Last year's international seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) held in Mexico has become an annual event. This year it was the "Second International Seminar" on PIM which was held in Antalya, Turkey from April 10-17, 1996. It was a worthy successor to the Mexico seminar: more participants (124), more countries represented (13), and more languages (Turkish, English, and French simultaneously translated; plus four other languages in whispered translations). The size and diversity of the seminar was a constant reminder that PIM is a global trend.

The seminar was co-sponsored by the Economic Development Institute (EDI) of the World Bank, and the Turkish General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI). The first half of the seminar focused on Turkey's experience, and included field visits to Irrigation Associations and presentations. The second half of the seminar focused on the participants' own countries, with each country delegation preparing an indicative action plan for introducing PIM in to their home countries. The seminar proceedings, currently under preparation, will include these action plans, along with sumaries of the major presentations.

Turkey´s Transfer Program

PIM in Turkey was adopted as national policy in the early 1950s, but these policies took on real importance only after 1993, when the Accelerated Transfer Program (ATP) was launched. Under the ATP, the government is transferring management of any systems where farmers are willing to accept the program. This policy was motivated by the heavy financial burden on DSI stemming from consistent O&M budgetary shortfalls. The water fee collection rate was only 42%, and the high costs of unionized labor further aggravated the situation. At the same time, the governmentís general policy of promoting privatization was also a contributing factor. And there was already some positive experience from irrigation systems that had been transferred and were performing well.

In 1993 and 1994, DSI, with support from the World Bank, sent more than 50 senior officials to Mexico to learn about the ongoing transfer programs in that country. To initiate the program in Turkey, four pilot regions were selected: Izmir, Konya, Antalya, and Adana. A friendly competition emerged among the various regions. The policy that O&M engineers would not lose their jobs as a result of transfer contributed to the high morale of DSI staff, who themselves served as the promoters of the policy. They worked closely with village and municipality councils and chairmen in introducing the new program.

Background Study. The seminar discussions about Turkey's transfer program revolved around a background study which had been commissioned jointly by EDI, the International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI), and DSI. [This report, entitled, "Participatory Irrigation Management in Turkey" is available upon request for INPIM members. Please refer to the section on Suggested Reading in this newsletter.] The report's lead author, Dr. Mark Svendsen, made a presentation which outlined the broad features of the transfer program and questioned whether the irrigation associations created under the Accelerated Transfer Program were truly ìparticipatoryî or were better described as ìdecentralizedî irrigation management (DIM), under local governmental control rather than centralized governmental control. Since the seminar had been located in Turkey on the premise that the transfer program was a model of ìparticipatoryî irrigation management, the issue provoked a lively debate, and helped focus the attention of the seminar participants on this basic institutional question.

PIM or DIM?

The answer that emerged from this debate (see Box) is that PIM in Turkey could be introduced so quickly precisely because there were existing local institutions -- such as village government -- that could provide leadership to the new irrigation organizations. Generally about one third to one half of the Irrigation Association executive committee is comprised of elected officials who were elected to something else (e.g., a mayor or village head) and serve on the Irrigation Association in this capacity. Thus, in Turkey, transfer has resulted in a decentralization to local levels of management which are closely linked to municipal governments, but also exhibit many participatory elements.

Field Visits. The field visits on the second and third days of the seminar gave participants a thorough introduction to the nature of Irrigation Associations in the Antalya region of Turkey. The systems visited ranged in size from 1,500 to 15,000 ha, with an average farm size of about 3 ha. Some typical questions and answers during the visits included the following:

Q. Is the Board of Directors elected by the farmers?

A. All of them are. The President of the association is a village chief (mukhtar) who is also a farmer.

Q. How do they take decisions?

A. They meet twice a month to decide basically on expenditures. The General Assembly meetgs twice a year.

Q. Do they receive any subsidies from the government?

A. Yes; mainenance of the main and secondary canals is done by DSI; the association maintains the tertiaries.

Q. What kind of personnel does the Association have?

A. They hired new staff after the creation of the Association [The largest system, Koprucay Right Bank, has 14 permanent and 44 temporary staff].

Q. How do they deliver water to farmers?

A. They operate an on-demand water delivers; users ask for water when they need it.

Q. Is there any difference in water scheduling since the transfer?

A. At the tertiary level the farmers are getting better service.

Q. How is the water fee determined?

A. The General Assembly determines the water fee on the basis of the crops to be grown.

Q. Who decides the cropping pattern?

A. Except for sugar beets, whcih are government controlled, farmers decide.

Q. How did the association get formed?

A. Through negotiations with DSI.

Q. Is the Mukhtar always the Association president?

A. No. The mukhtar may or may not be elected by the Assembly, although he usually gets a post on the Board of Directors.

Q. What is the composition of the budget?

A. Maintenance 30%

Operation 30%

Administration 40%

Q. What is the O&M cost recovery?

A. It was 60% last season [in Manavgat Left Bank association], because cotton growers refused to pay, as they were unable to sell their product. [Note: In most other systems is about 90%.]

Action Plans

Country action plans were formulated by each delegation meeting in intensive sessions during the second half of the seminar. The action plans will be published in the seminar proceedings, currently under preparation. In formulating their action plans, the country delegations took inspiration from their new understanding of Turkey's experience, but did not attempt to replicate that experience. Each action plan addressed a common set of issues, including:

• Objectives of the PIM program:
• Functions to be transferred
• Incentives to (a) farmers and (b) agency
• Proposed legal changes to support PIM program
• Implementation steps
• Proposed structure of WUAs
• Phasing and timing of PIM program
• Training needs for (a) agency staff, (b) organizers, and (c) association staff
• Financing of the PIM program
• Monitoring and evaluating the program

What Next?

Judging from the success of the second international seminar on PIM, there is going to be a strong demand for a third international seminar. That seminar is likely to be in Japan, a country that adopted PIM policies during the era of post-war reconstruction. There is much to learn from Japan's management experience -- no only in the industrial sector, but also in irrigation. We will be announcing the dates and venue of the seminar in the next issue of this newsletter.

- David Groenfeldt, World Bank Economic Development Institute