25-05-2018

1

Central Water Commission 2

Total utilizable water resources1123 BCM

Ground Water 433 BCM

Surface water 690 BCM

Current utilization450 BCM ( 65% )

Current utilization243 BCM (58%)

Total water availability1869 BCM

Total Precipitation4000 BCM

Central Water Commission 3

Rainfall in mm

Averag

e1,170

Max. 11,000Mawsynram,

Meghalaya

Min. 100Western

Rajasthan

4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Win

ter

Mon

soo

n

(Ja

n-F

eb)

Pre

Mon

soo

n

(Mar-

Ma

y

Mon

soo

n

(Ju

n-S

ep)

Po

st

Mon

soo

n

(Oct

-Dec)

Ra

infa

ll in

mm

25-05-2018

2

5

SlNo.

Total Water Requirement for Different Uses (in BCM)

Uses Year 2025 Year 2050

1. Irrigation 611 807

2. Domestic 62 111

3. Industries 67 81

4. Power 33 70

5. Others 70 111

Total 843 1180

Population Estimate

1.3 Billion 1.5 Billion

Assumptions: ▪ Increase in efficiency in irrigation from present level of 35% to 60% by 2050▪ Increase in productivity for rainfed agriculture from 1 to 1.5 and Irrigated

agriculture from 3.0 to 4.0 t/ha

➢ Total Cultivable Land: 181.98 Mha➢ Ultimate Irrigation Potential: 139.89 Mha➢ Potential Created (Mar 12): 113.53 Mha

Major & Medium: 47.97 Mha Minor: 65.56 Mha

➢ Gross Sown Area: 195.25 Mha➢ Gross Irrigated Area: 91.53 Mha➢ Net Sown Area: 140.80 Mha➢ Net Irrigated Area: 65.26 MHa

6

To answer Why, What and How to improve the efficiency of the project

To setup a benchmark to evaluate the projects against them for prioritisation of improvement measures, if any.

To adjust the project to new demand scenario emerging out of long term developments.

To find the design and planning deviations affecting the performance of the project to an optimum level.

Leverage the new technologies available now for better management of the project.

Efficiency Values (%)Reservoir Efficiency 95%-98%Conveyance Efficiency

Fully Lined systemPartially Lined systemUnlined system

70%-75%65%60%

On farm application Efficiency

Sprinkler/Drip IrrigationBasin/Furrow Irrigation

85%60%

Drainage Efficiency 80%IPU/IPC 85%

Overall WUE 60-65%

How to reach

25-05-2018

3

Input resource assessment- The yield patterns achieved against those assumed in the design, especially the temporal distribution

Distribution system capabilities- constraints of implementation, unauthorised extensions, new demands, state of the system

On farm usage- cropping patterns, application methods, present agro-climatic environment

Management- systems in place, social structues and management methods needing improvement/ introduction

Key takeaway is that these are all interrelated. Attacking any single aspect will not yield the desired results.

Inflow + Sediment

Seepage from bed and sides

Evaporation from surface

Power releases

Seepage back to system

Seepage contributing to

groundwater

Releases for use

Direct leakage/Uncontrolled

spills

PH

Operation Policy

Unaccounted withdrawal form reservoir

STORAGE

Head works

Missing/ broken Regulator structure/Measuring device for Supply to WUAs

ID Channels (Main, Br., Dy. (> 150 Cusecs)

WUAs Minor Channels (< 150 Cusecs)

Loss Delivery

Project

CONVEYANCE SYSTEM UNDER WRD/WUA CONTROL

Fields

Farm Inlet (Nakas)

A. Inappropriate design, siltationB. Evaporation loss from canal surfaceC. Transpiration from HyacinthD. Seepage from bed, sidesE. Unaccounted withdrawal as a lossF. Management based (operational) lossesG. Diversions for other use H. Inappropriate outlet designI. Unaccounted outlet/field channel losses/

