ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT flmilkDISSEMINATION NOTES TOWARD ENVIRONMEKTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Number 16 'June, 1995 Participation in the Irrigation Sector The irrigation sector provides a -rich source of experiences and lessons in user participation. Participation by farmers in system design and management helps to ensure the sustainability of the system, reduce the public expenditure burden, and improve efficiency, equity and standards of service. Mobilizing support at ill levels and establishing.the participatory process, however, involves costs; it also demanzds knowledge of the incentives facing each group of stakeholders; and of the essential elements in building effective users' organizations. Benefits Public Expenditure One of the most noted effects (although this Efforts to increase user participation have been has nothing to do with farmers' motives for spurred by the poor performance-in terms of participation) is the reduction in government staff efficiency, equity, cost recovery and and expenditure requirements, due to farmer accountability-of many large scale irrlgation management and contributions of cash, labor and systems managed by government agencies, materials. Farmer associations have proved more Greater participation by farmers, through water effective collectors of user fees than government users' associations, has helped to overcome.many agencies. It is not unusual for farmers to be willing of these problems. to pay more than the original user rates after transfer of the.system to their control. However, System Performance increased collection of fees does not motivate The overriding reason for increasing farmerparticipatioi. Participationmustalsoresult participation in irrigation is to improve, system in direct benefits to participants. performance. Clear gains in efficiency and in the standards of service are achieved when design and Sustainability management of the irrigation system are Building irrigation systems which are Wanted, transferred to farmers. System design benefits supported and owned by users themselves from local knowledge. And farmers -have the provides- the best assurance of sustainability. means,and inceritives to minimize costs and Physical and fiscal sustainability of the irrigation improve services. For example, irrigation user. system beyond the project is enhaiced when associations can reduce labor costs by paying operation and maintenance costs are m.et from lower wages- than government agencies; local user fees rather than high levels of government farmers can provide closer supervision of staff than distant agency supervisors; and breakages and waste are reduced when farmers feel a greater sense of ownership. In Senegal, for instance (Box. Equity 1), electricity requirements were reduced by half. More equitable organizational arrangements Ultimately, as a result of more timely water and water delivery have been noted when delivery and repairs, farmers' yields are higher. -participatory approaches are followed. A p (contributing factor is the socioeconomic status of In the Philippmnes (Box 2), dry season rice yields. . the leadership, which tends to be closer to that of increased by 12 percent and farmer net income by 50 percent. This note is based on Environment Department Paper No.003, which was written,by Ruth Meirzen-Dick, Richard Reidinger and Andrew Manzardo as a contribution to the Participation Sourcebook. Copies of the full paper are available from the Environment Department, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, of the.World Bank, Washington, D.C. 20433, Fax (202) 522-3247. Dissemization Notes represent the views of their authors and are not official publications of the World Bank. Box 1 Senegal - Creating incentives for Farmer Participation Early efforts in Senegal to transfer irrigation system management to farmers by establishing village units showed little success because of unclear plans, timetables, and provisions for transfer, and because of the failure to provide control or incentives for the farmers. Recognizing these problems, the 1990 Bank-assisted Irrigation IV Project required total transfer of operation and maintenance (Q&M) to farmers as a precondition.for financing rehabilitation works. Getting farmers to agree to take over these systems required considerable negotiation, particularly because they perceived existing irrigation fee$ as tqo high, let alone the additional costs and responsibilities of covering full O&M. Increasing the control of farmers over irrigation services was the. key factor which convinced them to agree to assume responsibility for system management and cost recovery. Farmers demanded the right to hire their own staff, choosing- agency operators only if they had performed well, and even then reducing their salaries from the full civil service package. Following the transfer to farmers of ownership of rehabilitated-operating systems with their infrastructure, agency staff would be allowed to enter the schemes only with farmers' permission. To improve farmers management capacity, manuals were piepared for each system; and training in basic literacy as well as techriical and financial skills for Qrganizational leaders was incorporated. Farmers were willing to pay at least part of the training costs. Although the long-term sustainability of the project is difficult to assess at this stage, the accomplishments to date are impressive. Before the transfer, assessed fees covered only. 17 to 21 percent of maintenance and replacement costs, and less than .a quarter of these were actually collected (Nguyen, 1994). As a result, maintenance suffered, electricity often was not paid for, and system reliability was very poor. After the transfer, farmers paid fees four times as high, covering full O&M and a replacement fund for capital. The. benefit to the farmers was greatly improved irrigation reliability. Moreover, because they were able to monitor the pump operators and had an incentive to save on energy costs, electricity requirements were reduced by half. Savings to