WATER KNOWLEDGE NOTE Can Participatory Groundwater Management Enhance Drought Resilience? The Case of the Andhra Pradesh Farmer-Managed Groundwater Systems Project V. Ratna Reddy1 and M. Srinivasa Reddy2 This paper investigates whether the proactive involvement of local communities in the management of groundwater can help build drought resilience, using the case of the Andhra Pradesh (AP) Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) project as an example. The 18-year project was implemented through seven districts of India’s AP and Telangana states. During this period, participatory groundwater management (PGM) initiatives evolved from a focus on demand management to an emphasis on drought adaptation as links between groundwater and climate variability became increasingly conspicuous. This paper is based on a review of existing studies, field visits to the region, and interactions with communities and individual farmers. The objective of APFAMGS was to promote sustainable groundwater management by creating community awareness through training, water planning, and alternative cropping choices. The study concludes that PGM, as adopted in APFAMGS, has a limited impact on groundwater levels in hard rock areas under conditions of marginally decreasing rainfall, greatly increasing net abstraction, and groundwater dependency. However, the project improved awareness that helped communities adapt to drought. The conclusion is that to be effective in addressing drought vulnerabilities, PGM must include policy interventions that encompass incentive and regulatory mechanisms, and village-based institutions must be linked to government departments that manage groundwater. © Ruth Meinzen-Dick / International Food Policy Research Institute The information in this case study was prepared as part of the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) technical assistance project, “Managing Groundwater for Drought Resilience in South Asia.” SAWI is a multi-donor trust fund supported by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway and administered by the World Bank. Background management remains unanswered. Understanding these aspects will help in scaling these initiatives and making Water resource management is the main challenge to helping them more effective across hard rock aquifer regions. people adapt to climate-induced droughts. Availability of and access to water at the household level can largely The APFAMGS project in India is selected as a case mitigate the adverse impacts of drought. This linkage is study for this paper. The project is, perhaps, India’s more pronounced in groundwater-dependent regions with largest and longest-running community-led groundwater low rainfall. In India and the wider region, groundwater is management initiative. APFAMGS was implemented the single largest source of fresh water, meeting as much as between 2003 and 2013 in the state of AP, under different 90 percent of irrigation and domestic needs. Groundwater names associated with different phases of the project. It rights are linked to land rights in most developing countries, has spread to more than 650 villages with 6,500 families including India. This fact, and relatively high capital in seven drought-prone districts. APFAMGS evolved investment costs in groundwater development,  means from a demand-management focus to a concentration that, despite being a common pool resource, groundwater on climate change adaptation over the years. Its practices development is left to private individuals, primarily wealthier are being integrated into government programs in India.6 land-owning households. Meanwhile, the adverse impacts A detailed examination of APFAMGS is, therefore, of groundwater exploitation are often disproportionately timely and may provide insights into the potential of borne by small and marginal farmers (Reddy 2005). PGM in building drought resilience. This study seeks to These impacts are more conspicuous in the context of understand how sustainable management of groundwater drought and climate variability. Well failure—one of the can build communities’ drought and climate resilience main reasons for farmer suicides in India—is, in part, an by building community knowledge and awareness. The outcome of these externalities, especially in drought-prone specific objective is to examine the role of APFAMGS regions (Deshpande 2002; Reddy and Galab 2006). Various interventions from the viewpoint of their: approaches and methods, including demand management3 and supply augmentation,4 have been adopted to remedy • Evolution over the years and role as a participatory the degradation of groundwater resources. The effectiveness resource management strategy; of these interventions in India has been limited, and their • Performance in stabilizing resource availability, scalability depends on the socioeconomic and political distribution, and enhancing drought resilience; and contexts (Shah 2014). • Linkages with other groundwater management initiatives and insights for developing appropriate The failure of regulatory approaches in South Asia has led resource management strategies. to community-based PGM initiatives being experimented with since the 1990s (Shah 2014). Most of these initiatives Approach are small in scale, with participatory approaches constrained by high transaction costs. Despite their limited scale This case study is mainly based on the review of the (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2014; Shah 2014; Verma et al. literature pertaining to APFAMGS and other participatory 2012), some state governments are taking a keen interest initiatives in the state of AP,7 interviews with project in supporting, continuing, and scaling up these initiatives.5 implementing agencies, personal discussions with the office bearers of APFAMGS (see table A.1 in appendix A), and To better understand whether and how these initiatives firsthand information collected during field visits. The should be scaled, it is important to understand the extent following section covers the evolution of APFAMGS and to which participatory projects have enhanced farm its activities over the years. The one after that outlines the communities’ resilience in dealing with water scarcity and social, economic, and environmental context. The section climate-induced uncertainties like droughts. Hitherto, most on Participatory Groundwater Management and Drought studies that reviewed these interventions have not considered Resilience discusses the sociotechnical context of the that question and instead focused on the socioeconomic APFAMGS study region. The effectiveness of the initiatives impacts or the sustainability of these initiatives (Reddy, in the context of climate-induced drought resilience is Reddy, and Rout 2014; Verma et al. 2012). Whether assessed in Where Do Things Stand Today in the Project these initiatives have caused any long-term behavioral Villages? And the way forward for sustainable groundwater changes in community approaches to groundwater use and management is discussed in the last section. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 2 APFAMGS: Evolution and Activities (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2014). Capacity building of groundwater-dependent communities is at the core of the APFAMGS has operated under several names during its program—that is, users are equipped with data, skills, and long history. It originated in the AP Groundwater Bore knowledge to manage available groundwater resources in Well Irrigation Schemes project, which was supported by a sustainable manner, mainly by monitoring the supply the Royal Netherlands Embassy and implemented from and managing their own demand. The project provides April 1995 to March 2003 by local nongovernmental the necessary means (equipment and skills to collect organizations (NGOs). For the first time, participatory and analyze rainfall and groundwater data) to increase hydrological monitoring (PHM) was introduced in the community knowledge about groundwater resources. project on a pilot basis.8 Impressed by the effectiveness of the However, it does not offer any incentives, disincentives, pilot initiatives in checking resource degradation, the Royal or regulations to bring about participatory groundwater Netherlands Embassy funded the APFAMGS project for management. Awareness about water-saving techniques, 30 months.9 APFAMGS was implemented by a network of improving agricultural practices, and water use efficiency local NGOs under the leadership of the Bharati Integrated has been enhanced (Reddy 2012) by: Rural Development Society (BIRDS). The project involved 500 villages throughout the seven drought-prone districts • Demarcating hydrological units to be used as of Anantapur, Chittoor, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Prakasam, operational units; Mahbubnagar, and Nalgonda (see project management • Discussing the local groundwater situation at the structure in figure A.1 of appendix A). APFAMGS introduced hydrological unit and village level; the participatory form of groundwater management for the • Demystifying the science of climate and hydrology first time in India at this scale. In April 2004, after a change through farmer water schools; in development priorities of the Netherlands government, • Changing the perception of groundwater from private the APFAMGS project shifted to the Food and Agriculture property to that of a “common good;” Organization of the United Nations (FAO), who supported • Carrying out participatory crop water budgeting the project until December 2009. exercises and sharing information across hydrological units; In April 2010, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) • Adopting water-saving techniques and reducing the approved the FAO’s proposed three-year project for a Strategic use of chemical fertilizers; and Pilot on Adaptation to Climate Change (SPACC),10 which was • Enabling farmers to voluntarily adopt sustainable endorsed by India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests. In practices such as reduced pumping, prevention of 2014, after the separation of the state of AP, the government of drilling new wells, and crop diversification. AP initiated a pilot project, Groundwater Governance through Panchayat Raj Institutions in Andhra Pradesh (GwGPRI- Three noteworthy APFAMGS activities are interconnected: AP). It turned into a long-term initiative supported by the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD)11 • Farmer water schools (FWS). FWS adopted an and was renamed again to AP Drought Mitigation Project. informal and participative approach for information sharing and group learning to improve skills and Thus, the APFAMGS project evolved over 18 years (from capacities of farmers. A total of 10,000 farmers 1995 to 2013). The PGM initiatives have been integrated attended 300 schools. FWS meetings were held into the development policies of the AP government (IFAD once every 15 days to understand local groundwater 2016b), which continued to support APFAMGs initiatives changes for the area’s entire hydrological unit. Based under GwGPRI-AP immediately after the separation of on learnings, farmers adopted suitable modifications the state and approached IFAD for long-term support for in their agricultural practices that have the potential to drought mitigation. The following section discusses some lead to significant reductions in groundwater use. of the most important activities of APFAMGS. • Data collection techniques. Farmers were trained at FWS to measure groundwater levels, rainfall, pumping Activities capacity of bore wells, and water requirements for different crops. Farmer volunteers (both women and The key premise of APFAMGS is to promote behavioral men) carried out fortnightly water-level monitoring change by well owners leading to voluntary self-regulation in 2,026 observation wells (about one well for every WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 3 square kilometer). Daily rainfall measurements were poor households (IFAD 2016a), and low literacy rates. It is collected from more than 190 rain gauge stations also one of the most climate-vulnerable parts of India,12 with (one station for every 5 square kilometers). Discharge low and unreliable average rainfall (600 millimeters or less) measurements were collected from about 700 and frequent droughts. The APFAMGS districts are covered observation wells to assess the pumping capacity and well under the Drought Prone Areas Programme and Desert performance, among other things. Seasonal groundwater- Development Programme, reflecting their vulnerability to quality measurements were taken from public drinking droughts. These districts experience drought in 30 percent water wells. To qualify to be a volunteer, farmers had of years (GoI 1981). But between 1876 and 2006, 66 of the to attend four training modules at FWS, and only 133 years were recorded as drought years with a more than successful candidates were eligible to become (unpaid) 20 percent deficit in rainfall (IFAD 2016a). Although this PHM volunteers. Volunteers received measuring tools region is expected to experience higher temperatures and like an electrical water-level indicator, a stopwatch, and reduced rainfall—especially from the southwest monsoon measuring drums. Hydrological monitoring records that provides the bulk of rainfall (IFAD 2016a)—recent were maintained for public viewing on display boards at rainfall data do not indicate a worsening drought incidence strategic village locations. Community-operated weather in the region (figure 1). stations were also incorporated during the SPACC project. The information generated was discussed at Irrigation is limited, with average area under irrigation committee meetings and FWS (which became farmer below 30 percent. Groundwater is the main water source climate schools). (used for 70 percent of irrigation), and dependence on it • Crop water budgeting (CWB). CWB is a technical has increased since the 1980s.13 This region accounts for exercise in which farmers collectively make crop plans more than a million bore wells, but only 10 percent of based on water availability. The project did not seek them provide year-round supplies (IFAD 2016a) because to limit the crop choices that farmers could make in of deep water tables and regular well failure. Where water a particular hydrological unit and did not necessarily is available, farmers opt to grow paddy crop. Rainfed crops advocate changes in crops being grown. It was assumed are predominantly oilseeds, followed by pulses and cotton. that farmers have enough knowledge to make relevant The agricultural economy is characterized by low crop yields, decisions, though in some cases, a village groundwater with only about one-third of household income derived management committee (GMC), or a hydrological unit from them. Livestock contributes substantially, followed by network (HUN) composed of several GMCs within a migration. The government is promoting horticultural crops common hydrological boundary, pressure farmers to in these areas, and farmers are shifting to cash crops such advocate crop changes and other practices. as vegetables. Managing the available groundwater resource continues to be the only option in the short to medium run14 These activities resulted in real-time monitoring of soil for sustaining agriculture and livelihoods in the region. moisture during the cropping season, enabling farmers to make informed decisions on irrigation schedules. Soil- quality analysis was taken up to develop a package of Groundwater Development and Degradation practices for specific crop options that suit agroclimatic and soil situations. A climate adaptation fund was created Over the 18 years of the project between 1995 to 2013 at the HUN level near the end of the project to sustain (for which data is available), the groundwater situation the initiatives. The fund could be used only to operate and has deteriorated across AP. The stage of groundwater maintain the weather stations, crop-specific adaptation development15 across districts ranged from 7 percent to pilots, and farmer climate schools (Govardhan Das, Priya, 41 percent and, for the state as a whole, it was 28 percent in and Kenmore 2015). The effectiveness of the climate 1985, which went up to 45 percent in 2011 (inferred from adaptation funds has yet to be assessed. information provided in Groundwater Resource Estimation Reports, Ground Water Department, GoAP). Because the Social, Economic, and