# Sustainable Land Management with Conservation Agriculture for Rainfed Production: The Case of Paraná III Watershed (Itaipu dam) in Brazil

Ivo Mello, Glaucio Roloff, François Laurent, Emilio Gonzalez, Amir Kassam

► To cite this version:

Ivo Mello, Glaucio Roloff, François Laurent, Emilio Gonzalez, Amir Kassam. Sustainable Land Management with Conservation Agriculture for Rainfed Production: The Case of Paraná III Watershed (Itaipu dam) in Brazil. Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Rainfed systems intensification and scaling of water and soil management: Four case studies of development in family farming, pp.99-126, 2023, 978-91-8046-893-0. 10.54612/a.4nbusqmc4l. halshs-04279996

HAL Id: halshs-04279996

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04279996

Submitted on 10 Nov 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

SLU

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Rainfed systems intensification and scaling of water and soil management

Four case studies of development in family farming

Editors: Jennie Barron & Anna Tengberg | 2023
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SLU, FAO or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of SLU, FAO or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, company or area or its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Rainfed systems intensification and scaling of water and soil
management: four case studies of development in family
farming

Editors: Jennie Barron, SLU, & Anna Tengberg, Stockholm International Water Institute

Publishing year: 2023, Uppsala

Publisher: Department of Soil and Environment, SLU

ISBN printed version: 978-91-8046-892-3

ISBN electronic version: 978-91-8046-893-0

Layout: Cajsa Lithell

Cover photo and photo on page 6, 16 and 43: Jennie Barron

**Copyrights:** © The authors and funder. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo). This work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence.
# Content

Preface - 5

Introduction to compilation of case studies of rainfed systems intensification - 8

1. Introduction - 8

2. Material and methods - 8

3. Summary of findings - 10

4. A proposed impact pathway for rainfed systems intensification - 13

References - 15

Acknowledgements - 15

Scaling water smart agriculture to improve the productivity and resilience of rainfed smallholder production systems in Mesoamerica - 17

Summary - 17

1. Introduction - 18

2. Water smart agriculture - 21

3. The potential of WSA in rainfed smallholder systems - 22

4. Taking WSA to scale - 31

5. Lessons learned and recommendations to further scale up WSA in Mesoamerican smallholder rainfed agriculture - 44

Conclusions - 45

References - 46

Acknowledgments - 49

Scaling-up agriculture water management interventions for building system resilience in Bundelkhand region of Central India - 51

Summary - 51

1. Introduction - 52

2. Bundelkhand region, Central India - 54

3. Pilot sites for rainfed systems intensification - 57

4. Rainfed crop systems innovations and practices promoted - 60

5. Innovation process of AWM interventions in Bundelkhand region - 63

6. Data monitoring and impact analysis - 65

7. Drivers of change and scaling up AWM practices - 74

8. Conclusions - 76

References - 77

Acknowledgements - 78

Scaling-up water management interventions for rainfed agriculture in the Ethiopian Highlands: status, issues, and opportunities - 79

Summary - 79

1. Introduction - 80

2. National actions for rainfed intensification from farm to landscape - 84

Working with principles of natural resource management for rainfed crop and pasture land - 84

3. Impact on agricultural production and various ecosystem services - 90

4. Opportunities and synergies - 93
5. Way forward..................................................................................................................95

References ....................................................................................................................96

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................98

**Sustainable land management with conservation agriculture for rainfed production:**
**The case of Paraná III watershed (Itaipu dam) in Brazil**....................................99

Summary ....................................................................................................................99

1. Introduction................................................................................................................100

2. Methods and materials ................................................................................................101

3. Challenges of rainfed production and livelihood systems in the study area ............101

4. Driving change in agricultural intensification through soil, water and agronomic management in rainfed production systems ....................................................................105

5. Economic and environmental benefits of no-till CA system ....................................112

6. Discussion of findings and system sustainability....................................................116

7. Conclusions with lessons related to policy and new knowledge..................................119

References ....................................................................................................................121

Endnote.................................................................................................................................125
# Preface

Food systems need to become more productive and nutritious for a growing global population, whilst being environmentally sound, and withstanding climate change. Rainfed agriculture is therefore a critical production system that holds large potential to sustainably intensify globally and locally, but often lacking attention and investments

This report provides evidence of action in rainfed agricultural systems for four case studies of scaling best practises in small and medium size farming in India, Central America, Ethiopia and Brazil. The aim is to provide knowledge for future investments and scaling of sustainable intensification in rainfed production that holds evidence on both yield and income gains, whilst improving field to landscape ecosystem services.

The cases present the initial issues, the actions and practises promoted on-farm, outlining the investment sources and actors involved, over period of 10-30 years to show impact to scale.

This report was developed under grant agreement with FAO (ref number 342559). Additional support was provided by SLU. We are grateful for the support and dialogue by various external expertise during the work.

**Keywords:** Adoption soil; Climate resilience; Farming systems; Landscape; Rainfed agriculture; Scaling agricultural development; Soil and water management; Sustainable intensification; Water management; Water scarcity
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Case studies

This report include the following studies:

* Introduction to compilation of case studies of rainfed systems intensification (Barron, J., A. Tengberg)

* Scaling water smart agriculture to improve the productivity and resilience of rainfed smallholder production systems in Mesoamerica (Turmel, M-S., Rosenow, K., Schmidt, A., Aburto Sanchez, E. & Hicks, P.)

* Scaling-up agriculture water management interventions for building system resilience in Bundelkhand region of Central India (Garg, K.K., Anantha, K.H., Barron, J., Singh, R., Dev, I., Dixit, S. & Whitbread, A.M.)

* Sustainable land management with conservation agriculture for rainfed production: The case of Paraná III watershed (Itaipu dam) in Brazil (Mello, I., Roloff, G., Laurent, F., Gonzalez, E. & Kassam, A.)

* Scaling-up of agriculture water management interventions in Ethiopian highlands: Status, issues and opportunities (Mezegebu, G. D., Anantha, K.H., Garg, K.K. & Amede, T.)
# Introduction to compilation of case studies of rainfed systems intensification

Jennie Barron Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and
Anna Tengberg, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

## 1. Introduction

Rainfed crop and pasture systems dominate agricultural practises globally. They support over 60% of biobased food and over 95% of feed and pasture for animal-sourced food including dairy and eggs. Globally, these production systems constitute 1.25 gigaehectares (Gha) of rainfed cropland and 3.5 Gha of rainfed pastureland, and are home to approximately 500 million smallholder farmers (Lowder et al., 2016; Samberg et al., 2016). Rainfed agriculture is highly dependent on climate vagaries and farming practises. Limited rainfall and poor soil (land) management still limit rainfed production capacity. This locks rainfed systems at low yield levels and contributes to the loss of a range of ecosystem services, such as regulation of water runoff, sediment transport, and sequestration of soil organic matter. The impacts are felt across farmer incomes, food security, water security and the resilience of landscapes. New assessments suggest that by 2050 water scarcity will be the cause of production capacity reductions on over 10% of crop land and 11% of pastures (Fitton et al., 2019; FAO SOFA2020). This water scarcity will also increase food import dependencies, particularly in Africa, the Middle East and China, but also in more developed regions such as Europe. Water scarcity, faced by farmers in rainfed production systems, undermines their production capacity and yields, increases risk, and challenges efforts to intensify. Yet, rainfed farming has evolved in the last 20 years, and in some regions it has actually accelerated progress on production capacity, farmer incomes and combating

environmental challenges. In this compilation, we provide four examples of intensification of rainfed systems. These serve as emerging evidence that positive change can be achieved. The cases focus on both the context and the process of change, in practices and technologies, of the respective rainfed farming systems. They also describe the process of moving from minor pilots to large-scale, outscaled practises for development. The purpose is to identify impact pathways that will increase the production capacity of rainfed systems. Another key aim is to scale up sustainable, resilient practices that improve farmer livelihoods, while enhancing ecosystem goods and services. This compilation of cases were developed to support the SOFA 2020 report on Managing Water for Sustainable Food Systems (FAO SOFA2020).

## 2. Material and methods

The cases compiled in this background report were selected to represent a wide variety of rainfed farming systems and processes (Figure 1). The main selection criteria were that: i) the case has at least some documentation, and evidence, of a change in farming practises to substantiate development of the specific rainfed production system, and ii) the case goes beyond the research domain, and can describe piloting, or scaling, of practises introduced by farmers and other actors in the landscape context. We focus on case studies that support evidence of the water and soil management technology and innovation changes in farmer practises. For the aspect of ii) piloting and scaling, we classify the cases along the
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Figure 1: Global map with the four cases studies of rainfed crop and pasture systems intensification in this report 1) Watersmart agriculture in Meso-America, 2) Integrated participatory water harvesting and watershed development in Bhundelkand region, India, 3) Parana Watershed development through conservation agriculture in Southern Brazil, and 4) national programs of sustainable land management practices, Ethiopia (Source map: FAO, 2011)

research-for-development continuum, described by Thornton et al. (2017). This continuum assumes a process from research and innovation (of a technology/product/tool/approach), to piloting, scaling, and ultimately to broad adoption and

practice (i.e. the majority of farmers, or other land custodians, implement this practice/technology) (Figure 2). These cases would, according to this framework, be classified as being in the stages of piloting-scaling and broad adoption. This is also in

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Figure 2: Case studies for rainfed systems intensification along a research-to-development continuum (framework adapted after Thornton et al., 2017)
line with transition theory, and the four stages of socio-technical transitions, from pre-development of technologies and approaches at the niche level, followed by take off and acceleration, to regime shift and stabilization at the landscape level (Geels, 2002; Wieczorek, 2018).

The four cases are presented in Table 1. These represent cases transitioning from research and development (India case study by Garg et al., 2020), into piloting (Central America, by Turmel et al., 2020) and scaling processes (Ethiopia by Mezegebu et al., 2020; Brazil by Mello et al., 2020). The cases provide examples of a range of agro-ecological zones, with processes of rainfed systems intensification, in a development and policy context, spanning a 10-30 year period.

## 3. Summary of findings

Even though these cases on sustainable intensification of rainfed systems are highly diverse in terms of contexts, they display a set of similarities and potential lessons to be learned.

### Active management of rainfall for resilience building

The cases all stem from a recognition that in rainfed farming systems neither improved wellbeing, nor a sustainable environment are achievable, unless rainfall is managed more actively and creatively. Managing rainfall is therefore a must in order to ensure that other investments in crop management pay off.

<table><caption>Table 1: Description of case studies of rainfed systems intensification</caption><thead><tr><td>Location</td><td>Rainfall agro-climatic regime</td><td>Dominant production systems</td><td>Type of case interventions</td><td>Reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>India: Bun-delkhand region (Uttar Pradesh, Madra Pradesh)</td><td>Tropical semi-arid; long-term average rainfall: 850mm y<sup>-1</sup> (400-1200mm y<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>Smallholder farming. Single and double cropping: cereal, beans /mixed for market, complemented with dairy.<br/>Rainfed and supplemental irrigation</td><td>Research for development and scaling process 2006-2019</td><td>Garg et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Ethiopia: national</td><td>Semi-arid to temperate wet sub-humid.<br/>Long-term average rainfall: 400-2000 mm y<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Smallholder farming. Single and double cropping: teff, maize, beans /mixed for subsistence and market, complemented with livestock.<br/>Rainfed</td><td>National rural development strategy for sustainable land management 2005-2018</td><td>Mezegebu et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Meso-America: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua</td><td>Tropical semi-arid to dry sub-humid; Long-term average rainfall: 900-1400 mm y<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Smallholder farming. Single and double cropping: maize, beans /mixed for subsistence and market.<br/>Rainfed</td><td>International NGO, scaling best practices with farmers 2015 - 2019</td><td>Turmel et al., 2020</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil: Paraná State with links to Paraguay</td><td>Sub-tropical humid climate without marked dry season. Long-term average rainfall: 1400 mm y<sup>-1</sup></td><td>Smallholder farming.<br/>Two to five commercial crops a year, depending on elevation: soybeans, maize, wheat and sunflowers as well as livestock.</td><td>Long-term participatory strategy to improve land management in the Paraná III basin, to reduce sedimentation in the Itaipu dam</td><td>Mello et al., 2020</td></tr></tbody></table>
For example, in the case of Bundelkhand region, India (Garg et al., 2020), a long tradition of water harvesting through the *haveli* system (Box 1) did not meet needs, due to rapid changes in social and climatic factors. Both the traditional *havelis* and additional soil and water conservation structures were improved to allow for crop rotations that enhanced water use, through rainfed farming and increased use of supplemental irrigation. Water harvesting and soil conservation measures were combined with soil nutrient management, specifically designed to fit regional soil conditions. These combined measures enabled better utilization of water available in the landscape for income generation. Data in the case study suggests enhanced crop yields of 30-50%, and cropping intensity improvements of 80-150%, through the use of supplemental irrigation, new tank storage and the redesigned *haveli* system.

In Ethiopia, the challenge of land degradation and the need to retain rainfall, have been recognized since the 1970s through various national initiatives. From 2005, these technologies have been scaled to, at a minimum, 800 000 ha (2.5% of Ethiopia's crop land) through the comprehensive field to watershed effort under the national Sustainable Land Management Programme (SLMP) phases 1 and 2. New research and impact assessments suggest that it may have positively affected several regulating ecosystem services significantly, and led to reduced erosion and surface runoff. There has also been an increase in national rainfed yields, although this cannot be solely attributed to implementation of SLMP1 and 2 (Mezegebu et al., 2020). Nonetheless, it is likely the result of several associated factors such as increased fertilizer use, improved seeds (albeit there is room for further improvement), and improved crop management and timeliness by farmers.

In the case of the Central America rainfed systems, the fundamental issue is to foster infiltration and retention of soil moisture for rainfed crops, in systems subject to increasing rainfall variability and degraded soils (Turmel et al., 2020). Interventions detailed in this case study are still in the pilot stage, facilitated by an international NGO across four countries in Central America.

Again, it works with soil health to manage rainfall more productively. Soil management, building organic matter through conservation tillage practices, is a key intervention. This is complemented by improved soil information for precision farming practices based on knowledge about soil nutrients.

Land in the Paraná III watershed in Brazil has been protected by anti-erosive contour bunds and terraces to stop and retain runoff and improve infiltration into the Oxisols between the bunds. However, the introduction of conservation agriculture, which spread throughout the watershed in the 1990s, was more effective in maintaining high infiltration rates and minimizing runoff and erosion, as well as raising productivity. The Agricultural Research Institute of Paraná State (IAPAR) together with Itaipu Binancional, a public enterprise, created the concept of a “no-tillage system with quality” to promote no tillage, soil cover and crop rotation, that should be adopted as an integrated package to qualify as conservation agriculture. In 2017, 89% of the agricultural cropland was managed under no-tillage systems. These systems achieve yield levels comparable to conventional tillage systems, while conserving soil moisture and sequestering carbon at rates ranging from 0.1-0.5 t/ha/year. As a result of the adoption of conservation agriculture, crop yields have shown continued increases. Since 1996 there has been about a 40% increase in soybean yields and 70% in maize yields.

## Participation, inclusiveness and consultative approaches

All the cases reported here demonstrate explicit efforts in participatory, inclusive and consultative approaches, including the gender dimension, when taking new practices into use. This has not always been the norm, as shown in the Bunderkhand case (Garg et al., 2020) and the Ethiopia SMLP case (Mezegebu et al., 2020). In the Bunderkhand case, farmers have been consulted, and even led implementation of activities, in various ways. Gender is considered, and where appropriate, men and women are
engaged separately in piloting and scaling activities. In the Ethiopia case, monitoring of results is gender disaggregated. For example, in the SLMP activities, 17-40% of households are female-headed, and are reported to have been benefiting from the various technologies and practices promoted (Mezegebu et al., 2020) (section 3.1). In the Paraná III watershed in Brazil, it has been demonstrated that a community-based soil and water conservation program can be developed in a socially equitable manner. This combines the interests of smallholders and large-scale farmers in a mutually reinforcing and self-empowering manner. However, achieving broad participation and inclusion takes time. It is important to integrate iterative learning processes, that are informed by adequate monitoring and assessment, when moving to scale.

## Partnerships for co-production of knowledge and innovation

One element, in the selected cases, is critical to improving technologies and practices in the respective farming systems. This is the active inclusion of research capacity for co-production of new knowledge and innovation, together with farmers and key public, private and civil society agricultural institutions. In all the multi-stakeholder partnerships, research institutions and/or universities, have been instrumental in supporting the pilot and scaling efforts. In the Central America water smart initiative, partnerships with national and overseas researchers have provided new tools and data collection approaches. These have been used to identify soil health constraints, and thereby improve nutrient management of the rainfed systems (Turmel et al., 2020). This was also a critical contribution in the Bundelkhand case (Garg et al., 2020), where soil nutrient constraints impeded water productivity. With soil testing, through the support of ICRISAT researchers, and soil nutrient score cards, farmers were able to better benefit from the improved rainwater management introduced, by also applying fertilizers targeted to specific soil conditions. This was so effective that they switched to higher value crops.

In the case of Bundelkhand, researchers also proved instrumental in the adoption and revitalization of soil and water conservation, and of water harvesting structures. The traditional systems of *havelis*, and new soil bunds, needed design improvements to improve capacity and to strengthen the structural works, given new rainfall extremes (Garg et al., 2020). These improved designs better met farmer needs and were therefore easier to promote among the communities. Paraná was one of the pioneer states in Brazil in no-tillage research and development. Between 1977 and 1991, agricultural research conducted by IAPAR, in partnership with GTZ, proved that production systems based on no-tillage and cover crops were efficient in the control of water erosion, and also led to increased infiltration and improved soil moisture. This research has been coupled with technology development, in partnership with public and private enterprises. For example, no-till seeders for smallholders and biogas digesters (Mello et al., 2020).

## Governance and institutional arrangements

Increasingly, there are national policies and institutions with links to multilateral agreements and global commitments that support local action towards intensification in rainfed systems. As shown here, intensification through water and soil management in rainfed systems often have both livelihood and ecosystem service benefits. These align with various national, regional and global agendas such as Agenda 2030, notably UN SDG 2 on Zero Hunger, UN SDG 6 on Clean Water, UN SDG 13 on Climate Action, and UN SDG 15 on Life on Land. In addition, some practices can contribute to carbon sequestration if it involves re-vegetation (Garg et al., 2020; Mezegebu et al., 2020) and building soil organic matter, such as no-tillage and conservation agriculture (Turmel et al., 2020; Mello et al., 2020). In the case of Ethiopia (Mezegebu et al., 2020) and Bundelkhand region (Garg et al., 2020), the current discourse, and approaches, evolved over more than 50 years. It also takes time to
move from pilot to full-scale implementation. In the Bundelkhand case, piloting and scaling has been an ongoing process since 2005, evolving though various partnerships, until 2018 when the Government of Uttar Pradesh endorsed the case study concept as described by Garg et al. (2020). If the ambition is to scale up, there is a need to allow the intervention to develop over time, and to commit to investments spanning more than just a few years of project intervention. In addition, capacity building and education are key in the creation and institutionalization of an enabling environment for water smart agriculture, as shown in Central America (Turmel et al., 2020). The Paraná II watershed case demonstrates the need for a multi-sectoral, and socially inclusive, management approach to continuity and change. Several sectors cooperated in the program including; energy, water, agriculture, environment, social development, health, and education. The community development framework, created for the watershed, has been vital to the economic, social and environmental achievements of the initiative. Moreover, based on the cooperation between Itaipu hydropower and watershed development programs, the land and water related developments on the Brazilian side of the Itaipu reservoir also occurred across the border in Paraguay (Mello et al., 2020).

