Language:
Search
 
CLimate Mitigation-Ensuring Water and Food Security through Improved Service Delivery
Multi Disciplinary Programme Unit
India

The Problem

Scope: The Multi Disciplinary Organisation (MDPU), the institution being nominated was established in Jan 2006 by converging eight service agencies, which have direct association with water and communities, with a purpose to mitigate water and food crisis caused by climate change. It aimed to assist 30 million people, of whom 22.8% were below poverty line, 1.54 million acres of cultivable lands, 4105 water bodies, in about 24,000 villages spread across 60 river sub-basins.
Naturally susceptible to Climate change-the challenge of Water & Food: Tamil Nadu is one of the driest states in India, with only 925 millimeters of rainfall a year. The dry season lasts five months, and droughts occur in 3 out of 10 years, severely limiting food production. Climate impacts manifested in rainfall variations and water availability, floods & droughts, reduction of crop lands, fall in food production leading to further marginalization of farmers, forcing rural migration. Food production and productivity stagnated leading to challenge of feeding growing population. The thinking of agencies working in the water sector was straitjacketed by administrative boundaries contrary to hydrological frameworks. Agriculture using 86% of the state’s water, suffered from a syndrome of low water productivity due to poor conveyance and application efficiencies. This juxtaposed with conventional farm choice inclined towards water guzzling crops coupled with age old practices pushed the state into a water scarcity trap.
Neglected Infrastructure: Lack of ownership by the community, absence of grassroots level institutions and dying communal practices resulted in dilapidated irrigation infrastructure, which was caught in a cycle of Built, Neglected and Rebuilt. The rehabilitation attempts were infrastructure centric & hardware driven neglecting the voice, choice and wisdom of the community.
Weak Supply Side interventions: Mutual understanding and coordination amongst the Public Agencies working at the grassroots in the Water and Food sector were weak. They reflected compartmentalized thinking and planning in isolated silos, at times working at cross purposes missing essential synergies. The water productivity in agriculture remained pathetic, for want of a) Partnerships with the community, b) efforts to empower the community to handle demand management (both at times of surplus/ scarcity) and c) effective behavioral change effort.
Demand Mismanagement: There was a lack of perspectives amongst communities around water. Natural apathy, fostering Individual greed overtook the collective wisdom of resource management. The focus was on the here & now of exploiting the resource for short term gains by the elite. Water was considered infinite without any consideration for conservation and sustainability. Community collective action was lost in a culture of largesse recipient behavior, looking towards Government for everything.
Unreached Communities: Limited interactions between farmers and Public Agencies resulted in the elite capturing benefits to the exclusion of the marginaised. This created Unreached geographies, regions and communities. Trapped in a vicious cycle this further reduced their reserves and the capacity to face up to impacts of Climate change.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Addressing the Water crisis: The rehabilitation measures in 1036 water bodies and 1078 Farm Ponds and other water harvesting structures increased storage by an additional 58.08 MCM (million cubic metre), 2,575 km of canal systems were revived benefitting 1.5 million farmers. 12,000 acres was brought under water saving drip/sprinkler irrigation systems. The concomitant improved conveyance and application efficiency resulted in 40% water conservation and benefited 9,849 farm families. Innovations like (SRI) System of Rice Intensification over two hundred thousand acres with 32% water savings also delivered major water productivity gains.
Governance- Deepening Democracy: In the process of providing Voice & Choice in decision making, 3695 Water Users associations (WUAs) have been established, benefitting 1.54 million acres. This is a major step in Institutional transformation by democratizing water management through direct participation of 2.2 Million Water users. These WUAs have been legally empowered for leading water & agriculture management in 24000 villages. To give life to this epochal transformation in governance the Community Based Water Management (CBWM) process was initiated with a focus on creating Shared Water Vision conservation, equitable sharing of the resource for appropriate use,. The communities undertook Water Budgeting and diversified to water saving crops & agronomic practices resulting in stabilizing irrigated agriculture in 60,000 acres.
Improved Service Delivery: Convergence was catalyzed both at the supply side and demand side. The “Multi-Sectoral Convergence strategy’’ integrated activities of 8 Public Agencies involved in water supply & usage This brought the state to the doorstep of the community by establishing a common meeting place “Single Window Centers” in the villages. The programme reached 3695 Water Users Associations; benefiting 20 million farmers, 60% of whom are small and marginal. An ICT based model of technology transfer (e-Agri Extension) delivers instant technical advice on crop production, plant protection, and weather and market information aspects in two large sub basins benefitting 886 lead farmers who in turn spread the service to 5 lakh acres.
