Measuring and enhancing the value of agricultural water in irrigated river basins

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the issues in and approaches to measuring and enhancing the value of agricultural water in large irrigated river basins. It develops a framework and a set of indicators for valuing agricultural water by looking into various dimensions and underlying key factors that influence the value of water at micro, meso and macro levels. The indicators are applied to recent, primary- and secondary-level empirical data from the Indus basin Irrigation system of Pakistan. In addition, the paper compiles recent estimates of the value of agricultural water from 40 settings in 23 countries. Finally, the paper outlines measures for enhancing the value of agricultural water. The paper makes four main points: (1) The popular productivity indicators based on crop output do not capture the full range of benefits and costs associated with agricultural water use. (2) The value of agricultural water may not be as low as it is generally perceived or estimated when all major uses and direct and indirect benefits of water at various levels are properly accounted for. (3) The value of water varies across time and space, and the value to stakeholders at various scales (farmer, system manager, basin planner and national policy maker) could be quite different. For example, the estimate of agricultural water value in the upper Indus basin in Pakistan varies from US$0.04/m3 at the farm scale to US$0.22/m3 at the national scale. The farm-scale value is more relevant, e.g., for agricultural water charging policies, but for water-sector investments and allocation decisions, the national-scale value is important. The decision-making processes related to water sector investments, allocations, management, and charging/cost recovery schemes could be potentially misguided if key dimensions of water value that are related to water availability and use, benefits/costs, and temporal and spatial aspects are not properly accounted for in valuation. (4) Efforts should be directed not only at increasing the productivity of water in terms of mass of output per unit of water, but also the overall benefits or value of water at various levels for larger growth and poverty alleviation impacts, considering the sustainability of the systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    As Young (1996) concludes, “water valuation presents the economic analyst with a wide range of challenging issues and problems. Because water values tend to be quite site specific, each case confronts its own unique issues and typically requires its own original evaluation. Effective measuring of water values demands skill and rigor in application of all the tools of the applied economist’s trade. These tools include data collection, statistical analysis, optimization models and research reporting.”

  2. 2.

    In the short run, some of the resources and the associated costs at the farm level are fixed and do not change with the level of output (generally regarded as sunk costs). In the long run, all resources and associated costs become variable and can be changed with the level of output. At the farm level, short-run values could be higher (as some fixed/sunk costs can be ignored in estimating values) than the long-term values. However, at the higher level (basin, macro level), many costs can be considered variable even in the short run and, therefore, short-run values at the higher level may be higher than the short-run values at the farm level.

  3. 3.

    The term “externality” is generally defined as an effect or outcome when production or consumption of one party affects the production or consumption of another party and no compensation is made by either party for the effect. Externality may be positive or negative. Groundwater recharge from canal water is an example of a positive externality, where there is no deterioration in water quality. Costs imposed on downstream users of irrigation water polluted by upstream users provide an example of negative externality.

  4. 4.

    It is useful to remember that: if the marginal value is lower than the average value, the average value will fall when the amount of water supplied (used) is increased; if the marginal value is higher than the average value, the average value will rise when the amount of water supplied (or used) is increased; and if the marginal value is equal to the average value, the average value will remain constant when the amount of water supplied (or used) is increased.

References

  1. Agudelo JI, Hoekstra AY (2001), Valuing water for agriculture: application to the Zambezi Basin Countries, paper presented at Conference on ‘globalization and water resources management: the changing value of water’ AWRA/IWLRI, University of Dundee, International Specialty Conference, 6–8 August

  2. Ahmad MD, Masih I, Turral H (2004a) Diagnostic analysis of spatial and temporal variations in crop water productivity: a field scale analysis of rice–wheat cropping system of Punjab, Pakistan. J Appl Irrig Sci 39(1):43–63

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmad MD, Masih I, Turral H (2004b) A comparative analysis of crop water productivity of rice–wheat and cotton-wheat rotations in Rechna Doab, Punjab, Pakistan. New directions for a diverse planet. In: 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 Sep.–1 Oct. 2004, Brisbane, Australia

  4. Ahmad MD, Bastiaanssen WGM, Feddes RA (2005) A new technique to estimate net groundwater use across large irrigated areas by combining remote sensing and water balance approaches, Rechna Doab, Pakistan. Hydrogeol J. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10040-004-0394-5 (online issue)

  5. Bastiaanssen WGM, Ahmad MD, Tahir Z (2003) Upscaling water productivity in irrigated agriculture using remote-sensing and GIS technologies. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 289–300

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bakker M, Randolph B, Ruth M-D, Flemming K (1999) Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas: a case study from Sri Lanka. SWIM paper no. 8, System-wide initiative for water management, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  7. Barbier EB, Mike A, Duncan K (1997) Economic valuation of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convension Bureau, Gland, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bernardo DJ, Whittlesey NK, Saxton KE, Bassett DL (1988) Valuing irrigation water: a simulation/mathematical programming approach. Water Resour Bull 24:1

  9. Bhattarai M, Randolph Barker, Narayanmoorthy A (2004) Who benefits from irrigation development in India. IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program, Annual Partners Meet

  10. Bhatia R, Monica S, Rita C (2003) Study on the multiplier effects of dams: methodological issues and preliminary results. Paper presented at the World Water Forum, Kyoto, Japan, March 16–23

  11. Bowen RL, Robert A. Young (1985) Financial and economic irrigation net benefit functions for Egypt’s Northern Delta. Water Resour Res 21:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Briscoe J (1996) Water as an economic good: the idea and what it means in practice. A paper presented a the World Congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Cairo, September 1996

  13. Brooker James F, Colby BG (1995) Competing water uses in the Southwestern United Sates: valuing drought damages. Water Resour Bull 31:5

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chaudhry MA, Young RA (1989) Valuing irrigation water in Punjab Province, Pakistan: a linear programming approach. Water Resour Bull 25:5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gaterell MR, Morse GK, Lester JN (1995) A valuation of rutland water using environmental economics. Environ Technol 16:1072–1082

    Google Scholar 

  16. Government of Pakistan (2000–2001) Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan (2000–2001) Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad, Pakistan

  17. Government of Pakistan (2000–2001) Economic Survey of Pakistan 2000–2001, Economic Advisory Wing Finance Division, Islamabad

  18. Haggblade S, Hammer J, Hazell P (1991) Modeling agricultural growth multipliers. Am J Agric Econ 73(2):361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hill H, Tollefson L (1996) Institutional questions and social challenge. In: Pereira LS, Fedds RA, Gilley JR, Lesaffre B (eds) Sustainability of irrigated agriculture. Kulwer, Dordrecht

  20. Hussain I, Sathivadivel R, Upali A, Muhammad M, David M (2003) Land and water productivity of wheat in the western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India and Pakistan: a comparative analysis. Research Report No.65, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  21. Hussain I (2005) Pro-poor interventions strategies in irrigated agriuclture in Asia—poverty in irrigateda griuclture: issues, lessons, options and guidelines. Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam, Final Synthesis Report, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka

  22. Intizar H, Perera LR (2004) Improving agricultural productivity for poverty alleviation through integrated services provision with public–private partnership. IWMI Working paper no. 66, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  23. Jehangir W, Muhammad A, Intizar H, Muhammad M (2003) Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia. In: Hussain I, Intizar H (eds) Pakistan Country Report. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Unpublished

  24. King DM, Wanger LA (1999) Assessing the economic value of biodiversity using indicators of site conditions and landscape context. Paper presented at the Workshop on benefits valuation of biodiversity resources, 18–19 October, Paris, France

  25. Meinzen-Dick RS, Bakker M (1999) Irrigation systems as multiple-use commons: water use in Kirindi Oya, Sri Lanka. Agric Hum Values 16:281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Molden D (1997) Accounting for water use and productivity. SWIM paper no. 1, System-wide initiative for water management. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  27. Molden D, Sakthivadivel R, Christopher JP, Charlotte de Fraiture, Wim HK (1998), Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems. IWMI Research report, no. 20, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  28. Molden D, Sakthivadivel R, Zaigham H (2001a) Basin-level use and productivity of water: examples from South Asia. Research report no. 49, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  29. Molden D, Upali A, Intizar H (2001b) Water for rural development: background paper on water for rural development prepared for the World Bank, IWMI Working paper 32, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka

  30. Nyagwambo NL (1998) Virtual water as a water demand management tool: the Mupfure river basin case. M.Sc. thesis, IHE, Delft

  31. Pazvakawambwa, Godfrey T, Pieter Van Der Zaag (2000) The value of irrigation water in Nyanyadzi Smallholder Irrigation Scheme, Zimbabwe, Paper presented at WARFSA/WaterNet symposium: sustainable use of water resources, Maputo, 1–2 November

  32. Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire, U.K

  33. Powell RA, Jenson RC, Gibson AL (1985) The Economic impact of irrigated agriculture in NSW. New South Wales Irrigators’ Council, NSW, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  34. Postel S (1999) Pillar of sand: can the irrigation miracle last? Washington: The Worldwatch Institute ISBN: 0-393-31937-7. 313pp

