Fifth International Seminar

PIM in Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad is the capitol city of the state of Andhra Pradesh, known in India simply as “AP.” This state contains 4.8 million hectares of irrigated land, only slightly less than the irrigated area of the entire country of Mexico. Irrigated by waters from the Krishna and Godavari Rivers, this fertile state is considered one of the “rice bowls” of India.

In April 1997 the state parliament enacted a law transferring to farmers’ organizations full authority over the management of canal infrastructure at the minor (secondary) level and below. In July 1997, the government started the first phase of this transfer by creating over 10,000 WUA’s. About 2/3 of these are in small irrigation systems where the entire physical system is managed by a single WUA; while in the other third, several WUAs share management responsibility. In a few large schemes, a great number of WUAs must coordinate their management. In some districts, secondary commands have been brought under farmer authority as well. The associations are now in charge not only of the infrastructure, but also the irrigation engineers and water guards. These staff are now legally responsible to the chairpersons of the Farmers’ Organizations.

At the seminar, Mr. Raymond Peter, Commissioner of the Irrigation & Command Area Development Department (I&CADD), and a key leader of the reform, outlined the salient features of the reform. He communicated how they designed pilots, learned key lessons from them, drafted the enabling law, gathered political support (the law passed without any opposing vote), and funded the reform. He detailed the preliminary efforts to implement feedback and monitoring of the reform: how feedback from the farmers and technicians in the field was solicited; how that feedback (from 10,000 chairpersons) is organized every six months and kept separate from feedback from WUA board members; and how the outcomes of monitoring have been used to reshape the reform process.

The seminar was honored by a visit from the Chief Minister of AP, the Honorable Chandrababu Naidu. In his talk with seminar participants, he indicated that the changes taking place in irrigation are a part of a larger set of reforms in the state, affecting education, health care, and other sectors.

Record Attendance

The venue for the Seminar, the Krishna Oberoi hotel, was nearly bursting at the seams with the large attendance at the seminar. This was the largest seminar that INPIM has organized in its short history, with nearly 120 people in attendance. The participants represented countries with varying degrees of farmer involvement in irrigation management, and at different stages in the reform process. In some states, the government is turning over management to farmers, such as in Albania (5), China (2), and Egypt (4). In others, the government has plans for such a transfer: Indonesia (7), and Madhya Pradesh, India (3). Some states are currently studying the option: Bangladesh (9), Cambodia (2), Jordan (3), Vietnam (6), Uttar Pradesh (1), and Maharashtra (1). Other states have established the legal framework and are preparing to implement reforms: Nepal (9), and Pakistan (10). The 7-day seminar was attended by 5 Asian Development Bank and 4 World Bank Indian Resident Mission staff, as well as by 3 World Bank staff, 20 staff from the Government of India, 6 researchers, and several consultants.

Challenges Faced by the Irrigation Sector

Fernando Gonzalez, Senior Irrigation Advisor at the World Bank, gave a presentation on the future challenges in the Irrigation Sector. His speech was an adaptation of the keynote address he delivered at the 17th Congress of the International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage, in Granada, Spain from September 11-19, 1999. In his talk, Mr. Gonzalez reviewed the great success of irrigated agriculture over the last 25 years and discussed some of the challenges it will face in the next 25. The complete text of his speech is pending publication. We reproduce some of the key points from his talk here, for our readers who were not able to attend the Fifth International Seminar in Hyderabad.

• Irrigation is linked to food security in most regions of the world: irrigated agriculture produces about 2/3 of the world’s food on 1/3 of the arable land.
• Irrigators need to become better stewards of the environment. Irrigation consumes about two thirds of the world’s fresh water, and are the largest of non-point source polluters.
• Over the last 25 years, irrigation has been invaluable in raising the standard of living of the poor, especially in rural areas. Also, the price of food, in real terms, has come down by 50 percent in the last 30 years, largely due to irrigation.
• To place the advances made in the last 25 years into perspective, it is important to recognize that nearly one billion people are undernourished. As a percentage of the world’s population, this figure is no lower than in 1975. In this respect, virtually no progress has been made in the last 25 years.
• Today, there is less of an emphasis on construction of new irrigation works. Increasingly, donors and governments, with a few notable exceptions, are reluctant to construct new dams, canals, and new works. Emphasis has shifted from new construction to rehabilitation and modernization of existing schemes. Another driving force is globalization, and the expansion and liberalization of regional and world markets. For example, farmers in northwest Mexico now have to compete with farmers in the US and Canada in the production of wheat and corn.
• Ten years ago, international assistance organizations spent twice as much as the private sector on irrigation development. The situation has totally changed. Today, there is five times as much private investment in infrastructure as there is from international assistance organizations. Private investment for public works infrastructure is some $65 billion for the water sector, including $15 million for hydropower and $25 million for irrigation and drainage.
• Future trends in the irrigation sector include a modest increase in irrigated area. However, less water will be available for irrigation as demand for non-agricultural use of water increases. Effective linkages need to be made between irrigation and water resources management to improve the environmental conditions in many river basins. Mr. Gonzalez also noted that participatory approaches will play an important role in more efficient operation and maintenance of irrigation systems. He concluded by saying that today’s irrigation institutions lack the mechanisms to involve users in decision-making. Public institutions are over-extended and lack accountability. More work is needed to analyze the options for institutional reform. Capacity-building efforts must be made to strengthen institutions on both the government and user sides.

