Upload
global-water-partnership
View
1.035
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Eastern India and the Groundwater Paradox
Aditi Mukherji
Presented at GWP South Asia Workshop, Colombo
February 25, 2011
Based on synthesis of research since 2004
The irrigation story of India
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
19
51
19
53
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
Canals Tanks & other sources Groundwater
Rapid rise
in GW
irrigation
Private ownership
On demand irrigation
Timeliness
Adequacy
Flexibility
Rising contribution of groundwater
0
20
40
60
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241
Districts
% of
Agr
icultu
ral G
DP
0
20
40
60
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241
Districts
Perc
enta
ge to
Agr
icultu
ral G
DP
% contribution of SWI to Agricultural GDP % contribution of GWI to Agricultural GDP
1970-73
1990-93
BUT, depletion, scarcity
and over-exploitation have
emerged as serious problems
The Problem Statement
Are depletion and scarcity the only reality?
Are there pockets of under-utilization?
Can GW alleviate poverty in
these regions? Eastern Indo-Gangetic basin
has high
GW potential
Concentrated
Rural poverty
And dieselised
GW economy
“The energy squeeze”
Leading to economic
scarcity of GW in a land
of abundance
0 20 40 60 80 100
Madhya Pradesh
Haryana
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Rajasthan (Transco)
Tamil Nadu
Punjab
Maharashtra
U.P (Power corp)
West Bengal
Bihar
Percentage
BRISCOE, 2005,
Electricity subsidy as percentage of state fiscal deficits Is low to non-existent in eastern India
Partly due to low
number of electric
tubewells
But also high
tariffs
0
420
850
1512
2160
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Punjab Haryana Gujarat Uttarakhand West Bengal
States
Rs/H
P/Y
ear
Flat rate tariff (Rs/HP/year)
Comparison of flat tariff in different states, 2006-07
West Bengal: A state that bucks the trend in
GW and electricity
Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat,
Tamil Nadu
West Bengal
Over-exploitation of GW Under- development of GW
(42% development)
> 60-80% electric pumps < 20% electric pumps
Free/very low flat rate Earlier highest flat rate in
India and now high
metered tariff
High fiscal deficits due to
electricity subsidy
Non-existent electricity
subsidy
Highly restrictive groundwater policies
The GW Act of 2005 and before that the SWID
regulation of 1999 which stipulates that electricity
connections cannot be given without certification by
SWID
Almost 50-60% rejection by SWID even in safe blocks
High cost of pump electrification (USD 2000-
3000) and long waiting period
Political ecology: government dominated by urban
intelligentsia, strong arsenic lobby and weak
farmers lobby co-opted by the state
Why is energy-irrigation nexus so different in
West Bengal?
Agricultural growth rate of around 1% and stagnation
High period of agrarian growth in mid 1990s coincided
with high GW use and increase in summer paddy
The latest MI Census shows an absolute decline in
number of WEMs and reduction in summer paddy (but
the GoWB is changing these numbers, I was told)
Declining quality of life , peasant unrest and Maoist threat
So what is happening on the agricultural front in
West Bengal?
12
Are there physical constraints to GW development in West Bengal?
As per the Ganges Water
Machine Hypothesis,
intensive GW use has
positive externalities
Not really. Pre-monsoon
decline in groundwater
table is fully recovered
during post monsoon
season showing high actual
recharge
13
Testing the Ganges Water Machine hypothesis using panel data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ positivere~y | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- apriltable | .8577282 .0145882 58.80 0.000 .8291239 .8863324 aprnovrain~l | .0003465 .0000814 4.26 0.000 .000187 .000506 decmarchra~l | .0019719 .0005453 3.62 0.000 .0009026 .0030412 _cons | -3.151964 .1539974 -20.47 0.000 -3.453918 -2.850009 -------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
sigma_u | 1.7284553 sigma_e | 1.3200953
rho | .63159102 (fraction of variance due to u_i) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F test that all u_i=0: F(323, 2913) = 9.86 Prob > F = 0.0000
ittiitititiit recLAGRFnonmonRFmonsoonWDprerec 1,4321 ____
Data
• 16 years of groundwater level data from 403 monitoring wells (1990-1995)
• Block level rainfall data from 1990-2005
• Data on type of aquifer
Regression specification
• Panel data with well level fixed effects
• Keeps all time invariant factors (such as nature of aquifer) constant over time
• Exploits within-well variation
For every one meter of
additional drawdown in pre-
monsoon season, post-
monsoon recovery goes up
by 0.85 m
Far from negative “quantity”
externality, there are positive
externalities in terms of
reduction of rejected recharge,
lower flood intensity, cheaper
alternative to surface storage
14
Predicted versus actual recovery: Shows good model fit -5
05
10
15
20
Lin
ea
r p
red
ictio
n
0 10 20 30pre_wd
Predicted recovery against pre-monsoon groundwater table at well-level
Predicted recovery in post monsoon
season
Actual recovery in post monsoon
season
15
6 arguments as to why arsenic should not be an obstacle to intensive GW use in Bengal
• Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in lower Ganga Basin. As soon as arsenic bearing layers
are exposed to oxygen, they release arsenic into water. Short of total ban on groundwater use,
nothing much that can be done about it
• But then, GW is the only resource at disposal to farmers that allows them to intensify their
cropping system and make a living out of stamp size land holdings. Ponds, tanks or canals does not
allow for such intensification and are at best supplemental sources of irrigation
• Arsenic is a pre-dominantly drinking water problem and several cost effective solutions to mitigate
this exists.
• Limited and patchy evidence that arsenic is taken up by some leafy vegetables. Create awareness so
that farmers do not use arsenic rich water for anything but paddy. Arsenic uptake by paddy grains is
negligible and can be taken care of by cooking
• Finally, uptake of arsenic in human body is positively linked with poor
nutritional status and providing nutritional supplements like folate is a better
deterrent than blanket ban on groundwater
• High agricultural growth is directly linked to poverty alleviation and better nutrition status. In
Indian context, all states with high agrarian growth are also groundwater dependant
Linking these 6 arguments shows that
discouraging GW use is counter-productive
because in the absence of any other
alternative sources of reliable irrigation&
livelihoods, farmers in the region will become
nutritionally poorer and even more
susceptible to arsenic poisoning.
The best anti-dote to arsenic is overall socio-
economic development. GW offers the best
hope for rapid agricultural and overall socio-
economic development in WB
Hi-Tech Metering Technology
Tamper proof TOD meters
Remotely read
New law against
tampering
Reduces corruption
collusion
Findings
Same hours of self pumping – Less electricity bill
Less hour of selling water – Higher or same revenue
Higher bargaining power vis-à-vis water buyers
Win – win situation
Pump owners:
Largely winners
Findings
Water buyers: Losers
Increase in water charges by 30-50%
Lesser hours sold by pump owners
Adverse terms & condition of buying water
19
3 Change in hours of pumping and water sold (2004 and 2010 compared)
Pump owners are pumping less and selling even less
Type of WEM Difference in
hours of
pumped
Difference in
hours of self
irrigation
Difference
in hours of
water sold
ES (N=41) -1094.0 (44%) -50.7 -776.9
EC (N=50) -636.6 (40%) -154.5 -476.0
DC (N=39) -75.1 (20%) -35.6 -36.4
KC (N=4) -104.3 (23%) -48.7 -56.1
All types of WEM owners are pumping less than before –
the electric tubewell owners more so than the diesel and
kerosene owners. Even more importantly, they are selling
less than before. Overall contraction in pump rental
markets and irrigation economy
ES = Electric submersible; EC= Electric centrifugal, DC= Diesel centrifugal, KC = Kerosene centrifugal
Overall contraction in
irrigation economy of
West Bengal and it will
have negative
livelihood implications
Findings
Groundwater
use efficiency: Winner
Increased adoption of plastic pipes for
conveyance
Better maintenance of field channels
Construction of underground pipelines
But will it save water? And is it important?
Explaining the GW paradox
The political ecology perspective
GW policies
Agrarian politics GW resources
Policy recommendation
Rapid electrification of tubewells to
encourage competitive GW markets (Bihar?)
Relaxation on issuance of SWID certificate
for new TW installation
Give capital cost subsidy for installation of
tube wells – target small & marginal farmers
Panchayat (village council) intervention in
regulating water prices if needed
Pilot a scheme of ICT enabled diesel
subsidy voucher (a la Bangladesh)
Thank You
References
• Mukherji, A; Villholth, K. G.; Sharma, Bharat R.; Wang, J. (Eds.) 2009. Groundwater
governance in the Indo-Gangetic and Yellow River basins: realities and challenges.
London, UK: CRC Press. Taylor and Francis group. 325p. (IAH Selected Papers on
Hydrogeology 15)
• Mukherji, A., B. Das, N. Majumdar, N.C. Nayak, R.R. Sethi and B.R. Sharma (2009),
Metering of agricultural power supply in West Bengal, India: Who gains and who loses?
Energy Policy: 37 (12): 5530-5539.
• Mukherji, A. (2008), Spatio-temporal analysis of markets for groundwater irrigation
services in India, 1976-77 to 1997-98, Hydrogeology Journal, 16(6): 1077-1087.
Mukherji, A. (2007), „The energy-irrigation nexus and its impact on groundwater
markets in eastern Indo-Gangetic basin: Evidence from West Bengal, India‟, Energy
Policy, Vol. 35(12): 6413-6430.
• Mukherji, A (2007), „Implications of alternative institutional arrangements in
groundwater sharing: Evidence from West Bengal‟, Economic and Political Weekly, 42
(26): 2543-2551
• Mukherji, A. (2006), Political ecology of groundwater: The contrasting case of water
abundant West Bengal and water scarce Gujarat, India, Hydrogeology Journal
14(3):392-406.
• Mukherji, A. & Shah, T. (2005). Groundwater socio-ecology and governance: a review
of institutions and policies in selected countries. Hydrogeology Journal, 13(1): 328–345.
ISI ranked.