Learning from Farmers: Using PRA for PIM

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) aims at involvement of farmers for improving irrigation efficiency and effectiveness. There are two approaches in vogue for introducing PIM. The participatory approach, working through motivating and organizing farmers, was pioneered in the Philippines in the early 1980s. The transfer approach, conferring management rights on the farmers through legislation, began in Mexico in the early 1990s.  Without going into the merits of the participatory versus transfer approach, what is considered here is that if a participatory approach is desired, it has to begin with learning from farmers:  What are their needs? What are the problems in meeting those needs?  What, according to them, are the solutions?  A working plan can be devised that would meet both the farmers' requirements and the minimum conditions of the government.

What is to be learned and how to learn from the farmers while introducing PIM is presented here based on the writer's experience. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA ) approaches and techniques are extremely valuable in establishing a friendly relationship which is necessary for understanding farmers' perceptions.

Image reality

Those in authority, such as irrigation officials, are likely to asses the image of their organization very differently from that perceived by farmers who know more intimately how the system actually functions. It would be a sobering experience for government officials to learn how the farmers assess the performance of their system. In a dialogue with farmers with land in the command area of a government canal, after establishing a friendly rapport, I asked them what are the factors that determine agriculture productivity. They discussed among themselves and started listing on a large piece of paper the following points:

1. Fertility of land
2. Deep tillage
3. Quality seeds
4. Farm yard manure
5. Fertilizer
6. Plant protection
7. Inter cultivation
8. Timely irrigation
9. Protection of crops
10. Financial resources
11. Market price
12. Availability of labour
13. Crop rotation

I then asked them to indicate through allotting point from a total of 100 (for which we used grain seeds) the importance of each of the factors. They deliberated before arriving at the following scores:

(Table-1 ) Factors Determining Agriculture Productivity

For `rabi' season, when the crops are raised only through irrigation, they allocated 22 marks to irrigation and the remaining 78 were distributed as shown above.

After discussing the primacy of irrigation in agriculture production in the rabi season, the next exercise was about what factors resulted in a good irrigation system.  The farmers group presented their considered views on another large piece of paper:

1. Careful planning for rabi irrigation
2. Adequate water distribution
3. Availability of water when required for crop growth
4. Maintenance of distributory / sub-minor
5. Distribution of water to farmers according to turn
6. Recovery of water charges
7. Satisfaction to tail-enders

Image of agency

The group of farmers was then asked to give scores to each of these factors on a scale of 1-10 (again using grainseeds). This third chart was prepared in 20 minutes.

(Table-2) Image as perceived by farmers:

Thereafter we held a separate session with irrigation officials and, without revealing the views of the farmers, we asked them to discuss in small groups and put down on paper their own views on the same issues:

(Table-3) Agency Image

Factor Score (out of ten)1.Planning for irrigation82.Adequate water distribution103.Availability of water when required104.Maintenance of distributory/sub-minor85.Distribution of water according to turn86.Recovery of water charges67.Satisfaction to tail-enders8

When the assessment of the farmers is thus juxtaposed with that of the irrigation officials, the divergence is dramatic.  The ground reality as perceived by farmers is very different from that of agency officials.

Any irrigation system will have its share of problems which farmers can identify.  This is particularly true, for tail end farmers who are away from the main canal, distributory, minor, sub-minor and the outlet.  There are always problems of seepage, deterioration of structures, malfunctioning of gates, wrong location of outlets, difficulty of carrying water to the end through some portions of open field channels and so on.  It is only a question of meeting the farmers and creating an environment where they can express themselves freely and confidently. PRA techniques are extremely valuable for creating this kind of atmosphere.

PRA Methods

As an example of the methods that can be used to elicit farmers' perspectives of their irrigation systems, the following field notes are presented:

Jaska: The irrigation engineer and myself visited this village, in the command area of a large irrigation project Dharoi in Gujarat, India, to find out if the farmers would be interested in PIM. As soon as the farmers gathered I asked the first question, as I always do : "First let me understand what is irrigation system that serves the farm lands of your village." Promptly the irrigation engineer unrolled three maps, one for each sub- minor. I said it would be difficult to understand the problems of this village if we have to look into 3 maps. In any case I wanted PRA approach to understand the local situation as farmers perceived it.

I suggested that we prepare a fresh irrigation map of the village. I always carry chart papers and sketch pens with me. Farmers' first reaction usually is that they do not know how to draw maps. I then draw a small circle on the chart paper which represents the village site (housing area) and ask the participants to indicate the roads that lead into the village. Some people indicated by pointing and others actually drew a road. At our prompting, more roads were drawn. We then started to draw the canals.

