Capacity development in - WaterWiki.netwaterwiki.net/images/d/d4/CapacityDevelopmentIrrigation... · 2010-12-18 · Capacity development in irrigation and drainage Issues, challenges

Capacity development in irrigation and drainageIssues, challenges and the way ahead

Proceedings of the International Workshopheld on 16 September 2003 during the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage Fifty-fourth International Executive Council Meeting

Montpellier, France

Organized byFAO Land and Water Development Divisionand the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2004

FAOWATER

REPORTS

26

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ISBN 92-5-105174-7

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fullyacknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Chief Publishing Management ServiceInformation Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to: [email protected]

© FAO 2004

Contents

Foreword viiAcknowlegements viiiAcronyms ix

Summary and recommendations 1Understanding what capacity development means 1Capacity development in practice 2Some broader issues 2Recommendations 3

Synthesis 5Introduction 5Understanding what capacity development means 6

Capacity and development 6

A definition 7

As much a process as an end product 7

A matrix and a framework 8

Capacity development is people-centred 10

The who, what and how of capacity development 10

Capacity development in practice 12Developing research capacity 12

Capacity to manage irrigation 13

Producing an enabling environment 14

The role of education and training 15

Some broader issues 16A strategic approach to capacity development? 16

Lessons for strategy development 17

Capacity development projects? 19

Partnerships 19

Networking 20

Monitoring and evaluation 21

Costs 21

Summary 21Understanding capacity development 21

Capacity development in practice 22

Recommendations 22

Keynote papers 25

1. Capacity development engineering – a way forward for capacity building in irrigation and drainage? 27

Defining capacity building 28Capacity and development 28

A definition 28

iv

Capacity building – a negative concept? 29

A lack of capacity or a capacity gap? 29

As much a process as an end product 29

External/internal balance 30

A framework 30A generic framework 30

A framework for irrigated agriculture 31Developing a strategy 32

Strategic planning 33

An agenda for discussion 33Individuals 34

Organizations 35

The water sector level 38

Enabling environment level 38

Education and research 39

Networks 40

Diagnosis and monitoring 41

Lessons for strategy development 42Policy environment 42

The role of donors and technical cooperation 43

Organizations 43

Individuals 44

Education and research 44

Sustainability 44

Points for discussion 45

Appendix I – Case studies 46Developing farmer and institutional capacity – Zambia 46Creating irrigation markets – Africa 47Changing long-established institutions – Peru 48Developing a research institute – Pakistan 49Creating an enabling environment 50

Bhutan 50

Egypt 50

The United Republic of Tanzania 51

Mali 52

2. Capacity building for water and irrigation sector management with application in Indonesia 53

General framework for capacity building 53Accountability mechanisms and tools 54

Generic management activities and accountability tools 55

Actors in capacity building 57Ultimate target group 58

In-project capacity builders 60

In-project capacity-building builders 60

Postproject capacity builders 61

v

Training methodologies 61Training quality assurance 61National capacity building network 62

3. Who will do what and how? Achieving effective capacity buildingin water resources 63

Introduction 63Challenges in irrigation and drainage and water resources 64Whose capacities need building? 65What capacities are required? 66How can capacity building be achieved? 67Capacity building as part of the IWMI’s research and development programme 68Conclusions 71

References 73

Annexes 75

1. Country papers and complementary papers – abstracts 772. Workshop programme 833. List of participants 85

vi

List of papers (available on CD-ROM)

Strengthening capacity for irrigation and drainage research in TunisiaAkissa el Bahri

Institutional strengthening of the users organizations in the Peruvian coastal valleysAlvaro Ledesma

Capacity building for water user associations in AlbaniaYlli Dedja

Capacity building for participatory irrigation management – lessons learned from Andhra PradeshJ. Raymond Peter

Gender mainstreaming in water management – Chipapa Irrigation Scheme, ZambiaMwase Phiri

The role of training and education in capacity building - EIER–ETSHER in West and Central AfricaLaurent Compaore

System requirements to use the CD-ROM:

• PC with Intel Pentium® processor and Microsoft® Windows 95 / 98 / 2000 / Me / NT / XP

or

• Apple Macintosh with PowerPC® processor and Mac OS® 8.6 / 9.0.4 / 9.1 / X

• 64 MB of RAM

• 24 MB of available hard-disk space

• Internet browser such as Netscape® Navigator or Microsoft® Internet Explorer

• Adobe Acrobat® Reader (included on CD-ROM)

vii

Foreword

The great challenge for the coming decades will be to increase food production with less water, particularly in countries with limited water and land resources. The effective and sustainable use of water for agriculture has become a global priority of vital importance, requiring urgent and immediate solutions in view of intensifying competition.

However, the consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies is that a lack of capacity is constraining the development of irrigated agriculture. Although this concern is not new, it is now receiving much attention in the irrigation and drainage world, where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in infrastructure investment projects.

Many organizations working for development have carried out activities of a capacity development nature for decades. As one of these, FAO felt that it was timely to have a more professional analysis on this specific activity focusing on irrigated agriculture. In order to address this issue FAO Land and Water Development Division (AGL) organized a one-day workshop “Capacity building in irrigation, drainage and flood control” on 16 September 2003 alongside the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) Fifty-fourth International Executive Council meeting in Montpellier. It was organized by the ICID Working Group on Capacity Building, Training and Education and FAO–AGLW in association with Alterra–ILRI and other supporting agencies. It brought together a range of case studies from different parts of the world in order to demonstrate that capacity development should be central focus of future strategies on irrigation and drainage.

This publication contains a synthesis of the workshop as well as three keynote papers prepared for the workshop based on the available literature and experiences. The complete workshop materials, which include several country papers and complementary documents, are included on a CD-ROM that accompanies this document.

It is anticipated that the wealth of information supplied here will provide background for those contemplating capacity development in irrigated agriculture in their own countries.

viii

Acknowlegements

The ICID–FAO workshop on capacity development in irrigation and drainage was originally set up by Martin Smith (now FAO Representative in Madagascar) and organized by Daniel Renault, Water Resources, Development and Management Service (AGLW–FAO), with support from Robina Wahaj (AGLW) and Melvyn Kay, irrigation consultant to FAO.

The organizers are grateful to Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga (Alterra–ILRI) who contributed to the workshop in developing the strategy for the keynote paper by M. Kay and D. Renault, in presenting a synthesis of the outcomes on the topic of capacity building at the 9th International Drainage Workshop held earlier in September 2003 in Utrecht (the Netherlands), and in critically reviewing the synthesis of this workshop.

The organizers would like to thank Tom Franks, who chaired the workshop on behalf of the ICID, the authors of papers, Paul van Hofwegen, Akissa el Bahri, Alvaro Ledesma, Ylli Dedja, Ian Makin, Raymond Peter, Mwase Phiri and Laurent Compaore. Finally, the organizers would like to thank Olivier Cogels, International Programme for technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) for presenting a complementary paper.

ix

Acronyms

ADB Asian Development BankCDE Capacity development engineeringCGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCO Community organizer, Indonesia CWRU Central Water Resources Planning Unit, IndonesiaDPSA Provincial and river basin water resources management council, Indonesia EIER Ecole Inter-Etats d’Ingénieurs de l’Equipement Rural ETSHER Ecole Inter-Etats des Techniciens Supérieurs de l’Hydraulique et de

l’Equipement RuralEU European UnionGIS Geographical information system ICID International Commission on Irrigation and DrainageIDW9 9th International Drainage WorkshopIMT Irrigation management transfer IPTRID International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and

DrainageIRBM Integrated river basin management IWMI International Water Management InstituteIWRM Integrated water resources managementNGO Non-governmental organizationNHS National Hydrological Survey, Indonesia O&M Operation and maintenance PHU Provincial Hydrology Unit, Indonesia PIMD Participatory irrigation management and development PWRU Provincial Water Resources Management Unit, Indonesia ToCB In-project capacity-building builder, Indonesia UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWSMP Water Sector Management Programme WRM Water resources management WUA Water users associationWUAF Federation of water users associationsWUAI International Association of Water Users

1

Summary and recommendations

This report synthesizes the proceedings of the one-day workshop “Capacity building in irrigation, drainage and flood control” held on 16 September 2003 alongside the congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) in Montpellier. It was organized by the ICID Working Group on Capacity Building, Training and Education, in association with FAO, Alterra–ILRI and other supporting agencies, and sponsored by the FAO Land and Water Development Division.

Its goal was to highlight the important role of capacity development in the irrigation and drainage sector by presenting the current “state of the art”, the issues and challenges this raises, the approaches currently being taken and those needed in the future, and the facilitating role that agencies such as the ICID, FAO and Alterra–ILRI can play.

UNDERSTANDING WHAT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MEANS

There is a consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies that a lack of capacity is constraining the development of irrigated agriculture as a means of reducing poverty, increasing food security and improving livelihoods among both rural and urban populations.

Although this concern is not new, it is now receiving a great deal of attention in the irrigation and drainage world where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in infrastructure investment projects. However, there is considerable confusion and vagueness over what capacity development means, and it is wrapped up in a host of concepts such as participation, empowerment, technical assistance and organizational development. Policy-makers and professionals are more concerned with infrastructure and usually interpret capacity development as educating and training irrigators, technicians and professionals. Aid donors have tended to reinforce this thinking.

From the workshop, a clearer picture of capacity development for irrigated agriculture emerged. It is centred on the individual, which is why education and training tends to be the main focus of attention when the issue of capacity development is discussed. However, it goes well beyond this to encompass the wider issues of organizations (which includes institutions – the rules, regulations and values of organizations) within which the individuals work and the social and economic environment within which organizations and individuals function. This must be enabling in order for the development of organizations and individuals to be effective.

To understand capacity development is to understand that it is as much a process as an end product. It is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why most people have adopted the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.

Capacity development is a more appropriate term than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has produced a definition of capacity development that emphasizes the need for local ownership and the empowerment

2 Capacity development in irrigation and drainage

of people to solve their own problems. It is applicable to irrigated agriculture and provides a sound basis on which to build. However, much more detail needs to be added if its sentiments are to be applied in practice.

The workshop produced a matrix that maps out the landscape for capacity development for irrigated agriculture. It is a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion both at a local and national level. In addition, the matrix can be helpful in talks with donors, ensuring clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and priorities.

A framework was also proposed that demonstrates how individuals, organizations and the socio-economic environment are linked. It is also a platform for the activities that need to be undertaken in order to meet the desired performance of individuals and organizations.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE

The case studies provided many valuable insights into capacity development. First, they demonstrated how complex and unique each case study was in terms of its technical and socio-economic environment. However, they all had issues in common that provide experiences from which others might benefit.

In many of the case studies, capacity development was not initially the main issue. Projects set out with other objectives but these changed as they developed. If capacity development is the real priority, then more thought is required in order to define the true objectives at the outset rather than relying on a change in direction at some later stage. This would not be an easy task in a typical situation where both government and donors are focusing on infrastructure, rather than people, as the main target for investment.

Many of the cases presented were largely descriptive and lacked critical analysis and synthesis in terms of drawing out the lessons for others to use. This highlights the lack of a useful conceptual approach to capacity development, how it is planned and implemented, and in particular how it is evaluated. This is an issue that needs addressing if others are to benefitfrom the case study approach.

The long lead time needed for change was also discussed (ten years and more) as was the unpredictability of the outcomes over such a long period and the importance of serendipity in those outcomes. This contrasts with the current highly-structured nature of the short-term project approach that many agencies favour.

SOME BROADER ISSUES

The keynote papers, the case studies and the subsequent discussions also raised a number of broader issues that are integral to the success of capacity development. These included:• a strategic planning approach to capacity development that includes diagnosis, identification

of the gaps, definition of the goals, means and monitoring of performance;• lessons for strategy development in the areas of policy development, organizations,

individuals and education and research;• the role of capacity development projects – and whether they are compatible with a process

approach;• the importance of partnerships and the balance between internal forces and external support

and aid;• networking and its role at all levels of capacity development;

Summary and recommendations 3

• diagnosis and monitoring for evaluating the success of interventions and providing guidance for future investment;

• costs of capacity development – the cost of capacity development is one of the first issues that prospective donors raise, and as yet there are few satisfactory answers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The workshop confirmed the growing consensus that a lack of capacity is constraining irrigation development in many developing countries. Capacity development rather than infrastructure should be the central focus of future irrigation development strategies – infrastructure is only one component of capacity, it should not lead the development debate but follow as a consequence of a much wider capacity development strategy.

Many countries are beginning to recognize the importance of capacity development in its wider context. However, there is currently no guidance available on how to achieve this. Thus, guidelines are needed in order to illustrate current good practice on planning a capacity development strategy.

In order to support the development of guidelines, the irrigation community should organize and support a series of workshops on capacity development similar to this one. The annual ICID international meeting provides an ideal opportunity for such events. Workshops could focus on specific topics such as:• assessing capacity needs;• the relationship between capacity development and formal education and training and

projects – the sustainability issue;• developing effective organizations;• monitoring and evaluating capacity development;• costs and values of capacity development programmes,• approaches to capacity development – the “big bang” approach or the “step by step”

approach.

Case studies can be an important source of information and experience for capacity development. However, there is a need for sagacity and critical review in their development in order for them to be useful for others. They could form part of a “knowledge base” for capacity development to accompany guidelines.

5

Synthesis

INTRODUCTION

A one-day workshop “Capacity building in irrigation, drainage and flood control” was held on 16 September 2003 alongside the congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) in Montpellier. It was organized by the ICID Working Group on Capacity Building, Training and Education and the FAO Land and Water Development Division, in association with Alterra–ILRI and other supporting agencies.

Its goal was to highlight the important role of capacity building in the irrigation and drainage sector, and to bring together agencies, institutions and individuals in order to review and address the following issues:

• Why is capacity building important, and what are the specific issues and challenges that need to be addressed in a capacity building programme?

• What is the present “state of the art” with respect to capacity building for the sector?

• What approaches are currently being used, and what are the issues and challenges arising from them, including more effective tools to assess the needs and impact of capacity building?

• What new approaches in capacity building are needed to address probable changes in the sector in the near future?

• What facilitating and complementary roles can agencies such as ICID and FAO play in supporting and promoting effective capacity building within the sector?

This one-day event was in two parts:

• Part 1 comprised two keynote presentations on the broader principles and key issues in capacity development.

• Part 2 focused on capacity development experiences in several countries and regions including Albania, India, Indonesia, Peru, Tunisia, Zambia and West and Central Africa in order to demonstrate the challenges facing capacity development and practical ways of dealing with them.

Further presentations included:

• A presentation by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) about the who, what and how for capacity building in water resources.

• A synthesis of the outcomes on the topic of capacity building at the 9th International Drainage Workshop held earlier in September 2003 in Utrecht (the Netherlands).

• A presentation of the new focus of the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) on capacity development.

From the outset of the workshop, it was clear that the term capacity development was a more appropriate term than capacity building. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the former term is used throughout the rest of this synthesis. The meaning of this change is explained more fully later in this synthesis.


UNDERSTANDING WHAT CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MEANS

A significant part of Keynote Paper 1 is devoted to clarifying what capacity development means for irrigated agriculture. It first refers to the consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies that a lack of capacity is constraining the development of irrigated agriculture as a means of reducing poverty, increasing food security and improving livelihoods among both rural and urban populations. Here, the term irrigated agriculture is used to define all the ways of controlling and managing water for agriculture in an environmentally responsible manner. It is about water control technologies and practices for the irrigation of crops, water harvesting, drainage to dispose of surplus and saline water, and flood mitigation to protect people and land against water damage.

Capacity development has been a leading issue in development for many years and comes from the widely acknowledged shortcomings in development assistance over the past 50 years. However, what is new is the attention it is now receiving in the irrigation and drainage world where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in water infrastructure investment projects.

Many developing countries now say they need more capacity, and aid agencies are keen to supply it or at least help to create it. To date it has remained a concept of enormous generality and vagueness wrapped up in a host of concepts such as participation, empowerment, technical assistance and organizational development. The calls for capacity development in irrigated agriculture suffer from these same vague generalities, with the focus remaining on water infrastructure development.

Keynote Paper 1 emphasizes the fact that many policy-makers and professionals have a simplistic interpretation of capacity development in terms of educating and training irrigators, technicians and professionals. Discussion comments suggest that in some instances this may be through ignorance but that in others it may be intentional for fear of the full consequences of implementing major policy and organizational changes that are an integral part of developing capacity.

Donors have tended to reinforce this thinking. Technical cooperation has been shaped by concentrating on new works and providing technical assistance to fill the skills gap and to pass on knowledge. This approach has yielded only limited benefits. Thus, beyond the general idea that more capacity is required, there is a need for greater clarity of thinking about the practicalities of planning, designing, implementing and monitoring capacity development.

One widely-accepted outcome of the general discussion was the need to capitalize on work undertaken by development organizations such as FAO, and to use this as a basis for: developing guiding principles for capacity development planning and implementation; building frameworks to help establish priorities; taking decisions; and determining criteria to evaluate the impacts and effectiveness of capacity development actions.

Capacity and development

To help clarify what capacity development means, Keynote Paper 1 refers to the recent history of capacity development and its links with development aid. This began with the Marshall Plan that supported the rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War. Because it was successful, it generated an optimistic view of what worked, namely: transfer capital and knowledge to other countries for infrastructure development, and swift economic development would follow. However, the analysis of subsequent experience showed that this view underestimated the importance of local knowledge and institutions in the process of

Synthesis 7

economic development, and this was compounded by aid driven by politics rather than results. Development based on this aid was then criticized for undermining local capacity rather than building it, ignoring local wishes and favouring high profile activities.

In the past decade there has been a change in emphasis towards seeing development generally and capacity development more specifically as “locally owned”, so that cooperation does not seek to do things for developing countries but with them. Countries should build on the wealth of local knowledge to achieve whatever goals and aspirations they set themselves. Capacity has been described simply as: the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives. This raises the issue of national capacity being more than the sum of the capacity of individuals, which points to the importance of people working in organizations and networking. This has become known as social capital, and in simple terms it means: the more people trust each other, the better off their society.

This change in development has had a profound influence on irrigated agriculture. Farmers are being encouraged to take on more responsibility for water management, and they are increasingly being exposed to private sector market forces. To cope with these and other pressures, farmers are beginning to demand better support services, advice, access to new technologies, finance, equitable and fair water management regulations, and legal redress when things go wrong. However, the limited ability of farmers to manage water and a lack of these support services are seen collectively as a lack of “capacity”, and the need is to build or develop it so that the water sector can function properly.

A definition

Keynote Paper 1 proposed acceptance of the UNDP definition of capacity development as: “…the sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels – locally, nationally, regionally and internationally - so that they can better progress towards sustainable development…”. It continues by saying: “…at the basic conceptual level, building capacity involves empowering people and organizations to solve their problems, rather than attempting to solve problems directly. When capacity development is successful, the result is more effective people and institutions better able to provide products and services on a sustainable basis.” There was general acceptance of this definition. In particular, it encompasses approaches to development that are now well accepted in irrigation. It provides a sound basis on which to build, but much more detail needs to be added if its sentiments are to be applied in practice. The principal aim of this workshop was to do this.

As much a process as an end product

The second part of the UNDP definition links capacity development with the process of development itself. Keynote Paper 1 emphasized this point as one of the keys to understanding what capacity development means. The top-down approach of government and aid agencies failed to produce the capacity needed . There is now a realization that it must come by working in response to local initiatives with local ownership and leadership and incorporating the ideas of participation and subsidiarity.

Therefore, how capacity is developed becomes an essential part of producing a useful end product. It is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why many people now use the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.


Capacity development is an approach to development, not something separate from it.

A matrix and a framework

The UNDP definition is one step in the process of clarifying what capacity development means. However, it does little to describe the territory of capacity development in irrigation, how to assess the capacity gaps, and what practical steps should be taken to overcome them.

Both Keynote Papers 1 and 2 referred to the work of social scientists and the extensive conceptual thinking about capacity development that has taken place over the past decade on development generally. This produced a generic framework that has become widely accepted in development and is also gaining acceptance in the water sector. It comprises four levels of capacity that can be examined and analysed as well as providing possible entry points for support from a donor or technical cooperation (Figure 1). Interpreting this framework in terms of irrigated agriculture, the four levels are:

Individual level. This is the most “concrete” and familiar part of capacity development. It includes the education and training of the various stakeholders, farmers, local professionals, engineers and other disciplines involved in irrigation.

Organizational level. This refers to groups of people such as water user organizations, research groups, government extension agencies, private enterprises that share common objectives such as improved livelihoods at a farming level or improved water management or increased agricultural productivity at a national level. Institutions are the rules and agreements, formal and informal, and shared values that bind organizations. Thus, the capacity of an organization is embedded in the ability of its individuals to work together within established rules and values and to interact with other organizations.

Sector level. The sector level emphasizes the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management and reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover all aspects of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies and the environment in isolation.

Enabling environment. This represents the broad national and international context within which irrigated agriculture can develop. It has immense influence over what happens at the lower levels. It is concerned with policy at the highest levels in government, the socio-economic conditions that enable or discourage irrigation development, and the legal framework that provides farmers with security of tenure for land and water and the power to seek legal redress when contracts are broken.

The diagonal arrows in Figure 1 emphasize the links between the levels. For example, in irrigation the performance of a water users association (WUA) is shaped as much by society (laws and regulations) as it is by individuals (skills, leadership and relationships).

Enabling environment

Sector / Network level

Organizational level

Individual

level

FIGURE 1A conceptual framework for capacity development

Synthesis 9

A matrix

Keynote Paper 1 applied this generic structure to irrigated agriculture by adding a second dimension that included the familiar activities that require capacity, namely: planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance (Figure 2). In order to complete the picture, research, education and training, and networking were added as important areas of capacity development in their own right. Research here refers to the capacity to develop new knowledge in a specialist institute or university, and education and training refers to the capacity to disseminate knowledge in colleges, universities, etc. Networking refers to the various formal and informal networks that are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and innovation and which can and should take place at all levels of capacity development.

Guiding principles of subsidiarity (decision-making at the lowest possible administrative level) and participation were added to demonstrate the move away from the traditional top-down approach to development. These are basic issues in integrated water resources management (IWRM) (see TAC4 of Global Water Partnership).

This matrix was presented originally in Keynote Paper 1 as a framework for capacity development. However, from discussions it was generally agreed that this was more a matrix that sets out a picture or landscape of the territory in which capacity is needed. It provides a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion at both a local and national level. Furthermore, it can be helpful in talks with donors in establishing clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and what needs to be done: Where are the capacity gaps? Is it individuals and if so which? Are the constraints mainly in the operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems or in support organizations provided by government or the private sector? Does the socio-economic environment discourage irrigation or is the education and training provision unable to provide the basic human resources on which irrigation can grow?

The priority given to each box will vary considerably from one place to another depending on local issues such as the way irrigation is practised (e.g. privately-run smallholder irrigation, publicly-owned large irrigation and drainage networks and commercial farming) and the need to solve local problems (e.g. salinity and waterlogging, inadequate education facilities, and irrigation management transfer). However, the boxes are not simple watertight compartments. They are very much linked together in a variety of ways that depend on local circumstances. Thus, the simplicity of the matrix should not mask the complexity of the issues to be addressed.

As a consequence of the discussions, the framework presented in Keynote Paper 1 was modified to present a matrix (Figure 2).

