The role of the community in irrigation management

Master Thesis No XXX

Master Thesis in Rural Development with Specialization in Livelihood and Natural Resource Management

ISSN 1403-7998

n e m p o

e v e d

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

a r u r

n

i s

s e h

t r e

t s a m

Department of Urban and Rural Development Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

The role of the community in irrigation management

A s t u d y i n t w o c o m m u n i t y - m a n a g e d i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s ,

T u y e n Q u a n g p r o v i n c e , V i e t n a m

C a p Th i Ph uo n g A nh ,

I n s t it ut e of P ol ic y an d S t ra te gy f or A g r i cu lt ur e a n d Ru ra l De v e lo pm en t (IP S AR D)

H a n o 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

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.

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!

iii

Hue, 18th February 2008 Cap Thi Phuong Anh

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 1.1 Justification ....................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................... 2 1.3 Research questions .................................................. 2 1.4 Research hypothesis ................................................. 2 1.5 Limitation of the research .......................................... 2 1.6 Research structure .................................................. 3

2.2 Participation of the community, the success and failure in irrigation

management .......................................................... 5

2.3 Factors influencing the “success” of irrigation management with

participation of the community ...................................... 6 2.4 Concluding remark ................................................... 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................. 4 2.1 Some concepts ....................................................... 4 2.1.1 The community .................................................. 4 2.1.2 Participation of the community ................................. 4 2.1.3 Irrigation management with participation of the community ...... 5

transfer ............................................................ 9 3.4 Three current irrigation management models ......................... 10 3.5 Irrigation management through the cooperative ...................... 11

IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM .............................. 8 3.1 History of irrigation management .................................... 8 3.2 The failure of the State in irrigation management ................... 8 3.3 Increasing participation of the community by irrigation management

METHODOLOGY .................................................. 12 4.1 Analytical framework ............................................... 12 4.2 Approach ........................................................... 13 4.3 Methods ............................................................ 13 4.3.1 Site selection ................................................ 13 4.3.2 Literature review ............................................. 14 4.3.3 Data collection ............................................... 14 4.3.4 Data analysis ................................................. 15

Quang .............................................................. 17 5.3.1 Irrigation management in the past and management transfer to

cooperatives .................................................. 17 5.3.2 Current irrigation management ................................. 17 5.4 Management of Ngoi La irrigation system ............................ 18 5.4.1 General characteristics of management ......................... 18 5.4.2 Y La irrigation system management ............................. 18 5.4.3 Kim Phu irrigation system management .......................... 18

STUDY SITE ................................................... 16 5.1 Natural, socio-economic characteristics of Tuyen Quang ............. 16 5.2 Characteristics of irrigation systems in Tuyen Quang ............... 16 5.3 Irrigation management and irrigation management transfer in Tuyen

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

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

7 CONCLUSION ................................................... 41

REFERENCES ......................................................... 1

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 1

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

LIST OF TABLES, DIAGRAMS AND BOXES

TABLES Table 5.1: Irrigation works in Tuyen Quang province ............................................................................. 16 Table 6.1: Number of cooperatives members and non-members in two study sites (in 2006)............... 21 Table 6.2: Assessment of the local people on the water waste over 10 years ......................................... 29 Table 6.3: Assessment of the farmers on the timing of water supply in two study sites ....................... 30 Table 6.4: Assessment of the farmers in two study sites on the canal maintenance .............................. 32 Table 6.5: Expenditures of the cooperatives in 2005 ............................................................................... 34 Table 6.6: Assessment of local people on factors influencing the success in irrigation management in ranked order ............................................................................................................................. 35

10 22 23

25 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 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

25 26 26 27 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

29 31 32 36

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

1. 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 do 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.

1.2 Problem Statement

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;

1.3 Research questions

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) 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

This research attempts to answer the following:

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 do not include all community

members and do work under the cooperative law. However, to one extent, the cooperative can be seen as representing the community in irrigation management because of some reasons. In one side, the cooperative is also an organization of voluntary members to benefit irrigation service for agricultural production. The cooperative does irrigation for all farmers not excluding its non-members. In other side, principles for operation of the cooperative are common agreement of members in annual congresses. This will be more explained in the next chapters.

1.6 Research structure

It may be also interesting to consider the differences on participation and assessments of the poor and non-poor in irrigation management. However, it may also be too broad to be covered in this research.

The research is structured into seven chapters. The first is an introduction where the reader can see the reasons why research issue is chosen and research and questions. The second is a literature review summarizing the debates and related studies around community participation in irrigation management, outcomes which it brings about and factors influencing the success in management. The third is about empirical background of the research focusing on irrigation management in Vietnam. The fourth is on methodology presenting the approach and methods used to collect and analyze data. Chapter five describes the study site. One of main sections of the research is the six with findings and discussions around the community and irrigation management related issues happening in the field. The last chapter, the seventh one, is conclusion and questions on which the researcher wants to do further research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Some concepts

This chapter discusses participation of the community with focus on irrigation management. It filters the previous and current debates and related studies, which are briefly stated in the introduction chapter, on the need of participation of the community in irrigation management, outcomes which it brings about and reasons for those changes.

2.1.1 The community

The concept of the community is fluid and difficult to define. The community can be seen as an organization of people tied by bloodline, location or common interest, which is run by rules or social norms [Hayami, 1998]. Or the community is nothing other than groups of individuals, mainly competing, but sometimes coming together in interest groups for a common purpose [Schouten & Moriarty, 2003]. Further to this point, in the irrigation sub-section, Schouten and Moriarty see the community of water users as all the individuals who use the water supply system. Sometimes, the community exists when people who make it up think that it does [Schouten & Moriarty, 2003].

2.1.2 Participation of the community

Participation of the community is considered as a range of processes through which local communities are involved and play a role in issues which affect them [Kelly, 2001]. Kelly refers to participation of community as two kinds: the first is consultation and the second is partnership. Consultation is the periodic involvement of the community in organization-driven or top-down activity. Whereas partnership is the higher level of participation in which the community and the governmental agencies share power in decision-making or collective management.

 Level 1 – The community as decision maker: People in the community have the clearest and perhaps the most accurate perception of needs and priorities of their community and should make the decisions themselves.

 Level 2: The community as consultant: The community should occasionally be consulted to contribute their professional opinions during the decision making process, and when given adequate information can make educated decisions about various proposals.

 Level 3: The community as respondent: The community does not necessarily know what is needed or what is the best approach, but their opinions should be surveyed and analyzed by well-trained experts and used in the decision making process.

 Level 4: The community as constituent: Experts of trained elected representatives have the right to make decisions on behalf of people in the community and to assume that they are representing their constituents‟ interest unless hearing otherwise.

 Level 5: The community as voter: The community should vote for their representatives, but public decision making is a scientific pursuit and should be left to skilled experts and policy makers, not the general public.

Participation is an abstract word. Many scientists classify it in different levels [Szentendre, 1996, Botes & Rensburg, 2000, cited by Kelly 2001]. But the most suitable one seems to be the one classified by Szentendre (1996). He divides participation into 5 levels from active to passive involvement.

Two upper levels of participation listed above are considered by the authors as real participation while the three other ones are not because they just passively participate in activities and decision making. Therefore it may be considered the lower three levels as non-participation and two upper levels of consultant and decision-maker as participation.

2.1.3 Irrigation management with participation of the community

According to Vermillion (2006), irrigation management or to manage an irrigation system is to utilize resources to provide a designated irrigation service.

2.2 Participation of the community, the success and

failure in irrigation management

Peter (2004) also gives a definition of irrigation management with participation of the community as participation of the farmer in managing irrigation systems. It means that the farmer plays the key role in all aspects of irrigation management at all levels. All aspects refer to planning, making decisions, operation and maintenance, financial contribution and monitoring the work. All levels say the levels of canals from headwork, main, secondary, tertiary and farm canals.

Participation of the community in irrigation management for agricultural production has become a popular and recognized concept in many countries in the world, especially developing countries where agriculture plays a crucial role in socio-economic development. Participation of the community is considered as an answer for the large-scale break down of water supply system for agricultural production and the failure of the State to efficiently manage irrigation systems in service of agriculture [Schouten & Moriarty, 2003; Vermillion, 1999].

Most of the irrigation systems in service of agricultural production were previously owned and managed by the State. Farmers were beneficiaries from the service. This management mode lasted until the 1970s. There have been many experiences of the failure [FAO, 1995 cited by Hung, 2004; Repetto, 1986 cited by Peter, 2004]. The failure might be different among countries and have included budget deficit, canal deterioration, bad quality, un-equality between upstream, midstream and downstream locations as well as low productivity of land and water. In Turkey, the productivity was reduced due to the low rate of irrigated area; canals were deteriorated due to the lack of capital for maintenance; the rate of irrigation fee collection from farmers was low; expenditures for administrative personnel were high [Svendsen & Nott, 1999]. Similarly there have been failures facing many systems in other countries like Mexico, Sri Lanka, Philippines, China, Vietnam, Indonesia and India. [Li & Wang, 2004; Peter, 2004]. According to many scientists, these failures result from management rather than technical issues [Trung, 2005; Loi, 2004]. Management failures were partly caused by the lack of involvement of water users in management [FAO, 1995 cited by Hung, 2004; Thuan, 2004; Tiep, 2004].

