Impacts of Irrigation Management Transfer: Results from IIMI's Research

Governments around the world are attempting to reduce their recurring expenditures on irrigation and stabilize deterioration of scheme infrastructure without sacrificing the productivity of irrigated agriculture. Many governments assume that the transfer of management responsibility to farmer organizations will improve the accountability of the irrigation service to farmers, make the service more cost efficient, motivate farmers to invest more in maintaining irrigation systems and, ultimately, make irrigation systems and irrigated agriculture more sustainable. Are these expectations realistic?

The Privatization and Self Management of Irrigation (PSM) Program was started at International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI) in 1992, with funding from the German Government. It sought to answer the following questions:

What are the main strategies for Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) which are being implemented worldwide?

• What are the impacts of IMT strategies? and
• How should IMT be organized and implemented to produce successful results?

Research Methodology

Phase I of the PSM Program produced detailed case studies in five countries where management of irrigation systems had been turned over to farmer organizations. Phase II of the PSM Program has focused on a comparative assessment of the impacts of this management transfer.

The research included: an intensive and non-intensive component, statistical tests of significance of differences in performance before and after transfer, and between schemes which had and had not been transferred, a stratified random sample survey of farmers, and a field inspection of the functional condition of irrigation canals and structures. 

In the intensive component three or four irrigation systems have been selected for a detailed assessment of the extent to which transfer has occurred, and of the immediate outcomes and impacts. Systems selected are those where:

Transfer actually occurred (i.e., prior government staff had been removed from scheme management and prior expenditures for operations and maintenance (O&M) had been cut off or reduced significantly);

Transfer occurred at least four or five years before the study (to enable adequate before/after comparison); and

A reasonable amount of reliable annual data related to performance was available to enable time series analysis.

The purposes of the intensive component were to enable identification of apparent causal linkages between transfer and impacts, and to validate indicators of performance for local contexts.

In the non-intensive component, approximately 50 irrigation systems were selected from within a region in order to enable generalization about the impacts of transfer. (This was done in Sri Lanka and Indonesia.) The sample was stratified to enable comparison of performance between systems which had and had not been transferred, and between systems which had and had not been rehabilitated before transfer. Rehabilitation is often a confounding variable which tends to occur at the time of transfer and have its own effect on performance, apart from that of management transfer. Performance indicators included cost of O&M per ha and per unit of water diverted, irrigation intensity, crop yields, and gross economic value of agricultural production. Analysis of 50 cases enabled statistical tests of significance of differences. This was done by comparing average levels of performance between each of the above four categories of systems (i.e., transferred or not, and rehabilitated or not) for a single year and analyzing time series data based on average annual values for each category of systems. For time series analysis, researchers compared changes in slope of trend lines before and after IMT.

In the intensive component, seasonal or annual data were collected for at least five years before and five years after transfer. Data on O&M budgets, the cost of irrigation to government, irrigation intensity, relative irrigation water supply, crop yields and the intensity and gross value of agricultural production or output were collected from official sources. Data on the cost of irrigation to farmers, crop yields, the gross value of output, the roles of men and women in irrigation management, and perceptions of farmers about irrigation performance and management transfer were collected from two types of individual interviews with farmers, informal key informant interviews and survey sample structured interviews.

The farmer sample was selected by stratifying according to location (generally, the upper, middle, and lower and right and left side portions, of the service area) and by selecting at least 15 farmers from within each cell, for a minimum total of 90 farmers.

Data on the functional condition of irrigation system canals and control structures and cost of repairing dysfunctional structures were collected from direct inspection of system infrastructure. Standard criteria were developed for categorizing structures as functional, nearly dysfunctional and dysfunctional. Estimates were made of the cost to eliminate any accumulation of preventive and essential maintenance problems and these were compared with the average annual investment in maintenance made by farmers after IMT. This method enabled researchers to determine whether farmers were deferring maintenance after IMT and to what extent management was moving toward or away from the sustainability of infrastructure after IMT.

This methodology was applied to other systems in Sri Lanka and Colombia as well as in Indonesia and India. The findings and recommendations of these country studies, that are summarized below, have relevance on both national and international levels.