Capacity levels Irrigated agriculture activities

Research Education & training

Planning Design Construction O&M Networks

IV Enabling environment

III Sector

II Organization

I Individual

Guiding principles: subsidiarity and participation

FIGURE 2A matrix for capacity development in irrigated agriculture


A framework

Keynote Paper 2 presented a framework for capacity development (Figure 3) that built on the matrix and the generic structure described above. Although primarily aimed at the performance of larger governmental organizations in Indonesia, it could equally apply to other public and private irrigation support institutions. It shows how the interconnections between the three principal levels of capacity development, namely: individuals, institutions and the enabling environment. For example, individuals must have knowledge, skills and an appropriate attitude, but the institution is crucial in setting the incentives for individuals to perform. Equally, the environment must be favourable in order for the institution to perform its functions properly. The good performance of individuals leads to appropriate behaviour in the workplace, and this together with an appropriate environment leads to good performance of service delivery.

A framework such as this can help in decision-making and lead to the

next step, which is defining activities that are required at all the levels for effective capacity development (Figure 4). This is presented in a general way and requires much more refinementin order to apply it properly to irrigation and drainage. However, it is a good beginning on which to build.

Capacity development is people-centred

Although the keynote papers emphasized that capacity development was not solely about individuals, it is people-centred. This was aptly described in an interesting pictorial way originated at the Utrecht workshop (Figure 5). A person is at the centre and the working environment forms the foundation on which the person stands. The two feet represent knowledge and skills and the organization within which the person works. The achievement is the weight that the person is lifting and this comprises aspects of IWRM and good job performance. Both represent the main objectives of capacity development.

The who, what and how of capacity development

Drawing on many experiences, the IWMI raises several generic points on capacity development and poses the questions: whose capacity needs developing, what capacities are required and how can they be developed? The IWMI points first to the big picture of the river basin and to the need for effective rules and regulations. The river basin is the most logical unit of management for land, water and other natural resources as the basis for increased integration of planning and

INDIVIDUALS

INSTITUTIONS

ORGANIZATIONAL EXTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT

Behaviour

Performance of Service

Delivery

KnowledgeSkills

Attitude

Incentives(+/-)

MissionStructure

TasksProcedures

Infrastructure

PoliciesLegislation

Organizations

(demography, government system,economy, social and cultural system, physical and bio-enivronment, climate)


Synthesis 11

greater devolution of decision-making to local communities and stakeholders. While many developed countries have evolved highly-advanced and resilient institutions over many decades of gradual change, many other countries are now faced with developing effective institutions in relatively short periods as the available resources become constraints on development. In some cases, these countries are having to rediscover local institutions and devolved decision-making after a period of more centralized resource management introduced as a consequence of often government-led irrigation and other water resources development efforts. As these governments now seek to reduce the burden on the national exchequer for the provision of irrigation and natural resource management, the transfer of successful experiences from the more developed basins to these countries has emerged as a growth industry. The IWMI refers to this as “institutional leapfrogging”, but emphasizes the need for sagacity and critical analysis in assessing what will work and what will not, given the differences in the context.

The acts, rules and regulations governing the management of water resources present a major challenge to many countries. They can often be conflicting and contradictory, and result in a lack of consistency at policy level, leading to confusion and problems in integrating the demands of different sectors at the local level. This can lead to confused messages from policy-makers to the support agencies and undermine the capacity to undertake the sweeping changes to the existing institutional frameworks required to actually devolve decision-making to the most appropriate levels.

The IWMI points to there being no single formula for developing capacities to improve irrigation, drainage and water resources management. Solutions range from effective communication skills and the application of advanced technical techniques to the development of analytical skills for policy-makers and decision-makers. The target groups for these different skills range from poorly-educated farmers and water users through skilled service providers and technicians, technical service managers and researchers to political leaders and policy-makers. Added to this is the enormous range of conditions in which these different groups deploy their skills and capacities.

Education Knowledge

Skills

Attitude

Incentivestructure

Coaching

Completency – taskoriented

Vocational, on the job, seminars, worshop,

short courses, exposure, coaching

Human resourcedevelopment

Defining structure,tasks and internal

accountabilitymechanisms

Defining mission,responsibilities and

external accountabilitymechanisms

Development ofpolicies, legislation,

organizations,regulations,procedures

Managementenvironment

Organization

Individual

BEHAVIOUR

SERVICEDELIVERY

PERFORMANCE

SECTOR PERFORMANCE

Training

Formal – informalBasic, vocational,

professionalexperience

Levels Activities Outputs Outcome

FIGURE 4Capacity development activities

IWRM

OrganizationKnowledge & Skills

Good Job

Performance

FIGURE 5A people-centred picture of capacity development


Several country case studies in involving IWMI support were highlighted. These included capacity development for research in West Africa, policy support in Cambodia, Indonesia and India, WUAs in Uzbekistan, and mobilizing women’s participation in Pakistan.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE

From the keynote papers and the discussions, it was possible to develop a conceptual structure for capacity development in irrigated agriculture. This section examines capacity development in practice. The case studies presented at the workshop brought together a range of practical experiences and addressed the question – Are there experiences from which it is possible to develop “recipes” that others can use?

Where appropriate, the case studies are grouped using the matrix referred to earlier in this synthesis. Blocks in black represent the principal area of activity, and those in grey represent other areas influenced significantly by the project.

Developing research capacity

Case study 1 from Tunisia was concerned with strengthening the capacity of irrigation and drainage research to solve problems of overexploitation of shallow groundwater, soil degradation and environmental pollution in an arid climate in order to sustain farmers and guarantee the quantity and quality of food available while preserving the natural resources.

Developing capacity in research is important to providing long-term support for solving local and national irrigation problems. However, research organizations often have a reputation for working in their own world, where personal and institutional reputations are developed through publications rather than solving the real problems of development. There are many varied and complex reasons for this, not least of which are a lack of clear policy on the role of research, a lack of resources, and poorly trained and motivated staff.

In Tunisia, a major programme of research, “Water saving in irrigation”, was initiated and the research capabilities were increased to cope with this. Partnerships were forged with national and foreign institutions. Training was provided to develop the capacities of researchers, engineers and technicians involved in the programme, and funding mechanisms were used to encourage high-quality research on the key issues. The linkage between research and extension was also considered as part of the research actions.

Keynote Paper 1 described another case study from Pakistan where agricultural drainage is the main research issue. A new research institute was established with international collaboration that is now developing an international reputation for its work. Although the initial focus was on drainage technology, it changed during the course of the project to capacity development. Experienced international professionals with both drainage research and communications skills encouraged local staff to think beyond the immediate technical issues and to put them into the context of drainage development and the real problems facing farmers. Salaries were also reviewed along with staff recruitment in order to attract high-quality well-motivated people.

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



Synthesis 13

Capacity to manage irrigation

Case study 2 examined the institutional strengthening of water user organizations, known as user boards, in Peru. Irrigation in Peru was traditionally top-down, but in recent years the government has been pursed a policy of management transfer. The case study describes a programme of participatory training for 64 user boards to encourage them take on the full responsibility for local water management including the collection of fees from farmers and to encourage private funding in irrigation. Evaluations showed significant increases in the number of user boards setting up plans for water distribution and prioritizing maintenance as well as increases in the collection of funds from farmers.

Particular lessons learned from the experience included:

• Encourage the active participation of direct beneficiaries in course planning and implementation.

• Bear in mind that participants may not have a formal education and may not be able to read.

• Training methods should not be imposed, but proposed.

• The organizations themselves should identify and prioritize the subjects to be discussed.

• Periodic evaluations should be considered in order to control the programme development as well as the level of training application provided. The results should be reported to the beneficiaries.

• Budget in the training for items such as computers and measurement and control tools and hand them over to the user boards at the end of the training.

Case study 3 examined capacity development of WUAs in Albania. This paper presents a detailed history of the development of water user groups as part of a major investment in irrigation following Albania’s transition from a command to a market economy. It describes the steps taken at farm level to introduce the concept of WUAs to farmers, who were more accustomed to being directed by others. At a national level, changes were made to the legal structure in order to establish the rights and responsibilities of associations. It is still too early to evaluate the success of these significant changes and time is needed for people to change “after 46 years of repressive communism”. However, the author is optimistic about the eventual outcome.

Case study 4 is from India. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the “big bang” approach was used to constitute more than 10 000 associations in one campaign in 1997 in a move introduce participatory irrigation management. The paper sets out the process of development and emphasizes the challenges facing reformers not just in terms of dealing with large numbers of illiterate water user chairpersons but also answering the question “who wants the changes to take place?” The paper stresses the need for a communications strategy that not only caters for the immediate process of change but also provides for a long, sustained effort that needs to be progressive and adaptive in order for changes to succeed. It also highlights the benefits of farmer networks as an effective means of communication between farmers and also between farmers and policy-makers.

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual




Another case of capacity development at an operational level is from Zambia, and this is discussed in Keynote Paper 1 Appendix I. This study was more concerned with developing farmer skills in water management rather than developing associations. The project was externally funded and low-cost irrigation technologies were used as an entry point for training. Zambia does not have strong private organizations that can support farmers, so the existing government organization was strengthened rather than build something new. This was an unusual move at a time when many governments are running down services and transferring responsibility for irrigation to farmers’ organizations. Participatory approaches and facilitation methods formed an important part of the training in addition to the more technical subjects. Training was done in a very structured way and based on methods used in Nepal, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. This has led to the production by FAO of guidelines on participatory training and extension in farm water management and a farmers’ training manual. However, the question of cost recovery from those who benefit has yet to be resolved, and thus the process may not continue once the external support has stopped.

Case study 5 also came from Zambia and it focused on the empowerment of women in irrigation and water resources management for improved household food security, health and nutrition and the experiences on a small irrigation scheme involving some 40 households in 8 villages. The participation of women in decision-making on schemes was promoted and this was achieved through community action planning, participatory constraints analysis and workshops. Monitoring frameworks were implemented for evaluating activities. The success of this intervention was measured by women being elected to positions of leadership after more than 20 years of male dominance. There were also technical improvements resulting in an increase in agricultural production and in the diversity of cropping. Improvements were also reported in nutrition and public health.

Producing an enabling environment

Although none of the case study papers addressed the issue of the enabling environment, Keynote Paper 1 Appendix 1 refers to several examples.

In Bhutan, an agreement was reached at the very highest levels to introduce an irrigation management transfer programme. The outcome of this was a successful and well-structured programme of irrigation management transfer over a ten-year period. It was initiated by government at the highest level through the development of a new national irrigation policy. It involved a process of reviewing existing management practices, experimentation with new methods, consultation with stakeholders and agreement on the structure of the new policy, the production of good-quality training materials, and a gradual and well-guided introduction of the policy using participatory training methods. An evaluation of the programme demonstrated the benefits of a slow but steady developmental process of change.

In Egypt, a panel of Netherlands and Egyptian drainage specialists and managers was set up to examine ways of dealing with the drainage of large tracts of the Nile Valley, to develop and transfer drainage technology from the Netherlands to Egypt, and to administer Netherlands donor funding for a series of drainage projects. Over the past 27 years, this panel has grown in importance from a convenient administrative arrangement for a wide range of drainage

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual

Research Education& training


Synthesis 15

projects, both in the field and in drainage research, and has become the basis of a partnership with Egyptian steering, that has now widened its scope by mutual agreement to include the wider technical and institutional issues of water management. This partnership is regarded as a success by both countries and has led to significant technology developments and policy changes in Egypt. One of the factors that have influenced this has been the panel membership, which has evolved and now includes some of the most senior government officials from both countries, including representatives from all the ministries that are stakeholders in the water sector. The panel is currently chaired by the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources. This ensures ownership of panel decisions at the highest levels in government. Other elements cited include: the commitment of members; the inclusion of several women members who head ministerial departments; and the respect, natural empathy and personal relationships that have also developed over the years between panel members that has led to trust. This enables frank discussions to take place at an intimate and informal level as well as officially, which is the essence of a good partnership.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, a 12-year donor-funded research and communications programme in harvesting rainwater to improve productivity and smallholder livelihoods has transformed thinking at the highest levels of government. Work began initially as a research project into the technologies of rainwater harvesting but gradually the importance of communicating ideas and involving all the various stakeholders was realized if significantchanges were to be made in the way in which farmers worked.