At this stage I found that one leader, who was apparently more educated and articulate, was speaking on behalf of all and therefore was a barrier to participation of more farmers. I therefore put my finger on a particulars minor and asked who are the farmers at the tail end? A farmer raised his hand. I asked him to come forward and explain the adequacy of his water supply. He said he never got water! Obviously the leader could not speak on his behalf. Then I asked who else had land served by that canal. More farmers raised their hands and I asked them to come forward. The leader had to make room for them. Farmer after farmer pointing out the location of his farm narrated the problems they faced - problem of uneven canal bed, farmers in earlier reaches taking more water than their share, wrong location of outlet, missing outlet gate, etc. The leader only nodded in agreement while the farmers expressed their views. The irrigation engineer had no reason to contradict the facts narrated by the farmers.

The second round of discussion was about PIM and to what extent this arrangement of self-management could be beneficial and whether the responsibilities that would devolve on farmers would be worth the costs. That led to the issue of what needs to be done for rehabilitation of the scheme prior to management transfer. When broad consensus was reached regarding rehabilitation, the issue came up about contribution towards the cost of rehabilitation. According to rough estimates by the irrigation engineer, rehabilitation as indicated by the farmers would cost around Rs.400,000 and the usual 10% contribution would mean Rs 40,000. 

The first reaction of the farmers was that they are poor and they cannot raise such a large amount. I then entered into discussion about the additional production that would result on account of rehabilitation and due to improvement in the water delivery system which, when managed by the farmers' organization, will be more sensitive to the changing needs of individual farmers. A rough calculation indicated that the value of additional production would be Rs120,000 per year. This showed that the farmers would get back more than the amount of their contribution in the first year itself and thereafter they would have the benefit of additional income year after year. One of the farmers had business experience; I asked him "is there any honest business where you get back your investment in less than two years?" The farmers could see the implications of this discussion on cost benefit. No major decisions can be taken about PIM in a three-hour session of initial dialogue. It only prepares the ground for the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th round leading to acceptance of PIM with full understanding of benefits and costs of not only money but of responsibilities.

Kunjarav: The irrigation authorities had a view that the villages in the command area of the Mahi Irrigation Project in Gujarat (India) had hardly any problems of adequate and reliable water supply and therefore they would have difficulty in motivating farmers to accept PIM. The writer visited Kunjarava which was at the tail end of a distributory. When the discussion began the farmers said that they had hardly any problem with the irrigation department. I ignored what they said and asked them to show me on a chart paper what was the system like that served them. As soon as mapping was done, the farmers sitting in the 2nd or 3rd ring of the group pointed out a number of problems of adequate water supply from the government system and how they had to rely on private sources, their own or their neighbors', both at a heavy cost. The map revealed that only those farmers who had land close to the outlets were getting their designed water supply, and this hardly accounted for 35% of the command area. It was shocking to learn from an ad hoc study that 25 farmers had sunk wells in the command area, at an average cost of Rs. 75,000, because they could not rely upon the water supply from the government irrigation system. The irrigation authorities were all the time mentioning this as a good example of conjunctive use of water resources! Clearly, there were many deficiencies in the irrigation system. The next round of dialogue was about benefits and responsibilities if PIM is introduced in the village.

Essential elements of a participatory approach

The first step in adopting a participatory approach is to learn the farmers perceptions of their existing irrigation system. Then farmers and the development agencies (whether governmental or non-governmental) can move towards a clearer understanding of how PIM could help improve the situation, not merely in terms of better water delivery but more importantly from the farmers' angle, an improvement in production and income. Some general lessons gleaned from experience include the following:

Senior officers -- not only field staff -- need to visit and meet the farmers in the command areas, particularly those towards the tailend, and engage them in informal dialogues.

Farmers usually know the status of the irrigation system serving their lands better than the agency does. Their complaints about bad design and poor construction should be accepted as basically valid.

Mapping exercises can help farmers express their knowledge about their irrigation system; the visuals give a concrete reality to the discussion.

Many visits and many rounds of discussion are needed for the farmers and the agency to develop a spirit of mutual confidence. Setting the stage for management transfer is a process which cannot be rushed. The irrigation agency must be open and supportive and not pushing to add one more score in the achievement reporting. 

Benefits vs. incentives: Do not try to tempt the farmers by offering incentives. Emphasize with flexibility and sensitivity the benefits that should result when the system is managed by the farmers.

All this demands patience and commitment on the part of the irrigation agency's staff, and particularly the top management. The agency must pass through the learning phase, encourage a new attitude, develop skills on the part of field staff, and introduce PIM through a process that will generate self confidence in the farmers and create confidence in the intention and capability of the development agency. This initial phase cannot be rushed. Once this initial phase is well accomplished, subsequent expansion could be more rapid.

- Anil C Shah, Development Support Center, India

Mr. Anil C. Shah, Chairman, Development Support Center, 2, Prakruti Apartment, off SN Desai Road, Navarang Pora, Ahmedbad, India, Tel: (91) 79 642 1892; Fax: (91-79) 460 769; Email: Acshah@adl.vsnl.net.in