The idea that it is better for irrigation management to involve the community participating in management activities comes partly from an erosion of the belief on the State to efficiently supply services for the population, and partly from the belief that the community has skills and motivation to meet their own essential needs [Schouten & Moriarty, 2003]. This idea is also supported by analysts who highlight the importance of the community in addressing the failure of the State and/ or market because the community has the strength of trust and cooperation among members, relations of blood or location and they know best their needs and resources [Barker & Molle, 2002; Li & Wang, 2004; Samad & Vermilion, 1999].

From that belief on the community, series of irrigation management transfer programs have been piloted and implemented in numerous countries to increase participation of the community in management activities, starting in Mexico then Turkey, India, Indonesia and other countries [Groenfeldt & Svendsen, 2000; Svendsen, 2002, cited by Peter, 2004]. There are different types of transfer in different areas and the water user will participate in different management activities. They can take part fully in managing irrigation systems at small-scale or branch canals of large- or medium- scale ones; or just partly according to contract-based activities like in Philippines [Peter, 2004].

For more than two decades of increasingly encouraged participation of water users in irrigation management, many researches have been carried out to confirm that important role of participation in

bringing about better outcomes in irrigation management of many cases compared to those outcomes when the State played the key role in management [Peter, 2004; Svendsen & Nott, 1999; Vermillion, 2006; Vuren et al., 2002].

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 better irrigation performance. Management responsibilities are transferred to local government units or special-purpose irrigation associations which are in large-scale and unified organizational structure. By quantitative assessment with secondary data, Svendsen and Nott conclude that in this country, irrigation fee collection rates are doubled, there is shifting of O&M expenditures from the public to the private sector, an accumulation of reserves for future capital purchases, reduced wage bill for system O&M personnel and indications of expansions of irrigated area.

Trung et al (2005) with their study on assessment of different irrigation management models in Vietnam concludes that the models with increased participation of the community of water users in irrigation management in decision-making process, outcomes in terms of irrigation performance will be better.

Many provinces in China are also reported to get more successful outcomes in irrigation management after the community of water users participate in management activities [Li & Wang, 2004].

However, participation of the community of water users in irrigation management is not “panacea” to address all the failures when the State managed irrigation systems.

Many scientists agree that participation of water users is not sufficient condition for efficient irrigation management. One side, they criticize that the community has its own failures and can not work well alone in all circumstances [Krishna, 2003]. In the other side, they argue that the success of management with participation of the community has to go together with many other conditions like support from other sectors including the government because the weakness of the community is the lack of skills and authority [Ostrom, 1996; Therkildsen 2000, cited by Krishna, 2003]; Utility and performance of management with participation of the community in managing public or common goods in general and irrigation systems in particular will be enhanced if the community works in partnership with other actors [Owen, 2004].

In irrigation sub-sector, Vuren et al (2002) says that not all cases which engage water users in irrigation management can get better outcomes, for example India and Philippines. Peter (2004) also cites examples of India, Pakistan and Nepal where water user associations have collapsed soon after establishment due to the lack of legal framework and partnership with the government.

2.3 Factors influencing the “success” of irrigation

management with participation of the community

By analyzing trends in performance of 50 samples of irrigation systems (using methods of modelling and perceptions of farmers), Samad and Vermillion (1999) conclude that in Sri Lanka, although they experience of more than ten years of management transfer from the State to the farmers‟ organizations and get better outcomes in term of government recurrent expenditures but they do not get higher results in term of crop yields, the quality of irrigation service or the value of agricultural production [Samad and Vermillion, 1999].

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Success

The success is defined as achievement of a goal or just opposite of the failure1. The success of management can be assessed in different ways. It can be measured by concrete indicators or just subjective perceptions of people.

The “success” of irrigation management does not depend only on participation of the community of water users but also on other factors. This implies that motivating the participation of water users may be a solution to deal with the failures of State-managed irrigation systems but not an integrated solution to address all those failures. Some cases can get better outcomes in certain fields of investment, higher agricultural productivity and also can not get better outcomes in other fields.

According to Schouten and Moriarty (2003), the success or failure of management can be measured simply by how well the “members” (those who pay) are served. Schouten and Moriarty also show the importance of leadership in persuading and mobilizing people to take part in activities; and partnership or support by “outsider” like the State or other actors.

According to Geijer [1995, cited by Vuren et al, 2002], the difference between the successful (Turkey, Mexico) and un-successful cases (most Asian countries) is caused by the differences in economy, higher literacy rates and standards of living. This is confirmed in the study of Vuren et al (2002) about the unsuccessful case of Morroco partly caused by the lack of real incentive mechanism motivating participation and high rate of illiteracy of the farmer.

Vermillion [1995, cited by Vuren et al. 2002] with his study in 5 countries, concludes five conditions for the “success” of irrigation management with participation of the community: strong high-level political support with clear policy direction, legal basis for new managing entities, economic benefits for the farmers, well-defined water rights at system and farmer levels, functional irrigation facilities. Wherever there are such good conditions, there will be good outcomes. However, Vuren et al also argues that the conditions for success of change in irrigation management are indeed strongly linked to context specificities.

Lessons learnt from the case of India that performance monitoring needs to be strengthened and restructuring capacity building with at least 60% management staff trained in aspects of irrigation management with participation of the community [Raju, 2001].

2.4 Concluding remark

One of the famous papers on the community denotes that characteristics of the community are vital for the “success” of the community management with participation of the community [Khawaja, 2002]. Those include size of the community, inequality and heterogeneity.

As above reviews, participation of the community is increasingly encouraged in irrigation management in many countries for recent decades. Outcomes which it brings about in terms of crop productivity, operation and maintenance of systems, water distribution, irrigation fee collection rates, government expenditures are critical, some better and some not better. Debates around it remain a confirmation that participation of the community of water users is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the “success” in irrigation management. Whether participation of the community can bring about better outcomes to irrigation management is influenced by many other factors like the characteristic of the community, strengthening capacity, economy and legal environment support or partnership with the State and other actors. Every factor can be very board and play an important role in irrigation management with participation of the community in certain context specificities.

IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM

3.1 History of irrigation management

This chapter discusses the empirical background of irrigation management in Vietnam. Irrigation management in Vietnam has experienced some periods with notable institutional changes. These make the role of stakeholders including the State, IDMCs or cooperatives and the farmer change accordingly.

Vietnam is an agriculture-dominant country, in which the agriculture sector has a high share of the labour force (52.1%) and GDP (15.53%) [GSO, 20062]. As a result, the State and people always pay much attention to irrigation development work as a means to promote agricultural production.

In the past, most of irrigation systems were small-scale, which were constructed by farmers themselves to make use of natural advantages of gravity water sources. Only some medium- and large- scale systems were constructed during the French colonialism in the South to facilitate agricultural production [Loi, 2004].

In the 1960s, the State started to construct the large-scale irrigation systems in region planning as a solution for agricultural development in whole country. These systems were centrally managed by the State in irrigation administration units from provincial to district level. Farmers at that time did farming in the collective mode, being beneficiaries of those irrigation systems [Trung, 2006].

This situation lasted until the 1970s with the emergence of series of policies on irrigation system management reform. Circular 13-TL dated 6/8/1970 guiding regulations on irrigation system management marked the notable change in irrigation management. Irrigation and Drainage Management Companies were established in provinces to manage headwork, main and possibly secondary canals. Agriculture or agro-forestry cooperatives were assigned to support managing tertiary and farm canals through the contracts with the IDMCs. Notable sign was the decentralization in which the State gradually reduced its sole role in irrigation management. The IDMCs worked as public, non-profit and financially autonomous enterprises. However, in some special cases, these companies could receive subsidies from the State [Trung, 2005].

3.2 The failure of the State in irrigation management

The next marked point for the significant change in irrigation management in Vietnam is the 1990s. Originating from the failures in Vietnam and experiences from other countries, the State launched a series of legal documents on management transfer of small-scale irrigation systems (in service of less than 150 ha of land area) or medium- and large-scale ones from the State to the water users to increase participation of water users in irrigation management. Farmers are encouraged to become clients participating in irrigation management activities rather than beneficiaries as in the past. Accordingly, farmers can form associations (prevalent in the South Vietnam) or manage through cooperatives (prevalent in the North) or groups of farmers [Biltonen, 2004; Plusquellec, 2003]. Until 2004, Vietnam had around 13,273 water user groups (11,249 cooperatives, 958 associations and 1,039 groups of farmers) [Tiep, 2004].

2 www.gso.gov.vn

Prior to the 1990s, the State played the key role in irrigation management. Farmers worked in collective production. They had to join cooperatives compulsorily and played the role as beneficiaries from irrigation services [Thuan, 2004]. There was experience on the failure in irrigation management

 Budget deficit: In order to run irrigation systems, it required expenditures for administration, operation and maintenance of canals, which had to be paid by returns of irrigation fees. However, irrigation fee collection rates were low, just around 50% on average of collectable amounts. Many systems could not collect these fees, leading to budget deficit and the State had to subsidize these expenditures. According to the Document 3538/BNN-QLN dated 19 October 2000, the total amount of irrigation fee debt of 39 cities nationwide was 272 billion Vietnam dong which the State had to absolve from payment [Loi, 2004].

