Management Models from Japan: The 3rd International Seminar on PIM

The Japanese seem to do everything well, and irrigation management is no exception. Boasting what most observers agree is the world's most robust economy, and what competitors claim is the world's most heavily subsidized rice production, Japan has also led the way in pay-as-you-go irrigation management. Why does the same government that subsidizes rice have a policy of full operational cost-recovery from farmers in irrigation management?

It was partly to answer this question that the 3rd International Seminar on PIM was held in Japan. With so many developing countries turning to PIM as a means of cutting government costs, the conference organizers felt it would be interesting to look at a country which is certainly rich enough to subsidize irrigation management, but doesn't.

Japan's Experience with PIM

Japan has long practiced participatory irrigation management from traditional times to the modern era. New irrigation projects are based on the assumption that farmers will manage the operations and maintenance once construction is completed. How can Japanese farmers, most of whom are only week-end agriculturalists who pursue manufacturing jobs during normal working hours, perform the complicated management tasks needed to keep their systems in top condition? These busy farmers do not get involved in day-to-day details of management; rather, they elect representatives to a management board which oversees technical engineers who actually operate the system.

The organizations providing the legal framework for this arrangement are known as Land Improvement Districts (LIDs). These were established in 1949, shortly after World War II, and were linked to land reform and land consolidation that produced the small (average less than one hectare) holdings we still see today. The LIDs are basically American-style water districts often connecting several small traditional systems under an umbrella management structure. The LIDs provide a demand-driven approach to construction of new irrigation facilities. To request a new irrigation system, or the linkage of several existing system under a new diversion weir (a typical case), farmers must agree to form an LID which will pay a portion of the capital cost, and agree to cover the full costs of subsequent O&M. Requests for rehabilitation follow the same pattern, although farmers' share of the capital costs is usually 50%. The 7,700 LIDs control 3.2 million hectares and comprise 4.5 million members. The average size, which varies considerably, is 400 hectares and 600 persons. Most headworks and main canals, and all secondary systems, are managed by LIDs.

The Seminar

The seminar was held in Tokyo from May 26 to June 1, 1997, and was jointly sponsored by the World Bank's Economic Development Institute (EDI) and the Japanese Institute for Irrigation and Drainage (JIID). The seminar attracted more than 80 participants from 15 countries and several international organizations. The logistics of the seminar and the field visits were flawless, prompting many participants to question how other countries could hope to replicate the Japanese approach to management, whether in the irrigation sector or any other sector.

The seminar began with two days of presentations and discussions on the concepts of PIM, the experience of the participating countries, and an overview of the Japanese case. One concept which provoked particular discussion was the distinction between management transfer and participation (this issue was also featured in the last Newsletter). The Philippines approach to PIM scores high on participation (a high proportion of farmers are involved in decisions about O&M mainly at the tertiary level), but low on transfer (secondary canal O&M is mostly in the hands of the state). The term ``PIM" implies both transfer to user management and participation by normal farmers in decision-making, indirectly (through representatives) if not directly. 

Although the seminar was held in downtown Tokyo, irrigation systems were only a train ride away. The participants divided into two groups for an overnight field visit, one group going south to Shizuoka Prefecture, and the other group going northwest to Gumna Prefecture. In each location the participants were briefed by the local prefectural office before splitting into three small groups to visit LIDs.

Field Observations

The LID structures are well maintained; service is excellent, and O&M costs are fully recovered -- but not only from farmers. LID budgets are sometimes subsidized by local municipalities and private businesses. Particularly in cases where municipal water is conveyed through LID infrastructure, there is a mutual interest in good maintenance. Water rights are generally not transferable between agricultural use and municipal/industrial use. Participants were surprised that farmers' water fees are based on crop and area, rather than on water volume (which is not measured). While all appears well with the LIDs at the moment, there are problems looming. The farming population is aging; they are mostly part-time farmers (nearly 90%), and there are an increasing number of non-farmers moving into the rural areas, occupying land once used for farming, and adding to the non-agricultural water demand. While there are legal obstacles to converting land from agriculture into anything else, the cultivated area is gradually shrinking, while the water rights of LIDs remains constant. Eventually there will certainly be a demand for re-allocation of the water to more non-farm uses.

Conclusions: Is Japan Relevant?

Is the Japanese experience relevant to other countries, or more to the point, to less disciplined people? The seminar participants were very much impressed with the Japanese work ethic and sense of personal responsibility that seemed to underlie the successful management of their irrigation systems. Is the Japanese management style transferable to other countries and other cultures? The same questions were asked with respect to automobile manufacturing more than a decade ago. Could American workers operate under Japanese-style management systems that encourage worker participation in the operation of the plant?

Ford Motor Company adopted the Japanese management approach as company policy in the 1980s, making some adjustments for American culture, but preserving the elements of participation from the workers in management decisions. There was no cultural barrier to participation in car manufacturing, although there were barriers in the corporate culture; it was often the managers who faced the most difficulty in adapting to the new paradigm of participatory management. Now Japanese management has lessons to teach us in the irrigation sector, and we find the same type of response: the farmers are usually eager to become involved in higher level management decisions, while those managers who currently enjoy unrivaled authority are less enthusiastic about the prospect of participatory management. We still have much to learn from Japan, and look forward to continued discussion on this topic in this Newsletter.