Organizational Change for Participatory Irrigation Management

production process including crops, cropping patterns and methods of production; and c) the
degree of participation by different “actors” or the stakeholders in “a” and “b”. Obviously, the
type and number of functions undertaken by any organization as well as the scale of operation
would directly related to its organizational strength or the stage of organizational development.
In this context, these variables, namely: a) degree of involvement of different stakeholders,
b) level of water resources utilization (mainly technology/method), c) type of production and
d) the type of functions undertaken by farmers organizations and the scale of operation,
could be combined at different levels to yield various “options” or operational models. It is
proposed that, not only the advanced production and irrigation methods and associated
infrastructure, but also different organizational strategies may be “offered to” and “utilized by”
FOs.
WORKSHOP OUTPUT
Objectives
A workshop was conducted to address the issue: “What should be the future vision for
PIM? More specifically, participants addressed two important issues: a) expectations of
irrigation management, in general, and PIM, in particular in 10 years (2010); and b) How to
get there?” The following guidelines have been provided to focus the discussion and
recommendations on the major aspects related to the objectives of the seminar:
1. General
In recommendations, as much as possible, state whether there should be differences/
variations across countries.
2. Specific
Organize the group discussions and the final presentation under the following topics:
i) As far as water management is concerned, how far should FOs be developed? For
example, up to which level, within an irrigation system, they should take control/
responsibility? (on-farm? field channel level? up to distributary canal level in large
irrigation systems? or even up to the system level?). Participants were requested to
relate recommendations to the expected scale of operation. For example, in small
village systems, farmers may take the full responsibility, however, in large systems
how should the responsibilities be divided? It was expected that the two groups
would include the management of groundwater utilization such as the institutional
arrangements proposed for conjunctive use as well. Another area proposed for
discussion in the two groups was: what should be the exact role of the government?
– collaborating as a partner in “joint management”?; should the government perform
only a facilitating role?; what should be the role of the organized private sector? etc.
ii) Who should finance Irrigation development, R&M and management and how?;
should there be water markets?; how to evolve them? or at least for sometime,
should there be group water rights?; should the respective governments continue to
take part in irrigation development?, If so in which tasks? – R&M? and management
at higher levels?; what strategies/processes/procedures should be recommended to
operationalize these proposals? The groups were asked to discuss the organizational
structures proposed for FOs and for the government. More specifically, they were
asked to address such issues as: should FOs be involved in managing water beyond
- 13 -