Philippines
Ways to Increase Contributions in the Turnover Program
Figure 1: Comparison of levels of farmer contributions in irrigation
Figure 2: Methods for encouraging farmer contributions
Abstract: In the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh and Indonesia, farmers have contributed substantial levels of resources to supplement government investments in irrigation. Such contributions lead to a more successful process of irrigation development. Farmer contributions in the Small Scale Irrigation Turnover Project can be encouraged in many ways, including measurement, use of force account (swakelola) and prioritization of government assistance.
Experience from many countries has shown that requiring or encouraging farmer contributions leads to more successful irrigation development. Farmers in countries far poorer than Indonesia have proven to be willing and able to make substantial contributions to the construction and improvement of irrigation systems, when the projected benefits outweigh the costs.
Government investments can induce substantial additional farmer contributions, thereby increasing the total investment. A process of planning and construction which involves farmer contributions both encourages better use of local knowledge and other resources and produces results more in accordance with farmer priorities. Farmers also scrutinize their own priorities more carefully when they know that they must provide some equity share in their realization. Farmer contributions create a stronger sense of ownership, leading to better subsequent operations and maintenance.
Discussed below are a few of the many experiences which have demonstrated the benefits of encouraging farmer contributions in irrigation system development. After these examples, the following section discusses ways of encouraging farmer contributions in the Small Scale Irrigation Turnover Project.
In its highly successful communal irrigation program the National Irrigation Administration requires farmers to contribute 10% of the direct project cost at the time of construction, up to a limit of 300 pesos per hectare (about US$40.00 or 73,000 rupiah per hectare). Farmers are expected to repay the total direct cost over a period of fifty years. There is still a significant subsidy, since no interest is charged on the repayments over fifty years. Costs for design, supervision, roads and other indirect costs are not included. The value of rights of way contributed is automatically given a value of 3% of the project cost. The experience of the National Irrigation Administration is thoroughly discussed in Korten and Siy 1989.
The requirement that farmers repay construction costs was seen as an essential part of the reorientation of the agency towards a participatory approach to working with farmers. Repayments from farmers created a source of income for the agency, but also demanded that the agency be responsive to the farmers' needs, priorities, and capabilities. The NIA knew that it had to provide good and appropriate services so that farmers would be willing to repay the loan. These financial arrangements also encouraged farmers to be concerned that construction itself was done effectively and efficiently.
... The requirement that farmers repay construction costs was seen as an essential part of the reorientation of the agency towards a participatory approach to working with farmers. ...
Subsequent evaluation has shown that projects constructed using a participatory approach had higher levels of farmer contributions and greater success, including fewer defective structures, higher rice yields, greater area irrigated in the dry season and more equitable procedures for water distribution (de los Reyes and Jopillo 1989).
In the People's Volunteer Weir Project carried out by the Ministry of the Interior in Thailand the government provides materials and a supervising technician for construction of small weirs. Local villagers are responsible for contributing unpaid labor. This approach has been quite successful in improving small locally built and managed irrigation systems at a relatively low cost, while continuing to maintain local ownership and control of the irrigation systems (Nalinee et al. 1986, Bruns 1989, 1990).
The total investment per hectare in the project was about $91 per hectare. The average inducement coefficient for the construction labor contributed by farmers was estimated to be about .44. This meant that for every hundred baht invested by the government, villagers contributed labor worth 44 baht. This translated into a rate of local contributions of about $28 per hectare (about 51,000 rupiah per hectare).
... the government provides materials and a supervising technician for construction of small weirs. Local villagers are responsible for contributing unpaid labor. ...
Before this project began many observers had said that villagers were no longer willing to contribute unpaid labor once they had received wages to work on various development projects. However, the project showed that where farmers were consulted in advance and intimately involved in the planning process they were willing to contribute all the labor needed for construction of small weirs.
Numerous agencies, public and private, have been involved in developing groundwater irrigation in Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries (Sadeque and Hakim, 1989). Since 1980 PROSHIKA, a large non-government organization headquartered in Dhaka, has been developing groundwater resources through promoting the purchase of shallow tubewells by landless groups. These landless groups install the pumps, dig the canals, and provide irrigation services to landholders in return for a one-third or one-fourth share of the crop.
