Water Policy Briefs

Data exchange in transboundary waters is fundamental to advance cooperation in water management. Nonetheless, the degree to which data are actually shared is falling short of basin-level and international targets. A global assessment revealed that a reasonable proportion of river basins exchange some data, but the breadth of such exchange is often limited and not regular. More in-depth examination of African basins nonetheless suggests that a real need for, and use of, water data appears to motivate exchange. Indeed, evidence suggests that data exchange needs which are more directly felt enhance exchange, e.g., the direct need to minimize flood impacts or manage transboundary infrastructure. As such, data sharing is much more likely to be considered as being successful if it responds to a palpable need and serves practical uses. Also, in developing data exchange programs, it may be prudent to adopt a focused and sequential approach to data exchange that starts with a short-list of most needed parameters.

Governments in sub-Saharan Africa promote the expansion of irrigation to improve food security, primarily through the adoption and use of groundwater-based smallholder private irrigation. Using the case of Ethiopia, we examine farmers’ willingness to adopt smallholder private irrigation packages in response to subsidies on pump prices, loan availability and reduction in ambiguities related to borehole drilling. The results of the research highlight that subsidizing pump prices may not be the best use of public funds to expand irrigation. Instead, decreasing ambiguities around borehole drilling is likely to play a significant role and is a cost-effective step toward expanding groundwater-based irrigation and increasing the adoption of pumps by small-scale farmers. The policy implication is that the government should help farmers minimize the uncertainties and cost of unsuccessful drilling. This will require the government to study groundwater hydrogeology, use information on groundwater depth, seasonality and recharge to drill boreholes, and absorb the costs of unsuccessful drilling.

Irrigated agriculture has contributed greatly to food security in Asia - and irrigation projects present new opportunities for reducing poverty. This requires that projects deliberately tilt towards the poor. Moreover, policymakers, implementers and managers need to adopt an integrated approach when using irrigation as a pro-poor intervention strategy. With the right institutional and technical conditions, an effective incentives structure and proper implementation and management practices, pro-poor irrigation projects can make a significant difference to poverty in the region.

A major drawback of India’s agriculture, watershed development and irrigation strategy has been the neglect of relatively wetter catchment areas and the tribal people living therein. Investing in small-scale interventions for improved water control can produce a dramatic impact on the productivity and dependability of tribal livelihood systems.

This Water Policy Briefing is based on the CA Research Report 4: Does International Cereal Trade Save Water? The Impact of Virtual Water Trade on Global Water Use (CA Research Report 4) by Charlotte de Fraiture, Ximing Cai, Upali Amarasinghe, Mark Rosegrant and David Molden; and on Investing in Water for Food, Ecosystems and Livelihoods (BLUE PAPER, Stockholm 2004, Discussion Draft) by David Molden and Charlotte de Fraiture; and on Is Virtual Water Trade a Solution for Water Scarce Countries? by Charlotte de Fraiture and David Molden, Bridges 2004.; By the year 2050 there will be an additional 3 billion people to feed. Food production may need to increase by 70-90 percent from levels in 2000 to meet this global food demand. Without improvements in the efficiency and productivity of agricultural water use, crop water consumption would have to grow by the same order of magnitude. A big challenge in water management is to grow sufficient food for a growing and more affluent population while meeting the many other demands on limited water resources—household needs, industrial requirements and environmental functions. Already, an estimated 20% of the global population lives in river basins that are characterized by physical water scarcity. International food trade can have significant impacts on national water demand. The term ‘virtual water’, first introduced by Allan (1998), refers to the volume of water used to produce traded crops. By importing food a country ‘saves’ the amount of water it would have required to produce it on its own soil. Thus, international food trade can have important mpacts on how and where water is used. Food trade reduces water use at two levels. At a national level, a country reduces water use by importing food rather than producing it. At a global level, trade reduces water use because, at present, production in exporting countries is more water efficient than in importing countries. Moreover, four of the five major grain exporters produce under highly productive rainfed conditions while importing countries would have relied more on irrigation. In fact, without cereal trade, global irrigation water demand would have been higher by 11%. Some researchers have suggested that international food trade can and should be used as an active policy instrument to mitigate local and regional water scarcity. They contend that, instead of striving for food self-sufficiency, water short countries should import food from water abundant countries. Indeed, food trade has a large potential to alleviate water scarcity, but in practice there are many reasons why this is unlikely to happen in the near future.

Developing countries like India are actively being encouraged to move from the traditional supply-side orientation towards proactive demand management under the broad framework of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a sound philosophy which is hard to disagree with. However, in developing countries, what usually gets passed-off in the name of IWRM at the operational level takes a rather narrow view of the philosophy and has largely tended to include a blue-print package including: [1] A national water policy; [2] A water law and regulatory framework; [3] Recognition of River Basin as the appropriate unit of water and land resources planning and management; [4] Treating water as an economic good; and [5] Participatory water resource management. Several of these mark a significant shift from current paradigms and making this transition is proving to be difficult. Drafting new water laws is easy; enforcing them is not. Renaming regional water departments as basin organizations is easy; but managing water resources at basin level is not. Declaring water an economic good is simple; but using price mechanisms to direct water to high-value uses is proving complex. As a consequence, the so-called IWRM initiatives in developing country contexts have proved to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

This Water Policy Briefing is based on Policies Drain the North China Plain: Agricultural Policy and Groundwater Depletion in Luancheng County, 1949 – 2000 (IWMI Research Report 71) by Eloise Kendy, David J. Molden, Tammo S. Steenhuis, Changming Liu and Jinxia Wang and on Hydronomic Zones for Developing Basin Water Conservation Strategies (IWMI Research Report 56) by David J. Molden, R. Sakthivadivel and Jack Keller. With growing populations, changing weather patterns, and increasing pollution of surface water bodies, countries across the world are relying more and more on finite groundwater reserves built up over centuries, for household, agricultural, and industrial needs. Although addressing water shortages in the short term, groundwater exploitation brings with it its own host of problems. It can cause salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers and subsidenceof the land surface. Governments are quick to turn to improving water efficiency as the best solution to the problem, but are too often disappointed. Research is increasingly highlighting that in devising water management strategies to conserve water and halt the decline of groundwater levels, policymakers must conduct holistic studies of hydrologic systems to find appropriate solutions that will result in real water savings. What’s needed then is not a simple ‘one size fits all’ policy or solution, but varying management approaches to suit specific situations. The concept of hydronomic zones, which categorizes a hydrologic system into different zones—each having its own water-related issues—could be a useful tool in this exercise.

According to research done by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), one-third of the world’s population will face absolute water scarcity by the year 2025. Among the worst hit will be regions in Asia, the Middle-East and Sub-Saharan Africa, home to some of the largest concentrations of rural poverty in the world. Policymakers, researchers, NGOs, and farmers are pursuing various technical, institutional and policy interventions to meet this challenge. Micro-irrigation technologies, commonly in use in water scarce areas of developed countries, constitute one such intervention with the ability to use water more efficiently in irrigated agriculture. These technologies can improve productivity; raise incomes through crop yields and outputs; and enhance food security of households. Numerous studies have established the gains from micro-irrigation adoption and several government and non-government organizations are engaged in actively promoting the technologies. In India, micro-irrigation technologies have been marketed for more than three decades. The main vehicle of government policies to promote micro-irrigation systems are product subsidies—in certain cases up to 90 percent. However, there has been a lukewarm response to such initiatives from farmers, especially smallholders. This can be attributed to several causes: lack of access to groundwater, lack of cash, crop specificity of the available micro-irrigation technologies, lack of know-how, poor product quality and absence of adequate credit facilities (Narayanamoorthy 1996). Studies show that despite active promotion, the appeal of these technologies has remained confined to “gentlemen farmers”—wealthier farmers who produce commercial crops (Shah and Keller 2002). Despite these constraints, in certain pockets of India, these technologies have become a popular choice among farmers. It is notable that, in some of these cases, the technologies have been adopted in the absence of government subsidies. However, IWMI’s work shows that in general special efforts are required to market cost appropriate technologies to the poor and smallholder farmers. Drip irrigation is often promoted for reasons that do not match with the farmers’ main concerns. While the government promotes drips as longterm investments for water saving and sustainable agriculture, the farmers look for more immediate and assured benefits, such as lower costs and increased incomes.

