Organizational Change for Participatory Irrigation Management

opposite is true). Exploitation of groundwater resources occurred first in semi-arid regions but
has spread rapidly to the more humid areas. Much of the groundwater development occurred
in the command areas of the surface irrigation schemes, but there has been a total lack of
coordination between surface and groundwater use despite their vital physical connection.
Phase IV is called the era of integrated water resource management (IWRM). Integrated
management must coordinate: (i) the allocation of water among competing uses and users; (ii)
the activities designed to increase the productivity of water at farm, system, and basin level;
(iii) conjunctive use of surface and groundwater; and (iv) the interactions between irrigation,
human health, and the environment. For IWRM new forms of management will be required.
We may have underestimated the transaction costs in positioning Curve M.
Sections II-IV discuss in more detail the recent developments in irrigation management
– constraints to management reform in public irrigation systems, the groundwater revolution,
and steps toward IWRM.
III. CONSTRAINTS TO MANAGEMENT REFORM IN
PUBLIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Why was management reform needed and why have reforms had such a mixed record
of success in Asia? Management reform was needed for two reasons (Barker, et al., 1984; and
Jones, 1995). First, public irrigation systems have grown faster than the institutions needed
to regulate them and make them work. Second, irrigation systems have been inappropriately
designed. Let us consider the institutional issue first.
A great deal of Asian irrigation was developed through communal or locally managed
systems that evidenced a high degree of what we call today participatory irrigation management
(PIM) (Coward, 1980). In many Asian countries, irrigation has been developed in a
structurally dualistic mode, with the more recent state-run systems being developed
independently from the community managed systems. In the rush to construct large public
systems, donors and national agencies have often ignored the presence in the command areas
or neighboring regions of well functioning communal systems and the associated rich local
experience in management. Dissatisfaction with the performance of public irrigation systems
emerged in the 1970s although their performance was not as bad as indicated by the widely
accepted but faulty method of calculating irrigation efficiency based on water diverted rather
than water consumed (Perry, 1999).
In the area of management reform, participatory irrigation management (the subject of
this seminar) has gained prominence. The following definitions are from Svendsen, et al.
(2000).
Participatory irrigation management (PIM), usually refers to the level, mode, or intensity
of user participation that would increase farmer responsibility and authority in management
processes.
Irrigation management transfer (IMT) is a more specialized term that refers to a process
of shifting basic irrigation management functions from a public agency or state government to
a local private sector entity.
The interest in transfer of responsibilities to user groups is twofold: (i) to help reduce
government expenditures on irrigation, and (ii) to increase productivity. Recent experience
with PIM and IMT seems to suggest that there has been considerably more success in
transferring management responsibilities in more advanced countries such as Turkey and
- 24 -