Environmental latest data are available for only five districts of the newly Context formed AP, only these five, instead of all seven districts of APFAMGS, are considered here. APFAMGS operated in a region characterized by vulnerable populations. The scheduled caste population accounts for The AP Groundwater Department provides information 18 percent of the total population, a higher proportion of separately for command areas (those served by surface WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 4 canal systems) and non-command areas. Because whereas in some pockets, it was as high as 100 wells per APFAMGS interventions were limited to non-command square kilometer. Consequently, well yields decreased areas, a separate analysis of command and non-command considerably, and water levels went down at an alarming areas would provide a closer assessment of APFAMGS rate (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2016). achievements. Additionally, the coverage of APFAMGS at the district level accounts for a marginal share in area, so Although small- and medium-size farmers can now invest it is difficult to get a clear picture. However, the trends in in groundwater extraction because of cheap pumping groundwater development show that when the APFAMGS technologies, they cannot compete with large farmers in districts are categorized as command (non-APFAMGS) investing in deepening wells (Reddy 2005). As a result, they areas and non-command (APFAMGS) areas, the overall become the first victims of groundwater depletion and pay stage of groundwater development in command areas is a huge price. higher than that of non-command areas in all the assessment years (table A.2 in appendix A). APFAMGS Versus Non-APFAMGS Areas The area under groundwater irrigation was nearly equal Over the 18 years of data, groundwater levels and rainfall to the area under irrigation by all surface water sources have shown a declining trend (figure 1), though there put together, especially during the years of low rainfall. is no evidence of worsening drought.16 The decline in The number of wells in AP increased from 0.8 million annual average rainfall is marginal, but the post-monsoon (0.7 million dug wells and 0.1 million bore wells) in 1971 groundwater depth has recorded a sharper decline when to about 2.2 million (1.0 million dug wells and 1.2 million compared to pre-monsoon decline and the declines are not bore wells) in 2007. The area under groundwater irrigation clearly associated with drought years. These fluctuations are increased from 0.8 million hectares to about 2.8 million not specific to the APFAMGS period or regions because hectares during the same period. The area irrigated per well these trends could be observed at the regional level even was almost constant, but water was drawn from deeper before APFAMGS, between 1985 and 1995 (Reddy, Reddy, depths (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2016). The average density and Rout 2016), nor does disaggregation by command and of wells increased from five to more than 10 wells per non-command area (considering APFAMGS interventions square kilometer. However, in hard rock areas (APFAMGS were limited to only the non-command areas within the districts), it was more than 20 wells per square kilometer, APFAMGS districts) demonstrate any positive impact of FIGURE 1. Trends in Average Rainfall and Groundwater Depth in the Five APFAMGS Districts of Andhra Pradesh 25 1200 20 1000 Average annual depth (meters) Groundwater rainfall (mm) 800 15 600 10 400 5 200 0 0 2002-03 2003-04 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 GWD-Pre-M 14.8 14.5 10.9 16.6 16.2 19.5 11.0 15.6 10.7 12.2 11.2 11.2 13.3 16.6 15.4 20.8 15.9 21.6 GWD:Post-M 11.1 8.0 11.2 12.1 14.6 9.1 10.7 8.1 9.6 9.9 10.1 10.6 13.3 10.4 16.8 13.8 16.3 11.4 AARF 590 798 804 474 749 546 967 578 1016 711 702 935 643 684 735 468 751 496 Sources: Groundwater development data compiled from Groundwater Resource Estimation Reports, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Groundwater Department, Hyderabad, India; rainfall data compiled from Directorate of Economics and Statistics of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, India. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 5 APFAMGS on groundwater resources. As the groundwater In only 13 of the 63 hydrological units has the groundwater draft has shown an increasing trend (figure 2) even after balance improved, and the decline in groundwater draft 2000 (APFAMGS period), the water balance17 has was attributed to generous rainfall in the respective years. recorded a declining trend (figure 3). In both cases, the Thus, there is no clear evidence to indicate that APFAMGS non-command (APFMGS) areas recorded a steeper trend. interventions have improved the groundwater situation in Furthermore, an internal study assessed indicators of the these districts. A more disaggregated assessment is required groundwater situation in the project’s 63 hydrological units because the coverage of APFAMGS within these districts is from 2006 to 2011 (Govardhan Das and Burke 2013). limited (less than 10 percent of sown area). FIGURE 2. Trends in Groundwater Draft in APFAMGS (Non-Command) and Non-APFAMGS (Command) Areas (Five Districts) 4,500 4,000 Groundwater draft (mcm) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1985 1993 2002 2004 2007 2009 2011 2014 2015 2016 C 150.2 387.6 203.0 493.9 673.3 514.1 560.0 504.7 474.2 537.8 NC 1,439.9 1,154.0 3,370.0 3,473.8 3,175.3 3,246.8 3,315.7 2,988.2 2,807.5 3,184.1 Total 1,590.1 1,543.0 3,573.0 3,967.7 3,848.5 3,760.9 3,875.7 3,492.9 3,281.7 3,721.9 Source: Data compiled from Groundwater Resource Estimation Reports, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Groundwater Department, Hyderabad, India. Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; C = command areas; mcm = million cubic meters; NC = non-command areas. FIGURE 3. Trends in Groundwater Balance in APFAMGS (Non-Command) and Non-APFMGS (Command) Areas (Five Districts) 5,000 Groundwater balance (mcm) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1985 1993 2002 2004 2007 2009 2011 2014 2015 2016 C 2,045.8 1,330.9 1,701.0 1,203.7 1,777.2 1,380.1 1,629.4 1,607.1 1,666.8 1,508.2 NC 1,823.9 2,969.0 1,503.0 1,005.6 1,086.0 1,517.7 1,765.2 1,740.9 1,805.7 1,633.8 Total 3,869.7 4,298.0 3,204.0 2,209.3 2,863.3 2,897.9 3,394.5 3,347.9 3,472.6 3,142.0 Source: Data compiled from Groundwater Resource Estimation Reports, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Groundwater Department. Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; C = command areas; mcm = million cubic meters; NC = non-command areas. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 6 Groundwater development and degradation have been questioned (Reddy 2012; Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2014; closely linked to the energy policies of the state (Reddy, Verma et al. 2012). Some of the important and sustained Reddy, and Rout 2016). However, it should be noted impacts pertaining to drought resilience are also a result that the impact of the free power policy does not show of follow-up initiatives and interventions, noted in the any significant change in important indicators like service following section. connections, proportion of energized wells, and the power consumption in any of the districts, including APFAMGS Follow-up and Related Interventions (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2016). This implies that changes Influencing Drought Resilience observed in groundwater resource status are not a result of the free power policy alone. Water-saving devices such as sprinkler and drip methods have been introduced for groundnut, sunflower, bengal Participatory Groundwater Management gram, chilies, and horticultural crops. It is estimated that and Drought Resilience groundwater pumping was reduced by more than 8 percent (equivalent to 5 million to 10 million cubic meters per Although there has not been significant enhancement year) over the project area with water-saving techniques. of groundwater resources, perhaps because of the larger Issues of conveyance through pipelines, reduction in number and more dominant influence of non-APFAMGS evapotranspiration, and increased