PIM or IMT

Editorial: ``PIM" or ``IMT"?

Most readers of this newsletter are familiar with these two acronymswhich we often use interchangeably. But Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) is not the same thing as Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM). The term, IMT, refers to the act of transferring management from the publicsector agency to some other entity, usually a water user association. PIM, in the sense we use it in this Newsletter, usually refers to the situation after this act of transfer has taken place, and a big concern ofmany of us is to arrive at that happy state of affairs when the transfer isover. But is that really all we're concerned with: the act of transfer? The"P" word in PIM is participation. Those who prefer to use the term, IMT, point out that the word "participation" has been too casually used in the irrigation profession to refer to such inconsequential behaviors as a few farmers cleaning their farm ditch at the same time. That level of participation, clearly, is not what we are devoting our careers to realizing. We are looking for participation in the real substance of irrigation management: the decisions about water issues in the canals,about what repairs should have priority, about the types of structures toinvest in, and about the fees to be paid. When the users are making these kinds of decisions, we can speak confidently about participation. And normally this kind of "real" participation only happens when management istransferred away from the government agency. But the real world is not so simple. It is possible for users insystems that have not been formally transferred to enjoy real participation in management decisions. This is the Philippine model of PIM: farmers and agency staff are supposed to manage jointly. It can happen, and it appears that in some cases at least, the model does work: participation without full transfer. And the reverse can also happen: systems can be transferred to user management without the participation of common farmers.WUAs can be managed by a small elite group, operating just asautocratically as did the old government agency. The fact that the association leaders are elected does not ensure that the users willparticipate in management, or even that they will participate in the election. In recent elections in the city of Los Angeles, USA, for example, only 20% of eligible voters exercised their right. Is this participation? For a government that is solely concerned with shedding the costburden of irrigation O&M, irrigation management transfer is attractive withor without participation. But the real benefits of transfer, according tomanagement theories at least, will come from the active involvement of thewater users in selecting their representatives and in closely following (and leading) the decisions taken by their management board. IMT isprobably a good thing, but PIM has the potential of being even better. 

- David Groenfeldt