IWMI’s mission is to improve water and land resources ...IWMI’s mission is to improve water and land resources management for food, livelihoods and nature. In serving this mission,

Research Reports

IWMI’s mission is to improve water and land resources management for food,livelihoods and nature. In serving this mission, IWMI concentrates on the integrationof policies, technologies and management systems to achieve workable solutionsto real problems—practical, relevant results in the field of irrigation and water andland resources.

The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computermodeling to experience with water user associations—and vary in content fromdirectly applicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimatelydepends. Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical and detailedempirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of genericproblems.

Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators,we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI’sown staff and Fellows, and by external reviewers. The reports are published anddistributed both in hard copy and electronically (www.iwmi.org) and where possibleall data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files. Reports maybe copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.

i

International Water Management InstituteP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Research Report 108

Water Saving Technologies: Myths andRealities Revealed in Pakistan’s Rice-WheatSystems

Mobin-ud-Din Ahmad, Hugh Turral, Ilyas Masih, MarkGiordano and Zubair Masood

The authors: Mobin-ud-Din Ahmad (Senior Researcher – Hydrologist and Remote SensingSpecialist), Hugh Turral (Principal Researcher and Theme Leader – Basin WaterManagement), and Mark Giordano (Principal Researcher and Head – Institutions andPolicies) are attached to Global Research Division of International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ilyas Masih is (Research Officer - Water ResourcesManagement) from the IWMI office in Pakistan, and is currently working as Ph.D.Researcher at the IWMI office in Iran. Zubair Masood (Research Officer – Economist) isa former employee of the IWMI office in Pakistan.

Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the help from On-Farm WaterManagement, the Punjab, Pakistan, especially Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Gill (Director General),Dr. Maqsood Ahmad (Assistant Director – Technical) and Hafiz Mujeeb-ur-Rehman(Agronomist) for providing their valuable database on Resource Conservation Technologiesadoption in the Punjab. We also wish to thank Dr. David Molden and the late Dr. WaqarAhmad Jehangir for their valuable insights during the early stages of this study. Thanksare also due to our IWMI colleagues from Lahore, Pakistan, who have helped in one wayor the other during the course of this study. We are particularly indebted to Mr. ShehzadAhmad and Mr. Aamir Nazeer for their contributions during the survey and to Mr. AsgharHussain for his support in preparing GIS maps. Thanks are also due to Dr. ElizabethHumphreys for her valuable comments and suggestions on the draft version of this report.

Ahmad, M. D.; Turral, H.; Masih, I.; Giordano, M.; Masood, Z. 2007. Water savingtechnologies: Myths and realities revealed in Pakistan’s rice-wheat systems. Colombo,Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 44p (IWMI Research Report 108)

/ water conservation / water saving technologies / conjunctive use / canals / groundwaterirrigation / land use / water scarcity / water use / salinity / water balance / rice / wheat /farming systems / Punjab / Pakistan /

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 978-92-9090-655-1

Copyright © 2007, by IWMI. All rights reserved.

Cover Graphic: “What is water productivity and why do we care?” Graphic created at theCPWF International Forum on Water and Food, Vientiane, Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic, November 12-17, 2006 by David Hasbury, Graphic Facilitator, Cocreation,Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Website: http://www.cocreation.ca

Please send inquiries and comments to: [email protected]

IWMI receives its principal funding from 58 governments, private foundations, andinternational and regional organizations known as the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR). Support is also given by the Governments of Ghana,Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

iii

iii

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations iv

Summary v

Introduction 1

Study Area 2

Water Scarcity and Resource Conservation Technologies 5

Water Savings and Net Water Use: Field and Basin Perspectives 6

Data and Methods 8

Survey Results 9

Impacts of RCT Adoption on Savings in Water Application, Water Use and Productivity 14

Discussion 20

Conclusions 24

Literature Cited 27

Annexes 31

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CPWF CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food

IREC Irrigation Research & Extension Committee

IWMI International Water Management Institute

LBOD Left Bank Outfall Drain

LCC Lower Chenab Canal

NSL Natural Surface Level

OFWM On-Farm Water Management

PARC Pakistan Agricultural Research Council

RCT Resource Conservation Technology

RWC Rice-Wheat Consortium

SCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation Program

SMO SCARP Monitoring Organization

UCC Upper Chenab Canal

WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority

iv

v

Water scarcity is an increasing concern inPakistan. Partially in response, the governmentand international organizations are encouragingthe use of ‘Resource Conservation Technologies’(RCTs) by farmers to reduce water use whilemaintaining or increasing production. While RCTssuch as zero tilled wheat and laser leveling arebeing increasingly adopted in Pakistan’s rice-wheat and sugarcane-wheat cropping systems,there has been little assessment there orelsewhere of the actual impact of RCTs on thenature and magnitude of water savings at thefield, irrigation system and basin scales. Thisstudy uses both farmer surveys and physicalmeasurements to understand the impact RCTshave had on water use and water savings in theirrigated Rice-Wheat Zone of Pakistan’s Punjabprovince. The findings show that RCTs do indeedresult in reduced water applications at the fieldscale. However, these field scale savings do notnecessarily translate into reductions in overall

water use for two reasons. First, some of thewater ‘saved’ would have percolated into thegroundwater table from where it would later bereused by farmers through pumping. Second, theincreased crop water productivity for medium andlarge scale farms made possible by RCTs hasmade water use more profitable and henceincreased water demand and groundwaterdepletion through expansion in cropped area.These findings provide insights into the conditionsunder which RCTs in Pakistan, or similartechnologies elsewhere, can result in ‘real’ watersavings - that is, decreases in water depleted perunit of crop output. At the same time, theyprovide a warning that even when technologiesdecrease applications per unit of crop output, inother words increase irrigation water productivity,they may not decrease actual water use unlessinstitutional arrangements are in place to limitdemand - a challenging undertaking in anyenvironment.

Summary

vi

1

Ensuring food and livelihood security for growingpopulations is one of the major global challenges(Seckler et al. 1998). Over the last 50 years, amajor factor in meeting this challenge has beenthe expansion of irrigated area. In future years,the irrigation expansion option will be increasinglydifficult to pursue, both because many riverbasins have already been developed to theirmaximum capacity and because of the growingcompetition for existing water supplies fordomestic, industrial and environmental purposes.In such a scenario, one promising alternative isto seek strategies to increase crop yields whilstusing similar or even reduced water resources,i.e., improving water productivity (Molden 1997).

The global challenge of increasing foodproduction, while using less water is exemplifiedin the case of Pakistan. The population there hasincreased by over 25 percent in just the last 10years and continues to expand much faster thanglobal averages. While factors such assalinization and waterlogging as well as labor andfinancial constraints compound the problem, akey issue in efforts to keep food production risingwith population is the lack of additional sourcesof water for agricultural use. In response to thewater challenge, as well as other concernsincluding low farm income, various ResourceConservation Technologies (RCTs) are beingdeveloped and promoted by national andinternational organizations, in particular for riceand wheat which together make up 90 percent ofthe country’s total food grain production. Thesetechnologies include zero tillage, direct seeding,

Water Saving Technologies: Myths and RealitiesRevealed in Pakistan’s Rice-Wheat Systems

Mobin-ud-Din Ahmad, Hugh Turral, Ilyas Masih, Mark Giordano and Zubair Masood

Introduction

parachute transplanting, bed planting, laser landleveling and crop residue management (PARC-RWC 2003). While two primary impacts fromthese technologies are expected to be watersavings and increased crop production, they arealso hoped to variously address a range of otherissues including emerging labor shortages,poverty reduction and environmentalsustainability. Among the technologies, zerotillage and laser land leveling are to date themost widely adopted in Pakistan, with usecentered on the Punjab and other rice-wheatcropping systems (Hobbs and Gupta 2003).

In terms of water use, recent performanceevaluation studies have documented that theseResource Conservation Technologies (RCTs)can be successful in improving field scaleirrigation efficiency (Gupta et al. 2002;Humphreys et al. 2005), resulting in savings inwater application. However, whether or notimproved irrigation efficiency translates to ‘real’water savings depends on the hydrologicinteractions between the field and farm, theirrigation system and the entire river basin. Infact, the water saving impacts of RCTs beyondthe field level are not well understood anddocumented. It is possible that real water savingsare much lower than what might be assumedwhen field level calculations are extrapolated tobroader scales, because of water recycling andthe conjunctive use of surface and groundwater inmany, particularly rice based, cropping systems(Ahmad et al. 2002; Humphreys et al. 2005;Tuong et al. 2005).

2

This paper evaluates the reasons for RCTadoption and the resulting water saving impactsof the main RCTs being developed and promotedin the Rice-Wheat Zone of Pakistan’s IndusBasin, the center of the country’s food grainproduction system. The analysis provides asystematic tracking of the various water balancecomponents at field, farm and higher scales ofthe irrigation system. The fate of water saved atthe field level is explored by studying farmers’response to saved water and its linkage with the

system level water balance. The study alsodiscusses the conditions under which field levelwater savings could be translated into real watersavings at the irrigation system and basinscales in the context of rice-wheat croppingsystems in Indus Basin of Pakistan and forsimilar basins elsewhere. Finally, generalconditions and generic policy recommendationsfor achieving the dual goals of increased foodproduction and real water savings under newinterventions are described.

Study Area

The Indus Basin contains approximately 16million of Pakistan’s 22 million hectares (ha) ofcultivated land and the vast majority of thecountry’s irrigated area. Within the basin, rice-wheat production systems account for about 14percent of the area and form a core base fornational food grain output. As shown in figure 1a,rice-wheat areas have been categorized into fourmain zones based on climate, land and wateruse: the Northern Zone (Zone I), the Punjab Rice-Wheat Zone (Zone II), the Upper Sindh Zone(Zone III) and the Lower Sindh Zone (Zone IV).

The Punjab Rice-Wheat Zone, in particular,was chosen for examination in this study forthree primary reasons. First, it was a focal pointof the Rice-Wheat Consortium, a collaborativegroup established to examine the possible rolesof RCTs in Pakistan and similar regions in India,Nepal and Bangladesh. Second, it largely fallswithin Rechna Doab (the area between the Raviand Chenab tributaries of the Indus), an IWMIbenchmark ‘basin’ (figure 1b) and thusconsiderable background work and technicalstudy has already been done on its hydrology andproduction systems. Finally, as explained in moredetail later, the nature of its conjunctive (surfaceand groundwater) agricultural water use systemhighlights the concepts and issues inunderstanding water savings across scales. Mapsrepresenting the irrigation network, groundwater

quality, administrative districts, irrigationadministrative units and soils of Rechna Doab areprovided in Annexes 1 to 5.