Recurring water crises, global water initiatives, and demands for water reforms by development banks, have all pushed water up the agenda of most Mekong-region countries. Many changes have already been made. Now decision makers need to know what has worked, what hasn’t, and why. To find out, IWMI has reviewed new water policies, plans and laws, and assessed participation, the new water ‘apex bodies’, and integrated water resources management (IWRM). The findings show that top-down state policies based on ‘blueprints’ are widely applied in a one-size-fits-all approach, without taking local realities into account. Water planning is still largely expert-driven, and focused on procedures and targets. There is little room for decision-making that is based on negotiations between users, line agencies, NGOs and politicians, for example. Although much mention is made of participation and IWRM, little is being done on the ground. To bridge these divides, better forms of governance are needed. And greater efforts need to be made to understand complex local situations—so that policymakers are better informed, and new policies are appropriate and workable. Key to this will be an understanding of what causes new policies to succeed or fail in different contexts.

This Water Policy Briefing is based on Working Wetlands: Classifying Wetland Potential for Agriculture by Matthew P. McCartney, Mutsa Masiyandima and Helen A. Houghton-Carr (IWMI Research Report 90); Wetlands: Functions and Values by Matthew P. McCartney; and Challenges for Wetlands: Water Management and Agriculture by Max Finlayson, Mutsa Masiyandima, David Molden and Rebecca Tharme. The trade-off between environmental protection and development is most acute in dynamic and complex ecosystems such as wetlands. Wetlands ‘work’ for society. They maintain environmental quality, sustain livelihoods and support biodiversity. However, socio-economic pressures mean that we are now pushing wetlands to work even harder, for example, by producing more crops or grazing more cattle. History shows that ‘over-working’ wetlands can cause them to change significantly—often with negative effects on the communities or even civilizations that depend on them. Safeguarding the benefits of wetland services for society must be weighed against the potential benefits of development. But making such decisions is difficult. Besides physical, economic and social factors, the impact of any changes on stakeholders at all levels—local, regional and global—must be considered for ‘wise use’ of wetlands. policymakers and planners need to ensure that they take the most comprehensive range of factors possible into account in any trade-off between wetland services and development choices. Fortunately, a simple sixstep approach to determine Working Wetland Potential is now available to help assess the opportunities and risks of changing a wetland’s workload (Fig. 1). This method, one of the first of its kind, combines both the social and biophysical aspects of wetlands into one index relevant to agricultural use. IWMI has applied the approach to proposed agricultural activities in wetlands in southern Africa—a region where development is essential and pressure on wetlands is increasing. The approach ensures that many crucial questions about using wetlands for agriculture are made explicit and, at least, considered in the planning process. It is a step forward in securing and improving people’s quality of life while, at the same time, safeguarding the ecological benefits derived from wetland ecosystems.

China and India face similar challenges in managing their irrigation economies. Both are developing nations with large agricultural populations, high population densities and a high proportion of agriculture under irrigation. Both are facing challenges in financing existing irrigation systems in the face of broader economic reforms. And in both countries, groundwater provides a particular challenge since it is a major source of irrigation, but with accelerating declines in both quantity and quality. Problems in financing surface irrigation systems, worries about continued groundwater table declines along with cost implications for both farmers and the energy industry, and a range of other issues have raised serious concerns over the future sustainability of irrigated systems and food security. As a result, there is now near unanimous agreement in both countries on the need to formulate practical strategies to manage the future of their irrigation economies. India and China are trying different paths when responding to their water problems and the management of public and private irrigation infrastructure. Yet, China’s experience with alternative institutional arrangements could provide useful direction to India’s equally complex surface and groundwater irrigation systems.