Rainwater harvesting is now seen as a resource and has been incorporated in the development plans of certain district councils and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), especially following the statement by the Tanzanian Prime Minister that: “the Government will strengthen and promote the use of rainwater harvesting technology, in both urban and rural areas.”

All these examples demonstrate the importance of the social and economic environment in developing capacity and the long time frame needed for change to take place. The United Republic of Tanzania demonstrates that changes at lower levels can also influence change at the top, and that young people are a factor in change as they have more to lose and to gain. Egypt shows how true and lasting partnerships can and do play a crucial role in developing capacity.

The role of education and training

The final case study (case study 6) concerned the most traditional interpretation of capacity development – education and training. Following the discussions about institutions and socio-economic environments, this is a timely reminder that individuals are a central plank of capacity development.

The case study examines a long-term initiative by the Ecole Inter-Etats d’Ingénieurs de l’Equipement Rural (EIER) and the Ecole Inter-Etats des Techniciens Supérieurs de l’Hydraulique et de l’Equipement Rural (ETSHER) to support the socio-economic development of 14 countries of West and Central Africa. Created in 1968 and 1972, respectively, they have trained nearly 2 500 higher technicians, engineers and graduates in irrigation skills,

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual




and 4 500 trainees have followed various extension courses, including 280 in irrigation and drainage extension programmes.

Courses are evaluated every 2–5 years by the countries served and externally by donors and member governments. These have led to changes in the programmes in recent years in order to accommodate not just the technical aspects of irrigation but also the socio-economic, environmental and communication aspects. The aim of the changes is to stay very close to the needs of the labour market. A measure of the effectiveness of the programmes is that most graduates find employment immediately or very soon after graduation in the irrigation sector in their own countries.

The EIER–ETSHER Group is also a useful example of integrated interregional cooperation between French-speaking countries of West and Central Africa.

SOME BROADER ISSUES

The keynote papers, the case studies and the subsequent discussions raised a number of broader issues that need consideration as integral to the success of capacity development.

A strategic approach to capacity development?

The Secretariat of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) defines strategic planning as: “a process by which an organization develops the most desirable vision of its future, taking into account the constraints the organization is likely to work within, and shows how the organization can realize that vision.” To date most capacity development “strategies” have tended to be a “bolt-on” to infrastructure development. They are often limited in scope, poorly defined and developed with minimal stakeholder consultation. Therefore, applying strategic planning to capacity development as the primary issue has little precedence. This approach has served other sectors well and so it is suggested that it is a viable approach for irrigation. It is now being advocated strongly by the IPTRID and its partner organizations whose main thrust is to support strategic planning, design and implementation of capacity development programmes and projects in developing countries. It is unlikely that such a strategy can be divorced from infrastructure, but it is a question of emphasis. If capacity development is the key issue, the question then becomes – what infrastructure is needed to support it?

A process of strategic planning would include:

• diagnosis: identification of the gaps;• definition of the goals;• means;• monitoring of performance.

The IPTRID proposes an initial needs assessment at regional, national and subnational levels to look at the present situation and to answer the question - where do we stand? The aim is to identify the priority technical issues in terms of water conservation, water productivity, land degradation, salinity, etc. and the existing institutional capacity and weaknesses at strategic and operational levels. Roundtable conferences and workshops are proposed to ensure full participation of all stakeholders and ensure that their views are taken into account for the next step, which is to answer the question – where do we want to go? A strategy can then be developed to reach the desired goals – how do we get there?

Synthesis 17

Lessons for strategy development

The keynote papers and the case studies provide some useful points to consider when developing a capacity development strategy.

Policy environment

A favourable policy environment and political will for development are crucial to successful irrigation development and to developing capacity. Policies are determined largely by the quality and commitment of the leadership and senior management. Within the policy, capacity development must be guided by clear strategies that address development needs and are nationally owned.

A period of review and experimentation with new approaches is essential before including them in any new policy.

Capacity development should be at the heart of development and be pursued on a permanent basis. It is not a temporary fix for correcting investment failures. The approach to capacity development needs to be improved both in terms of concepts and the methods and tools used. It should have the features of a “corps of engineering” - accruing knowledge from experience on capacity to diagnose, design, implement, and post-evaluate.

Identification and assessment of capacity needs is one of the most difficult tasks. It is a question of who does it and how. It implies strategic planning capacity in a country, and this too may require developing.

Experts are needed with interdisciplinary skills, with experience of working at high levels in government or the private sector, and who are able to facilitate and not dictate discussion and decision-making. Many countries do not possess such expertise and it may not always be readily available from other countries.

Full participation of all the stakeholders in the public and private sectors, namely, farmers, engineers, agriculturalists, researchers, educators, politicians and civil servants is essential. Although this is time consuming, it is considered essential to the eventual ownership of any actions taken.

The lack of expertise and the extensive nature of consultation are unlikely to lead to a rapid conclusive or state-of-the-art solution. However, it is essential that there is a locally-owned consensus and that it is acted upon.

Capacity development is a complex process, but complexity must not paralyse it. A framework such as the one proposed in this paper can provide a useful basis for discussions among stakeholders and for pinpointing constraints and priorities.

The challenge is to find ways through the complexity and make useful contributions. As with irrigation engineering, it is important to appreciate the complex nature of irrigated agriculture, but at some point the engineer must be able to interpret this complexity in terms of design, construction and operation of a working irrigation scheme.

Organizations

It is at the organizational level that most countries suffer weaknesses. Most of the organizations supporting irrigated agriculture are government run, but there is a growing input from the private sector. It is not a question of either one or the other, but of the balance between them. The appropriate strengthening of both must be a priority in any strategy.


Keynote Paper 2 lists the criteria for good organizational performance:

• An enabling external environment is needed to deliver expected services.

• Governments and society at large must facilitate the creation of the necessary national and local policies, legislation and organizational frameworks.

• Organizations need a clear mission, clear responsibilities and external accountability procedures.

• Tasks and responsibilities must be translated into a clear organizational structure, tasks and internal procedures.

• Adequate resources and infrastructure must be available.

• Human resources within the organization must have the required knowledge, skills and attitude.

• Organizations must provide the right internal (positive and negative) incentives to obtain the desired behaviour of individuals.

A good cadre of capable senior managers that can lead the processes of change is needed if organizations are to develop a good reputation and encourage the best people to join. Salaries are important but remuneration is not the only criteria.

There are many advantages in working with existing organizations rather than inventing new ones. This may not always be attractive, but new organizations can be a large drain on already limited management and administrative resources.

Individuals

Individuals are the heart of any organization, and their education and training must reflect the needs of irrigated agriculture and the roles they will play.

Partnerships develop between people. While working together, more and better results will be possible over time, as mutual trust develops – social capital.

Human resources planning offers a tool for predicting the demand from human resources and a logical process for providing it through education and training. It focuses attention on the numbers of individuals needed, their skills and the education and training infrastructure needed to provide them.

Any strategy must address the young people as they are: less influenced by rigid organizations; more flexible in their thinking; willing to take risks; and ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution.

Education and research

The capacity to educate future generations in the ways of irrigated agriculture and to undertake research to solve problems are fundamental to the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. It is essential that both receive a high priority in strategy development.

Education is essential to develop the future cadres of professionals who will become the managers and leaders of organizations and capacity builders. To achieve this, the development of capacity within colleges and universities and to some extent in schools will need to be considered.

Research to solve the problems of irrigation and drainage and to encourage the take up of new ideas may require developing.

Synthesis 19

Research can be most successful, when linked to investment projects, where it can show its value directly.

Sustainability

Ensuring sustainability is one of main challenges facing capacity development, particularly where it is supported by an external agency.

Sustainability is also a concept that requires careful thought, e.g. when considering whether a training facility should be sustained beyond its usefulness or be closed. Capacity development is not a fixed issue, and any strategy must be flexible enough to meet changes in capacity needs.

Capacity development projects?

One important question about ways of approaching capacity development is whether it is possible to have capacity development projects. Projects are a logical step in any strategic process but they do create a dilemma as to whether it is possible to have capacity building projects designed to support what is essentially a process. Projects are usually end-product oriented. They have specific targets to be met in a given time frame with strict budgets and control on what and how money is spent. This would seem to be at odds with current thinking on capacity development.

So can a project, with all its tools for project management and meeting deadlines and objectives, be applied to capacity development? If projects continue to be the way in which donors insist they support development, then some imaginative thinking will be needed in order to ensure a good marriage between them. This also has implications for aid funding, which is usually tied to projects, although some donors are experimenting with alternative and more flexible aid packages that can take account of the flexible nature or processes as well as focusing on the end product.

Partnerships

It is difficult to separate the internal nature of capacity development from external aid and technical cooperation. Any discussion about capacity development leads inevitably to how it will be financed and what specialist help will be needed that is not available in-country.

The current external/internal balance is weighted heavily towards internal actions but there is an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process. An outsider can often help to focus attention on the big issues. Moreover, the stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking. They can provide a useful role in helping to identify capacity constraints and support both government and the private sector to take action. The key is to establish how much assistance is needed and can be provided to support the internal process without upsetting it and jeopardizing its sustainability.

Long-term partnerships are now seen as the essence of good collaboration between donors and recipients, and not the more traditional North–South dialogue. Such relationships can influence the process positively as trust and effective work relationships develop over time. However, striking the right balance is the greatest challenge where one party is seen to be giving and one is receiving. However, some still view any external support as evidence of a lack of sustainability.


Some donors may prefer not to become involved in lengthy processes and prefer a project approach. The implications of this in terms of budgets, timing and outputs can be at odds with the process of capacity development. However, there may be specific actions at the lower levels of organizations and individuals that lend themselves more to the project approach – capacity development projects.

Donors need entry points into capacity development. Typically, the organization is the level at which donors wish to contribute technical assistance, budgetary and infrastructure support.

External specialists are often chosen for their technical skills. However, in order for them to be effective in developing capacity, they need to be capable of working in a participatory manner in the wider context of development and be able to convey such ideas to those who are being trained. This should be reflected in their selection.

Networking

Keynote Paper 1 referred to the importance of networks and the positive influence they can have at all the levels of the framework by providing a means of communication for individuals and organizations.

It was suggested that the network function of capacity development is two-dimensional (Figure 6). The vertical dimension integrates the levels mentioned in the framework such as the network of people and institutions belonging to a specific project, ranging from farmers to external donors, via local governmental officers and/or training institutes. This line of capacity development was traditionally the one pursued using the top-down approach to projects. It remains active today although with a much more participatory approach and more balance in the decision-making among the different actors.

The horizontal dimension refers to the networks linking actors or organizations of the same nature and level. There is strong evidence that those responsible for development have previously neglected this networking aspect. Social science in agriculture has shown that the adoption of new techniques and the diffusion of progress is often more the result of discussion and comparison among peers than the result of knowledge brought in by other actors.

The support from aid agencies for this type of networking is growing although it is still on a very small scale. However, the impact usually extends beyond those immediately involved via other networks. There are many examples of this kind of cooperation in the Mediterranean region. This networking is also called professional cooperation. For example, FAO has developed many field programmes based on technical expertise from the “South”, known as “South–South” cooperation.

Vertical Networks

Environment/Macro

Sector

Organizations Organizations Organizations

Horizontal Networks

Individual Individual Individual Individual

FIGURE 6Horizontal and vertical networks

Synthesis 21

Monitoring and evaluation

The success in the long term of designing and implementing capacity development strategies relies to some extent on monitoring the process and the outcomes, and equally important is having the capacity to do this. Processes and inputs are always the easiest parts to monitor. Outcomes and results are usually more difficult to define and assess. However, pre- and post-diagnosis should be central to capacity development.

Keynote Paper 2 suggests that one of the main elements of capacity development is the introduction and acceptance of accountability mechanisms and tools. It identifies three domains of accountability:• operational accountability, which involves the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating,

controlling and enforcing the implementation of the service agreement;• strategic accountability, which relates to the mechanism that allows users to control the

formulation of the services and its costs by, for example, the right to approve or reject working plans and budget proposals;

• constitutional accountability which relates to the mechanism that allows users to influencethe strategic decision-making process by, for example, establishment of assemblies, adoption of statutes and by-laws, and election of representatives in governing and coordinating bodies.

However, there are very few examples of monitoring and evaluating capacity development initiatives. The attempts that have been made have tended to be very time consuming, expensive and often show unexpected benefits sometimes occurring long after project completion. Baselines studies are also needed if sensible measurements of progress are to be made. However, it seems clear that measuring or assessing capacity is not so straightforward.

Costs

The cost of capacity development is one of the first issues that prospective donors raise. For rural water supplies, the IPTRID mentioned a figure of US$100/person. Although this raises many questions about what it means in terms of people, skills and quality of provision, it does provide a starting-point for discussion with donors. There is as yet no such yardstick available for irrigation and drainage.

However, it was considered that current investment in capacity development was far too low, about 1 percent of total infrastructure investment. As countries only borrow money for infrastructure, capacity development can only be funded from bilateral aid. This constrains thinking about capacity development. If a more strategic planning approach were taken to capacity development, then its role alongside infrastructure would be more obvious and this might bring with it more imaginative ways of funding what is needed.

SUMMARY

Understanding capacity development

A clearer picture of capacity development for irrigated agriculture emerged from the workshop. It is centred on the individual, which is why education and training tends to be the main focus of attention when the issue of capacity development is discussed. However, it goes well beyond this to encompass the wider issues of organizations (which includes institutions – the rules, regulations and values of organizations) within which the individuals work and the social and


economic environment within which organizations and individuals function. This must be enabling if capacity development at the lower levels is to succeed.

To understand capacity development is to understand that it is as much a process as an end product. It is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why most people have adopted the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.

The UNDP has produced a definition of capacity development that emphasizes the need for local ownership and the empowerment of people to solve their own problems. It provides a sound basis on which to build, but much more detail needs to be added if its sentiments are to be applied in practice.

A matrix is suggested that maps out the territory or landscape for capacity development for irrigated agriculture. It is a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion, both at a local and national level. In addition, the matrix can be helpful in talks with donors, ensuring clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and priorities.

A framework is proposed that demonstrates how individuals, organizations and the socio-economic environment are linked and is a platform for the activities that need to be engaged in to meet the desired performance of individuals and organizations.

Capacity development in practice

The case studies provide many valuable insights into capacity development. First, they show how unique each case study is in terms of the technical and socio-economic circumstances. However, they all have issues in common that provide experiences from which others might benefit.

Many of the cases provided useful descriptive information but lacked critical analysis and synthesis in terms of drawing out the lessons for others to use. This highlights the lack of useful information available about capacity development, how it is planned and implemented, and in particular how it is evaluated. This is an issue that needs addressing if others are to benefitfrom the case study approach.

In many cases, capacity development was not in fact the main issue of development. Projects set out with a focus on infrastructure construction but this changed in the course of project. Examples of this were Egypt, Pakistan and the United Republic of Tanzania. More thought is needed to define the real priorities at the outset, rather than relying on a change in direction at some later stage.

Most case studies emphasized the long lead time needed for change (ten years and more), the unpredictability of the outcome over such a long period, and the importance of serendipity in that outcome. This is at odds with the current highly-structured nature of the short-term project approach that many agencies favour.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The workshop confirmed the growing consensus that a lack of capacity is constraining irrigation development in many developing countries. Capacity development should no longer be a “bolt-on” to infrastructure development. Rather, capacity development should be the central focus of future irrigation development strategies – infrastructure is one component of capacity, it

Synthesis 23

should not lead the development debate but follow as a consequence of a much wider capacity development strategy.

Many countries are beginning to recognize the importance of capacity development in its wider context. However, there is currently no documentation available on how to achieve this, and thus guidelines are needed to illustrate current good practice on planning a capacity development strategy.

In order to support the development of guidelines, the irrigation community should organize and support a series of workshops on capacity development similar to this one. The annual ICID international meeting provides an ideal opportunity for such events. Workshops could focus on specific topics such as:• approaches to capacity development – the “big bang” approach or the “step by step”

approach;• assessing capacity needs;• the relationship between capacity development and formal education and training and

projects – the sustainability issue;• developing effective organizations;• monitoring and evaluating capacity development;• the relationships between costs of capacity development realized. It may prove to be good

value for money.

Case studies can be an important source of information and experience for capacity development. However, there is a need for sagacity and critical review in their development if they are to be useful for others. They could form part of a “toolbox” for capacity development to accompany guidelines.

25

Keynote papers

27

Keynote paper 1Capacity development engineering

– a way forward for capacity building in irrigation and drainage?

There is a general consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies that a lack of capacity is constraining the development and improvement of irrigated agriculture as a means of reducing poverty, increasing food security and improving livelihoods among both rural and urban populations.

Capacity building is not something new; it has been a leading issue in development for many years and comes from the widely acknowledged shortcomings in development assistance over the past 50 years. However, what is new is the attention that capacity building is now receiving in the irrigation and drainage world where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in infrastructure investment projects.

The need for capacity development in irrigation and drainage became particularly obvious where irrigation management transfer programmes were implemented and when people realized that transferring responsibilities without transferring/raising the capacity was a major threat to the success of this institutional reform. Many developing countries now say they need more capacity, and aid agencies are keen to supply it or at least help to create it. However, it remains a concept of enormous generality and vagueness wrapped up in a host of concepts such as participation, empowerment, technical assistance and organizational development (Morgan, 1998). Moore (1995) states that: “Capacity building includes everything that was covered by the different definitions of institution building and more besides…Aid agencies would be wise to have no truck with the new jargon of ‘capacity building’ and to insist on using language and terms that have identifiable and precise meanings.” Others (Browne, 2002) refer to the weary mantra of capacity building that is not leading anywhere. The calls for capacity building in irrigated agriculture suffer from these same vague generalities.

Many senior government officials talk about a lack of capacity constraining development and see solutions in terms of more infrastructure and training for farmers and local professionals rather than in reforming the broader institutional context in which they function. Unfortunately, donors have tended to reinforce this approach. They have shaped technical cooperation by concentrating on new works and providing technical assistance to fill the skills gap and to pass on know-how rather than focus on national priorities. Disappointingly, such approaches have failed to yield the expected benefits. So beyond the general idea that more capacity is required, there is a need for greater clarity of thinking about the practicalities of planning, designing and implementing capacity building.

Melvyn KayIrrigation consultant, RTCS Ltd.

Daniel Renault Land and Water Development Division, FAO

Rome


This paper is designed to initiate a debate within the irrigation community on what capacity building means. Can it be defined in clear, practical terms or is it just a vague concept? Is it possible to develop a strategy and then plan, design and implement capacity building projects in much the same way as is done with more traditional infrastructure projects? Is it really just about training? If not, then what are the issues that need addressing? Finally, are there already good examples on how to build capacity from which lessons can be learned? This paper attempts to answer some of these questions and to set out the parameters for the debate.

DEFINING CAPACITY BUILDING

Capacity and development

The established model for capacity building developed with the advent of the aid era following the Second World War. The Marshall Plan, introduced to support the rebuilding of Europe, was very successful but it generated an overly simplistic and optimistic view of what worked; transfer capital and know-how to other countries and swift economic development would follow (Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik, 2002). Subsequent experience showed that this view underestimated the importance of local knowledge and institutions in the process of economic development and was compounded by aid driven by politics rather than results. Aid was then criticized for undermining local capacity rather than building it, ignoring local wishes and favouring high profile activities.

In the past decade, there has been a change in emphasis towards seeing development as “locally owned” so that cooperation does not seek to do things for developing countries but with them. In support of this Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik (2002) point out that most countries evolved organically, building their own capacities, and so the assumption that developing countries should simply start from someone else’s blueprint flies in the face of history. They suggest that countries should build on the wealth of local knowledge and expand these to achieve whatever goals and aspirations the country sets itself. They use Morgan’s description of capacity simply as the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives, and raise the issue of national capacity being more than the sum of the capacity of individuals, which points to the importance of people working in organizations and networking. This has become known as social capital and in its crudest terms it means the more people trust each other, the better off their society (The Economist, 2003). Economists now recognize this as an addition to natural resources, the rule of law and the market that they believe guide the hand of selfish human actions to serve the common good. Traditional rice-based systems required high social capital for the massive labour needed to build and maintain the terraces and to synchronize cropping patterns for effective water and pest management

This change in development has also had a profound influence on irrigated agriculture. In addition, there is a growing understanding that successful irrigation farming requires much more than investment in construction and training. Farmers are being encouraged to take on more responsibility for water management, and they are increasingly being exposed to private sector market forces. To cope with these and other pressures, farmers are beginning to demand better support services, advice, access to new technologies, finance, equitable and fair water management regulations, and legal redress when things go wrong. These are seen collectively as a lack of “capacity” and the need is to build or develop it so that the water sector can function properly and poor farmers can take on more responsibility for their own development.

A definition

Browne (2002) suggests that capacity building is both easy and hard to define. The easy part is the generic definition about skills and capabilities – the ability to perform functions, solve

Keynote paper 1 – Capacity development engineering 29

problems and set and achieve objectives - and is a significant step from earlier definitions that looked only at human resource development. However, the difficult part is answering the questions about which skills and whose capability, and this raises many more issues about the complex nature of development.

Alaerts (1999a) examined at several definitions applied to the water sector but avoided recommending one, as all have limitations and focus attention on different aspects of capacity building. Those that attempt to be all-inclusive tend to become rather turgid and incomprehensible. So, is there an acceptable definition for the irrigation community?

The definition formulated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1998) comes close. It is general, wide ranging and encompasses the approaches to development that are now well accepted in irrigation. It states that: “Capacity building is the sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels – locally, nationally, regionally and internationally - so that they can better progress towards sustainable development”. It continues by saying: “at the basic conceptual level, building capacity involves empowering people and organizations to solve their problems, rather than attempting to solve problems directly. When capacity building is successful, the result is more effective people and institutions better able to provide products and services on a sustainable basis.”

Capacity building – a negative concept?

Concepts are not usually neutral and are influenced inevitably by the way they are introduced. Capacity building is often expressed in negative terms such as “a lack of capacity is a constraint to development” or “inadequate capacity is the bottleneck of sustainable development”. This attitude seems to be linked inseparably with past top-down management attitudes. After spending money building infrastructure and setting objectives for local actors, state or international agencies have been disappointed by the lack of capacity to attain those objectives.

A more positive approach would be to say “the development of capacity is central in moving towards sustainable development”. An alternative to the top-down approach would be for a public body/external agency to supports local stakeholders in defining a path for development and, hence, a capacity development programme that includes infrastructure development where required.

It is interesting to note that not all new concepts are introduced this way. For example, the concept of social capital was brought in as an important positive asset of community capacity in dealing with collective activities on which not enough attention had been paid.

A lack of capacity or a capacity gap?

“Lack of capacity” is a common phrase but it does tend to specify a situation in absolute terms rather than relative to a development issue or a stage in development. Development is a relative concept that is changing constantly. Therefore, it would be preferable to refer to a gap in capacity or inadequate capacity, thus stressing the difference between the existing situation and what is required/expected in order to meet development objectives. It also emphasizes those objectives of development as a fundamental aspect of capacity building.

As much a process as an end product

The “end products” of capacity building are trained individuals, established irrigation organizations, new water laws, etc. However, it is increasingly recognized that great care


must be taken over their production if they are to be useful. The top-down approach of government and aid agencies deciding what needs to be done and how it should be done is now discredited. There is a realization that products need to be produced by working in response to local initiatives with local ownership and leadership and incorporating the ideas of participation and subsidiarity. Thus, the process of building capacity becomes an essential part of producing a useful end product. Eade (1997) makes this point by saying that capacity building is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why many people now use the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.

