive and have higher input requirements. However, the agricultural census 1990-91 (GoI

1991) provides some clues. It provides estimates of number of landholdings by class for

Figure 3.5: Share of farmers by landholding class for different crops

24

different vegetable and fruit crops separately. This shows that there are certain fruits (like

mango, banana, papaya, guava) and certain vegetables (like tapioca, cucumber, gourds etc.)

which are grown disproportionally more on marginal landholdings. On the other hand, fruits

such as pomegranate, grapes and vegetables such as onion, tomatoes, spinach, cabbage,

cauliflower etc. are grown more by larger landholding farmers. Figure 3.6 shows this for

different crops and is sorted by increasing share of marginal landholdings. Although this data

is old (2010-11 census report does not include this detail), it can be assumed to be a good

indication especially since fruit orchards tend to have a lifespan of 10-20 years.

Figure 3.6: Share of landholdings under different crops by landholding class

This suggests that there may be different category of fruits/ vegetables that are preferred by

marginal and small farmers. However, there is little secondary data available on the area under

different F&V crops by landholding size, their productivity, market rates, input prices etc. other

than for the main crops.

3.6 Horticulture in Maharashtra

The three leading fruit producing states are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The

leading vegetable producing states are West Bengal, UP and Bihar.

25

Note that nationwide, 8% of all landholdings grow fruits and 9% of all landholdings grow

vegetables. For Maharashtra, 6% of all landholdings grow fruits and 3% grow vegetables (GoI

2015a). In terms of gross cropped area, both country-wide and state-wide, the area under fruits

and vegetables is about 5%, hence it implies that the average landholding size growing F&V

in Maharashtra is much larger.

In terms of value, the share of

fruits and vegetables has gone

down in the past decade but

remains at about 25%. The

share of sugar has seen a

dramatic increase in addition to

some increase in oilseeds and

pulses (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.9 shows the

distribution of Maharashtra

state’s GCA and GIA among

the main crops. Fruits and vegetables together form 5% of the state’s GCA but 15% of the

gross irrigated area. Sugarcane, which covers 4% of the GCA, accounts for 20% of the gross

irrigated area of the state.

Figure 3.7: Fruit and Vegetable production by states (Source: GoI 2014a)

Figure 3.8: Share of state agricultural output by crop type

26

Figure 3.9: Share of Maharashtra's GCA and GIA by crop type

In terms of value, the most important fruit and vegetable crops of the state are: onion, citrus

fruits, banana, grapes, mango, tomato and papaya. Figure 3.10 shows the trend in their values.

Figure 3.10: Share of top fruits and vegetables in the state F&V output by value

Nashik is the state’s number 1district in terms of both fruits and vegetable production (as well

as the district with the highest area under each category). The main vegetable crops of the

district include onions and tomatoes. The main fruits are grapes and pomegranate (Table 3.5).

27

Table 3.5: Top 5 districts in Maharashtra by area under F&V

3.7 Limitations of secondary data analysis

This section presented a picture of the changing patterns in agriculture. While there are

important clues in this analysis, there are severe limitations as well. The data on agriculture,

especially on horticulture, has significant limitations. Processes such as crop-cutting

experiments which are used to estimate yield are performed only for select crops in a region

while the rest of the production is poorly estimated. The sown area under each crop is also only

estimated visually by agricultural assistants. The value of output is even more suspect because

it uses the above two statistics in addition to average wholesale prices in the primary markets

to estimate the output value (CSO 2013). Visit to APMCs and a study of their procedures has

established the poor data maintained by them. For crops such as fruits and vegetables, the

quality of data is significantly poorer Hence, secondary data is useful only so far as to get some

clues on patterns and that too only for main crops. It is thus crucial to gather primary data

through field work to gain deeper understanding.

Top 5 districts by

area

Share of

Maharashtra

area

Share of

Maharashtra

production

Major vegetable/fruit

Nashik 26% 28% Onion, Tomato

Pune 17% 24% Onion, Tomato, Leafy vegetables

Ahmednagar 16% 12% Onion

Solapur 9% 6% Onion

Dhule 8% 6% Onion

Nashik 15% 18% Grapes, Pomegranate

Amravati 10% 7% Mandarin Orange

Sindhudurg 9% 2% Mango, Kokam

Jalgaon 8% 28% Banana

Ratnagiri 8% 2% Mango

Fruits

Vegetables

2014-15 Maharashtra state - Top 5 districts by area under vegetables and fruitsSource: Horticulture APY obtained from the Director of Horticulture office, Pune

28

4. Research questions and methodology

It is seen that horticulture cultivation raises productivity and farm incomes. At the same time,

it has also been shown to raise social inequality and to cause degradation of natural resources.

In light of this, the primary research question is:

What are the social and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification

through horticulture cultivation? More specifically:

a) What social factors drive horticulture cultivation and what are its social consequences for

individual farmers as well as for the community at large? This specifically relates to normative

concerns such as equity and economic viability.

b) What is the role of ecological factors such as climate and water resources that drive

intensification? What is the ecological impact of the practice of horticulture cultivation on

access to groundwater and other water resources?

c) Under what conditions can horticulture cultivation raise farm productivity while ensuring

social-ecological sustainability?

4.1 Approach

An interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,

engineering, economics and systems thinking.

Selection of field area: The objective of field work was to select farmers across varying agro-

climatic conditions within the intensifying horticulture belt and to study their farming practice

and farm decisions. Secondary data analysis was conducted at a regional level using GIS

mapping and field locations were selected based on a combination of attributes.

Field work: Field work was done using detailed ethnographic interviews and biophysical

surveys. Structured surveys and group discussions were also conducted. Biophysical factors

such as soil depth, soil texture, farm location and water resources were noted. Economic factors

included cropping pattern, cost of cultivation, crop yields, market returns, investments made in

water, knowledge etc.

Documentation: Qualitative and quantitative data from the field work was documented.

Qualitative data included village farmer narratives and trajectories. Quantitative data included

farm GIS location tags, farmers’ socio-economic attributes, farm biophysical factors, seasonal

cropping decisions and farm economics. Panel data was collected in two annual rounds: 2015-

16 and 2016-17

29

Primary data analysis: Basic analytics and econometric tools were utilised for the analysis of

primary data to understand inputs, risks and returns associated with different horticulture crops

and to find correlation between farmer characteristics and cropping pattern.

Framework for building a thesis: Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) was found to

be most relevant in our context for interpretation of findings and building a thesis. SESF is

based on the collective action theory and relies heavily on systems thinking and game theory

as analytical tools which were used for model-building. Modeling was done to explain field

observations and to uncover the feedback mechanisms in the social-ecological system.

Leverage points within the system were identified for interventions.

Extension and intervention design: The recommendation were presented to stakeholders

including the agriculture department of the Government of Maharashtra (GoM). As per the

requirements of IIT Bombay’s partnership with the GoM (IITB and GoM 2017)in the World

Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA), a tool was developed to

identify farmer vulnerability on the basis of farm-level water balance. The tool was handed

over to the PoCRA –IITB team, which after further development, productized the tool and is

currently using it for planning interventions in the PoCRA region.

4.2 Selection of field area

The objective of field work was to select farmers across varying agro-climatic conditions

within the intensifying horticulture belt and to study their farming practice and farm decisions.

Nashik district was chosen as the region for field work as it is the largest producer of vegetable

and fruit in the state of Maharashtra. It is home to the country’s largest onion and tomato

wholesale markets. Grapes and pomegranates from Nashik are well known in the local and

export market. Peninsular India’s largest river Godavari

originates here and flows through the district hence there

is history of early intensification. However, outside of this

stretch, there is spatial variation in the extent of

intensification and farmers range in their practice from

subsistence to industrial level farming.

Figure 4.1: Nashik district

30

Nashik district is made of 15 administrative blocks. Table 4.1 shows block-wise summary of

cultivated area for grains, pulses, oilseeds, fruits and vegetables (2008-09 data) (Maharashtra

2013). Nashik, Niphad and Dindori talukas are greatly dominated by cash crops and have a

relatively small share of cereals. Sinnar block, on the other hand, has a large share of vegetable

production but at the same time has 68% of its area under grains. Sinnar taluka was selected

for village level survey since it was identified to be a region with ongoing intensification. In

2008-09, Sinnar had 13% of its cultivable land under vegetable cultivation which went up to

18% by 2014.

Hectares

sown

2008-09

Total grains Total lentils

Total veg

(includes

onions)

Total

fruits

Sugarcan

eSpice oilseeds non-edible Total

24,054 5,210 92 169 6 20 - 1,959 31,510

76% 17% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 6%

32,935 5,693 4,646 8 1,964 1,830 1,295 175 48,546

68% 12% 10% 0% 4% 4% 3% 0%

24,734 2,097 5,997 77 671 458 1,099 900 36,033

69% 6% 17% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2%

53,676 6,307 4,115 713 3,220 754 6,037 5,062 79,884

67% 8% 5% 1% 4% 1% 8% 6%

55,620 6,445 3,831 226 412 106 - 1,634 68,274

81% 9% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2%

26,715 756 8,696 25 115 29 271 226 36,833

73% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

38,853 4,261 9,429 2,073 20 547 7 4,481 59,671

65% 7% 16% 3% 0% 1% 0% 8%

23,061 7,761 9,349 6,774 6,107 1,128 5,914 9,926 70,020

33% 11% 13% 10% 9% 2% 8% 14%

16,658 4,250 29 12,497 71 9 - - 33,514

50% 13% 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0%

29,219 9,410 - - - - - - 38,629

76% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8,729 2,257 6,444 1,399 811 704 - 3,227 23,777

37% 9% 27% 6% 3% 3% 0% 14%

24,700 3,525 1,100 88 2,241 96 5,592 2,818 40,160

62% 9% 3% 0% 6% 0% 14% 7%

43,970 4,957 8,260 1,079 1,319 511 1,811 2,539 64,446

68% 8% 13% 2% 2% 1% 3% 4%

21,863 2,170 12,518 15,322 8,270 469 - 798 61,410

36% 4% 20% 25% 13% 1% 0% 1%

38,750 13,002 15,373 433 28 232 4,435 572 72,825

53% 18% 21% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1%

4,63,537 78,101 89,879 40,883 25,255 6,893 26,461 34,317 7,65,532

61% 10% 12% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4%

Nandgaon

Surgana

Kalwan

Deola

Baglan

Malegaon

Sinnar

Niphad

Yevla

Total

Chandvad

Dindori

Peint

Trimbak

Nashik

Igatpuri

Table 4.1: Block-wise area under main crops for Nashik district

31

Sinnar comprises of 130 villages with net cultivable area of 98 thousand hectares. The most

important crops of Sinnar are bajra, soyabean, onions and

tomato amongst vegetables and grapes and pomegranate

amongst fruits. Table 4.2 shows the area under cultivation for

various crop types in Sinnar taluka in 2014-15(GoM 2016).

Sinnar makes a good case study because of the diversity of the

agro-climatic conditions within the taluka.

Sinnar receives a low average rainfall of 568.6 mm annually.

Figure 4.2 shows the trend in the annual rainfall and number of

rainy days in the year. It shows that in recent years there has

not only been a decline in amount of rainfall but also in the

number of rainy days in the year.

According to (GoI 2014c), the stage of ground water

development in Sinnar is “semi-critical” at 98.72% (i.e.

the ratio of gross annual draft of groundwater for all

uses to the net annual ground water available) compared

to a district average of 49.33%. Agriculture is the

primary user of water in this region and industrial use is

negligible.

Regional analysis for Village selection

The objective of village selection was to cover regions with varying agro-climate, watershed

attributes and social composition. This was done using a GIS based analysis of various

attributes. Secondary data was obtained from national census and Sinnar administrative,

agricultural and irrigation offices. Layers included: demographic census data, digital elevation

map, drainage lines, watershed boundaries, cropping pattern (obtained from block agricultural

office), villages with drinking water scarcity (obtained from block level minor irrigation

office), groundwater development stage (from Maharashtra Groundwater Survey and

Development Authority (GSDA)), locations of agricultural produce wholesale markets etc. A

regional analysis of Sinnar block, which forms the basis for village selection, is described

below.

Crop type

Hectares

under

cultivation

(2014-15)

% of

cultivable

land

Kharif pulses 1,182 1%

Kharif cereal 30,617 31%

Kharif onion 4,558 5%

Rabi cereal 8,330 8%

Rabi harbhara 4,650 5%

Rabi onion 5,607 6%

Sugarcane 532 1%

Cotton 1,583 2%

Oilseeds 15,990 16%

Other Vegetables 7,084 7%

Fruits 4,906 5%

Gross sown area 85,038 87%

Total Cultivable land 98,226 100%

Table 4.2 Area under cultivation in Sinnar taluka for different crop categories (2014-15)

Figure 4.2: Sinnar taluka: Trends in annual rainfall and rainy days

32

A taluka level analysis of Sinnar taluka

shows wide disparities in access to water.

There is increased water stress as we move

from West to East. As Figure 4.3 shows

rainfall decreases sharply as we go from the

western part (e.g. Pandhurli) to eastern

parts of the taluka such as Wavi and Shaha.

In the last decade, changing intensity and

frequency of rainfall in the taluka has

impacted agriculture significantly. Large part of the block practices rain-fed agriculture and

has seen successive crop failures in the past 3-4 years. Untimely rain and hail has increased

agricultural losses in areas which practice horticulture. In general, the risk associated with

agriculture has increased tremendously due to changes in climate. An increased dependence on

ground water has created drinking water crisis.

As marked by red dots in Figure 4.4, there were 49

villages in the central and eastern part of the block

that were tanker-fed for drinking water in

November 2015.

The regional analysis shows that there are three

types of regions within the block:

(i) Western and Northern parts with relatively good access to water: This region is in

the Darna watershed. In addition to having comparatively better rainfall, this region

has presence of surface water sources and medium irrigation projects such as Darna,

Kadva and Godavari. There is large scale practice of horticulture in this region

round the year – tomatoes, grapes (including wine grapes), in addition to sugarcane

is grown in many parts of this region.

(ii) The second region is the Devnadi watershed: This region is relatively water scarce.

However, work on revival and creation of irrigation structures in the Devnadi

watershed by Yuva Mitra and other agencies has helped significantly by improving

the availability of irrigation water and replenishing groundwater. Vegetable

cultivation is practiced on a large scale in the Kharif season. However, practice of

horticulture in the Rabi and summer seasons, where present, sits in contrast to the

Figure 4.4: tanker-fed villages in Nov 2015

Figure 4.3: Circle-wise rainfall trends for Sinnar taluka

33

co-existing drinking water stress and lack of sufficient water for protective

irrigation. Thus, equitability and sustainability of water access in this area is of

concern.

(iii) The third region comprises the southern and eastern watershed of Pravara which are

the driest and are largely dependent on rainfed agriculture. There is widespread

drinking water crisis here as seen by the dependence on tanker-water. There is a

need to secure water for drinking as well as protective irrigation for all farms.

Horticulture is practiced by some farmers make large investments to secure water

(e.g. private lift irrigation schemes, use of tanker water etc.).

A broader taluka level analysis of the cropping pattern is shown in Figure 4.5. It illustrates the

differences in the three regions described above. The water scarce region in the taluka is largely

left fallow in Rabi. The western part of the block practices soybean and horticulture cultivation.

However, even in these areas we find a competition for water between protective irrigation for

cereals, water-intensive horticulture and drinking water.

Methodology

Based on the taluka level analysis five different clusters of villages were selected for deeper

analysis. Clusters were chosen so as to cover different types of zones in the taluka covering

Figure 4.6: Selected village clusters for village selection

Figure 4.5: Predominant crop in Kharif and Rabi

34

different watersheds, levels of ground water stress, surface water availability and proximity to

markets. The final village selection in each cluster was done in consultation with village

agricultural assistants (government officials) after a discussion of project goals. The final

selection was:

Cluster 1: Pandhurli village; Cluster 2: Wadgaon Sinnar; Cluster 4: Dodhi Kh., Cluster 5:

Dapur village. In case of cluster 3, instead of concentrating the surveys in one village alone,

surveys were conducted in different villages along the northern boundary of the taluka as this

region forms a belt of large horticulture production due to proximity to Kadva canal and

Godavari right bank canal networks.

4.3 Field work methodology

Field work was conducted in two rounds. The first round was in 2015-16 and the second one

in 2016-17.

In phase 1 of year 1, introductory meetings were held with stakeholders such as village

administrators and officers (village administrative head, village development office,

agricultural assistant and revenue officer). The goals of the study were discussed and the

following data was gathered at the village level: village history, social composition,

geographical location of hamlets, active institutions, livelihoods, cropping pattern and its

history, drinking water situation, water scarcity levels and village rules (if any) made to

regulate water and minimize conflict. Cadastral maps and landholding data were obtained. The

first tour of the farmlands was done with the agricultural assistant in-charge of the village who

provided an introduction to various crops and field practices. Phase 1 activities took 2 days of

field work per village.

In phase 2 of year 1 farmer household interviews were conducted along with observation of

farming practice and biophysical factors (water sources, soil type, farm location etc.). Farmer

selection was done on the basis of farm location. Stratified random selection was used to select

farms on the village cadastral map to ensure that different geographical regions of the village

were covered (upland-lowland, close to streams and away). A neighboring farm was selected

in case the farmer could not be located or declined participation. An effort was also made to

stay close to the village landholding size distribution and to ensure that all landholding

communities were represented.

In the first round, a total of 140 farmers were interviewed across all clusters February 2016 and

August 2016. Free-flowing discussion along with structured surveys were carried out with each

35

farmer in Marathi and Hindi, capturing both qualitative and quantitative information. This was

supplemented with group discussions.

Farmers’ fields were geo-tagged and data was collected on socio-economic attributes of the

household, details of their agricultural practices and farm economics, water access and

irrigation. Interviews also included open-ended questions on history of cropping pattern,

household aspirations and access to knowledge. Crop data (area under each crop, irrigation and

crop economics) was captured for three seasons: Kharif 2015-16, Rabi 2015-16 and summer

2015-16. Since no farmer had any written record of past or current investments or returns, the

data on farm economics was based on recalls and farmers’ estimates. An important part of the

discussion was future plans of the farmers and whether they were likely to make any significant

changes to their farming practice and reasons for the same.

A second round of surveys was conducted in the period February 2017 to April 2017 in only 4

of the primary survey villages: Pandhurli, Wadgaon Sinnar, Dodhi and Dapur. 88 of the

original 140 farmers were revisited at this time. The objective was to capture data for Kharif

2016-17, Rabi 2016-17 season and plans for summer 2016-17 and to have a qualitative

discussion on farming decisions made since the last meeting.

The year 2015-16 was a very bad drought year in the field area due to the cumulative effect of

consecutive droughts in preceding years. In contrast, the monsoon of 2016 was a very good

rainfall year. Though the crop yields were good in general in 2016-17, agricultural wholesale

prices crashed partly due to a bumper crop and partly due to the currency demonetization. The

Pandhurli

Wadgaon SInnar

Dodhi Kh.

Dapur

Mahajanpur

Pathare Bk

Kirtangali Naigaon Jaigaon

Figure 4.7: Location of surveyed farmers (blue farmers surveyed in both years; green farmers only in first year)

36

surveys thus captured farmer coping strategies and responses to varying water access and

market dynamics during the study period.

Figure 4.7 shows the location of each of the 140 farmers surveyed with green dots. Farmers

who were surveyed for a second time in 2016-17 are shown in blue colour.

4.4 Design of survey

Appendix A contains the survey instrument that was developed for the study. The different

sections of the questionnaire are:

a) farmer’s socio-economic information

b) data on resources such as soil type (soil texture and depth) and water sources – ground water

sources (number of wells, location, depth, months of water available, pump HP etc.) and

surface water sources (type of source such as canal, farm pond, lift scheme, stream etc., distance

from source, water sharing methodology etc.), information regarding investments made in

private schemes and infrastructure to enhance water access,

c) crops sown in different seasons (input cost, source of irrigation, number of irrigations, yield

obtained, market accessed, price obtained) and

d) open ended questions on changes in cropping pattern in the past 50 years, aspirations of the

household, access to knowledge input, financial stability (unpaid loans) etc.

Each survey took from 30 minutes to 2 hours or more to conduct depending on the extent of

engagement with the farmer and the number of crops that the farmer had sown. The second

year’s follow up survey validated some of the key data (such as water sources) and included

formats for collecting data on cropping practice and water availability for the second year.

Special attention was paid to any new investments made in the last year with respect to water

infrastructure or with respect to horticulture and the driving reasons for the same were explored.

37

5. Field Area: Sinnar

The four main villages that were surveyed were Wadgaon Sinnar, Dodhi Kh., Dapur and

Pandhurli. Besides this, farmers were surveyed in 5 other villages along the northern taluka

boundary: Pathare, Mahajanpur, Kirtangali, Naigaon and Jaigaon. In the second year follow up

surveys, farmers were revisited in the main four villages. This section provides reports the

biophysical attributes and historical trends in cropping pattern in the surveyed villages.

Table 5.1 presents some key attributes of the villages.

Table 5.1: Key attributes of surveyed villages

Villages along Kadwa

Demographic data

(SC: Scheduled Caste

ST: Scheduled Tribes)

Multiple villages : Jaigaon, Naigaon,

Pathare Bk, Mahajanpur, Kirtangali

Area Multiple villages

Mean ElevationJaigaon: 585, Naigaon: 570; Kirtangali:

563; Mahajanpur: 540; Pathare: 530m

Rainfall

(mm)

Year 2015

472.1

Year 2016

563

Year 2015

472.1

Year 2016

563

Year 2015

503.4

Year 2016

739

Year 2015

717.5

Year 2016

899.5

Jaigaon, Naigaon: 503.4

Kirtangali, Mahajanpur: 356.4

Pathare Bk: 218.4

Drinking water scarcity:

Received government

tankers?

Yes No Yes No No No No NoKirtangali and Pathare Bk: Tanker fed in

Sep 2015

Dominant soil typeClayey soil except Jaigaon which has

sandy loamy

Surface water

Naigaon: In Kadwa command and

adjoining Godavari

Jaigaon: Not in command, but private lift

possible from Kadwa command

Kirtangali: in Kadwa command

Mahajanpur: In Kadwa command but lifts

from GRB canal

Kharif crops

Pathare: soybean,

Jaygaon: Soyaban, onion, vegetables

Kirtangali: Bajra, maize, vegetables

Mahajanpur: soybean

Naigaon: soybean, onion

Rabi crops Onions, wheat

Multi-year cropsGrapes (wine grapes, table grapes),

pomegranate

2015 Cropping pattern:

sown area as % of net

cultivable area (>100%

due to multiple cropping

seasons)

Fruit orchard: 40% in Mahajanpur, 12% in

Pathare, 1% Jaigaon

soybean is close to 50% in Naigaon,

Jaigaon

Highest area under Kharif foodgrain in

Kirtangali : 50%

Population: 1893

Households: 319

SC: 8%; ST: 14%

Geographical: 1089 ha

Cultivable: 834 ha

670m

Dodhi Kh

Sandy loamy in southern

part and clayey soil in

northern part

Mostly Sandy loamy

Mostly black clayey soil

except gravelly clay close

to stream and hills

Mostly black clayey soil

except gravelly clay close to

stream and hills


Cultivable: 1320 ha

720 m 588m

Population: 5902

Households: 1066

SC: 3%; ST: 16%

Dapur Pandhurli

Population: 4447

Households: 826

SC: 23%; ST: 26%


Cultivable: 866 ha

Wadgaon Sinnar

Population: 2722

Households: 466

SC: 9%; ST: 30%


Cultivable: 693 ha

692m

Darna river (year round

water)Private group lift irirgation

schemes

Part of village in Bhojapur

Canal command area

Peal millet,onions

Peal millet, onions,

tomatoes and other

vegetables

Soybean, maize, paddy,

tomatoes and other

vegetables

Seasonal Devnadi river

recharges groundwater

through diversion based

irrigation system

Soybean, tomato and other

vegetables, maize

Kharif foodgrains: 66%

Soybean: 3%

Rabi foodgrain: 7%

Onion: 11%

Vegetables: 3%

Fruit orchards: 2%


Soybean: 5%

Rabi foodgrain: 15%

Onion: 6%

Vegetables: 9%

Fruit orchards: 15%


Soybean: 59%

Rabi foodgrain: 29%

Onion: 14%

Vegetables: 13%

Fruit orchards: 10%

Onions, wheat, maize,

vegetables

Pomegranate, grapes

Onions, green gram, wheat

Pomegranate Pomegranate

Onions, green gram, wheatOnions, wheat, green gram,

vegetables

Pomegranate, grapes


Soybean: 32%

Rabi foodgrain: 20%

Onion: 8%

Vegetables: 27%

Fruit orchards: 2%

38

5.1 Wadgaon Sinnar

Biophysical attributes: Wadgaon Sinnar is in the Devnadi watershed. Devnadi river forms the

northern boundary of the village (Figure 5.1).

There are two streams that flow from south to

north and meet Devnadi. The eastern stream is

the Duber-stream which tends to stay dry as most

of the water is impounded upstream in the many

bunds and percolation tanks. The western stream

originates in the village and also meets Devnadi.

This has comparatively more water than the

Duber stream. Upstream on Devnadi river is the

Konambe dam. The water in the streams is not

used directly for irrigation, instead it helps in ground water recharge and strengthening of wells.

There is considerable variation in the soil type. Farms close to the southern hilly region have

poor quality, shallow soil with larger sandy content while soils close to the stream are gravelly

clay loam or clayey in texture and deeper soils.

Water access: Devnadi has many

diversion-based irrigation (DBI)

structures that divert river water to

downstream villages in canals by

gravity. The DBI structure in

Sonambe village (upstream on

Devnadi) has a canal that comes

into Wadgaon Sinnar. Figure 5.2

shows the command area for the

canal which is the area between

Devnadi river and the DBI canal. It

also indicates the location of the interviewed farmers (pink dots). The canal runs continuously

during the monsoons and up to a month beyond the rains depending on the rainfall. Farmers

can block the entry of the canal when they do not need water or already have excess rain water

in their fields. Farmers who have their farms next to the canal and lower in elevation can operate

canal gates to flood their farms with canal water. This is a small fraction of farmers. Other

farmers tend to benefit indirectly from the percolation of canal water into their wells. There is

Figure 5.1: Wadgaon Sinnar cadastral map

Figure 5.2: Wadgaon Sinnar: DBI canal command area and surveyed farmers

39

a water user association that manages the DBI system. However, it is only a part of the village

that benefits from this canal directly or indirectly. The eastern zone of the village (to east of

Duber-stream) is the driest, where there is also drinking water scarcity in summer months. The

majority of the village is dependent on groundwater for irrigation. Deepening of wells and

drilling of horizontal borings up to 250 feet long in the side walls of wells was a common sight

during field visits. There are some horticulture farmers who have created farm ponds which

are filled by pumping ground water during monsoon season.

Cropping pattern: The main Kharif crops are soybean and vegetables such as tomatoes, carrots,

peas and broccoli. Wheat and onions are the main Rabi crops. Vegetables are also grown in

Rabi and summer season depending on water availability. A handful of farmers have invested

in precision farming polyhouses to grow vegetables. Here they grow vegetables such as

cucumbers, capsicums etc. in a controlled environment round the year. Pomegranate and grapes

are the main fruit crops. Tomatoes have been grown in this region for many years but it was

the non-hybrid local variety (which needs less water and is less input-intensive), that used to

be cultivated until a decade ago. Sugarcane was another crop that used to be grown along

Devnadi when water was abundant. However, as water became more scarce due to construction

of a dam upstream on Devnadi, sugarcane farming was nearly abandoned. Revival of the DBI

network helped in increasing groundwater recharge and more water availability in Kharif. This

allowed farmers to diversify to different types of horticulture crops. However, the benefits are

concentrated in the command area. The eastern non-command area is drier and wells do not

recharge completely for almost a month

after the beginning of monsoons. With

no access to any surface water, ground

water intensive farming is practiced. A

large number of farmers have laid

pipelines from wells in water rich

pockets close to Devnadi or the DBI

canal to bring water to their farms in the

water-starved parts of the village.

Figure 5.3: Rabi onion being cultivated

40

5.2 Dodhi Kh.

Biophysical attributes: Dodhi Kh. village belongs partly to the dry

Jamnadi watershed and partly to the Devnadi watershed (a ridge

passes through the village). The western part of the village borders

with Dapur village, which is also taken up for the surveys. Figure

5.4 shows the village cadastral map.

The soil type in Dodhi Kh. varies significantly from farm to farm.

In general, the northern farms (Ramoshiwadi) have deeper, better

quality soil with higher clay content. The farms in the south have

sandy loam or gravelly sandy loam texture with shallow soil depth.

This soil type is considered ideal to cultivate onions.

Water access: Dodhi Kh. comes in the command area of the

Bhojapur canal. Bhojapur reservoir is in the Mahalunge river

watershed. Due to water scarcity in the Jamnadi watershed, the

Bhojapur canal network was created to facilitate an inter-

watershed water transfer. Bhojapur dam is a medium irrigation project with a catchment area

of 154 sq. km and a gross storage of 13.34 MCum. The length of the canals is 17.2 km with a

gross command area of 5260 ha. The canal from Bhojapur reservoir passes through a tunnel in

the ridge separating the two watersheds and distributes water to many villages in the Jamnadi

watershed, including some in Ahmednagar district. However, there is a lot of stress on this

single reservoir as there are rural regional piped water drinking schemes that also have

reservation on the Bhojapur water.

Canal rotations are unpredictable since

the dam itself does not fill up

completely every year (like in 2014-15

and 2015-16) and there are many

competing claims for the water.

Typically, there are 2 or 3 canal

rotations in the year for about 10-15

days each. For example, in 2014-15

water was released in canals once for

Kharif in Aug/Sept and a second time

in Rabi season during Dec/Jan. However, in 2015-16 because of the severity of drought there

Figure 5.5: Surveyed farmers in Dapur and Dodhi villages and the Bhojapur canal network

Figure 5.4: Dodhi Kh. cadastral map

41

was no water released for irrigation. Hence, even though Dodhi Kh. is in the Bhojapur

command area, it has very low assurance of water. A stream called Dapur nala flows through

the village but it is dry other than during rains.

Some farmers have made investments in water

infrastructure. They have dug bore wells and

constructed farm ponds (Figure 5.6) to store water.

These are private farm ponds constructed with or

without government subsidy and are lined with plastic

to avoid percolation losses. Farmers who are located

close to Bhojapur canal use the canal water to fill their

farm ponds. Others pump water from their own wells

during monsoon season and fill up the farm

ponds. This water is used once their wells dry

up. A complex network of pumps and pipes

complete the network.

Figure 5.7 shows a satellite image of the area

around Bhojapur canals (canal is marked in

orange line). The blue dots show private farm

ponds clustered along the Bhojapur canal

network. Farm ponds and pomegranate

farms go hand-in-hand in this region.

Figure 5.5 shows the location of farmers in Dodhi Kh and Dapur that were surveyed. For

drinking water, the gaothan has a rural regional scheme from Bhojapur reservoir which

receives water every 2-3 days. Awhadwadi, a hamlet of Dodhi Kh. with a population of 300

had severe scarcity and was dependent on tankers at the time of survey.

Cropping pattern: Dodhi has been traditionally known for its onion crop and there is also a

wholesale market in Dodhi for onions. However, the onion production has dropped

significantly due to consecutive droughts. Onions are sown in Kharif as well as in Rabi but

there have been widespread crop failures. The main Kharif crop here is pearl millet but many

households reported crop failure because of long dry spell in the rains. Soybean is not grown

in this village because of the poor-quality soil and low rainfall. Besides pearl millet and onions,

some farmers grow leafy vegetables like coriander and fenugreek in Kharif. A large part of

Figure 5.6: A lined farm pond

Figure 5.7: Farm ponds dotting the Bhojapur canal

42

land is left fallow in Rabi during poor rainfall years. Those who were able to irrigate, grow

onions and wheat but have very low yields. Sorghum and harbhara (gram) are usually sown in

Rabi using soil moisture alone or 1-2 irrigations when water is available.

