Agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained...
Transcript of Agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained...
Agricultural intensification and risk in water-constrained regions: a
systems analysis of horticulture cultivation in Maharashtra
Pre-synopsis Report
Submitted in partial fulfilment for PhD
By Pooja Prasad
134350003
February 2019
Under the guidance of
Prof. Milind Sohoni
Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA),
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai – 400076
2
Abstract
Developing countries frequently find the need for poverty reduction initiatives to be at odds
with promotion of sustainable practices. In India, where half of the population depends upon
agriculture for its livelihood, promotion of agricultural intensification through horticulture
cultivation is an important government strategy to raise farm productivity. Land under
horticulture has nearly doubled in the past two decades and the total horticulture production
has surpassed the production of food grains. At the same time, it is reported that while
horticulture cultivation raises productivity and farm incomes, it also raises social inequality
and leads to degradation of natural resources. The objective of this work, thus, is to analyze the
social and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification through
horticulture cultivation in the state of Maharashtra. We evaluate under what conditions
horticulture cultivation can raise farm productivity while ensuring social-ecological
sustainability.
An interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,
engineering, economics and systems thinking. Detailed ethnographic interviews and
biophysical surveys were conducted in Sinnar block of Nashik district, Maharashtra, over two
years: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Narratives of 121 farmers in four villages are documented with
respect to their investments and intensification trajectory.
Through the study of farm-level decisions, it is seen that intensification is a response of
individual farmers to remain economically viable in face of increasing biophysical
uncertainties, namely, the variability of monsoons, the risk in access to protective irrigation
due to high stage of groundwater development and the uncertainty created by competitive
private investments to transfer and store water, often informally, to assure irrigation. We use
Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework to model the dynamics of this human-nature
interaction and identify feedback mechanisms. We find that farm intensification and
investments to assure water appear helpful in mitigating risk for individual farmers in the short
run, but reinforce risk for the community as a whole in the long run by increasing stress on the
limited common pool resource. This creates a vicious cycle in which other farmers are then
induced to invest and intensify in order to stay viable, eroding the advantage of early movers
and eventually reverting to high uncertainty for everyone with significantly higher cost of
access. Farmers who are unable to intensify due to socio-economic constraints remain unviable
as non-farm livelihood opportunities are limited. This process is further catalyzed by
government programs that subsidize capital costs and invest in water conservation structures,
3
which, in absence of co-ordination between farmers, leads to further intensification beyond the
carrying capacity. The poor outcomes are evidenced in the high rates of crop failures and farmer
indebtedness, which contribute to the agrarian distress being witnessed in the state. An
externality is high drinking water insecurity for the landless and asset-poor farmers who depend
upon shallow dugwell-based public drinking water systems.
Our study shows that farmer distress is closely linked with biophysical vulnerability that is
exacerbated by unsustainable practices. These result from a lack of scientifically-informed
perception of risk, knowledge of resource and regulation. The challenge of simultaneously
enhancing farm resilience and incomes requires a new science to equip the state with sound
and practical tools for governance, for example in planning and regulation, and to improve the
commonly held understanding of groundwater for users so that community management and
collective crop planning is enabled. A strategy of well-regulated seasonal intensification at a
level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors, and by rotation amongst
farmers will result in a sustainable and equitable practice, and moreover, may actually increase
net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful infrastructure.
A significant contribution of this work is to support the development of such a water balance
and decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World
Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to
enhance climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone
districts of Maharashtra. Through application of this tool in specific villages, we develop a
framework to compute the extent of horticulture and water investments that can be supported
in a region. It is believed that armed with such tools, communities can follow and regulate
appropriate cropping patterns while ensuring prosperity and justice in access to the resource.
This is a concrete objective to aim for.
4
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Agricultural Intensification ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Frameworks for analysis ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3. Impact of agricultural intensification through horticulture cultivation ...................................... 15
3. Contours of horticulture growth in India ...................................................................................... 17
3.1 Horticulture and irrigated area .................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Exports and Imports .................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Input intensity ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Horticulture market rates ............................................................................................................ 22
3.5 Horticulture by landholding class ............................................................................................... 23
3.6 Horticulture in Maharashtra ........................................................................................................ 24
3.7 Limitations of secondary data analysis ....................................................................................... 27
4. Research questions and methodology ........................................................................................... 28
4.1 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Selection of field area ................................................................................................................. 29
4.3 Field work methodology ............................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Design of survey ......................................................................................................................... 36
5. Field Area: Sinnar ......................................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Wadgaon Sinnar .......................................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Dodhi Kh. .................................................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Dapur........................................................................................................................................... 42
5.4 Pandhurli ..................................................................................................................................... 44
5.5 Villages in Northern Sinnar ........................................................................................................ 45
5.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 48
6. Findings: Uncertainty and coping mechanisms ............................................................................ 50
6.1 Operational regime ...................................................................................................................... 50
6.2 Crop Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................ 54
6.3 Manoeuvring access to water ...................................................................................................... 59
6.4 Farmer decisions ......................................................................................................................... 62
6.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 65
7. A social-ecological systems analysis ............................................................................................ 67
5
7.1 Characterizing the system ........................................................................................................... 68
7.2 Uncovering feedback loops ......................................................................................................... 71
7.3 A tragedy of the commons or worse? ......................................................................................... 75
7.4 Leverage points ........................................................................................................................... 76
7.5 Conclusion: What will stop the cycle? ........................................................................................ 79
8. Farm level vulnerability assessment ............................................................................................. 81
8.1 Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 82
8.2 Farm level water balance ............................................................................................................ 83
8.3 Planning for resilience: how much intensification? .................................................................... 87
8.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 94
9. Farmponds..................................................................................................................................... 96
9.1 Conceptual model ....................................................................................................................... 97
9.2 Model setup and calibration ...................................................................................................... 100
9.3 Modeling impact of farmponds ................................................................................................. 103
9.4 Model results and discussion .................................................................................................... 108
9.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 113
10. Conclusions and Future work ................................................................................................. 114
10.1 Future work ............................................................................................................................. 116
11. References ............................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix A – Farmer survey questionnaire ....................................................................................... 124
Appendix B – Brief Farmer Narratives ............................................................................................... 130
Appendix C –GIS Mapping of Cropping Pattern in 2015-16 and 2016-17 ........................................ 156
Appendix D -Game-theoretical modeling of the SES ......................................................................... 160
Appendix E –Technical details of farm level water balance tool ....................................................... 165
Appendix F – Sample Crop-planning analysis for Paradgaon village in Jalna, Marathwada ............. 170
6
1. Introduction
It is widely known that with the structural changes in the Indian economy since independence,
the share of agriculture output has shrunk to about one-sixth of the national output. At the same
time, about half of the country’s population continues to depend on agriculture for its
livelihood. The farming sector is marked by low productivity and poor returns but increasingly
it also faces large variability due to factors such as climate change, degradation of natural
resources and inefficient markets. This has given rise to widespread farmer distress in the
country seen by way of protests against government policies, rejection of markets, demand for
farm-loan waivers and continued cases of farmer suicides (Reddy and Mishra 2010, Nadkarni
2018, Shankari 2018, Suthar 2018). Many government initiatives aim to address this, the most
recent being a call to double farmers’ income by 2022. Promotion of agricultural intensification
by shifting from food-grain to high-value horticulture cultivation is one of the prongs of this
initiative (Chand 2017, GoI 2017a).
Agricultural intensification refers to activities that intend to increase the productivity or
profitability of a given tract of agricultural land (Rasmussen et al. 2018). This includes
activities such as reducing fallow time, increasing use of inputs or changing crop type to obtain
greater return (Shaver et al. 2015, Rasmussen et al. 2018). Intensification in India has been
broadly understood to be driven by enabling factors such as improved technology, irrigation
infrastructure development, government subsidies, knowledge extension and market
conditions. For example, the agricultural intensification caused due to the green revolution, or
Gujarat’s model of horticulture cultivation driven by investments in agriculture and post-
harvest industry (Gulati and Shreedhar 2009). In this work, our focus is on the role of socio-
ecological factors in driving agricultural intensification through cultivation of horticulture
crops with the goal of increasing farm returns.
Between 2000-01 and 2012-13, India witnessed an increase in gross cropped area (GCA) under
horticulture crops by 44%, with the result that horticulture production has now outpaced total
food-grain production in the country (GoI 2017b, 2017c). This is despite the fact that food-
grains are grown in greater than 60% of the GCA and horticulture crops make up less than 8%
of the GCA. India is now the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world and
there has been a consistent rise in export of horticultural products. Moreover, fruits and
vegetables are grown disproportionally more by marginal (< 1 ha) and smallholding (1-2 ha)
7
farmers who account for 91% of fruit growing landholdings and 87% of all vegetable growing
landholdings (GoI 2015a).
India’s Niti Ayog’s policy paper on doubling farmer incomes states that shifting one hectare
area from staple crops to commercial high value crops has the potential to increase gross returns
upto Rs. 1,01,608 per hectare (Chand 2017). This popularly-believed economic promise of
horticulture sits in sharp contrast to the rising agrarian distress in the country which is partly
attributed to cash-crop farming and factors such as climate change, increasing water stress,
rising cost of cultivation, high vulnerability to market shocks and lack of alternate rural
livelihood opportunities (Birthal et al. 2008, Reddy and Mishra 2010). There are other studies
that have studied the relation between changing cropping patterns and farmer suicides.
(Thippeswamy 2016) contends that in Karnataka, unviable returns from food grain crops has
forced farmers to take up cash crops but uneconomical holdings, frequent failure of cash crops
and more volatile prices of commercial crops have increased the agrarian distress and pushed
more and more farmers to commit suicide in the state. Studies have also reported that while
horticulture cultivation raises farm incomes, it also raises social inequality and leads to
degradation of natural resources (Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007, Aragona and Orr 2011,
Shaver et al. 2015).
The need to increase farm incomes is an urgent one. At the same time, the need to practice
sustainable farming is also pressing. It is under these circumstances that we evaluate the social
and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification through horticulture
cultivation. Specifically, we evaluate under what conditions horticulture cultivation can raise
farm productivity while ensuring social-ecological sustainability.
Sinnar block in Nashik district is selected for field work because of its high horticulture
production and the diversity of agro-climatic conditions that exist within the same taluka. An
interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,
engineering, economics and systems thinking. Detailed ethnographic interviews and
biophysical surveys were conducted over two years: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Farmer narratives
with respect to investments and intensification trajectory were documented and quantitative
farm level agro-economic data was captured.
The study of farm-level decisions shows intensification to be a response of individual farmers
to remain economically viable in face of increasing biophysical uncertainties, namely, the
variability of monsoons, the risk in access to protective irrigation due to high stage of
8
groundwater development and the uncertainty created by competitive private investments to
transfer and store water, often informally, to assure irrigation. We use the social-ecological
system (SES) framework (Anderies et al. 2004, Binder et al. 2013, Stojanovic et al. 2016,
Villholth et al. 2017, Rasmussen et al. 2018) to model the dynamics of this human-nature
interaction and identify feedback mechanisms. We find that investments to assure water and
crop intensification appear helpful in mitigating risk for individual farmers in the short run, but
reinforce risk for the community as a whole by increasing stress on the limited common pool
resource. This creates a vicious cycle in which other farmers are then induced to invest and
intensify in order to stay viable, eroding the advantage of early movers and eventually reverting
to high uncertainty for everyone with significantly higher cost of access. Farmers who are
unable to intensify due to socio-economic constraints remain unviable as non-farm livelihood
opportunities are limited. This process is further catalyzed by government programs that
subsidize capital costs and invest in water conservation structures, which, in absence of co-
ordination between farmers, leads to intensification beyond the carrying capacity. The poor
outcomes are evidenced in the high rates of failures and farmer indebtedness. An externality is
high drinking water insecurity for the landless and asset-poor farmers who depend upon
shallow dugwell-based public drinking water systems.
We find that mean income rises with horticulture cultivation but so does the variance at various
levels, impacting a large number of farmers and causing failures. Limiting intensification and
investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors is key
to reducing endogenous variability and building resilience against exogenous uncertainties
such as climate. This can be achieved through scientific engagement to develop tools that are
accessible to the community to seasonally estimate the carrying capacity of available water and
arrive at a set of possible cropping scenarios and the associated risk of failure.
A significant part of this work is to support the development of such a water balance and
decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World Bank
funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to enhance
climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone districts of
Maharashtra. Application of the water balance tool to evaluate cropping patterns of model
villages such as Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi reaffirms that promotion of horticulture without
assessment of carrying capacity not only leads to unsustainability but also makes farmers more
vulnerable to uncertainties of climate. We show concrete examples of estimating water budget
9
based on biophysical factors and the use of this knowledge to compute the extent of horticulture
and water investments that can be supported in a region.
The report is organised as follows. Chapter 2 is a review of literature on the trajectory of
agricultural intensification, its impact on small holding farmers and available frameworks that
may be used to analyse stainability of socio-ecological systems in which intensification takes
place. Chapter 3 summarizes the characteristics of the horticulture boom in the country by an
analysis of secondary data. Chapter 4 goes through the scope of work and the methodology.
Village narratives for all the villages that were part of the field work in Sinnar are presented in
Chapter 5. The main findings of the work done in Sinnar are presented in Chapter 6 which
illustrates the high variability at different stages of horticulture cultivation and its relation with
assurance of water for irrigation. A system dynamic analysis of the coupled socio-ecological
system is presented in Chapter 7. The objective of this analysis is to uncover the feedback loops
within the system that explain the observed trajectory and identify points of leverage where
interventions may stop the vicious cycles at play. The recommendations from this chapter are
taken forward in the following two chapters. Chapter 8 is dedicated to the development and use
of a farm level water balance tool which can be used to assess farm vulnerability due to
biophysical factors and to quantify the need for protective irrigation. This tool is the engine
around which a regional water balance tool has been designed by the IITB-PoCRA team that
can be used by farming communities as a decision support system to plan appropriate cropping
patterns and supply side interventions. Chapter 9 takes up the specific case of farmponds and
uses system dynamic modelling to evaluate the conditions under which they can be valuable to
the farmer without impacting water security. The tools in Chapters 8 and 9 illustrate how the
water balance of the region may be used to determine the threshold of interventions and
intensification that can be supported by regional biophysical factors. Finally, conclusions and
future work are presented in Chapter 7.
10
2. Literature review
2.1 Agricultural Intensification
Agriculture intensification refers to activities that intend to increase the productivity or
profitability of a given tract of agricultural land (Rasmussen et al. 2018). This includes
activities such as increased cropping intensity (i.e. reduced fallow time), increased use of inputs
or changing crop type to obtain higher output or market value or a combination of these
activities (Shaver et al. 2015, Rasmussen et al. 2018). The trajectory of intensification from
subsistence to industrial level has been studied by many scholars across various disciplines:
economics (Malthus 1798, Boserup 1965, Cochrane 1958), anthropology (Chayanov 1966,
Scott 1976, Netting 1993) , ecology and environment , development studies etc. as well as
interdisciplinary lens such as sustainability studies, social-ecological systems etc. Depending
upon the disciplinary lens, these studies address one or more of the following concerns: food
security, climate and environmental sustainability, economic viability of farmers and rural
societies, impact on equity and social well-being, impact on ecological services. This section
provides a review of the key studies.
Early work by Malthus (1798) proposed that a combination of exponential growth in population
and arithmetic growth in food supply growth would lead to shortage of food supply and
ultimately to a Malthusian catastrophe. Boserup (1965) reversed this argument to assert that
the growth in population will result in a steady intensification in agriculture. Increased
population will result in higher demand for technological changes and will also result in more
people available to work on technological advancement, leading to technology-led agricultural
intensification. Intensification is chosen over extensification (i.e. bringing new area under
agriculture) only when land becomes scarce since in non-mechanised systems intensification
increases land productivity but decreases labour productivity (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).
Chayanov (1966), drawing from his anthropological studies in Russia, placed the peasant
family farm (defined as farms that relied on family labour alone) as an economic unit and
argued that the prevailing economic theories could not explain the viability of family farm in
terms of the standard factors of production used to analyse capitalistic agriculture. He argued
that family farms did not seek to maximize profits due to “drudgery of labour” and
intensification would not follow unless the consumer-producer ratio changed (Turner and Ali
1996). In this respect, his theory was consistent with that of Boserup.
11
Induced intensification thesis (Turner and Ali 1996) states that change is often imposed on
vulnerable farmers who struggle to shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture due to lack
of access to capital and other factors. It extends the previous theories by suggesting that
intensification is moderated through conditions besides increasing population density, such that
technological, socio-economic and institutional conditions. It also accounts for biophysical
factors which can aggravate this vulnerability as poor quality farms require higher investment
while prime lands exacerbate intensification.
Cochrane's (1958) theory uses technology treadmill as a metaphor. Farmers are forced to adopt
new technology in order to improve productivity and stay competitive in the market. Early
adopters make profits for some time as investment in new technology lowers their production
cost. However, as new farmers adopt the technology the price of the produce drops, lowering
the profit even with lower input cost. The low product price, nonetheless forces the remaining
farmers to either adopt the technology to lower their production cost. Those unable to do so
because of the profit squeeze, typically smallholding farmers, become unviable and face
pressure to exit agriculture. Intensification thus acts as a polarizing force. This ultimately gives
rise to large-scale capitalized agriculture (Richard A . Levins and Willard W . Cochrane 1996)
In aggregate, the broad trajectory of techno-managerial intensification is therefore a stair-
stepped one with critical thresholds in the process which may serve as major hurdles to
intensification (Turner and Ali 1996). Absence of a technology fix is likely to lead to conditions
of involution and stagnation. Involution, as coined by Geertz (1968), implies that production
increases are made, but with significant declines in the marginal utility of inputs, and are done
so because few, if any, options exist. Stagnation, in contrast, means that production does not
increase and may even decline.
Intensification has been studied with respect to market integration. In addition to subsistence
demand due to increased population density, the market demand for agricultural produce is
also a driver of intensification. Farmers may respond to this by dedicating part of their practice
to market cultivation depending on the degree of market integration (Meyfroidt et al. 2018).
Turner and Ali (1996) note the changes in farmer aspirations and social structures as a result
of greater market integration of small-holding farmer with intensification. These changes
impact the safety nets that ensure basic needs, instead offering the opportunity for some
households to increase their material standard of living and others failing to do so, resulting in
increasing polarization of material living standards.
12
Peasant Studies from many anthropologists (Chayanov 1966, Scott 1976) have argued that
smallholding farmers may not respond “rationally” to market signals due to different
production goals. Scott (1976) describes the safety-first risk-averse attitude of subsistence
farmers that breaks down when uncertainties rise, forcing them to cultivate cash crops to stay
afloat. Netting (1993), on the other hand, analyses the smallholder household in densely
populated parts of the world as a cultural ecosystem that can outcompete industrial or collective
forms of farming. He argues that smallholding families are inherently market oriented and this
market integration does not lead to greater inequality.
Sociologist Ulrich Beck’s risk society (Chatalova et al. 2016) links agricultural intensification
(as a case of modern industry) with risk by stating that manufactured risks (as opposed to
natural disasters) have become the predominant product, and not a side-effect, of industrial
society. It informs modern agricultural economics by pointing out the circular cumulative
causation between risks, knowledge, technology, and industrialization of agriculture. The
distribution of this risk – financial, social or ecological, and not wealth, becomes the basis of
social stratification.
Ecologists studying intensification have raised concerns such as loss of biodiversity due to
increasing monoculture and impact on natural resources such as soil, water and nutrients
(Matson et al. 1997) and call for techniques such as integrated pest management and organic
farming. Agriculture is also seen as the single largest contributor to climate change (Rockström
et al. 2017). However, ecologists working on land-use science agree that intensification as a
preferred way of meeting growing demand for food, as compared to extensification (to change
land use to bring more area under agriculture) (DeFries et al. 2004, Rasmussen et al. 2018).
An emerging paradigm is that of sustainable intensification (SI). It attempts to address the
problem of feeding a growing population and doing it without any adverse environmental
impact and without any additional conversion of non-agricultural land (Pretty and Bharucha
2014). The concept has been controversial with some hailing it as the only strategy to meet
rising food needs within the planetary limits (Rockström et al. 2017) and others being critical
of its neutrality towards all type of agriculture from organic farming to genetically modified
crops and industrial agriculture. (Godfray and Garnett 2014). “Ecological intensification” has
been contrasted with sustainable intensification to imply intensive use of natural functionalities
of the ecosystem to produce food in a sustainable way. It constitutes models such as agro-
ecology and organic farming (Tittonell 2014).
13
FAO (2014) extended the definition of sustainability beyond protection of the natural resource
base by including the need for decent and resilient livelihoods for rural populations by ensuring
profitability, environmental health, and social and economic equity. FAO (2011) address the
need for intensification by calling for “greening” of green revolution by increasing higher
productivity and profitability through an ecosystem approach drawing on contribution of soil
organic matter, water flow regulation and bio-control of pests. On the consumption side, it also
asks for the need for consumers to shift to nutritious diets with smaller environmental footprint.
It thus calls for “climate-smart” agriculture: one that sustainably increases productivity,
resilience to climate (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation), and
enhances achievement of national food security and development goals’(Godfray and Garnett
2014).
2.2. Frameworks for analysis
The two-way relationship between environmental problems such as climate change,
degradation of natural resources, biodiversity loss and human actions has been the subject of
increasing interest in the scientific community. Until a few decades ago there was limited
overlap between social sciences and natural sciences where mainstream ecology largely
excluded humans from their study and many social sciences disciplines ignored the
environment and limited their scope to humans (Berkes et al. 2003). This changed in the 1970s
and 80s with the realization that the complexity of the social and ecological systems mandate
an integrative and inter-disciplinary approach for analysis and modelling (Binder et al. 2013).
The term social-ecological system (SES) is used to emphasize the integrated concept of
humans-in-nature (Berkes et al. 2003)
Many frameworks have been developed by scholars and practitioners for analysis of coupled
SES. Binder et al. (2013) present a comparative analysis of ten such established frameworks.
Depending upon the objective and disciplinary origin, they differ in their primary focus, that
is, some are anthropocentric (i.e. pivot on human-wellbeing and social aspects and define
ecological systems based on human utility) while others are eco-centric (they hinge on
ecological systems as their primary concern and focus on human-action that affect the
ecosystem) (Binder et al. 2013).
Two notable anthropocentric frameworks relevant for our work include the sustainable
livelihoods approach (SLA) (Scoones 1998) and the SES framework (SESF) (Ostrom 1990,
Anderies et al. 2004).
14
The SLA framework has its roots in the development studies. The key question that is asked in
an analysis of sustainable livelihoods is: Given a particular context, what combination of
livelihood resources (natural, economic, human, social, and other kind of capital) result in the
ability to follow what combination of livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification/
extensification, livelihood diversification and migration) with what outcomes? Of particular
interest in this framework are the institutional processes which mediate the ability to carry out
such strategies and achieve (or not) such outcomes (Scoones 1998).
The social-ecological systems framework (SESF) has been used to provide a common language
for organising various variables that characterize an SES and to compare different case studies.
It is used to understand under what conditions users of a common property resource come
together to sustainably manage the resource and avoid a tragedy of the commons (Hardin
1968). The origin of SESF is in the social sciences (political science), and is based on theories
of collective action, common pool resource and natural resource management. It is used
extensively in the area of management of fisheries, forests, pastures and water (Binder et al.
2013). The richness of the SESF framework comes from the fact that it allows description of
dynamics within and between the social and ecological systems and thus allows a study over
time and space. The SES is conceived as a hierarchical multi-tiered system which may be
packed or unpacked at the desired level (Ostrom 1990). The SESF is firmly rooted in the
systems thinking.
Resilience of social-ecological systems in face of rising uncertainty due to climate and other
factors is the subject of great importance and current interest. Resilience is defined as the
capacity of a system to experience disturbance while reorganizing to retain essentially the same
function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al. 2004) and it follows from Holling
(1973). Social-ecological systems exhibit thresholds that, when exceeded, result in changed
system feedbacks that lead to changes in function and structure. The more resilient a system,
the larger the disturbance it can absorb without shifting into an alternate regime. Resilience
theory (Sinclair et al. 2014) offers a framework to understand the processes of change in SESs.
The theory focuses on the dynamics of systems by exploring linkages across time and space,
and the interplay between social, economic, and biophysical domains. In the context of
sustainable food and agriculture, resilience is the capacity of agro ecosystems, farming
communities, households or individuals to maintain or enhance system productivity by
preventing, mitigating or coping with risks, adapting to change, and recovering from shocks.
(FAO 2014)
15
2.3. Impact of agricultural intensification through horticulture cultivation
A study in Kenya (McCulloch and Ota 2002) that sampled smallholder farmers to study the
impact of export-oriented horticulture cultivation on farm incomes concluded that farm
incomes were five times more per family member compared to smallholding farmers that did
not grow horticulture crops.(Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007) collated results from several
studies of horticulture cultivation in Asia and Africa and concluded that profitability from
vegetable cultivation compared to that for cereal cultivation, is largest when seen as profit per
cropping day. It is also significantly high when land is limiting and profit is calculated per unit
area. The difference in profitability is lower (though significant) when seen with respect to
labour input (as vegetable cultivation is more labour intensive). They thus conclude that
vegetable production is most profitable under conditions where arable land is scarce and labour
is abundant. With respect to poverty alleviation, (Weinberger and Lumpkin 2007) report that
while there is potential for horticulture cultivation to have large effect on poverty alleviation,
current studies show that small-holding farmers are largely excluded from high-value markets.
(Turner and Ali 1996) studied the evidence of induced intensification in smallholding farmers
in six villages in Bangladesh during 1950-1986 due to factors such as land pressure, water,
market and state policies. The first wave of intensification in the 1960s was driven by a shift
to high yielding crop varieties and the second wave in the 80s was led by a shift to high market
value crops (“market gardening”). They find that although intensification resulted in a small
increase in surplus, it did so under increasingly polarizing conditions such that by the end of
the study period, the larger landholding farmers accounted for the surplus production and the
increasing landless households suffered from chronic shortage in production as well as
malnutrition.
(Aragona and Orr 2011) analysed the process of intensification in Bolivia’s Tipajara watershed
which led to a monoculture of onion cultivation and an eventual environmental and economic
collapse seen through land and water scarcity and massive emigration. They observe that even
when economic and agronomic forces may push farmers to abandon one type of cash crop,
there is a strong possibility that one monoculture will be replaced by another. The authors call
for active community engagement for sustainable governance of natural resources.
(Shaver et al. 2015), in their interdisciplinary study of agricultural intensification, study the
social-ecological impact of large scale pineapple cultivation in the tropical region of Costa Rica
and show how pineapple expansion produces social and environmental change with local
16
conservation implications. The authors find that the existing rural development model, with
emphasis on large-scale production resulting in exclusion of smallholders, illustrates the effort
to meet national economic objectives for export growth and job creation at the cost of regional
concerns of equity, household food security and rural poverty alleviation.
Many scholars have commented on the strategy of promotion of horticulture cultivation in the
Indian context and its implication on smallholding farmers (Joshi et al. 2004, 2006, Birthal et
al. 2007, 2008, Roy and Thorat 2008, Chand 2017). These studies unanimously state that
viability of small farms can be improved through diversification of cropping pattern towards
fruits and vegetables. The labour-intensity of horticulture crops make them very amenable to
cultivation by smallholding farmers. At the same time, they highlight current impediments to
be lack of efficient marketing system and large production risk due to poor quality seeds (Joshi
et al. 2006). They call for greater investment in agricultural research and public infrastructure
(Birthal et al. 2008). (Birthal et al. 2007) bring up lack of knowledge as a concern that puts
smallholders at a disadvantage in horticulture cultivation. They also raise the issue of
insufficient savings or credit access that prevents smallholders from investing in horticulture
cultivation. In general, vegetables, with their quick returns and low capital requirement
compared to fruit crops are more suitable for smallholding farmers.
(Chand 2017) in India’s Niti Ayog’s policy paper on doubling farmer incomes states that
shifting one hectare area from staple crops to commercial high value crops has the potential to
increase gross returns upto Rs. 1,01,608 per hectare. With respect to cropping intensity, Chand
notes that currently the cropping intensity in irrigated area is not very different from that in
rainfed areas which shows that irrigation is not available through out the year and hence,
suggests that making irrigation available around the year will be useful in increasing cropping
intensity. Increase in crop intensity at the same rate as observed in the recent past has the
potential to raise farmers' income by 3.4 per cent in 7 years and 4.9 per cent in ten years. (Chand
2017).
In the next chapter, we analyse secondary data to review the horticulture growth in India and
specifically in the state of Maharashtra.
17
3. Contours of horticulture growth in India
India has seen a steady increase in the area under horticulture and the horticulture production
over last several decades. The share of gross cropped area (GCA) under horticulture increased
by 44% from 16.5 million ha in 2000-01 to 23.7 million ha in 2012-13 (GoI 2014a).
Horticulture comprises of fruits, vegetables, flowers, plantations and spice crops. Of this, fruits
and vegetables (F&V) account for about 68% of all area under horticulture. Figure 3.1 shows
the gross cropped area and the production levels of horticulture crops, as well as fruits and
vegetables in the past two and half decades.
Figure 3.1: Trends in Horticulture Produce
Since 2011-12, horticulture production has outpaced total food-grain production in the country.
This is in spite of the fact that food grains are grown in greater than 60% of the GCA and
horticulture crops are grown in less than 8% of the country’s GCA. This is indicative of the
high yields (production per unit land) of horticulture crops. In terms of value of output,
vegetable and fruits accounted for Rs 1572 billion in 2010-11 making up 23% of the total
agricultural output value while cereals accounted for 27%. (GoI 2014b).
Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of the gross cropped area under different types of crops (GoI
2015b).
18
Six fruits make up 80% of the total fruit production in the country (as shown in Table 3.1).
These are mango, citrus fruits, banana, papaya, guava and grapes. They account for 68% of the
area sown under fruits. Eight vegetables make up 80% of the vegetable production in the
country (and 68% in terms of area sown under vegetables).
Table 3.1: Fruits and vegetables that make 80% of production
Figure 3.3 from (CSO 2013) shows the value of output of selected fruits and vegetables (at
constant price).
Fruits Area '000 ha % Area
Production '000
tonnes % Produce
Total Fruits 7,216 100% 88,977 100%
Mango 2,516 35% 18,431 21%
Citrus total 1,078 15% 11,147 13%
Banana 803 11% 29,725 33%
Papaya 133 2% 5,639 6%
Guava 268 4% 3,668 4%
Grapes 119 2% 2,585 3%
Vegetables Area '000 ha % Area
Production '000
tonnes % Produce
Total Vegetables 9396 100% 162897 100%
Potato 1973 21% 41555 26%
Onion 1204 13% 19402 12%
Tomato 882 9% 18736 12%
Brinjal 711 8% 13558 8%
Cabbage 400 4% 9039 6%
Cauliflower 434 5% 8573 5%
Tapioca 228 2% 8139 5%
Okra 533 6% 6346 4%
Fruits and Vegetables that make up 80% of production
Source: Pocketbook of Agricultural Statistics, 2015
Figure 3.2: Share of crops in Gross Cropped Area and Gross Irrigated Area
19
Figure 3.3: Value of output of selected fruits (CSO 2013)
3.1 Horticulture and irrigated area
The gross irrigated area of the country is 88.89 million ha (2010-11), which is 45% of the gross
cropped area. Figure 3.2 shows the distribution of the gross irrigated area of the country
amongst different crop-types. 51% of the country’s gross cropped area is under cereals and
millets but they form 64% of the gross irrigated area. This is primarily driven by wheat (95%
of the crop is irrigated) and paddy (59% of the crop is irrigated). On the other hand, coarse
cereals make up 10% of the GCA but only 3% of the GIA. Similarly, pulses are grown on 13%
of the GCA but only on 4% of the GIA. Fruits and vegetables, which tend to be grown under
assured irrigation have a high share under irrigation. 51% of area under onions, 71% in case of
tomatoes, 86% in case of potato and cauliflower is irrigated (see Figure 3.4). Similarly, 76%
of area under banana and 96% under grapes is irrigated. Overall, 73% of area under top eight
vegetables and 55% of area under top six fruits is irrigated.
20
Figure 3.4: Crop wise area under irrigation
3.2 Exports and Imports
Horticulture produce is also increasingly contributing towards the county’s exports. Currently
it stands at about 5% of the total agricultural export value. Grapes occupies the premier position
in exports with 107.3 thousand tonnes valued Rs 1086 crores. Other fruits which have attained
significant position in exports are banana and mango. Exports of fresh vegetables such as peas,
potatoes and onions has also been significant.
Table 3.2 shows the top agricultural and allied products that are imported or exported. We find
that 10% of our annual rice production and 6% of the country’s wheat production was exported
in 2013-14. In contrast, 16% of the country’s total pulses consumption was fulfilled through
imports. Edible vegetable oil is the largest proportion of our agricultural import. Given that
wheat and paddy make up the largest part of our gross irrigated area and pulses and oilseeds
are largely grown in unirrigated areas, this points to a concern in the cropping pattern currently
followed. The failure of the state to adjust the MSPs of pulses and oilseeds appropriately even
21
as the country grows surplus of wheat and paddy and is deficit in pulses and oilseeds has been
cited as the primary reason for this skewed pattern (Chand 2012).
Table 3.2: Top agricultural imports and exports (2013-14)
3.3 Input intensity
Fruits and vegetables are input-intensive not only with respect to water, but also in terms of
other inputs such as fertilizers. As Table 3.3 shows, in general, pulses consume 40kg of
fertilizers per ha of GCA as compared to an average of 110kg for foodgrains, 159kg for fruits
and 254 kg for vegetables (FAI 2012). The difference is even more stark if we focus the
comparison only on the fertilizer consumption per ha of area treated. Fruits and vegetables
require double the amount of fertilizer per unit area of treatment as compared to foodgrains and
three times that for pulses.
Qty '000 tonnes Value in crores % of total
Total agricultural imports 87,466 100%
Vegetable Oils (edible) 7,943 44,038 50%
Pulses 3,644 12,793 15%
Fresh Fruits 769 7,716 9%
Cashew nuts 776 4,668 5%
Spices 156 3,452 4%
Cotton raw & waste 181 2,376 3%
Sugar 881 2,287 3%
Others 10,136 12%
Total agricultural exports 262,779 100%
Marine Products 1,193 30,627 12%
Basmati rice 3,754 29,292 11%
Meat and preparations 1,389 27,163 10%
Cotton raw including waste 1,948 22,338 9%
Rice non-Basmati 7,136 17,795 7%
Oil Meals 9,830 17,070 6%
Spices 896 15,146 6%
F&V and products - 14,068 5%
Wheat 5,572 9,278 4%
Sugar 2,535 7,179 3%
Top Agricultural imports and exports 2013-14
Source: : Pocketbook of agricultural statistics 2015
22
Table 3.3: Fertilizer consumption for different crops
3.4 Horticulture market rates
Fruits and vegetables tend to have higher price fluctuations than food grains and other non-
perishable produce. An analysis of the wholesale market rate of different crops in the year
2015-16 is shown in Table 3.4. The data is for produce that was sold in different APMC markets
of Nashik district.
Table 3.4: Analysis of daily wholesale prices in Nashik
The APMC wholesale rates are published as (Min rate, Modal rate, Max rate) for each day and
each crop. The % stdev column shows the variation in the modal rate from day to day. It shows
that the variation in the daily modal rate is significantly higher for horticulture produce than
Crop N P K Total
Paddy 82 29.8 17.3 129.1 165.2
Wheat 112.9 42.9 6.8 162.6 176.7
Jowar 40.2 22 3.6 65.8 102.6
Bajra 20.3 4.5 0.5 25.3 56.2
Maize 62.7 23.7 3.5 89.9 121.9
Gram 23 21.6 3.2 47.8 92.1
Total pulses 19.5 17.5 2.5 39.5 97.6
Total foodgrains 71.8 28.3 9.9 110 152.6
Soyabean 32.3 31.4 0.8 64.5 83.8
Sugarcane 149 56.4 29.5 234.9 239.3
Cotton 118.9 49.9 14.5 183.3 192.6
Total Fruits 73.2 40.3 45 158.5 310.2
Potato 131.9 110.8 77.6 320.3 347.2
Onion 109.3 79.2 60.7 249.2 274.8
Cabbage 58.4 33.2 146.2 237.8 406.7
Total vegetables 106.4 87.1 60.3 253.8 312.8
All crops 70.3 30.9 11.6 112.8 155.3
Kg of fertiliser Consumption per ha of gross cropped area
(2006-07)
Total Kg of
fertiliser
Consumption per
ha of area treated
with fertilizers
Source: I-118 Table 6.12 Fertilizer Statistics 2011-12
Crop MSP
Average of
annual modal
price
distribution
Rs/Q
% stdev
Average of daily
price spread left of
modal price due to
produce quality
% daily
spread to
left due to
quality
difference
Average of daily price
spread right of modal
price due to produce
quality
% daily
spread to
right due
to quality
difference
Wheat 1525 1637.1 8% 96.4 6% 197.6 12%
Bajra 1275 1552.9 11% 139.9 9% 125.9 8%
Jowar 1570 1775.5 15% 24.8 1% 41.1 2%
Maize 1325 1451.4 16% 47.3 3% 27.9 2%
Tur 4625 7379.2 12% 391.4 5% 164.1 2%
Gram 3425 4434.4 14% 522.2 12% 374.0 8%
Soyabean 2600 3691.1 6% 284.8 8% 185.5 5%
Onions NA 1728.7 73% 905.5 52% 386.1 22%
Tomato NA 1343.8 51% 571.8 43% 545.6 41%
Pomegranate NA 3971.9 26% 3597.9 91% 3369.1 85%
Analysis of daily wholesale prices across all APMC markets for Nashik distict (2015-16)
Data source: agmarket.gov.in
23
for non-perishable produce (73% for onions, 51% for tomato as compared to 6% for soyabean
and 8-16% for food grains). The difference between the modal rate and the min rate of the day
gives the price spread to the left and the difference between the max rate for the day and the
modal rate gives the price spread to the right for any day. These variations are typically caused
due to a difference in quality of the produce. Example, for onions, on average the minimum
price was 52% lower than the modal price and the maximum price was 22% higher than the
modal rate. For pomegranate this was even higher at 91% on the lower side and 85% on the
higher side. This means that while the modal rate for pomegranate on a day may be Rs. 4000
per quintal, there are farmers who are getting a rate that is 91% lower than this – i.e. they are
having to sell produce at throw-away price. In contrast, price variation due to quality spread on
any day in a market is significantly lower for non-perishable produce. This shows that fruits
and vegetables carry a higher market risk than other produce for the farmer.
