best bet: groundwater groundwater governance for poverty … · 2016. 10. 6. · groundwater...

Best Bet: Groundwater Groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihods seucrity

79

Best Bet: Groundwater

Groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods

security

Vision of success Successful implementation of this best bet will reduce the number of areas and people that

currently face unsustainable use of groundwater and its related consequences (some 200

million people mostly located in northwest India, Pakistan and north China) by 50%; while at

the same time, it will give opportunities to another 250 million5 people living in Sub-Saharan

Africa and other regions where groundwater potential is vastly under-used to make more

intensive, but more sustainable use of groundwater to emerge from poverty and expand

their livelihood choices.

Problem statement Of the range of issues that confront water management in the developing world, intensive

use of groundwater and its positive and negative externalities ranks high on the research

and policy agenda (Kinzelbach et al., 2003; CA, 2007; World Bank, 2006 and 2010). It is well

known that assured access to groundwater across South Asia can provide the water needed

to produce more and higher valued crops, important for food security and income gains

(Repetto, 1994; Moench & Burke, 2002). Moreover, groundwater in these rural settings

serves a range of uses including drinking water and washing, providing opportunities for

better health. Those who use groundwater, particularly small and marginal farmers, are

most vulnerable to losing access due to increasing competition over scarce resources. Costs

of drilling and pumping will become prohibitive if water levels continue to decline. Issues of

seawater intrusion in areas and the general deterioration of water quality from salts and

other constituents can be the downside of poor groundwater management. Good

groundwater governance can help reduce these vulnerabilities.

Unsustainable management of groundwater affects developing countries due to the

complex and intractable nature of the problem. There are also important implications for

poverty. When left unmanaged, groundwater can negatively affect the livelihood and food

security of those dependent upon it because overexploitation leads to cycles of boom and

bust (Moench, 2003; Janakarajan & Moench, 2006; Giordano, 2009). Most of those affected

live within the densely populated and agriculturally productive plains of South Asia and

North China.

5 This assumes that 50% of rural population in Bangladesh and eastern India (eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,

West Bengal, Assam and Orissa); 30% of rural population in Nepal and seven countries of Southeast Asia

(Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam); 20% of rural population in 33

Sub-Saharan African countries and 10% of rural population in four Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistani and Uzbekistan). The combined rural population of these regions and countries is 850

million (World Development Report, 2009).


80

Equally important, albeit less understood, is the problem of “under-development” of

groundwater resources and the opportunities for productivity gains and poverty alleviation

lost thereof. There are two dimensions of the “under-development” issue. First, there are

vast areas such as in eastern India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Southeast Asia and Central Asia

where there is high groundwater potential and high recharge potential. Here groundwater

can be geared towards poverty alleviation without significantly stressing the resource base

or creating excessive environmental impacts. However, the current policy environment and

investment regimes do not support such use (Mukherji et al., 2009, Shah, 2009a). Second,

there are locations mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa where very little is known about the

resource and as a result, uncertainties and misconceptions emerge about the development

potential (Carter & Howsam, 1994). But there is emerging evidence that farmers are

increasingly resorting to groundwater for irrigating high value crops (Regassa, 2010). Here,

there is much optimism among the policy and developmental professionals that

groundwater can play an important role in enhancing productivity and alleviate poverty

(Postel et al., 2001).

Climate change adds a third dimension to this problem by affecting both the supply of

groundwater – through changes in rainfall and recharge regimes and demand for

groundwater – through changes in the crop water requirement and greater dependence on

groundwater during years of drought (Shah, 2009b). Groundwater supplies are less prone to

drought than surface water and thus could provide a more reliable source of agricultural

water.

Most surface water bodies, be they rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and estuaries,

hydraulically interact with groundwater to varying degrees. Rivers and wetlands are

intrinsically connected to groundwater, and thus excessive groundwater use impacts on

these groundwater-dependent ecosystems.