Research Results

This section briefly reviews the results of the research in the form of questions and answers. Readers interested in the more detailed report, upon which this article is based, can request a copy directly from the author.

1. Does irrigation management transfer (IMT) reduce government expenditure for operation and maintenance? The answer is a definite "yes," with the qualification that IMT sometimes did not directly cause the reduction but at least generally supported a broader policy of reduction. IMT was part of an overall policy of reducing government expenditure on recurring costs of irrigation in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Indonesia and India.

2. Does IMT result in improved quality of irrigation service to farmers? In the four sample countries, IMT did not cause dramatic changes in irrigation intensity or in the adequacy or equity of water distribution during the first three to five years after IMT. There is evidence from the Colombian case that in pump schemes, irrigation delivery efficiency did improve after IMT. Farmers in all four countries reported improvements in communications and responsiveness to farmer needs by management staff after IMT but this was not clearly reflected in increased productivity.

3. Does maintenance of irrigation infrastructure improve after IMT? Results are mixed. In India and in run-of-river schemes in Colombia maintenance has improved. But in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and for expensive lift schemes in Colombia, it is apparent that some continuation of government subsidy or a more clear policy about rehabilitation is needed. 

4. Does IMT result in higher agricultural productivity? The results are mixed between and within countries, depending on many factors. In general, where changes do occur, they are not dramatic. At least it is apparent that IMT has not had a detrimental impact on agricultural productivity, and evidence from the United States (USA) and Colombia suggests that it can facilitate the adoption of new water-saving technologies.

5. Does IMT result in higher economic productivity? Again, results are mixed. It is evident that IMT has not undercut the profitability of irrigated agriculture (which is affected by many factors). Indeed, in the long run, it is likely that IMT can stimulate cost savings and new technologies, which can indirectly have a positive effect on the economic productivity of irrigated agriculture.

6. Do farmers pay more for irrigation after IMT? Initially, yes, they do pay more. But the cost of irrigation to farmers relative to the gross value of the output of irrigated agriculture declines over time after IMT. This is due to more cost efficient management techniques and an overall increase in economic productivity. However, within the five-year post-IMT time frame examined in this study, in the four countries studied, such improvements did not result in enough gains in efficiency relative to economic productivity to bring about a significant decline in cost of irrigation relative to gross value of output.

The research results suggest that management transfer by itself can have measurable impacts on management procedures, cost of irrigation to government and farmers, cost efficiency and financial viability of irrigation management and quality of O&M. However, IMT by itself tends to have little direct impact on agricultural and economic productivity, which are more affected by other factors (such as use of inputs, labor constraints and soil and water conditions). A more comprehensive study with a much longer time series than five years (e.g., 10 to 20 years) would be required to establish impacts of IMT on agricultural and economic productivity.

Lessons for farmers

1. From the four case studies, the most common ways in which farmer respondents in the sample survey said that IMT had changed management performance was in improving communications between farmers and management staff, in making staff more responsive to farmers, and in reducing the hassles of arranging water deliveries and making payments of water charges.

2. In cases where more complete control over irrigation financing was devolved to the farmer organization (such as in Colombia) farmer representatives tended to make a concerted effort to improve the cost efficiency of irrigation management, through reductions in staff and other means.

3. If farmers have paid for nearly the full cost of routine O&M before transfer, IMT is likely to lead to moderately increasing trends in the cost of irrigation to farmers over time in real terms.

4. To motivate farmers to invest in the long-term maintenance of their irrigation scheme, strong legal recognition of the water user organization is needed: a water right, and a contract defining the irrigation service between the agency and farmers.

5. IMT can provide more flexible management of water and an enhanced capacity of farmers to change their cropping patterns. In order to take full advantage of the opportunities to increase the economic value of irrigated agriculture, farmers will need to move into new, higher value crops. As an alternative to conventional agricultural extension, a water user organization could hire their own agricultural expert or networker to obtain information about production practices of new crops, markets and prices, etc., as well as to facilitate group business transactions such as bulk purchasing and cooperative marketing. 

- Doug Vermillion, International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI)