150 likes | 240 Views
Economic and financial aspects of multiple uses system. Mary Renwick Multiple Uses Discussion Forum. Economic values and decision making. $. Valuing Multiple Uses of Irrigation Water: Sri Lanka. Uda Walawe Background Poor Performance Valuation work. Univ. of Minnesota & IWMI. Results.
E N D
Economic and financial aspects of multiple uses system Mary Renwick Multiple Uses Discussion Forum
Valuing Multiple Uses of Irrigation Water: Sri Lanka Uda Walawe • Background • Poor Performance • Valuation work Univ. of Minnesota & IWMI
Results Irrigated Crops $25m/yr • Paddy $8.1 m • OFCs $3.5 m • Bananas $13.5 m Home Gardens $8m • Home $2.03m • Marketed $5.97m [insert pic]
Results Domestic Use $140,000/yr Fisheries $743,000/yr • Home $64,000 • Marketed $679,000 • Fishers $390,000 • Sellers $289,000
Value in Alternative Uses Banana OFCs Rice
Market-led Approach to MUS: SIMI* • Background • Micro-scale MUS • Market-led approach
MUS Development • Domestic & Irrigation • Surplus water for irrigation • 28 community systems • 1,000 households • Cost • $100 (tap) • $10-$35 (irrigation equip) • Benefit • Income >$200/yr • Health & nutrition MUS with dual tap for drip irrigation and domestic use. Low cost water storage tank for an MUS scheme.
How it Works … The Value Chain • Input Supplier • Producer • Output Markets
Supply-chain development: A key supporting investment for MUS • Results: • 240 agrovets • 5 tap/micro irrigation manufactures • 2 drip assemblers • 133 micro-irrigation dealers • 7 extension services (7 districts) • Sales of 26,230 micro-irrigation systems • Note: Only 1,280 purchased via micro-credit Appropriate inputs for agriculture, drinking water (and sanitation) Embedded services
Producer • Build capacity of early adopters • Facilitating access to inputs and credit • Education • Results: • 31,000 households (200,000 people) in 1500 farmer groups • $7.3 million in increased incomes (BCA 3:1) • Year 1: $100/hh for 16,000 households • Year 2: $195/hh for 26,000 households
Market development: Critical for economic opportunities linked to MUS • Results: • 43 market collection centers • Established value chains across 9 districts serving 3 million
Government: key role • Strategic investments • Focus on market failures
Conclusions • Economic valuation of alternative uses can serve as a decision making tool • Opportunity cost of non-integrated management can be high • Linking value chain approach to MUS can increase economic returns and reduce subsidies