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

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

Experiential Learning Tools for Sustainable Water Management in India

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

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) - United States

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

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) (Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)) - India

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

the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/10/2021

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The project “Scaling up experiential learning tools for sustainable water governance in India” aimed at enhancing sustainable water management at scale by improving the capacities of 1,500 rural communities covering 105,000 households directly and 2,000 communities covering 140,000 households indirectly in six Indian states to manage water more sustainably. This was achieved through experiential learning from collective action games, structured community debriefings, and participatory water planning tools that contribute to greater awareness and improved governance, inducing behavioural change toward more sustainable water governance and management.
The work was jointly conducted by the Foundation for Ecological Security, India (FES), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The project team adopted a holistic approach to water governance, considering the complex interconnections between water, land, livelihoods, people, and institutions. Rather than viewing groundwater in isolation, the team promoted the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater for irrigation, integrating both supply- and demand-side strategies to water management. Their approach included harnessing data, experiential learning, capacity building, participatory planning, and strategic communication to initiate behavioural change among actors at both community and broader levels.
At the community level, the team focused on shifting behaviour towards sustainable water use by farmers and local communities. They employ tools like the Groundwater Monitoring Tool (GWMT) for collective resource monitoring, experiential learning games and debriefing for social learning, and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) for participatory water management, sensitization to leveraging funds of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), scientific and participatory planning through the Composite Landscape Assessment and Restoration Tool (CLART). These tools aim at enhancing the understanding of water as a shared resource, at developing the capacity of community resource persons, at fostering collective decision-making, and at encouraging the adoption of water-efficient practices.
Aiming to influence higher-level actors, the project engaged in multi-actor platforms (MAPs) and built coalitions to promote collaborative water governance. These platforms facilitated discussions among various stakeholders, aiming to bridge governance gaps and encourage coordinated actions. The project also provided training to civil society, government, and private sector actors on water governance, equipping them with the knowledge and tools necessary to adopt sustainable practices.
Overall, the project aimed at creating a web of interconnected interventions that influence the behaviour of stakeholders across different levels, ultimately leading to improved water governance and sustainable resource management.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The approach shall support sustainable land management practices that reduce the proportion of land that is degraded. This contributes to improved food security and strengthens resilience and adaptive capacity of communities through improved water management and irrigation. The approach embeds the ambition to empower women and marginalized groups in their contributions to agriculture and society in general.
These impact ambitions shall be achieved through behavioural changes in three domains:
1. Water supply side provisioning actions (mainly investments in and maintenance of minor water harvesting structures, such as dams, tanks, or small check dams).
2. Institutional service provision actions (mainly participatory formulation and enforcement of local by-laws on water management).
3. Water appropriation actions (mainly the use of water efficient agricultural technologies, esp. the consideration of crop water requirement in crop choices).
The outcomes of the interventions are seen in the light of needs and capacities of marginalized groups, esp. women and youth. The behavioural changes shall be achieved by influencing the system understanding and norms using the systemic experiential learning approach outlined above.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive	The Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) has local presence in the Districts targeted with direct interventions. The NGO expressed the need for advancing their toolbox through established and trustful relations to local communities, FES consulted communities regarding their main water management challenges. The results of these consultations formed the basis for the design of the intervention strategy and the development of the approach. Specific communities were selected based on their interest in improving water management and the severeness of water management challenges they face. Within the villages, especially households living close to water resources and enjoying benefit from the water resources and farmers who own private groundwater pumps were invited to participate in activities.
planning	passive	The planning of the implementation of interventions was mainly done by the project partners, most importantly the Foundation for Ecological Security. FES trained local community members to become Community Resource Person (CRP). CRPs organize the implementation of specific interventions in interaction with community members.
implementation	self-mobilization	Community members actively participated in experiential learning games, participatory crop water budgeting, the participatory planning of water infrastructure investments using CLART, focus group discussions, debriefings and bilateral interactions.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	After the interventions, CRPs work closely with the communities and, if needed, FES helps community members to formulate or revise water rules and by-laws. Community members monitor the water table of their wells.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

With the help of a set of questions, the decision tree for water governance games will advise CRPs and other facilitators in applying specific experiential learning tools fitting to the specific situation at site. The tool examines which challenges are present and identifies interventions to address those challenges. After checking whether water scarcity is an issue, CRPs ask local key informants such as community leaders, committee members or elders whether the community is primarily using surface water from channels or large dams. If the community is not connected to a channel or large dam irrigation system, they assess whether wells frequently run dry and need to be deepened, and whether groundwater is intensively used for irrigation. If this is the case, they check whether there are alternative management practices, like more water-efficient crop choices that could improve group outcomes. Finally, they ask whether there are already local rules dealing with this situation. Similar sequences of questions were used to ask about the collective maintenance of water harvesting structures, and allocation of surface water from structures such as small ponds or “tanks”. This process ends with a recommendation of which group of tools are best suited for the context, including which game would resonate best with community challenges (Channel irrigation game, Groundwater game, or Surface water game), and what related decision support tools the communities may benefit from, such as Crop-Water Budgeting (CWB) and the Composite Landscape Assessment and Restoration Tool (CLART).

