Synthesis Note for Theme 1: IMT Policy and the Scope for Reform

Theme coordinator: J. Raymond Peter, Executive Director, International Network for Participatory Irrigation Management (INPIM)

The e-mail conference on Irrigation Management Transfer has been quite a successful attempt in the exchange of ideas on the subject. A large number of participants have been able to give diverse and interesting viewpoints. We in INPIM have tried to give it a wide publicity by contacting the INPIM network, the INPIM's electronic newsletter registrants and the Third World Water Forum Participants. Theme 1, relating to " IMT Policy and scope for reform," has evoked considerable enthusiasm among participants. Five key issues were identified for eliciting views from the participants, namely:

1. main motivations and objectives for PIM,
2. kinds of irrigation systems to be included for IMT,
3. kinds of roles, rights authority and obligations being transferred,
4. technical and financial support from Government for PIM and
5. best methods for formulating PIM.

In all, 56 interventions have been received. I have tried to give annotations to as many emails as possible in which something new has been reported. My impression is that some of the comments given by participants are general in nature and are applicable to other themes as well. However, some of the more important ones relating to the theme have been summarized below.

The Dilemma in IMT: A number of participants have mentioned about the dilemma in IMT. IMT has to be seen in the larger context of decentralization. Most IMT programs tend to be unsuccessful because the irrigation agencies have to implement the progressive transfer of responsibilities to farmers. On the one hand is the fear that many agencies may loose clout and power (Leonor P. Fernandez) and on the other hand, are reservations expressed about the capacities of farmers to take over responsibility to operate and coordinate highly technical irrigation infrastructure (complicated measurement devices and diversion structures designed by engineers, as reported by Horst, 1998). Bryan Bruns made a very interesting point, where he mentions stakeholder governance would imply that users are vested with the task of setting goals, policies, choosing service providers, monitoring and evaluation. In other words farmers can, if required, hire engineers to carry out the tasks. This may be applicable to a large number of irrigation schemes which are simple, but it may not apply fully to very large irrigation projects which are complex to operate and need highly technically skilled people.

IMT as a Gradual Process: A large number of participants have mentioned that IMT has to be a gradual process. In the example of Chad, South Africa and Ghana, rushing through the IMT process with abrupt disengagement of the state leads to problems in O&M, financial management and problems in securing agricultural inputs. Making the legal framework too complicated, with many objectives, could also impede the process of implementation.

Role of Culture in Designing PIM: Culture and cultural traditions play a significant role in planning and designing an IMT strategy. Small irrigation systems in South India have peculiar features of community controlled informal mechanisms in water management that stood the test of time (Madan Gopal). It is important to know the idiosyncrasies of the community when introducing a new technology aimed at increasing production.( Joan Carlos Ferreira). Ruth Meinzen-Dick has highlighted the role of how temples become the focal point for social communication and exchange. Thierry Ruf has discussed at length the historical backgrounds of local communities, citing the example of Egypt and the roles they could play in designing a good IMT strategy. He summarizes that the technological way of thinking amongst engineers and politicians often overlooks the ways in which communities in the past have operated irrigation schemes. They see them as archaic and traditional. Is IMT a process of reinventing what existed before and may exist still today through local regulation? Social networks can increase productivity by lowering the cost of information and the transaction costs and risks of implementing and enforcing arrangements. Aging traditional irrigation systems are associated with strong social capital (Laurence E. D. Smith).

Motives for PIM: The IMT process has been implemented mainly for financial and economic reasons rather than for institutional and managerial reasons (Pierre Yves Le Gal). The states can no longer afford to sustain these costly production systems. Farmers have faced difficulties during the transition to a market oriented economy. Such a transition reduces the profitability of irrigated agriculture, due to limited sale and export of agricultural products. The transition directly influences the capacity of farmers to pay irrigation charges (Srijan Dimitrievic). The choices of relevant production systems and successful marketing strategies are complex, making economic sustainability a challenge. In IMT programs, most often, irrigation systems are rehabilitated before transfer. IMT processes assume that the new management institution must adjust to a technical structure designed for different institutional conditions rather than that technology must be revised for a new management entity.

Role of Pilot Projects: Pilot projects help in understanding the complexity of the issues in designing an IMT strategy. The tendency to have too many pilots scattered across projects though, is perhaps not desirable. Often, pilot projects benefit from privileged financial and technical assistance in an environment of government managed systems with "business as usual" agendas. On the other hand, a pilot project should envisage complete transfer of a single irrigation scheme, including the aggregation, or federation, of associations to higher levels (Herve Plusquellec). The process of IMT has to be well designed with a plan for progressive transfer over a planned period of time. In a large number of countries, IMT has not progressed well beyond the pilot stage, as in the case of Macedonia (Boissevain Wicher).

Post Transfer Support to PIM: Most participants have stated that the IMT process needs to be gradual and at the same time Governments must continue support for a period of time. Technical, financial and administrative support needs to be given to user groups for an adequate period of time, till the groups are self-reliant. Such government assistance should be given in such a way to encourage, rather than discourage, user group self reliance.

Environmental Imperatives for sustainable irrigation management: Phil Ridell suggests that river basin catchment areas should be a pilot area for irrigation sector reform, since irrigation and the natural environment are interrelated. Very little attention has been directed to the broader environmental imperatives of sustainable irrigation management (deforestation, salinization, pollution, leaching, uncontrolled groundwater abstraction, etc).

Contact: imt-moderator@fao.org