External/internal balance

It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the internal nature of capacity development from external aid and technical cooperation. Any discussion about capacity development inevitably leads to how it will be financed and what specialist help is needed that is not available in-country. With its emphasis on external support, the Marshall Plan set the early agenda, but this agenda is now changing as both the approaches to aid and technical cooperation are being reshaped to fit more closely with the new processes of capacity development.

The current external/internal balance is weighted heavily towards internal actions but there is an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process. An outsider can often help to focus attention on the big issues, and the stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking. They can provide a useful role in helping to identify capacity constraints and support both government and the private sector to take action. The key is to establish just how much assistance is needed and can be provided to support the internal process without upsetting it and jeopardizing its sustainability.

Long-term partnerships are now seen as the essence of good collaboration between donors and recipients and not the more traditional North–South dialogue. Such relationships can influence the process positively as trust and effective work relationships develop over time. However, striking the right balance is the greatest challenge when one party is seen to be giving and one is receiving. However, some still view any external support as evidence of a lack of sustainability.

A FRAMEWORK

The UNDP definition is one step in the process of clarifying what capacity building means. However, it does little to describe the territory of capacity building in irrigation, how to assess the capacity gaps and what practical steps are needed to overcome them. Help with describing the territory comes from social science and the extensive conceptual thinking about capacity building that has been taking place over the past decade on development generally (Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik, 2002; Browne, 2002). This has produced a generic framework that has become widely accepted in development and is also gaining acceptance in the water sector. It is suggested that this is a useful framework for irrigated agriculture.

A generic framework

Bolger (2000) describes the generic framework in terms of different levels of capacity, namely: individuals, organizations and societies, but with an emphasis on the links between them. For example, the performance of a WUA is shaped as much by society (laws and regulations) as it is by individuals (skills, leadership and relationships).


Four levels of capacity emerge from this approach (Figure 7). Each represents a level that can be examined and analysed as well as a possible entry point for support from a donor or technical cooperation. Interpreting this framework in terms of irrigated agriculture, the four levels are:

• Individual level. This is the most “concrete” and familiar part of capacity development and includes the education and training of the various stakeholders, farmers, local professionals, engineers and other disciplines involved in irrigation.

• Organizational level. This refers to groups of people such as water user organizations, research groups, government extension agencies, private companies that share common objectives such as improved livelihoods at a farming level, improved water management or increased agricultural productivity at a national level. Institutions are the rules and agreements, formal and informal, and shared values that bind organizations. Thus, the capacity of an organization is embedded in the ability of its individuals to work together within established rules and values.

• Sector/network level. The sector level emphasizes the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management and reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover all aspects of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies and the environment in isolation. The addition of networking at this level is less important for irrigation as this can take place at all the levels.

• Enabling environment. This represents the broad national and international context within which irrigated agriculture can develop, and this has considerable influence over what happens at the lower levels. It is concerned with policy at the highest levels in government and the ability of people at the lower levels to influence it. It is also about the socio-economic conditions that enable or discourage irrigation development, and the legal framework that provides farmers with security of tenure for land and water and the power to seek legal redress when contracts are broken.

A FRAMEWORK FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE

The generic framework provides a useful starting-point for mapping the territory of capacity development in irrigated agriculture. However, it needs to be enriched with specific aspects of social science, the practical activities of a well-functioning irrigation sector, and the activities that develop capacity. There are many irrigation-related issues to consider. The question is what to include and what to leave out. Adding too many can lead to confusion and paralysis, whereas adding too few can lead to an oversimplification that does not bring out the main issues.

A compromise was proposed (Figure 8) by introducing a second dimension based on the familiar activities of planning, design, construction, and O&M. In addition to these, research, education and training, and networking were added as important areas of capacity development in their own right. Research here refers to the capacity to develop new knowledge in a specialist institute or university, and education and training refers to the capacity to

Enabling environment

Sector / Network level

Organizational level

Individual

level


Source: Bolger (2000).


disseminate knowledge in colleges, universities, etc. Networking refers to the various formal and informal networks that are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and innovation that can and should take place at all levels of capacity development. The historical development of agriculture in many countries has shown that the capacity of farmers’ unions and cooperatives to communicate with one another and with their members has been an important tool for boosting agricultural progress. Similarly, engineers and agriculturalists have benefited from the networking capabilities of their professional organizations.

Guiding principles of subsidiarity (decision-making at the lowest possible administrative level) and participation were added to demonstrate the move away from the traditional top-down approach to development.

Each box in the framework represents an activity in the water sector that requires trained individuals working in organizations and within an enabling environment. If constraints are identified for a particular activity, then the need can be assessed, actions taken and impacts measured. However, as Bolger points out in relation to the generic framework, the levels (or boxes in this case) are not simple watertight compartments but are very much linked together is a variety of ways that depend on local circumstances. The simplicity of the framework should also not mask the complexity of the issues to be dealt with.

DEVELOPING A STRATEGY

How useful is such a framework? In the same way that Bolger’s framework provides a generic “picture” of capacity development, it can be argued that this modified framework provides a similar “picture” for irrigated agriculture. It covers the territory in which capacity is needed; it can provide a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion at both local and national level, and be helpful in talks with donors in establishing clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and what needs to be done: Where are the capacity gaps? Is it individuals and if so which? Are the constraints mainly in O&M on farms or in support organizations provided by government or the private sector? Does the socio-economic environment discourage irrigation or is the education and training provision unable to provide the basic human resources on which irrigation can grow?

Thus, the framework can provide a starting-point for discussions that can begin to provide answers to these questions. The priority given to each box will vary considerably from one place to another depending on local issues such as the way irrigation is practised (e.g. privately-run smallholder irrigation, publicly-owned large irrigation and drainage networks and commercial farming) and the need to solve local problems (e.g. salinity and waterlogging, inadequate education facilities, and irrigation management transfer).

FIGURE 8A framework for capacity development engineering in irrigated agriculture

Capacity levels Water sector activities Capacity development activities Methods

Planning Design Construction. O&M Research Education & training

Network Needs

Action

Impacts

IV Enabling environment

III Sector

II Organization

I Individual

Capacity development engineering – guiding principles: subsidiarity and participation


Strategic planning

This is the beginning of a strategy development process for capacity development that includes:• diagnosis: identification of the gaps;• definition of the goals;• means;• monitoring of performance.

The CGIAR Secretariat defines strategic planning as: “a process by which an organization develops the most desirable vision of its future, taking into account the constraints the organization is likely to work within, and shows how the organization can realize that vision.” To date most capacity development “strategies” have tended to be a “bolt-on” to infrastructure development. They are often limited in scope, poorly defined, and developed with minimal stakeholder consultation. Thus, applying strategic planning to capacity development as the primary issue has little precedence. However, this approach has served well in other sectors and so it is suggested that it is a viable approach for irrigation. It is now being advocated strongly by the IPTRID (1999), whose main thrust is to support strategic planning, design and implementation of capacity development programmes and projects in developing countries. It is unlikely that such a strategy can be divorced from infrastructure but it is a question of emphasis. If capacity development is the key issue, the question then becomes: what infrastructure is needed to support it?

The IPTRID proposes an initial needs assessment at regional, national and subnational levels in order to examine the present situation and to answer the question: where do we stand? The aim is to identify the priority technical issues in terms of water conservation, water productivity, land degradation, salinity, etc. and the existing institutional capacity and weaknesses at strategic and operational levels. Roundtable conferences and workshops are proposed to ensure full participation of all the stakeholders and ensure that their views are taken into account for the next step, which is to answer the question: where do we want to go? A strategy can then be developed to reach the desired goals – how do we get there?

Projects to implement the strategy are the next logical step, but there is a divergence of thinking. Is it possible to have capacity building projects designed to support what is essentially a process? Projects are usually end-product oriented. They have specific targets to be met in a given time frame with strict budgets and control on what and how money is spent. This would seem to be at odds with current thinking on capacity development, repeating here the point made by Eade (1997) that it is “not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome.” Thus, can a project, with all its tools for project management and meeting deadlines and objectives, be applied to capacity development? If projects continue to be the way of supporting development, then some imaginative thinking will be needed in order to ensure a good marriage between them. This also has implications for aid funding, which is usually tied to projects. However, some donors are experimenting with alternative and more flexible aid packages that can take account of the flexible nature or processes as well as focusing on the end product.

AN AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION

The framework provides a starting-point for planning a strategy for capacity development, but what are the basic issues that form the agenda for stakeholder discussion? This will vary from place to place for a wide variety of reasons, but some of the more common and important issues that are prevalent in many countries are raised here. The framework is used to provide a structure for highlighting these issues.


Individuals

There are many ways in which individuals can raise their capacity through education, training and community development, and participatory self-capacity development. It may be short-term, on-the-job training for farmers who need water management skills or to understand the workings of a WUA or more substantial long-term training for professionals, who undertake research, design irrigation works or provide advisory services.

Unfortunately, this is usually the only level at which capacity development is interpreted, often in complete isolation from the other levels. This should not cause too much surprise because training lends itself to specific and identifiable “concrete” actions that are more difficult at the higher levels. Some trainers would argue that everything eventually boils down to a training need even where it is an organizational deficiency. Training not only helps to improve practical skills and knowledge, it can also help change attitudes in the workplace.

Farmers usually enter the irrigation world through practice on the farm, whereas professionals usually come via specialized courses in colleges and universities where individuals have chosen a career in agriculture or engineering.

Training

Short-term training is usually geared to the acquisition of more immediate skills for well-defined tasks, such as managing canals, designing pumping stations and organizing WUAs. It may be on-the-job training or special courses on particular issues for a wide range of people from farmers to professionals. They may be conducted informally on-site or more formally at a training centre or college, in-country or abroad.

Increasingly short-term training is also seen as a means of changing attitudes as both farmers and engineers take on new roles in the process of irrigation management transfer, and there is a change in the objective of training from mere knowledge transfer towards increasing problem solving capacities. Competences are a complex interaction of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and some programmes are now using participatory training methods to engender a continuing process of participation in subsequent water management practices. This is particularly important where individuals form groups or organizations such as WUAs to undertake joint water management functions.

Short-term training in irrigation and drainage is not without its critics. There are many examples of training courses that are not effective in matching demand with supply in a timely manner. Typical issues raised include: inappropriate skills and knowledge being provided; poor training methods; overly theoretical curricula lacking practical application; and poor course timing so that skills learned are not used or needed. It is not uncommon for attendance at a training course to be seen as a reward for good service, or it is this or that person’s turn to go rather than an opportunity to acquire new and useful skills. Biswas (1996) provides a number of examples of irrelevant, inappropriate and expensive training that was either too general or not related to the job, and suggests that this should be a major cause for concern.

Typically, where donor aid is involved, short-term training is part of the investment package in order to provide the skills specifically for operating and maintaining a scheme. Although such training can be very effective for the project, it is often criticized for being narrowly focused and not giving adequate attention to organizational issues and the broader context in which irrigated agriculture functions.


Investing in people

Although few would doubt the value of educating and training individuals, the paradox is that few are willing to invest in people as enthusiastically as they invest in concrete. In spite of the rhetoric, the development of individuals is not receiving the type of support it needs and deserves (Biswas, 1996). The mobility and fragility of labour are perhaps the main reasons for this. Irrigation schemes do not move around but people can and do. They also become ill and some die.

There are also commonly-held views about professionals who received large sums of money to train abroad in irrigation only to return home and go into construction work or banking. Although there may be an element of truth in this, it is unfortunate that this often dominates the level of perception and debate when the education and training of professionals is being discussed. It is seen as a waste and a reason for not continuing to train others rather than as a contribution to national capacity. Critics seem to give little thought to the very systems of education and training from which they themselves have personally gained great benefit in career development, personal choice and mobility of employment.

