Phase I

PRIMARY DATA BASED STUDIES ON ACCESS TO GROUND WATER RESOURCE IN THE CONTEXT OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - Year 2001

FOCUS OF THE STUDY

The increasing population of India places increasing demands on water and food. The contribution of irrigation to growth in agricultural production in India is 60 percent, since independence (1947). The area irrigated by government canals is increasing at the rate of 2.4 percent, that by wells is increasing at the rate of 3.9 percent and area irrigated by irrigation tanks is reducing at the rate of 0.5 percent. The increase is despite the fact that for every one- percent increase in the area irrigated, the cost of providing irrigation per hectare is increasing by 5.8 percent. This implies that there is a lopsided increase in groundwater abstraction, thus leading to physical and economic scarcity of groundwater.

Irrigation is a critical input in agriculture from the angle of food security, since 60 percent of food production is from irrigated area. At present the area irrigated by groundwater forms 56 percent, while that irrigated by surface water forms 44 percent. The net irrigated area rose from 38 million hectares in 1970-71 to 79.9 million hectares in 1995-96 and about 45 percent of this are irrigated by groundwater.

The ultimate irrigation potential in India was estimated at 114 million hectares, till 1997, 54 percent of surface water and 30 percent of groundwater are utilized. Thus 70 percent of groundwater still needs to be exploited systematically and sustainably. The most efficient way of utilization of rainwater is to use each drop where nature puts it and the most efficient and cost effective method of storing water is to conserve insitu.

This grant from the Foundation is enabling us to widen the focus of our research to explore the resource economic factors shaping improved and equitable access to water resources in the rainfed lands in the watershed areas of Karnataka. With the first installment of the grant two studies covering the economics of the contribution of dry land watershed development towards recharge of groundwater for irrigation and how this benefited the small and marginal farmers of the Eastern Dry and Central Dry Zones were submitted. In this interim report, studies undertaken in the Southern Dry and Central Dry Zones of Karnataka are presented.

Results from the Central Dry Zone have demonstrated that farmers with an average size of 15.44 acres, facing the predicament of groundwater scarcity, by shifting to high value fruit crops like fig and pomegranate, using drip irrigation, are realizing a net return of Rs. 8193 per acre from fig crop, and Rs. 15466 per acre from pomegranate. Without irrigation facility earlier they were realizing a net return of Rs. 1000 per acre from ragi and Rs. 2000 per acre of groundnut.

In the Southern Dry Zone, results indicated that farmers with an average area of 4 acres, who were cultivating Maize prior to the Watershed program of MYRADA, were receiving a net return of Rs. 5352. After the watershed program implemented by MYRADA, they are realizing a net return of Rs. 10,233, an increase of 91 percent. This is attributed to groundwater recharge from the watershed program implemented by MYRADA an NGO operating in Karnataka.

Both these studies demonstrate that with prudence in the use of scarce groundwater, farmers can reap substantial net returns improving their efficiency and equity. Another study in progress in the Eastern Dry Zone is exploring the role of desiltation of irrigation tank in augmenting the groundwater recharge induced net returns on the farm. Preliminary results have indicated that the net returns per acre on farms which have used tank silt as manure, are 12 percent higher than the net returns on farms, which did not use tank silt as manure. Such differences are manifest in individual crop economics too. The yield of irrigation wells has shown an increase of 20 percent in bore wells due to desiltation of irrigation tank, which has induced groundwater recharge. In this analysis, care has been taken to include the cost/value of the groundwater resource by internalizing the negative externalities due to cumulative interference of irrigation wells and the positive external effects of watershed development program. The details of the study on economics of tank desiltation in augmenting groundwater recharge will be presented in the next report.

I. PROGRESS OF RESEARCH

A. RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN CENTRAL DRY AGROCLIMATIC ZONE

TITLE OF THE STUDY: Economics of Groundwater Irrigation in Pomegranate and Fig Crops of Hiriyur Taluk, Central Dry Zone, Karnataka

POST GRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVED:
Sri M Prakash Kumar
email: prakashkumar_m@rediffmail.com

Preamble

Hiriyur taluk in Central Dry Zone of Karnataka is fraught with high probability of failure of irrigation wells due to cumulative interference and low recharge. In consonance with this predicament, it was intended to examine the implications of well failure and the coping strategies adopted by farmers to endure this situation. In this population study, 48 farmers who were cultivating fig and/or pomegranate in Hiriyur taluk were chosen.