5.3 Dapur

Biophysical attributes: Dapur is in the south of the Devnadi watershed. It is at a higher elevation

(about 720 meters) and the village extends up to the ridge separating Devnadi watershed from

Mahalungi watershed. Dapur has only one stream passing through it which originates from the

hills in the west and goes towards Dodhi. But there is no water in this stream other than during

rains. The soil type is generally poor and texture is sandy loam or gravelly sandy loam.

Water access: Dapur is as dry as Dodhi Kh., and does not lie in the Bhojapur canal command

area. However, farmers in this village have been very enterprising and have formed groups to

privately design and construct lift irrigation schemes which lift water from villages adjoining

Bhojapur reservoir.

The lift irrigation scheme works as follows (Figure 5.8). 10 to 15 farmers come together and

invest money into the scheme. They first purchase a small plot of land close to the reservoir in

Chas or Chapadgaon village where a well is dug (70-80 feet deep). Such a well has water

available year-round because of the

recharge from the reservoir. A two

stage lift scheme is designed. For

example, there is usually a 30 HP

pump in the source well close to the

reservoir. From here water is pumped

to a second (storage) well in

Chapadgaon village. A second pump

(also 25-30 HP rating) is used to

pump to a collective RCC tank in

Dapur. From this tank water flows

through gravity to each farmer’s farm

where individual farmers may store

water in their farm ponds or in their wells. Water is then pumped out from the pond/well into

the fields. Some of these lift schemes date back to the 1990s. The total length of pipeline from

Bhojapur Reservoir

Private lift across 10-15 km

Figure 5.8: Private lift irrigation schemes in Dapur

43

source well to destination runs 10 to 20km and has to go across the ridge separating the two

watersheds.

The upfront investment is more than Rs 6 lakh per farmer. The electricity charges for operations

is insignificant because of the low farm power tariffs – also the average per farmer pump rating

turns out to be about 8 HP for the

entire operation.

There are often conflicts about the

path for pipe-laying and Dapur

farmers have to compensate farmers

in other villages who allow pipes to

pass through their land. Regular

maintenance of the infrastructure

causes significant operational

expenses to the farmers. Water is

available all 12 months of the year from this scheme but increasingly there is uncertainty during

summer months when the irrigation department cuts off electricity connection to these private

lift schemes. Hence, the rights and entitlements of the Dapur farmers are unclear about such

schemes which are at the cusp of public-private systems as well as surface-water and

groundwater. Although there is no official estimate, the number of lift irrigation schemes in the

village is significant.

Dapur also has the same rural regional drinking water scheme as Dodhi. Water is provided

every 2-3 days in the main residential hamlet. Water tankers have been required repeatedly

since the past few years to provide drinking water to many habitations away from the residential

hamlet.

Cropping pattern: There is a contrast

between cropping patterns of farmers who

have a lift irrigation scheme vs. those who

do not. Most farmers without lift scheme

grow Pearl millet in Kharif. Some also grow

vegetables like kothmir and vaalvad. Some

farmers reported growing tomatoes but

had a failed crop. Onion is the

Figure 5.9: Dapur is dotted with these private RCC tanks through which water is distributed to the beneficiaries

Figure 5.10: Vegetable farming in Dapur

44

predominant Rabi crop. Of farmers who had private lift schemes 80% had fruit orchards and

100% cultivated vegetables. The share of cereals is less and instead vegetables such as

tomatoes, valvad and kothmir are preferred. Dapur also has a very high share of land under

pomegranate and grape orchards.

5.4 Pandhurli

Biophysical attributes: Pandhurli village is in the Darna watershed and is on the western

boundary of the block bordering with Igatpuri block. The village receives one of the highest

rainfalls in the block. Darna river, which is a tributary to Godavari, is an important source of

water for the village. The upstream Darna dam releases water into it. Because of the favourable

rainfall and the perennial stream, the groundwater levels in Pandhurli are good and most

farmers are able to depend on their wells to take 2 crops. Additionally, some farmers also have

wells close to Darna river or lift water directly from the river for irrigation.

There are two streams that flow through the village as shown in the map. One of the streams

(Kol Ohl) has a dam on it upstream in Borkhind village. There is rarely water released in this

stream other than in monsoons. The other stream also tends to be dry other than in monsoons.

Water access: Some wells go dry during summer, but the majority have some water available

and there is considerable area under summer cropping. There are, however, a few households

that have to depend on others’ wells for their summer drinking water needs. While Pandhurli

is significantly better off compared to other surveyed villages with respect to water availability,

villagers believe that there is

reduced availability of water and

though ground water levels are

good, there is increasing stress

leading to new wells being dug or

deepened.

Village drinking water scheme is

based on a well which is 56 ft deep.

It used to be able to provide year-

round drinking water but in the last few years has been drying up completely in summer. The

well was deepened in 2015-16 during the survey period.

Figure 5.11: Surveyed farmers in Pandhurli

45

Cropping pattern: Soybean and vegetable cultivation, especially tomato cultivation, happens at

a large scale. A new wholesale produce sub-market yard has opened in Pandhurli for tomatoes.

Some farmers also grow paddy in Kharif. In Rabi, onions, wheat, potato and tomato are grown.

Farmers that have water for a summer crop grow vegetables such as brinjal, cauliflower,

cabbage etc. In spite of the good water levels, the share of area under fruit orchards is not

significantly large.

5.5 Villages in Northern Sinnar

Instead of working in a single village in the northern cluster, a different approach was taken in

order to understand the relation between canal irrigation and cropping patterns. Field visits

were conducted in 5 different villages along the Kadwa and Godavari right bank (GRB) canal

(Figure 5.12). These are described below:

Figure 5.12: Surveyed villages in Northern Sinnar

Pathare Bk.: The Godavari right bank canal (GRB), which emerges from the Nandur

Madhmeshwar weir just north of Sinnar block passes through this village. Pathare is not in the

command area of the canal and the water is intended for downstream villages. The canal

operates throughout the year with each rotation lasting 21 days and breaks 8 days between each

rotation. However, there were large breaks in the canal rotation during the survey period

because of drought conditions.

There are many informal mechanisms through which farmers draw canal water for irrigation:

either directly through underground pipes or siphons; or indirectly through extraction from

wells adjoining the canal. Land next to the canal fetches high price for this reason. The villagers

of Pathare Bk also have a community lift irrigation scheme called Shriram Lift irrigation

society which was designed in 1975. An 18-year license was obtained from the irrigation

46

department which now has to be renewed every 2 years. Two 75 HP pumps are used to pump

water diverted from the GRB canal into a network of open charis spread in the village. The

license allows them to draw water to cultivate 375 acres in Kharif and 450 acres in Rabi. No

water can be drawn after the month of February. Beneficiaries pay a fixed rate of Rs 1000/acre

and there is no restriction on the crop choice. There are two Rabi rotations and two rotations in

Kharif. However, in drought years there have been restrictions on drawing water from GRB

canal. This has led to individual farmers making private arrangements to siphon water from the

canal or make wells close to the GRB canal.

The village has a green zone close to the Godavari canal which is water abundant and

sugarcane, fruit orchards and vegetables are grown here. The western part of the village away

from the canal is dry and depends on water imported from the green zone or from the canal

rotation of the community lift scheme. Farmers routinely resort to purchasing tankers for

irrigating their orchards and considering the high cost of tankers, investments in private

pipelines and farm ponds are on the rise. Farmers who cannot make investments in elaborate

water infrastructure have to make do with an irregular and undependable schedule of water

availability. In such a scenario, they cannot grow horticulture crops such as fruit orchards or

tomatoes that require precise irrigation schedule and instead stick to cereals, pulses or crops

such as onion or soybean.

For drinking water, Pathare Bk has a 12 village rural regional drinking water scheme. This

scheme is based on a tank that stores water from the Godavari right bank canal. However,

during the period of field work the village received tanker water once every 5 days.

Mahajanpur: Mahajanpur is a small village on the North Eastern part of the taluka. It is in the

command area of the Kadwa canal (tail ending village) but it also borders the GRB canal (on

the side of higher-elevation). Because of the proximity to the GRB canal, the village does not

make any demands from the Kadwa canal. Godavari river is about 5km from the village. The

village has good quality black soil.

47

Villagers have dug deep wells that draw water from the canal directly or through percolation.

Earth along the canal has been ripped open, piles of mined rock line the road and there is a web

of underground pipes cutting into the canal (Figure 5.13).

The first private pipeline from the canal to farm was laid in

1991. The availability of assured water due to this spurred a

grape revolution in the village. Prior to this, farmers mainly

grew wheat, bajra, sugarcane and onions.

This village has 40% of its cultivable area under grapes and

pomegranate farms. Pomegranate is only a small fraction

and a recent change from grapes in response to growing

water stress. Grapes have been grown in this area for about

10-15 years. This village is one of the villages that grows

wine grapes for Sula Winery. It is typically medium or large

landholding farmers that get into wine grape contracts.

Naigaon: Naigaon is a village located along Godavari river

that is well endowed with water (Figure 5.14). Kadwa canal

passes through the village. There are no charis from the

canal here but the village wells benefit from percolation of

canal water. Kadwa canal typically has rotations in Kharif,

Rabi and also in March/April depending on water

availability. However, there rotations were temporarily

stopped during the drought year of 2015-16. Farmers lift

water from Godavari and grow crops such as sugarcane,

fruits, vegetables (onions, tomato, cabbage) etc. Soybean

and wheat are also grown. Most farmers are assured of 2 crops because of the water levels.

Jaigaon: Jaigaon is a neighbouring village but it is outside the command area of Kadwa canal

(and at a higher elevation) and further away from Godavari river. The village is significantly

drier than Naigaon. Farmers have laid private pipelines from canal or from Godavari river to

bring water to their farm. pipeline has also helped resolve his drinking water issue. But majority

of the farmers do not have access to such arrangements. They typically grow bajra, soyabean

and onions in Kharif and wheat, onions in Rabi.

Figure 5.13: (a) GRB canal dotted with large wells (b) A farm-pond sized well

(c) Mined rocks line the entry to Mahajanpur

Figure 5.14: Godavari along Naigaon (May 2016)

48

Kirtangali: Kirtangali village is in the command area of Kadwa canal and unlike the previous

villages it is distant from both GRB canal and Godavari river and depends primarily on the

Kadwa canal rotations. Kadwa canal became operational around 1995 before which farmers

were able to take only a crop of rainfed bajra and a crop of harbhara in Rabi using soil moisture.

Since the canal became operational more farmers have started growing vegetables such as

carrot, tomato, Rabi onions etc. Farmers pump water from the canal (or percolated water in

their wells) up to 2 km away to their farms. There are also about 10-15 farm ponds in the village

some of which are filled using ground water and some using canal water.

5.6 Summary

A summary of farmer narratives and their trajectory in terms of changing cropping patterns and

investments over time are provided in Appendix B. Appendix C contains GIS mapping of the

cropping pattern of all surveyed farmers for each of cropping seasons in the two survey years.

Dodhi village is highly drought prone. It was well-known for its onion but after repeated crop

failures farmers now either look for non-farm opportunities or intensify farming by starting

pomegranate orchards and investing in farm-ponds, often supported by government subsidy.

Dapur village, which is equally drought prone, has seen a sequence of investments in private

group lift irrigation schemes over the past 20 years that lift water from wells near Bhojapur

reservoir and bring this water to their farms over 10-15 km distance. These are expensive,

technically intricate systems which operate at the cusp of surface-water and groundwater and,

being in the gray area of regulation, need constant informal negotiations with different

agencies. The initial success led to a large number of such schemes on the same reservoir,

thereby increasing uncertainty in availability especially during summer. Recognizing the

diminishing assurance, many farmers then chose to make additional investments by

supplementing the lift scheme with private farm-ponds to buffer water for use in summer. A

direct consequence of this competition is seen in Dodhi village, which has a formal reservation

of water from Bhojapur reservoir, but cannot get its full allocation due to “leakages” from

private lifts (such as that of Dapur farmers), prompting farmers in Dodhi to abandon their

dependence on the canal network and also make private investments to assure water. But

despite large investments, there are frequent crop failures, typically of secondary crops when

farmers fall short of water and choose to save all water for the primary crop instead, and high

level of farmer indebtedness (Table 6.5).

49

Pandhurli has a significantly smaller share of farmers cultivating orchards than other villages.

The availability of assured water at a reasonable cost allows farmers here to have a viable and

diverse cropping pattern of seasonal food-grain, oilseeds and vegetable crops without taking

high risk. Wadgaon Sinnar village has a water rich zone and a dry zone. Farmers in the water-

rich zone have a history of intensification and have gradually shifted from paddy and sugarcane

to horticulture crops. Over the last two decades, farmers invested in transferring water from

wells in water rich pockets to drier zones in the village and using it to intensify practice. At the

same time, some habitations within the village experience severe drinking water scarcity in

summer. Thus, Wadgaon Sinnar too, is on its way to an unsustainable intensification.

A large number of farmers remain outside of the cycle of competitive investments and

intensification primarily due to socio-economic constraints. They are more prone to falling

short of irrigation due to creeping decline in the months of available water in their wells. This

leads to poor yields or de-intensification. In Dodhi, farmers with no wells who historically

depended on the Bhojapur canals, are forced to leave their land fallow in Rabi as competing

demands result in limited or no canal rotations. Farmers increasingly look to supplement their

income through other means such as casual labor work. In general, there is loss of faith in the

viability of farming in the long term and the younger generation aspires to find jobs in the non-

farm sector.

50

6. Findings: Uncertainty and coping mechanisms

This section is devoted to the findings that have emerged from field work and analysis of

primary data. We find that there are various social, economic and ecological factors that impact

farmer vulnerability and coping mechanisms. An interplay between these factors provide an

explanation for the trajectory towards horticulture cultivation and its consequences. The

following sub-sections describe each of these factors.

6.1 Operational regime

The hydrological year begins with June, when the monsoon breaks. Kharif (monsoon) is the

main cropping season, followed by the Rabi (winter) and summer seasons. Kharif sowing is

difficult to plan for the farmer as it is done at the onset of monsoon when there is no knowledge

of how good or bad the monsoon will be. Rabi and summer sowing are done after the monsoon

rains have ended when farmers are in a better position to estimate which crops may be most

appropriate for the rest of the year based on available water. Additionally, there are multi-year

crops such as grapes or pomegranate which once planted take a few years to mature. Water

availability peaks in July-September and diminishes as the year progresses. Irrigation in the

non-monsoon months depends on existing post-monsoon soil moisture, groundwater or water

transfers including that which is abstracted during monsoon and stored in ponds.

The annual groundwater cycle is closely tied to the cropping cycle. Groundwater level rises

due to recharge from monsoon rainfall in June to October period. Recharge varies based on

biophysical factors hence wells have different rates of recharge. This period corresponds to the

Figure 6.1: Groundwater and crop cycle

51

Kharif (monsoon) crop. If there is a long dry spell in the season, wells may or may not have

sufficient water to protect the Kharif crop. Post-monsoon Rabi and summer crops depend upon

groundwater for irrigation. Well levels start to drop due to extraction and partly due to

groundwater flows.

Irrigation is based primarily on ground water. The aquifer in Sinnar is shallow (10m-20m deep)

fractured basalt with moderate to poor yields (specific yield of 0.02) and is accessed by shallow

dug wells. Borewells are limited with poor yields and typically used for domestic purposes

only. Unlike the deep alluvial aquifers in North India, these experience seasonal variability in

ground water levels. An important feature of such aquifers is that there is no consistent year-

to-year fall in water table, as once the aquifer bottom is reached there can be no further decline.

Empty wells may fill back with one or two years of good rainfall (Foster et al. 2007, Shah

2012). This also implies that availability of water for irrigation in any season has great

dependency on that year’s rainfall and hence, crop choice must be concomitant with recharge

made available through rainfall. There is also great spatial variation in the net volume of

groundwater available. Water-rich pockets close to streams and recharge structures such as

percolation tanks and check dams have substantially larger yields while wells in upland regions

often dry out early. Excessive extraction leads to water level dropping sooner in the year and

longer periods of dry wells before the arrival of monsoon.

Farmers and their farming practices vary significantly due to many factors which impact their

vulnerability, access to resources, investments and farming decisions. The relevant social and

biophysical factors are as follows:

Social factors: Smallholding farmers dominate the field area: about 80% farmers in surveyed

villages have less than 2 hectares landholding (Table 6.1). There is a mix of castes in the survey

area including scheduled castes and tribes but the tribal population is largely landless, many of

Land

holding

(ha)

#

Farmers

surveyed

% of total

surveyed

Actual

proportion

in village

#

Farmers

surveyed

% of total

surveyed

Actual

proportion in

village

#

Farmers

surveyed

% of total

surveyed

Actual

proportion

in village

#

Farmers

surveyed

% of total

surveyed

Actual

proportion

in village

<1 16 47% 58% 11 31% 42% 13 39% Not 9 50% 55%

1 to 2 7 21% 26% 18 50% 33% 9 27% available 5 28% 32%

2 to 5 9 26% 14% 6 17% 22% 9 27% 2 11% 11%

>5 2 6% 2% 1 3% 3% 2 6% 2 11% 2%

Total34 100%

582 8A

farmers36

546 8A

farmers33

1549 8A

farmers18

691 8A

farmers

Wadgaon Dodhi Kh Dapur Pandhurli

Table 6.1: Distribution of survey sample by landholding class

52

who work as agricultural labourers. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show distribution of the surveyed

farmers by landholding size and caste. The surveyed sample is close to the actual distribution

of farmers by landholding size. The caste distribution is not representative because only land-

owning farmers were surveyed and not all castes are proportionately represented in the

landholding class. The five other villages surveyed along Kadwa canal have small sample per

village, hence data is not representative.

In general, there is great awareness amongst farmers and easy access to technology. In 45% of

the sampled households, at least one family member has attended college. (Figure 6.2). More

than 40% of surveyed households also had non-farm income from a day job or business in

addition to agricultural income (Figure 6.3).

Uncertainty in monsoon rains

Survey

sample by

caste

Maratha Vanjari NTD OBC SC ST

Actual %

SC

farmers

Actual %

ST

farmers

Wadgaon 32% 35% 3% 18% 12% 100% 36% 6%

Dodhi Kh 0% 66% 6% 26% 3% 100% 9% 2%

Dapur 0% 97% 0% 3% 0% 100% Data not available

Pandhurli 33% 56% 11% 0% 0% 100% 16% 3%

Sample Survey Actual distribution

Table 6.2: Distribution of survey sample by caste

Figure 6.2: Distribution of sampled farmers by education Figure 6.3: Share of sampled families with non-farm jobs

53

The variability in monsoon pattern is a growing concern for farmers. One of the direct impacts

of climate change is seen in terms of longer dry spells and fewer rainy days during the monsoon

period (Fig 6.4). Both 2015 and 2016 had long dry spells even though the net rainfall was much

higher in 2016. In 2015, there were long dry

spells in the beginning of the monsoon when

water was already scarce while in 2016 the dry

spell came after two months of good rainfall

hence its impact was lower. An increasingly

important feature of climate are long dry spells

in monsoons (Singh et al. 2014), and the need

for protective irrigation for the monsoon crop.

This has emerged as a crucial requirement for

farmers, which was traditionally met by

groundwater.

Farm biophysical factors:

Farm location in the watershed, proximity to

streams or recharge structures, slope, soil texture

and depth etc. are factors that vary significantly

not just across villages but also within village

from one farm to another. Figure 6.5 shows the

variation in soil quality as described by farmers.

Dry spells in monsoon impact the rainfed

monsoon crop directly and the severity depends

upon farm biophysical factors which vary within

short distances. A crop on shallow sandy soils

gets stressed much sooner in a dry spell

compared to one cultivated in soil with higher

moisture holding capacity. Fig 6.6 shows that

the yield for the pearl millet (bajra) crop, the

predominant rainfed crop in Dodhi and Dapur,

was significantly lower on farms with poorer

soil in both years of survey.

Figure 6.4: Comparison of daily rainfall pattern for Sinnar taluka in 2015 vs 2016

Figure 6.5: Farmers’ judgement of their soil quality

Figure 6.6: Distribution of Pearl Millet (bajra) yield in the surveyed region grouped by farm soil quality and year of

sowing

54

Access to protective irrigation during dry spells is important to prevent crop failure, especially

for farms with poor soil type. However, farms with poor quality soil are often away from

streams in hilly uplands and have poorer access to water for irrigation. Good quality land close

to streams not only needs less frequent irrigation, but also has better availability of water due

to proximity to the stream system. Even for the post monsoon crops, farmers with poor soil

need to irrigate more often than other farmers. Farmers cultivating winter onion crop (with crop

water requirement of about 600-650 mm) in poor soil report the need to irrigate 10 to 12 times

as opposed to 7-8 times1 for farmers with better soil. Thus, biophysical attributes create natural

differences between farmers which get magnified due to climate impact.

6.2 Crop Hierarchy

We find that there is a regional intensification hierarchy of crops ordered by season and

expected financial returns which is central to farmers’ decision-making. Non-perishable crops

such as pearl millet (bajra), sorghum (jowar), pigeon pea (tur), and green gram (harbhara) fall

in the low risk-low reward category that have been traditionally cultivated for subsistence.

They require little investment, are drought resistant and some are also useful as fodder crops.

Farmers consume part of the production and sell any surplus. As we move away from these

subsistence crops to market driven crops, we find various intermediate crops at different levels

of returns and risk. Soybean, groundnut and maize are non-perishable cash crops which are

more input intensive but offer better market returns. Next come the short-duration green leafy

vegetables such as cilantro, fenugreek, spring onions, that are popular amongst smallholding

farmers and may be cultivated multiple times within a season. They are considered a gamble

due to large market price variation but with a comparatively low downside. Cultivation of

vegetables such as tomatoes, cabbage, cauliflowers, broccoli etc. requires far more knowledge,

better inputs, precise irrigation schedule and is even riskier in terms of market rate fluctuations.

Any aberration in irrigation during critical periods can lead to a crop failure. They are thus

grown by farmers who are able to invest in irrigation infrastructure and withstand seasonal

losses. At the top of the hierarchy are multi-year orchards. These require large investments,

access to special markets and availability of water buffer to assure year-round irrigation. It is

farmers with highest access to capital, water and risk-bearing ability who invest in orchards.

1 Flood irrigation is the norm for onion cultivation and the depth of irrigation remains same irrespective of soil type

55

Figure 6.7: Seasonal crop intensification hierarchy and farm economics Key economic attributes of main Kharif, Rabi and summer crops. (A)

Input cost; (B) Irrigation events: Number of times that the crop was irrigated during the crop duration for seasonal crops or through a year for

multi-year crops. All crops except fruit orchards and a share of tomato crops are irrigated using flood irrigation. (C) Crop yield in Quintal/hectare;

(D) Profit per hectare (E) Return from water (Rupees per cubic meter of water required by crop). Data is for year 2015-16 based on surveys of

sampled farmers. Volume of data-points for different crops varies as it depends upon number of farmers who cultivated each crop in the survey

year and were able to recall the figures.

** Yield for green-leafy vegetables unavailable as they are not sold by weight but in non-standard sized “bundles”

56

As farmers move up the intensification hierarchy, there is not only an increase in expected

returns but also an increase in (a) cost of cultivation, (b) crop water requirement both in terms

of quantity and frequency of irrigations, and (c) the variability in returns due to both uncertainty

in yields, and variability in market prices. Figure 6.7 illustrates the crop intensification

hierarchy for the main Kharif, Rabi and annual crops.

Input cost and irrigation (Figure 6.7A and B): As farmers shift their cropping pattern along the

hierarchy (from left to right on the graph within a season or from seasonal crops to annual

crops), there is an increase in their input costs and the frequency in irrigation. As seen in Table

6.3 the theoretical crop water requirement increases along the crop hierarchy. For Kharif crops,

a large part of crop requirement is fulfilled by rainfall, hence irrigations are required to

supplement rainfall especially during dry spells. Rabi crops get part of the requirement through

soil moisture but largely depend upon external irrigation. Annual crops require irrigation

throughout the year including summer when water is scarce. The actual irrigation given also

increases (in Figure 6.7B) but it is accompanied with an increasing spread because of

differences in farmers’ access to water.

Crop yields Figure (Figure 6.7C): It is well known that crop yields depend on irrigation applied,

and a crop’s response to water scarcity is an important determinant of risk faced by the farmer,

especially in where farmers face frequent droughts and long dry spells in Kharif season. The

yield response factor developed by FAO captures the effect of reduction in evapotranspiration

CropCultivation

Season

Crop

Duration

(days)

Crop water

requirement for

Sinnar block

(mm)

Average crop

evapotranspiration

/ day

(mm/day)

Pearl Millet (Bajra) Kharif 90 300-325 3.47

Soyabean Kharif 105 350-400 3.57

Maize Kharif 125 500-550 3.80

Green leafy vegetables Kharif 35-45 175-200 4.69

Kharif Onion Kharif 110-120 500-550 4.57

Kharif Tomato Kharif 125-150 650-750 5.09

Harbhara Rabi 105 300-425 3.45

Rabi Sorghum (Jowar) Rabi 135 400-450 3.15

Wheat Rabi 120 500-525 4.27

Rabi Onion Rabi 110-120 600-650 5.43

Potato Rabi 90-120 600-650 5.95

Rabi Tomato Rabi 125-150 750-850 5.82

Pomegranate Multiyear 365 1200-1500 3.70

Grapes Multiyear 365 1700-1800 4.79

Reference: Walter and Land Management Institute, Government of Maharashtra

Table 6.3: Theoretical crop water requirement as per WALMI

57

on yield losses (Allen et al. 1998) and shows that crops such as millets, soybean, cotton,

groundnuts, safflower etc. are tolerant to water deficits. Crops like wheat and maize are less

drought resistant. Most horticulture crops such as bananas, onions, potatoes, beans, peppers,

tomato etc. are very sensitive to water deficits and aberration in frequency of water application

during critical periods can lead to a crop failure.

When water is limiting, crop yield is directly correlated with the amount of irrigation given.

Figure 6.8 shows the reported yield against fraction of full irrigation given by farmer for Rabi

onion and wheat crops. Fraction of full irrigation is used instead of absolute number of

irrigations to control for the soil type. The figure shows that an increase in the fraction of

irrigation given is correlated with increase in the achievable yield. There are many farmers who

fall short and have lower yield than the frontier, which may be attributed to other factors such

as other inputs, variation in crop varieties used etc.

In practice, if the farmer falls short of water, it can lead to significant loss of yield, especially

in case of horticulture crops. The large spread in amount of irrigation seen in Figure 6.7B (with

number of irrigation as proxy assuming that sufficient water is available for each irrigation

given) contributes to high variation in crop yields and hence, farm returns. We thus find that

high variability in yield is not inherent to intensification but a consequence of the uncertainty

in water input, which is discuss next.

Figure 6.8: Crop yield as a function of irrigation requirement met. X-axis depicts fraction of full irrigation. E.g. 5 irrigations given in good clayey soil for wheat is full irrigation but in sandy soil 5 irrigations may only meet 70% irrigation requirement

58

Market prices: Farm returns depend not only on the yield but also on market prices. The

variability in market prices for perishable crops is significantly higher than that for food-grains.

The standard deviation of the APMC modal price distribution over the year gets significantly

higher as we go from millets (6 – 8%) to fruits (> 50%) due to seasonality and higher

perishability. In addition to variation in daily modal market prices over the year, there is also a

daily price spread of produce in the wholesale markets (i.e. difference between the maximum

and minimum price received in the market on the same day). This spread is largely due to

variation in quality of the produce being brought to the market but is also due to changes in

supply-demand dynamics through the course of the trading day. We find that this daily price

spread increases as we move from traditional crops to horticulture crops. E.g. in Nashik APMC

(2015-16) the average price spread for tomato around the modal price was 76% of the mean

i.e. if the modal price on a day was Rs 1200, some farmers are likely to have received a rate as

low as Rs 500 on the same day. Farmer surveys indicate that inadequate irrigation is one of

the main reasons for poor produce quality leading to loss in income.

Crop returns: The crop returns depend on both the yield as well as the market returns. It can be

seen that the average returns increase along the crop hierarchy. However, there is also a large

spread in crop returns and the number of crop failures also increases with intensification.

CropCultivation

Season

Average modal Nashik

wholesale market rate

for year 2015-16

(Rs/Qunital)

Std dev of

modal price

distribution for

year 2015

Mean price

spread as %

of mean price

(Quality

aspect)

Pearl Millet (Bajra) Kharif 1,526.00 6% 17%

Soyabean Kharif 3,662.00 4% 7%

Maize Kharif 1,442.00 4% 4%

Green leafy vegetables Kharif 1,560.00 48% 56%

Kharif Onion Kharif 1,193.80 31% 134%

Kharif Tomato Kharif 1,385.75 44% 76%

Harbhara Rabi 4,289.00 9% 16%

Rabi Sorghum (Jowar) Rabi 1,822.00 8% 3%

Wheat Rabi 1,666.00 12% 14%

Rabi Onion Rabi 622.50 19% 131%

Rabi Tomato Rabi 868.21 40% 70%

Pomegranate Multiyear 2,889.00 64% 114%

Grapes Multiyear 3,644.00 50% 52%

Table 6.4: Wholesale APMC prices for main crops

59

For example, if we consider onion cultivation in the

surveyed villages for year 2015-16, we find that the

average profit per acre was Rs 28,023 (Figure 6.9)

but the standard deviation of the return was 166% of

the mean. More than a quarter of the farmers made

losses or barely broke even while some farmers

made a profit of more than Rs 1 lakh/acre. Farmers

with poor returns had poor yield and produce

quality.

Return per unit water: Fruits orchards result in highest average return per unit water (with

average between Rs 25 and 50 per cu m). This explains why many farmers do not hesitate to

make expensive arrangements to obtain water for growing orchards: from purchasing tanker

water to transferring water across many kilometers in private pipelines.

6.3 Manoeuvring access to water

Farmers use three observable attributes to describe water access: (a) access device and

modalities of use (e.g. a family well shared amongst three brothers’ families in which each

farmer has access for two days in a rotation of 6 days or, a private well with full access at all

times), (b) amount of water available in terms of maximum hours of pumping before the well

is emptied and the time to recovery of the water level (i.e. farmers may be able to operate a 5

HP pump for 4 hours in February every alternate day and for at most 1 hour in April in every

three days), and (c) months of water available after which water level does not recover

sufficiently for irrigation and water must be saved for domestic use. For most farmers, these

attributes decide if they can cultivate a post-monsoon crop or if land must be left fallow.

Farmers in the field area generally have access

to multiple wells (Figure 6.10) on multiple strips

of farmland, some of which are shared family

wells. The deeper ones are borewells which are

few in number, have low yields and are

generally used only for drinking water purposes.

Months of assured well water access is the

number of months in the cropping year starting

monsoon until which they can use well water (from

Figure 6.9: Distribution of farmer profitability for onions in 2015-16

Figure 6.10: Number of wells and depth of wells

60

any of their wells) for irrigation. Since water availability in year 2015-16 was the lowest in

recent past due to the drought, data corresponding to this year was used for the attribute (Figure

6.11).

However, many farmers find ways,

formal and informal, of enhancing water

availability, a process with financial as

well as political mediation costs. With

these enhanced investments, farmers can

extend their access to assured water for

additional months. This is termed as

months of irrigation available (Figure

6.11) shows a comparison between

months of assured access to irrigation

before enhancements and after new

investments. The figure shows that Pandhurli (~ 10 months assured water) and Wadgaon Sinnar

(~9 months) have relatively good access to water naturally that allow cultivation in two

seasons. There is however, significant variation within the village depending upon biophysical

factors. Dapur and Dodhi villages are highly water scarce with an average of 6.5 months of

well water available. Enhancement in months of access by private investment result in an

increase in months of water availability. Such investments are seen most in Dapur where lift

irrigation months have pulled the average up by 3 additional months of access, followed by

Dodhi village where assured access has increased by another month. By contrast, Wadgaon

Sinnar and Pandhurli have a small share of farmers who have made investments to increase

months of assured water access.

