7/30/2019 Impact of Shallow Tube Well Irrigation Support for Nepals Smallholder Farmers

1/2

Investments in shallow tube wells

are nancially and economically

viable or households with less

than 1 hectare land. The project

resulted in an average increase in

net income per hectare o land o

over 50%, with armers earning

the equivalent net value o $580

per hectare o irrigated land,compared with $377 or armers

o nonirrigated land. The increase,

however, was not sufcient

to lit beneciary households

signicantly over the poverty line.

Providing armers with reliable irrigation systems reduces production uncertaintiescaused by variable rainall and is essential or ostering stable ood prices. The share ogroundwater-based irrigation is growing, with 38% o the worlds irrigated areas using

groundwater rather than surace water in 2010. This is a relatively cheap irrigation method thatraises ewer property rights concerns than the surace irrigation systems.

Nepal has vast water resources, but its terrain allows cultivation o only 17.9% o its totalland area. O this, 47% or 1.3 million hectares is irrigated, with 19% through shallow tubewells. These are typically lined by a metal tube and drilled up to 25 meters deep to extract

groundwater using a motorized pump.

Impact Evaluation StudyNepal has been striving to expand groundwater irrigation as a priority input in agriculturaldevelopment since the mid-1990s. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other developmentpartners are currently working with the Government o Nepal to draw up a new agriculturaldevelopment strategy to replace the 1994-approved Agricultural Perspective Plan. The impactevaluation study, Shallow Tubewell Irrigation in Nepal: Impacts o the Community GroundwaterIrrigation Sector Project, provides ndings and lessons useul in this eort.

The study draws on the experience o the ADB-supported project implemented during19992007. The project aimed to sustainably raise agricultural productivity and incomeso smallholder armers in the Terai region o eastern and central Nepal by installing 15,000shallow tube wells and rehabilitating or constructing 600 kilometers o arm-to-market roads

in a complementary intervention. At the end o the project 10,870 shallow tube wells and300 kilometers o arm-to-market roads had been improved.

The evaluation adopted a mixed-method approach that employed both qualitative andquantitative methods. The quantitative ndings were based on a counteractual analysis odata collected rom a survey o 1,000 project-supported households, 1,000 households withoutaccess to irrigation, and 500 with irrigation rom another program. In the absence o baselinedata, propensity score matching technique was applied to minimize bias in estimation.

The evaluation holistically gauged welare impacts, including income, health, oodconsumption, education, and the environment. To this end, qualitative ndings complementedquantitative results or a better understanding o the development impacts o irrigation using

shallow tube wells. It also assessed the sustainability o water user groups ormed under theproject to acilitate the installation o shallow tube wells using loans without collateral.

Key Findings

The project signicantly increased cropping intensity and yields in the project area or the twomain crops, paddy and wheatalbeit nowhere near as high as anticipated levels. This reectsconstraints to achieving the ull potential o shallow tube wells that include low investmentin ertilizer, seed, and extension services. Irregular electricity supply and rising dieselprices dampened armer interest in using groundwater or irrigation. And the governmentwas unable to meet the demand o armers or timely production inputs and services tocomplement groundwater irrigation.

Investments in shallow tube wells are nancially and economically viable or households withless than 1 hectare land. The project resulted in an average increase in net income per hectare

Impact of Shallow Tube Well Irrigation

Support for Nepals Smallholder Farmers

Learning CurvesJanuary 2013

EvaluationIndependent

e evaluation draws on the experience of the ADB-supported

mmunity Groundwater Irrigation Sector Project, which was

mplemented during 19992007. The project aimed to sustainably

se agricultural productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers

the Terai region of eastern and central Nepal by installing 15,000

allow tube wells and rehabilitating or constructing 600 kilometers

farm-to-market roads in a complementary intervention.

7/30/2019 Impact of Shallow Tube Well Irrigation Support for Nepals Smallholder Farmers

2/2

o land o over 50%, with armers earning the equivalent net value o $580 per hectare oirrigated land, compared with $377 or armers o nonirrigated land. The increase, however, wasnot sufcient to lit beneciary households signicantly over the poverty line.

The projects noneconomic impacts were ound to be limited. Although the share o expendituresby households provided with shallow tube wells on education and health rose signicantlycompared with nonirrigated households, neither the number o sick days o household membersnor child absenteeism rom school declined. Household use o rewood as the primary energysource or cooking did not change signicantly. This lack o change resulted rom the smaller-

than-expected increase in project household income, as well as the relative homogeneity inaccess to education and health.

There was no evidence that the project had a negative environmental impact, either throughoverexploitation o groundwater or excessive use o ertilizer and plant protection chemicals.

Water user groups were expected to be the primary vehicle or accessing loans or shallow tubewell irrigation without collateral under the project, but only 52% o water user groups were ullyor partly active at the time o the evaluation in 2012.

Key Lessonsn Access to irrigation using a group-managed approach can reap benets. Water

user groups can spur agricultural development, help ensure ood security, and enablehouseholds to build assets against unexpected shocks.

n Shallow tube well irrigation systems are viable without direct subsidies. This projectdemonstrated this, but concrete measures are also needed to ensure that small armers arenot crowded out rom access to complementary support measures.

n Supporting a groundwater irrigation project aimed at small armers withoutcollateral was justied. But continued eort is needed to make water user groups sel-reliant and viable.

n Providing irrigation inrastructure alone is not sufcient. To generate tangible welareimpacts other interventions are needed, such as opening access to production credit, timelyavailability o ertilizers and improved seeds, eective extension services, regular supply oelectricity or diesel or operating shallow tube wells, and emphasis on value chains.

n Reversing a policy on not subsidizing well installation did not result in the hoped-

for expansion, because the government was unable to provide adequate funding.

The subsidy policy did not beneft the poorest armers, because o the general shortall in

unding. What subsidies were available tended to be cornered by medium- and large-sized

arms.

Recommendationsn Improve accessibility. Make shallow tube wells accessible to smallholder armers through

a broad approach dealing with enabling conditions in several areas. The project was onlyloosely connected to Nepals overall agriculture agenda.

n Implement a budget-riendly groundwater irrigation policy. Develop a unied policythat builds on the projects successes in a way that causes the least scal stress. The impactso the unsubsidized Community Groundwater Irrigation Sector Project model were at leastas good as ones under the subsidized Agricultural Perspective Plan.

n Connect the dots. When ADB supports upliting small armers in developing countries,it needs to actor in the links between ood production, water, energy availability, andmarketingand avoid ragmented approaches. The project was largely a stand-alone oneconnected only loosely to Nepals overall agricultural development agenda.

n Get good baseline data. ADB should collect or support the collection o good baselinedata or projects or which past impacts have been highly variable, so that solid impactevaluations can be conducted ater project completion. Having valid counteractual datarom beore an intervention starts makes impact assessments more reliable.

n Use a mixed-method approach. This adds richness to evaluative ndings and conclusions

beyond quantitative assessment estimates. Economic and nancial reevaluation can

strengthen impact evaluation ndingsand should be encouraged on all impact evaluations.

Team Leader: Ganesh Rauniyar

Email: evaluation@adb.org

Contact Us

Independent Evaluation DepartmentAsian Development Bank

6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City

1550 Metro Manila, Philippines

Tel +63 2 632 4100

Fax +63 2 636 2161

Email: evaluation@adb.org

www.adb.org/evaluation

Learning Curvesis a two-page quick

reerence to provide fndings and

recommendations rom evaluations to

a broader range o clients.