Each landless pump group repays the cost of the capital equipment plus market-rate interest to one of various banks involved in the project. PROSHIKA provides the landless groups with organizational and technical advice, and brokers agreements between landless groups and landholders for setting up and maintaining these 5-8 hectare schemes. Studies have shown that these communally-owned pumps are both more efficient and create more employment than government-managed or individual tubewells of equivalent size (Palmer-Jones, 1986; Quasem 1982).
... resource-poor farmers have not only been able to maintain and operate the pump sets, but have also been able to repay their capital costs. ...
The program, which now encompasses over 300 active groups, showed that, with training, resource-poor farmers have not only been able to maintain and operate the pump sets, but have also been able to repay their capital costs, despite operating in a volatile climate that frequently destroys the crop due to cyclonic storms and floods. As of July 1987, over 70% of the outstanding loans under the program had been repaid by the farmers in PROSHIKA-supported groups (Wood, et al., 1988). For various reasons (floods, technical problems, conflicts, sinking of new wells by landowners, etc.), some groups eventually stop operating, but the preconception that farmers were either too poor or too uneducated to manage financially solvent pump operations proved largely unfounded.
Under a pilot project to involve farmers in the planning and construction of improvements to six village irrigation systems, the Provincial Irrigation Service of South Sumatra in cooperation with the Directorate of Irrigation I has been experimenting with eliciting farmer contributions under an agency force account (swakelola) procedure. A total of 25 million rupiah was made available in the form of materials to these six systems (total area = 580 ha.). It is estimated that the same volume of work would have cost 34.5 million rupiah if it had been contracted out, making farmer contribution in materials and labor equivalent to 9.5 million rupiah, or 17,000 rupiah per hectare.
... eliciting farmer contributions under an agency force account procedure. ...
The "Starter Project" is carried out in Aceh and Java, with plans for expansion into new provinces, under a collaborative agreement between the FAO and The Directorate of Area Extension, Department of Agriculture. The primary target of the program is village irrigation systems. Government subsidy is limited to US$1,000 per system. System size averages 100 hectares.
For selection into the program production increases must be possible in the system, and farmers must be willing to provide at least 50% of the value of the total project, equivalent to 18,000 rupiah per hectare in a 100-hectare system. All government contributions are in the form of materials only, although 1.5 million rupiah per system is provided by the Ministry of Public Works for the design of the physical works.
... farmers must be willing to provide at least 50% of the value of the total project ...
Actual farmer contributions in West Java during 1988 averaged over 34,000 rupiah per hectare, compared to a government stimulant of 17,000 per hectare, an induced investment ratio of 2.03. Some districts averaged farmer contributions as high as 74,000 rupiah per hectare, and farmer investment alone totaled 4 million in one 15-ha. system (IIMI, 1989).
The village subsidy program of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Bangdes) supplies a maximum of 2.5 million rupiah per village per year for development projects. Many of these turn out to be irrigation-related. Bangdes funds can only be used to buy materials, not to pay for labor. Although figures are not immediately available on the investment per hectare, the investment inducement ratio for Bangdes-supported irrigation works in West Java over the last three years has ranged from 1.03 to 1.22.
... Bangdes funds can only be used to buy materials, not to pay for labor. ...
Examples can be found in many areas throughout the country in which Bangdes funds provided only a very minor part of the total cost of the structures. One example is the weir of Bandar Lubuk Bonta in Pariaman, West Sumatra, which was built with local funds at a present-day cost of roughly 40 million rupiah for an area of 55 ha.
Yaysan Bina Swadaya (YBS), a large Indonesian non-government organization, is currently developing river pump irrigation sites in Lebak Kabupaten. Improving on the social and technical approach YBS developed in 1983 under an AID-funded project in Subang, YBS is now involving farmers--both landholders and the landless--in developing five pump sites covering a total of 650 hectares. Farmers in the earlier Subang sites have proved that they can pay for all the operations and maintenance of the pump sets. Now the Lebak experiment goes further by requiring that the farmers purchase the pump sets as well. Total cost of the capital equipment and canals is expected to run to approximately US$214,000, an investment of $330/ha. During the construction period alone, farmers are expected to contribute in labor the equivalent of 145,000 rupiah per hectare.
