Download this paper from http://www.iwmi.org/iwmi-tata Hiren Tilala and R. L. Shiyani Past studies on water harvesting had focused more on the technical efficiency of water harvesting structures, impact of interventions on hydrological regimes, and overall socioeconomic impacts at the village level. The issues of intra-village equity in access to water and efficiency of water use were not well-researched. The received wisdom is that improved local hydrological regimes and increased water use encourage farmers to engage in wasteful practices. A study carried out in Raj Samdhiyala village, which has seen intensive water harvesting shows that there is greater equity in income distribution among the farmers of the village, than that in the control village. Also, the water use efficiency in crop production is enhanced with increased water availability in farm wells. 17 2 0 0 5 Water Policy Research Highlight Small Water Harvesting: A Sustainable Way for Equity and Income Generation The last decade has seen increased emphasis given by governments and non- governmental organizations of scarcity-hit states on construction of small water harvesting structures. There have been some spirited efforts to capture the essence of available knowledge on rainwater harvesting from the successful initiatives in varied physical and socioeconomic conditions, and scale up. There is a dire need to empirically analyze the impact of such water harvesting initiatives on the farmers before taking up large-scale initiatives. The water harvesting initiatives of Raj Samdhiyala of north-Saurashtra is one of the most admired water-harvesting efforts due to the apparent hydrological gains. In 1986, villagers started building check dams and percolation tanks. Since then, they have completed 45 water harvesting structures over an area of 1090 hectares. The program received the ‘Jalkranti Mahaprerak Award’ for the year 1999-2000 from the Saurashtra Jaldhara Trust as the best example of community management of resources. With two more awards on its way, the need for evaluating the impact of water harvesting structures can hardly be over- emphasized. From a list of all the perceived beneficiaries of water harvesting structures, 60 beneficiaries were selected randomly. Similarly, an equal number of farmers who were deprived of the perceived benefits (non-beneficiaries), were also selected randomly from the nearby villages. The data were collected by survey method for the agricultural year 2001-02 to assess the impact of water harvesting structures on farmers. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT BASED ON A PAPER WITH THE SAME TITLE 2 METHODOLOGY Cost and Returns Tabular analysis was extensively used for estimating the costs and returns per hectare over different costs and input-output ratios, using various farm management concepts. Income Inequality The Gini concentration ratio (GCR) was calculated to measure the inequality in income between beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups of farmers using the formula given below: n GCR = 1-å Pi(Qi+Qi-1) i=1 Where, P = proportion of number of farmersi Q = cumulative proportion of incomei Q = preceding cumulative proportion of i-1 income Water Use Efficiency Water utilization by the crop is generally described in terms of water use efficiency (kg/ha-cm). It is expressed as ratio of crop yield per unit quantity of water used during the entire growth period of crop. Water use efficiency (WUE) is calculated as: WUE = Yield of the crop/ Effective water application for the crop including the effective rainfall SMALL WATER HARVESTING: 1A SUSTAINABLE WAY FOR EQUITY AND INCOME GENERATION 1 The research covered by IWMI-Tata Highlight and Comment is carried out with generous support from Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai under the IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. However, this Highlight is based on an invited paper authored by Hiren Tilala and R. L. Shiyani who are associated with the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh. We are grateful to authors for allowing us to publish this for wider circulation as an IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Highlight. The research paper can be downloaded from the IWMI-Tata Website This is a pre-publication paper prepared for the IWMI-Tata Annual Partners' Meet. This is not a peer-reviewed paper; views contained in it are those of author(s) and not of the International Water Management Institute or Sir Ratan Tata Trust. http://www.iwmi.org/iwmi-tata 3 The data on pump discharge (during each watering), number of irrigations, duration of water application in each irrigation, and length and width of field border were used to estimate the total seasonal irrigation water consumption as Water application in each irrigation = (Pump discharge during each watering*duration of water application in each irrigation)/ Area of the border Effective water