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)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

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

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Supplemental Irrigation (SI) offers a solution for irregular rainfall, as it provides a limited amount of water to essentially rainfed crops consequently ensuring good plant growth. Furthermore, SI provides the opportunity for a more diverse production system such as a legume-cotton system in which chickpeas are cultivated as a winter crop, and soybean and cotton are inter-cropped in the summer.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The state of Madhya Pradesh (India) has an average annual rainfall of around 1170 mm. However, data shows a declining trend. It is characterized by a monsoon period from July to September. Winter is from December to January and the summer is from February to March. The rainfall is irregular, resulting in crop failures, land degradation, nutrient leaching and shortened growing seasons. This constrains the agricultural sector, upon which 74% of the population is either directly or indirectly dependent. 38% of the agricultural area is intensively/conventionally irrigated. The majority of the water is obtained from groundwater which has led to over-exploitation.
To sustainably improve the agricultural sector, the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) introduced Supplemental Irrigation (SI). This is a practice in which essentially rainfed crops are cultivated rather than more water demanding crops. SI ensures a sufficient amount of water as rainfall satisfies the majority of the crop water demand. Water availability is not sought in (fossil) groundwater extraction, thus avoiding over-exploitation, but rather through rainwater harvesting (RWH), using the rainfall optimally. In addition, SI prolongs the growing season and enables more diverse farming systems by crop rotation and inter-cropping.
In 2018, a reservoir was constructed, with a 900,000 litres capacity. Every rainy season groundwater rises to the surface, indicating that the soil is fully saturated. The reservoir is filled by pumping the surface water from shallow wells. This is considered sustainable RWH as it assumed the pumped water is solely rainwater. An additional benefit of this approach is that no large catchment area is required. The building of the reservoir consists of 1) excavating the soil; 2) stone pitching the excavation; 3) installing polysheet to avoid water losses through infiltration. The water from the reservoir is distributed over the field by a portable (wheeled) sprinkler irrigation system. Hence, pumping from the reservoir is required.
The water from the reservoir allows for crop rotation with a winter crop, namely chickpeas. This crop grows from November till March, outside of the rainy season. Without SI, chickpea yield is poor as farmers must wait until sufficient rain has fallen before sowing, limiting the growing period. SI can provide the necessary water for the chickpeas to germinate well, ensuring a sufficient growing period. The chickpeas are manually harvested in March. Besides increased income for the farmer, chickpeas also provide valuable soil improvement as the plant fixes atmospheric nitrogen in the soil.
In additional to crop rotation, SI and water harvesting allows for a more intensive cropping system in which cotton and soybean are intercropped. These crops are planted in June-July. The intercrop ratio is two rows of cotton and six rows of soybean. Soybean and cotton are respectively threshed and harvested in October. Consequently, the plants are grown mainly in the rainy season. Fertilizer (80 kg nitrogen, 100 kg phosphorus and 60 kg potassium per hectare) is applied directly after sowing, hence June-July. In the same period the field is manually weeded. Micro-Nutrients (a mixture of B, Zn, Mn) are applied if needed. On average, this corresponds to one kilogram per hectare. Mechanical pesticide application is done from July to August by a sprayer, consisting of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides.
The frequency and amount of irrigated water through SI is unpredictable as it compensates rainfall irregularity. Nevertheless, it is advised to irrigate less than the infiltration rate of the soil, to avoid deep percolation of water and nutrient leaching. That is, it is better to irrigate small doses multiple times. For this reason, sandy soils are unsuitable as they have relatively high infiltration rates and low water holding capacity. On average, one hectare of this particular production system is irrigated through sprinklers thrice by 250 cubic meters of harvested water.

A great advantage of SI is that it leads to a year-round income through a diversified production system with an additional winter crop. Farmers also value SI ensuring stable yields, thus making them less vulnerable to rainfall irregularities. Also, the diversified system protects the crops better against epidemics. And as there are legumes included in the system, the soil quality is improved, lowering the required amount of nitrogen fertilizer.
Nevertheless, SI has some weaknesses. For example, the implementation of SI is difficult for smallholder farmers as they lack the area for a reservoir. In addition, the initial costs are high, so adoption may be restrained by the lack of available funds, especially for smallholder farmer. This specific SI, by water harvesting (extracting shallow groundwater) is not suitable in areas of poor groundwater recharge. But the concept of SI can be applied. To conclude, where it is technically and financially feasible, SI allows for more intensive, diversified and stable production system under climate change induced risks, hence supplemental irrigation is an important technique to improve the livelihoods of farmers exposed to climate change.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2018

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• water harvesting
• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• adapt to land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

INR

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

73.52

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Earth Work	Summer Season (May)
2.	Pitching	Summer Season (May)
3.	Polysheet Installation	Summer Season (May)
4.	Filling water	Rainy Season
5.	Installing Irrigation System	At time of irrigation (as it is portable)