While this project is in its first stages, the experience in Subang and Indramayu, sites of other new YBS pump systems that have just been completed, shows that farmers indeed do contribute large amounts of labor when large increases in productivity are possible. Farmers involved in incremental improvements in gravity systems cannot be expected to be willing to provide the same magnitude of investment as they do in pump systems, but the YBS experiments do indicate that Indonesian farmers have the capacity for such levels of investments.
... farmers indeed do contribute large amounts of labor when large increases in productivity are possible. ...
The table below shows the levels of farmer contributions which have been mobilized in some of the projects discussed above. Farmer contributions increase the total amount of construction which can be done, as well as encouraging better participation in planning and a stronger sense of ownership.
Figure 1: Comparison of levels of farmer contributions in irrigation. <-
Per Hectare Values of Farmer Contributions
|
Location |
Dollars per hectare |
Rupiah per hectare |
|
Philippines |
(maximum) $40 |
73,000 |
|
NE Thailand |
$28 |
51,000 |
|
Lahat, S. Sumatra |
$9 |
16,400 |
|
Aceh/Java (FAO) |
$19 |
34,000 |
As the examples above show, farmers in Indonesia and elsewhere are both willing and capable of investing significant local resources in irrigation improvement. Many different procedures can be used to encourage greater farmer contributions and increase the productivity of investments by government and farmers.
These procedures need to be implemented in accordance with current policies. In particular, government funded construction should be kept distinct from self-help construction, in order to maintain accountability. Those providing materials or paid labor should be fully paid. Any contributions by them should be made on a purely voluntary basis after receiving full payment.
Some procedures for encouraging contributions are already being used informally in the turnover project, but may be strengthened and formalized. Others require testing and refinement of new approaches or modifications of approaches used elsewhere so that they are suitable for local conditions. The following are some avenues for increasing farmer contributions under the turnover program.
One method to increase farmer contributions is simply to measure their levels and use those data as an indicator of project success. If all parties know that it will be measured, then there are also likely to be more serious attempts to elicit farmer contributions because catalyzing farmer contribution becomes a goal itself. Measurement helps focus attention on the level of farmer contributions being provided and the factors encouraging or constraining such contributions.
Measurement can be done in several different ways. One is to account for all the specific inputs contributed and assign them a monetary value. The value of workdays, sand, rock, food provided at meetings, etc. can then be totalled up. As mentioned above, an alternative approach used in the pilot project in Lahat, South Sumatra was for Provincial Irrigation Service staff to estimate for structures built by farmers how much they would have cost if built by a contractor. This was used as the value of farmers' contributions. There may be other methods which can be used. What is important is that contributions are measured and reported.
... Measurement helps focus attention on the level of farmer contributions being provided and the factors encouraging or constraining such contributions. ...
The current participatory planning process in the turnover project can be improved to explicitly include planning for farmer contributions. From the beginning farmers should be encouraged to propose improvements which they can build themselves as well as those which need government technical or financial assistance. The general principle should be to use the limited government resources on those improvements which for technical or financial reasons are most difficult for farmers to carry out themselves.
A method which is already being used in several provinces is to specify that certain activities must be done as farmer contributions. Most commonly, in preparation for construction farmers have been expected to clean the relevant canals and buttress or realign them where needed. Digging of new canals and other earth works is also often excluded from the priority list for improvements with government funds. In this case all that is needed is an explicit policy defining what should be done by farmers, i.e. what is not eligible for government funding or has the lowest priority for such funding, and reaching an agreement with the farmers that they will carry out such works without government assistance.
... From the beginning farmers should be encouraged to propose improvements which they can build themselves as well as those which need government technical or financial assistance. ...
"Farmer designs" are prepared for structures by irrigation field staff (TP4) working with farmers. For some improvements that farmers can carry out themselves the farmer design itself may be sufficient. Additional technical assistance in design may be needed for some of the structures the farmers will build with their own resources. If so, such structures should be included in the set of proposals for which final designs are prepared. In this way, the design process would assist both those improvements where government technical and financial assistance is needed and those which need only government technical assistance.