Justification Groundwater constitutes by far the major share of the world’s freshwater resources (Gleick,

1996) and has been an important source of drinking water serving over 2 billion people

worldwide. But over the last 40 years or so, it has also emerged as a main source of

irrigation. Globally, almost 40% (114 M ha) of all irrigated lands are serviced by 545 km3 of

groundwater every year. Of this, India and China alone account for half of all groundwater-

based irrigation (Siebert et al., 2010). In India, 60% of the 60 million ha of net irrigated area

is served by groundwater, whilst for north China the corresponding figure is 70%.

Thus last 40 years have heralded the emergence of an agricultural groundwater revolution,

dubbed a “silent revolution” by Llamas & Martinez-Santos (2006). This is because inherent

advantages that groundwater offers to farmers and which other sources of irrigation water

find hard to match – advantages stemming from reliability, flexibility and independence.


81

Cheaper pumping technologies since 1960s have significantly contributed to this boom. It is

now well documented that groundwater irrigation created more wealth than any source of

irrigation in South Asia and north China (Dains & Pawar, 1987; Deb Roy & Shah, 2003; Zhang

et al., 2009). There is also emerging evidence that groundwater irrigation is booming in

deltaic and other parts of Southeast Asia (Johnston et al., 2010) and there is increasing use

of groundwater for both pastoral and crop enterprises in SSA (Giordano, 2006; Regassa,

2010).

Despite all the productivity and livelihood benefits of groundwater irrigation, this runaway

growth in northwestern and southern parts of India and north China presents a frightening

prospect because it will magnify many-fold the negative externalities of groundwater over-

development viz., the rising cost of chasing a perennially declining water table, lost wetlands

and biodiversity, reduced base flows to rivers, and water quality degradation. Runaway

growth without any kind of governance will eventually weaken this vibrant economy.

Two types of approaches have been considered for managing the negative externalities of

groundwater use in such areas of intensive use. One is supply oriented technical approaches

that enable effective use of recharge and retention. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) has

been an important technical supply augmentation strategy used increasingly in India and

elsewhere (Dillon, 2005; Sakthivadivel, 2007; Shah, 2008). Alternatively, direct demand

management measures such as irrigation efficiency improvements, restrictions on cropping

patterns are also employed (Zhang et al., 2003).

Underuse is an interesting contrast to overuse in much of eastern India, Nepal, and

Bangladesh, parts of Southeast Asia and pockets of Central Asia. In such cases, highest rates

of poverty coincide with regions where there is high groundwater potential and high

recharge capacity, but due to a number of policy and institutional barriers, groundwater is

not used intensively and therefore its potential for poverty alleviation is not realized.

A stark example is the case of eastern India. Eastern India supports one of the most

productive alluvial aquifers in the world, but lack of rural electrification and high diesel

prices coupled with poor food procurement policies and rural infrastructure hinders

groundwater development (Mukherji, 2007). The second type of “under-development”

problem is faced by much of SSA where not much is known about the groundwater

resources. Yet, there is emerging evidence that farmers and pastoralists rely on

groundwater for their livelihoods, often to a great extent as in the case of Nigerian fadimas.

Given that most groundwater is often used to supplement surface water supplies,

conjunctive use is becoming increasingly important and common, although much of this is

unplanned. Considerable benefits in irrigation efficiency and water productivity arise where

groundwater is used to strategically supplement surface water. By using aquifers as both

short and long term storage, conjunctive use strategies will become essential in the face of


82

droughts and floods. With increasing climate variability and climate, the role and

dependence of groundwater will develop to become one of the primary mechanisms for

coping with water scarcity, drought and rainfall variability.

Groundwater quality hazards such as fluoride and arsenic that may be naturally occurring

and heterogeneously distributed within aquifers is another challenge. It is also important

that any major increase in groundwater development for agriculture takes into account the

threat posed by diffuse groundwater pollution to aquifers from fertilizer and pesticide

inputs. A distinguishable form of groundwater overuse is that of groundwater ‘mining’, or

irreversible depletion of non-renewable (fossil) or poorly renewed groundwater. This is

mainly limited to North Africa and the Middle East and sometimes occurs in a strategic

manner (Abderrahman, 2003), but more often it happens in an unplanned manner.