The climate in the Punjab Rice-Wheat Zoneis semi-arid and typical of the low-lying interior ofthe northwest Indian sub-continent. Summers arelong and hot, lasting from April throughSeptember, with maximum temperatures rangingfrom 21¯C to 49¯C. Winter lasts from Decemberthrough February, with maximum daytimetemperatures of up to 27¯C sometimes fallingbelow zero at night. Average annual rainfall isapproximately 400 millimeters (mm), about 75percent of which falls during the June toSeptember monsoon.

The prevailing temperature and rainfallpatterns govern two distinct cropping seasons.Water intensive rice is grown during themonsoonal summer (kharif) season while wheat isproduced in the drier winter (rabi) season. Bothcrops together have been estimated to require970 mm of water for evapotranspiration per year,640 mm for rice and 330 mm for wheat (Ullah etal. 2001). However, the actual evapotranspirationof all crops except rice is generally lower than thepotential requirement (Ahmad et al. 2002;Jehangir et al. 2007). The reasons for this includedeliberate under-irrigation of wheat to reducepumping costs, restricted rabi water supply fromcanals and erratic and untimely surface irrigation

3

FIGURE 1.Rice-wheat cropping zones in Indus Basin of Pakistan and location of sample farms surveyed in and near Rechna Doab, the Punjab, Pakistan.

4

delivery. In saline areas, farmers also restrictgroundwater supply to minimize salinity effects oncrops, even when it is their only source of supply.

However, the amount of water applied to growrice is significantly higher than crop waterrequirement (ETp). Rice is grown in continuouslyflooded conditions with ponding depths of 50-75mm for most of the growing season maintainedby 15 to 25 irrigations. Thus, total waterapplication ranges from 1200 to 1600 mm over a100-150 day growing period, ignoring the relativelysmall amount of water required for seedlingnursery. The water applied for puddling (tominimize deep percolation) varies from 100 to 200mm and a further 100 mm may be needed tocomplete land preparation prior to transplanting.

As the total crop water requirement for therice-wheat rotation is more than double the annualrainfall, it is obvious that irrigation is essential. Ithas been provided in the first instance through anetwork of irrigation canals, developed mainlyover the last 140 years, which draws water fromthe Indus River and its tributaries (Annex 2). Theoriginal design objective of the irrigationdevelopment was to spread limited water over alarge area, at a cropping intensity ofapproximately 65 percent, to protect against cropfailure, prevent famine, and generate employmentand revenue. Before the introduction of surfaceirrigation systems, the groundwater table wasabout 30 meters (m) below ground level in PunjabProvince and about 12-15 meters deep in Sindhprovince. The only sources of groundwaterrecharge were rivers, seasonal floods and rainfall,and a steady natural hydrological balance wasmaintained between the rivers and thegroundwater table.

However, massive and widespread surfacewater irrigation development in the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries altered the natural hydrologicalbalance due to increased recharge from earthencanals and irrigated fields. Over the years,persistent seepage from this huge gravity flowsystem has gradually raised the groundwatertable. By the middle of last century, at somelocations, the groundwater had risen to thesurface or very close to the root zone, causingwaterlogging and secondary salinity which badly

affected agricultural productivity. While describingthese negative impacts of irrigation developmentin the Indus, the scientific literature has tended toneglect the massive and beneficial freshwaterrecharge and storage that occurred in the highlypermeable unconfined aquifer of Indus Basinsystem. As a result, surface supplies areaugmented by groundwater irrigation, initiallydeveloped by the government as part of a verticaldrainage programme (SCARP), starting in the1960s and greatly increased by private sectorinvestment over the ensuing 25 years. Withadditional irrigation supplies from groundwater,cropping intensities have increased to 150percent in some areas over the last two to threedecades, and groundwater has become a keyinput in agricultural production.

From 1999 through 2003, Pakistanexperienced its lowest water availability on recorddue to a combination of low rainfall and unusuallylow snowfall in the Himalayas. Most surface flowsare sourced from spring and summer snowmelt,and water deliveries in the Punjab were as low as40 percent of long term average value. As aresult, groundwater took on an even moreimportant role. However, this rapid increase in useof groundwater over the last two decades,combined with lower than average recharge, hasresulted in declining groundwater levels, as shownby canal supply and groundwater table trends inthe two main canal systems irrigating Rice-WheatZone of the Punjab (figure 2). This has occurreddespite the fact that over-pumping is clearlyconstrained by fuel price as most tubewells arepowered by diesel motors (Qureshi et al. 2003).

A key factor in groundwater use within therice-wheat system is recycling. Ahmad (2002) hasshown that, due to deep percolation, a significantfraction of the volume pumped is recycled manytimes in the rice season. In such systems, netgroundwater use is much less than that pumpedor applied (Ahmad et al. 2005). In the Punjab,rice is generally grown where groundwater qualityis good, but in the Sindh, where rice-wheatsystems are also common, groundwater quality isuniformly poor (see Annex 1). The relationshipbetween groundwater quality and the studyfindings are discussed further below.

5

The rice-wheat system regime has served as akey source for Pakistan’s ever growing fooddemand over the last 50 years. However, theability to further expand or intensify production isseverely constrained by available water supplies.In response, both the government andinternational organizations have emphasizeddeveloping and disseminating technologies toreduce agricultural water use and increaseproduction, while at the same time addressinggrowing labor shortages, reducing rural povertyand ensuring environmental sustainability (Hobbsand Gupta 2003; PARC-RWC 2003).

The generic set of improved farm-scaletechnologies is known as ‘Resource ConservationTechnologies’ (RCT). RCTs have been developedwith multiple objectives – to enable more timelysowing and save on land preparation costs (e.g.,zero tillage); to improve irrigation uniformity, cropestablishment and field drainage (e.g., laserleveling); or to do both (e.g., planting of rice and

wheat on permanent beds). Photographs of majorRCTs being promoted in Pakistan are given inAnnex 6.

Globally there has been considerable interestin and uptake of RCTs, and their economic valuehas been demonstrated in multiple studies. Forexample, adoption levels of zero tillage andmulching in rainfed agriculture have increased from1 percent in 1985 to 37 percent in 2003 in northernNew South Wales in Australia (Vere 2005). Wheatproducers’ surplus in the adopting region onnorthwest China was $1.10 billion compared to anet loss of $358 million for other wheat growers,and similar results are demonstrated for maize(ibid.). RCTs have been shown to control herbicideresistant Phalaris minor in the Punjab in India, witha corresponding increase in wheat yields from 1.5tonnes per hectare (t/ha) in the early 1990s tobetween 4 and 5 t/ha post 2000, estimated to beworth $1.8 billion to India over a 30 year period(ACIAR 2005).

FIGURE 2.Changes in average water table depth and variation in canal flows for the Upper Chenab Canal (UCC) and LowerChenab Canal (LCC) system of Rechna Doab. Locations provided in Annex 2.

Water Scarcity and Resource Conservation Technologies

Sources: Groundwater elevation (SMO-WAPDA); Canal Flows (Punjab Irrigation Department)

Canal supply in UCC system

Canal supply in LCC system

Groundwater table in UCC system

Groundwater table in LCC system

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Can

al s

up

plie

s (B

CM

)

Gro

un

dw

ater

tab

le d

epth

fro

m N

SL (m

)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

6

The value to farmers of some RCTs isdemonstrated by their rapid and widespreadadoption in the Indian Punjab and Haryana(Hobbs and Gupta 2003). In Pakistan, it has beenestimated that zero tillage has been adopted onabout 0.4 million hectares and laser leveling onabout 0.2 million hectares (Ahmed and Gill 2004)after the initial introduction in the 1980s. InRechna Doab, the percentage of planted area nowunder RCTs (12%) is somewhat higher than thepercentage of farmers using the technologies,since larger farmers are disproportionately morelikely to adopt. Reasons are explored later butinvolve levels of mechanization, labor availabilityand fallow land. More detailed statistics are givenin Annex 7, which show that average adoption ishighest in the rice-wheat area, but that adoptioncan vary by irrigation subdivision from 0 to 35percent.

A number of evaluations have suggested thatthese technologies can reduce the amount ofwater applied (e.g., Gupta et al. 2002). Workconducted in China and Pakistan, in collaborationwith CIMMYT and ACIAR, respectively, has shownreduced water applications of between 32 and 37percent in wheat-maize systems (Fahong et al.2005; Hassan et al. 2005). In the Pakistan studysite, located in Northwest Frontier Province, maizeyields increased 32 percent when compared totraditional planting on the flat beds (Hassan et al.2005). The RWC has shown water savings of 30percent due to the adoption of zero tillage in rice-wheat systems (Hobbs and Gupta 2003). Incontrast, bed planting in rice-wheat systems inAustralia has proved more variable, with improvedand depressed rice (Borell et al. 1997) and wheatyields and water use under different circumstances(ibid.) (Beecher et al. 2006).

Water Savings and Net Water Use: Field and Basin Perspectives

In the studies mentioned above, reductions infield level water application have been equatedwith water savings, but it remains an openquestion, and an objective of this paper, todetermine whether water is in fact saved at alarger scale. Thus, much of the remainder of thispaper attempts to answer the question:

“Are there quantifiable real water savingsassociated with RCTs that would allow waterto be transferred somewhere else than theimmediate locale, for other users andpurposes?”

To answer this question requires anunderstanding of the various components ofthe water balance at field and system scales.As shown in figure 3, a cropped field canreceive water from rainfall, irrigation with canaland ground water, and in some cases fromcapillary rise from high groundwater tables. Fora farmer, the water received in the field would

ideally be used as transpiration to support cropgrowth, since other outcomes such as,evaporation from bare soils and ponded water,transpiration by weeds, percolation to thegroundwater table and runoff to surface drains,do not contribute to food and fodderproduction. From the field perspective, it isclear that water savings can occur by reducingany of these sources of loss (though it shouldbe remembered that water, especially in riceproduction, also plays important non-transpiration roles in maintaining anaerobicconditions and suppressing weeds).