... Additional technical assistance in design may be needed for some of the structures the farmers will build with their own resources. ...
In prioritizing their requests for assistance, farmers can be asked to explicitly target government assistance for those improvements which will be most difficult for farmers to carry out on their own. This procedure should reinforce in both the farmers' and the agency staff's minds the idea that farmers are expected to take responsibility and cooperate with the government in the process of improving the irrigation system.
Directing government assistance toward technically more difficult structures such as intakes, aqueducts and overflow structures would then mean that farmers would build less difficult structures by themselves.
The selection of structures for government funding under either contractual or force account procedures should follow the same principle of emphasizing funding those that would be most difficult for farmers to do on their own. As tenders are prepared, funds are allocated to specific sites. This allocation should be based on various criteria including need and equity. At this point it should also be possible to give priority to water users associations (WUA) that have shown a greater willingness to contribute to improvements, as indicated perhaps by the number and value of structures that farmers have built or plan to build on their own.
... give priority to water users associations (WUA) that have shown a greater willingness to contribute to improvements ...
Construction is currently carried out using two methods, by contractors or by agency force account. These two methods each have advantages and disadvantages. Both contractual and force account construction need clear methods to ensure that government funds are properly used and can be fully accounted for.
However when contractors are used, farmers tend to worry that the contractor might attribute any extra work farmers do to the contracting firm to increase its profits. This makes farmers reluctant to contribute extra, unpaid work when part of their system is being improved by contractors.
Under force account procedures this problem does not exist, and farmers are much more willing to make extra contributions. The direct cooperation between the agency and farmers under force account procedures also gives farmers greater influence over what is built and a greater sense of ownership of the completed structures.
Where farmers have the masonry skills, farmer contributions can be easily elicited for simple structures if the government only provides the materials, such as in Lahat, South Sumatra, while the farmers do all the actual construction itself. This form could be most suitable in systems in which no technically complicated structures are planned and in systems that receive a low rate of investment per hectare.
... the government only provides the materials, .. while the farmers do all the actual construction ...
Where an adequate supply of stone, sand, or wood exists, farmers should be specifically encouraged to sell those materials to the contractor. Farmers should be paid the going rate for any materials they sell. After they have received payment, farmers may be willing to donate part of the proceeds to support the building of structures the WUA has agreed to do on its own.
At the time construction begins there are frequently adjustments to the plans. Conditions may have changed, designs may still be suboptimal, or farmer priorities may have shifted. At earlier times farmers may have taken a more speculative approach to requests, but once it is clear that their decisions can influence what will actually happen and as their earlier requests become more concrete they may express different views.
The use of the unit price approach to construction has allowed much flexibility at this stage, contributing to the final result of better improvements. When changes to designs are considered, farmer contributions may again be encouraged, so that local resources are used to supplement the improvements funded by the government.
Small scale irrigation systems will continue to be subject to various pressures, including demands for new and more intensive cropping patterns, increasing scarcity of water, landslides, and changes in labor availability. The modest amount of funding provided under turnover will not be sufficient to prepare a system for every contingency and future change. Farmers can be encouraged to take a longer term view of the process of improving their irrigation system. While the most pressing needs may be funded now, they should consider what may be needed in the future.
... Farmers should be encouraged to think about what improvements they would like to carry out in later years. ...
Farmers have been and will continue to be able to mobilize substantial amounts of money for improvements from their own resources. It is also likely that funding for improvements will continue to be available from various outside sources, such as the Bangdes subsidies mentioned above. Improvements which have been designed but not funded in the turnover project may be carried out later by the WUA. Farmers should be encouraged to think about what improvements they would like to carry out in later years. Thus rather than being a one-shot activity, turnover can strengthen a continuing process of evolution and improvement in small irrigation systems.
Substantial potential exists for improving the success of the Small Scale Irrigation Turnover Project through encouraging farmer contributions to construction. Experience in Indonesia and elsewhere has shown that farmers are capable of making substantial contributions and that projects built with such contributions tend to be more successful. The list below shows some of the methods for encouraging farmer contributions which have been suggested in this paper.