This briefing was produced by International Water Management Institute (IWMI), the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, the Technical Committee of the Global Water Partnership (GWP) and the GWP Advisory Center at IWMI. It draws primarily on research from the Multiple Use Systems (MUS) project and the Productive Uses of Water Thematic Group (Prodwat) (see references for further reading). The brief complements Catalyzing Change, the GWP handbook for developing IWRM and water efficiency strategies and plans, and the associated policy and technical briefs. Single-use approaches to water development and management do not reflect the realities of poor people’s water use. People use domestic water supplies for activities such as irrigating backyard gardens, keeping livestock, fishing, processing crops and running small-scale enterprises. In areas without adequate domestic water supply, they use irrigation water to meet household needs, such as drinking and bathing, as well as to support a range of incomegenerating activities in addition to crop production. A more integrated, multiple-use approach can maximize the health benefits and productive potential of available water supplies–leading to increased incomes, improved health and reduced workloads for women and children. Systems that cater to multiple uses are also more likely to be sustainable, because users benefit more from them, have a greater stake in them, and are more willing and better able to pay for them. policy-makers, planners, and project designers need to enable and support a multiple-use approach by developing the necessary policies, capacities, and institutions. Incorporating provision for multiple uses into plans for meeting the Millennium Development Goals, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and IWRM and water efficiency plans and strategies is a start.

This Water Policy Briefing was produced by IWMI in partnership with the Global Water Partnership (GWP) Advisory Center at IWMI and the GWP Technical Committee. It is based on the book Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the Livelihood and Environmental Realities, edited by C.A. Scott, N.I. Faruqui, and L.Raschid-Sally (CABI/IWMI/IDRC, 2004), and the revised WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater (2006, In Press). The brief complements Catalyzing Change, the GWP handbook for developing IWRM and water efficiency strategies and plans, and the associated policy and technical briefs. In developing countries, fast-growing urban populations are demanding more fresh water and food, while generating greater volumes of domestic wastewater. Due to the lack of comprehensive wastewater management, a major portion of the wastewater pollutes natural water bodies. These polluted sources are used in and around the cities for agriculture and other purposes. In drier climates, farmers often use the wastewater itself from drains and sewers because it is the only (reliable) source of water. Although municipalities increasingly recognize the importance of this sector in supplying cities, amongs other things with vitamin rich vegetables, they are also aware of the associated health risks through microbial crop contamination1, especially when it concerns food consumed uncooked. Among wastewater-related infections, diarrhoeal diseases are the top cause of death among children in the developing world. Fragmented attempts have been made to address this problem, by relying on technical solutions (wastewater treatment) or regulatory measures (such as banning wastewater irrigation or restricting the types of crops irrigated). Both approaches have failed in the context of low-income countries. What’s required is an integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach which looks at the whole urban water cycle and across the urban-rural continuum at environmental consequences downstream, as well as socio-economic benefits of resource recovery. This has to be combined with locally appropriate and sustainable risk reduction measures. It should also recognize that solutions require the active involvement of stakeholders from different sectors. This is a vital point in a sensitive and multi-sectoral issue like “peri-urban wastewater irrigation”, which commonly concerns different ministries and municipal departments.

This issue of Water Policy Briefing is based on research presented in When ‘Conservation’ Leads to Land Degradation: Lessons from Ban Lak Sip, Laos (IWMI Research Report 91) by Guillaume Lestrelin, Mark Giordano and Bounmy Keohavong. The research was carried out by the Managing Soil Erosion Consortium (MSEC)—a multi-country collaborative effort to better understand land degradation, and potential solutions, in upland areas of Southeast Asia. MSEC is coordinated by IWMI with substantial contributions from France’s Institute of Research for Development (IRD). MSEC’s primary partner in Laos is the Soil Survey and Land Classification Center. Around the world, intensive farming in fragile environments is taking its toll on natural resources. This has led to greater awareness of the need to use agricultural land sustainably—to maximize yields without compromising the health and productivity of the soil. Laos’ current rural-development and land-use policies were influenced in part by exactly such an environmental agenda. However, a recent study has shown that land degradation has actually increased in the village of Ban Lak Sip since these policies were put in place. The study used an innovative multi-scale approach to analyze local land degradation in relation to Laos’ broader socioeconomic and political environment. This showed that new policies had created an artificial shortage of land—forcing farmers to crop more intensively, and inadvertently causing more degradation. conventional forms of scientific analysis would have identified the change in farming patterns as the cause of degradation. But, importantly, they would not have pinpointed why the change occurred—information which is vital if ways of resolving the problem are to be found. So, because of the analytical approach used, the case of Ban Lak Sip provides a cautionary lesson in the formulation of environmental policy. Policymakers need to carefully consider the impacts that conservation efforts will have on people’s livelihood strategies, if they are to avoid forcing communities to take up practices that increase environmental degradation. To this end, any environmental policy that imposes restrictions, especially on people’s livelihood activities, will need to offer new opportunities too.

Policymakers and planners have tended to overlook artisanal fisheries—despite the fact that in rural areas, fisheries often contribute significantly to incomes and diets. An estimated 50 million people in developing countries derive income and food from inland fisheries. In locations as diverse as the Mekong, Amazon and Lake Chad basins, researchers found that rural households typically obtain 10 to 30 percent of their total income from inland fishing. And, particularly for poor households, fish is often the primary source of protein. Irrigation development and management can have direct and indirect impacts on fisheries. It can change flow patterns, size and connectivity of aquatic habitats, and water quality—affecting the productivity and diversity of fisheries. It can also change physical accessibility or rights of access to water bodies—affecting who is able to benefit from the resource. But, contrary to popular belief, fisheries can happily co-exist with irrigation systems - contributing to the overall productivity of systems and to livelihoods and food security of the surrounding communities. Recent research from Laos and Sri Lanka has shown that irrigation development can actually enhance fisheries production, with appropriate water management and policy support.

The full poverty-fighting potential of existing irrigation schemes is not being realized—largely because of inequitable water distribution and unsustainable land and water management practices. An integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach reveals opportunities to reduce poverty and improve overall agricultural productivity and sustainability in these systems. Research in India and Pakistan has highlighted one such opportunity—integrated management of surface water and groundwater—that has great potential for water-short systems with variable groundwater resources. By considering groundwater availability and quality when allocating surface water, water managers could improve the situation of millions of poor farmers with inadequate access to both surface water and groundwater and overall productivity in irrigated systems. The prevailing fragmented approach—where groundwater and surface water are managed separately—has contributed to high vulnerability and low agricultural productivity for farmers in the tail ends of canals and to land salinization in areas with poor quality groundwater.

The full poverty-fighting potential of existing irrigation schemes is not being realized—largely because of inequitable water distribution and unsustainable land and water management practices. An integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach reveals opportunities to reduce poverty and improve overall agricultural productivity and sustainability in these systems. Research in India and Pakistan has highlighted one such opportunity—integrated management of surface water and groundwater—that has great potential for water-short systems with variable groundwater resources. By considering groundwater availability and quality when allocating surface water, water managers could improve the situation of millions of poor farmers with inadequate access to both surface water and groundwater and overall productivity in irrigated systems. The prevailing fragmented approach—where groundwater and surface water are managed separately—has contributed to high vulnerability and low agricultural productivity for farmers in the tail ends of canals and to land salinization in areas with poor quality groundwater.

Policymakers and planners have tended to overlook artisanal fisheries—despite the fact that in rural areas, fisheries often contribute significantly to incomes and diets. An estimated 50 million people in developing countries derive income and food from inland fisheries. In locations as diverse as the Mekong, Amazon and Lake Chad basins, researchers found that rural households typically obtain 10 to 30 percent of their total income from inland fishing. And, particularly for poor households, fish is often the primary source of protein. Irrigation development and management can have direct and indirect impacts on fisheries. It can change flow patterns, size and connectivity of aquatic habitats, and water quality—affecting the productivity and diversity of fisheries. It can also change physical accessibility or rights of access to water bodies—affecting who is able to benefit from the resource. But, contrary to popular belief, fisheries can happily co-exist with irrigation systems - contributing to the overall productivity of systems and to livelihoods and food security of the surrounding communities. Recent research from Laos and Sri Lanka has shown that irrigation development can actually enhance fisheries production, with appropriate water management and policy support.

