Suhas P Wani and Team International Crops Research Institute for … Delhi... · 2018-01-30 ·...

Suhas P Wani and Team

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

Patancheru P.O. 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

Watershed as Growth Engine of Development in Dryland Areas

The Comprehensive Assessment (CA) of WSPs by ICRISAT-led study showed that Watersheds are silently revolutionalising the rain-fed agriculture in India with a B:C ratio of 1:2.01 and the mean internal rate of return of 27.4 per cent. The watershed program can become the growth engine for sustainable development of drtland areas in India.

Reduced runoff

Impacts of Watershed Program

Improved water level

Increased productivity

Employment generation

Watershed as Growth Engine of Development in Dryland Areas

The Comprehensive Assessment (CA) of WSPs by ICRISAT-

led study showed

• < 1% watersheds are not economically remunerative

• 68% performing below average

• Average BC ratio is 2.0 and IRR is 27.4

• It implies WS have potential that needs to be unlocked

Watershed (%)

0.6

67.5

13.2 12.2

2.6 3.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

<1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 >5

Benefit-cost ratio

Wate

rsh

ed

s (

%)

Current Scenario for M & E

Only 636 case studies were available for meta-analysis

156 reports covering mid-term evaluation and impact assessment of watershed projects

Qualitative and unsubstantiated findings – no quantitative data

Baseline data are not available

Mostly as audit and fault finding

No triangulation of data

Unsound methods

Physical structures are only monitored

No processes monitored

Incomplete trust on social institutional building

Monitoring and Evaluation: CA Findings

The current M&E system of watershed programs is weak and provides opportunity to feedback of information which government can use at a macro-scale to inform itself of the progress with this major budget item

A major problem was the lack of uniformity in what was being measured

Evaluators are chasing a moving target

More standardized approach with common objectives would solve the issue

Lack of baseline data

Recommendations: Way Forward

Pragmatic and cost effective M&E is needed with data collected to serve the purpose and which can be readily analyzed

Track few indicators some by participatory methods and process monitoring of a random selection of watersheds to support the more usual practices

In each district one or two representative watersheds to be monitored for quantitative hydrological and soil loss monitoring by specific capable organization with adequate financial support

CA Recommendations and Common Guidelines Align Well

M&E systems regulated by common guidelines and CA recommendations are in harmony

Need to develop operational guidelines for M&IA and develop common protocols, indicators and instruments

Need to identify suitable instruments to undertake impact assessment in target agroecologics

Harmonize monitoring of micro-watershed, benchmark watersheds for macro-level assessment at eco-regional level using simulation modeling, GIS and remote sensing

M&IA–An Effective Tool for Enhancing Impacts

Assess social, economic, bio-physical and environmental impacts of watersheds

Undertake assessment at sub-basin level across different agroecologics using new science tools such as simulation modeling, GIS and remote sensing

Independent, capable and reputed institutions with necessary expertise in the area of integrated watershed development shall undertake ME&IA

S = Sustainability

T = Technology inputs

E = Equity

P = Participation

Less than 1% watersheds are economically non-remunerative

Two-thirds of watersheds’ performance can be improved

Good IA Datasets Provide High Quality Insights

STEPs

M&IA at Different Levels

Monitoring each watershed for progress using on-line approach

Enhance transparency through community participation in M&E

Make baseline data collection and needs assessment in a uniform format mandatory before funds are released for development works

Temporal progress of development in each watershed to be recorded through sequence of photographs along with data on simple, limited and verifiable indicators

Impact

On-site impacts

Off-site impacts Tangible

Non-tangible (Ecosystem services)

Ask Right Questions to Get Authentic Data

Crop yields

Cropping area (season wise)

Types of crops grown

Types and number of animals in watershed

Number of operational wells (season wise)

Pumping hours for each well (season wise)

Area irrigated from each well (season wise)

Amounts of fertilizer use etc.,

Monitoring of Watersheds

Time series data on relevant, simple measurable indicators eg. productivity (crop and livestock), cropping intensity, household income, expenditure pattern, etc.,

Implementing agency must record data by adopting participatory methods

Uploading of minimum data sets to be made mandatory and link with fund release

Crop yields in Adarsha Watershed Kothapally during 1999-2009

Crop 1998 base-line yield

Yield (Kg ha -1)

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Average yields

SE+

Sole maize 1500 3250 3750 3300 3480 3920 3420 3920 3635 4680 4808 3830 263

Improved Intercropped maize Traditional inter- cropped Maize

- -

2700

1700

2790

1600

2800

1600

3083

1800

3129

1950

2950

2025

3360

2275

3180

2150

3990 -

4163 -

3200

1890

245

116

Improved inter- cropped pigeonpea Traditional inter- cropped pigeonpea

-

190

640

200

940

180

800 -

720 -

950 -

680 -

925 -

970 -

640 -

760 -

830

190

112 -

Improved Sole Sorghum Traditional Sole Sorghum

-

1070

3050

1070

3170

1010

2600

940

2425

910

2290

952

2325

1025

2250

1083

2085

995

- -

- -

2530

1000

165 121

Intercropped Sorghum

- 1770 1940 2200 - 2110 1980 1960 1850 - - 1970 206

Increased Family Incomes in Community Watersheds

Impact on Groundwater in Rajsamadhiyala Watershed

Description No. of wells

1995 2003

Open wells 255 308

Bore wells 102 200

Pumping hr/day 5.25 10.4

Effect of watershed interventions on the performance of open wells in Bundi watershed, Rajasthan, India

Season Pumping duration (h)

Recharge / recovery period in well (h)

Area irrigated by each well (ha)

BWI* AWI* BWI AWI BWI AWI

Rainy 4 11 13.5 10 1 2.5

Post-rainy 1.5 6.5 21 16 0.5 1.5

Summer 0 1 30 21 0 0.2

Mean 1.83 6.2 21.5 15.7 0.5 1.4

* BWI is before watershed interventions and AWI is after watershed interventions

Groundwater level measuring device Equipment costs only Rs 1500/-

Farmer measuring groundwater level

Participatory Groundwater Monitoring and Effective Learning Tool

Adarsha watershed map with location of wells

Increased area under irrigation (ha), 1995-2003, Rajsamadhiayala watershed, Gujarat

Cropping season

1995

1999

2003

% Increase in 2003 over

1995

Kharif 402 518 643 60

Rabi 356 469 551 55

Summer 11 18 24 118

Total 769 1005 1218 58

Effect of WHS on mean groundwater level

in different benchmark watersheds

5.81

4.24.5

3.73.2

10.4

2.8

0.81.2

0.4

1.0

5.9

765

546

869892

465503

0

4

8

12

Kotap

ally

Bundi

Lala

tora

Mad

husu

dhan

gardh

Shekta

Rajasa

mad

hiaya

la

Wa

ter

co

lum

n in

we

ll (m

)

0

250

500

750

1000

Ra

infa

ll (m

m)

Series2 Series1 Series3

Average water column and pumping duration

in open well of Rajasamadhiyala watershed

0

5

10

15

20

Kharif Rabi Summer

Wate

r colu

mn

in o

pen

we

ll(m

)

1995 1999 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

Kharif Rabi Summer

Pu

mp

ing

du

ration

(h/d

ay)

1995 1999 2003

Increased Private Investment Due to Improved Water Availability

• Change in the number of farmers having access to irrigation, Rajsamadhiayala watershed, Gujarat

Farmers category

1995

1999

2003

Increase in 2003 over 1995 (%)

Small 25 82 98 292

Marginal 16 28 35 317

Large 32 65 87 172

Total 73 175 210 188

• Increased water availability due to various watershed development activities encouraged private investment from farmers on procurement of irrigation facilities and farm machineries

