What is PIM

The term participatory irrigation managment (PIM) refers to the participation of irrigation users -- the farmers -- in the management of the irrigation system not merely at the tertiary level of management but spanning the entire system. Participation should not be construed as mere consultation with farmers. The concept of PIM refers to management by irrigation users at all levels of the system and in all aspects of management. This is the simplicity of PIM, and also its flexibility. there could different forms of participation at different levels in the system with varying degrees of accountability and responsibility. Management by the irrigation users -- rather than by a government agency -- is often the best solution. Instead of an initial assumption that irrigation management requires a strong public sector role, the PIM approach starts with the assumption that the irrigation users themselves are best suited to manage their own water.

Two Dimensions of PIM

PIM is a broad, flexible concept. This is a strength -- because the same term can be used to describe many different management arrangements. But it also leads to difficulties in trying to define the objectives of a policy reform program. I would like to discuss the range of management arrangements that can be considered to be "PIM". If we can reach some consensus on what constitutes "PIM", perhaps we can also reach agreement on how to get there: how to implement PIM programs.

We can define PIM on the basis of two dimensions: The first dimension is management: Who has control over management? The second dimension is participation of normal farmers: How much do normal farmers participate in management decisions?
On the dimension of management control, there are four basic options:

1. Government controls everything; farmers make no management decisions about the water upstream from their outlets.
2. The government dominates and the users help. This is the conventional management division in most large irrigation systems.
3. The users dominate and the government facilitates. This is the new model which we refer to as PIM. Typically, the state manages the headworks and main canals, while legally recognized water user associations employ their own technical staff for the management of the secondary and tertiary levels of the canal networks. 
4. Farmers control everything; examples of locally managed traditional systems can be found in nearly every country where irrigation is important.

The second dimension is participation. We sometimes forget that participation is more than just transferring management from government to farmers; it constitutes a dimension in its own right. We can distinguish several levels of participation:

• No participation: farmers have no involvement in management decisions.
• Information sharing: farmers are informed about managment decisions;
• Consultation: farmers are consulted before decisions are taken;
• Shared decision-making: farmers have some direct management control;
• Full decision-making: farmers are themselves the managers.

Balancing Participation and Transfer

These two dimensions of PIM -- participation and management control -- are best addressed in an integrated manner. Participation of all farmers is vital to the sustainable transfer of management from government to users. For example, if management transfer is negotiated between government and a few elite farmers, who then take over management in an autocratic, non-participatory way, the normal farmers will not have a the sense of group ownership and mutual responsibility, and the system may fail when it encounters management stress -- whether from drought, financial shocks, or political instability.

Similarly, transfer of management control from government to farmers is vital to the sustainable management participation of irrigation users. If government invites farmers to advise and consult on management decisions, but do not transfer any real management control, farmers are going to lose interest eventually; they will feel exploited rather than empowered. Transfer to user management, with or without participation, may be a good thing. But the potential power of PIM as a management strategy that meets overall development objectives, lies in the balanced pursuit of both participation and user control.

Where Are we Headed?

What is the future of PIM? Or another question that many of us would be even more interested in: What is the future of our irrigation agencies? Mexico offers one vision of the medium-term future: The government manages only those irrigation systems that are problematic; all healthy systems are transferred to water user associations, and those systems continue to be healthy. The government water agency is shifting its focus away from agriculture towards environment, where there is a growing need for government involvement to manage across competing demands for water from agriculture, industry, urban etc. Water user associations are finding a new role byond the irrigation system in negotiating for their water supply with these competing interests.

Japan offers another vision of the future. Here agriculture is heavily subsidized, yet the irrigation systems remain under the management control of users, through the institution of Land Improvment Districts. The lesson I take from Japan is that PIM is the preferred management approach even where countries can easily afford to subsidize irrigation management. There are so many advantages to farmers managing their own systems, that subsidies are better delivered in other ways, rather than by taking over management of the irrigation systems. The future of PIM will not be the Japanese model or the Mexican model; it will be many different models that will reflect elements, and hopefully the best elements, from experience in many countries.