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Pond Excavation	m2	53.0	4000.0	212000.0	100.0
Labour	Sprinker Operation	Person Hour	1.0	37.5	37.5	100.0
Equipment	Zero Tillage Seed Drill	Machine	1.0	55000.0	55000.0	100.0
Equipment	Sprinkler System (portable)	System	1.0	28300.0	28300.0	100.0
Construction material	Micron-Geo-Membrane	m2	2857.0	105.0	299985.0	100.0
Other	Tax (18%)	Total	1.0	38160.0	38160.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					633482.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					8616.46

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Sowing Chickpeas	November
2.	Sowing Cotton and Soybean	June-July
3.	Weeding	July-August
4.	Fertilizer Application	June-July
5.	Micro-Nutrient Application	Upon Inspection (June)
6.	Irrigation	If needed (throughout growing season)
7.	Pesticide Application	July-August
8.	Harvesting Chickpeas	March
9.	Picking Cotton	October
10.	Threshing Soybean	October

4.6 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	Total Labour (inc sowing, fertilizer, irrigation, threshing, etc)	Peron-Hours	640.0	37.5	24000.0	100.0
Equipment	Sowing (Zero-Tillage Seeder)	Machine-Hours	57.0	500.0	28500.0	100.0
Equipment	Threshing Soybean (Thresher)	Machine-Hours	51.0	300.0	15300.0	100.0
Equipment	Sprayer (weeding)	Machine-Hours	51.0	300.0	15300.0	100.0
Plant material	Chickpeas Seeds	Kilogram	448.0	450.0	201600.0	100.0
Plant material	Cotton Seeds	Kilogram	10.0	1400.0	14000.0	100.0
Plant material	Soybean Seeds	Kilogram	256.0	150.0	38400.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Micro-Nutrients (mixture of B, Zn, Mn)	Kilogram	6.4	900.0	5760.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Nitrogen (Urea)	Kilogram	510.0	6.0	3060.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Phosphorus (DAP)	Kilogram	640.0	25.4	16256.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Potassium (MOP)	Kilogram	380.0	36.0	13680.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide	Liter	6.4	470.0	3008.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fungicide	Liter	3.2	570.0	1824.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Insecticide	Liter	3.2	580.0	1856.0	100.0
Other	Cost Irrigation	Total	6.4	250.0	1600.0	100.0
Other	Irrigation Events	Event	19.0			100.0
Other	Water (depth) per irrigation event	mm	300.0			100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					384144.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					5225.03

Comments:

Harvesting/picking =40 person-hours; General fertilizer application = 16 person-hour; Micro-Nutrient application = 16 person hours; Weeding =20 person hours; Irrigation management = 8 person hours
The reservoir is able to provide 6.4 hectares under the defined SI-technology. However, this is not the case since the described cropping system (Cotton-Legume) is on a smaller trial field. However, to balance the agricultural (recurrent) costs with the establishment costs of the reservoir, we multiplied the costs of the trial field accordingly.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most important factor that affects the cost is the establishment of the reservoir. However, this reservoir is able to irrigate 6.4 hectares.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
seasonal rainfall	dry season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	well

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

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Efficient utilization of available resources.
A profitable and sustainable system for rainfed areas.
Diversified system ensures round the year income.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Optimal use of rainwater, making it a sustainable practice.
Low risk of disaster or epidemic

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The implementation of the technology is difficult to implement for smallholder farmers. As they might lack a suitable area for the reservoir and/or the necessary funds.	They establishment or improvement of water boards. This social capital can disseminate knowledge about SI. Also, it allows farmers to corporate more easily, e.g. paying for the construction of a reservoir jointly.
The high initial costs for the construction of a reservoir and sprinkler installation.	By granting subsidy for the technology. Or farmer may purchase the technology jointly, lowering the effective price per farmer.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Problem in areas of poor groundwater recharge.	→ Water for the reservoir could be obtained by larger catchments instead of pumping up shallow ground water. However, there should be irrigated more frequently to ensure efficient water use.
The high initial costs for the construction of a reservoir and sprinkler installation.	By granting subsidy for the technology or farmer may purchase the technology jointly, lowering the effective price per farmer.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Vinay Nangia, Theib Oweis, Francis Kemeze, Julian Schnetzer. (1/3/2018). Supplemental Irrigation: A promising Climate-Smart Practice for Dryland Agriculture. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9003

Title/ description:

Theib Oweis, Ahmed Hachum. (2/4/2012). Supplemental Irrigation: A Highly Efficient Water‐Use Practice. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7524

Title/ description:

Vinay Nangia. (10/11/2020). Water for Food, Water for Life: The Drylands Challenge.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12017

Title/ description:

Kumar Shalander, B. Venkateswarlu, Khem Chand, Murari Mohan Roy. (20/11/2013). Farm level rainwater harvesting for dryland agriculture in India: Performance assessment and institutional and policy needs. Harbin, China

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5259