 Canal deterioration: Canals had been deteriorating for a long time and had to be upgraded and repaired regularly by returned funds from irrigation fee. However, the low rate of irrigation fees collected just met 34-40% total costs for maintenance and regular repairs of irrigation systems [Loi, 2004]. Many works lacked funds for big repairs. Meanwhile, State budget for canal maintenance was limited. Simultaneously, the farmer did not perceive canals as their property so that they were not willing to protect and pay to repair them. As a result, canals were deteriorated.

 Low quality of irrigation service: irrigation management did not facilitate the connection between water supply of management units (IDMCs, the cooperative, management boards) and demand of farmers. Lack of water used to happen in downstream areas. Timing of taking water was not always in time of cropping.

 Low efficiency of irrigation systems: One failure was interactive with others. Canal deterioration and low quality of service were main reasons causing low efficiency of irrigation systems. Water and land productivities in less or un-irrigated areas were much lower than in irrigated area. Water waste happened in many places [Loi, 2004]. According to Tiep (2004), upstream areas wasted 5-10 times of designed water volume while downstream areas lacked water.

 Water conflict: There were water conflicts between the farmer in downstream and upstream areas and

also among farmers in downstream location.

in this period. A lot of research and national workshops confirm these failures [Barker & Molle, 2002; Hung, 2004; Thuan, 2004; Tiep, 2004; Trung, 2006]. Among failures, the main ones include:

3.3 Increasing participation of the community by

irrigation management transfer

These failures were caused mainly by management rather than technical issues. Farmers, the direct beneficiaries and users from irrigation services did not participate in irrigation management. They perceived the irrigation systems as the State property and did not have a view to protect and develop these systems. As a result, they were not also willing to pay for services or maintenance of works. Loi and Trung, among others, concluded that this management mode which did not involve farmer/ water users was not good [Loi, 2004; Trung, 2006] and required a change to increase the participation of the water users in irrigation management.

Irrigation management transfer program of small-scale systems or branch canals of large- or medium- scale ones from the State to water users in Vietnam has been in implementation since the 1990s to increase the participation of the community of water users in irrigation management. Various legal documents have been launched such as Resolution 06/1998/BTC dated 10/11/1998 on encouraging participation of farmers in investment and management of irrigation schemes; Resolution dated on March 18, 2002 by Central Party Committee emphasizing the development of water user organizations and water management by farmers, Document No 1959/BNN-QLN dated on May 12, 1998 on strengthening grass-root water user organizations in which each irrigation structure should be managed by a specific organization especially structures within a village or commune, Circular 75/2004/TT- BNN by MARD dated 20 December 2004 on Guiding the establishment and development of water user associations. Notably, a Framework Strategy No 3213/BNN-TL on development of participatory irrigation management in Vietnam was established in December, 2004.

According to the statistics of Central Department of Irrigation and Drainage, in 2004 there were 13,273 water user organizations nationwide under the forms of cooperatives, management boards, user associations and groups of farmers [Tiep, 2004]. These organizations are expected to work to reduce

3.4 Three current irrigation management models

management costs, raise irrigation fee collection rate and ensure funds for maintaining irrigation works [Su, 2004].

Currently, irrigation management in Vietnam generally involves the important role of the State and increased role of water users. In which, the IDMCs and cooperatives are still the most important management units. It is common that IDMCs are responsible for managing headwork and main canals while cooperatives manage the tertiary and farm canals.

Diagram 3.1: Irrigation management models in Vietnam Source: Trung, T.C. 2005

Trung 2005 categorizes into 3 irrigation management models in Vietnam (see diagram below). The first is the joint management by a state agency and farmer organization (model A); the second is a shared management by a quasi-state organization and a farmer organization (model B); and the third is management solely by a farmer organization (model C).

Joint management by a state agency and farmer organization

This is the conventional management model and often applied in the medium- or large-scale systems. There are three management levels: IDMCs at headwork and main canal level; irrigation station at secondary canal level and cooperatives at tertiary and farm canal level. Irrigation stations

make contracts to cooperatives on behalf of IDMCs. In these systems, farmers benefit from irrigation service and pay irrigation fee back upto irrigated land area through the cooperative.

Shared management by a quasi-state organization and a farmer organization

This model emerges after the transfer program and usually takes place in the large- or medium- scale systems, inter-commune or inter-district. At tertiary and farm canal level, management is still done by the cooperative. At higher level of secondary and main canals, the management board is established. It is often that this board includes governmental staff but works concurrently under farmers‟ organizations. In term of operation, the higher management board signs the water delivery contracts to the cooperative management board to deliver water for agricultural production of the farmer. Farmers then have to pay for the service through the cooperative.

Management solely by a farmer organization

3.5 Irrigation management through the cooperative

This model is often applied in the small-scale irrigation systems. The first form is that farmers themselves organize to manage irrigation systems through setting up associations or groups. In this model, farmers actively participate in service supply for their agricultural production. The second form is that farmers organized to manage irrigation systems through cooperatives.

The cooperative, as discussed above, is an important irrigation management unit in Vietnam which presents the water users either to manage small scale systems or to contract with IDMCs or management board for irrigation service in medium- or large-scale ones. Although the cooperative has played a role in irrigation management for a long time, that role has been changed along with the institutional changes in irrigation management as well as with reforms for the cooperative. In 1996, the cooperative law being issued created many changes in the cooperative. In the past, all farmers in one commune had to compulsorily join the cooperative of that commune to produce agriculture in collective modes. They were at that time beneficiaries from irrigation services. After 1996, farmers have rights to voluntarily be members of the cooperative. The cooperatives become the representative of farmers or water users who are encouraged to participate in irrigation management activities as client of irrigation service.

Today, the cooperative is still the most prevalent form of farmers‟ organization in irrigation management with the number of 11,249 nationwide [Tiep, 2004; Trung, 2006].

As defined in the cooperative law, the cooperative is a collective organization of individuals or households who are legal entities and have common interests, needs, voluntarily invest labour and capital under regulations to make use of collective strengths, increase together the efficiency of production and business as well as improved mental and physical life of members and contribute to the socio-economic development of the country.

Normally each cooperative supplies various services like irrigation, seeds, fertilizer, botanical protection and field protection. The general organization of the cooperative comprises of management board and supporting groups. The management board includes 3-5 people in which one is in charge of general management activities and 1 responsible for irrigation service. Supporting groups include 2 accountants, 1 cashier, 1 controller and irrigation-drainage teams [Trung, 2006]. Every year, there is a cooperative congress where all plans and decisions are made based on common agreements of participants who are farmers and their representatives.

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Analytical framework

The methodology chapter illustrates how the research was carried out to collect data in two study sites in Tuyen Quang. Also, methods and tools used for data collection, processing and analysis are presented.

The framework employed in this research recognizes the cooperatives in Y La and Kim Phu communes in Tuyen Quang provinces as organizations of the community of water users in irrigation management for the following reasons. Firstly, as regulated in the current cooperative law, the cooperative is an organization of farmers who voluntarily join the cooperative to use and benefit from services. Comparing with the concept of the community of Schouten and Moriarty (2003) that the community is nothing other than groups of people who come together in interest groups for common purpose, it is right that in this case, farmers join together to use and benefit water for agricultural production. Secondly, although not all farmers who use and benefit water for agricultural production can be cooperative members, they are able to participate in meetings of production teams to raise ideas and contribute to decisions. Thirdly, in the principle, the cooperative has to work under the cooperative law, it ensures the right of the farmers in management activities by the principle of common agreements by a majority of farmers in the annual congresses.

As a result, this research works with the cooperatives to explore how the community is organized to manage irrigation systems and how management activities are carried out, focusing on three issues: participation of the community in irrigation management, management outcomes and factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management.

Participation of the community in irrigation management: Participation is an abstract word with a very broad meaning. However, the research only works to explore how the community organizes (through the cooperatives) and participate in activities of irrigation management when the Province assigned them to be in charge of secondary, tertiary and farm canal management. Participation is considered on the aspects of decision making, planning in terms of irrigation schedule and financial plan, canal operation and maintenance as well as monitoring. Both management in organization and practice will be explored.

Management outcomes: Management outcomes are means to assess the success in irrigation management and the extent to which participation of the community in management activities addresses the failures of the previous State-management irrigation systems. Outcomes in irrigation management can be measured by a range of indicators of fee collection rate, crop yields, the quality of irrigation service, maintenance or value of agriculture production.

However, in this research, management outcomes/ the success will be assessed by perceptions of the local people using indicators of water distribution, maintenance and financial management. Outcomes getting better compared to those of State management in the past in the perception and assessment of local farmers, is classified as “more success”, which is not an absolute value.

The reasons for choosing those indicators to assess the success in irrigation management in the two study sites 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 systems. Concurrently, these are also the direct outcomes from the management. In terms of water distribution, water waste and quality of the service relating to timing and quantity of water delivery are assessed. Equity between the farmers in different field locations of upstream, midstream and downstream is then considered. In terms of maintenance, the main focus is on the satisfaction of farmers on the service of cleaning canals because most of canals in the sites are newly built, so it is difficult to have an assessment on the destruction or deterioration over time. Financial management is

considered regarding the irrigation fee collection rate as returns from investment in irrigation service whether the community has funds for maintenance of canals and whether returns can cover costs.

