Third International Seminar on PIM

The seminar was held in Tokyo from May 26 to June 1, 1997, and attracted more than 80 participants from 14 countries in addition to Japan, and several international organizations to discuss institutional policy reforms taking place in the irrigation sectors of their countries. The policy reforms discussed related to participatory irrigation management, arguably the most significant change taking place in the world's irrigation sector today. While new technologies of drip and sprinklers, automatic control gates, etc. are changing the way irrigation is done in particular settings, the management reform of PIM has much more far-reaching consequences for irrigation sector-wide. Indeed, the transfer of management responsibility from public agencies to water user groups is often the best point of entry for the widespread adoption of more efficient water distribution technologies. Thus, PIM policies are not only a way of achieving a more transparent and responsive management culture within the irrigation sector, but can lead to real water and cost savings through the multiplier effects of management reform. These potential benefits have yet to be rigorously documented and proven, but are consistent with both empirical observations and management theory.

The seminar began with a welcome address by Hatsuya Azumi and Miyamura and was followed by two days of presentations and discussions on the concepts of PIM, the experience of the participating countries, and an overview of the Japanese case(land Improvement District) and its Role. Although the seminar was held in downtown Tokyo, irrigation systems were only a train ride away. On day three, 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. The entire groups of seminar participants convened again in Tokyo on Day 4, made presentations on the field visit and spent three more days in discussing the relevance of Japan to their own countries, issues of institutional reform within government irrigation agencies, and developing action plans (Albania, Andhra Pradesh, China, India, Macedonia, Philippines, Vietnam and Yemen) for implementing PIM policies in their home countries. View the seminar program and the list of participants.

Japan's Experience with Land Improvement Districts:

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. Although Japan boasts the world's second largest economy, Japan has also led the way in pay-as-you go irrigation management. It may seem ironic that the same government that provides heavy subsidies to rice farmers also has a policy of full operational cost-recovery for the irrigation services provided to those same farmers. Why not subsidize irrigation services as well?

The answer has to do with creating incentives for wise management of the irrigation systems in which government and farmers have jointly invested. When farmers are genuine owners of those systems, and when they make their own decisions about operations and maintenance, both government and farmers can benefit. 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 participants' visit to the field confirmed that 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.

Is Japan Relevant? Is the Japanese experience relevant to less developed countries? 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 in the United States more than a decade ago. Could American workers operate under Japanese-style management systems that encourage worker participation in the operation of the plant? 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 may be less enthusiastic about the prospect of participatory management.