Addressing the challenges of Food security:
Food security challenges were addressed focusing on water productivity -More Crop per drop of water to enhance rural livelihoods. This was successfully implemented over an area of 4, 91,000 acres through the SRI, Crop diversification combined with Water Management activities. Water saving through SRI was 32% and Water Productivity for eg. In Upper Vellar increased significantly from 3.91kg/cubic metre to 8.09 kg/cubic metre, a 200% increase. Crop diversification in 4,90,957 acres with less water consuming processes & crops like Maize, pulses, Sun Flower saved 141.58 MCM of water , a major step towards climate mitigation. Overall the agricultural production was augmented by 10, 41,135 Metric tones of which cereal, fruit and food availability increased by 5, 64,373 metric tones, incomes in the rural economy by 125 million US$. The farm operations generated employment opportunities for 1.12 million person days. 471 commodity groups were formed to undertake supply chain interventions by aggregation, value addition and joint ventures with the private sector resulting in a turnover of US$ 7, 22,494.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
Who proposed the solution? The Multi Disciplinary Program Organization (MDPU), lead by the Project Director Mr.Vibhu Nayar, IAS, (a senior member of Indian Civil Service ) discussed, formulated and incubated the Climate Mitigation Programme with the combined efforts of the specialists in the organization. His accomplishment as Project Director of Tamil Nadu Rural water Supply Programme which ensured equitable drinking water supply and his methodologies of transforming individual and institutional cultures through open process exploration came in handy for evolving the right strategies for this programme. It gave an opportunity for him to extend and upscale it in an irrigation water management context.
Towards creating a consensus amongst the multi stakeholders, Mr. Vibhu Nayar,ProjectDirector,Mr.M.S.Vaidyanathan,Mr.N.K.Raman,Mr.S.RajagopalanMr.M.K.Seetharaman and other specialists from MDPU initiated consultations across 8 sector agencies and 60 Sub-Basins through Water Walks, discussions with focus groups , comprehensive participatory assessments with the water users especially small and marginal farmers to assess the concerns, issues and opportunities for a participatory plan of the program, thinking out of the box for creating a new paradigm addressing Service Delivery in the context of Climate change.
Mr.Vibhu Nayar introduced the Climate Change Management Process structured at three levels; first institutional orientation to evolve appropriate perspective & create strategies; second at community level to build a shared vision with a new understanding of water and; third at individual level of the official as well as at farm to put into practice the new found learning.Mr.S.Manoharan offered great support in translating the ideas of Mr.Vibhu Nayar.
Who implemented it? The MDPU, an institution of the Government of Tamil Nadu ,led by the afore mentioned individuals undertook the implementation by crystalising and collaborating with agencies dealing with Water Resources, Food, Livestock and Aquaculture along with communities in a Sub basin framework. The program is an outcome of a bottom up consultative and implementation process of eight supply side agencies and 4,000 personnel.
A dedicated team of resource persons contributed enthusiastically and have put their tireless efforts behind this notion. The rehabilitation of plan of water bodies arrived through consultative process was given shape. Water saving Crop production technologies, choices for Crop diversification, Market interventions, Expanding Qualitative Livestock and Aqua culture Intervention, Communication (Technology on Wheels, E-Agriculture Extension, an ICT based two way exchange of knowledge and problem solving, Quality control with social audit were the innovative contributions of the team led by Mr.Vibhu Nayar.The multiple verticals were ably shepherded by:Mr.S.RajagopalMr.R.V.Subramanian(WaterResources)Dr.V.K.Ravichandran,Dr.M.K.Seetharaman,Dr.C.Vidyasagar(FoodProduction),Dr.Thiruthailainathan,Mr.S.N.Balasingh&Dr.G.Vijayaram(Livelihoods,.
Who were the stakeholders? The stakeholders are: 1.85 million Farmers and their families represented by 3,695 democratically elected Water Users Associations, 24,000 villages in 60 river sub-basins spread over 2 million acres involving 1.85 million people who shared the trials and triumphs of the Democratic Governance program and the Landless agricultural laborers who got seasonal employment due to the renaissance of agriculture.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The development objective is to increase irrigated agriculture productivity in a sustainable water resources management framework.
Irrigation systems modernization in a Sub-basin framework: Seeks to improve the water delivery through modernization of irrigation systems and transforming service delivery.
Agricultural Intensification and Diversification: Seeks to build on the improved water delivery to increase the productivity of agriculture-related activities through improved agricultural intensification, diversification and livelihoods.
Water Resources Management: Seeks to improve the institutional arrangements both on the demand & supply side towards collective and sustainable water resources management
A Multipronged Strategy has been adopted for realizing the above objectives.
Strategy 1: Rehabilitation of Infrastructure:
Departing from the conventional practice of agencies selecting physical locations, the Community was fully involved by the MDPU & WRO in selection of water bodies and the rehabilitation package. An innovative Social Auditing system of OK Cards was created wherein Water Users Associations supervised the works ensuring transparency and accountability of agencies involved in rehabilitation.
Strategy 2: Deepening Democracy & Participatory Planning facilitated the involvement of primary stakeholders of the initiative (water users). The MDPU and district administration held elections to form truly representative WUAs. These WUAs, after capacity building, were the lynchpin of the Community Water Vision and its implementation.
Strategy 3 : Convergent Continuum: The multi-sectoral issues in the field of ‘Agriculture and Water’ required different Departments, that were working in isolation, to come to a common platform in order to understand the problems of the farmer in a wholistic manner and ensure collective effort for achieving sustainable development in farm ecology and economics. MDPU initiated the process of ‘Convergence’ amongst 8 Public Agencies that are directly associated with Water use and development of farmers in Tamil Nadu.
Strategy 4: Agricultural Diversification focused on highlighting the advantages of more crops per drop of water and increased farm income ably supported by dissemination of improved agronomic practices, through farmer field schools, water management through water assemblies and supply chain for better returns.
Strategy 5: Model Villages: The change initiatives were implemented on pilot basis in model villages and then expanded to other villages using these as champions.
Strategy 6: Bringing Government to your door step: One of the innovative strategies was to establish “Single Window Centers” (SWC) in each of these villages; SWC is a place donated by the community where periodic extension service, consultation and problem solving interaction takes place between the Agencies & the community on predetermined days. SWCs have been functioning in 224 villages benefitting 112000 farmers, of which majority are the small and marginal farmers who were normally unreached.
Strategy 7: Communications: Encompassing a broad set of activities which were undertaken: folk theatre; demonstration plots; site visits and exposure tours; formal training sessions, informal meetings; leaflets; wall paintings; pamphlets; crawler messages; slogans; interviews and advertisements on radio and television; and other promotional items; a new quarterly newsletter; and Water on Wheels. Currently each line department in each sub-basin plans executes its own IEC campaign in support of its activities.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
1. Democratization of Water Management: A transformation exercise was undertaken in the service delivery departments to change their perspectives & mindsets, redefining their roles & responsibilities. After creating this partnership ethos, elections were held for the WUAs and they were duly empowered.
2. Collaborative planning: In order to realize the notion of ‘Deepening Democracy’, the programme devised decentralized and people centric process called “Community Based Water Management” by involving Water Users Associations (WUAs), Village Women , other groups in the village whose livelihood is dependent on water. The 8 public agencies conducted joint consutation meetings in the villages. People’s needs were assessed, consolidated and incorporated in the Sub-basin plans and project reports.
3. Community Water Vision: The base for the bottom-up planning is the Community Water Vision. The 8 public agencies facilitated the vision building exercise in 24000 villages.A long term Vision involving different groups from the village is one of the milestones of the programme
4. Convergence – A Paradigm shift: A challenging issue in the context of implementation in the water sector is ensuring co-ordination amongst agencies, dealing with water management. As a first step, the Multi-stakeholders consultation process began. 8 public agencies along with representatives from farmer groups and civil society had a series of deliberations amongst themselves for conceptualizing the programmeThe series of workshop provided space for critically looking at the functioning styles, and relationship issues. A matrix of ‘Give & Take’ from each other facilitated all the line agencies to look at each others strengths and weakness and ways & means of complementing each other. The convergence of 8 public agencies expanded to tank level also including the farmer leaders, women group leaders and others from marginalized sections. Community Based Water Management (CBWM) has been initiated through Water Budgeting exercises are being conducted appraising the water context, arriving at a water balance, brainstorming on managing the water deficit, analyzing the alternatives, scope for crop diversification etc., At the end of the exercise, a alternative cropping pattern to manage the water deficit and ensure equitable distribution of water was emerged. The community is being reached through multiple communication strategies. “Technology on wheels” was one of such strategies through which 50% of the beneficiary populations were reached.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation: “Participatory Impact Monitoring”, a tool for the commons, has been adopted by the farmer groups. These groups have been trained on application of the tool which is being effectively used by them. The participatory Impact Monitoring Group (PIMG) in the village has been given O.K. Cards, for works & Agri cards for farm yields. Their suggestions for improvement are being taken with high priority.

