Existing Solutions

Groundwater, Participatory, Farmer, Hydrological, Community

technical

Institutional

Groundwater in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India is tapped through about 2.2 million wells. The state islargely underlain by hard-rocks, where well-yields are low and determined by thickness of the weathered and fractured zones of the country rock. The rainfall and aquifer characteristics vary within short distances. Additionally, the footprint of food (rice cultivation) on water resulted in depletion of groundwater table. The Central Groundwater Board (CGWB) classified 175 (15.5%) mandals (blocks) as Semi-critical, 77 (7%) as Critical and 219 (19.5%) as Over-exploited out of total 1125 (total 47%). The state-sponsored legislations, regulating groundwater use, proved to be very difficult to enforce, simply because the number of wells outnumber the number staff hired by enforcing agencies.

Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (FAMGS) approach addressed the problem of groundwater depletion, in some these mandals, from the perspective of information dissemination and capacity building of the users to rationalize the need for matching the groundwater availability with the use. The hydrological data (rainfall, static water level in wells, well discharge, stream discharge, and cropping pattern) was generated by trained volunteers, nominated by the Groundwater Monitoring Committees (GMC), organized at habitation level. A group of GMCs, referred to as Hydrological Unit   (natural drainage basin, which more or less represents the aquifer unit in hard rock areas), came together as Hydrological Unit Network (HUN), and registered as a Society. The scientific information and hydrological data was displayed at the village centers, using on HU Information board, Rainfall board, Water level board, Crop Water Budgeting board and others. HUNs also share the data with local government departments, students, study teams and research institutes.

The over arching theme  of the approach was to help the community collect all relevant data required for estimation of the annual ground water balance and to facilitate adoption of cropping matching the groundwater availability, during the Rabi (winter cropping season). As a one-time input, the HUNs are provided with the basic scientific information including: Base Map of the HU (showing road network, administrative boundaries, and other non-technical information); 5 thematic Maps (contours, settlements, drainage, geology, monitoring stations); Geological Cross-sections; Groundwater Recharge Rates (recommended by the Groundwater Estimation Committee 1999); Crop Water Requirement (recommended by the Agriculture University); Crop Water Budgeting Work-sheet (Excel); and several Non Formal Education (NFE) tools.   

FMGS was implemented in 62 Hydrological Units (638 habitations) in seven drought prone districts viz, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Prakasam, Kurnool, Kadapa, Anantapur and Chittoor districts of the Andhra Pradesh, India. The intervention covered an area of 507,775 ha and a population of 596,535

The idea was generated by the Consultant Hydro-geologist during the implementation of an Indo-Dutch bilateral project, popularly known as APWELL. APWELL benefited about 14,000 small and marginal farm families, bringing around 35,000 acres of land under 3,500 bore-well irrigation schemes (5 families, on the average, under each bore-well), in seven drought prone districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Hydrological Unit approach was introduced as part of the pilot – Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM), aiming at creating a sense of responsibility among the beneficiaries for ensuring post-APWELL sustainability of the groundwater resource. The Consultant also wrote up the Implementation Guidelines, apart from giving continuous technical and managerial back up. Professional Field Staff played a pro-active role in evolving and field-testing ideas of the Consultant. The learning of PHM pilot was captured in the Manual – “Judicious Management of Groundwater through Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (2003)”.

The Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE) in India, recognizing the importance of the idea, not only provided financial support for the first 4 years, but also made sure that the initiative continues through Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), when the Government of India decided to avoid small international funding. FAO brought in its expertise in field of Farmer Field Schools (FFS). World Education (WE) provided key inputs for making the FFS approach relevant to groundwater management by handholding the implementation of the Farmer Water Schools.

Borewell Users Associations (BUA), organized as part of APWELL, proved to be motivating factor for other groundwater users in a HU and formation of GMCs and HUNs. Network of Partner Non Governmental Organizations (PNGOs) rooted strongly at the operational area gave the continuation of contact between professional staff and CBOs. GMCs and HUNs are presently carrying forward the practice of PHM and conduct of the annual Crop Water Budgeting Workshop.

The key question the Solution aims to answers is: “How to sustain the groundwater sources in drought prone areas”

FAMGS is a good case of a response strategy; successfully field tested in groundwater stress areas of Andhra Pradesh, India. FAMGS approach not only provides an example of effective Institutional mechanism at the lowest level to bring in sustainable groundwater use, but also offers a farmer-friendly technology of groundwater balance estimation. The platform FAMGS provides is not only useful for the users but also other stakeholders such as local government, scientific and academic institutions.

