WATER SAVING AND YIELD ENHANCING

Making Micro Irrigation Systems the Best-Bet Technologies: Experiences from Gujarat M. Dinesh Kumar Executive Director Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy (IRAP) Presentation for SRTT Meet, Diu 26-28 January, 2011

The Purpose of the Presentation • Discuss about the conditions under which MI systems become the “best bet technology” in terms of realizing the potential benefits • Discuss about the physical (water saving, yield and water productivity) and economic impacts of MI systems • Discuss about the regions which have high potential for uptake of MI systems in India

• Provide indications on the extent of reduction in CWR possible through the use of MI systems at the country level.

Background Research • A research study was undertaken to find out under what conditions micro irrigation system offer the best bet technology, and what benefits it can yield. • It was aimed at determining the potential benefits from the use of MI systems in India. • This is done through assessing: a] the conditions that are favourable for MI system adoption; b] the field level and aggregate level impacts of the systems on water use; and c] the yield and economic benefits from adoption. • The research was also aimed at assessing the potential future coverage of MI systems in India, and the potential reduction in aggregate water requirement in crop production. • A recent research on farming system impact of MI systems

Present spread of MI Technologies in India • Most recent data shows 1.43 m. ha under drips; 2.45 m. ha under sprinklers • Peninsular and western India have the highest growth in adoption of drip systems in India • Greater economic incentives, and suitable cropping pattern are the reasons • Sprinkler systems are in vogue in regions where traditional methods of irrigation is not possible, such as loose sandy soils and undulating terrain (some parts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka)

Potential contribution of MI technologies • Two questions are critical: 1] physical impacts of micro irrigation; 2] economic impacts • The water saving (physical) impacts of MI systems depend on:  The extent of physical coverage  The extent of water saving possible at the field scale  What farmers do with the saved water

• Past analyses of potential were simplistic considerations in assessing extent of coverage; constraints in adoption were not analyzed; no distinction between applied & real water saving

Constraints in adoption of MI systems • Lack of independent source of water and pressurizing devices • Poor quality of groundwater in many semi arid and arid regions – Parts of north Gujarat, western Rajasthan, coastal Saurashtra and Kachchh

• Mismatch between water delivery schedules and irrigation schedules required in MI systems in canal irrigation • Cropping systems that dominate field crops in semi arid regions • Dominance of small & marginal farmers, and small plots • Low opportunity costs of pumping groundwater & negative technical externalities in well irrigation.

Applied water saving Vs real water saving • The extent of real water-saving and water productivity gains at the field level from adoption of MI systems depends on:  Crop type  Climate (arid & semi arid or humid & sub-humid)

 Geo-hydrology  Type of MI devices used

• Real water saving from MI systems are likely to be realized in semi arid and arid areas with deep water table conditions, for widely spaced row crops when drips are used

Field level Vs aggregate water saving impacts • The outcomes of adoption heavily depends on the power supply vis-à-vis water availability and availability of extra arable land  In regions where power supply restricts farmers’ access to groundwater, adoption is unlikely to lead to areas expansion  In regions where groundwater availability is much less than what available power supply can extract, adoption would lead to area expansion

• Adoption is also associated with introduction of new crop, often more water efficient, leading to high reduction in water use

Impact of MI on Farm-level water use

100000

34870.327343.3

10000 1000 100 10

3.95

3.12

1 Gross cropped area (ha) Without MI With MI

Aggregate groundwater use (m3)

Yield impact of MI systems Name of Name of MI System the the Crops Type Season Kharif

Winter

Summer

Cluster bean Castor Groundnut Chilli Brinjal Cotton Fennel Bajra Green gram Wheat Potato Mustard Bajra Jowar

OH Sprinkler Drips Mic. Sprinklers Drips Drip Drip Drip OH Sprinkler OH Sprinkler OH Sprinkler Micro sprinklers OH Sprinkler OH Sprinkler Do

Groundnut

Micro sprinkler

Average Yield (Qt/Ha)

Name of the Season

Name of the MI System Crops Type

Average Yield (Qt/Ha)

Kharif 14.34 21.40 20.80 600.00 466.67 32.72 7.17 16.67 12.00 37.98 337.37 32.43 48.97 59.00 25.00

Winter

Summer

Cluster bean Castor Groundnut Chilli Brinjal Cotton Fennel Kola Pomegranate Wheat Potato Tomato Bajra Jowar

OH Sprinkler Drips Mic. sprinkler Drips Drips Drips Drip OH Sprinkler Drips OH Sprinkler Mic. Sprinkler Drips OH Sprinkler Do

Groundnut

Mic. Sprinkler

15.00 33.33 21.78 750.00 250.00 39.71 15.84 60.00 42.03 50.00 345.34 1200.00 40.68 55.18