retention of soil moisture villages, there has been moderate improvement in drought have been successfully addressed. Techniques for improving resilience associated with APFAMGS interventions. the moisture retention have been adopted, including border strips, ridge and furrow check basins, alternate furrows, APFAMGS Interventions Influencing Drought vermicompost, mulching, double ring method, and paddy Resilience husk mulching. These methods helped farmers stabilize and increase yields and incomes. Although farmyard manure and Two changes in farmer behavior are considered to influence vermicompost boost organic matter, microbial populations, drought resilience in the APFAMGS villages. and the soil’s water-retention capacity, critical irrigation practices save crops from prolonged moisture stress. As a Reduction in Groundwater Pumping result, higher crop yields and profits were reported on the pilot plots for all four crops assessed when compared with Groundwater pumping was reduced in 23 of the 63 control plots. Moreover, average yields of SPACC farmers hydrologic units, with moderate reduction in nine other (in the entire area) are higher than district average yields for units. Overall, the reduction is not significant enough to all four crops, except tomatoes (Govardhan Das, Priya, and have a wider-scale (district-level) impact. Kenmore 2015). Other drought mitigation and adaptation programs have been promoting similar interventions, Reduction in Area under Paddy however, so attributing the drought resilience impacts of Reduced water pumping has a direct bearing on the area these initiatives and their sustenance solely to APFAMGS under paddy (during kharif as well as rabi) cultivation may not be credible. because paddy is water-intensive and the most preferred crop. CWB helped farmers understand groundwater In place of paddy, farmers have started adopting more- deficiencies and the contribution of paddy in aggravating diversified cropping such as pulses, oilseeds, fruits, the problem (box 1). The budgeting estimates revealed that vegetables, and flowers. Farmers try to offset the losses annual groundwater balance was in deficit in 59 of the 63 from the reduction in paddy by growing high-value hydrologic units. Farmers’ experiences showed that they crops that require less water. An increase in less-water- incur crop losses when they do not follow the collective intensive crops was also observed during the APFAMGS advice following water scarcity. Because the shift from paddy period (Garduño et al. 2009; van Steenbergen 2010). to less water-intensive crops has not triggered the expansion Crop diversification has spread throughout the region of area under irrigation, as a result of the continued water since the 1980s because of increased water stress and stress, there is an aggregate reduction in water pumping. better prices for other crops. An increasing incidence of drought and delayed and untimely rains have further These impacts have been endorsed by most evaluation prompted farmers to move away from monocrops like studies, though sustainability of these achievements is groundnut and paddy. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 7 BOX 1. Farmer Comments on Sustainable Groundwater Management through Self-Learning “Groundwater pumping in the Yadavagu Hydrological Unit is much more than that is being replenished by rainfall recharge, as revealed by the PHM. GMCs in the HU have decided not to grow crops that require much water. The members also realised that maximum lowering of groundwater levels takes place in the months of April and May and so they have decided to take up crops that can be harvested before the beginning of April. All the members have decided to stop operating bore wells for 2 to 3 months between April to June every year.” –Narasimha Reddy, groundwater management committee member, Yadavagu hydrological unit, Kethagudi (village), Prakasam (district) “Measuring water levels, discharge from bore wells and calculation of annual water balance helped us in gaining good understanding on water resource availability and crop water requirements. I have now calculated that I  have to make available 12 million litres (12,000 m3) of water to raise one hectare of paddy while I need to pump only 3 million litres of water for growing one hectare of green gram. This understanding along with knowledge on water balance in the HU has helped me to plan my cropping system.” –P. LaxmanSwamy, groundwater management committee member, Thundlavagu hydrological unit, Mukundapuram (village), Allagadda (mandal), Kurnool (district) “Before the APFAMGS project came, we did not have any idea about groundwater levels. We used to pump groundwater indiscriminately and cultivate more land than was possible and used to incur heavy losses. Now we have observation bore wells to estimate the available volume of water and plan our crops. There are changes in farming methods. There is awareness of chemical fertilizers. We used to spray chemicals suggested by shop-keepers. But now we know the names of the chemicals. We even prepare our own organic fertilizers solutions and pesticides.” –Srinivasula Reddy, secretary of hydrologic unit network committee of Gram Vikas Samstha, APFAGMS Source: Bharati Integrated Rural Development Society internal documents, Nandyal, Kurnool district. Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; GMC = groundwater management committee; HU = hydrological unit; HUN = hydrological unit network; m3 = cubic meters; PHM = participatory hydrological monitoring. Where Do Things Stand Today in the issues and do not carry out formal FWS or climate school Project Villages? meetings, which confirms the observations on sustainability of the initiatives of the earlier evaluation studies (Reddy, Field visits to five villages conducted as part of this study Reddy, and Rout 2014; Verma et al. 2012). indicated that APFAMGS physical activities, such as measuring groundwater levels, stopped because of a lack Drought Resilience in Uppara Vanka of resources and follow-up support. However, some of the resource management practices, like water budgeting, are Before the APFAMGS project, most farmers in the area being continued. Similarly, there is still some momentum predominantly cultivated paddy and groundnut crops regarding social organization and groundwater management using flood irrigation methods. Currently, there is no paddy institutions. Nonetheless, farmers only informally discuss cultivation (during kharif as well as rabi) in 16 villages of WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 8 the Uppara Vanka HUN. Most of these villages shifted to When asked about reverting to paddy in the future if horticulture crops during 2003–04 droughts and did not water became more available, farmers said that in short go back to paddy cultivation. Despite the ongoing severe duration, less-water-intensive crops such as vegetables drought, farmers can cultivate horticultural crops, though are more profitable. Farmers said they were happy to get to a lesser extent, with drip irrigation. The drip method is income on a regular basis and feel that price shocks are less used for all crops grown in the HUN: green chilies, brinjal, intense when compared to non-vegetable crops. None of tomato, ladies fingers, country beans, cauliflower, cabbage, the vegetable farmers interviewed were deeply in debt as onion, floriculture, and fruit crops like sweet cucumber opposed to farmers growing commercial crops like cotton, and watermelon. Farmers switched to drip from sprinkler which are more expensive to grow and more exposed to irrigation because the consecutive droughts, and overuse of market price risk. groundwater has reduced the pressure/inflow of bore wells. Crop rotation and border cropping are also being practiced Farmers said they can cope with drought because of a shift in these villages. Application of chemical fertilizers, from monocrop culture to mixed/multiple crops. Before especially on rainfed crops, has declined substantially from APFAMGS, the entire hydrological unit grew mainly about 30 bags per acre per year to 12 bags (two crops). groundnut, with red gram as an intercrop in rainfed Farmyard manure is used extensively on rainfed crops. conditions. After 18 years of