over irrigation

A B C

D E F G

B

C

G

D

F

A

IH

E

Rainfall DewPumped Ground Water

Initial Soil Water Moisture

On-farm supply

On-Farm Storage Storage

AugmentationOn Farm Storage Loss

Evaporation, TranspirationSeepage, Leakage

Farmer’s Field

Water supplied by WUA though outlet/field rotation

FIELD APPLICATION/CROP PRODUCTIVITY

Soil Moisture retained for crop production

Crop Produced

Water Consumed by crop

Water Transpired by Crop, Soil

Water loss transpired by weed

Soil Moisture required for leaching

25-05-2018

4

Performance Assessment Studies-

Findings

Andhra Pradesh (Krishna Basin) -10 nos.• Tungabhadra Right Bank High Level

canal (TB-RB-HLC)• Tungabhadra Right Bank Low Level

Canal (TB-RB-LLC) • Rajoli Banda Diversion Scheme

(RBD)• Kurnool Cuddapah canal (KC Canal) • Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC)• Nagarjuna Sagar (NJS)• Krishna Delta• Koil Sagar• Gajuladinne Dam (Medium)• Bhairavantippa (Medium)Andhra Pradesh (Godavari Basin)- 6 nos.• Upper Manair• Nizam Sagar• Sri Rama Sagar (SRSP Complex)• Kaddam (SRSP Complex)• Godavari Delta• Gandipalem (Medium)

Andhra Pradesh (Pennar Basin)• Somasilla Andhra Pradesh (Other Basins)- 3 nos.• Vamsadhara (Gotta Barrage)• Narayanpur Anicut• Yeleru DamUttar Pradesh (Ganga Basin) – 6 nos.• Matatila• Pilli Dam• Ahraura dam • Ohan dam• Naughar dam• East BaigulHaryana (Yamuna/Ganga) – 2 nos.• Naggal Lift project (WJC) • Augmentation Canal, (WJC) Punjab – 2 nos. • Upper Bari Doab Canal (Ranjit Sagar

Dam)• Dholbaha Project

Case Studies – List of Projects

➢ Nearly all projects are integrated in terms of configuration, resource, use

➢ Changing scope of the projects➢ Altered hydrology➢ Un-assured withdrawals from reservoirs➢ Lost active capacity of the reservoirs

➢ Dam safety concerns➢ Evaporation and seepage losses from the reservoirs➢ Leakage and uncontrolled withdrawals➢ Excessive spills

➢ Inability of the head works to supply ‘Full Supply Discharge’

Integrated Aspects in Tungabhadra Sub Basin

16

25-05-2018

5

Maharashtra: GWDT Allocation

623 MCM (22 TMC)CA – 10484 Sq. Km.

KarnatakaGWDT Allocation:

404 MCM (14.27 TMC)CA- 3688 Sq. Km.

Andhra Pradesh:GWDT allocation:

1784 MCM (63 TMC) CA- 7521 Sq. Km.

Sri Ram Sagar Reservoir

Manjira dam

Tiruna dam

Choukinala dam

Karanjia dam

Singur dam

Manjira Barrage

Ghanpur Anicut

Nizam Sagar Anicut

Nizam Sagar CommandDy. 1 to 49 (56152 ha)

Nizam Sagar CommandDy. 50 to 72 (21769 ha)

Nizam Sagar CommandDy. 73 to 82 (15699 ha )

CA below Nizam Sagar - 9151 Sq. Km.

Aliagar LIS

Gutpah LIS

Nizam Sagar CommandDy. 73 to 82 (13408 ha )

Shifted to SRSP

Nizam Sagar Command 107028 ha

Configuration of Manjira BasinReservation in Singur dam• Water Supply to Hyderabad &

Secunderabad (2.96 TMC) ex Manjira barrage

• Water Supply to Hyderabad & Secunderabad (4.00 TMC) from dam

• Water Supply to Fatheh bad and Mahaboob Nagar (4.06 TMC)

• Support for Nizam Sagar Dam (8.35 TMC)

• Reservoir losses, lift from reservoir and extra storage for silt provision (10 54 TMC)

• Total )Singur dam) (29.91 TMC)

Balance Contributing to Nizam Sagar • Untapped from Singur and

catchment downstream of Singur up to Nizam Sagar dam (33.09 TMC)

• Support from flood waters of Nalavagu dam (2 TMC) through flood canal

• Total directly reaching Nizam Sagar (35.09 TMC)

READJUSTED ALLOCATION OF WATERS WITH IN ANDHRA PRADESH

18

020406080

100

Recent Period 75% Dependable inflows as percent of design 75% dependable inflows/allocation

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Annual flow sequence at SRSP

7-year moving mean

Dependable Flow – Design 5553 cumec; Present 3231 cumec

Average

Inflows in many reservoirs are dwindling Periodic review of hydrology with basin as a unit is necessary Withdrawals from reservoirs are not reliable – cannot assure equity

57.8

107.

3

68.3

26 20

52.2

36.3

0 0

15.9

89

61.4

6.7

24.5 36

.6

81.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Withdrawals in a 75% dependable year as % of design

withdrawals0

5

10

15

20

25

Evaporation Loss as % of gross storage Seepage loss as a percent of gross storage

• Medium reservoirs have high seepage and evaporation losses

Leakage from earthen portion

25-05-2018

6

60

73

50

100

30

0

50

89

100

45

30

0

100

82

20

0

100

100

70

0

10

100

0 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Percent of time Reservoirs spilled during 1995-96 to 2005-06

Excessive spills coupled with lower withdrawals suggest wrong operational policy

Operational priorities for complementary/contradictory releases are also not reported

0

20

40

60

80

100

Maximum ReservoirInflow Efficiency

Average Reservoir Inflow Efficiency

Reservoir InflowEfficiency in a Dependable Year

• Reported Reservoir filling efficiencies in a dependable year are questionable

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Actual Capacity of Head works as % of Design Capacity

➢ Wrong approach for selection of canal reach for estimation of efficiency

➢ Inadequate capacity of head regulators to deliver FSD➢ Many of the head regulators not functioning/tampered

Missing shutters/control devices

Require extensive repairs

➢ High seepage rate in many selected canal reaches

➢ Reduced carrying capacity of canal reaches ➢ Non-uniformity of seepage loss rate

25-05-2018

7

➢ PIM Act not enacted/ functional in some states

➢ Canal Operational Concerns High leakages, over withdrawals, thefts common

Assurance on supplies non-existent

Information on farm delivery not recorded

Warabandi/ canal roster not adhered to

Sometimes only one watering is given

0

40

80

120

160

200

TB

-RB

LL

C (

AP

)

RB

D (

AP

)

KC

Ca

nal

(R

each

-1)

(New

)

Na

gar

jun

a J

C

Na

gar

jun

a -

LC

Kri

sh

na

Del

ta (

Ry

ves

)

Kri

sh

na

Del

ta (

WC

)

Ko

il S

aga

r (L

MC

)

Ko

il S

aga

r (R

MC

)

Gaj

ula

din

ne

(RF

MC

)

Bh

air

ava

nti

pp

a (

RF

MC

)

Niz

am

sag

ar

pro

ject

SR

SP

(K

akti

ya 0

Km

)

SR

SP

(K

akti

ya 1

47 K

m)

Ka

dd

am (

LM

C)

Go

da

vari

Del

ta (

Eas

t)

Go

da

vari

Del

ta (

Wes

t)

Go

da

vari

Del

ta (

Ce

ntr

al)

Gan

diP

ale

m (

LF

MC

)

Gan

diP

ale

m (

RF

MC

)

So

ma

sill

a (S

ou

th F

eed

er)

So

ma

sill

a (N

ort

h F

eed

er)

Na

raya

np

ur

(RF

MC

)

Na

raya

np

ur

(Dy)

Ch

au

kia

Dy.

(A

hru

ra)

(UP

)

Mu

gal

Sa

rai m

ain

can

al (

Ah

rura

)…

Da

ula

tab

ad (

Ah

rura

) (U

P)

Go

bin

dp

ur

(Nau

gh

ar)

(U

P)

Sid

ha

Dy

. (N

au

gh

ar)

(UP

)

Bh

ati

ja D

y. (

Na

ug

har

) (U

P)

Au

gm

enta

tio

n c

ana

l (H

ary

ana

)

Oh

en

(A

gh

ud

ya

Min

or)

(U

P)

Oh

en

(A

rwar

a M

ino

r) (

UP

)

Oh

en

dam

(M

ain

) (U

P)

Pam

bra

Dy

. (D

ho

lbah

a)

(Pb

.)

HR MR TR

0

10

20

30

Canal Loss - cumec/million sq m

010203040506070

Canal Loss - cumec/million sq m

Design loss rate: Rock 0.91, Black Cotton Soil – 1.83, Alluvium Soils – 2.74, Decayed rock or gravel – 3.0 cumec/million sq m

0

20

40

60

80

100

25-05-2018

8

Water Availability : Farmers feed back

S. No. Availability of irrigation water at required time

Farmers

Number Percent

1 Yes 221 42.7

2 No 296 57.3

Total 517 100.0

Table. Availability of irrigation water at required time

249

115

41 27

84.138.8

13.8 9.10

50

100

150

200

250

300

Conveyancesystem is faulty

Head reachfarmers are notreleasing water

Water is notreleased as andwhen required

Canal runsbelow the level

of fields

Number of farmers Percent

Fig. Reasons for not getting the irrigation water

➢ Cropping pattern in most of the dams is not changed, only crop area changed to suit water availability (SRBC is an exception)

➢ Wherever groundwater coexists, cropped area is stabilized

➢ Diversification from paddy to irrigated dry crops suggested without any assurance on farmers income/alternate livelihood

➢ Drainage is not a real issue except in case of Delta area projects

➢ Waterlogging is a concern in some of the canal commands

➢ Created irrigation potential does not match CCA – PPA/localized command area is proposed for irrigation potential creation;

➢ Utilized irrigation potential matches creation in some of the years suggesting gap in potential due to development is reduced

➢ However, gap in potential increases in the years of low flow, suggesting reduced cropped area due to non availability of water in canals

02,00,0004,00,0006,00,0008,00,000

10,00,00012,00,000

Area under crop reported by ID (2005-06) Area under crop reported by APSRAC (2005-06)

98

513

161

63

0 18 20

246

105

440

0

130

90 67

11 41

76

0

97

191

0100200300400500600

Percent growth of crops from other source as reported by Irrigation Department

63

25 12 17

53 44

114

59

244

82

59

35

2 11

37

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ground water utilization as percent of ground water recharge from irrigation in case of projects from Andhra Pradesh

25-05-2018

9

58

45

52

45

34

54

46

75

45

67

45

57

36

54

38

32

58

31 28

80

65

27

72

65

91

0

20

40

60

80

100 Baseline On-farm water use efficiencies

47

32

43

28

17

22

40

62

36

58

39

45

18

45

28

18

53

15 14

54

38

22

57

33

53

010203040506070 Target efficiency line (60%) Project Efficiency

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

IPU as % of IPC in a year of maximum potential utilized IPU as % of IPC in a year of munimum potential utilized

Attributes Score Attributes Score

1 Project is inter-state 23/30 12 PIM introduced but not yet implemented

20/30

2 Project is integrated 22/30 13 IMT has taken place 0/303 Hydrology is disturbed 17/21 14 Warabandi is being implemented 4/304 Project is not able to meet

requirements15/20 15 CD & CM are not in order 17/26

5 Active live storage is affected 16/24 16 Water measuring devices are not in place

30/30

6 Project has dam safety concerns 25/28 17 Actual cropping pattern deviates from design cropping pattern

6/19

7 Evaporation losses from reservoir are excessive

7/20 18 Irrigation from other source is substantial

23/27

8 Seepage losses from reservoir are excessive

5/19 19 Diversification from paddy is recommended

16/29

9 Head work is not capable of taking FSD

21/29 20 Drainage is not adequate 7/28

10 Head regulators are not supplying FSD

19/25 21 New/field/intermediate and link drains required

5/29

11 Canal capacities do not meet design discharge

23/25 22 Water logging salinity/alkalinity is a concern

9/29

• Storage: Consistent and continuous efforts in improving the performance of storage infrastructure within the basin context to improve availability of flows at canal head(s);

• Conveyance: Better design and improved conveyance and distribution system in both engineering and management sense;

• On-Farm application: Improving on-farm efficiencies through better practices, improved drainage and ensuring other quality inputs leading to better production and productivity;

• Participatory: Gradually decreasing the role of administration in managing the canal systems and promoting the role of beneficiaries in asset management in an accountable and sustainable manner;

• Crop management: Crop diversification, adoption of low water intensive crops, better farm management practices, micro irrigation systems and quality inputs to improve productivity;

• R&D: Continued research and development, and periodic monitoring and evaluation through water auditing and benchmarking

25-05-2018

10

37

Assessment of Gap in EfficienciesProject Type Conveyance

EfficiencyOn- Farm Efficiency Project Efficiency

To be achieved

Gap To be achieved

Gap To be achieved

Gap

Large Storage systems

90% 0-47% 66.67% 0-40% 60% 2-46%

Diversion 85% 2-23% 70.59% 19-25% 60% 17-31%

Delta 95% 4-48% 63.16% 5-32% 60% 7-45%

• Attaining 60% efficiency would be a difficult task

• As a short term solution CADWM Programme component on ‘Correction of System Deficiencies’ may be reviewed using MASSCOTE approach of FAO;

• Long run solution to improve Conveyance would be to shift to basin approach under IWRM

• Improving On farm efficiency – conservation and integration of all sources of water within command, harvest rainwater, diversification to low water intensive varieties, adopting improved methods of cultivation- SRI / SSI, shift to MIS-drip and sprinkler for new projects

➢ Land Resources - 2.45%➢ Renewable Water Resources - 4%➢ Population - 18%

39

Land Resources Renewable Water Population

5177

2200

114013401545

1820

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1951 1991 2001 2011 2025 2050

Wat

er A

vaili

bilty

(Cub

ic m

etre

per

ca

pita

per

yea

r)

Water Scarcity Line1000 cu. m. per person per year

Water Stress Line1700 cu. m. per person per year

25-05-2018

11

41

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

15.6

253.4

50.9

109.7

No. of Large Dams in Country = 4857

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

19001920

19401960

19802000

Year

Wate

r use

, Cu k

m/ye

ar

Domestic use Industrial useAgricultural use Totla use

❑ India’s share of resourcesWater Resources : 4% Land Resources : 2.5 %Population : 18 %

➢ Food Requirement by 2050 : 450 MT

➢ Improve Overall WUE by : 20%(National Water Mission, GOI)

44

Evergreen Revolution

25-05-2018

12

Water for domestic demand

46

47

S. N. Project Reservoir ᶯ Canal ɳ On-Farm ᶯ Overall ᶯ

1 KDS 100 87.4 46.18 40.36

2 GDS 100 83.21 46.09 45.05

3 KC Canal NA 62.25 45.15 28.10

4 NSP 100 55.96 38.93 21.80

5 Nizamsagar 75.95 87 45.32 39.43

6 RDS 100 82.83 51.51 42.66

7 Somasila 72.16 56.3 31.84 18.00

8 SRSP 95.05 77.98 57.28 44.66

9 TBPHLC 42.51 80.90 58.32 47.13

10 TBPLLC 100 72.13 44.80 32.23

11 Vamsadhara 100 90.50 58.47 52.91

12 Yeleru 28 50.00 28.42 14.21

25-05-2018

13

Common reasons for low WUE Common recommendations for improvement of WUE

i) Damaged structures ii) Silting in the canal system iii) Poor maintenance iv) Weed growth in the canal

system v) Seepage in the system vi) Over-irrigation vii) Un trained farmers viii) Changing the cropping

pattern

Rehabilitation and restoration of damaged/siltedcanal systemProper and timely maintenance of the systemSelective lining of the canal and distribution systemRealistic and scientific systemoperationRevision of cropping pattern, if neededRestoration/provision of appropriate controlstructuresEfficient and reliable communication systemReliable and accurate water measuring systemConjunctive use of ground and surface waterRegular revision of water rate Encouragement forformation of Water Users’AssociationTraining to farmersMicro-credit facilitiesAgricultural extension servicesEncouragement to farmers for raising livestock

49

Priority on use of water NWP on impact of climate change Enhancing water availability for different use Demand management

Project appraisal and environmental impact assessment for water uses to inter-alia include:

i) analysis of water foot prints,ii) recycle and reuse including return flows ,iii)incentivizing economic use of water iv)adaptation to water saving means v) performance monitoring and vi) reclamation of commands from water logging,

salinity and alkalinity.

Regulation of water prices Project planning & implementation Data base and information needs (WRIS) Capacity building, research and training needs

o Increase water use efficiency by 20%

o Water Footprints and Water Auditing (assessment of water

use),

need to be developed.

o Continuous water balance and water accounting studies

o Methods to encourage water saving (Ex. Micro Irrigation)

o Conjunctive ground water use

o Participatory Approach: Users of water should be involved in

monitoring the pattern of water use

Water Footprint is quite simply the volume of water used. At theindividual level, this is expressed in litres. But at the national level, thisbecomes complex - The water footprint of a nation is equal to the useof domestic water resources, minus the virtual water export flows, plusthe virtual water import flows.

