PIM or DIM

[Editor's Note: During the PIM seminar in Turkey, there was a good deal of discussion about the extent to which normal farmers have a voice in the management of their irrigation systems. How is the management board elected? Is the process truly "participatory" or is management really controlled by local elected mayors and village heads?]

In the draft report on Participatory Irrigation Management in Turkey by Svendsen et al. (April 1996), it is stated that the members of the association are local administrations and not individual water users. Individual water users generally participate through participation in the general electoral process for local administration officials." If this is indeed the case, the Turkish model appears to be a case of Decentralized Irrigation Management (DIM) rather than Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM). However, judging from a field visit to the Manavgat Right Bank Irrigation Union and Aksu-Orta Irrigation Union, both in the Antalya Region, it appears that the above assertion by the draft report is not quite correct.

In the case of the Manavgat Right Bank irrigation system, whose command area covers 18 villages, there are 18 "natural" (ex officio) delegates and 36 elected" delegates, or altogether 54 delegates in the irrigation association, which is called a Union Administration. The 36 elected delegates were elected by individual water users through a special election to send two delegates per village to the Union Administration. The other 18 natural delegates are all village heads or mayors, who were elected through the normal local administration election process, and were automatically given seats in the administration by virtue of being a village head or a mayor.

The case of the Aksu-Orta is similar in that the Union Administration consists of 5 natural delegates and 15 elected delegates from 1 municipality and 4 villages, or altogether 20 delegates. While the natural delegates might have been nominated automatically to the Administration, they were nevertheless elected by the residents of the concerned villages, most of whom are also farmers. Further, it is reported that almost 80 per cent of the village head's time is being spent for irrigation matters, and therefore the farmers normally take account of this fact when casting their votes in the local elections.

Consequently, as far as Manavgat Right Bank and Aksu-Orta Unions are Concerned, the Turkish model appears to be a true case of "PIM" and not only DIM.

In my opinion, this model of mixing the existing local administrators (who are themselves largely farmers) with newly elected farmer delegates, is a most practical way to get management transfer started quickly, because the new and fragile Irrigation Association (Union Administration) can depend on the existing institutional capital of the local municpal administrations.

Once the irrigators' Union Administration becomes stronger (through fee collection and by gaining experience in running the operation and maintenance), the system of automatically ensuring seats for local administrators could perhaps be abolished in order to ensure independence of water users from government authorities. But this matter needs further thought and above all more time to see how the Union Administrations evolve. It will be interesting to watch these new organizations as they develop and change in ways that we cannot now anticipate.

-  Hatsuya Azumi, World Bank Economic Development Institute