Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:44:29.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENHANCING WATER PRODUCTIVITY FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION: ROLE OF CAPITALS AND INSTITUTIONS IN THE GANGA BASIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

FLORIANE CLEMENT ,
AMARE HAILESLASSIE ,
SABA ISHAQ ,
MICHAEL BLÜMMEL ,
M. V. R MURTY ,
MADAR SAMAD ,
SANJIIB DEY ,
HIMANGSHU DAS  and
M. A. KHAN
FLORIANE CLEMENT*
Affiliation:
International Water Management Institute, South Asia Regional Office, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
AMARE HAILESLASSIE
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
SABA ISHAQ
Affiliation:
International Water Management Institute, South Asia Regional Office, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
MICHAEL BLÜMMEL
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
M. V. R MURTY
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
MADAR SAMAD
Affiliation:
International Water Management Institute, South Asia Regional Office, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, India
SANJIIB DEY
Affiliation:
PRADAN, Bankura, West Bengal, India
HIMANGSHU DAS
Affiliation:
PRADAN, Bankura, West Bengal, India
M. A. KHAN
Affiliation:
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar, India
*
‡Corresponding author: F.Clement@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The concept of water productivity (WP) or ‘more crop per drop’ has been revived recently in international water debates. Its application has notably been extended from single crops to mixed farming systems, integrating both crops and livestock, with the wider objective of reducing poverty. Using evidence from the Ganga Basin, India, we discuss the relevance of this concept as a tool to guide interventions for livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation. We argue that WP studies would benefit from greater attention to the role of capitals, inequities and institutions. Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge the heterogeneity of capitals and capabilities of farmers to make changes in their farming systems and practices and avoid one-fix-all interventions. Identifying pre-existing inequities in water access within and among communities will support better targeting of poor communities. WP interventions can either reinforce or reduce inter-household inequities within communities. We stress the need for assessment of institutional impacts of WP interventions on water access and development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 47 , Issue S1: Improving Water Productivity of Crop-Livestock Systems in Drought-prone Regions , January 2011 , pp. 133 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amede, T., Descheemaeker, K., Peden, D. and van Rooyen, A. (2009). Harnessing benefits from improved livestock water productivity in crop-livestock systems of sub-saharan Africa: Synthesis. The Rangeland Journal 31: 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27: 2021–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessembinder, J. J. E., Leffelaar, P. A., Dhindwal, A. S. and Ponsioen, T. C. (2005). Which crop and which drop, and the scope for improvement of water productivity. Agricultural Water Management 73: 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. London: Department for International Development, UK.Google Scholar
Cook, S., Andersson, M. S. and Fisher, M. J. (2009). Assessing the importance of livestock water use in basins. The Rangeland Journal, 31: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descheemaeker, K., Amede, T. and Haileslassie, A. (2009). Livestock and Water Interactions in Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa: Interventions for Improved Productivity. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.Google Scholar
Development and Planning Department – Government of West Bengal. (2007). District Human Development Report Bankura. Kolkata: HDRCC and Development and Planning Department, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies 35: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erenstein, O., Thorpe, W., Singh, J. and Varma, A. (2007). Crop Livestock Interactions and Livelihoods in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India: A regional synthesis. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2003). Raising Water Productivity. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0303sp2.htm [Accessed: 1 October 2010].Google Scholar
Government of West Bengal: Department of Panchayats & Rural Development (2005). Rural Household Survey 2005. Available at: http://wbprd.nic.in/ [Accessed: 4 October 2010].Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A., Blümmel, M., Samad, M., Clement, F. and Ishaq, S. (in press). Adapting livestock water productivity to climate change. Journal of Climate Change and Management.Google Scholar
Haileslassie, A., Peden, D., Gebreselassie, S., Amede, T. and Descheemaeker, K. (2009). Livestock water productivity in mixed crop-livestock systems of the Blue Nile Basin: Assessing variability and prospects for improvement. Agricultural Systems 102: 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoo, H. F., Mkoga, Z. J., Kasele, S. S., Igbadur, H. E., Hatibu, N., Rao, K. P. C. and Lankford, B. (2009). Productivity of Water in Agriculture: Farmers’ Perceptions and Practices. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.Google Scholar
Mapedza, E., Amede, T., Geheb, K., Peden, D., Boelee, E., Demissie, S. T., van Hoeve, E. and van Koppen, B. (2008). Proceedings of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food 2nd International Forum on Water and Food, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 10–14, 2008. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.Google Scholar
Molden, D. (1997). Accounting for Water Use and Productivity. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.Google Scholar
Molden, D., Frenken, K., Barker, R., De Frailure, C., Mati, B., Svendsen, M., Sadoff, C. and Finlayson, C. (2007). Trends in water and agricultural development. In Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 57–89 (Ed.Molden, D.). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bindraban, P., Hanjra, M. A. and Kijne, J. (2009). Improving agricultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution. Agricultural Water Management, 4: 528–535.Google Scholar
Neubert, S. (2008). Strategic virtual water trade – a critical analysis of the debate. In Water Politics and Development Cooperation. Local power plays and global governance, 123–145 (Eds Heumann, W., Neubert, S., , S. and Kipping, M.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peden, D., Girma Tadesse and Mulugeta Mammo. (2002). Improving the water productivity of livestock: An opportunity for poverty reduction. In Integrated Water and Land Management Research and Capacity Building Priorities for Ethiopia. Proceedings of a MoWR/EARO/IWMI/ILRI international workshop held at ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2–4 December 2002, 57–65.Google Scholar
Peden, D., Taddesse, G. and Haileslassie, A. (2009). Livestock water productivity: Implications for sub-Saharan Africa. The Rangeland Journal, 31: 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peden, D., Tadesse, G. and Misra, A. K. (2007). Water and livestock for human development. In Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 485–514 (Ed. Molden, D.). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Ruggeri Laderchi, C., Saith, R. and Stewart, F. (2003). Does it matter that we do not agree on the definition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches. Oxford Development Studies 31: 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saith, A. (2005). Poverty line versus the poor: method versus meaning. Economic and Political Weekly 43: 4601–4610.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Development As Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, O. P., Sharma, A., Singh, R. and Shah, T. (2004). Virtual water trade in dairy economy: Irrigation water productivity in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly 39 (31).Google Scholar
Singh, S. and Gupta, S. (2007). Groundwater Information Booklet Hisar District, Haryana. Chandigarh: Central Groundwater Board, Ministry of Water Resources.Google Scholar
Taddese, G. (2005). Increasing Water Productivity: Livestock for food security and poverty alleviation. Addis Ababa: ILRI.Google Scholar
van Hoeve, E. and van Koppen, B. (2006). Beyond Fetching Water for Livestock: A gendered sustainable livelihoods framework to assess livestock-water productivity. Nairobi: ILRI.Google Scholar
Wichelns, D. (2003). Enhancing water policy discussions by including analysis of non-water inputs and farm-level constraints. Agricultural Water Management 62: 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoebl, D. (2006). Is water productivity a useful concept in agricultural water management? Agricultural Water Management 84: 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar