Solar-based Sustainable IrrigationStrategies and Policies for an Enabling Ecosystem

Abhishek JainSenior Programme LeadCouncil on Energy, Environment and Water

Energy and Agriculture for Smart Villages in India, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Telangana 23 September 2016

© Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2016

|

CEEW: one of India’s leading think-tanks

2

|

The need for irrigation (and energy)

3

Improving Food Security Improving farmers’ livelihood

45% of net-sown areais irrigated

Increasing dependence on GW (end-user pumping)

1950-51

1952-53

1954-55

1956-57

1958-59

1960-61

1962-63

1964-65

1966-67

1968-69

1970-71

1972-73

1974-75

1976-77

1978-79

1980-81

1982-83

1984-85

1986-87

1988-89

1990-91

1992-93

1994-95

1996-97

1998-99

2000-01

2002-03

2004-05

2006-07

2008-090

5

10

15

20

25

30

Irrigation by source in India

Canals Tanks Tube-wells Other wells Others

Net i

rrig

ated

are

a (m

illio

n he

ctar

es)

|

Why solar-based irrigation?

Electrical pumps

o For state– High consumptive subsidies– Difficulty in load management

o For farmers– Long waiting times– Unreliable/odd-hours of supply+ Highly cost-effective

– Excessive GW depletion– Land degradation

4

Diesel pumps

o For state– Consumptive subsidy (distress times)– Small one-time outlay (when subsidised)

o For farmers– High cost of irrigation– Difficulty in fetching diesel

– Inefficient consumption – CO2 emissions

o Climate change mitigation and adaptationo Reducing inequity in access to irrigation

Electrical Pumps Diesel Pumps

Solar Pumps

|

ENSURING SUSTAINABILITY & SCALABILITY

Solar Powered Irrigation

5

|

Determinants of SPIS sustainability

Need: Avoiding fall-outs and ensuring sustainable deployment and use of SPIS

Approach: Systematic review of literature; Semi-structured Interviews; On-field visits

6

SPIS Sustainability framework

|

Strategising deployment of SPIS (for sustainability and scalability)

7

Identifying criteria

Collecting data & Delphi process

Estimating weights &

scores

Categorising districts

Need: Limited resources; Prioritising regions for deployment; Customising approachAp

proa

ch

Inadequate access to affordable and reliable irrigation• Cultivators using diesel pumps [10]• Un-irrigated net sown area [6]

Economic viability of solar pumps• Availability of ground water [19]• Proportion of area under horticulture crops [12.5]

Purchasing capacity of farmers• Crop revenue per holding in a district [11.5]• MPCE of agricultural households [15]

Access and subscription to institutional credit• # rural bank branches (per 10,000 operational holdings) [6]• Medium and long-term credit disbursed in a year [9]

Farmers’ attitude towards adoption of new technologies• Extent of farm mechanization [5.5]• # calls made of farmers to KCC [5.5]

Crite

ria a

nd P

aram

eter

s

|

Categorising Districts for SPIS deployment

• Four categorises– Overall scores (O), water availability (W), and use of diesel pumps (D)

• Group A: High potential (O: top 30%; W: top 50%; D: top 50%)– 108 districts, mainly concentrated in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Gujarat,

Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh

• Group B: Moderate potential (O: top 70%, W: top 50%; D: top 70%)– 131 districts, predominant in Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra and Odisha

• Group C: Moderate potential; water constrained (O: top 70%, W: bottom 50%; D: top 70%)– 87 districts, mainly concentrated in North-western part of India: Punjab, Haryana,

Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, as well as Tamil Nadu– these districts would require mandatory use of micro-irrigation

• Group D: Low potential districts (remaining)– 287 districts, limited potential due to several parameters

8

|

TOOL DEMONSTRATION

9

|

Thank you(ceew.in)

11

SPISNeeds strategic approach for sustainability and scalability