This issue of Water Policy Briefing is based on research presented in When ‘Conservation’ Leads to Land Degradation: Lessons from Ban Lak Sip, Laos (IWMI Research Report 91) by Guillaume Lestrelin, Mark Giordano and Bounmy Keohavong. The research was carried out by the Managing Soil Erosion Consortium (MSEC)—a multi-country collaborative effort to better understand land degradation, and potential solutions, in upland areas of Southeast Asia. MSEC is coordinated by IWMI with substantial contributions from France’s Institute of Research for Development (IRD). MSEC’s primary partner in Laos is the Soil Survey and Land Classification Center. Around the world, intensive farming in fragile environments is taking its toll on natural resources. This has led to greater awareness of the need to use agricultural land sustainably—to maximize yields without compromising the health and productivity of the soil. Laos’ current rural-development and land-use policies were influenced in part by exactly such an environmental agenda. However, a recent study has shown that land degradation has actually increased in the village of Ban Lak Sip since these policies were put in place. The study used an innovative multi-scale approach to analyze local land degradation in relation to Laos’ broader socioeconomic and political environment. This showed that new policies had created an artificial shortage of land—forcing farmers to crop more intensively, and inadvertently causing more degradation. conventional forms of scientific analysis would have identified the change in farming patterns as the cause of degradation. But, importantly, they would not have pinpointed why the change occurred—information which is vital if ways of resolving the problem are to be found. So, because of the analytical approach used, the case of Ban Lak Sip provides a cautionary lesson in the formulation of environmental policy. Policymakers need to carefully consider the impacts that conservation efforts will have on people’s livelihood strategies, if they are to avoid forcing communities to take up practices that increase environmental degradation. To this end, any environmental policy that imposes restrictions, especially on people’s livelihood activities, will need to offer new opportunities too.

Based on research presented in “Institutional Alternatives in African Smallholder Irrigation: :Lessons from International Experience with Irrigation Management Transfer (IWMI Research Report 60)” by Tushaar Shah, Barbara van Koppen, Marna de Lange, Madar Samad, and Douglas Merrey. An international review of IMT experiences shows that for transfer to work, the irrigation system must be central to a wealth-creating agriculture within which IMT makes good economic sense to farmers. This is not the case in a majority of Africa’s smallholder schemes. Making IMT work in this context means addressing a number of challenges: smallholder dependency resulting from years of state intervention in farm operations and management, farmers’ inability to depend on irrigated agriculture as their primary income source, insecure land tenure arrangements, and lack of access to credit and input and output markets Current IMT strategies which focus on investments in capacity-building and infrastructure rehabilitation alone are destined to fail. For IMT to succeed, it must be accompanied by interventions that extend beyond the irrigation sector to significantly enhance African smallholder productivity and incomes. Potential avenues for accomplishing this include strengthening access to markets and credit, promoting high-value crops, improving systems for extension and technical support, making investments in smallholder technologies, clarifying land tenure arrangements, encouraging the development of farm equity schemes, and providing necessary supports through farmers’ associations.

Electricity subsidies for farmers are an expensive legacy of past development policies. The result is overuse of both energy and water in groundwater-irrigated agriculture—threatening the financial viability of the power sector and the future of the groundwater resource itself, along with the livelihoods of the millions who depend on it. The most popular solution is the metered tariff, promoted by international donors and many of India’s state governments. But metering is the ideal solution only if the cost of metering and billing 14 million scattered, small users in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is ignored. Easier, more feasible and more beneficial in the short run in many parts of South Asia would be the use of a rational flat tariff, which avoids the transaction costs and strong farmer opposition associated with metering. The flat-tariff option has been ignored because, in its current incarnation, it has proved a complete failure. However, combined with intelligent power supply rationing, it is a logical, viable alternative which could cut wasteful groundwater use by 12-18 km3 per year in Western and Peninsular India alone. The approach would involve (1) gradually raising tariffs to cut power utility losses; (2) supplying farms with fewer hours of power per year, but ensuring a quality power supply during periods of moisture stress; and (3) metering at the feeder level to measure and monitor farm power use, to allow good management.

Based on research presented in the book “Water Productivity in Agriculture : Limits and Opportunities for Improvement” by J.W. Kijne, R. Barker and D. Molden. If current trends continue, the water crisis—which is already beginning to rear its head in many countries through depleted groundwater aquifers, dried-up rivers and wetlands, and frequent water shortages—will indeed become a global problem. A recent study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) projects that if present trends continue, by 2025 competition from growing cities and industry worldwide will limit the amount of water available for irrigation, causing annual global losses of 350 million metric tons of food production - slightly more than the entire current U.S. grain crop. The environment will also sustain further damage, as water from this already thirsty sector is diverted to agriculture, households and industry. If levels of investment in sustainable water policy and management decrease over the next 20 years, the result will be major declines in food production and skyrocketing food prices. research done over the past decade shows that by improving the productivity of water on irrigated and rain-fed lands, we can have enough water for cities, industry and nature. But this requires a commitment to institutional and management reforms, and substantial investment in crop research, technology, and infrastructure.

Approaching the rehabilitation of the 50-100 year-old irrigation tanks—spread across Rajasthan, South Bihar, Madya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and other South Asian locations such as Sri Lanka—solely from an irrigation perspective, runs the risk of depriving communities of valuable socio-ecological services and functions that these structures provide today. These tanks may have become ‘inefficient’ in their original function of providing flow irrigation, but as they have degraded over time, they have evolved into valuable systems that support people’s livelihoods in a number of ways. In addition to storing water for crop irrigation, tanks provide services such as recharge of groundwater used by adjacent communities, fertile silted soil that allows cultivation of additional crops, fishing and aquaculture, water for raising livestock, and sand and soil used by small industries.

Based on research presented in “Urban-Wastewater Reuse for Crop Production in the Water-Short Guanajuato River Basin Mexico (IWMI) Research Report 41) by C. Scott, J.A. Zarazua and G. Levine; “Urban Wastewater: AValuable Resource for Agriculture: A Case Study from Haroonabad, Pakistan (IWMI Research Report 63)” by W. van der Hoek, M. Ul Hassan, J. Ensink, S. Feenstra, L. Rachid-Sally, S. Munir, R. Aslam, N. Ali, R. Hussain and Y. Matsuno: and “Use of Untreated Wastewater in Peri-Urban Agriculture in Pakistan: Risks and Opportunities (IWMI Research Report 64)” by K Ensink, W. van der Hoek, Y. Matsuno, S. Munir and R. Aslam.; In urban and peri-urban zones in developing countries, poor farmers commonly use nutrient-rich sewage and wastewater to irrigate high-value crops. In many places, this untreated wastewater is their only source of irrigation water—so their livelihoods depend on it. But, as well as bringing benefits, the unregulated use of wastewater also poses risks to human health and the environment. The prevailing “scientific” approach to wastewater irrigation advocates treatment before use and the implementation of strict regulations. But many developing countries can’t afford to build treatment facilities and do not have the resources to enforce regulations. There are other options, as IWMI research in Mexico and Pakistan demonstrates. Well-crafted policies on wastewater use have the potential to improve the incomes of poor urban and peri-urban farmers and reduce pollution of lakes, streams and aquifers. Continuing to turn a blind eye to wastewater use can result in higher incidences of disease among farmers and consumers and in irreversible degradation of the environment. Policymakers need to develop comprehensive strategies for managing wastewater tailored to local socioeconomic and environmental conditions and for analysis of the short- and long-term risks and benefits of all available options.

Driven largely by financial pressures, many governments are transferring full or partial management responsibility for irrigation systems from government agencies to farmers organized into Water User Associations (WUAs). In most cases, improving the situation of poor farmers has been a secondary aim of this reform. But there is increasing evidence that Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) can actually negatively impact the situation of poor farmers—and, in extreme cases, can even cause the collapse of irrigation schemes. New research assessed two different IMT programs: The Gujarat Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) program, one of the first IMT programs in India, and the Andhra Pradesh Farmers’ Management of Irrigation Systems (APFMIS) program, which with its sweeping reforms has served as an example worldwide. This research suggests that even if the IMT process contains all the right ingredients on paper—such as strong voting rights for farmers, irrespective of farm size—poor farmers are less informed on the whole about their rights and so tend to lose out on many of the potential benefits of IMT. The study showed that in both Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh poor farmers tended to participate more in the repair and rehabilitation work, while the larger farmers were more involved in the decision-making process—dominating the meetings and committees (see fig.1). To make IMT more pro-poor, and to ensure the viability of WUAs, which depend heavily on the labor contribution of small farmers, policy makers should take steps to ensure that poor farmers participate equally in decision-making processes. These steps include raising awareness and access to information, and making the election of WUA committees (which favor the village elite) more competitive and transparent. Monitoring participation in WUA activities and decision making against a reliable, and easily available indicator of poverty—farm size—is a key in evaluating equity trends over time.