application =Sum of water application during different irrigations + (10* Effective rainfall in cm) The effective rainfall (RF) was estimated using the following model for the Rajkot taluka: RF = 0.752 TRF – LS Where, RF = effective seasonal rainfall in cm TRF = total seasonal rainfall in cm LS = losses due to deep percolation and direct evaporation which was taken as 1.0 cm. In order to nullify the contribution of size of holding in WUE, the net WUE for each crop was calculated using size of holding (ha) as a weight. MAJOR FINDINGS Cropping Pattern Kharif is the main crop-growing season; more than 74 and 89 percent of the gross cropped area is cultivated during this season by beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups respectively (Table 1). Groundnut is the dominant crop for both groups, and covered highest acreage in kharif. Cotton is the second important crop. In the case of rabi crop, the proportion of area under wheat was maximum, followed by cumin for both groups of farmers. However, beneficiary farmers alone were able to grow vegetables during summer since they had water available in their wells. Relatively higher gross cropped area was observed in the case of the beneficiary group. The average cropping intensities for beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups were 122 and 107 percent respectively. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to gross cropped area. Table 1: Cropping Pattern of Selected Farmers Crop Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Area No. of Area No. of Farmers farmers A) Kharif Groundnut 110.68 (50.09) 57 105.36 (75.58) 60 Cotton 53.28 (24.11) 43 19.40 (13.92) 24 Sub-total 163.96 (74.20) 124.76 (89.50) B) Rabi Wheat 37.04 (16.76) 37 13.60 (9.75) 21 Cumin 14.56 (6.60) 14 1.04 (0.75) 2 Sub-total 51.60 (23.36) 14.64 (10.50) C) Summer Vegetables 5.40 (2.44) 10 0.00 (0.00) 0 Gross Cropped 220.96 (100.00) 139.40 (100.00) Area (GCA) Cropping 122 --- 107 — Intensity (%) Beneficiary farmers alone were able to grow vegetables during summer since they had water available in their wells. Relatively higher gross cropped area was observed in the case of the beneficiary group. These figures show the positive impact of water harvesting structures on the farmers in the region. Costs and Returns The average cost of cultivation of groundnut (Cost C ) for beneficiary and non-beneficiary 2 groups was Rs. 24492/ha and Rs. 20199/ha respectively. The share of operating cost was about 65 percent for both groups. Human labor, seed, bullock labor, manure, chemical fertilizers, and irrigation cost were the major items of expenditure in groundnut cultivation for both the groups. Cost C for cotton and wheat was 2 respectively Rs. 29982/ha and Rs. 19172/ha for beneficiary farmers, while the corresponding figures for the non-beneficiary group were Rs. 23711/ha and Rs. 16873/ha. In the case of cotton, the beneficiary group spent more on irrigation (Rs. 2884/ha) compared to the non-beneficiary group (Rs. 1853/ha) since the former used more water for obtaining higher yields. About 10 percent of the total cost of cultivation went towards protecting the cotton crop against heavy attacks of bollworm during the season. However, in the case of wheat, irrigation charges were relatively higher for the non- beneficiary group as compared to the beneficiary group because of higher cost of lifting unit volume of water from the wells. Crop yield and returns per hectare were found relatively higher for beneficiaries than those for non-beneficiaries for all the crops. In the case of beneficiaries of water harvesting, the yield per hectare was higher by about 42, 45, and 31 percent for groundnut, cotton and wheat respectively (Table 2). Similarly, net income over Cost C was higher by about 216, 137, and 77 1 percent for groundnut, cotton and wheat respectively. Farm income figures for the respective crops were found 76, 95 and 77 percent higher in the case of beneficiaries. The input- output ratio over cost C for all crops were found 2 relatively higher in the case of beneficiaries. Income Inequality The share of the top 25 percent beneficiary households to total income in the village was nearly 55 percent (Table 3). The share of the non- beneficiary group of farmers was only 8.33 percent, which contributed nearly 27 percent of the total income. Income distribution was further investigated by estimating the Gini concentration ratios and standard deviation of logarithms of income (Table 4). The Gini concentration ratio was found lower in the case of beneficiary farmers (0.4640). This indicates that income is more evenly distributed in the case of the beneficiary group than in the non-beneficiary group, which is further supported by the Lorenz curve (Figure 1). Water Use Efficiency Water use efficiency refers to how efficiently farmers use the available water to maximize their returns in terms of yield and net income. About 72 percent of the area covered