Farmer’s Survey in Ganga River Basin Aspiring Healthier Rivers for Safer Water and as More Productive Agro‐Ecosystems through Farmer Water School

1. Farmer’s Survey in Ganga River Basin
Aspiring Healthier Rivers for Safer Water and as
More Productive Agro‐Ecosystems
throughthrough
Farmer Water School
Ravindra KumarRavindra Kumar
Advisor, WWF‐India, New Delhi

2. Motivation
R i t i i lt
Delineation of Resource Intensive Districts
(Water and N Fertilizer)
• Resource intensive agriculture
(Water & N fertiliser) in districts
along river Ganga- (Ravindra & A.
Pastakia, WWF-India &Germany
Report-2014).p )
• In ROR projects there is gap in crop
water demand & Supply viz. Rabi
d il bili
• Declining Rainfall & Increasing air
temperature in the Ganga River
Basin (Mishra, IIT GN, 2016).
80000
90000
Crop WaterDemand Vs Availability,
LGC (1985‐2013)
• Lack of real-time monitoring and
forecast affects the decision
making.
F ld b t li t h
50000
60000
70000
day
• Farmers could beat climate change
with technology.
• Whether farmers aspire for Healthy
Ganga even at cost of less benefit
20000
30000
40000
Cusec‐d
Availability
Demand
Ganga even at cost of less benefit
from canal water !
0
10000
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

3. Ganga Canal System: UGC & LGCg y

4. Challenges in Irrigation Management
UPID & FAO STUDY
2008‐09
WATERBALANCEFORUPPERGANGACANALSYSTEM
INPUTS = 9752 MCM
= 9752 MCMCanalwaterKhariff 9752 MCM33%
Rainwater
39% OUTPUTS = 2702 MCM
Crop ET
CanalwaterRabi
18%CanalwaterZaid
10%
IRRIGATION WATER USE
EFFICIENCY 27 7%EFFICIENCY = 27.7%

5. 6 000
7,000
.
ch110
CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC COMPARED WITH OTHERS
5,000
6,000
rea($/ha)
UGC= US$ 1500/ha
4,000
croppeda
GLBC = US$1844/ha Jaunpur BC = US$ 770/ha
2,000
3,000
Outputperc
1,000
IWMI1.O
0
Thailand
Dez,Iran
lan,Iran
,Turkey
on,India
da,India
ra,India
Malaysia
Malaysia
Morocco
ger,Mali
Alto,DR
olombia
olombia
,Mexico
,Mexico
Vietnam
LamPao,T
D
Guil
Seyhan,
Majalgao
Dantiwad
Bhakr
Muda,M
Kemubu,M
BeniAmir,M
OfficeduNig
RioYaquiA
Coello,C
Saldaña,C
Cupatitzio,
RioMayo,
CamSun,V

6. 0.45
0.50m.). ch112
WATER PRODUCTIVITY IN UGC
0.35
0.40
ply($/cu.m
GLBC = US$0.23/m3 Jaunpur BC = US$ 0.077/m3
UGC= US$ 0.10/m3
0.25
0.30
tirrig.supp
0.15
0.20
putperunit
0.05
0.10
WMI3.Outp
0.00
Thailand
Dez,Iran
ilan,Iran
n,Turkey
on,India
ada,India
kra,India
Malaysia
Malaysia
Morocco
ger,Mali
Alto,DR
Colombia
Colombia
o,Mexico
o,Mexico
Vietnam
IW
LamPao,
D
Gu
Seyhan
Majalga
Dantiwa
Bhak
Muda,
Kemubu,
BeniAmir,
OfficeduNi
RioYaqui
Coello,C
Saldaña,C
Cupatitzio
RioMayo
CamSun,

7. Ganga Canal capacities
I
NARORA BARRAGE U/S VIEW
on Increase
UGC= 6500 (1854), 6750 (1938), 10500 (1951),
PUGC= 13500 (1982)
LGC= 8500 (1878), PLGC= 4200(1982), 6800 (2014),
8900 WSRP‐II
EGC = 4850 (1980‐92), 5850 (2009) post Tehri dam
HR PLGC D/S VIEW
MGC‐I= 8280(1998‐2001), MGC‐II= 4200 (still u/c)
Imbalance in Use of SW & GW:
/
Contribution in irrigated area by
canal system on decrease over
time (from > 32% to < 20%) and
contribution of Tubewells increases
HR LGC D/S VIEW
contribution of Tubewells increases
up to 70% of net sown area in the
state of Uttar Pradesh.

8. UP Water Sector Restructuring Project, Phase-II
Running PLGC after internal section of EW completed on 31.05.2014
Item Before Rehabilitation After Rehabilitation
Bed width 44.00 m 49.40 m
W t d th 3 00 3 63Water depth 3.00 m 3.63 m
Top width 50.00 m 60.30 m
Bed slope 10 cm/km 10 cm/km

9. Analysis of Survey Data:
sample size 550 farmers H M Tsample size 550 farmers‐ H, M, T

10. 4.12 4.13
5.35
4.3
4.75
4.3
4
5
6
8.11
6.88
10
Productivity of main crops (tonne/ha) at LGC
0
1
2
3
4
Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach
4.42 4.11
5.24.75
0
2
4
6
Head Reach Middle Reach Tail Reach
Wheat Paddy
Wheat Paddy
Head Middle Tail
Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy
Cost of
production
UGC in Rs/ha
7250 7171 6252 5020 11378 9139
Head Middle TailHead Middle Tail
Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy Wheat Paddy
Cost of
Production
LGC in Rs/ha
8187 7218 8349 9233 6351 11686

11. Season/
Upper Ganga Canal System Lower Ganga Canal SystemIRRIGATION IRRIGATION
Source Head Middle Tail Source Head Middle Tail
Rabi
Canal 2.4 3.1 2.5 Canal 1.9 1.8 2.4
Tube
well 3 7 2 9 3 7
Tube
well 3 6 4 3 3 4well 3.7 2.9 3.7 well 3.6 4.3 3.4
Kharif
Canal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8Canal 4.0 4.4 4.3 Canal 3.5 2.5 3.8
Tube
well 5.9 4.2 3.6
Tube
well 3.5 3.5 3.1
Zaid
Canal 4.6 5.5 5.0 Canal 1.5 1.3 3.5
Tube
well 6.0 3.5 5.4
Tube
well 3.4 6.2 4.2

30. Way Out: FAO
Concept of Farmer Water SchoolConcept of Farmer Water School
Employing non‐formal education methods, the farm is used as the
primary resource for discovery‐based learning. The process is
f ili i d h i h f b i i h hfacilitative and respects the experience that farmers bring with them.
Farmers work in small group (about 25 self selected) to ensure that
each one’s ideas are shared. In the FWS, there is acceptance of the
uniqueness of each participant The activities are designed to responduniqueness of each participant. The activities are designed to respond
to the immediate needs of farmers and are geared towards encouraging
creativity and independence. The FWS Facilitators play a crucial role in
ensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to theensuring that the environment and all resources contribute to the
farmers’ learning experience.
The FWS ses ater management and crop prod ction asThe FWS uses water management and crop production as
entry points because these are closest to the farmers’ hearts.
The FWS experience allows farmers to experience group
formation that becomes valuable in addressing other
community concerns for example nutrition and pest controlcommunity concerns, for example nutrition and pest control.

31. Component&Cost Activities Implementing Agency
UPWSRP‐II
Component-A
($ 15 million)
(2.9%)
Strengthening of state level water
institutions and inter- sector coordination
UP Water Management and Regulatory
Commission (UPWaMReC), Water and
Land Management Institute (WALMI),
State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),State Water Resource Agency (SWaRA),
and State Water Resource Data Analysis
Centre (SWaRDAC)
Component-B Modernisation of irrigation and drainage UPID and GWD
($ 326 M) 63.3% system, groundwater management activities
Component-C
($ 42 M) 8.2%
Consolidation and enhancement of irrigation
institutional reforms
UPID, PIM, SIRD
C D E h i i l l d i i d D f A i l FAOComponent-D
($ 32 M) 6.2%
Enhancing agricultural productivity and on-
farm water management
Department of Agriculture, FAO
Component-E
($ 2 M) 0.4%
Feasibility studies and preparation activities
for Next phase
UPID
C F P j di i d i i PACT RSACComponent-F
($ 23 M) 0.4%
Project coordination and monitoring:
monitoring of crop performance using
remote sensing imagery
PACT, RSAC
Total $ 440 M Physical contingencies (2%) + Price
i i (15%) $ 75Mcontingencies (15%) $ 75M
Total project costs $
515 M
Government of Uttar Pradesh share (30%)
World Bank share (70%)
$155 M
$360 M

32. Project Targets
93%
115%
85%
WOP WP DIA
49% 50%
63%
52%
76%
81% 79%78%
66%
85%
HG Br LGC BKND Total
Project as whole NPV FRR NPV ERR
Irrigated area expansion (20%) -5.9 6.8% -4.5 7.7%
Plus Agriculture intensification (71%) 10.1 16.95 14.1 19.1%
C di ifi i (4%) 11 8 17 7% 15 3 19 6%Crop diversification (4%) 11.8 17.7% 15.3 19.6%
Resource use impacts (3%) 13.0 18.25 16.5 20.1%
Mitigation impacts (2%) 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%
P j t h l 13 8 18 5% 17 2 20 4%Project as a whole 13.8 18.5% 17.2 20.4%
Source: Project Appraisal Document, WB Report No. 73422‐IN, July 17, 2013.

33. Concluding Remarks
• 42% of GIA in Canal command is by Pvt. ShTw.‐ mostly Diesel driven.
• 33% of GWIA comes under conjunctive use and about 20% of the gross
cropped area is rain‐fed.
• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW more pronounced in the• By shifting of irrigation source from GW to SW, more pronounced in the
tail and middle reaches about 4.5 million liters of diesel and 3 million
unit of power costing INR 212 million will be saved by improved canal
water supply.
S h d i i d h bili i f i i• UPWSRP –II suggests that modernization and rehabilitation of existing
canal systems of SSK, LGC & BKND at high investment @ $326 M though
ensures better water availability at outlet ends, but with low
investment in extension service through Farmer Water School below
C l b d @ $ 32 M i i i l dCulaba command @ $ 32 M, improvement in agriculture and water
productivity benefits is expected 71% WP at full project development
than improvement in irrigated area benefits 20% by conjunctive water
availability.
• Farmers’ survey in both LGC & UGC command suggests farmers’
willingness to adopt modern technology in agriculture and irrigation
best practices provided demonstration at their door step or elsewhere
is shown to them.
• Young people are moving out of agriculture from Tail and Middle
reaches for greener pastor in urban areas.

34. Concluding Remarks Continued
• Farmers appear to sacrifice use of canal water in
agriculture to maintain E‐flows in Ganges.
• Canal supply could be regulated in a better way
to match the irrigation demand, i.e., for
improving Dependability while reducing thep g p y g
surface water wastage.
• Conjunctive use of Surface and Groundwater is
essential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., toessential to meet the irrigation demand, i.e., to
ascertain Adequacy.
• Proper utilization of Groundwater potential could
help in improving the Cropping Intensityhelp in improving the Cropping Intensity.
• Alternatively, canal supplies could be curtailed,
and used to meet the tail‐end requirements, i.e.,
i ito ascertain Equity.