FMGS contributes to effective implementation of the Target by putting on ground a model of response strategy to address groundwater depletion, an impact indicator of water foot-print. It provides a methodology for creating a Community Based Institution (CBO), under the leadership of motivated and informed groundwater farmers, at an Aquifer or Hydrological Unit level. FMGS is an alternative approach to the regulatory mechanism. The chance of community acceptability to manage groundwater directly and water footprints indirectly is more in this participatory model.  Though FMGS superficially looks community centered, it is built on a sound technical base. The unit of management – Hydrological Unit makes sure that all the users of a groundwater system participate and determine its fate in the future. This brings in the social fencing mechanism into play, which seem to be more effective than the regulatory mechanisms. FMGS, with local modifications, can be adopted anywhere on the globe, and would be a good means of reaching the Target.

Key Outputs:

·         Hydrological Monitoring Network (HMN) operated and maintained by the community: 2026 observation wells (one well for every square kilometer); 190 Rain-gauge stations (one for every 5 sq. km.); and 58 Stream Gauge Stations.

·         Farmer collected data (2004-present): daily rainfall, fortnightly water levels, fortnightly bore-well discharge and daily stream-flows, documented in the Hydrological Monitoring Record (HMR) and exhibited for public viewing on display boards maintained at strategic locations in the Habitation.

·         Six thematic maps each, for 58 HUs made available to the CBOs for making informed decisions on groundwater use.

·         Technical data collected by the community provides information needed for estimation of annual groundwater balance in a HU influences crop choices and improves water use efficiency.

·         628 habitation level Groundwater Management Committees (GMC) involved in data generation and updating the village population with vital technical information.

·         58 Hydrological Unit Networks (HUNs) conduct the annual Crop Water Budgeting exercise and provide the needed technical and managerial support to GMCs.

·         Farmer Water Schools (FWS) created a pool of 20,000 graduates (12,315 men and 7,462 women), who provide leadership to the communities in managing their groundwater systems.

Impacts:

Analysis of farmer collected data for the period 2004-2010 shows that:

·         Static Water Levels in about 80% (1,600 of 2029) of the Observation Wells did not show further decline, in comparison to the base year (2004-05).

·         Annual groundwater draft decreased in 47 HUs; and increased in 16 HUs, in comparison to the base year (2004-05).

·         In comparison to the base year (2004-05), the Annual Groundwater Balance changed from negative (draft more than recharge) to positive (draft less than recharge) in 10 HUs; 35 HUs showed reduction in the negative balance; and 2 HUs remained positive.

·         Area under rice cultivation reduced in 14 HUs (33% of the area under rice cultivation)

Other Impacts were:

·         Farmer collected data used: for lobbying with the Government departments; and in the research of Universities, Research Institutions and Study Teams.

·         Crop Diversity: Number of crops increased from 14 to 39. 

·         14 International Staff and 358 Technical Government Staff (from seven different states in India), trained in FMGS.

·         The World Bank published the FAMGS work in the form of a book –  “Deep Wells and Prudence”.

·         FAMGS approach to be included in the 12^th Five Year Plan of India

Can the solution continue to deliver tangible impacts on the long term?

Yes. The main reason is the existence of strong CBOs, who have the knowledge of how the groundwater system in their HU works. They continue to generate data and use it for water budgeting on an annual basis. Additionally, the NGOs who are strongly rooted in the same area extend all the possible back-up needed. These NGOs have recently come together as “Association Promoting Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS)”, and up-scaling of the FAMGS approach is their main agenda, covering not only remaining part of Andhra Pradesh but also organizing NGOs in other states to FAMGS this forward. With FAO’s continued support, the approach has the potential for international scaling up.

Key qualitative indicators:

·         Hydrological Unit delineated

·         Farmers possess technical knowledge of their Hydrological Systems

·         Positive attitudinal changes in groundwater users, while pumping water from wells

·         Efficient water use through appropriate methods, practices and tools

Key quantitative indicators:

·         Number of FWS graduates

·         Number of farmer operated Hydrological Monitoring Stations

·         Annual Groundwater Draft and Balance

·         Trend of Static Water Levels in observation wells

·         Number of crops and Area under each crop (and water requirement)

·         Number of functional wells

·         Number of Crop Water Budgeting Exercises conducted

·         Number of Data sets

Given your experience, who would / should be most interested in this Solution and why? How will it help them?

The most interested would be the agencies responsible for groundwater management in their territories. The institutions who are implementing Watershed Management programs should be interested in this, because the PHM would give the necessary empirical evidence for measuring the impact of soil and water conservation measures taken up. The policy makers would be interested in this as they start looking at participatory approaches to groundwater management, instead of the popular enforcing models. FAMGS would definitely interest the authorities in the water stress and/or drought prone areas, across the globe. The model can be up scaled very easily in hard rock areas but the approach can be applicable even in alluvial tracts, where water quantity is not a problem so far.

In what context do you think this solution could / would work best and why?

