Traditional 'Pomona' type turbine water pump and pumping station

Cooperative for Drilling and Exploiting a Private Water Well (Greece)

Συνεταιρισμός με Σκοπό την Εγκατάσταση και Λειτουργία Ομαδικής Γεώτρηση

Description

A cooperative of land owners and at least one water rights owner established to jointly establish and manage a private freshwater well.

Aims / objectives: The approach is implemented for deep water wells where installation costs are high. It provides an option for land owners to abandon their low quality shallow wells (such as those on coastal aquifers) for a better quality well (e.g. inland) located in a remote property. The objective of the cooperative is to share costs and risk while securing a sustainable water quality for its members.

Methods: A cooperative is formed with interested land users and shares are distributed depending on individual financial contribution to the drilling cost. Additional costs are either apportioned to coop members (e.g. common buffer tank) or managed individually depending on agreement. Apart from actual value, shares also represent the fraction of water rights of each member. Therefore, every member can consume up to their rights fraction or lease from other members who have consumed less that their rights fraction. Water consumption is usually measured indirectly through power consumption at the pump and a common log is kept to split bills power bills when issued.

Stages of implementation: Initially, a land owner secures a well installation permit from the Water Authority. If it is a requirement to form the cooperative as a legal entity then an advocate is requared. The coop elects 5 members to serve as president, treasurer, secretary and alternates. During the installation phase, members of the cooperative share costs according to their agreement. During the operation phase, costs are covered according to user consumption.

Role of stakeholders: The Water Managing Authority needs to provide a permit for the drilling and a geologist needs to oversee and sign for the drilling. Cooperative members need to be timely in their financial obligations in order to cover bills and maintenance costs on time in order to avoid interruptions of the water service for the entire group.

Other important information: This approach was documented within the scope of FP7 RECARE Project, funded grant agreement no 603498.

Location

Location: Timpaki, Heraklion, Greece

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2005

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Submersible pump and distribution network (I. Daliakopoulos)
Traditional 'Pomona' type turbine water pump and pumping station (I. Daliakopoulos)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Securing good quality water at adequate quantities, reduce costs per capita)

The objective of the Approach are to share costs and risk while securing a sustainable water quality for its members. This way land owners have additional options for usign good quality water at an affordable cost.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of cash to invest
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: High cost of a good quality (deep) well at a sufficient distance from the sea to prevent saltwater intrusion. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Group of land users share the cost of drilling and become shareholders of the well. The amount of shares of each shareholder is proportional to the assets invested in the installation.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): New regulations discourage or ban the installation of new wells in order to regulate the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area. Also selling water without a permit lays at a legally gray area. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Well shares (representing water rights) can be exchanged or rented among shareholders and sold to new shareholders. Therefore water rights can be distributed without new wells being drilled. The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation At least one of the members of the cooperative needs to own land and user rights at a location suitable for drilling.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Water wells require an intermediate buffer water tank. Treatment through the SLM Approach: In the case of a collective installation can be single (rather that each shareholder installing a separate water tank) thus reducing costs due to the economy of scales and saving space.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Farmers, agriculturalists
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Water well drilling specialists
national government (planners, decision-makers) Water permits are eventually issued by the Water Authority
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Land users forming the cooperative
planning
The board of the coop adjusts pricing and plans distribution networks in cooperation with the members.
implementation
Construction work by land users who might have the resources to help.
monitoring/ evaluation
The board monitors water quality, water level and user consumption.
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Use of the pumping system, pricing system, sustainable water use, legal issues.

Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: water salinity, pH, pollutants, level of the water in the well economic / production aspects were monitored by land users through observations; indicators: consumption of water/power by each shareholder There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Establishing the cooperative as a legal entity): 100.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Reduces start-up costs for well construction and subsequent risks, allows for deeper wells far from the salt intrusion zone thus providing a more sustainable water quality.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Provides the financial means to drill wells far from the salt intrusion zone, thus reducing the risk of enhancing salt intrusion. It is also a indirect way of reducing illegal pumping by consolidating water users to a more easily manageable and accountable entity. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Imposing pumping limits so that water use is sustainable. Provide motives to join cooperatives.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Once the well has been drilled, water quantities pumped are difficult to control. This can create tension among users but also lead to over-pumping. A more transparent way of measuring can be implemented (e.g. metering per farm). This of course includes additional costs. Another option is to allow the Water Authority to take control of distribution within the private network and thus impose pumping limits (or at least be aware of the extent of the exploitation).

References

Compiler
  • Ioannis Daliakopoulos
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Dec. 20, 2014
Last update: Nov. 2, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International