the government included huge reductions in agency staff costs, as farmers took over functions. the ordinary member, involving more tenants and structures. Once the participatory approach has small farmers than in non-participatory systems. been established, however, it -is not unusual for participation actually - to reduce the' Spillover Effects implementation period. The kinds of problems The transformation of' water' users from which typically delay the implementation of non- beneficiaries to partners in. irrigation development can have a widespread impact, as farmers become trained- and organized. It .can increase local, capacity to coordinate input . fro P Evidence- from the Phihippmnes' supplies, for example, and- to deal with 6ther government agencies involved in rural The first and best documented nationwide program to development. build in participation as a cornerstone of irrigation policy occurred in the Philippines. Beginning with a pilot Costs and Risks project in 1976, the approach was expanded in 1980 to cover all communal systems, and even extended to -large scale national irrigation systems. The National Irrigation. Establishing user participation involves costs ' ,Authority has evolved from an agency primaiily in mobilizing field staff,-training and organizing concerned with construction to one committed to farmers and carrying out socioeconomic research. developing and supporting the management capacities However, these additional costs are usually offset armer irrgation associatons. by subsequent savings in construction costs and A. 1993 study of three irrigation systems reported higher loan repaymentrates. substantial improirements in performance after ownership and management responsibility. were transferred to farmers: collection efficiency for service A bigger problem can be the additional time fees increased from 45% to 74%; recurrent maintenance needed to establish,a participatory approach and costs were reduced by 60% and personnel costs by 44%; get the project off the 'ground, especially in the dry season rice yields increased by 12%; and, taking costs absence of existing local institutions for and labor contributions into account, farmers' net cooperation. Developing farmer organizations is income increased by 50%. These gains were most dramatic for tail end farmers who saw major often a n p rcting 'der ei ryjecsriprovements in water delivery..' control than cons tructing'dams or- delivery participatory irrigation projects-such As -farmer management, the potential improvement difficulties in negotiatirg rights of way, or. in system performance, and potential saving in obstruction by farmers or local Politicians--may government expenditure and improvement in be avoided or solved through. effective cost recovery rates. Building alliances with participatory processes. supportive individuals in government has been facilitated by participatory economic and sector Conditions for Success work, by enabling task managers to spend several years workingin a country, and supporting them Mobiliing Support with good social analysis. User participation changes but does not eliminate the role of government agencies in Project implementation rests ultimately with irrigation development. Building support from agency staff. Internalizing support for policymakers and agency staff 'as well as farmers Participation within irrigation agencies often and other -water users is essential for successful involves structural changes, to link agency participatory projects and involves paying close budgets firmly to farmer contributions instead of attention to the incentives relevant to each group. government allocations, and to promote a more The greatest receptivity to participation is often service oriented approach. Since agency staff found. in crisis situations, as was the case in typically come from engineering backgrounds Mexico (Box .3), when management problems or and.are notoriented tow ard dealing with'farmers, revenue drains are most apparent. incentives for them to' support farmer' participation need to be backed up by training In building the confidence of policynakers programs. Study tours to farmer managed and senior agency staff, pilot projects have been irrigation districts can be particularly effective, used effectively to demonstrate the capacity for not only for their demonstration effect but also Box 3 Mexico - Rapid Change in a Crisis Sitiation Mexico experienced rapid and widespread incorporation of user participation in the irrigation se,ctor. The objective was to make the national irrigation system financially self-sufficient as well as to obtain full cost recovery over time for major works already constructed. The cornerstone of this policy was the transfer of irrigation management to WaterlUser Organizations. Crisis situations in irrigation system financing and management provided the impetus for sweeping changes. By the. end of the 1980s, an estimated 1.5 million ha (out of 6.1 million) of irrigated land went out of irrigated production because of lack of fundingfor completion of infrastructure and operation and maintenance (O&M). Bank management wasinfluential' in pointing Qut the need and direction for change, and the Bank provided a loan (co-financed by the Inter-Americart Development Bank) for the Irrigation and Drainage Sector Project. The three pillars of this project were decentralization and transfer of irrigation districts to Water User Organizations, self-sufficiency in'fee collection to cover full O&M costs, and efficiency ibudget allocation. The transfer is done in two stages: The first gives producers, organized in Water User Organizations (covering 5,000 to 18,000 ha), responsibility for operation and maintenance of large lateral canals and drains. In the second, these organizations take responsibility for the main irrigation and drainage canals and the machi'ery and equipment'required for O&M through the creation of an enterprise or Sociedad. Farmer. groups are set up as organizations, rather than less formal associations, so that, under Mexican law, they can operate as legal entities