Speech on PIM

Bhurban, Pakistan
1 October 1995

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: It is really an honor for me to speak to you this morning on behalf of the World Bank, and particularly the Economic Development Institute within the Bank. For those of you who could not attend last year's seminar and may not be familiar with EDI, let me say briefly that EDI is the training arm of the World Bank. But we interpret the training concept quite broadly. We offer ideas to countries interested in considering those ideas, just as the operational side of the Bank offers loans. But unlike the loans you are familiar with, which must be paid back with interest, we at EDI only ask that you BE interested in the ideas. Then we are happy to work with you in exploring how those ideas -- in this case, PIM -- can be made relevant to your particular country situation.

The Government of Pakistan has expressed clear determination to implement participatory irrigation management or "PIM". You are embarking on a new adventure. The approach of PIM calls for a new type of relationship between farmers and government. Some of you may have some doubts and even fears about the concept of PIM. Change is always difficult, but change can also be very rewarding. I think you will look back upon this change and find that it was the right thing to do at the right time in Pakistan's irrigation development.

In fact, PIM is not a new concept in Pakistan. Farmers have traditionally built, operated, and maintained their own irrigation systems without government assistance, for example in the civil canals of Northwest Frontier Province. Only in the modern era has government management become the norm in the irrigation sector. We have become so used to the idea that government should take care of the management that we have forgotten about farmers' inherent capabilities. We have justified government's monopoly on management as being in the farmers interest.

Recent experience around the world has suggested that this assumption is wrong. Once farmers become familiar with self-management, they usually prefer it to the situation of government managing for them. By taking control of their own management, farmers in Mexico, in Turkey, and on a pilot basis in Nepal, India, and Sri Lanka, have found that they have more secure water deliveries and better maintenance. The benefits of improved performance has more than off-set the higher costs which farmers impose on themselves to keep their system in good operating order.

What about the government staff? Are they put out of work because farmers are doing everything themselves? PIM does not require anyone to lose his or her job. Water user organizations that manage large systems will need to hire trained engineers and other field and office staff, as is the case in Mexico. Other government staff can be re-assigned to help improve the management of the main system where government responsibility will continue.

This is how PIM is truly a "win-win" situation. Farmers receive more secure water deliveries; government agencies experience cost savings, and government staff are re-allocated to new assignments both within government and with the new water user organizations.

Participatory irrigation management is fast becoming the irrigation slogan of this decade. The reasons are clear. We have tried new construction. We have tried rehabilitation. Now we are trying PIM. Will it work? I think it will work, that it will produce results, because we are finally addressing the heart of what is wrong with our irrigation systems. The physical problems were symptoms, not causes.

Yes, there is a genuine need for physical improvements, but without improving the institutions that manage those physical systems, we will see another cycle of deterioration. This is why the World Bank is promoting PIM. With the introduction of participatory management along with physical improvements, we expect great things from Pakistan's irrigated agriculture.