Document
Northeast of Thailand is one of main sub-regions of the lower Mekong basin. The rainfalls are moderately low to very low, from 900 mm to 1600 mm annually. Due to the generally flat landscape, capacity of the land to keep water naturally is low only along water ways and depression areas. These water resources were the main natural water resources for the past prior National Development Plans 1-9 from 1961 to present. During the early phase of development, massive forest encroachment for upland crop production has severely degraded natural water resources, on top of land and natural foods. Land carrying capacity was eventually declined and initiated migration of the rural people to the cities. The migration has been coincided with industrial development. However, livelihoods as labors in the cities even further degraded due to family separation.
In the development there were numbers of water resource development but due to low rainfalls and flat landscape, available water resource for irrigation is only around 5% of agricultural lands, and limited to some locations with relatively undulating terrains. On the other hand, general sandy soils with less than 10% clay contents did not allow sufficient water storage in the soil profiles. Moreover underlying rock salt in most part of the region even further limits the use of ground water due to salinity problems. As a result, main strategy for water use of most farmers is to rely on harvesting of rain water for MUS with various strategies.
With desperation of living constraints in rural and subsequently cities, around 30 years ago some farmers have initiated self-reliant systems for primarily household sufficiency on water resource and foods. The most primary strategies were water resource management of effective rain water harvesting by diversion of runoff to farm ponds. The water has been used for multiple uses for both home-uses and production system. In some cases, small shallow wells could be dug close to main water resource for cleaner drinking and home-use. However, in later stages with corrugated iron roofing, drinking water is usually directly collected from roof gutters and kept in jars. Water in farm ponds has been primarily uses for fishery, vegetables, poultry, piggery, cattle, and home industries. In some years if the collected water were sufficient, it may be applied to rice nurseries or even paddy fields during dry spells. With the sufficiency system, simultaneously they could also develop add-on cash generations and self support retirement plans.
As successful examples, around 15 years ago non-government organizations such as World Vision, Population and Community Development Organization, etc. have further supported development and networking of leading farmers for further knowledge development and networking. The support has further strengthened knowledge development and sharing. With the realistic successes at both household and community levels, gradually, farmer leaders were invited to be advisers to government development plans at various hierarchies. The leaders activities have further attracted government development funds to support farmer networks at various aspects, from health to agriculture and environment. As a result, national development plans have been transformed towards bottom up and participatory approaches with various degrees of success. Currently, both government and non-government organizations have joined to work with local organizations for more effective development programs. At the same times, farmer leaders have become involved with most of development plans from social, agriculture, natural resource through environment issues. However, constraints of the development are still on development alternatives of limited water resources at household and farm scales.
With the new policy of Governor CEO strategies, water resource management is a high priority program that still needs technical supports from research at household scale. The constraints have derived from conventional large scale irrigation system that hardly reached poor families. Despite a numbers of small scale irrigation projects; the scale is somewhat square kilometers that hardly reach the poor households. Therefore, participatory technology development at household and farm scale could be potential activities for development of the water resource management systems. The learning alliance approach would be also examples for the rest of Mekong basin for sustainable water resource management plans, such as Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.
Chapter 14 contains the conclusion. An abundance of lessons emerged from the MUS work in Nepal and Maharashtra, India. While the experiences in the two places were incredibly different, several common threads emerged, albeit with distinctive situational spins. Perhaps the simplest emergent theme was that MUS is not a new concept for rural villagers in either Nepal or Maharashtra. In both regions, communities have found ways to achieve their own integrated water resource management by combining various “projects,” either brought to them via external implementers (the government or NGOs) or accomplished via their own efforts.
The Learning Alliance experience in Maharashtra contains important lessons for the potential upscaling of the MUS concept in the state. By attempting implementation of MUS projects through a larger state-led drinking water scheme, the experience in India has illuminated hurdles and limitations in expanding theMUS concept through a state-government program.MUS work in India took place only in the state of Maharashtra. Therefore, the state-level government represents the “national” level for the MUS Learning Alliance in India. In chapter 13 you can read about the experiences.
The situation for MUS in Maharashtra most likely reflects the reality of future MUS upscaling: attempting to use a state drinking water project as a vehicle for integrating multiple uses at the village level. As such, these two cases instruct the implementation of MUS globally, you can read more about in chapter 12.
In chapter 10 Kikwari village was chosen as a case study in Maharashtra because it is a village that encapsulates the spirit of integrated water resource management. Their creativity, innovation, and commitment to their community has allowed the villagers to protect and effectively manage the water resources available to them.
Samundi was chosen as a case study in Maharashtra to represent an incredibly motivated tribal community that is using the Jalswarajya project to supply all their water needs. In chapter 11 you can read the unique story of village women taking charge of their community’s development.
Part 2 of the book deals with the MUS experiences in India. Chapter 8 provides an overview of the state of Maharashtra, its setting, a history of the water-scarcity situation and the process by which water resource development takes place in this state. Chapter 9 gives a project overview.
Chapter 7 deals with the Learning Alliance experience in Nepal. It was an experiment in working with all stakeholders at all levels to concurrently garner partner support for MUS project implementation and propagate the idea of MUS throughout the country.
The organization of chapter 6 is based on the 14 principles outlined in the CP-MUS Action Research Framework that are required at the community, intermediate, and national levels to implement and scale up multiple use water systems.
In chapter 4 the village of Senapuk in Syangja District was chosen as a case study to represent a moderate water supply and the birthplace of the double-tank, twoline distribution system.