Lessons learned There are five types of approaches combining demand and supply strategies have been tried

for managing the externalities of groundwater use (COMMAN, 2005). These are:

Direct approaches, e.g. groundwater laws, administrative and legal bans or limits

on groundwater extraction in over-developed zones, restrictions on cropping

patterns, efficient on farm irrigation technologies etc.

Indirect approaches, e.g. agricultural subsidies, energy pricing (electricity pricing,

diesel subsidy), food procurement policies, rural employment policies,

agricultural trade and tariff policies etc.

Technical approaches including supply augmentation (e.g. water

harvesting/aquifer recharge) and demand management involving community

participation.

Adaptive approaches at the farmer level in response to changes in the local or

wider political economy.

Awareness and education-based approaches that highlight groundwater’s

importance at the grassroots level and provide the basis for local decisions, such

as cropping patterns.

IWMI, along with its CG and other partners have been at the forefront of research aimed at

understanding what works and does not work in the field of groundwater governance (Shah,

2009a, Mukherji et al., 2009; Giordano and Villholth, 2007; Llamas and Custodio, 2003).

The three major countries of South Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have tried some or

all of these approaches to manage the externalities of groundwater use. In India, almost all

state governments have promulgated groundwater laws. Similarly, Pakistan and more

recently, some Indian states have undertaken major reforms in the electricity sector which

have had far reaching impacts on the groundwater sector (Shah and Verma, 2008; Mukherji

et al., 2009). Bangladesh, after the recent food shock, has decided to aim for food self


83

sufficiency and extraordinary measures such as dedicated power supplies for agriculture

have been taken to ensure that farmers’ access to groundwater supplies are improved.

A number of community-based approaches such as FAO and local NGO initiated community

management of groundwater are been carried out in southern India and have been studied

rigorously by IWMI and its partners (Rama Mohan, 2009; FAO, 2008; Gardena et al., 2009).

Meanwhile, wider changes in the political economy are also affecting the way groundwater

users respond to groundwater stress. These have been referred to as adaptive strategies

and more and more communities dependent on groundwater are adapting in a myriad

different ways such as through changes in cropping patterns and long-term livelihood

activities (Moench, 2007). For example, gender selective migration in Asia and Africa often

leave women and youth to manage farming. In Gujarat, the gender impact of migration on

groundwater irrigation has been documented by Parkas (2006).

From these experiences, we know things that work, things that do not work and several

things that may work under one set of conditions and not another.

We know, for example, that all encompassing groundwater laws, when formulated in a void,

do not work; but when they address a well defined objective, such as postponing the sowing

date of paddy through regulation as in the Indian Punjab, it works when the state has the

will and the power of to enforce such laws (Sharma and Amble, 2009). Direct regulations,

such as bans on groundwater pumping or enforcing a quota on pumping do not work in

most cases. Notable exceptions include command and control types of groundwater

governance structures prevalent in Israel and Oman (Zero, 2009).

In contrast, indirect regulation through energy policies works in South Asia. For example, we

know that rationing electricity supply helps in reducing groundwater over-draft; while

subsidized electricity (or diesel) without rationing, encourages farmers to use groundwater

more intensively, not only on their own fields, but also to sell water to their neighbors

(Shah, 1993, Mukherji, 2004). We also know that, in the absence of market distortion in the

form of subsidies and taxes on both inputs and farm outputs, intensive groundwater

development would have been a self terminating problem because farmers would abandon

pumping as soon as marginal costs of pumping exceeded marginal benefits. But, we also

know that groundwater sustainability issues are not simply a problem related to the physical

resource and economics, it is a political problem requiring well thought out political

solutions (Dubach, 2007).

We know that farmers resist any attempts to curtail their access to groundwater, especially

so in South Asia, where they form formidable lobby groups, but at the same time, we know

that they are enthusiastic about supply augmentation strategies and are willing to come

together for collective action involving managed aquifer recharge (MAR). We know that


84

MAR works, but do not how much and where. But we do know that supply augmentation

strategies are more politically acceptable than demand management ones.

We also know that farmers respond to scarcity, be it physical scarcity of groundwater in

areas of overdraft or economic scarcity of groundwater in regions of under development. In

regions of physical scarcity of water, but without serious output price distortions (as in

Gujarat, but not Punjab), farmers shift to crops that give them higher returns per drop of

water; while in regions of abundant groundwater, but poor infrastructure, farmers tend to

increase cropping intensity by growing two to three cereal crops in a year (as in eastern

India).

We also know that, action in the field of groundwater management takes place on the

farmers’ field, far and away removed from the formal groundwater governance structures

erected by the state. Where farmers are given the chance to understand the nature and

constraints of aquifer systems through the support of NGOs and the state, they can come

together to make sensible planning decisions that best utilize the available resource within

its limits, as evidenced in Andhra Pradesh through the APFAMGS initiative (World Bank,

2010). Similarly, we do know that good quality groundwater data is conspicuous by its

absence, though some countries like China do have a system of sound groundwater data

collection. Lack of data hampers both research and sound policy formulation based on

research.

These are all lessons that can be applied to other parts of the world.

However, what we know less about is the potential impact of climate change on

groundwater. We understand the physical processes that relate climate to groundwater

availability and use reasonably well (Callow and MacDonald, 2009), but have little

knowledge on the magnitude of the impacts. We also have much less clarity on the long

term impacts of policies aimed at both restricting and encouraging groundwater use,

especially as it affects the poorer and more marginal sections of the rural population. We do

not yet know enough about the potential role that formal groundwater agencies in the

countries faced with dire groundwater problems can play in the future. We do know that

formal governance structures need to change, but we do not yet know the main ingredients

of such a change.

Across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), small-scale groundwater irrigation, which offers a more

food-secure alternative to subsistence farming, is a greatly underutilized, whilst per-capita

groundwater availability is many times higher than India or China where irrigation is more

widely practiced (Giordano, 2006). Very little is currently known about the physical extent,

accessibility and development potential of the aquifers, but interest and knowledge is

emerging (Ngami, 2009; Regassa, 2010). The low aquifer yields across many hard rock

regions, combined with the high cost of drilling, equipping and servicing wells and high


85

incidences of well failure, give a misleading impression that groundwater potential is low.

However, across the continent, 75% of the population relies for the provision of rural and

urban drinking supplies, as well as for livestock watering. Successful examples of agricultural

groundwater development, often using rudimentary abstraction technologies include the

White Volta Basin in northern Ghana of the Fadiman systems along the inland valley areas

of Nigeria, offering hope for greater expansion if technical, technological and policy related

barriers can be overcome. Another positive sign is the lower cost (traditional) drilling

alternatives that have recently emerged from Ethiopia and Ghana, but little is known about

them and whether they have widespread applications. Strategies and technologies for

overcoming the economic water scarcity evident over much of SSA and generally promoting

groundwater irrigation in a sustainable manner are urgently needed.

Overall, we understand that one-sided solutions will not work; that groundwater buffers

need to be considered and managed at a sufficiently large scale (van Steenbergen and

Tuinhof, 2010) and solutions have to be technically sound and politically acceptable.


86

Potential target areas Map 2.2 Areas of intesive groundwater use (circled) together with longterm average

groundwater recharge (millimeters per year) (Döll aned Flörke, 2005)

There would be two distinguishable target areas.

1. Areas facing problems of intensive groundwater development: northwestern and

southern India, Pakistan, and north China

2. Areas of under utilization: large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern India, Nepal and

Bangladesh, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia.

Theory of change The overarching theory of change is that the conventional text book solutions such as

groundwater laws, quotas and permits do not work as well as does the less traditional

second-best indirect solutions. These indirect policy levers often lie outside the

groundwater sector and include energy, trade, food policies and access to financial credit

among others. Identifying the one or more best levers, unraveling their inter-linkages and

offering practical action plans that are not only technically feasible, but also politically

acceptable will be one of the main pathways of change.

