To help you specialized Agriculture - Forestry - Fishing with more data in the process of learning and working, you are invited to consult the thesis The role of the community in irrigation management below. Hopefully document useful service for you.
master thesis in rural development Master Thesis No XXX Master Thesis in Rural Development with Specialization in Livelihood and Natural Resource Management ISSN 1403-7998 The role of the community in irrigation management A study in two community-managed irrigation systems, Tuyen Quang province, Vietnam Cap Thi Phuong Anh, IPSARD, Vietnam Department of Urban and Rural Development Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences The role of the community in irrigation management A study in two community-managed irrigation systems, Tuyen Quang province, Vietnam C a p Th i Ph uon g A nh , I n st it ut e of P ol ic y an d S t te gy f or A g ri cu lt ur e a n d Ru l Dev e lo pm en t (IP S AR D) H a no i, V ie tna m Master Thesis in Rural Development with Specialization in Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management Master Thesis No XXX Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences i ABSTRACT This research is carried out to answer the questions on how the community of water users participates in irrigation management activities for agricultural production, consequences of participation for outcomes and what factors influence the success in irrigation management By a qualitative approach with perceptions and assessments of local people in two communities in Tuyen Quang province - Vietnam, this research gives a supplementary understanding on the role of the community in irrigation management to other research working on quantitative approach This research also contributes to considering type of community management through the cooperative The success in irrigation management depends on who define it and its linkage to participation of the community in management activities Findings of this research show that irrigation management through the cooperative may engage water users in different activities from planning, operation and maintenance, decision making and monitoring However, the type of participation in two study sites is different, symbolic in Y La and traditional in Kim Phu This difference has consequences for outcomes in irrigation management in terms of water distribution, maintenance and financial management Water users have their own perceptions and assessments on those outcomes, not depending on assessments by the State Findings also show that participation of the community is not sufficient for the success in irrigation management The success in irrigation management may be achieved by some factors motivating participation of the community (management organization) or influencing management in practice (leadership, partnership), but also may be achieved by conditional factors like cemented canals ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have received support from many people to complete this research But this is noteworthy for just a number of people involved The first among these are Dr Malin Beckman and Dr Pham Bao Duong, who gave useful and valued suggestions to me to follow the idea, make plans and write this research I highly appreciate their support not only for their comments but also their enthusiasm although their working schedules are tight Their encouragement through out the process of writing the thesis is acknowledged I also want to thank Dr Britta Ogle, Dr Le Duc Ngoan and other RDViet staff who gave financial and administrative support for this research There will be shortcomings if my thanks can not go to the lecturers during various theoretical courses I am very lucky to have their lectures I was really impressed by their teaching methods, especially Dr Adam Pain‟s, Dr Britta Ogle‟s, Dr Hoang Minh Ha‟s and Dr Do Kim Chung‟s The knowledge that I improve from their lectures and discussions helped me much in doing this research I thank the local authorities and people of Tuyen Quang province in general, of Y La and Kim Phu communes in particular Their welcome and supply of data contributing to this research are invaluable The last, my thanks goes to my family, friends and colleagues who gave me mental and scientific support to complete this research Thank you very much! Hue, 18th February 2008 Cap Thi Phuong Anh iii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Justification Problem Statement Research questions Research hypothesis Limitation of the research Research structure 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Some concepts 2.1.1 The community 2.1.2 Participation of the community 2.1.3 Irrigation management with participation of the community 2.2 Participation of the community, the success and failure in irrigation management 2.3 Factors influencing the “success” of irrigation management with participation of the community 2.4 Concluding remark IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM 3.1 History of irrigation management 3.2 The failure of the State in irrigation management 3.3 Increasing participation of the community by irrigation management transfer 3.4 Three current irrigation management models 10 3.5 Irrigation management through the cooperative 11 METHODOLOGY 12 4.1 Analytical framework 4.2 Approach 4.3 Methods 4.3.1 Site selection 4.3.2 Literature review 4.3.3 Data collection 4.3.4 Data analysis STUDY SITE 16 5.1 Natural, socio-economic characteristics of Tuyen Quang 5.2 Characteristics of irrigation systems in Tuyen Quang 5.3 Irrigation management and irrigation management transfer in Tuyen Quang 5.3.1 Irrigation management in the past and management transfer to cooperatives 5.3.2 Current irrigation management 5.4 Management of Ngoi La irrigation system 5.4.1 General characteristics of management 5.4.2 Y La irrigation system management 5.4.3 Kim Phu irrigation system management 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 20 6.1 Irrigation management by the cooperative as community management 20 6.1.1 Formation of the community of water users 20 6.1.2 Irrigation management organization of the community 21 iv 6.1.3 Irrigation management in practice and participation of the community 24 6.1.4 Discussion and interpretation on irrigation management and participation of the community 28 6.2 Management outcomes 28 6.2.1 Failures of irrigation management in the past 28 6.2.2 Outcomes of the current irrigation management mode 29 6.2.3 Discussion and interpretation on outcomes of irrigation management 34 6.3 Factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management 35 6.3.1 Assessment of the community 35 6.3.2 Discussion and interpretation on the factors and their importance 38 CONCLUSION 41 REFERENCES ANNEXES v ACRONYMS CPC GSO IDMC MARD Mil.D O&M PIM Communal People‟s Committee General Statistics Office Irrigation and Drainage Management Company Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Million Vietnamese Dongs Operation and Maintenance Participatory Irrigation Management vi LIST OF TABLES, DIAGRAMS AND BOXES TABLES Table 5.1: Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 6.4: Table 6.5: Table 6.6: Irrigation works in Tuyen Quang province 16 Number of cooperatives members and non-members in two study sites (in 2006) 21 Assessment of the local people on the water waste over 10 years 29 Assessment of the farmers on the timing of water supply in two study sites 30 Assessment of the farmers in two study sites on the canal maintenance 32 Expenditures of the cooperatives in 2005 34 Assessment of local people on factors influencing the success in irrigation management in ranked order 35 DIAGRAMS Diagram 3.1: Irrigation management models in Vietnam Diagram 6.1: Irrigation management organization in Y La Diagram 6.2: Irrigation management organization in Kim Phu 10 22 23 BOXES Box 6.1: Seasonal contracts between Ngoi La management board and member cooperatives Box 6.2: Responsibilities of the cooperatives in terms of irrigation