Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.