Human resources planning

Human resources planning is worth mentioning in the context of training individuals, although it cannot be divorced from the other levels of capacity development. It refers to a methodology developed in the 1970s and 1980s to determine future training needs in the labour market. It enabled planners to determine the numbers of people and the skills needed to bridge the gap between labour supply and demand in an industry or sector. This is not an exact science because of the problems of forecasting the future and, therefore, what labour demands are likely to be.

All studies made in the 1970s and 1980s recognized the importance of predicting the numbers required (quantity), ensuring they were well trained (quality), and that people worked within a sound institutional environment (organizations). However, there was a tendency in many countries to remedy deficiencies in one aspect by substituting improvements in another. For example, overstaffing was common with underqualified people working within poorly-managed organizations. Substituting more untrained people to try and make up for a lack of quality is unlikely to work. Today the situation is completely reversed as a consequence of extensive irrigation management transfer. There are many WUAs or federations of WUAs that are critically lacking skilled staff in many aspects (governance, canal management, liaison with users, liaison with public bodies, etc.). There are also many irrigation agencies that are critically lacking skilled engineers able to understand and master, in their own context, the principles of modern water control and services.

Although human resources planning is not so popular at the moment, it does have the advantage of focusing attention on the issues of numbers, skills and education and training provision. It is unfortunate that the current literature on capacity development tends to ignore these basic issues. In the current surge of interest in the more complex institutional issues, there is a danger that these basics are being neglected. There appears to be a tacit assumption that the main skills of irrigation are being well provided when this is not the case.

Organizations

A wide range of organizations are important to the success of irrigated agriculture. At farm level, there are water user groups that share and manage common water interests technically, financially and legally. Other organizations, typically government run, are mandated to


provide support services for farmers. In some countries, the private sector is also increasingly making an impact, for example through smallholders using low-cost affordable technologies and consultancy.

Support services

Farmers need organizations to provide advice and support. Traditionally, government has provided these in the form of extension services that link research with practical farming. However, there are some places were the private sector is beginning to play a role. This is particularly the case in private farming, where large farms require specialist services and smallholders need to acquire new skills to keep up with the dictates of the market.

On the whole, supporting organizations do not serve irrigators well. Government agencies are still the principal source of knowledge and skills. However, they tend to concentrate on crops, fertilizers and pesticides rather than on water, even in irrigated areas. They tend to be underfunded and staffed by inexperienced people who do not have the logistical support to reach the farmers. Where there have been successes, they have usually been underpinned by external aid, and thus there are question marks about their sustainability once the support ends.

Little has been documented and published about the role and function of irrigation advisory services and more specifically about how well they perform. There are few guidelines for others to follow (FAO, 2003). This situation has not been helped in recent years by the trend of transferring irrigation management responsibilities from government to farmers and the increasing amount of irrigation advice being organized outside the traditional government agencies by NGOs that do not normally have the resources to publicise their experiences. This lack of information can mean that it is difficult to determine what services are available in a country and how well they are working, and adds to the difficulty of planning a strategy for capacity development.

Organizational linkages

Government ministries involved in irrigation such as agriculture, environment, and water resources are often criticized for a lack of cooperation in what is essentially an interdisciplinary activity. Although they usually have common objectives, they tend to work independently. A typical division of responsibility is between the planning, design and operation of irrigation systems, usually the responsibility of a Ministry of Irrigation or Water Resources, and irrigated agriculture, usually the responsibility of a Ministry of Agriculture. The former is staffed by engineers, who have little knowledge of crops and farming, and the latter by agriculturalists, who have little knowledge of engineering and hydraulics. The sad fact is that most of those involved do not see the need for such knowledge nor for closer linkages with each other. As one senior irrigation consulting engineer put it: “My engineers do not know the difference between wheat and rice – but the really sad thing is they do not want to know.” This emphasizes not just serious flaws in organizational attitude but in the education system that continues to produce young engineers who still think that a career in irrigation is only about building dams and pumping stations. This same argument might also be made about engineers and social science.

Performance-driven organization

There are many examples of poor organizational performance in the irrigation sector. Some stem from a mismatch between what the organization was set up to do and what it actually does. The reasons for this are varied and complex. A government research institute may be


carrying out research that interests its staff and encourages their career development through publication, but critics may point to drainage practices being promoted that do not fit well with local physical and socio-economic conditions and do not address the priorities of local people. Typically, there may be poor links between researchers and farmers. Extension services are weakened by a lack of well-trained local professionals and resources to do the job properly. The local professionals have little to offer farmers beyond formalized messages about water management and do not have the skills to cope with today’s farmers seeking a livelihood from a range of natural resources. There are many other similar examples.

Incentives play a crucial role in ensuring that individuals and organizations point in the right direction. Salary is important but individuals are motivated by other issues such as career prospects, security of tenure, and the value of working in a worthwhile job. However, there is little point in trying to improve the performance of a research institute by training its staff on the layout of field plot experiments when those same people have to do a second job in the evening in order to secure their livelihood.

Biswas (1996) suggests that good organizational performance starts at the top. First and foremost, it is essential to have a good cadre of capable senior managers in place. The institutions and policies, he argues, will then take care of themselves. Browne (2002) makes a similar point when he refers to the Indian Administrative Service as a highly-respected organization working relatively independently of political pressures. It has few problems recruiting capable professionals in spite of the modest pay levels.

Rewards and performance should be more intrinsically linked. In this regard, several international organizations (FAO, IPTRID, ICID and the World Bank) have pooled their efforts to develop new benchmarking methodologies for irrigation system management. The idea is to have a set of indicators and some worldwide records that allow irrigation managers to rank their own performance. Although there are some doubts about the effectiveness of worldwide comparisons, most people agree that, at national level and with comparative systems, the impact of performance benchmarking is one way of boosting the capacity of the management set-up.

Community organizations

The capacity of organizations that function at a community level is vital for individuals to take full advantage of irrigated agriculture. Some are formal but many are informal and not so visible to the observer.

WUAs are the most common formal type of organization. Although some associations have developed naturally among irrigators as a convenient means of managing common water sources, many have come into being as a result of the current trend of transferring the management of irrigation from state bureaucracies to farmers. There have been successes but there has also been much criticism of the way in which WUAs have been imposed on communities that are not ready for them and that need more time to fully understand and participate in the transfer process. Many farmers face huge difficulties in taking over technical, financial and legal responsibilities for water. The publicity that this has received has perhaps done more than anything else to spur the irrigation community to talk about capacity building.

Rural communities comprise many informal organizations that can have an important influence on their development. This is where social capital lies, and WUAs can fail because of a lack of community capacity or social capital. Community structures can be a very powerful vehicle for capacity development and should not be overlooked.


Empowerment of women

In many communities, women remain excluded from decision-making on water management and agriculture activities. Social development shows that investing in this untapped capital is often a very good option to effectively boost community development and be effective in dealing with food insecurity and poverty alleviation. The engagement of women in water and agricultural life is not only an issue of equity, it is also an issue of efficiency. It is now well documented that women can make a positive difference in the management of WUAs in terms of accounting as well as decision-making.

Private sector

Although government and farmer organizations dominate irrigation in some countries, the private sector, usually in the form of NGOs, is making an impact. An example is the introduction of affordable irrigation technologies for smallholders in Asia and Africa that are manufactured locally and bought by farmers on a commercial basis. This requires organizational structures, known as supply chains, that enable companies to manufacture equipment and sell to farmers through retail outlets or agents. Farmers expect spare parts to be available as well as technical support and credit arrangements in much the same way as any other small-scale enterprise would. The principal prerequisites for this are a strong market for the agricultural produce and profitability for all those in the chain. At present, markets in Asia tend to be distorted by subsidies as governments encourage the development of these new institutional structures. In Africa, they are in their infancy but are more reliant on market forces.

NGOs are well suited to support the creation of these new structures, as they are much better at connecting with people than are government departments. They are also more adaptable to what is essentially a process in which timing cannot be allowed to dictate the outcome.

The water sector level

The sector level is often included as part of the enabling environment. However, this additional level is needed in order to make the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management. It reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover the whole of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies or the environment in isolation.

Enabling environment level

This is the most influential level and yet the most difficult level to change. Some issues are well beyond the control of most countries. A typical example is the low international price of basic food crops, which means many farmers are unwilling to grow irrigated crops beyond their immediate family requirements because the production costs exceed the returns. This is fuelled by agriculture policies that favour developed countries and the dumping of surplus food on hungry countries.

However, there are also wider national/local issues to consider that include access to markets, credit and knowledge. Initiatives that set out specifically to make changes at this level are quite rare (Alaerts, 1999b). They take a long time, in excess of ten years, they are less predictable than contributions at the lower levels, and the expertise available to support them is not readily available either in-country or internationally. However, some initiatives do succeed in making significant changes, and this can be the result of initiatives taken at the lower levels that then come through to change policy. This is often by chance rather than design.



Education and research are issues that concern all levels of the framework from individuals who teach and research, to how they are organized and the kind of environment in which they must function. For this reason, they are here discussed separately from the project-oriented aspects of irrigation development.

The capacity to educate and to undertake research to solve problems is something that all would subscribe to as vitally important to the future of irrigated agriculture. However, few people seem willing and able to take the next step and provide the resources needed.

Education

An educated population is an essential foundation for all aspects of development. Biswas (1996) stresses this point, suggesting that “a good education is the foundation of good organizational performance and it starts at the top.”

The kind of education that professionals receive must equip them properly for their role. However, in many countries, colleges and universities are poorly resourced. Teachers are poorly paid and have little or no equipment to work with and continue to use outdated curricula that are no longer relevant to the world their students will inhabit. Without institutional changes within the education system, the next generation of professionals and technicians will continue to perpetuate and even reinforce existing outmoded power structures and practices. This also points to the need to develop the capacity of the educators and to provide the resources to produce the professionals and technicians for tomorrow.

Timing is a crucial issue as it takes many years to educate a professional agriculturalist or an engineer. Therefore, both the individuals and the organizations that employ them need to plan well ahead if the demands for such skills are to be met.

In the past 40 years, education and training abroad has been seen as one way of overcoming some of these inadequacies. Governments have sent many of their top professionals for postgraduate training, usually on scholarships provided by the host country or a donor agency. This has exposed young professionals to new ideas and new ways of working, and has served many countries well. However, it is now in rapid decline because of a lack of scholarship funding and the relatively high cost of a course in, say, Europe or the United States of America (US$30 000 for full support for one year) as opposed to the home or a third country (US$2 000–5 000). Unfortunately, in many instances, this trend towards educating at home or in a third country is not matched by the resources needed to do the job well. The impact in the developed world is also profound as many international training centres have closed or are in decline, with a loss of expertise that will be very difficult to replace.

The rapid changes now taking place in society and technology in the developed world will also affect developing countries. In the developed world, people now expect to pursue a number of career paths in their working lives. This has changed education from a “one-time event” to one of “lifelong learning”. This will eventually influence working patterns and education in developing countries.

Research

The capacity to undertake research, like education, is something that all would subscribe to as vitally important to the future of irrigated agriculture. Every developing country has its research institutes. However, they tend to suffer from the same problems that afflict universities,


such as inadequate resources, poorly-trained and poorly-motivated staff, and a lack of clear direction as to their contribution to local and national interests.

Funding agencies have not helped this situation. For example, the European Union (EU) usually provides only marginal funding for research and does not recognize overhead costs that national governments are expected to meet. The links between the EU’s research directorate and the development directorate are weak, and so there are few connections between research activities and development aid. The EU has made some attempts to rectify this (e.g. in Nigeria, Kenya and Jordan – author’s personal knowledge). However, although the idea was sound, the initiatives have generally failed because of a serious lack of understanding and cooperation between researchers and development agents, mistiming of inputs and poor funding. The funding aspect refers to the process of trying to select the most appropriate research team on the basis of competitive tendering, which usually means on the basis of price. The question often asked of aid administrators in this situation is: would you select your heart surgeon on the basis of price or on the ability to do the job?