Hydrology – groundwater recharging, runoff, evaporation, crop use, etc.,

Vegetation cover Soil and nutrient losses Carbon sequestration

Hydrological monitoring need to be used for planning

interventions

Intensive Monitoring at Benchmark Watersheds in Different Agroecologies

Calibrated Weather Stations to be Located in the Benchmark Watersheds

Simple and Reliable Hydrological Monitoring

• Automatic runoff sample collection • Samples at required time intervals • Accurate and detail sediment flow data • Suitable for small to medium size

watersheds

Control unit

New Microprocessor is shown in inset

Benchmark Watersheds Monitored for Hydrological Data in India, Thailand, Vietnam and China

(12)

(6) (1)

(4)

(1)

Total 24 stations in India Total 6 stations in Thailand, Vietnam and China

(2)

(2) (2)

Impact of Watershed Interventions on Runoff and Soil loss at Benchmark Watersheds in India,

1999-2006

Rainfall range

(mm)

Treatment Rainfall (mm)

Runoff

(mm)

Runoff as % of rainfall

Peak runoff rate

(m3 s -1 ha -1 )

Soil loss

(t ha-1)

High

(>1000)

Treated

1046

70

6.7

0.065

1.63

Untreated 1046 335 32.0 0.092 5.89

Medium (700-1000)

Treated 755 51 6.8 0.026 1.16

Untreated 755 95 12.6 0.036 3.31

Mean Rainfall, Runoff, Peak Runoff Rate and Soil loss from 30 Benchmark

Watersheds

Rainfall range (mm)

Rainfall (mm)

Runoff (mm)

Runoff as % of rainfall

Peak runoff rate

(m3 s -1 ha -1 )

Soil loss

(t ha-1)

< 650 442 35 8 0.027 2.4

650-1000 796 111 14 0.032 3.8

>1000 1206 302 25 0.052 9.2

Runoff Characteristics of Alfisols and Vertisols

2

12

33

11

17

26

0

10

20

30

40

<700 700-900 >900

Annual rainfall range (mm)

Ru

no

ff %

of

rain

fall Vertisols Alf isols

Seasonal runoff from improved practices

Deep Drainage in Different SAT Soils

8

22

31

0

10

20

30

40

Vertisols Vertic Inceptisols Alf isols

Deep

dra

inag

e a

s %

of

seaso

nal ra

infa

ll

0.25

0.17

0.13 0.14 0.13

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

1 2 3 4 5

Project duration (years)

Seaso

nal

run

off

/seaso

nal ra

infa

ll

Time Lag between Development and Impact on Runoff and Sediment (Mean of Benchmark

Sites in India)

2.86

2.05

1.7 1.6 1.55

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1 2 3 4 5

Project duration (years)

Se

dim

en

t c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(Kg

/m3 o

f ru

no

ff)

Dewas watershed, Madhya Pradesh

0

5

10

15

20

25

Open wells Tube wells Dugout ponds

Me

an

NO

3-N

co

nte

nt

(mg

L-1

)

June 2006 August 2006

Bundi watershed, Rajasthan

0

2

4

6

8

Open wells Tube wells Dugout ponds

Mean

NO

3-N

co

nte

nt

(mg

L-1

)June 2006 August 2006

Monitor, Temporal and Spatial Water Quality in Watersheds

Use of Remote Sensing and Different Micro-level

• Cropping intensity

• Vegetation cover

• Extent of land and water degradation

• Crop yield estimates

Regional Remote

Sensing Service Centre,

ISRO, B’lore

Use of Remote Sensing & Geospatial processing

In watershed development & monitoring

Way Forward

Identify relevant organizations to take up Impact Assessment periodically (mid-term/post project)

Develop capacities of different stakeholders to monitor their concurrent progress and take remedial steps

Distinguish the relevant indicators at different levels and develop simple, appropriate formats to develop a meaningful and simple MIS

Take appropriate action to integrate ME&L with the project management cycle

Provide space for baseline characterization

Use relevant technologies such as PR&D, GIS, remote sensing at different levels in alignment with the objective of ME&IA

Use the learnings in designing and developing future projects

Conclusion

Appropriate and authenticate M&IA can help in enhancing economic efficiency and impact of watershed projects through cost savings and mid-course timely corrections resulting in sustainable development. However, strengthening through operationalizing new approaches and guidelines with allocation of necessary financial resources is needed.

Thank you.