## 4. A proposed impact pathway for rainfed systems intensification

Even with current efforts in agriculture and rural development, the pace will not be sufficient to meet either accelerated food demand or rural development needs, goals agreed in Agenda 2030 and the Paris climate agreement. Water scarcity is rapidly increasing the challenges posed to achieving sustainable intensification of agriculture through irrigation, yet rainfed systems can be a “best bet” investment both for livelihoods and the environment. Rainfall and soil resource management practices, at farm and landscape levels, are well researched for multiple agro-ecologies and farm systems. These four cases provide evidence of how this knowledge has been put into practice to achieve enhanced crop productivity and benefit farmers, as well as resulting in landscape environmental gains. In the four cases analyzed, there are emerging lessons to be learned for regions which are dominated by rainfed agriculture. These cases can inform an agenda for integrated rural development in rainfed dominated landscapes, especially in current low-yielding smallholder farming

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Generic impact pathway for piloting and scaling approaches to improved sustainability and resilience of rainfed systems.</figcaption></figure>
systems. The generic, simplified impact pathway that is emerging from analysis of these different cases from India, Ethiopia, Central America and Brazil, brings together various factors to deliver co-benefits for livelihoods and the environment (Figure 3). As such, this impact pathway offers opportunities to accelerate the transition from piloting of technologies and approaches at the local or watershed level, to broader adoption at the landscape or national level.

The impact pathway these case studies point to include a number of key elements:

* The first step is to consider rainfall and soils in a coordinated way (using best practices in soil and water conservation, rainwater harvesting and agronomic practices), in combination with new technology and data, to assess options and implementation strategies in time and space.

* A process design that integrates technologies with agronomy, and which is implemented with participatory and consultative approaches, is likely to be more successful since it can adapt to local demands and contexts. Involving research and knowledge partners throughout can assist in supporting: i) innovation and new and improved practices and technologies, ii) systematic monitoring for learning, and iii) capacity building of farmers and the extension service.

* Multi-stakeholder partnerships can play a key role in producing new knowledge, and supporting the learning processes necessary

for developing a shared understanding of both the challenges and opportunities inherent in rainfed systems. Partnerships also contribute to continuous learning that informs adaptive management. Stakeholder participation, at various levels, is necessary in order to achieve inclusiveness and transparency, and can also provide platforms for participatory and user-friendly monitoring.

* Strengthened governance, access to finance and institutional arrangements create conditions for sustainable scaling in rainfed systems, but scaling is a complex process that goes beyond policy and governance alone. Farmers need access to finance, for example micro-credits, to invest in improved practices. Intersectoral collaboration, tailored to country, region and partner needs, is required to support scaling of best practices on the ground.

Rainfed systems, in water scarce areas, are high risk for farmers due to current and future rainfall variability and change, and also because of current and past soil-land management practices. Yet, they hold opportunities for low risk/high gain investments for development, in collaboration with farmers. Monitoring and learning has often been weak and inconsistent, but increasingly information is now available. A more systematic study could provide comprehensive insights to inform robust action and investments across rainfed systems, especially focusing on low-yielding, water scarce and degraded landscapes.
## References

FAO. 2020. The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA). Overcoming water challenges in agriculture. Rome

FAO. 2011. The state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) - Managing systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Earthscan, London.

Fitton, N., Alexander, P., Arnell, N., Bajzelj, B., Calvin, K., Doelman, J., Gerber, J.S., Havlik, P., Hasegawa, T., Herrero, M., Krisztin, T., van Meijl, H., Powell, T., Sands, R., Stehfest, E., West, P.C., & Smith, P. 2019. The vulnerabilities of agricultural land and food production to future water scarcity. Global Environmental Change, 58, [101944]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101944

Garg, K.K., Anantha, K.H., Barron, J., Singh, R., Dev, I., Dixit, S. & Whitbread, A.M. 2020. Scaling-up Agriculture Water Management Interventions for Building System Resilience in Bundelkhand Region of Central India (this report)

Geels, F.W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257-1274.

Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. & Raney, R. 2016. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Development. 87, 16_29.

Samberg, L.H., Gerber, J.S., Ramankutty, N., Herrero, M. & West, P.C. 2016. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environmental Research Letters 11 (124010), 1-12.

Mello, I., Roloff, G., Laurent, F., Gonzalez, E. & Kassam, A. 2020. Sustainable Land Management with Conservation Agriculture for Rainfed Production: The Case of Paraná III Watershed (Itaipu Dam) in Brazil (this report)

Mezegebu, G. D., Anantha, K. H., Garg, K. K. & Amede, T. 2020. Scaling-up of agriculture water management interventions in Ethiopian Highlands: status, issues and opportunities (this report)

Thornton, P., Schuetz, T., Förch, W., Cramer, L., Abreu, D., Vermeulen, S. & Campbell, B.M. 2017. Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based. Agricultural Systems. 152. 145-153.

Turmel, M-S., Rosenow, K., Schmidt, A., Aburto Sanchez, E. & Hicks, P. 2020. Scaling water smart agriculture to improve the productivity and resilience of rainfed smallholder production systems in Mesoamerica (this report)

Wieczorek, A.J. 2018. Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 84, 204.2016.

## Acknowledgements

This report is a background document is developed to support the FAO State of Food And Agriculture (SOFA) 2020: Overcoming water challenges in agriculture. Funding was in full supported by FAO. We thank the authors of case studies for their contributions.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
# Scaling water smart agriculture to improve the productivity and resilience of rainfed smallholder production systems in Mesoamerica

Marie-Soleil Turmel, Kristin Rosenow, Axel Schmidt, Elsa Aburto Sanchez and Paul Hicks, Catholic Relief Services*, Baltimore, MD, United States

*Refer to acknowledgements for full list of CRS country teams that carried out the body of work described in this case study.

*In memory of Luis Alvarez Welchez who dedicated his life to helping Central America's smallholder farmers restore their soil and water resources.*

## Summary

Soil and water resource degradation coupled with an increasingly extreme and variable climate threaten the food security and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in the Dry Corridor of Central America and southern Mexico. Water Smart Agriculture (WSA) is an approach that increases agricultural productivity through the restoration of soil and water resources. The main objective is to build the climate resilience and productivity of smallholder farming in this critical sub-region, The Water Smart Agriculture Program for Mesoamerica<fnref n="1" /> has partnered with a network of public and private agricultural institutions, local organizations and smallholder farmers in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Oaxaca, Mexico. Together they are scaling up processes to validate and catalyze broad adoption of tools, methodologies and practices that build soil health and increase the productivity, profit, and

resilience of smallholder rainfed agriculture. Over 3,000 smallholder farmers across the region are implementing on-farm trials that validate that water-smart practices, including conservation agriculture, integrated soil fertility management, and cover cropping, improve soil health. In doing so they translate into significantly increased rainwater productivity and economic benefits, often within the first season. This WSA evidence base underlies a scaling strategy to strengthen the capacity of partner institutions, extensionists, promoters and farmers to experiment, innovate, adopt and scale WSA. Close to 100 partners and ally organizations, from landscape level programs to local civic organizations and ministries of agriculture, now offer WSA tools, methodologies and services that reach over 90,000 farmers. These results are extremely promising and serve as the foundation of a region-wide movement to transform rainfed agriculture in Mesoamerica by scaling WSA to 500,000 smallholder farms within the next decade.

<footnote n="1">¹https://asa.crs.org/en/</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Food insecurity, low agricultural productivity and natural resource degradation are intimately linked in rural Central America and southern Mexico where an estimated 2.3 million smallholder farmers form the backbone of the rural economy (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 1997; Harvey et al., 2018; FAO, 2020).

These predominantly rainfed systems produce 66% of the basic food crops of Mesoamerica on 71% of the agricultural land (Siebert and Döll, 2010). For the CA4 – El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua – the proportion of rainfed rises to 92% (Beekman et al., 2014). Over half of all smallholder farms produce maize and beans – regional staples that form the foundation of the regional diet yet provide a meager livelihood. More than half of these farmers live below the poverty line and 30% are extremely poor (van der Zee Arias et al., 2012). The 350,000 smallholder coffee growers of the region also suffer high levels of food insecurity (Caswell et al., 2012).

The topography, soils and climate of Central America are highly variable. The region hosts humid, tropical and cloud forest habitats that receive as much as 7500 mm/a of rainfall, and sub-tropical savannahs and drylands that receive as little as 400 mm/a. High ecological heterogeneity has inspired equally diverse agricultural systems, as farmers have adapted to location-specific characteristics. With over 70% of the land area considered “mountainous” with hills and slopes and a prevalence of poor-quality soils, Central America is a difficult place to farm (Zurek, 2002). With the majority of agriculture dependent on rainfall, the agricultural cycle is defined by the bimodal rainfall pattern of the region with the first growing season, *primera*, sown with the onset of rains in May or June and a second planting, *postrera*, initiated in September. While maize and beans are grown in both seasons, maize predominates in *primera* and beans in *postrera*. In higher rainfall areas, farmers may also plant beans and vegetables in a third season, *apante*, that relies on residual soil moisture and light rains from December to March.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Photo 1: Agriculture dominated landscape on the hillsides of Nicaragua (Axel Schmidt, 2014)</figcaption></figure>
In between the *primera* and *postrera* planting cycles is a recurrent mid-season dry spell called the *canícula* where rainfall is significantly reduced for several weeks. The magnitude, length, intensity and start and end dates of the *canícula* have historically been highly variable and were not well understood, or studied (Verbist et al., 2018). Today, however, the *canícula* is the most serious climate risk factor for rainfed farming in Central America, a threat that is growing as the changes in climate conditions increase in severity, length, and variability, endangering both the *primera* and *postrera* cropping seasons. Climate models predict that the *canícula* will increasingly start earlier and last longer (Maurer et al., 2017).

A more intense and erratic *canícula* is among several impacts of the changes in climate conditions already suffered in Mesoamerica, one of the regions in the world most affected by, and vulnerable to, these changes (Schmidt et al., 2012; Donatti et al., 2019; Eckstein et al., 2019). Current trends, including increasingly irregular rainfall, more frequent and intense drought, and intermittent extreme precipitation events are predicted to continue to worsen over the next decades as the region becomes significantly hotter and drier (Hannah et al., 2017). These changes have been felt most acutely in the Dry Corridor, a sub-region of dry, tropical forest running along the Pacific side of Central America. The Dry Corridor has been defined over the past 10 years as one of the regions in the world most susceptible to increasing climate variability (FAO, 2017). Large areas of Central America experienced moderate to severe drought conditions in six of the eleven years from 2009 to and including 2019. Severe and widespread drought events in 2009, 2015 and 2018 left as many as three million people in need of humanitarian assistance due to crop loss (FAO, 2017; FAO, 2018).

High levels of deforestation and soil and water resource degradation exacerbate the vulnerability to climate variability as the ecosystem has diminished capacity to protect and regulate itself. An estimated 75% of agricultural land in Central America suffers from human-induced soil degradation, among the highest in the world (Oldeman, 1991). Agricultural mismanagement

in turn contributes to the deterioration of water resources through reduced infiltration, increased runoff and flooding, desiccation of springs, creeks and wells, and destabilization of slopes leading to erosion and landslides. These consequences impact not only rural communities, but also semi-urban and urban populations downstream.

Over past decades, agricultural production in the region has not kept up with population growth. The minimal agricultural growth of the region was driven by unsustainable increases in total agricultural land area, through the conversion of forests to cropland and pastures on hillsides, and due to fragile tropical forest soils. From 1970 to 2005, there was a rapid expansion of agricultural land in Central America, increasing from 28 to 42% of total land area. Expansion did not slow until the late 1990s, as remaining land was increasingly unsuitable for agriculture, and environmental concerns inspired new policies and programs to address land degradation, the consequences of which were becoming increasingly apparent (Zurek, 2002; Bossio et al., 2008).

The persistence of slash and burn agricultural practices with shortened or eliminated fallow periods, tillage, and increasing agrochemical use on the region's erosion-prone hillsides has degraded soil and water resources and kept productivity very low. Average maize yields in Central America are about 2.3 t/ha, the lowest average yields in the world outside of sub-Saharan

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Photo 2: Degraded hillside agricultural land in the dry season in Guatemala. Maize residues are consumed by livestock leaving the soil bare (M.S. Turmel, 2017)</figcaption></figure>
Africa. Researchers suggest that while potential yield could be as high as 10 t/ha, a conservative yield target for Central America should be at least 4.5 t/ha (Hengsdijk and Langeveld, 2009; Eash et al., 2019). There is great potential to reduce this yield gap through increasing water productivity. Even in the driest areas of Central America the total amount of water is not the key limiting factor for improved yields. Rather, the restoration and sustainable management of agricultural soils is fundamental to resolving the multi-faceted economic and environmental problems associated with smallholder agriculture in the region (Zurek 2002; Schmidt et al. 2012). Furthermore, water harvesting for supplemental irrigation offers underexploited opportunities for reducing drought risk in smallholder hillside operations where surface and ground water irrigation systems are often economically and technically unfeasible (CRS, 2015).

Erosion and soil degradation have been long-term concerns in Central America. There have been many projects and programs promoting soil management, particularly in the 1990s. Overall adoption of recommended practices, however, has been low (Zurek, 2002; CRS, 2015; Speratti et al., 2015). The heterogeneity of local conditions has challenged scaling of soil management solutions as the success of a practice in one location does not guarantee its transferability to others. In addition, the gradual onset of soil degradation and a lack of location-specific soil information can make it difficult for farmers to recognize the problem. The slow return on investment in terms of tangible, on-farm benefits can discourage farmers from sustaining practices once project incentives are withdrawn, and some capital and effort-intensive practices such as terraces may never be profitable. Other recommended solutions such as agroforestry and silviculture can be very complex and knowledge-intensive, again with very slow

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Distribution of WSA farms across the dry corridor of Central America and Oaxaca, Mexico</figcaption></figure>
returns on investment. In fact, a failure to look
at the cost-effectiveness and profitability of the
practices has been a serious deterrent to adoption
(Bravo-Ureta et al., 2003; Prins, 2004; Howley et
al., 2012).

Nowhere is the nexus of social and environmental
crisis more obvious, wide-spread, and urgent
than in the smallholder rainfed agriculture sector.
As climate variability intensifies the existing
challenges that smallholders face in Central
America and southern Mexico, the news is not
all bad. The Water Smart Agriculture Program
for Mesoamerica has over the last 5 years built
solid evidence that the restoration of soil and
water resources to increase water and agricultural
productivity is a viable short and long-term
solution to the economic and environmental
problems associated with smallholder rainfed
agriculture. Here we will present the evidence
from farmer fields and describe how these positive
findings are scalable with partnerships and policy
support. A more food-secure and prosperous
future for the most vulnerable rural populations
in the region is not only possible but is already
growing in the fields of an increasing number
of water-smart farmers in Central America and
southern Mexico (Figure 1).

## 2. Water smart agriculture

Water Smart Agriculture increases agricultural productivity, and thus food security, in the low yielding rainfed agriculture systems of Mesoamerica through soil restoration to improve rainwater productivity. The greatest gains, for overall water productivity, come from the ability to maximize rainwater harvesting through improved rainwater infiltration and subsequently improved soil moisture retention (Molden et al., 2009). WSA focuses primarily on “green water”, which refers to infiltrated rainfall, stored as soil moisture and available for plant uptake (Falkenmark and Rockström, 2006). Green water is therefore often defined as the actual evapotranspiration from vegetation necessary to produce a given amount of biomass and crop yield. Soil and water management, combined with timely management of crops, offer potential

for substantial yield gains and provide significant
opportunities for producing more food with the
same amount of water (Falkenmark et al., 2009;
Rockström et al., 2009).

Advanced soil management is essential for increased water retention and plant water availability - "managing soil to manage water" as proposed by Barron (2012). WSA integrates soil management practices, such as plant residue retention on the soil surface (mulch management) and minimal to zero tillage, to keep soil permanently covered. Permanent soil cover protects soils from erosion, reduces unproductive evaporation, and moderates soil temperature. Cover crops (rotations/intercropping) build soil organic matter. Integrated soil fertility and plant nutrient management increase biomass production and yields, and work in synergy with the other practices to increase rainwater productivity. Plant nutrient status has an indirect effect on water use efficiency through the physiological efficiency of the plant. An optimal nutrient status ensures the highest biomass output per unit water used. Hatfield et al. (2001) estimate that water use efficiency can be increased by 15-25% through adequate nutrient management and that soil management, as discussed above, can further increase water use efficiency by 25-40%. In general, WSA also applies location-specific agronomy best practices to adjust and manage adequate plant density, plant and row spacing, and crop canopies, which further boost yields and water productivity (Schmidt et al., 2012; Eash et al., 2019). Thus, there is significant potential to improve the productivity of smallholder rainfed agriculture through enhanced soil, nutrient, and agronomic management.

By enhancing rainwater productivity, WSA also mitigates the susceptibility of crops to the adverse effects of frequent dry spells (Rockström et al., 2002; Barron et al., 2003) and reduces inter-seasonal crop yield variability associated with increasingly erratic climatic patterns. Moreover, implementing water-smart practices increases soil water retention and nutrient conservation by reducing soil losses associated with water erosion, thus reducing overall crop production risks. Hence, increases in yields associated with water-
smart practices go far beyond simply bridging the
yield gap caused by water deficits (Lebel et al.,
2015) in smallholder rainfed farming systems, in
drought prone environments.

WSA is a location-specific and knowledge-
intensive approach. Smallholder agricultural
systems and production contexts vary greatly
across Central America and southern Mexico. Soil
conditions do as well. There is no one-size-fits-all
recipe to the challenges faced by farmers in the
region. For this reason, the WSA program places
information and knowledge at the center of the
program. The WSA program supports farmers
to make critical farm management decisions
with data provided by soil tests and analyses,
observations of on-farm soil conditions, and maps
of soil properties and functions. Assessments of soil
conditions are facilitated through practical group
learning events (Farmer Field Schools) where
formal (science) and informal (local) information
and knowledge are merged in a continuous
participatory learning process. Farmer analysis
and interpretation skills, and farmer-to-farmer
knowledge sharing, are strengthened during the
learning process. The resulting information and
insights enable farmers not only to select and
adapt improved soil management practices to
their local conditions, but also to make informed
management decisions about their entire farming
system.

3. The potential of WSA
in rainfed smallholder
systems

The WSA program uses an evidence-based
approach to participatory, on-farm research
to validate and adapt water-smart practices
to local conditions, on smallholder farms,
in Central America and Oaxaca. Through a
continuous and iterative learning process, the
WSA program refines field recommendations for
nutrient management, cover cropping, residue
management, diversification and agroforestry
options. These are tailored to available resources
that improve system management and increase

productivity, profitability, and resilience.
Participatory research demonstrations provide
proof of concept from the farmer perspective and
serve as living classrooms for capacity building and
outreach activities.

From 2016-2020, over 3,000 partner farmers have planted side-by-side demonstrations in the main Mesoamerican agricultural systems, including maize-bean based, basic grains systems, coffee agroforestry and pastures. Working with local WSA trained technicians, farmers established water-smart practices on an innovation plot side-by-side to a comparison plot with their current practices (Photo 3). Practices were established in a stepwise method to build up the system's productivity and ensure short- and long-term gains for farmers. For example, in the basic grains systems, the WSA program first addressed soil fertility limitations and improved nutrient management (further details described in the following paragraphs of this section), providing immediate yield benefits. Over the following two years, farmers then transitioned into conservation agriculture, cover cropping and agroforestry. Results were monitored through a common set of well-established, WSA soil health² and economic indicators collected by farmers and local extension organizations. Soil analyses (macro

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Photo 3. WSA on-farm trial comparing the farmer practice where residues are grazed, and soil left bare during the dry season (right), and conservation agriculture with a jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis) cover crop (left) (M-S. Turmel, 2017).
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Photo 4: Maize fields at Jujutla municipality, Ahuachapán, El Salvador (CRS, 2015).</figcaption></figure>

and micronutrients, pH, Al, cation exchange capacity) were conducted in all farms to establish nutrient management guidelines. Soil moisture was monitored during the growing season at key moments in the crop cycle in a subset of 800 farms (gravimetrically or volumetrically using TDR (time-domain reflectometry)). Yield samples were measured in each WSA and comparison plot, and production costs were recorded by farmers and local technicians to calculate productivity and income.

## Rainwater productivity improvements with WSA

Rainwater productivity (RWP) is the volume of crop produced per amount of rainfall and is an indicator of how efficiently an agricultural system uses rainwater. Improvements in soil health and fertility have led to consistently higher yields, soil water retention and RWP in WSA innovation plots over farmer standard practice comparisons. In basic grain systems, water productivity has been higher with WSA since the first harvest in 2016, and has steadily increased with each year of WSA practices (Figure 2). The maize growing seasons in 2016, 2018 and 2019 were all relatively dry, with average precipitation of 702mm during the rainy season from May to August, while 2017 was a relatively good year for rainfall quantity and distribution.

In the first year, WSA increased maize yields by an average of 497 kg ha⁻¹, and RWP increased from an average of 3.4 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ in the farmer comparison to 4.1 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ in the WSA plots. This initial increase in RWP can be mostly attributed to improved crop nutrition, the principal practice implemented in the first year. These immediate results highlight the opportunity to improve the productivity of rainfed systems with integrated nutrient management practices. In the following “good year”, the majority of WSA farms entered into conservation agriculture and further surpassed the comparison by 809 kg ha⁻¹. RWP rose to 4.4 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹, 0.9 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ more than the comparison. Even though seasonal rainfall was low in 2018 and 2019, both yield and RWP continued to increase in the following years. This was because farmers began to realize medium-term positive feedback from WSA practices, such as conservation agriculture and cover crops that require more time to improve soil health and soil moisture retention. By 2019 WSA maize RWP reached 5.2 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹, 1.5 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ more than the comparison. These RWP values are comparable to other tropical smallholder conservation agriculture maize systems around the world (Rockström et al. 2009), however yield potential estimates for the Dry Corridor region are upward of 4.5 kg ha⁻¹, indicating potential to further improve RWP (Eash et al., 2019).

<footnote n="2">²Established indicators of soil health used in WSA include: soil macronutrient availability, pH, soil organic matter, infiltration, bulk density, earthworms and soil cover (Karlen et al., 1997).</footnote>
The WSA program collected production costs<fnref n="3" /> and income data during the four cycles in a subset of 253 on-farm basic grains experimental plots (paired WSA innovation plot vs. comparison plot with farmer current practice). Though not as severe as 2018, the 2019 agricultural cycle was affected by drought conditions, and yields were reduced by up to 50% in some regions. Even though seasonal weather conditions were not ideal, most WSA farmers obtained acceptable harvests and net income due to the improved practices that conserved soil moisture. Average maize yield with WSA was 3474 kg/ha (considered a good yield for smallholders in the region because of climatic conditions), nearly one ton higher (986 kg/ha) than the comparison. WSA bean yields were 1604 kg/ha (considered an excellent yield for smallholders in the region), over half a ton (547 kg/ha) higher than the comparison. This represented a 40% increase in maize and a 52% increase in beans over the comparison. WSA also significantly improved maize and bean net income. Average maize net income with WSA was US$513/ha, over double the comparison net income (US$242/ha) (Figure 5). WSA bean net income was US$916/ha, more

than twice that of the comparison (US$431/ha). Farmers generally grow both crops in one year (maize in *primera* and beans in *postrera*) thus the average total income from the WSA maize-bean system is US$1429/ha compared to only US$673/ha in the comparison. To put this in the local context, the additional income of US$755/ha is equivalent to 7.5 months wages from farm labor (based on a US$5/day and 20 day/month). These results demonstrate the potential of water-smart practices to improve the productivity and economic viability of smallholder rainfed systems in Central America.

## The role of soil fertility management in improving the productivity of rainfed systems

In addition to rainfall variability, soil fertility is one of the main factors limiting crop production in Central America. According to the baseline soil analysis of our WSA plots, 66% of farmers had at least one severely limiting soil fertility problem:

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Rainwater productivity of maize in WSA and comparison plots in the Dry Corridor over the past four years: 2016-2019 (N=1291 farmers). Precipitation during the maize season (May-August) and July (when the canicula dry spell typically occurs) is shown.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="3">³Production costs included inputs, family and hired labor, and other services.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Maize yield in soil fertility (phosphorus) limiting, and water limiting, sites in 2018 (N=973 farms. The percent increase with WSA above the comparison is show above each pair of bars.</figcaption></figure>

soil acidity, low soil organic matter, low cation exchange capacity or low nutrient concentration. 37% of farms had very low phosphorus (P) levels of less than 5 ppm; (Olsen P) (Havlin et al. 2005; SEMARNAT, 2002), one of the main nutrients that can limit crop production in tropical soils. Improved plant nutrition not only increases root growth and the drought tolerance of the crop but also contributes to the production of more plant biomass, that when left as residue protects the soil and conserves moisture for the next cropping cycle. An integrated approach to soil management that involves soil fertility management, and practices to improve water capture and retention, is essential to improve productivity and drought resilience.

Water-smart practices provided the greatest relative yield improvements (over 50% increase) on farms where both soil fertility and water were limiting (Figure 3). In water-limited conditions but without soil P limitation, WSA improved yields by 32%. Without severe water limitation, farmers still benefit from improvement soil fertility and conservation practices, improving yields by 46% in P limited soils and 37% is soils

with moderate P fertility. The average family in Central America needs 1000kg of maize per year to meet their food requirements. The average farm area for basic grains is one hectare (based on CRS Country Programs 2019, unpublished data), thus a yield of 1000kg ha⁻¹ is approximately the minimum production required to be maize secure. Results from 2018 showed that farmers limited by both water (<600mm) and soil fertility conditions (low phosphorus) could not meet this minimum production level with their current production practices. For farmers with less than one hectare to farm, the challenge is even greater. When WSA practices were used, on average yields were above this critical threshold in a drought year.

## Water smart agriculture during the 2018 drought

In 2018 the Central American Dry Corridor suffered a severe drought in the main, *primera*, maize growing season. The drought was the result of a prolonged *canícula* that started early in July and continued into August. It caused yield
reductions and crop loss on over 300,000 ha of
maize and bean production in the region (FAO,
2018). July rainfall was only 80mm, less than half
the average July rainfall of 222mm (Figure 4)
(Funk et al. 2014), and some areas where WSA
demonstration plots were located suffered from 20
to 45 days without rain. The 2018 rainy season was
characterized by abundant rainfall during maize
planting, in the last week of May, followed by a
significant drop in precipitation in July and early
August. This created drought conditions during
important stages of maize crop growth, when
rainfall was much less than maize physiological
requirements. The *canícula* usually occurs during
the beginning of the reproductive stage of the
maize plant cycle, known as silking. Maintaining
sufficient soil moisture during that period is
crucial for good maize yields.

With at least two full years of WSA practices on demonstration plots in all five countries, the 2018 drought was the first test of WSA performance under extreme weather. Overall, approximately 10% of the WSA plots located in the most severely affected areas (>30 days drought) had complete

crop failure. Under these extreme drought
conditions, maize cannot survive despite the best
WSA management practices implemented. In
regions where the drought was less than 30 days
and farmers were able to obtain a harvest, results
from the WSA plots in all five countries show
that maize under WSA management was more
tolerant to drought and produced significantly
greater yields (P<0.0001, t-test; Figure 5). WSA
maize yields were on average 41% higher, and
80% of all demonstration farmers produced
at least 15% more, on WSA plots compared to
conventional practice. The World Food Program
estimated that as a result of the 2018 drought, 2.2
million people were affected by yield loss and
1.4 million were left food insecure (WFP, 2019).
Based on 2018 data, at least 33% more farmers in
the Dry Corridor would meet their basic maize
production needs in a severe drought year if they
implement WSA management practices.

It takes several years of intensive restoration
efforts, that include nutrient management,
increasing biomass inputs, minimizing soil
disturbance and maintaining continuous soil

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: July average precipitation vs. July 2018 precipitation (mm), location of the WSA plots identified by red circles (based on CHIRPS precipitation data; Funk et al., 2014).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Average maize yield with 95% confidence intervals of the mean in 2018 WSA plots vs. comparison plots (n=1065).</figcaption></figure>

cover with residue or cover crops, to achieve improvements in the ability of soil to capture and store more water. Crop residue retention is a key WSA practice to increase soil health and soil moisture retention (Turmel et al., 2015). During the 2018 drought, WSA farmers in Nicaragua had been implementing conservation agriculture, with permanent vegetative cover on the soil (cover crop or crop residue retention), for at least 3 years. This is in contrast to the conventional practice that can include tillage and does not maintain permanent soil cover with residue or cover crops (Photo 3). Soil moisture results from these farms demonstrated the associated benefits of increased soil moisture vis a vis their comparison plots during the *canicula* period of the *primera* season (Figure 6). Under the drought conditions of the extended *canicula* period of 2018, WSA plots had on average 7.6% more volumetric soil water. With each additional year of WSA practices, as WSA farmers increased soil cover with maize and bean crop residues and cover crops, further improvements in soil health optimize the capacity of the soil to infiltrate and retain moisture.

## Farmer perceptions of WSA and adoption potential

Overwhelmingly positive farmer perceptions of WSA impacts, and the expansion of WSA

practices on their farms, predict the high likelihood of long-term adoption of WSA practices by Dry Corridor farm communities. At the end of the 2019 basic grains cycle, farmers

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Average increase in volumetric soil moisture (%) in WSA plots vs. comparison plots, during the 2018 *primera* season in Nicaragua (N=44 farms). Average 2018 precipitation in the plots is shown by the blue bars, and the early reproductive stage is indicated.</figcaption></figure>
were surveyed on their perceptions of the impacts of WSA practices and the adoption of the practices on their farms. Over 80% of the 1454 WSA farmers surveyed reported improvements in production, livelihoods, food security, soil quality and drought resilience (Figure 7). The small percentage that reported no change or worse for yields, food security or income cited the main reasons as: higher levels of soil degradation, overall yields are low, small production area, and poor access to inputs. Although WSA has begun to improve soil, water and productivity on these farms, many farmers continue to struggle to produce and earn enough from basic grains. Continued support for soil restoration should form part of an integrated approach to improve the long-term viability of these systems. WSA farmers have expanded the area under water-smart practices beyond their original WSA demonstration plots to the rest of their farm, a strong indication that farmers are adopting the practices. To date, 75% of the WSA basic grains farmers have converted 100% of their basic grain production land to WSA practices. Conservation agriculture has been widely expanded, with 73% of farmers now applying all

three principles (permanent cover, minimal or no-till, diversification/rotation) on 100% of their basic grains land. The expansion of integrated soil fertility management based on 4R has been more limited, with only 60% of farmers applying the 4R on 100% of their basic grains land. Although farmers are pleased with the results based on the perceptions survey, limited access to inputs does not permit expansion to a greater area. The WSA program is piloting several methods to improve farmer access to inputs including local private service providers linked to savings and loans groups, group purchase in bulk, and local production of fertilizers to reduce costs. Approximately 50% of farmers are using cover crops on their WSA plots, and 57% of them have doubled the area of cover cropping from the original WSA plot area. Challenges with cover crop selection and seed supply have slowed expansion, however, farmers that introduce cover crops to their systems have been enthusiastic about the benefits. These results indicate an overall acceptance of WSA practices, especially residue retention in conservation agriculture that is strongly viewed as beneficial for drought resilience. Overall, these on-farm results indicate

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Basic grains farmer reported perceptions of the WSA practices and their impact on yield, income, food, drought resilience (water) and overall satisfaction with practices (n=1454).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Photo 5: Farmers in Guatemala learning the Visual Soil Field Assessment Methodology (CRS, 2018).</figcaption></figure>

that WSA is an important part of the solution and
that there is great potential for continued scaling
of WSA in the region.

Closing the information gap on
soils

Effective soil management requires appropriate and detailed soil information to take cost-effective management and investment decisions not only on-farm, but also at national or regional administrative and political levels. Central America is generally a “data-poor environment”, particularly in terms of soil information. To address this need for improved soil information, the WSA program worked with local, national and regional partners to compile a practical, effective, and cost-efficient standardized suite of tools and methodologies. These include respective detailed documentation for farmers, promotors, and field technicians to facilitate a more precise assessment of the status of the soils in Central America. Standard soil sampling and laboratory analyses were combined with field-based tools for soil moisture<fnref n="4" />, infiltration measurement (Bouwer, 1986) and soil acidity assessments<fnref n="5" />. Visual methodologies were also applied, e.g. the Visual Soil Testing tool (McGarry, 2006), to facilitate fast and easy on-farm access to soil information.

Improved soil information is essential for the
application of the overall soil management
approaches of WSA, e.g. 4R Soil Stewardship
(IPNI, 2012), in combination with the integrated
soil fertility management (ISFM) approach
(Sanginga and Woomer, 2009), and the principles
of conservation agriculture (FAO, 2001).

Soil maps are also an important tool for soil
information. Existing Central American soil maps
are often small-scale, covering only parts of the
region. Traditional soil surveys are prohibitively
expensive in terms of budget, human resources,
time, and available funds. In order to overcome
this regional soil information gap, and to facilitate
improved evidence-based decision-making
from farm to national levels, the WSA program
established a digital soil mapping (DSM) platform.
The aim was to build the capacity of national
institutions to produce detailed maps of soil types,
soil properties and soil functions⁶. Capitalizing
on existing legacy soil data of any kind, scale,
and date, and the still available non-documented
expert knowledge in the target countries, WSA
applied a DSM knowledge-based inference
approach based on soil formation processes
and soil-landscape relationships. A versioning
approach was also developed similar to the Tier
concept of the GlobalSoilMap (2015) allowing
for the creation of new and improved versions
as more data is made available (Owens et al.,

<footnote n="4">⁴https://www.specmeters.com/soil-and-water/soil-moisture/fieldscout-tdr-meters/tdr-150-soil-moisture-meter-with-case/</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵https://www.hannainstruments.co.uk/hi-981030-soil-ph-tester.html</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Soil acidity map (pH levels) for the Cacahuatique region, Morazán, El Salvador, showing impacts of long-term application of acidifying fertilizer types (e.g. ammonium sulphate).</figcaption></figure>

2020). In addition, the WSA program has helped build the DSM technical capacity of a group of institutions in each country. These groups have used DSM to produce first versions of over 140 soil property and function maps for the Dry Corridor of Central America, providing important information for decisions on the application and targeting of soil management recommendations throughout the region (see Figure 8 for an example of a soil property map informing soil and soil fertility management of coffee in El Salvador). Thus, DSM of soil functions is a vehicle for scaling.

After presenting the map, local authorities (local farm input subsidies) and farmers changed not only their investment in fertilizer type but also based their soil fertility management on the 4R approach. Results show significant increases of coffee yields (green coffee) from 263 kg/ha (control plot) to 720 kg/ha (WSA plot) exceeding the national yield average of 302 kg/ha. Decisions made on informed bases (e.g. simple soil property maps) pay off.

<footnote n="6">⁶Soil functions are defined as a set of soil properties that characterize a soil population and that are linked to multiple use purposes for a defined landscape (Owens et al., 2020)</footnote>
## 4. Taking WSA to scale

### Designed to reach scale

The WSA program's ambitious goal of revitalizing smallholder rainfed agriculture in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and southern Mexico envisioned large-scale transformation and deep impacts that require the commitment and collaboration of key public, private and civil society agricultural institutions in each country (Figure 9). It is these organizations that make up the underlying structures, and supporting mechanisms, of the smallholder agricultural sector whose collective action is essential for sustainable scaling of WSA (Wild et al., 2017; Woltering et al., 2019). The complexities of this social structure could not be solely addressed by common approaches to scaling, using concepts such as dissemination, diffusion, adoption and transfer of technologies and practices. To date these methods have failed to achieve large-

scale adoption and transformation (CRS, 2015; Wigboldus et al., 2016; Wild et al., 2017). For the WSA program, scaling is a development process for expanding, learning, adapting and enhancing the organizational capacities of key institutions to serve a large number of farmers. Supporting them to successfully apply water-smart practices to increase their productivity through the restoration of soil and water resources (Millar and Connell, 2010). Moving beyond the project logic, the WSA program employed a collaborative approach to work with key, permanent agricultural institutions. The aim was to understand the underlying social, political, and economic systems, the incentives, and respective behaviors of all actors involved (Westley et al., 2014) and to catalyze their appropriation of, and investment, in water-smart approaches, methodologies and services for smallholders. In this way, the WSA program is building capacity at multiple levels to take WSA to scale.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: WSA collaborative model to build sustainable soil and water restoration systems.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Photo 6: WSA in Nicaragua, interagency (FAO-IICA-CRS) field trip (CRS Nicaragua, 2019).</figcaption></figure>

## Institutionalization and creating an enabling policy environment

The theory of change for scaling WSA is guided by three major understandings:

1. Creating conditions for scaling is as important as actively trying to scale. In the case of WSA, scaling cannot happen without creating a level of institutional development that allows key agricultural institutions to undertake and maintain a sustainable scaling process (WHO, 2010; Woltering et al., 2019).

2. Scaling is a nonlinear complex process that involves a range of potential leverage points (Wigboldus et al., 2016). Tailored strategies by country, territory, and partner were designed to seize opportunities and tackle challenges at different scales and levels.

3. Impact at scale is a joint social construction with the permanent actors who will sustain change over time (Faustino and Booth, 2014). Multi-stakeholder partnerships and platforms have been instrumental to achieving the institutional capacity to effectively accompany farm families and communities in restoring soils at scale (Brouwer and Woodhill, 2015).