0.1

Without MI With MI

Vegetable

Fodder bajra

Millet

Pearl Millet

Rajgaro

Potato

Wheat

Mustard

Fennel

Cotton

Green gram

Pearl Millet

Brinjal

Chilli

Groundnut

Castor

Cluster bean

Water productivity impacts of MI

Physical productivity of water in crop production with & without MI (kg/m3)

100

10

1

Water productivity impacts of MI: Economic Water productivity of crops in economic terms with MI & without MI 1000

100

10

1

Vegetable Fodder bajra Millet Pearl Millet Rajgaro Potato Wheat

With MI Without MI

Mustard Fennel

Cotton Green gram Pearl Millet Brinjal Chilli Groundnut Castor Cluster bean 0.1

Private Vs economic benefits • The economics of pressurized MI systems depend on the capital cost, size of the plot, type of crop irrigated, extent of water and energy saving and the produce value • The economic viability of MI systems is sound for high valued cash crops and orchards, especially in areas where groundwater availability is extremely limited • In many areas, due to flat rate system of pricing &heavy power subsidy, the energy and water saving do not result in cost saving and improved economic returns from MI. • Economic evaluation of MI is complex as adoption is often associated with crop shift

Benefit cost analysis of MI systems for different crops: north Gujarat Season

Name of the crop

Kharif

Cluster bean 1

Winter

Summer

Number of observations

Net Income (Rs/Ha) Before After WST WST

Cost of BC WST Ratio (Rs/ha/ annum)

4200.00

20575.00

2763.45

5.93

Castor

1

46500.00

57500.00

10707.79

1.03

Groundnut

26

10415.75

28232.83

3680.93

4.89

Fennel

2

12333.33

36220.00

5512.99

5.24

Wheat

3

20922.22

53361.11

8102.00

4.49

Potato

11

52552.08

74110.61

5556.06

4.47

Pearl Millet

7

9548.57

16036.90

4396.48

2.07

Millets

4

11856.43

22099.55

2641.02

3.71

Benefit cost analysis of MI systems for different crops: Saurashtra & Kachchh Crop

Incremental net income (Rs)

Incremental annual cost of the system (Rs)

B/C Ratio

1. Chilly (drip) 2. Cotton (drip) 3. Groundnut (OHS)

Rajkot 17518.28 20064.84 7574.25

16792.63 6266.75 9216.00

1.06 3.30 1.30

1. Banana (drips) 2. Cotton (drip) 3. Lemon (drip) 4. Mango (drip) 5. Brinjal (drip) 6. Castor (drip)

Kachchh 54297.21 17303.65 34029.61 8570.48 42816.90 18953.74

10949.73 11158.78 15677.26 8386.90 32608.70 33840.17

6.00 1.70 2.70 0.94 1.30 0.56

1. Groundnut (OHS) 2. Bajra (OHS) 3. Jowar (OHS) 4. Cotton (Drip) 5. Mango (Drip) 6. Lemon (Drip)

Bhavnagar 3509.98 2155.14 38150.91 3719.35 29901.90 3933.28

685.47 2559.86 8861.06 2138.46 1953.13 2822.49

5.10 0.84 4.30 1.70 15.30 1.40

Impact of adoption of MI on farm income: north Gujarat Particular

Agriculture

Dairy

Water selling

Others

Adaptor Before

109587.72

45684.21

175.44

0.00

207929.82

59596.49

350.88

0.00

98342.11

13912.28

175.44

0.00

After

Incremental benefit

What is the future potential of micro irrigation systems in India? • The future potential primarily depends on the following: 

Area under crops that are conducive to MI.



Area under crops in those basins where real water saving at the field level can actually occur

• The potential of MI systems to the tune of 5.8 m. ha, for groundwater irrigated areas • Further expansion would depend on what we do with canal irrigation systems

• The reduction in aggregate water requirement for crop production through drips is 44.46 BCM.

Performance related issues in MI • Overhead sprinklers are best when plots are very large; adoption in small plots result in poor moisture distribution • Use of OH sprinklers under high wind conditions result in poor distribution uniformity • OH sprinklers require a lot of pressure (1.5kg/cm2) at the nozzle for good performance • In areas with saline groundwater, thorough testing to be made before going for drips and sprinklers • Spacing of emitters/sprinkler heads & irrigation scheduling are key to high performance

Learning for future promotion of MIs • Need to highlight the yield improving, labour-saving and income raising benefits of micro irrigation systems • Introduce high valued crops which are very amenable to MI • Crops do not follow MI systems; but MIs follow crops • Pay attention to agronomic inputs for raising the crop, and advance the harvesting time

• To realize the income benefits, it is important to take the produce to the right market, at the right time

Learnings for future adoption • Caution to be exercised to make sure that these newly introduced crops are less-water requiring. • This is more important for regions with poor groundwater potential, and low irrigation intensities

• Set up demonstrations of new technologies in the fields of progressive farmers, who are willing to take risks.