To understand water savings beyond thefield scale, it is essential to understand theflow paths and final destinations of percolationand surface runoff, often considered as‘losses’. Deep percolation and surface runoffcan take two paths: one is into freshgroundwater aquifers or surface water bodies,the other is into saline or other sinks - bodies

7

FIGURE 3.Water balance components in the Punjab Rice-Wheat system, Pakistan.

FIGURE 4.The interaction between recharge and abstraction of saline and fresh groundwater.

8

of water so degraded or saline that further useis not possible without treatment (such assaline aquifers and the sea). As stylized infigure 4, the extent to which ‘true’ or ‘real’ watersavings can be gained from reduced field scaleapplications depends on whether percolationand surface runoff flow (1) to sources wherethey can be pumped or otherwise reused by thesame or ‘downstream’ farmers, or (2) to

degraded sinks. Groundwater recharge andrecycling processes are described moretechnically with application to the study area inAhmad (2002). A second aspect of watersavings resulting from new technologies is theimpact on farmers’ production choices and howthose in turn impact on larger (e.g., system andbasin) scale water balances. These issues areaddressed in further detail below.

Data and Methods

IWMI has been working as part of the RWC inIndia and Pakistan to better quantify water useand land and water productivity of the rice-wheatsystem and the impact of various RCTs.Simultaneously, IWMI has been working on theissue of scale in water use and productivity.This study provides a crossing point for the twoefforts and uses both new data, and data andconcepts developed from the previous work, toexamine the role of water savings from RCTsacross scales.

In this study, technical measurements andunderstanding of the water balance componentswere derived from (a) earlier field experiments onwater use and productivity, and (b) detailed waterbalance studies by Ahmad (2002). However, sinceit is difficult to directly measure water balancecomponents in detail at large scales, we alsoundertook a survey of 168 RCT adopters in 2004in the rice-wheat area of Punjab (referred tohereafter as the RCT Survey, figure 1(b)) todetermine their perceptions of water savings andother impacts of RCTs and how they responded tothose impacts in terms of farming systems andwater use. Data from these two efforts weresupplemented by information from a second Socio-Economic Survey of 360 farmers throughoutRechna Doab (figure 1(b)), conducted in early 2004(referred to hereafter as the SE Survey).

For the RCT Survey, a group of 223 adopters,dis-adopters and non-adopters were sampled fromJune through December 2004. Respondents were

chosen using a stratified random samplingapproach based on farm size (Annex 8) andirrigation system type of all recorded adoptersidentified by the On-Farm Water ManagementUnit of the Department of Agriculture, the Punjaband from the results of the SE Survey. Additionalfarmers (non-adopters) were randomly selectedwithin the same sample areas. The distribution ofsampled farmers with respect to RCT adoption,irrigation system and farm size is presented infigure 5. In this context, large farmers have morethan 10 ha, medium farmers have between 5 and10 ha and small farmers have less than 5 ha(see also Annex 8).

The survey was designed to gain insights intoquestions related to RCT adoption and watersavings including:

¶ the main factors influencing RCT adoptionand diffusion;

¶ field scale impacts of RCTs on water use,crop yields and income, cropping patterns,cropping intensity and estimatedevapotranspiration;

¶ farm level impacts of RCTs on water use,including changes in canal water andgroundwater use, and the use of any fieldscale water ‘savings’; and

¶ system level impacts of RCTs on overall cropyields, land use, irrigation water use, waterdistribution and allocation.

9

Survey Results

FIGURE 5.Distribution of the RCT survey respondents with respect to adoption status, surface irrigation system, and farm size.

The basic characteristics of the RCT Surveyrespondents are presented in detail in Annex 9.The farmers in the study area have an averagefarming experience of 25 years and an averageage of 45 years. Twenty-eight percent have noformal education and cannot read and write,whereas 30 percent have completed 10 years ofschooling and 5 percent have graduated fromcolleges or attended higher education inuniversities. About 95 percent of the farmers ownland (60% own all of their farmed land and 35%own and rent land) and 5 percent cultivate landonly as tenants. The main soil types are clay andclay loam and the majority of the adopterspossess both types, although the rice-wheatrotation is practiced on other soils as well (Annex5). The average farm size is 17 ha, with adopterfarmers having slightly higher than averageholdings than non-adopters and dis-adopters.

Land Use and Irrigation

Approximately 15 percent of the farmers reportedthat they have 0.5 to 15 ha of “culturable waste”area - agricultural land that has not beencultivated for the last three years. The two mainreasons for not cultivating this land were:

1. scarcity of irrigation water (50% ofresponses); and

2. soil salinity (35% of responses).

In fact soil salinity problems are also relatedto water scarcity. Salinity is one of the main soilproblems in the study area and remains a threat tothe sustainability of irrigated agriculture there andthroughout the Indus Basin of Pakistan. Salinityhazards can be categorized into two types: primary(i.e., fossil) salinity and secondary salinity. Fossil

Total Sample Size (223 farmers)

Non-adopters: 30 Adopters: 168 Dis-adopters: 25

Perennial Canal Supply: 64

Non-perennial Canal Supply: 86

No Canal Supply: 18

Small (< 5 ha): 13 Medium (5-10 ha): 22 Large (> 10 ha): 29

Medium (5-10 ha): 25 Large (> 10 ha): 37

Medium (5-10 ha): 5 Large (> 10 ha): 8

Small (< 5 ha): 24 Small (< 5 ha): 5

10

salinity is related to natural salts present duringsoil formation (Smedema 2000). Secondarysalinization is a complex problem. In some areas,secondary salinization is linked to a shallowphreatic surface whereas in other parts, it is aconsequence of irrigation with marginal andbrackish groundwater, particularly where freshcanal water is insufficient. Very few farmersreported the problem of waterlogging, as watertables have fallen in the area, due to the recentdecline in surface water availability and continuedgroundwater abstraction. This represents a veryconsiderable, and largely undocumented, changefrom conditions prevailing in the 1960s and 1970s.After gypsum application (36%), the use of floodirrigation and long-term ponding of water are themost common ways in which farmers attempt tocontrol salinity (and sodicity), although othermethods are used including application of sulfuricacid and planting salt tolerant trees and grasses.

Freshwater availability from the canal systemhas been erratic and poor, especially in the last4-5 years. The majority of the farmers (about75%) in the study area report that they do notreceive their allocated share of canal water. Thefarmers attribute this poor performance to thefollowing reasons:

1. low discharge rates;

2. location of farm in the tail reaches of tertiary(watercourses) or secondary (distributary)canals;

3. frequent canal breaches due to poormaintenance and/or water theft;

4. reduced time allocation; and

5. conveyance losses.

Farmers have responded to canal waterscarcity by pumping more and more groundwater.As a result, virtually all farmers report usinggroundwater, with 78 percent using the resourcein conjunction with surface supplies and 20percent using only groundwater, as shown infigure 6. Furthermore, the major share of allirrigation water now comes from groundwatersources, with farmers reporting about 60-70percent of the volume of water they apply tofields as groundwater. At the same time, theincreased exploitation of groundwater hasnegatively impacted on the system level waterbalance with 70 percent of farmers reporting adeclining trend in groundwater tables while only 1percent reported rises.

FIGURE 6.Source of irrigation in Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab, Pakistan.

Source: IWMI RCT survey 2004

Other

1%Canal only

1%

Canal and Tubewell

78%

Tubewell only20%

11

RCT Adoption

The overall adoption rates for the main RCTs areestimated from the 2004 Socio-economic Surveyof the whole of Rechna Doab, and set the contextfor the analysis of adoption within the Rice-WheatZone. This estimate immediately reveals aconsiderable increase in adoption of zero tillagebetween 2000 and 2003 (figure 7). The trend inadoption of laser leveling has been similar, thoughat lower absolute levels. Clearly the twotechnologies show an important and growingchange in the region’s farming systems. It shouldbe noted that both these technologies areprimarily for use in wheat, not rice, production.The survey indicated that other RCTs have notbeen widely adopted.

Within the Doab, technologies and rates ofadoption vary by farming system. Zero tillage ismostly used in the Upper Doab where rice-wheatsystems dominate (figure 8). Laser leveling ispracticed more in the Middle and Lower Doabwhere sugarcane-wheat and more mixed croppingsystems are found and where surface water isscarcest and groundwater more saline. Othertechnologies are not yet widely adopted as theseare still under development or not profitable to

farmers - reasons for non-adoption are discussedin detail later in this report.

Farmers indicated that their two primaryreasons for adopting the technologies were to (a)increase profitability (97% of adopters’respondents), and (b) cope with water scarcity(87% of respondents). While not possible todiscern from the survey questions, coping withwater scarcity is also related to profitabilitybecause it is strongly linked with productivity andthe cost of pumping. Farmers also reportedincreasing shortages of labor due to migration tocities as a major reason for adopting zero tillage.Figure 9 illustrates farmers’ perceptions of theimpacts of the two most used RCTs on field levelagricultural input use. Both laser leveling and zerotillage resulted in substantial savings in labor, fueland water, though the relative impact of eachvaried with technology. Impacts on fertilizer andherbicide use were relatively small.

In the rice-wheat area, a delay in planting isone of the main factors that reduces wheat yield.Farmers prefer to grow late maturing, high-pricedbasmati rice varieties, which are mostlytransplanted in July and harvested in November.Wheat planting is further delayed as the heavy soilsof the area cannot be tilled immediately after rice

FIGURE 7.Temporal trend in the adoption of zero tillage technology (wheat) in the Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab, Pakistan.

Source: IWMI RCT survey 2004

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Perc

enta

ge

of z

ero

till

age

ado

pte

rs (%

)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year of adoption

12

FIGURE 8.Adoption of resource conservation technologies in Rechna Doab, the Punjab, Pakistan (2003-2004).

FIGURE 9.Farmers’ responses on the impact of laser leveling and zero tillage on field level water application and other inputs.

harvest due to excessive residual moisture from therice crop. Wheat yield declines by 1-1.5 percent perday delay in planting after 21 November, inconditions similar to those of rice-wheat area of thePunjab Pakistan (Aslam et al. 1993; Ortiz-Monasterio et al. 1994; Hobbs et al. 1997).