APFAMGS, the majority of Some farmers are even moving toward organic or natural rainfed farmers are cultivating bajra, korra (foxtail millet), farming (boxes 3 and 4). The SPACC project introduced jowar, cowpea, red gram, castor, and groundnut as mixed the application of vermicompost, and the farmer climate or single crops. One farmer said some are now growing schools built awareness about drought management. more than 30 different crops, compared with fewer than five crops before APFAMGS. Mixed/multiple cropping It may be noted that most of these practices were not part has proved to be a fruitful climate adaptation and drought of the APFAMGS initiatives. For instance, the government mitigation strategy (box 2). The shift to less-water-intensive of AP has introduced several drought mitigation initiatives horticultural crops and mixed/multiple cropping has also including farm ponds, mini-percolation tanks, and zero created more employment throughout the year—an average budgeted natural farming (ZBNF) as part of drought of 100 additional days of employment per household adaptation (IFAD 2016a). The APFAMGS villages embraced compared to previous crops—and substantially reduced these programs thanks to the readily available, existing migration among landless, marginal, and small farmers. social capital, which can be attributed to APFAMGS. BOX 2. Mixed Cropping: A Drought Adaptation Strategy Mixed cropping is a traditional farming practice in rainfed conditions. Farmers with one or two hectares of land traditionally grew as many as nine crops, including cereals, pulses, and oilseeds. These crops provide the subsistence needs of the family. Some crops fix nitrogen in the soil, and others draw various nutrients and soil moisture from different layers. Mixed cropping creates a good balance in soil nutrient and moisture management because each crop matures at a different time and has varying moisture requirements at different stages. Even if one or two crops fail from moisture stress or untimely rainfall, the remaining crops could survive and provide at least some returns to the farmers. The failure of all crops occurs rarely, perhaps once in 40 or 50 years. By returning to a mixed cropping approach, farmers in the Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) project area became less vulnerable to droughts. Furthermore, as crops stand for longer periods in the field, the soil exposure to wind erosion is minimized. Mixed cropping is also highly labor-intensive and reduces migration, which is a positive indicator given the high levels of migration in these regions. It is one of the best strategies to meet drought and other climate-related uncertainties. Source: Bharati Integrated Rural Development Society internal documents, Nandyal, Kurnool district. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 9 BOX 3. Farmer Fights Drought with Organic Crops Mallikarjuna, a 40-year-old farmer, is a native of Dharmapuram village and gram panchayat in Gooty mandal of the Anantapur district. He studied until the 10th grade and belongs to the Backward Caste community. His family consists of five members—himself, his wife, his elderly father, and two school-age children. Agriculture is the family’s main income. Mallikarjuna owns 12 acres of land with no access to irrigation water because his well dried up a few years ago. He was president of the Uppara Vanka hydrological unit network (HUN) under Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) and later continued under the Strategic Pilot on Adaptation to Climate Change (SPACC) project. He has practiced organic farming through mixed/multiple cropping for 10 years. With these practices, he reduced growing costs and maintained crop yields, though they are lower in drought years. He is a local expert on groundwater management, rainfed agriculture, and organic farming. A comparison of his crop yields in drought and normal years is presented in table B3.1. TABLE B3.1. Crop yields in drought and normal years Crop Drought year yield (kg/ha) Normal year yield (kg/ha) Bajra 450 900 Groundnut 1,350 2,475 Korra 675 1,350 Red gram 337 450 Note: kg/ha = kilograms per hectare. BOX 4. Drought-Resilient Natural Farming Overcomes Failed Wells and Related Debts M. Savitramma, 40, also a native of Dharmapuram village in Gooty mandal of the Anantapur district, is one of seven family members—two school-aged children, one elderly person, and four workers—and is barely literate. She was involved in Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) and the climate change projects (Strategic Pilot on Adaptation to Climate Change [SPACC] and zero budgeted natural farming [ZBNF]) and is leader of the village self-help group. The family has four acres of rainfed land and receives income from M.’s husband’s work as a factory laborer. Their bore well tended to quickly dry up. She practices mixed/multiple cropping and natural farming and grows oilseeds (groundnut, caster, and sesamum); millets (cowpea, korra, jowar, and bajra); and pulses (green gram, black gram, and red gram). She follows this crop rotation: If bajra is sown, korra is avoided, and vice versa. One year before APFAMGS began, she spent nearly D₹ 210,000 (US$3,000) borrowed from informal credit sources to build two bore wells (60 to 150 meters deep). Both wells failed because of low groundwater levels. She repaid the debt through savings, her husband’s wages (D400 to D500 per day, about US$ 6 - 7), and income from growing mixed/multiple crops. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 10 With or without APFAMGS Situation potential, crop water requirements, water accounting, and budgeting—and to apply this information in village A comparative assessment of APFAMGS villages and planning. These aspects were hitherto considered only nearby non-project villages in 2018 clearly showed that within the mandates of technical agencies. This awareness APFAMGS villages are less vulnerable and more resilient to has resulted in cutting down on water pumping in these drought risks. For instance, investments in new wells and villages, some limiting of water-intensive crops, shifting to well deepening continues in the non-APFAMGS villages. irrigated dry crops, and adopting water-conserving irrigation Similarly, adoption of micro-irrigation is at a lower scale in methods. It has also been foundational for making the best non-APAMGS villages (LNRMI and AF-EC 2018). These use of follow-up activities and interventions and responding differences are attributed to the following: to markets by changing cropping patterns. Over time, farmers have adopted more-profitable horticultural crops • Farmers in APFAMGS villages are more aware of and appear ready to continue this practice in coming years. the groundwater situation and practice sustainable management. These behavioral changes cannot be attributed solely to • Farmers are aware of issues related to climate change. APFAMGS. They also depended on post-APFAMGS • Crop diversification and improved crop management interventions, continued water stress, and growing market and irrigation methods, such as drip systems, are being demand for fruits and vegetables. The follow-up projects, used. apart from continuing the earlier initiatives, helped expand • Villagers are promoting social development activities. communities’ awareness about climate-induced drought • Because of communities’ capacities and awareness, adaptation practices like mixed/multiple cropping, critical these villages have become the first choice of any new irrigation, reduced chemical fertilizers, and natural inputs programs or initiatives of the government. such as manure. Farmers have indicated the effectiveness of these practices for enhancing drought resilience. Changes Constraints for APFAMGS to cropping patterns can also be observed across the region, irrespective of the APFAMGs interventions, because Despite being more resilient, not all farmers can benefit of frequent and severe droughts and changes in market equally from improved conditions. Access to water is demand for fruits and vegetables. distributed unequally, especially during severe droughts. Farmers with large farms and deeper wells can maintain stable incomes through judicious use of water and crop Sustainability of the initiatives continues to be a problem. mixes. Shallower wells owned by small and marginal farmers All project-related activities stopped after the SPACC dry up first. There is no practice of sharing and selling project ended in December 2013. Awareness has not water to other farmers. Most farmers felt that constructing translated into improved groundwater resources at recharging structures like rainwater harvesting and soil household, village, or regional levels. This disconnect moisture conservation measures could ease the situation could be caused by the lack of any regulation. It could to a large extent. Farmers are also hoping that watershed also be a result of collective initiatives—such as more programs, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment investments in recharge structures or water sharing—that Guarantee Act works, or linking local streams to dug wells have perpetuated inequity among farmers, especially during could be directed toward enhancing groundwater recharge. drought years when groundwater levels are deeper. In the At the same time, addressing equity requires more-concerted absence of any tangible improvements in groundwater, efforts of targeting disadvantaged communities (LNRMI the APFAMGS interventions were not sustained after the and AF-EC 2018). project and external support ended. Informal peer pressure from fellow farmers did not work in the post-project period Participatory Groundwater Management: in the absence of any social or economic regulations. Can It Enhance Drought Resilience? Economic instruments, incentives, and market forces that were observed in the later years appear to be more The sustained interventions of APFAMGS initiatives over effective in groundwater demand management and were more than 18 years have created science-based knowledge absent in the APFAMGS case. Moreover, the APFAMGS and awareness among the groundwater communities in approach does not include all farmers. The result is that a the study region. Communities were provided with the lot of useful water information generated at the appropriate technical capacity to understand and assess groundwater scale helps only well-owning farmers. Limited membership WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 11 hinders the collective ownership and commitment to the that an integrated approach of knowledge and regulation/ common good. In some villages, farmers not affiliated with incentives is required to make participatory groundwater APFAMGS refuse to talk about the initiative, indicating management effective in addressing drought and climate divided participation and support. vulnerabilities. The experience, so far, indicates that designing such an approach with government-provided capital support, Our interactions with farmers indicated that continuing the subsidies, or price incentives for local farmers is required to initiatives with external institutional support would help make it effective and suitable for scaling up. manage groundwater in the long run. It was hoped that maintenance support under the pilot project, GwGPRI-AP, The main achievement of APFAMGS and the follow-up would help to continue the activities following the 2013 interventions is improved awareness and behavioral changes end of SPACC, but it did not materialize as expected. that helped the communities adapt to drought. The impacts The climate adaptation fund created under SPACC was observed in the earlier assessments (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout not intended to support project activities outside regular 2014; Verma et al. 2012; World Bank 2010) are different meetings and the like.18 To sustain these initiatives and from the observed behavioral changes now. Common protect the social and natural capital created in the region, resource management requires institutional support, which existing community institutions need to be linked to a takes time to evolve and stabilize.20 These institutions need formal structure with funding. to be nurtured until they are self-sufficient. Moreover, they need to be evolved or tuned to reflect changing climatic and Complementary Initiatives market conditions. The most important and difficult aspect of sustainability is ensuring equity in the distribution of benefits, Some post-APFAMGS initiatives in AP have integrated which is missing in the APFAMGS model. Equity is critical the knowledge-based approach with social regulation to for broader community participation, though achieving it is manage groundwater. These interventions include the difficult, if not impossible, because of the structural aspects Social Regulation in Groundwater Management and AP of land distribution, aquifer geometry, and distribution Drought Adaptation Initiative (APDAI).19 Although building of capabilities. Approaches to bypass or overcome these awareness and generating data by the villages were important structural dimensions—rather than correcting them—need components, the most important aspect of the two models to be explored at the policy and institutional levels. These was to bring consensus to share water between well owners and approaches could be in the form of incentives, compensation, others. Incentives such as reduced risk of well failure (because or cross-subsidies. In this regard, learnings gathered from no new wells were allowed), subsidies for micro-irrigation, social regulation approaches could help. and provision for protective irrigation were put in place. Social regulations showed clear impacts in stopping the construction Unless there are substantial economic gains over the short of new bore wells plus more households, especially the marginal run, proactive participation is unlikely to materialize and small farmers, benefiting from sharing water with well (Mansuri and Rao 2013). Externally induced participation owners (Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2014). A recent study in the is unlikely to be sustained without tangible benefits, policy- Chittoor district of AP has also observed that groundwater backed incentives, and regulatory mechanisms. Although governance improves with increasing community awareness improving communities’ awareness and knowledge about about the linkage of cropping patterns to groundwater use groundwater is a necessary precondition, it is not enough and social capital, where participants consider group gains to make communities drought resilient. Policy and legal (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2016). support systems are required to ensure enhanced benefits and equity in their distribution. Lessons for Scaling up When adopting participatory initiatives, such as APFAMGS, The review of studies and experiences clearly shows that on a wider scale, state governments need to consider the the APFAMGS model of participatory management following aspects: neither improved the groundwater situation nor promoted sustainable groundwater management practices but still, • Initiatives to increase community awareness and somehow, increased drought resiliency. Evidence from the knowledge about groundwater by adopting scientific APFAMGS case study indicates that the model falls short approaches and location-specific attributes is critical on some aspects, such as sustainability, equity, incentives, for understanding the resource status. The ongoing and regulations. However, the experience from AP indicates national aquifer mapping program focuses on WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 12 participatory groundwater mapping and management  2. Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), through local communities. Successful completion Hyderabad, India. of this project could help provide the necessary   3. Demand management includes market-based methods knowledge base at the community level. such as property rights and pricing, technology-based • Linking the community-based institutions to interventions like micro-irrigation and other water- groundwater/irrigation departments with funds, saving technologies, and nonmarket-based command functions, and functionaries could help sustain and control (direct and indirect) systems. participatory groundwater management initiatives in   4. Supply augmentation includes managed aquifer the longer term. Groundwater departments can take recharge structures such as check dams, farm ponds, the lead in promoting PHM and crop-water budgeting and percolation tanks. at the village level.  