3.5 Horticulture by landholding class
Data from agricultural census 2010-11
(GoI 2015a) is used to understand which
class of farmers grow fruit and
vegetables. Overall, 67% of all
landholdings are marginal (<1 ha), 18%
are small (between 1 to 2 ha), 10% are in
the semi-medium class (2 to 4 ha), and the
remaining 5% are medium or large. As
shown in Figure 3.5, 80% of the
landholdings that are used to grow fruits
and 72% of landholdings used for
growing vegetables belong to the marginal (< 1 ha) category. Area wise, 26% of the area under
fruits and 34% of area under vegetables is made up by marginal landholdings. This suggests
that fruits and vegetables are grown by disproportionally more marginal and small farmers.
Together, they account for 91% of fruit growing landholdings and 87% of all vegetable
growing landholdings. By area, they account for 50% of all area under fruits and 58% of all
area under vegetables.
At first glance this is a surprising finding given that fruits and vegetables are more water-
intensive and have higher input requirements. However, the agricultural census 1990-91 (GoI
1991) provides some clues. It provides estimates of number of landholdings by class for
Figure 3.5: Share of farmers by landholding class for different crops
24
different vegetable and fruit crops separately. This shows that there are certain fruits (like
mango, banana, papaya, guava) and certain vegetables (like tapioca, cucumber, gourds etc.)
which are grown disproportionally more on marginal landholdings. On the other hand, fruits
such as pomegranate, grapes and vegetables such as onion, tomatoes, spinach, cabbage,
cauliflower etc. are grown more by larger landholding farmers. Figure 3.6 shows this for
different crops and is sorted by increasing share of marginal landholdings. Although this data
is old (2010-11 census report does not include this detail), it can be assumed to be a good
indication especially since fruit orchards tend to have a lifespan of 10-20 years.
Figure 3.6: Share of landholdings under different crops by landholding class
This suggests that there may be different category of fruits/ vegetables that are preferred by
marginal and small farmers. However, there is little secondary data available on the area under
different F&V crops by landholding size, their productivity, market rates, input prices etc. other
than for the main crops.
3.6 Horticulture in Maharashtra
The three leading fruit producing states are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The
leading vegetable producing states are West Bengal, UP and Bihar.
25
Note that nationwide, 8% of all landholdings grow fruits and 9% of all landholdings grow
vegetables. For Maharashtra, 6% of all landholdings grow fruits and 3% grow vegetables (GoI
2015a). In terms of gross cropped area, both country-wide and state-wide, the area under fruits
and vegetables is about 5%, hence it implies that the average landholding size growing F&V
in Maharashtra is much larger.
In terms of value, the share of
fruits and vegetables has gone
down in the past decade but
remains at about 25%. The
share of sugar has seen a
dramatic increase in addition to
some increase in oilseeds and
pulses (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.9 shows the
distribution of Maharashtra
state’s GCA and GIA among
the main crops. Fruits and vegetables together form 5% of the state’s GCA but 15% of the
gross irrigated area. Sugarcane, which covers 4% of the GCA, accounts for 20% of the gross
irrigated area of the state.
Figure 3.7: Fruit and Vegetable production by states (Source: GoI 2014a)
Figure 3.8: Share of state agricultural output by crop type
26
Figure 3.9: Share of Maharashtra's GCA and GIA by crop type
In terms of value, the most important fruit and vegetable crops of the state are: onion, citrus
fruits, banana, grapes, mango, tomato and papaya. Figure 3.10 shows the trend in their values.
Figure 3.10: Share of top fruits and vegetables in the state F&V output by value
Nashik is the state’s number 1district in terms of both fruits and vegetable production (as well
as the district with the highest area under each category). The main vegetable crops of the
district include onions and tomatoes. The main fruits are grapes and pomegranate (Table 3.5).
27
Table 3.5: Top 5 districts in Maharashtra by area under F&V
3.7 Limitations of secondary data analysis
This section presented a picture of the changing patterns in agriculture. While there are
important clues in this analysis, there are severe limitations as well. The data on agriculture,
especially on horticulture, has significant limitations. Processes such as crop-cutting
experiments which are used to estimate yield are performed only for select crops in a region
while the rest of the production is poorly estimated. The sown area under each crop is also only
estimated visually by agricultural assistants. The value of output is even more suspect because
it uses the above two statistics in addition to average wholesale prices in the primary markets
to estimate the output value (CSO 2013). Visit to APMCs and a study of their procedures has
established the poor data maintained by them. For crops such as fruits and vegetables, the
quality of data is significantly poorer Hence, secondary data is useful only so far as to get some
clues on patterns and that too only for main crops. It is thus crucial to gather primary data
through field work to gain deeper understanding.
Top 5 districts by
area
Share of
Maharashtra
area
Share of
Maharashtra
production
Major vegetable/fruit
Nashik 26% 28% Onion, Tomato
Pune 17% 24% Onion, Tomato, Leafy vegetables
Ahmednagar 16% 12% Onion
Solapur 9% 6% Onion
Dhule 8% 6% Onion
Nashik 15% 18% Grapes, Pomegranate
Amravati 10% 7% Mandarin Orange
Sindhudurg 9% 2% Mango, Kokam
Jalgaon 8% 28% Banana
Ratnagiri 8% 2% Mango
Fruits
Vegetables
2014-15 Maharashtra state - Top 5 districts by area under vegetables and fruitsSource: Horticulture APY obtained from the Director of Horticulture office, Pune
28
4. Research questions and methodology
It is seen that horticulture cultivation raises productivity and farm incomes. At the same time,
it has also been shown to raise social inequality and to cause degradation of natural resources.
In light of this, the primary research question is:
What are the social and ecological drivers and consequences of agriculture intensification
through horticulture cultivation? More specifically:
a) What social factors drive horticulture cultivation and what are its social consequences for
individual farmers as well as for the community at large? This specifically relates to normative
concerns such as equity and economic viability.
b) What is the role of ecological factors such as climate and water resources that drive
intensification? What is the ecological impact of the practice of horticulture cultivation on
access to groundwater and other water resources?
c) Under what conditions can horticulture cultivation raise farm productivity while ensuring
social-ecological sustainability?
4.1 Approach
An interdisciplinary approach is followed, which borrows methods from anthropology,
engineering, economics and systems thinking.
Selection of field area: The objective of field work was to select farmers across varying agro-
climatic conditions within the intensifying horticulture belt and to study their farming practice
and farm decisions. Secondary data analysis was conducted at a regional level using GIS
mapping and field locations were selected based on a combination of attributes.
Field work: Field work was done using detailed ethnographic interviews and biophysical
surveys. Structured surveys and group discussions were also conducted. Biophysical factors
such as soil depth, soil texture, farm location and water resources were noted. Economic factors
included cropping pattern, cost of cultivation, crop yields, market returns, investments made in
water, knowledge etc.
Documentation: Qualitative and quantitative data from the field work was documented.
Qualitative data included village farmer narratives and trajectories. Quantitative data included
farm GIS location tags, farmers’ socio-economic attributes, farm biophysical factors, seasonal
cropping decisions and farm economics. Panel data was collected in two annual rounds: 2015-
16 and 2016-17
29
Primary data analysis: Basic analytics and econometric tools were utilised for the analysis of
primary data to understand inputs, risks and returns associated with different horticulture crops
and to find correlation between farmer characteristics and cropping pattern.
Framework for building a thesis: Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) was found to
be most relevant in our context for interpretation of findings and building a thesis. SESF is
based on the collective action theory and relies heavily on systems thinking and game theory
as analytical tools which were used for model-building. Modeling was done to explain field
observations and to uncover the feedback mechanisms in the social-ecological system.
Leverage points within the system were identified for interventions.
Extension and intervention design: The recommendation were presented to stakeholders
including the agriculture department of the Government of Maharashtra (GoM). As per the
requirements of IIT Bombay’s partnership with the GoM (IITB and GoM 2017)in the World
Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA), a tool was developed to
identify farmer vulnerability on the basis of farm-level water balance. The tool was handed
over to the PoCRA –IITB team, which after further development, productized the tool and is
currently using it for planning interventions in the PoCRA region.
4.2 Selection of field area
The objective of field work was to select farmers across varying agro-climatic conditions
within the intensifying horticulture belt and to study their farming practice and farm decisions.
Nashik district was chosen as the region for field work as it is the largest producer of vegetable
and fruit in the state of Maharashtra. It is home to the country’s largest onion and tomato
wholesale markets. Grapes and pomegranates from Nashik are well known in the local and
export market. Peninsular India’s largest river Godavari
originates here and flows through the district hence there
is history of early intensification. However, outside of this
stretch, there is spatial variation in the extent of
intensification and farmers range in their practice from
subsistence to industrial level farming.
Figure 4.1: Nashik district
30
Nashik district is made of 15 administrative blocks. Table 4.1 shows block-wise summary of
cultivated area for grains, pulses, oilseeds, fruits and vegetables (2008-09 data) (Maharashtra
2013). Nashik, Niphad and Dindori talukas are greatly dominated by cash crops and have a
relatively small share of cereals. Sinnar block, on the other hand, has a large share of vegetable
production but at the same time has 68% of its area under grains. Sinnar taluka was selected
for village level survey since it was identified to be a region with ongoing intensification. In
2008-09, Sinnar had 13% of its cultivable land under vegetable cultivation which went up to
18% by 2014.
Hectares
sown
2008-09
Total grains Total lentils
Total veg
(includes
onions)
Total
fruits
Sugarcan
eSpice oilseeds non-edible Total
24,054 5,210 92 169 6 20 - 1,959 31,510
76% 17% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 6%
32,935 5,693 4,646 8 1,964 1,830 1,295 175 48,546
68% 12% 10% 0% 4% 4% 3% 0%
24,734 2,097 5,997 77 671 458 1,099 900 36,033
69% 6% 17% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2%
53,676 6,307 4,115 713 3,220 754 6,037 5,062 79,884
67% 8% 5% 1% 4% 1% 8% 6%
55,620 6,445 3,831 226 412 106 - 1,634 68,274
81% 9% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2%
26,715 756 8,696 25 115 29 271 226 36,833
73% 2% 24% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
38,853 4,261 9,429 2,073 20 547 7 4,481 59,671
65% 7% 16% 3% 0% 1% 0% 8%
23,061 7,761 9,349 6,774 6,107 1,128 5,914 9,926 70,020
33% 11% 13% 10% 9% 2% 8% 14%
16,658 4,250 29 12,497 71 9 - - 33,514
50% 13% 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0%
29,219 9,410 - - - - - - 38,629
76% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
8,729 2,257 6,444 1,399 811 704 - 3,227 23,777
37% 9% 27% 6% 3% 3% 0% 14%
24,700 3,525 1,100 88 2,241 96 5,592 2,818 40,160
62% 9% 3% 0% 6% 0% 14% 7%
43,970 4,957 8,260 1,079 1,319 511 1,811 2,539 64,446
68% 8% 13% 2% 2% 1% 3% 4%
21,863 2,170 12,518 15,322 8,270 469 - 798 61,410
36% 4% 20% 25% 13% 1% 0% 1%
38,750 13,002 15,373 433 28 232 4,435 572 72,825
53% 18% 21% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1%
4,63,537 78,101 89,879 40,883 25,255 6,893 26,461 34,317 7,65,532
61% 10% 12% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4%
Nandgaon
Surgana
Kalwan
Deola
Baglan
Malegaon
Sinnar
Niphad
Yevla
Total
Chandvad
Dindori
Peint
Trimbak
Nashik
Igatpuri
Table 4.1: Block-wise area under main crops for Nashik district
31
Sinnar comprises of 130 villages with net cultivable area of 98 thousand hectares. The most
important crops of Sinnar are bajra, soyabean, onions and
tomato amongst vegetables and grapes and pomegranate
amongst fruits. Table 4.2 shows the area under cultivation for
various crop types in Sinnar taluka in 2014-15(GoM 2016).
Sinnar makes a good case study because of the diversity of the
agro-climatic conditions within the taluka.
Sinnar receives a low average rainfall of 568.6 mm annually.
Figure 4.2 shows the trend in the annual rainfall and number of
rainy days in the year. It shows that in recent years there has
not only been a decline in amount of rainfall but also in the
number of rainy days in the year.
According to (GoI 2014c), the stage of ground water
development in Sinnar is “semi-critical” at 98.72% (i.e.
the ratio of gross annual draft of groundwater for all
uses to the net annual ground water available) compared
to a district average of 49.33%. Agriculture is the
primary user of water in this region and industrial use is
negligible.
Regional analysis for Village selection
The objective of village selection was to cover regions with varying agro-climate, watershed
attributes and social composition. This was done using a GIS based analysis of various
attributes. Secondary data was obtained from national census and Sinnar administrative,
agricultural and irrigation offices. Layers included: demographic census data, digital elevation
map, drainage lines, watershed boundaries, cropping pattern (obtained from block agricultural
office), villages with drinking water scarcity (obtained from block level minor irrigation
office), groundwater development stage (from Maharashtra Groundwater Survey and
Development Authority (GSDA)), locations of agricultural produce wholesale markets etc. A
regional analysis of Sinnar block, which forms the basis for village selection, is described
below.
Crop type
Hectares
under
cultivation
(2014-15)
% of
cultivable
land
Kharif pulses 1,182 1%
Kharif cereal 30,617 31%
Kharif onion 4,558 5%
Rabi cereal 8,330 8%
Rabi harbhara 4,650 5%
Rabi onion 5,607 6%
Sugarcane 532 1%
Cotton 1,583 2%
Oilseeds 15,990 16%
Other Vegetables 7,084 7%
Fruits 4,906 5%
Gross sown area 85,038 87%
Total Cultivable land 98,226 100%
Table 4.2 Area under cultivation in Sinnar taluka for different crop categories (2014-15)
Figure 4.2: Sinnar taluka: Trends in annual rainfall and rainy days
32
A taluka level analysis of Sinnar taluka
shows wide disparities in access to water.
There is increased water stress as we move
from West to East. As Figure 4.3 shows
rainfall decreases sharply as we go from the
western part (e.g. Pandhurli) to eastern
parts of the taluka such as Wavi and Shaha.
In the last decade, changing intensity and
frequency of rainfall in the taluka has
impacted agriculture significantly. Large part of the block practices rain-fed agriculture and
has seen successive crop failures in the past 3-4 years. Untimely rain and hail has increased
agricultural losses in areas which practice horticulture. In general, the risk associated with
agriculture has increased tremendously due to changes in climate. An increased dependence on
ground water has created drinking water crisis.
As marked by red dots in Figure 4.4, there were 49
villages in the central and eastern part of the block
that were tanker-fed for drinking water in
November 2015.
The regional analysis shows that there are three
types of regions within the block:
(i) Western and Northern parts with relatively good access to water: This region is in
the Darna watershed. In addition to having comparatively better rainfall, this region
has presence of surface water sources and medium irrigation projects such as Darna,
Kadva and Godavari. There is large scale practice of horticulture in this region
round the year – tomatoes, grapes (including wine grapes), in addition to sugarcane
is grown in many parts of this region.
(ii) The second region is the Devnadi watershed: This region is relatively water scarce.
However, work on revival and creation of irrigation structures in the Devnadi
watershed by Yuva Mitra and other agencies has helped significantly by improving
the availability of irrigation water and replenishing groundwater. Vegetable
cultivation is practiced on a large scale in the Kharif season. However, practice of
horticulture in the Rabi and summer seasons, where present, sits in contrast to the
Figure 4.4: tanker-fed villages in Nov 2015
Figure 4.3: Circle-wise rainfall trends for Sinnar taluka
33
co-existing drinking water stress and lack of sufficient water for protective
irrigation. Thus, equitability and sustainability of water access in this area is of
concern.
(iii) The third region comprises the southern and eastern watershed of Pravara which are
the driest and are largely dependent on rainfed agriculture. There is widespread
drinking water crisis here as seen by the dependence on tanker-water. There is a
need to secure water for drinking as well as protective irrigation for all farms.
Horticulture is practiced by some farmers make large investments to secure water
(e.g. private lift irrigation schemes, use of tanker water etc.).
A broader taluka level analysis of the cropping pattern is shown in Figure 4.5. It illustrates the
differences in the three regions described above. The water scarce region in the taluka is largely
left fallow in Rabi. The western part of the block practices soybean and horticulture cultivation.
However, even in these areas we find a competition for water between protective irrigation for
cereals, water-intensive horticulture and drinking water.
Methodology
Based on the taluka level analysis five different clusters of villages were selected for deeper
analysis. Clusters were chosen so as to cover different types of zones in the taluka covering
Figure 4.6: Selected village clusters for village selection
Figure 4.5: Predominant crop in Kharif and Rabi
34
different watersheds, levels of ground water stress, surface water availability and proximity to
markets. The final village selection in each cluster was done in consultation with village
agricultural assistants (government officials) after a discussion of project goals. The final
selection was:
Cluster 1: Pandhurli village; Cluster 2: Wadgaon Sinnar; Cluster 4: Dodhi Kh., Cluster 5:
Dapur village. In case of cluster 3, instead of concentrating the surveys in one village alone,
surveys were conducted in different villages along the northern boundary of the taluka as this
region forms a belt of large horticulture production due to proximity to Kadva canal and
Godavari right bank canal networks.
4.3 Field work methodology
Field work was conducted in two rounds. The first round was in 2015-16 and the second one
in 2016-17.
In phase 1 of year 1, introductory meetings were held with stakeholders such as village
administrators and officers (village administrative head, village development office,
agricultural assistant and revenue officer). The goals of the study were discussed and the
following data was gathered at the village level: village history, social composition,
geographical location of hamlets, active institutions, livelihoods, cropping pattern and its
history, drinking water situation, water scarcity levels and village rules (if any) made to
regulate water and minimize conflict. Cadastral maps and landholding data were obtained. The
first tour of the farmlands was done with the agricultural assistant in-charge of the village who
provided an introduction to various crops and field practices. Phase 1 activities took 2 days of
field work per village.
In phase 2 of year 1 farmer household interviews were conducted along with observation of
farming practice and biophysical factors (water sources, soil type, farm location etc.). Farmer
selection was done on the basis of farm location. Stratified random selection was used to select
farms on the village cadastral map to ensure that different geographical regions of the village
were covered (upland-lowland, close to streams and away). A neighboring farm was selected
in case the farmer could not be located or declined participation. An effort was also made to
stay close to the village landholding size distribution and to ensure that all landholding
communities were represented.
In the first round, a total of 140 farmers were interviewed across all clusters February 2016 and
August 2016. Free-flowing discussion along with structured surveys were carried out with each
35
farmer in Marathi and Hindi, capturing both qualitative and quantitative information. This was
supplemented with group discussions.
Farmers’ fields were geo-tagged and data was collected on socio-economic attributes of the
household, details of their agricultural practices and farm economics, water access and
irrigation. Interviews also included open-ended questions on history of cropping pattern,
household aspirations and access to knowledge. Crop data (area under each crop, irrigation and
crop economics) was captured for three seasons: Kharif 2015-16, Rabi 2015-16 and summer
2015-16. Since no farmer had any written record of past or current investments or returns, the
data on farm economics was based on recalls and farmers’ estimates. An important part of the
discussion was future plans of the farmers and whether they were likely to make any significant
changes to their farming practice and reasons for the same.
A second round of surveys was conducted in the period February 2017 to April 2017 in only 4
of the primary survey villages: Pandhurli, Wadgaon Sinnar, Dodhi and Dapur. 88 of the
original 140 farmers were revisited at this time. The objective was to capture data for Kharif
2016-17, Rabi 2016-17 season and plans for summer 2016-17 and to have a qualitative
discussion on farming decisions made since the last meeting.
The year 2015-16 was a very bad drought year in the field area due to the cumulative effect of
consecutive droughts in preceding years. In contrast, the monsoon of 2016 was a very good
rainfall year. Though the crop yields were good in general in 2016-17, agricultural wholesale
prices crashed partly due to a bumper crop and partly due to the currency demonetization. The
Pandhurli
Wadgaon SInnar
Dodhi Kh.
Dapur
Mahajanpur
Pathare Bk
Kirtangali Naigaon Jaigaon
Figure 4.7: Location of surveyed farmers (blue farmers surveyed in both years; green farmers only in first year)
36
surveys thus captured farmer coping strategies and responses to varying water access and
market dynamics during the study period.
Figure 4.7 shows the location of each of the 140 farmers surveyed with green dots. Farmers
who were surveyed for a second time in 2016-17 are shown in blue colour.
4.4 Design of survey
Appendix A contains the survey instrument that was developed for the study. The different
sections of the questionnaire are:
a) farmer’s socio-economic information
b) data on resources such as soil type (soil texture and depth) and water sources – ground water
sources (number of wells, location, depth, months of water available, pump HP etc.) and
surface water sources (type of source such as canal, farm pond, lift scheme, stream etc., distance
from source, water sharing methodology etc.), information regarding investments made in
private schemes and infrastructure to enhance water access,
c) crops sown in different seasons (input cost, source of irrigation, number of irrigations, yield
obtained, market accessed, price obtained) and
d) open ended questions on changes in cropping pattern in the past 50 years, aspirations of the
household, access to knowledge input, financial stability (unpaid loans) etc.
Each survey took from 30 minutes to 2 hours or more to conduct depending on the extent of
engagement with the farmer and the number of crops that the farmer had sown. The second
year’s follow up survey validated some of the key data (such as water sources) and included
formats for collecting data on cropping practice and water availability for the second year.
Special attention was paid to any new investments made in the last year with respect to water
infrastructure or with respect to horticulture and the driving reasons for the same were explored.
37
5. Field Area: Sinnar
The four main villages that were surveyed were Wadgaon Sinnar, Dodhi Kh., Dapur and
Pandhurli. Besides this, farmers were surveyed in 5 other villages along the northern taluka
boundary: Pathare, Mahajanpur, Kirtangali, Naigaon and Jaigaon. In the second year follow up
surveys, farmers were revisited in the main four villages. This section provides reports the
biophysical attributes and historical trends in cropping pattern in the surveyed villages.
Table 5.1 presents some key attributes of the villages.
Table 5.1: Key attributes of surveyed villages
Villages along Kadwa
Demographic data
(SC: Scheduled Caste
ST: Scheduled Tribes)
Multiple villages : Jaigaon, Naigaon,
Pathare Bk, Mahajanpur, Kirtangali
Area Multiple villages
Mean ElevationJaigaon: 585, Naigaon: 570; Kirtangali:
563; Mahajanpur: 540; Pathare: 530m
Rainfall
(mm)
Year 2015
472.1
Year 2016
563
Year 2015
472.1
Year 2016
563
Year 2015
503.4
Year 2016
739
Year 2015
717.5
Year 2016
899.5
Jaigaon, Naigaon: 503.4
Kirtangali, Mahajanpur: 356.4
Pathare Bk: 218.4
Drinking water scarcity:
Received government
tankers?
Yes No Yes No No No No NoKirtangali and Pathare Bk: Tanker fed in
Sep 2015
Dominant soil typeClayey soil except Jaigaon which has
sandy loamy
Surface water
Naigaon: In Kadwa command and
adjoining Godavari
Jaigaon: Not in command, but private lift
possible from Kadwa command
Kirtangali: in Kadwa command
Mahajanpur: In Kadwa command but lifts
from GRB canal
Kharif crops
Pathare: soybean,
Jaygaon: Soyaban, onion, vegetables
Kirtangali: Bajra, maize, vegetables
Mahajanpur: soybean
Naigaon: soybean, onion
Rabi crops Onions, wheat
Multi-year cropsGrapes (wine grapes, table grapes),
pomegranate
2015 Cropping pattern:
sown area as % of net
cultivable area (>100%
due to multiple cropping
seasons)
Fruit orchard: 40% in Mahajanpur, 12% in
Pathare, 1% Jaigaon
soybean is close to 50% in Naigaon,
Jaigaon
Highest area under Kharif foodgrain in
Kirtangali : 50%
Population: 1893
Households: 319
SC: 8%; ST: 14%
Geographical: 1089 ha
Cultivable: 834 ha
670m
Dodhi Kh
Sandy loamy in southern
part and clayey soil in
northern part
Mostly Sandy loamy
Mostly black clayey soil
except gravelly clay close
to stream and hills
Mostly black clayey soil
except gravelly clay close to
stream and hills
Geographical: 2985 ha
Cultivable: 1320 ha
720 m 588m
Population: 5902
Households: 1066
SC: 3%; ST: 16%
Dapur Pandhurli
Population: 4447
Households: 826
SC: 23%; ST: 26%
Geographical: 1040 ha
Cultivable: 866 ha
Wadgaon Sinnar
Population: 2722
Households: 466
SC: 9%; ST: 30%
Geographical: 815 ha
Cultivable: 693 ha
692m
Darna river (year round
water)Private group lift irirgation
schemes
Part of village in Bhojapur
Canal command area
Peal millet,onions
Peal millet, onions,
tomatoes and other
vegetables
Soybean, maize, paddy,
tomatoes and other
vegetables
Seasonal Devnadi river
recharges groundwater
through diversion based
irrigation system
Soybean, tomato and other
vegetables, maize
Kharif foodgrains: 66%
Soybean: 3%
Rabi foodgrain: 7%
Onion: 11%
Vegetables: 3%
Fruit orchards: 2%
Kharif foodgrains: 49%
Soybean: 5%
Rabi foodgrain: 15%
Onion: 6%
Vegetables: 9%
Fruit orchards: 15%
Kharif foodgrains: 22%
Soybean: 59%
Rabi foodgrain: 29%
Onion: 14%
Vegetables: 13%
Fruit orchards: 10%
Onions, wheat, maize,
vegetables
Pomegranate, grapes
Onions, green gram, wheat
Pomegranate Pomegranate
Onions, green gram, wheatOnions, wheat, green gram,
vegetables
Pomegranate, grapes
Kharif foodgrains: 16%
Soybean: 32%
Rabi foodgrain: 20%
Onion: 8%
Vegetables: 27%
Fruit orchards: 2%
38
5.1 Wadgaon Sinnar
Biophysical attributes: Wadgaon Sinnar is in the Devnadi watershed. Devnadi river forms the
northern boundary of the village (Figure 5.1).
There are two streams that flow from south to
north and meet Devnadi. The eastern stream is
the Duber-stream which tends to stay dry as most
of the water is impounded upstream in the many
bunds and percolation tanks. The western stream
originates in the village and also meets Devnadi.
This has comparatively more water than the
Duber stream. Upstream on Devnadi river is the
Konambe dam. The water in the streams is not
used directly for irrigation, instead it helps in ground water recharge and strengthening of wells.
There is considerable variation in the soil type. Farms close to the southern hilly region have
poor quality, shallow soil with larger sandy content while soils close to the stream are gravelly
clay loam or clayey in texture and deeper soils.
Water access: Devnadi has many
diversion-based irrigation (DBI)
structures that divert river water to
downstream villages in canals by
gravity. The DBI structure in
Sonambe village (upstream on
Devnadi) has a canal that comes
into Wadgaon Sinnar. Figure 5.2
shows the command area for the
canal which is the area between
Devnadi river and the DBI canal. It
also indicates the location of the interviewed farmers (pink dots). The canal runs continuously
during the monsoons and up to a month beyond the rains depending on the rainfall. Farmers
can block the entry of the canal when they do not need water or already have excess rain water
in their fields. Farmers who have their farms next to the canal and lower in elevation can operate
canal gates to flood their farms with canal water. This is a small fraction of farmers. Other
farmers tend to benefit indirectly from the percolation of canal water into their wells. There is
Figure 5.1: Wadgaon Sinnar cadastral map
Figure 5.2: Wadgaon Sinnar: DBI canal command area and surveyed farmers
39
a water user association that manages the DBI system. However, it is only a part of the village
that benefits from this canal directly or indirectly. The eastern zone of the village (to east of
Duber-stream) is the driest, where there is also drinking water scarcity in summer months. The
majority of the village is dependent on groundwater for irrigation. Deepening of wells and
drilling of horizontal borings up to 250 feet long in the side walls of wells was a common sight
during field visits. There are some horticulture farmers who have created farm ponds which
are filled by pumping ground water during monsoon season.
Cropping pattern: The main Kharif crops are soybean and vegetables such as tomatoes, carrots,
peas and broccoli. Wheat and onions are the main Rabi crops. Vegetables are also grown in
Rabi and summer season depending on water availability. A handful of farmers have invested
in precision farming polyhouses to grow vegetables. Here they grow vegetables such as
cucumbers, capsicums etc. in a controlled environment round the year. Pomegranate and grapes
are the main fruit crops. Tomatoes have been grown in this region for many years but it was
the non-hybrid local variety (which needs less water and is less input-intensive), that used to
be cultivated until a decade ago. Sugarcane was another crop that used to be grown along
Devnadi when water was abundant. However, as water became more scarce due to construction
of a dam upstream on Devnadi, sugarcane farming was nearly abandoned. Revival of the DBI
network helped in increasing groundwater recharge and more water availability in Kharif. This
allowed farmers to diversify to different types of horticulture crops. However, the benefits are
concentrated in the command area. The eastern non-command area is drier and wells do not
recharge completely for almost a month
after the beginning of monsoons. With
no access to any surface water, ground
water intensive farming is practiced. A
large number of farmers have laid
pipelines from wells in water rich
pockets close to Devnadi or the DBI
canal to bring water to their farms in the
water-starved parts of the village.
Figure 5.3: Rabi onion being cultivated
40
5.2 Dodhi Kh.
Biophysical attributes: Dodhi Kh. village belongs partly to the dry
Jamnadi watershed and partly to the Devnadi watershed (a ridge
passes through the village). The western part of the village borders
with Dapur village, which is also taken up for the surveys. Figure
5.4 shows the village cadastral map.
The soil type in Dodhi Kh. varies significantly from farm to farm.
In general, the northern farms (Ramoshiwadi) have deeper, better
quality soil with higher clay content. The farms in the south have
sandy loam or gravelly sandy loam texture with shallow soil depth.
This soil type is considered ideal to cultivate onions.
Water access: Dodhi Kh. comes in the command area of the
Bhojapur canal. Bhojapur reservoir is in the Mahalunge river
watershed. Due to water scarcity in the Jamnadi watershed, the
Bhojapur canal network was created to facilitate an inter-
watershed water transfer. Bhojapur dam is a medium irrigation project with a catchment area
of 154 sq. km and a gross storage of 13.34 MCum. The length of the canals is 17.2 km with a
gross command area of 5260 ha. The canal from Bhojapur reservoir passes through a tunnel in
the ridge separating the two watersheds and distributes water to many villages in the Jamnadi
watershed, including some in Ahmednagar district. However, there is a lot of stress on this
single reservoir as there are rural regional piped water drinking schemes that also have
reservation on the Bhojapur water.
Canal rotations are unpredictable since
the dam itself does not fill up
completely every year (like in 2014-15
and 2015-16) and there are many
competing claims for the water.
Typically, there are 2 or 3 canal
rotations in the year for about 10-15
days each. For example, in 2014-15
water was released in canals once for
Kharif in Aug/Sept and a second time
in Rabi season during Dec/Jan. However, in 2015-16 because of the severity of drought there
Figure 5.5: Surveyed farmers in Dapur and Dodhi villages and the Bhojapur canal network
Figure 5.4: Dodhi Kh. cadastral map
41
was no water released for irrigation. Hence, even though Dodhi Kh. is in the Bhojapur
command area, it has very low assurance of water. A stream called Dapur nala flows through
the village but it is dry other than during rains.
Some farmers have made investments in water
infrastructure. They have dug bore wells and
constructed farm ponds (Figure 5.6) to store water.
These are private farm ponds constructed with or
without government subsidy and are lined with plastic
to avoid percolation losses. Farmers who are located
close to Bhojapur canal use the canal water to fill their
farm ponds. Others pump water from their own wells
during monsoon season and fill up the farm
ponds. This water is used once their wells dry
up. A complex network of pumps and pipes
complete the network.
Figure 5.7 shows a satellite image of the area
around Bhojapur canals (canal is marked in
orange line). The blue dots show private farm
ponds clustered along the Bhojapur canal
network. Farm ponds and pomegranate
farms go hand-in-hand in this region.
Figure 5.5 shows the location of farmers in Dodhi Kh and Dapur that were surveyed. For
drinking water, the gaothan has a rural regional scheme from Bhojapur reservoir which
receives water every 2-3 days. Awhadwadi, a hamlet of Dodhi Kh. with a population of 300
had severe scarcity and was dependent on tankers at the time of survey.
Cropping pattern: Dodhi has been traditionally known for its onion crop and there is also a
wholesale market in Dodhi for onions. However, the onion production has dropped
significantly due to consecutive droughts. Onions are sown in Kharif as well as in Rabi but
there have been widespread crop failures. The main Kharif crop here is pearl millet but many
households reported crop failure because of long dry spell in the rains. Soybean is not grown
in this village because of the poor-quality soil and low rainfall. Besides pearl millet and onions,
some farmers grow leafy vegetables like coriander and fenugreek in Kharif. A large part of
Figure 5.6: A lined farm pond
Figure 5.7: Farm ponds dotting the Bhojapur canal
42
land is left fallow in Rabi during poor rainfall years. Those who were able to irrigate, grow
onions and wheat but have very low yields. Sorghum and harbhara (gram) are usually sown in
Rabi using soil moisture alone or 1-2 irrigations when water is available.
5.3 Dapur
Biophysical attributes: Dapur is in the south of the Devnadi watershed. It is at a higher elevation
(about 720 meters) and the village extends up to the ridge separating Devnadi watershed from
Mahalungi watershed. Dapur has only one stream passing through it which originates from the
hills in the west and goes towards Dodhi. But there is no water in this stream other than during
rains. The soil type is generally poor and texture is sandy loam or gravelly sandy loam.
Water access: Dapur is as dry as Dodhi Kh., and does not lie in the Bhojapur canal command
area. However, farmers in this village have been very enterprising and have formed groups to
privately design and construct lift irrigation schemes which lift water from villages adjoining
Bhojapur reservoir.
The lift irrigation scheme works as follows (Figure 5.8). 10 to 15 farmers come together and
invest money into the scheme. They first purchase a small plot of land close to the reservoir in
Chas or Chapadgaon village where a well is dug (70-80 feet deep). Such a well has water
available year-round because of the
recharge from the reservoir. A two
stage lift scheme is designed. For
example, there is usually a 30 HP
pump in the source well close to the
reservoir. From here water is pumped
to a second (storage) well in
Chapadgaon village. A second pump
(also 25-30 HP rating) is used to
pump to a collective RCC tank in
Dapur. From this tank water flows
through gravity to each farmer’s farm
where individual farmers may store
water in their farm ponds or in their wells. Water is then pumped out from the pond/well into
the fields. Some of these lift schemes date back to the 1990s. The total length of pipeline from
Bhojapur Reservoir
Private lift across 10-15 km
Figure 5.8: Private lift irrigation schemes in Dapur
43
source well to destination runs 10 to 20km and has to go across the ridge separating the two
watersheds.
The upfront investment is more than Rs 6 lakh per farmer. The electricity charges for operations
is insignificant because of the low farm power tariffs – also the average per farmer pump rating
turns out to be about 8 HP for the
entire operation.
There are often conflicts about the
path for pipe-laying and Dapur
farmers have to compensate farmers
in other villages who allow pipes to
pass through their land. Regular
maintenance of the infrastructure
causes significant operational
expenses to the farmers. Water is
available all 12 months of the year from this scheme but increasingly there is uncertainty during
summer months when the irrigation department cuts off electricity connection to these private
lift schemes. Hence, the rights and entitlements of the Dapur farmers are unclear about such
schemes which are at the cusp of public-private systems as well as surface-water and
groundwater. Although there is no official estimate, the number of lift irrigation schemes in the
village is significant.
Dapur also has the same rural regional drinking water scheme as Dodhi. Water is provided
every 2-3 days in the main residential hamlet. Water tankers have been required repeatedly
since the past few years to provide drinking water to many habitations away from the residential
hamlet.
Cropping pattern: There is a contrast
between cropping patterns of farmers who
have a lift irrigation scheme vs. those who
do not. Most farmers without lift scheme
grow Pearl millet in Kharif. Some also grow
vegetables like kothmir and vaalvad. Some
farmers reported growing tomatoes but
had a failed crop. Onion is the
Figure 5.9: Dapur is dotted with these private RCC tanks through which water is distributed to the beneficiaries
Figure 5.10: Vegetable farming in Dapur
44
predominant Rabi crop. Of farmers who had private lift schemes 80% had fruit orchards and
100% cultivated vegetables. The share of cereals is less and instead vegetables such as
tomatoes, valvad and kothmir are preferred. Dapur also has a very high share of land under
pomegranate and grape orchards.
5.4 Pandhurli
Biophysical attributes: Pandhurli village is in the Darna watershed and is on the western
boundary of the block bordering with Igatpuri block. The village receives one of the highest
rainfalls in the block. Darna river, which is a tributary to Godavari, is an important source of
water for the village. The upstream Darna dam releases water into it. Because of the favourable
rainfall and the perennial stream, the groundwater levels in Pandhurli are good and most
farmers are able to depend on their wells to take 2 crops. Additionally, some farmers also have
wells close to Darna river or lift water directly from the river for irrigation.
There are two streams that flow through the village as shown in the map. One of the streams
(Kol Ohl) has a dam on it upstream in Borkhind village. There is rarely water released in this
stream other than in monsoons. The other stream also tends to be dry other than in monsoons.
Water access: Some wells go dry during summer, but the majority have some water available
and there is considerable area under summer cropping. There are, however, a few households
that have to depend on others’ wells for their summer drinking water needs. While Pandhurli
is significantly better off compared to other surveyed villages with respect to water availability,
villagers believe that there is
reduced availability of water and
though ground water levels are
good, there is increasing stress
leading to new wells being dug or
deepened.
Village drinking water scheme is
based on a well which is 56 ft deep.
It used to be able to provide year-
round drinking water but in the last few years has been drying up completely in summer. The
well was deepened in 2015-16 during the survey period.
Figure 5.11: Surveyed farmers in Pandhurli
45
Cropping pattern: Soybean and vegetable cultivation, especially tomato cultivation, happens at
a large scale. A new wholesale produce sub-market yard has opened in Pandhurli for tomatoes.
Some farmers also grow paddy in Kharif. In Rabi, onions, wheat, potato and tomato are grown.
Farmers that have water for a summer crop grow vegetables such as brinjal, cauliflower,
cabbage etc. In spite of the good water levels, the share of area under fruit orchards is not
significantly large.
5.5 Villages in Northern Sinnar
Instead of working in a single village in the northern cluster, a different approach was taken in
order to understand the relation between canal irrigation and cropping patterns. Field visits
were conducted in 5 different villages along the Kadwa and Godavari right bank (GRB) canal
(Figure 5.12). These are described below:
Figure 5.12: Surveyed villages in Northern Sinnar
Pathare Bk.: The Godavari right bank canal (GRB), which emerges from the Nandur
Madhmeshwar weir just north of Sinnar block passes through this village. Pathare is not in the
command area of the canal and the water is intended for downstream villages. The canal
operates throughout the year with each rotation lasting 21 days and breaks 8 days between each
rotation. However, there were large breaks in the canal rotation during the survey period
because of drought conditions.
There are many informal mechanisms through which farmers draw canal water for irrigation:
either directly through underground pipes or siphons; or indirectly through extraction from
wells adjoining the canal. Land next to the canal fetches high price for this reason. The villagers
of Pathare Bk also have a community lift irrigation scheme called Shriram Lift irrigation
society which was designed in 1975. An 18-year license was obtained from the irrigation
46
department which now has to be renewed every 2 years. Two 75 HP pumps are used to pump
water diverted from the GRB canal into a network of open charis spread in the village. The
license allows them to draw water to cultivate 375 acres in Kharif and 450 acres in Rabi. No
water can be drawn after the month of February. Beneficiaries pay a fixed rate of Rs 1000/acre
and there is no restriction on the crop choice. There are two Rabi rotations and two rotations in
Kharif. However, in drought years there have been restrictions on drawing water from GRB
canal. This has led to individual farmers making private arrangements to siphon water from the
canal or make wells close to the GRB canal.
The village has a green zone close to the Godavari canal which is water abundant and
sugarcane, fruit orchards and vegetables are grown here. The western part of the village away
from the canal is dry and depends on water imported from the green zone or from the canal
rotation of the community lift scheme. Farmers routinely resort to purchasing tankers for
irrigating their orchards and considering the high cost of tankers, investments in private
pipelines and farm ponds are on the rise. Farmers who cannot make investments in elaborate
water infrastructure have to make do with an irregular and undependable schedule of water
availability. In such a scenario, they cannot grow horticulture crops such as fruit orchards or
tomatoes that require precise irrigation schedule and instead stick to cereals, pulses or crops
such as onion or soybean.
For drinking water, Pathare Bk has a 12 village rural regional drinking water scheme. This
scheme is based on a tank that stores water from the Godavari right bank canal. However,
during the period of field work the village received tanker water once every 5 days.
Mahajanpur: Mahajanpur is a small village on the North Eastern part of the taluka. It is in the
command area of the Kadwa canal (tail ending village) but it also borders the GRB canal (on
the side of higher-elevation). Because of the proximity to the GRB canal, the village does not
make any demands from the Kadwa canal. Godavari river is about 5km from the village. The
village has good quality black soil.
47
Villagers have dug deep wells that draw water from the canal directly or through percolation.
Earth along the canal has been ripped open, piles of mined rock line the road and there is a web
of underground pipes cutting into the canal (Figure 5.13).
The first private pipeline from the canal to farm was laid in
1991. The availability of assured water due to this spurred a
grape revolution in the village. Prior to this, farmers mainly
grew wheat, bajra, sugarcane and onions.
This village has 40% of its cultivable area under grapes and
pomegranate farms. Pomegranate is only a small fraction
and a recent change from grapes in response to growing
water stress. Grapes have been grown in this area for about
10-15 years. This village is one of the villages that grows
wine grapes for Sula Winery. It is typically medium or large
landholding farmers that get into wine grape contracts.
Naigaon: Naigaon is a village located along Godavari river
that is well endowed with water (Figure 5.14). Kadwa canal
passes through the village. There are no charis from the
canal here but the village wells benefit from percolation of
canal water. Kadwa canal typically has rotations in Kharif,
Rabi and also in March/April depending on water
availability. However, there rotations were temporarily
stopped during the drought year of 2015-16. Farmers lift
water from Godavari and grow crops such as sugarcane,
fruits, vegetables (onions, tomato, cabbage) etc. Soybean
and wheat are also grown. Most farmers are assured of 2 crops because of the water levels.
Jaigaon: Jaigaon is a neighbouring village but it is outside the command area of Kadwa canal
(and at a higher elevation) and further away from Godavari river. The village is significantly
drier than Naigaon. Farmers have laid private pipelines from canal or from Godavari river to
bring water to their farm. pipeline has also helped resolve his drinking water issue. But majority
of the farmers do not have access to such arrangements. They typically grow bajra, soyabean
and onions in Kharif and wheat, onions in Rabi.
Figure 5.13: (a) GRB canal dotted with large wells (b) A farm-pond sized well
(c) Mined rocks line the entry to Mahajanpur
Figure 5.14: Godavari along Naigaon (May 2016)
48
Kirtangali: Kirtangali village is in the command area of Kadwa canal and unlike the previous
villages it is distant from both GRB canal and Godavari river and depends primarily on the
Kadwa canal rotations. Kadwa canal became operational around 1995 before which farmers
were able to take only a crop of rainfed bajra and a crop of harbhara in Rabi using soil moisture.
Since the canal became operational more farmers have started growing vegetables such as
carrot, tomato, Rabi onions etc. Farmers pump water from the canal (or percolated water in
their wells) up to 2 km away to their farms. There are also about 10-15 farm ponds in the village
some of which are filled using ground water and some using canal water.
5.6 Summary
A summary of farmer narratives and their trajectory in terms of changing cropping patterns and
investments over time are provided in Appendix B. Appendix C contains GIS mapping of the
cropping pattern of all surveyed farmers for each of cropping seasons in the two survey years.
Dodhi village is highly drought prone. It was well-known for its onion but after repeated crop
failures farmers now either look for non-farm opportunities or intensify farming by starting
pomegranate orchards and investing in farm-ponds, often supported by government subsidy.
Dapur village, which is equally drought prone, has seen a sequence of investments in private
group lift irrigation schemes over the past 20 years that lift water from wells near Bhojapur
reservoir and bring this water to their farms over 10-15 km distance. These are expensive,
technically intricate systems which operate at the cusp of surface-water and groundwater and,
being in the gray area of regulation, need constant informal negotiations with different
agencies. The initial success led to a large number of such schemes on the same reservoir,
thereby increasing uncertainty in availability especially during summer. Recognizing the
diminishing assurance, many farmers then chose to make additional investments by
supplementing the lift scheme with private farm-ponds to buffer water for use in summer. A
direct consequence of this competition is seen in Dodhi village, which has a formal reservation
of water from Bhojapur reservoir, but cannot get its full allocation due to “leakages” from
private lifts (such as that of Dapur farmers), prompting farmers in Dodhi to abandon their
dependence on the canal network and also make private investments to assure water. But
despite large investments, there are frequent crop failures, typically of secondary crops when
farmers fall short of water and choose to save all water for the primary crop instead, and high
level of farmer indebtedness (Table 6.5).
49
Pandhurli has a significantly smaller share of farmers cultivating orchards than other villages.
The availability of assured water at a reasonable cost allows farmers here to have a viable and
diverse cropping pattern of seasonal food-grain, oilseeds and vegetable crops without taking
high risk. Wadgaon Sinnar village has a water rich zone and a dry zone. Farmers in the water-
rich zone have a history of intensification and have gradually shifted from paddy and sugarcane
to horticulture crops. Over the last two decades, farmers invested in transferring water from
wells in water rich pockets to drier zones in the village and using it to intensify practice. At the
same time, some habitations within the village experience severe drinking water scarcity in
summer. Thus, Wadgaon Sinnar too, is on its way to an unsustainable intensification.
A large number of farmers remain outside of the cycle of competitive investments and
intensification primarily due to socio-economic constraints. They are more prone to falling
short of irrigation due to creeping decline in the months of available water in their wells. This
leads to poor yields or de-intensification. In Dodhi, farmers with no wells who historically
depended on the Bhojapur canals, are forced to leave their land fallow in Rabi as competing
demands result in limited or no canal rotations. Farmers increasingly look to supplement their
income through other means such as casual labor work. In general, there is loss of faith in the
viability of farming in the long term and the younger generation aspires to find jobs in the non-
farm sector.
50
6. Findings: Uncertainty and coping mechanisms
This section is devoted to the findings that have emerged from field work and analysis of
primary data. We find that there are various social, economic and ecological factors that impact
farmer vulnerability and coping mechanisms. An interplay between these factors provide an
explanation for the trajectory towards horticulture cultivation and its consequences. The
following sub-sections describe each of these factors.
6.1 Operational regime
The hydrological year begins with June, when the monsoon breaks. Kharif (monsoon) is the
main cropping season, followed by the Rabi (winter) and summer seasons. Kharif sowing is
difficult to plan for the farmer as it is done at the onset of monsoon when there is no knowledge
of how good or bad the monsoon will be. Rabi and summer sowing are done after the monsoon
rains have ended when farmers are in a better position to estimate which crops may be most
appropriate for the rest of the year based on available water. Additionally, there are multi-year
crops such as grapes or pomegranate which once planted take a few years to mature. Water
availability peaks in July-September and diminishes as the year progresses. Irrigation in the
non-monsoon months depends on existing post-monsoon soil moisture, groundwater or water
transfers including that which is abstracted during monsoon and stored in ponds.
The annual groundwater cycle is closely tied to the cropping cycle. Groundwater level rises
due to recharge from monsoon rainfall in June to October period. Recharge varies based on
biophysical factors hence wells have different rates of recharge. This period corresponds to the
Figure 6.1: Groundwater and crop cycle
51
Kharif (monsoon) crop. If there is a long dry spell in the season, wells may or may not have
sufficient water to protect the Kharif crop. Post-monsoon Rabi and summer crops depend upon
groundwater for irrigation. Well levels start to drop due to extraction and partly due to
groundwater flows.
Irrigation is based primarily on ground water. The aquifer in Sinnar is shallow (10m-20m deep)
fractured basalt with moderate to poor yields (specific yield of 0.02) and is accessed by shallow
dug wells. Borewells are limited with poor yields and typically used for domestic purposes
only. Unlike the deep alluvial aquifers in North India, these experience seasonal variability in
ground water levels. An important feature of such aquifers is that there is no consistent year-
to-year fall in water table, as once the aquifer bottom is reached there can be no further decline.
Empty wells may fill back with one or two years of good rainfall (Foster et al. 2007, Shah
2012). This also implies that availability of water for irrigation in any season has great
dependency on that year’s rainfall and hence, crop choice must be concomitant with recharge
made available through rainfall. There is also great spatial variation in the net volume of
groundwater available. Water-rich pockets close to streams and recharge structures such as
percolation tanks and check dams have substantially larger yields while wells in upland regions
often dry out early. Excessive extraction leads to water level dropping sooner in the year and
longer periods of dry wells before the arrival of monsoon.
Farmers and their farming practices vary significantly due to many factors which impact their
vulnerability, access to resources, investments and farming decisions. The relevant social and
biophysical factors are as follows:
Social factors: Smallholding farmers dominate the field area: about 80% farmers in surveyed
villages have less than 2 hectares landholding (Table 6.1). There is a mix of castes in the survey
area including scheduled castes and tribes but the tribal population is largely landless, many of
Land
holding
(ha)
#
Farmers
surveyed
% of total
surveyed
Actual
proportion
in village
#
Farmers
surveyed
% of total
surveyed
Actual
proportion in
village
#
Farmers
surveyed
% of total
surveyed
Actual
proportion
in village
#
Farmers
surveyed
% of total
surveyed
Actual
proportion
in village
<1 16 47% 58% 11 31% 42% 13 39% Not 9 50% 55%
1 to 2 7 21% 26% 18 50% 33% 9 27% available 5 28% 32%
2 to 5 9 26% 14% 6 17% 22% 9 27% 2 11% 11%
>5 2 6% 2% 1 3% 3% 2 6% 2 11% 2%
Total34 100%
582 8A
farmers36
546 8A
farmers33
1549 8A
farmers18
691 8A
farmers
Wadgaon Dodhi Kh Dapur Pandhurli
Table 6.1: Distribution of survey sample by landholding class
52
who work as agricultural labourers. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show distribution of the surveyed
farmers by landholding size and caste. The surveyed sample is close to the actual distribution
of farmers by landholding size. The caste distribution is not representative because only land-
owning farmers were surveyed and not all castes are proportionately represented in the
landholding class. The five other villages surveyed along Kadwa canal have small sample per
village, hence data is not representative.
In general, there is great awareness amongst farmers and easy access to technology. In 45% of
the sampled households, at least one family member has attended college. (Figure 6.2). More
than 40% of surveyed households also had non-farm income from a day job or business in
addition to agricultural income (Figure 6.3).
Uncertainty in monsoon rains
Survey
sample by
caste
Maratha Vanjari NTD OBC SC ST
Actual %
SC
farmers
Actual %
ST
farmers
Wadgaon 32% 35% 3% 18% 12% 100% 36% 6%
Dodhi Kh 0% 66% 6% 26% 3% 100% 9% 2%
Dapur 0% 97% 0% 3% 0% 100% Data not available
Pandhurli 33% 56% 11% 0% 0% 100% 16% 3%
Sample Survey Actual distribution
Table 6.2: Distribution of survey sample by caste
Figure 6.2: Distribution of sampled farmers by education Figure 6.3: Share of sampled families with non-farm jobs
53
The variability in monsoon pattern is a growing concern for farmers. One of the direct impacts
of climate change is seen in terms of longer dry spells and fewer rainy days during the monsoon
period (Fig 6.4). Both 2015 and 2016 had long dry spells even though the net rainfall was much
higher in 2016. In 2015, there were long dry
spells in the beginning of the monsoon when
water was already scarce while in 2016 the dry
spell came after two months of good rainfall
hence its impact was lower. An increasingly
important feature of climate are long dry spells
in monsoons (Singh et al. 2014), and the need
for protective irrigation for the monsoon crop.
This has emerged as a crucial requirement for
farmers, which was traditionally met by
groundwater.
Farm biophysical factors:
Farm location in the watershed, proximity to
streams or recharge structures, slope, soil texture
and depth etc. are factors that vary significantly
not just across villages but also within village
from one farm to another. Figure 6.5 shows the
variation in soil quality as described by farmers.
Dry spells in monsoon impact the rainfed
monsoon crop directly and the severity depends
upon farm biophysical factors which vary within
short distances. A crop on shallow sandy soils
gets stressed much sooner in a dry spell
compared to one cultivated in soil with higher
moisture holding capacity. Fig 6.6 shows that
the yield for the pearl millet (bajra) crop, the
predominant rainfed crop in Dodhi and Dapur,
was significantly lower on farms with poorer
soil in both years of survey.
Figure 6.4: Comparison of daily rainfall pattern for Sinnar taluka in 2015 vs 2016
Figure 6.5: Farmers’ judgement of their soil quality
Figure 6.6: Distribution of Pearl Millet (bajra) yield in the surveyed region grouped by farm soil quality and year of
sowing
54
Access to protective irrigation during dry spells is important to prevent crop failure, especially
for farms with poor soil type. However, farms with poor quality soil are often away from
streams in hilly uplands and have poorer access to water for irrigation. Good quality land close
to streams not only needs less frequent irrigation, but also has better availability of water due
to proximity to the stream system. Even for the post monsoon crops, farmers with poor soil
need to irrigate more often than other farmers. Farmers cultivating winter onion crop (with crop
water requirement of about 600-650 mm) in poor soil report the need to irrigate 10 to 12 times
as opposed to 7-8 times1 for farmers with better soil. Thus, biophysical attributes create natural
differences between farmers which get magnified due to climate impact.
6.2 Crop Hierarchy
We find that there is a regional intensification hierarchy of crops ordered by season and
expected financial returns which is central to farmers’ decision-making. Non-perishable crops
such as pearl millet (bajra), sorghum (jowar), pigeon pea (tur), and green gram (harbhara) fall
in the low risk-low reward category that have been traditionally cultivated for subsistence.
They require little investment, are drought resistant and some are also useful as fodder crops.
Farmers consume part of the production and sell any surplus. As we move away from these
subsistence crops to market driven crops, we find various intermediate crops at different levels
of returns and risk. Soybean, groundnut and maize are non-perishable cash crops which are
more input intensive but offer better market returns. Next come the short-duration green leafy
vegetables such as cilantro, fenugreek, spring onions, that are popular amongst smallholding
farmers and may be cultivated multiple times within a season. They are considered a gamble
due to large market price variation but with a comparatively low downside. Cultivation of
vegetables such as tomatoes, cabbage, cauliflowers, broccoli etc. requires far more knowledge,
better inputs, precise irrigation schedule and is even riskier in terms of market rate fluctuations.
Any aberration in irrigation during critical periods can lead to a crop failure. They are thus
grown by farmers who are able to invest in irrigation infrastructure and withstand seasonal
losses. At the top of the hierarchy are multi-year orchards. These require large investments,
access to special markets and availability of water buffer to assure year-round irrigation. It is
farmers with highest access to capital, water and risk-bearing ability who invest in orchards.
1 Flood irrigation is the norm for onion cultivation and the depth of irrigation remains same irrespective of soil type
55
Figure 6.7: Seasonal crop intensification hierarchy and farm economics Key economic attributes of main Kharif, Rabi and summer crops. (A)
Input cost; (B) Irrigation events: Number of times that the crop was irrigated during the crop duration for seasonal crops or through a year for
multi-year crops. All crops except fruit orchards and a share of tomato crops are irrigated using flood irrigation. (C) Crop yield in Quintal/hectare;
(D) Profit per hectare (E) Return from water (Rupees per cubic meter of water required by crop). Data is for year 2015-16 based on surveys of
sampled farmers. Volume of data-points for different crops varies as it depends upon number of farmers who cultivated each crop in the survey
year and were able to recall the figures.
** Yield for green-leafy vegetables unavailable as they are not sold by weight but in non-standard sized “bundles”
56
As farmers move up the intensification hierarchy, there is not only an increase in expected
returns but also an increase in (a) cost of cultivation, (b) crop water requirement both in terms
of quantity and frequency of irrigations, and (c) the variability in returns due to both uncertainty
in yields, and variability in market prices. Figure 6.7 illustrates the crop intensification
hierarchy for the main Kharif, Rabi and annual crops.
Input cost and irrigation (Figure 6.7A and B): As farmers shift their cropping pattern along the
hierarchy (from left to right on the graph within a season or from seasonal crops to annual
crops), there is an increase in their input costs and the frequency in irrigation. As seen in Table
6.3 the theoretical crop water requirement increases along the crop hierarchy. For Kharif crops,
a large part of crop requirement is fulfilled by rainfall, hence irrigations are required to
supplement rainfall especially during dry spells. Rabi crops get part of the requirement through
soil moisture but largely depend upon external irrigation. Annual crops require irrigation
throughout the year including summer when water is scarce. The actual irrigation given also
increases (in Figure 6.7B) but it is accompanied with an increasing spread because of
differences in farmers’ access to water.
Crop yields Figure (Figure 6.7C): It is well known that crop yields depend on irrigation applied,
and a crop’s response to water scarcity is an important determinant of risk faced by the farmer,
especially in where farmers face frequent droughts and long dry spells in Kharif season. The
yield response factor developed by FAO captures the effect of reduction in evapotranspiration
CropCultivation
Season
Crop
Duration
(days)
Crop water
requirement for
Sinnar block
(mm)
Average crop
evapotranspiration
/ day
(mm/day)
Pearl Millet (Bajra) Kharif 90 300-325 3.47
Soyabean Kharif 105 350-400 3.57
Maize Kharif 125 500-550 3.80
Green leafy vegetables Kharif 35-45 175-200 4.69
Kharif Onion Kharif 110-120 500-550 4.57
Kharif Tomato Kharif 125-150 650-750 5.09
Harbhara Rabi 105 300-425 3.45
Rabi Sorghum (Jowar) Rabi 135 400-450 3.15
Wheat Rabi 120 500-525 4.27
Rabi Onion Rabi 110-120 600-650 5.43
Potato Rabi 90-120 600-650 5.95
Rabi Tomato Rabi 125-150 750-850 5.82
Pomegranate Multiyear 365 1200-1500 3.70
Grapes Multiyear 365 1700-1800 4.79
Reference: Walter and Land Management Institute, Government of Maharashtra
Table 6.3: Theoretical crop water requirement as per WALMI
57
on yield losses (Allen et al. 1998) and shows that crops such as millets, soybean, cotton,
groundnuts, safflower etc. are tolerant to water deficits. Crops like wheat and maize are less
drought resistant. Most horticulture crops such as bananas, onions, potatoes, beans, peppers,
tomato etc. are very sensitive to water deficits and aberration in frequency of water application
during critical periods can lead to a crop failure.
When water is limiting, crop yield is directly correlated with the amount of irrigation given.
Figure 6.8 shows the reported yield against fraction of full irrigation given by farmer for Rabi
onion and wheat crops. Fraction of full irrigation is used instead of absolute number of
irrigations to control for the soil type. The figure shows that an increase in the fraction of
irrigation given is correlated with increase in the achievable yield. There are many farmers who
fall short and have lower yield than the frontier, which may be attributed to other factors such
as other inputs, variation in crop varieties used etc.
In practice, if the farmer falls short of water, it can lead to significant loss of yield, especially
in case of horticulture crops. The large spread in amount of irrigation seen in Figure 6.7B (with
number of irrigation as proxy assuming that sufficient water is available for each irrigation
given) contributes to high variation in crop yields and hence, farm returns. We thus find that
high variability in yield is not inherent to intensification but a consequence of the uncertainty
in water input, which is discuss next.
Figure 6.8: Crop yield as a function of irrigation requirement met. X-axis depicts fraction of full irrigation. E.g. 5 irrigations given in good clayey soil for wheat is full irrigation but in sandy soil 5 irrigations may only meet 70% irrigation requirement
58
Market prices: Farm returns depend not only on the yield but also on market prices. The
variability in market prices for perishable crops is significantly higher than that for food-grains.
The standard deviation of the APMC modal price distribution over the year gets significantly
higher as we go from millets (6 – 8%) to fruits (> 50%) due to seasonality and higher
perishability. In addition to variation in daily modal market prices over the year, there is also a
daily price spread of produce in the wholesale markets (i.e. difference between the maximum
and minimum price received in the market on the same day). This spread is largely due to
variation in quality of the produce being brought to the market but is also due to changes in
supply-demand dynamics through the course of the trading day. We find that this daily price
spread increases as we move from traditional crops to horticulture crops. E.g. in Nashik APMC
(2015-16) the average price spread for tomato around the modal price was 76% of the mean
i.e. if the modal price on a day was Rs 1200, some farmers are likely to have received a rate as
low as Rs 500 on the same day. Farmer surveys indicate that inadequate irrigation is one of
the main reasons for poor produce quality leading to loss in income.
Crop returns: The crop returns depend on both the yield as well as the market returns. It can be
seen that the average returns increase along the crop hierarchy. However, there is also a large
spread in crop returns and the number of crop failures also increases with intensification.
CropCultivation
Season
Average modal Nashik
wholesale market rate
for year 2015-16
(Rs/Qunital)
Std dev of
modal price
distribution for
year 2015
Mean price
spread as %
of mean price
(Quality
aspect)
Pearl Millet (Bajra) Kharif 1,526.00 6% 17%
Soyabean Kharif 3,662.00 4% 7%
Maize Kharif 1,442.00 4% 4%
Green leafy vegetables Kharif 1,560.00 48% 56%
Kharif Onion Kharif 1,193.80 31% 134%
Kharif Tomato Kharif 1,385.75 44% 76%
Harbhara Rabi 4,289.00 9% 16%
Rabi Sorghum (Jowar) Rabi 1,822.00 8% 3%
Wheat Rabi 1,666.00 12% 14%
Rabi Onion Rabi 622.50 19% 131%
Rabi Tomato Rabi 868.21 40% 70%
Pomegranate Multiyear 2,889.00 64% 114%
Grapes Multiyear 3,644.00 50% 52%
Table 6.4: Wholesale APMC prices for main crops
59
For example, if we consider onion cultivation in the
surveyed villages for year 2015-16, we find that the
average profit per acre was Rs 28,023 (Figure 6.9)
but the standard deviation of the return was 166% of
the mean. More than a quarter of the farmers made
losses or barely broke even while some farmers
made a profit of more than Rs 1 lakh/acre. Farmers
with poor returns had poor yield and produce
quality.
Return per unit water: Fruits orchards result in highest average return per unit water (with
average between Rs 25 and 50 per cu m). This explains why many farmers do not hesitate to
make expensive arrangements to obtain water for growing orchards: from purchasing tanker
water to transferring water across many kilometers in private pipelines.
6.3 Manoeuvring access to water
Farmers use three observable attributes to describe water access: (a) access device and
modalities of use (e.g. a family well shared amongst three brothers’ families in which each
farmer has access for two days in a rotation of 6 days or, a private well with full access at all
times), (b) amount of water available in terms of maximum hours of pumping before the well
is emptied and the time to recovery of the water level (i.e. farmers may be able to operate a 5
HP pump for 4 hours in February every alternate day and for at most 1 hour in April in every
three days), and (c) months of water available after which water level does not recover
sufficiently for irrigation and water must be saved for domestic use. For most farmers, these
attributes decide if they can cultivate a post-monsoon crop or if land must be left fallow.
Farmers in the field area generally have access
to multiple wells (Figure 6.10) on multiple strips
of farmland, some of which are shared family
wells. The deeper ones are borewells which are
few in number, have low yields and are
generally used only for drinking water purposes.
Months of assured well water access is the
number of months in the cropping year starting
monsoon until which they can use well water (from
Figure 6.9: Distribution of farmer profitability for onions in 2015-16
Figure 6.10: Number of wells and depth of wells
60
any of their wells) for irrigation. Since water availability in year 2015-16 was the lowest in
recent past due to the drought, data corresponding to this year was used for the attribute (Figure
6.11).
However, many farmers find ways,
formal and informal, of enhancing water
availability, a process with financial as
well as political mediation costs. With
these enhanced investments, farmers can
extend their access to assured water for
additional months. This is termed as
months of irrigation available (Figure
6.11) shows a comparison between
months of assured access to irrigation
before enhancements and after new
investments. The figure shows that Pandhurli (~ 10 months assured water) and Wadgaon Sinnar
(~9 months) have relatively good access to water naturally that allow cultivation in two
seasons. There is however, significant variation within the village depending upon biophysical
factors. Dapur and Dodhi villages are highly water scarce with an average of 6.5 months of
well water available. Enhancement in months of access by private investment result in an
increase in months of water availability. Such investments are seen most in Dapur where lift
irrigation months have pulled the average up by 3 additional months of access, followed by
Dodhi village where assured access has increased by another month. By contrast, Wadgaon
Sinnar and Pandhurli have a small share of farmers who have made investments to increase
months of assured water access.
Figure 6.11: Months of assured water through (W) dugwells and (A) after investments in other assets
Farmers
with lateral
bores in
well
Farmers
with
pipelines
for water
transfers
Farmers
with farm
ponds
Farmers who
bought water
tankers for
irrigation
during survey
years
Farmers with
high value
horticulture
during survey
years (higher
than onion in
hierarchy)
Farmers
with
orchards
Farmers
who faced
failure of
primary crop
during
survey years
Farmers
who have
retreated in
cropping
hierarchy
Farmers
with
unpaid
pending
farm loans
Pandhurli 18 33% 28% 0% 0% 83% 11% 33% 17% 17%
Wadgaon Sinnar 34 50% 35% 12% 26% 71% 24% 29% 21% 18%
Dapur 33 39% 58% 15% 27% 76% 52% 55% 6% 39%
Dodhi Kh. 36 44% 8% 11% 28% 36% 17% 56% 28% 36%
Field area total 121 43% 32% 11% 23% 64% 27% 45% 18% 29%
Private investments in water Failures and riskHigh-value crop choice
Village
Number
of
surveyed
farmers
Table 6.5: Share of sampled farmers with investments in water and horticulture cultivation and those facing high risk of failures
61
Despite the struggle to outmanoeuvre temporal and spatial variation in groundwater, farmers
show no sense of rivalry, instead a common opinion is that scarcity is a result of poor rainfall.
While there is a perception of limited availability of resource and the need to enhance it,
subtractability of use and need for groundwater governance is not commonly articulated. In
absence of effective groundwater regulation (Kulkarni et al. 2015, GoM 2018) farmers are free
to appropriate any amount of water from wells on their land and this is considered legitimate
by all. This is however, not true for local surface-water sources where community rules
restricting lifting of water is common, especially when located close to drinking water sources.
Investments in groundwater
Private pipe network is often laid between multiple wells located on different plots to transfer
water from one to another at various times of the year to irrigate crops in different plots. For
example, if an uphill well fills up soon after the first few rains, this water is used by the farmer
for irrigation of both uphill and downstream plots. Later in the year, the uphill well may be dry
but the well in the valley may still have water available which may be piped up and poured into
to the first well in order to irrigate the crop on that plot. Another common intervention is to
drill lateral bores radially outwards in all directions to direct groundwater flow into wells.
These lateral bores may be upto almost 100m long. The most instructive of all investments is
the plastic-lined farm-pond, which has gained popularity as a way to overcome temporal
uncertainty in water availability for multi-year crops. Farm-ponds are filled in monsoon using
groundwater and this water is stored for use in summer until when almost half of the stored
water may be lost to evaporation (Kale 2017), yet there is high demand for such ponds since
they assure access to irrigation during scarcity months. Government subsidy may be availed to
build them, especially if they are to be used for irrigating horticulture crops. Importantly,
between the two years of survey, close to 10% of sampled farmers had constructed new farm-
ponds; a majority of them in the two most drought affected villages, either to enable a new crop
or in response to crop failure due to insufficient irrigation in previous years.
Investments at the interface of surface and ground water
There is natural variation in access to groundwater spatially within a village. Wells made in or
adjoining streams or other surface water sources such as small reservoirs, percolation tanks,
canals etc. have water longer than other wells. For example, wells adjoining Bhojapur or
Kadwa canal get recharged during every canal rotation. In Wadgaon Sinnar, wells along the
DBI canal are recharged as long as the canal is operational. The Bhojapur reservoir is dotted
62
with wells along its boundary from where water is transferred across large distances. These
wells function at the interface of surface water and ground water, i.e. they indirectly tap into
the surface water by accessing it through groundwater. The reason for this indirect tapping is
that surface water sources typically have more stringent allocation rules and the command area
or beneficiaries are officially assigned and may also be charged for it. The indirect tapping of
this water though groundwater falls in the grey area when it comes to regulation and requires
some political manoeuvring, especially during times of water scarcity. Yet, there is a thriving
operation of water transfer. Small patches of land just enough to dig a well next to such surface
water sources fetch high market rates. From here water is transferred to farms over many kilo-
meters. Similarly, many farmers build a combination of well and farm pond next to seasonal
canals such as Bhojapur canal which have limited rotations. Farmers draw water canal water
through their recharged wells and stored it in a farm pond for future use, thereby converting
the canal water back to surface water. Because of their “greyness” such operations are never
completely reliable as government officials may abruptly cut off electricity connections for
wells next to reservoirs, streams and canals during times of scarcity.
The net result of such investments is that the region is a mosaic of highly differentiated and
unequal access to groundwater, crisscrossed by a network of pipelines, and dotted with
hundreds of farm-ponds. The more severe the water scarcity, the more are such interventions.
This changing configuration of wells and other interventions results in changes in groundwater
flows creating flux in access. As groundwater levels fall post-monsoon, the shallowest wells
dry up first followed by deeper wells and those near water-pockets. Farmers with large
investments in water assets have the longest access to water as they surmount biophysical
vulnerabilities through interventions. However, the most vulnerable are the landless and those
with no wells, who depend upon notified public water sources for their drinking and domestic
use (while farmers with irrigation wells use the same for domestic use). These sources are the
shallowest and hence seasonal drinking water scarcity is a recurrent characteristic feature. We
thus find a situation where some irrigate their orchards in summer while some others face
drinking water scarcity.
6.4 Farmer decisions
The key decisions for a farmer in each year are to (a) select a cropping pattern spatially and
temporally based on an estimate of available water, i.e., decide which crops are to be sown on
63
how much area in each of the seasons, or when to leave land fallow, (b) prepare an informal
irrigation plan matching the perceived availability of water through various sources and private
assets to the crop water requirement, and (c) decide on any investments in assets for enhancing
access to water. Though the plans are made at the start of the year, they change based on the
monsoon and the actual availability of water.
Sown area decisions: The seasonal decision of how much area to sow and which crop to
cultivate is predominantly dependent on farmers’ estimate of available water and the perceived
ability to match crop water requirement. A good rainfall year such as 2016-17 results in higher
sown area leading to reduced fallow land in post-monsoon seasons.
Table 6.6 shows the seasonal sowing pattern of 88 farmers who were common in the farm
surveys of both years. In 2015-16, large share of cultivable area was left fallow after Kharif
cultivation as can be seen by the reduced area under Rabi and Summer. This was highest for
Dodhi followed by Dapur. In 2016-17, the fallow land was significantly reduced in response
to better rainfall. Moreover, Pandhurli and Wadgaon Sinnar saw a big increase in summer
sowing.
Crop choice: Farmers have a band of operation with respect to crop choice in the intensification
hierarchy depending upon factors such as their access to water, access to credit, risk-taking
ability etc. For example, a farmer may have soybean as their default Kharif crop choice, but in
good rainfall years, they may shift in the intensification hierarchy and also cultivate some green
leafy vegetables. Alternatively, if the monsoon gets delayed, they may shift lower in the
hierarchy and decide to cultivate pearl millet (bajra) instead of soybean. For another farmer, a
good rainfall year may imply intensification by cultivating tomato, while the default option
may be to cultivate green leafy vegetables.