The impacts of RCTs on wheat yield werevaried, with about 54 percent of farmers reporting

an increase, 30 percent a decrease and 16percent no change for zero tillage (figure 10a).The comparative numbers for laser leveling were96, 0, and 4 percent (figure 10b) respectively.Because of the decrease in input use shownabove, almost all farmers reported a decrease inproduction costs (87% for zero tillage and 88%for laser leveling). With generally increased yields

Source: IWMI Socio economic survey 2004

Source: IWMI RCT survey 2004

30

20

10

0

Perc

enta

ge

of a

do

pte

r fa

rmer

s (%

)

Zero tillage Laser land leveling Furrow bed planting

27

1 1

2

4

3

5

12

0

13

5

1

Upper Rechna

Middle Rechna

Lower Rechna

Overall Rechna

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

Perc

ent

chan

ge

at fi

eld

leve

l (%

)

-32

-16 -14

-24

-52 -52

Basic inputs

5

-2 -2 -2

Laser leveling

Zero tillage

HerbicideWater Fuel Labor

Fertilizer

13

FIGURE 10a.Impact of zero tillage on wheat yield, cost of production and net crop income.

FIGURE 10b.Impact of laser leveling on yield, cost of production and net crop income.

and decreased costs, net crop income rose forthe majority of farmers (figures 10a and 10b),providing an obvious explanation of the increasingadoption and popularity of the two technologies.These findings are consistent with those ofJehangir et al. (2007) for zero tillage assummarized in figure 11.

While the popularity of the two technologiescan be explained by their contributions toincreased farm profitability, farmers also reportsubstantial reductions in water applications asshown in figure 9. The reduced irrigation depthusually results from saving one pre-sowingirrigation (Rouni) from an average of four

Source: IWMI RCT survey 2004

Source: IWMI RCT survey 2004

54

6

67

30

87

23

16

7 8

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Perc

enta

ge

of a

do

pte

rs (%

)

Cost of productionYield Net crop income

Increase

Decrease

Same

96

04

8

88

96

4 40

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Perc

enta

ge

of a

do

pte

rs (%

)

Cost of productionYield Net crop income

Increase

Decrease

Same

14

irrigations applied to conventionally cultivatedwheat in the study area. Most farmers alsoreported shorter irrigation times per unit of landunder zero tillage compared to conventionallytilled soils with an average reduction of 2.5hours per event (from 7.5 to 5 hours) for onehectare of land. Shorter application times are

attributed to higher advance rates of water in notill compared with tilled soils, especially for thefirst irrigation. However, a few farmers alsoreported similar or even increased applicationamounts under zero tillage and/or stated thatmore frequent irrigation was required, henceincreasing the total irrigation depth.

FIGURE 11.Comparison of zero tillage and conventional wheat for production cost and income in Rechna Doab, in Rabi,2002-2003.

Impacts of RCT Adoption on Savings in Water Application, WaterUse and Productivity

It is clear that the reasons for the adoption ofRCTs in Rechna Doab are due to a combinationof reduced costs (mainly labor and tillage) andincreased yields for wheat. Thus far, there isalmost no impact of RCT adoption in rice culture.Savings in water application are also evident atthe field level, contributing to lower wheatproduction costs, but also raise the possibility of

intensification on farms that have excess landcompared to water availability. In this section, thefarmer responses and reasons for their adoptionbehavior are set in the context of the wholeRechna Doab, using the IWMI RCT and SEsurveys and results of previous fieldexperimentation by IWMI in 2001-2003 (Jehangiret al. 2007; Ahmad 2002).

Source: Jehangir et al. 2007

13.2

40.2

16.9 16.6 14.0 19.4

78.666.1

9.8 8.9

42.6

175.1193.7

224.5

399.6

378.1

184.4

42.6

Zero tillage wheat

Conventional wheat

450.0

400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0

Am

ount

(US$

/ha)

Tilla

ge

Seed

Irri

gat

ion

Fert

ilize

r

Her

bic

ide

Gro

ssm

arg

in

Har

vest

ing

/th

resh

ing

Gro

ss V

alue

of

Prod

ucti

on

Tota

lco

st

15

Field scale water use and productivity

Wheat is a minor water user (actualevapotranspiration of 390 mm) compared to rice(actual evapotranspiration 660 mm), but theadoption and benefits of RCTs in Pakistan havemainly been related to wheat. Wheatevapotranspiration is roughly the same as theapplied water (irrigation plus rain of 377 mm), andaccounts for about 80 percent of total watersupply when soil moisture is carried over fromrice (58 mm) and net soil moisture depletion (37mm) are taken into account (table 1, total watersupply = 433 mm).

By contrast the total water supply in rice is1020 mm compared to actual evapotranspirationof only 660 mm. Ahmad (2002) showedconvincingly that most of the water required tomaintain ponding on relatively light soils wassimply recycled by deep percolation and re-pumping from groundwater. Thus, although fieldirrigation efficiency is low, the actual depletion ofwater is only the sum of the evaporated andtranspired components, and the groundwaterreturn flow is reused (many times). Ahmad et al.(2004) also demonstrated that evaporation duringthe land preparation and subsequent crop growthperiods after transplanting amounted to 60percent (388 mm) of total evapotranspiration, andrice transpired only about 40 percent (272 mm of

660 mm). Therefore, there are significant potentialwater savings to be made by adjusting the timeof planting and minimizing evaporation losses.

In the Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab, deeppercolation contributes to the fresh groundwateraquifer, and this water becomes part of thebroader scale irrigation supply as it is pumpedfrom tubewells. The water stored in the root zoneat the end of the rice season contributes to theneeds of the wheat crop that follows. Deeppercolation from the rice fields in this regionshould not be considered as a real loss as it isrecycled and reused under multiple use cycles ofgroundwater abstraction (Keller et al. 1996;Seckler 1996; Ahmad et al. 2002, 2005). Otherrecent studies have shown that the waterproductivity of rice based systems is not lowwhen studied at irrigation system or higher scales(Hafeez 2003; Matsuno et al. 2003; Renault andMontginoul 2003). The analysis indicates thatevaluation of the water balance and waterproductivity of rice requires an annualperspective, an understanding of the wholecropping system and the extent of recycling andreuse of water within it.

Both, the SE Survey of the whole RechnaDoab and the RCT Adoption Survey, show thatother RCTs, such as bed planting, are barelyused (figure 8). The reasons for this can bebriefly explained by the results of on-farm field

TABLE 1.Measured water balance of a rice-wheat field: an example from the Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab, Pakistan,2000-2001.

Water balance components Rice season Wheat season Annual [rice-wheat]

(mm) (mm) (mm)

Precipitation 320 34 354

Irrigation with canal water 182 0 182

Irrigation with tubewell water 468 343 811

Actual evapotranspiration 660 390 1050

Upward flux in root zone 50 19 69

Downward flux from root zone 302 43 345

Change in root zone storage 58 -37 21

Source: after Ahmad et al. 2002

16

trials conducted by IWMI from 2001 to 2003,which showed that yields of both rice and wheatin bed planting systems are lower than inconventional or zero tillage systems. Similarly,the yields of direct seeded rice are lower than forconventional transplanting (table 2). The trialswere performed on full-size farmers’ fields atthree locations in the head, mid and tail of awatercourse. The beds were freshly made eachyear, and rice was direct seeded into ‘dry’ soilusing modified direct drill to sow normal seed.These findings complement work reported byKukal et al. (2005) that relative yield declined onpermanent beds over time.

The technology package for these RCTs isclearly still under development in the Punjab, andthe yield loss in direct seeding of rice and bedsystems has been attributed to:

¶ weed infestation in direct seeded and bedplanted rice;

¶ lack of precision in sowing depth, resulting inpoor seed germination and low crop density indirect seeded rice;

¶ loss of net cropped area due to the relativelyhigh proportion of furrow area to bed area;

¶ lack of farmer experience with agronomy andwater management in bed planting systems;and

¶ lack of reliability, equity and adequacy ofcanal water supplies, resulting in poor cropestablishment.

Irrigation water savings with zero tillage inwheat are modest in comparison with traditionalpractices. On the other hand, irrigation watersavings in rice are significant (some 30-40%), butthey are derived from the recycled watercomponent, and do not reduce actualevapotranspiration. Surprisingly, higherevaporation from direct seeded fields increasesnet water depletion by roughly 150 mm due to alonger crop season (about 30 days).

In this experimental study, the difference inirrigation input between zero tillage andconventional methods was small compared withwhat farmers usually report (including the RCT

TABLE 2.Comparison of water balance and water productivity of various resource conservation technologies (RCTs) in Rice-Wheat Zone, Rechna Doab.

RCTs Rain Irrigation Gross inflow ETc Yield WPy_Ig WPy_ETc

mm mm mm mm kg/ha kg/m3 kg/m3

RCTs for Rice

Direct seeding on flat fields 198±84 966±209 1164±212 695±40 2878±1357 0.25±0.14 0.40±0.19

Direct seeding on beds 198±86 920±208 1118±232 695±44 2850±1170 0.26±0.15 0.41±0.16

Transplanting on beds 183±84 1200±317 1383±310 539±74 3124±854 0.23±0.09 0.56±0.15

Traditional transplanting 183±80 1384±273 1567±268 544±46 3910±1039 0.25±0.08 0.72±0.20

RCTs for Wheat

Zero tillage 106±76 176±84 281±65 416±37 4322±849 1.62±0.52 1.03±0.22

2 row beds 106±76 148±81 254±60 415±37 3260±1180 1.33±0.47 0.77±0.30

3 row beds 106±76 160±80 265±46 415±33 3316±890 1.24±0.37 0.80±0.23

Traditional practices 106±76 185±77 291±76 416±35 4131±503 1.53±0.48 0.99±0.13

Source: Field experiments for water use and productivity conducted under RWC project at selected farmers’ fields during 2001-2003(See also Jehangir et al. 2007)

Notes: WPy_Ig refers to water productivity in terms of yield per unit of gross inflows

WPy_ETc refers to yield per unit of potential crop evapotranspiration

kg/ha – kilograms per hectare

kg/m3 - kilograms per cubic meter

17

Adoption Survey) and what other studies havepresented (Gupta et al. 2002; Hobbs and Gupta2003). It is possible that more timely sowing ofthe conventional wheat treatment at the sametime as the RCT treatments allowed better use ofconserved soil moisture for the wheat, whichdoes not normally occur in field conditions whenconventional sowing is delayed.