Supply chain management issues • Manufacturers; wholesalers; retailers; assemblers; spare part suppliers, and consumers and their integration • Access to credit facilities : flexible norms for credit is vital • Access to information – Knowing which technology is best for which crop , and the cost effective MI design to suit the cropping system and the soils , or cropping system to match the MI infrastructure – The best way to irrigate the crops: frequency of watering, duration of water supply to suit the soil and climate

Institutional and policy alternatives for promoting MI adoption • Creating appropriate institutions for technology extension is important for boosting adoption • Designing water and electricity pricing and supply policies are important for aligning the social benefits with private benefits

• Building proper irrigation and power supply infrastructure would play a crucial role in facilitating large-scale adoption of different MI systems – Intermediate storage in canal commands

• The subsidies for MI promotion should be targeted at regions, farms and technologies, where adoption results in real water and energy saving at the aggregate level

Adoption of MI systems in Indian States: 2008 Name of States Rajasthan Maharashtra Haryana Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Gujarat Tamil Nadu West Bengal Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh Orissa Uttar Pradesh Punjab Kerala Sikkim Nagaland Goa Himachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Jharkhand Bihar India Total

Area under Drip 17002 482341 7136 363073 177326 169689 131335 146 20432 3648 3629 10675 11730 14119 80 NA 762 116 613 133 163 1429404

Sprinkler 706813 214674 518367 200950 228621 136284 27186 150031 117685 59270 23466 10589 10511 2516 10030 3962 332 581 NA 365 206 2452680

Total Area (ha) 723815 697015 525502 564023 405947 305973 158521 150177 138117 62919 27095 21264 22241 16635 10110 3962 1094 696 613 498 369 3882084

Farmers’ skewed access to wells in India

Skewed access to pump sets

Crops conducive to WSTs Crop Category

Different crops conducive for WSTs

Type of WSTs that can be used

Regions*

Tree crops and orchards

Mango, Guava, Gooseberry, Pomegranate, Sapote, Orange, Coconut, Banana, Date palm, Grapes, Papaya, Citrus and Kinnow, Drumstick

Drips (for all); and also Sprinklers (Banana, Mango) and plastic mulching in case of extreme water stress

Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab

Row field crops

Potato and Groundnut

Drips; and also mulching (for groundnut and potato)

Gujarat, Maharashtra Punjab

Plantation Crops

Coconut, Coffee, Tea, Teak

Drips (for coconut and teak); and sprinklers (for tea and coffee)

Kerala and Karnataka, Orissa; Tamil Nadu

Field Crops

Wheat, Pearl millet, Sorghum, Maize, Alfalfa, Mustard

Overhead sprinklers (wheat, pearl millet, maize and sorghum) and mini and micro sprinklers for alfalfa

Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka

Fruit/Vegetables

Tomatoes, Brinjal, Gourds, Chilly, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Strawberry

Drips, and mulching

plastic

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka

Cash crops

Cotton, Fennel, Castor, Sugarcane, Vanilla and Cumin

Drips for sugarcane; fogger sprinklers for Vanilla; and micro sprinklers for cumin

Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, Gujarat for cumin and fennel, and Kerala for vanilla

and

Estimated area under crops conducive to water saving irrigation technologies Sr. No

Name of the State

Total Area under crops

% Area under the Crop

1

Andhra Pradesh

557,000

21.8

2

Bihar

192000

6.94

3

Gujarat

1327000

48.23

4

Haryana

374000

14.43

5

Himachal Pradesh

2000

8.28

6

Jammu and Kashmir

0

0

7

Karnataka

449000

39.61

8

Kerala

60000

43.23

9

Madhya Pradesh

241000

8.2

10

Maharashtra

1012000

42.38

11

Orissa

112000

13.12

12

Punjab

600000

9.8

13

Rajasthan

533000

12.27

14

Tamil Nadu

582000

33.23

15

Uttar Pradesh

1884000

14.86

16

West Bengal

5000

0.23

Aggregate reduction in water requirement possible with drip irrigation systems Sr. No

Name of Current Crop Yield (ton/ha)

Expected Water Use Yield Coming Efficiency from the (Kg/m3) Potential States* (Million ton)

Modified Water Water Use Saving Efficiency (BCM) (Kg/m3)

1

Sugarcane

128.0

170.0

5.950

18.09

31.00

2

Cotton

2.600

4.391

0.303

1.080

10.42

3

Groundnut

1.710

2.840

0.340

0.950

1.453

4

Potato

23.57

34.47

11.79

17.21

0.127

5

Castor

1.260

1.350

0.340

0.670

0.497

6

Onion

9.300

12.20

1.544

2.700

0.963

7

Total

44.46