• •Experience of CRPs and local key informants; Lessons and highlights emerging from diagnostic and consultation processes

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

• Government officials, community members

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

1. More than 500 government staff of Atal Bhujal Yojana Program.
2. More than 400 government extension workers of Odisha Livelihood Program.
3. More than 3000 additional government extension officers and field staff were trained in applying the experiential learning tools.
4. 1.086 local community members were trained in applying the experiential learning tools.
5. More than 52.000 community members participated in more than 5200 experiential learning sessions.
6. Senior Government officials were introduced to the approach in order to create their buy-in.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

1. Conceptual background of the approach
2. Demonstrations
3. Teaching the facilitation steps of the different tools
4. Exercising among the trainees and supervised implementation with community members.
5. Experiential learning games, crop water budgeting, CLART, and debriefings.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

• Private and civil society actors

Describe/ comments:

Government, private sector and civil society actors provide advisory services. The whole approach of the project is based on the idea of social learning where participants find own solutions based on gaining a better understanding of and activating social norms related to the hydrological system, the management challenge, associated social dilemmas, and possible solutions. This approach is very distinct from a typical one-directional advisory service.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local
• regional
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The approach has a clear intention to strengthen local water governance. In pilot studies, we found that communities who participated in experiential learning games were more likely to adopt water registries as a water planning method.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

No

Comments:

FES monitors progress of activities and outputs through contextualized key performance indicators and evaluated progress towards outcomes through reviews and workshops. In addition, the partners conducted a multi-method impact assessment including a rigorous quantitative comparison of 314 randomly selected treatment sites with 158 control sites with regards to effects on:
1. System understanding
2. Injunctive norms for sustainable water management
3. Women community members’ involvement in water-related decision-making
4. Investments in formulating water management rules as an institutional service provision
5. Enforcement of water management rules as an institutional service provision
6. Investments in water harvesting structures as a resource provisioning activity or leverage public funding's such as MGNREGS for the purpose
7. Conditions of water-related infrastructure
8. Crop choices with lower water consumption levels, resulting in irrigated water savings

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

In addition to the aforementioned impact assessment, we conducted research to conceptualize behavioural change mechanisms associated with experiential learning. We also synthesized lessons learned with regards to design features of tools, assessed effects of women’s participation, and developed a theory of system-level change to guide implementations and inform future programs in the area.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

The described approach has been implemented in multiple stages with different funding sources. Training 1.086 local community members in applying the experiential learning tools and conducting experiential learning sessions with 12.000 community members participated in more than 1.200 experiential learning sessions was implemented with a budget of 1.2 Mio Euro.

According to our estimates, conducting one experiential learning session at one site costs between 70 and 120 USD depending on accessibility and the need for facilitation of other stakeholders. This includes the time of facilitators, transport, materials and initial training.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The actual SLM activities (especially maintaining water harvesting structures and growing water-efficient crops) are not done by the project but the community members themselves. The presented approach creates the space for communities to find their own solutions to water management challenges. Such solutions are with a higher likelihood tailored to the local context. The partners further assume that communities develop a strong sense of ownership to their solutions which creates motivation to implement them. Rules formulated by the communities may require less external enforcement as they are followed based on intrinsic motivations. The partners acknowledge possible constraints in terms of labour and materials. For this reason, the Foundation for Ecological Security supports communities to effectively leverage government funds. Most notable is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) as a permanent large-scale government program with dual focus on improving rural livelihoods through creation of durable assets and strengthening local governance. MGNREGS allows communities to demand financial support for investments in construction and maintenance of natural resource management assets on public and individual lands.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view