by beneficiary farmers has WUE greater than 50 kg/ha-cm, whereas the corresponding figure for non- beneficiary farmers is only 23 percent (Table 5). Similar is the situation for cotton which is attributed to availability of water in the area of water harvesting structures, which enable beneficiary farmers to provide life saving irrigation to cotton. In the case of wheat, 60 percent of the area covered by beneficiary farmers has obtained WUE greater than 70 kg/ha- cm as against only 29 percent in the case of non- beneficiary farmers. This implies that beneficiaries could give enough supplemental irrigation to wheat crop compared to non-beneficiaries. Crop yield and returns per hectare were found relatively higher for beneficiaries than those for non-beneficiaries for all the crops. Income is more evenly distributed in the case of the beneficiary group than in the non-beneficiary group. 4 Yield A) Main product Ql 21.01 14.50 33.97 14.75 10.03 25.91 42.44 44.56 31.11 B) By-product Ql 23.97 30.51 21.26 24.93 12.75 22.38 farm harvest price (FHP) A) FHP of Rs/ql 1196.80 1937 724 1163.00 1926 718 2.90 0.57 0.83 main product B) Income Rs. 3465 3048 3215 2494 7.74 22.21 from by-product Gross return Rs. 28610 28086 27642 20370 19318 21097 40.45 45.38 31.02 Farm business Rs. 12810 8335 16138 7248 4267 11242 76.74 95.33 43.55 income Family labor Rs. 7961 3349 11491 3700 858 7721 115.16 290.33 48.82 income Net income Rs. 6344 829 10213 2007 -2238 5758 216.09 137.04 77.37 over Cost-C1 Net income Rs. 4118 –1896 8470 171 -4393 4224 2308.19 56.84 100.52 over Cost-C2 Input-output ratios over Cost-A Rs. 1: 1.81 1: 1.42 1: 2.40 1: 1.55 1: 1.28 1: 2.14 Cost-B Rs. 1: 1.39 1: 1.13 1: 1.67 1: 1.22 1: 1.05 1: 1.57 Cost-C Rs. 1: 1.28 1: 1.03 1: 1.58 1: 1.11 1: 0.90 1: 1.371 Cost-C Rs. 1: 1.16 1: 0.93 1: 1.44 1: 1.01 1: 0.81 1: 1.252 Groundnut Cotton Wheat Groundnut Cotton Wheat Groundnut Cotton Wheat Table 2: Yield and Returns per Hectare of Different Crops Items Unit Beneficiary Non-beneficiary % increase in beneficiary 5 Table 3: Distribution of Income among Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary Group of Farmers Up to 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 16.67 16.67 128808 4.15 4.15 20001– 40000 4 6.67 6.67 127816 1.96 1.96 25 41.67 58.34 721553 23.22 27.37 40001 – 60000 19 31.66 38.33 976686 14.97 16.93 8 13.33 71.67 418134 13.46 40.83 60001 – 80000 11 18.33 56.66 775928 11.89 28.82 7 11.66 83.33 503532 16.21 57.04 80001–100000 7 11.66 68.32 620503 9.51 38.33 2 3.33 86.66 166452 5.36 62.4 100001–120000 4 6.67 74.99 441239 6.76 45.09 3 5 91.66 328716 10.58 72.98 120001–140000 3 5 79.99 371581 5.7 50.79 3 5 96.66 385003 12.39 85.37 140001–160000 4 6.67 86.66 610528 9.36 60.15 1 1.67 98.33 140632 4.52 89.89 160001–180000 4 6.67 93.33 679549 10.42 70.57 0 0 98.33 0 0 89.89 Above 180000 4 6.67 100 1919718 29.43 100 1 1.67 100 314384 10.11 100 Total 60 100 6523548 100 60 100 3107214 100 Income Range (Rs.) No.of farmers No.of farmers % of farmers % of farmers Cumu- lative % Income (Rs.) Income (Rs.) % of Income % of Income Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Cumu- lative % Cumu- lative % Cumu- lative % Figure 1: Distribution of Total Income Between Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary Groups of Farmers % of total area WUE (kg/ ha-cm) % of total area WUE (kg/ha-cm) % of total area WUE (kg/ ha-cm) Groundnut Cotton Wheat B NB B NB B NB 20-30 0 4.93 Upto 10 4.28 21.44 40-50 16.41 3.53 30-40 17.20 35.62 10-20 45.80 30.52 50-60 8.00 23.53 40-50 11.13 36.14 20-30 22.07 30.31 60-70 15.12 43.53 50-60 42.57 18.15 30-40 20.12 9.48 70-80 21.38 24.70 60-70 29.10 5.16 40-50 7.73 8.25 80-90 39.09 4.71 Total 100.00 100.00 Total 100.00 100.00 Total 100.00 100.00 Table 5: Distribution of WUE over Percentage Area Covered in Different Crops by Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary Group of Farmers Note: B—Beneficiary; NB---Non-beneficiary Table 4: Concentration of Income among Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary Farmers Particulars Beneficiary Non-beneficiary Gini concentration ratio 0.4640 0.4817 Standard deviation of 0.6339 0.8245 logarithms of income 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cumulative % of farmers ____ Beneficiary ------ Non-beneficiary C u m u la tiv e % o f In co m e We compared net water use efficiency (NWUE) of all major crops to nullify the contribution of size of holding in WUE. NWUE of all the major crops grown by beneficiary farmers was higher compared to non beneficiaries in the region (Table 6). Our findings suggest that water harvesting structures provide multiple benefits to beneficiaries. Increase in yield and net income from various crops, reduction in unit cost of production, efficient utilization of resources, and higher labor productivity are some of the benefits, which many previous studies on water harvesting also brought out. The findings of this study with regard to decline