1.       The areas where water stress is already reported or likely to be reported provide the right context for up-scaling or replicating FAMGS Model.

2.       The implementing agency should believe in participatory approaches, because the model is built upon empowering the community rather than regulating the water use.

3.       FAMGS would work best in hard-rock areas, similar to the areas where it was successfully implemented.

4.       The NGOs should be willing to hire technical staff with competitive remuneration packages, till the community takes over. NGOs should conduct counseling and motivating sessions to keep them interested in what they are doing.

5.       Multi-disciplinary teams are essential and willing to look beyond their own area of expertise, as working with farmers needs a generalist view point also.

6.       The NGOs should be familiar with the Non Formal Education methods and tools, as it is this method that will be effective in demystifying the hydrological science.

Given your experience, what would be needed to upscale this solution, for example to a political or/and a regional level?

1.       APFAMGS approach is already popular and discussed in several forums and papers. However, there seem to be misunderstanding on some issues involving the model. FAO will bring out a publication to sort out these things. The APFAMGS model described in the publication will be ready for up-scaling.

2.       FAO Head Quarters, with its global reach, can short-list the potential areas/countries for up-scaling APFAMGS, elsewhere in India and the World.

3.       Once the list of potential clients is prepared, FAO can coordinate with the stakeholders to investigate the feasibility for potential for APFAMGS up-scaling.

4.       The APFAMGS Network, now with its full capacity based at Hyderabad, will be available for extending support for similar kind of initiative anywhere. CBOs will also participate actively in this up-scaling, where farmer-farmer interaction is deemed effective.

What tips and guidance (dos and don’ts) would you give to others interested in applying this solution in their own context?

1.       Foundation stone of the APFAMGS approach is the Hydrological or Aquifer System Unit. All the planning should be done at this level. The implementation can be broken down at the habitation level.

2.       There should be room for regular interaction between the stakeholders within a HU or Aquifer System Unit.

3.       Socio-cultural practices should determine the strategies of the intervention.

4.       Involvement of NGOs, who have strong roots in the area of operation, is mandatory.  

5.       NGOs should be willing to hire technical staff and should be comfortable with implementing technology-based initiatives.

6.       Create enabling environment for multi-disciplinary nature of work, through staff orientation and training.

7.       Bring strong linkages with local government machinery, from the beginning, in view of the sustainability of the intervention.

8.       Establishment of Hydrological Monitoring Network should be completed, one month before the start of the hydrological year, so that the data collection starts on correct time.

9.       Skill development training should be done after the establishment of monitoring stations, so that the facility can be used in training.

10.   Train more number of people to avoid data gaps. Essentially train woman in data collection.

11.   Use local folk-art as medium of awareness generation and demystifying hydrological science.

12.   Encourage farmers to develop their own NFE tools for effective interaction between the GMC and groundwater users.

What is the minimum investment necessary (in terms of human resources, time,

energy, infrastructure, financial resources, political will, etc.) in order to effectively implement this

solution?*

1.       Human Resources: A centrally located Technical Support Team consisting of: Subject Experts in the field of Groundwater Hydrology, Agriculture and Institutional Development; Project Officers to coordinate between the Subject Experts and Field Units; and Administrative and Finance staff. Field Units, implementing FAMGS, in a cluster of Hydrological Units. A workable number of habitations are 50-60. Field Units consisting of: Professional Staff (Hydrogeologist, Agriculture Scientist, Insitutional and Gender Specialist; Extension Staff to coordinate between CBOs and the Field Unit. It is essential to have a gender balance in the staff to effectively interact at the village level.

2.       Infrastructure: Office building for TST and Field Units and necessary office equipment and vehicles are needed for operation and mobility of the teams. Scientific equipment is needed to establish Hydrological Monitoring Stations.

3.       Financial Resources: Additional financial resources are needed for organizing trainings, workshops and Farmer Water Schools, travel, salaries and meeting other operating costs.

4.       Political will need not be organized separately. Politicians tend to go with the popular mood and once CBOs establish themselves, politicians will be willing to participate in the program.

What are the main factors of success that you wish to emphasize?*

1.       A clear Project Framework

2.       Annual Plans

3.       Proactive funding agency

4.       Capable TST

5.       NGOs willing to make a difference at the grass-root level

6.       Motivated staff

7.       Willing peer groups at village level

8.       Flexibility in implementation to learn and adjust Annual Plans and Budgets

·         Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN)

·         The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), The World Bank

·         The Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India

·         Association Promoting Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS)

Dr. S. V. Govardhan Das

Mobile: +91 9440839494

Email: alapsamala@gmail.com

Visit us at: www.apfamgs.net

The links:

http://www.indiawaterportal.org/node/13136

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/apfarms/psc.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/21522750/sources-and-acknowledgements