The WSA program's collaborative approach has followed an impact pathway of four interlinked stages of working toward scale. This is an adaptation of several methods (Cooley, 2016) that is founded on the principles of co-creation, co-management and co-investments, with and between stakeholders, to gain appropriation and ensure political viability:

1. Raising awareness, building support, and engaging institutional partners and allies.

2. Learning and validation of the WSA approach, methodologies, and tools.

3. Institutionalization through appropriation and use of the WSA approach, methodologies and tools in their programming, budgets, and decision-making.

4. Scaling, transformative processes where institutions and systems in agriculture change rules, norms, and culture based on the WSA approach.

After more than four years of embracing complexity and learning by doing (Faustino and Booth, 2014), the WSA program has built a strong foundation for sustainable scaling in Central America and southern Mexico. The building blocks include; a critical mass of trainers, facilitators and leaders for scaling WSA through capacity building; the institutionalization of
approaches, methodologies, and tools; networks and platforms coordinating action to improve services to farmers; incorporation of WSA in policies, programs, and projects; and leadership teams of key agricultural institutions actively working to do agricultural development differently. To date, more than 60 key organizations and 20 multi-actor platforms have institutionalized and invested in WSA and are now immersed in stage 4 scaling processes (Figures 10 and 11). Among WSA program partner organizations, 39% have strengthened extension capacities, 38% have developed governance and institutional capacities, 10% have improved curricula (academic), 9% have participated in field data generation and 4% are private sector companies providing services. Context-tailored operative models to catalyze collaboration include territorial-led networks in Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico (bottom-up model), and national public sector-led policies and programs in Nicaragua and El Salvador (top-down), although there are elements of both in all five countries. Scaling progress is ongoing, with major adjustments to extension systems in Guatemala (ANACAFE)<fnref n="7" /> and El Salvador (CENTA), and grassroots farmers organizations in Nicaragua (MAONIC) and Mexico (CEPCO, CEDICAM).

## Building capacity to implement and sustain WSA

The WSA program scaling strategy relies on permanent local, national and regional agricultural institutions to appropriate, advance, and ultimately scale WSA. The success of this strategy requires

that targeted institutions have knowledgeable experts, committed leaders, and a critical mass of agricultural professionals and farmers who have the skills and drive to lead, adapt and evolve WSA in response to the constantly changing context. Divestment out of agricultural research, extension services and education over the last decades has created major capacity gaps, and weakened public agricultural research institutions, reducing their effectiveness and efficiency (CEPAL et al., 2009; IICA, 2012). In response, the WSA program has focused on building adaptive leadership and technical capacity at multiple levels from the farm field to university laboratories and ministries of agriculture.

The WSA program strategy seeks to prepare institutions, technical staff, and farmers to implement and scale WSA through a competency-based capacity building approach. The WSA program developed a competency model that consolidates WSA training approaches, and curricula from across the region, into a single framework that clearly defines the skill, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior requirements for successful implementation of WSA. The framework is a practical tool that supports WSA program capacity building, and influences objectives through:

* guiding training content and establishing minimum standards for WSA implementation;

* ensuring that training content addresses the concrete behavior change that will lead to successful implementation of WSA in farmer fields;

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: WSA impact pathway by stages, for advancing institutionalization of WSA to transform rainfed agriculture in Mesoamerica.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="7">⁷For full names refer to Figure 11</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Photo 7: Collaborative planning work with CRS, ANACAFÉ, COUNTERPART and IICA, in Guatemala (CRS Guatemala, 2019).</figcaption></figure>

* providing a highly practical tool to evaluate training impacts on behavior change and to identify gaps that inhibit adoption of WSA practices;

* guiding the insertion of WSA content into university and professional training curriculums; and

* supporting clear communication of what WSA is and how it is practiced.

Integral to WSA program capacity building approaches is that how training is delivered is just as important as the content. WSA is knowledge-based agriculture that transcends the input-intensive, technology transfer models of the past. The knowledge-intensive model emphasizes that data, evidence and innovation processes are critical to adapting WSA practices to the highly variable local conditions across the region. The knowledge-based, adaptive practice of WSA requires skill development which is best acquired through participatory, hands-on methodologies, that leverage existing expertise and direct it toward development of the required competency and behavior change. The WSA program

recognized early on that the traditional methods of extension and soils education, coupled with the weaknesses of the regional educational systems, presented a major challenge to widespread adoption of WSA. Transitioning from an extension system, that uses educational methods based on rote memorization and one-size-fits-all technical packages of practices and inputs, to a system that emphasizes data collection and analysis to calibrate site-specific farm management recommendations is a massive leap, requiring behavioral change in all actors involved.

The WSA program has applied the competency development strategy with multiple methodologies at different levels including: a) on-farm experimentation and evidence building through Farm Field Schools (FFS); b) training of trainers (ToT) for extensionists and promoters (lead farmer that carries out extension activities), c) curricula modernization and expansion for agriculture vocational schools, undergraduate degree programs, and training courses, and d) development of a postgraduate Masters' degree program for the next generation of WSA leaders.
## Farm Field Schools (FFS)
for WSA demonstration and
evidence

The WSA program field teams have made effective use of the FFS methodology to train farmers and develop the experimentation and innovation skills required for adoption and continual adaptation of WSA practices. WSA FFS demonstrations are designed to build evidence. Experimentation with an innovation, in direct comparison to traditional practices, is fundamental to the program's strategy. The FFS structure aims to create a culture of experimentation and analysis of data among producers, with a lead farmer or promoter hosting a demonstration plot and neighboring farmers replicating those innovations that are suitable for their own farms. Such on-farm experimentation is a vital skill that will be increasingly important as producers seek ways to respond to changing weather conditions and more volatile markets. This experimental approach has been extremely successful in helping WSA farmers understand why certain practices fail and others succeed. This understanding, in turn, has helped foment adoption of the practices by neighbors, growing well-beyond the immediate FFS participants. For example, in the northern Nicaragua municipality of Yalaguina, an FFS network has developed into a watershed-wide scaling of WSA practices. The WSA program started the first FFS in that area in 2015 with 12 farmers. By the end of the year, there were 33 participating farmers, and an equal number of innovation plots where the farmers were implementing WSA practices on a portion of their land. By the end of 2017, 90 families were participating and over 160 hectares were under WSA soil restoration practices. By 2019, residue soil cover was the norm rather than the exception and the area had recovered water resources that had been dry for years.

In addition, WSA demonstration farms and complementary investigations, implemented in coordination with FFS and university partners, are used to host training classes, field days, informational tours and press conferences. A variety of actors, ranging from other NGOs, the

private sector and government agencies, have used the visible evidence in farmers' fields, and farmer testimonies, to learn, showcase and convince. At the same time, the data generated is informing scientific and popular publications, conference presentations, and news articles that take WSA messages to a much wider audience. This includes farmers, the general public, and funding and program decision-makers, supporting WSA scaling.

## WSA training of trainers (ToT)
- towards a new extension
paradigm

While the FFS and demonstration plot approach can drive farmer-to-farmer scaling and generate wide interest in WSA, the program was challenged to develop approaches that would allow the WSA program team to work collaboratively with several institutions simultaneously, and sum their collective reach toward scaling WSA with a large number of farmers. The WSA ToT in soil and water management methodology was designed to answer this challenge by strengthening extension services so that they can scale WSA, emphasizing the pedagogic skills conducive to interactive communication and facilitation of knowledge dialogue between technicians and farmers (McIntyre et al., 2009; WSA-CRS, 2020). The WSA program, and partners, worked together to design and adapt a training curriculum with five core modules: soil sampling and analysis; integrated soil fertility management; dynamics of soil acidity; permanent cover and biomass; and soil and water conservation practices. The WSA ToT methodology provides effective content and methods, based on the “Farmer First” approach, which focuses curriculum on what is essential for farmers to know, and delivering it in ways that are easily understood and can be replicated by farmers. Sixty organizations (public, private and social) are participating in ToT processes in Mesoamerica, generating a critical mass of 9,000 trainers, among facilitators, technicians, and promoters with the institutional support to deploy training throughout their extension networks to
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Photo 8: Farmer First training of facilitators, technicians, promoters and farmers is implemented on-farm (CRS, 2019).</figcaption></figure>

reach many more farmers and communities. For several of the large public institutional partners, the collaborative ToT process has inspired revision of their technical assistance systems that were not structured to achieve scale. Innovations include WSA competency-based training, and certification programs for extensionists, as well as the development of promoter networks to extend their extension reach.

## Education to cultivate WSA's future leaders

The next generation of “WSA-savvy” agricultural professionals is now receiving training, or will soon enter training, in agricultural universities, technical schools and professional programs with curriculums that have been adapted to include WSA approaches. These future professionals will provide the foundation for continued mainstreaming, and scaling, of WSA in agricultural development in their countries over time. The WSA program worked collaboratively with the National Agrarian University of Nicaragua (UNA), the University of San Carlos in Guatemala, the University of El

Salvador (UES), and the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), to develop the Regional Master of Science for Integrated Soil Management in Tropical Environments (MISAT). The MISAT curriculum stresses sustainable soil management with conservation agriculture and integrated soil fertility management. The number of MISAT graduates is expected to surpass 100 within 10 years, and will form a solid foundation for agricultural research and leadership to take WSA into the future in Central America. The WSA program has also successfully collaborated with several universities to insert WSA concepts and training into national masters and bachelor curriculums. In El Salvador, UES revised three Master of Science programs (Natural Risk Management, Sustainable Agriculture, Watershed Management) to include up-to-date and relevant soil and water management science and practice. In Nicaragua, the Catholic University for Dryland Tropical Agriculture (UCATSE) and the Nicaragua National Autonomous University (UNAN) in Leon and Estel incorporated WSA into their agricultural degree curriculum and continuing education programs. In Honduras, the UNAH officially inserted soil and water management competencies into their curriculum for undergraduate
## PUBLIC SECTOR ALLIES

Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria y Forestal de El Salvador (CENTA), Instituto Nicaraguense de Tecnología Agrícola (INTA), Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA) Zacapa y Chiquimula en Guatemala, Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología de Honduras (DICTA), Network of Professional Technical Institutes (IFP regional Network), Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad de Mexico (CONABIO), Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales (INETER)

## PUBLIC-PRIVATE

Instituto Hondureño Del Café (IHCAFE), Asociación Nacional del Café de Guatemala (ANACAFE), National Soil Alliances in Nicaragua and El Salvador, Multiactor group for Digital Soil Mapping in the five countries, National System of Agricultural and Forestry Extension of Honduras, Extension Committees in Guatemala, Local Coffee committees in Honduras, Landscape restoration platforms in El Salvador

## ACADEMIA

Universidad Nacional Agraria de Nicaragua (UNA), Universidad Católica del Trópico Seco de Nicaragua (UCATSE); Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH), Escuela Superior del Café de Honduras (ESCAFÉ-IHCAFE) and Technical Community Institutes Network in Honduras; Centro Universitario de Oriente de Guatemala (CUNORI), Colegio EFA in Guatemala; Universidad de El Salvador. Escuela Nacional de Agricultura de El Salvador; The education platform in South of Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP), Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca (ITVO), Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Oaxaca (CIIDIR-IPN), Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca (UABJO), Chapingo, CERTIMEX). Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC), Digital Soil Mapping team from University of Arkansas & USDA, Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Facultad Regional Multidisciplinaria, Estelí (FAREM), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua (UNAN-Leon)

## TERRITORIAL/LOCAL ACTORS

Asociación para el Manejo Integrado de Cuencas de la Paz y Comayagua (ASOMAINCUPACO), Comité Central Pro Agua y Desarrollo Integral de Lempira (COCEPRADIL), Comité Central Pro-Agua y Desarrollo Integral de Intibucá (COCEPRADII), EUROSAN OCCIDENTE in Honduras; Raices Projects-Landscape Restoration platforms in El Salvador; San Jose La Arada Municipality; Grupo Autónomo para la Investigación Ambiental (GAIA), Sistema Comunitario para el Resguardo y Manejo de la Biodiversidad (SICOBI), Kukoj, Centro de Desarrollo Integral Campesino de la Mixteca (CEDICAM), Coordinadora Estatal de Productores de Café de Oaxaca (CEPCO), Mancomunidad La Montañona, Asociación de Cuencas del Golfo de Fonseca (ACUGOLFO), Asociación para la Diversificación y el Desarrollo Agrícola Comunal de Nicaragua (ADDAC), Fundación de Investigación y Desarrollo Rural (FIDER). Unión de Cooperativas Agropecuarias (UCA-San Ramon), Movimiento de Productoras y Productores Agroecológico y Orgánicos de Nicaragua (MAONIC), Promotora de Desarrollo Cooperativo de Las Segovias (PRODECOOP)

## PRIVATE SECTOR AND NGOS

Caritas, Adego, Fondo de Inversión Ambiental de El Salvador (FIAES); Nitlapan, R-UTZ, CCM, ANF, FABRETTO Foundation and Soil Lab Network in Nicaragua; Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) -Procagica in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua; Cooperativa Mixta Cosecha Verde Limitada (Comicovel) in Honduras, Counterpart

<caption>Figure 11: Key actors of the Mesoamerica region engaged with the WSA program, toward a regional soil restoration movement.</caption>
agronomy degrees. The WSA program has also contributed to diploma programs for practicing professionals to ensure a focus on soil and water management in Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

## A region-wide WSA movement for rural prosperity

The WSA program scaling strategy has sought to catalyze the necessary institutional changes and enable key agricultural stakeholders to collaborate and provide the necessary tools and services to farmers to inspire a Mesoamerican movement for resilient rural prosperity, through the restoration of soil and water resources. The WSA program engages partner institutions in the co-creation and adaptation of methodologies and tools, working together toward a shared vision of supporting farmers in their constituencies to successfully adopt WSA practices. With success, the program will create a lasting and positive impact on farmers

and institutions leading to restoration of the soils and water that sustain rainfed agriculture, families, and territories in rural Mesoamerica.

## A landscape approach to scaling WSA

Agricultural landscape restoration programs are incorporating WSA practices in their natural resource management plans to scale the practices across entire landscapes. The Agriculture Landscape Restoration Initiative (ALRI-Raíces), known as Raíces, in El Salvador is delivering impact at scale in terms of agricultural livelihoods, resilient rural economy and environmental restoration based on water-smart practices. The program focuses on investment for smallholders, while also working with large scale producers to influence practices on their land. A key part of the program stimulates economic opportunities for farmers and

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12. Location of Farmer Field Schools, and five restoration zones start-up sites. The total target area is about 55 000 hectares.</figcaption></figure>
young people, built on principles of productive landscapes and improved ecosystems services. The strengthening of social and political capital for managing agriculture landscape restoration is the foundation for the implementation, sustainability, and scalability of this initiative. This includes research (e.g. monitoring WSA metrics), providing recommendations for public policies and investments, producing policy and scientific publications, and participation in national and international meetings and events to exchange learning and share project results and impacts.

The ALRI-Raíces program is organized across five start-up sites (Figure 12), targeting a total land area of 55,000 ha. The program has trained a robust extension network of trainers and promoters, and a critical mass of farmers, demonstrating success in multiple cropping systems and effective environmental restoration in critical ecosystems. Primary crops include basic grains (maize, beans, and sorghum), coffee, jocote fruit, pasture, and sugarcane. The program uses the Farmer Field School methodology, based on the “Farmer First” ToT method, to support farmers in implementing WSA practices on their farms. This framework emphasizes the participatory learning dynamic between farmers, promoters and extensionists, explicitly based on the premise that farmers learn by doing and will only adopt new practices (i.e. WSA) if; (a) those practices solve real problems, and (b) farmers have tested and validated these practices on their own farms.

A key indicator for ALRI-Raíces is the number of hectares with increased vegetative cover, achieved through growing cover crops, managing crop residues, no-burning, planting live barriers, and planting permanent vegetation on farms or conservation areas. To date, WSA practices are being applied on 975 ha across the ALRI-Raíces territory. An important lesson from both the WSA program and ALRI-Raíces is the combination

of managing vegetative cover with soil fertility management.

Cover cropping is one of the key WSA practices being promoted in ALRI-Raíces, however the availability of seed in the region limits scaling up of this practice. The initiative has stimulated the local cover crop seed system by contracting local promoters and partners to produce and package popular varieties such as cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis). ALRI-Raíces has also supported the development of a local company dedicated to providing agricultural services around conservation agriculture including training, no-till machinery services (seeding and cover crop rolling/crimping) and cover crop seed.

## A territorial approach to scaling WSA

In late 2017 CRS, with local and international partners, initiated a long-term program in El Salvador to promote WSA at a territorial scale, funded by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation (HGBF). The Agriculture Landscape Restauration Initiative (ALRI) has ten-year timeframe (2017-2027), located in the far western region of El Salvador.⁷ As is typical of most parts of Central America, agriculture is the predominant land-use in the ALRI in the territory, with maize, beans, and sugarcane systems occupying most the valleys and coastal plains, and diversified shade-grown coffee dominating high-elevation mountain areas. The area is also part of a transboundary river/watershed (Rio Paz) shared with Guatemala. Land and water resources in the territory are highly degraded with high levels of soil erosion and contamination of surface waters as a result of unsustainable farming practices.<fnref n="9" /> The territory includes some of the poorest and most food insecure communities of El Salvador.<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="8">⁸See: Working Definition of Agricultural Landscape Restoration. CRS 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹PRISMA, Dinámicas Territoriales en el departamento de Ahuachapan, El Salvador. September 2018, https://crsorg-my.sharepoint.com/personal/paul_hicks_crs_org/Documents/6.ALRI-Raices/FAO State of Agriculture/296fc7_fdc2a0da43f94f9aafe80064279c4a1c.pdf (raices.sv)</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰See Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Acute Food Insecurity Analysis. IPC, 2021: https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_El_Salvador_AcuteFoodInsecurity_2020Nov2021Aug_English_summary.pdf</footnote>
ALRI, known locally as RAICES, focuses on smallholders across a range of farming systems. The program also works with larger-scale producers, where farm activities impact critical water resources. The program goal is to promote WSA practices on at least 10,000 hectares and protect and restore key water resources in the territory, aiming to reach about 7000 farmers.

The program exceeded the midterm performance milestones (as of this publication). By early 2023, about 3,500 farmers were applying WSA practices on more than 4,000 hectares.

The scaling strategy for ALRI has evolved since the start of the program, as field teams had to adjust the complications of COVID-19 restrictions for travel and meetings. The strategy has focused on (a) promoting WSA practices on a critical mass of farms, (b) empowering lead farmers and other community leaders to organize,

and (c) building capacity of local leaders territorial planning and governance. Relevant to the WSA case study described above, we highlight three key principles in the ALRI scaling strategy that have proven effective over the past five years, including:

* Focus on a few priority WSA practices that generate early results for improving farmers' productivity, income, and resilience.

* Invest in a critical mass of field promoters (champion farmers) as a foundation for a robust multi-actor network of farmers and community leaders.

* Strengthen the capacity of local, permanent actors in territorial planning and governance.