However, starting a new multiyear orchard (as seen most in the two driest villages of Dodhi
and Dapur during the survey years) is a structurally different form of intensification compared
Table 6.6: Comparison of change in seasonal sown area by sampled farmers in 2015 vs 2016 (same farmers in both years)
Kharif Rabi Summer MY Kharif Rabi Summer MY
Dodhi 834 35.1 12.0 - 1.8 33.9 23.4 1.2 3.2
Dapur 1320 34.3 16.8 - 12.3 35.0 24.6 1.9 15.8
Wadgaon 693 27.3 18.0 0.2 2.4 27.8 24.5 4.8 2.6
Pandhurli 866 22.6 21.2 1.4 5.2 24.9 23.4 9.4 5.2
Village Net Cultivable
area (ha)
2015-16 (bad rainfall year)
sown area in sample (ha)
2016-17 (good rainfall year)
sown area in sample (ha)
64
to short term seasonal intensification in response to good rainfall year. This is because orchard
cultivation is a long term investment made by farmers to intensify output over the next decade
and requires a commitment to provide adequate irrigation irrespective of how the rainfall year
turns out (good year or drought year) in the future. Thus, such intensification typically goes
hand-in-hand with investments such as farm ponds.
Water allocation decisions:
When water is limiting, farmers seek to get the most value out of every drop available to them.
This is contrary to the traditional strategy of protective irrigation (Jurrie ͏̈ns et al. 1996) in
drought-prone areas where available water is spread thinly over large area to protect against
complete crop failure and traditional drought resistant crops are cultivated. With better control
of irrigation with private investments, the strategy is to instead follow productive irrigation by
concentrating water in a smaller area and meeting complete crop water requirement of high-
value crops.
Depending upon farmer’s estimate of available water, part of the land is devoted to high value
crop with the goal of meeting complete crop water requirement while the remaining land is left
fallow or used for low-water intensity crops. In absence of coordination and complete
information about the resource, farmers’ estimates often go wrong and water falls short. They
then prioritize the crop highest in the intensification hierarchy at the expense of other crops.
Onion is allowed to fail in order to save water for pomegranate and wheat is sacrificed to
irrigate onions. Crops like sorghum and gram are cultivated with the expectation that they may
remain unirrigated and eventually only serve as fodder. At the top of the hierarchy, fruit
orchards almost always get full irrigation even if through purchase of expensive water tankers.
The driver for this is the increasing expected return per unit water along the intensification
hierarchy as observed in Figure 6.7D.
Decision to invest in water infrastructure: As crop failures are frequent (see Table 6.5), farmers
evaluate their cropping pattern and access to water and make decisions to invest in assets to
reduce future uncertainty. This is then accompanied by a shift to a higher band of operation
within the intensification hierarchy.
Figure 6.12 plots each of the surveyed farmer in the four villages. On the x-axis is the number
of months of assured water supply that farmer has access to (through groundwater, lift irrigation
or other investments). The y-axis provides the expected profit in Rs per unit acre of cultivated
65
land which is a function of the farmer’s crop portfolio and the weighted average return from
each crop. The shape of the frontier of the curve shows that as the assurance of water access
increases, it allows farmers to achieve a higher expected profit. A farmer who does not have
certainty of water access beyond 4-5 months is unlikely to invest in a Rabi crop and is likely
to have a low return. Farmer with assured access only till Dec or Jan months tend to grow Rabi
crops which are less water intensive such as Jowar, fodder crops, harbhara etc. which are also
low on returns. If access is assured until March, then farmers are likely to grow more profitable
Rabi crops such as onions, wheat or vegetables. Fruit orchards are grown only when water is
assured for all 12 months.
As we see in the graph, there are many farmers who operate at a point much lower than the
frontier which could be for various reasons such as poor soil type, low market risk appetite, in
ability to afford input costs, poor knowledge of practice etc.
Figure 6.12: Expected farm return vs. water assurance for all surveyed farmers
The two red-coloured points shown in the graph shows a farmer in transition who in 2015-16
grew vegetables and fell short of last water for his onion crops; built a farm pond in the
following year and simultaneously started a grape farm thereby rising along the frontier to a
higher expected return state.
6.5 Summary
We find that farmers have essentially failed to arrive at a viable choice of crop matched with
an assured and inexpensive regime of irrigation. This is due to multiple sources of variability
that confound the farmers’ calculations. The first is the uncertainty in the monsoon rainfall,
both in terms of total amount and the dry spells, which leads to unplanned demand for water.
66
The second is the uncertainty in access to groundwater due to the high stage of development.
The third is the risk caused by competitive extraction and political limits to informal water
transfers. There is also poor knowledge of both, the subtractability of the common pool
resource, as well as their rights and entitlements that would allow formalization of the regime
of operation. Finally, there is the variability in wholesale market prices.
Hence, we find that in the big picture, though the mean returns from intensification appear to
be encouraging, it is the variance at various levels that hits a large number of farmers and causes
failures. Farmers’ strategy, which is restricted to crop choice, additional investments or
withdrawal, tends to be driven by ill-informed and over-optimistic expectation of returns and
poor perception of risk. The most popular strategy, that of additional investments, propagates
in a cycle with some delay and aggravates risk.
At the aggregate level, we find villages are in transition from one regime of cropping to another
as farmers learn from one another. This study focuses on a specific type of ongoing
intensification but it suggests that there are indeed "waves" of informal intensification as new
and more remunerative crop varieties get established. For instance, pomegranate in its current
wave was established in the past decade and newer crops such as broccoli are starting yet
another wave. New farmer clusters emerge as they find the right combination of geography,
infrastructure solution and business models for these crops. Along with them, there is a
periphery in which farmers emulate with a delay and with greater risk as one or the other
necessary ingredient may be absent and complete information is unavailable.
In the next chapter, we model the current situation as a coupled social-ecological system (SES)
to uncover human-nature interactions through which risk propagates resulting in observed
outcomes and to identify interventions that may stop this vicious cycle.
67
7. A social-ecological systems analysis
We use Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework (Anderies et al. 2004, McGinnins and
Ostrom 2014) to characterize our study area as a coupled human-nature system. The framework
provides an interdisciplinary lens to understand the feedback mechanisms within and between
social and ecological systems and thus allows a study over time and space. It has been described
in Chapter 2 along with other approaches to study of SES.
Ostrom’s work (Ostrom 1990) developed as a response to Hardin’s (Hardin 1968) description
of the tragedy of the commons that contends that a common property resource will inevitably
face degradation and collapse when left to be managed by people on their own, as individual
users will act in their self-interest and appropriate the most resource, contrary to the common
good. The “common pool resource (CPR)” is defined as a natural or man-made resource system
that is sufficiently large so as to make it costly to exclude beneficiaries from obtaining benefits
from its use (Ostrom 1990). An inherent property of the CPR is subtractability, i.e. units
appropriated by one user subtract the number of units available for appropriation by other users.
Hardin’s argument was that it was only through government control or through privatization
that people can be incentivized to conserve the CPR. A large body of Ostrom’s work was to
argue against this by compiling case studies that showed that there are many example of
communities who over generations have self-governed natural resources on which they rely for
their livelihoods, by coming up with their own governance rules. The social-ecological systems
framework was developed by Ostrom as a way to create a common vocabulary for researchers
across disciplinary boundaries to
characterize different aspect of
the common pool resource and its
management and to analyse its
sustainability. The SES is
considered to be composed of
multiple subsystems and internal
variables within these
subsystems at multiple tiers. The
Figure 7.1: SES Framework with multiple first tier components (Source: McGinnins and Ostrom 2014)
68
framework also provides key variables and their conditions that are essential for the system to
successfully self-govern. Figure 7.1 illustrates the first-tier sub-systems and their relation.
7.1 Characterizing the system
For the purpose of analysis, we organize our system into two tiers. At the lowest tier, our
system boundary comprises the farming household along with the multiple strips of farm land
where they practice farming (without necessarily having legal ownership). These units of
farming households are nested in a higher tier: a “community” within which the available water
forms a common pool resource (CPR). Since groundwater is the primary source of irrigation
on which most farmers depend, it is our focus here. However, the boundary may easily be
expanded to include surface-water sources or any other source of irrigation and its command
region for a larger study.
This highest tier includes all social groups and institutions within them. In terms of its
biophysical constitution, it includes all types of land use and land cover including non-
agricultural land. This larger system includes streams which recharge groundwater and are
enhanced by baseflows but the watershed boundary may not overlap with the aquifer boundary.
The impact of the stream system is seen in terms of groundwater-rich pockets that it creates
through water collected in small reservoirs and tanks. The larger system boundary is
complicated by water that may be “imported” into the system by farmers through pipelines that
run over large distances. Table 7.1 shows tier 1 and tier 2 variables defined by the SESF that
are used to characterize the system at hand. Not all variables are relevant to all studies, and the
relative importance of the variable for our context has been filled out.
69
Category
Variable Code Variable NameRelevance to
our studyReason for exclusion Where it is captured
Social, economic and political settings (S)
S1 Economic Development NA Consistent across the
field area
S2 Demographic Trends YesImpact on cropping pattern with reducing
landholding over generations
S3 Political Stability NAConsistent across the
field area
S4 Government settlement policies NAConsistent across the
field area
S5 Market incentivesYes - very
important
Difference in market returns across crop
types
S6 Media organization NAConsistent across the
field area
Resource System (RS)
RS1 Sector Yes Definition of system boundary
RS2 Clarity of system boundariesYes - very
important
Captured at farmer level (in farmer
interviews) as well as policy/governance
level (no defined tools/process in place to
define boundary)
RS3* Size of resource system Yes Captured in R2
RS4 Human-constructed facilities NAConsistent across the
field area
RS5* Productivity of system Yes
Captured by conducting field work across
four sample villages with varying
productivity/scarcity of the resource
RS6 Equilibrium properties NoConsistent across the
field area
RS7* Predictability of system dynamicsYes - very
important
Captured in farmer interviews and seen in
poor knowledge about how much has been
extracted by others and unpredictability of
monsoon rains
RS8 Storage characterisitcs Yes characteristics of shallow basaltic aquifers
RS9 Location NACaptured in the aquifer characteristics in
RS8
Resource Units (RU)
RU1* Resource unit mobility NA Does not apply
RU2 Growth or replacement rate NA considered in RS5
RU3 Interaction among resource units NA Does not apply
RU4 Economic valueYes - very
important
Captured in the cost of extraction, crop
yield and return
RU5 Size NA Does not apply
RU6 Distinctive markings NA Does not apply
RU7 Spatial and temporal distributionYes - very
important
Variability of resource captured in time and
space: pockets of poor vs high availability;
high access in monsoon and low in summer
70
Table 7.1: Social-ecological systems framework variables and their relevance to our system
Category
Variable Code Variable NameRelevance to
our studyReason for exclusion Where it is captured
Governance System (GS)
GS1 Government organizations Yes
Captured in the understanding of the role
of the Groundwater Survey and
Development Authority (GSDA)
GS2 Non-government organizations NA
None operational in
the field region for GW
governance
GS3 Network structure NA None in practice
GS4 Property-rights systems NAConsistent across field
area
GS5 Operational rulesYes - very
important
Existing operational rules (or lack of)
explored in the field work and interviews
GS6* Collective-choice rules YesCaptured in farmer interviews and group
discussions
GS7 Constitutional rulesYes - very
important
Captured in the study of the groundwater
act and its operational interpretation by
farmers
GS8 Monitoring and sanctioning processes YesCaptured in interviews with government
agents
Actors (A)
A1* Number of users YesCaptured in data on number of farmers and
their access to groundwater
A2 Socioeconomic attributes of users Yes Captured in farmer surveys
A3 History of use YesCaptured in the historical trend in months
of water availability
A4 Location NA
Captured in reference to different
biophysical properties across different field
locations
A5* Leadership/entrepreneurship NA None in practice
A6* Norms/social capital NA None in practice
A7* Knowledge of SES/mental modelsYes - very
importantCaptured in RS2 and RS7
A8* Dependence on resource Yes Captured in terms of non-farm employment
opportunities
A9 Technology used Yes
Captured through the different
groundwater extraction technology being
used
Interactions (I) --> Outcomes (O)
I1 Harvesting levels of diverse usersYes - very
important
Captured through various attributes such as:
sown area, crop demand, number of
extraction devices etc.
I2 Information sharing among users Yes Captured in farmer surveys
I3 Deliberation processes Yes Captured in farmer surveys
I4 Conflicts among users Yes Captured in farmer surveys
I5 Investment activities Yes
Captured in the type and number of
investments in groundwater extraction
devices
I6 Lobbying activities NA None in practice
O1 Social performance measures YesCaptured through the following: inequity in
access; inefficiency of resource use;
O2 Ecological performance measures YesSustainability of ecological services such as
drinking water security
O3 Externalities to other SESs NANot a focus in this
study
Related Ecosystems (ECO)
ECO1 Climate patterns Yes Impact of monsoon dry spells
ECO2 Pollution patterns NANot a concern in field
area
ECO3 Flows into and out of focal SES Yes water "imported" in to the focal system
71
The table highlights the variables that are considered to be most crucial in aiding collective
action. These include: size of resource system (not too small or too large), clarity on who the
users are (who is allowed to use, who is not), predictability of systems dynamics (i.e. what
actions will lead to what outcomes), collective choice rules and governance mechanisms, etc.
Our case study falls short of meeting most of these requirements, as shown in previous chapters,
i.e. the boundary of the groundwater system (aquifer) or the number of users is not clearly
known (which is true for surface water as well), there are poor governance rules and monitoring
systems in place and the feedback loops are not well understood. Under such circumstances
overexploitation of natural resources leading to the tragedy of the commons appears to be a
likely outcome.
7.2 Uncovering feedback loops
The SESF is rooted in systems thinking. In this section, we model the current situation as a
coupled social-ecological system (SES) to uncover human-nature interactions through which
risk propagates resulting in observed outcomes. We use the causal-loop diagram (Sterman
2012) to develop the dynamics of farmers’ decision making in response to uncertainties in
socio-ecological factors. This is used to understand model the trajectory of individual farmers
as well as that of the community as a whole. The model is, thus, developed in two tiers: one at
the level of the individual farmer unit and the other at the community level, with interactions
between the two tiers.
Sources of uncertainty
We describe the dynamics of farmer decisions in response to the following types uncertainties
in the system.
(a) Uncertainty due to monsoon rainfall pattern: i.e. length, frequency and timings of dry spells.
This is considered exogenous
(b) Uncertainty in amount of monsoon rainfall: year-to-year variation in the amount of rainfall
received (good year or bad year). This is considered exogenous
(c) Stage of groundwater development: Groundwater is a common property resource for all in
the community. The stage of groundwater development is defined by the share of outflow to
inflow (i.e. ratio of groundwater extracted to groundwater recharge). Since shallow basaltic
aquifers have very low buffer (as they map empty in summer), when farmers draw large share
of the recharged amount, they operate close to the carrying capacity of the resource which
72
increases their uncertainty in access to water. This is especially so for farmers with shallow
wells which will dry up first and hence these farmers will face greater uncertainty. It is assumed
that the groundwater development is not significantly impacted by the action of one farmer
alone (considering that extraction by one farmer is small compared to the groundwater stock)
but by the cumulative effect of action of many farmers. On the other hand, any change in
groundwater table impacts everyone. This attribute is thus considered endogenous at the level
of the community.
(d) Aggregate investments in private water assets: This refers to the total number of
investments by all farmers in the community in assets such as wells, borewells, farmponds,
lateral bores, pipeline transfer of water from one zone to another, etc. As one farmer opts for
new investments and deepens wells or builds farmponds, this act increases his/her access to
water vis-à-vis other farmers. This attribute is endogenous at the level of the community. It is
impacted by actions of individual farmers.
(e) Uncertainty in market rates: Farmers face high variability in market rates. The variability is
higher for perishable high value crops. While the market rate itself is considered exogenous
(assuming farmers are price taking), it is assumed that uncertainty increases as farmers
intensify as is characteristic of the crop intensification hierarchy.
The Dynamics
Uncertainty in the rainfall pattern, in terms of the length and frequency of dry spells, results in
uncertainty in the need for irrigation during breaks in rain. The higher is this variability, the
more is the likelihood of irrigation deficit for the Kharif crop (i.e. inability to meet crop water
requirement). Moreover, there is large year-to-year variation in the amount of rainfall received.
Hence, there is uncertainty in how much water will be available in any year for irrigation. Even
after the monsoon season has finished, farmers do not have a good estimate of how much
groundwater will be available in the post-monsoon months due to poor knowledge of
groundwater flows. These uncertainties lead to higher irrigation deficit (i.e. gap between
irrigation required and irrigation provided), impacting crop yield and leading to increasing
financial risk. High risk of loss prompts farmers to either withdraw or to raise the stakes.
Farmers with low-risk taking ability either de-intensify by shifting to low water intensive crops
or look for non-farm income opportunities. The other, riskier strategy, is to invest in assets that
would secure water for them, and hence reduce the uncertainty in their access to water
(Investment to improve access balancing loop). (Figure 7.2)
73
Farm irrigationrequirement
Irirgationdeficit
Expected Farmprofitability
Farm investment inprivate water asset
Farm intensificationby shift to high value
crop
+
Farmer's risktaking ability
+
-
De-intensify
-
+
Investment to
improve access
a. Agriculture Intensification: Farm Level Dynamics
Perceived risk offailure
+
+
Cost ofwater
+
<Farm irrigationrequirement>
Communityirrigation
requirement
Groundwaterextraction
Stage ofgroundwaterdevelopment
+ +
Drinking water security forthose dependent on
shallow wells
<Stage ofgroundwaterdevelopment>
+
<Farm investment inprivate water asset>
Aggregate investmentin private water assets
Polarization in accessto groundwater+
Intensification for
profitability
-
b. Agriculture Intensification: Community Level Dynamics
+
+
+
Impact to common
property resource
+
Competitive
investment
-
Uncertainty inmonsoon dry spells
<Aggregateinvestment in private
water asset>
++
Competitive
investment
+
+
Impact to common
property resource
+
Uncertainty inneed for irrigation
+
+
Uncertainty inaccess to irrigation
+
+
+
-Uncertainty inmarket return
+
Uncertainty in rainfallamount (Good year or
drought year)
+
< >Attribute from
community leveldynamics
Causality fromcommunity level
dynamics
+ Reinforcing loop
- Balancing loop
+
-
or
or
Positive causality
Negative causality
< > Attribute from farmerlevel dynamics
Causality from farmerlevel dynamics
Loss ofyield
+
+
+
perceivedavailability of water +
monsoonrainfall
Groundwaterrecharge+
-
+
Uncertainty ingroundwater access
for all+
-
++
Financial risk from
intensification
Figure 7.2: Causal-loop diagram showing dynamics of farmers’ decision making in response to uncertainties in socio-ecological factors (a) farm level dynamics shows the decision-making at farmer level. Some of the factors that impact farmer decisions are attributes of the larger community dynamics (stage of groundwater development and aggregate investment in private water assets) (b) community level dynamics shows the effect of individual farmer’s actions at the level of the community as a whole. The actions of investment and intensification which appear to be risk mitigating or balancing loops for individual farmers emerge as risk reinforcing loops at the community level. So ‘Investment to improve access’ (balancing) loop at farmer level emerges as ‘competitive investment’ (reinforcing) loop at community level when many farmers start investing and the ‘intensification for profitability’ (balancing) loop leads to ‘impact to common property resource’ (reinforcing) loop as the irrigation requirement for the community increases with intensification. The worsening of community level attributes (stage of groundwater development and aggregate investment in water asset) in turn leads to higher risk for individual farmers resulting in a vicious cycle of investment and intensification. Externalities visible at the community level are rise in inequality in access to water, de-intensification or exit by the socio-economically poor and rise in drinking water insecurity for those dependent on shallow public wells. Note that positive causality between two attributes (say x and y) implies that when all other factors are held constant, an increase in x causes increase in y (or decrease in x leads to decrease in y). Negative causality implies that increase in x causes a decrease in y, all other factors being equal.
74
When farmers make large investment in water assets, it increases their cost of accessing water.
This prompts them to shift to high value crops such as orchards in order to recoup their
investment. The other driver for intensification is farmers’ perception of available water.
Investing in water assets increases farmers’ perception of available water (a good rainfall year
also increases this perception), prompting them shift their cropping pattern to more lucrative
though water-intensive crops. By shifting to high value crops, farmers expect higher returns
and hence a reduction in their financial risk thereby reducing the need for making further
investments in water. This makes the second balancing loop (intensification for profitability
balancing loop).
Thus, the balancing loops (Investment to improve access and intensification for profitability)
show the individual farmer’s response to uncertainty in access to water. Farmers who invest in
assets and intensify initially benefit from lowering their risk and improved financial returns.
Encouraged by their success, more farmers follow suit. As this happens, the actions that appear
to be risk-mitigating for individual farmers turn into risk-reinforcing for the entire community.
This is because each individual farmer may benefit temporarily from investing in assets and
appropriate larger share of the groundwater. But this relative advantage is eroded as soon as
there are “too many” such farmers trying to compete with newer investments (e.g. deeper wells,
bigger pumps, larger farmponds). This is because these investments merely serve to redistribute
available water within the community. This is seen in the community level dynamics
(Competitive investment loop).
As crop water requirement for individual farms increases, this increases the net crop water
requirement for the community and larger groundwater extraction to meet this requirement.
This impacts the stage of groundwater development.
The stage of groundwater development depends upon the ratio of outflow (extraction) to
inflow (recharge). We find that, in general, the demand for extraction exceeds the recharge.
This is because (a) farmers do not have any good ways on how to estimate the amount of
groundwater recharge depending upon their biophysical attributes and monsoon rainfall and
(b) there is no information sharing or collective action that will allow farmers to know how
much groundwater is being extracted by other farmers and so each farmer acts to appropriate
as much as they can. Hence, regardless of it being a good rainfall year or bad, farmers overdraw
leading to quick fall in groundwater table, dry wells and unmet demand for the asset poor.
Thus, increased groundwater development leads to reduced availability and increased
75
uncertainty in access for all (Impact to common property resource loop) including those
dependent on shallow drinking water wells.
At the farmer level, this increase in uncertainty due to (a) falling groundwater table due to large
community groundwater extraction and (b) a large number of competing investments in water
which reduces individual farmer’s share, along with (c) good year-bad year rainfall dynamics,
leads to a cycle of incrementally greater investment (from lateral bores and well deepening to
multiple wells, private water lifts, pipelines and farm-ponds) and incrementally higher
intensification. Eventually, despite large investments farmers end up with high uncertainty in
access and that too at a significantly higher cost and large inequity in access to ecological
services.
7.3 A tragedy of the commons or worse?
The situation appears to lead to the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968) where each agent
maximizes its own allocation, and hence output, by using a larger share of the CPR leading to
a situation where ultimately everyone is worse off. But a study of the farmer payoffs from
investments shows that what is unfolding is more perverse than the typical tragedy of the
commons formulation (Ostrom 1990) (see Appendix D for a game-theoretical analysis).
One, in our situation, the carrying capacity of groundwater changes every year in response to
the variability in the amount of monsoon rains. Hence, even when the number of investments
is significantly below the carrying capacity of an “average” rainfall year, a bad drought year
causes the system to tip over its carrying capacity (Sterman 2012), producing uncertainty and
initiating the dynamics of competitive investment, leading to further uncertainty, even in good
rainfall years.
Two, the average pay-off from making an investment is initially significantly high and provides
temporary relief from uncertainty in allocation as there is a socio-economic barrier for a large
number of farmers to make an immediate change in their strategy and invest. Instead many
farmers invest with a delay only when their payoffs fall further, either due to new investments
by others or due to a drought year.
Third, when a large number of farmers have made investments and the system has reverted to
high uncertainty in allocation, a new cash crop higher in the crop hierarchy presents once again
the option of escalation by further investment, replaying the earlier dynamics. As seen in Figure
7.2, such escalation (the Intensification for profitability loop) will stop only when the cost of
76
water becomes so high that it exceeds the market value of the output, thereby negating farm
profitability. This inordinately raises the point of rent dissipation (Ostrom 1990) (i.e. the point
where marginal gain from appropriation is smaller than the marginal cost) and the point of
actual operation. This explains the economic viability of extremely wasteful investments such
as groundwater-filled farm-ponds. The potential return per unit water for irrigating horticulture
crops in summer is so high that even if only half of the stored groundwater remains in
farmponds after months of evaporation, it can fetch higher returns than if no water was wasted
and all of it was used to cultivate a seasonal crop in Kharif or Rabi. While the benefits of this
accrues to the horticulture farmer, the cost is borne by the entire community through
diminishing access to ecological services such as public drinking water supply.
7.4 Leverage points
Given that the current practice of intensification is found to be unsustainable, there is a need to
analyse the system further to look for points of leverage where interventions may lead to a stop
in the vicious cycles that are at play. Leverage points are places within a system where a small
shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything (Meadows 1999). These are places of
interventions in the system. All leverage points may not have the same impact and some are
more effective than others.
There are ongoing interventions from the state and the civil society to address the situation.
While the agriculture department promotes horticulture cultivation and investment in water
assets through subsidies, the soil and water conservation department works on programs for
conservation of natural resources. For example, Maharashtra state’s flagship program Jalyukta
Shivar is one of the vehicles through which the state is currently doing village-level water
conservation planning. On the demand side, promotion of micro-irrigation (drip or sprinklers)
is an important intervention by the agricultural department. We analyse the impact of these
interventions on the SES in Figure 7.3 where current interventions are highlighted in green.
Watershed interventions: These include interventions such as building check-dams, earthen
and concrete bunds, desilting tanks, deepening and widening of streams, farm-bunds, contour
trenches etc. The goal of these structures is to arrest run-off and increase soil moisture and
groundwater recharge. It has been observed, however, that increase in water availability
through these interventions helps farmers in the vicinity to intensify their practice by shifting
to more water intensive crops. The perception of high water availability and lack of
77
coordination between farmers results in higher extraction compared to the increased recharge
by watershed structures. The system thus goes back to high level of uncertainty and failure
with only a few farmers benefiting from the intervention.
Micro-irrigation: It is known to increase the water efficiency and hence reduce the amount of
water required for irrigation. It thus allows farmers to bring larger area under cultivation, which
they would have otherwise left fallow; or to cultivate a more water intensive crop. Moreover,
the cost of implementing drip-irrigation and its operational cost is high and not affordable by
all farmers. Despite government subsidy, not many farmers opt for it. The high cost of drip
irrigation, raises the cost of water for farmers and it is almost exclusively used for horticulture
cultivation. Thus, while micro-irrigation allows farmers to get more output from the same
amount of water, it does not result in stopping of competitive extraction and increase in
uncertainty and failures. The perception of reduced water requirement, may result in over-
sowing leading to uncertainty in water availability and high irrigation deficit.
Thus we find that current initiatives by the water conservation department are not only
insufficient in stopping the vicious cycle, but in fact prompt further intensification, especially
as the agriculture department sees the problem as that of inadequate infrastructure and
continues to provide subsidy for farmponds and horticulture cultivation without any carrying
capacity assessment.
78
Figure 7.3: What will stop the vicious cycle? Leverage points. Current interventions by the state are at low leverage points.
Watershed interventions increase groundwater recharge and promotion of micro-irrigation enhances water-use efficiency. But
the perception of enhanced water availability due to these interventions tends to increase share of irrigated area and lack of
coordination between farmers continue to drive the cycle of intensification beyond sustainable levels. Government subsidies for
new farmponds and orchards further contribute to this. Higher leverage points are those which will limit intensification and
investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-economic factors. Collective planning of aggregate level of
intensification based on sound estimate of available water will ensure that the community irrigation requirement is aligned with
available water, thereby reducing risk of crop failures and building resilience. This, as shown, will break the vicious cycle of impact
to common property resource. Community plan for setting aside water for protective irrigation will reduce uncertainty during
monsoon dry spells. State or community regulation of investments in extraction and water transfer assets will stop the competitive
investment and intensification for profitability loops, reduce failures and variability in returns. These interventions require
scientific engagement to build planning tools that may be used seasonally by the farming community to comprehend the level of
risk corresponding to different cropping plans and make appropriate decision. A longer term, though higher, leverage point is to
disrupt the crop hierarchy so that market incentives are aligned with sustainable crop choices
79
7.5 Conclusion: What will stop the cycle?
Figure 7.3 analyses alternate leverage points. These are leverage points that will limit
intensification and investments to a level that can be supported by biophysical and socio-
economic factors. Reduction in orchards (the fixed load) and a strategy of well-regulated
seasonal intensification (the variable load) within the limits of available resource and by
rotation amongst farmers will not only result in more sustainable and equitable practice, but
may actually result in increasing net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful
infrastructure. This can be achieved through scientific engagement to develop tools that are
accessible to the community to improve the knowledge of groundwater and enable collective
resource management.
The following proposed interventions are consistent with Ostrom’s SES framework (2009) in
terms of the essential attributes of a CPR that facilitates collective resource management. They
are also seen being implemented in some villages such as Hivare Bazar which have emerged
as model villages due to their ability to foster collective action.
Sound estimate of water available for irrigation: To know the limits within which the
community must operate is key to ensuring sustainability as well as to reducing risk of
crop failures. This includes (a) a spatio-temporal estimate of groundwater for a rainfall
year that depends upon local biophysical factors, existing interventions, land-use etc.
and (b) a sound understanding of the rights and entitlements with respect to drawing
water from surface water surfaces through wells in the vicinity.
A collective crop-plan and water use plan based on the annual rainfall and estimated
availability of water. The crop-plan may indicate total area under multi-year orchards
that may be permissible, area under seasonal horticulture crops for that season and
remaining area under low water-intensive crops. The overall resource management plan
would also take into account the amount of water to be set aside for protective irrigation
of Kharif crops and for drinking, domestic and livestock use. Development of such a
plan on an annual basis requires easy-to-use planning tools that allow the community
to comprehend the level of risk corresponding to different cropping plans and make
appropriate decision
Mechanism to rotate right to intensify (seasonally or for multi-year crops) and
community regulation of the cropping pattern
80
Community rules to limit the number of investments in water transfers and groundwater
extraction
Figure 7.3 shows how these interventions break the loops or stop them. The key idea is that
sound knowledge of the resource and collective action help in a managed-intensification within
the biophysical limit of the system. Thus, as the community level dynamics shows, in the ideal
case, the recharge to groundwater and the extraction will remain balanced, so that it does not
lead to uncertainty in water access, thereby breaking the Impact to common property resource
reinforcing loop. The reduced risk in access to water, accompanied by community regulation
on investments will lead to a reduction in farm investments in private water assets and stop the
competitive investment loop. In the farmer level dynamics, individual farmers will no longer
decide their intensification level based on their perception of available water or for the purpose
of recovering their investment in large assets – breaking the Intensification to match available
water and Intensification for profitability loops. The impact of watershed interventions and
microirrigation will also be greatly beneficial when done in conjunction with placing an
informed limit on investments and intensification as per the resource carrying capacity.
There are examples of villages such as Hivare Bazaar that have demonstrated that armed with
the knowledge of surface and groundwater systems, appropriate cropping patterns can be
followed and regulated by the community successfully while ensuring prosperity and justice in
access to the resource. This is a concrete objective to aim for.
The analysis points to a still higher point of leverage - one that would change the paradigm of
current dynamics - and that is to disrupt the existing crop hierarchy. Currently, urban
expectations of year-round unseasonal consumption drive market forces and incentivize
unsustainable farm practices. But if consumers start to value low-water footprint produce more
than water-intensive ones, it would reverse the crop hierarchy resulting in a more sustainable
scenario, where raising farmer incomes will be consistent with following sustainable farming
practices.
The following two chapters take the above recommendations to the next stage by developing a
tool to estimate farm-level vulnerability of farmers based on their biophysical attributes and
illustrating how the water budget can be used to analyse the impact of different cropping
options and supply side interventions.
81
8. Farm level vulnerability assessment
The study of farmers in Sinnar shows that the vicious cycle of intensification is a response to
increasing uncertainty in biophysical factors such as climate impact and access to common
property resource. In order to ensure prosperity for farmers without compromising
sustainability of natural resources, there is a need to stabilize crop yields for those vulnerable
to climate impact and develop a community understanding of the common water resources so
that the extent of intensification remains within the seasonal carrying capacity. This will also
reduce the variance in farm output and stabilize returns.
Accomplishing this will require consideration of the (a) temporal component i.e. requirement
of protective irrigation during periods of scarcity e.g. Kharif dry spells and (b) spatial
component i.e. understanding of relative vulnerability of farms so that the most vulnerable
farmers may be identified and targeted as beneficiaries for government interventions. This
requires consideration of farm level attributes. For example, the soil property is a local attribute
and can vary significantly from farm to farm within a village. Even with identical rainfall and
cropping, some farms are more vulnerable than others due to differences in their bio-physical
properties such as slope, soil depth, soil texture as well as differences in access to water (i.e.
proximity to streams, investments etc.). Hence, for any intervention planning or collective crop
planning, it is important to assess the variation in vulnerability of farmers within a village and
adequately address it in the plan.
A farm level water balance allows a first cut analysis of farm level vulnerability based on
bio-physical parameters. It does so by computing different components in which precipitation
is partitioned on the farm (e.g. as run-off, crop ET, soil moisture or GW recharge). This is
along the lines of green water and blue water analysis (Hoogeveen et al. 2015) which indicates
how much share of the available precipitation is available as productive water across different
farms. Farms that are found to have lower share of crop water uptake (due to their biophysical
attributes) for the same rainfall and crop choice are intrinsically more vulnerable than others.
The farm level water balance may be supplemented with information on farmers’ access to
irrigation (proximity to streams, access to assets such as wells etc.) and historical yields to
further refine vulnerability.
Vulnerability mitigation through planning of farm level supply-side interventions or promotion
of appropriate cropping patterns also requires an understanding of the existing water balance.
The focus of this chapter is to develop easy to use tools and processes for conducting farm level
82
water balance, identification of farm level vulnerability and guidance on vulnerability
mitigation. The farm level water balance can be aggregated to a bigger level to compute a
village or watershed level balance.
8.1 Requirements
The requirements for the tool were laid out in a MoU with the Govt of Maharashtra under the
World Bank funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate
to enhance climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone
districts of Maharashtra (IITB and GoM 2017). The focus within the scope of this thesis was
to develop an excel-based farm water balance tool that is able to (a) quantify farm vulnerability
in terms of the need for protective irrigation (in mm of water column) during dry spells in a
given year for a particular crop, (b) compute soil moisture at the end of Kharif cropping, (c)
estimate runoff and deep percolation generated on the farm.
The farm-level water balance tool forms the engine around which the PoCRA zonal water
balance tool has been built by the IITB PoCRA team. The scope of work within this thesis also
includes interpretation of the output of the zonal water balance to provide guidance on
appropriate cropping pattern choices. The usability requirements for the tool were that it needs
(a) to work with data available with the Govt of Maharashtra or other publicly available data;
(b) should be easy to use for non-technical users; (c) should provide guidance to farming
communities on supply side intervention planning as well as demand side crop planning.
There are many models and tools which have been developed and used for simulating
agricultural water balance. There exists a range of soil moisture and crop growth models that
vary in complexity depending on the vertical discretization of the soil profile and the
assumptions made. The one-layer bucket model is the simplest model (Manabe 1969). There
are others models such as tipping bucket or cascading bucket models which model the soil
profile as multiple layers (Da Silva and Jong 1986, Guswa 2002, Romano et al. 2011). The
single layer leaky bucket model is too simplified since it overlooks the distribution of rainfall.
The other models tend to be too complex for use in the field. The FAO describes a procedure
to calculate spreadsheet based point level crop water balance (Allen et al. 1998) and this has
been the basis of much work (Barron et al. 2003, Eilers et al. 2007). The work that comes
closest is that by (Barron et al. 2003, Rockström et al. 2010) which examines the impact of dry
spells on crop yields in rainfed areas of Africa. However, it has been noted (Akponikpè et al.
83
2014) that in spite of the availability of many soil water crop models for the specific case of
Africa they have not been very successful in providing in decision support to farmers because
of many reasons including their complexity, high hardware and computation time requirement.
There are also many non-point models in use that operate at spatially diverse geography such
as a river basin or watershed. One of the widely used models for this is SWAT (Neitsch et al.
2011). SWAT disaggregates the geography into hydrologic response units (HRUs) which are
identical in terms of their biophysical properties such as land use, soil type etc. Water balance
is performed within each of the HRUs. However, this tool too is complex in terms of data input
requirement and its setup and not simple enough to be used for field application.
8.2 Farm level water balance
The farm level water balance tool has been developed as a two-layer cascading soil water model
(Downer 2007). Large part of the state has deep soils so separating the zone accessible to crops
is necessary. The depth of the top layer is therefore assumed to be equal to the depth of the
crop root zone. A simple mass balance is done for each layer. Daily precipitation (P) is
partitioned into rainfall runoff (RO) and surface infiltration (I). Run-off is a function of the soil
texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. It is estimated using SCS curve number
methodology adjusted for slope. The infiltrated water (I) is further partitioned into actual
evapotranspiration (AET), change in soil moisture (Delta SM1+ Delta SM2) and recharge (R).
Computations are done at the daily time step.
Figure 8.1 Conceptual water balance in a two-layer cascading soil water model
84
The inputs to the tool are attributes such as soil type, soil thickness, land use pattern, daily
rainfall and seasonal crop choice. Appendix E contains the technical details and screen shots
of the tool. The output of the tool allows the user to get the Kharif water balance for a farm and
the starting soil moisture condition for the Rabi season.
Example: Gondala village, Hingoli district, Marathwada
We consider Gondala village of Hingoli distict in Maharashtra. The village has varying slope,
soil types and soil depths within its village boundary (Figure 8.2). We use the farm level water
balance to contrast how rainfall partitioning differs between different farms within the same
village due to differences in their soil properties resulting in higher vulnerability of some farms
to monsoon dry spells.
We consider the monsoon of 2016 when the total rainfall received was 837mm. Figure 8.3
shows the daily rainfall distribution for the Gondala circle rain gauge starting from June 1st
2016. There are three dry spells: one of 10 days in early June, one of 18 days in August and
another 10 day long in early September.
Figure 8.2: Gondala village input maps: soil depth, soil texture and contour maps
85
Figure 8.3: Daily rainfall pattern for Gondala circle, year 2016
We use the model to see the impact of the dry spells on farms at different locations within the
village using farm level water balance. The farms receive the same rainfall and are assumed to
cultivate soybean as the Kharif crop. The slopes are assumed to be the same in this case. One
farm has deep clayey soil (more than 1m deep; 51% clay, 28% sand and 21% silt) and the
second has shallow sandy clay loam soil (0.25m soil depth; 28% clay, 57% sand and 15% silt).
Figure 8.4 shows the daily ET requirement for the crop as well as the crop actual
evapotranspiration (AET) for both soil types. When there are dry spells in rainfall, the soil
moisture level starts to drop and the crop is unable to draw the entire crop ET from the soil.
The difference between the required (crop ET) and the actual (AET) evapotranspiration depicts
the crop water deficit and this is shown in the shaded region between the two curves. This
deficit results in a loss in crop yield unless protective irrigation is provided.
The crop water deficit depends greatly on soil property. As Figure 8.4 shows, the crop deficit
is significantly larger in the crop on shallow sandy clay loam soil (119mm) compared to the
clayey soil (44mm). As can be seen in the second and third dry spells, the clayey soil is able to
support the full crop PET for a few days before the crop gets stressed while the sandy clay loam
is unable to do so. The Rabi starting soil moisture is also greater for the deep clayey soil (106
mm) compared to the 25mm for sandy clay loam soil, which is equivalent to a difference of
two irrigations. Thus the farm with the shallow sandy clay loam soil is significantly more
vulnerable to yield loss during Kharif dry spells. Its irrigation requirement for Rabi cultivation
is also higher than farms with deep clayey soils. To prevent crop failures, it is important to
86
identify vulnerable farms such as these and ensure a plan for protective irrigation in the
collective crop and resource management plan.
Aggregating across all farms in Gondala, the
following picture (Figure 8.5) of relative farm
vulnerability emerges. The darker the pixel, the higher
is the Kharif deficit and need for protective irrigation.
Water Balance
The water balance has two sides: supply of available
water and demand for crop needs and domestic use.
The tool estimates supply of available water as (a)
amount of runoff that is generated on a farm (or
aggregated over a region) and may be impounded, (b)
amount of groundwater recharge, and (c) amount of water stored as soil moisture. The
Figure 8.4: Crop water deficit for identical rainfall but two different soil types in Gondala village, Jalna district.
Figure 8.5: Relative farm vulnerability (Work by: Sudhanshu Deshmukh, M.Tech. 2018)
87
impounded run-off and groundwater are regional stocks (except in case of farm level structures
such as farm ponds), while the soil moisture is assumed to be locked into the same farm.
On the demand side, the tool provides a seasonal estimate of (a) the protective irrigation
requirement for Kharif crop (the remaining being met by rainfall). (b) The Rabi crop water
requirement is met partly through the post monsoon soil moisture and the deficit is to be
provided through supplementary irrigation.
For a regional balance, the aggregate demand and supply are matched spatially (in zones) and
temporally (season-wise). This matching is done within a well-defined boundary where it may
be assumed that there is no net flow of water across boundary.
8.3 Planning for resilience: how much intensification?
Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing
change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks
(Walker et al. 2004). People with resilient livelihoods are better able to prevent and reduce the
impact of disasters on their lives. They can better withstand damage, recover and adapt when
disasters cannot be prevented (FAO 2016). In dryland agriculture, where seasonal monsoons
produce oscillations between precipitation and dryness, valuing variability is the key to
building resilience (Kratili 2015).
In chapter 7, we found that there are different types of uncertainties that lead to the cycle of
intensification and resource degradation. Some of these uncertainties are endogenous, caused
by lack of knowledge of available water and lack of coordination between farmers. The
endogenous uncertainty may be addressed through tools such as the water balance tool and
collective crop planning based on the knowledge of available water for irrigation. The
exogenous uncertainty caused by variability in monsoons (both in terms of total quantity as
well as the distribution pattern), needs to be addressed by planning for protective irrigation for
dry spells and for adjustment of cropping pattern every season based on whether it is a good
rainfall year or a poor rainfall year. The ability to adjust ones cropping pattern so as to sow less
area or less water intensive crops during bad years and intensify during good rainfall years is
an important component of building resilience. In this section, we create a framework to link
the output of the water budget to a choice of cropping pattern so as to build resilience and
enhance farm incomes within the limits presented by biophysical factors.
88
Analysis of cropping pattern in villages shows that the total crop water requirement is typically
far higher than the available water for uptake by crop through irrigation or rainfall, resulting in
poor crop yields. As described in the farmers’ water allocation decisions in section 6.4, farmers
choose to concentrate water on their primary crop which may be a high value horticulture crop.
The remaining water is allocated to secondary crops while some crops are cultivated with the
full knowledge that they will remain unirrigated. Hence, matching crop water demand to
available water requires a careful balance between the fixed load (crops that must meet full
crop water requirement), the variable load (second priority crops) and the remaining crops
which are to be left unirrigated and will only grow using the moisture present in soils.
The cropping pattern can thus be classified into three categories:
Priority 1 (P1) crops which are high value annual or multi-year crops that are always
given full irrigation. These include grapes, pomegranate, sugarcane etc. The irrigation
requirement of P1 crops is a fixed load.
Priority 2 (P2) crops: these are high value seasonal crops, which farmers intend to
irrigate as long as water is available. But in case water runs short, P1 crops are
prioritized over P2 crops. These crops include in Kharif: onions, leafy and other kharif
vegetables, soybean and irrigated cotton. In Rabi, this includes: wheat, Rabi onions and
Rabi vegetables. The P2 crop water requirement may be termed the variable load.
Priority 3 (P3) crops are primarily rainfed crops which farmers do not intend to irrigate
because they do not have any access. These crops typically include rainfed cotton, tur,
mung, udid, bajra, jowar and in Rabi: jowar and harbhara.
Typically, area under P3 crops is largest in the drylands. P1 crops are sown under
comparatively small area but the crop water requirement and average crop returns are
significantly higher.
The water budget provides a breakup of available water which can be classified into the
following categories:
Stream system (W1): This is the available runoff that is impounded by structures in the
stream system and becomes available as surface water or percolates to groundwater
and is extracted from wells inside the stream proximity region.
Groundwater in the non-stream system (W2): This is groundwater that is available in
wells in the non-stream proximity zones. Interventions such as compartment bunding
89
or CCTs increase W2 water. However, W2 water eventually flows into the stream
system due to subsurface flows and become W1 water unless it is extracted and used
up by farmers in off-stream areas.
Soil moisture (W3): This is the water in soil moisture that does not require assets such
as wells/farm ponds or proximity to stream systems. Compartment bunding and certain
farming practices such as organic mulching can increase W3 water.
Collective crop and resource management plan
Figure 8.6: Matching crop water demand to available water resources (Figure by Shubhada Sali, IITB PoCRA team)
The questions of raising incomes (in an equitable manner) and building resilience, ultimately
comes down to making appropriate decision on which crops to sow (under how much area) and
how to use available water at the community level. The P1 crops are high priority multi-year
crops and farmers ensure that the P1 crop water requirement is met every year no matter
whether it is a good rainfall year or bad drought year. Since P1 crops are typically grown in
water rich zones (or by transferring water from water rich zones), W1 water is first assumed to
be allocated for P1 requirement. In case W1 water is not sufficient to meet the P1 crop water
demand, it is assumed that farmers in off-stream farms draw groundwater (i.e. W2 water) to
irrigate P1 crops. The surface and ground water that remains after accounting for P1 crop water
requirement is what is available for the seasonal cash crops (P2 crops). P3 crops are assumed
to be left unirrigated and only benefit from the soil moisture (W3 water).
The estimate of available W1, W2 and W3 water is made using the water balance tool and it
depends upon the particular rainfall pattern of that year. It also depends on existing
interventions in the region i.e. area treatment and drainage line treatments. The amount of W1,
W2 and W3 may then be estimated for a good year rainfall and a bad year rainfall using historic
rainfall patterns in the region. Based on this, the community needs to decide what is the most
amount of area that may be under multiyear orchards and how much area can be under seasonal
cash crops in a particular rainfall year.
90
Two model villages
We analyse the cropping pattern of a couple of model villages in Maharashtra based on their
water budget. The two villages are: Hivare Bazar (Ahmednagar district) and Kadvanchi
(Jalna). Both have a large area under horticulture cultivation, yet the paths taken by the two
villages are completely orthogonal to one another. Hivare Bazaar follows the collective action
approach. There are multiple rain gauges within the village and the villagers keep track of the
rainfall which helps them prepare a rough estimate of available water (water budget). Based on
this, farmers collectively decide on the extent of seasonal intensification that may be done in
the post-monsoon seasons. There are collective rules such as: priority for drinking water and
livestock water, no sugarcane or other water-intensive crops. The village has negligible area
under multi year orchards (P1 crops) and predominantly cultivate P2 crops such as onions. In
poor rainfall years, collective decisions are made to reduce sown area significantly so that crop
failures are minimized. In addition to this knowledge based collection action, there have also
been large investments in watershed interventions and area treatment.
In contrast, Kadvanchi follows a different model in which each farmer. The village is well
known for its large scale grape and pomegranate cultivation which has been made possible
through private ground-water filled farmponds and large scale watershed programs. The village
has close to 500 such private farm ponds. The village is seen as model village as these
interventions have resulted in a large increase in incomes of many farmers. At the same time,
the resource used is skewed and there is large inequity in access to resource as well as drinking
water scarcity (Ansari 2016).
Table 8.1 provides a comparison of the
cropping pattern of the two villages.
Kadvanchi has a large area under orchards
but at the same time, it is dominated by
rainfed crops suggesting large inequity in
access to resource, though perhaps higher
aggregate income of farmers due to large
grape farming. Hivare Bazar, on the other
hand, has negligible area under orchards
(by design) and a comparatively low area under purely rainfed crops. This suggests that the
available water is distributed more evenly amongst farmers due to strong collective action. This
Kadvanchi Hivare Bazar
Land use Area in Ha Area in Ha
Total geographical land 1508 976.84
Non agricultural land 402 423
Cultivable land 1106 553.84
Orchards (P1) 346 22.8
Seasonal cash crops (P2) 318 658.9
Rainfed crops (P3) 906 251
Table 8.1: Comparison of cropped area of two model villages: Kadvanchi and Hivare Bazar
91
is likely to reduce the average farm income but at the same time, also reduce large variability
in income caused due to large crop failures. We test both cases against the respective water
budget to test for climate resilience using the developed tool.
Hivare Bazar
Onion is the predominant crop in Hivare Bazar, but other vegetables are also cultivated. Drip
irrigation is used for irrigation on a large scale. Rainfed crops include bajra, mung, jowar and
harbhara. In the last 5 years, 2014 was a bad rainfall year with 384mm rainfall. 2016 was a
good rainfall year with 473mm rainfall.
Table 8.2 shows the good year balance for the village as an aggregate. It estimates that for a
rainfall of 473mm in 2016, a runoff of 1576 TCM was generated. Existing drainage line
structures can impound 661.2 TCM of this (W1 water), while the rest would flow out of the
village. The available groundwater recharge through area treatment is estimated to be 89.8
TCM (W2 water) and through percolation of rainfall it would be additional 562.9TCM (also
W2 water). 4.7 TCM is estimated to be stored locally as soil moisture (W3).
Figure 8.7: Hivare Bazar input maps: soil texture, slope, soil thickness and land use2
92
The total amount of water available in good year from all three categories is 1318 TCM against
the net irrigation requirement of 2803 TCM. However, considering that P3 crops are not
irrigated, the total irrigation requirement of P1 and P2 crops alone is 2108 TCM. The orchard
crop irrigation requirement (P1) is 230 TCM (rest is met from rainfall). This requirement is
easily met by the water in the stream system (W1 water). The remaining W1 water and all of
W2 water is thus available for the P2 crops.
The ratio of (irrigation allocated/crop irrigation requirement) is used as an indicator of crop
yield, and it can be seen that in a good year, the yields for all P1 crops and P2 Rabi crops are
expected to be good and not limited by water. P2 Kharif crops may still see crop failures as
only about 50% water requirement is met. P3 crops are benefitted only from the rainfall and
soil moisture and are expected to have low yields. For a bad rainfall year, the irrigation
requirement is higher and water availability is lower. The impact is seen in a shortfall in P2
Rabi yield. In reality, farmers are expected to adjust Rabi sowing and reduce it in a bad year so
that this yield deficit may not occur.
The P1 index has been defined as the Water committed to annual crops as a fraction of total
available water for irrigation and is an indicator of how agile the cropping pattern is to seasonal
Table 8.2: Good year (2016) and bad year (2014) water balance for Hivare Bazar
93
variation in water availability. We see that this is 0.18 in a bad year year (i.e. 17% of total
available water is used for irrigating orchards in ~2.5% area). In good year this number is 0.17.
Kadvanchi
A similar comparison of a good year water budget (959mm in 2016) and bad year budget
(523mm in 2015) is shown above. We find that the P1 index in a good year is 0.8 and bad year
is 1. This shows that the orchard crop water requirement even in a good year makes up 80% of
the available water (to irrigate ~22% of gross cultivable area). In a bad year, the orchard
requirement exceeds available water and farmers have to purchase water tankers to irrigate.
This shows that irrespective of the type of rainfall year, farmers cultivating crops besides
orchards are unlikely to have assurance of water and face high crop failures. They will face
pressure to either intensify themselves or to withdraw from agriculture. Kadvanchi, thus,
exemplifies a village headed for the tragedy of the commons due to excessive investments and
intensification. It certainly does not represent a model village to aspire for.
Figure 8.8: Kadvanchi village biophysical inputs: landuse, soil texture, soil depth, slope
94
8.4 Summary
The study of Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi cropping pattern in light of their water budgets is
very instructive. It supports the systems analysis in the previous chapter by showing that
watershed interventions and promotion of horticulture leads farmers on an unsustainable
trajectory and is likely to make them more vulnerable to uncertainties of climate and to
endogenous uncertainties due to competition for water. The only way to achieve higher farm
incomes is to restrain intensification to a sustainable level and ensure equity in access through
collective action. Rotation of right to seasonally intensify may be one mechanism of achieving
this.
A clear finding from the study is that the upper limit on the net area under orchards should be
carefully planned to ensure that in bad rainfall years, the orchard water requirement does not
appropriate most of available water, as this squeezes the majority of farmers out of access
completely and makes them highly vulnerable to crop failures.
New intervention planning in villages through watershed or other government programs such
as PoCRA should carefully assess the likely impact of each new structure. For example,
granting new wells helps convert more P3 area to P2 area. Subsidy of farmponds moves farmers
Table 8.3: Good year (2016) and bad year (2014) water balance for Kadvanchi village
95
from P2 crops to P1 crops. Drainage line treatment helps increase W1 water which is used for
irrigating P1 and P2 crops. Area treatment, on the other hand, increases soil moisture which
helps the majority of P3 cultivating farmers. Which new structures to create, how many and
where thus need to be answered based on the expected impact on water budget and cropping
pattern, and with a collective vision of what outcomes are desirable in a good rainfall year and
what are acceptable in a bad rainfall year. Appendix F shows such an analysis conducted for
Paradgaon village in Jalna district where interventions are being planned under PoCRA.
In the next chapter, we consider the case of a specific intervention: the farmpond.
96
9. Farmponds
In the last couple of decades, groundwater filled farmponds have become immensely popular
for assuring water for high value crop cultivation. On one hand farm pond is seen as a miracle
drought-proofing tool which enables farmers to increase their incomes (Pawar et al. 2012, GoI
2015b, Ansari 2016), and on the other hand, it is considered to be an exploitative and
unsustainable tool that allows farm pond owners to stock up on ground water, a scarce common
pool resource (Kale 2017). The objective of this work is to reconcile these two views by
analyzing the impact of ground-water filled farm ponds along hydrological, agricultural and
economic dimensions and to determine if it is possible to determine a threshold such that if the
total number of farmponds remains below it, the benefits of farmponds may still be accrued
without the high environmental cost.
Farm ponds (FP) serve various purposes. From hydrology point of view, they are seen as a
water harvesting device. From the view point of farming, their importance is in assuring
protective irrigation for crops during dry periods. In economic terms they can be seen as a risk
mitigating tool for the farmer. Farm ponds vary a lot in type, size and their purpose and impact.
They are built by farmers with large landholding as well as small landholding. For small
holding farmers, farm ponds allow the farmer to increase the cropping intensity and grow high
value crops in order to get the most output from limited land. However, unless the farm pond
is significantly subsidized, the investment can be made only by reasonably well-off farmers
since a typical 30mx30mx3m sized farm pond can cost upwards of 1 lakh rupees (without
plastic lining), in addition to regular maintenance expenses. The focus of this section is the
lined farmpond that is filled with groundwater for the purpose of summer irrigation of orchards
or other horticulture crops.
This very real problem naturally lends itself to a system dynamic approach. There are multiple
stakeholders involved and there are multiple goals: to raise farm incomes, to be more drought-
resilient, to make judicious use of a scarce resource and to maintain social welfare. Moreover,
a dynamic analysis is crucial because farmers respond to situations created by the action of
other farmers or stakeholders.
The model shows that as more farmers build new farmponds attracted by the success of the
initial adopters and change their cropping pattern, groundwater extraction exacerbates causing
further uncertainty in groundwater availability. The non-farmpond owners are particularly
97
impacted pushing even more of them towards investing in farmponds. As this cycle continues,
eventually even the farmpond owning farmers are impacted making everyone worse off
compared to the initial state. The analysis shows that it is unlikely that a desired state of
equilibrium can be achieved without regulation because economic incentives continue to drive
farmers to invest in farmponds even as groundwater levels fall thereby leading to the tragedy
of the commons.
9.1 Conceptual model
The objective of this work is to analyse the impact of farm ponds from hydrological, economic
and social standpoints. The basis of the model is data gathered from field observations and
surveys conducted in different parts of the state including districts of Nashik, Ahmednagar,
Jalna, Hingoli and Akola.
The model simulates a typical village. The first part of the model only looks at the hydrological
aspects. Ground water and surface water (ponds, dams etc.) are the two main stocks. The main
flows are rainfall, rainfall runoff, ground water percolation and its extraction. There are other
flows which model losses from the stocks or transfer from one stock to another i.e. evaporation
from surface sources, subsurface flow of ground water and base flows (sub surface flows that
seep out on the surface as springs). Figure 9.1 shows the relation between them. The flows
shown in red are exogenous to the model while the others are computed endogenously using
system parameters (e.g. slope, soil type, aquifer properties, cropped area, irrigation requirement
etc.) and hydrological relationships between different stocks and flows.
When farm ponds are introduced and filled by ground water extraction, this increases the GW
extraction in the model and accordingly affects all other stocks and flows. This part of the
Figure 9.1: Stocks and flows in the hydrological model
98
model is useful in observing the extent to which groundwater can support extraction to fill farm
ponds. It does not have any feedback loops at this stage.
In the second part of the model, a reinforcing loop is modeled. Farm ponds are promoted in
regions facing variability in ground water access. Introduction of new farm ponds triggers a
change in the cropping pattern as farmers shift from traditional Rabi crops to water intensive
Rabi crops such as vegetables or to annual fruit orchards. This change in crop increases the
monthly irrigation requirement which is fulfilled by increased ground water extraction for
direct irrigation and by farmponds during scarcity periods. This, coupled with the inefficiency
of farm ponds due to evaporation losses, further increases ground water extraction. As the
groundwater demand rises, not all irrigation demand can be met by groundwater and farmers
start to experience greater risk in water availability. This rising uncertainty motivates more
farmers to invest in farm ponds in order to secure water for themselves thereby creating
avicious cycle. This is shown in a conceptual flow in Figure 9.2.
In the third part, an economic layer is added which models another reinforcing loop as well as
a balancing loop. This is shown in Figure 3. As farmers invest in farm ponds, they switch to
horticulture crops which have high profitability compared to traditional crops. As farm pond
owners make more profit, this incentivizes other farmers to follow suit and reinforces the
building of new farm ponds.
Farm ponds
Evaporation lossfrom farm ponds
Groundwaterdemand
Area underhorticulture crops
+
+
Uncertainty ingroundwateravailability
+
+
+
++
Feedback due to rising groundwater uncertainty
+
Irrigation demand
loop
Evaporation loss
loop
Figure 9.2: Feedback due to cropping shift and rising groundwater uncertainty
99
When farmers invest in farm ponds, it increases their cost per unit water due to high cost of
building and maintaining farmpond. The cost of pumping water is currently negligible in the
state due to subsidy for agricultural power feeders but this may be easily incorporated.
Increasing cost of water has a reducing effect on profitability. Profitability of farmers also
reduces due to another reason. As discussed in previous section, increase in farm ponds
increases ground water extraction and after a certain time ground water can no longer meet
irrigation demand. At this stage, crop yields suffer and reduce the farmer’s profitability.
Reduced profitability of farm ponds owners makes investment in farm ponds less attractive to
other farmers. This is the balancing loop which works to stabilize the number of farm ponds.
Figure 9.3: Feedbacks due to relative profitability of farmers with farmponds
The next section goes through the details of model setup.
Farm pond
Groundwaterdemand
Area underhorticulture crops
+
+-
Farm output value+
+
Cost of water+
-
Feedback due to relative profitability of farmers with farmponds
Relativeprofitability of FP
owners
+
Unmet irrigationdemand: Horticulture
HorticultureCrop yield
Profitability of FPowning farmers
+
-
+
+
+
Unmet irrigation demand: traditional crops
Traditional cropyield
Profitability oftraditional farmers
+
-
+
-
+
-
Crop value loop
Horticulture yield
loop
Traditional crop
yield loop
FP water cost
loop
100
9.2 Model setup and calibration
This section discusses the setup of the model and its parameters. The model simulates the
hydrological processes of a typical village. However, in order to keep it grounded in reality a
specific village is chosen to set up the biophysical attributes. The baseline model is calibrated
to ensure that the resulting stocks and flows are consistent with field observation. Ground water
behavior varies spatially within a village due to variations in factors such as slope, soil type,
aquifer properties etc. For simplification, this model “lumps” the geographical region into two
zones each of which is assumed to have uniform properties. These are: a ground water recharge
zone and a groundwater discharge zone. This is necessary because some regions within a
village may be net positive in subsurface flows while others may be net negative. This model
allows observation of the impact in each zone.
For setting up the model, biophysical attributes such as geographical geometry, soil properties,
cropping patterns etc. are based on attributes of Gondala village of Hingoli district
(approximately 19.7299N 76.8951E). The results, however, can be extended to any domain
consisting of two zones which are interconnected through surface and ground water flows.
Figure 9.4 shows the village boundary of Gondala village which also roughly corresponds to a
watershed boundary. It receives an average rainfall of 837mm. The two zones in this case are:
an upstream zone 1 (480 ha area) and a downstream zone 2 (565 ha area). The land use pattern
in Figure 4 shows the larger agricultural land in zone 2 and a more diverse land use (forest,
waste land and agriculture) in zone 1. Zone 1 is hilly, and has predominantly poor quality and
shallow soil causing high run-off. Downstream zone 2 has better and thicker soil and larger
agricultural area. It is more water rich due to stream flows and ground water flows coming in
from zone 1 and hence it has higher cropping intensity. From ground water perspective, zone
1 is net loser and zone 2 is net positive due to subsurface flows between them. When the net
Figure 9.4: Zone boundary and Land Use Land Cover map of Gondala village
101
inflow of subsurface flows in zone 2 exceeds its aquifer capacity, the “excess” ground water is
modeled to emerge on the surface as “base flow” in zone 2 and flow out of the watershed.
We focus on creation of farm ponds within zone 2. The effect of zone 1 is considered in the
model since it is an important source of stream water and ground water flows into the zone of
interest. The same model can easily be applied to Zone 1 as well.
Figure 9.5 shows the main stocks and flows in the two-zone hydrological model. The auxiliary
variables have been hidden in this view in order to keep the view readable. (Note: Bandhara
may be translated as the stock of water stored in small dams and public reservoirs). The surface
run-off and recharge to groundwater are exogenous inputs to the model. They have been
computed using a rainfall runoff analysis (Wagner et al 2011). To keep the model simple,
stochastic behaviour is not modeled and the rainfall pattern is assumed to be constant every
year. Ground water flows between zones is dependent upon the difference of ground water
heads in the two zones and is modelled from first principles using Darcy’s law (Wang et al.
2016).
Months 0 to 4 make up the rainy/ Kharif season starting from June. The Kharif crop is assumed
to get its required water from the rain and there is no groundwater extraction for it. Most
villages have some small dams (bandhara) in their streams. Depending on the bandhara (or
dam) capacity, certain amount of run-off is impounded by them from the rainfall runoff. Water
from the bandhara is gradually lost as evaporation and some percolates down to meet the
ground water table. Throughout the year, there is a sub-surface flow from zone 1 to zone 2.
Figure 9.5: Hydrological model
102
Part of this flow seeps out as baseflow in zone 2 when
the net subsurface flow into zone 2 exceeds its aquifer
capacity. Months 5 to 9 make the Rabi season during
which there is groundwater extraction in each zone to
irrigate the Rabi crop. When farm ponds are introduced,
ground water is extracted in the months of 1 to 5 and
stored until months 9 to 11 for irrigation. Table 9.1
shows the system parameters that have been used for each zone.
Baseline calibration
In the baseline case it is assumed that all farmers grow traditional low water use crops and there
are no farmponds. The rainfall pattern as well as ground water extraction is assumed to be the
same hence the parameters are identical every year. The model is run at a monthly time step
for 5 years. (Note: Month 0 to 1 is June, 1-2 is July etc.).
Figure 9.6a shows the ground level elevation as
well as the fluctuating ground water levels (with
respect to mean sea level) for each zone. As
shown, Zone 1 has a higher elevation (510m) vs.
zone 2 (465m). The blue and red graphs show the
variation of ground water table in zones 1 and 2
respectively. Figure 9.6b shows the same ground
water level in the form of meters below ground
level (mbgl). For example, a value of 0 mbgl implies that the wells are completely full with
System Parameters Zone 1 Zone 2
Area (ha) 481.63 565.15
Ground elevation (m) 510 465
Well depth (m) 7 9
Baseline Rabi sown area (ha) 200 250
Baseline Rabi GW demand
(mm of water column)200 250
Baseline Bandharas capacity 50 300
Ground water table
520
502.5
485
467.5
450
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
mete
r
water table level 1 : Current
water table level 2 : Current
Zone 1 elevation : Current
Zone 2 elevation : Current
Well level meters below ground
0
-2.25
-4.5
-6.75
-9
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
neg mbgl 1 : Current neg mbgl 2 : Current
GW Flows
160
120
80
40
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Time (Month)
TC
M/M
onth
Baseflow out : Current
subsurface flow : Current
Figure 3a: Ground water table Figure 9.6a: Ground water table Figure 9.6b: mbgl levels
Figure 9.6c: Ground water Flows
Table 9.1: System parameters
103
water. As can be seen by these figures, wells in zone 1 do not fill up to the brim during the
rainy season. They have very little water in the summer months, only to meet domestic demand.
In contrast, zone 2 wells are full by the month of October. Levels start to go down due to Rabi
extraction but since there is no extraction in summer, well levels recover and have sufficient
water for domestic use in the summer months. Initial value for ground water stock is chosen as
0 for year 1 and the model stabilizes by year 2.
Figure 9.6c shows that there is a constant sub surface flow (shown in red) between zone 1 and
zone 2, except in summer months when they become very low due to the low zone 1 wells
levels. Baseflows (shown in blue) flow in zone 2 until Nov end. The behavior shown by various
stocks and flows in the model is consistent with the observations on field.
9.3 Modeling impact of farmponds
The previous section modeled the baseline scenario with no farm ponds. From here on, the
comparatively water-rich zone 2 is the focus of the model and the impact of introducing farm
ponds in this zone in analysed.
Farm ponds and cropping decisions
The section focuses on modeling the feedback loop related to changes in cropping pattern.
Cropping pattern shift
Four types of cropping practices are modeled:
The baseline cropping pattern is assumed to be one of the following two options:
a) Rainfed Kharif crop + land left fallow in Rabi season
b) Rainfed Kharif crop + traditional Rabi crop (such as green gram or sorghum)
Farmers who build farmponds shift from the baseline cropping pattern to the following types
of cropping pattern
c) Rainfed Kharif crop + water intensive Rabi crop (such as onion or tomatoes)
d) Year round orchard such as pomegranate
The shift in cropping pattern has been modeled by considering the following stocks of land:
fallow land (no Kharif or Rabi), Kharif only land stock (no Rabi), Traditional Rabi cropping
104
land, land under farm pond irrigated water intensive Rabi crop and land under farm pond
irrigated orchards (see Figure 9.7). The model assumes that 80% of farm ponds are used to
irrigate fruit orchards (0.4 ha of fallow land is converted to orchard for every new FP). 10% of
remaining farm ponds are used to irrigate Rabi crop on land that was previously used for only
rainfed Kharif crop. The remaining 10% of the farm ponds are assumed to be used on existing
Rabi area but for a more water intensive Rabi crop. Note that these numbers are consistent with
reported observations in villages such as Kadvanchi that have experienced farm pond
revolutions (Pawar et al 2012, Ansari 2016).
Figure 9.7: Modelling cropping pattern shift and changing irrigation demand
Change in ground water irrigation demand
Land under each type of cropping has a bearing on irrigation water demand. Traditional Rabi
crop water demand is fulfilled purely through groundwater extraction. Water intensive Rabi
crops are irrigated through ground water extraction in the initial waterings and the final 3
irrigations are provided through water saved in farm ponds. In case of orchards, farm pond
water is used to irrigate in three months of summer while rain water and ground water are used
in the remaining months of the year. Monthly water requirement for each type of crop is setup
in the model.
Evaporation losses from farm ponds
If a lined farm pond has 2 TCM of water filled by the month of October, this reduces to about
1.5 TCM by mid-February even without any use due to evaporation losses. Hence, if the farm
pond is to be used to cultivate vegetables in summer, 133% of required water is to be extracted
in the monsoon months to allow for evaporation losses. This inefficiency of farm pond use is
incorporated and impacts ground water extraction (see Figure 9.8).
105
Modeling risk in ground water unavailability
Groundwater risk is modeled as the ratio of net ground water demand to the ground water stock
available at any time step. In low risk scenario, demand should be a fraction of the available
stock of ground water. But as demand rises and GW stock falls, this ratio starts to increase and
the risk of not meeting ones irrigation demand rises. When the ratio exceeds 1, it is certain that
irrigation demand will not be met by some farmers. As this ratio increases, more farmers are
incentivized to assure water for their farms by investing in farm ponds.
Farm ponds and economic considerations
Economic considerations are added in this third part of the model. These are in terms of cost
of water, cost of cultivation, farm output value and farmer profitability.
Cost of water
Cost of water for farm pond owners: The cost of building farm ponds depends upon the soil
profile. For a standard farm pond storing 2 TCM water the annual amortized cost per unit water
turns out to be approximately Rs 25 per cubic meter. When government subsidy of Rs 50,000
is availed, it reduces this cost to about Rs 20 per cubic meter.
Cost of groundwater extraction: All farmers who irrigate a Rabi crop (farm pond owners and
non-owners) extract ground water for irrigation. Typically, the cost of pumping groundwater
is a function of water level depth. The farm pond owners pump the water twice- once from well
to the farm pond and second from farm pond to their fields. However, in practice, pumping
cost is negligible for farmers in Maharashtra due to state subsidy on agricultural electricity.
Hence this cost is ignored. Thus, as farmers invest in new farm ponds, their cost of unit water
increases.
Figure 9.8: Modelling evaporation losses from farm ponds and computation of groundwater demand
106
Unmet irrigation demand and allocation of ground water
As the irrigation demand increases with new farm ponds and ground water levels fall, a stage
is reached when not all demand for water is fulfilled. Ground water is first allocated to fill farm
ponds since this extraction occurs during the rainy season. Post rainfall, there is a competition
for ground water. It is assumed that farmers who have farm ponds and orchards are the most
asset-rich farmers (having stronger pumps and deeper wells) and hence groundwater is
allocated to them first. This is followed by farmers with farm ponds growing water intensive
Rabi crops. The remaining available groundwater is allocated to the non-farm pond owning
farmers who grow traditional crops. This is shown below in Figure 9.9.
Crop yield as a function of irrigation received
Simplified yield curves are used to model crop yield as a function of irrigation received. The
basis for these yield curves is surveys conducted in drought affected villages of Nashik district.
In case of traditional crops (which tend to be drought-resilient) yield is assumed to change
linearly with water applied upto the published yield value for fully irrigated crop (Directorate
of Economics and Statistics 2014). For more water intensive Rabi crops yield is assumed to be
zero until at least 50% of irrigation is provided after which yield is made to increase linearly
upto the published yield value for fully irrigated crop. For orchards such as pomegranate, if the
farmer is unable to meet the irrigation demand it is assumed that he will purchase water tankers
instead of taking a hit on the yield (as is observed in practice). Based on survey data the cost
of tanker water is about Rs 83 per cubic meter. This cost is added to the cost of water to
Figure 9.9: Allocation of groundwater when in stress
107
calculate the farmer’s profitability as a function of cropping pattern and access to water. The
increase in cost of water and the decrease in crop yields, both have a reducing effect on farmer’s
profitability.
Farm profitability
Each type of cropping practice is assigned a profit function that is computed endogenously in
the model. It depends on the following factors: type of crop, area under that cropping practice,
cost of cultivation per unit area of the crop, cost of water, crop yields and average market rates
per unit production. The cost of cultivation and average market rates are published numbers
for the state of Maharashtra (Government of India 2014, (Directorate of Economics and
Statistics 2014). Figure 9.10 shows the profitability modeled for two of the crop choices.
Feedback loop for adding new farmponds
New farm ponds created on the basis of two influencing factors a) the relative profitability of
farmpond-owning farmers compared to traditional cropping farmers and b) the risk in
groundwater availability.
It is assumed that there are no farm ponds in year 1 and year 2. In year 3, a government program
provides 10 farm ponds to farmers in the village. These 10 farmers change their cropping
pattern and shift to higher value water intensive crops. This increases the groundwater demand
and impacts the ground water risk factor. It also changes the farm pond owning farmers’
profitability. New farm ponds are added when the ratio of profit per unit area of farm pond
owning farmers to the profit per unit area of traditional crop farmers is greater than 1.
Moreover, if these farmers also face uncertainty in ground water access (groundwater risk is
Figure 9.10: Modelling profitability
108
greater than 1) they have additional incentive to build farmponds as long as the first condition
holds true.
9.4 Model results and discussion
Figures 9.11 and 9.12 present the key output of the model. As can be seen, the number of farm
ponds grow exponentially before flattening out in year 23 at 284 farm ponds. This is
accompanied by a cropping shift by farmers who build new farmponds. As a result, the
traditional Rabi cropped area reduces from the initial 250 ha to about 222 ha. Area under
orchards rises from 0 to 91 ha and area under water intensive Rabi cropping such as vegetables
rises to 57 ha. The GW demand curve shows how demand for ground water increases as new
farmponds are built and cropping pattern shifts occur. After year 18, the ground water stock
cannot support this large demand and there is unmet irrigation demand. The well levels shown
in the well mbgl graph shows the behaviour of the water table. It shows that the well levels fall
to greater depth but fill up to brim until year 18 (month 216). Year 18 is also the year when
baseflows nearly dry up in the village as shown in the Flows graph. Starting year 19, ground
water situation deteriorates rapidly as the water table sinks exponentially. This shows that base
flows provide a ground water buffer to the system. When farm ponds are constructed and GW
is extracted to fill them, the extraction first reduces the amount of baseflow leaving the zone
before impacting the local ground water level.