These farmers possessed 228 irrigation wells, with an average of 4.75 wells per farm but with a high well failure rate of about 50 percent. Among the 228 wells, 94 were bore wells. Among the 118 functioning wells, 92 (78 percent) of them were fitted with drip irrigation equipment to supply irrigation to perennial crops of fig and pomegranate. This in itself is a prima facie reflection of the farmers' coping mechanism to face the economic scarcity of groundwater.

Farmers by using drip irrigation, a water thrift device and with high probability of well failure, were also bearing higher real cost of extraction of groundwater. Farmers have demonstrated here that, despite the predicament of a failure rate of 48 percent (much larger than the failure rate in the eastern dry zone being 40 percent), farmers with their ingenuity could sustain their economy by using drip irrigation and with the cultivation of perennial commercial horticultural crops.

Objectives of the study

Estimation of economic scarcity of groundwater on farms cultivating pomegranate and fig crops.

Economics of coping strategies of farmers due to inadequate water for irrigation.

Economics of pomegranate and fig crops cultivated using drip irrigation.

Major Findings of the study

The proportion of irrigated area is more than the rainfed area in 'small' water users (54), 'medium' water users (80) and 'large' water users (60).

Among the 228 irrigation wells, 52 percent are functional wells and 48 percent are non-functional wells. Among the irrigation wells 94 percent are bore wells and 6 percent are dug wells. This gives a primary indication that the farmers in the study area are facing scarcity of groundwater as they are forced to drill bore wells instead of extracting water from dug wells, despite the use of drip method for irrigation. As the proportion of non-functional wells is the highest among the 'medium' water users (51), the scarcity of groundwater is more in the case of 'medium' water users compared to other two categories of farmers.

Even though coconut occupies the single largest proportion of area (26 percent) as compared to pomegranate (25.12) and fig (12.80), in the recent years, there is a gradual decline in the coconut area, while the area under pomegranate and fig are on the rise.

Due to high failure of bore well(s), the amortized cost of irrigation was the highest among the 'medium' water use farmers (Rs.37582) compared to 'small' water users (Rs.29315) and 'large' water users (Rs.23495).

Though the amortized cost per farm is the highest for the 'medium' water users, 'small' water users are incurring higher cost on every acre inch of water extracted (Rs.391) compared to 'medium' water farmers (Rs.200) and 'large' water use farmers (Rs.90).

In the study area, 87 percent of the farmers were using drip irrigation. Each farm had an average of five bore wells (with a failure rate of 48 percent) irrigating 14.35 acres per farm. The remaining 13 percent of the farmers with an average of two bore wells per farm were irrigating 5.6 acres per farm. Considering irrigated area per well, the flow irrigation farmers irrigated 2.8 acres per well through flow irrigation, while drip irrigation farmers irrigated 2.87 acres per well through drip irrigation.

Though the amortized cost per farm is five times higher on drip irrigation farms (Rs. 37978) than flow irrigation farms (Rs.6380), the amortized cost per well was comparable on drip irrigation farms (Rs.3849) and flow irrigation farms (Rs.3676). This shows a higher rate of failure of wells on drip farms than the flow irrigation farms, which necessitated them to use drip irrigation. Well failure is low on flow irrigation farms as they were in proximity to Vedavathi canal irrigation from Vanivilas sagar dam in Hiriyur taluk.

The cost per acre-inch of water extracted is 50 percent lower on flow irrigation farms (Rs.121) compared to drip irrigation farms (Rs.251) since the amortized cost of drip irrigation and the amortized cost of well failure is higher on drip farms.

Groundwater scarcity was the single most cause of the adoption of drip irrigation as opined by 52 percent of drip irrigation farmers.

Apart from shifting cultivation to perennial horticulture crops which relatively required low water compared to the seasonal vegetable and field crops, other coping mechanisms followed by farmers were (i) drilling additional bore well(s) and (ii) adoption of drip irrigation. Cost incurred on drip irrigation is the major investment component of coping mechanism by the study farmers (investing Rs. 10,000 per acre; Rs. 86,181 per functional well).

Using partial budgeting, it is inferred that pomegranate (fig) farmers using, drip irrigation are realizing a net gain of Rs.11621 (Rs. 4467) per acre due to adoption of coping mechanisms as compared to flow irrigation farmers.

The present value of net return per acre (realized during the fifth year) at 16 percent rate of interest, is Rs.15,466 for pomegranate.

The present value of net return per acre (realized during the third year) at 16 percent, is Rs. Rs. 8193 for fig.

Using the opportunity cost principle, by cultivating fig, for every rupee net return from Ragi (Groundnut), farmers realized a discounted net return of Rs. 8.19 (4.09). Similarly, by cultivating pomegranate, for every Rupee net return from Ragi (groundnut), farmers realized a discounted net return of Rs. 15.47 (Rs. 7.73). This is the prime motivating factor for shift to fig and pomegranate crops by farmers in Hiriyur taluk even considering the high probability of well failure of around 50 percent.

Implications

Since drip irrigation has helped the farmers to cope with physical and economic scarcity of groundwater, farmers be motivated to adopt drip irrigation for their entire farm. Since drip irrigation has resulted in higher incomes and also helped to utilize water more efficiently, all the pomegranate and fig farmers facing groundwater scarcity, should be enthused to adopt this technology.

The cost of drip system is prohibitive. The subsidy on drip system is reduced to around 50 percent in recent years. Whether this can be enhanced to original level of 90 percent can be examined.

As pomegranate and fig are economical, low water - high return crops can be promoted in the dry zones with groundwater irrigation and drip system.

B. RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOUTHERN DRY ZONE

TITLE OF THE STUDY: Economics of Groundwater Recharge in Huthur Watershed Project in Southern Dry Zone of Karnataka

POST GRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVED:
Mrs. Shobharani K.P.
email: shobharani@rediffmail.com

Preamble

This study addresses the role of watershed development program in augmenting groundwater recharge in Huthur watershed, Kollegal taluk in the Southern dry zone of Karnataka. It covers ten micro watersheds implemented by MYRADA. The field data were collected from the population of 51 farmers who had irrigation wells in the watershed during 2000. The Gross irrigated area (GIA) increased by 28 percent (107 acres) from 18 percent (70 acres) after and before Watershed Development Project (WDP). In the watershed area, yield of dug wells increased from 410 gallons per hour to 704 gallons per hour. The proportion of working wells increased from 80 to 85 percent due to WDP. The proportion of failed wells declined from 20 to 15 . The GIA devoted to low water intensive crops included beans, cabbage and potato on, 68, 11.5 and 5 acres respectively. Considering the GIA and groundwater used, which are the indicators of physical access to groundwater, 'large' farmers had access to about 58 percent of GIA extracting 57 percent of groundwater (1043.55 acre-inches) and 37 percent (692.24 acre-inches) was used by 'small' farmers. In the WDP, the highest level of participation of farmers was during planning process (49%), the lowest was in contour cultivation (23%). Construction of water harvesting structures through WDP enhanced the groundwater recharge in hydro-geological situation even in the presence of cumulative interference effect among irrigation wells. The marginal farmers realized net return of Rs. 3,899 per acre of GIA followed by 'small' farmers (Rs. 85,721) and 'large' farmers (Rs. 12,733). The net return per acre of water use ranged from Rs.214 for marginal farmers to Rs. 752 for 'small' farmers and Rs. 1,129 for 'large' farmers. The increase in the net return was Rs.10,071, an increase of 92 percent over the pre-watershed crop scenario. This indicates the true impact of the watershed program in Huthur watershed, Kollegal taluk of Southern Dry Zone of Karnataka.

Objectives of the study

Estimation of economic contribution of watershed program treatments in augmenting groundwater resource.

Assess the groundwater recharge in the watershed and equity implications.

Analysis of the sustenance of interest in watershed development.

Haikal watershed located in drought prone area of Chitradurga taluk is selected for this study. Farmers are sampled after an intensive participatory rural appraisal (PRA) mapping of irrigation wells. For this study farmers having irrigation wells are considered. The population of all the 65 farmers in Haikal watershed having irrigation wells have been considered in this study. Hence this is a population study. After the preliminary survey and pre testing the farmers are interviewed with a structured schedule and feild data were collected during April month of 2000.

Major Findings of the study

As a result of water harvesting structures, the irrigated area increased from 18.6 percent to 28.2 percent. The increment in irrigated area due to WDP indicates the improvement of access to water resource for irrigation.

The watershed area was dominated by dug wells (76 percent). The proportion of working wells increased from 80 percent to 85 percent and the proportion of failed wells declined from 20 percent to 16 percent. Due to the effect of water harvesting structures, farmers were extracting large volume of groundwater per farm. Currently, there are 49 functioning wells irrigating a gross area of 159.5 acres, extracting 36.69 acre inches per farm.

The average age of dug wells decreased from 20 years to 16 years. The average age of bore well and dug cum bore wells were one and five years respectively, which were newly constructed after the implementation of watershed program.

In the watershed area, farmers in the lower reach extracted 'largest volume of water per acre of gross irrigated area (12.51 acre-inches). Farmers in the upper reach extracted the lowest volume of water per acre of GIA (10.03 percent). Farmers in the lower reach were earning Rs. 35, 598 of net return per farm compared to upper reach farmers who realized Rs. 30,724.

Further farmers were classified based on the nearness (<250m) or away (�250m) to water harvesting structures. In the watershed, 84 percent (43) of the farmers had their wells close to water harvesting structures and 16 percent of the farmers had their wells away from water harvesting structures.

The total water extracted by farmers whose wells were close to water harvesting structures (WHS) was higher than the total water extracted by farmers whose wells were located away from WHS. Farmers who were located near to WHS were earning higher net returns per farm compared to farmers who were located away from WHS i.e. Rs. 34,979 and Rs. 27,350 respectively.

The impact of watershed development witnessed increase in well yield. The yield of dug wells increased from 410 to 704 GPH and four dug cum bore well and one bore well were newly constructed and their yield was 1380 and 1400 GPH respectively.

In the watershed area, the gross irrigated area devoted low water intensive crops included beans, cabbage and potato on 68 acres, 11.5 acres and 5 acres respectively. Farmers devoted 57 percent of their irrigated area to low water intensive crops, which fetched the highest returns. The investment per functional well for large farmers exceeded the average dug well investment by Rs. 4,867 in the watershed due to well failure rate..

The amortized watershed investment per acre-inch of groundwater extracted is rupees six in Huthur micro watershed. This study revealed that, farmers in the lower reach extracted 12.51 acre inch per acre of GIA and those in upper reach extracted 10.03 acre-inches per acre of GIA..

Considering the groundwater extracted, 61 percent of groundwater was extracted by medium GIA group i.e. 1146 acre-inches. Considering large GIA group, eight farmers were extracting 36 percent of total groundwater in the watershed and reaped 26 percent of net returns..

Considering the GIA and groundwater extracted, the indicators of physical access, large farmers possessed about 58 percent of GIA extracting 57 percent (1043.55 acre inches) and 37 percent of water (692.24 acre inches) was extracted by small farmers. Accordingly, the share of large farmers in the total net returns formed 68 percent (Rs. 1,77,764) and that of small farmers and marginal farmers formed 30 and two percent (Rs. 24,369 and Rs. 5,20,740) respectively..

In the watershed area, all the farmers followed manual weeding and farmyard manure application. Majority of the farmers (96%) did fertilizer application. Farmers in the watershed did not follow seed treatment..

The highest participation of farmers was in meeting with MYRADA staff (49 percent). Forty seven percent of the farmers participated in planning. The lowest level of participation was in contour cultivation (23 percent).

About 51 percent of the farmers contributed their labor to maintain the watershed structures and 39 percent of the farmers contributed their cash earnings to maintain the structures..

Implications

Construction of water harvest structures through watershed development approach enhances the groundwater recharge in hydro-geological situations even in the presence of cumulative interference effect among irrigation wells.

Proximity of irrigation wells to water harvest structures positively influences the physical and economic access to water resource for irrigation. The groundwater used and net returns per acre of gross irrigated area are higher for farmers whose wells are located closer to the water harvesting structures (<250 meters) compared with farmers whose wells are located away from the water harvesting structures.

Farmers in the lower reach in the watershed are benefiting the most from the watershed development program as compared to farmers in the upper reach. This implies that the location of farmers in watershed greatly influences access to groundwater irrigation.

Agricultural extension service in watershed is modest as only MYRADA NGO is taking active role in agricultural extension. Since the NGO will have to withdraw after a few years, the Department of Agriculture's extension service needs to be improved for the benefit of farmers in the watershed.

II. WHAT PROBLEMS DID YOU ENCOUNTER, WHY DID THEY OCCUR AND HOW DO YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS THEM ?

Problems encountered Why they occurred How do I address them

1. Choice of area with cumulative interference where watershed program is in operation Preliminarily watershed projects were designed to improve in situ moisture conservation. They were not addressed to solve the problem of interference Reconnaissance survey of watershed areas where the problem of well failure due to interference exists is made.

2. Delay in collection of data and analysis For data collection junior research fellows are involved. Due to their health problem, delay occurred. Persuading and convincing them we were able to do modes work

3. Delay in procurement of equipments for the project Purchase procedures of the University demands announcement in Standard news papers by calling sealed tenders We have to follow the rules of the institution and these delays could not be avoided. But these do delay the execution of the project work and have to be endured with your kind cooperation.

4.Delay in approval of Traveling allowance claims Lengthy and stiffer regulations We have requested the University to approve the TA in the form of per questionnaire charges at the rate of Rs. 100 per questionnaire collected from the farmers. The University has approved, but yet there is a delay in sanctioning payments.

III. PROCESS FOR EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE GRANT?

Following are our process of evaluation and assessment of the grant.

(i) How the grant has helped the Institution ?

This is the second report we are submitting to the Foundation from the grant 0995-1103. We are proud to indicate that our Department has won laurels by bagging coveted positions and international fellowships: They are:

Dr MG Chandrakanth, Professor and Chair, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and the PI received World Bank's fellowship in the nation-wide competition to work on (i) Estimation of negative externalities in groundwater irrigation and on (ii) Existence value of sacred groves at the Florida International University, Miami, USA from April to June 2001. During this period, Dr Chandrakanth worked with Dr Mahadev G Bhat and prepared two research papers covering existence value and negative externalities and sent for publication to International conference on environmental and resource economics. The results of acceptance are awaited after March 2002.

The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics a professional body of Agricultural Economists in India nominated Dr MG Chandrakanth, Professor and Chair, Dept of Agricultural Economics at UAS, Bangalore and PI of the Ford Foundation sponsored project as Vice President of the Society for two years 2000-2002 (letter enclosed).

This is one of our proudest moments to inform that our Ph.D student, Ms. Deepthi Elizabeth P Kolady, has won the Ford Foundation's International Fellowship Program. She will be working on North-South technology transfer with special reference to seed sectors. Deepthi Elizebeth is one among the thirty scholars from India who have been selected from a tough competition to pursue the doctoral studies in the USA.

Mrs. MS Suneetha Unnikrishnan pursuing her second her Ph.D has won the Fulbright Pre-Doctoral fellowship on Valuation of natural resources for six months to pursue her research in Cornell University, Ithaca.

Sri Tamilinian, pursuing PhD is likely to receive fellowship for PhD program in Agricultural Economics at the University of Idaho, USA for three years from Fall 2002.

Sri H Diwakara and Sri B Shivakumaraswamy, JRFs in the project have been selected to receive fellowship for three years to pursue Ph.D in Institutional economics of water resources in the University of South Australia at Queensland.
Ms Chithra Gopal Ph.D student will be receiving the fellowship from NATP's CGP to work on Impact of economic liberalization on the seed sector in India.

(ii) Human Resource Development

A workshop on Econometrics Application in NRE was organized by the Department of Agriculture Economics and sponsored by Ford Foundation from 23rd to 27th November. The workshop was conducted by Dr Dhananjaya Arekere, faculty, Texas A and M University, Texas.

Prof. M G Chandrakanth was invited to lecture on Impact of Globalization on Agriculture at the Department of Economics, Mangalore, Mangalagangotri on17 Nov, 2001.