5. For instance, the government of AP has continued • Integrating top-down incentive structures and the APFAMGS under a new program, Groundwater bottom-up regulatory mechanisms, and building Governance through Panchayati Raj Institutions in community awareness, are likely to be effective AP (GwGPRI-AP), with the support of the Food and in the short to medium term. These include price Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) incentives for less-water-intensive rainfed crops, price in 2015–16. stabilization (lowering price risk) for horticultural   6. For more information about Atal Bhujal Yojana crops, and pricing of water and energy by treating (ABHY), a ₹6000 crores (US$860 million) scheme, them as economic goods. It also includes regulating for sustainable management of groundwater with groundwater extraction through community-based community participation, see http://pib.nic.in/newsite​ approaches and regulating bore holes, such as through /PrintRelease.aspx?relid=188193 and https://projects​ the enforcement of the AP Water, Land and Trees Act, .worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-detail​ as well as other laws. /P158119?lang=en&tab=results • Integrated policies are needed to make incentive and   7. Studies have reviewed and assessed the achievements and regulatory mechanisms effective for farmers. Input impacts of APFAMGS over the years: AFPRO 2006; and output pricing policies should work in tandem to APFAMGS 2006; Govardhan Das and Burke 2013; promote sustainable resource management. Current FAO 2008; FAO 2010; Reddy, Reddy, and Rout 2014; support price policies are biased in favor of water- Reddy 2012; Verma et al. 2012; World Bank 2010. intensive crops such as paddy, wheat, and sugarcane.  8. The project provided 3,462 groundwater irrigation These policies, complemented by free or subsidized facilities to small and marginal farmers, bringing an power and water pricing policies, act strongly against additional 35,000 acres under irrigation for about the basic policy objective of sustainable groundwater 14,000 small and marginal farming families in seven management. Apart from correcting the policy drought-prone districts of the erstwhile AP. distortions, price incentives are needed for drought-   9. From July 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005, an estimated resilient and rainfed crops and water conservation total cost of ₹20.02 (US$5 million). practices. 10. The formal title of the project was Reversing • In the long run, ensuring groundwater equity among Environmental Degradation and Rural Poverty through farmers will require policy changes that recognize Adaptation to Climate Change in Drought Stricken groundwater as a common resource. That obligation Areas in Southern India: A Hydrological Unit Pilot involves changing the property rights regimes and Project Approach. It was cofunded by GEF (US$0.9 delinking land and groundwater rights. million), FAO (US$1.3 million), and partner NGOs • A “business as usual” or policy inaction scenario (US$1.6 million) (in kind) at a total budget of US$3.8 would extend overexploited areas imposing constraints million. on quantity as well as quality. This scenario, in turn, 11. IFAD provided a loan of US$75.5 million with a would aggravate farmer distress in these regions and matching finance (total project cost of US$151.9 push farmers out of agriculture. million) to fund the project for seven years in the five districts of AP (Anantapur, Chittoor, Cuddapah, NOTES Kurnool, and Prakasam) (IFAD 2016b).  1. Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management 12. APFAMGS districts fall in the category of drought- Institute (LNRMI), Hyderabad, India. and desert-prone areas created by the government of WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 13 India during the early 1980s. These areas or districts are FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United identified based on rainfall (less than 750 millimeters), Nations). 2008. “Evaluation of FAO Cooperation with limited irrigation support (usually less than 30 percent), India: Promoting Livelihoods Improvements in Dryland and frequency of droughts (crop failures in at least Farming in the Deccan Plateau (AMEF-GCP/IND/174/ three of 10 years) (GoI 1981). These areas are given NET).” Evaluation report, FAO, Rome. Accessed March 21, priority in implementing developmental programs like 2017. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oed/docs​ watershed development and provided with additional /GCPIND174NET_2008_ER.pdf. funding support. 13. Based on data between 2001 and 2015 given by ———. 2010. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed statistical abstracts of different years for combined AP Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS Project) until 2014 and for the separate AP and Telangana states (GCP/IND/175/NET).” Terminal report, FAO, Rome. afterward. Accessed April 13, 2015. http://www.solutionsforwater​ 14. There are long-run options of bringing surface water .org/wp-content​/uploads/2011/12/APFAMGS-Terminal​ through interlinking of rivers, which is costly. The -Report.pdf. government of AP is keen and initiated the process of interlinking the rivers in the state. Garduño H., S. Foster, P. Raj, and F. van Steenbergen. 2009. 15. Stage of development is defined as the ratio of “Addressing Groundwater Depletion through Community- groundwater extracted to its annual availability. based Management Actions in the Weathered Granitic 16. The AP Groundwater Department provides information Basement Aquifer of Drought-Prone Andhra Pradesh— on groundwater draft and balance separately for command India.” GW•MATE Briefing Notes Series case profile and non-command areas, whereas information about collection 19, World Bank, Washington, DC. water table depth is available only at the district level. The average groundwater depth and rainfall data (for five Govardhan Das, S. V., and J. Burke. 2013. Smallholders and districts) indicates that groundwater depths are fluctuating Sustainable Wells—A Retrospect: Participatory Groundwater along with average rainfall (especially post-monsoon), with Management in Andhra Pradesh (India). Rome: FAO (Food a one-year lag in some cases (figure 1). This fluctuation and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). could be a result of the rainfall distribution across months and the timing of groundwater measurement. Govardhan Das, S. V., S. Priya, and P. E. Kenmore. 2015. 17. Water balance is calculated by annual recharge minus Smarter Smallholders: Community Based Climate Adaptation withdrawal (pumping). in Well Irrigated Agriculture. New Delhi: FAO (Food and 18. As indicated by local NGOs. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 19. For a detailed discussion on these interventions, see Reddy, Reddy, and Rout (2014). In fact, APDAI is a IFAD (International Fund for Agriculture Development). state government-supported program. 2016a. Andhra Pradesh Drought Mitigation Project: 20. Even 15 years is considered short in this regard. Final Design Report. New Delhi: International Fund for Agriculture Development, Country Representative, Asia REFERENCES Pacific Division. AFPRO (Action for Food Production). 2006. “A Systematic Assessment of Community Based Groundwater Management ———. 2016b. President’s Report: Proposed Loan to the Experiences in Andhra Pradesh.” AFPRO Field Unit 6, Republic of India for Andhra Pradesh Drought Mitigation Hyderabad, India. Project. New Delhi: International Fund for Agriculture Development, Country Representative, Asia Pacific APFAMGS (Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Division. Systems). 2006. “Rebuilding Groundwater Dependent Economy through Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR),” GoI (Government of India). 1981. Report on the Development Hyderabad, India: Grama Vikas Sanstha, Madanapalle. of Drought Prone Areas. New Delhi: National Committee on the Development of Backward Areas, Planning Commission. Deshpande, R. S. 2002. “Suicide by Farmers in Karnataka- Agrarian Distress and Possible Alleviatory Steps.” Economic LNRMI (Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management and Political Weekly 37: 26. Institute) and AF-EC (Accion Fraterna-Ecology Centre). 2018. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 14 Making of Climate Smart Communities in Harsh Environments: Reddy, V. R., and S. Galab. 2006. “Agrarian Crisis: Looking Lessons from Accion Fraterna Watershed Management Practices. Beyond the Debt Trap.” Economic and Political Weekly Hyderabad, India: LNRIMI, and Ananthapuramu: AF-EC. 41 (19):1838-1841. Mansuri, G., and V. Rao. 2013. Localizing Development: Reddy, V. R., M. S. Reddy, and S. K. Rout. 2014. “Groundwater Does Participation Work? Washington, DC: World Bank. Governance: A Tale of Three Participatory Models in Andhra doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-8256-1. Pradesh, India.” Water Alternatives 7 (2): 275–297. Meinzen-Dick R., Chaturvedi R., Domènech L., Ghate R., Shah, T. 2014. “Groundwater Governance and Irrigated Janssen M.A., Rollins N. D. and Sandeep K. (2016) Games Agriculture.” TEC Background Paper 19, Global Water for groundwater governance: field experiments in Andhra Partnership, Stockholm. Pradesh, India. Ecology and Society, 21(3): 38. (http:// van Steenbergen, F. 2010. Community-Based Ground Water dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08416-210338). Management in Andhra Pradesh: Moving Towards Proven Models, South Asia Region, India Country Management Unit
Sustainable Reddy, M. S., V. R. Reddy, and S. K. Rout. 2016. Development Department Environment. Washington, DC: Groundwater Governance: Development, Degradation and World Bank, Water Resources and Climate Change Unit. Management (A  Study of Andhra Pradesh). Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications. Verma, S., S. Krishnan, V. A. Reddy, and K. R. Reddy. 2012. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Reddy, V. R. 2005. “Costs of Resource Depletion (APFAMGS): A Reality Check.” Water Policy Research Externalities: A Study of Groundwater Overexploitation Highlight 37, IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program, Anand, in Andhra Pradesh, India.” Environment and Development India. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/iwmi-tata/PDFs/2012​ Economics 10 (4): 533-556. _Highlight-37.pdf ———. 2012. “Hydrological Externalities and Livelihoods World Bank. 2010. Deep Wells and Prudence: Towards Impacts: Informed Communities for Better Resource Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation Management.” Journal of Hydrology (412–413): 279–290. in India. Washington, DC: World Bank. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 15 Appendix A TABLE A.1. Field Visit Interviews No Person/institution Position 1 Mr. V. Paul Raja Rao Executive director, BIRDS, Gnanapuram, Nandyal, Kurnool (district) 2 Mr. Hassain Syed C. CEO and secretary, SYA, Gooty Field Office, Anantapur (district) Manager in charge, BIRDS, Hyderabad Office/PMU, APFAMGS and SPACC, and other 3 Miss Purnima projects, Habsiguda, Hyderabad 4 Mr. Hussain Saheb Field coordinator, SYA, Gooty, Anantapur (district) 5 Joint director of agriculture, Gooty, Anantapur 6 Mandal agricultural officer, Gooty, Anantapur President, APFAMGS HUN (Uppara Vanka), SPACC, and GwGPRI projects; president, Anna Data RMG; member, ZBNF project committee of Dharmapuram (village and GP), 7 Molakala Mallikarjuna Gooty (mandal), Anantapur (district) Member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, Dharmapuram (village and GP), Gooty 8 (mandal), Anantapur (district) Member, GWMC (APFAMGS), SPACC, Chetana, and ZBNF; leader, SHG, Dharmapuram 9 Mrs. M. Savitramma (village and GP) Mr. Goddumudi Member, APFAMGS, HUN (Uppara Vanka), GMC, and SPACC, Pododdi (village and GP), 10 Ramakrishna Gooty (mandal), Anantapur (district) Member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, Pododdi (village and GP), Gooty (mandal), 11 Anantapur (district) 12 Member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, Uppara Vanka, HUN 13 Member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, Vajrala Vanka, HUN 14 Mr. NarayaNaik Kalajatha artist, Japla Thanda, Gooty (mandal), Anantapur (district) Farmer; member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, Chetnepalli (village), Gooty (mandal), 15 Mr. N. Srinivasulu Anantapur (district) Farmer; member, GWMC (APFAMGS) and SPACC, and SHG, Chetnepalli (village), Gooty 16 Mrs. M. Lakshmidevi (mandal), Anantapur (district) 17 Mr. J. Kambagiri Farmer; beneficiary, APFAMGS, K. Ubicherla (village) 18 N. Siva Prasad Farmer, Basinepalli (village), Gooty (mandal), Anantapur (district) 19 ZBNF, project area, Gooty, Anantapur (district) Member, GWMC (APFAMGS), SPACC, and GwGPRI projects; member, ZBNF, 20 Mr. PineniSurender Dharmapuram (village and GP), Gooty (mandal), Anantapur (district) 21 Mr. Ramakrishnudu Cluster resource person, Dharmapuram, ZBNF, GoAP, Gooty, Anantapur (district) Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; BIRDS = Bharati Integrated Rural Development Society; CEO = chief executive officer; GoAP = government of Andhra Pradesh; GP = gram panchayat; GwGPRI = Groundwater Governance through Panchayat Raj Institutions; GMC = groundwater management committee; HUN = hydrological unit network; PMU = Project Management Unit; RMG = Rythu Mitra Group; SHG = self help group; SPACC = Strategic Pilot on Adaptation to Climate Change; SYA = Star Youth Association; ZBNF = zero budgeted natural farming. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 16 FIGURE A.1. APFAMGS Management Structure Executive Royal committee Netherlands Embassy World Nodal education desk Food and BIRDS PRIYUM Agriculture NNGO Organization Technical support team Project SUMADHURA streering committee Groundwater management committee Executive committee Partner NGO Government departments Project implementation team Fund flow Interaction Reporting Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; BIRDS = Bharati Integrated Rural Development Society; NGO = nongovernment organization; NNGO = nodal NGO; PRIYUM = Priyum advisory and Consultancy Services Private Limited; SUMADRA = Sumadhura Geomatica Private Limited. TABLE A.2. Groundwater Resources in APFAMGS and Non-APFAMGS Regions of Five Districts in Andhra Pradesh Annual groundwater Groundwater balance Stage of groundwater availability (mcm) Groundwater draft (mcm) (mcm) development (%) Year C NC Total C NC Total C NC Total C NC Total 1985 2,196.0 3,263.8 5,459.8 150.2 1,439.9 1,590.1 2,045.8 1,823.9 3,869.7 6.8 44.1 29.1 1993 1,718.5 4,123.0 5,841.0 387.6 1,154.0 1,543.0 1,330.9 2,969.0 4,298.0 22.6 28.0 26.4 2002 1,904.0 4,873.0 6,777.0 203.0 3,370.0 3,573.0 1,701.0 1,503.0 3,204.0 10.7 69.2 52.7 2004 1,697.6 4,479.4 6,177.0 493.9 3,473.8 3,967.7 1,203.7 1,005.6 2,209.3 29.1 77.6 64.2 2007 2,450.5 4,261.3 6,711.8 673.3 3,175.3 3,848.5 1,777.2 1,086.0 2,863.3 27.5 74.5 57.3 2009 1,894.2 4,764.5 6,658.7 514.1 3,246.8 3,760.9 1,380.1 1,517.7 2,897.9 27.1 68.1 56.5 2011 2,189.3 5,080.9 7,270.2 560.0 3,315.7 3,875.7 1,629.4 1,765.2 3,394.5 25.6 65.3 53.3 2014 2,111.8 4,729.1 6,840.8 504.7 2,988.2 3,492.9 1,607.1 1,740.9 3,348.0 23.9 63.2 51.1 2015 2,141.0 4,613.2 6,754.2 474.2 2,807.5 3,281.7 1,666.8 1,805.7 3,472.6 22.1 60.9 48.6 2016 2,046.0 4,817.9 6,863.8 537.8 3,184.1 3,721.9 1,508.2 1,633.8 3,142.0 26.3 66.1 54.2 Source: Data compiled from Groundwater Resource Estimation Reports, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Groundwater Department, Hyderabad, India. Note: APFAMGS = Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems; C = command; mcm = million cubic meters; NC = non-command. WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE CASE STUDY | CAN PARTICIPATORY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCE DROUGHT RESILIENCE? 17 Connect with the Water Global Practice www.worldbank.org/water ­ ­ orldbankwater@worldbank.org w @worldbankwater blogs.worldbank.org/water ­ © 2019 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This work is subject to a CC BY 3.0 IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo). The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content. It is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have questions, email pubrights@worldbank.org. SKU W19069