Please see Section 6.2. In general, the approach helps community members to initiate discussion on water issues. The games help in reinforcing the idea of water as a common good. Most elements of the toolbox bring together different stakeholders from the village to the district level and facilitate collective social learning. The debriefing sessions also allow discussion, deliberation, and relating game outcomes and learnings to their real-life challenges and solutions. The crop water budgeting helps in planning which crops to grow collectively after assessing the water situation. It offers space for all community members to deliberate on crop choice and consider various aspects before deciding on certain crops.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
There is growing recognition of the potential of experiential learning, which by definition includes experiencing, reflecting, and experimenting to support communities in finding own solutions. The approach contrasts with more formal presentations of abstract knowledge that are common in many forms of teaching, or costly learning by doing in real-life. For instance, games create a relatively low-risk forum for experiencing and discussing the complexities of social-ecological systems and allow for exploring behaviour that is too risky in real-life. This can lead directly into inventing and negotiating own rules, including enforcement mechanisms. Players can experiment with rule making and can take this experience into the interaction with the wider community. As the exercise can trigger constructive interaction of resource users and other stakeholders, the resulting social learning effect can potentially go beyond the specific issue or framing of the game to supporting the development of institutional capacity for sustainable commons management. As experiential learning supports participants in finding own solutions, these solutions are likely to be better adapted to the specific social-ecological systems and, therefore more accepted. This increases the likelihood of behavioural change.
The main advantage of the approach is its clear structure which makes it relatively easy to learn and replicate it at large scale. The cooperation with government partners confirms the strong demand for replicable and scalable behavioural change tools in the context of water management.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Community members need to mobilize own resources and may feel overtrained in implementing own solutions.	Local level partners and government can assist in supporting communities in the process of implementing solutions. Linking communities to permanent support structures such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) may be essential.
Improving sustainable water use can create short-term trade-offs with food production.	The approach intends to support solutions which do not create long-term trade-offs with food production. Facilitators can create awareness for such trade-offs. Learning tools can make such trade-offs more explicit and identifyable.
Swelling but hidden conflicts related to resource distribution and free-riding behaviour may break open.	It is important to note that the approach would not create conflict but only make conflicts visible. The games allow to discuss behaviour which is the source of conflict in a setting where it can be played in a symbolic way without pointing at any specific person. Firmly embedded community organisations such as the panchayat having a mandate to coordinate community issues is essential. Facilitators should be sensitized for signs of open conflicts and act sensitively. If necessary, they can support finding an adequate moderator.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Facilitators use inappropriate tools leading to inappropriate solutions.	Decision support tools were developed to guide facilitators appropriately. Taking the approach to new geographies requires a good idea of the management challenges. There may be need to adapt tools to new contexts.
Facilitators are impatient and fall back into a teaching mode.	Emphasizing the value of experiential learning and creating trust in the creative potential of communities needs to be a priority in facilitator trainings.
Communities think only within the space of existing knowledge	The approach can be combined with the sharing information on innovative technologies.
Policy and market dynamics override local level initiatives	Local level experiential learning needs to be embedded into a system level multi-stakeholder process. For instance, in our case, government officials needed to be aware of the problematic incentives created by energy subsidies, current minimal support price mechanisms and other farmer support systems. Building coalitions, multi-actor platforms and bilateral interactions need to part of the intervention strategy.
Unintended gender dynamics may appear	Great care needs to be taken on decisions such as whether to conduct mixed-sex sessions or sessions with women only. A good understanding and consideration of specific dynamics is essential.
A once-off intervention may be too weak to create a lasting effect.	If this is observed, the experiential learning interventions should be repeated. Important is to apply the combination of tools not only because they build on each other but also to sustained interaction with the community.
In the presence of elite groups, members of marginalized groups will not interact	The facilitator can navigate the discussion so that all groups are adequately represented. The facilitators are to be trained so to be more sensitive in the facilitation. If this is insufficient to ensure equal participation, conducting separate sessions with marginalised groups may be required, at least as a preparatory step.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Meinzen-Dick, R., Chaturvedi, R., Domènech, L., Ghate, R., Janssen, M. A., Rollins, N. D., & Sandeep, K. (2016). Games for groundwater governance: Field experiments in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecology and Society, 21(3).

Available from where? Costs?

India. Ecology and Society

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Meinzen-Dick, R., Janssen, M. A., Kandikuppa, S., Chaturvedi, R., Rao, K., & Theis, S. (2018). Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development, 107, 40-53.

Available from where? Costs?

World Development

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Kumar, S., & Srigiri, S. (2019). Experimental games for developing institutional capacity to manage common water infrastructure in India. Agricultural Water Management, 221, 260-269.

Available from where? Costs?