At the beginning, the researcher intended to use crop yield or productivity to assess management outcomes. However, in order to consider this indicator as a management outcome, it has to be followed by many other assessments, because increased or reduced crop yield or productivity may be consequences of other factors than irrigation management, like new variety, good caring. So this indicator is not used in the research to assess management outcomes.

4.2 Approach

Factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management: Factors influencing the success in irrigation management of the study sites are identified by the local people themselves through a series of discussions. Concurrently, local people also discuss importance of each factor for irrigation management and rank those factors by importance.

The research focuses on investigating how the community organizes and manages irrigation systems, how people assess in terms of management outcomes and factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management. In order to understand deeply how and why local perceive like that, qualitative approach is the most suitable one to apply. Following that way, the research strives to engage all partners/ stakeholders in irrigation management in the study sites of Y La and Kim Phu in a high participatory manner, including communal authorities, irrigation management board of Ngoi La, the large-scale irrigation system, and the cooperatives, local people groups and farmers. Phases carried out to collect information comprise of: Phase 1: Pre-survey at the study sites

After developing ideas to do research in two communities in Tuyen Quang, pre-survey at study sites is very necessary. Firstly, it aimed to provide researcher with general understanding about the sites. Adjustment to fill the gap between the idea and practice was done. At this phase, some secondary data were also collected. Secondly, the researcher tested the sites regarding whether the sites met the requirements of the selection criteria. Those contain: (i) sites belong to a large-scale irrigation scheme; (ii) sites have the farmer involving in irrigation management; (iii) one site gets more “success” than the other. Results of this phase were basis for the researcher to develop the research idea and tools to collect data in next phases.

Phase 2: Main survey

This was a main phase of the research to collect data in the field. In this phase, all data in service of the research were collected through research methods and tools (see the section below). One emphasis of this phase was that survey was done in consideration of different groups of water users, including upstream, midstream and downstream farms. This enabled the comprehensive vision of issues. Phase 3: Completion

4.3 Methods

Completion phase was done with the purpose of filling the missing data after the researcher summarized data collected in the survey phase. At the end of this phase, results from the fieldtrip survey were also presented to get feedback from the local people.

4.3.1 Site selection

The research selected Y La and Kim Phu to be study sites. These are two communities in Tuyen Quang province, Y La in Tuyen Quang Township and Kim Phu in Yen Son district. Both benefit from Ngoi La inter-district irrigation system of which secondary, tertiary and farm canals have been transferred to the member cooperatives to manage. Y La is assessed by the Province to be successful

where as Kim Phu is assessed to be unsuccessful. However, both sites are not significantly different in term of accessing to water supply source from Ngoi La headwork and main canals (see annex 2).

4.3.2 Literature review

Literature review was done through out the research process. At the beginning, the literature review was to identify what people have said or debated around the research issue on the role of the community in irrigation management; how they proved with evidence and what conclusions were. Basing on that review, the research developed an analytical framework and data needed in the field. Literature review was also carried out during data collection and analysis to fit with those. Literature used in this research included debates and related studies discussing around participation of the community in irrigation management, irrigation performance outcomes and factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management with participation of the community in the world and in Vietnam.

4.3.3 Data collection

4.3.2.1. Secondary data collection: Secondary data was collected from the reports and papers by the Province, two communes and cooperatives of study sites, Ngoi La management board. Simultaneously, legal documents on irrigation management and data from papers presented in the National Workshop on PIM 2004 were also used.

4.3.2.2. Primary data collection: This research mainly applied the techniques of group discussion, in-depth interviews and observation to collect primary data

 Mapping: Although a detailed technical map on irrigation systems and rice fields of two study sites was provided by Ngoi La management board, another map was drawn by six local people inclusive of the vice head of cooperatives in charge of irrigation service, a land staff of the commune, two production team heads and two experienced farmers. Result of the mapping was a simple map allowing the researchers to quickly imagine the community and irrigation canals as well as facilitating local people in group discussions.

 Ranking: Ranking was done much in study sites with the content of importance of factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management with participation of the community. With this tool, group discussions with separate groups of people were done, including the management board, irrigation- drainage team members, production team heads and farmers in different location of fields.

 Transect walk: transect walk was carried out after doing mapping. The transect walk helped to check

the map, observe and give reality for discussions later on.

Group discussion: As stated above in the approach sub-section, a series of different group discussions were carried out with different participants. These participants comprised of commune authority, the management board, irrigation-drainage teams, production team heads and farmers at upstream, mid-stream and downstream. Sometimes they could join together in one group discussion but mainly in separate group discussions. Besides, the manager and CPC were separate from group discussions of farmers so that participants could freely and honestly show their ideas and evidence without being pressured by managers or authority. In group discussions, apart from discussions on general issues of irrigation management by the cooperatives, tools applied to collect data include:

In-depth interviews: Along with group discussions, in-depth interviews are rather important to collect primary data. In-depth interviews were implemented following the information nodes of clusters in irrigation management. These were done to: (i) deeply understand about what have been raised and perceived in group discussions; (ii) get specific cases which are considered as outcomes of irrigation management or factors influencing the “success”. Correspondents of this technique were identified through group discussions but most were managers, production team heads and farmers who had a prominent role in irrigation management or experienced people. Interviewees also included examples of farmers not paying irrigation fees and irrigation-drainage team members paying fine.

Observation: Observation was carried out during the field work. People often had different perceptions/ assessments of one issue. As a result, observation contributed to cross-checking information to have concrete discussions.

4.3.4 Data analysis

Data analysis and interpretation were done through three periods including data reduction, display and drawing conclusions. Data reduction including selecting, focusing, abstracting and transforming was done before, during and after data collection. Data display was done as organized to cite the best evidences proving the arguments. Preliminary conclusions were then drawn after that.

STUDY SITE

5.1 Natural, socio-economic characteristics of Tuyen

Quang

This research takes two cooperatives under Ngoi La inter-district gravity irrigation system in Tuyen Quang province as case studies. The first is Y La in the township, which is assessed by the Provincial People‟s Committee to be “successful” in irrigation management. The second is Kim Phu in Yen Son district which is assessed to be “not successful”. In both of them, farmers have been mobilized in irrigation management through the cooperative. This section will summarize the main general socio- economic characteristics of these sites concentrating on irrigation systems and management modes.

Tuyen Quang is a northern mountainous province of Vietnam including 1 township and 5 districts (see annex 1). There are 727,751 people in total of population, with 387,992 people in working ages. Among labor force, more than 80% work in agricultural sector. Natural land area of the province is 586.800 ha in which 71,812 ha (12.24%) is for agriculture, 448,648 ha (76.46%) for forestry and 50,455 ha (8.60%) for other purposes [Provincial statistics3, 2005].

In 2005, the agriculture sector accounts for 35.7 % GDP of the Province. Tuyen Quang has three large rivers flowing through: Lo, Gam and Pho Day. The length of Lo river in the Province is 145 km. Besides, there are many small rivers connecting in the three large river valleys to create the water sources supplying water for life and production in the Province2.

5.2 Characteristics of irrigation systems in Tuyen

Quang

The terrain of Tuyen Quang is rather complex and separated by mountains and rivers. Rice fields are mainly terraced, causing difficulties in the irrigation work.

Irrigation systems in Tuyen Quang are in numerous amounts but scale and irrigation area of works are small. Currently many of them (61%) are cemented or temporarily-cemented (semi-ground) canals. The rest (39%) are unsettled2 [TuyenQuang, 2005].

Table 5.1: Irrigation works in Tuyen Quang province

Or.

Type of irrigation works

Number of works

473

Irrigation area (ha) 10,327.0

Reservoir

939 73 847 2,332

15,274.5 2,288.2 6,437.1 34,326.8

2 3 4

Barrage (đập) Pumping station Other (phai tạm) Total

Note: A barrage is an artificial bar or obstacle placed in a river to increase the depth of water.

Source: Secondary data, 2005

3 www.tuyenquang.gov.vn

In 2005 in Tuyen Quang, there are 2,332 irrigation works of irrigation area of more than 1 ha, which serve 75% cultivated agricultural land area.

5.3 Irrigation management and irrigation management

transfer in Tuyen Quang

5.3.1 Irrigation management in the past and management transfer to cooperatives

5.3.1.1. Irrigation management in the past and the need of management transfer to cooperatives

In early 1995, there were 1,342 irrigation systems in Tuyen Quang. Due to the characteristics of scattered irrigation systems in the Province, Tuyen Quang had irrigation management into two types. The small-scale ones of 1,190 works, which served around 70% of cultivated area, were managed by cooperatives themselves. The others of 152 works (11.3%) were managed by the Provincial Drainage and Irrigation Company, serving around 30% cultivated land area [Provincial report, 2005].

Collection work of irrigation fee had been done mainly by the Company who achieved 70 - 80% of planned amount. However, irrigation fees for irrigation systems managed by cooperatives were not collected. As a result, there was no funds for maintenance so that degraded canals were not repaired leading to inefficiency of irrigation performance [Provincial report, 2005].

Starting from the above failures, the Province has launched a program on which irrigation management is transferred to cooperatives, the organization of farmers, in order to increase irrigation performance, sustainability of the systems and irrigation fee collection rates [Provincial report, 2005].