VIRTUAL WATERThe term ‘virtual water’ was introduced by Tony Allan in the early1990s. It is defined as the volume of water required to produce acommodity or service.

25-05-2018

14

Eating water? YesHow many litre a day

1.3 billion ton food is lost or wasted every

year (FAO)

Water MeasurementThe engineers of I&CAD Department should installspecial water measurement structures like RBCflumes as a standard procedure in all their newirrigation projects; the same applies for theirmodernization projects of existing schemes.

54

The engineers of I&CAD Department, officials of

Agriculture and Ground Water Department should

be offered trainings on a regular basis on irrigation

modernisation, crop irrigation requirements

including effective rainfall contribution, water

budgeting, latest aspects of water measurement

and regulation, participatory approaches in water

management and women’s participation in AWM.

Direct seeding / MSRI / AWD for rice in harmony with soil microbial technologies in maximizing the water use efficiency.

Water Saving Crop Production Technologies

25-05-2018

15

58Fig. Location of the 10 Medium Projects in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States

Planning Workshops held at WALAMTARI Project Visits by WALAMTARI Team

25-05-2018

16

Stakeholder Workshops

Thatipudi ReservoirTorrigadda Main Canal

Musi Reservoir Vattivagu Reservoir

Detailed Investigations

Socioeconomic SurveyCanal Hydraulic Studies

Velocity Measurement Crop Ground Truth

Irrigation Infrastructure Application

25-05-2018

17

Crop Ground Truth Application

66

To irrigate and fertigate the plant instead of soil

AP Micro Irrigation Project: lunched in 2003

Target : 0.25 M ha with Rs11,760 million in 5 yr

Achieved: 1.1M ha with Rs 41,700 million in 10 yr

National Task Force on MI in 2003: 69 M ha potential

I. Total Area Covered : 1.0427 m haa) Drip : 0.7617 m hab) Sprinkler : 0.2810 m ha

II. MI system costa) Total : Rs 41,708 Million b) Farmers contribution : Rs

10,427 MillionIII. Annual cost (CRF 0.2055) based on

a) Total cost : Rs 8,571 Million b) Farmers contribution : Rs 2,143

MillionIV. Additional yield

@Rs 15,000/ha minimum : Rs 15,640 MillionV. Payback period based (II/IV)

a) Total cost : 2.7 yearsb) Farmers contribution : 0.7 year

VI. Every rupee on MI yields (IV/III)a) Total annual cost : Rs 1.8b) Farmers annual cost : Rs 7.3

Additional benefitsa. Water saving : 149 TMCb. Energy saving: 417 million

unitc. Labor savingd. Employment avenue

LAYOUT OF LIMIP

WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF LIMIP

Distributory

Sump 2

Sump 1

DP 2

DP 1 PVC pipe

PVC pipe

CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW

Minor

➢ Sump is required to store water during non-pumping hours

➢ Capacity depends upon a) Duty of the water b) Area under each sumpc) Operating time of irrigation system

MICROIRRIGATION IN CANAL COMMANDS

25-05-2018

18

DC4 MIRYALAGUDA

S.

No.

WUA Name and

No.

1 Borraipalem-23

2Applalmmagud

em-24

3 Kallepally-25

4 Kondrapolu-26

5Damarcherla-

27

6 Kesavapur-28

Area: 8497 ha

DC2

1 NARSARAOPET

S.

No.

WUA Name and

No.

1Gollapadu -

167

2Sathuluru -

168

3Kanaparru –

169

4Nadendla 1 -

170

5Erlla Padu -

171

6Kavuru 2 -

172

7Nadendla 2 -

173

Adaptation to climate change: An integrated science-stakeholder-policy approach for water and agricultural sectors

PROJECT PAERTNERS

Project AchievementsImportance of CC &WUEInteraction with Scientists and line dept officialsExhibition of technologiesFarmers Feedback

SCHOOL CHIDREN

AWARENESS AND

TRAINING

25-05-2018

19

Water is an Economic Good

Water Measurement

Demand Based Water Delivery

Virtual Water Approach

Incentivizing WUE

Irrigation Asset Management

Promoting PIM

Respect Agriculture

73

yellark@gmail.com