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The obstacles were both behavioral and physical in nature.

Obstacles for Democratization: A paradigm shift that encouraged transfer of power & responsibilities in water management to the community, was not easily acceptable.

It was a question of loosing identity and sharing of authority at the institution level with the other stakeholders. It was only through a process of introspection and collective exploration at the level of the individual and progressively the institution that a new perspective around water and it’s shared ownership got established. This led to a new paradigm of willingly sharing of power amongst all water stakeholders in the framework of collective, conscious consensus building on the management of water..

Programmatic: The Basin/sub-basin framework was not easily acceptable to the public line agency personnel. It was also not easy at the village level to make farmers understand the concept. A series of consultations and orientation programmes were conducted to arrive at a consensus to overcome the obstacle.

Perspectives & Attitudes: The Programme Managers had to deal with indifferent attitudes, both at Public Agencies and Community level. One of the main obstacles at the village level was lack of a common perspective in terms of management of water bodies. The village community was also gradually losing faith in Public Agencies.

Socio -Cultural barriers: Water is being treated as God’s gift but it is also the source of many conflicts.. Technology and investment centric solutions have alienated the village communities from their traditional management practices. A constant sensitization process of the public agencies has caused the choice of practices and technologies understood by the village and not in a top down mode..

Exclusion: Power structure in institutions and at the villages has its roots in culture and tradition. As far as water is concerned, a family would have been holding the responsibilities of maintenance and management and it is hereditary. There was frequent tussle between the traditional leaders and newly elected leaders. The long term water perspective with a water vision has brought them together. One of the critical achievements of the Water Users Associations (WUAs) has been the ‘equitable distribution of water’ which was achieved by overcoming obstacles relating to power sharing at the grassroots.

Creation of a collective Vision has contributed significantly in mitigating the obstacles. To chart out the contours of a broad vision, a collective exercise was initiated in the Community Based Water Management Workshops. The vision has been cutting across all the social and cultural barriers in the village, it has become the focal point of discussion within the village and with the line agencies A conscious attempt was made to evolve a new mode of relating with the community. The line agencies are no longer seen as only the sole providers but facilitators in the empowerment process of the community.

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
Human Resources:
Human Resource has been the primary source of energy which was tapped, fine-tuned, utilized. The individuals who had inclination for change initiatives were identified and used effectively for scaling up the initiatives. The programme works with 4000 personnel of 8 Public Agencies, half a million farm families from 3695 WUAs and many indirectly dependent on food production. About 200 farmers having traditional knowledge and wisdom were identified and their expertise was used in other villages as peer change agents. Traditional Wisdom of people in terms of water management has been rediscovered, rejuvenated and spread across effectively and widely. Change Champions from the Agencies and civil society organizations have been identified, trained and involved in facilitation
Technical Resources:
A blend of traditional wisdom and modern science was the bed rock principle in shaping the then available technical expertise. The technical man power of the agencies handling programme were oriented by the MDPU. The participatory nature of the programme necessitated increased commitment and demanded additional time & effort from the field personnel. The community response to the initial efforts was highly overwhelming which triggered a change behavior in work ethics amongst thousands of field personnel at different levels. The Knowledge Skills for handling higher technology interventions were built through special workshops.

Tapping talents: The talents available from the other contemporary programmes such as Women development and Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) were leveraged to add value to the available human resource.

Financial Resources: The World Bank has 566 million US$ assistance along with GOI Grant under RRR program. More than 20 % of the cost is borne by the beneficiaries in the form of labour, land for Agri Business Centres and contribution for Micro Irrigation and farm Ponds.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
Human Resources: The personnel who facilitate the implementation of the programme have been trained on participatory methodologies to involve the community in the implementation of the programme. The community has been trained in resolving conflicts while sharing water. ‘Farmer Field School’ has been initiated and which has the designated responsibility of training farmers in the state. Change Management Groups (CMGs) have been formed at State level, Sub-basin level and Tank level. The CMGs at the different levels have been assigned with the responsibility of ensuring the sustainability of programme.
Natural Resource: The water sensitization process has enabled the communities to have greater understanding of managing the resource as custodians for future generations. Since the thrust is on tapping their own local genius and not a hand me down of knowledge there is a greater sense of involvement, ownership and a trend of sustenance even after withdrawal of external support.