Figure 6.11: Months of assured water through (W) dugwells and (A) after investments in other assets

Farmers

with lateral

bores in

well

Farmers

with

pipelines

for water

transfers

Farmers

with farm

ponds

Farmers who

bought water

tankers for

irrigation

during survey

years

Farmers with

high value

horticulture

during survey

years (higher

than onion in

hierarchy)

Farmers

with

orchards

Farmers

who faced

failure of

primary crop

during

survey years

Farmers

who have

retreated in

cropping

hierarchy

Farmers

with

unpaid

pending

farm loans

Pandhurli 18 33% 28% 0% 0% 83% 11% 33% 17% 17%

Wadgaon Sinnar 34 50% 35% 12% 26% 71% 24% 29% 21% 18%

Dapur 33 39% 58% 15% 27% 76% 52% 55% 6% 39%

Dodhi Kh. 36 44% 8% 11% 28% 36% 17% 56% 28% 36%

Field area total 121 43% 32% 11% 23% 64% 27% 45% 18% 29%

Private investments in water Failures and riskHigh-value crop choice

Village

Number

of

surveyed

farmers

Table 6.5: Share of sampled farmers with investments in water and horticulture cultivation and those facing high risk of failures

61

Despite the struggle to outmanoeuvre temporal and spatial variation in groundwater, farmers

show no sense of rivalry, instead a common opinion is that scarcity is a result of poor rainfall.

While there is a perception of limited availability of resource and the need to enhance it,

subtractability of use and need for groundwater governance is not commonly articulated. In

absence of effective groundwater regulation (Kulkarni et al. 2015, GoM 2018) farmers are free

to appropriate any amount of water from wells on their land and this is considered legitimate

by all. This is however, not true for local surface-water sources where community rules

restricting lifting of water is common, especially when located close to drinking water sources.

Investments in groundwater

Private pipe network is often laid between multiple wells located on different plots to transfer

water from one to another at various times of the year to irrigate crops in different plots. For

example, if an uphill well fills up soon after the first few rains, this water is used by the farmer

for irrigation of both uphill and downstream plots. Later in the year, the uphill well may be dry

but the well in the valley may still have water available which may be piped up and poured into

to the first well in order to irrigate the crop on that plot. Another common intervention is to

drill lateral bores radially outwards in all directions to direct groundwater flow into wells.

These lateral bores may be upto almost 100m long. The most instructive of all investments is

the plastic-lined farm-pond, which has gained popularity as a way to overcome temporal

uncertainty in water availability for multi-year crops. Farm-ponds are filled in monsoon using

groundwater and this water is stored for use in summer until when almost half of the stored

water may be lost to evaporation (Kale 2017), yet there is high demand for such ponds since

they assure access to irrigation during scarcity months. Government subsidy may be availed to

build them, especially if they are to be used for irrigating horticulture crops. Importantly,

between the two years of survey, close to 10% of sampled farmers had constructed new farm-

ponds; a majority of them in the two most drought affected villages, either to enable a new crop

or in response to crop failure due to insufficient irrigation in previous years.

Investments at the interface of surface and ground water

There is natural variation in access to groundwater spatially within a village. Wells made in or

adjoining streams or other surface water sources such as small reservoirs, percolation tanks,

canals etc. have water longer than other wells. For example, wells adjoining Bhojapur or

Kadwa canal get recharged during every canal rotation. In Wadgaon Sinnar, wells along the

DBI canal are recharged as long as the canal is operational. The Bhojapur reservoir is dotted

62

with wells along its boundary from where water is transferred across large distances. These

wells function at the interface of surface water and ground water, i.e. they indirectly tap into

the surface water by accessing it through groundwater. The reason for this indirect tapping is

that surface water sources typically have more stringent allocation rules and the command area

or beneficiaries are officially assigned and may also be charged for it. The indirect tapping of

this water though groundwater falls in the grey area when it comes to regulation and requires

some political manoeuvring, especially during times of water scarcity. Yet, there is a thriving

operation of water transfer. Small patches of land just enough to dig a well next to such surface

water sources fetch high market rates. From here water is transferred to farms over many kilo-

meters. Similarly, many farmers build a combination of well and farm pond next to seasonal

canals such as Bhojapur canal which have limited rotations. Farmers draw water canal water

through their recharged wells and stored it in a farm pond for future use, thereby converting

the canal water back to surface water. Because of their “greyness” such operations are never

completely reliable as government officials may abruptly cut off electricity connections for

wells next to reservoirs, streams and canals during times of scarcity.

The net result of such investments is that the region is a mosaic of highly differentiated and

unequal access to groundwater, crisscrossed by a network of pipelines, and dotted with

hundreds of farm-ponds. The more severe the water scarcity, the more are such interventions.

This changing configuration of wells and other interventions results in changes in groundwater

flows creating flux in access. As groundwater levels fall post-monsoon, the shallowest wells

dry up first followed by deeper wells and those near water-pockets. Farmers with large

investments in water assets have the longest access to water as they surmount biophysical

vulnerabilities through interventions. However, the most vulnerable are the landless and those

with no wells, who depend upon notified public water sources for their drinking and domestic

use (while farmers with irrigation wells use the same for domestic use). These sources are the

shallowest and hence seasonal drinking water scarcity is a recurrent characteristic feature. We

thus find a situation where some irrigate their orchards in summer while some others face

drinking water scarcity.

6.4 Farmer decisions

The key decisions for a farmer in each year are to (a) select a cropping pattern spatially and

temporally based on an estimate of available water, i.e., decide which crops are to be sown on

63

how much area in each of the seasons, or when to leave land fallow, (b) prepare an informal

irrigation plan matching the perceived availability of water through various sources and private

assets to the crop water requirement, and (c) decide on any investments in assets for enhancing

access to water. Though the plans are made at the start of the year, they change based on the

monsoon and the actual availability of water.

Sown area decisions: The seasonal decision of how much area to sow and which crop to

cultivate is predominantly dependent on farmers’ estimate of available water and the perceived

ability to match crop water requirement. A good rainfall year such as 2016-17 results in higher

sown area leading to reduced fallow land in post-monsoon seasons.

Table 6.6 shows the seasonal sowing pattern of 88 farmers who were common in the farm

surveys of both years. In 2015-16, large share of cultivable area was left fallow after Kharif

cultivation as can be seen by the reduced area under Rabi and Summer. This was highest for

Dodhi followed by Dapur. In 2016-17, the fallow land was significantly reduced in response

to better rainfall. Moreover, Pandhurli and Wadgaon Sinnar saw a big increase in summer

sowing.

Crop choice: Farmers have a band of operation with respect to crop choice in the intensification

hierarchy depending upon factors such as their access to water, access to credit, risk-taking

ability etc. For example, a farmer may have soybean as their default Kharif crop choice, but in

good rainfall years, they may shift in the intensification hierarchy and also cultivate some green

leafy vegetables. Alternatively, if the monsoon gets delayed, they may shift lower in the

hierarchy and decide to cultivate pearl millet (bajra) instead of soybean. For another farmer, a

good rainfall year may imply intensification by cultivating tomato, while the default option

may be to cultivate green leafy vegetables.

However, starting a new multiyear orchard (as seen most in the two driest villages of Dodhi

and Dapur during the survey years) is a structurally different form of intensification compared

Table 6.6: Comparison of change in seasonal sown area by sampled farmers in 2015 vs 2016 (same farmers in both years)

Kharif Rabi Summer MY Kharif Rabi Summer MY

Dodhi 834 35.1 12.0 - 1.8 33.9 23.4 1.2 3.2

Dapur 1320 34.3 16.8 - 12.3 35.0 24.6 1.9 15.8

Wadgaon 693 27.3 18.0 0.2 2.4 27.8 24.5 4.8 2.6

Pandhurli 866 22.6 21.2 1.4 5.2 24.9 23.4 9.4 5.2

Village Net Cultivable

area (ha)

2015-16 (bad rainfall year)

sown area in sample (ha)

2016-17 (good rainfall year)

sown area in sample (ha)

64

to short term seasonal intensification in response to good rainfall year. This is because orchard

cultivation is a long term investment made by farmers to intensify output over the next decade

and requires a commitment to provide adequate irrigation irrespective of how the rainfall year

turns out (good year or drought year) in the future. Thus, such intensification typically goes

hand-in-hand with investments such as farm ponds.

Water allocation decisions:

When water is limiting, farmers seek to get the most value out of every drop available to them.

This is contrary to the traditional strategy of protective irrigation (Jurrie ͏̈ns et al. 1996) in

drought-prone areas where available water is spread thinly over large area to protect against

complete crop failure and traditional drought resistant crops are cultivated. With better control

of irrigation with private investments, the strategy is to instead follow productive irrigation by

concentrating water in a smaller area and meeting complete crop water requirement of high-

value crops.

Depending upon farmer’s estimate of available water, part of the land is devoted to high value

crop with the goal of meeting complete crop water requirement while the remaining land is left

fallow or used for low-water intensity crops. In absence of coordination and complete

information about the resource, farmers’ estimates often go wrong and water falls short. They

then prioritize the crop highest in the intensification hierarchy at the expense of other crops.

Onion is allowed to fail in order to save water for pomegranate and wheat is sacrificed to

irrigate onions. Crops like sorghum and gram are cultivated with the expectation that they may

remain unirrigated and eventually only serve as fodder. At the top of the hierarchy, fruit

orchards almost always get full irrigation even if through purchase of expensive water tankers.

The driver for this is the increasing expected return per unit water along the intensification

hierarchy as observed in Figure 6.7D.

Decision to invest in water infrastructure: As crop failures are frequent (see Table 6.5), farmers

evaluate their cropping pattern and access to water and make decisions to invest in assets to

reduce future uncertainty. This is then accompanied by a shift to a higher band of operation

within the intensification hierarchy.

Figure 6.12 plots each of the surveyed farmer in the four villages. On the x-axis is the number

of months of assured water supply that farmer has access to (through groundwater, lift irrigation

or other investments). The y-axis provides the expected profit in Rs per unit acre of cultivated

65

land which is a function of the farmer’s crop portfolio and the weighted average return from

each crop. The shape of the frontier of the curve shows that as the assurance of water access

increases, it allows farmers to achieve a higher expected profit. A farmer who does not have

certainty of water access beyond 4-5 months is unlikely to invest in a Rabi crop and is likely

to have a low return. Farmer with assured access only till Dec or Jan months tend to grow Rabi

crops which are less water intensive such as Jowar, fodder crops, harbhara etc. which are also

low on returns. If access is assured until March, then farmers are likely to grow more profitable

Rabi crops such as onions, wheat or vegetables. Fruit orchards are grown only when water is

assured for all 12 months.

As we see in the graph, there are many farmers who operate at a point much lower than the

frontier which could be for various reasons such as poor soil type, low market risk appetite, in

ability to afford input costs, poor knowledge of practice etc.

Figure 6.12: Expected farm return vs. water assurance for all surveyed farmers

The two red-coloured points shown in the graph shows a farmer in transition who in 2015-16

grew vegetables and fell short of last water for his onion crops; built a farm pond in the

following year and simultaneously started a grape farm thereby rising along the frontier to a

higher expected return state.

6.5 Summary

We find that farmers have essentially failed to arrive at a viable choice of crop matched with

an assured and inexpensive regime of irrigation. This is due to multiple sources of variability

that confound the farmers’ calculations. The first is the uncertainty in the monsoon rainfall,

both in terms of total amount and the dry spells, which leads to unplanned demand for water.

66

The second is the uncertainty in access to groundwater due to the high stage of development.

The third is the risk caused by competitive extraction and political limits to informal water

transfers. There is also poor knowledge of both, the subtractability of the common pool

resource, as well as their rights and entitlements that would allow formalization of the regime

of operation. Finally, there is the variability in wholesale market prices.

Hence, we find that in the big picture, though the mean returns from intensification appear to

be encouraging, it is the variance at various levels that hits a large number of farmers and causes

failures. Farmers’ strategy, which is restricted to crop choice, additional investments or

withdrawal, tends to be driven by ill-informed and over-optimistic expectation of returns and

poor perception of risk. The most popular strategy, that of additional investments, propagates

in a cycle with some delay and aggravates risk.

At the aggregate level, we find villages are in transition from one regime of cropping to another

as farmers learn from one another. This study focuses on a specific type of ongoing

intensification but it suggests that there are indeed "waves" of informal intensification as new

and more remunerative crop varieties get established. For instance, pomegranate in its current

wave was established in the past decade and newer crops such as broccoli are starting yet

another wave. New farmer clusters emerge as they find the right combination of geography,

infrastructure solution and business models for these crops. Along with them, there is a

periphery in which farmers emulate with a delay and with greater risk as one or the other

necessary ingredient may be absent and complete information is unavailable.

In the next chapter, we model the current situation as a coupled social-ecological system (SES)

to uncover human-nature interactions through which risk propagates resulting in observed

outcomes and to identify interventions that may stop this vicious cycle.

67

7. A social-ecological systems analysis

We use Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework (Anderies et al. 2004, McGinnins and

Ostrom 2014) to characterize our study area as a coupled human-nature system. The framework

provides an interdisciplinary lens to understand the feedback mechanisms within and between

social and ecological systems and thus allows a study over time and space. It has been described

in Chapter 2 along with other approaches to study of SES.

Ostrom’s work (Ostrom 1990) developed as a response to Hardin’s (Hardin 1968) description

of the tragedy of the commons that contends that a common property resource will inevitably

face degradation and collapse when left to be managed by people on their own, as individual

users will act in their self-interest and appropriate the most resource, contrary to the common

good. The “common pool resource (CPR)” is defined as a natural or man-made resource system

that is sufficiently large so as to make it costly to exclude beneficiaries from obtaining benefits

from its use (Ostrom 1990). An inherent property of the CPR is subtractability, i.e. units

appropriated by one user subtract the number of units available for appropriation by other users.

Hardin’s argument was that it was only through government control or through privatization

that people can be incentivized to conserve the CPR. A large body of Ostrom’s work was to

argue against this by compiling case studies that showed that there are many example of

communities who over generations have self-governed natural resources on which they rely for

their livelihoods, by coming up with their own governance rules. The social-ecological systems

framework was developed by Ostrom as a way to create a common vocabulary for researchers

across disciplinary boundaries to

characterize different aspect of

the common pool resource and its

management and to analyse its

sustainability. The SES is

considered to be composed of

multiple subsystems and internal

variables within these

subsystems at multiple tiers. The

Figure 7.1: SES Framework with multiple first tier components (Source: McGinnins and Ostrom 2014)

68

framework also provides key variables and their conditions that are essential for the system to

successfully self-govern. Figure 7.1 illustrates the first-tier sub-systems and their relation.

7.1 Characterizing the system

For the purpose of analysis, we organize our system into two tiers. At the lowest tier, our

system boundary comprises the farming household along with the multiple strips of farm land

where they practice farming (without necessarily having legal ownership). These units of

farming households are nested in a higher tier: a “community” within which the available water

forms a common pool resource (CPR). Since groundwater is the primary source of irrigation

on which most farmers depend, it is our focus here. However, the boundary may easily be

expanded to include surface-water sources or any other source of irrigation and its command

region for a larger study.

This highest tier includes all social groups and institutions within them. In terms of its

biophysical constitution, it includes all types of land use and land cover including non-

agricultural land. This larger system includes streams which recharge groundwater and are

enhanced by baseflows but the watershed boundary may not overlap with the aquifer boundary.

The impact of the stream system is seen in terms of groundwater-rich pockets that it creates

through water collected in small reservoirs and tanks. The larger system boundary is

complicated by water that may be “imported” into the system by farmers through pipelines that

run over large distances. Table 7.1 shows tier 1 and tier 2 variables defined by the SESF that

are used to characterize the system at hand. Not all variables are relevant to all studies, and the

relative importance of the variable for our context has been filled out.

69

Category

Variable Code Variable NameRelevance to

our studyReason for exclusion Where it is captured

Social, economic and political settings (S)

S1 Economic Development NA Consistent across the

field area

S2 Demographic Trends YesImpact on cropping pattern with reducing

landholding over generations

S3 Political Stability NAConsistent across the

field area

S4 Government settlement policies NAConsistent across the

field area

S5 Market incentivesYes - very

important

Difference in market returns across crop

types

S6 Media organization NAConsistent across the

field area

Resource System (RS)

RS1 Sector Yes Definition of system boundary

RS2 Clarity of system boundariesYes - very

important

Captured at farmer level (in farmer

interviews) as well as policy/governance

level (no defined tools/process in place to

define boundary)

RS3* Size of resource system Yes Captured in R2

RS4 Human-constructed facilities NAConsistent across the

field area

RS5* Productivity of system Yes

Captured by conducting field work across

four sample villages with varying

productivity/scarcity of the resource

RS6 Equilibrium properties NoConsistent across the

field area

RS7* Predictability of system dynamicsYes - very

important

Captured in farmer interviews and seen in

poor knowledge about how much has been

extracted by others and unpredictability of

monsoon rains

RS8 Storage characterisitcs Yes characteristics of shallow basaltic aquifers

RS9 Location NACaptured in the aquifer characteristics in

RS8

Resource Units (RU)

RU1* Resource unit mobility NA Does not apply

RU2 Growth or replacement rate NA considered in RS5

RU3 Interaction among resource units NA Does not apply

RU4 Economic valueYes - very

important

Captured in the cost of extraction, crop

yield and return

RU5 Size NA Does not apply

RU6 Distinctive markings NA Does not apply

RU7 Spatial and temporal distributionYes - very

important

Variability of resource captured in time and

space: pockets of poor vs high availability;

high access in monsoon and low in summer

70

Table 7.1: Social-ecological systems framework variables and their relevance to our system

Category

Variable Code Variable NameRelevance to

our studyReason for exclusion Where it is captured

Governance System (GS)

GS1 Government organizations Yes

Captured in the understanding of the role

of the Groundwater Survey and

Development Authority (GSDA)

GS2 Non-government organizations NA

None operational in

the field region for GW

governance

GS3 Network structure NA None in practice

GS4 Property-rights systems NAConsistent across field

area

GS5 Operational rulesYes - very

important

Existing operational rules (or lack of)

explored in the field work and interviews

GS6* Collective-choice rules YesCaptured in farmer interviews and group

discussions

GS7 Constitutional rulesYes - very

important

Captured in the study of the groundwater

act and its operational interpretation by

farmers

GS8 Monitoring and sanctioning processes YesCaptured in interviews with government

agents

Actors (A)

A1* Number of users YesCaptured in data on number of farmers and

their access to groundwater

A2 Socioeconomic attributes of users Yes Captured in farmer surveys

A3 History of use YesCaptured in the historical trend in months

of water availability

A4 Location NA

Captured in reference to different

biophysical properties across different field

locations

A5* Leadership/entrepreneurship NA None in practice

A6* Norms/social capital NA None in practice

A7* Knowledge of SES/mental modelsYes - very

importantCaptured in RS2 and RS7

A8* Dependence on resource Yes Captured in terms of non-farm employment

opportunities

A9 Technology used Yes

Captured through the different

groundwater extraction technology being

used

Interactions (I) --> Outcomes (O)

I1 Harvesting levels of diverse usersYes - very

important

Captured through various attributes such as:

sown area, crop demand, number of

extraction devices etc.

I2 Information sharing among users Yes Captured in farmer surveys

I3 Deliberation processes Yes Captured in farmer surveys

I4 Conflicts among users Yes Captured in farmer surveys

I5 Investment activities Yes

Captured in the type and number of

investments in groundwater extraction

devices

I6 Lobbying activities NA None in practice

O1 Social performance measures YesCaptured through the following: inequity in

access; inefficiency of resource use;

O2 Ecological performance measures YesSustainability of ecological services such as

drinking water security

O3 Externalities to other SESs NANot a focus in this

study

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

ECO1 Climate patterns Yes Impact of monsoon dry spells

ECO2 Pollution patterns NANot a concern in field

area

ECO3 Flows into and out of focal SES Yes water "imported" in to the focal system

71

The table highlights the variables that are considered to be most crucial in aiding collective

action. These include: size of resource system (not too small or too large), clarity on who the

users are (who is allowed to use, who is not), predictability of systems dynamics (i.e. what

actions will lead to what outcomes), collective choice rules and governance mechanisms, etc.

Our case study falls short of meeting most of these requirements, as shown in previous chapters,

i.e. the boundary of the groundwater system (aquifer) or the number of users is not clearly

known (which is true for surface water as well), there are poor governance rules and monitoring

systems in place and the feedback loops are not well understood. Under such circumstances

overexploitation of natural resources leading to the tragedy of the commons appears to be a

likely outcome.

7.2 Uncovering feedback loops

The SESF is rooted in systems thinking. In this section, we model the current situation as a

coupled social-ecological system (SES) to uncover human-nature interactions through which

risk propagates resulting in observed outcomes. We use the causal-loop diagram (Sterman

2012) to develop the dynamics of farmers’ decision making in response to uncertainties in

socio-ecological factors. This is used to understand model the trajectory of individual farmers

as well as that of the community as a whole. The model is, thus, developed in two tiers: one at

the level of the individual farmer unit and the other at the community level, with interactions

between the two tiers.

Sources of uncertainty

We describe the dynamics of farmer decisions in response to the following types uncertainties

in the system.

(a) Uncertainty due to monsoon rainfall pattern: i.e. length, frequency and timings of dry spells.

This is considered exogenous

(b) Uncertainty in amount of monsoon rainfall: year-to-year variation in the amount of rainfall

received (good year or bad year). This is considered exogenous

(c) Stage of groundwater development: Groundwater is a common property resource for all in

the community. The stage of groundwater development is defined by the share of outflow to

inflow (i.e. ratio of groundwater extracted to groundwater recharge). Since shallow basaltic

aquifers have very low buffer (as they map empty in summer), when farmers draw large share

of the recharged amount, they operate close to the carrying capacity of the resource which

72

increases their uncertainty in access to water. This is especially so for farmers with shallow

wells which will dry up first and hence these farmers will face greater uncertainty. It is assumed

that the groundwater development is not significantly impacted by the action of one farmer

alone (considering that extraction by one farmer is small compared to the groundwater stock)

but by the cumulative effect of action of many farmers. On the other hand, any change in

groundwater table impacts everyone. This attribute is thus considered endogenous at the level

of the community.

(d) Aggregate investments in private water assets: This refers to the total number of

investments by all farmers in the community in assets such as wells, borewells, farmponds,

lateral bores, pipeline transfer of water from one zone to another, etc. As one farmer opts for

new investments and deepens wells or builds farmponds, this act increases his/her access to

water vis-à-vis other farmers. This attribute is endogenous at the level of the community. It is

impacted by actions of individual farmers.

(e) Uncertainty in market rates: Farmers face high variability in market rates. The variability is

higher for perishable high value crops. While the market rate itself is considered exogenous

(assuming farmers are price taking), it is assumed that uncertainty increases as farmers

intensify as is characteristic of the crop intensification hierarchy.

The Dynamics

Uncertainty in the rainfall pattern, in terms of the length and frequency of dry spells, results in

uncertainty in the need for irrigation during breaks in rain. The higher is this variability, the

more is the likelihood of irrigation deficit for the Kharif crop (i.e. inability to meet crop water

requirement). Moreover, there is large year-to-year variation in the amount of rainfall received.

Hence, there is uncertainty in how much water will be available in any year for irrigation. Even

after the monsoon season has finished, farmers do not have a good estimate of how much

groundwater will be available in the post-monsoon months due to poor knowledge of

groundwater flows. These uncertainties lead to higher irrigation deficit (i.e. gap between

irrigation required and irrigation provided), impacting crop yield and leading to increasing

financial risk. High risk of loss prompts farmers to either withdraw or to raise the stakes.

Farmers with low-risk taking ability either de-intensify by shifting to low water intensive crops

or look for non-farm income opportunities. The other, riskier strategy, is to invest in assets that

would secure water for them, and hence reduce the uncertainty in their access to water

(Investment to improve access balancing loop). (Figure 7.2)

73

Farm irrigationrequirement

Irirgationdeficit

Expected Farmprofitability

Farm investment inprivate water asset

Farm intensificationby shift to high value

crop

+

Farmer's risktaking ability

+

-

De-intensify

-

+

Investment to

improve access

a. Agriculture Intensification: Farm Level Dynamics

Perceived risk offailure

+

+

Cost ofwater

+

<Farm irrigationrequirement>

Communityirrigation

requirement

Groundwaterextraction

Stage ofgroundwaterdevelopment

+ +

Drinking water security forthose dependent on

shallow wells

<Stage ofgroundwaterdevelopment>

+

<Farm investment inprivate water asset>

Aggregate investmentin private water assets

Polarization in accessto groundwater+

Intensification for

profitability

-

b. Agriculture Intensification: Community Level Dynamics

+

+

+

Impact to common

property resource

+

Competitive

investment

-

Uncertainty inmonsoon dry spells

<Aggregateinvestment in private

water asset>

++

Competitive

investment

+

+

Impact to common

property resource

+

Uncertainty inneed for irrigation

+

+

Uncertainty inaccess to irrigation

+

+

+

-Uncertainty inmarket return

+

Uncertainty in rainfallamount (Good year or

drought year)

+

< >Attribute from

community leveldynamics

Causality fromcommunity level

dynamics

+ Reinforcing loop

- Balancing loop

+

-

or

or

Positive causality

Negative causality

< > Attribute from farmerlevel dynamics

Causality from farmerlevel dynamics

Loss ofyield

+

+

+

perceivedavailability of water +

monsoonrainfall

Groundwaterrecharge+

-

+

Uncertainty ingroundwater access

for all+

-

++

Financial risk from

intensification

Figure 7.2: Causal-loop diagram showing dynamics of farmers’ decision making in response to uncertainties in socio-ecological factors (a) farm level dynamics shows the decision-making at farmer level. Some of the factors that impact farmer decisions are attributes of the larger community dynamics (stage of groundwater development and aggregate investment in private water assets) (b) community level dynamics shows the effect of individual farmer’s actions at the level of the community as a whole. The actions of investment and intensification which appear to be risk mitigating or balancing loops for individual farmers emerge as risk reinforcing loops at the community level. So ‘Investment to improve access’ (balancing) loop at farmer level emerges as ‘competitive investment’ (reinforcing) loop at community level when many farmers start investing and the ‘intensification for profitability’ (balancing) loop leads to ‘impact to common property resource’ (reinforcing) loop as the irrigation requirement for the community increases with intensification. The worsening of community level attributes (stage of groundwater development and aggregate investment in water asset) in turn leads to higher risk for individual farmers resulting in a vicious cycle of investment and intensification. Externalities visible at the community level are rise in inequality in access to water, de-intensification or exit by the socio-economically poor and rise in drinking water insecurity for those dependent on shallow public wells. Note that positive causality between two attributes (say x and y) implies that when all other factors are held constant, an increase in x causes increase in y (or decrease in x leads to decrease in y). Negative causality implies that increase in x causes a decrease in y, all other factors being equal.

74

When farmers make large investment in water assets, it increases their cost of accessing water.

This prompts them to shift to high value crops such as orchards in order to recoup their

investment. The other driver for intensification is farmers’ perception of available water.

Investing in water assets increases farmers’ perception of available water (a good rainfall year

also increases this perception), prompting them shift their cropping pattern to more lucrative

though water-intensive crops. By shifting to high value crops, farmers expect higher returns

and hence a reduction in their financial risk thereby reducing the need for making further

investments in water. This makes the second balancing loop (intensification for profitability

balancing loop).

Thus, the balancing loops (Investment to improve access and intensification for profitability)

show the individual farmer’s response to uncertainty in access to water. Farmers who invest in

assets and intensify initially benefit from lowering their risk and improved financial returns.

Encouraged by their success, more farmers follow suit. As this happens, the actions that appear

to be risk-mitigating for individual farmers turn into risk-reinforcing for the entire community.

This is because each individual farmer may benefit temporarily from investing in assets and

appropriate larger share of the groundwater. But this relative advantage is eroded as soon as

there are “too many” such farmers trying to compete with newer investments (e.g. deeper wells,

bigger pumps, larger farmponds). This is because these investments merely serve to redistribute

available water within the community. This is seen in the community level dynamics

(Competitive investment loop).

As crop water requirement for individual farms increases, this increases the net crop water

requirement for the community and larger groundwater extraction to meet this requirement.

This impacts the stage of groundwater development.

The stage of groundwater development depends upon the ratio of outflow (extraction) to

inflow (recharge). We find that, in general, the demand for extraction exceeds the recharge.

This is because (a) farmers do not have any good ways on how to estimate the amount of

groundwater recharge depending upon their biophysical attributes and monsoon rainfall and

(b) there is no information sharing or collective action that will allow farmers to know how

much groundwater is being extracted by other farmers and so each farmer acts to appropriate

as much as they can. Hence, regardless of it being a good rainfall year or bad, farmers overdraw

leading to quick fall in groundwater table, dry wells and unmet demand for the asset poor.

Thus, increased groundwater development leads to reduced availability and increased

75

uncertainty in access for all (Impact to common property resource loop) including those

dependent on shallow drinking water wells.

At the farmer level, this increase in uncertainty due to (a) falling groundwater table due to large

community groundwater extraction and (b) a large number of competing investments in water

which reduces individual farmer’s share, along with (c) good year-bad year rainfall dynamics,

leads to a cycle of incrementally greater investment (from lateral bores and well deepening to

multiple wells, private water lifts, pipelines and farm-ponds) and incrementally higher

intensification. Eventually, despite large investments farmers end up with high uncertainty in

access and that too at a significantly higher cost and large inequity in access to ecological

services.

7.3 A tragedy of the commons or worse?

The situation appears to lead to the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968) where each agent

maximizes its own allocation, and hence output, by using a larger share of the CPR leading to

a situation where ultimately everyone is worse off. But a study of the farmer payoffs from

investments shows that what is unfolding is more perverse than the typical tragedy of the

commons formulation (Ostrom 1990) (see Appendix D for a game-theoretical analysis).

One, in our situation, the carrying capacity of groundwater changes every year in response to

the variability in the amount of monsoon rains. Hence, even when the number of investments

is significantly below the carrying capacity of an “average” rainfall year, a bad drought year

causes the system to tip over its carrying capacity (Sterman 2012), producing uncertainty and

initiating the dynamics of competitive investment, leading to further uncertainty, even in good

rainfall years.

Two, the average pay-off from making an investment is initially significantly high and provides

temporary relief from uncertainty in allocation as there is a socio-economic barrier for a large

number of farmers to make an immediate change in their strategy and invest. Instead many

farmers invest with a delay only when their payoffs fall further, either due to new investments

by others or due to a drought year.

Third, when a large number of farmers have made investments and the system has reverted to

high uncertainty in allocation, a new cash crop higher in the crop hierarchy presents once again

the option of escalation by further investment, replaying the earlier dynamics. As seen in Figure

7.2, such escalation (the Intensification for profitability loop) will stop only when the cost of

76

water becomes so high that it exceeds the market value of the output, thereby negating farm

profitability. This inordinately raises the point of rent dissipation (Ostrom 1990) (i.e. the point

where marginal gain from appropriation is smaller than the marginal cost) and the point of

actual operation. This explains the economic viability of extremely wasteful investments such

as groundwater-filled farm-ponds. The potential return per unit water for irrigating horticulture

crops in summer is so high that even if only half of the stored groundwater remains in

farmponds after months of evaporation, it can fetch higher returns than if no water was wasted

and all of it was used to cultivate a seasonal crop in Kharif or Rabi. While the benefits of this

accrues to the horticulture farmer, the cost is borne by the entire community through

diminishing access to ecological services such as public drinking water supply.