Societies need forward-thinking knowledge institutions in the water sector to help them deal with the opportunities and crises that will arise in the future. India has some leading, high-performance knowledge institutions. But it also has many more that no longer deliver high-value thinking, insights or perspectives. Can these under-achieving institutions be transformed? How can the government, NGOs and international organizations design, build and maintain successful, highpotential institutions? Practical answers have been found in a recent review of 30 diverse Indian institutions. The review—part of an effort to improve institution-building in the water sector—found many traits that set the “winning” institutions apart from the poor performers. First, it is the quality of an institution’s design and launch that determines its ability to lead and to be recognized as a leader in the future. Second, good operative practices—with regard to human resources, fund-raising policy, management style and core products and services—ensure an environment where innovative thinkers can excel. The research argues that a) both these aspects are vital if an institute with high potential is to flourish and b) capital investment is necessary—but not sufficient—to achieve success. Finally, the study recommends a complete relaunch of under-achieving institutions, with new NGO staff and a fresh mandate.

Many people still believe that India’s irrigation water mainly comes from canal irrigation systems. While this may have been true in the past, recent research shows that groundwater irrigation has overtaken surface-water irrigation as the main supplier of water for India’s crops. Groundwater now sustains almost 60% of the country’s irrigated area. Even more importantly, groundwater now contributes more to agricultural wealth creation than any other irrigation source (see Fig. 1). groundwater use has increased largely because it is a democratic resource,’ available to any farmer who has access to a pump. Accessibility has led to widespread exploitation of the resource, by farmers grateful for a reliable irrigation-water source. In turn, this has led to high levels of groundwater use being associated with high population density. But it is a myth that groundwater use is high only where supplies are high. Such findings are worrying, because the consequences of overexploitation of this precious and productive resource can be catastrophic. The research highlighted in this briefing identifies four stages of groundwater development. To avert potential disaster and maximize benefits of groundwater as a force for poverty reduction, new policies are needed at each of these four stages. It is crucial that policymakers intervene at these critical stages to manage both the supply and demand aspects of groundwater use. Urgent priorities are areas with low supplies of renewable groundwater but alarmingly high groundwater use, such as Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana.

The problems that river basin institutions in the developed world successfully address—such as pollution, sediment buildup in rivers and the degradation of wetlands—are not the top priorities for Indian policy makers and people. The items that do top Indian agendas—providing access to water for drinking and growing food, eradicating poverty, and stopping groundwater overexploitation—are either unresolved in the developed world or have become irrelevant due to economic development. This does not mean that India and other developing countries cannot learn valuable lessons from models for Integrated River Basin Management. Loosely structured River Basin Organizations, such as Southeast Asia’s Mekong Commission, can contribute to basin welfare by serving as a coordinating mechanism. They can facilitate dialogue and negotiation on resource allocation among organized stakeholders and representative bodies (such as national or state governments sharing a river basin). But River Basin Organizations by themselves cannot be expected to address the more fundamental issues that water sectors in India must contend with.

The State government has a vital role to play in developing groundwater resources to help improve the lot of the poorest people in eastern Indiaapos;s rural communities. Many States have tried to achieve this over the past 50 years through centrally planned public tube-well programs. Recently published research says that most of these efforts have failed to bring irrigation or improved livelihoods to the poor.; This research shows how policy makers can have a significant positive impact on poverty reduction by removing pump subsidies and opening pump markets to international competition. Subsidies and import restrictions have kept pump prices in India artificially inflated, by more than 35-45%, over those of neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh.; If a apos;shock therapyapos; approach of removing restrictions is too drastic or politically difficult, the next best option is to use market mechanisms to manage pump subsidy and loan programs for the poor. A good example of this approach is the jointly managed subsidy programs that have helped usher in eastern Indiaapos;s belated Green Revolution. Here local pump dealers are active participants in the management of pump subsidy programs, alongside government and nationalized banks. The examples of eastern Uttar Pradesh and north Bihar provide working models of such approaches.

Based on research presented in the technical paper “Artificial recharging of groundwater: An experiment in the Madhya Ganga Canal Project, India, by R. Sakthivadivel and A. S. Chawala