5.3.1.2. Transfer process and legal framework for the transfer Tuyen Quang started the transfer process in June 1996 and finished in March 1997 by the Decision 142/QĐ-UB dated 19 January 1996 of the Provincial People‟s Committee on Regulations on management and use of the State‟s irrigation systems transferring to cooperatives to manage. This is followed and supported by many other documents on irrigation fee level (Decision 299/QĐ-UB dated 30 March 1996, amended by Decision 37/2006/QĐ-UBND dated 26 July 2006 and Decision 44/2006/QĐ-UBND dated 18 August 2006); organization and operation of cooperatives (Decision 911/QĐ-UB dated 12 December 1995); temporary regulations on management and use of State- supported funds with cements for irrigation system construction (Decision 100/QĐ-UB dated 5 February 1999).

After transfer, the Drainage and Irrigation Company was dissolved. Instead, 156 irrigation management boards have been established including one inter-district, 6 inter-commune and 149 cooperatives within communes [Duong et al 2000, cited by Shank et al, 2004].

5.3.2 Current irrigation management

Currently, irrigation systems in Tuyen Quang are managed by the irrigation management boards at different levels. These management boards are entitled to manage transferred irrigation systems but have to follow guidelines of the Province. Commune‟s People Committee is encouraged to support cooperatives in irrigation management, particularly in irrigation fee collection [Group discussions, 2007].

4 For large and medium-scale irrigation systems, the cooperative can be assigned to manage branch canals at communal level. Headwork and main canals are managed by higher management board, i.e Ngoi La management board.

For inter-district and inter-commune systems, they organize two management levels: cooperative management boards and higher management boards4. Higher management boards seasonally contracts to member cooperatives to manage tertiary and farm canals while they are in charge of headwork and secondary canals. There is a management board at each level responsible for water regulating and maintenance work at that level. However, irrigation fee collection work is done by cooperatives [Provincial report, 2005].

5.4 Management of Ngoi La irrigation system

For irrigation systems within one commune or village, management is simply managed by the cooperative or village management board who plans, operates and maintains canals as well as monitoring the work by themselves [Provincial report, 2005].

5.4.1 General characteristics of management

Ngoi La gravity irrigation system originates from Ngoi La reservoir. This is inter-district system because it serves for 414 ha of cultivated land area in one school and four communes belonging to the township and Yen Son district of Tuyen Quang [report of Ngoi La management board, 2007].

Irrigation management of the system belongs to the model B as discussed in the background section. One management board has been established during 1996 by the Province to manage this irrigation system, including five people: one head, one accountant and three technicians. Besides, chairman of commune People‟s Committee and the head of cooperative members are also included in this board. Main responsibility of the board is to protect and manage the irrigation canals, distributing water to the water-divided valves to the member cooperatives.

In member cooperatives, a management board is also established to support Ngoi La to manage canals within the commune where the cooperative is located. The cooperative management board works on the contracts signed with Ngoi La seasonally, including distributing water, maintaining canals and collecting irrigation fees. Cooperative management board is paid by Ngoi La for this supporting service [report of Ngoi La management board, 2007].

5.4.2 Y La irrigation system management

Y La community was established in 1960 from the immigrants from other plain provinces Thai Binh, Hai Duong and Hung Yen and from the ethnic minorities in the area, like Nung, Tay and Cao Lan. The cooperative was also set up at that time, which has been doing many agricultural services including irrigation.

Y La cooperative is the largest member cooperative in Ngoi La irrigation system which contracts with a biggest amount of water in every cropping season. Most of fields in Y La are supplied with water from Ngoi La source which serves nearly 300 ha of rice land area. 80% canals in this system are cemented [report of Ngoi La management board and group discussion, 2007].

As stated above, managing irrigation canals in Y La is done by the cooperative whose management board is selected by farmer representatives in every three year cooperative congresses. This cooperative was established long time ago with the compulsory membership of all farmers. However, after the Cooperative Law in 1996, the farmer can voluntarily join the cooperatives. The cooperative management board is considered as representative of member farmers to do agricultural service. Irrigation is the main service among eight ones supplied by Y La cooperative.

5.4.3 Kim Phu irrigation system management

Kim Phu community was established in 1960 along with the establishment of Y La. The cooperative was initiated at that time gathering all villagers who are migrants from Thai Binh, Hung Yen and Hai Duong. In 2003, Kim Phu welcomed the immigrant people from Na Hang district of Tuyen Quang to settle new villages when they had to move due to the construction of the Na Hang electricity hydraulic dam work. These new comers have been also joined the cooperative for agricultural services including irrigation.

Kim Phu is also one of five member cooperatives in Ngoi La irrigation system, which serves nearly 200 ha of rice land area. However, apart from Ngoi La, Kim Phu has other water supplying sources from Kim Thang reservoir and a set of five small lakes within its administrative boundaries.

Irrigation is one of five agricultural services supplied by Kim Phu cooperative. In term of irrigation, management is done similarly for Ngoi La, Kim Thang and five small lakes. They also have a cooperative management board who are selected in every three year cooperative congresses. Under the umbrella of Cooperative Law, members join this cooperative at their voluntary will and are entitled to be involved in irrigation management.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Irrigation management by the cooperative as

community management

The first chapters have discussed the theory indicating that irrigation performance will be better when the water users participate in irrigation management. This has been also confirmed by many researchers [Schouten, 2003; Barker & Molle, 2002, Samad and Vermilion, 1999]. In this chapter, using field data from two study sites of Y La and Kim Phu in Tuyen Quang province, this research aim to get more understanding on how water users participate in activities, consequences for outcomes of irrigation management and what the conditions for those outcomes are. This thesis argues that participation of the community of water users in irrigation management, although not yet the highest level of participation ladder or “truly” as the word “participation” implies, may bring about better outcomes compared to those of the previously State-managed models, like less water waste, regular maintenance and better financial management in which returns can cover the costs and expenditures for maintenance and admin activities. However, participation of the community of water users is not a sufficient condition to reach good outcomes. The level of “success” of the irrigation management with participation of the community depends on many factors, especially leadership, partnership with the State and management organization. Following this argument, the chapter will be structured in sections discussing irrigation management and participation of the community, management outcomes and factors influencing the “success” in irrigation management. Different interpretation of the concept of the “success” will be also discussed in this chapter.

This sub-section comes up from the questions of who the community of water users in this case, how they organize to manage irrigation systems and how they participate in activities. As discussed in literature review section, the community can be fluid and seen in different senses. This thesis follows the definition developed by Schouten and Moriarty (2003) in which the community of water user is groups of individuals who use water for agricultural production. The research uses the word “the community” or “the community of water users” to include both cooperative members and non- members who are farmers and use water for their production. In the discussion, it will also become clear that people have different senses of the community in different contexts as a group, a village or a commune, as will be discussed below. And then, how they organize and participate in activities is explored as well.

6.1.1 Formation of the community of water users

The communities of water users of Y La and Kim Phu include all farming households in two communes. These farming households account for 57.01% and 79.99% of total number of households in Y La and Kim Phu relatively (see table 6.1).

Although irrigation management in two study sites is organized through the cooperative, but not all farming households can be members of the cooperative. Some of them are cooperative members and others as non-members (cooperative statistics, 2006).

Table 6.1: Number of cooperatives members and non-members in two study sites (in 2006)

Cooperatives

No. of cooperatives hh members (hhs)

Percentage of farming hhs over total of commune hhs (%)

Y La Kim Phu

1432 2084

No. of cooperatives farming hh non- members (hhs) 238 03

57.01 79.99

Source: Cooperatives statistics by Y La and Kim Phu in 2006.

As stipulated in the Cooperative Law and Cooperative Regulations of the two study sites, cooperative members must be individuals or households, who are at least 18 years old, do farming and possess agricultural land in the commune where the cooperative is located. In Y La and Kim Phu, 100% farming households who possess agricultural land are cooperatives members. They join the cooperatives voluntarily to benefit the services (Cooperatives statistics, 2007).

From group discussion with the cooperatives management boards as well as farmers, it is said to have more than one cooperatives individual member in one member household. As a result, number of cooperatives individual members in Y La and Kim Phu in 2006 is 3315 and 7091 respectively.

Distinguished from cooperatives members, cooperatives non-members are also farming individuals or households who do not possess agricultural land in the commune and have to borrow land for their agricultural production.

Both cooperative members and non-members have to follow the common production plans and irrigation schedules approved in the annual Cooperatives Congress although participation in decisions made in Cooperative Congress is just by cooperative members. In term of irrigation service, they have the same rights of receiving water in turns and obligations of paying irrigation fees at the end of every crop. As the concept and characteristics of the community by Schouten and Moriarty (2003), both cooperative members and non-members are considered as the community members who coming together in interest groups to use water for agricultural production from the irrigation service.

6.1.2 Irrigation management organization of the community

Irrigation management, as stated above, is organized through the cooperative. The community has their own irrigation management boards which are the same as the cooperative management boards because irrigation is the main service of cooperatives (group discussions with local people, 2007).

Both Y La and Kim Phu belong to Ngoi La inter-district gravity irrigation systems. Managing Ngoi La headwork and main canals are in charge of Ngoi La irrigation management board who contracts to cooperatives to manage secondary, tertiary and farm canals. In principle, Ngoi La irrigation management board is the representative of the community of water users because they are paid to serve the community. However, members of this board include staff of the Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Department and chairmen, management board heads of its member cooperatives. They carry out concurrently tasks of the State and Ngoi La management board. Therefore, this research includes Ngoi La in the side of the State rather than the community. Irrigation management organization of the community, hereby, will be discussed as the organization at the cooperative level.