  35. Renwick M (2001) Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: a multiple-use irrigation system in Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. v, 34p. (IWMI research report 51)

  36. Rogers P, Ramesh B, Annette H (1998) Water as a social and economic good: how to put the principal into practice, TAC background paper no. 2. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Global Water Partnership (GWP), Stockholm, Sweden

  37. Sinden JA, Thampapillai DJ (1995) Introduction to benefit-cost analysis. Longman Australia Pty Ltd. Longman House, Melbourne, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tardieu H, Prefol B (2001) Water value in irrigation: the necessary economic information for a better regulation of water management and agricultural production on an open market. ICID, Unpublished paper

  39. Tuan, Doan D, Nguyen Van Quay, Dang The Phong, Eric Biltonen, Intizar Hussain, Le Ngoc Hung, Dinh The Hung, Pham Van Ban, Tran Anh, Dung (2003) Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia. In: Hussain I, Intizar H, Eric B (eds) Vietnam Country report. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Unpublished

  40. Young RA (1996) Measuring economic benefits of water investments and policies: World Bank Technical paper no. 338, The World Bank, Washington, DC

  41. Wang J, Jikun H, Zhigang Xu, Scott Rozell, Intizar Hussain, Eric Biltonen (2003) Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia. In: Hussain I, Intizar H, Eric B (eds) China Country Report. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Unpublished

  42. Ward Frank A, Ari M (2002) The economic value of water in agriculture: concepts and policy applications. Water Policy 4:423–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Winpenny JT (1991) Values for the environment: a giode to economic appraisal, Overseas Development Institute

  44. Zhu, Zhongping et al (2003) Agriculture water in Yellow River Basin: observed issues and policy implications, in draft, November 2003, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Intizar Hussain.

Additional information

Communicated by R. Evans.

Appendix

Appendix

The calculations in Table 6 are based on primary data from the Chaj sub-basin collected during 2001–2002, and secondary data from national agricultural statistics of Pakistan. The data on multiplier values, distribution of multiplier benefits at various scales, and distribution of benefits from indirect uses at various scales are not available. We use assumed values of these parameters based on our estimates from other similar settings. We define various terms as follows:

  1. 1.

    Farm value refers to direct and indirect benefits of crop outputs at various levels. Direct benefits include benefits from crop production. Indirect benefits are based on assumed multiplier value of 2 at the national level (i.e., 1 rupee of agricultural GVP will generate another 1 rupee worth of output/services in the overall economy. Several studies report multiplier values in developing countries closer to 2. We assume one third of multiplier benefits are generated at the local system level, another one third at the basin level and the remaining one third beyond the basin (while we have assumed equal distribution of secondary benefits at three levels, this distribution may vary significantly across settings depending on the nature and intensity of activities at various levels. In settings where there are processing/value adding opportunities, a large part of the secondary benefits may be generated at this level).

  2. 2.

    Agricultural value refers to both direct and indirect benefits of farm multi-enterprises (crops, orchards, trees, and livestock) and indirect benefits at various levels as described above.

  3. 3.

    Rural economic value refers to both direct and indirect benefits of farm multi-enterprises and other uses of water including non-consumptive uses (i.e., assumed to be 5% of all benefits from farm multi-enterprises, again this is more on the lower side).

  4. 4.

    Macro economic value refers to both direct and indirect benefits of farm multi-enterprises and other uses of water including non-consumptive uses (that are assumed to generate about 20% of all benefits derived from farm multi-enterprises). It should be noted that some benefits such as those from hydro-electricity generation from agricultural water may be much more than the 20% assumed here). Other minor benefits derived from water uses such as washing of vehicles etc. are not included here.

  5. 5.

    Denominator for all value estimates is amount of water applied per hectare.

  6. 6.

    Value estimates are based on gross benefits rather than net benefits (due to unavailability of cost data for some of the enterprises/activities).

  7. 7.

    Exchange rate: 1 US$ = 62.67 Pak Rupees (during April 2001 to May 2002).

Table 6 Example for calculating gross water value indicators in the Chaj Sub-basin, Indus Basin, Pakistan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hussain, I., Turral, H., Molden, D. et al. Measuring and enhancing the value of agricultural water in irrigated river basins. Irrig Sci 25, 263–282 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-007-0061-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Return Flow
  • Agricultural Water
  • Farm Level
  • Canal Water
  • Indirect Benefit