Financial Sustainability: The programme relies less upon money and more upon other resources. The programme has already begun to transfer the onus of maintaining the water-bodies to the Water Users Associations who have been empowered to generate revenue out of water sharing for agriculture and use it for operations and maintenance works.

Basin: Basin boards have been formed for protection and nurture of water bodies linked with the concerned river basin. The Basin boards have people’s representatives of, technical experts from public agencies and representatives from civil society.

SWaRMA: State Water Resources Management Agency has been constituted as a permanent body. This is the critical institutional arrangement for ensuring sustainability.

Policy: National Water Policy as well as State Water Policy of Tamil Nadu emphasizes the need for development and management of water resources with a river basin as an integral unit.

1. State policy
After witnessing the results, thousands of farmers have taken up SRI in their fields. Government of Tamil Nadu announced that SRI would be extended to 1.88 million acres.

2. Central policy as RRR
The Sub basin planning & convergence approach has produced tremendous results in water savings and food production. Impressed by above achievement, Government of India has advised other states to adopt these strategies in the National Programme of Repair, Renovation and Restoration (RRR) of Water Bodies
3. World Bank Policy as future project design in ASIA
Recently the World Bank President, Robert Zoellick visited India. In his interview to a leading National News Paper, mentioned that “Every one cites in India’s Green Revolution. But I’am even more intrigued by what is known as SRI, and I know this is also an area of interest for PM Manmohan Singh. Farmers in Tamil Nadu have increased rice yield between 30 and 80 percent, reduced water use by 30 percent, and now require significantly less fertilizer. This technology not only addresses food security but also the water scarcity challenge that climate change is making all the more dangerous. These are all lessons for our world.”

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
There is a New Paradigm in Peoples movement for the cause of water initiated and it has been moving forward with a long term water perspective. This is a significant step forward.
The Physical impacts are:Increase in area under irrigation: 1, 50,000 acres,Increase in water storage : 58.08 million cubic metres,Water Productivity for eg. In Upper Vellar increased significantly from 3.91kg/cubic metre to 8.09 kg/cubic metre, a 200% increase,Agricultural Intensification &Diversification: 4, 90,957 acres,Production: 1.04 million Metric tones which is 0.56 million metric more than normal production,Productivity: The cumulative Productivity has gone up by 185% of which the significant contribution is from SRI which is 80% to 169% in an area of 1, 10,000 acres followed by Maize Pulses and oilseeds.
Crop diversification has also had health benefits by supplying proteins to the poor. It has been estimated that 89316 agrarian families have been benefited by increase in income, thus helping themselves to overcome poverty. 150,000 man days on farm employment opportunities have been created which had direct impact in reducing migration from rural to urban. Food security has been ensured through enhanced production, improved water productivity and increased intensity of irrigation.

Studies carried out by Water Technology Center (WTC) of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) in 100 locations and Monitoring &Evaluation (Govt Dept)have indicated 32 per cent water savings, which is corroborated by farmers who could increase their cropped area by 40 per cent with the same quantity of water. The average yield increase was 40% compared to the conventional method.

Lessons Learnt:
Community participation: Effective community participation in water management ensured sustainability of the programme and ensured equitable distribution of water.

Monitoring mechanisms: The Participatory Impact Monitoring Groups (PIMGs) in villages functioning with a sense of ownership towards their own water bodies. The recent World Bank Mission visit appreciated the concept and methodology which would be replicated in other states where World Bank programmes are being implemented.

Multi-agency involvement: Convergence has been the critical strategic approach which brought laurels and applauses from the villages. The personnel of partner public agencies jointly visiting villages and establishment of Single Window Centers are contributing for elimination of myths and renewed faith in public systems.
Transparency and accountability: Due to cohesive working, frequent interactions with farmers, there is high level of transparency and accountability demonstrated both by the community and the public agencies.

Factors such as Community ownership of the programme, team efforts amongst all 8 public agencies, high levels of transparency and accountability, space for discussions and dialogue, participatory approaches in planning, implementing and monitoring the programme, and relying less on money and more on human resources have led to the success of the programme.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Multi Disciplinary Programme Unit
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Vibhu Nayar IAS Nayar
Title:   Programme Director  
Telephone/ Fax:   91-44-28588440
Institution's / Project's Website:   91-44-28588441
E-mail:   mdputn@gmail.com  
Address:   PWD COMPLEX,CHEPAUK
Postal Code:   600005
City:   CHENNAi
State/Province:   TAMIL NADU
Country:   India

          Go Back
Print friendly Page