Agricultural Water Management

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., V. Duche, Suhas K.S., I. Agrawal, and L. Bartels. 2020. The Role of Community Institutions in the Management of Water Infrastructure in the Context of Madhya Pradesh, India. J. Indian Water Resourc. Soc. 40 (3&4): 36-46

Available from where? Costs?

Journal of Indian Water Resource Society

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Bartels, L. (2021). Using Games to Trigger Collective Changes in Natural Resource Management: Conceptual Foundations for Behavioral Change. IFPRI Discussion Paper 02233. Washington DC/USA

Available from where? Costs?

IFPRI Discussion Paper

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Schüpf, D., Zhang, W., Soliev, I. (2021). A behavioral perspective on improving water governance in India. IFPRI blog

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.ifpri.org/blog/behavioral-perspective-improving-water-governance-india

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Schüpf, D., Zhang, W., Soliev, I. (2021) Understanding behavioral change for improved water governance: Reflecting on ongoing development interventions in India. Blog published at the European website of the International Association for the Study of the Commons

Available from where? Costs?

https://europe.iasc-commons.org/behavioral-change-improved-water-governance-india/

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Foundation for Ecological Security, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, and International Food Policy Research Institute. 2021. Commoning the Commons: A Sourcebook to Strengthen Management and Governance of Water as Commons

Available from where? Costs?

https://fes.org.in/resources/sourcebooks,manuals,atlases-&-ecoprofiles/sourcebooks/strengthening_governance_and_management_of_water_as_commons_May_2022.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bartels, L., Falk, T., Duche, V., & Vollan, B. (2022). Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 113, 102631.

Available from where? Costs?

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Bartels, L., Sanil, R., Priyadarshini, P. (2023) Games for Social Learning: Triggering Collective Changes in Commons Management. Ecology and Society.

Available from where? Costs?

Ecology and Society

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Janssen, M. A., Falk, T., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Vollan, B. (2023). Using games for social learning to promote self-governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 62, 101289.

Available from where? Costs?

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Zhang, W., Meinzen-Dick, R., Sanil, R., Priyadarshini, P. (2023) Changing the game: Experiential learning for triggering large scale change towards sustainable water management in India. IFPRI blog.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.ifpri.org/blog/changing-game-experiential-learning-triggering-large-scale-change-towards-sustainable-water

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Meinzen-Dick, R., & Bruns, B. (2024). Crafting Combinations to Govern Groundwater: Knowledge, Motivation, and Agency. International Journal of the Commons, 18(1).

Available from where? Costs?

International Journal of the Commons

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sanil, R., Falk, T., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Priyadarshini, P. (2024). Combining Approaches for Systemic Behaviour Change in Groundwater Governance. International Journal of the Commons, 18(1), 411-424.

Available from where? Costs?

International Journal of the Commons

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ElDidi, H., Rawat, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Chaturvedi, R., & Sanil, R. (2024). Polycentric governance of commons through multi-stakeholder platforms: insights from two case studies in India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-27.

Available from where? Costs?

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Falk, T., Duche, V., Sanil, R., Priyadarshini, P., ElDidi, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Bruns, B. (2024) Playing the right game: A decision tree for choosing approaches to strengthen water governance. IFPRI blog

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.ifpri.org/blog/playing-right-game-decision-tree-choosing-approaches-strengthen-water-governance

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Scaling up experiential learning tools for sustainable water governance in India

URL:

https://www.ifpri.org/project/scaling-experiential-learning-tools-sustainable-water-governance-india

Title/ description:

Sourcebook

URL:

https://fes.org.in/resources/sourcebooks,manuals,atlases-&-ecoprofiles/sourcebooks/strengthening_governance_and_management_of_water_as_commons_May_2022.pdf

Title/ description:

Crop Water Budgeting (CWB)

URL:

https://www.indiaobservatory.org.in/tool/cwb

Title/ description:

Groundwater Monitoring Tool (GWMT)

URL:

https://wmt.indiaobservatory.org.in/dashboard/map-dashboard

Title/ description:

Composite Landscape Assessment and Restoration Tool (CLART)

URL:

https://www.indiaobservatory.org.in/tool/clart-det

Title/ description:

Surface Water Game Manual

URL:

https://gamesforsustainability.org/practitioners/#surface-water-game

Title/ description:

Channel Irrigation Game

URL:

https://gamesforsustainability.org/practitioners/#chanel-irrigation-game

Title/ description:

Dam Maintenance Game

URL:

https://gamesforsustainability.org/practitioners/#game-on-managing-check-dams

Title/ description:

Groundwater Game

URL:

https://gamesforsustainability.org/practitioners/#groundwater-game