management as regulated in the Decision 911 Box 6.3: What was approved in the annual Cooperative Congress in Y La and Kim Phu? Box 6.4: Why cooperative congress in Y La is symbolical? Box 6.5: Partnership with the State in collecting irrigation fee Box 6.6: Analysis of farmers in Y La on the reason why water supply is still wasted in some areas of rice fields Box 6.7: Case of punishment for the irrigation-drainage teams in Y La Box 6.8: What farmers say about the work of the irrigation-drainage teams? Box 6.9: What did farmers say about the previous management board head and the current one 25 25 26 26 27 29 31 32 36 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Justification The entry point of this research is the idea of community management, a concept on which there are presently ongoing debates In this context issues are raised concerning how the community is organized to manage resources, how it works to address failures of the State and/ or market; why one community can be successful in management while others are not Irrigation management for agricultural production may be an appropriate case to explore these issues The irrigation sub-sector, in recent decades in many countries in the world, is marked by a significant change in management The States, who played the key role in irrigation management in the past, carries out series of transfer programs in which management responsibilities and authority of small-scale irrigation systems or branch canals of large- and medium-scale ones are handed over to local organizations of water users like water user associations, cooperatives or just a group of farmers Since then the community of water users increasingly participates at different levels in managing irrigation systems serving their agricultural production themselves [Barker & Molle, 2002; Vermillion, 2006] One of the key reasons that cause such change originates from failures of the irrigation management mode in the past, when the State owned and managed irrigation systems without motivating water users in management rather than failures of technical issues [Barker & Molle, 2002; Thuan, 2004; Tiep, 2004; Trung, 2006] These failures are confirmed in various reports and have included low productivity of agriculture and water, budget deficit, canal deterioration or water waste [Barker & Molle, 2002; Vermillion, 2006] Therefore, participation of the community of water users in management activities is expected to be a solution to address the gaps of these failures In many countries, for example Turkey or Mexico, when the community of water users increasingly participate in irrigation management activities, it brings about better outcomes in term of functioning of irrigation systems [ Samad & Vermillion, 1999; Svendsen & Nott, 1999] However, outcomes not always get better after the increased participation of the water user Some just get partial benefits or continue to get failures even when the community participates in management like in the cases of Sri Lanka, Morocco [Vuren et al, 2002] Many studies show that the success or failure of irrigation management with increased community participation is influenced by not only participation of the community but also other factors like partnership with the State and other actors, characteristics of the community [Jones & Little, 2000; Khawaja, 2002; Krishna, 2003] In Vietnam, irrigation management transfer program which promotes participation of the community of water users in irrigation management began in the 1990s Among the first piloted provinces, Tuyen Quang implemented in the late 1996 The community of water users then participates in management of irrigation systems nationwide in different modes of water user associations (prevalent in the South), cooperatives (prevalent in the North) or groups of farmers; in different scales of a group, a village or a commune, inter-communes [Biltonen, 2004; Plusquellec, 2003] In the National Workshop on participatory irrigation management in Vietnam in 2004, many policy makers, researchers and farmer representatives expressed their concerns on how to manage irrigation systems well to get good outcomes when the community participates in irrigation management in partnership with the State in large- and medium- scale systems or in their own in small ones A lot of research has been done on irrigation management related issues but most concentrate on management models, transfer program or management mechanism, rather than focus on the community, the direct stakeholders and beneficiaries from irrigation service If some works try to investigate the objective aspects of management (system, mechanism), this research strives to observe and discuss the subjective aspect of management which is the community with their perceptions and assessments This research supposes that the assessment on irrigation management based on the perceptions and assessments by local people who have empirical knowledge on the service for their production themselves will provide important supplementary understandings of assessment on the outcomes of irrigation management with participation of the community and factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management From that context, this research is designed to reach the goal of contributing to improve knowledge on the role of the community in irrigation management for agricultural production Specifically, the research tries to reach the objective of identifying factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management in Y La and Kim Phu, two communities in Tuyen Quang province; 1.2 Problem Statement The State had failures in the past in managing irrigation systems Irrigation management transfer has been implemented, which reduced the role of the State and increased the role of the community of water users Increased participation of the community in management activities is expected to address the failure of the State when it plays the key role in irrigation management However, not all irrigation systems with participation of the community are able to function well 1.3 Research questions This research attempts to answer the following: 1) How does participation of the community address the failure of the previous State-managed irrigation systems? 2) Why does participation of the community in management activities not always bring about the success in irrigation management? 1.4 Research hypothesis 1) Participation of the community in irrigation management activities, including planning in terms of irrigation schedule and financial plans, decision making, operation and maintenance of canals, monitoring, is an important factor addressing the failures of the previous State-managed irrigation schemes; 2) To gain the “success” in irrigation management, participation of the community in activities has to go together with many factors like building strong community and enhancing partnership relation with the State or other actors 1.5 Limitation of the research Participation has a broad meaning which may cover various components The discussion in this research would benefit from a deeper exploration into all its aspects, its nature and participation level in order to provide more understandings about farmers‟ perceptions and assessments However, this has been beyond the scope of this study Only general participation in activities regarding irrigation management and perceptions of the farmer are explored Concretely, this research just works on the fields of how the community is organized and how they manage irrigation systems, what activities they participate in Frequency of participation, what force or motivate participation, factors influencing the participation like imitation, their interest or awards may be broad to be considered in this research It is also a limitation of this research to consider the cooperatives as the organizations of the community to manage irrigation systems The cooperatives in fact not include all community Timing and quantity Timing and quantity of