1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

International Water Management Institute (International Water Management Institute) - India

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

International Development Enterprises - India (iDE-India) - United States

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/01/2005

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A grassroots innovation that offers most of the advantages of conventional micro-irrigation at a much lower establishment cost.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The continued expansion of irrigation in India is causing increasing water shortages. This may be compounded by the potential effects of climate change. Drip irrigation - delivering small amounts of water directly to the plants through pipes - is a technology that could help farmers deal with water constraints. It is considerably more efficient in terms of water use than the usual open furrows or flood irrigation.
In West Nimar, Madhya Pradesh, droughts, diminishing groundwater, limited and erratic power supply coupled with poverty, compelled farmers to look for a technology that would enable them to irrigate their crops (mainly cotton) within these constraints. They tried out several cost-saving options such as using old bicycle tubes instead of the conventional drip irrigation pipes. But nothing caught on - until about five years ago - when a local farmer experimented with thin poly-tubing normally used for frozen fruit-flavoured ‘lollypops’ called pepsee. It spread to neighbouring cotton farmers, and its popularity has meant that today pepsee has become widespread in the region. Pepsee micro-irrigation systems slowly and regularly apply water directly to the root zone of plants through a network of economically designed plastic pipes and low-discharge emitters.
Technically speaking pepsee systems use low density polythene (65-130 microns) tubes which are locally assembled. Being a low pressure system the water source can be an overhead tank or a manually operated water pump to lift water from a shallow water table.
Such a system costs less than US$ 40 per hectare for establishment. But the tubes have a short life span of one (or two) year(s); an equivalent standard buried strip drip irrigation system amounts to between five and ten times the initial cost. The latter would, however, last for five to ten years. The critical factor is the low entry cost. Pepsee systems thus act as ‘stepping stones’ for poor farmers who are facing water stress but are short of capital and cannot afford to risk relatively large investment in a technology which is new to them, and whose returns are uncertain. The technology is today available in two variants: the original white pepsee and a recently introduced black pepsee which is of slightly better quality.
Recently, a more durable and standardised version of pepsee, given the brand name ‘Easy Drip’, has been developed and promoted by a local NGO, IDEI (see corresponding approach). Easy Drip is one product within a set of affordable micro-irrigation technologies (AMIT) promoted by IDEI.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Acute groundwater stress associated with lowering of the groundwater table limits water for irrigation, coupled with poverty and reluctance to risk investing in relatively expensive- but efficient - drip irrigation systems.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 150 Longest growing period from month to month: May - Oct Second longest growing period in days: 120 Second longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Mar

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Hq: decline of groundwater quality

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), other human induced causes (specify) (agricultural causes), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of knowledge)

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, droughts, land tenure (land subdivision), Land alienation

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Components of pepsee/‘Easy Drip’ irrigation systems are described below.
1) Water source: For pepsee, commonly a water pump (in most cases electric) is used to lift water from a well and directly feed the irrigation system.
Alternatively, an overhead tank (minimum of 1 m above ground level) can be used for smaller systems up to 400 m2 area.
2) Control valve: valve made of plastic or metal to regulate pressure and flow of water into the system
3) Filter: Strainer filter to ensure that clean water enters into the system (optional in pepsee systems).
4) Mainline: 50 mm PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) or PE (Polyethylene) pipe to convey water from source to the sub-main.
5) Sub-main: PVC/PE pipe to supply water to the lateral pipes which are connected to the sub-main at regular intervals.
6) Lateral: PE pipes along the rows of the crops on which emitters are connected directly. Pipe size is 12–16 mm.
7) Emitters/micro-tubes: Device through which water is emitted at the root zone of the plant with required discharge. In pepsee farmers simply make pin holes in the plastic tube for water to pass. Easy Drip has inbuilt drippers/outlets along the lateral line which give a continuous wetting strip.
It is mainly used for row crops.
Pepsee uses cheap, recycled plastic tubes instead of the rubber pipes used in conventional drip irrigation kits. Space between emitters is variable, for cotton cultivation it is commonly 1.2 m (between plants, within and between rows). There is (usually) one emitter for each plant. Different sizes of valves, mainlines, etc, are available, depending on flow rate of water in the system. Additional components are joints (connectors) and pegs (used to hold the lateral and micro-pipes in place).

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: water supply, improved water-use efficiency (reduced loss, well directed, selective - and targeted irrigation

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover, higher - germination and establishment rate

Structural measure: irrigation infrastructure

Construction material (other): poly-tubes - low density polythene (65-130 microns)

Change of land use practices / intensity level: from furrow to drip irrigation

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Installation of water pump, control valve, filter (optional) and PVC piping(main/sub-main and lateral pipes).	Structural	dry season

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	4.0	4.0	100.0
Construction material	Lateral piping (Pepsee tube)	ha	1.0	17.0	17.0	100.0
Construction material	Main/sub-main PVC piping	ha	1.0	34.0	34.0	100.0
Construction material	Other parts (valves, joints et	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					95.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Re-installation of lateral pepsee tubes	Structural	dry season/ (every 1–2 years).

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	4.0	4.0	100.0
Construction material	Lateral piping (Pepsee tube)	ha	1.0	17.0	17.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					21.0

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil texture: Fine/heavy (black cotton soil; mostly vertisols, partly inceptisols and entisols)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Poor

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Other ecological impacts

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 90-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: No detailed information available regarding spread - though this is estimated to be several thousand farmers within West Nimar. All adoption has been spontaneous, without incentives, and the group which has adopted best comprises those who were previously using furrow irrigation. A large number of pepsee adopters are the resource poor farmers but rich farmers have also adopted pepsee.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Low initial investment and recurrent costs: risk in adopting new system limited How can they be sustained / enhanced? Keep costs of new variations of pepsee low.
There are significant benefits in terms of reduced water use per unit of land, and in terms of yield per unit land area as well.
Few extra skills required to implement and operate the system.
An eventual shift to conventional drip system is feasible: pepsee acts as a ’stepping stone’ How can they be sustained / enhanced? Promote improved drip systems where pepsee has taken off.
Higher yields, better quality, higher germination rate, lower incidence of pest attack; facilitates pre-monsoon sowing.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Pepsee is based on drip pipes which have a limited life: delicate and cannot withstand high pressure	Develop/use stronger piping materials such as ‘Easy Drip’.
The increased water use efficiency has allowed an expansion in the area irrigated – which has used up the water ‘saved’.	Develop/use stronger piping materials such as ‘Easy Drip’.
Pepsee systems require replacement of lateral pipes each year and thus incur recurrent input and labour costs

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Verma S, Tsephal S. and Jose T: Pepsee Systems: grassroots innovation under groundwater stress. Water Policy, 6,
pp. 303–318.. 2004.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/00604/wp006040303.htm