The Progress of PIM in AP

Before the reform, problems in AP included a serious decline in net irrigated area. Only 2.3 M ha of the 4.8 M ha of potential irrigated area created was actually under irrigation (a gap of 52% between potential created and actual irrigated area). There was also existed under-financing of operations and maintenance, and poor irrigation system efficiencies and water distribution (including significant wastage of water diverted and inequitable distribution of water within schemes, especially between head and tail ends) Following passage of the enabling legislation for PIM, the government of AP undertook an ambitious rehabilitation program, coinciding with the transfer of the schemes. With assistance from the World Bank, $28.1 M was provided in 1998 for minimum rehabilitation works (an investment of approximately $2.50/acre). From January 1998 to March 1999, 22,887 works were undertaken, of which 70% were implemented by WUAs or Distributary Committees. With this ambitious program of rehabilitation and reform, the government recognized the absolute necessity for establishing benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of the reforms.

The overall objective of the reform in AP is the sustainability of irrigated agriculture in the state. Therefore, M&E activities which have been performed to date in AP have focused on indicators that reflect the viability of WUA’s (social and financial), the equity and effectiveness of water distribution, agricultural yields, rural income, and social welfare. In July 1998, the presidents of 6,525 WUA’s were assembled in a stadium and asked to fill out a “feedback surveys.” These made use of optical magnetic readable forms, which can be instantly analyzed by machine. The I &CADD frequently uses this technique, as results can be reported to farmer and, in the same day, they can discuss what actions should be taken to solve problems. The initial results of the surveys, and other monitoring activities, which have been carried out, are very positive. Brief details are given here; more detail is included in documents listed under “Suggested Readings.”

Preliminary data from the first crop season following the reform suggest an increase in irrigated area and greater equity in water distribution. I&CADD data show that during the first season irrigated area in 12 major and medium schemes increased from 4.86 million acres in the previous year to 5.37 million acres. In the feedback survey, 87% of the WUA presidents in coastal AP reported an increase in irrigated area.

Equity of water distribution seems to have improved as well, with 81% of WUA presidents responding affirmatively to the question, “in your estimation, did all of the tail-enders receive water?” A majority of respondents also reported a decrease in water disputes.

Focus on Monitoring and Evaluation Theme

Participants at the Fourth International Seminar in Bali in 1998 agreed that monitoring and evaluation of irrigation reform and the functioning of water users’ associations is a necessary activity. However, one frequently finds that sufficient support or resources dedicated to ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities. There is relatively little literature or practical experience related to this field. For this reason, monitoring and evaluation was chosen as the theme for the Fifth International Seminar. The Government of Andhra Pradesh also eagerly supported this theme. According to Raymond Peter, his department had to design a system of feedback and evaluation for the newly-created WUA’s “from scratch.” He and his colleagues looked forward to bringing the collective knowledge and experience of experts from around the world to bear on the problem of how to design an effective program to monitor the reform and provide useful feedback.

Measuring the Impacts of Reform

“The AP program will benefit from continuous monitoring and periodic further assessment as it progresses.” -from the Introduction to World Bank report “Transferring Irrigation Management to Farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India.”

In order to help AP develop an M&E strategy, participants focused on this theme for several days during the seminar. INPIM invited two international consultants to give presentations and to assist in planning the program for working groups on monitoring and evaluation. Denise Beaulieu. brought significant experience in designing community participation in the water supply and sanitation sector. Ms. Beaulieu also gave a talk on th e management and long-term viability of the Water Users Associations, as well as the topic of self-monitoring by WUA’s.

Dr. Douglas Vermillion has considerable expertise is in irrigation management transfer and farmer managed irrigation, policy and institutional reform of irrigation sectors in developing countries, participatory appraisal and performance assessment. Dr. Vermillion delivered the keynote address on the first day of the seminar, focusing on the importance of monitoring and evaluation in Group work, present a few elements of Doug’s keynote, and summarize some of the results of the group work.

Performance assessment can be divided into three components of reform: 1) assessment of the process of implementation, 2) assessment of immediate outcomes of implementation, and 3) assessment of ultimate impacts.

Process issues are about the dynamics of change, procedures and achievement of specific targets. An assessment of process asks, “Are we doing things in the right way?”

Outcome issues are about the immediate, direct effects of a program, or the achievement of essential objectives. An assessment of outcomes asks, “Are we accomplishing our objectives?”

Impact issues are about the ultimate, indirect effects of a program, or the realization of the basic goals and purposes of the program. An assessment of impacts asks, “Have we done the right thing?”

When choosing performance criteria, it is important to consider that appropriate criteria share the following characteristics:

• · Validity of information
• · Generalizeability of information
• · Relevance of information
• · Efficiency of information
• · Assimilation capacity of information
• · Utilization & impact of information

Papers presented

In addition to the main theme of monitoring and evaluation, a number of individuals delivered presentations on various topics related to irrigation reform. Dr. Peter Mollinga gave participants a summary of the Researcher’s Conference entitled, “The Long Road to Commitment, The Socio-Political Dimensions of the Process of Irrigation Reform.” The conference convened immediately before the INPIM Seminar, and is reported on elsewhere in this issue. Dr. Bryan Bruns delivered a talk on “Common Pool Resources in Irrigation.” Margreet Zwarteveen engaged participants in a discussion of “Gender Issues in Irrigation Reform.” Anil Shah gave a presentation on “Capacity Building for PIM.” Some of these presentations truly represent the state-of-the art in PIM, as they reflect research-in-progress, and have not yet been published–keep on eye on future “Suggested Readings” columns in this newsletter, or contact the secretariat for more information.

Field Visits

Naxalite Violence forced diversion (mention?) Participants saw schemes, works carried out by WUA’s. Talk with WUA members, presidents. Visit to WUA offices, got to see their cash books, account books.