Further discussion and experimentation are needed to develop methods through which contributions can be encouraged. Some of the methods which seem most promising include: 1)measuring the level of farmer contributions as an indicator of project success; 2) prioritizing government financial and technical assistance for those improvements that will be most difficult for farmers, with the expectation that simpler improvements should be done by farmers themselves; and 3) using the force account approach where possible to facilitate additional contributions by farmers.
Figure 2: Methods for encouraging farmer contributions. <-
1. Measure contributions as an indicator of success.
2. Plan for contributions.
3. Divide responsibility between government and farmers.
4. Provide technical assistance, if needed, for farmer built structures.
5. Set clear priorities for what is to be assisted by the government.
6. Give priority in funding to WUA with more self-help.
7. Use force account to facilitate extra contributions.
8. Provide only materials, if local skills and needs permit.
9. Buy local materials.
10. When construction plans are adjusted, encourage contributions.
11. Plan for a continuing process of improvement by the users.
This paper was originally written as a discussion paper for the Small Scale Irrigation Turnover Project in Indonesia. Jakarta: Institute for Social and Economic Research, Education and Information (LP3ES).
May 29, 1990. Revised May 23, 1992. [html 97-07-06]
Comments and questions regarding this paper should be directed to Bryan Bruns at 39/1 Ban Daun Ngeun, A. Pong, Phayao 56140 Thailand, or at:
Bruns, Bryan Randolph. 1989. "Design for Participation: Elephant Ears, Crocodile Teeth and Variable Crest Weirs in Northeast Thailand." Paper Prepared for Conference on Design Issues in Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
-. 1990. The Stream the Tiger Leaped: A Study of Intervention and Innovation in Small Scale Irrigation Development in Northeast Thailand. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. (forthcoming)
de los Reyes, Romana P. and Sylvia Ma. G. Jopillo.. 1989. "The Impact of Participation: An Evaluation of the NIA's Communal Irrigation Program." pp. 90-116 in Korten and Siy 1989.
IIMI, International Irrigation Management Institute. 1989. Final Report. Efficient Irrigation Management and System Turnover. Volume 3. Small Scale Irrigation Turnover Project.
Korten, Frances F. and Robert Y. Siy Jr., editors. 1989. Transforming a Bureaucracy: The Experience of the Philippine National Irrigation Administration. Hartford Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Nalinee Tantuvanit, Bryan Bruns and Piti Angsuwotai. 1986. Lessons from the KKU-NZ Weirs: An Evaluation of the Khonkaen University-New Zealand Small Scale Water Resources Project. (Full report in Thai, separate English summary.) Khonkaen: Water Resources and Environment Institute, Khonkaen University.
Palmer-Jones, R.W. 1986. "Research on the Landless Irrigation Programme of Proshika." In Water Markets in Bangladesh--Inefficient and Inequitable. Mymensingh: Bangladesh Agricultural University.
Quasem M.A. 1986. "The Impact of Privatisation on Entrepreneurial Development in Bangladesh Agriculture." Bangladesh Development Studies, XIV (2), June.
Sadeque, Syed Z. and M. A. Hakim. 1989. Review of Studies on Shallow Tubewell Irrigation Management in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council: Dhaka.
Tim Peneliti Unsri. 1989. "Laporan Akhir, Pola Bantuan Pemerintah Melalui Swakelola Pada Pengembangan Irigasi Tradisional Dengan Sistem Peran Serta Petani di Sumatera Selatan, Tahap II" ["Final Report: Patterns of Government Assistance through Force Account Procedures for Developing Traditional Irrigation Systems with Farmer Participation in South Sumatera, Phase II"]. Pusat Penelitian Universitas Sriwijaya.
Wood, G.D. and R.W. Palmer-Jones, with Q.F. Ahmed, M.A.S. Mandal and S.C. Dutta. 1988. Social Entrepreneurialism in Rural Bangladesh: Water-Selling by the Landless. Dhaka: PROSHIKA.
------------
BryanBruns@BryanBruns.com
C-723 Lanna Condo, T. Pa Tan A. Muang Tel 66-53 872-225
Chiang Mai 50300 Thailand Fax 66-53 872-226
www.BryanBruns.com