Below we provide details and lessons related to each of these three principles.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13. The combined scaling of water smart agricultural (WSA) practises with Farmer Field Schools (FFS) across partrtership initiatives of Caritas Santa Ana, RENACER, and Tierra Saludable Amenyalli (TSA), for multiple regions of El Salvador (Data by CRS, 2023).</figcaption></figure>
A). Focus on a few priority WSA practices – “the vital few” - that generate early results for improving farmers' crop productivity, income, and resiliency.

The first principle is to focus on a few priority WSA practices - "the vital few" - that generate early results for improving crop productivity, farm income, and resiliency. This principle has proven important and effective in focusing clear messages for training/extension for farmers and partners across multiple farming systems across the territory.

The "vital few" WSA practices that have proven crucial for generating benefits to farmers in the short- and medium-term are:

* Incorporate cover crops in farms, to serve as soil cover and green manure.

* Manage crop residues to maintain permanent soil cover and increase soil organic matter over time.

* Apply the 4R approach to integrated soil fertility management (described in the WSA case study above).<fnref n="11" />

* Manage pH with basic amendments, as most soils in the ALRI landscape are very acidic.

We have found that when farmers start with the combination of cover crops, 4R soil fertility management, and pH corrections, they are able to see benefits within the first cropping cycle. In the second and third year (cropping cycles), farmers see clear benefits in soil health and weed suppression, and apply significantly less fertilizer and virtually no herbicides. As a result, farm production costs have decreased significantly.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Photo 9: Raul Martinez, San Juan Buena Vista, El Salvador, 2022. Intercropping Mung Bean (Vigna radiata) as cover crop and green manure in maize. Photo by CRS Staff.</figcaption></figure>

For example, in 2022, farmers used less than 50% of nitrogen fertilizer versus previous years (45kg/ ha in 2022 versus 90kg/ha), while increasing productivity (see details below). In coffee and maize, the most common crops amongst participating farmers, crop quality has increased, contributing to increased market prices and farm income.

The baseline, pre-project yield for maize on hillside farms was 1.9 metric tons per hectare (mt/ ha), which was similar to the national average for smallholder farmers. In the 2022/2023 crop cycle, average yields for hillside farmers were 3.5 mt/ ha, and all farmers surveyed had yields above the baseline. The number of maize farmers surveyed was 1,342, accounting for all hillside maize farmers participating in the program.

<table><caption>Table 1: ALRI summary maize yield data 2022/23 season for ALRI-supported farmers</caption><thead><tr><td>Crop</td><td>Slope</td><td># of farmers surveyed</td><td>Baseline Yield Average (mt/ha)</td><td>Average yield ALRI in 2022 (mt/ha)</td><td>Stand. Dev. (mt/ha)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maize</td><td>Hillside</td><td>1342</td><td>1.9</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="11">¹¹See *Nutrient Stewardship 4R*: https://nutrientstewardship.org/4rs/</footnote>
These "vital few" WSA practices are necessary as a first step for farm restoration, but they are not sufficient for a real transformation of farming systems and landscapes. The ALRI theory of change is that once farmers have learned and successfully applied the "vital few" WSA practices on their farms, they have a new "baseline" of knowledge and experience, which enables them to explore and experiment with other technologies and practices that respond to challenges specific to their farms. This stepwise learning and farmer experimentation is motivated by a robust farmer extension network, see below.

### B). Invest in a critical mass of field promoters (champion farmers) as a foundation for robust multi-actor extension network.

The second principle is to invest in training a critical mass of field extensionists and field promoters (or champion farmers) to form the foundation of a multi-actor extension network. Building from the lessons from the WSA program, ALRI uses a modified version of the WSA Trainer of Trainers methodology (described above) to train field extensionists and promoters. This methodology emphasizes the participatory learning dynamic between farmers, promoters, and extensionists, explicitly based on the premise that farmers learn by doing and are more likely to adopt new practices (i.e., WSA) if (a) those practices solve real problems and (b) farmers have tested and validated these practices on their own farms.

We set out to form a critical mass of field technicians and promoters based on a premise that the potential to scale in the medium- and long-term can be achieved more effectively through an "organic" process of farmer-to-farmer learning model versus an overly structured and top-down "transfer of technology" model. Therefore, the training of field promoters focused on the "vital few" WSA practices (discussed above) using a Farmer-Field School (FFS) approach where field technicians and promoters test and demonstrate WSA practices on their farms and invite other farmers to learn and experiment on their own farms, or more commonly, on part of their farms.

The multi-actor extension network supported by ALRI includes about 50 professional trainers and extensionists (from various government and NGO agencies) who have trained and supported about 400 field promoters, each of whom works with an average of 8 to 10 farmers (for a reach of about 3200 farmers as of early 2023).

Over the past several years, we have learned that some extensionists and promoters are more effective than others in leading and supporting farmers through the FFS methodology, so it is key to constantly update and upgrade participants' skills. To build the capacity of extensionists and promoters, ALRI organizes seasonal training events - "technical field schools" - designed for this purpose. These field schools serve as spaces for peer learning where the top performing field extensionists and field promoters lead learning sessions on farms with their peers.

Starting in 2021, the network of field promoters organized themselves into a "Farmer Promoter Network." Representatives of the Farmer Promoter Network participate on a newly formed Landscape Management Council (see below).

The structure and strategy of the extension model has evolved based on experience and recommendations from the government and NGO partners that form part of the multi-actor extension network. This co-design process has helped these agencies to take ownership of the model, adopt or adapt it for other projects beyond ALRI.

### C). Strengthen the capacity of local, permanent actors in territorial planning and governance.

ALRI is designed to stimulate economic opportunities for farmers and improve ecosystem services. An essential piece of the scaling strategy is strengthening local capacity for planning and managing agriculture restoration at a territorial scale. Given the predominance of agriculture in the territory and degraded state of land and water resources, the program theory of change is that as WSA expands throughout the territory,
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

improvements in agricultural practices will improve associated ecosystem services, such as water quality and soil conservation. As farmers demonstrate improvements on farms and at a territorial scale, and as local leaders in the territory organize and develop capacities for planning and management, they will have the foundation for broader *landscape-scale* interventions.<fnref n="12" />

We highlight two key points relevant this principle First, ALRI has focused on building the organizational capacity of local leaders, institutions, and organizations. The emphasis is on local, permanent actors versus supporting outside agencies that work in the landscape temporarily as project implementers. Most NGO staff employed by ALRI are themselves from communities where the program is carried out. The premise is that this network of local leaders will continue to work together beyond the life of the donor-funded program (which will expire in 2027), carrying forward the technical knowledge, capacities, and relationships (social capital) generated during the program.

Second, in 2021 leaders from more than 50 farmer organizations, community-based organizations, community water boards, and NGOs in the landscape (territory) formed a Landscape Management Council (LMC). The LMC has developed a landscape management strategy with priorities defined by its members. One of the LMC's most important and vocal groups is the Farmer Promoters Network, which has advocated for investing in sustainable agriculture and fostering agricultural markets as part of the Landscape Management Strategy.

It is too early to report on the results and long-term impacts of these landscape processes, but we expect that by empowering local leaders and giving farm leaders a role in decision-making at a territory level, there is greater potential for scaling WSA and promoting agricultural landscape restoration beyond the life of the program. We will be monitoring and reporting on these processes through the remainder of the program.

<footnote n="12">¹²See CRS 2019.</footnote>
## 5. Lessons learned and recommendations to further scale up WSA in Mesoamerican smallholder rainfed agriculture

There is considerable potential to improve the productivity and resilience (stability) of smallholder rainfed agriculture in Central America and southern Mexico with basic water-smart agriculture practices.

* Field experience and research across Mesoamerica show that by managing soil and applying appropriate basic agronomic practices, farmers can significantly improve yields and mitigate the impacts of changing climate. Agronomic practices that make the biggest difference are those which: (a) improve soil health, (b) optimize plant nutrition, and (c) increase water productivity.

* Ensuring farmers see benefits in the short-term supports buy-in and adoption, while longer-term benefits accumulate. WSA increased maize and bean yields by 26% in the first year and yields continued to rise through years 3 and 4 as soil health improved.

* A stronger R&D and investment focus in the region on improved rainwater productivity in rainfed agriculture (71% of farming in Mesoamerica) would significantly improve food security for the most vulnerable populations in the region, especially those living in rural areas who depend on rainfed agriculture for their food and livelihoods.

An evidence-based approach provides the foundation for local learning and adoption.

* Evidence from the field is essential to guide decision making by farmers, organizations, and policy makers.

* Working with local organizations and farmers to co-create evidence promotes the

appropriation and use of new knowledge in decision making.

* Selection of key indicators that are linked to the desired change, respond to the practices being implemented, and are easily measured and interpretable by local organizations and farmers, support evidence-based adaptation. Limit the number and complexity of indicators so as not to overwhelm field technicians with data collection.

* A standard soil assessment field toolbox for farmers and technicians is needed to enable easy and cost-effective soil characterization and comparability of data.

**Build capacity with the right organizations and farmers to achieve scale.**

* Collaborate with permanent actors that have the most potential to scale and sustain WSA and support them to build their capacity to access and use information and data, solve problems and make water-smart decisions.

* While the WSA program has successfully strengthened organizational technical capacity through training and validation of tools and methodologies, ongoing efforts to scale require greater emphasis on the organizational development and social networking that will help WSA program partners and allies more effectively and efficiently reach more farmers with quality services.

* The how of training is equally as important as the content. Field extensionists and promoters need training in how to facilitate innovation processes with farmers.

There is a need for innovative public and private models to provide WSA tools and services.

* Institutional infrastructure to reach farmers is costly, and resources for extension are limited.

* The region needs innovative models to provide WSA services to many farmers
at relatively low cost. Developing and
strengthening the capacity of promoter
networks to support extension services,
including local private service providers, are
promising models in development.

* Local and reliable seed systems for cover crops must be developed.

* Smallholder access to micro-financing creates opportunities for investment in new technologies.

A systems approach is required to address complex socioeconomic and agroecological challenges.

* Farmers manage complex farming systems, not plots, and in Central America and southern Mexico most farms integrate crops and livestock. Thus, WSA must widen its focus from the plot to integrated management of the farming system. There are many beneficial synergies between crops and livestock that can be further developed, especially solutions for the trade-offs between crop residue for soil enhancement and dry season livestock feed.

* Water harvesting for supplemental irrigation, to reduce overall production risks and enable diversification into cash crops, will need much greater focus and investment as rainfall becomes more erratic and the *canícula* longer and more severe.

* The full potential of cover crops is still to be realized through further diversification (species) and the optimization of temporal and spatial integration in the farming systems.

Create conditions for scaling and
institutionalization.

* Scaling is a complex development process that demands a flexible and reliable flow of financing. In a context where the overall funding environment for agriculture in Central America is shrinking, achieving scale becomes more challenging. Donors often choose to invest in short-term results

at the cost of long-term transformative and
sustainable change.

* Scaling is a complex social process requiring organizations to develop the institutional capacity and social capital to work more efficiently and effectively in supporting many farm families over time. In various countries and territories these capacities are weak or non-existent and need to be developed and strengthened, a process that takes time.

* The WSA program experience shows the importance of developing coalitions, partnerships, platforms, and networks. Many multi-actor platforms have integrated WSA goals into their strategies and planning but require additional support to successfully put those plans into action and sustain them over time.

Conclusions

Mesoamerican smallholder farmers can significantly improve the productivity and climate resilience of their rainfed agricultural systems by applying appropriate water-smart agriculture practices that restore soil health and increase rainfall productivity. Since 2015, the WSA program has been working to inspire a Mesoamerican movement for resilient rural prosperity by scaling WSA to reach 250,000 smallholder farmers with services that support increased agricultural productivity through the restoration of soil and water resources. The program has been designed from the outset to seek impacts at scale, through an innovative implementation model, that emphasizes engagement with key agricultural institutions both in research and practice to catalyze their appropriation of, and investment in, water-smart approaches, methodologies and services for smallholders. The program to date has been a productive laboratory of experimentation, innovation, and learning that has produced significant results in a relatively short period of time. However, further support for R&D and scaling is required to reach impact at scale, where WSA becomes the new normal for smallholder rainfed agriculture in Mesoamerica.
## References

Barron, J. 2012. Soil as a water resource: Some thoughts on managing soils for productive landscapes meeting development challenges. Agro Environ 2012

Barron, J., Rockström, J., Gichuki, F & Hatibu, N. 2003. Dry spell analysis and maize yields for two semi-arid locations in East Africa. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 117:23-37. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1923(03)00037-6

Beekman, G., Majluf, S.C., Espinoza, N., Benevente, E.G., Williams, D. & García-Winder, M. 2014. Water to feed the land. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA), San Jose, Costa Rica

Bossio, D. & Geheb, K. 2008. Challenge Program on Water and Food., International Water Management Institute. Conserving land, protecting water. CABI International. Cambridge, MA, USA

Bouwer, H. 1986. Intake rate: Cylinder infiltrometer, in: Klute, A., Campbell, G.S., Jacson, R.D., Mortland, M.M. & Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I, ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 825-843

Bravo-Ureta, B., Cocchi, H., Solís, D. & Rivas, T. 2003. Un análisis comparativo de tres proyectos de manejo de cuencas en América Central: Informe final. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington D.C., USA. 164 p.

Brouwer, H. & Woodhill, J. 2015. The MSP Guide - how to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Caswell, M., Méndez, V.E. & Bacon, C.M. 2012. Food security and smallholder coffee production: current issues and future directions. ARLG Policy Brief # 1. Burlington, VT, USA

CEPAL, FAO, IICA. 2009. The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas. CEPAL, FAO and IICA, San Jose, Costa Rica

Cooley, L. 2016. Scaling Up - From Vision to Large-Scale Change. A Management Framework for

Practitioners. Third Edition. Management Systems International, Arlington, VA, USA

CRS. 2015. Agriculture Practices Improving Water Productivity in Rainfed Production Systems in Central America - The Global Water Initiative. CRS, San Salvador, El Salvador

Donatti, C.I., Harvey, C.A., Martinez-Rodriguez, M.R., Vignola, R. & Rodriguez, C.M. 2019. Vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change in Central America and Mexico: current knowledge and research gaps. Climate and Development 11:264-286

Eash, L., Fonte, S.J., Sonder, K., Honsdorf, N., Schmidt, A., Govaerts, B. & Verhulst, N. 2019. Factors contributing to maize and bean yield gaps in Central America vary with site and agroecological conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science 157:300-317. doi: 10.1017/S0021859619000571

Eckstein, D., Hutfils, M.L. & Winges, M. 2019. Global Climate Risk Index 2019 Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2017 and 1998 to 2017. Germanwatch, Bonn, Germany

Falkenmark, M. & Rockström, J. 2006. The new blue and green water paradigm: Breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 132:129-132. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(129)

Falkenmark, M., Rockström, J. & Karlberg, L. 2009. Present and future water requirements for feeding humanity. Food Security 1:59-69. doi: 10.1007/s12571-008-0003-x

FAO. 2020. Small Family Farms Data Portrait. [Cited 10 May 2020]. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/data-sources/dataportrait/farm-size/en/

FAO. 2017. Chronology of the Dry Corridor: The impetus for resilience in Central America. [Cited 10 May 2020]. http://www.fao.org/in-action/agronoticias/detail/en/c/1024539/
FAO. 2018. Drought causes crop losses in “Dry Corridor” in Central America - Global Information and Early Warning System Update. [Cited 10 May 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/CA1321EN/ca1321en.pdf

FAO. 2001. Conservation agriculture Case studies in Latin America and Africa. Bulletin 78, FAO Soils. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

Faustino, J. & Booth, D. 2014. Development
Entrepreneurship: How Donors and Leaders Can Foster
Institutional Change. The Asia Foundation. Overseas
Development Institute. London, UK

Funk, C.C., Peterson, P.J., Landsfeld, M.F., Pedreros, D.H., Verdin, J.P., Rowland, J.D., Romero, B.E., Husak, G.J., Michaelsen, J.C. & Verdin, A.P. 2014. A quasi-global precipitation time series for drought monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 832

GlobalSoilMap Science Committee. 2015.
Specifications Tiered GlobalSoilMap products

Hannah, L., Donatti, C.I., Harvey, C.A., Alfaro, E., Rodriguez, D.A., Bouroncle, C., Castellanos, E., Diaz, F., Fung, E., Hidalgo, H.G., Imbach, P., Läderach, P., Landrum, J.P. & Solano, A.L. 2017. Regional modeling of climate change impacts on smallholder agriculture and ecosystems in Central America. Climate Change 141:29-45. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1867-y

Harvey C.A., Saborio-Rodríguez, M., Martinez-Rodríguez, M.R., Viguera, B., Chain-Guadarrama, A., Vignola, R., Alpizar, F. 2018. Climate change impacts and adaptation among smallholder farmers in Central America. Agriculture & Food Security 7: doi: 10.1186/s40066-018-0209-x

Hatfield, J.L., Sauer, T.J. & Prueger, J.H. 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: A review. Agronomy Journal 93:271-280. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.932271x

Havlin, J., Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L. & Beaton, J.D. (editors). 2005. Soil fertility and fertilizers: an introduction to nutrient management. 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Hengsdijk, H., Langeveld, J.W.A. 2009. Yield trends and yield gap analysis of major crops in the world. Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, Wageningen

Howley, P., Donoghue, C. & Heanue, K. 2012. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations: A panel data analysis of the use of artificial insemination among dairy farmers in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Science 4(6): 171-179

IICA. 2012. The food security situation in the Americas.
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la
Agricultura, San Jose, Costa Rica

Instituto Nacional de Estadística G e I (Mexico). 1997. El maíz en el Estado de Oaxaca. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Aguascalientes, Mexico

IPNI. 2012. 4R Plant Nutrition: A manual for improving the management of plant nutrition. International Plant Nutrition Institute, Norcross, GA, USA

Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris, R.F & Schuman, G.E. 1997. Soil Quality: A Concept, Definition, and Framework for Evaluation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61(1): 4-10

Lebel, S., Fleskens, L., Forster, P.M., Jackson, L.S. & Lorenz, S. 2015. Evaluation of *In Situ* Rainwater Harvesting as an Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change for Maize Production in Rainfed Africa. Water Resources Management 29:4803-4816. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1091-y

Maurer, E.P., Roby, N., Stewart-Frey, I.T. & Bacon, C.M. 2017. Projected twenty-first-century changes in the Central American mid-summer drought using statistically downscaled climate projections. Regional Environmental Change 17:2421-2432. doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1177-6

McGarry, D. 2006. A methodology of a Visual Soil Field Assessments Tool to support, enhance and contribute to the LADA program. FAO, Rome, Italy

McIntyre, B., Herren, H. & Wakhungu, J.W.R. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment
of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development. Washington, DC

Millar, J. & Connell, J. 2010. Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems change: The case of forages and livestock production in Laos. *Agriculture and Human Values* 27:213–225. doi: 10.1007/s10460-009-9194-9

Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bindraban, P., Hanjra, M.A. & Kijne, J. 2009. Improving agricultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution. *Agricultural Water Management* 97:528–535. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023

Oldeman, L.R. 1991. Global Extent of Soil Degradation. ISRIC, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Owens, P., Dorantes, M., Fuentes, B., Libohova, Z. & Schmidt, A. 2020. Taking digital soil mapping to the field: Lessons learned from the water smart agriculture soil mapping project in Central America. *Geoderma Regional* 22: e00285. doi: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2020. e00285

Prins, C. 2004. El largo camino de Madeleña en El Salvador: sus rutas y resultados. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (CATIE) 43: 132-141.

Rockström, J., Barron, J. & Fox, P. 2002. Rainwater management for increased productivity among small-holder farmers in drought prone environments. *Physics and Chemistry of the Earth* 27:949–959. doi: 10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00098-0

Rockström, J., Barron, J. & Fox, P. 2009. Water productivity in rain-fed agriculture: challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought-prone tropical agroecosystems. p. 145–162. In Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI. Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Hoff, H., Rost, S., Gerten, D. 2009. Future water availability for global food production: The potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. *Water Resour Res* 45:1–16. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006767

Sanginga, T. & Woomer, P. 2009. Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa: principles, practices and developmental process. TSBF-CIAT, Nairobi, Kenya

Schmidt, A., Eitzinger, A., Sonder, K., Sain, G., Rizo, L., Rodriguez, B., Hellin, J., Fisher, M., Läderach, P., San Vicente, F. & Robertson, R. 2012). Tortillas on the Roaster (TOR) Central American Maize-Bean Systems and the Changing Climate Full Technical Report. CRS, CIMMYT and CIAT, Baltimore, USA

SEMARNAT. 2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-021-RECNAT-2000. Que establece las especificaciones de fertilidad, salinidad y clasificacion de suelos. Estudios, muestreo y analisis. Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de Mexico.

Siebert, S. & Döll, P. 2010. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. *Journal of Hydrology* 384:198–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.031

Speratti, A., Turmel, M.S., Calegari, A., Araujo, C.F., Violic, A., Wall, P. & Govaerts, B. 2015. Conservation agriculture in Latin America. In: Conservation Agriculture. Springer International Publishing, pp 391–415

Turmel, M-S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N. & Govaerts, B. 2015. Crop residue management and soil health: A systems analysis. *Agricultural Systems* 134:6–16. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009

van der Zee Arias, A., van der Zee, J., Meyrat, A., Poveda, C. & Picado, L. 2012. Caracterización del Corredor Seco Centroamericano - Países CA-4. Tomo I. Fundación Internacional Acción Contra el Hambre (ACF), Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), Dirección General de Ayuda Humanitaria y Protección Civil de la Comisión Europea (ECHO), Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Verbist, K., Maureira, H. & Aroche, R. 2018. Atlas de la Canícula de América Central y el Caribe. UNESCO, CAZALAC, La Sirena, Chile

Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D.J., Robinson, K. & Geobey, S. 2014. Five Configurations for Scaling Up Social Innovation: Case Examples of Nonprofit Organizations From Canada. *The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science* 50:234–260. doi: 10.1177/0021886314532945
WFP. 2019. Erratic weather patterns in the Central American Dry Corridor leave 1.4 million people in urgent need of food assistance - World Food Programme. [Cited 5 May 2020]. https://www.wfp.org/news/erratic-weather-patterns-central-american-dry-corridor-leave-14-million-people-urgent-need

WHO. 2010. Nine steps for developing a scaling-up strategy. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S. & Jochemsen, H. 2016. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 36: doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z

Wild, L., Booth, D. & Valters, C. 2017. Putting theory into practice How DFID is doing development differently. London, UK

Woltering, L., Fehlenberg, K., Gerard, B., Ubels, J. & Cooley, L. 2019. Scaling – from “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at scale: A critical shift in mindset. *Agricultural Systems* 176:102652. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102652

WSA-CRS. 2020. Metodología Formación de Formadores del Programa Mesoamericano Agua y Suelo para la Agricultura. Water Smart Agriculture Program. CRS, Managua, Nicaragua

Zurek, M.B. 2002. Induced Innovation and Productivity-Enhancing, Resource-Conserving Technologies in Central America: The Supply of Soil Conservation Practices and Small-Scale Farmers' Adoption in Guatemala and El Salvador. Ph.D.Thesis. Justus-Liebig-Universität, Giessen, Germany

## Acknowledgments

The Water Smart Agriculture Program for Mesoamerica and the Agriculture Landscape Restauration Initiative (ALRI) in El Salvador were made possible by the continued financial support and vision of The Howard G. Buffett Foundation. The work described in this Case Study has been carried out by the dedicated CRS WSA teams in Honduras: Luis Welchez, Miguel Flores, Carlos Zelaya, Gisela Cabrera, Marco Trejo, Carlos Bonilla; Nicaragua: Jorge Castellon, Rodolfo Valdivia, Ariel Espinosa, Juan Ortiz, Roger Rodriguez, Jorge Martinez, Felipe Pilarte; El Salvador: Jaime Tobar, Jose Cristóbal Escobar, Douglas Saleh, Quirino Argueta, Fernando Vásquez, Luis Torres, Norma Minero; Guatemala: Jayron Zaldaña, Andrés Búcaro, Silvia Salazar, Marisol Amador, Jorge Oliveros, Dan McQuillan; Oaxaca: Marco Antonio Gonzalez, Severiano Martinez, Miriam Arcos, Cecilia Suarez; Regional: Jose Angel Cruz, Mar Martin, Juan Carlos Trejo, Monica Mata, Hugh Aprile; and the CRS ALRI team in El Salvador: Adam Keough, Francisco Casares, Daniel Torres, Herman Rosa, Deborah Barry. Likewise, we want to acknowledge the work of our numerous partners and collaborators listed in Figure 11. Special thanks to Fernando Vásquez (CRS-Salvador) and Kai Sonder (CIMMYT) for their collaboration on the maps.
# Scaling-up agriculture water management interventions for building system resilience in Bundelkhand region of Central India

Kaushal K. Garg<fnref n="1" />, Anantha K.H.<fnref n="1" />, Jennie Barron<fnref n="2" />, Ramesh Singh<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />, Inder Dev<fnref n="3" />, Sreenath Dixit<fnref n="1" />, Anthony M Whitbread<fnref n="1" />

## Summary

This case study provides evidence for combating drought, and achieving sustainable crop intensification, in rainfed areas of Bundelkhand region, Central India. The Garkundar-Dabar and Parasai-Sindh watersheds were developed as proof of concept by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research-Central Agroforestry Research Institute (ICAR-CAFRI) and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) between 2006 and 2016. This study indicates pathways for harnessing the potential of rainfed areas by implementing various agricultural water management (AWM) interventions. Rainwater harvesting measures, especially rejuvenation of the *haveli* system (traditional rainwater harvesting system of the region), along with various *in situ* water harvesting interventions, were found promising for addressing water scarcity and strengthening various ecosystem services. Water harvesting measures, improved agricultural practices (such as balanced fertilizer application, introduction of climate-smart crop cultivars, weed and pest management) and supplemental irrigation, enhanced crop

yield by 30-50% and cropping intensity from 80 to 150%. Enhanced groundwater availability (2-2.5 m additional head) helped to reduce crop risk, through the availability of supplemental irrigation and enhanced cropping intensity, as large areas of fallow land were converted to cultivation. AWM interventions also helped to enhance base flow (35-42 days to 110-122 days), control floods, soil erosion and land degradation (by about 33%), and enhance land and water use efficiency (40-70%). Since 2017, lessons from these model watersheds have been scaled up in all seven districts of Uttar Pradesh Bundelkhand region, by an ICRISAT-led consortium. This study explores the potential of rainfed areas that are achievable through the adoption of AWM interventions. It suggests that the role of extension, through capacity building and exposure of various stakeholders to AWM, is key to harnessing the potential of drylands. In order to further scale up such innovations to the entire region, it is important to involve knowledge generating and knowledge dissemination institutes, along with central and federal machineries. Involvement of private and non-governmental organizations as well will help achieve system level outcomes.

<footnote n="1">¹International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, Telangana State, India</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Indian Council of Agriculture Research-Central Agroforestry Research Institute, Jhansi, India</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

India is one of the fastest developing economies in the world, with large human resource availability. Agriculture is the major source of livelihoods for about 55% of the workforce. The country has 142 million ha of cultivable land. About 55% of this is under rainfed systems, which provide about 45% of India's food requirements (GoI, 2015). Rainfed agricultural lands suffer largely from water scarcity, land degradation and low productivity, which coincide with widespread poverty and malnutrition (Rockstrom and Karlberg, 2009). To address such problems, India has since the 1960s adopted a holistic approach of integrated natural resource management for sustainable crop intensification, with the introduction of river valley projects to ensure food security. This has evolved over time with new lessons and experiences. Between 1970-80, the focus was mainly landscape protection and erosion control, with the implementation of field bunding as an in situ soil conservation measure.

This benefited the community, but due to its compartmental nature the full potential benefits were not realized. As the approach followed was contractual, community participation was lacking. This is crucial for the sustainability of AWM interventions. The approach was modified in subsequent decades (1990s), and a water conservation component was also included. A number of rainwater harvesting structures were constructed, which generated benefits in terms of increased groundwater recharge and crop intensification. Although there was increased groundwater availability, farmers in rainfed areas were cultivating traditional, poor yielding crop cultivars. To improve the productivity of small and marginal farms a new productivity enhancement concept was introduced in the late 1990s. This was crucial to addressing food insecurity along with crop intensification. Further, to ensure participation and address equity in benefit sharing, efforts were made to include the landless and women (Figure 1).

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Journey of watershed management programs in India since 1980</figcaption></figure>

Source: Authors' elaborations based on literature review
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Land use, or land cover status, in India from 1950 onwards (in million ha). Total geographical area of the country is 328.27 m ha. However, this figure only shows areas for which land use statistical data is available (Data source: GoI, 2015).</figcaption></figure>

With the aim of addressing social equity, the Government of India enacted a corporate social responsibility law in 2013. This requires every company with a net worth of about 80 million USD or more, to spend 2% of total earnings on social welfare programs such as education, health, sanitation, and agriculture (GoI, 2014). After realizing the potential of such investments for improved natural resource management, a significant amount of corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds began to be diverted to AWM interventions.

Figure 2 shows the change in land use, or land cover status, in India from 1950 onwards. The net sown area has been increased from 118 million ha in 1950, to 140 million ha in 1980, by converting fallow and wasteland to cultivation. Further, permanent pasture land has increased from 6.68 million ha to 11.97 million ha between 1950 and 1980, and slightly decreased by 2011.

Figure 3 describes the change in source-based net irrigated area in India since 1950. It is evident that the total irrigated area in the country has

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Change in source-based net irrigated area (million ha) in India between 1951 and 2013 (Data source: GoI, 2015)</figcaption></figure>
increased from 20 million ha in 1950 to about 65 million ha in 2013. Until 1970 irrigation sources were surface and open wells or tanks. Despite a huge public investment made in order to enhance surface irrigation (major reservoirs, canal command areas), this contributed merely 18 million ha out of the 65 million ha net area irrigated in 2013. Groundwater resources (open and borewells) contributed nearly 40 million ha, largely through farmer led private investments. With increases in pump technology and energy subsidies, large amounts of rainfed areas have been brought under supplemental irrigation. As such there are no areas left that are completely rainfed. Large-scale welfare schemes by the Government of India (e.g., watershed programs, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), etc) have also supported such developments<fnref n="1" />. Therefore, in this study a rainfed system is not only referring to completely rainfed, but also capturing supplemental irrigation.

A number of impact studies that have been undertaken by different agencies. These reveal that 99% of watershed works generate a benefit-cost ratio of more than one. However, there is a skewed distribution. High performing watershed projects are from knowledge-based institutions in which needs based, science led interventions were implemented (Joshi et al., 2008; Wani et al., 2008, 2011, 2020; Garg et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2014). Watersheds representing medium rainfall, ranging from 700-1000 mm, performed relatively better, as interventions addressed water scarcity and these watersheds were not prone to floods. However, there is huge scope for improvement in designing and implementing interventions. For example, increasing climate variability must now be addressed when designing them. This study of a rainfed dominated, agro-ecological landscape in the Bundelkhand region, describes innovations in AWM interventions at the community and watershed scale. It details interventions, actions, and outcomes in terms of rainfed production and productivity, alongside selected social and environmental impacts. Based on this case, the

scaling up approach to intensify rainfed agro-ecological landscapes, which ICRISAT and partners have been involved in since 2006, is then discussed.

## 2. Bundelkhand region, Central India

Bundelkhand is a hotspot of water scarcity and land degradation, vulnerable to climate variability. The total area of the region is 2.94 million ha, of which 69% is net sown area, 8% (0.236 million ha) under forest, with the rest under non-agricultural use, barren or cultivable waste (Gupta et al., 2014). The region has experienced severe drought conditions in six of the last ten years. Long term weather data, monitored at Jhansi station (a district of Bundelkhand), shows that annual average rainfall in the study region is 877mm (standard deviation, σ = 251mm), about 85% falling between June and September. The number of rainy days during the monsoon, and non-monsoon, periods are on average 42 and 13, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, long-term data analysis reveals that average annual rainfall has decreased from 950mm (1944-1973), to 847mm (1974-2004). This reduction was mainly due to the decreased number of low (0-10mm) and medium (30-50mm) rainfall events (Figure 4). Similarly, the total number of rainy days in a year also decreased. This has had an adverse impact on the regional scale water balance, especially in terms of groundwater recharge (Singh et al., 2014). It also has severe implications for the rainfed production system, in terms of a bias towards events of greater volume and intensity, and fewer events per season, affecting soil moisture patterns for crop growth.

A study undertaken by Rao et al. (2013) on climate change in the Bundelkhand region showed that about 581,000 ha, which had previously experienced a semi-arid, moist climate, has shifted towards a drier climate (both semi-arid dry and typical arid climates) as shown in Figure 5. Jalaun and Jhansi districts have witnessed great changes in climate between 1961-1990 and 1991-

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/schemes</footnote>
2013. Jalaun has lost all its semi-arid moist areas (233,000 ha), which have become drier, 167,000 ha becoming semi-arid dry climate areas, and 66,000 ha becoming typic arid climate. Perhaps this is the first time that the typic arid climate type has been seen in Jalaun district. Hamirpur district also witnessed about 2,000 ha changing to typic arid climate. Jhansi district also shows a large shift with 213,000 ha of semi-arid moist type becoming semi-arid dry type. Lalitpur and Chitrakoot districts also show increasing dryness. Out of seven districts, only two (Mahoba and Banda) show a slight increase in wetness. They have more areas under semi-arid moist climatic type now compared with the period between 1961-90. This affects about 9.6 million people in the Mahoba and Banda region (~0.35 million households) (Gupta et al., 2014).

Agriculture, and related sectors, are the main rural population livelihood sources (Shakeel et al., 2012). A diverse cropping system is followed in Bundelkhand; groundnut, black gram,

sesame, and millet are the main crops cultivated during the *Kharif* season (June/July-October/November). Wheat, chickpea, barley, mustard, and lentils are grown during the *Rabi* season (November/December-February/March) (refer to crop calendar in Table 1). Due to undulating topography, poor groundwater potential, high temperatures and highly variable rainfall, agricultural productivity is very low (0.2–2.0 t ha⁻¹). Most areas are single cropped, completely under rainfed conditions, during the two cropping seasons. Bundelkhand is largely dependent on groundwater resources for domestic and agricultural use. Water levels in open and dug wells (4–8 m deep) deplete very fast after the monsoon (November-May). Communities suffer from water scarcity, especially in summer. Bundelkhand has 44% of cropland under irrigation, out of which 41% is under surface irrigation schemes (canal command area), and 59% irrigated through groundwater sources (dugwells and borewells) (Gupta et al., 2014).

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4 (a): Moving average (10 years) of rainfall received from different categories of rain events between 1945 and 2004; (b) Comparing annual rainfall between 1945-1974 and 1975-2004
(Data source: India Meteorological Department, 2005;)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Change in climate patterns at district level in the Bundelkhand region (Source: Rao et al., 2013)</figcaption></figure>

The socio-economic status of Bundelkhand is characterized by high poverty (30-55% across districts), low literacy rates (57%, and women's literacy is a mere 43%), and high vulnerability of women and landless people, due to adverse climatic conditions (NITI Aayog, 2016). The operational landholding size in Bundelkhand is 1.53 ha. About 77% of land owners own just 39% of the land (NITI Aayog, 2016), which shows the skewed distribution among the farming community.

A large gender equity gap exists Bundelkhand. Women are deprived of basic opportunities as they are largely engaged in domestic chores (fetching drinking water long distances, cattle management, collecting fuel wood, preparation of dung cakes, etc.) and affected by drudgery. Due to the lack of livelihood opportunities, a large portion of the male population migrates to nearby cities or to secure labour work (mining, masonry, or as a security guard or driver) leaving women and livestock behind. This has led to various socio-economic shocks affecting women, with

a high rate of drudgery. Further, the nutritional status of women and children is very poor, leading to poor health (Varua et al., 2018; Mitra and Rao, 2019; Padmaja et al., 2020).

Inappropriate policies relating to natural resource management have led to failures in formal and informal institutions and a lack of collective action. Results include; defunct traditional rainwater harvesting systems (haveli system), weakening of the agro-pastoral system, inequitable distribution of the benefits derived from natural resources, and the loss of various ecosystem services (declining base flow, deforestation, land degradation) (Sahu et al., 2015; Meter, et al., 2016; Reddy et al., 2018).

In order to meet local and national food and water security ambitions, alongside rural development targets, there is a need to improve the rainfed dominant livelihood systems. The situation is a complex mix of climatic and environmental changes, alongside policy and social inertia (or in some cases collapse). Mobilizing capital
and knowledge to progress from this state is particularly challenging in rainfed systems.

## 3. Pilot sites for rainfed systems intensification

This study presents the experience of two mesoscale watershed pilot projects, in the Bundelkhand region, which were then followed by scaling up initiatives (Figure 6). The Garkunder-Dabar (GKD) watershed is located in the Tikamgarh district of Madhya Pradesh. Interventions there were conceptualised and implemented by ICAR-CAFRI between 2006 and 2011. The Parasai-Sindh (PS) watershed interventions were implemented jointly by ICRISAT and ICAR-CAFRI between 2012 and 2016. Both watersheds are part of the Betwa river catchment of the Yamuna sub-basin. Yamuna is one of the tributaries of the Ganges (Ganga) River in Northern India, a large portion of the sub-basin lies in Bundelkhand region. The

location of Bundelkhand is such that it acts as a gateway between the north and south of India, and it has previously acted as political hub (Tyagi, 1997). A large number of the inhabitants of the Bundelkhand region are mainly dependent on rainfed crops, and livestock based activities. Approximately 33% of the total geographical area is covered by degraded forest, grazing land and wasteland (UPWSRP, 2001). Due to undulating topography, high temperatures, and poor and erratic rainfall, agricultural productivity in the region is poor.

The total geographical area of the GKD watershed is 850 ha. Of that, 264 ha is agricultural land, the rest covered by deciduous forest or wasteland. The PS watershed is 1250 ha, 90% of which is under agricultural use. The topography of the GKD watershed is steep with slopes ranging from 2-15%, whereas slopes in the PS watershed are relatively flat (1-3%), see Table 2a.

Soils in the region are reddish to brownish red in color (Alfisols and Entisols), shallow (10-50cm),

<table><caption>Table 1: Crop calendar for major crops in Bundelkhand region; Kharif season coincides with the monsoon whereas the Rabi season coincides with winter (Source: Singh et al, 2014; Garg et al., 2020)</caption><thead><tr><th>Season</th><th>Crops</th><th>Crop Duration (days)</th><th>Irrigation status</th><th>Jun</th><th>July</th><th>Aug</th><th>Sept</th><th>Oct</th><th>Nov</th><th>Dec</th><th>Jan</th><th>Feb</th><th>Mar</th><th>Apr</th><th>May</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Kharif</td><td>Black gram</td><td>70-75</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sesame</td><td>70-75</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Millet</td><td>90-100</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Groundnut</td><td>110-120</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sorghum</td><td>120-130</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pigeonpea</td><td>200-240</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Rabi</td><td>Mustard</td><td>110-130</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lentil</td><td>110-130</td><td>Rainfed</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chickpea</td><td>120-130</td><td>1-2 irrigations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Field pea</td><td>120-130</td><td>1-2 irrigations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Barley</td><td>120-130</td><td>2-3 irrigations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wheat</td><td>120-140</td><td>3-5 irrigations</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
coarse gravelly, light textured with low water-
holding capacity in the root zone (80-100mm/m),
and low levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and
organic carbon. Groundwater is the primary
water source for domestic and agricultural use.

Borewells do not work in these areas due to the
hard rock aquifers (granite) and poor specific
yields (<1%). Landscape topography, land use
and demographic details of study watersheds are
shown in Tables 2a and 2b.

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Location of pilot watersheds in Bundelkhand region (Source: Garg et al, 2020)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Table 2a: Landscape topography, land use and demographic details, along with socio-economic and environmental impact indicators of the GKD and PS watersheds, and nearby control watersheds (Garg et al, 2020; Singh et al, 2014)</caption><thead><tr><th>Indicator</th><th>Garhkundar-Dabar Ws (treated)</th><th>Control</th><th>Parasai-Sindh Ws (treated)</th><th>Control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Shivrampur Ws</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>State</td><td>Madhya Pradesh</td><td>Madhya Pradesh</td><td>Uttar Pradesh</td><td>Madhya Pradesh</td></tr><tr><td>District</td><td>Niwari (erstwhile Tikamgarh)</td><td>Niwari (erstwhile Tikamgarh)</td><td>Jhansi</td><td>Jhansi</td></tr><tr><td>Villages</td><td>Garhkundar, Shivrampu, Rautiana, Dabar, Sakuli, Ubaura</td><td>Shivrampur, Dabar</td><td>Parasai, Chhatpur Bachhauni,</td><td>Hatlab</td></tr><tr><td>Project period</td><td>2006-2011</td><td>2006-2011</td><td>2012-2016</td><td>2012-2016</td></tr><tr><td>Location (Lat/Long)</td><td>270 27'N; 780 53' E</td><td></td><td>25° 23' 47.6" N; 78° 22' 33.0" E</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Watershed area (ha)</td><td>850</td><td>298</td><td>1246</td><td>1100</td></tr><tr><td>Population</td><td>980</td><td>325</td><td>3000</td><td>2800</td></tr><tr><td>No. of households</td><td>152</td><td>36</td><td>417</td><td>395</td></tr><tr><td>Land use</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture</td><td>260</td><td>136</td><td>1105</td><td>950</td></tr><tr><td>Degraded forest</td><td>506</td><td>125</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Wasteland (Scrub land)</td><td>40</td><td>16</td><td>66</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>44</td><td>20</td><td>69</td><td>79</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2b: Other impact indicators of GKD (2006-2011) and PS (2012-2016) watershed, and nearby control watersheds (Data source: Singh et al., 2014; Garg et al, 2020)</caption><thead><tr><th>Indicator</th><th>Garhkundar-Dabar Ws (treated)</th><th>Control Shivrampur Ws</th><th>Parasai-Sindh Ws (treated)</th><th>Control</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No. of days baseflow received</td><td>110</td><td>35</td><td>122</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Average annual soil loss (t/ha)</td><td>1.5-6.5</td><td>3-11.5</td><td>1-4.3</td><td>4-13.6</td></tr><tr><td>Storage capacity of ex situ WHS (m³)</td><td>25000</td><td>5000</td><td>115000</td><td>15000</td></tr><tr><td>Harvesting ratio to total storage capacity</td><td>8.2 - 9.5</td><td>2-3</td><td>3 to 7</td><td>1.5-3</td></tr><tr><td>No. of dug wells</td><td>116</td><td>42</td><td>388</td><td>296</td></tr><tr><td>Average depth (m)</td><td>8.7 (std 2.4)</td><td>8.7 (std 2.2)</td><td>9.2 (std 1.5)</td><td>10.5 (std 1.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Average water table depth (m)</td><td>4.6</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.9</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Average pumping hours</td><td>125</td><td>62</td><td>156</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>% wells dry in December</td><td>1.7</td><td>21</td><td>3</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>% wells dry in May</td><td>3</td><td>38</td><td>5</td><td>32</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4. Rainfed crop systems innovations and practices promoted

Multiple technologies and practices were introduced in consultation with; farmers, the community and the research team. Based on consultations, some existing technologies were improved, and others were introduced as new practices to the area. Here we list the principal strategies and social approaches, relating to farming system technologies, used to achieve agricultural intensification of the rainfed systems.

### *In situ* and *ex situ* water conservation measures

Soil and water conservation practices are categorised into: *in situ* measures, and *ex situ* measures. *In situ* measures enhance soil moisture availability, and reduce non-productive evaporation through various agronomic and engineering interventions. These facilitate the harvesting of rainfall where it falls. Contour farming, field bunding, terracing, broad bed furrow, and mulching are examples of *in situ* measures. *Ex situ* measures are interventions that harvest and store surface runoff at different landscape scales, through the construction of low-cost, water harvesting structures such as farm ponds, tanks, check dams, percolation tanks and the *haveli* system.

### Field bunding and agroforestry

*In situ* water harvesting (e.g. contour/graded bunds) enhances soil moisture availability and controls soil erosion (Garg et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2014). Larger fields are divided into smaller sizes, such that the runoff velocity is reduced, and a fraction of the runoff is harvested across the field bunds. The cross section of these bunds is about 0.8-1.0 m². Field outlets, with stone pitching, were constructed to guide the disposal of excess runoff. Deciduous teak trees, a suitable species, were planted at the base of the field bund, at three meter intervals, to strengthen the bund and also as an additional, long-term income source income for farmers.

### Rejuvenation of *haveli* tanks

A number of public welfare programs (PMKSY, Watershed Development Program, MGNREGA) are being implemented to mitigate droughts. Recognising the importance of the *haveli* structures, which comprise a traditionally built tank to collect surface runoff, significant efforts were made by farmers in collaboration with project team to repair and maintain them. However, during heavy downpours earthen embankments were eroded, despite the thick embankment walls, because soils in this region have poor binding ability (having course texture and poor in organic matter). Rodent burrowing also led to embankment damage. Thousands of such structures, currently defunct, are found in Bundelkhand. These hold large untapped potential for rainwater harvesting (Shah, 2003). To capitalise on these, ICAR-CAFRI and ICRISAT introduced the core-wall concept, beneath the entire *haveli* embankment wall, and built safe outlets at suitable locations, to dispose of excess runoff. A reinforced cement stone wall, with a foundation up to 2m deep, was built to a suitable height for harvesting surface runoff. The core wall was then covered with soil, so that it is not exposed to harsh weather, enhancing its stability and lifespan. Identification of appropriate sites, adoption of suitable designs appropriate to the location, hydrology and other safety parameters, were important aspects of rejuvenating the *haveli* system.

Generally, *havelis* occupy only 2-3% of the village landscape, and submerge upstream areas during the rainy season. Provision to draw water from the *haveli* structure is given so that after September/ October farmers can empty the tank and utilize the fields for *Rabi* cultivation. The productivity of the *haveli* fields is relatively high since they hold more moisture, humus and nutrients. Increased groundwater availability also helps in intensifying cropping to a large extent. The life expectancy of the structure can be greater than 50 years, when constructed in stone, and with proper provision for draining excess rainwater.

Table 3 compares the unit harvesting cost of different structure types (*ex situ*). *Haveli* structures are found to be more cost effective, as they harvest surface water and also have a long life span compared to other structures, such as farm
<table><caption>Table 3: Comparative analysis of the unit cost of different types of water harvesting structures (Source: Authors' elaborations based on primary data collection)</caption><thead><tr><td>Structure type</td><td>Harvesting capacity (m³)</td><td>Unit harvesting cost (USD/m³)</td><td>Life span (years)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Haveli structure</td><td>30000-50000</td><td>0.40</td><td>> 50</td></tr><tr><td>Farm pond</td><td>300-1000</td><td>1.25</td><td>15-20</td></tr><tr><td>Check dam -ICRISAT/CAFRI</td><td>1500-5000</td><td>4.00</td><td>20-30</td></tr><tr><td>Check dam - Govt. Dept.</td><td>1500-5000</td><td>10.00</td><td>5-10</td></tr></tbody></table>

ponds and check dams. Construction of *haveli* submerge 2-3% of community or private land, so the stakeholders must agree to implement them. During the monsoon period this land is submerged. However, farmers then have the opportunity to cultivate post-monsoon crops, with the benefits of residual moisture and increased decomposed organic carbon levels, resulting in greater productivity (Sahu et al., 2015).

## Construction of check dams

To enhance groundwater recharge, a series of check dams along the drainage line were constructed following the ridge to valley approach. These check dams are reinforced stone masonry structures, nearly 1.5-2 meters in height, with a rectangular weir to dispose of excess surface runoff during flood events. Storage capacity of these structures is between 2000m³ and 10,000m³ depending on drainage density, topographical features and stream width.

## Farmer participatory demonstrations

There is a yield gap in rainfed crop production in Bundelkhand region, which can be bridged through various land, water, nutrient and crop management interventions. For example, the average yield between 2010 and 2014 obtained in Bundelkhand was 2180kg ha⁻¹, compared

with 2988kg ha⁻¹ in Uttar Pradesh overall, and 3060kg ha⁻¹ across India. Similarly, chickpea yield in Bundelkhand during the same period was 770kg ha⁻¹, compared to 950kg ha⁻¹ in Uttar Pradesh overall, and 940kg ha⁻¹ across India. Many farmers in Bundelkhand follow conventional crop management practices, due to lack of knowledge, poor infrastructure, poor affordability and risk aversion. To raise their awareness, and knowledge, of improved practices, ICRISAT and partners demonstrated best management practices, with farmer participation (including women and youth), with the aim of fostering higher productivity. A number of best agronomic management practices were introduced and showcased. This included soil testing for soil nutrient management, improved crop cultivars, and integrated pest, disease and weed management, which all operate to maximize the benefit of improved soil moisture status. In Bundelkhand, mechanization in agriculture is not widely practiced and therefore, needs-based mechanization interventions, such as use of zero-tillage and laser land leveler, were also introduced. This has reduced labour and the energy cost of irrigation application, and also enhanced water use efficiency. Moreover, use of a zero-tillage, multi-crop planter helped reduce seed quantity use and the cost of cultivation, as well as encouraging line sowing, and most importantly encouraged better utilization of residue soil moisture available in the surface soil layer. More than 250 farmer participatory demonstrations, on various best management practices, were undertaken to support the capacity of farmers to adopt improved technologies.
Box 1: Renovation of *havelis*: bringing a lost tradition to life

Between the 10th and 13th century, the Chandela dynasty of Bundelkhand region took keen interest in conserving water as a means of supporting livelihoods and the development of the region. To address water scarcity and recharge groundwater, they established a network of several hundred tanks, called *havelis*. These structures were constructed in a toposequence, with 50-100 meter earthen embankments, 5-8 meters wide, in such a way that they harvest surface runoff (Shah, 2003; NITI Aayog, 2016).

Almost every village in Bundelkhand has, for a long time, had a traditional *haveli* rainwater harvesting tank system. *Havelis* were built 2-3 meters high, across the stream network, depending on the catchment area. Runoff generated from the catchment is harvested during the monsoon and used for multiple purposes by the village community. This facilitates groundwater recharge, harvests rainwater, and also provides water for supplemental irrigation in nearby fields. Once the monsoon recedes, the impounded rainwater is drained out and the tank area prepared for cultivating Rabi crops, using the residual soil moisture. Traditionally, the community periodically took care of the maintenance of tank bunds, de-silting, repair of water outlets, and scheduling of water releases. Water drained from *haveli* tanks was used by downstream farmers for pre-sown irrigation, and surplus water was released through the drainage network. The productivity of *haveli* fields is 15-25% higher in general than nearby fields, due to the deposited silt and organic matter (Sahu et al., 2015). The *haveli* system of cultivation is an excellent example of participatory rainwater management and collective action for the management of available natural resources in Bundelkhand region.

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>
## 5. Innovation process of AWM interventions in Bundelkhand region

The innovation process to intensify the rainfed dominated production system in Bundelkhand was facilitated by a range of partners focused on knowledge transfer, capacity and awareness building. National, state and local policies have clear ambitions to enhance the rainfed dominated production systems of smallholder farmers in dryland areas, including Bundelkhand region. However, capacity and resources need to be pooled beyond local agricultural extension and advisory services. In addition, a clear strategy with recognition of the time it takes to achieve improved rainfed production to improve social and livelihood conditions, is needed. In the case of the mesoscale watersheds located in Bundelkhand, a partnership was built on the rich understanding of the region's issues by the National Agricultural Research System (NARS), together with international knowledge, based

on ICRISAT's experience of over 40 years of watershed development. It took significant effort to generate trust and interest from local communities and village institutions. Investment came from various stakeholders, and agencies such as ICAR, company corporate social responsibility programs and state government. The community invested their time in project planning, and intervention implementation. In terms of extension, farmers in the region were not aware of improved methods of cultivation (new crop varieties, machineries, package of practices). These projects have given them the opportunity to interact with researchers of various disciplines, extension officers of both the public and private sectors, and enabled these farmers to gain first-hand knowledge on improved technologies and methods. Large scale exposure visits to learning sites have generated farmer confidence to adopt these new technologies in order to realize greater benefits. Figure 7 summarises the innovation process of AWM interventions in Bundelkhand, carried out by ICRISAT, ICAR-CAFRI and partners, from 2006 onwards.

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Scaling up pathways of AWM interventions in Bundelkhand region (Source: Authors' own compilation)</figcaption></figure>
## Model watersheds in Bundelkhand region

The innovation journey began in 2006 with the ICAR-CAFRI implementing interventions in the GKD watershed. This 850 ha, mesoscale watershed in the Tikamgarh district of Madhya Pradesh state was targeted. Prior to 2006, more than 30% of the area was under degraded forest, 20% was wasteland, and 40-50% was under cultivation with a poor productivity status. ICAR-CAFRI took the lead in conceptualising, designing and implementing new AWM interventions, and regenerating existing AWM solutions. The focus was on developing technically improved rainwater harvesting structures, combined with agroforestry interventions and crop management (see section 4.2), to secure and utilise rainfall better. The project was implemented between 2006 and 2011. ICAR-CAFRI designed low cost (30-40% less compared to normal structures) but robust, water harvesting structures, better suited to the watershed environment and context. Infrastructure developed in the GKD watershed, has been contributing effectively since 2006 with no maintenance. This is due to the superior quality of the structures. We envisage that these structures will continue to serve for more than 50 years. In addition, a number of low cost gully control structures were constructed along the first order streams, at upstream locations, which helped to trap silt and control land degradation. Concurrently it reduced the sedimentation load in middle and downstream check dams. The PS watershed, developed by ICRISAT-ICAR-CAFRI (2012-2016), was different from GKD in terms of land use, land cover and slope. PS has flat terrain, with less than 2-3% slope, and is largely dominated by agriculture (>90%). The major intervention here was the renovation of the defunct, traditional *haveli* system, in addition to the above mentioned structural innovations.

The following innovations were introduced in these pilot watersheds:

* The entire structure of traditional *haveli* were reinforced with new designs informed by both farmers and researchers. The principal

aim was to meet rainfall, internal erosion, flood and burrowing challenges, and increase durability (section 4.1.2, Box 1)

* Check dam designs were improved to; stabilise structural strength, enhance the spillway, and prevent piping (due to seepage) around the structure.

* Collective farmer participation was fostered in the *haveli* renovation process, as submerged areas of the *haveli* belong to a number of farming families, and their consent for the renovation was important. Realizing the benefits of the *haveli* system, other farmers came forward to request renovation of other such structures for wider community benefit.

## KISAN MITRA in Bundelkhand region under Doubling Farmers' Initiative

Recognising the benefits of AWM interventions, combined with best management practices, the Government of Uttar Pradesh asked ICRISAT to develop sites of learning by scaling these interventions and practices in all seven districts of Bundelkhand region. This program, which took place under the Doubling Farmers' Initiative, was called the Knowledge Intensive Sustainable Network Mission India for Transforming Agriculture (KISAN MITRA).

In May 2017, with the district administration's help (District Magistrate, Chief Development Officer, Joint Director of Agriculture, Deputy Director of Agriculture), pilot sites, covering areas of about 5000 ha area (hydrological boundary), in all seven districts were identified. Two to three villages were selected, for developing as a pilot site, in each district. The project aimed to reach 20,000 households, covering a total population of 100,000. Between May 2017 and June 2018, ICRISAT developed engagement partnerships with each community, with the help of local NGOs. Based on learning from the GKD and PS watersheds, during 2006-2016, scaling efforts were
focussed on enabling water management needs to be combined with good agronomic practises in order to intensify rainfed agriculture. The process began with soil sample collection, analysis and a soil fertility management campaign. ICRISAT formed a consortium of national institutes; ICAR-CAFRI, Jhansi; ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI), Jhansi; Banda University of Agriculture and Technology (BUAT), Banda; Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation (BAIF) and local Bundelkhand region NGOs.

From June 2018 onwards, four principal interventions were promoted to raise awareness of the tested best prcatsies in waterharvesting and crop management, and improve rainfed cropping areas:

* Water interventions: a plan for implementing AWM interventions (in situ and ex situ) was developed with the aim of renovating existing structures (haveli system) and developing new in situ and ex situ water harvesting structures. These interventions created about 500,000 m³ of storage capacity, which would facilitate groundwater recharge in about 2500 acres.

* Soil interventions: a large scale, soil fertility management campaign was undertaken through wall writings and the distribution of soil health cards. 200-250 participatory farmer field demonstrations of balanced soil nutrient management were conducted. The focus was on addressing deficiencies in soil organic matter, and on restricting micro nutrients such as Zinc, Boron and Sulphur.

* Crop and agroforestry interventions were initiated in all seven pilot sites. Nearly 70,000 pits were excavated to plant teak, lemon, guava and other fruit saplings. Local ber trees were rejuvenated through budding in 228 farmers' fields. Improved crop cultivars of sesame, green gram, black gram, wheat, chickpea, field pea, mustard and barley were evaluated every cropping season, in over 2000 farmers' fields.

* Fodder and livestock interventions were initiated in all seven pilot sites. Sorted semen

technology, with a higher probability of female calf birth, was introduced. This helped to address the stray cattle menace. Improved quality feed for small ruminants was introduced to ensure better health and reduce mortality rates. Green, leguminous fodder, as a balanced diet, was also promoted.

We anticipate that these best management practices may be scaled up throughout the Bundelkhand region, including Madhya Pradesh, as a number of high level policy makers have been keenly observing and reviewing these innovations. The government further validated the impact of these interventions, through external expert agencies, to verify them and to generate positive awareness of them within state machinery.

# 6. Data monitoring and impact analysis

## Intensive data monitoring

Watersheds GKD and PS were subject to monitoring of various biophysical, hydrological, agronomic and socio-economic parameters, on both spatial and temporal scales, during the project period. This was done to better understand the process of rainfed landscape intensification, and implications for environmental and social sustainability. Water table depth was monitored in 676 dug wells (138 in GKD and 538 in PS - including some control watersheds) on a monthly time scale. This was conducted in order to understand the impact of various AWM interventions implemented during the project period. Surface runoff was monitored at selected locations using automatic gauging stations. Changes in land use, cropping patterns, and the cost of cultivation, were also measured using household surveys and remote sensing technologies.

Data collected from intensive monitoring will be used to; (i) generate evidence in order to understand key monitoring and impact indicators, which can be used by various stakeholders, including policy makers; (ii) understand the hydrological processes, land use changes and
ecosystem trade-offs; (iii) refining interventions based on the actual field, and mesoscale, data base for similar agro-ecological regions (Garg et al., 2020, submitted).

## Water balance analysis

Rainfall is the only source of water which is partitioned into various water balance components; surface runoff, groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture changes (Figure 8). A large portion of rainfall is stored as soil moisture, which is utilized by plants and trees, or evaporates from the soil surface. After satisfying the root zone, excess water which infiltrates from surface soils percolates into groundwater aquifers. Various *in situ* and *ex situ* AWM interventions help to enhance soil moisture availability, and facilitate shallow (up to 10-15 meters) groundwater recharge. These interventions harvest a significant amount of surface runoff, both in time and space.

Surface runoff was directly measured from gauging stations in the watersheds. Groundwater recharge was estimated based on the water table fluctuation method (Sharda et al., 2006; Dewandel et al., 2010; Glendenning and Vervoort, 2010; Garg and Wani, 2013; Singh et al., 2014). Evapotranspiration was estimated using the one

dimensional water balance model for different land uses (Singh et al., 2014).

## Impact of AWM interventions

Impact on water balance components Various AWM interventions have influenced watershed hydrology and provided the basis for turning this rainfed agro-ecological system into a more productive area, for the improved wellbeing of the communities living in them. Constructed water harvesting structures have harvested surface runoff, infiltrating water for soil moisture and shallow groundwater outtake. Figure 9 compares outflow generated from the GKD watershed, and a nearby control watershed, between 2006 and 2011. Data shows that surface runoff is increasing proportional to rainfall amount. No runoff was generated at 400mm or below. Nearly 80 to 150 mm of runoff is harvested by low cost water harvesting structures from year to year. Outflow was reduced by 50%, compared to a mere 10-20%, during normal and wet years (Figure 9). Figure 10 summarizes the water balance components, and other impact indicators, of the GKD and PS watersheds, along with respective nearby control watersheds. Water balance components, measured from treated and control watersheds in both the GKD and PS watersheds, show that the various *in situ* and *ex situ* water harvesting interventions have changed hydrological processes. A portion

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Hydrological processes of a mesoscale watershed in semi-arid tropics of Bundelkhand region (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Comparing different water balance components of the GKD (treated), and nearby control, watersheds, between 2006 and 2011, on an annual basis. (Source: Singh et al, 2014)</figcaption></figure>

of runoff, which was previously leaving the watershed, is now harvested as groundwater recharge and soil moisture.

For example, out of 850mm of rainfall in the GKD watershed, 34% (274mm) was generating runoff in the control watershed, whereas only 21% (164mm) generated runoff in the treated watershed. Groundwater recharge in the control watershed was 7% (59mm) vs 12% (96mm) in the treated watershed. Similar results were also found in the PS watershed (Figure 10). Notably, the number of days baseflow received increased from 35-42 days to 110-122 days, between the control and treated watersheds respectively. The data also shows that the average annual soil loss has significantly reduced (2-3 times) due to various *in situ* and *ex situ* interventions. Increased groundwater availability is reflected not only in an enhanced groundwater table (2-2.5m additional pressure head), but also in the number of pumping hours (from 62-86 to 125-156 hours in the control and treated watersheds respectively). A

higher number of wells are now yielding even in May, which is the hottest summer month (max temperature 42-470C) in the Bundelkhand region, improving temporal water security. A fraction of the harvested runoff contributed to groundwater recharge. AWM interventions have made a significant impact during dry years. For example, recharge estimated in the treated watershed was 55mm, compared to 25mm in the control watershed, under 600mm rainfall conditions. Further, our analysis revealed that achieving 55mm groundwater recharge, under non-intervention conditions, required a minimum of 1000mm rainfall. The probability of receiving 1000mm of rainfall, or above, in this region is less than 30%. However, the probability of receiving 600mm of rainfall, and above, is more than 85%. Thus, AWM interventions have built drought mitigation resilience.

Increased shallow groundwater recharge also contributes to enhanced baseflow. Under control conditions, the amount of baseflow in various
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Water balance component of GKD (2006-2011) and PS (2012-2016) watersheds, and nearby control watersheds. (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>

years was recorded as up to 30mm a year. Baseflow after AWM interventions increased by a minimum of 15 mm (Figure 9).

Groundwater table data, measured at GKD and a nearby control watershed for a selected year is shown along with received rainfall in Figure 11. The data is presented in terms of hydraulic head. An additional 1m head was found in dug wells of the GKD watershed throughout the year compared to the nearby control watershed, on an average basis (Figure 11). Figure 12 further shows

the proportion of dug wells with different head levels in the treated and the control watersheds, before monsoon (mid-June), post monsoon (mid-October) and before the summer (mid-February). 30% of the wells were found to have less than 1m head pressure in the treated watershed, compared to 50% of wells in the control. Head pressures of 1-3m and 3-5m were found in 40% of wells in the treated watershed and 10% of wells in the control. 45% of wells had 1-3m, 20% of wells had 3-5m, and 5% of wells had >5m head pressure in the treated watershed before the onset of monsoon.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Average hydraulic head measured in dug wells on bimonthly scale in treated and nearby control watershed in GKD watershed ($n_{control} = 42$; $n_{treated} = 96$) (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Status of hydraulic head in wells ($n_{control} = 42$; $n_{treated} = 96$) in different seasons, in treated and nearby control, watersheds in the GKD watershed (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>

AWM interventions made a significant change in head pressure status in treated watersheds, as 50% of wells were found to have a head pressure of more than 5m, compared to only 20% of wells with a similar status in the control watershed, in the month of October. Nearly 50% wells were found with head pressure of 3-5m or > 5m in the treated watershed by the end of February, compared to only 25% of wells of similar head status in control watershed (Figure 12).

## Crop intensification, productivity and income

With increased groundwater availability, a large amount of fallow land was converted to cultivation in the GKD watershed (Figure 13). Before these interventions, farmers left about 30% of agricultural land fallow due to water scarcity. The major of crops cultivated before the

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Change in cropping patterns in the GKD watershed, between 2006-07 and 2012-13 (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14: Change in cropped area cultivated before, and after, the watershed interventions in the PS watershed**

*(Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)*</figcaption></figure>

interventions were mustard, field pea, chickpea and other non-edible oilseeds, which were largely grown under rainfed conditions, and one or two with supplemental irrigation. With increased groundwater availability, farmers shifted their crop types from low water consuming to moderately water intensive crops, such as wheat. This requires 3-4 events of supplemental irrigation to support crop development, given this has higher economic returns to the farmer, even when including the labour cost. More than 80% of total cultivable areas shifted to the cultivation of wheat, and the other 20% to other crops. This also increased dry fodder availability, supporting livestock populations.

The water harvesting interventions and productivity enhancement activities implemented

in the PS watershed had a significant impact on water resource availability, incomes and farmer livelihoods. Water was no longer a scarce commodity. There was a surplus of both surface and groundwater, even at the end of summer. Hydrological monitoring showed that a minimum of 250,000m³ of water was harvested in storage structures, which enhanced groundwater levels by 2-5m, with an average of 2.5m compared to the baseline. These rainfed system interventions have significantly changed cropping patterns in both the *Kharif* and *Rabi* seasons (Figure 14).

With increased water availability, the cost of cultivation, especially of wheat and barley, has fallen. Prior to the project interventions, farmers would engage hired or family labour for irrigation due to the poor availability and low levels of

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15: A comparison of the yields of different Kharif and Rabi crops before and after watershed interventions**

*(Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16: NDVI mapping from remote sensing in February shows Rabi crop areas in the PS watershed before (2011), and after (2014 and 2015), the interventions. Rainfall: 2010-11: 1190 mm; 2013-14: 1270 mm; 2014-15: 520 mm. (Source: Authors' own compilation based on remote sensing analysis)</figcaption></figure>

groundwater needing high labour input. Water in open wells would become depleted within 2-3 hours of pumping. Project interventions saw a 2-5m increase in the water table in open wells, helping farmers complete irrigation quicker as they could pump water for 8-10 hours per day, thereby enhancing labour-use efficiency. By introducing improved cultivars and management practices, wheat yields increased from 1.7 t ha⁻¹ to 2.7 t ha⁻¹ (Figure 15), compounding net profit from agricultural production significantly. Wheat is a staple food for the majority of the population

in Bundelkhand region. Increased wheat production not only enhances net household income, but also addresses household food insecurity. Yield and household data collected from the pilot villages clearly demonstrated that the agriculture sector alone contributed to enhancing net incomes, from 0.41 million USD y⁻¹ to 1.14 million USD year⁻¹ across the entire watershed (Table 4). This increased net income strengthens the socio-economic and nutritional security status of households.

<table><caption>Table 4: Project impact on average household incomes before and after interventions. (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection.)</caption><thead><tr><th>Description</th><th>Before</th><th>After</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kharif area under cultivation (ha)</td><td>968</td><td>1057</td></tr><tr><td>Net income generated in Kharif (in million USD)</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>Rabi area under cultivation (ha)</td><td>797</td><td>1083</td></tr><tr><td>Net income generated in Rabi (in million USD)</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>Total net income from agriculture (in million USD)</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>Buffalo population</td><td>950</td><td>1300</td></tr><tr><td>Average milk yield (L/day/animal)</td><td>6</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Annual income from livestock (in million USD)</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Total net income (in million USD year<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.45</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>Number of households</td><td>417</td><td>417</td></tr><tr><td>Average household income (USD year<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1075</td><td>2725</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Net income is derived by deducting cost of cultivation from gross income. Cost of cultivation includes input costs, as well as family and hired labour charges.
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) mapping from remote sensing in February shows Rabi crop areas in the PS watershed before (2010-11) and after (2013-14 and 2014-15) the interventions. With increased groundwater availability, a significant amount of fallow land was converted into agricultural use, which made a significant contribution to total production and incomes, by restoring the production capacity of fallow land and increasing crop productivity, (Figure 16).

The AWM interventions also improved fodder and livestock productivity as biomass was enhanced, and fodder became more available. The number of buffaloes in project villages increased from 950 to 1,300, with increased milk productivity of 2-3 l d⁻¹ animal⁻¹. Livestock-based incomes increased from USD 0.19 million year⁻¹ to USD 0.40 million y⁻¹, a gain of USD 0.21 million year⁻¹. Altogether, average household income in the PS watershed increased from USD 1075 to USD 2725 hh⁻¹ year⁻¹, clearly indicating the co-benefits that interventions in Bundelkhand region present (enabling a doubling of farmer incomes) (Table 4). The interventions also enhanced ecosystem services; greater greenery, more tree biomass, reduced soil erosion, and carbon sequestration. Drudgery and migration levels fell significantly in the pilot villages, with increased availability of water for agriculture and livelihood opportunities.

## Empowering young professionals

It is important to develop human resources skills, including those of rural youth. This initiative recognized the opportunity to involve local youth, as young professionals working for the project and acting as ambassadors of the best management practices (BMPs) in their respective locations. These young professionals acted as catalysts, ensuring the participation of a large number of beneficiaries. In addition, the BMPs have been demonstrated in a large number of farmer fields, which has addressed two important issues: (i) building the capacity of individual farmers, (ii) dissemination of BMPs to fellow farmers with a view to scaling up. For example, laser land leveling work was initially demonstrated in a few farmer

fields, after realizing the benefits (improved irrigation efficiency and reduced labour cost for irrigation application) more farmers came forward to adopt the technology. Further, a few young farmers were willing to offer this intervention as a business opportunity in which they could be service providers. We chose one or two masons from Bundelkhand districts and helped them to work at Jhansi (one of the pilot sites), in order to enhance the skills of masons to expedite scaling up. They were given hands-on training on how to construct check dams: excavation, reducing the width of the foundation, placing iron bars, constructing various components of rainwater harvesting structures, avoiding preferential flow in varied situations, and the quality of materials required. 15 masons were trained in April 2019 at Jhansi and then deputed to their respective districts to undertake water harvesting activities. Regular follow-ups and guidance were provided by the CAFRI and ICRISAT teams.

## Bridging yield gaps through best management practices

A stratified soil sampling method (~25-30 ha/ sample) was used to collect 1219 geo-referenced soil samples from 20 pilot villages across seven districts during March-May 2018. Analysis of the soil test results shows that farmer fields are degraded in terms of soil organic carbon (SOC) and key nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), boron, zinc, iron and sulphur as well as pH. Low SOC levels also indicate N deficiency. Deficiencies were observed, in available P mainly in four districts, and of K in two districts. Bearing these results in mind, the cost of phosphatic and potash fertilizers can be optimized. However, there was also widespread deficiency in micro nutrients: sulphur (60-97%), zinc (27-95%), boron (12-76%), and iron (1-59%). Farmers were not aware of micronutrient deficiencies and do not replenish these nutrients. This poses a challenge in terms of realizing productivity potential.

Results from the soil health tests were shared with various stakeholders (farmers and government officers) at formal and informal meetings and
<table><caption>Table 5: Average crop yields (kg ha⁻¹) in various districts during the Rabi season 2018-19. Figures in parentheses are the number of crop cutting experiments undertaken (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</caption><thead><tr><th>District</th><th>Chickpea</th><th>Field peas</th><th>Mustard</th><th>Wheat</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hamirpur</td><td>1900 (10)</td><td>2475 (09)</td><td>1500 (11)</td><td>3400 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>Banda</td><td>1230 (16)</td><td>-</td><td>1560 (16)</td><td>4150 (17)</td></tr><tr><td>Jalaun</td><td>2745 (8)</td><td>3150 (12)</td><td>2510 (10)</td><td>3400 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>Jhansi</td><td>2060 (20)</td><td>1470 (5)</td><td>710 (8)</td><td>4100 (19)</td></tr><tr><td>Lalitpur</td><td>1835 (11)</td><td>2100 (9)</td><td>1400 (9)</td><td>3930 (11)</td></tr><tr><td>Mahoba</td><td>1260 (10)</td><td>2200 (5)</td><td>1000 (8)</td><td>4400 (25)</td></tr><tr><td>Chitrakoot</td><td>2020 (20)</td><td>-</td><td>1400 (6)</td><td>3950 (39)</td></tr></tbody></table>

workshops. Soil health cards showing soil nutrient status and new improved, site specific fertilizer recommendations were distributed. Block-specific information on nutrient status, and fertilizer recommendations, were summarized in public displays of wall writings for wider dissemination.

Nearly 1000 farmer participatory field demonstrations were undertaken on balanced fertilizer application and improved crop cultivars of chickpea, field peas, mustard and wheat were undertaken in Bundelkhand districts during the Rabi season of 2018-19. To evaluate both the performance of different crop cultivars and the impact of best management practices, 337 crop

cutting experiments were undertaken in seven districts.

Large yield variations were observed among the pilot sites (Table 5). The highest yields were obtained in chickpea (2745 kg ha⁻¹), field peas (3150 kg ha⁻¹) and mustard (2510 kg ha⁻¹) in Jalaun district. Chickpea recorded the lowest yield in Banda (1230 kg ha⁻¹) and Mahoba (1260 kg ha⁻¹). The lowest mustard yields were recorded in Jhansi and Mahoba. Degraded, shallow soils with poor water holding capacity was the main reason for low yields. Wheat is largely cultivated in a groundwater irrigated system, and grain yields

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17: Impact of improved crop cultivars and micronutrient application compared to farmer practices on different Rabi crops (data compiled from all the seven districts of Bundelkhand). Values above the bars denote the number of crop cutting experiments undertaken (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>
ranged between 3450 kg ha⁻¹ and 4450 kg ha⁻¹ (Table 5).

Results of crop cutting experiments were further analyzed to ascertain the performance of different cultivars. A comparison of the performance of improved chickpea cultivars JG-11 and JG-14 and local cultivars showed a superior performance of the former in most districts. JG-14 was found superior, between 250-1000 kg ha⁻¹ additional gain was recorded with this cultivar in most of the districts.

Performance of JG-11 was found to be better in Lalitpur, with 500 kg ha⁻¹ additional yield compared to the local cultivar. Performance of field peas (Prakash variety) appreciated in all seven districts, with nearly 500 kg ha⁻¹ on average additional yield recorded in the pilot sites of Hamirpur and Jalaun districts.

Improved mustard variety Rohani gave the highest yield over local cultivars in Jalaun (>3000 kg ha⁻¹ vs 1900 kg ha⁻¹). Performance of Rohani in Hamirpur, Mahoba, Lalitpur and Jhansi was found to be close to the existing cultivar. Whereas in other districts (Jalaun, Banda and Chitrakoot), yield gain from Rohani ranged from 125 kg ha⁻¹ to 750 kg ha⁻¹, compared to existing cultivars.

Crop cutting experiment results were further analysed across four categories: (i) improved cultivar and micronutrient application, (ii)

only improved cultivar, (iii) only micronutrient application, and (iv) farmer's practice (control) (Figure 17). Grain yields from treated fields were higher than that from the control. The highest yield gain in chickpea, field peas and mustard was obtained with a combination of both improved cultivars and the application of micronutrients.

The KISAN MITRA project has benefited about 15500 households directly so far. We categorized the various AWM interventions and BMPs into eight categories, as shown in Figure 18. In this initiative a comprehensive approach was followed to mitigate risks, build resilience and generate a number of ecosystem services to achieve sustainable livelihoods.

## 7. Drivers of change and scaling up AWM practices

The government of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have made huge investments in various risk mitigating strategies for rural farming communities to enhance food and water security through a range of schemes and programs. These have helped the region expand areas under irrigation, and crop intensification of rainfed areas, as well as reducing the risk of crop failure. However, a large part of the region is still suffering from water scarcity, land degradation and poverty.

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18: Distribution of beneficiaries by project intervention (May 2017 - December 2019) in KISAN MITRA project, Bundelkhand region (Source: Authors' own compilation based on primary data collection)</figcaption></figure>