This change theory is also valid in areas of underutilization, where growth in groundwater

use can be stimulated by practices and policies outside the groundwater arena. In these a

thorough analysis of constraints and opportunities to more groundwater use is a

prerequisite to knowing which levers to pull. For example, there may be technical

opportunities to pump more water, but micro-finance, high drilling costs, high tariffs on

imported pumpsets, or just lack of pumps on the shelf may be the major constraint to

uptake.


87

The second lever of change is greater political acceptance of supply augmentation strategies

for managing groundwater. The changing discourse offers opportunities for direct

intervention within the groundwater sector for augmenting supply, examples being

managed aquifer recharge schemes and community management of such recharge.

Providing scientific evidence on what works where and how with regards to these supply

augmentation strategies and a best practice toolkit for groundwater managers and policy

makers will provide the second window of opportunity for change. The pathway for this

change would be greater understanding of groundwater and hydrologic balance that will in

turn open the door for dialogue and interventions on demand management strategies.

The third lever of change stems from the fact that most groundwater management agencies

tend to have a narrow focusing on hydrogeology and engineering, when current

groundwater realities entails and that there is a large scope for bridging the gap with

governance issues. It is possible to reorient groundwater agencies to focus more on

management, and in areas of underutilization to consider tapping the opportunities of more

groundwater use, while at the same time developing strategies for sustainable use.

Research questions Based on our theory of change and the main research issues as documented in the previous

sections, we propose three main research questions and several research sub-questions:

1. What kind of indirect policy levers outside the groundwater sector can be used to

minimize negative externalities of groundwater use in problem areas, while at the same

can induce more intensive groundwater use in regions where it is currently underused?

a. What role can electricity reforms (such as metering, decoupling of agricultural

and domestic supplies, and innovative approaches such as pre-paid vouchers)

play in controlling areas of intensive groundwater development and encouraging

groundwater use elsewhere?

b. What role can food policy, agricultural trade, financial credit and tariff policies

play in both controlling as well as offering incentives for agricultural groundwater

use?

c. What is the relative importance of the various drivers (technical knowledge,

institutional arrangements, level of development etc) to viably intensify

groundwater use in underdeveloped or water abundant regions at the local and

regional scale?

d. What are the institutional and policy changes necessary to enable more intensive

groundwater development to flourish sustainably?

e. How can we measure heterogeneity of impacts on poor men and women (who

loses and who gains) in regions of “over-use” and in regions of

“underdevelopment?


88

2. What kind of direct demand and supply management strategies within the groundwater

sector can be used to minimize negative externalities of groundwater use in problem

areas, while at the same can intensify groundwater use, sans the problems, in regions of

“under-developed” groundwater use?

a. How much recharge enhancement (MAR) would be required to stabilize

groundwater levels in areas of intensive groundwater use (such as northwestern

India) and how can this be achieved?

b. What are the socio-economic impacts (tradeoffs) on downstream surface water and groundwater

resources and users, especially the poor and small farmers?

c. What role can larger and more pro-active user engagement in groundwater management play and

how to promote this effectively at scale?

d. How can the formal groundwater agencies be encouraged to act as a catalyst for change and

play a more effective role in groundwater management?

3. From the context of climate variability and climate change (CC), how can the role of,

and benefits from, groundwater (and conjunctive use in general) be maximized?

a. To what extent will agricultural groundwater development be enhanced as a

response strategy to CC and how will it impact the poor and the vulnerable?

b. As a result of such development, what level of CC-induced stress will be

placed upon groundwater systems?

c. How can groundwater and surface water in small or large irrigation areas be

put to best use in a way that recognizes and accounts for the connectivity

and interdependencies between these two sources?

Implementation plan Research will be conducted in a selected number of countries and regions (as noted above)

that represent different poverty levels, agro-ecological regions, hydro-geological conditions,

and levels of groundwater development. By conducting studies across a wide geographic

range (an extrapolation domain) there are opportunities for scientists and decisions makers

from relevant CG centers to participate, and partnerships with relevant international

research institutes and academic institutions to emerge. For best possible impact, we will

work closely with our partners throughout and embark on a journey of mutual capacity

building and creation of knowledge and impact.


89

Research outputs This Best Bet will deliver science based policy, investment and management options that

include levers outside of the groundwater and water resource sector. These will include

analyses of groundwater systems and how they would be relied upon and affected by

climate change and training modules for formal groundwater management agencies

covering an array of social and technical issues beyond monitoring the resource base.

Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Best

Bet. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that

must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all

project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Best Bet and formulate more specific

output descriptions.

Outputs delivered in 3 years

Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Best

Bet. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that

must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all

project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Best Bet and formulate more specific

output descriptions.

Development of strategies and investment plans

Strategies to reduce India’s energy footprint, including opportunities to scale up

micro-irrigation.

Development of national groundwater use investment strategies based on analysis

of groundwater development interventions Mali, Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania.

Assessment of impact of potential groundwater development in Fergana Valley on

downstream uses in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Global “Framework of Action” (FA), consisting of a menu of country specific policy,

institutional and investment options, that are representative of international best

practices. (FAO project)

Crafting institutions for enhanced use of groundwater, including groundwater

markets in Bihar India.

Development of tools and methods

Development of community tools to assess the carrying capacity of alluvial aquifers

setting ecological threshold levels for sustainable use for cultivation; assessing the

hydrological characteristics of inland wetland ecosystems and the environmental and

social impacts on the utilization options of wetlands in groundwater areas. These are

based from field experiences in the White Volta area of Burkina Faso and Ghana.


90

Research outcomes Research outputs are essential to the change toward greater management of the

groundwater resource that will lead to:

Greater and more equitable access to adequate quantities of good quality

groundwater for agricultural water supplies and resultant poverty alleviation

Stabilization or reduction in levels of intensive groundwater development through a

combination of supply-enhancement and demand-reduction technical- and policy

related innovations

Expanded provision of cheap, accessible, low-cost water supplies in regions of the

world where groundwater is underutilized to boost food production and alleviate

poverty

Expanding opportunities for conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in a

planned manner that boosts agricultural productivity and minimizes inefficient use

Impact pathway Based on our theory of change and anticipated outputs, there would be two major impact

pathways (Figure 2.3). One would be through the creation of knowledge products of high

scientific value with clear messages that will help pull the two most important levers

required for desired change in groundwater management – namely the indirect lever of

policies outside the groundwater sector and direct lever of program implementation within

sector. The second will be through changes in the discourse surrounding the formal

groundwater management agencies from their current mode of resource monitoring to a

mode of natural resource management.

The prime target audience will be key policy makers in the sector so that they can institute

the required changes that would be needed to meeting our overarching goals of better

groundwater governance for poverty alleviation and livelihoods security.

Figure 2.3 Impact pathways for Sustainable use of groundwater


91

Research partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to

work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be

developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and

Partner Networks.

CGIAR Institutions International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka; International Crop Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, India; International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA NARES & ARIs Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), N Delhi, India; National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), Hyderabad, India; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing, China; Relevant NARS and ARIs in other countries; Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and dry lands (ACSAD) Statal & Para-Statal Bodies Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), India; Department of Groundwater Resources, Bangkok, Thailand; Ministry of Water Resources (Ethiopia); Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Australia Universities & Academia Technical University of Berlin, Germany; Utah State University, Utah, USA; University of Melbourne, Australia; Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain; Delhi School of Economics, India; Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India; IHE Delft, Netherlands; Wageningen University, Netherlands; International Association of Hydrologists; Other relevant local Universities NGOs Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN), N Delhi, India; Samaj Pragati Sahyog (SPS), India; Centre for World Solidarity; All India Krishak Sangh, India; All Bengal Electricity Consumers Association, Kolkata, India; Aga Khan Foundation

sfernando

Text Box

Note: please see the full proposal for the references.

best bet: groundwater groundwater governance for poverty … · 2016. 10. 6. · groundwater...

Documents