Three Problems in Implementing PIM

Editor's Note: The Newsletter asked several of the INPIM Board Members to share the ``dark side" of PIM with their colleagues. We asked them to tell us the three major problems they are facing in implementing PIM in their countries. Here are the responses from Albania, Morocco, and India.

Problems in Albania

by Ylli Dede, Albania

The major problems (we have unfortunately more than three) in Albania since January 1997 in implementing Participatory Irrigation Management are the following:

1. Farmers lost their money in pyramid schemes, which collapsed, leaving farmers with no resources to buy proper seeds, fertilizers and inputs. The market collapsed when the borders closed because of the unrest. Now the situation has stabilized, but still there are some armed gangs roaming around, so field visits by project officers are restricted.

2. Farmers lost confidence in Government agencies, which caused a set-back in transfer or handing over of the irrigation infrastructure to the Water Users Associations. Tertiary Unit development through training and organizing women farmer groups to undertake other activities, like starting nurseries for vegetable (tomatoes, cucumber, eggplant, etc.) growing, plant-protection instructions, and business management has been delayed.

3. With the arrival of the new Government, and a safer condition for people to travel, a start could be made to reorganize and restructure the present Irrigation Service (Water Enterprises) into a Directorate that administers the water (both irrigation and drainage) for the users. The water management fee (Irrigation Service Fee) should be based on the budget of a sustainable Government organization, and be reasonable for the poor farmers.

Problems in Morocco

by Ali Moulid, Morocco

The implementation of PIM in Morocco is coming up against several problems in the large irrigation systems. These include:

1. Lack of Training. The abrupt transition from a non-participatory management system to a participatory management system is being carried out with little preparation of the concerned technical staff or the users. There is a problem in helping both sides -- government administrative staff and the users -- to assimilate a new set of duties and responsibilities.

2. Defining What to Transfer. The management level and the specific tasks to be transferred to the Association of Agricultural Water Users (AUEAs) is still not clearly defined. The tendency is toward a progressive strategy that consists of proceeding step by step to adapt to the specificities of each case in the best way possible and to ensure the understanding and support of the irrigation users.

3. Cost Recovery and Financial Sustainability. The composition of a treasury fund for the AUEA and its renewal by the simple collection of user contributions is not accepted by all AUEAs. In particular, asking farmers to pay for tasks previously provided by the government is problematic. Moreover, the increase in the price of water and the overall decrease in prices for agricultural products threatens the viability of farming enterprises. One possibility is for the government to provide the AUEA with the necessary technical and administrative staff until such time as the AUEA has sufficient financial resources to cover these or equivalent staff. Assuring durable financing for the activities of the AUEA is a question that is being actively investigated now.

Problems in India

by L. K. Joshi, India

1. Lack of Financial Support: Irrigation system in the country has not been maintained properly over the years resulting in its deterioration and decay. Before the system is handed over to the farmers for O&M, they do expect it to be in running condition. The rehabilitation of the system requires substantial financial inputs. It has been estimated that the average cost of rehabilitation is around Rs. 5,000 (US $140) per hectare. Funds are also required for training, motivation, publicity in media, supporting NGOs and providing incentives to Water Users' Associations for taking up the management of systems. There is no budgetary support for PIM in federal or State Governments. The Planning Commission of India is considering a five year plan to support this activity.

2. Absence of Legal Framework: Since participatory irrigation management is a new activity, understandably the State Irrigation Acts do not have any provision for Water Users' Associations (WUAs). The WUAs and their rights and obligations have not been codified. The amendments to irrigation acts requires a great deal of application and administrative as well as political will. Andhra Pradesh is an example of how the political will of the Chief Minister could transform the scene in just one year during which time Andhra Pradesh, a province of India, enacted a law on PIM and created more than ten thousand WUAs by holding elections for these.

3. Training and awareness: The government of India feels that training and motivation of the agency staff and farmers are the two most important inputs for introduction of PIM in India. Unfortunately, there is a dearth - or near absence - of institutions which can impart training in this programme. There is a need to revamp the training institutions by improving their physical infrastructure as well building their capacity for training by first providing training to trainers.