109
Number of farmponds
300
240
180
120
60
0
0 36 72 108 144 180 216 252 288 324 360
Time (Month)
Number of farm ponds
Figure 9.11: Impact of farm ponds on stocks and flows of the system
110
Figure 9.12: Farm ponds and profitability
111
Discussion
The explanation for behaviour shown in Figures 9.11 and 9.12 is as follows. Initially there are
10 farm ponds introduced in the village. As these farmers shift to a high value crop, their
profitability increases by two to three times. More farmers start to invest in farmponds attracted
by this difference in profitability. The initial farmers who convert are the progressive farmers
in any village who are economically strong and more willing to take risk. Over the next few
years, as farm pond owning farmers continue to be profitable, more and more farmers are
incentivized to invest in farm ponds and the momentum starts to rise. As more farm ponds are
created, more area comes under water intensive cropping and the demand for ground water
continues to rise. The impact of this is seen in lesser and lesser baseflows flowing out of the
village post rainy season and also in the well water levels falling to greater depths in summer
though recovering during rainy season. These are early signs of groundwater stress.
By this time, some of the shallow wells in the village start to get completely dry in summer.
For example, public drinking water wells tend to be shallower than private wells and the
landless and asset-poor farmers who depend on public wells start experiencing drinking water
stress during summer season. Also, as the competition for groundwater rises and the available
stock shrinks, the uncertainty in access to water starts to increase. This doubly incentivizes
traditional crop farmers to invest in farm ponds if they can afford to do so: a) because of the
increasing uncertainty they are starting to face in ground water access and b) because of the
comparatively large profits that farm pond owners are making compared to them.
By year 19, about 79 farmponds have been constructed and the ground water stock is unable to
support the irrigation demand and there is unmet irrigation demand. The group that is first
affected by this is the traditional Rabi crop growing farmers since they are likely to have less
powerful pumps and shallower wells. The unmet irrigation demand impacts their crop yield
and reduces their production, thereby reducing their profitability. As this happens, the ratio of
the profitability of farm pond owners to that of traditional crop farmers increases even more
and investing in farm ponds appears still more attractive.
Over the next two years (year 20 and 21), 39 and 60 more new farm ponds are added. The
traditional Rabi farmers see a sudden fall in their ability to access groundwater for irrigation
(to about 52% of their demand). By the following year (year 22), the ground water stock has
fallen so much that even farm pond owners are unable to meet their irrigation requirement.
This leads to a steep fall in their profitability. However, since the traditional farmers are doing
112
significantly worse due to inability to access groundwater that even at this low profit levels
orchard farmers are four times as profitable as traditional crop owners. Switching to farm ponds
and cultivating horticulture crops appears to be the only way out for traditional farmers and
hence even greater number of them rush to get a farm pond adding 90 new farm ponds in year
22 (month 264), thereby taking the total number of farm ponds to 284. This has a devastating
impact on the water table. It is able to meet only 65% of orchard water demand, 38% of water
intensive Rabi crop demand and practically none of the traditional Rabi crop demand.
This is a severe blow to farm pond owing farmers who make large losses, as horticulture crops
are very sensitive to irrigation and even a small shortfall in irrigation results in large losses in
yield. Moreover, the high cost of cultivation of this crop makes it risk prone to high losses in
case of crop failure. It is interesting to note that the farmers growing traditional crops have no
water for irrigation and yet they do not experience a similar loss because of their drought
resiliency and low cost of cultivation. At this point, a state of equilibrium is reached as there is
no longer any incentive for anyone to invest in any more new farm ponds. However, by the
time this happens, every single farmer is worse off compared to the situation from where they
began. Economically, each farmer group has lower profitability compared to initial state. In
terms of their resources, there is a catastrophic crisis in groundwater. Socially, there is a crisis
as well, due to the poor state of pubic wells and drinking water for the asset-poor people and
for livestock. What has resulted is the tragedy of the commons. The larger community’s interest
is compromised because farm ponds continue to be in individual farmers’ self-interest even
when the common pool resource is being exploited.
It is clear that the dynamics between the reinforcing and balancing loops shown in Figures 2
and 3 is such that by the time the balancing loop stops the increase in farm pond, significant
damage has already been done. If community action and/or groundwater regulation was
possible, an economically and socially desirable state would have been the one attained in year
19 with 79 farm ponds when the overall community profitability is the highest and social costs
are not high. It is possible to identify this threshold by the clue that ground water levels and
baseflows provide. When wells no longer fill up to the brim in rainy season and the baseflows
dry up, it is a good indicator that the threshold has been reached and no new farm ponds should
be constructed
113
9.4 Conclusions
There is a lot of interest in farm ponds currently at all levels – farmers, practitioners, policy
makers and politicians. However, views on farm ponds are highly polarised and only based on
short term experiences. This study offers a systematic analysis of farm ponds in terms of their
hydrological impact, impact to agriculture and the economic impact. It shows that farm ponds
offer great potential for economic prosperity as long as their number is within the limit set by
the water balance. As shown in the analysis, a good indicator of this limit is the point when
wells do not fill up completely during rainy season and baseflows no longer flow in the region
post rainfall. If farmers continue to build new farm ponds and grow orchards beyond this limit
in an unregulated manner, it will create a vicious cycle of resource decline.
The model shows that in the current policy regime of subsidized electricity and farm ponds,
the economics of water would not be sufficient in self-regulating the use ground water and
preventing the tragedy of the commons. Regulation of ground water would be required either
through policy or community action.
The model establishes that there is a natural limit up to which investments in farm ponds and
horticulture can be supported. This limit is computable as has been shown in the example that
has been modelled. This analysis provides some powerful thumb rules that can be used by the
farming community in making decisions regarding cropping pattern and asset creation. It is
also very relevant to government programs which currently promote horticulture and farm
ponds without any guidelines on where and how much should be promoted.
114
10. Conclusions and Future work
Horticulture cultivation is considered to be a high-return practice. In this work, we find that
while average returns from horticulture crops are higher than traditional crops, there is high
variability in returns and a large number of farmers face losses. We establish that there is a
hierarchy amongst crops starting from low-risk low-return crops such as food-grains followed
by non-horticulture cash crops such as soybean and maize, then intermediate crops such as
green leafy vegetables and onions, and finally high-risk high-return crops such as tomatoes and
fruit crops. Moving along this intensification hierarchy, there is an increase in average cost of
cultivation, irrigation requirement and average returns, at the same time, there is also an
increased variability in returns.
The study shows that farmers are driven to changing their cropping patterns in favour of high-
value water-intensive horticulture crops as a way to cope with increasing biophysical
uncertainties, some of which are exogenous, such as that caused by variability in monsoon rain
and others are endogenous, such as uncertainty in access to groundwater due to the high stage
of development and the risk caused by competitive extraction and informal water transfers.
Faced by these uncertainties, farmers often fall short of water and face crop failures. Their main
strategy mitigate these risks is to invest in water infrastructure to assure water and
simultaneously intensify their farming in order to recoup investment. However, as individual
farmers invest in water infrastructure to diminish their personal risk without comprehension of
the carrying capacity of the resource or coordination with other farmers, this in fact results in
reinforcement of risk at the community level inducing more farmers to invest and intensify
eventually leading to an escalated version of the tragedy of the commons. An externality is
diminishing access to ecological services such as drinking water for all, especially the landless
and asset-poor farmers.
A systems analysis of the current interventions by the state suggests that programs on
watershed intervention and increased water-use efficiency through promotion of micro-
irrigation, are not only insufficient in stopping the cycle of intensification, but in fact accelerate
it further. The study suggests that reduction in orchards (the fixed load) and a strategy of well-
regulated seasonal intensification (the variable load) within the limits of available resource and
by rotation amongst farmers will not only result in more sustainable and equitable practice, but
may actually result in increasing net profits due to reduction in uncertainty and wasteful
infrastructure. The ability to respond to poor rainfall years by collectively adjusting the
115
seasonal cropping pattern, will reduce failures and increase farm resilience. There are examples
of villages such as Hivare Bazar that have demonstrated that armed with the knowledge of
surface and groundwater systems, appropriate cropping patterns can be followed and regulated
by the community successfully while ensuring prosperity and justice in access to the resource.
This is a concrete objective to aim for.
This points to the need for the scientific community to (a) equip the state with sound and
practical tools for governance, for example in planning and regulation, and (b) improving the
understanding of groundwater for users and developing a consensus, a substratum of commonly
held knowledge, so that community regulation is enabled. It is important that scientists, state
agencies and extension workers come together with the farming community to develop such
tools that may be used by them to seasonally estimate the carrying capacity of available water
and arrive at a set of possible cropping scenarios, and document outcomes.
The analysis points to a still higher point of leverage - one that would change the paradigm of
current dynamics - and that is to disrupt the existing crop hierarchy. Currently, urban
expectations of year-round unseasonal consumption drive market forces and incentivize
unsustainable farm practices. But if consumers start to value low-water footprint produce more
than water-intensive ones, it would reverse the crop hierarchy such that raising farmer incomes
will be consistent with following sustainable farming practices.
A significant contribution of this work is to support the development of a water balance and
decision support tool in collaboration with the Government of Maharashtra for the World Bank
funded Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA) which has the mandate to enhance
climate resilience and profitability of smallholding farmers in 15 drought prone districts of
Maharashtra. The farm level water balance tool, developed as part of this thesis, forms the core
engine of the PoCRA water balance tool. Application of this tool to evaluate cropping patterns
of model villages such as Hivare Bazar and Kadvanchi reaffirms that promotion of horticulture
without assessment of carrying capacity not only leads to unsustainability but also makes
farmers more vulnerable to uncertainties of climate. This work shows concrete examples of
how it is possible to compute the extent of horticulture and water investments that can be
supported in a region based on its biophysical attributes. The challenge of simultaneously
enhancing farm resilience and incomes requires a new science of such community tools to
seasonally estimate available water, and regulatory tools to facilitate collective crop planning.
116
10.1 Future work
The farm level water balance tool requires further refinement to ensure wider applicability (to
other geographical regions) as well as fine-tuning where there are mismatches with observed
ground reality. The framework to translate the output of the water balance into a decision
support tool needs to be further refined to enable answering of questions such as what type of
new interventions are recommended for a specific farmer? Or how many and what type of
interventions may be subsidized in a government intervention to increase climate resilience of
rain-fed farmers?
Enabling creation of what-if scenarios will be very useful for facilitating a discussion within
communities on the path of intensification that they wish to follow: one of restrained
intensification with collective action or one where each farmer is free to intensify as much as
their socio-economic constraints allow. Integration of an economic and risk model can illustrate
that reducing endogenous uncertainties and buffering for exogenous uncertainties may actually
result in higher net incomes for the community.
.
117
11. References
Akponikpè, P. B. I., B. Gerard, and C. L. Bielders. 2014. African Journal of Agricultural
Research Soil water crop modeling for decision support in millet- based systems in the
Sahel: a challenge 9(22):1700–1713.
Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines
for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO,
Rome 300(9):D05109.
Anderies, J. M., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2004. A Framework to Analyze the
Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecology and
Society 9(1):art18.
Ansari, M. 2016. Changing Notion of Sustainability : A Case Study of Kadwanchi and
Adgaon watershed in Maharashtra A Project Report Submitted To the Academic
Council of The Tata Institute of Social Sciences In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the degree of MASTE(March).
Aragona, F. B., and B. Orr. 2011. Agricultural intensification, monocultures, and economic
failure: The case of onion production in the Tipajara watershed on the eastern slope of
the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35(5):467–492.
Barron, J., J. Rockström, F. Gichuki, and N. Hatibu. 2003. Dry spell analysis and maize
yields for two semi-arid locations in east Africa. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
117(1–2):23–37.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge university press.
Binder, C. R., P. W. G. Bots, J. Hinkel, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. Comparison of Frameworks
for Analyzing Social- ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 18(April 2015).
Birthal, P., P. Joshi, D. Roy, and A. Thorat. 2007. Diversification in Indian Agriculture
towards High-Value Crops(November).
Birthal, P. S., P. K. Joshi, S. Chauhan, and H. Singh. 2008. Can horticulture revitalise
agricultural growth? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 63(3):310–321.
118
Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:1–108.
Chand, R. 2012. Development Policies and Agricultural Markets. Economic and Political
Weekly xlvii(52):53–63.
Chand, R. 2017. Doubling Farmers’ Income - Rational, Strategy, Prospects and Action Plan.
Chatalova, L., D. Müller, V. Valentinov, and A. Balmann. 2016. The Rise of the Food Risk
Society and the Changing Nature of the Technological Treadmill. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 8(6):1–10.
Chayanov, A. V. 1966. AV Chayanov on the theory of peasant economy. Manchester
University Press.
Cochrane, W. W. 1958. Farm prices: myth and reality. U of Minnesota Press.
CSO. 2013. Statewise Estimates of Value of Output from Agriculture and Allied Activities.
DeFries, R. S., J. A. Foley, and G. P. Asner. 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs
and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(5):249–257.
Downer, B. C. W. 2007. Development of a Simple Soil Moisture Model in the Hydrologic
Simulator GSSHA(October).
Eilers, V. H. M., R. C. Carter, and K. R. Rushton. 2007. A single layer soil water balance
model for estimating deep drainage ( potential recharge ): An application to cropped
land in semi-arid North-east Nigeria 140:119–131.
FAI. 2012. Fertilizer Statistics 2011-12. 57th edition. Fertilizer Association of India.
FAO. 2011. Save and grow: a policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of
smallholder crop production. Rome.
FAO. 2014. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture.
FAO. 2016. Increasing the Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations:20.
Foster, S., H. Garduno, and A. Tuinhof. 2007. Confronting the Groundwater Management
Challenge in the Deccan Traps Country of Maharashtra — India(Figure 1).
119
Geertz, C. 1968. Agricultural involution: the process of ecological change in Indonesia. Univ
of California Press.
Godfray, H. C. J., and T. Garnett. 2014. Food security and sustainable intensification. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 369(1639):20120273.
GoI. 1991. Agricultural Census 1990-91.
GoI. 2014a. Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2014. Ministry of Agriculture.
GoI. 2014b. Hand Book on Horticulture Statistics.
GoI. 2014c. Ground water information, Nashik District,Maharashtra. Page Central Ground
Water Board, Government of India.
GoI. 2015a. All India Report On Agriculture Census 2010-11. Department of Agriculture 06.
GoI. 2015b. Pocketbook of agricultural statistics 2015.
GoI. 2017a. Report of the Committee for Doubling Farmers ’ Income: Vol VIII: Production
Enhancement through Productivity Gains. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’
Welfare.
GoI. 2017b. Horticulture Statistics at a Glance. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’
Welfare.
GoI. 2017c. Agriculture Statistics at a Glance. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.
GoM. 2016. Weekly crop sowing report, Sinnar taluka 2014-15.
GoM. 2018. Maharashtra Groundwater (Development & Management) Draft Rules 2018.
Gulati, A., and G. Shreedhar. 2009. Emulate Gujarat’s agricultural success.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/policy/emulate-gujarats-agricultural-
success/articleshow/4493375.cms.
Guswa, A. J. 2002. Models of soil moisture dynamics in ecohydrology : A comparative study
38(9).
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology
120
and systematics 4(1):1–23.
Hoogeveen, J., J. M. Faurès, L. Peiser, J. Burke, and N. Van De Giesen. 2015. GlobWat - A
global water balance model to assess water use in irrigated agriculture. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 19(9):3829–3844.
IITB, and GoM. 2017. Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture - GoM Collaboration with
IIT Bombay. https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~pocra/MoU.pdf.
Joshi, P. K., A. Gulati, P. S. Birthal, and L. Tewari. 2004. Agricultural Diversification in
South Asia: Patterns, Determinants and Policy Implications. Economic And Political
Weekly 39(24):2457–2467.
Joshi, P. K., L. Joshi, and P. S. Birthal. 2006. Diversification and Its Impact on Smallholders :
Evidence from a Study on Vegetable Production *. Agricultural Economics Research
Review 19(December):219–236.
Jurrie ͏̈ns, M., P. P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 1996. Scarcity by design: protective irrigation in
India and Pakistan. ILRI.
Kale, E. 2017. Problematic Uses and Practices of Farm Ponds in Maharashtra. Economic &
Political Weekly LII(3):20–22.
Kratili, S. 2015. Valuing variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands
development. Page (H. Jode, editor). IIED.
Kulkarni, H., M. Shah, and P. S. V. Shankar. 2015. Journal of Hydrology : Regional Studies
Shaping the contours of groundwater governance in India. Journal of Hydrology:
Regional Studies 4:172–192.
Maharashtra, G. of. 2013. District Socio-economic Summary: Nashik district.
Malthus, T. R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population..
Manabe, S. 1969. Climate and the ocean circulation: I. The atmospheric circulation and the
hydrology of the earth’s surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 97:739–774.
Matson, P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power, and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural Intensification
and Ecosystem Properties. Science 277:504–509.
121
McCulloch, N., and M. Ota. 2002. Export horticulture and poverty in Kenya. IDS.
McGinnins, M. S., and E. Ostrom. 2014. Social-ecological system framework : initial
changes and continuing. Ecology and Society 19(2).
Meadows, D. 1999. Leverage points: Places to Intervene in a System. Page The Sustainability
Institute.
Meyfroidt, P., R. Roy Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E. C. Ellis, K. H. Erb, T. Filatova, R. D.
Garrett, J. M. Grove, A. Heinimann, T. Kuemmerle, C. A. Kull, E. F. Lambin, Y.
Landon, Y. le Polain de Waroux, P. Messerli, D. Müller, J. Nielsen, G. D. Peterson, V.
Rodriguez García, M. Schlüter, B. L. Turner, and P. H. Verburg. 2018. Middle-range
theories of land system change. Global Environmental Change 53(August):52–67.
Nadkarni, M. V. 2018. Crisis in Indian Agriculture. Economic & Political Weekly L
III(17):28–34.
Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry, and J. R. Williams. 2011. Soil & Water Assessment
Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas
A&M University.
Netting, R. M. 1993. Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive,
sustainable agriculture. Stanford University Press.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action.
Pretty, J., and Z. P. Bharucha. 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems.
Annals of Botany 114(8):1571–1596.
Rasmussen, L. V., B. Coolsaet, A. Martin, O. Mertz, U. Pascual, E. Corbera, N. Dawson, J.
A. Fisher, P. Franks, and C. M. Ryan. 2018. Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural
intensification. Nature Sustainability 1(7):376–376.
Reddy, D. N., and S. Mishra. 2010. Agrarian crisis in India. Oxford University Press.
Richard A . Levins and Willard W . Cochrane. 1996. The Treadmill Revisited. Land
Economics 72(4):550–553.
Rockström, J., L. Karlberg, S. P. Wani, J. Barron, N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, A. Bruggeman, J.
122
Farahani, and Z. Qiang. 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture-The need for a
paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97(4):543–550.
Rockström, J., J. Williams, G. Daily, A. Noble, N. Matthews, L. Gordon, H. Wetterstrand, F.
DeClerck, M. Shah, P. Steduto, C. de Fraiture, N. Hatibu, O. Unver, J. Bird, L. Sibanda,
and J. Smith. 2017. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and
global sustainability. Ambio 46(1):4–17.
Romano, N., M. Palladino, and G. B. Chirico. 2011. Parameterization of a bucket model for
soil-vegetation-atmosphere modeling under seasonal climatic regimes. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 15(12):3877–3893.
Roy, D., and A. Thorat. 2008. Success in High Value Horticultural Export Markets for the
Small Farmers: The Case of Mahagrapes in India. World Development 36(10):1874–
1890.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods - A framework for analysis. Page IDS
Working Paper 72.
Scott, J. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. London, New Haven.
Shah, T. 2012. Community response to aquifer development: Distinct patterns in india’s
alluvial and Hard rock aquifer areas. Irrigation and Drainage 61(SUPPL.1):14–25.
Shankari, U. 2018. A Ringside View — I. Economic & Political Weekly L III(7):69–77.
Shaver, I., A. Chain-Guadarrama, K. A. Cleary, A. Sanfiorenzo, R. J. Santiago-García, B.
Finegan, L. Hormel, N. Sibelet, L. A. Vierling, N. A. Bosque-Pérez, F. DeClerck, M. E.
Fagan, and L. P. Waits. 2015. Coupled social and ecological outcomes of agricultural
intensification in Costa Rica and the future of biodiversity conservation in tropical
agricultural regions. Global Environmental Change 32:74–86.
Da Silva, C. C., and E. De Jong. 1986. Comparison of two computer models for predicting
soil water in a tropical monsoon climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 36:249–
262.
Sinclair, K., A. Curtis, E. Mendham, and M. Mitchell. 2014. Can resilience thinking provide
useful insights for those examining efforts to transform contemporary agriculture?
Agriculture and Human Values 31(3):371–384.
123
Singh, D., M. Tsiang, B. Rajaratnam, and N. S. Diffenbaugh. 2014. Observed changes in
extreme wet and dry spells during the South Asian summer monsoon season. Nature
Climate Change 4:456.
Sterman, J. D. 2012. Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented
Academy and Polarized World. In: Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and
the Urban Environment:21–58.
Stojanovic, T., H. M. McNae, P. Tett, T. W. Potts, J. Reis, H. D. Smith, and I. Dillingham.
2016. The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: A critique of analytical
frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecology and
Society 21(3).
Suthar, S. K. 2018. Contemporary Farmers’ Protests and the ‘ New Rural – Agrarian ’ in
India. Economic and Political Weekly lIII.
Thippeswamy, E. 2016. Cropping Pattern Influences on Farmers Suicide : A Case Study of
Karnataka. International Journal of Scientific research(2277):444–448.
Tittonell, P. 2014. ScienceDirect Ecological intensification of agriculture — sustainable by
nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8:53–61.
Turner, B. L., and A. M. S. Ali. 1996. Induced intensification: Agricultural change in
Bangladesh with implications for Malthus and Boserup. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 93(25):14984–14991.
Villholth, K. G., E. Lopez-Gunn, K. Conti, A. Garrido, and J. Van Der Gun. 2017. Advances
in groundwater governance. CRC Press.
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience , Adaptability and
Transformability in Social – ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 9(2).
Weinberger, K., and T. A. Lumpkin. 2007. Diversification into Horticulture and Poverty
Reduction: A Research Agenda. World Development 35(8):1464–1480.
Appendix A – Farmer survey questionnaire Date of survey______________ Interview#_____________
Wadi name: _______________Village name: _______________ Taluka: _________________ Name of interviewer_____________________
Name of person being surveyed: ________________________ Name under which land is held: ________________________
Number of family members sharing the household: Generation0_______Generation1____ Generation2_________
1. Socio-economic
Sl no
Name – relationship to head Education Primary occupation Secondary occupation Works in farm?
1
2
3
4
Is the family income totally dependent on farming? Y/N Is the farm output shared with any other family? Y/N: Details_______________
Any political positions held by a family member? __________________ Caste/Sub-caste:__________________
Ration card (antoday, yellow (BPL), kesari, white):_____________ House type: Kaccha/Pakka Assets: 2-wheeler/ 4 wheeler/ Refrigerator/ TV
cultivable landholding:_____________________ acres/guntha/hectares Gat numbers/Survey numbers: ________________________
Amount of land leased-in or out:_______________; Lease terms: __________________________
Other assets that the farmer owns, leases-in or leases-out
125
1. Tractor 2. Tempo for transportation 3. Chal (for storing onions)
Resources: soil/water/livestock
Livestock: Bulls/ cattle/ goats Soil type and colour in farm: _______________________ soil layer thickness is farm: ____________soil testing done? Y/N
Groundwater sources:
No Source type: well/bore
Name & location (survey number)
Year in which well was dug or deepened
Depth of well
Horizontal bores done? How many feet?
Pump capacity
Pump type: submersible or on the ground
Water lasts till which month
Water level in May end
Water level in August (after monsoon)
Purpose (drinking, irrigation for how many acres/which crop)
Can you recall for your well:
Soil layer thickness__________; murum layer thickness ___________________; start of hard rock layer ___________________
Surface water sources:
No Surface water source type (pond, river, canal, tanker etc)
Name Sharing methodology; frequency/rotation/hours
How far from farm
Pump capacity Water lasts till which month
Purpose – used for which crops/how many acres
126
2. Cropping Pattern
Multi-year crop (orchard)
Summer crop 2016
Previous crops: Rabi 2016 and Kharif 2016
Crop (e.g. grapes, dadimb etc)
Area planted
Year in which first planted
Source of water in each season
Irrigation how many times in different months (e.g. July – Aug: 0, Sept – Dec: weekly etc)
Pump HP and hours run in each season
Drip irrigation Y/N?
Avg input cost /yr (maintenance) (laagod)
Average yield per acre per year (ekari utpann)
Avg market rate of produce
which APMC/private trader/ village market
Crop Area under the crop
Sowing date
Crop duration
Irrigation how many times done this time
Pump HP and hours run per irrigation (how many days irrigated each time and pump operated per day)
Drip irrigation Y/N?
Average yield that they got this season (ekari utpann)
Avg input cost (including labour, seeds, chemicals, transportation etc)
Avg return that they got this season
% self-use or marketed
which APMC/private trader/ village market
127
2017 – what do they plan to cultivate
Crop Area under the crop
Sowing date
Crop duration
Irrigation how many times done this time
Pump HP and hours run per irrigation
Drip irrigation Y/N?
Average yield that they got this season (ekari utpann)
Avg input cost (including labour, seeds, chemicals, transportation etc)
Avg return that they got this season
% self-use or marketed
which APMC/private trader/ village market
128
Crop
Area under the crop
Sowing date
Crop duration
Irrigation how many times besides rain fall
Pump HP and hours run per irrigation
Drip irrigation Y/N?
Average yield that they expect
Avg input cost (including labour, seeds, chemicals, transportation etc)
Avg return that they expect
% self-use or marketed
which APMC/private trader/ village market
129
Change in Patterns:
Since how many years have you followed the above practice? How has your farming practice changed over the last 5-10- 50 years?
What is your goal/ambition for the future regarding your farm and farming practice?
Do you plan to dig/deepen a well or construct any new infrastructure? Why? How much will it cost? Did you do something like this in the past? What were the cost-benfits?
Has there been any conflict over water in which you were involved? Or is there a conflict over water the village? How is it resolved?
Do you think that the current cropping patterns in the village are suitable for the village conditions (esp water situation)?
3. Knowledge/ Risk a) Are you part of any formal shetkari gat or farmer-group/associations?Y/N Details:
b) Have you received any assistance/training from any NGO, agri department, paid private consultant, agri universities, private companies such as
Syngenta?
c) Did you earn more than you spent in every season in the last 2 years?
d) Have you taken a bank loan for farming? Have you been unable to pay it in any season? Details:
e) How do you make your crop choices in order to minimize your losses?
Mobile number___________________
130
Appendix B – Brief Farmer Narratives
Brief narratives of interviewed farmers
Farmer Code
Village History of investments in water Cropping history Intensification steps
De-intensification/ failures
Notes about financial status/ alternate employment
DPR1 Dapur Started private group lift irrigation in 1996: received water once in 7 days. In 2009, upgraded lift scheme in order to get daily water
Pre 1996, only cultivated Kharif crop. After lift scheme, cultivated vegetables in all 3 seasons. Since 2013, shifted to pomegranate on part of land. In 2017, added more land to orchard. Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to poor quality seeds
One season -> three seasons -> pomegranate
Tomato crop failure in 2016-17 due to poor quality seeds
Son has joined the Police recently
DPR2 Dapur Had access to 1 shared well with brothers. In 2012 dug a new private well in good location with good availability of water. In 2016 fell short of water and had to buy tanker water for orchard. In 2017, he built a farm pond with govt subsidy
Started tomato after private well; shifted to pomegranate in 2014 on part of land. Tomato and pearl millet failed in Kharif 2016-17 (high intensity rain)
foodgrain -> tomato -> pomegranate
Tomato and pearl millet failed in Kharif 2016-17 (high intensity rain)
DPR3 Dapur Sold goats in 2010 and built a well with the money but access is uncertain after January
Able to cultivate green leafy vegetables in Kharif in addition to pearl millet. 2016: fell short of 2 irrigations for onion, could only give 1 irrigation to wheat (crop failed) and no irrigation to gram and sorghum both of which failed 2017: Kharif crops failed due to dry spell and insufficient well water at the time. Rabi crops (wheat and onion) had good yield
2016: fell short of irrigation for onion and wheat (crop failed)
Pending bank loan. All members work as farm labourers for extra income
DPR4 Dapur Had one shared well and built a new well in 2013. Built a 60m borewell which is non-functional. He was part of the first private group lift scheme in the village in 1996 - got water after every 11 days. In 2012, started a second group lift scheme with better technology and now gets water daily. Says that "earlier there was a lot of water accessible through lift scheme but now as the density of schemes has increased, the access is uncertain in summer because irrigation department cuts off electricity connection for pumps
Started pomegranate in 2010 on a land close to Bhojapur canal in neighbouring village where the lift water does not extend yet. Since canal did not get water in drought year, he bought tankers in 2016 worth Rs 1 lakh but pomegranate crop failed due to hailstorm and investment was lost. In 2017, he had deintensified by removing the orchard and cultivating only seasonal vegetables. he has an alternate business as a vegetable trader
removed pomegranate orchard due to losses (high cost of water and poor output)
Main business is vegetable trading
131
DPR5 Dapur Built a well in 2004. In 2012 they started a private group lift scheme receiving water after every 6 days. In 2015, constructed a farm pond in order to buffer water for the 6 day lift rotation period
Well allowed them to cultivate green leafy vegetables and onions. Added pomegranate orchard in 2012. The crop failed in 2017 due to heavy rains but Rabi wheat and onion had good yields
green leafy veg -> pomegranate
pomegranate produce failed in 2017 (high rain intensity)
DPR6 Dapur Has one historic family well, which has water till about February
Traditional crop was pearl millet and wheat in good years. Started vegetables in recent years. In 2016, cultivated tomato using drip but did not give protective irrigation to pearl millet which failed. Rabi onion fell short of water. In 2017, had good yields for Rabi wheat and onions but Kharif tomato and green leafy vegetables suffered due to high rain intensity
foodgrain-> vegetables
2015-16: onion crop failed due to insufficient water
Alternate income: Brothers work in Mumbai and Nashik
DPR7 Dapur 1 well and started private group lift scheme since 2013 getting water everyday;
Has a shop in the village. Could not complete survey
DPR8 Dapur Had one shared well with brothers but it has such low access that it cannot be used for irrigation (there is no pump)
Rainfed Kharif pearl millet only Sons have joined the military and will not pursue farming
DPR9 Dapur Has 2 old wells, one each on two different farmlands. Started private group lift irrigation in 1998 but got water in rotations. In 2012, started new group lift scheme in order to get daily water. Wells on both farms are connected through 2km long pipeline. In 2013, built a farm pond because lift water became uncertain in summer months due to high demand from the reservoir and interventions by the irrigation department to limit illegal lift
Used to cultivate pearl millet, onion, tomato. Started pomegranate in 2012 in addition to vegetables. Doubled the area under pomegranate in 2014. Continues to cultivate seasonal horticulture crops on rest of the landholding. Tomato crop failed in 2017 due to pest attack
vegetable -> pomegranate
2017 tomato crop failure due to pest attack
DPR10 Dapur 1 well only rainfed Kharif pearl millet only - crop failed in 2016 due to dry spell
2015-16: millet crop failed (dry spell)
Also raise goats
132
DPR11 Dapur Had access to 1 well with water until November only. Started private group lift irrigation in 1998 but got water every 15 days. In 2013, started new group lift scheme in order to get daily water. Has put in an application to the agriculture department for a new farm pond but no construction yet
Started pomegranate in 2012 on part of land holding. Cultivates seasonal crops on rest of the land. In 2016-17, saved water for pomegranate which got spoilt. Could not irrigate spring onions and gram in order to prioritize pomegranate and the crops failed.
vegetable -> pomegranate
2016-17: Rabi onion and gram failed. water was saved for pomegranate instead
DPR12 Dapur Had one well. Had an old private lift irrigation scheme but amount of water had reduced due to rotations. In 2015, started a new private group lift irrigation scheme to get daily water
Used to cultivate only rainfed pearl milled until 2014 when they started pomegranate orchard in part of the landholding. In 2016, additional land was shifted to pomegranate. Tomato yields suffered in 2015-16 due to insufficient water. Pomegranate was prioritized since it was the first flowering year for the orchard. In 2016-17, tomato crop failed due to pest attack
foodgrain -> vegetable -> pomegranate
2016-17: tomato yields suffered due to pest attack
DPR13 Dapur Have access to one old family well shared between 3 brothers. Water availability depends upon monsoon
In 2016, Kharif pearl millet crop failed, as did the Rabi onion and gram due to insufficient water. In 2017, Kharif green leafy vegetable got spoilt due to high rain intensity but Rabi wheat and onion had good yield
2015-16: pearl millet failure (dry spell) and 2016-17: failure due to too much rain
Worked as farm labourer for onion harvesting in others farms.
DPR14 Dapur Have access to an old well shared between 5 related families. Water is available to each family for 3 days in a 15 day rotation. Water availability depends on monsoon
In 2016, Kharif pearl millet had very low yield due to dry spell. Rabi wheat and onion could not be irrigated sufficiently and had low yields. In 2017, pearl millet failed due to high intensity rain. Rabi wheat and onion could not get full irrigation due to the water sharing mechanism, yet did better than 2016
2015-16: pearl millet yield impacted by dry spell 2016-17: Pearl millet failed (high rain intensity)
Also raise cattle
DPR15 Dapur Got first well in 2005. Constructed a 80m borewell in 2011. Water from borewell is lifted and poured into the dugwell as borewell pump cannot pump with sufficient pressure directly to farm.
Used to cultivate pearl millet and onions. Shifted part of land under pomegranate orchard in 2013. Borewell water insufficient so bought tankers to irrigate during summer months. Other crops were cabbage and brinjal. Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to pest attack that effected most farms in the village
onions -> vegetables -> pomegranate
Tomato crop failed in 2016-17 due to pest attack that effected most farms in the village
Employed as casual labour in a company
133
DPR16 Dapur Old well with poor water availability until Dec/Jan. Started a private group lift scheme in 2005 and gets water regularly except in summer months. Had to purchase water tankers in 2015-16 for orchard. In 2016-17, built a new farm pond was being constructed to buffer water for summer use
Cultivated green leafy and other seasonal vegetables before starting orchard in 2015 on part of land as it is more profitable than seasonal vegetables. In 2015-16 tomato crop failed due to insufficient water
vegetable -> pomegranate
2015-16: tomato crop failure as limited water given to pomegranate
two sons are studying to become engineers
DPR17 Dapur Have one well with water usually available till February. In addition to rainfed pearl millet, cultivates green leafy vegetables and tomatoes (drip). In 2015-16, Kharif tomato crop failed and Rabi onion yield was low due to water shortage
2015-16: Kharif tomato failure and Rabi onion yield low due to water shortage
Children are focusing on education and do not want to pursue farming
DPR18 Dapur Had only one shared well earlier. Started a private lift scheme with 20 other farmers in 1998: water is available after every 10-12 days but summer availability is uncertain. In 2016-17 drilled a 100m deep private borewell. Same year, also constructed a private farm pond to buffer water during lift scheme rotations
Main crops are pearl millet and onions. Started pomegranate orchard on part of the landholding in 2015. In 2015-16, only irrigated orchard and left land fallow in Rabi. In 2016-17, cultivated Rabi onion and wheat. Kharif onion crop failed
vegetable -> pomegranate
Pending farm loan. Wishes that the children will get good jobs and leaving farming
DPR19 Dapur Have one old well. Had started a group lift scheme in 1998 where water assurance was low. In 2015 started a new lift scheme with regular water supply. They do not have farm pond yet and may construct one. For now, water from lift scheme is poured into well from where it is pumped to farm
Main crops are pearl millet, onion and gram. Started pomegranate on .4 ha in 2012. Doubled area under orchard in 2015. In 2016-17, leased 0.2 ha land from a villager to cultivate wheat due to good availability of water
vegetable -> pomegranate
Pending farm loan; one son works as driver in Mumbai
DPR20 Dapur Have an old well. Started a group lift scheme in 2006 with 25 other farmers but sold the share as the expense was high and water was available once in 10 days.
Traditionally cultivated pearl millets and sorghum and in good years, wheat and some vegetables. Pomegranate was started in 2014. In 2015-16 Rabi onion and gram crops failed due to lack of water. He cultivates green leafy vegetables in a small area every Kharif season in the hope of making big profit.
vegetable -> pomegranate
2015-16 Rabi onion and green gram crops failed due to lack of water
Pending farm loan
DPR21 Dapur None Completely rain-fed farmer, cultivates pearl millet in Kharif and in good rainfall year some fodder crop in Rabi. More than 20 years ago he used to be able to cultivate wheat on the same land
134
DPR22 Dapur Has one well on land in neighbouring village with 2km pipeline extending to farm. Had to purchase tankers for the new pomegranate orchard in 2016-17. Plans to build a farm pond in the near future
Traditional crops were pearl millet, wheat, tomato, onion and green leafy vegetables. Started a pomegranate orchard on part of landholding in 2016-17 in order to improve profitability. Has been leaving remaining land fallow in Rabi to avoid failures due to water shortage
vegetable -> pomegranate
DPR23 Dapur Have 2 old wells. Started a private lift scheme with 15 farmers in 1998. Over time, the original 15 farmers sold part of their share of water to other farmers such that now there are close to 50 farmers with a share in this scheme. There is high uncertainty in availability of water through this scheme. In 2008, started a new scheme with 10 farmers and now receive water every day but summer availability is uncertain. In 2010, built a farm pond under govt scheme to buffer water for summer
Traditional crops were pearl millet, pulses (mung, math) and onions. Started pomegranate orchard in 2010 but yield has been poor in the last 2-3 years due to cold weather during flowering period. Orchard harvest failed in 2016-17 because of too much rain
onions -> pomegranate
Orchard harvest failed in 2016-17 because of too much rain
Pending farm loan
DPR24 Dapur Has an old well which was deepened in 2012. In 2013-14, started a lift irrigation scheme with 10 farmers and now receive daily water but low volume in summer
Until 2013, could cultivate only a Kharif crop: pearl millet or kharif tomato. In 2012, started pomegranate on .2 ha. Shifted another 0.2 ha to orchard in 2016. When there is good rainfall, he cultivates Rabi crops such as wheat and onion. In 2015-16, Rabi gram crop failed due to lack of water. Routinely cultivates green leafy vegetables in Kharif and sometimes tomato, but no pearl millet
Single season -> pomegranate
In 2015-16, Rabi gram crop failed due to lack of water
DPR25 Dapur Used to have access to the traditional shared family well. In 2012-13, built a new well. In 2015, bought a share in an existing group lift irrigation scheme. The scheme was originally built by 20 farmers with 4 hours of access on each day and 10 day rotation. He bought a share for 1 hour of water from a farmer's 4 -hour share. He receives this 1 hour water after every 10 days and pours it in his private well. He hopes to build a farm pond soon to store this water
In 2015-16 cultivated tomato in Kharif and onion, wheat and gram in Rabi using sprinkler irrigation. Started pomegranate orchard in 2017
vegetable -> pomegranate
Father works in a lab; son is a high school teacher
DPR26 Dapur Only well water access until about Jan/Feb Cultivates green leafy vegetables and pearl millet in Kharif. In 2015-16 incurred loss in Rabi onion due to lack of water.
Pending loan. One son has been employed as Police Patil
135
DPR27 Dapur Has one well with limited water. Had invested in a group lift scheme earlier with water rotation and in 2012 started a new scheme with 12 partners where water is received everyday (tank design in scheme). In 2016-17, also built a farm pond to buffer for summer
Traditional crops used to be millets. In 2012, started pomegranate in part of land (2 acres). In 2016-17, converted another acre of land to pomegranate and plans to increase orchard further in the future due to high profitability
foodgrain -> pomegranate
Has a large pending loan. One son is a BEST bus conductor in Mumbai
DPR28 Dapur Only well water access Green leafy vegetables in Kharif and onion in Rabi Only son working to complete M.A. degree and looking for employment
DPR29 Dapur Has one old well. Started a group lift irrigation scheme with 30 farmers in 1996, then started a new lift scheme with daily water. In 2015-16 the scheme did not have sufficient water and farmer bought tanker water to irrigate orchard. He plans to build a farm pond in the coming year in order to prevent having to buy tankers in the future
In 2008 started grape orchard and tried it for four years. Had to finally remove the orchard because it needed too much water. Started pomegranate orchard instead in 2015. In 2016-17, also cultivated cabbage in addition to wheat and onion due to good rainfall
vegetable -> pomegranate
removed grape orchard due to insufficient water
DPR30 Dapur Only well access shared between 3 brothers; water typically available till Feb/March
Started pomegranate orchard in 0.2 ha in 2012-13. Did not irrigate wheat in order to save all water for orchard. In summer, buys tankers for irrigation. In kharif, had cultivated green leafy vegetables two times in a season but made losses both times due to poor market prices
vegetable -> pomegranate
2015-16: wheat failure as water saved for orchard
Work as labourers in others fields
DPR31 Dapur have access to an old family well but drilled a private borewell in 2000. Its yield is low and is used only for domestic use. Invested in a group lift scheme in 1998 and a second recent scheme with daily water supply in 2006. In 2014-15 and 2015-16, farmer had to buy tanker water to irrigate orchard since lift scheme did not have water in summer. In 2016-17, built a farm pond to buffer water
In 2015-16, tomato was grown in kharif and onion in Rabi. Fodder is grown for animals in all seasons. Started pomegranate orchard in 2015. Shifted four times more land under orchard in 2016.
vegetable -> pomegranate
Also run a small dairy
DPR32 Dapur has access to well with poor water availability. In 2011-12 started a group lift irrigation with 25 farmers receiving daily water supply. In 2016-17, built a farm pond to buffer for summer
Used to cultivate only one rainfed crop. Started pomegranate orchard in 2012-13. Other crops are pearl millet and tomato in Kharif and wheat, onion, gram in Rabi. In 2016-17, tomato crop was lost due to pest attack
Single season -> pomegranate
In 2016-17, tomato crop was lost due to pest attack
One son works for BMC
136
DPR33 Dapur Has 3 wells and a 100m borewell between 3 brothers. Started a group lift irrigation scheme with 20 partners in late 90s. Scheme water supply is uncertain. It was repaired in 2010. In summer of 2016, he didn't get any water through the lift. He wants to have a farm pond but has decided against it because of his small landholding size. Lift water is poured in his well. All wells are interconnected through pipelines
Farmer does not grow grains due to small landholding size. Multiple seasons of Green leafy vegetables and onions are the main crop. Started pomegranate orchard in 2014 and doubled area under orchard in 2016. But in 2015-16 due to less water, his yield suffered. In 2016-17, the crop was lost due to high rain intensity.
vegetable -> pomegranate
2015-16 pomegranate yield low due to less water, In 2016-17, the crop was lost due to high rain intensity.
Father is a retired bus driver. Son is optimistic about his future in farming
DI1 Dodhi Kh.
His well was constructed in 1984, it is located 100m from the Bhojapur canal and gets recharged when water flows in canal. Earlier there were 3 rotations in the canal, which would ensure good water availability. But with more reservation (and Dapur lifts) from Bhojapur, the rotation frequency has reduced and there were none in 2015.
Traditionally cultivated two crops: pearl millet in Kharif and wheat/onion in Rabi. He tried cultivating pomegranate for two years but due to poor uncertainty of canal rotation, discontinued the orchard. In 2015, could not irrigate wheat leading to crop failure and fell short of 2-3 watering for onion leading to poor yield. In 2016-17, had good Rabi yields but Kharif tomato and greens incurred losses due to poor market
Foodgrains -> vegetables -> pomegranate-> vegetables
tried pomegranate but failed; In 2015-16, could not irrigate wheat leading to crop failure and fell short of 2-3 watering for onion leading to poor yield.
All children settled with jobs in Mumbai
DI2 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well but with poor water availability Can take only Kharif crop of pearl millet. Land left fallow thereafter due to lack of water. He does sharecropping in Rabi by working on others' fields
Does sharecropping in Rabi
DI3 Dodhi Kh.
Has two wells in different strips of land. Farm is adjoining Bhojapur canal. In 2012, he built a farm pond which is filled by well water from the well next to the canal. However canal has limited rotations so FP is filled largely by groundwater during monsoons and topped off to cover for evaporation loss. In 2016-17, he built a second farm pond next to the first one
Until about late 1990s, crops used to be pearl millet and wheat/onion. He always does one or two rounds of green leafy vegetables and believes he has learnt how to time it well by ensuring protective irrigation is available in Kharif at crucial times and has made large profits from them. He started pomegranate orchard in 2012, shifted more land in 2016 and then some more in 2017
foodgrains -> vegetables -> pomegranate->
Farmer maintains detailed record of farm practice but not of finances. Optimistic of farming and wants children to learn
137
DI4 Dodhi Kh.
Have a well downstream of a percolation tank, but the tank does not hold water and well dries by December/Jan
Rainfed pearl millet , onion, gram are the main crops. In 2015, pearl millet failed due to poor rain and in 2016 it failed due to high intensity of rain. In 2015, could not irrigate Rabi onion fully and had very low yields and unirrigated gram. Could grow wheat in 2016-17 due to good water, also Kharif onion, followed by Rabi onion
Kharif failure in both 2015-16, and 16-17
Have pending loan taken from friends and family
DI5 Dodhi Kh.
Have two wells on different farm lands but with low water availability. Water has always been a constraint
Kharif : pearl millet and greens; Rabi: gram, onions and wheat in good year like 2016-17. 2015 was a bad year in which late kharif onions and Rabi sorghum were both lost due to lack of water. Sorghum was used as fodder instead
Rabi crops failed in 2015-16 due to water shortage
2 sons have government jobs (police, revenue office)
DI6 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well that is shared with brother's family with low water availability. This farm is close to Dapur and the farmer has bought a small share in a group lift irrigation scheme that lifts water from well close to Bhojapur reservoir. From this, the farmer receives 1 hour of water supply after every 12 days
Prior to lift scheme, used to cultivate only Kharif crop (pearl millet, green leafy vegetables). With lift water, cultivates onions and gram but still falls short of water. In 2015-16, lost onion and gram in Rabi. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat after 7 years but fell short of two irrigations and had low yield. tomato crop was lost to pest attack
single season -> two seasons
Tomato in 2016-17 lost to pest attack
Works in others farms
DI7 Dodhi Kh.
Has one old shared family well in which she gets water for 2 days after every 6 days until well water is available
pearl millet, green leafy and tomato in 2016 kharif but only got returns from millets, the rest failed due to water or pest problem. Wheat, onion and gram in 2016 Rabi had good yield unlike 2015-16
2015-16; Kharif onion and Rabi gram lost (no water). 2016-17: tomato lost to pest
DI8 Dodhi Kh.
Have one well which was dug in 2000 about 500m from the canal and receives percolation from the canal during rotations. Earlier there used to be rotations in Jan/Feb which helped the well, but now this has reduced.
Kharif : pearl millet and greens; Rabi:onions. Lost onions in 2015-16 as there was no water to irrigate. In 2016-17, lost greens due to high rain intensity but gave full irrigation to Rabi wheat, onion and gram. Also grew fodder crops
2015-16: Rabi Onions lost due to water shortage. Tomato lost in 16-17 to pest.
one son runs a catering business. Work as labourers in others farms
138
DI9 Dodhi Kh.
Has a well shared between 2 families located next to one of the Bhojapur canal branch. He dug a private well and tried 5 new borewells in 2015-16 (drought year) but without much success. He wants to build a farm pond but cannot afford it despite govt subsidy
He prefers crops with low investment due to uncertainty of available irrigation. Typically cultivates tomato and green leafy vegetables in Kharif for their higher returns, had also tried pomegranate a long time ago but could not be successful - he cannot afford to hire knowledge consultants like others to help with orchards. In 2015-16, had low onion yield as could not irrigate after Jan end. In 2016-17, Kharif tomato and greens were lost due to pest and poor market
vegetable -> pomegranate -> vegetables
Tried pomegranate but failed
Has been making losses and had to sell his cattle. uses sprinklers. Takes loans only from family not bank
DI10 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well that was dug in 2005. In 2016-17 they dug a borewell 65m deep - water pumped from here is fed into the well
Main crop is pearl millet, in good rains, also cultivates green leafy vegetables followed by onion. He would like to cultivate pomegranate but that would require investment in farm pond, which he is not ready for as yet. In 2015-16, had poor yields for Rabi onion and gram. In 2016-17, had good rabi yields but poor Kharif millets due to high intensity rain
2016-17 Kharif crop (millet) failure due to high intensity rain
Has a casual job in a company in MIDC
DI11 Dodhi Kh.
Has one shared well between two brothers but yield is so low that no pump has been put in well. In 2016-17, neighbours gave some water from their well since it was a good rainfall year
Only kharif pearl millet and in 2016-17, also some greens. Rabi was fallow in 2015-16 but cultivated wheat and onion in 2016-17 though with low yields (less water)
Is caught in a cycle of loans: taking one loan to repay another; has also given land as collateral. Has a young son who hopes to study and get a job
DI12 Dodhi Kh.
Has one old well which was deepened in 2015. well is about 650m away from the canal and receives some percolation when there is canal rotation. Earlier canal water was significant but now few rotations. Believes that competitive borewells have harmed the groundwater availability in the region
Used to cultivate tomato regularly earlier but since 2010, pearl millet is the main crop since there is insufficient water to cultivate vegetables. In 2015-16, crops were pearl millet and onion (seed cultivation) and Rabi mostly fallow. In 2016-17 Kharif: pearl millet and onions; Rabi: onion, wheat, gram and fodder. Could irrigate onion completely but fell short of one irrigation for wheat. Trying to cultivate a small patch of bean (vaal) in summer.
vegetables such as tomatoes -> onion/grains
Unable to cultivate tomato anymore due to insufficient water.
brothers drive taxi in Mumbai
139
DI13 Dodhi Kh.
have an old well shared between multiple families. A borewell was drilled in 2016-17 (65m)
2015-16 was a complete crop failure for both Kharif millet and Rabi gram. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat and onion (Rabi) and millet in Kharif. This has been the typical cropping pattern (responding to available water)
2015-16 was a complete crop failure (water)
worked as labourers for road construction (MIDC) to supplement income. Pending society loan
DI14 Dodhi Kh.
Located in a very dry part of the village, there is one well but with low yield and no pump
only kharif pearl millet crop or fodder crop has been possible in the last many years, that too has had low yield due to poor water availability
2015-16: kharif failure (no water) and Rabi fallow
severe drinking water scarcity in this part of the village. They use tanker water. They work as labourers to earn income besides kharif crop
DI15 Dodhi Kh.
They have access to one old well and a borewell made for drinking water purpose only (50m deep with low yield). Well gets percolation from Bhojapur canal when there is rotation. Had to purchase tanker water in 2015-16 from Feb to June for pomegranate. They cannot get a farm pond because of the large expense involved
Onion was their traditional crop. They started pomegranate orchard in 2014 but water has been less and fruit size is small. In 2015-16, got pearl millet in Kharif but no Rabi yield for sorghum or gram. In 2016-17, they could cultivate wheat in Rabi and millet and greens in Kharif. But the green leafy vegetables turned out to be a waste due to low market rate
Unable to cultivate onion anymore. 2015-16 Rabi failure (no water)
DI16 Dodhi Kh.
Have a well that was dug in late 1990s but with low water availability. Wants to have a farm pond in the future so as to shift to orchards which he thinks offers a more high and stable income compared to seasonal crops
pearl millet and green leafy vegetables in Kharif followed by onion or gram in Rabi is typical pattern. Unirrigated gram in 2015-16 had very small yield and onion got spoilt due to unseasonal rain. In 2016-17, cultivated onion and wheat in Rabi but fell short of last few waterings.
2015-16 Rabi onion spoilt due to unseasonal rain
Making losses since last 5 years. Wants to start goat farming
DI17 Dodhi Kh.
No well Only rainfed pearl millet. Failed in both 2015-16 (dry spell) and 2016-17 (high intensity rain)
Kharif failure in both 2015-16 (dry spell) and 2016-17 (high intensity rain)
She is a retired government employee in the village creche (anganwadi sevika)
140
DI18 Dodhi Kh.
No well, but farm is close to Bhojapur canal. In years when there is flow in canal, it is possible to cultivate a Rabi crop
Rainfed Kharif has been the main crop 2015-16 Kharif millet failure (dry spell)
Works as labourer in village (wood cutting etc.) in return for which he gets grains. children do not live in village anymore; do odd jobs in city
DI19 Dodhi Kh.
An old well since 1972. Made 3 other wells and a borewell but most do not have water. Farm is in Bhojapur canal command and well gets recharged from canal during rotation. Built a farm pond in 2016 using govt subsidy. The FP is filled in monsoons using a well which is within 50m of the canal.
Onion has been Dodhi's traditional crop. In 2015-16, could cultivate only Kharif millet and late kharif onion. Got low yield and low market price. Started pomegranate in 2016--17. That year also cultivated tomato and greens in kharif which were spoilt due to pest attack and poor market rates
onions -> pomegranate
2016-17 tomato failure due to pest
DI21 Dodhi Kh.
Have one well on their land, and another well on the land that they have leased in and a borewell for drinking water. In 2015-16 they built a farm pond but had not invested in buying the plastic lining. In 2016-17 they had bought the plastic and lined the FP
Pearl millet, tomato on drip and onion were cultivated in Kharif 2015-16. Rabi crops were onion, gram and sorghum but could irrigate onions only 3 times and other crops not even once. On the leased land, they cultivated unirrigated cotton which is unusual for this region
2015-16 Rabi crop lost (onion, gram) due to water shortage
one son is a college teacher
DI22 Dodhi Kh.
They have one well with poor water availability Cultivate kharif pearl millet every year and try a vegetable crop on the side. In 2015-16, the tomato and kharif onion crops failed. They had not taken a Rabi crop in the past 5 years
2 season cropping -> 1 season cropping (no water for Rabi)
Work as labourers in others fields
DI23 Dodhi Kh.
Located in a very dry part, they have access to one shared well and one borewell for drinking water.
Since 2010 or so, have been able to grow only Kharif pearl millet and no Rabi crop. Traditionally used to cultivate onions; now just leave land fallow to avoid failure
onion -> millet onion -> millet work as labourers. Consider farming their secondary occupation
141
DI24 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well, subsequently tried drilling 2 borewells. One got no water, the other is being used for drinking water. The farm is next to Bhojapur canal and benefits from percolation when there is rotation. Built a farm pond in 2015-16 which is filled by rain water which is collected in a dugout and also through well. Had also bought tanker water for use before the FP was built
Vegetables were always cultivated: cauliflower, cabbage, tomato etc. but not since 2010. Started pomegranate orchard in 2015-16 along with farm pond. In 2015-16, kharif millet crop failed due to long dry spells, kharif onions also failed. Green leafy vegetables also have not been cultivated since 2010. Rabi onion did not yield either and all efforts are being direct towards the pomegranate orchard
vegetables -> pomegranate
Took big loan to buy tractor, plant pomegranate orchard and to buy tanker water for orchard protective irrigation. So a lot of risk. Owns village flour mill also rents out his tractor on hourly basis
DI25 Dodhi Kh.
have two wells and a borewell on farmland in neighbouring village. Borewell water is used for drinking and for the orchard. Farm is close to Bhojapur minor but receives limited rotations
Used to cultivate onions and millets but now due to dry spells and poor water availability even kharif pearl millet crop failed. Not taken any Rabi crop either in 2015-16. Instead, focusing only on the pomegranate orchard that was started in 2010
Was running a poultry but had to stop because there wasn't sufficient water. Have taken a loan to purchase tractor
DI26 Dodhi Kh.
2 wells with limited water Until almost 2010, cultivated onions and green leafy vegetables but bad rainfall since then has resulted in poor kharif millet yield and no Rabi crop
onions/green vegetables -> grains
vegetables -> grains. 2015-16 Kharif millet crop failure (dry spell)
DI27 Dodhi Kh.
one well with poor water availability Kharif pearl millet only and no Rabi crop in 2015-16 sons have company jobs
DI28 Dodhi Kh.
One well, one borewell and farm close to bhojapur minor Kharif pearl millet only and Rabi sorghum crop in 2015-16 with low crop yields
2015-16 Rabi sorghum failure
works as labourer. Wishes for work in a company
142
DI29 Dodhi Kh.
1 well and farm close to bhojapur minor Cultivated pearl millet and green leafy vegetable in 2015-16 and lost both crops due to poor water. Rabi onion also dried and failed. Water saved for pomegranate which was started in 2012-13
vegetables -> pomegranate
2015-16 Kharif and Rabi failure (dry spell)
DI30 Dodhi Kh.
No well, close to bhojapur canal. Used to rotations 3 times a year until 2012, now none or limited.
Only rainfed pearl millet 2 season cropping -> 1 season cropping (no canal rotations)
works as labourer
DI31 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well since 2000 but with poor water availability. Farm close to bhojapur minor
Typical cropping pattern in Kharif: pearl millet, greens and Rabi: wheat, onion
works as casual labourer
DI32 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well with poor water availability. Farm in bhojapur minor command
In 2016-17, fell short of water for wheat and onions. Had left all land fallow in Rabi 2015-16
works as labourer
DI34 Dodhi Kh.
have one well rainfed pearl millet only. Well water is used for poultry. No rabi crop
Runs a poultry
DI35 Dodhi Kh.
one borewell about 50m deep but limited water. Close to bhojapur minor but rotations have become sparse`
Earlier crops were pearl millet, onions etc. but now only rainfed millet
onion-> millet onion-> millet works as labourer for about 10 days in a month
DI36 Dodhi Kh.
Has one well with poor water availability. Farm close to bhojapur minor
Since 2010 or so, pearl millet is the only main crop onion -> millet onion -> millet
DI37 Dodhi Kh.
one well Pearl millet is the main crop.2015-16 Rabi onion dried and failed
2015-16 Rabi onion dried and failed
works as labourer
DI38 Dodhi Kh.
three wells Kharif crops in 2016-17 were cabbage, tomato (failed due to pest) and green vegetables (poor rates). Rabi onion, wheat, gram and sorghum cultivated in 16-17
2016-17 kharif tomato failure (pest)
Unable to repay loan. sons settled in Mumbai.
143
PND1 Pandhurli
Has one well which allows Rabi irrigation. It was being deepened in 2015-16 by 15m to reduce uncertainty
Used to cultivate soybean (Kharif) and gram (Rabi). Since 2013 started cultivating tomato but had losses due to pest or market rate. In 2015-16, got good yields of Soybean and wheat
foodgrain -> tomato --> grain
stopped tomato cultivation due to losses
Run a vegetable shop in the village
PND2 Pandhurli
Has one old and shallow well that allows irrigation of Rabi crop
Cropping pattern has been about the same. Kharif crop: maize, tomato, soybean; Rabi: wheat, onion, gram.
Primary occupation is vegetable trader
PND3 Pandhurli
Has one old well next to his house and used to have a second well but with limited water. In late 90s, started a group lift scheme from Darna river with 5 other farmers but it did not work cost effectively and was stopped. In 2000 he dug a third well which had good water access. This was subsequently connected to the older well through a 1.3km pipeline.
Used to cultivate sugarcane until 2012 when the sugarcane factory was shutdown. Cultivates paddy in Kharif and Maize in all three seasons. In 2014-15, lost 2 ha of onion crop and the grape produce due to hail storm. He has cultivated orchards (mainly grapes) since late 1990s. He also tried pomegranate but it failed due to too much rain in Pandhurli. He cultivates diverse horticulture crops in all three seasons in addition to the orchard
grape harvest and 5 acres of onions were lost to hailstorm in 2014-15
PND4 Pandhurli
Has one well which allows irrigation in all three seasons Used to cultivate sugarcane until 2005 or so to make and sell jaggery. His father used to cultivate orchards but he does not. He wishes to start a precision controlled shadenet which can increase yields by as much as 5 times. He currently cultivates different seasonal horticulture crops. tomato, soybean and marigold flowers in Kharif; Potato and wheat or cabbage in Rabi and cucumber or brinjal in summer.
Had losses due to hailstorm
PND5 Pandhurli
His farm has poor soil and has poor water access. He had an old well and then dug a new well (shallower) in early 2000s on a different farm land. The old well is connected to the new one through a 650m pipeline such that water can be poured into the new well from the old one for use on the second strip of land. In 2016 soybean crop was lost due to intense wet spells.
Used to cultivate paddy before but there isn't sufficient water for it in recent years. Rabi crops include potato, garlic, maize, wheat . Kharif crops: tomato, soybean. 2016-17 soybean crop lost to high intensity rain
Incurred losses due to hailstorm and poor market prices. Has been unable to pay back loan
144
PND6 Pandhurli
Has an old well dug in 1998 on one of the farm lands which is shared with another family so that each gets one week of use in every other week. They are planning to deepen this well. She dug another well on a second piece of land but there is less water in this well. . In 2016 summer, neither well had water even for drinking and they had to borrow from other farmer wells.
Used to cultivate sugarcane in 1980s. Used to grow paddy until a decade ago. Now more maize, soybean and tomato in Kharif and onion, garlic and fodder crops in Rabi. In 2015, she also cultivated cabbage in a very small patch of land in summer season which failed due to insufficient water. Does not want to cultivate grape orchard as he finds it too risky.
summer cabbage crop failed due to insufficient water
Wants to take loan to start a goatery business. Thinks that farm income is too volatile. Took out son from English medium school to local school as unable to meet expenses
PND7 Pandhurli
has one well sufficient for 2 crops vegetable cultivation such as tomato, bitter gourd, green leafy vegetables has been ongoing for many years. Returns depend upon the market
PND8 Pandhurli
has one well next to Kadva canal which passes Pandhurli. Well has abundant water through out the year because of this. It was also used as a source for village drinking water supply in 2015-16, when the notified public drinking water well did not have sufficient water
Since their landholding is less, they do not cultivate crops such as soybean. Instead a variety of seasonal vegetable crops such as green leafy, tomato, cauliflower, cucumber etc. are cultivated in small patches of land. Does not cultivate orchards because of the high investment needed. Tomato had poor yield in 2016-17 due to hail storm
PND9 Pandhurli
His farm is next to Kadva canal which was constructed in late 1980s. In monsoon, his fields become waterlogged and cause damage. Has one old well in which water is available till about February. Since 2010, he has been purchasing water from another's well for a monthly charge if needed. In 2015, the stretch of canal close to their farm was concretized
Can only cultivate paddy in kharif due to waterlogging. In 2015 Rabi Onion and gram crops suffered due to insufficient water. Cultivated tomato in a small patch in 2016-17 but removed the crop before complete harvest due to rock bottom market prices
2015-16 rabi onion loss due to less water
Does not want to invest in lift from Darna river due to economic constraint (farm farther away from river). Bought 25 goats in 2016-17. Has a big loan to repay
145
PND10
Pandhurli
Has one old well built in late 1990s shared between two brothers. Well has water available all 12 months
2015: Paddy, tomato in Kharif and wheat, green leafy vegetables in Rabi. Summer vegetable in small patch. Also vegetables such as cauliflower, brinjal etc. Have not been able to time market well and have faced losses in market. In 2016 Kharif, tomato and green leafy crop got spoilt due to high intensity rain and hail
In 2016 Kharif, tomato and green leafy crop got spoilt due to high intensity rain and hail
Has taken loan from relatives but unable to return. She plans to start goat rearing as part of a women's self help group in order to reduce dependence on farm market prices
PND11
Pandhurli
Do not have a well. Instead, since 2006 they have joined an existing group of 4 farmers who lift water from Darna river. Darna flows perennially (dam upstream) and is 1km away. They get 2 days of water supply after every 6 days for a monthly charge.
Earlier only rainfed Kharif but now crops are soybean, wheat vegetables such as cabbage, onion
Kharif only foodgrain --> vegetables
PND12
Pandhurli
One well and a borewell Has always had a diverse cropping pattern, esp. tomatoes, onions and vegetables. Tried cultivating grape orchard in late 2000s but gave up after 5 years due to market loss. Prefers seasonal vegetables
removed grape orchard due to losses.
Private business of drilling/deepening wells (on avg works on 4 to 5 wells per month) , also family run dairy
PND13
Pandhurli
In late 1980s, he laid a 1km pipeline to Darna river to lift water from a well dug next to the river bed. Over the years, water availability has got more uncertain due to too much competition. In summer when water is scarce, electricity connection to pumps is restricted. In 2007, he built a second well
Cultivates a variety of crops foodgrains, vegetables and orchards. Has been cultivating grapes since early 2000s. Shifted more land under orchards in 2010. There have been frequent crop loss due to weather, pest attack or poor market return but diversification in the large landholding has helped stay profitable
vegetables --> grapes
Rabi potato in 2015-16 failed due to unseasonal rain. 2016-17 tomato crop lost to pest attack
Also runs a pharmacy
146
PND14
Pandhurli
His family had given the well on their land to the village commons as a source for public drinking water supply more than 20 years ago. That well was deepened by 5m in 2016. He built a new irrigation well in 2000 for own use and deepened this well by 5m in 2016.
Cultivates diverse combination of foodgrains, oil seeds and vegetables in small patches. Does not want to cultivate orchards because of the high investment required
Soybean in 2016-17 spoilt due to high intensity rain
Has started raising goats (bought 8) to supplement income. Retired 10 years ago from a job in the local sugarcane factory
PND15
Pandhurli
Have one well close to the Kadwa canal and receives percolation from the canal. Also has a 2km long private pipeline to lift water from Darna river but electricity connection is often cut in summer to stop pumps lifting water
Diverse cropping on large landholding' Kharif: paddy, soybean, tomato ; Rabi: tomato, onion, wheat, potato etc. Feels that water is a constraint.
PND16
Pandhurli
Have 2 wells one of which is close to the canal and get recharged from it
Historically they were able to cultivate crops in all three season now there is less water for the third crop and cannot grow summer maize like before. Other crops remain the same. Kharif: soybean, tomato; Rabi: onion, wheat, potato and summer vegetables too. With water stress in 2015-16 less area under summer crop.
Summer season crop is unassured now due to less water
Has a job with MSEB, so are satisfied with the supplementary income from farming.
PND17
Pandhurli
Has one old shallow well, which is located within 20m of the neighbour's well but the neighbour's well had water in May but his well did not- appears to be a mystery to him
He does not want to cultivate tomato and other horticulture crops due to the high risk involved. Typically grows soybean, wheat, fodder; summer: fodder if there is water. In 2016-17 Fell short of water for wheat and could not give last two waterings
Low yield for wheat in 2016-17 due to shortage of water
They run a dairy as well
PND18
Pandhurli
Has one well which assures him of two crops He sticks to a safe cropping pattern of Kharif soybean followed by Rabi wheat. Never cultivates horticulture crops because it requires too much investment. In 2016-17 Kharif soybean lost due to too much rain. Rabi maize was also impacted due to hail
2016-17 kharif soybean lost (high rain intensity)
147
WS1 Wadgaon Sinnar
Their farm is located close to Devnadi river and in the DBI command so well has good availability of water. They have 2 wells on two different farm lands
Used to cultivate paddy many years ago, but now soybean is the main kharif crop, in addition to maize. Rabi crops are onion, wheat, garlic and gram (irrigated). They think vegetable cultivation is a lot of hard work. In 2014-15 they started cultivating pomegranate and are able to irrigate with well so far
grains --> vegetables --> pomegranate
One son works in military, another for a company
WS2 Wadgaon Sinnar
Have two wells close to river. They are in the command of the Devnadi DBI so wells tend to have good water.
Historically, they cultivated sugarcane, paan and paddy next to the river. After the dam got built upstream water became scarce and they shifted to pearl millet. Later soybean was introduced in late 1990s. Hybrid tomato is also a new popular crop, earlier local variety wasn't very input intensive. Tried cultivating grapes for some time but made losses. Shifted part of land to pomegranate in 2015. Leased-in some additional land from another family in the village
sugarcane, betel leaf, paddy --> vegetables --> orchard
Tried cultivating grapes but removed due to losses
2 sons have jobs, 2 are in farming
WS3 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has three shared family wells. Dug a private well in 2013. Farms are within the DBI command so wells are recharged during monsoon. Wells are connected through private pipeline. Built a farm pond in 2016. The FP is filled from well water.
Cultivates a diverse variety of vegetables and avoids cultivating foodgrains. Kharif: tomato, carrot, broccoli. Rabi: wheat, onions, green leafy vegetables, potato, broccoli. In 2016-17 FP water was used to cultivate tomato in summer. Plan is to shift part of the land under grape orchard next year
regular vegetables -> broccoli-> orchard (next year)
2015-16 rabi onion lost due to insufficient water
One son works in Mumbai
WS4 Wadgaon Sinnar
He has three private wells close to Devnadi river and has good availability of water
Kharif: soybean, tomato, marigold flower, Rabi: onion, wheat
WS5 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one well which dried early in 2015-16 (Dec) but usually can support a Rabi crop
Kharif soybean, maize; Rabi: wheat, onion, fodder; no summer
148
WS6 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has two wells which are 1 km away. One has more water than the other. In 2015-16 fell short of water and had to purchase a well-full of water (about 5 tankers) for orchard. Drilled a borewell in 2015 (80m)
Used to cultivate sugarcane until late 1990s; started soybean in early 2000s. Has been cultivating grapes since the late 1990s. Wants to increase area under orchards. He believes that the use of water is less by orchards than by seasonal crops and requires less labour. Cultivates high value crops more than grains (Except wheat for self consumption and maize for fodder. Vegetables include pumpkin, carrot, tomatoes, cucumber etc.
One son studying in Pune, others still in school
WS7 Wadgaon Sinnar
Farm is in the drier strip of village. Has one well shared between 5 brothers. It was deepened in 2012.
They have always had shortage of water so typical crop is rainfed soybean followed by Rabi crop depending on water availability. In 2015-16 when water was scarce, grew unirrigated gram and got poor yields and left a large part of the land fallow. In 2016-17, cultivated wheat and onion
Both sons work in Nashik in a company. Farmer used to do labour work in MIDC
WS8 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one old well with poor water availability. Built lateral bores in well in 2014. Built a second well on a different landholding in 2015-16. This well has been built next to the Devnadi canal with pipelines running between the two wells.
Always water stressed, typically cultivated Kharif pearl millet and supplemented income by working as labourer. After new well and pipeline, cultivated peas and green leafy vegetables in 2016-17
Very pessimistic with farming - has not been able to build a brick house from farm income. Does not want his son to pursue farming. Son has completed B.Ed. And is looking for jobs.
WS9 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one well which can support Rabi crop in most years Took over farming after his father's death in 2010. Cultivates typical crops which require less attention: soybean, wheat, onion, gram. Vegetables need more work and attention but he has a day job
Works for a company in the MIDC. Farming is secondary occupation
149
WS10 Wadgaon Sinnar
Both farm lands located in the DBI command. One well is close to the Devnadi river and another well close to the canal
has always cultivated at least two crops including vegetables. Since 2010, has started cultivating broccoli as a new exotic vegetable which is sold directly in Vashi market in Mumbai
Traditional vegetables --> broccoli
2015-16 soybean lost to pest attack
Grandson studying to be an engineer
WS11 Wadgaon Sinnar
Farm located next to DBI canal minor and a RCC bandhara. Used to have an old well. Dug a second one in 1999 which was deepened in 2016
traditional crops have been wheat, pearl millet, soybean, groundnut, green leafy vegetables, gram etc. which are low risk. He has been trying new crops such as potato (in Kharif instead of Rabi - which failed), also grapes for a few years. Now he wants to grow guava and/or poultry business
Did grape farming 1991-1999 but made losses. Potato crop failed in 2015-16
large pending loan. Wants to start poultry but cannot get more loan. Works for a company
WS12 Wadgaon Sinnar
One well next to the canal and two other wells. They have also dug 3 borewells to ensure summer irrigation for the paan orchard. In 2015-16 they had to purchase tankers to irrigate the orchard. Well near canal has a pipeline running up to the farm
Their family has had a paan orchard for more than 50 years. Earlier there used to be many more such orchards in the village when water was abundant. Now this is the only paan orchard left in the village. They have a large landholding and like to stick to the traditional crops, including traditional (not hybrid) variety of wheat. Dedicate some land to vegetables such as peas, okra, tomato etc.
1 brother runs a pan shop, 1 brother in a company, father was the police patil
WS13 Wadgaon Sinnar
Two very old wells on different farm lands: one close to river and canal and the second is uphill in the drier part of the village. The uphill well fills up first and water is used through pipeline on both farms. The lowland well fills up late but holds water longer
paddy, sugarcane until late 1990s. Now diverse cropping including foodgrains and vegetables in two seasons
sugarcane, paddy --> vegetables
one family member is a truck driver, another works as labourer, grandson is in military
WS14 Wadgaon Sinnar
1 well close to Dubere stream but stream has been dry since three years, so has low water access
cultivates rainfed pearl millet (rare in Wadgaon Sinnar where most others grow Soybean instead of pearl millet) and a patch of Rabi crop depending on water availability. In very good rainfall years, taken extra land on lease
2015-16: insufficient water for onion
work as farm labourers to help harvest others' onions
150
WS15 Wadgaon Sinnar
They have one well close to Dubere stream which is largely dry.
Traditional crops were sugarcane and vegetables when water was plenty. Since 2012, they have started cultivating their uncle's land (who lives in Nashik and hence cannot farm his land in the village) where they are growing pomegranate using his well - sharing the produce equally. In 2015-16, onion crop fell short of water; gram was also left unirrigated
sugarcane -> vegetables ->pomegranate share-cropping
In 2015-16, onion crop fell short of water; gram was also left unirrigated
2 sons work in a company in MIDC
WS16 Wadgaon Sinnar
They have a well, which has very low availability of water Their farms were always dry and they could never cultivate vegetables. Subsistence farming only. Pearl millet (not soybean) and in good years Kharif onion. In good rainfall year of 2016-17 they cultivated wheat but fell short of last water; also fodder for cattle
2015-16 kharif onion failed due to no water. 2016-17 kharif peas crop failed due to high rain intensity
also work as labourers; drinking water scarcity in this part of the village - dependent on tankers
WS17 Wadgaon Sinnar
They have a shared well, which has very low availability of water. Farm next to Dubere stream which is dry (except in the rains of 2016-17)
If monsoon starts early, then cultivate soybean, else they sow pearl millet. In 2015-16, there was no water and gram crop failed. In 2016-17, they could give full water to wheat
2015-16: Rabi gram failed (could not irrigate)
Teacher in tribal school, one son works in a company in MIDC.
WS18 Wadgaon Sinnar
They have one shared well between 5 brothers but with low water availability. Has taken land for sharecropping which has a well on it with better months of water available. One drawback of shared wells is that one cannot use drip irrigation (as it needs frequent irrigation which cannot be met by rotation schedule of shared wells). Bought tanker in 2015-16 . Tried drilling 3 borewells but all of them failed (no water)
cultivate vegetables in order to get more cash. Tries to cultivate peas (3 months with early sowing) followed by late Kharif onion followed by wheat. If monsoon is late, then can take only two crops of soybean -> onion-> fallow. In 2015-16, bought tanker water to grow onion seeds
2016-17 green pea crop failed (too much early rain)
Used to work in a factory in Nashik until 2001. Had given land for sharecropping to brother but now depends on farming. Very articulate and knowledgeable
151
WS19 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one shared well next to Debere stream between 4 brothers which each can access for 2 days in rotation. This well has higher months of water availability than the private well he has on a different farm land near the hills. A 1km pipeline has been laid to pump water from the shared well to the private well. Purchased tankers in both 2015-16 and 2016-17 to irrigate broccoli
Always devote good amount of time to fodder crops for their dairy business. Traditional crops used to be pearl millet, wheat and gram. But he now cultivates horticulture crops such as peas, tomato, onion and even broccoli (rabi/summer)
foodgrain -> Vegetables -> broccoli
lost onion in 2015-16 due to hail
Dairy business + one son works as a driver
WS20 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one irrigation well shared between 3 brothers and a second well close to home for drinking water. The irrigation well is in a favourable location (below percolation tank) and gets good recharge.
Used to cultivate sugarcane until about 15 years ago on the farm land next to Devnadi but water became a bottleneck. Pearl millet was also an important crop but this was taken over by soybean. Typical crops are Kharif: soybean and tomato and Rabi onion, wheat and gram. Summer fallow. Despite having good access to water does not wish to cultivate orchard because of the high capital cost involved. In 2015-16 left part of Rabi land fallow due to less availability of water
sugarcane -> vegetables
soybean crop in 2016-17 failed due to bad seeds so did second sowing of green leafy vegetables. Tomato (16-17) removed due to low market prices
Could not repay back a loan of 1.5 lakh in 2015-16
WS21 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one shared well between 3 brothers and water is shared by rotations - each brother uses well for 2 days in a 6 day rotation. He has also dug two borewells. He has a pipeline going from well to a second farming plot which is in the drier part of village closer to the hills
His family used to have a betel orchard (paan baag) but stopped it once water became a constraint. Since he has a small family, he does not cultivate foodgrains (prefers to buy), instead grows high value crops. Kharif: soybean and tomato; Rabi onions
Betel orchard --> vegetables
Betel orchard --> vegetables Rabi Onion harvest lost to hailstorm (2014-15 Rabi)
Has unpaid load that he had taken for onions in 2014-15. Could not repay old loan and has borrowed more. His sons are looking for a govt job
WS22 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one shared well between 2 farmers shared on 2-day rotations.
Used to cultivate paddy and pearl millet before but now typical crops are Kharif soybean and Rabi onion and wheat. He does not cultivate vegetables like tomatoes because of high cost especially labour cost
Works as a fitter in a company in the MIDC
152
WS23 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one well. Has had to buy tankers for tomatoes Used to cultivate vegetables such as onions, tomatoes along with soybean, wheat. Since a few years, he had started cultivating broccoli which he learnt from farmers in another village. It is sold directly in Mumbai market and rates are better. He tries to cultivate at least one small patch of broccoli in all three seasons but Kharif broccoli is a gamble: it can be lost to too much rain, but its prices are good in that season.
regular vegetables --> broccoli
Soybean in 2016-17 spoilt due to high intensity rain
WS24 Wadgaon Sinnar
has one irrigation well typical cropping pattern in Kharif: soybean and Rabi: wheat, onion and gram
2015-16 lost Rabi onion due to insufficient water. lost wheat and onion in the hail storm in 2014-15
One son works as an electrician in the Malegaon MIDC; another works as a bank clerk
WS25 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one old well shared between 4 brothers from which he has a pipe to his farm. He has a private well too which was deepened last year. He also tried a borewell but it did not yield any water
In 2015-16, left Rabi land fallow due to insufficient water. Cultivated soybean, pearl millet and late Kharif onion instead. Had more water in 2016-17, so cultivated tomato in addition to soybean in Kharif but lost tomato to pest. Rabi was wheat and onion. Also had some land under summer maize and groundnut
2016-17 kharif tomato failure (pest)
153
WS26 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one very old well (1983) which was deepened in 2016. Also has a borewell. Has had to purchase water tankers regularly for the orchards
He grows diverse crops such as maize, tomato, soybean etc. Since 2001 he started cultivating grapes and added more area subsequently. In 2015 he added a pomegranate orchard but it proved to be a failure for his soil type hence removed the orchard in 2016-17
Vegetables ->grapes->pomegranate ->grapes
tried pomegranate for 2 years and then removed the orchard. Tomato was spoilt in both 2015-16 (delayed monsoon) and 16-17 (not enough water in kharif in well)
works in the transport industry
WS27 Wadgaon Sinnar
Have one well that was dug in 2007 - it has poor recharge. Lateral bores were added in 2016. They face drinking water scarcity and demanded tanker from GP in 2015-16.
Due to insufficient water they can only take the Kharif crop; typically soybean, millet and/or green peas
Afraid to take loan; has never done so
WS28 Wadgaon Sinnar
Had one old well. Subsequently he bought another strip of farm land with a well. He has tried drilling 3 borewells all of which failed. In 2014-15, he built a plastic lined farm pond with NHM subsidy which he fills using groundwater
He cultivates diverse horticulture crops. Tried cultivating grapes in 2010 but removed it in 2012 as it turned out to be a failure because of insufficient water. In 2013 he started a pomegranate orchard. Along with the farm pond he has also invested in a shadenet for cultivating green chillies and coloured peppers under precision farming (with NHM subsidy). Typical, crop cycle in shade net is capsicum -> peas -> cucumber. This is in addition to soybean and tomato (Kharif field crops) and wheat, gram and onion (Rabi field crop)
vegetables -> grapes -> pomegranate -> shadenet vegetables
removed grapes as it needed too much water
154
WS29 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has attempted to drill 30-35 wells in the past decade. Of these there are 3 wells that are functional. One was being deepened in 2015-16. Had built a large farm pond through the NHM scheme in 2014. Farm lies between Devnadi and DBI canal.
Runs an industrial scale farm employing 10 labourers round the year. Older crops like sugarcane provided only annual income. His strategy is to have vegetables for regular income and orchards for annual income. Sugarcane, pomegranate, broccoli and other vegetables. In 2015-16 started a NHM subsidized shadenet to cultivate peppers under precision farming. He is also growing his vegetable trading business
sugarcane -> vegetables -> pomegranate -> shadenet vegetables
Young active farmer, also provides training to other farmers in water-rich villages from where he procures vegetables to fill his orders
WS30 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one very old well which was deepened in 2014. He has had to buy tanker water for his crops and has now applied for farmpond
Cropping has included grains and vegetables. Tried pomegranate for few years but withdrew due to insufficient water. Has since invested in shadenet vegetables (three seasons). The cropping pattern has been similar but water management has improved over time
vegetables -> pomegranate-> vegetables -> shadenet
Removed pomegranate orchard after trying for few years (2011)- failed because of water shortage
WS31 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has an old well (1998) which was deepened in 2016. Farm is next to Devnadi
He used to cultivate sugarcane until 2005 but stopped due to problems with the sugarcane industry (low rates, delayed payments) . Since then he started focusing on onions. Cultivates vegetables in Kharif: tomato, carrot in addition to soybean and maize. Rabi: onions and wheat. also fodder crops in every season
sugarcane -> vegetables
Tomato in 2016-17 lost to pest attack
Has a job in MSEB as an electrician
WS32 Wadgaon Sinnar
Family moved from a neighbouring village to this one after buying land . Dug the first well in 2001 and a second one in 2010. Then then drilled a borewell in 2016 which is used only for drinking water. In 2013, also built a farm pond with own money (no subsidy)
Cropping is mainly in Kharif: soybean, cabbage, maize, groundnut, kharif onion. Usually less water available for Rabi and only onion is cultivated (but not in 2015 since water was scarce). Water is used for poultry business. Wants to have a pomegranate orchard
Run a restaurant and a poultry; also works as a fitter
155
WS33 Wadgaon Sinnar
Has one well from 2009, another from 2011 and a farm pond was built in 2013
Used to cultivate vegetables and also invested in pomegranate farm but decided that horticulture crops are too risky and very sensitive to water and other inputs; labour is also a concern. Instead decided to focus only on pulses and soybean. Says that this cropping pattern is viable only for those with large landholding (Kharif: tur/soybean intercrop; also mung, udad lentils and gram, wheat in Rabi)
pomegranate -> nonperishable grains
Removed pomegranate (failure due to hail and other weather problems)
Used to work in a company but left that to start farming. Moved to current village after purchasing land. Has financial reserves
WS34 Wadgaon Sinnar
Bought land 8-10 years ago in this part of village. There was one old well; dug one in 2011 and a borewell in 2016 because of drinking water scarcity
Cultivates a variety of vegetables such as tomato, carrot, peas etc. in Kharif in addition to soybean and groundnut. Rabi: wheat, onion.
Lost tomato in 2015-16. Soybean was also lost in 2015-16 due to dry spell
One brother works as a vegetable trader in Mumbai wholesale market
Appendix C –GIS Mapping of Cropping Pattern in 2015-16 and 2016-17
Each dot indicates the location of the farmer that was surveyed. The colour of the crop signifies
the highest value crop that the farmer cultivates in that season. E.g. If a farmer cultivated 1 acre
soyabean and 0.5-acre tomato in Kharif, then the highest category crop grown by her is tomato
and the colour of the dot representing her is red (as per the legend). The categories from low to
high value are: food grain, non-horticulture cash crop (maize, soyabean), methi-kothmir, onion,
other vegetables and fruit at the highest level. An orange dot indicates that the farmer only
grows food grain in Kharif and no other crop in the higher category. These maps are useful in
identifying different zones within the village based on varying cropping patterns and the factors
that lead to it.
157
Kharif season
Wadgaon 15-16 Wadgaon 2015-16
Pandhurli 15-16
Dapur 16-17
Dodhi
Kh
Dodhi
Kh
Dapur 15-16
Wadgaon 2016-17
Pandhurli 16-17
158
Rabi cropping
Wadgaon 2015-16 Wadgaon 2016-17
Dapur 15-16 Dapur 16-17
Dodhi 15-16 Dodhi 16-17
Pandhurli 15-16 Pandhurli 16-17
159
Summer cropping
Wadgaon 2015-16 Wadgaon 2016-17
Dodhi 15-16 Dodhi 16-17
Dapur 15-16 Dapur 16-17
Pandhurli 15-16 Pandhurli 16-17
160
Appendix D -Game-theoretical modeling of the SES
In this note, we model the current situation in the field as a variation of the tragedy of the
commons game with farmers as agents having a set of strategies with different payoffs. Say
there are N farmers that share groundwater as common source of irrigation. Every year, farmers
need to make a decision on making new investments in water. Their strategy set includes the
following options:
i=0 strategy implies no investment
i=1 strategy implies invest in one asset
i=2 implies invest in the second asset (assuming farmer already has one asset)
i=3 and so on…
At any time, T is the total number of investments in the community which is ∑ i across all N
farmers.
Farmers who do not invest (i=0) continue to cultivate traditional non-horticulture crops which
are low-risk low-return crops. If farmers make an investment, they simultaneously intensify
their practice to a horticulture crop. For every incremental increase in investment, there is an
incremental increase in intensification.
Carrying capacity and resource allocation:
C (say 100) is the carrying capacity of the available resource in a good rainfall year. That is, C
is the total number of investments that can be supported by the available groundwater so that
demand is met for all farmers. If the number of investments are more than C, then farmers are
unable to meet complete demand and their groundwater allocation drops. This drop in
allocation is first for farmers with no assets (with i=0 strategy) and later for those with assets
(in the order i=1, followed by i=2 etc.).
If there is a drought year, the carrying capacity reduces as there is less groundwater recharge.
We assume that the carrying capacity drops to C/2 (i.e. 50).
Crop Yield functions:
Farmer payoff is a function of crop yield which in turn, is a function of irrigation provided. It
is assumed that horticulture crops have full yield at 100% watering, yield falls linearly when
watering falls down to 50% (i.e. there is shortfall in irrigation). Yield is zero when watering is
<50%.
161
For non-horticulture crop, farmers get full yield for 100% water and the yield drops linearly
till 20% irrigation is available. If irrigation amount is less than 20% the crop fails. The failed
crop can still be used as fodder if there is soil moisture, but has zero return if there was no soil
moisture due to poor rainfall.
Payoffs
The payoffs are a function of investment strategy, total investments T and crop yield curves.
The market return from horticulture crops is significantly higher than that of traditional crops,
which is reflected in the payoffs. Figure below shows the assumed payoffs as a function of
investments for different strategies for a good rainfall year.
If total investment T is less than the carrying capacity in a good year (i.e. T<100), then all
farmers meet their full irrigation demand. The payoff for i=0 is 10 (low return crop), for i=1 is
100 (high value horticulture crop) and for i=2 is 150 (higher value horticulture crop).
When T > 100 (i.e. the carrying capacity in a good year), farmers with i=0 strategy are the first
to suffer and are unable to meet irrigation demand. Hence, their payoff falls and at the point of
no irrigation, still manages to break even (payoff =0) by using crop as fodder.
Farmers with strategy i=1 start to see a reduction in payoff only after a delay when T has
exceeded C by some amount (since the impact is first borne by asset-poor farmers). Due to the
sensitivity to irrigation, the payoff drops quickly and falls to -25.
Those with strategy i=2 experience the impact of resource degradation with more delay and
then fall to -35 when irrigation falls short.
162
In case of a drought year, the carrying capacity reduces and becomes C/2. In this case, the
payoff curves shift and pivot around C/2 (i.e. 50, in this case). See Figure below for bad rainfall
year payoffs. Moreover, we assume that there is less soil moisture available in drought year so
that for traditional crops (for i=0 strategy), complete crop loss leads to a payoff of -5 (i.e. crop
isn’t good for fodder either).
Result
The game proceeds as follows. Some years may get good rainfall and others may be drought
years, so we consider payoffs for both scenarios. Initially, there are few investments in the
community and most farmers select i=0 as there is assured access to water regardless of rainfall
(see e.g. 1 in table below). At this point, investment and intensification are only driven by
aspiration or government interventions and not induced. This is seen in the case of Pandhurli
farmers. However, as T increases, if there is a poor rainfall year, it results in unmet water
demand and poor payoffs (C/2>T>C) (see e.g. 2). At this point, farmers with strategy i=1
benefit with high payoffs compared to farmers who have no assets (i=0). This starts a cycle of
investment and nudges more farmers to opt for i=1 strategy, thereby increasing T faster than
before. As T approaches C (the carrying capacity in good years), farmers with strategy i=1 also
start to face uncertainty in access with large variation in payoffs (see e.g. 3). They are then
incentivized to make further investment by going with i=2 strategy. As T continues to rise (see
e.g. 4), farmers with i=0 are completely squeezed out and are forced to change their strategy or
to exit. This cycle of investment continues as long as making a new investment offers the
possibility of better payoffs than existing situation. The cycle stops when the cost of investment
becomes more than the crop returns.
163
E.g. Total investments
T
Value of T
(total
investments)
Farmers
with i=0
(GY, BY)
payoff
Farmers
with i=1
(GY,BY)
payoff
Farmers
with i=2
(GY,BY)
payoff
Notes
1 T < C/2 <50 10,10 100,100 NA
As long as total investments
in the community is small,
everyone meets full demand.
At this point, investments are
only based on aspiration
2 C/2 <T < and C E.g.: 75 10,-5 100,100 NA
At T increases, in drought
years, the carrying capacity is
less than T and hence farmers
with strategy i=0 are unable to
meet full demand and face
losses in drought years. If
there are frequent drought
years, it drives investment
3 T=C 100 10,-5 100,-25 150,-35
As T increases further,
farmers with i=1 are also
impacted and they face large
variability in returns. They are
thus incentivized to make a
second investment (i=2)
which offers better assurance
until T increases further more
4 T>C 120 0,-5 100,-25 150, -35
As T>C Farmers with no
investments are forced to
invest to be viable or they
must exit
5 T>C 130 0, -5 -25, -25 150, -35 Push to invest further
Comparison with the typical tragedy of the commons game
This formulation illustrates the dynamics of the social-ecological system (SES) as the use of
the common property resource (CPR) approaches its carrying capacity in the presence of
natural variations on the supply side. Once the CPR begins to operate close to this point, the
uncertainty in supply causes the differences between individual farmer payoffs to be amplified,
which starts the first cycle of investments. This tips the CPR beyond its carrying capacity and
further aggravates uncertainty, even in good years. Finally, this creates its own dynamics of
investments, the use of technology and changes in cropping pattern resulting in a competitive
allocation regime which is wasteful and highly unequal.
There are three key differences between this formulation and the typical tragedy of the
commons game (Ostrom 1990,Governing the Commons).
164
1) In our variation, the pay-off function is governed by a stochastic parameter, viz., the amount
of monsoon rains. Variation in the monsoons impacts the carrying capacity for that year and
hence the payoffs. This is in addition to the allocational uncertainty which comes out of
competition.
2) The average pay-off from making an investment is initially significantly high (i.e. when only
a few “defect” and most others “cooperate”) and provides a temporary relief from uncertainty
in allocation as there is some delay in other farmers’ change in strategy due to the high cost of
investment and farmers’ socio-economic barriers.
3) The original game models two strategies viz., cooperate or defect, for every agent. In our
variation, the strategy set allows for an escalation to reduce the allocational uncertainty, but
upto a point.
165
Appendix E –Technical details of farm level water balance tool
The water balance
The farm level water balance tool has been developed as a two-layer cascading soil water model
(Downer 2007). Large part of the state has deep soils so separating the zone accessible to crops
is necessary. The depth of the top layer is therefore assumed to be equal to the depth of the
crop root zone. A simple mass balance is done for each layer. Daily precipitation (P) is
partitioned into rainfall runoff (RO) and surface infiltration (I). Run-off is a function of the soil
texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. It is estimated using SCS curve number
methodology adjusted for slope. The infiltrated water (I) is further partitioned into actual
evapotranspiration (AET), change in soil moisture (Delta SM1+ Delta SM2) and recharge (R).
Computations are done at the daily time step. Daily rainfall input is given
Run-off calculation
Run-off is a function of the soil texture, land-use, slope and the existing soil moisture. A daily
curve number and retention factor is computed based on fixed parameters (soil HSG, slope and
land-use type) and a variable parameter (soil moisture at the start of the day) (SWAT 2009,
USDA 1986). This is used to compute daily surface run-off. The methodology being used for
run-off calculation is the SCS curve number method where in a daily curve number is computed
based on the daily soil moisture levels. The SCS curve number methodology adjusted for slope.
166
Once the run-off is calculated, the remaining water content infiltrates the soil
The value of I i.e. infiltrated water to layer 1 is calculated as
I(t)= P(t) - RO(t)
This infiltrated water has to then be partitioned into crop evapotranspiration, soil moisture and
percolation to lower layer. The new soil moisture at the end of day is computed using the mass
balance:
SM(t)= SM(t-1)+I(t)-AET(t)- Perc(t)
Crop evapotranspiration calculation
The actual crop evapotranspiration (AET) for the day is computed based on the available soil
moisture at the start of the day and the crop’s evapotranspiration (ET) requirement.
ET is the evapotranspiration load of the crop. To calculate the AET, it is first assessed whether
the crop is under water stressed conditions or not. A crop stress factor is calculated on a daily
basis which is dependent on the soil moisture levels at the start of the day and soil properties
of field capacity, wilting point and crop factors such as root zone depth and depletion factor.
The standard methodology as described in the FAO crop evapotranspiration report is used to
calculate AET (FAO Paper No. 56).
The crop evapotranspiration (ET) is calculated on a daily basis. ETo are monthly values
published by WALMI . Kc is the crop coefficient which is a function of the crop growth stage.
PET(t)= Kc* ET0(t)
The actual evapotranspiration is calculated using a stress factor Ks.
AET(t)= Ks(t-1)*PET(t)
Ks is a function of the starting soil moisture in the soil and the soil properties of Field Capacity
(FC), Wilting Point (WP) and the crop depletion factor p. p is the fraction of the total available
soil water that can be depleted from the root zone before the crop experiences water stress
(FAO Paper 56). Hence,
Ks = 1 for value of layer 1 SM> (FC *(1-p) + WP*p)
Ks=0 for value of SM1<WP
167
Ks=(SM1-WP)/((FC-WP)(1-p)) otherwise
Percolation to ground water
Percolation from the soil layer to the vadose zone is calculated at the end of each day based on
the soil moisture level. There is no percolation if the soil moisture is below field capacity. If
the soil moisture exceeds field capacity, then the amount of percolation depends on the water
available for percolation (soil moisture – field capacity) and a percolation factor that is a
function of soil conductivity. The method being used is as used by SWAT (SWAT 2009). The
vadose zone is the unsaturated zone between the soil profile and the aquifer. For simplicity,
this zone is not modelled. A time delay factor is used to estimate the change in ground water
levels due to the water percolated from the soil layer.
Perc (t) = SMexcess* percolation factor
Percolation factor = (1-EXP(1-/TTperc))
Where TTperc = (SAT-FC)/Ksat (in days)
SMexcess is the soil moisture beyond FC in mm
Finally, mass balance gives the end of day soil moisture
SM(t)= SM(t-1)+I(t)-AET(t)- Perc(t)
However, the highest value of this soil moisture is capped at the saturation level moisture SAT.
Any water more than this is removed from the layer as secondary run-off and added as a
correction to the surface runoff initially calculated.
Similarly, mass balance for layer 2 is as follows:
SM(t)= SM(t-1)+ Perc1(t)-GWR(t)
The ground water recharge is similarly calculated as above. Properties of both layers 1 and 2
are assumed to be identical.
The end-of-day soil moisture level is then considered as the start-of-day soil moisture for the
following day. This exercise is repeated for the entire Kharif season. The output is daily soil
moisture levels, crop AET and percolation to groundwater for the Kharif season.
168
The purpose of modeling the second layer is to account for water that is trapped as soil moisture
below the root zone in deep soils: a situation that holds true in a large part of the state with
deep black cotton soil. This model ignores lateral flow of water within the layers and flows
from layer 2 into the root zone due to capillary action.
The starting soil moisture before the start of the Kharif period is assumed to be at wilting point.
Sowing is assumed to be done after a total of 30mm rainfall has occurred.
Input data
The model requires the following as input
a) soil texture, b) soil thickness, c) terrain slope, d) crop type and e) daily rainfall data
The other related properties are calculated using reference tables. E.g.
a) soil properties such as bulk density, available water content, FC, WP, SP, Ksat [Using SPAW
for given soil texture], HSG and curve number for run-off calculation
b) crop root depth, depletion factor and Kc values by growth stage (ref: combination of FAO
and WALMI used)
c) Daily ETo values for farm location (Used WALMI data)
Screen shots
Input sheet:
169
Output sheet
170
Appendix F – Sample Crop-planning analysis for Paradgaon village in
Jalna, Marathwada
Paradgaon is a large village with total geographical area of 2926.54 ha.
Part I: Village description
Past 5 years rainfall for Ranjani circle:
2013 year (547mm) has been considered for the average year planning. Bad year rainfall is
considered as 2014 (429mm) and good year rainfall is considered as 2016 (1009 mm).
The village is divided into 7 zones based on watershed boundaries.
Current cropping pattern (2017) by zone:
Year
Rainfall
mm
2013 547
2014 429
2015 480
2016 1009
2017 818
5 year Avg 656.6
171
Typical cropping patterns found through field surveys are:
1. Cotton (rainfed) or cotton (irrigated)
2. Cotton-tur intercropping (rainfed or irrigated)
3. Soybean-tur intercropping followed by wheat in tur or soyabean followed by wheat
4. Mung or udid followed by Rabi Jowari
5. Soybean followed by Rabi harbhara
6. Annual crops such as Sugarcane, Mosambi, Limbu, Draksh
Part II: Water budget
Zone wise water budget summary for average rainfall year
Supply: We first look at how the water available through rainfall is currently partitioned into
its various components, i.e. run-off, crop evapotranspiration, soil moisture and GW recharge.
This has been computed through the water balance tool. Figure below shows a summary for
the village level. Table below provides zone wise details and explanation.
Crop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand Total
Zone Area ha 367.23 448.83 472.59 127.03 455.55 525.42 529.89 2926.54
कापूस 193 236 261 62 262 329 258 1601
सोयाबीन 57 40 54 0 56 66 120 393
तूर 62 47 56 5 43 59 73 345
मुग 42 34 36 28 43 44 50 277
रबी हरभरा 0 37 33 25 39 36 50 220
रबी गहू 0 25 27 18 32 34 58 194
रबी ज्वारी 0 42 32 37 39 38 188
खरीप ज्वारी 43 42 25 37 147
बाजरी 13 11 10 5 14 11 25 89
ऊस 12 13 25
पोटखराबा 22 22
मोसंबी 0 2 1 2 1 3 4 13
कायम पड (गावठाणसह) 11 11
द्राक्ष 2 1 3
ल ंबू 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Grand Total 367 511 575 202 564 634 676 3529
172
Zone wise details:
Zone 2 followed by Zone 6 have the highest slopes which is reflected in the high runoff % in
these zones. Also, the 3% GW recharge in Zone 2 is higher than in other zones primarily
because this is the only zone which has the presence of non-agricultural land (33 ha of pasture
and wasteland). Zones 2, 6 and 3 have lower % of soil moisture because these zone have
shallow soils in large parts, while the other zones have predominantly deep soils. The cropping
pattern is quite uniform across zones and the crop AET in all zones lies between 50-60% of the
rainfall. Zone 2 has lower AET% because of the presence of non-agricultural land.
Demand side: We now look at the agricultural demand and compare it with the available supply
in current storage structures as well as groundwater and soil moisture.
Zones
Zone
Area ha
Total
rainfall
TCM
Runoff
TCM
Run off %
of
rainfall
Soil
Moisture
(SM)
monsoon
end
(TCM)
SM as %
of
rainfall
GW
recharge
in
monsoon
TCM
GW
recharge %
of rainfall
Crop AET
monsoon
end (TCM)
Crop AET as
% of rainfall
1 367 1,993 465 23% 287 14% 7 0% 1,233 62%
2 449 2,438 1,080 44% 123 5% 78 3% 1,157 47%
3 473 2,568 847 33% 219 9% 35 1% 1,467 57%
4 127 690 168 24% 102 15% 4 1% 415 60%
5 456 2,476 726 29% 265 11% 27 1% 1,459 59%
6 525 2,851 1,041 37% 198 7% 43 2% 1,569 55%
7 530 2,878 810 28% 365 13% 36 1% 1,666 58%
All zones 2,927 15,894 5,138 32% 1,559 10% 231 1% 8,966 56%
Paradgaon, Jalna Rainfall 2013: 547 mm
173
The current unmet crop demand is (8874+2149) = 10,984TCM against an available supply of
1089 TCM after considering current structures in the village. The question is how is this
difference explained? And how do farmers manage the allocation of this supply on the ground?
We propose a framework that mirrors farmers allocation decisions to answer these questions.
Part III : Preliminary Framework - Priority Hierarchy of Demand and Supply
Compulsory load or priority P1 demand: It is seen in the field that farmers who have multi-
year crops such as orchards and sugarcane are those who have access to assured water and
through proximity and investment in assets, ensure that the full crop water requirement is met.
We call these crops priority 1 or P1 crops. Since these are multi year crops, water for these
crops is committed irrespective of the whether the rainfall is good or bad.
Discretionary load or Crops in second priority of P2 are those which the farmer plans to
irrigate if there is a need (and if there is availability of water). These crops include in Kharif:
174
onions, bhajipala, kharif vegetables, soybean and irrigated cotton. In Rabi, this includes: wheat,
Rabi onions and Rabi vegetables.
Rainfed load or the P3 crops are those which farmers do not intend to irrigate (because they
do not have any access). These crops typically include rainfed cotton, tur, mung, udid, bajra,
jowar and in Rabi: jowar and harbhara
For Paradgaon, all the crops are classified as follows:
We now divide the irrigation water requirement (of 10,984 TCM) into each of these categories.
This shows that in an average year, although the total crop deficit is 10984 TCM, 77% of this
(8429 TCM) comes from P3 crops which have no way of getting irrigated. Hence the real
Priority DescriptionKharif
cropsRabi crops
Current
cropped
Area (ha)
P1
100%
committed
water
42
P2
Plan to irrigate
(but may be
unable to)
Soybean,
irrigated
cotton/tur
Wheat 588*
P3No plan to
irrigate
Rainfed
cotton, tur,
Mung,
Kharif
Jowar,
Bajri
Harbhara,
Rabi Jowar
(fodder)
2866*
Sugarcane, mosambi,
limbu, grapes,
* Note: since we do not have separate cropped area for irrigated
and rainfed crops it is assumed that 10% of cotton and tur area is
irrigated and 90% is rainfed
Zones
Net water
avaialable for
irrigation (SW
+ GW) TCM
P1 annual
irrigation
demand
(TCM)
P2 K + LK
irrigation
demand
(TCM)
P2 Rabi
irrigation
demand
(TCM)
P3 ignored
annual
irrigation
demand
Total
demand
TCM
1 121 131 798 928
2 196 55 176 124 1,358 1,713
3 181 196 176 125 1,425 1,923
4 86 18 25 78 418 538
5 139 9 167 143 1,331 1,650
6 217 222 229 161 1,720 2,332
7 148 37 226 257 1,380 1,900
All zones 1,089 538 1,129 889 8,429 10,984
175
irrigation demand is only that of P1 and P2 crops (2556 TCM). The available supply of 1089
TCM is allocated to meet part of this P1 and P2 demand.
538 TCM or 49% is reserved for P1 crops (i.e. multi year crops). These crops are in 42
ha of the village area, making up 1% of the agricultural area.
The remaining water (1089-538 = 551 TCM) is given to P2 crops. A large number of
farmers leave their P2 crops unirrigated (actual % of rainfed cotton/tur crop is likely to
be more than 90% in this year). Some may decide to not irrigate their P2 Kharif crop
and instead irrigate P2 Rabi (wheat) crop.
The result of the above allocation is reflected in poor yields of unirrigated crops as compared
to irrigated crops. Farmers surveyed in the village consistently reported that unirrigated cotton
yield is 2-4Q/acre lower than irrigated cotton.
We now classify the interventions in
three categories: W1, W2 and W3.
W1 category is one which makes
water available within the stream
proximity zone either through
surface water in streams or through
higher ground water levels in the
stream proximity zones. All drainage
line treatment increases W1 water.
W2 water is groundwater that is
available in wells in the non-stream
proximity zones. Interventions such
as compartment bunding or CCTs
increase W2 water. However, W2
water eventually flows into the
stream system due to subsurface
flows and become W1 water unless it
is extracted and used up by farmers in off-stream areas. W3 water is the water in soil moisture
that does not require assets such as wells/farm ponds or proximity to stream systems.
Compartment bunding and certain farming practices such as organic mulching can increase
176
W3 water. Table below summarizes the interventions and the type of water they harvest in the
village system.
Demand and Supply allocation using the framework:
The tables below show the allocation of W1,W2,W3 water to P1, P2 and P3 demand in a bad
year rainfall (2014: 420mm) and good year rainfall (2016: 1009 mm).
In the bad year, we see that P1 crop requirement is 560 TCM. Current structures make 180.8
TCM water available in the stream system. So P1 irrigation requirement will be met by using
up all of the W1 water (by farmers who are in the stream proximity zone or through pipelines
etc.). Moreover, P1 crops will also use up part of W2 water (380 TCM out of 834.2 TCM
(which is 643.5 +190.7 TCM)) to fulfill its complete demand. This is through W2 groundwater
that gradually flows into the stream system through subsurface flows and becomes available in
wells in the streams. Hence, the amount of W2 water that remains available for P2 crops is only
454.2TCM. In the table above, it is assumed that half of this water is used by farmers to partially
irrigate their P2 Kharif crops and the other half is buffered to irrigate P2 Rabi crops. AET/Crop
ET is used as an indicator of crop yield, and it can be seen that P2 Rabi crops are likely to face
large loss in yield or crop failures if farmers do cultivate P2 Rabi in the bad year. The P3 crops,
however, are not benefitted from any structures other than some soil moisture increase due to
177
compartment bunding. They have low yields ~40% which is consistent with farmer survey
data. In a good year, the rainfed P3 crop yield rises significantly and goes up to 61%
The P1 index has been defined as the Water committed to annual crops as a fraction of total
available water for irrigation. We see that this is 0.53 in a bad year (i.e. 53% of total available
water is used for irrigating orchards in ~1% area). In good year this number is 0.32
P2 index is the fraction of groundwater available for P2 crops after allocation to annual crops.
In bad year, half of the available groundwater is used for orchards.
This analysis shows that the impact of current interventions is largely beneficial to the 1% of
land under orchards and the majority of rainfed farmers face low yields due to their dependence
on soil moisture alone.
Proposed scenario under PoCRA: based on demand expressed during microplanning
conducted under PoCRA
Within P1 all sugarcane and grapes are proposed to be removed and new mosambi and lime
are to be added which will take up area under P1 to 91 ha. The proposed change is a drop in
long kharif and Rabi crop area. There is significant increase proposed in soybean area and in
other P2 Kharif area (vegetables) as well as P3 Kharif area (bajra).
The overall crop PET will be reduced by the proposed cropping plan as there is a reduction in
the long Kharif and the water intensive crops such as sugarcane and grapes. However, since
only P1 and P2 and only about 5-10% of P2/P3 crops are irrigated to meet full PET requirement,
the overall irrigation requirement in the new cropping pattern has in fact increased.
However, by moving away from sugarcane and grapes and towards less water intensive fruit
crops such as mosambi and lemon, more area can be brought under irrigation.
178
The table above shows the expected impact to profitability based on surveys conducted in
Paradgaon village on farmers’ average yield, inputs costs and output.
Proposed interventions
89% of new water created by proposed
interventions will be available only within
stream proximity and will allow more farmers
to move from P2 to P1 crops. 11% of the new
water created can benefit off-stream farmers
but only if they have wells. There is likely to
be marginal impact to rainfed farmers except those who shift to P2 by getting a new well.
Proposed state supply-demand balance
Observations:
179
1. Move towards less water intensive crop has reduced overall PET requirement. But there is
an increase in area under P1 and P2 crops. Therefore net irrigation requirement has in fact
increased
2. This increase of irrigation requirement (~800 TCM) is more than the increase in water
availability (232 TCM) expected to be generated due to new structures.
4. Risk of access to water will increase for both P1 and P2 crops. For P1 crop it is because in a
bad rainfall year the total P1 irrigation requirement is about 70% of available water. For P2,
the risk increases because the net water remaining for P2 irrigation is now lowered.
5. There is no impact of the interventions on P3 farmers which are the majority of farmers.
Part IV: Next steps
This framework needs to be developed further to help us answer important planning questions.
For example,
1. How much area can be under P1 crops? What guidance can be provided for the upper
limit and/or lower limit for area under P1.
2. How many new wells may be feasible in the village? Where should they be?
3. What can be done for the P3 farmers? Is it possible to save water equivalent of 1
protective irrigation for the entire area under P3 crops?
4. Is it possible to shift more P3 farmers to P1 by promoting small sized orchards so that
the 91 ha under P1 crops is spread across more than 200 farmers?