Field to Farm Scale

In this section, we explain how the improvementsin irrigation efficiency with adoption of RCTsactually contribute to increased water use, ratherthan result in net savings at farm and systemlevels. According to farmer responses, there is asignificant increase in cropping intensity onmedium and large farms following the adoption ofzero tillage and laser leveling, as shown in figure12. There is only a marginal increase in croppingintensity by small farmers, because in generalthey already cultivate all available area and arenot constrained by labor or water availability. Incontrast, water and, to a lesser extent, labor limitthe area sown by medium and larger farmers. Thereductions in field level water applications, mainly

surface supply, derived from RCTs allow them toexpand the wheat area, which then requiresgreater groundwater abstraction to maintain thecrop, once planted.

The implications for water use are shown intable 3, based on potential cropevapotranspiration elaborated on earlier in thisreport. On average this implies a small butsignificant increase (8% for large farmers, 5% formedium farmers and less than 1% for smallfarmers) in net water use, which will furthercontribute to stress on the groundwater system.

Some farmers reported higher infiltrationrates under zero tilled soils, and that rainwater

FIGURE 12.Impact of RCT adoption on cropping intensity in the Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab, Pakistan

TABLE 3.Changes in total evapotranspiration at the farm scale asinfluenced by RCT adoption and resulting increase incropping intensity in the rice-wheat zone of the Punjab,Pakistan.

Average farm size under Change in potential crop

each category (ha) evapotranspiration (%)

Rabi Kharif Annual

2.83 (small) 1.5 -1.1 0.2

7.69 (medium) 5.0 3.7 5.0

33.18 (large) 7.7 5.0 8.1

Before adoption

After adoption

198

196

194

192

190

188

186

184

182

180

178

176

An

nu

al c

rop

pin

g in

ten

sity

(%)

Farm category

Small Medium Large All farms

18

is more effectively captured, which is especiallybeneficial in clayey and salt affected soils as itcontributes to leaching. Farmers’ observationsof increased infiltration rate under zero tillagesuggest that further studies are needed toquantify the contribution of rainfall to crop waterdemand. More effective use of rainfall (withlower evaporation losses due to high infiltration)could result in greater groundwater recharge,lowered groundwater pumping, or increasedyields with no change in groundwater use(where wheat is currently under-irrigated),depending on farmer response. More systematicmeasurements of water balance components atfarm to system scales are needed to study thechanges in recharge to groundwater, surfacewater runoff, water depletion and soil moisturestorage in the root zone arising from RCTadoption. This poses serious experimentalchallenges, but ones that can be addressedwith sophisticated instrumentation, chemical/isotope tracing techniques and hydrologicalmodeling.

Farmers use all the available canal water,because it is of good quality and considerablycheaper than pumped groundwater (farmers’annual costs for canal water and groundwater usein Rechna Doab are estimated as US$7 andUS$100 per hectare (US$/ha), respectively).Because of this, canal water and rainfall playcritical roles in leaching salts from the root zone,whereas groundwater use augments salinity,especially in the lower reaches of the canalsystems and of the Doab.

Currently, the overwhelming majority offarmers rely on conjunctive water supply, usinggroundwater, even of poor quality, to make up forinadequate volume, frequency and timing of canalwater. Farmers reporting an increase, decrease orno change in the amount of groundwater irrigationafter RCT adoption were 13, 54 and 33 percent,respectively. The increase in groundwater use wasmostly reported by large farmers which willincrease pressure on groundwater resources, aslarge farmers, although a minority in number, ownabout half of the farmland in Rechna Doab (Annex8). In the long run with reversion to more normal

precipitation in Indus Basin, canal water suppliescan be expected to be roughly double those fromthe drought/low rainfall years of 1999-2003, andthere will be less pressure on groundwater andmore good quality water will be available. However,longer term reductions in snowmelt and Himalayanice-pack are already evident, and are projected toworsen with global climate change, so long termsurface water availability is also projected todecline and drought periods become more frequentand severe.

The increase in tubewell irrigation intensityoccurs mainly on large and medium farms, wheremore area has been brought under cultivation orthe cropping pattern has changed as a result ofadoption of RCTs. In contrast, most of thesmaller farmers reported a decrease ingroundwater pumpage, which could be attributedto increased efficiency of canal water use withsimilar land use intensity/pattern, and without theability to reuse the savings. Since the volumetricchange in total irrigation water use was notmeasured in this study, it is only possible toestimate the implications and consequences ofthese changes.

Farmers’ strategies and balance of water usewill change, but it is very likely that once theyhave realized that they can establish larger areasthrough more efficient irrigation management inwheat, then the tendency for more generallyincreased groundwater use will continue.

At a farm scale, the adoption of beds ordirect seeding of rice will only take place if (1)the yield penalties can be reduced; and (2) thecosts of managing weeds (and using bed plantersand other machinery) reduced to levels that resultin higher gross margins. This is particularly truefor medium and large scale farmers, who arecommercial producers. Even if these technologiesare adopted, savings to farmers will be in theform of reduced pumping costs, not in depletedwater and, even at farm scale, there will be nonet realizable savings in water use. It is possible,that reduction in pumping and reduced pumpingcosts could also encourage some farmers toplant more rice if they have excess land, as hasbeen seen with wheat.

19

If attractive technologies can also bedeveloped that minimize actual evaporationlosses between land preparation and theestablishment of full vegetative cover of rice thenit will, in theory, be possible to make real savingsin water use. Given the experience so far, itwould also be reasonable to conclude that suchsavings would be used on farm to plant largerareas of rice on medium and large properties, ashas happened with wheat. The implications forincreased groundwater use from this would bemore significant than at present.

Farm to System Scale

At irrigation system and basin scales, the neteffect of irrigation water savings in wheat bysmaller farmers and the counterbalancingincrease of groundwater for wheat by mediumand larger farmers, depends on the differentialadoption rates of the technologies, and therelative proportions of land area in eachcategory.

At the moment, adoption rates of zero tillageand laser leveling are highest by medium andlarger scale farmers who have better access to

the required machinery, more to gain fromincreased efficiency and better management,and who occupy, overall, about 50 percent of thecultivated area. Therefore, the net increase inwater use from the medium and large scalefarmers will outweigh the net savings on smallfarms, and result in further net increases ingroundwater use. The expected change in cropevapotranspiration across the sampleddistribution of farm size in Rechna Doab is givenin figure 13 to illustrate this point.

The net increase in annual crop waterdepletion at Doab level is estimated (see table 4),given current adoption rates, an assumed ceilingon adoption, and estimates of incremental landarea that can be sown. Since these changes arerelatively small, it is difficult to monitor them withany precision, especially given the inter-annualvariations in water availability and use in acomplex system like Rechna Doab. Nevertheless,these scenarios provide useful information onsystem/basin level impacts. It is important tonote that most of these increases inevapotranspiration are achieved by a reduction ingroundwater recharge and that this may aggravatethe decline of the groundwater table in rice-wheatsystems and also reduce groundwater availability

FIGURE 13.Impact of RCT adoption on farm level potential crop water requirements in the Rice-Wheat Zone of the Punjab,Pakistan.

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

Per

cen

tag

e ch

ang

e in

an

nu

al E

T c (%

)P

erce

nta

ge

chan

ge

in a

nn

ual

ET c

(%)

1,750,000

1,400,000

1,050,000

700,000

350,000

0

1,750,000

1,400,000

1,050,000

700,000

350,000

0

An

nu

al fa

rm le

vel E

T c (m

3/y

ear)

aft

er a

do

pti

on

An

nu

al fa

rm le

vel E

T c (m

3/y

ear)

aft

er a

do

pti

on

0.8

1.6

2.4

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.8

4.0

4.9

5.3

5.3

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

8.1

9.3

10

.1

10

.1

11

.3

12

.6

13

.8

14

.2

15

.4

17

.4

20

.2

23

.1

24

.3

28

.3

32

.4

40

.5

46

.2

70

.9

14

6.8

0.8

1.6

2.4

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.8

4.0

4.9

5.3

5.3

6.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

8.1

9.3

10

.1

10

.1

11

.3

12

.6

13

.8

14

.2

15

.4

17

.4

20

.2

23

.1

24

.3

28

.3

32

.4

40

.5

46

.2

70

.9

14

6.8

Farm size (ha)Farm size (ha)

SmallSmall MediumMedium LargeLarge

20

to ‘downstream’ users. Without increases insurface supplies or other institutionalarrangements to limit water use in the near future,

Discussion

TABLE 4.Anticipated changes in the volume of crop water use in Rechna Doab, as a result of the increased RCT adoption.

Domain of analysis Farm area Adoption rate Net increase in crop water use

(“000” ha) % (106 m3) %

Base Scenario: Increased crop water use under current level of RCT adoption

Rice-Wheat Zone 1,440 28 252 1.8

Rechna Doab 2,594 18 291 1.2

Scenario 1: Maximum increase in RCT adoption of 20%, assuming similar trends in differential adoption rates (of 57% on largefarms), changes in cropping pattern and an increase in cropping intensity of 7%.

Rice-Wheat Zone 1,440 48 431 3.2

Rechna Doab 2,594 38 615 2.5

Scenario 2: Maximum increase in RCT adoption of 40%, otherwise as scenario 1

Rice-Wheat Zone 1,440 68 611 4.5

Rechna Doab 2,594 58 939 3.8

Scenario 3: Maximum increase in RCT adoption of 60%, otherwise as scenario 1

Rice-Wheat Zone 1,440 88 791 5.8

Rechna Doab 2,594 78 1262 5.1

Note: Adoption rate is based on IWMI socio-economic survey and includes zero tillage and laser leveling RCTs only

this may result in a negative water balance at asystem scale and pose a serious threat to thesustainability of irrigated agriculture.

The discussion refers to the context and water-related implications of the adoption of RCTs in threesituations: to (1) the Mid-Indus Basin, asrepresented by the Punjab, (2) the Lower IndusBasin as represented by the Sindh, and (3) in moregeneric relation to semi-arid, water scarce basins.

The main policy implications hinge on the roleand nature of groundwater irrigation. Since theearly 1980s, private development of groundwaterirrigation has proved, in the Punjab, to bedramatically more successful in reducingwaterlogging and lowering the groundwater tablethan earlier attempts to use pumped drainage,starting with the Salinity Control and ReclamationProgram (SCARP) projects in the 1960s. The

most extensive development and pumping ofgroundwater is in the freshwater zones, such asMiddle and Upper Rechna Doab, the location ofthe rice-wheat systems of the Punjab. Thepresent success of salinity mitigation and landreclamation (usually by farmers) in the Punjab isa yet undocumented story. Although there isconsiderable pumping of poorer qualitygroundwater in more downstream zones, such asLower and Inner Rechna Doab, gradients betweensaline groundwater and freshwater zones aredeveloping. The long term danger to thesustainable use of groundwater is the potentialmixing and degradation of the fresh groundwaterzones from the saline ones.

21

The situation in the lower basin, in the Sindh,provides a stark contrast with widespread highand very saline water tables, largely due to over-application of canal water and ineffectivedrainage, in part due to very low land surfacegradients to the sea. Many public funded SCARP(reclamation) wells are no longer operational, andsome problems persist with the operation of thearterial Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD).

In the Punjab, the recent low allocations ofcanal water (as little as 40% of long term averagesupply), due to low snowfall and rainfall in theUpper Indus Basin, have contributed to loweredwater tables, through (1) lower recharge fromsurface irrigation from fields and the channelnetwork, and (2) increased groundwaterabstraction in all zones. In the longer term, watertables may rise again, and the gradients betweensaline and fresh areas may decrease andstabilize.

The main incentive for large and mediumscale farmers to adopt RCTs lies in the increasedprofitability of wheat production in the Rice-WheatZone, due to a combination of reduced costs andincreased yield through better timeliness ofsowing. The success of this technology, and thesmall realizable water savings at field level allowexpansion of the winter wheat area, requiringfurther abstraction of groundwater to support theadditional crop through to harvest. Potentially,there could be greater groundwater abstraction inwinter on up to 50 percent of the rice-wheat area(depending on final levels of adoption), withimplications for a long term increase in the risk ofgroundwater mixing and degradation, as estimatedin the previous section. However, adoption ofRCTs may be only one of many reasons thatfarmers will continue to increase use ofgroundwater in the Punjab.

The main policy lever constraining over-exploitation of the groundwater is themaintenance of full cost recovery pricing forenergy to constrain groundwater use withineconomically viable limits. To date, this haslargely been the case in Pakistan, where themajority of irrigation tubewells are diesel powered,and pumping depths do not require excessiveenergy inputs. Careful oversight of the energy-

irrigation nexus in Pakistan will be an importantfactor in the sustainability of groundwater use andin the management of salinity at a basin scale.

Almost any technology that minimizesgroundwater recharge ought to be attractive tofarmers and policymakers in the Sindh, wherewater tables are high and saline over extensiveareas. Groundwater use is much less commonbecause of the high salinity of the water table,and drainage will continue to rely on public-sectordrainage wells coupled to extensive surfacedrainage networks. Normally, disposal of salt isthe overriding problem in arid-zone irrigatedagriculture, but the Left Bank Outfall Drain(LBOD) allows disposal of saline effluent directlyto the sea – at least in theory, as there areconsiderable operational difficulties at present,including seepage induced salinization of areasadjacent to the main channel and problems withthe outfall structure and gates. Rice areas in theSindh maintain good soil and water qualitythrough application of large quantities of surfacewater, generating a continuous flux that leachesthe soils, but this contributes strongly to regionalgroundwater rise and larger scale salinization innon-rice areas.

In the Sindh, broad adoption of zero tillagewould help to reduce net accession ofgroundwater, and the incentives for its adoptionby larger and medium scale farmers are selfdriven, as explained earlier. Small farmers stillface capital barriers to the adoption of zerotillage, due to the price and availability of directseeding machinery and tractors. Rental marketscould be further stimulated to ensure cost-effective and timely supply of direct seedingequipment, but alternatively, smaller scale andcheaper equipment, such as that being producedin the Haryana and the Punjab in India, could bean attractive alternative for the smaller farmer, inboth the Punjab and the Sindh.

Laser leveling has long been promoted inPakistan, with very low levels of adoption withoutsubsidized government assistance until recently.This research shows that even in the Punjab, realinterest in laser leveling has been stimulatedprobably because of the reduction in irrigationtimes, and the better uniformity of application,

22

both of which assume greater importance whencanal supplies are limited and groundwater qualityis poor. Evidence for this is the greater level ofadoption in the sugarcane-wheat system in theLower Rechna Doab, where recently farmers havebeen relying increasingly on groundwater, despiteits poorer quality.

To date, adoption rates of zero tillage andlaser leveling in the Sindh have not beensurveyed and assessed in the same detail, northe farm size distribution and the locations ofrice-wheat and other production systems. Thisis certainly a task that should be undertaken.Farmers’ understanding of water savings,resulting from laser leveling, and theirappreciation of other benefits such as betterand more uniform leaching, would pave the wayfor broader adoption. If there are no directproduction benefits evident, then, in theinterests of long term sustainability, it may beprudent to scale up the extent of laser levelingand use well-targeted subsidies to encourageits more widespread adoption, as is being donein the Punjab, Pakistan. In the rice areas of theSindh, reductions in total water application willhave a net positive benefit on lowering andstabilizing water tables. RCTs such as bedplanting, if they can be made to perform as wellor better than traditional transplanting, offer thepossibility of significant reductions in totalwater application, mainly through reducedponding, seepage and evaporation losses. Asalt balance analysis will also be necessary tounderstand the effects on leaching and saltaccumulation of reducing water fluxes throughrice paddies in the Sindh.

Salinity has a much larger negative effect onwater productivity than the incremental addition ofirrigation water, or higher use of nitrogen fertilizer.As groundwater degrades, water productivity of allcrops will steadily decrease, and ultimately theaquifers in the Punjab could become too salinefor agricultural use, as has already happened inthe Sindh and in significant parts of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia (Khan 2004).

Options to replace one crop with anotherneed to be carefully evaluated, even if the policylevers to do this are often limited by the dictates

of the market. However, in Australia, rice croppingis zoned and prohibited in areas where there ishigh groundwater recharge as a result of pondingwater on porous soils (Humphreys et al. 1994). InPakistan, replacing rice with cotton may lead to areduction in net irrigation application, but wouldlead to more water depletion as cotton has higherseasonal evapotranspiration than rice, particularlythe transpiration component (Ahmad et al. 2004;Jalota and Arora 2002). However, replacing ricewith cotton may be a good option for areas whereseepage and percolation go to sinks (e.g., salinegroundwater), but it is necessary to assess thebiophysical environment, market and other factorsconducive for replacement of one crop withanother.

Conjunctive water management is the key toPakistan’s agricultural future, and understandingof the impacts of surface and groundwater use onsalinity in the long term is required. Waterallocation policy should explicitly account forfuture effects on salinity, water productivity andthe sustainability of groundwater use. Althoughthere has been considerable monitoring ofgroundwater depth and quality, much of the datahave not been evaluated and a goodunderstanding of surface-groundwater interactionhas not yet been achieved. This can be donethrough scenario modeling that links surface andgroundwater allocation and use, but the modelingmust also be able to include and explain theimpacts of interventions (SCARPs, privategroundwater abstraction) on water table levels andsalinity since WAPDA’s baseline survey in theearly 1960s. The modeling framework also has totake into account key factors elaborated in thisresearch report:

1. the proportions and extents of canal andgroundwater use;

2. the efficiency and equity of surface waterallocation and distribution within and acrosssystems;

3. the extents of and connections betweensaline and fresh groundwater areas and theirconnections to the surface supply system -via rivers, irrigation and drainage canals,regional and on-farm;

23

4. farm structure: the size and distribution oflarge, medium and small farms and theirdifferential impacts on surface andgroundwater use;

5. the fit and nature of technologies, such asRCTs, to these farms and farming systems,including: effectiveness and performance ofthe technology; incentives for its adoption;capital and operational requirements;

6. the balance of upstream and downstreamdevelopment and surface water allocationover the full range of natural hydrologicvariability;

7. understanding of where technologies andallocation policy result in real water savings atfield, farm, system and basin scale throughunderstanding what happens to water deliveredon farm – whether it is transpired, evaporated,recycled over and over again, or lost to a sink,such as saline groundwater; and

8. social issues, for example, the influence oflarge, wealthy landholders on distribution ofwater and the distribution of RCT benefitsamong various farm size categories, etc.

The lesson that field level water savings fromRCTs translate into net increases in total wateruse at system scale (on the rational economicbasis that the more productive an activity is, themore of it a producer wants to do) is highlyinstructive. The implications for the Indus Basin,outlined above, are more generally applicable tomany arid basins where surface and groundwaterare conjunctively used, and where salinityimposes a delicate balance on the long termsustainability of the agricultural system.

The overriding message of this research isthat water savings on farm that lead to moreproductive enterprises will tend to be reusedsomehow, and may even stimulate greater totalwater use. The main factor governing this inPakistan is farm size: in situations where smallfarmers are the majority, small net watersavings may not be able to be reused on farm,and the cumulative saving may result insystem level water savings. Alternatively, thesavings could allow better placed large farmers

or other downstream users a more secure andgenerous water supply. In countries likeAustralia, water rights are allocated to eachindividual farmer and as bulk allocations to anirrigation system, stock and domestic watersupply or rural town (Humphreys and Robinson2003). In such situations, it is up to the right-holder what happens to unused water allocation– it can be traded, used for intensification, asin the Punjab example, or simply left in thesystem – either as carry over storage toanother year or as spill through the dams or asin-stream flow. A key question that is rarelyaddressed in the rhetoric on water savings is,“who is the beneficiary of real water savings”when they exist.

One of the lessons of this work is that thefate of real water savings is a very variableoutcome, and one that pushes for more explicitrecognition and allocation of water rights tofarmers, irrigation systems and other users indeveloping countries such as Pakistan. Eventhen, there are multiple possible outcomes, it willbe important that the allocation and maintenanceof environmental flows does not rely on notionalwater savings, but instead are explicitly specified(e.g., amount, pattern, location and quality). Themultiple incentives to save water and the factorsgoverning security of supply will in the end drivethe adoption of water saving technologies, andpolicymakers need to be aware of the likelyoutcomes.

Recently, to address the issue of growingwater scarcity, the Government of Pakistanlaunched a massive watercourse lining program.The aim of this project is to save water byseepage reduction and to enhance agriculturalproduction by further expansion/increase incropping intensity. As suggested in this study,there is need of a broader scale perspective inthe water conservation strategies embarked uponin Indus Basin of Pakistan and similar basinselsewhere. More comprehensive understandingand evaluation of impacts on water balance (andsalinity) dynamics at larger hydrological domainsand the possibilities of achieving real watersavings needs to be incorporated in projectplanning and impact evaluation studies.

24

The study shows that farmers in the rice-wheatarea of the Punjab, Pakistan, are adoptingResource Conservation Technologies (RCTs),specifically zero tilled wheat and laser leveling,that help to improve their livelihoods and reducethe costs of production. Improving waterproductivity and achieving real water savingsremain secondary concerns, despite a gradualincrease in water scarcity at the sub-basin orbasin scales. Increasing use of fresh groundwaterhas helped farmers to remedy the scarcity ofcanal water, although declining groundwater tableshave indicated the need for better conjunctivemanagement of these two sources of water. Theimplications of this for sustainable groundwateruse and salinity management are complex andmultiple outcomes are possible, depending on theunderstanding of policymakers and theirsubsequent actions.

Counterintuitively, field level water savingsdue to the adoption of zero tillage and laserleveling in wheat production have contributedto increased net water use at system scale,due to field level savings being used toestablish greater crop area on uncultivatedland owned by medium and large scalefarmers.

Without doubt, net basin level water use hasalso increased, as evidenced by declininggroundwater levels, but at this stage, it may notbe significant in terms of the total waterbalance. This study provides a practical exampleof why system level approaches to waterconservation are required to understand thedifferential impacts of interventions in thehydrologic cycle at different scales. The impactsof broader scale adoption of resource conservingtechnologies depend on many factors, especiallythe opportunity to reuse apparent savings at thefarm level. Pakistan is perhaps unusual in theextent of its potentially irrigated area that iscultivated by medium and large scale farmers

with unused fallow areas, but even without this,there are many other possibilities at the basinlevel to reuse water that has apparently beensaved at field level.

Zero tillage technology for wheat cultivationand laser land leveling are being more widelyadopted than beds and alternative cropestablishment methods for rice, which are as yetimmature and unprofitable options. The analysisindicates that both zero tillage and laser landleveling have positively contributed in increasingnet income of the farmers, whereas other RCTsdo not yet offer that possibility. Reduced rechargeto groundwater and declining water tables suggestthat more rigorous analysis of the trade-offsamong various water balance components isrequired for proper impact evaluation and toidentify the contribution of RCTs to sustainablemanagement of water and land resources.

There is a need to devise suitable guidelinesfor making RCTs viable and managing theassociated water savings and/or waterproductivity enhancement options across allscales of irrigated river basins. The opportunity ofincreasing economic benefits could be harnessedalong with achieving real water savings, but thesewill not be realized at the basin scale withoutcorresponding institutional development thatinvolves better water accounting, more detailedand better balanced water allocation strategies,policies that promote balanced and wiseconjunctive use of surface and groundwater, andsocial frameworks and policies which canimplement those strategies. Strategies fordeveloping and promoting resource conservationtechnologies should be based on the followingfour major thrusts:

1. optimizing water depletion by productive uses;

2. selecting technologies that are appropriate tothe farming system and to the hydrologicoutcomes at the basin level, based on betterunderstanding of the factors involved;

Conclusions

25

3. improving overall management of the irrigationsystem; and

4. comprehensive water balance and waterproductivity assessment at field to higherscales of the river basin.

For the zero tillage and laser land levelingtechnologies in Indus Basin of Pakistan, realwater savings and improvement in waterproductivity can be achieved by: (a) providingincentives to small farmers for technologyadoption while limiting new groundwater use bymedium and large scale farmers, (b) improvingthe performance of canal water supply systemsand managing these systems in high water

availability years to sustain good qualitygroundwater resources, (c) promoting evaporationreducing technologies on a priority basis in Rice-Wheat Zone located in upper parts of Indus Basin(Punjab) where groundwater quality is fresh anddrainage is reused by downstream users, (d)targeting technologies that reduce accessions tosaline groundwater and also minimize evaporationlosses at the Rice-Wheat Zone in the lower partof the basin (Sindh), and (e) investing more ondata collection, monitoring and case studies fordetailed agro-hydrological, salinity and waterproductivity assessment for resourceconservation technologies at different scales,from field, to farm, to system, and to basin.

26

27

Literature Cited

ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research). 2005. Canberra, Australia.http://www.aciar.gov.au.

Ahmad, M. D. 2002. Estimation of net groundwater use in irrigated river basins using geo-information techniques:A case study in Rechna Doab, Pakistan. Dissertation no: 3334. Wageningen University, the Netherlands. 143pp.

Ahmad, M. D.; Bastiaanssen, W. G. M.; Feddes, R. A. 2002. Sustainable use of groundwater for irrigation: A numericalanalysis of sub-soil water fluxes. Irrigation and Drainage 51(3): 227-241.

Ahmad, M. D.; Bastiaanssen, W. G. M.; Feddes, R. A. 2005. A new technique to estimate net groundwater use acrosslarge irrigated areas by combining remote sensing and water balance approaches, Rechna Doab, Pakistan.Hydrogeology Journal 13(5-6): 653-664.

Ahmad, M. D.; Masih, I.; Turral, H. 2004. Diagnostic analysis of spatial and temporal variations in crop waterproductivity: A field scale analysis of the rice-wheat cropping system of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of AppliedIrrigation Science 39(1): 43-63.

Ahmed, M.; Gill, M. A. 2004. Sustaining crop and water productivity in the irrigated Rice-Wheat Systems of thePakistan’s Punjab through promotion of resource conservation technologies. In: Sustaining crop and waterproductivity in the irrigated rice-wheat cropping systems, eds. W. A. Jehangir; H. Turral. Proceeding of the projectend workshop, April 29, 2004. International Water Management Institute, Lahore, Pakistan. (Unpublished).

Aslam, M.; Majid, A.; Hashmi, N. I.; Hobbs, P. R. 1993. Improving wheat yield in the rice-wheat cropping system ofPunjab through zero tillage. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 8-11.

Beecher, G.; Dunn, B.; Mathews, S.; Thompson, J.; Singh, R. P.; Humphreys, L.; Timsina, J.; O’Keefe, K.; Johnston,D. 2006. Permanent beds for sustainable cropping. IREC Farmers’ Newsletter, No. 171, Summer 2006.

Borell, A.; Garside, A.; Shu, F. K. 1997. Improving efficiency of water for irrigated rice in a semi-arid tropicalenvironment. Field Crops Research 52: 231-248.

Fahong, W.; Xuqing, W.; Bo, F.; Jisheng, S.; Shengdong, L.; Zhongming, M. 2005. Raised bed planting for wheat inChina. In: Evaluation and performance of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Asia, Australia and Mexico,eds. C. H. Roth; R. A. Fischer; C. A. Meisner. ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.

Gupta, R. K.; Naresh, R. K.; Hobbs, P. R.; Ladha, J. K. 2002. Adopting conservation agriculture in the rice-wheatsystem of the Indo-Gangetic Plains: new opportunities for saving water. In: Water wise rice production, eds. B. A.M. Bouman; H. Hengsdijk; B. Hardy; P. S. Bindraban; T. P. Tuong; J. K. Ladha. Proceedings of the internationalworkshop on water wise rice production, April 8-11, 2002, Los Banos, Philippines. Los Banos (Philippines):International Rice Research Institute.

Hafeez, M. M. 2003. Water accounting and productivity at different spatial scales in a rice based irrigation system:A remote sensing approach. Ecology and development series, No. 8, Center for development research, Universityof Bonn.

Hassan, I.; Hussain, Z.; Akbar, G. 2005. Effect of permanent raised beds on water productivity for irrigated maize–wheat cropping system. In: Evaluation and performance of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Asia,Australia and Mexico, eds. C. H. Roth; R. A. Fischer; and C. A. Meisner. ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.

Hobbs, P. R.; Giri, G. S.; Grace, P. 1997. Reduced and Zero Tillage options for the establishment of wheat after ricein South Asia. RWC Paper No. 2. Mexico, D.F.: Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains and CIMMYT.

Hobbs, P. R.; Gupta, R. K. 2003. Rice-wheat cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains: Issues of waterproductivity in relation to new resource conserving technologies. In: Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits andopportunity for improvement, eds. J. W. Kijne; R. Barker; D. Molden. CABI publishing in association withInternational Water Management Institute.

28

Humphreys, E.; Meisner, C.; Gupta, R.; Timsina, J.; Beecher, H. G.; Lu, T. Y.; Singh, Y.; Gill, M. A.; Masih, I.; Guo, Z. J.;Thompson, J. A. 2005. Water savings in rice-wheat systems. Plant Production Science 8(3): 242-258.

Humphreys, E.; Robinson, D. 2003. Improving water productivity in rice cropping systems in Australia: institutionsand policy. In: Rice science: innovations and impact for livelihood, eds. T. W. Mew; D. S. Brar; S. Peng; D. Dawe;B. Hardy. Proceedings of the International Rice Research Conference’. September 16-19, 2002, Beijing, China.International Rice Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Engineering and Chinese Academy of AgriculturalSciences. pp. 885-900.

Humphreys, E.; van der Lely, A.; Muirhead, W. A.; Hoey, D. 1994. The development of on-farm restrictions for minimisingrecharge from rice in New South Wales. Australian Journal of soil and water conservation 7(2): 11-20.

Jalota, S. K.; Arora, V. K. 2002. Model-based assessment of water balance components under different croppingsystems in north-west India. Agricultural Water Management 57: 75-87.

Jehangir, W. A.; Masih, I.; Ahmed, S.; Gill, M. A.; Ahmad, M.; Mann, R. A.; Chaudhary, M. R.; Qureshi, A. S.; Turral,H. 2007. Sustaining crop water productivity in rice-wheat systems of South Asia: A case study from Punjab,Pakistan. IWMI Working Paper 115. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Keller, A.; Keller, J.; Seckler, D. 1996. Integrated water resource systems: Theory and policy implications. IIMIResearch Report 3. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Khan, S. 2004. Solutions for Irrigation Salinity. 1st National Salinity Engineering Conference, November 9–12,2004, Perth, Western Australia.

Kukal, S. S.; Humphreys, E.; Yadvinder-Singh, Timsina, J.; Thaman, S. 2005. Performance of raised beds in rice–wheat systems of northwestern India to permanent beds. In: Evaluation and performance of permanent raisedbed cropping systems in Asia, Australia and Mexico, eds. C. H. Roth; R. A. Fischer; C. A. Meisner. Proceedingsof a workshop held in Griffith, NSW, Australia, March 1–3, 2005. ACIAR Proceedings No. 121.