in income inequality and improvement in water use efficiency are important from the policy perspective. If increased water CONCLUSION availability also leads to enhancing water use efficiency in crop production, it has significant implications for managing the demand for water in agriculture, especially during years of drought. The finding of the study is quite contrary to the concern raised by many researchers about the potential negative implications of increased water availability with water harvesting/watershed management efforts on farmers’ incentive to use water efficiently. These visible gains will help further increase awareness among the people about the benefits of water harvesting structures, and enhance their willingness to get actively involved in decentralized water harvesting and management. Other dry land areas can replicate the success of Raj Samdhiyala to grow the right kind of crops and share water equitably. An ever- green revolution, as envisaged by Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, is possible only by managing local resources such as water. Table 6: Net Water Use Efficiency (kg/ha-cm) of Different Crops Crop Beneficiary Non-beneficiary % Change Groundnut 54.13 43.26 25.13 Cotton 23.33 20.25 15.21 Wheat 71.37 67.52 5.70 7 HEADQUARTERS iwmi@cgiar.org REGIONAL OFFICE FOR SOUTH ASIA iwmi-southasia@cgiar.org NEW DELHI b.sharma@cgiar.org NEPAL d.pant@cgiar.org CHINA i.makin@cgiar.org REGIONAL OFFICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA (Pakistan) iwmi-pak@cgiar.org REGIONAL OFFICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA (Uzbekistan) m.hassan@cgiar.org REGIONAL OFFICE FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA iwmi-sea@cgiar.org REGIONAL OFFICE FOR AFRICA iwmi-africa@cgiar.org SUB REGIONAL OFFICE FOR WEST AFRICA @cgiar.org 127, Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatte, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka Mailing Address : P. O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka Telephone : +94 11 2787404, 2784080 Fax : +94 11 2786854; E mail : C/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324 Andhra Pradesh, India Telephone : +91 40 30713071 Fax : +91 40 30713074; E mail : South Asia Liaison Office 2nd Floor, NASC Complex, DPS Marg PUSA Campus, New Delhi 110012, India Telephone : +91 11 25840811-2 Fax : +91 11 25841294; E mail : Department of Irrigation, Room # 412 and 413 Jawalkhel, Lalitpur GPO 8975 EPC 416, Kathmandu, Nepal Telephone : +977 1 5542306 Fax : +977 1 5536219; E mail : Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy Chinese Academy of Sciences Building 917, Datun Road, Anwai Beijing 100101, China Telephone : +86 10 64889440 Fax : +86 10 64856533; E mail : 12KM, Multan Road, Chowk Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore 53700, Pakistan Telephone : +92 42 5410050-53 Fax : +92 42 5410054; E mail : Apartment No. 123 Home No. 6, Murtazaeva Street, Tashkent 700000, Uzbekistan Telephone : +998 71 1370445 Fax : +998 71 1370317; E mail : P. O. Box 1025, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10903,Thailand Telephone : +66 2561 4433 Fax : +66 2561 1230; E mail : Private Bag X813, Silverton 0127, Pretoria, South Africa Telephone : +27 12 845 9100 Fax : +27 12 845 9110; E mail : IWMI Ghana, PMB CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Telephone : +233 21 784752-4 Fax : + 233 21 784752; E mail : iwmi-ghana IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program The IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program was launched in 2000 with the support of Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai. The program presents new perspectives and practical solutions derived from the wealth of research done in India on water resource management. Its objective is to help policy makers at the central, state and local levels address their water challenges – in areas such as sustainable groundwater management, water scarcity, and rural poverty – by translating research findings into practical policy recommendations. Through this program, IWMI collaborates with a range of partners across India to identify, analyse and document relevant water-management approaches and current practices. These practices are assessed and synthesised for maximum policy impact in the series on Water Policy Research Highlights and IWMI-Tata Comments. The policy program’s website promotes the exchange of knowledge on water-resources management, within the research community and between researchers and policy makers in India. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program Elecon, Anand-Sojitra Road Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Gujarat, India Telephone: +91 2692 229311-13 Fax : +91 2692 229310 E-mail: Website: iwmi-tata@cgiar.org http://www.iwmi.org/iwmi-tata IWMI is a Futures Harvest Center Supported by the CGIARI n s t i t u t e Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8