The Rationale for PIM

The Rationale for Participation Editor's note: This section is adapted from the PIM Handbook, which was distributed to the seminar participants. Copies of the Handbook are available from EDI.

Why participation? Another question might also be asked: "Why should the government be involved in irrigation?" Clearly, there are investments that only the government can make, or where the government has a definite advantage vis a vis farmers, even very well organized associations of farmers. Construction of dams and barrages, for example, or large canals, would be extremely difficult for farmers to handle. Governments provide us with available institutional resources -- departments, agencies, trained staff, etc -- which can be used to get things done. Why re-invent the wheel and ask farmers to organize their own arrangements for building as dam?

" Incentives. But farmers have direct incentives to manage irrigation water in a productive and sustainable manner. They offer an on-the-ground presence that even the most dedicated off-site agency staff cannot equal, and they have an intimate knowledge about their fellow irrigators. The logic of the PIM approach is that both governments and farmers have separate comparative advantages. At the moment, governments are trying to do much more than they can do well. What are the advantages that management by farmers -- by the users -- can offer?

" Improved design, construction, and O&M. When farmers are directly involved in the design process, whether for new systems or rehabilitation of old ones, they will provide useful design input and they will come away with an understanding of the design logic of the system they will be managing. During construction, farmer input has the functions of quality control (ensuring design standards are met), cost savings (through guarding against needless spending, and substituting some costs with farmers' own labor), and construction knowledge. Knowing how the system is constructed will help in repairs later on. The advantage of farmer inputs into O&M, either as direct managers or as the overseers of technical managers, has been discussed.

" Lower costs to government. Cost savings to the government irrigation agency is often the driving force behind irrigation policy reforms. Government run systems are chronically short of maintenance funds leading to deteriorating systems and more difficult operation. Management transfer of major levels of the system to users offers government agencies an escape from this vicious cycle. While some critics see this as merely passing the costs on to farmers, the picture is not usually so bleak. Evidence from Mexico and Turkey suggest that farmers can manage better and more cheaply than their government predecessors. Thus, both farmers and government can benefit from these cost savings; farmers can enjoy better service, and cost savings; the government incurs less management cost and can then afford to improve service in the main system.

" Social capital. The organizations that farmers establish for managing their irrigation systems constitute a form of social capital that can have spin-off effects in other aspects of social and economic life. The network of contacts among agency staff and the water user organization leadership, for example, can bring the farming community into closer touch with related services, e.g., credit, educations opportunities, or even political access. And the skills that farmers learn through their experience with their water user organization -- accounting, budgeting, planning, organizing -- constitute a set of knowledge that can be used in many other productive endeavors.