Farmer’s Survey in Ganga River Basin Aspiring Healthier Rivers for Safer Water and as
More Productive Agro‐Ecosystemsthroughthrough
Farmer Water School
Ravindra KumarRavindra KumarAdvisor, WWF‐India, New Delhi
MotivationR i t i i lt
Delineation of Resource Intensive Districts (Water and N Fertilizer)
• Resource intensive agriculture (Water & N fertiliser) in districts along river Ganga- (Ravindra & A. Pastakia, WWF-India &Germany Report-2014).p )
• In ROR projects there is gap in crop water demand & Supply viz. Rabi
d il bili • Declining Rainfall & Increasing air temperature in the Ganga River Basin (Mishra, IIT GN, 2016).
80000
90000
Crop WaterDemand Vs Availability, LGC (1985‐2013)
• Lack of real-time monitoring and forecast affects the decision making.
F ld b t li t h 50000
60000
70000
day
• Farmers could beat climate change with technology.
• Whether farmers aspire for Healthy Ganga even at cost of less benefit 20000
30000
40000Cusec‐d
Availability
Demand
Ganga even at cost of less benefit from canal water !
0
10000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Ganga Canal System: UGC & LGCg y
Challenges in Irrigation ManagementUPID & FAO STUDY
2008‐09
WATER BALANCE FOR UPPER GANGA CANAL SYSTEM
INPUTS = 9752 MCM = 9752 MCMCanal water Khariff 9752 MCM
33%Rainwater
39% OUTPUTS = 2702 MCM Crop ET
Canal water Rabi18%Canal water Zaid
10%
IRRIGATION WATER USE EFFICIENCY 27 7%EFFICIENCY = 27.7%
6 000
7,000
.ch110
CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC COMPARED WITH OTHERS
5,000
6,000
rea
($/h
a)
UGC= US$ 1500/ha
4,000
crop
ped
a
GLBC = US$1844/ha Jaunpur BC = US$ 770/ha
2,000
3,000
Out
put p
er c
1,000
IWM
I1. O
0
Thai
land
Dez
, Ira
n
lan,
Iran
, Tur
key
on, I
ndia
da, I
ndia
ra, I
ndia
Mal
aysi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Mor
occo
ger,
Mal
i
Alto
, DR
olom
bia
olom
bia
, Mex
ico
, Mex
ico
Vie
tnam
Lam
Pao
, T D
Gui
l
Sey
han,
Maj
alga
o
Dan
tiwad
Bha
kr
Mud
a, M
Kem
ubu,
M
Ben
i Am
ir, M
Offi
ce d
u N
ig
Rio
Yaq
ui A
Coe
llo, C
Sal
daña
, C
Cup
atitz
io,
Rio
May
o,
Cam
Sun
, V
0.45
0.50m
.)
.ch112
WATER PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC
0.35
0.40
ply
($/c
u. m
GLBC = US$0.23/m3 Jaunpur BC = US$ 0.077/m3
UGC= US$ 0.10/m3
0.25
0.30
t irr
ig. s
upp
0.15
0.20
put p
er u
nit
0.05
0.10
WM
I3.
Out
p
0.00
Thai
land
Dez
, Ira
n
ilan,
Iran
n, T
urke
y
on, I
ndia
ada,
Indi
a
kra,
Indi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Mal
aysi
a
Mor
occo
ger,
Mal
i
Alto
, DR
Col
ombi
a
Col
ombi
a
o, M
exic
o
o, M
exic
o
Vie
tnam
IW
Lam
Pao
, D
Gu
Sey
han
Maj
alga
Dan
tiwa
Bha
k
Mud
a,
Kem
ubu,
Ben
i Am
ir,
Offi
ce d
u N
i
Rio
Yaq
ui
Coe
llo, C
Sal
daña
, C
Cup
atitz
io
Rio
May
o
Cam
Sun
,
Ganga Canal capacities I
NARORA BARRAGE U/S VIEW
on IncreaseUGC= 6500 (1854), 6750 (1938), 10500 (1951),
PUGC= 13500 (1982)
LGC= 8500 (1878), PLGC= 4200(1982), 6800 (2014), 8900 WSRP‐II
EGC = 4850 (1980‐92), 5850 (2009) post Tehri damHR PLGC D/S VIEW
MGC‐I= 8280(1998‐2001), MGC‐II= 4200 (still u/c)
Imbalance in Use of SW & GW:
/Contribution in irrigated area by canal system on decrease over time (from > 32% to < 20%) and contribution of Tubewells increases
HR LGC D/S VIEW
contribution of Tubewells increases up to 70% of net sown area in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
UP Water Sector Restructuring Project, Phase-IIRunning PLGC after internal section of EW completed on 31.05.2014
Item Before Rehabilitation After Rehabilitation
Bed width 44.00 m 49.40 m
W t d th 3 00 3 63Water depth 3.00 m 3.63 m
Top width 50.00 m 60.30 m
Bed slope 10 cm/km 10 cm/km
Analysis of Survey Data: sample size 550 farmers H M Tsample size 550 farmers‐ H, M, T
4.12 4.13
5.35
4.34.75
4.3
456
8.116.88
10
Productivity of main crops (tonne/ha) at LGC
01234
Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach
4.42 4.115.24.75
0
2
4
6
Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach
Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy
Head Middle Tail
Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy
Cost of productionUGC in Rs/ha
7250 7171 6252 5020 11378 9139
Head Middle TailHead Middle Tail
Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy
Cost of Production LGC in Rs/ha
8187 7218 8349 9233 6351 11686
Season/Upper Ganga Canal System Lower Ganga Canal SystemIRRIGATION IRRIGATION
Source Head Middle Tail Source Head Middle TailRabiCanal 2.4 3.1 2.5 Canal 1.9 1.8 2.4Tube well 3 7 2 9 3 7
Tube well 3 6 4 3 3 4well 3.7 2.9 3.7 well 3.6 4.3 3.4
KharifCanal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8Canal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8Tubewell 5.9 4.2 3.6
Tube well 3.5 3.5 3.1
ZaidCanal 4.6 5.5 5.0 Canal 1.5 1.3 3.5Tubewell 6.0 3.5 5.4
Tube well 3.4 6.2 4.2
Way Out: FAOConcept of Farmer Water SchoolConcept of Farmer Water SchoolEmploying non‐formal education methods, the farm is used as the primary resource for discovery‐based learning. The process is f ili i d h i h f b i i h hfacilitative and respects the experience that farmers bring with them. Farmers work in small group (about 25 self selected) to ensure that each one’s ideas are shared. In the FWS, there is acceptance of the uniqueness of each participant The activities are designed to responduniqueness of each participant. The activities are designed to respond to the immediate needs of farmers and are geared towards encouraging creativity and independence. The FWS Facilitators play a crucial role in ensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to theensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to the farmers’ learning experience.