Although the two study sites both set up irrigation management boards at cooperative level (called management board in short), organization modes are not similar to each other.

a/ Irrigation management organization in Y La Irrigation management organization in Y La is systematically and hierarchically arranged from the management board, irrigation and irrigation-drainage teams at the cooperative level, production teams and farmers as water users.

THE COMMUNITY

THE STATE

Y LA COOPERATIVE

Provincial Irrigation Department

CPC Ngoi La irrigation management board

Y La management board Controlling panel

Irrigation team Production team Irrigation-drainage teams

Village Mass Org.

Diagram 6.1: Irrigation management organization in Y La Source: Group discussions with local people in Y La

Cooperative non-members Cooperative members

The management board is selected by the community members in every three year cooperative congress after being nominated from production teams by the criteria introduced by CPC. As regulated in the Cooperative Regulation, they are community representatives to make seasonal contracts to Ngoi La for water supply; coordinate irrigation and irrigation-drainage teams of the cooperative; develop irrigation schedule, make all production and service plans as well as annual financial plans, do monitoring work and deal with other related issues. Simultaneously, this management board also collects irrigation fees from farmers. This management board comprises of three members: one head in charge of general issues, one vice head in charge of irrigation service, and the other responsible for other agricultural service of the cooperative like ploughing, seed and electricity. However, in fact, this vice head can be included in irrigation monitoring work.

Supporting for the management board is one accountant and one cashier who are responsible for only finance-related tasks and not involved in monitoring work of irrigation service. They are appointed by the management board and approved in the cooperative congress in the same management term of the management board. However, these supporters are often unchanged during terms of management boards (group discussion with local people, 2007).

One irrigation team of ten people and two irrigation-drainage teams of other ten people are set up at the cooperative level. They are also selected by the criteria and suggestion of the management board and approved by cooperative congress. The irrigation team is responsible for construction and maintenance of secondary canals. Meanwhile, the irrigation-drainage teams regulate water for production during cropping seasons as planned irrigation schedules and maintain tertiary and farm canals. These tasks are regulated in the Cooperative Regulation in general and are not specifed for each area of rice field.

Production teams: the management board organizes farmers in production teams. There are 17 production teams totally in Y La cooperative. One production team may involve both cooperative members and non-members in more than one village. Farmers in one production team will select their

team heads basing on criteria set up by the management board in the production team meetings. However, the team heads will not be replaced unless they fill higher positions in the organization or administrative authority, or do big mistakes (group discussions with the production team heads and observation through the list recorded by the management board).

Farmers in the production teams do not have to involve in direct activities of system operation and maintenance. They attend production team meetings to contribute ideas, follow schedules and pay irrigation fees for the service.

Besides the management organization of the own community/ cooperative, the presence of the State (communal authority) and mass organizations like farmers‟ association affects the irrigation management activities. Firstly, the controlling panel of the cooperative who control and monitor the work of the management board to ensure it complying with the annual State guidelines and plans and Cooperative Regulations, is constituted from three communal officers. The controlling panel is put between the State and the community in the diagram because they are State staff but also paid from financial contribution of farmers. Secondly, criteria and nominees to select the management board members are also introduced by CPC. Thirdly, mass organizations are considered to be the supporter in activity of maintaining canals like annually cleaning canals and urging their members of farmers to follow the cooperative Regulation and paying irrigation fees. b. Irrigation management organization in Kim Phu

THE COMMUNITY THE STATE Unlike the hierarchical management organization in Y La, irrigation management organization mode in Kim Phu is characterized by separate structures among production teams or villages. They also have one management board under which production teams can organize management in their own arrangements. There are no common irrigation and irrigation-drainage teams for the whole community/ cooperative (see the diagram 6.2.)

KIM PHU COOPERATIVE

Provincial Irrigation Department

CPC Ngoi La irrigation management board

Kim Phu management board Controlling panel

Village Production team Mass Org.

Irrigation-drainage team

Diagram 6.2: Irrigation management organization in Kim Phu Source: Group discussion with local people in Kim Phu

Farmers

The cooperative management board in Kim Phu is in charge of making contracts to Ngoi La management board, general plans, monitoring and coordination among production teams. It has two members: one is head of the cooperative and the other is the vice head responsible for irrigation

service. Similarly in Y La, it is stipulated in the Cooperative Regulations that a management term of the management board is three year.

Supporters to the management board in term of financial issues contain one accountant and one cashier. These people are appointed by the head of the management board in the Cooperative Congress. Beside the work in financial issues, they also get involved in monitoring work for irrigation service like visiting fields and monitoring whether production teams take water in their right turns [group discussions with local people, 2007].

Production teams in Kim Phu follow the village structure. There are 26 production teams matching 26 villages. As discussed with the local people in Kim Phu, production team heads are also village heads who are selected in village meetings and unchanged for a long time. All irrigation-related activities are therefore mobilized more easily by the village heads. In the organization mode in Kim Phu, production team heads are rather important. They are representatives for farmers in their teams to interact to the management board (receiving guidelines, giving feedbacks of farmers, collecting irrigation fees) and organize irrigation management in the teams.

Irrigation management organization modes in different production teams are not similar. The main difference among them is on irrigation-drainage teams. Some teams may set up these at the team level and the others may not. It is said in group discussions with farmers whether establishing irrigation- drainage teams in production teams/ villages depends on farmers whether they need the team or not, because farmers will have to pay fees for the service. Farmers have rights to join production team meetings mobilized by the head to decide these matters. It is often that only production teams which are located disadvantageously to take water, farmers will need irrigation-drainage teams but the team has to include village members, not outsiders. There are 14 among 26 villages having village irrigation-drainage teams. In the remained 12 villages of without irrigation-drainage teams, maintenance of farm canals and opening canal valves for water in turns are done by farmers themselves. It is clear that farmers in Kim Phu do as both implementers and water users.

Controlling the work of management board is the responsibility of the controlling panel of which members are communal officers. Mass organizations, like the farmers‟ association and youth union, take the supporting role in terms of maintaining canals and urging their members to complete their obligations of paying irrigation fees. In the opinion of the management board, support of the mass organizations in Kim Phu is considered by the management board as crucial part for the management work because there are no irrigation and irrigation-drainage teams for the whole cooperative and the management work depends much on the cooperation among production teams.

6.1.3 Irrigation management in practice and participation of the community

Although working in one environment of legal framework like Cooperative Law, Provincial guidelines, irrigation management in practice of two cooperatives is in different way. The community therefore participates in different activities at different levels. In Y La, the farmer does not directly involve in irrigation management activities. Their representatives do those. In Kim Phu, that the farmer can directly involve in management activities or through their representatives depends on every production team.

6.1.3.1. Irrigation management in practice As stated above, both Y La and Kim Phu belong to Ngoi La inter-district gravity irrigation system. Seasonally, the management boards of member cooperatives have to make contracts for water supply to Ngoi La management board. On the contrary, they have to pay fees for it. These fees are used for administration of Ngoi La board members and maintenance of headwork and main canals.

Box 6.1: Seasonal contracts between Ngoi La management board and member cooperatives

Ngoi La:  Accommodating water distribution to water distribution

Cooperatives:  Receiving water as scheduled;  Paying irrigation fees in amount

schedule as agreed with Y La cooperative in the contract signed at the beginning of every season

 Supplying water in time and in sufficiency for agricultural

and timely as scheduled in the contract

production;

 Repairing, dredging the

secondary and tertiary canals in the management scale;

 Repairing, dredging and tidying up the main canals  Signing the water delivery book during days of distribution at

7.30 a.m and 4.30 p.m;

Source: Sample of seasonal contract between Ngoi La and Y La for summer crop 2007

As shown in the contract, Ngoi La management board will be in charge of managing headwork and main canals while cooperative management board will be responsible for secondary, tertiary and farm canals in their commune.

Beside Ngoi La, other sources of water for agricultural production, like pumping stations in Y La or Kim Thang dam and a set of small lakes in Kim Phu, are mobilized in the cooperative own arrangement.

Box 6.2: Responsibilities of the cooperatives in terms of irrigation management as regulated in the Decision 911

 Protect and maintain irrigation schemes;  Leading water to fields  Sign water contracts and using collected irrigation fees consistent with Regulations;

Source: Decision 911 by Tuyen Quang province, 2007

At the cooperative level, farmers set up Regulation in the cooperative congress for the work of the cooperative in general and in irrigation management in particular. However, the work of the cooperatives also has to comply with the Cooperative Law and Decision 911 by Tuyen Quang People‟s Committee on the organization and operation of the cooperative (see the box). It means that all plans, activities and decisions of the cooperatives in general and in term of irrigation service in particular have to be approved in the annual cooperative congresses. The management board is the highest farmer representatives responsible for those plans, activities and decisions.

6.1.3.2. Participation of the community in making plans and decisions

Plans regarding irrigation management comprise of irrigation schedule with water turns, financial plan (irrigation fee rate, collection and expenditure) and maintenance frequency.

As stipulated in the Cooperative Regulation, these plans are prepared by the management board before being approved in the annual congresses. These will be sent to production team heads who mobilize all farmers for a meeting to comment on them and select representatives participating in the coming congress. According to selection criteria which local people show, these representatives have to be cooperative members and well follow regulations and guidelines by the cooperative.