Matsuno, Y.; Tasumi, M.; van der Hoek, W.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Otsuki, K. 2003. Analysis of return flows in a tankcascade system in Sri Lanka. Paddy and water environment, Vol. 3.

Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use and productivity. SWIM paper 1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: InternationalWater Management Institute.

Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I.; Dhillon, S. S.; Fischer, R. A. 1994. Date of sowing effects on grain and yield components ofirrigated spring wheat cultivars and relationships with radiation and temperature in Ludhiana, India. Field CropsResearch 37: 169-184.

PARC-RWC (Pakistan Agricultural Research Council – Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains).2003. Proceedings of the national workshop on Rice-Wheat Systems, Islamabad, Pakistan, Dec 11-12, 2002.Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad, Pakistan and Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-GangeticPlains, New Delhi, India. pp. 118.

Qureshi, A. S.; Shah, T.; Akhtar, M. 2003. The groundwater economy of Pakistan. IWMI Working Paper 64. PakistanCountry Series No. 19. Lahore, Pakistan: International Water Management Institute.

Renault, D.; Montginoul, M. 2003. Positive externalities and water service management in rice-based irrigationsystems of humid tropics. Agricultural Water Management 59: 171-189.

Seckler, D. 1996. New era of water resources management: From “dry” to “wet” water savings. IIMI Research Report1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Seckler, D.; Amarasinghe, U.; Molden, D.; de Silva, R.; Barker, R. 1998. World water demand and supply, 1990 to2025: Scenarios and issues. IWMI Research Report 19. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute.

29

Smedema, L. 2000. Irrigation-induced River Salinization: Five Major irrigated basins in the Arid Zone. Colombo, SriLanka: International Water Management Institute. 87pp.

Tuong, T. P.; Bouman, B. A. M; Mortimer, M. 2005. More rice, less water-Integrated approaches for increasing waterproductivity in irrigated rice based systems in Asia. Plant Production Science 8(3): 231-241.

Ullah, M. K.; Habib, Z.; Muhammad, S. 2001. Spatial distribution of reference and potential evapotranspirationacross the Indus Basin Irrigation Systems. IWMI Working Paper 24. Pakistan Country Series No. 8. Lahore,Pakistan: International Water Management Institute.

Vere, D. 2005. Research into conservation tillage for dryland cropping in Australia and China, Impact AssessmentSeries Report No. 33, ACIAR, Canberra Australia. ISSN 1832-1879.

WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority). 1981. Soil Salinity Survey, Irrigated area of Indus Basin 41Million Acres Pakistan. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Survey and Research Organization,Planning Division, Lahore, Pakistan.

30

31

Annexes

32

kilometers

Annex 1.

Spatial variation in groundwater quality across the Indus Basin of Pakistan.

Classification Criteria Used by WAPDA:[Fresh: Conductivity (25oC) <0.75 dS/m and SAR <6;Useable: Conductivity (25oC) <1.50 dS/m and SAR 6-10,Marginal: Conductivity (25oC) <1.50-3.00 dS/m and SAR 10-18;Hazardous: Conductivity (25oC) >3.00 dS/m and SAR >18]

Data/Map Source: Water And Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Pakistan, 1977

33

Annex 2.

Irrigation network in Rechna Doab, Pakistan.

Note: Upper Chenab Canal (UCC), Bambanwala-Ravi-Bedian-Depalpur (BRBD) Link, Marala-Ravi (MR) Link, Qadirabad-Balluki (QB) Link,Lower Chenab Canal (LCC), Trimu-Sadhnai (TS) Link and Haveli canal. Upper Rechna Doab (served by MR Link, BRBD Link and UCC)is non-perennial system (little or no water supply in rabi)

kilometers

Annex 3.

District boundaries in Rechna Doab.

34

Annex 4.

Irrigation Sub-divisions in Rechna Doab.

Annex 5.

Soil texture map of Rechna Doab.

Source: WAPDA 1981

Note: A sub-division is the lowest administrative unit of the Irrigation departments in Pakistan

35

Annex 6.

Key Resource Conservation Technologies (RCTs) being promoted in Pakistan.

a. Laser land leveling

c. Bed planting

b. Zero tillage

d. Direct seeded rice

Source: Photographs a and c: Mr. M. A. Gill, OFWM, Punjab, Pakistan

Photographs b and d: Dr. Riaz Ahmad Mann, PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan

36

Annex 7.

Statistics of RCT adoption (% cultivable area) in Irrigation Sub-divisions in Rechna Doab.

RCT Laser land Zero Furrow-bed Crop residue

area leveling tillage planting management

Malhi - - - - -

Sadhoke 20 - 20 - -

Shahdra 40 - 22 - 17

Muridke 11 - 11 - -

Gujranwala 19 10 9 - -

Nokhar - - - - -

Noushera 35 - 35 - -

Sheikhupura 27 - 27 - -

Shikhanwala 0.5 - 0.5 - -

Chuharkana 5 - 5 - -

Sagar - - - - -

Upper 15 1 12 - 2

Sangla 4 - - 4 -

Mohlan 3 3 - - -

Mangtanwala - - - - -

PaccaDalla - - - - -

Buchiana 36 35 1 - -

Uqbana 1 1 - - -

Kot Khuda Yar 16 3 - 13 -

Aminpur 16 - 16 - -

Tandlianwala - - - - -

Middle 9 6 2 1 -

Kanya - - - - -

Tarkhani - - - - -

Veryam 3 - 3 - -

Wer - - - - -

Sultanpur - - - - -

Bhagat 7 7 - - -

Dhaular 33 28 5 - -

Haveli - - - - -

Lower 10 9 1 - -

Overall 12 4 6 0.4 0.8

Source: IWMI Socio economic survey 2004

37

Annex 8.

Percentage distribution of small, medium and large farms with respect to farm area and farmers indistrict of Rechna Doab. Gujranwala, Hafizabad, Sialkot, Narowal and Sheikhupura districts falls underthe Punjab rice-wheat zone.

District Percent distribution based on farm area Percent distribution of farmers

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

<5 ha >5-10 ha >10 ha <5 ha >5-10 ha >10 ha

Gujranwala 48 24 28 83 11 6

Hafizabad 45 24 31 80 13 7

Sialkot 72 15 13 95 4 1

Narowal 72 16 12 94 4 2

Sheikhupura 54 22 24 87 9 4

Faisalabad 73 18 9 93 6 1

T. T. Singh 60 22 18 89 8 3

Jhang 42 18 40 83 10 7

Source: District-wise farm size in Rechna Doab (Agricultural Census 2000, Punjab)

38

Annex 9.

Salient characteristics of the respondent farmers of rice-wheat zone of the Punjab, Pakistan.

Note: N refers to the number of respondents

Category Adopter Dis-adopter Non-adopter Overall

(N=168) (N=25) (N=30) (N=223)

Mean age (years) 44 46 45 45

Occupation (%)

Farming 80 56 80 77

Farming and employment 7 16 7 8

Farming and others 13 28 13 14

Farming experience (mean number of years) 25 25 24 25

Education (%)

Illiterate (0 years of schooling) 29 32 23 28

Primary (5 years of schooling) 12 8 10 11

Middle (8 years of schooling) 16 12 7 14

Matric (10 years of schooling) 28 20 50 30

Intermediate (12 years of schooling) 11 20 10 12

Graduate & above (> 14 years of education) 4 8 - - 5

Tenancy status (%)

Owner 60 56 63 60

Owner-cum-tenant 35 36 33 35

Tenant 5 8 4 5

Mean farm size (ha) 18 16 13 17

Main soil type (%)

Clay 44 44 30 42

Clay loam 29 24 30 28

Loam 17 24 23 19

Others 10 8 17 11

Soil problem (%)

Salinity 40 20 40 38

Others 6 - - - - 4

No problem 54 80 60 58

Research Reports

95. Irrigation and Water Policies in the Mekong Region: Current Discourses andPractices. François Molle. 2005.

96. Locating the Poor: Spatially Disaggregated Poverty Maps for Sri Lanka. Upali A.Amarasinghe, Madar Samad and Markandu Anputhas. 2006.

97. Strategies to Mitigate Secondary Salinization in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: ASelective Review. M. Aslam and S. A. Prathapar. 2006.

98. Multiple-Use Water Services to Advance the Millennium Development Goals.Barbara van Koppen, Patrick Moriarty and Eline Boelee. 2006.

99. Irrigation and Schistosomiasis in Africa: Ecological Aspects. Eline Boelee andHenry Madsen. 2006.

100. The Reliability Improvement in irrigation Services: Application of Rotational WaterDistribution to Tertiary Canals in Central Asia. Iskandar Abdullaev, Mehmood UlHassan, Herath Manthrithilake and Murat Yakubov. 2006.

101. Carbon, Land and Water: A Gobal Analysis of the Hydrologic Dimensions ofClimate Change Mitigation through Afforestation/Reforestation. Robert J. Zomer,Antonio Trabucco, Oliver van Straaten and Deborah A. Bossio. 2006.

102. Informal Irrigation in Urban West Africa: An Overview. Pay Drechsel, SophieGraefe, Moise Sonou and Olufunke O. Cofie. 2006.

103. Malaria Mosquito Resistance to Agricultural Insecticides: Risk Area Mapping inThailand. Hans. J. Overgaard. 2006.

104. Use of a Hydrological Model for Environmental Management of the Usangu Wetlands,Tanzania. Japhet J. Kashaigili, Matthew P. McCartney, Henry F. Mahoo, Bruce A.Lankford, Boniface P. Mbilinyi, Daniel K. Yawson and Siza D. Tumbo. 2006.

105. An Irrigated Area Map of the World (1999) Derived from Remote Sensing.Thenkabail, P. S., Biradar, C. M., Turral, H., Noojipady, P., Li, Y. J., Vithanage,J., Dheeravath, V., Velpuri, M., Schull, M., Cai, X. L., and Dutta, R. 2006.

106. Assessing the Outcomes of IWMI’s Research and Interventions on IrrigationManagement Transfer. Meredith A. Giordano, Madar Samad and Regassa E.Namara. 2006.

107. An Assessment of Environmental Flow Requirements of Indian River Basins.V. Smakhtin and M. Anputhas. 2006.

108. Water Saving Technologies: Myths and Realities Revealed in Pakistan’s Rice-Wheat Systems. Mobin-ud-Din Ahmad, Hugh Turral, Ilyas Masih, Mark Giordanoand Zubair Masood. 2007.