Organizational Change for Participatory Irrigation Management

the provincial and system levels, the Provincial Irrigation Engineer (PIE) and the Irrigation
Superintendent (IS), respectively, supervise the program through their Institutional
Development Sections (IDS). The organizational structure of NIA with emphasis on PIM
management is shown in Figure 6.
ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS
While it is apparent that NIA has achieved substantial accomplishments in the
establishment of IAs and in handing over to these organizations the management of irrigation
systems there are still issues and constraints to the development of strong and viable IAs.
Presented below are some of the issues and constraints being encountered by NIA and the IAs.
1. Accelerated Deterioration of Facilities
Under RA 7160, Local Government Code, the NIA was mandated to devolve the
development and implementation of locally funded CIS to the LGUs. Since 1992 when the Act
became effective, NIA no longer received government appropriations (an annual amount of
about P=500 million) for the construction and rehabilitation of CIS.
On the other hand, the LGUs do not have the sufficient resources and experience to carry
out the program. As a result of the abrupt shift of responsibility about 50 percent of the area
in the CIS have been rendered non-operational or have been deprived of irrigation service.
2. Lack of Production Capital
Most IA farmer-members can no longer avail of institutionalized credit as they are not
members of cooperatives. Or, the cooperative in which they are members has defaulted in its
repayment of previous loans. Some farmers resort to informal credit sources (private
moneylenders and loan sharks) despite the exorbitant interest rates. The lack of production
capital often results to farmers' non-compliance with the approved water delivery and farming
schedules. On the other hand, as they have to pay high interest rates, after harvest the farmers
usually give the loans from informal sources the utmost priority in settling their dues and,
therefore, with very little concern for paying their ISF to NIA.
3. Stringent Bank Lending Policies
While the IAs are registered as legal entities, their existence as non-stock and non-profit
organizations somehow is a constraint for them to avail of credit from government financial
sources. The credit institutions insist that since the IAs are non-stock organizations they do not
possess the characteristics and qualifications to warrant security of loans from the government
unlike the cooperatives wherein the physical assets and members' shares can be acquired by
the bank in case of default.
4. Lack of Police Power
This is one of the weaknesses of the IAs. They cannot impose sanctions to farmers
particularly the non-members who violate O&M rules and regulations. The IA leaders usually
allege that this function belongs to the LGUs as they are the constitutional bodies authorized
by the government. However, where there is close working relationship and coordination
between the LGU and the IAs, monitoring of violations is jointly undertaken and corresponding
sanctions are imposed by the LGU. To name a few, the serious violations include the
construction of illegal structures and squatting along and/or on top of irrigation canals
(houses/shanties, restaurants, pig pens, etc.), planting of trees on the inside slope of canals,
dumping of garbage in irrigation and drainage channels, and destruction of irrigation structures.
- 87 -