In both study sites, cooperative congresses often take place in May every year, time of the beginning of summer crop. The management boards do not have records on the number of participants every year but it is common to attract 100% of the 120 invitees5 to participate in those congresses including management board members, commune officers, irrigation and irrigation-drainage teams, 5 Every year, before the cooperative congress, the management board will inform production team to select a given number of farmers to participate in the congress. A production team meeting will be held after that to select among team members. Criteria for selection may be set up. For example in 2007, they include (i) being cooperative members; (ii) do not break regulations of the cooperative; (iii) criteria in age levels.

Box 6.3: What was approved in the annual Cooperative Congress in Y La and Kim Phu?

Financial report over the year;

- Results of cooperatives‟ operation over the year - - Directions and production plans for the coming year - Elect management board or admit new members; - Amend cooperatives regulations (if yes);

Source: Cooperative regulations and interviews, 2007

production team heads and farmer representatives (group discussion with the management boards, 2007). Many plans and issues then will be raised and approved in those cooperative congresses (see the box below).

Decisions on plans should have been to have common agreement of majority of congress participants. However, it is usual that in two study sites, plans are not adjusted much after congresses due to some reasons.

Box 6.4: Why cooperative congress in Y La is symbolical?

- ... Last year I was representative to be at the cooperatives congress. At the beginning, I also raised one idea to nominate one person into the management board. But nothing happened. When ballot papers were distributed to us to select management board members, I did not see the person I nominated. All nominated persons in the list in the ballot papers were already printed before the session of cooperatives congress. - ... I was the cooperatives accountant in the past when Ms. Chi was the head (Ms. Chi is the second head of the management board after transfer). Frankly, now if I participate in the cooperatives congress, I find difficult to understand all the plans and financial review of the management board if they just present at the congress like that, let alone the other farmers who just care about their production and do not know much about the work and finance of the cooperative...

Source: Interviews, 2007

In Y La, as discussed with the farmers who used to be involved in congresses, their participation in contributing ideas in congresses is symbolical. Although the congress is held every year for the farmer to contribute to plans and decision making, everything seems to be arranged and fixed already. Even if they raised their ideas to nominate the management board members or to adjust annual plans, they do not get response. This results in the quiet and double-think attitude of most participants in many congresses.

In Kim Phu, participation of farmers in irrigation management is somehow traditional. It means that the farmer is not well aware of their role in irrigation management. Through unofficial talks to farmers, it is observed that many of them consider the cooperative belonging to CPC, the management board is communal staff. They participate in activities just because they already do like this for a long time and their parents and neighbours also do that. And they can not do anything to change plans or decisions made by the cooperative. So that there is a trend which farmers mostly agree with the plans set up by the management board (group discussions and unofficial talks to farmers in Kim Phu, 2007). 6.1.3.3. Participation of the community in operation of irrigation system

Operation of irrigation system here refers to water distribution to supply water to rice fields. As irrigation schedules are planned and approved in the annual congress, water will be supplied in turns. The management board then develops and informs their lower level about this.

In Y La, the irrigation schedule will be informed to production team heads and irrigation-drainage team who carry out the task of distributing water. Farmers do not directly involve in water distribution. In Kim Phu, up to production teams, the team heads will inform farmers to take water for their

fields themselves or inform irrigation-drainage teams at production team level to do that.

6.1.3.4. Participation of the community in maintenance of canals

In Y La, the irrigation teams are in charge of the cleaning of secondary canals which is done twice per year at the beginning of every crop. The irrigation-drainage teams of the cooperative clean the tertiary and farm canals, also twice per year as regulated in the cooperative regulations. These teams are paid for the service by the collected fees of the farmer.

In Kim Phu, also regulated in the cooperative regulation, cleaning secondary canals is also in charge of the management board which has to hire labours to do it by the cooperative funds, twice per year. Tertiary and farm canals are done by production teams differently. In production teams which have irrigation-drainage teams, cleaning tertiary and farm canals are done by these teams, twice per year. In production teams without irrigation-drainage teams, it is done by the farmers themselves. In this case, frequency of cleaning canals is up to every farming household (group discussions with local people, 2007).

In both study sites, mass organizations like farmers‟ association or youth‟s union are sometimes

mobilized to support in this activity. 6.1.3.5. Participation of the community in collecting irrigation fees

It is the task of the production team heads in both Y La and Kim Phu to collect irrigation fees from farmers in their teams (Cooperative Congress record, 2007).

In this activity, Tuyen Quang province has a policy in which CPC should work in partnership with the cooperative to collect irrigation fees from farmers (Decision 911 by the Province). The farming households who do not pay irrigation fees will not be signed and stamped on their dossiers when they need for their work or their children schooling. CPC in Y La well follows this policy to raise the irrigation fee collection rate of the cooperative. Many farmers have to pay irrigation fees by this regulation (see example below in box 6.5). Where as CPC in Kim Phu does not involve in this activity. This activity in Kim Phu is done by only the cooperative. This also affects to the outcomes of irrigation management in term of irrigation fee collection rate which will be discussed in the next sections.

Box 6.5: Partnership with the State in collecting irrigation fee

Y La: Close partnership – Not paying irrigation fee, no stamps Mr. T, a cooperative member in village 3, who possess 936 m2 of agricultural land in low location. This year in October, his daughter passed the entry exam to study higher school in Hanoi and needed the stamps of the locality in the dossiers for the school. However, when she brought her dossier for stamp by CPC, CPC did not certify because her father owed the cooperatives 320,000 VND (270,000 irrigation fee and 50,000 of interest). She had to come back, asked her father to pay irrigation fee. After that, the cooperative writes a paper certifying his obligation completion. Only when she took that paper to the commune officers, her dossiers were just stamped

Kim Phu: Loose partnership – Not paying irrigation fee, selling land to leave for the South Ms. T, having around 3 sao (1080 m2) in the production team 13. She owes the cooperative irrigation fees of many years and owes the Women‟s Union 3 million VND. However, in 1998, she leaves for the South. Her uncle then sells the land with the stamp of CPC to one another farmer >>> The commune authority does not support for the work of the cooperative as guided by the Province.

Source: interviews, 2007

Besides, the irrigation fee collection work in two study sites is also facilitated by the Direction 100/QĐ-UB by the Province dated 5th February 1999. Province accordingly subsidies cements and ten million Vietnam dongs per one km of new cemented canals. The management board lobbies the farmer to pay irrigation fee and irrigation fee debts in the past for the costs of sand and labour wages. Farmers who do not have money to pay can contribute and pay by their labour days (group discussions with local people, 2007).

6.1.3.6. Participation of the community in monitoring and evaluation In Kim Phu when farmers themselves do many activities and the scale of the community is small (a village), the monitoring work does not require much. This is different from Y La where monitoring needs to be done regularly because they have the implementers (irrigation-drainage teams) at the cooperative level and the farmer does not get involved directly in activities. However, in Y La, farmers said that monitoring and evaluating the work of the implementers is mainly done by the management board but not farmers. Only when something happens directly to the production or benefits of farmers, they will inform their production team heads who will report to the management board (see the case of punishment for the irrigation-drainage team in box 6.7).

6.1.4 Discussion and interpretation on irrigation management and participation of the community

Irrigation management of the community of water users in both study sites is organized through the cooperative. Although the cooperatives were set up long time ago and played a role in irrigation management, its role and the way it runs the irrigation systems have been changed since 1996. Before 1996, when the State played the key role in irrigation management, the cooperatives involved the farmers compulsorily. Currently, they are representatives of the farmers. Farmers have the rights to voluntarily join and organize their irrigation management. They themselves also set up the own Regulation for activities.

Findings from the study sites show that the farmers can participate in all activities in irrigation management from planning to implementation and monitoring, either directly or indirectly by their representatives. Representatives and activities are selected and decided in the cooperative congresses. However, participation of the community of water users/ farmers in both study sites at the moment can not be considered as full participation according to the classification by Szendendre referred to in the literature review. In Y La, the participation can be characterized as symbolical because the management board, the representatives of the farmers does not respond to the farmers‟ ideas and needs. Farmers also do not involved directly in implementation and monitoring work. In Kim Phu, it could be called traditional. Farmers involve in activities as the way they did in the past and their neighbours have done. They do not distinguish between CPC and their representative, the management board. As a result, they also do not raise many ideas against the plans prepared by the management board.

6.2 Management outcomes

The terms “symbolic” and “traditional” applied to describe the type of participation of farmers in management activities. They do not say fully opposite meanings. However, they certainly show differences in participation of local people, which affect to outcomes of irrigation management as analyzed in below sections.

This sub-section discusses the management outcomes including maintenance, water distribution and financial management. These were also the failures facing to the management in the past when the State owned and managed irrigation systems. We explore these failures in the assessment of the local people and to what extent they are addressed by the current management mode, which increases participation of the community of water users. “Success” is not discussed as an absolute value, but in terms of the assessments of the local people regarding whether outcomes have become better or worse.

6.2.1 Failures of irrigation management in the past

Data on outcomes of the previous irrigation management mode in Y La and Kim Phu is not available because it is more than ten years since the changed in irrigation management mode. As a result, the research used indicators of failure outcomes in irrigation management of the whole province to discuss with the local people in two study sites in group discussions. They include:

 Low rate of irrigation fee collection: it is 30-40% and 60-70% relatively in Kim Phu and Y La. Debt for the

IDMC is increasingly raised. There are not funds to pay salary for irrigation staff of the cooperative.

 The majority of canals are not cemented, plus there are no common plans for cleaning the canals so that water waste happens. Water absorb into ground or be kept in upstream areas for a long time while in downstream, it lack of water.

 Low quality of irrigation service: water supply is not always in time.

6.2.2 Outcomes of the current irrigation management mode

6.2.2.1. Water distribution Water waste

Table 6.2: Assessment of the local people on the water waste over 10 years

Water waste

More More in some areas No change Less Less in some areas

Y La Manager x

Implementer Farmer x

Kim Phu Manager x

Farmer x

Source: group discussions with local people, 2007

According to the cooperatives managers, irrigation-drainage teams and farmers in group discussions, water waste generally in both study sites reduces over years compared to the years when the State managed all irrigation schemes. However, discussions also show that this is consequence of cemented canals rather than the management.

Box 6.6: Analysis of farmers in Y La on the reason why water supply is still wasted in some areas of rice fields

In some field areas in production teams 13, 14 and 15 for example (fields of downstream), when we need water for rice flowering, we do not find any water drop although we have our water turns. But sometimes when we do not need water like harvesting period, the irrigation-drainage team still open valves leading abundance of water. It is difficult to harvest in water and also waste water. We do not know why irrigation- drainage teams do like that...

Source: group discussion with farmers in Y La

In the opinion of farmers in Y La, water waste reduces at the overall consideration. However, if exploring at the separate fields, water waste does not reduce in some areas especially in downstream fields. Although the management in which water is supplied in turns help farmers not to quarrel on stealing water and situation of abundant-lack areas, this management requires the good work of the irrigation-drainage teams. If these teams do not work well, then it may lead to wasted water because water may be too much and stagnated in up-stream areas.

Different from Y La, farmers in Kim Phu assess that water is less wasted compared to the past time when the State owned and managed irrigation schemes. They do not complain about the water waste situation like in Y La. It is understandable because they have to directly regulate water in their water turns. If they do not want to have water in their fields, they will not open water-leading valves in farm canals.

Also in group discussions, managers and farmers say that the reason for less water waste may comes from the management in turns. But rather than that, more canals are cemented. This assessment seems reasonable to be consequence of the cemented canals in term of water flow (ground canals will be absorbent).

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 irrigation- drainage 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.

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 Kim Phu

Assessment

Farmers in Y La Upstream Midstream Downstream Upstream Midstream Downstream x

Better Better sometimes No change Worse

x Source: Group discussions with local people, 2007

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 do not really involve in adjusting plans being fit for their production themselves.

Table denotes the different assessment of farmers in Y La and Kim Phu, especially farmers in downstream areas.

In Y La, farmers do 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 do not work in the sense of responsibility (see the case of punishment for the irrigation- drainage 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

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 do 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

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 do for their production?

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 do 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

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 Kim Phu

Assessment

Farmers in Y La Upstream Midstream Downstream Upstream Midstream Downstream x

Cleaner No change Less clean

x Source: Group discussions with local people, 2007

the service. On the other hand, in the site where farmers directly do the maintenance themselves, farmers do not complain about the service

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

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 irrigation- drainage teams, twice per year. Farmers do 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 irrigation- drainage 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 irrigation- drainage teams run the plough machines.

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 ha 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 5 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 do not complain about cleaning canals because they can do themselves for their fields. Even farmers in Kim Phu do not care about the cleaning of the secondary canals. One question is also asked in the group discussion with farmers and managers why they do 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 do 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

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/QĐ-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?

Table 6.5: Expenditures of the cooperatives in 2005

Y La

Kim Phu

Item

Amount of money (Mil.D) 404.60 475.34 88.98 38.27 56.45 182.25 50.26

100 18.72 8.05 11.87 38.34 10.57

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

Total revenue Total cost Irrigation fee to higher board(s) Maintenance Administration cost Construction Wage for irrigation-drainage teams/ production team heads Other

11.06

59.13

12.44

19.25

Source: Cooperatives statistics, 2007

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 do not participate directly in irrigation management. They have their representatives (the management board, irrigation and irrigation- drainage 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 do not complain as much as farmers in Y La do. 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.

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.

Table 6.6: Assessment of local people on factors influencing the success in irrigation management in ranked order

Kim Phu

Factors

Y La (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3 2 1 1 1 1 9

The managers Irrigation - drainage teams Production team heads Farmers in upstream Farmers in midstream Farmers in downstream Total

2 4 3 4 5 18

4 5 5 3 4 4 25

4 5 4 5 4 22

1 1 2 2 3 3 12

5 1 2 2 2 12

5 4 3 4 5 5 26

1 2 1 1 1 6

3 2 3 3 4 5 5 3 2 3 2 17 18 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

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.

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 do 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

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.

Box 6.9: What did farmers say about the previous management board head and the current one

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)

Mr. Hung‟s experience in management: - Work with farmers in flexible manner - Reckon to make workers and farmers benefited. - Good planning (close to production of farmers) - Set up award regulations (A former accountant of the cooperative)

The current leader – Mr. Ngan I have not seen the current management leader since his management term. (A farmer in team 9) Ngan was my classmate in lower secondary school. He was very bad student. I do not know why he became head of production team and then head of management board. Wow, they elect everyone in intention... (A farmer in team 9) In reality, the current management board is bad. How someone with trade background or without higher 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 do not have water now, they shout heavily at the irrigation-drainage teams... (A irrigation- drainage team member) Source: Interviews, 2007

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.

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.

 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 do 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.

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.

Leadership: leadership is the factor which has direct influence on the success in irrigation management. Leadership may be capacity6 to call people to do 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.

6 http://management.about.com/od/leadership/Leadership.htm 7 http://answers.com/topic/partnership?cat=biz-fin

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.

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.

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.

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 2. The map of Ngoi La

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 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 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? - How they perceive and assess the work of management activities?

2 Management outcomes

Water distribution: waste, timing and quantity - How local people perceive and access this outcome compared to that 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 before 1996? - Why they assess such that and evidences? Financial management: returns and expenditures - Secondary data to show expenditures? - Fee collection rate: secondary data and other evidences? 3 Factors influencing the success in irrigation management

What factors: - What factors are identified by local people? - Perception of the local people on that factor? Ranking factors: - Discussions on important of every factor - 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.

Annex 3: Checklist for data needed and people to work with

The role of the community in irrigation management

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.

n e m p o

e v e d

management A study in two community-managed irrigation systems, Tuyen Quang province, Vietnam

a r u r

n

s e h

The role of the community in irrigation management

2.1.1

The community

2.1.2

Participation of the community

2.1.3

Irrigation management with participation of the community

4.3.1

Site selection

4.3.2

Literature review

4.3.3

Data collection

4.3.4

Data analysis

5.3.1

Irrigation management in the past and management transfer to cooperatives

5.3.2

Current irrigation management

5.4.1

General characteristics of management

5.4.2

Y La irrigation system management

5.4.3

Kim Phu irrigation system management

6.1.1

Formation of the community of water users

6.1.2

Irrigation management organization of the community

THE COMMUNITY

Y LA COOPERATIVE

6.1.3

Irrigation management in practice and participation of the community

6.1.4

Discussion and interpretation on irrigation management and participation of the community

6.2.1

Failures of irrigation management in the past

6.2.2

Outcomes of the current irrigation management mode

6.2.3

Discussion and interpretation on outcomes of irrigation management

6.3.1

Assessment of the community

6.3.2

Discussion and interpretation on the factors and their importance

Trung Mon

main canal

Y La

Ngoi La reservoir

Hung Thanh

Kim Phu

Có thể bạn quan tâm

The role of the community in irrigation management

Tài liêu mới

Bài tập lớn: Phân tích, đánh giá thực trạng và đề xuất các giải pháp phát triển nông nghiệp ở nông thôn Việt Nam trong giai đoạn hiện nay

Báo cáo tiểu luận Công nghệ sản xuất sản phẩm thủy sản truyền thống: Trình bày kỹ thuật sản xuất tôm viên, các yếu tố ảnh hưởng chất lượng sản phẩm và đề xuất biện pháp khắc phục

Báo cáo tiểu luận Kỹ thuật nuôi thủy sản: Vai trò của nuôi trồng thủy sản trong đời sống xã hội

Đồ án tốt nghiệp Kỹ thuật thực phẩm: Đánh giá khả năng thu nhận curd và đặc tính phomat tươi sử dụng chủng khởi động trong quá trình sản xuất phomat và biến đổi trong quá trình bảo quản

Tóm tắt Luận án Tiến sĩ Phát triển nông thôn: Nghiên cứu giải pháp phát triển cây quế tại tỉnh Thái Nguyên

Luận án Tiến sĩ Phát triển nông thôn: Nghiên cứu giải pháp phát triển cây quế tại tỉnh Thái Nguyên

AI tóm tắt

Giới thiệu tài liệu

Đối tượng sử dụng

Từ khoá chính

Nội dung tóm tắt

Giới thiệu

Về chúng tôi

Việc làm

Quảng cáo

Liên hệ

Chính sách

Thoả thuận sử dụng