7.4 Leverage points

Given that the current practice of intensification is found to be unsustainable, there is a need to

analyse the system further to look for points of leverage where interventions may lead to a stop

in the vicious cycles that are at play. Leverage points are places within a system where a small

shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything (Meadows 1999). These are places of

interventions in the system. All leverage points may not have the same impact and some are

more effective than others.

There are ongoing interventions from the state and the civil society to address the situation.

While the agriculture department promotes horticulture cultivation and investment in water

assets through subsidies, the soil and water conservation department works on programs for

conservation of natural resources. For example, Maharashtra state’s flagship program Jalyukta

Shivar is one of the vehicles through which the state is currently doing village-level water

conservation planning. On the demand side, promotion of micro-irrigation (drip or sprinklers)

is an important intervention by the agricultural department. We analyse the impact of these

interventions on the SES in Figure 7.3 where current interventions are highlighted in green.

Watershed interventions: These include interventions such as building check-dams, earthen

and concrete bunds, desilting tanks, deepening and widening of streams, farm-bunds, contour

trenches etc. The goal of these structures is to arrest run-off and increase soil moisture and

groundwater recharge. It has been observed, however, that increase in water availability

through these interventions helps farmers in the vicinity to intensify their practice by shifting

to more water intensive crops. The perception of high water availability and lack of

77

coordination between farmers results in higher extraction compared to the increased recharge

by watershed structures. The system thus goes back to high level of uncertainty and failure

with only a few farmers benefiting from the intervention.

Micro-irrigation: It is known to increase the water efficiency and hence reduce the amount of

water required for irrigation. It thus allows farmers to bring larger area under cultivation, which

they would have otherwise left fallow; or to cultivate a more water intensive crop. Moreover,

the cost of implementing drip-irrigation and its operational cost is high and not affordable by

all farmers. Despite government subsidy, not many farmers opt for it. The high cost of drip

irrigation, raises the cost of water for farmers and it is almost exclusively used for horticulture

cultivation. Thus, while micro-irrigation allows farmers to get more output from the same

amount of water, it does not result in stopping of competitive extraction and increase in

uncertainty and failures. The perception of reduced water requirement, may result in over-

sowing leading to uncertainty in water availability and high irrigation deficit.

Thus we find that current initiatives by the water conservation department are not only

insufficient in stopping the vicious cycle, but in fact prompt further intensification, especially

as the agriculture department sees the problem as that of inadequate infrastructure and

continues to provide subsidy for farmponds and horticulture cultivation without any carrying

capacity assessment.

78

Figure 7.3: What will stop the vicious cycle? Leverage points. Current interventions by the state are at low leverage points.

Watershed interventions increase groundwater recharge and promotion of micro-irrigation enhances water-use efficiency. But

the perception of enhanced water availability due to these interventions tends to increase share of irrigated area and lack of

coordination between farmers continue to drive the cycle of intensification beyond sustainable levels. Government subsidies for

new farmponds and orchards further contribute to this. Higher leverage points are those which will limit intensification and

investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors. Collective planning of aggregate level of

intensification based on sound estimate of available water will ensure that the community irrigation requirement is aligned with

available water, thereby reducing risk of crop failures and building resilience. This, as shown, will break the vicious cycle of impact

to common property resource. Community plan for setting aside water for protective irrigation will reduce uncertainty during

monsoon dry spells. State or community regulation of investments in extraction and water transfer assets will stop the competitive

investment and intensification for profitability loops, reduce failures and variability in returns. These interventions require

scientific engagement to build planning tools that may be used seasonally by the farming community to comprehend the level of

risk corresponding to different cropping plans and make appropriate decision. A longer term, though higher, leverage point is to

disrupt the crop hierarchy so that market incentives are aligned with sustainable crop choices

79

7.5 Conclusion: What will stop the cycle?

Figure 7.3 analyses alternate leverage points. These are leverage points that will limit

intensification and investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-

economic factors. Reduction in orchards (the fixed load) and a strategy of well-regulated

seasonal intensification (the variable load) within the limits of available resource and by

rotation amongst farmers will not only result in more sustainable and equitable practice, but

may actually result in increasing net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful

infrastructure. This can be achieved through scientific engagement to develop tools that are

accessible to the community to improve the knowledge of groundwater and enable collective

resource management.

The following proposed interventions are consistent with Ostrom’s SES framework (2009) in

terms of the essential attributes of a CPR that facilitates collective resource management. They

are also seen being implemented in some villages such as Hivare Bazar which have emerged

as model villages due to their ability to foster collective action.

Sound estimate of water available for irrigation: To know the limits within which the

community must operate is key to ensuring sustainability as well as to reducing risk of

crop failures. This includes (a) a spatio-temporal estimate of groundwater for a rainfall

year that depends upon local biophysical factors, existing interventions, land-use etc.

and (b) a sound understanding of the rights and entitlements with respect to drawing

water from surface water surfaces through wells in the vicinity.

A collective crop-plan and water use plan based on the annual rainfall and estimated

availability of water. The crop-plan may indicate total area under multi-year orchards

that may be permissible, area under seasonal horticulture crops for that season and

remaining area under low water-intensive crops. The overall resource management plan

would also take into account the amount of water to be set aside for protective irrigation

of Kharif crops and for drinking, domestic and livestock use. Development of such a

plan on an annual basis requires easy-to-use planning tools that allow the community

to comprehend the level of risk corresponding to different cropping plans and make

appropriate decision

Mechanism to rotate right to intensify (seasonally or for multi-year crops) and

community regulation of the cropping pattern

80

Community rules to limit the number of investments in water transfers and groundwater

extraction

Figure 7.3 shows how these interventions break the loops or stop them. The key idea is that

sound knowledge of the resource and collective action help in a managed-intensification within

the biophysical limit of the system. Thus, as the community level dynamics shows, in the ideal

case, the recharge to groundwater and the extraction will remain balanced, so that it does not

lead to uncertainty in water access, thereby breaking the Impact to common property resource

reinforcing loop. The reduced risk in access to water, accompanied by community regulation

on investments will lead to a reduction in farm investments in private water assets and stop the

competitive investment loop. In the farmer level dynamics, individual farmers will no longer

decide their intensification level based on their perception of available water or for the purpose

of recovering their investment in large assets – breaking the Intensification to match available

water and Intensification for profitability loops. The impact of watershed interventions and

microirrigation will also be greatly beneficial when done in conjunction with placing an

informed limit on investments and intensification as per the resource carrying capacity.

There are examples of villages such as Hivare Bazaar that have demonstrated that armed with

the knowledge of surface and groundwater systems, appropriate cropping patterns can be

followed and regulated by the community successfully while ensuring prosperity and justice in

access to the resource. This is a concrete objective to aim for.

The analysis points to a still higher point of leverage - one that would change the paradigm of

current dynamics - and that is to disrupt the existing crop hierarchy. Currently, urban

expectations of year-round unseasonal consumption drive market forces and incentivize

unsustainable farm practices. But if consumers start to value low-water footprint produce more

than water-intensive ones, it would reverse the crop hierarchy resulting in a more sustainable

scenario, where raising farmer incomes will be consistent with following sustainable farming

practices.

The following two chapters take the above recommendations to the next stage by developing a

tool to estimate farm-level vulnerability of farmers based on their biophysical attributes and

illustrating how the water budget can be used to analyse the impact of different cropping

options and supply side interventions.

81

8. Farm level vulnerability assessment

The study of farmers in Sinnar shows that the vicious cycle of intensification is a response to

increasing uncertainty in biophysical factors such as climate impact and access to common

property resource. In order to ensure prosperity for farmers without compromising

sustainability of natural resources, there is a need to stabilize crop yields for those vulnerable

to climate impact and develop a community understanding of the common water resources so

that the extent of intensification remains within the seasonal carrying capacity. This will also

reduce the variance in farm output and stabilize returns.

Accomplishing this will require consideration of the (a) temporal component i.e. requirement

of protective irrigation during periods of scarcity e.g. Kharif dry spells and (b) spatial

component i.e. understanding of relative vulnerability of farms so that the most vulnerable

farmers may be identified and targeted as beneficiaries for government interventions. This

requires consideration of farm level attributes. For example, the soil property is a local attribute

and can vary significantly from farm to farm within a village. Even with identical rainfall and

cropping, some farms are more vulnerable than others due to differences in their bio-physical

properties such as slope, soil depth, soil texture as well as differences in access to water (i.e.

proximity to streams, investments etc.). Hence, for any intervention planning or collective crop

planning, it is important to assess the variation in vulnerability of farmers within a village and

adequately address it in the plan.

A farm level water balance allows a first cut analysis of farm level vulnerability based on

bio-physical parameters. It does so by computing different components in which precipitation

is partitioned on the farm (e.g. as run-off, crop ET, soil moisture or GW recharge). This is

along the lines of green water and blue water analysis (Hoogeveen et al. 2015) which indicates

how much share of the available precipitation is available as productive water across different

farms. Farms that are found to have lower share of crop water uptake (due to their biophysical

attributes) for the same rainfall and crop choice are intrinsically more vulnerable than others.

The farm level water balance may be supplemented with information on farmers’ access to

irrigation (proximity to streams, access to assets such as wells etc.) and historical yields to

further refine vulnerability.

Vulnerability mitigation through planning of farm level supply-side interventions or promotion

of appropriate cropping patterns also requires an understanding of the existing water balance.

The focus of this chapter is to develop easy to use tools and processes for conducting farm level

82

water balance, identification of farm level vulnerability and guidance on vulnerability

mitigation. The farm level water balance can be aggregated to a bigger level to compute a

village or watershed level balance.

8.1 Requirements

The requirements for the tool were laid out in a MoU with the Govt of Maharashtra under the

World Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate

to enhance climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone

districts of Maharashtra (IITB and GoM 2017). The focus within the scope of this thesis was

to develop an excel-based farm water balance tool that is able to (a) quantify farm vulnerability

in terms of the need for protective irrigation (in mm of water column) during dry spells in a

given year for a particular crop, (b) compute soil moisture at the end of Kharif cropping, (c)

estimate runoff and deep percolation generated on the farm.

The farm-level water balance tool forms the engine around which the PoCRA zonal water

balance tool has been built by the IITB PoCRA team. The scope of work within this thesis also

includes interpretation of the output of the zonal water balance to provide guidance on

appropriate cropping pattern choices. The usability requirements for the tool were that it needs

(a) to work with data available with the Govt of Maharashtra or other publicly available data;

(b) should be easy to use for non-technical users; (c) should provide guidance to farming

communities on supply side intervention planning as well as demand side crop planning.

There are many models and tools which have been developed and used for simulating

agricultural water balance. There exists a range of soil moisture and crop growth models that

vary in complexity depending on the vertical discretization of the soil profile and the

assumptions made. The one-layer bucket model is the simplest model (Manabe 1969). There

are others models such as tipping bucket or cascading bucket models which model the soil

profile as multiple layers (Da Silva and Jong 1986, Guswa 2002, Romano et al. 2011). The

single layer leaky bucket model is too simplified since it overlooks the distribution of rainfall.

The other models tend to be too complex for use in the field. The FAO describes a procedure

to calculate spreadsheet based point level crop water balance (Allen et al. 1998) and this has

been the basis of much work (Barron et al. 2003, Eilers et al. 2007). The work that comes

closest is that by (Barron et al. 2003, Rockström et al. 2010) which examines the impact of dry

spells on crop yields in rainfed areas of Africa. However, it has been noted (Akponikpè et al.

83

2014) that in spite of the availability of many soil water crop models for the specific case of

Africa they have not been very successful in providing in decision support to farmers because

of many reasons including their complexity, high hardware and computation time requirement.

There are also many non-point models in use that operate at spatially diverse geography such

as a river basin or watershed. One of the widely used models for this is SWAT (Neitsch et al.

2011). SWAT disaggregates the geography into hydrologic response units (HRUs) which are

identical in terms of their biophysical properties such as land use, soil type etc. Water balance

is performed within each of the HRUs. However, this tool too is complex in terms of data input

requirement and its setup and not simple enough to be used for field application.

8.2 Farm level water balance

The farm level water balance tool has been developed as a two-layer cascading soil water model

(Downer 2007). Large part of the state has deep soils so separating the zone accessible to crops

is necessary. The depth of the top layer is therefore assumed to be equal to the depth of the

crop root zone. A simple mass balance is done for each layer. Daily precipitation (P) is

partitioned into rainfall runoff (RO) and surface infiltration (I). Run-off is a function of the soil

texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. It is estimated using SCS curve number

methodology adjusted for slope. The infiltrated water (I) is further partitioned into actual

evapotranspiration (AET), change in soil moisture (Delta SM1+ Delta SM2) and recharge (R).

Computations are done at the daily time step.

Figure 8.1 Conceptual water balance in a two-layer cascading soil water model

84

The inputs to the tool are attributes such as soil type, soil thickness, land use pattern, daily

rainfall and seasonal crop choice. Appendix E contains the technical details and screen shots

of the tool. The output of the tool allows the user to get the Kharif water balance for a farm and

the starting soil moisture condition for the Rabi season.

Example: Gondala village, Hingoli district, Marathwada

We consider Gondala village of Hingoli distict in Maharashtra. The village has varying slope,

soil types and soil depths within its village boundary (Figure 8.2). We use the farm level water

balance to contrast how rainfall partitioning differs between different farms within the same

village due to differences in their soil properties resulting in higher vulnerability of some farms

to monsoon dry spells.

We consider the monsoon of 2016 when the total rainfall received was 837mm. Figure 8.3

shows the daily rainfall distribution for the Gondala circle rain gauge starting from June 1st

2016. There are three dry spells: one of 10 days in early June, one of 18 days in August and

another 10 day long in early September.

Figure 8.2: Gondala village input maps: soil depth, soil texture and contour maps

85

Figure 8.3: Daily rainfall pattern for Gondala circle, year 2016

We use the model to see the impact of the dry spells on farms at different locations within the

village using farm level water balance. The farms receive the same rainfall and are assumed to

cultivate soybean as the Kharif crop. The slopes are assumed to be the same in this case. One

farm has deep clayey soil (more than 1m deep; 51% clay, 28% sand and 21% silt) and the

second has shallow sandy clay loam soil (0.25m soil depth; 28% clay, 57% sand and 15% silt).

Figure 8.4 shows the daily ET requirement for the crop as well as the crop actual

evapotranspiration (AET) for both soil types. When there are dry spells in rainfall, the soil

moisture level starts to drop and the crop is unable to draw the entire crop ET from the soil.

The difference between the required (crop ET) and the actual (AET) evapotranspiration depicts

the crop water deficit and this is shown in the shaded region between the two curves. This

deficit results in a loss in crop yield unless protective irrigation is provided.

The crop water deficit depends greatly on soil property. As Figure 8.4 shows, the crop deficit

is significantly larger in the crop on shallow sandy clay loam soil (119mm) compared to the

clayey soil (44mm). As can be seen in the second and third dry spells, the clayey soil is able to

support the full crop PET for a few days before the crop gets stressed while the sandy clay loam

is unable to do so. The Rabi starting soil moisture is also greater for the deep clayey soil (106

mm) compared to the 25mm for sandy clay loam soil, which is equivalent to a difference of

two irrigations. Thus the farm with the shallow sandy clay loam soil is significantly more

vulnerable to yield loss during Kharif dry spells. Its irrigation requirement for Rabi cultivation

is also higher than farms with deep clayey soils. To prevent crop failures, it is important to

86

identify vulnerable farms such as these and ensure a plan for protective irrigation in the

collective crop and resource management plan.

Aggregating across all farms in Gondala, the

following picture (Figure 8.5) of relative farm

vulnerability emerges. The darker the pixel, the higher

is the Kharif deficit and need for protective irrigation.

Water Balance

The water balance has two sides: supply of available

water and demand for crop needs and domestic use.

The tool estimates supply of available water as (a)

amount of runoff that is generated on a farm (or

aggregated over a region) and may be impounded, (b)

amount of groundwater recharge, and (c) amount of water stored as soil moisture. The

Figure 8.4: Crop water deficit for identical rainfall but two different soil types in Gondala village, Jalna district.

Figure 8.5: Relative farm vulnerability (Work by: Sudhanshu Deshmukh, M.Tech. 2018)

87

impounded run-off and groundwater are regional stocks (except in case of farm level structures

such as farm ponds), while the soil moisture is assumed to be locked into the same farm.

On the demand side, the tool provides a seasonal estimate of (a) the protective irrigation

requirement for Kharif crop (the remaining being met by rainfall). (b) The Rabi crop water

requirement is met partly through the post monsoon soil moisture and the deficit is to be

provided through supplementary irrigation.

For a regional balance, the aggregate demand and supply are matched spatially (in zones) and

temporally (season-wise). This matching is done within a well-defined boundary where it may

be assumed that there is no net flow of water across boundary.

8.3 Planning for resilience: how much intensification?

Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing

change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks

(Walker et al. 2004). People with resilient livelihoods are better able to prevent and reduce the

impact of disasters on their lives. They can better withstand damage, recover and adapt when

disasters cannot be prevented (FAO 2016). In dryland agriculture, where seasonal monsoons

produce oscillations between precipitation and dryness, valuing variability is the key to

building resilience (Kratili 2015).

In chapter 7, we found that there are different types of uncertainties that lead to the cycle of

intensification and resource degradation. Some of these uncertainties are endogenous, caused

by lack of knowledge of available water and lack of coordination between farmers. The

endogenous uncertainty may be addressed through tools such as the water balance tool and

collective crop planning based on the knowledge of available water for irrigation. The

exogenous uncertainty caused by variability in monsoons (both in terms of total quantity as

well as the distribution pattern), needs to be addressed by planning for protective irrigation for

dry spells and for adjustment of cropping pattern every season based on whether it is a good

rainfall year or a poor rainfall year. The ability to adjust ones cropping pattern so as to sow less

area or less water intensive crops during bad years and intensify during good rainfall years is

an important component of building resilience. In this section, we create a framework to link

the output of the water budget to a choice of cropping pattern so as to build resilience and

enhance farm incomes within the limits presented by biophysical factors.

88

Analysis of cropping pattern in villages shows that the total crop water requirement is typically

far higher than the available water for uptake by crop through irrigation or rainfall, resulting in

poor crop yields. As described in the farmers’ water allocation decisions in section 6.4, farmers

choose to concentrate water on their primary crop which may be a high value horticulture crop.

The remaining water is allocated to secondary crops while some crops are cultivated with the

full knowledge that they will remain unirrigated. Hence, matching crop water demand to

available water requires a careful balance between the fixed load (crops that must meet full

crop water requirement), the variable load (second priority crops) and the remaining crops

which are to be left unirrigated and will only grow using the moisture present in soils.

The cropping pattern can thus be classified into three categories:

Priority 1 (P1) crops which are high value annual or multi-year crops that are always

given full irrigation. These include grapes, pomegranate, sugarcane etc. The irrigation

requirement of P1 crops is a fixed load.

Priority 2 (P2) crops: these are high value seasonal crops, which farmers intend to

irrigate as long as water is available. But in case water runs short, P1 crops are

prioritized over P2 crops. These crops include in Kharif: onions, leafy and other kharif

vegetables, soybean and irrigated cotton. In Rabi, this includes: wheat, Rabi onions and

Rabi vegetables. The P2 crop water requirement may be termed the variable load.

Priority 3 (P3) crops are primarily rainfed crops which farmers do not intend to irrigate

because they do not have any access. These crops typically include rainfed cotton, tur,

mung, udid, bajra, jowar and in Rabi: jowar and harbhara.

Typically, area under P3 crops is largest in the drylands. P1 crops are sown under

comparatively small area but the crop water requirement and average crop returns are

significantly higher.

The water budget provides a breakup of available water which can be classified into the

following categories:

Stream system (W1): This is the available runoff that is impounded by structures in the

stream system and becomes available as surface water or percolates to groundwater

and is extracted from wells inside the stream proximity region.

Groundwater in the non-stream system (W2): This is groundwater that is available in

wells in the non-stream proximity zones. Interventions such as compartment bunding

89

or CCTs increase W2 water. However, W2 water eventually flows into the stream

system due to subsurface flows and become W1 water unless it is extracted and used

up by farmers in off-stream areas.

Soil moisture (W3): This is the water in soil moisture that does not require assets such

as wells/farm ponds or proximity to stream systems. Compartment bunding and certain

farming practices such as organic mulching can increase W3 water.

Collective crop and resource management plan

Figure 8.6: Matching crop water demand to available water resources (Figure by Shubhada Sali, IITB PoCRA team)

The questions of raising incomes (in an equitable manner) and building resilience, ultimately

comes down to making appropriate decision on which crops to sow (under how much area) and

how to use available water at the community level. The P1 crops are high priority multi-year

crops and farmers ensure that the P1 crop water requirement is met every year no matter

whether it is a good rainfall year or bad drought year. Since P1 crops are typically grown in

water rich zones (or by transferring water from water rich zones), W1 water is first assumed to

be allocated for P1 requirement. In case W1 water is not sufficient to meet the P1 crop water

demand, it is assumed that farmers in off-stream farms draw groundwater (i.e. W2 water) to

irrigate P1 crops. The surface and ground water that remains after accounting for P1 crop water

requirement is what is available for the seasonal cash crops (P2 crops). P3 crops are assumed

to be left unirrigated and only benefit from the soil moisture (W3 water).

The estimate of available W1, W2 and W3 water is made using the water balance tool and it

depends upon the particular rainfall pattern of that year. It also depends on existing

interventions in the region i.e. area treatment and drainage line treatments. The amount of W1,

W2 and W3 may then be estimated for a good year rainfall and a bad year rainfall using historic

rainfall patterns in the region. Based on this, the community needs to decide what is the most

amount of area that may be under multiyear orchards and how much area can be under seasonal

cash crops in a particular rainfall year.

90

Two model villages

We analyse the cropping pattern of a couple of model villages in Maharashtra based on their

water budget. The two villages are: Hivare Bazar (Ahmednagar district) and Kadvanchi

(Jalna). Both have a large area under horticulture cultivation, yet the paths taken by the two

villages are completely orthogonal to one another. Hivare Bazaar follows the collective action

approach. There are multiple rain gauges within the village and the villagers keep track of the

rainfall which helps them prepare a rough estimate of available water (water budget). Based on

this, farmers collectively decide on the extent of seasonal intensification that may be done in

the post-monsoon seasons. There are collective rules such as: priority for drinking water and

livestock water, no sugarcane or other water-intensive crops. The village has negligible area

under multi year orchards (P1 crops) and predominantly cultivate P2 crops such as onions. In

poor rainfall years, collective decisions are made to reduce sown area significantly so that crop

failures are minimized. In addition to this knowledge based collection action, there have also

been large investments in watershed interventions and area treatment.

In contrast, Kadvanchi follows a different model in which each farmer. The village is well

known for its large scale grape and pomegranate cultivation which has been made possible

through private ground-water filled farmponds and large scale watershed programs. The village

has close to 500 such private farm ponds. The village is seen as model village as these

interventions have resulted in a large increase in incomes of many farmers. At the same time,

the resource used is skewed and there is large inequity in access to resource as well as drinking

water scarcity (Ansari 2016).

Table 8.1 provides a comparison of the

cropping pattern of the two villages.

Kadvanchi has a large area under orchards

but at the same time, it is dominated by

rainfed crops suggesting large inequity in

access to resource, though perhaps higher

aggregate income of farmers due to large

grape farming. Hivare Bazar, on the other

hand, has negligible area under orchards

(by design) and a comparatively low area under purely rainfed crops. This suggests that the

available water is distributed more evenly amongst farmers due to strong collective action. This

Kadvanchi Hivare Bazar

Land use Area in Ha Area in Ha

Total geographical land 1508 976.84

Non agricultural land 402 423

Cultivable land 1106 553.84

Orchards (P1) 346 22.8

Seasonal cash crops (P2) 318 658.9

Rainfed crops (P3) 906 251

Table 8.1: Comparison of cropped area of two model villages: Kadvanchi and Hivare Bazar

91

is likely to reduce the average farm income but at the same time, also reduce large variability

in income caused due to large crop failures. We test both cases against the respective water

budget to test for climate resilience using the developed tool.

Hivare Bazar

Onion is the predominant crop in Hivare Bazar, but other vegetables are also cultivated. Drip

irrigation is used for irrigation on a large scale. Rainfed crops include bajra, mung, jowar and

harbhara. In the last 5 years, 2014 was a bad rainfall year with 384mm rainfall. 2016 was a

good rainfall year with 473mm rainfall.

Table 8.2 shows the good year balance for the village as an aggregate. It estimates that for a

rainfall of 473mm in 2016, a runoff of 1576 TCM was generated. Existing drainage line

structures can impound 661.2 TCM of this (W1 water), while the rest would flow out of the

village. The available groundwater recharge through area treatment is estimated to be 89.8

TCM (W2 water) and through percolation of rainfall it would be additional 562.9TCM (also

W2 water). 4.7 TCM is estimated to be stored locally as soil moisture (W3).

Figure 8.7: Hivare Bazar input maps: soil texture, slope, soil thickness and land use2

92

The total amount of water available in good year from all three categories is 1318 TCM against

the net irrigation requirement of 2803 TCM. However, considering that P3 crops are not

irrigated, the total irrigation requirement of P1 and P2 crops alone is 2108 TCM. The orchard

crop irrigation requirement (P1) is 230 TCM (rest is met from rainfall). This requirement is

easily met by the water in the stream system (W1 water). The remaining W1 water and all of

W2 water is thus available for the P2 crops.

The ratio of (irrigation allocated/crop irrigation requirement) is used as an indicator of crop

yield, and it can be seen that in a good year, the yields for all P1 crops and P2 Rabi crops are

expected to be good and not limited by water. P2 Kharif crops may still see crop failures as

only about 50% water requirement is met. P3 crops are benefitted only from the rainfall and

soil moisture and are expected to have low yields. For a bad rainfall year, the irrigation

requirement is higher and water availability is lower. The impact is seen in a shortfall in P2

Rabi yield. In reality, farmers are expected to adjust Rabi sowing and reduce it in a bad year so

that this yield deficit may not occur.

The P1 index has been defined as the Water committed to annual crops as a fraction of total

available water for irrigation and is an indicator of how agile the cropping pattern is to seasonal

Table 8.2: Good year (2016) and bad year (2014) water balance for Hivare Bazar

93

variation in water availability. We see that this is 0.18 in a bad year year (i.e. 17% of total

available water is used for irrigating orchards in ~2.5% area). In good year this number is 0.17.

Kadvanchi

A similar comparison of a good year water budget (959mm in 2016) and bad year budget

(523mm in 2015) is shown above. We find that the P1 index in a good year is 0.8 and bad year

is 1. This shows that the orchard crop water requirement even in a good year makes up 80% of

the available water (to irrigate ~22% of gross cultivable area). In a bad year, the orchard

requirement exceeds available water and farmers have to purchase water tankers to irrigate.

This shows that irrespective of the type of rainfall year, farmers cultivating crops besides

orchards are unlikely to have assurance of water and face high crop failures. They will face

pressure to either intensify themselves or to withdraw from agriculture. Kadvanchi, thus,

exemplifies a village headed for the tragedy of the commons due to excessive investments and

intensification. It certainly does not represent a model village to aspire for.

Figure 8.8: Kadvanchi village biophysical inputs: landuse, soil texture, soil depth, slope

94

8.4 Summary

The study of Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi cropping pattern in light of their water budgets is

very instructive. It supports the systems analysis in the previous chapter by showing that

watershed interventions and promotion of horticulture leads farmers on an unsustainable

trajectory and is likely to make them more vulnerable to uncertainties of climate and to

endogenous uncertainties due to competition for water. The only way to achieve higher farm

incomes is to restrain intensification to a sustainable level and ensure equity in access through

collective action. Rotation of right to seasonally intensify may be one mechanism of achieving

this.

A clear finding from the study is that the upper limit on the net area under orchards should be

carefully planned to ensure that in bad rainfall years, the orchard water requirement does not

appropriate most of available water, as this squeezes the majority of farmers out of access

completely and makes them highly vulnerable to crop failures.

New intervention planning in villages through watershed or other government programs such

as PoCRA should carefully assess the likely impact of each new structure. For example,

granting new wells helps convert more P3 area to P2 area. Subsidy of farmponds moves farmers

Table 8.3: Good year (2016) and bad year (2014) water balance for Kadvanchi village

95

from P2 crops to P1 crops. Drainage line treatment helps increase W1 water which is used for

irrigating P1 and P2 crops. Area treatment, on the other hand, increases soil moisture which

helps the majority of P3 cultivating farmers. Which new structures to create, how many and

where thus need to be answered based on the expected impact on water budget and cropping

pattern, and with a collective vision of what outcomes are desirable in a good rainfall year and

what are acceptable in a bad rainfall year. Appendix F shows such an analysis conducted for

Paradgaon village in Jalna district where interventions are being planned under PoCRA.

In the next chapter, we consider the case of a specific intervention: the farmpond.

96

9. Farmponds

In the last couple of decades, groundwater filled farmponds have become immensely popular

for assuring water for high value crop cultivation. On one hand farm pond is seen as a miracle

drought-proofing tool which enables farmers to increase their incomes (Pawar et al. 2012, GoI

2015b, Ansari 2016), and on the other hand, it is considered to be an exploitative and

unsustainable tool that allows farm pond owners to stock up on ground water, a scarce common

pool resource (Kale 2017). The objective of this work is to reconcile these two views by

analyzing the impact of ground-water filled farm ponds along hydrological, agricultural and

economic dimensions and to determine if it is possible to determine a threshold such that if the

total number of farmponds remains below it, the benefits of farmponds may still be accrued

without the high environmental cost.

Farm ponds (FP) serve various purposes. From hydrology point of view, they are seen as a

water harvesting device. From the view point of farming, their importance is in assuring

protective irrigation for crops during dry periods. In economic terms they can be seen as a risk

mitigating tool for the farmer. Farm ponds vary a lot in type, size and their purpose and impact.

They are built by farmers with large landholding as well as small landholding. For small

holding farmers, farm ponds allow the farmer to increase the cropping intensity and grow high

value crops in order to get the most output from limited land. However, unless the farm pond

is significantly subsidized, the investment can be made only by reasonably well-off farmers

since a typical 30mx30mx3m sized farm pond can cost upwards of 1 lakh rupees (without

plastic lining), in addition to regular maintenance expenses. The focus of this section is the

lined farmpond that is filled with groundwater for the purpose of summer irrigation of orchards

or other horticulture crops.

This very real problem naturally lends itself to a system dynamic approach. There are multiple

stakeholders involved and there are multiple goals: to raise farm incomes, to be more drought-

resilient, to make judicious use of a scarce resource and to maintain social welfare. Moreover,

a dynamic analysis is crucial because farmers respond to situations created by the action of

other farmers or stakeholders.

The model shows that as more farmers build new farmponds attracted by the success of the

initial adopters and change their cropping pattern, groundwater extraction exacerbates causing

further uncertainty in groundwater availability. The non-farmpond owners are particularly

97

impacted pushing even more of them towards investing in farmponds. As this cycle continues,

eventually even the farmpond owning farmers are impacted making everyone worse off

compared to the initial state. The analysis shows that it is unlikely that a desired state of

equilibrium can be achieved without regulation because economic incentives continue to drive

farmers to invest in farmponds even as groundwater levels fall thereby leading to the tragedy

of the commons.

9.1 Conceptual model

The objective of this work is to analyse the impact of farm ponds from hydrological, economic

and social standpoints. The basis of the model is data gathered from field observations and

surveys conducted in different parts of the state including districts of Nashik, Ahmednagar,

Jalna, Hingoli and Akola.

The model simulates a typical village. The first part of the model only looks at the hydrological

aspects. Ground water and surface water (ponds, dams etc.) are the two main stocks. The main

flows are rainfall, rainfall runoff, ground water percolation and its extraction. There are other

flows which model losses from the stocks or transfer from one stock to another i.e. evaporation

from surface sources, subsurface flow of ground water and base flows (sub surface flows that

seep out on the surface as springs). Figure 9.1 shows the relation between them. The flows

shown in red are exogenous to the model while the others are computed endogenously using

system parameters (e.g. slope, soil type, aquifer properties, cropped area, irrigation requirement

etc.) and hydrological relationships between different stocks and flows.

When farm ponds are introduced and filled by ground water extraction, this increases the GW

extraction in the model and accordingly affects all other stocks and flows. This part of the

Figure 9.1: Stocks and flows in the hydrological model

98

model is useful in observing the extent to which groundwater can support extraction to fill farm

ponds. It does not have any feedback loops at this stage.

In the second part of the model, a reinforcing loop is modeled. Farm ponds are promoted in

regions facing variability in ground water access. Introduction of new farm ponds triggers a

change in the cropping pattern as farmers shift from traditional Rabi crops to water intensive

Rabi crops such as vegetables or to annual fruit orchards. This change in crop increases the

monthly irrigation requirement which is fulfilled by increased ground water extraction for

direct irrigation and by farmponds during scarcity periods. This, coupled with the inefficiency

of farm ponds due to evaporation losses, further increases ground water extraction. As the

groundwater demand rises, not all irrigation demand can be met by groundwater and farmers

start to experience greater risk in water availability. This rising uncertainty motivates more

farmers to invest in farm ponds in order to secure water for themselves thereby creating

avicious cycle. This is shown in a conceptual flow in Figure 9.2.

In the third part, an economic layer is added which models another reinforcing loop as well as

a balancing loop. This is shown in Figure 3. As farmers invest in farm ponds, they switch to

horticulture crops which have high profitability compared to traditional crops. As farm pond

owners make more profit, this incentivizes other farmers to follow suit and reinforces the

building of new farm ponds.

Farm ponds

Evaporation lossfrom farm ponds

Groundwaterdemand

Area underhorticulture crops

+

+

Uncertainty ingroundwateravailability

+

+

+

++

Feedback due to rising groundwater uncertainty

+

Irrigation demand

loop

Evaporation loss

loop

Figure 9.2: Feedback due to cropping shift and rising groundwater uncertainty

99

When farmers invest in farm ponds, it increases their cost per unit water due to high cost of

building and maintaining farmpond. The cost of pumping water is currently negligible in the

state due to subsidy for agricultural power feeders but this may be easily incorporated.

Increasing cost of water has a reducing effect on profitability. Profitability of farmers also

reduces due to another reason. As discussed in previous section, increase in farm ponds

increases ground water extraction and after a certain time ground water can no longer meet

irrigation demand. At this stage, crop yields suffer and reduce the farmer’s profitability.

Reduced profitability of farm ponds owners makes investment in farm ponds less attractive to

other farmers. This is the balancing loop which works to stabilize the number of farm ponds.

Figure 9.3: Feedbacks due to relative profitability of farmers with farmponds

The next section goes through the details of model setup.

Farm pond

Groundwaterdemand

Area underhorticulture crops

+

+-

Farm output value+

+

Cost of water+

-

Feedback due to relative profitability of farmers with farmponds

Relativeprofitability of FP

owners

+

Unmet irrigationdemand: Horticulture

HorticultureCrop yield

Profitability of FPowning farmers

+

-

+

+

+

Unmet irrigation demand: traditional crops

Traditional cropyield

Profitability oftraditional farmers

+

-

+

-

+

-

Crop value loop

Horticulture yield

loop

Traditional crop

yield loop

FP water cost

loop

100

9.2 Model setup and calibration

This section discusses the setup of the model and its parameters. The model simulates the

hydrological processes of a typical village. However, in order to keep it grounded in reality a

specific village is chosen to set up the biophysical attributes. The baseline model is calibrated

to ensure that the resulting stocks and flows are consistent with field observation. Ground water

behavior varies spatially within a village due to variations in factors such as slope, soil type,

aquifer properties etc. For simplification, this model “lumps” the geographical region into two

zones each of which is assumed to have uniform properties. These are: a ground water recharge

zone and a groundwater discharge zone. This is necessary because some regions within a

village may be net positive in subsurface flows while others may be net negative. This model

allows observation of the impact in each zone.

For setting up the model, biophysical attributes such as geographical geometry, soil properties,

cropping patterns etc. are based on attributes of Gondala village of Hingoli district

(approximately 19.7299N 76.8951E). The results, however, can be extended to any domain

consisting of two zones which are interconnected through surface and ground water flows.

Figure 9.4 shows the village boundary of Gondala village which also roughly corresponds to a

watershed boundary. It receives an average rainfall of 837mm. The two zones in this case are:

an upstream zone 1 (480 ha area) and a downstream zone 2 (565 ha area). The land use pattern

in Figure 4 shows the larger agricultural land in zone 2 and a more diverse land use (forest,

waste land and agriculture) in zone 1. Zone 1 is hilly, and has predominantly poor quality and

shallow soil causing high run-off. Downstream zone 2 has better and thicker soil and larger

agricultural area. It is more water rich due to stream flows and ground water flows coming in

from zone 1 and hence it has higher cropping intensity. From ground water perspective, zone

1 is net loser and zone 2 is net positive due to subsurface flows between them. When the net

Figure 9.4: Zone boundary and Land Use Land Cover map of Gondala village

101

inflow of subsurface flows in zone 2 exceeds its aquifer capacity, the “excess” ground water is

modeled to emerge on the surface as “base flow” in zone 2 and flow out of the watershed.

We focus on creation of farm ponds within zone 2. The effect of zone 1 is considered in the

model since it is an important source of stream water and ground water flows into the zone of

interest. The same model can easily be applied to Zone 1 as well.

Figure 9.5 shows the main stocks and flows in the two-zone hydrological model. The auxiliary

variables have been hidden in this view in order to keep the view readable. (Note: Bandhara

may be translated as the stock of water stored in small dams and public reservoirs). The surface

run-off and recharge to groundwater are exogenous inputs to the model. They have been

computed using a rainfall runoff analysis (Wagner et al 2011). To keep the model simple,

stochastic behaviour is not modeled and the rainfall pattern is assumed to be constant every

year. Ground water flows between zones is dependent upon the difference of ground water

heads in the two zones and is modelled from first principles using Darcy’s law (Wang et al.

2016).

Months 0 to 4 make up the rainy/ Kharif season starting from June. The Kharif crop is assumed

to get its required water from the rain and there is no groundwater extraction for it. Most

villages have some small dams (bandhara) in their streams. Depending on the bandhara (or

dam) capacity, certain amount of run-off is impounded by them from the rainfall runoff. Water

from the bandhara is gradually lost as evaporation and some percolates down to meet the

ground water table. Throughout the year, there is a sub-surface flow from zone 1 to zone 2.

Figure 9.5: Hydrological model

102

Part of this flow seeps out as baseflow in zone 2 when

the net subsurface flow into zone 2 exceeds its aquifer

capacity. Months 5 to 9 make the Rabi season during

which there is groundwater extraction in each zone to

irrigate the Rabi crop. When farm ponds are introduced,

ground water is extracted in the months of 1 to 5 and

stored until months 9 to 11 for irrigation. Table 9.1

shows the system parameters that have been used for each zone.

Baseline calibration

In the baseline case it is assumed that all farmers grow traditional low water use crops and there

are no farmponds. The rainfall pattern as well as ground water extraction is assumed to be the

same hence the parameters are identical every year. The model is run at a monthly time step

for 5 years. (Note: Month 0 to 1 is June, 1-2 is July etc.).

Figure 9.6a shows the ground level elevation as

well as the fluctuating ground water levels (with

respect to mean sea level) for each zone. As

shown, Zone 1 has a higher elevation (510m) vs.

zone 2 (465m). The blue and red graphs show the

variation of ground water table in zones 1 and 2

respectively. Figure 9.6b shows the same ground

water level in the form of meters below ground

level (mbgl). For example, a value of 0 mbgl implies that the wells are completely full with

System Parameters Zone 1 Zone 2

Area (ha) 481.63 565.15

Ground elevation (m) 510 465

Well depth (m) 7 9

Baseline Rabi sown area (ha) 200 250

Baseline Rabi GW demand

(mm of water column)200 250

Baseline Bandharas capacity 50 300

Ground water table

520

502.5

485

467.5

450

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

Time (Month)

mete

r

water table level 1 : Current

water table level 2 : Current

Zone 1 elevation : Current

Zone 2 elevation : Current

Well level meters below ground

0

-2.25

-4.5

-6.75

-9

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

Time (Month)

neg mbgl 1 : Current neg mbgl 2 : Current

GW Flows

160

120

80

40

0

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

Time (Month)

TC

M/M

onth

Baseflow out : Current

subsurface flow : Current

Figure 3a: Ground water table Figure 9.6a: Ground water table Figure 9.6b: mbgl levels

Figure 9.6c: Ground water Flows

Table 9.1: System parameters

103

water. As can be seen by these figures, wells in zone 1 do not fill up to the brim during the

rainy season. They have very little water in the summer months, only to meet domestic demand.

In contrast, zone 2 wells are full by the month of October. Levels start to go down due to Rabi

extraction but since there is no extraction in summer, well levels recover and have sufficient

water for domestic use in the summer months. Initial value for ground water stock is chosen as

0 for year 1 and the model stabilizes by year 2.

Figure 9.6c shows that there is a constant sub surface flow (shown in red) between zone 1 and

zone 2, except in summer months when they become very low due to the low zone 1 wells

levels. Baseflows (shown in blue) flow in zone 2 until Nov end. The behavior shown by various

stocks and flows in the model is consistent with the observations on field.

9.3 Modeling impact of farmponds

The previous section modeled the baseline scenario with no farm ponds. From here on, the

comparatively water-rich zone 2 is the focus of the model and the impact of introducing farm

ponds in this zone in analysed.

Farm ponds and cropping decisions

The section focuses on modeling the feedback loop related to changes in cropping pattern.

Cropping pattern shift

Four types of cropping practices are modeled:

The baseline cropping pattern is assumed to be one of the following two options:

a) Rainfed Kharif crop + land left fallow in Rabi season

b) Rainfed Kharif crop + traditional Rabi crop (such as green gram or sorghum)

Farmers who build farmponds shift from the baseline cropping pattern to the following types

of cropping pattern

c) Rainfed Kharif crop + water intensive Rabi crop (such as onion or tomatoes)

d) Year round orchard such as pomegranate

The shift in cropping pattern has been modeled by considering the following stocks of land:

fallow land (no Kharif or Rabi), Kharif only land stock (no Rabi), Traditional Rabi cropping

104

land, land under farm pond irrigated water intensive Rabi crop and land under farm pond

irrigated orchards (see Figure 9.7). The model assumes that 80% of farm ponds are used to

irrigate fruit orchards (0.4 ha of fallow land is converted to orchard for every new FP). 10% of

remaining farm ponds are used to irrigate Rabi crop on land that was previously used for only

rainfed Kharif crop. The remaining 10% of the farm ponds are assumed to be used on existing

Rabi area but for a more water intensive Rabi crop. Note that these numbers are consistent with

reported observations in villages such as Kadvanchi that have experienced farm pond

revolutions (Pawar et al 2012, Ansari 2016).

Figure 9.7: Modelling cropping pattern shift and changing irrigation demand

Change in ground water irrigation demand

Land under each type of cropping has a bearing on irrigation water demand. Traditional Rabi

crop water demand is fulfilled purely through groundwater extraction. Water intensive Rabi

crops are irrigated through ground water extraction in the initial waterings and the final 3

irrigations are provided through water saved in farm ponds. In case of orchards, farm pond

water is used to irrigate in three months of summer while rain water and ground water are used

in the remaining months of the year. Monthly water requirement for each type of crop is setup

in the model.

Evaporation losses from farm ponds

If a lined farm pond has 2 TCM of water filled by the month of October, this reduces to about

1.5 TCM by mid-February even without any use due to evaporation losses. Hence, if the farm

pond is to be used to cultivate vegetables in summer, 133% of required water is to be extracted

in the monsoon months to allow for evaporation losses. This inefficiency of farm pond use is

incorporated and impacts ground water extraction (see Figure 9.8).

105

Modeling risk in ground water unavailability

Groundwater risk is modeled as the ratio of net ground water demand to the ground water stock

available at any time step. In low risk scenario, demand should be a fraction of the available

stock of ground water. But as demand rises and GW stock falls, this ratio starts to increase and

the risk of not meeting ones irrigation demand rises. When the ratio exceeds 1, it is certain that

irrigation demand will not be met by some farmers. As this ratio increases, more farmers are

incentivized to assure water for their farms by investing in farm ponds.

Farm ponds and economic considerations

Economic considerations are added in this third part of the model. These are in terms of cost

of water, cost of cultivation, farm output value and farmer profitability.

Cost of water

Cost of water for farm pond owners: The cost of building farm ponds depends upon the soil

profile. For a standard farm pond storing 2 TCM water the annual amortized cost per unit water

turns out to be approximately Rs 25 per cubic meter. When government subsidy of Rs 50,000

is availed, it reduces this cost to about Rs 20 per cubic meter.

Cost of groundwater extraction: All farmers who irrigate a Rabi crop (farm pond owners and

non-owners) extract ground water for irrigation. Typically, the cost of pumping groundwater

is a function of water level depth. The farm pond owners pump the water twice- once from well

to the farm pond and second from farm pond to their fields. However, in practice, pumping

cost is negligible for farmers in Maharashtra due to state subsidy on agricultural electricity.

Hence this cost is ignored. Thus, as farmers invest in new farm ponds, their cost of unit water

increases.

Figure 9.8: Modelling evaporation losses from farm ponds and computation of groundwater demand

106

Unmet irrigation demand and allocation of ground water

As the irrigation demand increases with new farm ponds and ground water levels fall, a stage

is reached when not all demand for water is fulfilled. Ground water is first allocated to fill farm

ponds since this extraction occurs during the rainy season. Post rainfall, there is a competition

for ground water. It is assumed that farmers who have farm ponds and orchards are the most

asset-rich farmers (having stronger pumps and deeper wells) and hence groundwater is

allocated to them first. This is followed by farmers with farm ponds growing water intensive

Rabi crops. The remaining available groundwater is allocated to the non-farm pond owning

farmers who grow traditional crops. This is shown below in Figure 9.9.

Crop yield as a function of irrigation received

Simplified yield curves are used to model crop yield as a function of irrigation received. The

basis for these yield curves is surveys conducted in drought affected villages of Nashik district.

In case of traditional crops (which tend to be drought-resilient) yield is assumed to change

linearly with water applied upto the published yield value for fully irrigated crop (Directorate

of Economics and Statistics 2014). For more water intensive Rabi crops yield is assumed to be

zero until at least 50% of irrigation is provided after which yield is made to increase linearly

upto the published yield value for fully irrigated crop. For orchards such as pomegranate, if the

farmer is unable to meet the irrigation demand it is assumed that he will purchase water tankers

instead of taking a hit on the yield (as is observed in practice). Based on survey data the cost

of tanker water is about Rs 83 per cubic meter. This cost is added to the cost of water to

Figure 9.9: Allocation of groundwater when in stress

107

calculate the farmer’s profitability as a function of cropping pattern and access to water. The

increase in cost of water and the decrease in crop yields, both have a reducing effect on farmer’s

profitability.

Farm profitability

Each type of cropping practice is assigned a profit function that is computed endogenously in

the model. It depends on the following factors: type of crop, area under that cropping practice,

cost of cultivation per unit area of the crop, cost of water, crop yields and average market rates

per unit production. The cost of cultivation and average market rates are published numbers

for the state of Maharashtra (Government of India 2014, (Directorate of Economics and

Statistics 2014). Figure 9.10 shows the profitability modeled for two of the crop choices.

Feedback loop for adding new farmponds

New farm ponds created on the basis of two influencing factors a) the relative profitability of

farmpond-owning farmers compared to traditional cropping farmers and b) the risk in

groundwater availability.

It is assumed that there are no farm ponds in year 1 and year 2. In year 3, a government program

provides 10 farm ponds to farmers in the village. These 10 farmers change their cropping

pattern and shift to higher value water intensive crops. This increases the groundwater demand

and impacts the ground water risk factor. It also changes the farm pond owning farmers’

profitability. New farm ponds are added when the ratio of profit per unit area of farm pond

owning farmers to the profit per unit area of traditional crop farmers is greater than 1.

Moreover, if these farmers also face uncertainty in ground water access (groundwater risk is

Figure 9.10: Modelling profitability

108

greater than 1) they have additional incentive to build farmponds as long as the first condition

holds true.

9.4 Model results and discussion

Figures 9.11 and 9.12 present the key output of the model. As can be seen, the number of farm

ponds grow exponentially before flattening out in year 23 at 284 farm ponds. This is

accompanied by a cropping shift by farmers who build new farmponds. As a result, the

traditional Rabi cropped area reduces from the initial 250 ha to about 222 ha. Area under

orchards rises from 0 to 91 ha and area under water intensive Rabi cropping such as vegetables

rises to 57 ha. The GW demand curve shows how demand for ground water increases as new

farmponds are built and cropping pattern shifts occur. After year 18, the ground water stock

cannot support this large demand and there is unmet irrigation demand. The well levels shown

in the well mbgl graph shows the behaviour of the water table. It shows that the well levels fall

to greater depth but fill up to brim until year 18 (month 216). Year 18 is also the year when

baseflows nearly dry up in the village as shown in the Flows graph. Starting year 19, ground

water situation deteriorates rapidly as the water table sinks exponentially. This shows that base

flows provide a ground water buffer to the system. When farm ponds are constructed and GW

is extracted to fill them, the extraction first reduces the amount of baseflow leaving the zone

before impacting the local ground water level.

109

Number of farmponds

300

240

180

120

60

0

0 36 72 108 144 180 216 252 288 324 360

Time (Month)

Number of farm ponds

Figure 9.11: Impact of farm ponds on stocks and flows of the system

110

Figure 9.12: Farm ponds and profitability

111

Discussion

The explanation for behaviour shown in Figures 9.11 and 9.12 is as follows. Initially there are

10 farm ponds introduced in the village. As these farmers shift to a high value crop, their

profitability increases by two to three times. More farmers start to invest in farmponds attracted

by this difference in profitability. The initial farmers who convert are the progressive farmers

in any village who are economically strong and more willing to take risk. Over the next few

years, as farm pond owning farmers continue to be profitable, more and more farmers are

incentivized to invest in farm ponds and the momentum starts to rise. As more farm ponds are

created, more area comes under water intensive cropping and the demand for ground water

continues to rise. The impact of this is seen in lesser and lesser baseflows flowing out of the

village post rainy season and also in the well water levels falling to greater depths in summer

though recovering during rainy season. These are early signs of groundwater stress.

By this time, some of the shallow wells in the village start to get completely dry in summer.

For example, public drinking water wells tend to be shallower than private wells and the

landless and asset-poor farmers who depend on public wells start experiencing drinking water

stress during summer season. Also, as the competition for groundwater rises and the available

stock shrinks, the uncertainty in access to water starts to increase. This doubly incentivizes

traditional crop farmers to invest in farm ponds if they can afford to do so: a) because of the

increasing uncertainty they are starting to face in ground water access and b) because of the

comparatively large profits that farm pond owners are making compared to them.

By year 19, about 79 farmponds have been constructed and the ground water stock is unable to

support the irrigation demand and there is unmet irrigation demand. The group that is first

affected by this is the traditional Rabi crop growing farmers since they are likely to have less

powerful pumps and shallower wells. The unmet irrigation demand impacts their crop yield

and reduces their production, thereby reducing their profitability. As this happens, the ratio of

the profitability of farm pond owners to that of traditional crop farmers increases even more

and investing in farm ponds appears still more attractive.

Over the next two years (year 20 and 21), 39 and 60 more new farm ponds are added. The

traditional Rabi farmers see a sudden fall in their ability to access groundwater for irrigation

(to about 52% of their demand). By the following year (year 22), the ground water stock has

fallen so much that even farm pond owners are unable to meet their irrigation requirement.

This leads to a steep fall in their profitability. However, since the traditional farmers are doing

112

significantly worse due to inability to access groundwater that even at this low profit levels

orchard farmers are four times as profitable as traditional crop owners. Switching to farm ponds

and cultivating horticulture crops appears to be the only way out for traditional farmers and

hence even greater number of them rush to get a farm pond adding 90 new farm ponds in year

22 (month 264), thereby taking the total number of farm ponds to 284. This has a devastating

impact on the water table. It is able to meet only 65% of orchard water demand, 38% of water

intensive Rabi crop demand and practically none of the traditional Rabi crop demand.

This is a severe blow to farm pond owing farmers who make large losses, as horticulture crops

are very sensitive to irrigation and even a small shortfall in irrigation results in large losses in

yield. Moreover, the high cost of cultivation of this crop makes it risk prone to high losses in

case of crop failure. It is interesting to note that the farmers growing traditional crops have no

water for irrigation and yet they do not experience a similar loss because of their drought

resiliency and low cost of cultivation. At this point, a state of equilibrium is reached as there is

no longer any incentive for anyone to invest in any more new farm ponds. However, by the

time this happens, every single farmer is worse off compared to the situation from where they

began. Economically, each farmer group has lower profitability compared to initial state. In

terms of their resources, there is a catastrophic crisis in groundwater. Socially, there is a crisis

as well, due to the poor state of pubic wells and drinking water for the asset-poor people and

for livestock. What has resulted is the tragedy of the commons. The larger community’s interest

is compromised because farm ponds continue to be in individual farmers’ self-interest even

when the common pool resource is being exploited.

It is clear that the dynamics between the reinforcing and balancing loops shown in Figures 2

and 3 is such that by the time the balancing loop stops the increase in farm pond, significant

damage has already been done. If community action and/or groundwater regulation was

possible, an economically and socially desirable state would have been the one attained in year

19 with 79 farm ponds when the overall community profitability is the highest and social costs

are not high. It is possible to identify this threshold by the clue that ground water levels and

baseflows provide. When wells no longer fill up to the brim in rainy season and the baseflows

dry up, it is a good indicator that the threshold has been reached and no new farm ponds should

be constructed

113

9.4 Conclusions

There is a lot of interest in farm ponds currently at all levels – farmers, practitioners, policy

makers and politicians. However, views on farm ponds are highly polarised and only based on

short term experiences. This study offers a systematic analysis of farm ponds in terms of their

hydrological impact, impact to agriculture and the economic impact. It shows that farm ponds

offer great potential for economic prosperity as long as their number is within the limit set by

the water balance. As shown in the analysis, a good indicator of this limit is the point when

wells do not fill up completely during rainy season and baseflows no longer flow in the region

post rainfall. If farmers continue to build new farm ponds and grow orchards beyond this limit

in an unregulated manner, it will create a vicious cycle of resource decline.

The model shows that in the current policy regime of subsidized electricity and farm ponds,

the economics of water would not be sufficient in self-regulating the use ground water and

preventing the tragedy of the commons. Regulation of ground water would be required either

through policy or community action.

The model establishes that there is a natural limit up to which investments in farm ponds and

horticulture can be supported. This limit is computable as has been shown in the example that

has been modelled. This analysis provides some powerful thumb rules that can be used by the

farming community in making decisions regarding cropping pattern and asset creation. It is

also very relevant to government programs which currently promote horticulture and farm

ponds without any guidelines on where and how much should be promoted.

114

10. Conclusions and Future work

Horticulture cultivation is considered to be a high-return practice. In this work, we find that

while average returns from horticulture crops are higher than traditional crops, there is high

variability in returns and a large number of farmers face losses. We establish that there is a

hierarchy amongst crops starting from low-risk low-return crops such as food-grains followed

by non-horticulture cash crops such as soybean and maize, then intermediate crops such as

green leafy vegetables and onions, and finally high-risk high-return crops such as tomatoes and

fruit crops. Moving along this intensification hierarchy, there is an increase in average cost of

cultivation, irrigation requirement and average returns, at the same time, there is also an

increased variability in returns.

The study shows that farmers are driven to changing their cropping patterns in favour of high-

value water-intensive horticulture crops as a way to cope with increasing biophysical

uncertainties, some of which are exogenous, such as that caused by variability in monsoon rain

and others are endogenous, such as uncertainty in access to groundwater due to the high stage

of development and the risk caused by competitive extraction and informal water transfers.

Faced by these uncertainties, farmers often fall short of water and face crop failures. Their main

strategy mitigate these risks is to invest in water infrastructure to assure water and

simultaneously intensify their farming in order to recoup investment. However, as individual

farmers invest in water infrastructure to diminish their personal risk without comprehension of

the carrying capacity of the resource or coordination with other farmers, this in fact results in

reinforcement of risk at the community level inducing more farmers to invest and intensify

eventually leading to an escalated version of the tragedy of the commons. An externality is

diminishing access to ecological services such as drinking water for all, especially the landless

and asset-poor farmers.

A systems analysis of the current interventions by the state suggests that programs on

watershed intervention and increased water-use efficiency through promotion of micro-

irrigation, are not only insufficient in stopping the cycle of intensification, but in fact accelerate

it further. The study suggests that reduction in orchards (the fixed load) and a strategy of well-

regulated seasonal intensification (the variable load) within the limits of available resource and

by rotation amongst farmers will not only result in more sustainable and equitable practice, but

may actually result in increasing net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful

infrastructure. The ability to respond to poor rainfall years by collectively adjusting the

115

seasonal cropping pattern, will reduce failures and increase farm resilience. There are examples

of villages such as Hivare Bazar that have demonstrated that armed with the knowledge of

surface and groundwater systems, appropriate cropping patterns can be followed and regulated

by the community successfully while ensuring prosperity and justice in access to the resource.

This is a concrete objective to aim for.

This points to the need for the scientific community to (a) equip the state with sound and

practical tools for governance, for example in planning and regulation, and (b) improving the

understanding of groundwater for users and developing a consensus, a substratum of commonly

held knowledge, so that community regulation is enabled. It is important that scientists, state

agencies and extension workers come together with the farming community to develop such

tools that may be used by them to seasonally estimate the carrying capacity of available water

and arrive at a set of possible cropping scenarios, and document outcomes.

The analysis points to a still higher point of leverage - one that would change the paradigm of

current dynamics - and that is to disrupt the existing crop hierarchy. Currently, urban

expectations of year-round unseasonal consumption drive market forces and incentivize

unsustainable farm practices. But if consumers start to value low-water footprint produce more

than water-intensive ones, it would reverse the crop hierarchy such that raising farmer incomes

will be consistent with following sustainable farming practices.

A significant contribution of this work is to support the development of a water balance and

decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World Bank

funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to enhance

climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone districts of

Maharashtra. The farm level water balance tool, developed as part of this thesis, forms the core

engine of the PoCRA water balance tool. Application of this tool to evaluate cropping patterns

of model villages such as Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi reaffirms that promotion of horticulture

without assessment of carrying capacity not only leads to unsustainability but also makes

farmers more vulnerable to uncertainties of climate. This work shows concrete examples of

how it is possible to compute the extent of horticulture and water investments that can be

supported in a region based on its biophysical attributes. The challenge of simultaneously

enhancing farm resilience and incomes requires a new science of such community tools to

seasonally estimate available water, and regulatory tools to facilitate collective crop planning.

116

10.1 Future work

The farm level water balance tool requires further refinement to ensure wider applicability (to

other geographical regions) as well as fine-tuning where there are mismatches with observed

ground reality. The framework to translate the output of the water balance into a decision

support tool needs to be further refined to enable answering of questions such as what type of

new interventions are recommended for a specific farmer? Or how many and what type of

interventions may be subsidized in a government intervention to increase climate resilience of

rain-fed farmers?

Enabling creation of what-if scenarios will be very useful for facilitating a discussion within

communities on the path of intensification that they wish to follow: one of restrained

intensification with collective action or one where each farmer is free to intensify as much as

their socio-economic constraints allow. Integration of an economic and risk model can illustrate

that reducing endogenous uncertainties and buffering for exogenous uncertainties may actually

result in higher net incomes for the community.

.

117

11. References

Akponikpè, P. B. I., B. Gerard, and C. L. Bielders. 2014. African Journal of Agricultural

Research Soil water crop modeling for decision support in millet- based systems in the

Sahel: a challenge 9(22):1700–1713.

Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines

for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO,

Rome 300(9):D05109.

Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A Framework to Analyze the

Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and

Society 9(1):art18.

Ansari, M. 2016. Changing Notion of Sustainability : A Case Study of Kadwanchi and

Adgaon watershed in Maharashtra A Project Report Submitted To the Academic

Council of The Tata Institute of Social Sciences In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the degree of MASTE(March).

Aragona, F. B., and B. Orr. 2011. Agricultural intensification, monocultures, and economic

failure: The case of onion production in the Tipajara watershed on the eastern slope of

the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35(5):467–492.

Barron, J., J. Rockström, F. Gichuki, and N. Hatibu. 2003. Dry spell analysis and maize

yields for two semi-arid locations in east Africa. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

117(1–2):23–37.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building

resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge university press.

Binder, C. R., P. W. G. Bots, J. Hinkel, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of Frameworks

for Analyzing Social- ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 18(April 2015).

Birthal, P., P. Joshi, D. Roy, and A. Thorat. 2007. Diversification in Indian Agriculture

towards High-Value Crops(November).

Birthal, P. S., P. K. Joshi, S. Chauhan, and H. Singh. 2008. Can horticulture revitalise

agricultural growth? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(3):310–321.

118

Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:1–108.

Chand, R. 2012. Development Policies and Agricultural Markets. Economic and Political

Weekly xlvii(52):53–63.

Chand, R. 2017. Doubling Farmers’ Income - Rational, Strategy, Prospects and Action Plan.

Chatalova, L., D. Müller, V. Valentinov, and A. Balmann. 2016. The Rise of the Food Risk

Society and the Changing Nature of the Technological Treadmill. Sustainability

(Switzerland) 8(6):1–10.

Chayanov, A. V. 1966. AV Chayanov on the theory of peasant economy. Manchester

University Press.

Cochrane, W. W. 1958. Farm prices: myth and reality. U of Minnesota Press.

CSO. 2013. Statewise Estimates of Value of Output from Agriculture and Allied Activities.

DeFries, R. S., J. A. Foley, and G. P. Asner. 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs

and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(5):249–257.

Downer, B. C. W. 2007. Development of a Simple Soil Moisture Model in the Hydrologic

Simulator GSSHA(October).

Eilers, V. H. M., R. C. Carter, and K. R. Rushton. 2007. A single layer soil water balance

model for estimating deep drainage ( potential recharge ): An application to cropped

land in semi-arid North-east Nigeria 140:119–131.

FAI. 2012. Fertilizer Statistics 2011-12. 57th edition. Fertilizer Association of India.

FAO. 2011. Save and grow: a policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of

smallholder crop production. Rome.

FAO. 2014. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture.

FAO. 2016. Increasing the Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods. Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations:20.

Foster, S., H. Garduno, and A. Tuinhof. 2007. Confronting the Groundwater Management

Challenge in the Deccan Traps Country of Maharashtra — India(Figure 1).

119

Geertz, C. 1968. Agricultural involution: the process of ecological change in Indonesia. Univ

of California Press.

Godfray, H. C. J., and T. Garnett. 2014. Food security and sustainable intensification. Phil.

Trans. R. Soc. B 369(1639):20120273.

GoI. 1991. Agricultural Census 1990-91.

GoI. 2014a. Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2014. Ministry of Agriculture.

GoI. 2014b. Hand Book on Horticulture Statistics.

GoI. 2014c. Ground water information, Nashik District,Maharashtra. Page Central Ground

Water Board, Government of India.

GoI. 2015a. All India Report On Agriculture Census 2010-11. Department of Agriculture 06.

GoI. 2015b. Pocketbook of agricultural statistics 2015.

GoI. 2017a. Report of the Committee for Doubling Farmers ’ Income: Vol VIII: Production

Enhancement through Productivity Gains. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’

Welfare.

GoI. 2017b. Horticulture Statistics at a Glance. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’

Welfare.

GoI. 2017c. Agriculture Statistics at a Glance. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.

GoM. 2016. Weekly crop sowing report, Sinnar taluka 2014-15.

GoM. 2018. Maharashtra Groundwater (Development & Management) Draft Rules 2018.

Gulati, A., and G. Shreedhar. 2009. Emulate Gujarat’s agricultural success.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/policy/emulate-gujarats-agricultural-

success/articleshow/4493375.cms.

Guswa, A. J. 2002. Models of soil moisture dynamics in ecohydrology : A comparative study

38(9).

Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248.

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology

120

and systematics 4(1):1–23.

Hoogeveen, J., J. M. Faurès, L. Peiser, J. Burke, and N. Van De Giesen. 2015. GlobWat - A

global water balance model to assess water use in irrigated agriculture. Hydrology and

Earth System Sciences 19(9):3829–3844.

IITB, and GoM. 2017. Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture - GoM Collaboration with

IIT Bombay. https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~pocra/MoU.pdf.

Joshi, P. K., A. Gulati, P. S. Birthal, and L. Tewari. 2004. Agricultural Diversification in

South Asia: Patterns, Determinants and Policy Implications. Economic And Political

Weekly 39(24):2457–2467.

Joshi, P. K., L. Joshi, and P. S. Birthal. 2006. Diversification and Its Impact on Smallholders :

Evidence from a Study on Vegetable Production *. Agricultural Economics Research

Review 19(December):219–236.

Jurrie ͏̈ns, M., P. P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 1996. Scarcity by design: protective irrigation in

India and Pakistan. ILRI.

Kale, E. 2017. Problematic Uses and Practices of Farm Ponds in Maharashtra. Economic &

Political Weekly LII(3):20–22.

Kratili, S. 2015. Valuing variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands

development. Page (H. Jode, editor). IIED.

Kulkarni, H., M. Shah, and P. S. V. Shankar. 2015. Journal of Hydrology : Regional Studies

Shaping the contours of groundwater governance in India. Journal of Hydrology:

Regional Studies 4:172–192.

Maharashtra, G. of. 2013. District Socio-economic Summary: Nashik district.

Malthus, T. R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population..

Manabe, S. 1969. Climate and the ocean circulation: I. The atmospheric circulation and the

hydrology of the earth’s surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 97:739–774.

Matson, P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power, and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural Intensification

and Ecosystem Properties. Science 277:504–509.

121

McCulloch, N., and M. Ota. 2002. Export horticulture and poverty in Kenya. IDS.

McGinnins, M. S., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework : initial

changes and continuing. Ecology and Society 19(2).

Meadows, D. 1999. Leverage points: Places to Intervene in a System. Page The Sustainability

Institute.

Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E. C. Ellis, K. H. Erb, T. Filatova, R. D.

Garrett, J. M. Grove, A. Heinimann, T. Kuemmerle, C. A. Kull, E. F. Lambin, Y.

Landon, Y. le Polain de Waroux, P. Messerli, D. Müller, J. Nielsen, G. D. Peterson, V.

Rodriguez García, M. Schlüter, B. L. Turner, and P. H. Verburg. 2018. Middle-range

theories of land system change. Global Environmental Change 53(August):52–67.

Nadkarni, M. V. 2018. Crisis in Indian Agriculture. Economic & Political Weekly L

III(17):28–34.

Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry, and J. R. Williams. 2011. Soil & Water Assessment

Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas

A&M University.

Netting, R. M. 1993. Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive,

sustainable agriculture. Stanford University Press.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective

Action.

Pretty, J., and Z. P. Bharucha. 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems.

Annals of Botany 114(8):1571–1596.

Rasmussen, L. V., B. Coolsaet, A. Martin, O. Mertz, U. Pascual, E. Corbera, N. Dawson, J.

A. Fisher, P. Franks, and C. M. Ryan. 2018. Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural

intensification. Nature Sustainability 1(7):376–376.

Reddy, D. N., and S. Mishra. 2010. Agrarian crisis in India. Oxford University Press.

Richard A . Levins and Willard W . Cochrane. 1996. The Treadmill Revisited. Land

Economics 72(4):550–553.

Rockström, J., L. Karlberg, S. P. Wani, J. Barron, N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, A. Bruggeman, J.

122

Farahani, and Z. Qiang. 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture-The need for a

paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97(4):543–550.

Rockström, J., J. Williams, G. Daily, A. Noble, N. Matthews, L. Gordon, H. Wetterstrand, F.

DeClerck, M. Shah, P. Steduto, C. de Fraiture, N. Hatibu, O. Unver, J. Bird, L. Sibanda,

and J. Smith. 2017. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and

global sustainability. Ambio 46(1):4–17.

Romano, N., M. Palladino, and G. B. Chirico. 2011. Parameterization of a bucket model for

soil-vegetation-atmosphere modeling under seasonal climatic regimes. Hydrology and

Earth System Sciences 15(12):3877–3893.

Roy, D., and A. Thorat. 2008. Success in High Value Horticultural Export Markets for the

Small Farmers: The Case of Mahagrapes in India. World Development 36(10):1874–

1890.

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods - A framework for analysis. Page IDS

Working Paper 72.

Scott, J. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. London, New Haven.

Shah, T. 2012. Community response to aquifer development: Distinct patterns in india’s

alluvial and Hard rock aquifer areas. Irrigation and Drainage 61(SUPPL.1):14–25.

Shankari, U. 2018. A Ringside View — I. Economic & Political Weekly L III(7):69–77.

Shaver, I., A. Chain-Guadarrama, K. A. Cleary, A. Sanfiorenzo, R. J. Santiago-García, B.

Finegan, L. Hormel, N. Sibelet, L. A. Vierling, N. A. Bosque-Pérez, F. DeClerck, M. E.

Fagan, and L. P. Waits. 2015. Coupled social and ecological outcomes of agricultural

intensification in Costa Rica and the future of biodiversity conservation in tropical

agricultural regions. Global Environmental Change 32:74–86.

Da Silva, C. C., and E. De Jong. 1986. Comparison of two computer models for predicting

soil water in a tropical monsoon climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 36:249–

262.

Sinclair, K., A. Curtis, E. Mendham, and M. Mitchell. 2014. Can resilience thinking provide

useful insights for those examining efforts to transform contemporary agriculture?

Agriculture and Human Values 31(3):371–384.

123

Singh, D., M. Tsiang, B. Rajaratnam, and N. S. Diffenbaugh. 2014. Observed changes in

extreme wet and dry spells during the South Asian summer monsoon season. Nature

Climate Change 4:456.

Sterman, J. D. 2012. Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented

Academy and Polarized World. In: Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and

the Urban Environment:21–58.

Stojanovic, T., H. M. McNae, P. Tett, T. W. Potts, J. Reis, H. D. Smith, and I. Dillingham.

2016. The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: A critique of analytical

frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecology and

Society 21(3).

Suthar, S. K. 2018. Contemporary Farmers’ Protests and the ‘ New Rural – Agrarian ’ in

India. Economic and Political Weekly lIII.

Thippeswamy, E. 2016. Cropping Pattern Influences on Farmers Suicide : A Case Study of

Karnataka. International Journal of Scientific research(2277):444–448.

Tittonell, P. 2014. ScienceDirect Ecological intensification of agriculture — sustainable by

nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8:53–61.

Turner, B. L., and A. M. S. Ali. 1996. Induced intensification: Agricultural change in

Bangladesh with implications for Malthus and Boserup. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 93(25):14984–14991.

Villholth, K. G., E. Lopez-Gunn, K. Conti, A. Garrido, and J. Van Der Gun. 2017. Advances

in groundwater governance. CRC Press.

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience , Adaptability and

Transformability in Social – ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 9(2).

Weinberger, K., and T. A. Lumpkin. 2007. Diversification into Horticulture and Poverty

Reduction: A Research Agenda. World Development 35(8):1464–1480.

Appendix A – Farmer survey questionnaire Date of survey______________ Interview#_____________

Wadi name: _______________Village name: _______________ Taluka: _________________ Name of interviewer_____________________

Name of person being surveyed: ________________________ Name under which land is held: ________________________

Number of family members sharing the household: Generation0_______Generation1____ Generation2_________

1. Socio-economic

Sl no

Name – relationship to head Education Primary occupation Secondary occupation Works in farm?

1

2

3

4

Is the family income totally dependent on farming? Y/N Is the farm output shared with any other family? Y/N: Details_______________

Any political positions held by a family member? __________________ Caste/Sub-caste:__________________

Ration card (antoday, yellow (BPL), kesari, white):_____________ House type: Kaccha/Pakka Assets: 2-wheeler/ 4 wheeler/ Refrigerator/ TV

cultivable landholding:_____________________ acres/guntha/hectares Gat numbers/Survey numbers: ________________________

Amount of land leased-in or out:_______________; Lease terms: __________________________

Other assets that the farmer owns, leases-in or leases-out

125

1. Tractor 2. Tempo for transportation 3. Chal (for storing onions)

Resources: soil/water/livestock

Livestock: Bulls/ cattle/ goats Soil type and colour in farm: _______________________ soil layer thickness is farm: ____________soil testing done? Y/N

Groundwater sources:

No Source type: well/bore

Name & location (survey number)

Year in which well was dug or deepened

Depth of well

Horizontal bores done? How many feet?

Pump capacity

Pump type: submersible or on the ground

Water lasts till which month

Water level in May end

Water level in August (after monsoon)

Purpose (drinking, irrigation for how many acres/which crop)

Can you recall for your well:

Soil layer thickness__________; murum layer thickness ___________________; start of hard rock layer ___________________

Surface water sources:

No Surface water source type (pond, river, canal, tanker etc)

Name Sharing methodology; frequency/rotation/hours

How far from farm

Pump capacity Water lasts till which month

Purpose – used for which crops/how many acres

126

2. Cropping Pattern

Multi-year crop (orchard)

Summer crop 2016

Previous crops: Rabi 2016 and Kharif 2016

Crop (e.g. grapes, dadimb etc)

Area planted

Year in which first planted

Source of water in each season

Irrigation how many times in different months (e.g. July – Aug: 0, Sept – Dec: weekly etc)

Pump HP and hours run in each season

Drip irrigation Y/N?

Avg input cost /yr (maintenance) (laagod)

Average yield per acre per year (ekari utpann)

Avg market rate of produce

which APMC/private trader/ village market

Crop Area under the crop

Sowing date

Crop duration

Irrigation how many times done this time

Pump HP and hours run per irrigation (how many days irrigated each time and pump operated per day)


Average yield that they got this season (ekari utpann)

Avg input cost (including labour, seeds, chemicals, transportation etc)

Avg return that they got this season

% self-use or marketed


127

2017 – what do they plan to cultivate

Crop Area under the crop

Sowing date

Crop duration

Irrigation how many times done this time

Pump HP and hours run per irrigation


Average yield that they got this season (ekari utpann)


Avg return that they got this season



128

Crop

Area under the crop

Sowing date

Crop duration

Irrigation how many times besides rain fall

Pump HP and hours run per irrigation


Average yield that they expect


Avg return that they expect



129

Change in Patterns:

Since how many years have you followed the above practice? How has your farming practice changed over the last 5-10- 50 years?

What is your goal/ambition for the future regarding your farm and farming practice?

Do you plan to dig/deepen a well or construct any new infrastructure? Why? How much will it cost? Did you do something like this in the past? What were the cost-benfits?

Has there been any conflict over water in which you were involved? Or is there a conflict over water the village? How is it resolved?

Do you think that the current cropping patterns in the village are suitable for the village conditions (esp water situation)?

3. Knowledge/ Risk a) Are you part of any formal shetkari gat or farmer-group/associations?Y/N Details:

b) Have you received any assistance/training from any NGO, agri department, paid private consultant, agri universities, private companies such as

Syngenta?

c) Did you earn more than you spent in every season in the last 2 years?

d) Have you taken a bank loan for farming? Have you been unable to pay it in any season? Details:

e) How do you make your crop choices in order to minimize your losses?

Mobile number___________________

130

Appendix B – Brief Farmer Narratives

Brief narratives of interviewed farmers

Farmer Code

Village History of investments in water Cropping history Intensification steps

De-intensification/ failures

Notes about financial status/ alternate employment

DPR1 Dapur Started private group lift irrigation in 1996: received water once in 7 days. In 2009, upgraded lift scheme in order to get daily water

Pre 1996, only cultivated Kharif crop. After lift scheme, cultivated vegetables in all 3 seasons. Since 2013, shifted to pomegranate on part of land. In 2017, added more land to orchard. Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to poor quality seeds

One season -> three seasons -> pomegranate

Tomato crop failure in 2016-17 due to poor quality seeds

Son has joined the Police recently

DPR2 Dapur Had access to 1 shared well with brothers. In 2012 dug a new private well in good location with good availability of water. In 2016 fell short of water and had to buy tanker water for orchard. In 2017, he built a farm pond with govt subsidy

Started tomato after private well; shifted to pomegranate in 2014 on part of land. Tomato and pearl millet failed in Kharif 2016-17 (high intensity rain)

foodgrain -> tomato -> pomegranate

Tomato and pearl millet failed in Kharif 2016-17 (high intensity rain)

DPR3 Dapur Sold goats in 2010 and built a well with the money but access is uncertain after January

Able to cultivate green leafy vegetables in Kharif in addition to pearl millet. 2016: fell short of 2 irrigations for onion, could only give 1 irrigation to wheat (crop failed) and no irrigation to gram and sorghum both of which failed 2017: Kharif crops failed due to dry spell and insufficient well water at the time. Rabi crops (wheat and onion) had good yield

2016: fell short of irrigation for onion and wheat (crop failed)

Pending bank loan. All members work as farm labourers for extra income

DPR4 Dapur Had one shared well and built a new well in 2013. Built a 60m borewell which is non-functional. He was part of the first private group lift scheme in the village in 1996 - got water after every 11 days. In 2012, started a second group lift scheme with better technology and now gets water daily. Says that "earlier there was a lot of water accessible through lift scheme but now as the density of schemes has increased, the access is uncertain in summer because irrigation department cuts off electricity connection for pumps

Started pomegranate in 2010 on a land close to Bhojapur canal in neighbouring village where the lift water does not extend yet. Since canal did not get water in drought year, he bought tankers in 2016 worth Rs 1 lakh but pomegranate crop failed due to hailstorm and investment was lost. In 2017, he had deintensified by removing the orchard and cultivating only seasonal vegetables. he has an alternate business as a vegetable trader

removed pomegranate orchard due to losses (high cost of water and poor output)

Main business is vegetable trading

131

DPR5 Dapur Built a well in 2004. In 2012 they started a private group lift scheme receiving water after every 6 days. In 2015, constructed a farm pond in order to buffer water for the 6 day lift rotation period

Well allowed them to cultivate green leafy vegetables and onions. Added pomegranate orchard in 2012. The crop failed in 2017 due to heavy rains but Rabi wheat and onion had good yields

green leafy veg -> pomegranate

pomegranate produce failed in 2017 (high rain intensity)

DPR6 Dapur Has one historic family well, which has water till about February

Traditional crop was pearl millet and wheat in good years. Started vegetables in recent years. In 2016, cultivated tomato using drip but did not give protective irrigation to pearl millet which failed. Rabi onion fell short of water. In 2017, had good yields for Rabi wheat and onions but Kharif tomato and green leafy vegetables suffered due to high rain intensity

foodgrain-> vegetables

2015-16: onion crop failed due to insufficient water

Alternate income: Brothers work in Mumbai and Nashik

DPR7 Dapur 1 well and started private group lift scheme since 2013 getting water everyday;

Has a shop in the village. Could not complete survey

DPR8 Dapur Had one shared well with brothers but it has such low access that it cannot be used for irrigation (there is no pump)

Rainfed Kharif pearl millet only Sons have joined the military and will not pursue farming

DPR9 Dapur Has 2 old wells, one each on two different farmlands. Started private group lift irrigation in 1998 but got water in rotations. In 2012, started new group lift scheme in order to get daily water. Wells on both farms are connected through 2km long pipeline. In 2013, built a farm pond because lift water became uncertain in summer months due to high demand from the reservoir and interventions by the irrigation department to limit illegal lift

Used to cultivate pearl millet, onion, tomato. Started pomegranate in 2012 in addition to vegetables. Doubled the area under pomegranate in 2014. Continues to cultivate seasonal horticulture crops on rest of the landholding. Tomato crop failed in 2017 due to pest attack

vegetable -> pomegranate

2017 tomato crop failure due to pest attack

DPR10 Dapur 1 well only rainfed Kharif pearl millet only - crop failed in 2016 due to dry spell

2015-16: millet crop failed (dry spell)

Also raise goats

132

DPR11 Dapur Had access to 1 well with water until November only. Started private group lift irrigation in 1998 but got water every 15 days. In 2013, started new group lift scheme in order to get daily water. Has put in an application to the agriculture department for a new farm pond but no construction yet

Started pomegranate in 2012 on part of land holding. Cultivates seasonal crops on rest of the land. In 2016-17, saved water for pomegranate which got spoilt. Could not irrigate spring onions and gram in order to prioritize pomegranate and the crops failed.


2016-17: Rabi onion and gram failed. water was saved for pomegranate instead

DPR12 Dapur Had one well. Had an old private lift irrigation scheme but amount of water had reduced due to rotations. In 2015, started a new private group lift irrigation scheme to get daily water

Used to cultivate only rainfed pearl milled until 2014 when they started pomegranate orchard in part of the landholding. In 2016, additional land was shifted to pomegranate. Tomato yields suffered in 2015-16 due to insufficient water. Pomegranate was prioritized since it was the first flowering year for the orchard. In 2016-17, tomato crop failed due to pest attack

foodgrain -> vegetable -> pomegranate

2016-17: tomato yields suffered due to pest attack

DPR13 Dapur Have access to one old family well shared between 3 brothers. Water availability depends upon monsoon

In 2016, Kharif pearl millet crop failed, as did the Rabi onion and gram due to insufficient water. In 2017, Kharif green leafy vegetable got spoilt due to high rain intensity but Rabi wheat and onion had good yield

2015-16: pearl millet failure (dry spell) and 2016-17: failure due to too much rain

Worked as farm labourer for onion harvesting in others farms.

DPR14 Dapur Have access to an old well shared between 5 related families. Water is available to each family for 3 days in a 15 day rotation. Water availability depends on monsoon

In 2016, Kharif pearl millet had very low yield due to dry spell. Rabi wheat and onion could not be irrigated sufficiently and had low yields. In 2017, pearl millet failed due to high intensity rain. Rabi wheat and onion could not get full irrigation due to the water sharing mechanism, yet did better than 2016

2015-16: pearl millet yield impacted by dry spell 2016-17: Pearl millet failed (high rain intensity)

Also raise cattle

DPR15 Dapur Got first well in 2005. Constructed a 80m borewell in 2011. Water from borewell is lifted and poured into the dugwell as borewell pump cannot pump with sufficient pressure directly to farm.

Used to cultivate pearl millet and onions. Shifted part of land under pomegranate orchard in 2013. Borewell water insufficient so bought tankers to irrigate during summer months. Other crops were cabbage and brinjal. Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to pest attack that effected most farms in the village

onions -> vegetables -> pomegranate

Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to pest attack that effected most farms in the village

Employed as casual labour in a company

133

DPR16 Dapur Old well with poor water availability until Dec/Jan. Started a private group lift scheme in 2005 and gets water regularly except in summer months. Had to purchase water tankers in 2015-16 for orchard. In 2016-17, built a new farm pond was being constructed to buffer water for summer use

Cultivated green leafy and other seasonal vegetables before starting orchard in 2015 on part of land as it is more profitable than seasonal vegetables. In 2015-16 tomato crop failed due to insufficient water


2015-16: tomato crop failure as limited water given to pomegranate

two sons are studying to become engineers

DPR17 Dapur Have one well with water usually available till February. In addition to rainfed pearl millet, cultivates green leafy vegetables and tomatoes (drip). In 2015-16, Kharif tomato crop failed and Rabi onion yield was low due to water shortage

2015-16: Kharif tomato failure and Rabi onion yield low due to water shortage

Children are focusing on education and do not want to pursue farming

DPR18 Dapur Had only one shared well earlier. Started a private lift scheme with 20 other farmers in 1998: water is available after every 10-12 days but summer availability is uncertain. In 2016-17 drilled a 100m deep private borewell. Same year, also constructed a private farm pond to buffer water during lift scheme rotations

Main crops are pearl millet and onions. Started pomegranate orchard on part of the landholding in 2015. In 2015-16, only irrigated orchard and left land fallow in Rabi. In 2016-17, cultivated Rabi onion and wheat. Kharif onion crop failed


Pending farm loan. Wishes that the children will get good jobs and leaving farming

DPR19 Dapur Have one old well. Had started a group lift scheme in 1998 where water assurance was low. In 2015 started a new lift scheme with regular water supply. They do not have farm pond yet and may construct one. For now, water from lift scheme is poured into well from where it is pumped to farm

Main crops are pearl millet, onion and gram. Started pomegranate on .4 ha in 2012. Doubled area under orchard in 2015. In 2016-17, leased 0.2 ha land from a villager to cultivate wheat due to good availability of water


Pending farm loan; one son works as driver in Mumbai

DPR20 Dapur Have an old well. Started a group lift scheme in 2006 with 25 other farmers but sold the share as the expense was high and water was available once in 10 days.

Traditionally cultivated pearl millets and sorghum and in good years, wheat and some vegetables. Pomegranate was started in 2014. In 2015-16 Rabi onion and gram crops failed due to lack of water. He cultivates green leafy vegetables in a small area every Kharif season in the hope of making big profit.


2015-16 Rabi onion and green gram crops failed due to lack of water

Pending farm loan

DPR21 Dapur None Completely rain-fed farmer, cultivates pearl millet in Kharif and in good rainfall year some fodder crop in Rabi. More than 20 years ago he used to be able to cultivate wheat on the same land

134

DPR22 Dapur Has one well on land in neighbouring village with 2km pipeline extending to farm. Had to purchase tankers for the new pomegranate orchard in 2016-17. Plans to build a farm pond in the near future

Traditional crops were pearl millet, wheat, tomato, onion and green leafy vegetables. Started a pomegranate orchard on part of landholding in 2016-17 in order to improve profitability. Has been leaving remaining land fallow in Rabi to avoid failures due to water shortage


DPR23 Dapur Have 2 old wells. Started a private lift scheme with 15 farmers in 1998. Over time, the original 15 farmers sold part of their share of water to other farmers such that now there are close to 50 farmers with a share in this scheme. There is high uncertainty in availability of water through this scheme. In 2008, started a new scheme with 10 farmers and now receive water every day but summer availability is uncertain. In 2010, built a farm pond under govt scheme to buffer water for summer

Traditional crops were pearl millet, pulses (mung, math) and onions. Started pomegranate orchard in 2010 but yield has been poor in the last 2-3 years due to cold weather during flowering period. Orchard harvest failed in 2016-17 because of too much rain

onions -> pomegranate

Orchard harvest failed in 2016-17 because of too much rain

Pending farm loan

DPR24 Dapur Has an old well which was deepened in 2012. In 2013-14, started a lift irrigation scheme with 10 farmers and now receive daily water but low volume in summer

Until 2013, could cultivate only a Kharif crop: pearl millet or kharif tomato. In 2012, started pomegranate on .2 ha. Shifted another 0.2 ha to orchard in 2016. When there is good rainfall, he cultivates Rabi crops such as wheat and onion. In 2015-16, Rabi gram crop failed due to lack of water. Routinely cultivates green leafy vegetables in Kharif and sometimes tomato, but no pearl millet

Single season -> pomegranate

In 2015-16, Rabi gram crop failed due to lack of water

DPR25 Dapur Used to have access to the traditional shared family well. In 2012-13, built a new well. In 2015, bought a share in an existing group lift irrigation scheme. The scheme was originally built by 20 farmers with 4 hours of access on each day and 10 day rotation. He bought a share for 1 hour of water from a farmer's 4 -hour share. He receives this 1 hour water after every 10 days and pours it in his private well. He hopes to build a farm pond soon to store this water

In 2015-16 cultivated tomato in Kharif and onion, wheat and gram in Rabi using sprinkler irrigation. Started pomegranate orchard in 2017


Father works in a lab; son is a high school teacher

DPR26 Dapur Only well water access until about Jan/Feb Cultivates green leafy vegetables and pearl millet in Kharif. In 2015-16 incurred loss in Rabi onion due to lack of water.

Pending loan. One son has been employed as Police Patil

135

DPR27 Dapur Has one well with limited water. Had invested in a group lift scheme earlier with water rotation and in 2012 started a new scheme with 12 partners where water is received everyday (tank design in scheme). In 2016-17, also built a farm pond to buffer for summer

Traditional crops used to be millets. In 2012, started pomegranate in part of land (2 acres). In 2016-17, converted another acre of land to pomegranate and plans to increase orchard further in the future due to high profitability

foodgrain -> pomegranate

Has a large pending loan. One son is a BEST bus conductor in Mumbai

DPR28 Dapur Only well water access Green leafy vegetables in Kharif and onion in Rabi Only son working to complete M.A. degree and looking for employment

DPR29 Dapur Has one old well. Started a group lift irrigation scheme with 30 farmers in 1996, then started a new lift scheme with daily water. In 2015-16 the scheme did not have sufficient water and farmer bought tanker water to irrigate orchard. He plans to build a farm pond in the coming year in order to prevent having to buy tankers in the future

In 2008 started grape orchard and tried it for four years. Had to finally remove the orchard because it needed too much water. Started pomegranate orchard instead in 2015. In 2016-17, also cultivated cabbage in addition to wheat and onion due to good rainfall


removed grape orchard due to insufficient water

DPR30 Dapur Only well access shared between 3 brothers; water typically available till Feb/March

Started pomegranate orchard in 0.2 ha in 2012-13. Did not irrigate wheat in order to save all water for orchard. In summer, buys tankers for irrigation. In kharif, had cultivated green leafy vegetables two times in a season but made losses both times due to poor market prices


2015-16: wheat failure as water saved for orchard

Work as labourers in others fields

DPR31 Dapur have access to an old family well but drilled a private borewell in 2000. Its yield is low and is used only for domestic use. Invested in a group lift scheme in 1998 and a second recent scheme with daily water supply in 2006. In 2014-15 and 2015-16, farmer had to buy tanker water to irrigate orchard since lift scheme did not have water in summer. In 2016-17, built a farm pond to buffer water

In 2015-16, tomato was grown in kharif and onion in Rabi. Fodder is grown for animals in all seasons. Started pomegranate orchard in 2015. Shifted four times more land under orchard in 2016.


Also run a small dairy

DPR32 Dapur has access to well with poor water availability. In 2011-12 started a group lift irrigation with 25 farmers receiving daily water supply. In 2016-17, built a farm pond to buffer for summer

Used to cultivate only one rainfed crop. Started pomegranate orchard in 2012-13. Other crops are pearl millet and tomato in Kharif and wheat, onion, gram in Rabi. In 2016-17, tomato crop was lost due to pest attack

Single season -> pomegranate

In 2016-17, tomato crop was lost due to pest attack

One son works for BMC

136

DPR33 Dapur Has 3 wells and a 100m borewell between 3 brothers. Started a group lift irrigation scheme with 20 partners in late 90s. Scheme water supply is uncertain. It was repaired in 2010. In summer of 2016, he didn't get any water through the lift. He wants to have a farm pond but has decided against it because of his small landholding size. Lift water is poured in his well. All wells are interconnected through pipelines

Farmer does not grow grains due to small landholding size. Multiple seasons of Green leafy vegetables and onions are the main crop. Started pomegranate orchard in 2014 and doubled area under orchard in 2016. But in 2015-16 due to less water, his yield suffered. In 2016-17, the crop was lost due to high rain intensity.


2015-16 pomegranate yield low due to less water, In 2016-17, the crop was lost due to high rain intensity.

Father is a retired bus driver. Son is optimistic about his future in farming

DI1 Dodhi Kh.

His well was constructed in 1984, it is located 100m from the Bhojapur canal and gets recharged when water flows in canal. Earlier there were 3 rotations in the canal, which would ensure good water availability. But with more reservation (and Dapur lifts) from Bhojapur, the rotation frequency has reduced and there were none in 2015.

Traditionally cultivated two crops: pearl millet in Kharif and wheat/onion in Rabi. He tried cultivating pomegranate for two years but due to poor uncertainty of canal rotation, discontinued the orchard. In 2015, could not irrigate wheat leading to crop failure and fell short of 2-3 watering for onion leading to poor yield. In 2016-17, had good Rabi yields but Kharif tomato and greens incurred losses due to poor market

Foodgrains -> vegetables -> pomegranate-> vegetables

tried pomegranate but failed; In 2015-16, could not irrigate wheat leading to crop failure and fell short of 2-3 watering for onion leading to poor yield.

All children settled with jobs in Mumbai

DI2 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well but with poor water availability Can take only Kharif crop of pearl millet. Land left fallow thereafter due to lack of water. He does sharecropping in Rabi by working on others' fields

Does sharecropping in Rabi

DI3 Dodhi Kh.

Has two wells in different strips of land. Farm is adjoining Bhojapur canal. In 2012, he built a farm pond which is filled by well water from the well next to the canal. However canal has limited rotations so FP is filled largely by groundwater during monsoons and topped off to cover for evaporation loss. In 2016-17, he built a second farm pond next to the first one

Until about late 1990s, crops used to be pearl millet and wheat/onion. He always does one or two rounds of green leafy vegetables and believes he has learnt how to time it well by ensuring protective irrigation is available in Kharif at crucial times and has made large profits from them. He started pomegranate orchard in 2012, shifted more land in 2016 and then some more in 2017

foodgrains -> vegetables -> pomegranate->

Farmer maintains detailed record of farm practice but not of finances. Optimistic of farming and wants children to learn

137

DI4 Dodhi Kh.

Have a well downstream of a percolation tank, but the tank does not hold water and well dries by December/Jan

Rainfed pearl millet , onion, gram are the main crops. In 2015, pearl millet failed due to poor rain and in 2016 it failed due to high intensity of rain. In 2015, could not irrigate Rabi onion fully and had very low yields and unirrigated gram. Could grow wheat in 2016-17 due to good water, also Kharif onion, followed by Rabi onion

Kharif failure in both 2015-16, and 16-17

Have pending loan taken from friends and family

DI5 Dodhi Kh.

Have two wells on different farm lands but with low water availability. Water has always been a constraint

Kharif : pearl millet and greens; Rabi: gram, onions and wheat in good year like 2016-17. 2015 was a bad year in which late kharif onions and Rabi sorghum were both lost due to lack of water. Sorghum was used as fodder instead

Rabi crops failed in 2015-16 due to water shortage

2 sons have government jobs (police, revenue office)

DI6 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well that is shared with brother's family with low water availability. This farm is close to Dapur and the farmer has bought a small share in a group lift irrigation scheme that lifts water from well close to Bhojapur reservoir. From this, the farmer receives 1 hour of water supply after every 12 days

Prior to lift scheme, used to cultivate only Kharif crop (pearl millet, green leafy vegetables). With lift water, cultivates onions and gram but still falls short of water. In 2015-16, lost onion and gram in Rabi. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat after 7 years but fell short of two irrigations and had low yield. tomato crop was lost to pest attack

single season -> two seasons

Tomato in 2016-17 lost to pest attack

Works in others farms

DI7 Dodhi Kh.

Has one old shared family well in which she gets water for 2 days after every 6 days until well water is available

pearl millet, green leafy and tomato in 2016 kharif but only got returns from millets, the rest failed due to water or pest problem. Wheat, onion and gram in 2016 Rabi had good yield unlike 2015-16

2015-16; Kharif onion and Rabi gram lost (no water). 2016-17: tomato lost to pest

DI8 Dodhi Kh.

Have one well which was dug in 2000 about 500m from the canal and receives percolation from the canal during rotations. Earlier there used to be rotations in Jan/Feb which helped the well, but now this has reduced.

Kharif : pearl millet and greens; Rabi:onions. Lost onions in 2015-16 as there was no water to irrigate. In 2016-17, lost greens due to high rain intensity but gave full irrigation to Rabi wheat, onion and gram. Also grew fodder crops

2015-16: Rabi Onions lost due to water shortage. Tomato lost in 16-17 to pest.

one son runs a catering business. Work as labourers in others farms

138

DI9 Dodhi Kh.

Has a well shared between 2 families located next to one of the Bhojapur canal branch. He dug a private well and tried 5 new borewells in 2015-16 (drought year) but without much success. He wants to build a farm pond but cannot afford it despite govt subsidy

He prefers crops with low investment due to uncertainty of available irrigation. Typically cultivates tomato and green leafy vegetables in Kharif for their higher returns, had also tried pomegranate a long time ago but could not be successful - he cannot afford to hire knowledge consultants like others to help with orchards. In 2015-16, had low onion yield as could not irrigate after Jan end. In 2016-17, Kharif tomato and greens were lost due to pest and poor market

vegetable -> pomegranate -> vegetables

Tried pomegranate but failed

Has been making losses and had to sell his cattle. uses sprinklers. Takes loans only from family not bank

DI10 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well that was dug in 2005. In 2016-17 they dug a borewell 65m deep - water pumped from here is fed into the well

Main crop is pearl millet, in good rains, also cultivates green leafy vegetables followed by onion. He would like to cultivate pomegranate but that would require investment in farm pond, which he is not ready for as yet. In 2015-16, had poor yields for Rabi onion and gram. In 2016-17, had good rabi yields but poor Kharif millets due to high intensity rain

2016-17 Kharif crop (millet) failure due to high intensity rain

Has a casual job in a company in MIDC

DI11 Dodhi Kh.

Has one shared well between two brothers but yield is so low that no pump has been put in well. In 2016-17, neighbours gave some water from their well since it was a good rainfall year

Only kharif pearl millet and in 2016-17, also some greens. Rabi was fallow in 2015-16 but cultivated wheat and onion in 2016-17 though with low yields (less water)

Is caught in a cycle of loans: taking one loan to repay another; has also given land as collateral. Has a young son who hopes to study and get a job

DI12 Dodhi Kh.

Has one old well which was deepened in 2015. well is about 650m away from the canal and receives some percolation when there is canal rotation. Earlier canal water was significant but now few rotations. Believes that competitive borewells have harmed the groundwater availability in the region

Used to cultivate tomato regularly earlier but since 2010, pearl millet is the main crop since there is insufficient water to cultivate vegetables. In 2015-16, crops were pearl millet and onion (seed cultivation) and Rabi mostly fallow. In 2016-17 Kharif: pearl millet and onions; Rabi: onion, wheat, gram and fodder. Could irrigate onion completely but fell short of one irrigation for wheat. Trying to cultivate a small patch of bean (vaal) in summer.

vegetables such as tomatoes -> onion/grains

Unable to cultivate tomato anymore due to insufficient water.

brothers drive taxi in Mumbai

139

DI13 Dodhi Kh.

have an old well shared between multiple families. A borewell was drilled in 2016-17 (65m)

2015-16 was a complete crop failure for both Kharif millet and Rabi gram. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat and onion (Rabi) and millet in Kharif. This has been the typical cropping pattern (responding to available water)

2015-16 was a complete crop failure (water)

worked as labourers for road construction (MIDC) to supplement income. Pending society loan

DI14 Dodhi Kh.

Located in a very dry part of the village, there is one well but with low yield and no pump

only kharif pearl millet crop or fodder crop has been possible in the last many years, that too has had low yield due to poor water availability

2015-16: kharif failure (no water) and Rabi fallow

severe drinking water scarcity in this part of the village. They use tanker water. They work as labourers to earn income besides kharif crop

DI15 Dodhi Kh.

They have access to one old well and a borewell made for drinking water purpose only (50m deep with low yield). Well gets percolation from Bhojapur canal when there is rotation. Had to purchase tanker water in 2015-16 from Feb to June for pomegranate. They cannot get a farm pond because of the large expense involved

Onion was their traditional crop. They started pomegranate orchard in 2014 but water has been less and fruit size is small. In 2015-16, got pearl millet in Kharif but no Rabi yield for sorghum or gram. In 2016-17, they could cultivate wheat in Rabi and millet and greens in Kharif. But the green leafy vegetables turned out to be a waste due to low market rate

Unable to cultivate onion anymore. 2015-16 Rabi failure (no water)

DI16 Dodhi Kh.

Have a well that was dug in late 1990s but with low water availability. Wants to have a farm pond in the future so as to shift to orchards which he thinks offers a more high and stable income compared to seasonal crops

pearl millet and green leafy vegetables in Kharif followed by onion or gram in Rabi is typical pattern. Unirrigated gram in 2015-16 had very small yield and onion got spoilt due to unseasonal rain. In 2016-17, cultivated onion and wheat in Rabi but fell short of last few waterings.

2015-16 Rabi onion spoilt due to unseasonal rain

Making losses since last 5 years. Wants to start goat farming

DI17 Dodhi Kh.

No well Only rainfed pearl millet. Failed in both 2015-16 (dry spell) and 2016-17 (high intensity rain)

Kharif failure in both 2015-16 (dry spell) and 2016-17 (high intensity rain)

She is a retired government employee in the village creche (anganwadi sevika)

140

DI18 Dodhi Kh.

No well, but farm is close to Bhojapur canal. In years when there is flow in canal, it is possible to cultivate a Rabi crop

Rainfed Kharif has been the main crop 2015-16 Kharif millet failure (dry spell)

Works as labourer in village (wood cutting etc.) in return for which he gets grains. children do not live in village anymore; do odd jobs in city

DI19 Dodhi Kh.

An old well since 1972. Made 3 other wells and a borewell but most do not have water. Farm is in Bhojapur canal command and well gets recharged from canal during rotation. Built a farm pond in 2016 using govt subsidy. The FP is filled in monsoons using a well which is within 50m of the canal.

Onion has been Dodhi's traditional crop. In 2015-16, could cultivate only Kharif millet and late kharif onion. Got low yield and low market price. Started pomegranate in 2016--17. That year also cultivated tomato and greens in kharif which were spoilt due to pest attack and poor market rates

onions -> pomegranate

2016-17 tomato failure due to pest

DI21 Dodhi Kh.

Have one well on their land, and another well on the land that they have leased in and a borewell for drinking water. In 2015-16 they built a farm pond but had not invested in buying the plastic lining. In 2016-17 they had bought the plastic and lined the FP

Pearl millet, tomato on drip and onion were cultivated in Kharif 2015-16. Rabi crops were onion, gram and sorghum but could irrigate onions only 3 times and other crops not even once. On the leased land, they cultivated unirrigated cotton which is unusual for this region

2015-16 Rabi crop lost (onion, gram) due to water shortage

one son is a college teacher

DI22 Dodhi Kh.

They have one well with poor water availability Cultivate kharif pearl millet every year and try a vegetable crop on the side. In 2015-16, the tomato and kharif onion crops failed. They had not taken a Rabi crop in the past 5 years

2 season cropping -> 1 season cropping (no water for Rabi)

Work as labourers in others fields

DI23 Dodhi Kh.

Located in a very dry part, they have access to one shared well and one borewell for drinking water.

Since 2010 or so, have been able to grow only Kharif pearl millet and no Rabi crop. Traditionally used to cultivate onions; now just leave land fallow to avoid failure

onion -> millet onion -> millet work as labourers. Consider farming their secondary occupation

141

DI24 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well, subsequently tried drilling 2 borewells. One got no water, the other is being used for drinking water. The farm is next to Bhojapur canal and benefits from percolation when there is rotation. Built a farm pond in 2015-16 which is filled by rain water which is collected in a dugout and also through well. Had also bought tanker water for use before the FP was built

Vegetables were always cultivated: cauliflower, cabbage, tomato etc. but not since 2010. Started pomegranate orchard in 2015-16 along with farm pond. In 2015-16, kharif millet crop failed due to long dry spells, kharif onions also failed. Green leafy vegetables also have not been cultivated since 2010. Rabi onion did not yield either and all efforts are being direct towards the pomegranate orchard

vegetables -> pomegranate

Took big loan to buy tractor, plant pomegranate orchard and to buy tanker water for orchard protective irrigation. So a lot of risk. Owns village flour mill also rents out his tractor on hourly basis

DI25 Dodhi Kh.

have two wells and a borewell on farmland in neighbouring village. Borewell water is used for drinking and for the orchard. Farm is close to Bhojapur minor but receives limited rotations

Used to cultivate onions and millets but now due to dry spells and poor water availability even kharif pearl millet crop failed. Not taken any Rabi crop either in 2015-16. Instead, focusing only on the pomegranate orchard that was started in 2010

Was running a poultry but had to stop because there wasn't sufficient water. Have taken a loan to purchase tractor

DI26 Dodhi Kh.

2 wells with limited water Until almost 2010, cultivated onions and green leafy vegetables but bad rainfall since then has resulted in poor kharif millet yield and no Rabi crop

onions/green vegetables -> grains

vegetables -> grains. 2015-16 Kharif millet crop failure (dry spell)

DI27 Dodhi Kh.

one well with poor water availability Kharif pearl millet only and no Rabi crop in 2015-16 sons have company jobs

DI28 Dodhi Kh.

One well, one borewell and farm close to bhojapur minor Kharif pearl millet only and Rabi sorghum crop in 2015-16 with low crop yields

2015-16 Rabi sorghum failure

works as labourer. Wishes for work in a company

142

DI29 Dodhi Kh.

1 well and farm close to bhojapur minor Cultivated pearl millet and green leafy vegetable in 2015-16 and lost both crops due to poor water. Rabi onion also dried and failed. Water saved for pomegranate which was started in 2012-13

vegetables -> pomegranate

2015-16 Kharif and Rabi failure (dry spell)

DI30 Dodhi Kh.

No well, close to bhojapur canal. Used to rotations 3 times a year until 2012, now none or limited.

Only rainfed pearl millet 2 season cropping -> 1 season cropping (no canal rotations)

works as labourer

DI31 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well since 2000 but with poor water availability. Farm close to bhojapur minor

Typical cropping pattern in Kharif: pearl millet, greens and Rabi: wheat, onion

works as casual labourer

DI32 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well with poor water availability. Farm in bhojapur minor command

In 2016-17, fell short of water for wheat and onions. Had left all land fallow in Rabi 2015-16

works as labourer

DI34 Dodhi Kh.

have one well rainfed pearl millet only. Well water is used for poultry. No rabi crop

Runs a poultry

DI35 Dodhi Kh.

one borewell about 50m deep but limited water. Close to bhojapur minor but rotations have become sparse`

Earlier crops were pearl millet, onions etc. but now only rainfed millet

onion-> millet onion-> millet works as labourer for about 10 days in a month

DI36 Dodhi Kh.

Has one well with poor water availability. Farm close to bhojapur minor

Since 2010 or so, pearl millet is the only main crop onion -> millet onion -> millet

DI37 Dodhi Kh.

one well Pearl millet is the main crop.2015-16 Rabi onion dried and failed

2015-16 Rabi onion dried and failed

works as labourer

DI38 Dodhi Kh.

three wells Kharif crops in 2016-17 were cabbage, tomato (failed due to pest) and green vegetables (poor rates). Rabi onion, wheat, gram and sorghum cultivated in 16-17

2016-17 kharif tomato failure (pest)

Unable to repay loan. sons settled in Mumbai.

143

PND1 Pandhurli

Has one well which allows Rabi irrigation. It was being deepened in 2015-16 by 15m to reduce uncertainty

Used to cultivate soybean (Kharif) and gram (Rabi). Since 2013 started cultivating tomato but had losses due to pest or market rate. In 2015-16, got good yields of Soybean and wheat

foodgrain -> tomato --> grain

stopped tomato cultivation due to losses

Run a vegetable shop in the village

PND2 Pandhurli

Has one old and shallow well that allows irrigation of Rabi crop

Cropping pattern has been about the same. Kharif crop: maize, tomato, soybean; Rabi: wheat, onion, gram.

Primary occupation is vegetable trader

PND3 Pandhurli

Has one old well next to his house and used to have a second well but with limited water. In late 90s, started a group lift scheme from Darna river with 5 other farmers but it did not work cost effectively and was stopped. In 2000 he dug a third well which had good water access. This was subsequently connected to the older well through a 1.3km pipeline.

Used to cultivate sugarcane until 2012 when the sugarcane factory was shutdown. Cultivates paddy in Kharif and Maize in all three seasons. In 2014-15, lost 2 ha of onion crop and the grape produce due to hail storm. He has cultivated orchards (mainly grapes) since late 1990s. He also tried pomegranate but it failed due to too much rain in Pandhurli. He cultivates diverse horticulture crops in all three seasons in addition to the orchard

grape harvest and 5 acres of onions were lost to hailstorm in 2014-15

PND4 Pandhurli

Has one well which allows irrigation in all three seasons Used to cultivate sugarcane until 2005 or so to make and sell jaggery. His father used to cultivate orchards but he does not. He wishes to start a precision controlled shadenet which can increase yields by as much as 5 times. He currently cultivates different seasonal horticulture crops. tomato, soybean and marigold flowers in Kharif; Potato and wheat or cabbage in Rabi and cucumber or brinjal in summer.

Had losses due to hailstorm

PND5 Pandhurli

His farm has poor soil and has poor water access. He had an old well and then dug a new well (shallower) in early 2000s on a different farm land. The old well is connected to the new one through a 650m pipeline such that water can be poured into the new well from the old one for use on the second strip of land. In 2016 soybean crop was lost due to intense wet spells.

Used to cultivate paddy before but there isn't sufficient water for it in recent years. Rabi crops include potato, garlic, maize, wheat . Kharif crops: tomato, soybean. 2016-17 soybean crop lost to high intensity rain

Incurred losses due to hailstorm and poor market prices. Has been unable to pay back loan

144

PND6 Pandhurli

Has an old well dug in 1998 on one of the farm lands which is shared with another family so that each gets one week of use in every other week. They are planning to deepen this well. She dug another well on a second piece of land but there is less water in this well. . In 2016 summer, neither well had water even for drinking and they had to borrow from other farmer wells.

Used to cultivate sugarcane in 1980s. Used to grow paddy until a decade ago. Now more maize, soybean and tomato in Kharif and onion, garlic and fodder crops in Rabi. In 2015, she also cultivated cabbage in a very small patch of land in summer season which failed due to insufficient water. Does not want to cultivate grape orchard as he finds it too risky.

summer cabbage crop failed due to insufficient water

Wants to take loan to start a goatery business. Thinks that farm income is too volatile. Took out son from English medium school to local school as unable to meet expenses

PND7 Pandhurli

has one well sufficient for 2 crops vegetable cultivation such as tomato, bitter gourd, green leafy vegetables has been ongoing for many years. Returns depend upon the market

PND8 Pandhurli

has one well next to Kadva canal which passes Pandhurli. Well has abundant water through out the year because of this. It was also used as a source for village drinking water supply in 2015-16, when the notified public drinking water well did not have sufficient water

Since their landholding is less, they do not cultivate crops such as soybean. Instead a variety of seasonal vegetable crops such as green leafy, tomato, cauliflower, cucumber etc. are cultivated in small patches of land. Does not cultivate orchards because of the high investment needed. Tomato had poor yield in 2016-17 due to hail storm

PND9 Pandhurli

His farm is next to Kadva canal which was constructed in late 1980s. In monsoon, his fields become waterlogged and cause damage. Has one old well in which water is available till about February. Since 2010, he has been purchasing water from another's well for a monthly charge if needed. In 2015, the stretch of canal close to their farm was concretized

Can only cultivate paddy in kharif due to waterlogging. In 2015 Rabi Onion and gram crops suffered due to insufficient water. Cultivated tomato in a small patch in 2016-17 but removed the crop before complete harvest due to rock bottom market prices

2015-16 rabi onion loss due to less water

Does not want to invest in lift from Darna river due to economic constraint (farm farther away from river). Bought 25 goats in 2016-17. Has a big loan to repay

145

PND10

Pandhurli

Has one old well built in late 1990s shared between two brothers. Well has water available all 12 months

2015: Paddy, tomato in Kharif and wheat, green leafy vegetables in Rabi. Summer vegetable in small patch. Also vegetables such as cauliflower, brinjal etc. Have not been able to time market well and have faced losses in market. In 2016 Kharif, tomato and green leafy crop got spoilt due to high intensity rain and hail

In 2016 Kharif, tomato and green leafy crop got spoilt due to high intensity rain and hail

Has taken loan from relatives but unable to return. She plans to start goat rearing as part of a women's self help group in order to reduce dependence on farm market prices

PND11

Pandhurli

Do not have a well. Instead, since 2006 they have joined an existing group of 4 farmers who lift water from Darna river. Darna flows perennially (dam upstream) and is 1km away. They get 2 days of water supply after every 6 days for a monthly charge.

Earlier only rainfed Kharif but now crops are soybean, wheat vegetables such as cabbage, onion

Kharif only foodgrain --> vegetables

PND12

Pandhurli

One well and a borewell Has always had a diverse cropping pattern, esp. tomatoes, onions and vegetables. Tried cultivating grape orchard in late 2000s but gave up after 5 years due to market loss. Prefers seasonal vegetables

removed grape orchard due to losses.

Private business of drilling/deepening wells (on avg works on 4 to 5 wells per month) , also family run dairy

PND13

Pandhurli

In late 1980s, he laid a 1km pipeline to Darna river to lift water from a well dug next to the river bed. Over the years, water availability has got more uncertain due to too much competition. In summer when water is scarce, electricity connection to pumps is restricted. In 2007, he built a second well

Cultivates a variety of crops foodgrains, vegetables and orchards. Has been cultivating grapes since early 2000s. Shifted more land under orchards in 2010. There have been frequent crop loss due to weather, pest attack or poor market return but diversification in the large landholding has helped stay profitable

vegetables --> grapes

Rabi potato in 2015-16 failed due to unseasonal rain. 2016-17 tomato crop lost to pest attack

Also runs a pharmacy

146

PND14

Pandhurli

His family had given the well on their land to the village commons as a source for public drinking water supply more than 20 years ago. That well was deepened by 5m in 2016. He built a new irrigation well in 2000 for own use and deepened this well by 5m in 2016.

Cultivates diverse combination of foodgrains, oil seeds and vegetables in small patches. Does not want to cultivate orchards because of the high investment required

Soybean in 2016-17 spoilt due to high intensity rain

Has started raising goats (bought 8) to supplement income. Retired 10 years ago from a job in the local sugarcane factory

PND15

Pandhurli

Have one well close to the Kadwa canal and receives percolation from the canal. Also has a 2km long private pipeline to lift water from Darna river but electricity connection is often cut in summer to stop pumps lifting water

Diverse cropping on large landholding' Kharif: paddy, soybean, tomato ; Rabi: tomato, onion, wheat, potato etc. Feels that water is a constraint.

PND16

Pandhurli

Have 2 wells one of which is close to the canal and get recharged from it

Historically they were able to cultivate crops in all three season now there is less water for the third crop and cannot grow summer maize like before. Other crops remain the same. Kharif: soybean, tomato; Rabi: onion, wheat, potato and summer vegetables too. With water stress in 2015-16 less area under summer crop.

Summer season crop is unassured now due to less water

Has a job with MSEB, so are satisfied with the supplementary income from farming.

PND17

Pandhurli

Has one old shallow well, which is located within 20m of the neighbour's well but the neighbour's well had water in May but his well did not- appears to be a mystery to him

He does not want to cultivate tomato and other horticulture crops due to the high risk involved. Typically grows soybean, wheat, fodder; summer: fodder if there is water. In 2016-17 Fell short of water for wheat and could not give last two waterings

Low yield for wheat in 2016-17 due to shortage of water

They run a dairy as well

PND18

Pandhurli

Has one well which assures him of two crops He sticks to a safe cropping pattern of Kharif soybean followed by Rabi wheat. Never cultivates horticulture crops because it requires too much investment. In 2016-17 Kharif soybean lost due to too much rain. Rabi maize was also impacted due to hail

2016-17 kharif soybean lost (high rain intensity)

147

WS1 Wadgaon Sinnar

Their farm is located close to Devnadi river and in the DBI command so well has good availability of water. They have 2 wells on two different farm lands

Used to cultivate paddy many years ago, but now soybean is the main kharif crop, in addition to maize. Rabi crops are onion, wheat, garlic and gram (irrigated). They think vegetable cultivation is a lot of hard work. In 2014-15 they started cultivating pomegranate and are able to irrigate with well so far

grains --> vegetables --> pomegranate

One son works in military, another for a company

WS2 Wadgaon Sinnar

Have two wells close to river. They are in the command of the Devnadi DBI so wells tend to have good water.

Historically, they cultivated sugarcane, paan and paddy next to the river. After the dam got built upstream water became scarce and they shifted to pearl millet. Later soybean was introduced in late 1990s. Hybrid tomato is also a new popular crop, earlier local variety wasn't very input intensive. Tried cultivating grapes for some time but made losses. Shifted part of land to pomegranate in 2015. Leased-in some additional land from another family in the village

sugarcane, betel leaf, paddy --> vegetables --> orchard

Tried cultivating grapes but removed due to losses

2 sons have jobs, 2 are in farming

WS3 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has three shared family wells. Dug a private well in 2013. Farms are within the DBI command so wells are recharged during monsoon. Wells are connected through private pipeline. Built a farm pond in 2016. The FP is filled from well water.

Cultivates a diverse variety of vegetables and avoids cultivating foodgrains. Kharif: tomato, carrot, broccoli. Rabi: wheat, onions, green leafy vegetables, potato, broccoli. In 2016-17 FP water was used to cultivate tomato in summer. Plan is to shift part of the land under grape orchard next year

regular vegetables -> broccoli-> orchard (next year)

2015-16 rabi onion lost due to insufficient water

One son works in Mumbai

WS4 Wadgaon Sinnar

He has three private wells close to Devnadi river and has good availability of water

Kharif: soybean, tomato, marigold flower, Rabi: onion, wheat

WS5 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one well which dried early in 2015-16 (Dec) but usually can support a Rabi crop

Kharif soybean, maize; Rabi: wheat, onion, fodder; no summer

148

WS6 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has two wells which are 1 km away. One has more water than the other. In 2015-16 fell short of water and had to purchase a well-full of water (about 5 tankers) for orchard. Drilled a borewell in 2015 (80m)

Used to cultivate sugarcane until late 1990s; started soybean in early 2000s. Has been cultivating grapes since the late 1990s. Wants to increase area under orchards. He believes that the use of water is less by orchards than by seasonal crops and requires less labour. Cultivates high value crops more than grains (Except wheat for self consumption and maize for fodder. Vegetables include pumpkin, carrot, tomatoes, cucumber etc.

One son studying in Pune, others still in school

WS7 Wadgaon Sinnar

Farm is in the drier strip of village. Has one well shared between 5 brothers. It was deepened in 2012.

They have always had shortage of water so typical crop is rainfed soybean followed by Rabi crop depending on water availability. In 2015-16 when water was scarce, grew unirrigated gram and got poor yields and left a large part of the land fallow. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat and onion

Both sons work in Nashik in a company. Farmer used to do labour work in MIDC

WS8 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one old well with poor water availability. Built lateral bores in well in 2014. Built a second well on a different landholding in 2015-16. This well has been built next to the Devnadi canal with pipelines running between the two wells.

Always water stressed, typically cultivated Kharif pearl millet and supplemented income by working as labourer. After new well and pipeline, cultivated peas and green leafy vegetables in 2016-17

Very pessimistic with farming - has not been able to build a brick house from farm income. Does not want his son to pursue farming. Son has completed B.Ed. And is looking for jobs.

WS9 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one well which can support Rabi crop in most years Took over farming after his father's death in 2010. Cultivates typical crops which require less attention: soybean, wheat, onion, gram. Vegetables need more work and attention but he has a day job

Works for a company in the MIDC. Farming is secondary occupation

149

WS10 Wadgaon Sinnar

Both farm lands located in the DBI command. One well is close to the Devnadi river and another well close to the canal

has always cultivated at least two crops including vegetables. Since 2010, has started cultivating broccoli as a new exotic vegetable which is sold directly in Vashi market in Mumbai

Traditional vegetables --> broccoli

2015-16 soybean lost to pest attack

Grandson studying to be an engineer

WS11 Wadgaon Sinnar

Farm located next to DBI canal minor and a RCC bandhara. Used to have an old well. Dug a second one in 1999 which was deepened in 2016

traditional crops have been wheat, pearl millet, soybean, groundnut, green leafy vegetables, gram etc. which are low risk. He has been trying new crops such as potato (in Kharif instead of Rabi - which failed), also grapes for a few years. Now he wants to grow guava and/or poultry business

Did grape farming 1991-1999 but made losses. Potato crop failed in 2015-16

large pending loan. Wants to start poultry but cannot get more loan. Works for a company

WS12 Wadgaon Sinnar

One well next to the canal and two other wells. They have also dug 3 borewells to ensure summer irrigation for the paan orchard. In 2015-16 they had to purchase tankers to irrigate the orchard. Well near canal has a pipeline running up to the farm

Their family has had a paan orchard for more than 50 years. Earlier there used to be many more such orchards in the village when water was abundant. Now this is the only paan orchard left in the village. They have a large landholding and like to stick to the traditional crops, including traditional (not hybrid) variety of wheat. Dedicate some land to vegetables such as peas, okra, tomato etc.

1 brother runs a pan shop, 1 brother in a company, father was the police patil

WS13 Wadgaon Sinnar

Two very old wells on different farm lands: one close to river and canal and the second is uphill in the drier part of the village. The uphill well fills up first and water is used through pipeline on both farms. The lowland well fills up late but holds water longer

paddy, sugarcane until late 1990s. Now diverse cropping including foodgrains and vegetables in two seasons

sugarcane, paddy --> vegetables

one family member is a truck driver, another works as labourer, grandson is in military

WS14 Wadgaon Sinnar

1 well close to Dubere stream but stream has been dry since three years, so has low water access

cultivates rainfed pearl millet (rare in Wadgaon Sinnar where most others grow Soybean instead of pearl millet) and a patch of Rabi crop depending on water availability. In very good rainfall years, taken extra land on lease

2015-16: insufficient water for onion

work as farm labourers to help harvest others' onions

150

WS15 Wadgaon Sinnar

They have one well close to Dubere stream which is largely dry.

Traditional crops were sugarcane and vegetables when water was plenty. Since 2012, they have started cultivating their uncle's land (who lives in Nashik and hence cannot farm his land in the village) where they are growing pomegranate using his well - sharing the produce equally. In 2015-16, onion crop fell short of water; gram was also left unirrigated

sugarcane -> vegetables ->pomegranate share-cropping

In 2015-16, onion crop fell short of water; gram was also left unirrigated

2 sons work in a company in MIDC

WS16 Wadgaon Sinnar

They have a well, which has very low availability of water Their farms were always dry and they could never cultivate vegetables. Subsistence farming only. Pearl millet (not soybean) and in good years Kharif onion. In good rainfall year of 2016-17 they cultivated wheat but fell short of last water; also fodder for cattle

2015-16 kharif onion failed due to no water. 2016-17 kharif peas crop failed due to high rain intensity

also work as labourers; drinking water scarcity in this part of the village - dependent on tankers

WS17 Wadgaon Sinnar

They have a shared well, which has very low availability of water. Farm next to Dubere stream which is dry (except in the rains of 2016-17)

If monsoon starts early, then cultivate soybean, else they sow pearl millet. In 2015-16, there was no water and gram crop failed. In 2016-17, they could give full water to wheat

2015-16: Rabi gram failed (could not irrigate)

Teacher in tribal school, one son works in a company in MIDC.

WS18 Wadgaon Sinnar

They have one shared well between 5 brothers but with low water availability. Has taken land for sharecropping which has a well on it with better months of water available. One drawback of shared wells is that one cannot use drip irrigation (as it needs frequent irrigation which cannot be met by rotation schedule of shared wells). Bought tanker in 2015-16 . Tried drilling 3 borewells but all of them failed (no water)

cultivate vegetables in order to get more cash. Tries to cultivate peas (3 months with early sowing) followed by late Kharif onion followed by wheat. If monsoon is late, then can take only two crops of soybean -> onion-> fallow. In 2015-16, bought tanker water to grow onion seeds

2016-17 green pea crop failed (too much early rain)

Used to work in a factory in Nashik until 2001. Had given land for sharecropping to brother but now depends on farming. Very articulate and knowledgeable

151

WS19 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one shared well next to Debere stream between 4 brothers which each can access for 2 days in rotation. This well has higher months of water availability than the private well he has on a different farm land near the hills. A 1km pipeline has been laid to pump water from the shared well to the private well. Purchased tankers in both 2015-16 and 2016-17 to irrigate broccoli

Always devote good amount of time to fodder crops for their dairy business. Traditional crops used to be pearl millet, wheat and gram. But he now cultivates horticulture crops such as peas, tomato, onion and even broccoli (rabi/summer)

foodgrain -> Vegetables -> broccoli

lost onion in 2015-16 due to hail

Dairy business + one son works as a driver

WS20 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one irrigation well shared between 3 brothers and a second well close to home for drinking water. The irrigation well is in a favourable location (below percolation tank) and gets good recharge.

Used to cultivate sugarcane until about 15 years ago on the farm land next to Devnadi but water became a bottleneck. Pearl millet was also an important crop but this was taken over by soybean. Typical crops are Kharif: soybean and tomato and Rabi onion, wheat and gram. Summer fallow. Despite having good access to water does not wish to cultivate orchard because of the high capital cost involved. In 2015-16 left part of Rabi land fallow due to less availability of water

sugarcane -> vegetables

soybean crop in 2016-17 failed due to bad seeds so did second sowing of green leafy vegetables. Tomato (16-17) removed due to low market prices

Could not repay back a loan of 1.5 lakh in 2015-16

WS21 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one shared well between 3 brothers and water is shared by rotations - each brother uses well for 2 days in a 6 day rotation. He has also dug two borewells. He has a pipeline going from well to a second farming plot which is in the drier part of village closer to the hills

His family used to have a betel orchard (paan baag) but stopped it once water became a constraint. Since he has a small family, he does not cultivate foodgrains (prefers to buy), instead grows high value crops. Kharif: soybean and tomato; Rabi onions

Betel orchard --> vegetables

Betel orchard --> vegetables Rabi Onion harvest lost to hailstorm (2014-15 Rabi)

Has unpaid load that he had taken for onions in 2014-15. Could not repay old loan and has borrowed more. His sons are looking for a govt job

WS22 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one shared well between 2 farmers shared on 2-day rotations.