Prof. M G Chandrakanth was invited to the AERA Conference on Impact of WTO on Agriculture in India held at New Delhi from 21-23 Nov 2001. Prof. M G Chandrakanth presented a paper on marketing of medicinal plants and sweet flag. The paper was based on research works of Ms Suneetha and Mr. G B Lokesh, students of the Department.

Institute for Wood Science and Technology in Malleshwaram, Bangalore had organized a training workshop for the forest officers. Prof Chandrakanth and Ms Prassanna Rashmi made power point presentations on IPR and Pharmaceuticals and Indigenous Knowledge on 20 Nov 2001.

Dr Chandrakanth actively participated in the academic activities of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics as its Vice President, during 2000-2001. In addition, in the 61st Annual Conference of Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, which was held in University of Gulbarga, Gulbarga from 27 -29 Dec 2001. Prof. M G Chandrakanth was the rapporteaur for one of the three sessions entitled "Valuation of Natural and Environmental Resources- Methodologies and Estimation (Rapporteaur's report enclosed).

Dr. MG Chandrakanth was the Chairman for the session on "Ecology, Environment and Bio-diversity and Economics and Management of Natural Resources and Common Property Resources" at the International Conference on " Society, politics, the economy and the environment- implications for socio-economic progress in the 21st century" held UAS, Hebbal, Bangalore.

JRFs of the Ford Foundation sponsored project and other students of the Department of Agricultural Economics actively participated in the discussions during the 61st annual conference of the Indian society of Agricultural Economics at Gulbarga during Dec 27-29th, 2001 and were exposed to scholarly discussions in the field of valuation of natural resources.

Dr MG Chandrakanth, PI, participated in the ECOPORT presentation and training program conducted by FAO faculty Mr Peter Griffee on 11th and 13th Feb 2002.

Dr MG Chandrakanth, PI lectured on Natural Resource Economics in the UGC refresher course for college teachers teaching Economics at Central College, Bangalore University in Jan 2002.

The following books were released during 2001:

Economic Access to groundwater irrigation in watershed development in Karnataka by Bisrat Alemu Mengesha and MG Chandrakanth 2001.

Synergistic effects of watershed treatments on farm economy through groundwater recharge - A resource economic analysis by MG Chandrakanth and H Diwakara, 2001.

A resource economics study of sweet flag (Acorus calamus) in Tumkur District, Karnataka.

Demand for and valuation of medicinal plants and products in the western ghats of Kerala - A resource economics study by MS Suneetha and MG Chandrakanth- 2001.

(iii) Plan of action for the next year

The research work relating to the role of desiltation of irrigation tanks in improving groundwater recharge in the watershed context will be undertaken to appreciate the improvement in the economic access to water resources for resource poor farmers. The resource optimal path of extraction of groundwater in watershed project areas will be linked with valuation of contribution of watershed treatments and efforts of farmers in upstream and downstream locations will be addressed subject to the conditions of cropping intensity, employment opportunity, gender differences and opportunities, technological improvements in extraction and use of groundwater, access to markets, access to insurance, cumulative well interference, social justice and poverty alleviation. Three Junior Research Fellows (Rajendra, Chaitra and Kusha) have already been recruited and the work will begin after the receipt of the second installment of the grant.

Problems encountered	Why they occurred	How do I address them
1. Choice of area with cumulative interference where watershed program is in operation	Preliminarily watershed projects were designed to improve in situ moisture conservation. They were not addressed to solve the problem of interference	Reconnaissance survey of watershed areas where the problem of well failure due to interference exists is made.
2. Delay in collection of data and analysis	For data collection junior research fellows are involved. Due to their health problem, delay occurred.	Persuading and convincing them we were able to do modes work
3. Delay in procurement of equipments for the project	Purchase procedures of the University demands announcement in Standard news papers by calling sealed tenders	We have to follow the rules of the institution and these delays could not be avoided. But these do delay the execution of the project work and have to be endured with your kind cooperation.
4.Delay in approval of Traveling allowance claims	Lengthy and stiffer regulations	We have requested the University to approve the TA in the form of per questionnaire charges at the rate of Rs. 100 per questionnaire collected from the farmers. The University has approved, but yet there is a delay in sanctioning payments.