and obtain loans.' These organizations are meant to become financially self sifficient. through collection of water charges. Each organization hires a professional 'team to carry out O&M; including a manager and a group of water masters (one for approximately 3,000 ha) and a chief of maintenance (all graduate engineers) as well as their support staff. To educate farmers about the changes and convince them to support the program, Mexico relied heavily on mass media campaigns prepared by communications specialists from FAO, along with universities and industry. These were followed by detailed training of the staff of farmer organizations in, among other subjects, computer applications and useof maintenance machinery. Districts in the best financial condition weie transferred first (after deferred maintenance was done) to ensure a successful start and build confidence. The process of transferring management to farmers already has exceeded targets. Since 1991, thirty-three irrigation districts covering 2.3 million ha have been transferred, and an additional eleven are in process. O&M cost recovery rates have increased from 18 to 78 percent.., in raising the prestige of participation, exposing To be successful, farmer organizations must staff to new possibilities and creating a bond interact constructively with government agencies amongst participants. and technical experts. This relationship works best when consistent rules and procedures are The strongest opposition to farmer established, and supported by governmeit participation is often encountered at the field regulation, for the turnover of responsibility to technical level; especially where civil service farmers throughout the project or sector. Building unions are strong.. When field staff perceive the the necessary organizational capacity for this proposed changes as a threat to their-jobs and turnover involves training farmers for a variety livelihood, these vested interests can retard or of new functions, from basic literacy, accounting, even sabotage p9rticip*atory projects. Clear how to hold meetings, and how to deal with directives are needed fron policymakers, agencies, to legal regulations, and possibly even supported by performance measures linked to computer' applications, as well as water bonuses and promotions, to encourage greater 'management and operation of equipment. accountability to the farmers. The new ethos can only develop gradually. Sudden cuts into the Fundamental'to meeting all these conditions, status quo should be avoided .and the a strong and transparent legal framework for the composition of staff allowed to change gradually. organization is needed from the outset, providing farmers with rights and benefits as well as duties Building Effective Farmers Organizations. and responsibilities.-This framework should also Teams of trained specialists acting as be flexible enough to allow farmers to evolve their community organizers have proved 'to be the own organizational structure, and to permit the, most successful catalysts in participatory organization's responsibilities to grow in line with irrigation projects. Wherever possible, existing its capacity. organizational capacity should-be built upon, as in Nepal (Box 4), for example.- In cases of very hierarchical, social structure and, inequitable distribution of assets, it may be unrealistic to Nepal - Building on Traditional Strengths expect fully democratic local organizations. To control vested interests, the varying incentives Nepal has a long tradition of direct farmer participation of different categories of farmers 'should be and cooperation in irrigation development About 70,000 identified and accounted for in project design (for farmer managed irrigation schemes, ranging in size from example, in defining-water rights), along with the very small to thousands of hectares, account for 70/a- resulting problems of achieving collective action. 80% of the country's irrigation. In general these systems achieve high levels of performance over long periods of time without government cost or involvement. However, Appropriate incentives are needed if farmers such. systems are frequently damaged by landslides and are actively to support the user associations which floods. beyond the capability of farmers to repair alone, are essential channels for participation, and to and most can be improved substantially with modem assume the additional costs in time, materials and' materials and construction techniques. fees (as experience in Pakistan.has demonstrated). The Bank's Irrigation Line of Credit (ILC) was designed The most important of these incentives are Co assist.these schem'es by building on the farmers' improved irrigation services, and- a voice in traditional capabilities to organize and' cooperate management decisions through a user together. To participate under the ILC, farmers had to u. form legal Farmer Irrigation Associations, agree ahead organization which is fully accountable to its of time to contribute to capital costs, pay full operation members. The support of farmers is most likely . and maintenance costs, and maintain full control and to be sustained, and organizational capacity responsibility for 'all decisions regarding their irrigation developed, when they are involved from the schemes. Such sfringent requirements had never been beginning in decisions on system design, and attempted before under a Bank project in Nepal. But in .e .practice these requirements simply formalized the. when theit organization has full ownership and - farmers' traditional mode of irrigation development and management control of the system. It is essential, provided an avenue for Bank assistance which would for example, that'specialized staff be selected by strengthen rather than. destroy the traditional farmer and accountable to the farmer organization, even institutions. The ILC approach proved highly successfil, if they have been trained by government; has become strongly demand driven, and is now beimg . expanded to government managed projects. agencies. Printed on 100% post-consumer recydled paper