Used to cultivate paddy and pearl millet before but now typical crops are Kharif soybean and Rabi onion and wheat. He does not cultivate vegetables like tomatoes because of high cost especially labour cost

Works as a fitter in a company in the MIDC

152

WS23 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one well. Has had to buy tankers for tomatoes Used to cultivate vegetables such as onions, tomatoes along with soybean, wheat. Since a few years, he had started cultivating broccoli which he learnt from farmers in another village. It is sold directly in Mumbai market and rates are better. He tries to cultivate at least one small patch of broccoli in all three seasons but Kharif broccoli is a gamble: it can be lost to too much rain, but its prices are good in that season.

regular vegetables --> broccoli

Soybean in 2016-17 spoilt due to high intensity rain

WS24 Wadgaon Sinnar

has one irrigation well typical cropping pattern in Kharif: soybean and Rabi: wheat, onion and gram

2015-16 lost Rabi onion due to insufficient water. lost wheat and onion in the hail storm in 2014-15

One son works as an electrician in the Malegaon MIDC; another works as a bank clerk

WS25 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one old well shared between 4 brothers from which he has a pipe to his farm. He has a private well too which was deepened last year. He also tried a borewell but it did not yield any water

In 2015-16, left Rabi land fallow due to insufficient water. Cultivated soybean, pearl millet and late Kharif onion instead. Had more water in 2016-17, so cultivated tomato in addition to soybean in Kharif but lost tomato to pest. Rabi was wheat and onion. Also had some land under summer maize and groundnut

2016-17 kharif tomato failure (pest)

153

WS26 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one very old well (1983) which was deepened in 2016. Also has a borewell. Has had to purchase water tankers regularly for the orchards

He grows diverse crops such as maize, tomato, soybean etc. Since 2001 he started cultivating grapes and added more area subsequently. In 2015 he added a pomegranate orchard but it proved to be a failure for his soil type hence removed the orchard in 2016-17

Vegetables ->grapes->pomegranate ->grapes

tried pomegranate for 2 years and then removed the orchard. Tomato was spoilt in both 2015-16 (delayed monsoon) and 16-17 (not enough water in kharif in well)

works in the transport industry

WS27 Wadgaon Sinnar

Have one well that was dug in 2007 - it has poor recharge. Lateral bores were added in 2016. They face drinking water scarcity and demanded tanker from GP in 2015-16.

Due to insufficient water they can only take the Kharif crop; typically soybean, millet and/or green peas

Afraid to take loan; has never done so

WS28 Wadgaon Sinnar

Had one old well. Subsequently he bought another strip of farm land with a well. He has tried drilling 3 borewells all of which failed. In 2014-15, he built a plastic lined farm pond with NHM subsidy which he fills using groundwater

He cultivates diverse horticulture crops. Tried cultivating grapes in 2010 but removed it in 2012 as it turned out to be a failure because of insufficient water. In 2013 he started a pomegranate orchard. Along with the farm pond he has also invested in a shadenet for cultivating green chillies and coloured peppers under precision farming (with NHM subsidy). Typical, crop cycle in shade net is capsicum -> peas -> cucumber. This is in addition to soybean and tomato (Kharif field crops) and wheat, gram and onion (Rabi field crop)

vegetables -> grapes -> pomegranate -> shadenet vegetables

removed grapes as it needed too much water

154

WS29 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has attempted to drill 30-35 wells in the past decade. Of these there are 3 wells that are functional. One was being deepened in 2015-16. Had built a large farm pond through the NHM scheme in 2014. Farm lies between Devnadi and DBI canal.

Runs an industrial scale farm employing 10 labourers round the year. Older crops like sugarcane provided only annual income. His strategy is to have vegetables for regular income and orchards for annual income. Sugarcane, pomegranate, broccoli and other vegetables. In 2015-16 started a NHM subsidized shadenet to cultivate peppers under precision farming. He is also growing his vegetable trading business

sugarcane -> vegetables -> pomegranate -> shadenet vegetables

Young active farmer, also provides training to other farmers in water-rich villages from where he procures vegetables to fill his orders

WS30 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one very old well which was deepened in 2014. He has had to buy tanker water for his crops and has now applied for farmpond

Cropping has included grains and vegetables. Tried pomegranate for few years but withdrew due to insufficient water. Has since invested in shadenet vegetables (three seasons). The cropping pattern has been similar but water management has improved over time

vegetables -> pomegranate-> vegetables -> shadenet

Removed pomegranate orchard after trying for few years (2011)- failed because of water shortage

WS31 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has an old well (1998) which was deepened in 2016. Farm is next to Devnadi

He used to cultivate sugarcane until 2005 but stopped due to problems with the sugarcane industry (low rates, delayed payments) . Since then he started focusing on onions. Cultivates vegetables in Kharif: tomato, carrot in addition to soybean and maize. Rabi: onions and wheat. also fodder crops in every season

sugarcane -> vegetables

Tomato in 2016-17 lost to pest attack

Has a job in MSEB as an electrician

WS32 Wadgaon Sinnar

Family moved from a neighbouring village to this one after buying land . Dug the first well in 2001 and a second one in 2010. Then then drilled a borewell in 2016 which is used only for drinking water. In 2013, also built a farm pond with own money (no subsidy)

Cropping is mainly in Kharif: soybean, cabbage, maize, groundnut, kharif onion. Usually less water available for Rabi and only onion is cultivated (but not in 2015 since water was scarce). Water is used for poultry business. Wants to have a pomegranate orchard

Run a restaurant and a poultry; also works as a fitter

155

WS33 Wadgaon Sinnar

Has one well from 2009, another from 2011 and a farm pond was built in 2013

Used to cultivate vegetables and also invested in pomegranate farm but decided that horticulture crops are too risky and very sensitive to water and other inputs; labour is also a concern. Instead decided to focus only on pulses and soybean. Says that this cropping pattern is viable only for those with large landholding (Kharif: tur/soybean intercrop; also mung, udad lentils and gram, wheat in Rabi)

pomegranate -> nonperishable grains

Removed pomegranate (failure due to hail and other weather problems)

Used to work in a company but left that to start farming. Moved to current village after purchasing land. Has financial reserves

WS34 Wadgaon Sinnar

Bought land 8-10 years ago in this part of village. There was one old well; dug one in 2011 and a borewell in 2016 because of drinking water scarcity

Cultivates a variety of vegetables such as tomato, carrot, peas etc. in Kharif in addition to soybean and groundnut. Rabi: wheat, onion.

Lost tomato in 2015-16. Soybean was also lost in 2015-16 due to dry spell

One brother works as a vegetable trader in Mumbai wholesale market

Appendix C –GIS Mapping of Cropping Pattern in 2015-16 and 2016-17

Each dot indicates the location of the farmer that was surveyed. The colour of the crop signifies

the highest value crop that the farmer cultivates in that season. E.g. If a farmer cultivated 1 acre

soyabean and 0.5-acre tomato in Kharif, then the highest category crop grown by her is tomato

and the colour of the dot representing her is red (as per the legend). The categories from low to

high value are: food grain, non-horticulture cash crop (maize, soyabean), methi-kothmir, onion,

other vegetables and fruit at the highest level. An orange dot indicates that the farmer only

grows food grain in Kharif and no other crop in the higher category. These maps are useful in

identifying different zones within the village based on varying cropping patterns and the factors

that lead to it.

157

Kharif season

Wadgaon 15-16 Wadgaon 2015-16

Pandhurli 15-16

Dapur 16-17

Dodhi

Kh

Dodhi

Kh

Dapur 15-16

Wadgaon 2016-17

Pandhurli 16-17

158

Rabi cropping


Dapur 15-16 Dapur 16-17

Dodhi 15-16 Dodhi 16-17

Pandhurli 15-16 Pandhurli 16-17

159

Summer cropping


Dodhi 15-16 Dodhi 16-17

Dapur 15-16 Dapur 16-17

Pandhurli 15-16 Pandhurli 16-17

160

Appendix D -Game-theoretical modeling of the SES

In this note, we model the current situation in the field as a variation of the tragedy of the

commons game with farmers as agents having a set of strategies with different payoffs. Say

there are N farmers that share groundwater as common source of irrigation. Every year, farmers

need to make a decision on making new investments in water. Their strategy set includes the

following options:

i=0 strategy implies no investment

i=1 strategy implies invest in one asset

i=2 implies invest in the second asset (assuming farmer already has one asset)

i=3 and so on…

At any time, T is the total number of investments in the community which is ∑ i across all N

farmers.

Farmers who do not invest (i=0) continue to cultivate traditional non-horticulture crops which

are low-risk low-return crops. If farmers make an investment, they simultaneously intensify

their practice to a horticulture crop. For every incremental increase in investment, there is an

incremental increase in intensification.

Carrying capacity and resource allocation:

C (say 100) is the carrying capacity of the available resource in a good rainfall year. That is, C

is the total number of investments that can be supported by the available groundwater so that

demand is met for all farmers. If the number of investments are more than C, then farmers are

unable to meet complete demand and their groundwater allocation drops. This drop in

allocation is first for farmers with no assets (with i=0 strategy) and later for those with assets

(in the order i=1, followed by i=2 etc.).

If there is a drought year, the carrying capacity reduces as there is less groundwater recharge.

We assume that the carrying capacity drops to C/2 (i.e. 50).

Crop Yield functions:

Farmer payoff is a function of crop yield which in turn, is a function of irrigation provided. It

is assumed that horticulture crops have full yield at 100% watering, yield falls linearly when

watering falls down to 50% (i.e. there is shortfall in irrigation). Yield is zero when watering is

<50%.

161

For non-horticulture crop, farmers get full yield for 100% water and the yield drops linearly

till 20% irrigation is available. If irrigation amount is less than 20% the crop fails. The failed

crop can still be used as fodder if there is soil moisture, but has zero return if there was no soil

moisture due to poor rainfall.

Payoffs

The payoffs are a function of investment strategy, total investments T and crop yield curves.

The market return from horticulture crops is significantly higher than that of traditional crops,

which is reflected in the payoffs. Figure below shows the assumed payoffs as a function of

investments for different strategies for a good rainfall year.

If total investment T is less than the carrying capacity in a good year (i.e. T<100), then all

farmers meet their full irrigation demand. The payoff for i=0 is 10 (low return crop), for i=1 is

100 (high value horticulture crop) and for i=2 is 150 (higher value horticulture crop).

When T > 100 (i.e. the carrying capacity in a good year), farmers with i=0 strategy are the first

to suffer and are unable to meet irrigation demand. Hence, their payoff falls and at the point of

no irrigation, still manages to break even (payoff =0) by using crop as fodder.

Farmers with strategy i=1 start to see a reduction in payoff only after a delay when T has

exceeded C by some amount (since the impact is first borne by asset-poor farmers). Due to the

sensitivity to irrigation, the payoff drops quickly and falls to -25.

Those with strategy i=2 experience the impact of resource degradation with more delay and

then fall to -35 when irrigation falls short.

162

In case of a drought year, the carrying capacity reduces and becomes C/2. In this case, the

payoff curves shift and pivot around C/2 (i.e. 50, in this case). See Figure below for bad rainfall

year payoffs. Moreover, we assume that there is less soil moisture available in drought year so

that for traditional crops (for i=0 strategy), complete crop loss leads to a payoff of -5 (i.e. crop

isn’t good for fodder either).

Result

The game proceeds as follows. Some years may get good rainfall and others may be drought

years, so we consider payoffs for both scenarios. Initially, there are few investments in the

community and most farmers select i=0 as there is assured access to water regardless of rainfall

(see e.g. 1 in table below). At this point, investment and intensification are only driven by

aspiration or government interventions and not induced. This is seen in the case of Pandhurli

farmers. However, as T increases, if there is a poor rainfall year, it results in unmet water

demand and poor payoffs (C/2>T>C) (see e.g. 2). At this point, farmers with strategy i=1

benefit with high payoffs compared to farmers who have no assets (i=0). This starts a cycle of

investment and nudges more farmers to opt for i=1 strategy, thereby increasing T faster than

before. As T approaches C (the carrying capacity in good years), farmers with strategy i=1 also

start to face uncertainty in access with large variation in payoffs (see e.g. 3). They are then

incentivized to make further investment by going with i=2 strategy. As T continues to rise (see

e.g. 4), farmers with i=0 are completely squeezed out and are forced to change their strategy or

to exit. This cycle of investment continues as long as making a new investment offers the

possibility of better payoffs than existing situation. The cycle stops when the cost of investment

becomes more than the crop returns.

163

E.g. Total investments

T

Value of T

(total

investments)

Farmers

with i=0

(GY, BY)

payoff

Farmers

with i=1

(GY,BY)

payoff

Farmers

with i=2

(GY,BY)

payoff

Notes

1 T < C/2 <50 10,10 100,100 NA

As long as total investments

in the community is small,

everyone meets full demand.

At this point, investments are

only based on aspiration

2 C/2 <T < and C E.g.: 75 10,-5 100,100 NA

At T increases, in drought

years, the carrying capacity is

less than T and hence farmers

with strategy i=0 are unable to

meet full demand and face

losses in drought years. If

there are frequent drought

years, it drives investment

3 T=C 100 10,-5 100,-25 150,-35

As T increases further,

farmers with i=1 are also

impacted and they face large

variability in returns. They are

thus incentivized to make a

second investment (i=2)

which offers better assurance

until T increases further more

4 T>C 120 0,-5 100,-25 150, -35

As T>C Farmers with no

investments are forced to

invest to be viable or they

must exit

5 T>C 130 0, -5 -25, -25 150, -35 Push to invest further

Comparison with the typical tragedy of the commons game

This formulation illustrates the dynamics of the social-ecological system (SES) as the use of

the common property resource (CPR) approaches its carrying capacity in the presence of

natural variations on the supply side. Once the CPR begins to operate close to this point, the

uncertainty in supply causes the differences between individual farmer payoffs to be amplified,

which starts the first cycle of investments. This tips the CPR beyond its carrying capacity and

further aggravates uncertainty, even in good years. Finally, this creates its own dynamics of

investments, the use of technology and changes in cropping pattern resulting in a competitive

allocation regime which is wasteful and highly unequal.

There are three key differences between this formulation and the typical tragedy of the

commons game (Ostrom 1990,Governing the Commons).

164

1) In our variation, the pay-off function is governed by a stochastic parameter, viz., the amount

of monsoon rains. Variation in the monsoons impacts the carrying capacity for that year and

hence the payoffs. This is in addition to the allocational uncertainty which comes out of

competition.

2) The average pay-off from making an investment is initially significantly high (i.e. when only

a few “defect” and most others “cooperate”) and provides a temporary relief from uncertainty

in allocation as there is some delay in other farmers’ change in strategy due to the high cost of

investment and farmers’ socio-economic barriers.

3) The original game models two strategies viz., cooperate or defect, for every agent. In our

variation, the strategy set allows for an escalation to reduce the allocational uncertainty, but

upto a point.

165

Appendix E –Technical details of farm level water balance tool

The water balance

The farm level water balance tool has been developed as a two-layer cascading soil water model

(Downer 2007). Large part of the state has deep soils so separating the zone accessible to crops

is necessary. The depth of the top layer is therefore assumed to be equal to the depth of the

crop root zone. A simple mass balance is done for each layer. Daily precipitation (P) is

partitioned into rainfall runoff (RO) and surface infiltration (I). Run-off is a function of the soil

texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. It is estimated using SCS curve number

methodology adjusted for slope. The infiltrated water (I) is further partitioned into actual

evapotranspiration (AET), change in soil moisture (Delta SM1+ Delta SM2) and recharge (R).

Computations are done at the daily time step. Daily rainfall input is given

Run-off calculation

Run-off is a function of the soil texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. A daily

curve number and retention factor is computed based on fixed parameters (soil HSG, slope and

land-use type) and a variable parameter (soil moisture at the start of the day) (SWAT 2009,

USDA 1986). This is used to compute daily surface run-off. The methodology being used for

run-off calculation is the SCS curve number method where in a daily curve number is computed

based on the daily soil moisture levels. The SCS curve number methodology adjusted for slope.

166

Once the run-off is calculated, the remaining water content infiltrates the soil

The value of I i.e. infiltrated water to layer 1 is calculated as

I(t)= P(t) - RO(t)

This infiltrated water has to then be partitioned into crop evapotranspiration, soil moisture and

percolation to lower layer. The new soil moisture at the end of day is computed using the mass

balance:

SM(t)= SM(t-1)+I(t)-AET(t)- Perc(t)

Crop evapotranspiration calculation

The actual crop evapotranspiration (AET) for the day is computed based on the available soil

moisture at the start of the day and the crop’s evapotranspiration (ET) requirement.

ET is the evapotranspiration load of the crop. To calculate the AET, it is first assessed whether

the crop is under water stressed conditions or not. A crop stress factor is calculated on a daily

basis which is dependent on the soil moisture levels at the start of the day and soil properties

of field capacity, wilting point and crop factors such as root zone depth and depletion factor.

The standard methodology as described in the FAO crop evapotranspiration report is used to

calculate AET (FAO Paper No. 56).

The crop evapotranspiration (ET) is calculated on a daily basis. ETo are monthly values

published by WALMI . Kc is the crop coefficient which is a function of the crop growth stage.

PET(t)= Kc* ET0(t)

The actual evapotranspiration is calculated using a stress factor Ks.

AET(t)= Ks(t-1)*PET(t)

Ks is a function of the starting soil moisture in the soil and the soil properties of Field Capacity

(FC), Wilting Point (WP) and the crop depletion factor p. p is the fraction of the total available

soil water that can be depleted from the root zone before the crop experiences water stress

(FAO Paper 56). Hence,

Ks = 1 for value of layer 1 SM> (FC *(1-p) + WP*p)

Ks=0 for value of SM1<WP

167

Ks=(SM1-WP)/((FC-WP)(1-p)) otherwise

Percolation to ground water

Percolation from the soil layer to the vadose zone is calculated at the end of each day based on

the soil moisture level. There is no percolation if the soil moisture is below field capacity. If

the soil moisture exceeds field capacity, then the amount of percolation depends on the water

available for percolation (soil moisture – field capacity) and a percolation factor that is a

function of soil conductivity. The method being used is as used by SWAT (SWAT 2009). The

vadose zone is the unsaturated zone between the soil profile and the aquifer. For simplicity,

this zone is not modelled. A time delay factor is used to estimate the change in ground water

levels due to the water percolated from the soil layer.

Perc (t) = SMexcess* percolation factor

Percolation factor = (1-EXP(1-/TTperc))

Where TTperc = (SAT-FC)/Ksat (in days)

SMexcess is the soil moisture beyond FC in mm

Finally, mass balance gives the end of day soil moisture

SM(t)= SM(t-1)+I(t)-AET(t)- Perc(t)

However, the highest value of this soil moisture is capped at the saturation level moisture SAT.

Any water more than this is removed from the layer as secondary run-off and added as a

correction to the surface runoff initially calculated.

Similarly, mass balance for layer 2 is as follows:

SM(t)= SM(t-1)+ Perc1(t)-GWR(t)

The ground water recharge is similarly calculated as above. Properties of both layers 1 and 2

are assumed to be identical.

The end-of-day soil moisture level is then considered as the start-of-day soil moisture for the

following day. This exercise is repeated for the entire Kharif season. The output is daily soil

moisture levels, crop AET and percolation to groundwater for the Kharif season.

168

The purpose of modeling the second layer is to account for water that is trapped as soil moisture

below the root zone in deep soils: a situation that holds true in a large part of the state with

deep black cotton soil. This model ignores lateral flow of water within the layers and flows

from layer 2 into the root zone due to capillary action.

The starting soil moisture before the start of the Kharif period is assumed to be at wilting point.

Sowing is assumed to be done after a total of 30mm rainfall has occurred.

Input data

The model requires the following as input

a) soil texture, b) soil thickness, c) terrain slope, d) crop type and e) daily rainfall data

The other related properties are calculated using reference tables. E.g.

a) soil properties such as bulk density, available water content, FC, WP, SP, Ksat [Using SPAW

for given soil texture], HSG and curve number for run-off calculation

b) crop root depth, depletion factor and Kc values by growth stage (ref: combination of FAO

and WALMI used)

c) Daily ETo values for farm location (Used WALMI data)

Screen shots

Input sheet:

169

Output sheet

170

Appendix F – Sample Crop-planning analysis for Paradgaon village in

Jalna, Marathwada

Paradgaon is a large village with total geographical area of 2926.54 ha.

Part I: Village description

Past 5 years rainfall for Ranjani circle:

2013 year (547mm) has been considered for the average year planning. Bad year rainfall is

considered as 2014 (429mm) and good year rainfall is considered as 2016 (1009 mm).

The village is divided into 7 zones based on watershed boundaries.

Current cropping pattern (2017) by zone:

Year

Rainfall

mm

2013 547

2014 429

2015 480

2016 1009

2017 818

5 year Avg 656.6

171

Typical cropping patterns found through field surveys are:

1. Cotton (rainfed) or cotton (irrigated)

2. Cotton-tur intercropping (rainfed or irrigated)

3. Soybean-tur intercropping followed by wheat in tur or soyabean followed by wheat

4. Mung or udid followed by Rabi Jowari

5. Soybean followed by Rabi harbhara

6. Annual crops such as Sugarcane, Mosambi, Limbu, Draksh

Part II: Water budget

Zone wise water budget summary for average rainfall year

Supply: We first look at how the water available through rainfall is currently partitioned into

its various components, i.e. run-off, crop evapotranspiration, soil moisture and GW recharge.

This has been computed through the water balance tool. Figure below shows a summary for

the village level. Table below provides zone wise details and explanation.

Crop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand Total

Zone Area ha 367.23 448.83 472.59 127.03 455.55 525.42 529.89 2926.54

कापूस 193 236 261 62 262 329 258 1601

सोयाबीन 57 40 54 0 56 66 120 393

तूर 62 47 56 5 43 59 73 345

मुग 42 34 36 28 43 44 50 277

रबी हरभरा 0 37 33 25 39 36 50 220

रबी गहू 0 25 27 18 32 34 58 194

रबी ज्वारी 0 42 32 37 39 38 188

खरीप ज्वारी 43 42 25 37 147

बाजरी 13 11 10 5 14 11 25 89

ऊस 12 13 25

पोटखराबा 22 22

मोसंबी 0 2 1 2 1 3 4 13

कायम पड (गावठाणसह) 11 11

द्राक्ष 2 1 3

ल ंबू 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Grand Total 367 511 575 202 564 634 676 3529

172

Zone wise details:

Zone 2 followed by Zone 6 have the highest slopes which is reflected in the high runoff % in

these zones. Also, the 3% GW recharge in Zone 2 is higher than in other zones primarily

because this is the only zone which has the presence of non-agricultural land (33 ha of pasture

and wasteland). Zones 2, 6 and 3 have lower % of soil moisture because these zone have

shallow soils in large parts, while the other zones have predominantly deep soils. The cropping

pattern is quite uniform across zones and the crop AET in all zones lies between 50-60% of the

rainfall. Zone 2 has lower AET% because of the presence of non-agricultural land.

Demand side: We now look at the agricultural demand and compare it with the available supply

in current storage structures as well as groundwater and soil moisture.

Zones

Zone

Area ha

Total

rainfall

TCM

Runoff

TCM

Run off %

of

rainfall

Soil

Moisture

(SM)

monsoon

end

(TCM)

SM as %

of

rainfall

GW

recharge

in

monsoon

TCM

GW

recharge %

of rainfall

Crop AET

monsoon

end (TCM)

Crop AET as

% of rainfall

1 367 1,993 465 23% 287 14% 7 0% 1,233 62%

2 449 2,438 1,080 44% 123 5% 78 3% 1,157 47%

3 473 2,568 847 33% 219 9% 35 1% 1,467 57%

4 127 690 168 24% 102 15% 4 1% 415 60%

5 456 2,476 726 29% 265 11% 27 1% 1,459 59%

6 525 2,851 1,041 37% 198 7% 43 2% 1,569 55%

7 530 2,878 810 28% 365 13% 36 1% 1,666 58%

All zones 2,927 15,894 5,138 32% 1,559 10% 231 1% 8,966 56%

Paradgaon, Jalna Rainfall 2013: 547 mm

173

The current unmet crop demand is (8874+2149) = 10,984TCM against an available supply of

1089 TCM after considering current structures in the village. The question is how is this

difference explained? And how do farmers manage the allocation of this supply on the ground?

We propose a framework that mirrors farmers allocation decisions to answer these questions.

Part III : Preliminary Framework - Priority Hierarchy of Demand and Supply

Compulsory load or priority P1 demand: It is seen in the field that farmers who have multi-

year crops such as orchards and sugarcane are those who have access to assured water and

through proximity and investment in assets, ensure that the full crop water requirement is met.

We call these crops priority 1 or P1 crops. Since these are multi year crops, water for these

crops is committed irrespective of the whether the rainfall is good or bad.

Discretionary load or Crops in second priority of P2 are those which the farmer plans to

irrigate if there is a need (and if there is availability of water). These crops include in Kharif:

174

onions, bhajipala, kharif vegetables, soybean and irrigated cotton. In Rabi, this includes: wheat,

Rabi onions and Rabi vegetables.

Rainfed load or the P3 crops are those which farmers do not intend to irrigate (because they

do not have any access). These crops typically include rainfed cotton, tur, mung, udid, bajra,

jowar and in Rabi: jowar and harbhara

For Paradgaon, all the crops are classified as follows:

We now divide the irrigation water requirement (of 10,984 TCM) into each of these categories.

This shows that in an average year, although the total crop deficit is 10984 TCM, 77% of this

(8429 TCM) comes from P3 crops which have no way of getting irrigated. Hence the real

Priority DescriptionKharif

cropsRabi crops

Current

cropped

Area (ha)

P1

100%

committed

water

42

P2

Plan to irrigate

(but may be

unable to)

Soybean,

irrigated

cotton/tur

Wheat 588*

P3No plan to

irrigate

Rainfed

cotton, tur,

Mung,

Kharif

Jowar,

Bajri

Harbhara,

Rabi Jowar

(fodder)

2866*

Sugarcane, mosambi,

limbu, grapes,

* Note: since we do not have separate cropped area for irrigated

and rainfed crops it is assumed that 10% of cotton and tur area is

irrigated and 90% is rainfed

Zones

Net water

avaialable for

irrigation (SW

+ GW) TCM

P1 annual

irrigation

demand

(TCM)

P2 K + LK

irrigation

demand

(TCM)

P2 Rabi

irrigation

demand

(TCM)

P3 ignored

annual

irrigation

demand

Total

demand

TCM

1 121 131 798 928

2 196 55 176 124 1,358 1,713

3 181 196 176 125 1,425 1,923

4 86 18 25 78 418 538

5 139 9 167 143 1,331 1,650

6 217 222 229 161 1,720 2,332

7 148 37 226 257 1,380 1,900

All zones 1,089 538 1,129 889 8,429 10,984

175

irrigation demand is only that of P1 and P2 crops (2556 TCM). The available supply of 1089

TCM is allocated to meet part of this P1 and P2 demand.

538 TCM or 49% is reserved for P1 crops (i.e. multi year crops). These crops are in 42

ha of the village area, making up 1% of the agricultural area.

The remaining water (1089-538 = 551 TCM) is given to P2 crops. A large number of

farmers leave their P2 crops unirrigated (actual % of rainfed cotton/tur crop is likely to

be more than 90% in this year). Some may decide to not irrigate their P2 Kharif crop

and instead irrigate P2 Rabi (wheat) crop.

The result of the above allocation is reflected in poor yields of unirrigated crops as compared

to irrigated crops. Farmers surveyed in the village consistently reported that unirrigated cotton

yield is 2-4Q/acre lower than irrigated cotton.

We now classify the interventions in

three categories: W1, W2 and W3.

W1 category is one which makes

water available within the stream

proximity zone either through

surface water in streams or through

higher ground water levels in the

stream proximity zones. All drainage

line treatment increases W1 water.

W2 water is groundwater that is

available in wells in the non-stream

proximity zones. Interventions such

as compartment bunding or CCTs

increase W2 water. However, W2

water eventually flows into the

stream system due to subsurface

flows and become W1 water unless it

is extracted and used up by farmers in off-stream areas. W3 water is the water in soil moisture

that does not require assets such as wells/farm ponds or proximity to stream systems.

Compartment bunding and certain farming practices such as organic mulching can increase

176

W3 water. Table below summarizes the interventions and the type of water they harvest in the

village system.

Demand and Supply allocation using the framework:

The tables below show the allocation of W1,W2,W3 water to P1, P2 and P3 demand in a bad

year rainfall (2014: 420mm) and good year rainfall (2016: 1009 mm).

In the bad year, we see that P1 crop requirement is 560 TCM. Current structures make 180.8

TCM water available in the stream system. So P1 irrigation requirement will be met by using

up all of the W1 water (by farmers who are in the stream proximity zone or through pipelines

etc.). Moreover, P1 crops will also use up part of W2 water (380 TCM out of 834.2 TCM

(which is 643.5 +190.7 TCM)) to fulfill its complete demand. This is through W2 groundwater

that gradually flows into the stream system through subsurface flows and becomes available in

wells in the streams. Hence, the amount of W2 water that remains available for P2 crops is only

454.2TCM. In the table above, it is assumed that half of this water is used by farmers to partially

irrigate their P2 Kharif crops and the other half is buffered to irrigate P2 Rabi crops. AET/Crop

ET is used as an indicator of crop yield, and it can be seen that P2 Rabi crops are likely to face

large loss in yield or crop failures if farmers do cultivate P2 Rabi in the bad year. The P3 crops,

however, are not benefitted from any structures other than some soil moisture increase due to

177

compartment bunding. They have low yields ~40% which is consistent with farmer survey

data. In a good year, the rainfed P3 crop yield rises significantly and goes up to 61%

The P1 index has been defined as the Water committed to annual crops as a fraction of total

available water for irrigation. We see that this is 0.53 in a bad year (i.e. 53% of total available

water is used for irrigating orchards in ~1% area). In good year this number is 0.32

P2 index is the fraction of groundwater available for P2 crops after allocation to annual crops.

In bad year, half of the available groundwater is used for orchards.

This analysis shows that the impact of current interventions is largely beneficial to the 1% of

land under orchards and the majority of rainfed farmers face low yields due to their dependence

on soil moisture alone.

Proposed scenario under PoCRA: based on demand expressed during microplanning

conducted under PoCRA

Within P1 all sugarcane and grapes are proposed to be removed and new mosambi and lime

are to be added which will take up area under P1 to 91 ha. The proposed change is a drop in

long kharif and Rabi crop area. There is significant increase proposed in soybean area and in

other P2 Kharif area (vegetables) as well as P3 Kharif area (bajra).

The overall crop PET will be reduced by the proposed cropping plan as there is a reduction in

the long Kharif and the water intensive crops such as sugarcane and grapes. However, since

only P1 and P2 and only about 5-10% of P2/P3 crops are irrigated to meet full PET requirement,

the overall irrigation requirement in the new cropping pattern has in fact increased.

However, by moving away from sugarcane and grapes and towards less water intensive fruit

crops such as mosambi and lemon, more area can be brought under irrigation.

178

The table above shows the expected impact to profitability based on surveys conducted in

Paradgaon village on farmers’ average yield, inputs costs and output.

Proposed interventions

89% of new water created by proposed

interventions will be available only within

stream proximity and will allow more farmers

to move from P2 to P1 crops. 11% of the new

water created can benefit off-stream farmers

but only if they have wells. There is likely to

be marginal impact to rainfed farmers except those who shift to P2 by getting a new well.

Proposed state supply-demand balance

Observations:

179

1. Move towards less water intensive crop has reduced overall PET requirement. But there is

an increase in area under P1 and P2 crops. Therefore net irrigation requirement has in fact

increased

2. This increase of irrigation requirement (~800 TCM) is more than the increase in water

availability (232 TCM) expected to be generated due to new structures.

4. Risk of access to water will increase for both P1 and P2 crops. For P1 crop it is because in a

bad rainfall year the total P1 irrigation requirement is about 70% of available water. For P2,

the risk increases because the net water remaining for P2 irrigation is now lowered.

5. There is no impact of the interventions on P3 farmers which are the majority of farmers.

Part IV: Next steps

This framework needs to be developed further to help us answer important planning questions.

For example,

1. How much area can be under P1 crops? What guidance can be provided for the upper

limit and/or lower limit for area under P1.

2. How many new wells may be feasible in the village? Where should they be?

3. What can be done for the P3 farmers? Is it possible to save water equivalent of 1

protective irrigation for the entire area under P3 crops?

4. Is it possible to shift more P3 farmers to P1 by promoting small sized orchards so that

the 91 ha under P1 crops is spread across more than 200 farmers?

agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained...

Documents