water supplied is another aspect of water distribution than water waste Although currently when farmers are more involved in irrigation management then water waste reduce but many complaints concerning timing of water supply still remain in both study sites The purpose of any irrigation system is to provide high quality irrigation service to farmers for growing crops and equity for farmers The effects of any program which modifies the institutional arrangements for providing this service must therefore be evaluated in terms of the quality and equity of that service [Schouten & Moriarty, 2003] There are several basic dimensions in which quality and equity can be defined and evaluated These include the amount of water supplied, its distribution over the command area, and its distribution over time for farmers in upstream, midstream and downstream location The operation of the current irrigation management in two study sites is to supply water in turns As described in the management organization sub-section, irrigation schedule is done by the management board and approved in the cooperatives congress The board will inform the irrigationdrainage teams (in case of Y La) and the production team heads to follow As discussed by farmers in upstream, downstream and midstream of Y La and Kim Phu, the management in water turns will contribute to the decrease in water conflicts in term of stealing water or quarrels, but also create unequal water supply in some areas, particularly downstream located fields because it takes time for water to flow from upstream to downstream If duration for water turns in downstream is the same as duration for water turns in mid or upstream, then the real quantity of water which downstream located fields receive is much less than that of upstream located fields One question is also raised here The irrigation schedule is set up by the management board and approved by the cooperative congress with the participation of farmers once per year But there are two or three crops during the year How can the irrigation schedule fit the production in practice? Answering this question, managers in two study sites both tell about their adjustments during the crops, not from ideas of the farmers And this also explains why farmers complain about timing of water supply when they not really involve in adjusting plans being fit for their production themselves Table 6.3: Assessment of the farmers on the timing of water supply in two study sites (Compared to the past time of State-managed schemes) Farmers in Y La Farmers in Kim Phu Assessment Upstream Midstream Downstream Upstream Midstream Downstream Better x x x Better x sometimes No change x Worse x Source: Group discussions with local people, 2007 Table denotes the different assessment of farmers in Y La and Kim Phu, especially farmers in downstream areas In Y La, farmers not directly involve in regulating water into their fields in their water turns This activity is carried out by the irrigation-drainage teams As a result, the work of these teams will much affect to the agricultural production Farmers in downstream areas of Y La complain much about the timing of water supply According to them, irrigation management in which water is supplied in turns is good, but it also depends much on the irrigation-drainage teams The teams in their cooperatives not work in the sense of responsibility (see the case of punishment for the irrigationdrainage teams below) So that water timing is worse than the past time when they did regulate water themselves for their fields The question comes back with the monitoring work In Y La, monitoring work is done by the management board but not farmers Farmers just feedback if the work directly 30 affect their own production In that case, they have to report to the production team heads then management board What would be the outcome if the farmers, direct water users, can monitor directly what the irrigation-drainage teams for their production? Box 6.7: Case of punishment for the irrigation-drainage teams in Y La Mr.V, a farmer in the a production team, has more than 360 m2 of rice field One day in spring crop in 2006, he checks his field as normally and finds out that rice on his field was burnt by the sun because there is not water in his field although his turn of taking water is the previous day He comes to the production team head to report the situation The head then goes to the management board and a checking panel of members of controlling panel, management board, production team head and farmer is set up right one session after that The checking panel goes to the field and concludes that the situation is true And that is the mistake of the irrigation-drainage teams who not taking water to Mr V‟s field in his turn as their responsibilities The irrigation-drainage team is punished on the amount of money for Mr V to buy rice variety to re-grow on the field Source: Interviews, 2007 Unlike Y La, regulating water in turns in Kim Phu is done by the farmer themselves Although farmers in downstream location complain about the water timing in their turns, but it is more a consequence of the natural source of water (an increasing lack of water) rather than the management According to them, regulating water in turns is good particularly the management board often changes the water turns for them to take water into fields first But it also depends much on the cooperation among villages and cemented canals In term of water quantity, farmers in both study sites said that the quantity of water is not as much as before, but it is because of the natural source of water In general, the characteristic of agricultural production is to need water in time in certain periods, especially plough, weeding and flowering for rice crop Therefore, irrigation service has to pay attention to this Farmers, especially farmers in downstream areas, are often more disadvantage than farmers in midstream or upstream areas This is rather sensitive for the management board to have good management which makes farmers satisfied In other words, if the management board understand the characteristic and flexibly apply methods to fill the disadvantages for farmers in downstream, the management work will get alright (interview with the previous leader of Y La cooperatives, 2007) The next sections on factors influencing the extent to which participation of the community brings about “success” of management will discuss this point further 6.2.2.2 Maintenance Following water distribution as discussed above, maintenance is considered as the second outcome of irrigation management in this research Maintenance here refers to two activities: the first is cleaning the canals every crop, the second is big repairs when canals got downgraded or destroyed As regulated in the cooperatives regulations and the Decision 911 and Guideline 1790/HD-SNN, every cooperative will establish a fund for canal maintenance of big repairs, which is deducted from 35% of irrigation fees collected When canals need big repairs, the management board will make plan which will be approved in the annual Cooperative Congress and hire people to repair However, the management boards in two study sites say that during ten recent years, they not have to expend on big repairs because most canals in the past were ground ones, and cemented canals are just newly built in recent years Therefore the discussion will concentrate on canal cleaning activity by exploring the perception of the farmer, the direct beneficiary from the activity Cleaning canals is the activity of taking weeds and rubbish out the canals to have smooth flow of water, concurrently also the activity to limit downgrading of canals due to metals in the canals In two study sites, due to the differences in management organization modes and responsibility allocation, maintenance activity is carried out in different ways In the site of Y La where there are irrigation-drainage teams at cooperative level doing cleaning, farmers appear to be less satisfied with 31 the service On the other hand, in the site where farmers directly the maintenance themselves, farmers not complain about the service Table 6.4: Assessment of the farmers in two study sites on the canal maintenance (Compared to the past years of State-managed schemes) Farmers in Y La Farmers in Kim Phu Assessment Upstream Midstream Downstream Upstream Midstream Downstream Cleaner No change x x x Less clean x x x Source: Group discussions with local people, 2007 In Y La, cleaning the secondary canals is in responsibility of the irrigation team, two times per year at the beginning of every rice crop Cleaning tertiary and farm canals is carried out by the irrigationdrainage teams, twice per year Farmers not engage in this activity, neither the direct implementation nor the monitoring Farmers only give their comments when the work affects their production However, results from the discussions with farmers in Y La show that the irrigationdrainage teams work irresponsibly so that canals are less clean compared to the past time before 1996 when they did the work themselves Some cemented canals were destroyed because the irrigationdrainage teams run the plough machines Box 6.8: What farmers say about the work of the irrigation-drainage teams? Irrigation-drainage team members have to pay more attention to their work They go to the fields, but go by motorbikes like going out for relax Irrigation-drainage team members now are very bad They are very lazy Source: Group discussions with farmers in Y La When this matter was raised for discussion with the irrigation-drainage teams, the team head said that with just a few team members, they can not cover well the work on a large area of 300 ha, in equivalence of 30 per member And they are not paid enough to have more members Continuing with this discussion, farmers say that they are willing to pay more money if the irrigation-drainage teams work well on their fields It is credible because in Y La, beside irrigation fees as stipulated by the Province, farmers also pay kg of rice per 360m2 of land area for the irrigation service and irrigation-drainage teams The question comes back to the management board with the responsibilities of setting up criteria for selection and monitoring the work of the irrigation-drainage teams Is this caused by weak management skills or other reasons? This point will be discussed more in the following section of factors influencing the extent to which participation of the community brings about “success” of irrigation management Different from Y La, in Kim Phu, the cleaning of canals is done mainly by farmers because management is organized separately in different production teams Farmers are mobilized twice per year to clean the tertiary and farm canals Secondary canals are cleaned by village farmers as hired labours by the management board or by mass organizations, one time at the beginning of every rice crop Regarding this activity, farmers in Kim Phu not complain about cleaning canals because they can themselves for their fields Even farmers in Kim Phu not care about the cleaning of the secondary canals One question is also asked in the group discussion with farmers and managers why they not organize irrigation-drainage teams at the cooperative canals like Y La They say that teams will help them disengage in activities, but that they can themselves for their field is the best They just need the management board to set up irrigation schedule and generally mobilize farmers to clean canals in certain days As assessed by the Province, Y La is more “successful” than Kim Phu But according to the above analysis, farmers in Y La just participate indirectly in implementation activities and they complain 32 much about the timing and the work of the irrigation-drainage teams which affect to management outcomes and their production 6.2.2.3 Financial management a Irrigation fee collection One of the failures of the State-managed irrigation schemes in the past is the budget deficit, collection not covering all expenditures This is to show that irrigation fee collection work is important for irrigation management Moreover, it contributes to increased funds for canal maintenance and administration expenditures Tuyen Quang guidelines regulate that CPC has to support the cooperative in the irrigation fee collection work It means that CPC will not sign and stamp for the households members who have not completed their obligation of paying irrigation fees or will promulgate regulations through the mass organizations [Decision 44/2006/Q -UBND] Besides, mass organizations also involve in this activities by promulgating and persuading farmers as their members to follow regulations and pay irrigation fees As a result, results of the irrigation fee collection rate of the cooperatives also depend on CPC According to the management board, Y La has strong support from CPC so that they can get the high rate of fee collection during recent years Meanwhile, in Kim Phu, the rate is not so high The management board has to absolve many cases from payment of debts Two examples in the box 6.5 illustrate the difference on the support of CPC to the irrigation fee collection work of the cooperatives in study sites That is a big difference between the support of the CPC to two cooperatives An interview is also done to check about that support Chairman of the Y La CPC can answer all questions relating to the operation of the cooperative while chairman of the Kim Phu CPC does not care about that This may explain why the irrigation fee collection rate in Y La is rather high and that of Kim Phu is not so high According to the cooperatives statistics of two cooperatives, during past two years, the average rate of fee collection in Y La is 93.1% (92.5 % in 2005 and 93.7% in 2006) and in Kim Phu is 64.1% Support by CPC in collecting irrigation fees may bring about political impact because the State uses its power on the farmer However, this discussion does not take this issue into account In term of irrigation management, this support will help the cooperative to achieve its goal of raising collection rate b Expenditure According to the Guidelines 1790/HD-SNN, returns of irrigation fees will be used for expenditures of administration, canal maintenance and others Although the irrigation fee collection rates in two study sites are not the same, expenditures are similar in term of compliance with regulations on how large of percentage of the funds are used for which activities? 33 Table 6.5: Expenditures of the cooperatives Y La Item Amount of money (Mil.D) Total revenue 404.60 Total cost 475.34 Irrigation fee to higher board(s) 88.98 Maintenance 38.27 Administration cost 56.45 Construction 182.25 Wage for irrigation-drainage teams/ 50.26 production team heads Other 59.13 Source: Cooperatives statistics, 2007 in 2005 100 18.72 8.05 11.87 38.34 10.57 Kim Phu Amount of money (Mil.D) 206.11 174.11 19.12 45.31 56.27 31.45 2.71 100 10.98 26.02 32.32 18.06 1.56 12.44 19.25 11.06 % % The table shows that in 2005, both Y La and Kim Phu follow the regulation on expenditures which more than 40% is for construction and maintaining canals 6.2.3 Discussion and interpretation on outcomes of irrigation management In general, the current irrigation management with participation of the community in all activities gains better outcomes in terms of water distribution, water maintenance and financial management compared to those in the past when the State played the key role However, assessment of the farmer on those outcomes is not similar as the assessment by the Province As reported by the Provincial People‟s Committee, Y La is more “successful” than Kim Phu But to the farmers, which community is more successful depends on which criteria is used to assess If the criterion is irrigation fee collection rate, Y La is more successful than Kim Phu because it has a higher rate If the criteria are canal maintenance and water timing, Kim Phu is more successful because the farmer, the direct user, does not complain as much as the farmer in Y La does The concern comes back with which criteria are used by the Province to assess the “success” of the cooperative The answer of the Province is not clear and satisfactory Further, the point of the farmer assessment of outcomes of irrigation management, as analyzed above, may link closely to their participation Farmers in Y La not participate directly in irrigation management They have their representatives (the management board, irrigation and irrigationdrainage teams, production team heads and farmer representatives) However, their participation in planning and decision making is symbolic Cooperative congresses are not forum to receive and respond to their ideas and needs It is plus with complaints of the work of the irrigation-drainage teams and weak monitoring of the management board Therefore, farmers in Y La complain much On the contrary, in Kim Phu, participation of farmers is traditional but direct so they not complain as much as farmers in Y La One issue is raised here on what will be outcomes if in Y La, the cooperative is really a forum for farmers to contribute to plans and decisions as well as there is a stronger monitoring mechanism on the work of irrigation-drainage teams; on what will be outcomes if in Kim Phu, farmers are more aware on their role and rights in irrigation management Assessments of the farmer on outcomes in irrigation management illustrate that formal participation of the community in activities is not sufficient condition to bring about “success” in irrigation management That participation may need to go together with many other factors promoting meaningful participation of the community in activities or influencing the outcomes in irrigation management 34 6.3 Factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management The discussion in this section is to answer the questions: which factors influence the “success” in irrigation management, why this community can manage irrigation systems well while the other not, why management is good in this period but not in other periods and how local people perceive about the management Perceptions and assessments of the local people including the manager, the irrigation-drainage teams, the production team heads as well as farmers is the main focus in this discussion section 6.3.1 Assessment of the community As discussed in the literature review, there may be many factors influencing the outcomes or success of the management with participation of the community in management activities They can include the characteristics of the community, capacity of managers, literacy, economy, partnership with the State However, factors influencing the success in irrigation management may be very diverse and different up to contexts [Vuren et al 2002] In two study sites of this research, factors are identified through group discussions by local people including the management board, irrigation-drainage teams, production team heads and farmers in different location of fields To answer the question on what factors influence the success in irrigation management in their locality, farmers suggested some factors in their discussions (see discussions on every factor in the next sections) These include: leadership of the management board, partnership relation with the State; management organization, physical assets of canals and the characteristic of the community Following the discussions to identify factors, series of discussions were done with separate groups of local people to discuss about the importance of every factor and rank those factors by their importance There are differences among assessments of the different groups Table 6.6: Assessment of local people on factors influencing the success in irrigation management in ranked order Y La Kim Phu Factors (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The managers 5 Irrigation - drainage teams Production team heads 5 Farmers in upstream 4 Farmers in midstream 5 Farmers in downstream 5 Total 12 18 25 26 12 18 22 17 Note: (1) leadership; (2) partnership with the State; (3) organization; (4) physical assets of cemented canals; (5) the characteristic of the community Source: Group discussions with local people, 2007 The table 6.6 shows that in spite of differences in assessments of the different groups, leadership and partnership with the State are considered as the most important factors Local people not consider the characteristic of the community as a very important factor The ranking will be interpreted and discussed below Leadership Leadership, as perceived by the local people, is the capacity of persuading people to follow what are planned and decided or satisfying people at dealing with a problem A question was also raised whether leadership can be seen management Local farmer still emphasized on using the word “leadership” rather than management For the management board, leadership is something 35 distinguished from management which is just how to make the good plans and organize to mobilize people Farmers also agreed with that explanation However, both management board and farmers said that sometimes leadership and management have to go together It was important for members of the management board, especially the head, to have good leadership skills to respond to ideas and the need of the community, persuade other people to follow regulations and fully deal with problems on conflicts among others satisfying them Continuous group discussions had been carried out in both Y La and Kim Phu on the importance of this factor for the success in irrigation management In Y La, discussing on the importance of leadership in bringing about better outcomes in irrigation management, farmers in downstream location said that if leadership was good enough, it could contribute to 50% of the success They complained that if the head of current management board had good leadership skills, the work of irrigation-drainage teams was better for their production As a result, they ranked leadership as the first important factor This ranking is similar to ranking by farmers in midstream and upstream location and production team heads However, the management board had different perceptions from farmers For them, leadership is not so important as partnership with the State and management organization They explained that if the State gave support to them, they could work well As a result, they ranked leadership as the third important factor To cite evidences for what they discussed, farmers in Y La made comparison on two management board heads of two continuous management terms of Y La cooperative in the same context of the community and physical assets of canals They stated that the previous head was more experienced in management and persuading others, so that the discussed-above outcomes are better compared to those in the management term of the current head They were even more satisfied with the irrigation service at that time Box 6.9: What did farmers say about the the current one The current leader – Mr Ngan I have not seen the current management leader since his management term previous management board head and The previous leader – Mr Hung Mr Hung did very well in the past He worked in principles but flexibly and worked for farmers As a result, farmers followed him (The head of a team) (A farmer in team 9) Ngan was my classmate in lower secondary school Mr Hung‟s experience in management: He was very bad student I not know why he - Work with farmers in flexible manner became head of production team and then head of - Reckon to make workers and farmers benefited management board Wow, they elect everyone in - Good planning (close to production of farmers) intention - Set up award regulations (A farmer in team 9) In reality, the current management board is bad How someone with trade background or without higher (A former accountant of the cooperative) education can work well in economic fields? (A farmer in team 4) Last term, Mr Hung was very good The current leader is un-experienced and un-close to farmers Although there are always conflicts among farmers with fields in down-stream location, those were less in the Hung‟s term They not have water now, they shout heavily at the irrigation-drainage teams (A irrigationdrainage team member) Source: Interviews, 2007 The question is raised why farmers did say that? An in-depth interview was done with the previous head of the cooperatives to listen to his experiences and ideas on how to manage well In his opinion, a manager has to have his own tricks in management, working in flexible manner and ability to settle the problems and persuade people so that farmers will follow him Hereby he gives some of his experiences 36 Have flexible manner in management: for farmers, we have to care about farmers‟ concerns with their benefit on their fields (for example water in time) and listen to what they say and also care about the implementers‟ concerns with payment We not need to pay them much, but timely have little award after their work or care about them with labor materials Have skills in working with the State including Ngoi La management board and CPC If we just report to them, they can not understand all difficulties and our needs So I held a visit on fields to show the situation For CPC, sometimes we have to prove our strong arguments because the “success” of the cooperative will serve to make the annual plans of the commune achieved Select the good implementers like irrigation-drainage teams who work directly with farmers They have to be persons who know well fields of farmers and enthusiastic Managers themselves must know deeply the agricultural production activities of farmers so that we just make the right plans and settle the problems timely In Kim Phu, although local people did not give clear evidences on the importance of leadership in irrigation management, they still ranked leadership as the first important factor Partnership with the State Partnership with the State was explained by the management board to be cooperation relation between the cooperative and the State, CPC, in irrigation management, especially in irrigation fee collection work CPC would refuse to sign papers for the households who are in debt to the cooperative If the collection rate is high, returns from investment for irrigation service can cover the cost to run the systems It means that the cooperative gets success in irrigation management in term of financial management Concurrently, there are funds for maintenance of canals making irrigation better to serve agricultural production for higher crop productivity/ yield Therefore, the communal socio-economic plans can be reached Different from perception of the management board, farmers in two study sites raised the idea to consider what was called partnership by the management board as „support from the State‟ in irrigation management or in irrigation fee collection in particular In Y La, discussing on the importance of partnership with the State, the management board members said that it created around 30% of the success in irrigation management They ranked partnership with the State as the first important factor They also stated that thanks to partnership with CPC, they could collect irrigation fees from many cases of debts (see the box 6.5) Also considering as an important factor following leadership, production team heads in Y La ranked partnership with the State as the second important factors But for farmers in mid- and downs-stream location, partnership was ranked third Farmers in downstream explained that fee collection rate did not depend on whether the State enforced them to pay, it depended on their assessment whether irrigation service was good or not Some did not pay fees because they felt unsatisfied with the service In Kim Phu, the management board ranked the factor of partnership with the State the last because, they said, CPC did not involve in cooperative issues and Ngoi La management board did not play very important role (water volume from Ngoi La in service of their agricultural production is small) They told about the story about a case of irrigation fee debt being able to sell land for migration (see box 6.5) In contrast with the management board, farmers and production team heads ranked partnership as the first or second important factor Management organization Management organization was ranked the second by both management boards in Y La and Kim Phu Although they did not give evidences on the importance of management organization, they explained that management organization was the mode or means to facilitate participation of farmers or hired labors in irrigation management activities If organization was in a good manner, it might mobilize participation of others at the highest level Conversely, if organization was in an unsuitable manner, it might hinder participation of others or lead to other problems This ranking by the management board is similar from that by farmers in Y La but different in Kim Phu In Y La, farmers in downstream and midstream locations agreed that management organization was ranked second by the importance because it would help them directly involve in activities or not 37 If they were involved directly in activities, outcomes in term of canal maintenance would be better In Kim Phu, farmers did not assess this factor to be very important Physical assets of canals Physical assets of canals were not assessed by local people as so important factor for the success in irrigation management in both study sites of Y La and Kim Phu In other words, they were not really a management-related factor Nevertheless, local people in Kim Phu said that it was a condition for the management being easier and reasonable Production teams which have more cemented canals can take water easier Physical assets of canals were assessed among the least important factors to the success in irrigation management The characteristic of the community In Y La, at the beginning, one farmer in upstream location raised the idea that awareness and compliance of the farmers would much influence the success in irrigation management If farmers were submissive and well aware about their rights and obligations, irrigation management would much better, at least in the aspect of not stealing water from others and paying irrigation fee This idea was discussed among the management board, production team heads and other farmers in different locations Some other points were added including the wealth of farmers (the better-off can pay irrigation fees in time as regulated because fees are small amount for them), bloodline relations and solidarity The final agreement was made among local people in Y La that characteristic of the people included awareness, the wealth, bloodline relations and solidarity It is simpler in Kim Phu Local people discussed and agreed that the characteristics of the community comprised of awareness of farmers, bloodlines and solidarity among farmers It is clear that local people in both study sites did not highly appreciate the characteristics of the community for the success in irrigation management The management board in Kim Phu cited the evidence for their discussion Although Kim Phu has new and mixed villages/ production teams of immigrants who come from other district of Na Hang and are not familiar with the agricultural production culture in the commune, outcomes of irrigation management are not influenced much After three or four crops, the new gets used to production culture in the locality Through some unofficial talks to the newcomers in Kim Phu, the research also received many complaints about the situation that the original inhabitants of the commune destroyed the maize crops of the new comers and stopped them from taking water into their field However, the information had been cross-checked with the former, and with the management board, as well as with the head of the newcomers‟ production team They explained that destroying maize crops could happen to the old as well because of the children The old stopped the new from taking water because water had to be taken in turns which the old was not familiar with However, this situation had been settled According to the management board in Kim Phu, the skill in harmonizing gaps between the old and the new is highlighted For example, selecting immigrants to be heads of the production teams of the immigrants so that the heads can easily circulate information and persuade the new At this point, the management board confirmed their ranking leadership as the first important factor for the success in irrigation management Ranking the importance of the characteristics of the community, local people in Y La saw it as the second least important and local people in Kim Phu saw it as the least important factor for the success in irrigation management 6.3.2 Discussion and interpretation on the factors and their importance This research aims to explore factors influencing the success in irrigation management Although factors identified and assessed by local farmers in two study sites have both direct (leadership, partnership, characteristics of the community, organization) and indirect (management organization) influence or just conditional factor (physical assets of canals) on the success in irrigation management, those assessments show that participation of the community is not sufficient condition for the success in irrigation management The success depends on many factors 38 Leadership: leadership is the factor which has direct influence on the success in irrigation management Leadership may be capacity6 to call people to something or be the trained skills First ranking by farmers in Y La shows the importance of this factor for the success in irrigation management Evidences by local people on comparisons between two heads of management board are very clear Nevertheless, a question is raised back to participation of the local people in selecting their representatives The heads were selected in cooperative congresses Why farmers still complained about the selected person? To answer this question, it may need a future research on the nature of participation of the community in making decisions, for example in decisions on selecting representatives Partnership: Partnership is an abstract word and has different meanings in different contexts In management, partnership can be defined as a relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibilities, as for the achievement of a specific goal7 Perceptions by local people correspond with this definition about partnership The cooperative and the State cooperate to get the common goal which creates good irrigation service contributing to achieve crop yields as planned Assessments of local people in two study sites on this factor closely link to the outcomes in irrigation management in terms of financial management and the management in practice in their locality In Y La where CPC works together with the cooperative in issues and get higher irrigation fee rate, local people highly appreciate this factor as a very important one influencing the success in irrigation management It is interesting that in Kim Phu where the CPC does not involve in cooperative issues, the management board considers partnership as the least important factor This research does not discuss about the political impact of the fact that CPC use its political power (sign papers for households) to enforce farmers‟ compliance However, considering the aspect of irrigation management, partnership among the cooperative and CPC contributes to increase returns from collected irrigation fees This factor is therefore very important Management organization: Management organization can be an indirect factor influencing the success in irrigation management If considering organization as a means to mobilize farmers directly or as hired labours to participate in activities, it means that organization will influence the way farmers participate in management activities, of which management outcomes will therefore be influenced This links to the outcome in irrigation management, for example, in term of canal maintenance, farmers in Kim Phu did not complain about the service because they were directly involve in this activity Whereas in Y La, farmers did not participate in cleaning canals as well as monitoring work, they therefore complaint much about this service Physical assets of canals: As assessed by local people, this is not really factor influencing the success in irrigation management It is a conditional factor This confirms the assessments by local people on outcomes of management in term of water waste Water waste can be reduced thanks to cemented canals rather than management mode Physical assets of canals can be a condition contributing to get reduced water waste but not influence the management to get better outcomes The characteristics of the community: This is also an abstract word which may hold many broad components The characteristics identified by local people are only some of that large ground As Vuren et al (2002) discussed in their research, characteristics of the community may include number of people, homogeneity and coherence It also may comprise of behaviours of the community, the head of the community, literacy or wills for collective actions As a result, assessments by local people on the importance of the characteristics of the community for the success in irrigation management in Y La and Kim Phu may be reasonable if based on the factors they identify However, it is still in mind of this research to consider integrated characteristics whether they influences the success and at what level http://management.about.com/od/leadership/Leadership.htm http://answers.com/topic/partnership?cat=biz-fin 39 In sum, the above analysis confirms the idea by Vuren et al (2002) that factors for the success in management strongly links to context specificities In the cases of two study sites, at assessments by local people, factors are leadership, partnership with the State, management organization, physical assets of canals and characteristics of the community These factors in the perception and assessment of local people can be said to influence the success in irrigation management in two study sites Other factors like cohesion or size of the community does not appear to be prominent as perceived by local people Level of influence of the factors identified by local people may be different which need to be explored in future research 40 CONCLUSION This research discusses how the community of water users participates in managing irrigation systems in two study sites in Tuyen Quang province, the outcomes which it brings about and factors influencing the success of irrigation management with participation of the community These are among the first communities implementing the irrigation management transfer program to get involved in managing irrigation systems at secondary, tertiary and farm canals in the 1990s Applying participatory research methods, the research does not quantify data but strives to go into depth of data to take into account the aspect of perceptions of local people, the way how they organize irrigation management, outcomes as well as factors influencing “success” in irrigation management with increased participation of water users Besides a literature review to understand other research and debates around these issues, the research collected secondary and primary data in the study sites of Y La, the successful case and Kim Phu, unsuccessful case at assessment of the Province, to make comparisons on their participation and the outcomes of irrigation management as well as their own assessment on conditions for the success of irrigation management with participation Findings show that the communities of water users for agricultural production in the two study sites organize to manage branch canals of Ngoi La irrigation system through the cooperative Increased participation of the communities brings about better outcomes for irrigation management in general in terms of water distribution, maintenance and financial management However, assessment by the local people on those outcomes is not similar to assessment by the State There is strongly link between irrigation management outcomes and the type of participation of the local people on activities People are more satisfied if they are able to fully participate in planning, decision making, implementation and monitoring This opens a question on the rights and authority of the communities in participating in irrigation management whether communities can get full rights and authority after they are decentralized to manage branch canals of the irrigation systems When the community is entitled to participate in management as stipulated in legal papers, can they fully access those regulations? Findings of this research also show that the success in irrigation management does not only depend on participation of the community but also on how the community participates in management activities and many other factors These factors, as assessed by local people, include leadership of the management board, partnership with the State, organization modes, the characteristic of the community and physical assets of canals Each of these factors can influence the level of success of management with participation of the community, which are expected to be examined further in future research 41 REFERENCES Biltonen (2004) Analysis of Irrigation and Drainage Management companies and Cooperatives in Vietnam Botes and Rensburg (2000) Community participation in development: nine plagues and twelve commandments Oxford University press and community development journal Vol.35 No.1 pp 41-58 Hayami (1998) Development economics Clarendon Press, Oxford Hung (2004) Solutions for improved management and use efficiency of small-scale irrigation systems with participation of the community in Quang Binh province PhD dissertation Hanoi Agriculture University Jones and Little (2000) Rural challenges: partnership and new rural governance Journal of Rural Studies 16(2000) 171-183 Kelly (2001) Community participation Report paper Khawaja (2002) Can good projects be successful in the bad community? Collective action in public goods supply Harvard University Krishna (2003) Partnership between local governments and community-based organizations: Exploring the scope for synergy Journal of Public administration and development No.23, 361-371 Li and Wang (2004) Experience from the Region, the development and impacts of PIM in China Paper presented in National workshop on PIM, MARD Loi (2004) Irrigation management in marketing economy Agriculture Publishing House, Vietnam Loi (2006) Some issues of the management mechanism of the irrigation and drainage systems in marketing economy Collection of R&D 2003-2005, Centre for PIM, Institute of Water Resources, Vietnam Owen (2004) Community-driven development: an overview of practice Workshop proceedings on community driven development World Bank Peter (2004) PIM – international experiences Paper presented in National workshop on PIM MARD Plusquellec (2003) The search for a PIM model for Vietnam: Cooperative, user group or a reform of governance (un-known article original) Raju (2001) Irrigation management transfer in India Paper presented in International email conference on irrigation management transfer June – October 2001 Samad and Vermillion (1999) Assessment of participatory management of irrigation schemes in Sri Lanka: partial reform, partial benefits Research report 34 Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute Schouten and Moriarty (2003) Community water, community management: From system to service in rural areas ITDG Publishing, London Shivakoti (2005) Policies, Institutions and Governance Challenges of Irrigation in Twenty first century Paper prepared for presentation at the Eleventh Biennial conference “Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities” of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia Son (2004) Three mechanisms of State, market and community National Politics Publishing House, Vietnam Su (2004) Experiences of Vietnam in irrigation management Paper presented in National workshop on PIM, MARD Svendsen and Nott (1999) Irrigation Management Transfer in Turkey: Process and Outcomes EDI participatory irrigation management case studies series Thuan (2004) Developing participatory irrigation management model Paper presented in National workshop on PIM, MARD Tiep (2004) The role and performance of VNPIM Paper presented in National workshop on PIM, MARD Trung (2005) Assessment of different irrigation management models in Vietnam Water resources development journal Vol.21 No.3, 525-535 Trung (2006) Assessment of Performance of Different Models for Management of Inter-commune irrigation schemes Collection of R&D 2003-2005, Centre for PIM, Institute of Water Resources, Vietnam Tuyen Quang (2005) Report on assessing transfer program of irrigation system development and management to cooperatives in Tuyen Quang Report to Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Vermillion (2006) Lessons learnt and to be learnt about Irrigation Management Transfer Paper presented at the Festschrift for E Walter Coward, Jr., Ubud, Bali Vuren et al (2002) Participatory irrigation management : comparing theory with practice – a case study of the Beni Amir irrigation scheme in Morocco ANNEXES Annex 1: Map of the study sites irrigation system Trung Mon main canal Y La Ngoi La reservoir Hung Thanh Kim Phu Annex The map of Ngoi La Annex 3: Checklist for data needed and people to work with Or.Data Research objects PID CPC MB IDT F Irrigation management and participation of the community Organization: - Establishment of the management board and implementers: number x x x of members, how they are selected; their work and tasks; - Regulations: how they set up or adjusted; Management in practice: - How management board, irrigation-drainage teams and production team heads implement their tasks? - How plans in terms of irrigation schedule and financial plan are x x x made? - How decisions relating cooperative issues are made? - Is there any award or punishment? Participation of the community: - What activities they are involved in? How? x - How they perceive and assess the work of management activities? Management outcomes Water distribution: waste, timing and quantity - How local people perceive and access this outcome compared to that x before 1996? - Why they assess such that and evidences? Maintenance: big repairs and cleaning canals - How local people perceive and access this outcome compared to that x before 1996? - Why they assess such that and evidences? Financial management: returns and expenditures x x - Secondary data to show expenditures? - Fee collection rate: secondary data and other evidences? Factors influencing the success in irrigation management What factors: x - What factors are identified by local people? - Perception of the local people on that factor? Ranking factors: - Discussions on important of every factor x - Ranking by the importance of factors for the success in irrigation management? - Evidences for those ranking? Note: PID: Provincial irrigation and drainage department; CPC: communal people‟s committee; MB: management board; IDT: irrigation-drainage teams/ production team heads; F: farmer x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ... are that they revealed shortcomings in irrigation systems in the past in Tuyen Quang and lie in the goals of the Province when increasing participation of the community in managing irrigation. .. According to Svendsen and Nott (1999), Turkey is the most successful case in reducing the role of the State in irrigation management, increasing the role of the local organizations and getting... always bring about the success in irrigation management? 1.4 Research hypothesis 1) Participation of the community in irrigation management activities, including planning in terms of irrigation