The FWS ses ater management and crop prod ction asThe FWS uses water management and crop production as entry points because these are closest to the farmers’ hearts. The FWS experience allows farmers to experience group formation that becomes valuable in addressing other community concerns for example nutrition and pest controlcommunity concerns, for example nutrition and pest control.
Component&Cost Activities Implementing Agency
UPWSRP‐II
Component-A($ 15 million)(2.9%)
Strengthening of state level waterinstitutions and inter- sector coordination
UP Water Management and RegulatoryCommission (UPWaMReC), Water andLand Management Institute (WALMI),State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),and State Water Resource Data AnalysisCentre (SWaRDAC)
Component-B Modernisation of irrigation and drainage UPID and GWD($ 326 M) 63.3% system, groundwater management activities
Component-C($ 42 M) 8.2%
Consolidation and enhancement of irrigationinstitutional reforms
UPID, PIM, SIRD
C D E h i i l l d i i d D f A i l FAOComponent-D($ 32 M) 6.2%
Enhancing agricultural productivity and on-farm water management
Department of Agriculture, FAO
Component-E($ 2 M) 0.4%
Feasibility studies and preparation activitiesfor Next phase
UPID
C F P j di i d i i PACT RSACComponent-F($ 23 M) 0.4%
Project coordination and monitoring:monitoring of crop performance usingremote sensing imagery
PACT, RSAC
Total $ 440 M Physical contingencies (2%) + Pricei i (15%) $ 75Mcontingencies (15%) $ 75M
Total project costs $ 515 M
Government of Uttar Pradesh share (30%)World Bank share (70%)
$155 M$360 M
Project Targets
93%
115%
85%
WOP WP DIA
49% 50%63%
52%
76% 81% 79%78%66%
85%
HG Br LGC BKND Total
Project as whole NPV FRR NPV ERRIrrigated area expansion (20%) -5.9 6.8% -4.5 7.7%Plus Agriculture intensification (71%) 10.1 16.95 14.1 19.1%C di ifi i (4%) 11 8 17 7% 15 3 19 6%Crop diversification (4%) 11.8 17.7% 15.3 19.6%Resource use impacts (3%) 13.0 18.25 16.5 20.1%Mitigation impacts (2%) 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%P j t h l 13 8 18 5% 17 2 20 4%Project as a whole 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%Source: Project Appraisal Document, WB Report No. 73422‐IN, July 17, 2013.
Concluding Remarks• 42% of GIA in Canal command is by Pvt. ShTw.‐mostly Diesel driven.• 33% of GWIA comes under conjunctive use and about 20% of the gross
cropped area is rain‐fed.• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW more pronounced in the• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW, more pronounced in the
tail and middle reaches about 4.5 million liters of diesel and 3 millionunit of power costing INR 212 million will be saved by improved canalwater supply.
S h d i i d h bili i f i i• UPWSRP –II suggests that modernization and rehabilitation of existingcanal systems of SSK, LGC & BKND at high investment @ $326 M thoughensures better water availability at outlet ends, but with lowinvestment in extension service through Farmer Water School belowC l b d @ $ 32 M i i i l dCulaba command @ $ 32 M, improvement in agriculture and waterproductivity benefits is expected 71% WP at full project developmentthan improvement in irrigated area benefits 20% by conjunctive wateravailability.
• Farmers’ survey in both LGC & UGC command suggests farmers’willingness to adopt modern technology in agriculture and irrigationbest practices provided demonstration at their door step or elsewhereis shown to them.
• Young people are moving out of agriculture from Tail and Middlereaches for greener pastor in urban areas.
Concluding Remarks Continued• Farmers appear to sacrifice use of canal water in
agriculture to maintain E‐flows in Ganges.• Canal supply could be regulated in a better way
to match the irrigation demand, i.e., forimproving Dependability while reducing thep g p y gsurface water wastage.
• Conjunctive use of Surface and Groundwater isessential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., toessential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., toascertain Adequacy.
• Proper utilization of Groundwater potential couldhelp in improving the Cropping Intensityhelp in improving the Cropping Intensity.
• Alternatively, canal supplies could be curtailed,and used to meet the tail‐end requirements, i.e.,
i ito ascertain Equity.