1. Alexandra Clemett and Annette Huber-Lee Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) WEAP-Livelihoods Case Studies

2. Kalametiya Lagoon

3. Livelihoods Changes 44 % of households in 3 study villages changed their primary livelihood activity in the past 10 years 50 % of these did so because of changes to the natural resource base Percentage of households that changed primary livelihood activity in the past 10 years

4. Water Resources Kachchigal Ara Uda Walawe Right Bank Canal Outlet to sea

5. Kalametiya Kalapuwa

6. Permanent outlet to sea

7. Fishing along Kachchigal Ara

8. Kalametiya Methodology Background information, wealth ranking and questionnaires regarding changes to livelihoods and natural resources had already been collected. In 3 villages poor and better-off fisher and farmer groups were selected for FGDs to discuss changes to the water management, the lagoon and livelihoods.

9. Perceptions of Natural Resource User Groups Perception of Lagoon Fishers Now 30 years ago

10. Lagoon Fisher Perceptions of Causes of Changes

11. Socio-economic Impacts Decline in the number of lagoon fishermen Diversification of livelihoods – lagoon fishing now only 28 % of income Reduction in income from lagoon fishing from RS 2000 to RS 100- 150 per day (average in the area for all livelihoods RS 4350) Average income from paddy is RS 3097

12. Farmer Perceptions Scoring by wealthy farmers in Hatagala of problems that affect paddy farming Problem Excess water in Kachchigal Ara and cracked bunds 23 Blocking of Mini Ethiliya causing flooding 17 No proper irrigation system 26 Clogging of anicut with water hyacinth and reeds 10 Lagoon mouth is getting smaller 12 No access road to the fields 10 Destruction by feral cattle 2 Total %

13. Natural resource drawn by Hatagala farmers (left) and Tuduwa lagoon fishermen (right)

14. Disparity between Farmers Average monthly incomes for farmers who participated in FGDs Average yield in Hatagala 6350 – 3050 kg per harvestAverage yield in Hatagala 6350 – 3050 kg per harvest Average in Bataatha South 1270 – 635 kgAverage in Bataatha South 1270 – 635 kg

15. Perception of Farmers Scoring of the problems leading to low paddy yields in Batatha South

16. WEAP - Scenarios Discussed scenarios based on water sources and demand Discussed scenarios based on water sources and demand with FGD participants e.g. WEAP-Livelihoods scenario – if 10 % less water is available for irrigation and yield decreases by 20 %, then rich farmer’s income will decrease and poor farmers will diversify into labour work “If the lagoon returns to its original size the number of households in Thuduwa engaging in lagoon fishing as a primary livelihood activity will increase from 20 % to 90 %”

17. WEAP - Model

18. Canal Development – Sooriyawewa (MD17) Eline Boelee and Wim van der Hoek Irrigation extension – lining of MD17 with concrete to reduce losses Water levels were measured in 28 shallow wells and 30 piezometers at various distances from the main and field canals. Groundwater levels closely followed changes in canal water releases Canal seepage accounted for 74 % of ground water recharge

19. Groundwater Fluctuations Eline Boelee and Wim van der Hoek

20. Livelihood Impacts Rapid appraisal (4 days) Selected – farmers and women from “wealthy” and “poor” households

21. Female FGDs Before MD17 was constructed domestic water collected from canal and wells but wells became dry and water quality was poor Before MD17 was constructed domestic water collected from canal and wells but wells became dry and water quality was poor After construction well water was better quality and did not become dry. Groundwater levels were able to support homestead gardens including coconut.After construction well water was better quality and did not become dry. Groundwater levels were able to support homestead gardens including coconut. After concrete lining water levels went down.After concrete lining water levels went down.  People returned to using canal water  Homestead gardens suffered and people had to buy vegetables and coconut  Poor people suffered the most as they did not have access to piped water.

22. Farmer FGDs Water management – “wealthy” or “influential” farmers controlled the distribution of water and “poor” farmers did not receive their rightful allocation.Water management – “wealthy” or “influential” farmers controlled the distribution of water and “poor” farmers did not receive their rightful allocation. Absolute water availability was not the issue, only water sharing.Absolute water availability was not the issue, only water sharing. “If the water sharing problem is not solved people will be killed over water!”“If the water sharing problem is not solved people will be killed over water!”

23. Sooriyawewa (MD17)

24. Thank You