There are many lessons here for the development of research organizations and their support so that they can make an effective contribution to national and international interests.

Networks

Networks can have a positive influence at all the levels of the framework by providing a means of communication for individuals and organizations. The rapid and huge developments in information management provide an enormous opportunity to disseminate and share information. However, at the same time, there is always the threat that a digital gap will benefitthe better-off at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged.

The network function of capacity development is two-dimensional (Figure 9). The vertical dimension integrates the levels mentioned in the framework such as the network of people and institutions belonging to a specific project, ranging from farmers to external donors, via local governmental officers and/or training institutes. This line of capacity development was traditionally the one pursued using the top-down approach of projects. It remains active today although with a much more participatory approach and more balance in the decision-making among the different actors.

The horizontal dimension refers to the networks linking actors or organizations of the same nature and level. There is strong evidence that those responsible for development have previously neglected this networking aspect. Social science in agriculture has shown that the adoption of new techniques and the diffusion of progress is often more the result of discussion and comparison among peers than the result of knowledge brought in by other actors.

Linking or twinning a newly-created WUA with an existing one from the same country or from another one is a typical horizontal network. The president of the new WUA is more likely to understand and trust the president of the more experienced one than an external

Vertical Networks

Environment/Macro

Sector

Organizations Organizations Organizations

Horizontal Networks

Individual Individual Individual Individual

FIGURE 9Horizontal and vertical networks


consultant. In the same way, the president is also more likely to adopt a management change suggested by a peer.

The support from aid agencies for this type of networking is growing although it is still on a very small scale. However, the impact usually extends beyond those immediately involved via other networks. There are many examples of this kind of cooperation in the Mediterranean region. This networking is also called professional cooperation. For example, FAO has developed many field programmes based on technical expertise from the “South”, known as “South–South” cooperation.

Mixed networks connect actors with similar levels of decision-making but from different fields.

Examples of networks in capacity development

Cap-Net is an international network (horizontal) for capacity building in IWRM and was created in 2001. Its mission is to enhance human resources development for IWRM by means of establishing or strengthening regional capacity building networks.

In France, RNED-HA (1992) is a mixed network on water in agriculture that has been very active and instrumental in promoting various technical advances, such as surface irrigation modernization in the 1980s, and, more recently, best practices for irrigation. The critical advantage of this type of network lies in the fact that it brings together researchers, policy-makers, farmers, industrialists, etc. who each have a say in the decision-making with regard to the applied research programmes.

The Information Techniques for Irrigation System (FAO, 1998) is another example of a mixed network. It was created by the IWMI and the Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets (CEMAGREF) in the 1990s in order to bring together researchers, practitioners and institutional specialists with the goal of developing the capacity to use modern management tools and techniques in irrigation.

The ICID has long been an important international mixed network of national organizations, connecting practitioners, researchers and policy-makers from all over the world, developing and disseminating knowledge, and improving the capacity of its members.

The creation of a network for capacity developers in irrigated agriculture would not only enable people to share information and expertise, it could also become a place for synthesizing experience and lessons learned, identifying research areas, and encouraging the exchange of views. Several countries have already developed their own Web-based networks. FAO has set up a Web site specifically for participatory training in agricultural water management, and includes an e-mail listing to keep members in touch with the latest information (FAO 2003).

Networks can be an important tool for practitioners in developing countries. Where people are able to access information and communications technologies, it can reduce the need for expatriate expertise. As Browne (2002) puts it, it is a case of “scan globally and re-invent locally”.

Diagnosis and monitoring

The long-term success of designing and implementing capacity building strategies relies to some extent on monitoring the process and the outcomes. However, equally important is having the capacity to do this. Process and inputs are always the easiest parts to monitor. Outcomes and results are usually more difficult to define and assess. However, pre- and post-diagnosis should be central to capacity development engineering (CDE).


There are very few examples of monitoring and evaluating capacity development initiatives. They have tended to be very time consuming and expensive, and they can be wide ranging. Benefits can often accrue in unexpected ways that were not obvious at the beginning. They may also arise long after the project has finished. For example, on a project in Zambia (Appendix 1) the uptake of treadle pumps was not high immediately and on this basis it might be considered to have failed. However, the uptake of other cultural practices was very encouraging as farmers sought to use information in a way that had more immediate benefit for them. This example shows that beyond technical targets, which may or may not be achieved, empowering the actors to take charge of their own destiny can be even more important for capacity development. As mentioned earlier, “empowerment” is a key component of capacity development.

Baselines studies are also needed if sensible measurements of progress are to be made. However, measuring or assessing capacity is not so straightforward.

LESSONS FOR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

The issues that come from the framework and several case studies reviewed in the course of preparing this paper (see Appendix 1) provide some interesting and useful insights into capacity development. A list of practical experience and issues can be gleaned from them that might prove useful in the strategy development process.

Policy environment

The importance of a favourable policy environment and political will for development is crucial to successful irrigation development and to developing capacity.

Policies are determined largely by the quality and commitment of the leadership and senior management.

Within the policy, capacity development must be guided by clear strategies that address development needs and are nationally owned.

A period of review and experimentation with new approaches is essential before including them in any new policy.

Capacity development should be at the heart of development and be pursued on a permanent basis. It is not a temporary fix for correcting investment failures. The approach to capacity development needs to be improved both in terms of concepts and the methods and tools used. There is a need for CDE, with all the features that a corps of engineering implies: accruing knowledge from experience on capacity to diagnose, design, implement, and post evaluate.

Identification and assessment of capacity needs is one of the most difficult tasks. It is a question of who does it and how. It implies strategic planning capacity in a country, and this too may require developing.

Experts are needed with interdisciplinary skills, with experience of working at high levels in government or the private sector and who are able to facilitate and not dictate discussion and decision-making. Many countries do not possess such expertise and it may not always be readily available from other countries either.

Full participation of all the stakeholders in the public and private sectors, namely, farmers, engineers, agriculturalists, researchers, educators, politicians and civil servants is essential. Although it is time consuming, it is considered essential to the eventual ownership of any actions taken.


The lack of expertise and the extensive nature of consultation are unlikely to lead to a rapid conclusive or state-of the-art solution. However, it is essential that there be a locally-owned consensus and that it be acted upon.

Capacity development is a complex process but complexity must not paralyse it. A framework such as the one proposed in this paper can provide a useful basis for discussions among stakeholders and for pinpointing constraints and priorities.

The challenge is to find ways through the complexity and make useful contributions. As with irrigation engineering, it is important to appreciate the complex nature of irrigated agriculture, but at some point the engineer must be able to interpret this complexity in terms of the relatively simple task of constructing a good irrigation scheme.

The role of donors and technical cooperation

Although it is accepted that capacity development must come from within, there is also an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process.

Partnership is the essence of collaboration between donor and recipient and not the traditional North–South dialogue. This is always difficult to deal with where one is seen to be giving and one is receiving. Establishing true partnerships is a challenge facing both.

Identifying capacity constraints and helping both governments and the private sector to take action can be one of the most effective ways in which external agencies can help. An outside view can often help those inside to focus their attention on the big issues.

The stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking.

Long-term collaboration influences the process positively, among others as trust and effective work relationships develop over time.

Some donors may prefer not to become involved in lengthy processes and prefer a project approach. The implications of this in terms of budgets, timing and outputs can be in conflictwith the process of capacity development. However, there may be specific actions at the lower levels of organizations, and individuals lend themselves more to the project approach – capacity development projects.

Donors need entry points into capacity development. Typically, the organization is the level at which donors wish to contribute technical assistance, budgetary and infrastructure support.

People selected to help develop capacity need much more than technical knowledge and skills. They should be capable of working in a participatory manner in the wider context of development and be able to convey such ideas to those being trained. This should be reflectedin the selection process.

Organizations

Most countries suffer weaknesses at the organizational level. Most organizations supporting irrigated agriculture are government run but there is a growing input from the private sector. It is not a question of either one or the other but of the balance between them. The appropriate strengthening of both must be a priority in any strategy.


A good cadre of capable senior managers that can lead the processes of change is needed if organizations are to develop a good reputation and encourage the best people to join. Salaries are important but not the only criteria.

There are many advantages in working with existing organizations rather than inventing new ones. This may not always be attractive but new organizations can be a large drain on already limited management and administrative resources.

Individuals

Individuals are the heart of any organization and their education and training must reflect the needs of irrigated agriculture and the roles they will play.

The “people part of partnerships”: partnerships develop between people. While working together, more and better results will be possible over time as mutual trust develops.

Human resources planning offers a tool for predicting the demand from human resources and a logical process for providing them through education and training. It focuses attention on the numbers of individuals needed, their skills, and the education and training infrastructure needed to provide them.

Any strategy must address the young people who are less influenced by rigid organizations, more flexible in their thinking, willing to take risks, and ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution.


The capacity to educate future generations in the ways of irrigated agriculture and the capacity to undertake research to solve problems are fundamental to the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. It is essential that both be given a high priority in strategy development.

Education is essential to develop the future cadres of professionals who will become the managers and leaders of organizations and capacity builders. In order to achieve this, the development of capacity within colleges and universities and to some extent in schools will need to be considered.

Research to solve the problems of irrigation and drainage and to encourage the take-up of new ideas may require developing.

Research can be most successful, when linked to investment projects, where it can show its value directly.

Sustainability

Ensuring sustainability remains one of main challenges facing capacity development, particularly where it is supported by an external agency.

Sustainability is also a concept that requires careful thought, e.g. when considering whether a training facility should be sustained beyond its usefulness or be closed. Capacity development is not a fixed issue and any strategy must be flexible enough to meet changes in capacity needs.


POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

Recognizing that a lack of capacity is now perceived as the main constraint on developing and improving irrigated agriculture, this paper set out: (i) to initiate a debate within the irrigation community on what capacity building means for irrigated agriculture; (ii) to define it as clearly as possible; (iii) to map out the territory it covers and the main issues surrounding it; (iv) to see if it is possible to plan it strategically as is done with more traditional infrastructure projects; and (v) to look for good examples of capacity development from which useful lesson could be learned for the guidance of others.

Many see capacity building (or development) as a rather vague concept. The paper suggests ways of clarifying this concept in the context of irrigated agriculture. It suggests that the UNDP definition provides a good starting-point for understanding capacity development. It embodies the principles of development that are well accepted in the irrigation community.

A simple framework is also proposed that combines and defines the territory of capacity development and irrigated agriculture. It is based on a conceptual approach developed by social scientists and the practical activities of a well-functioning irrigation sector and forms a bridge between them that could provide a useful “picture” of capacity development that is acceptable to irrigation practitioners. It also includes research and education as fundamental activities to capacity development. It is suggested that this “picture” could be a useful tool for participatory discussion between stakeholders and donors for identifying and assessing capacity gaps.

A strategic planning approach is suggested as a means of defining needs and actions. However, careful thought needs to be given to a “project” approach for implementing plans as this may be incompatible with the process approach of capacity development.

A range of basic issues is raised, using the framework as a reference point, which could form an agenda for discussion among stakeholders at the strategy planning stage. In particular, education is stressed as the foundation, a weak one in many countries, on which capacity is built. Thus, it must be a priority on the agenda. The importance of these issues requires confirmation and there may be others that need to be added.

Case studies are used to cover as much as possible of the territory mapped out by the framework to show how capacity can be developed in practice. Although some practical guidance on strategic planning and action can be gleaned, there are serious shortcomings in the literature generally. Most published information tends to be general in nature and to dwell more on infrastructure rather than on capacity development. Those that provide more relevant information tend to discuss individual training issues rather than the larger picture outlined in the framework.

In order for the full nature of capacity development to be taken seriously, it is suggested that more guidance is needed on how it can be done. Much of the conceptual thinking is now complete. What is now needed are more-detailed and carefully-crafted case studies that fully describe the process used to develop capacity. Ways of collecting this information and communicating also need to be devised.


The framework proposed in this paper describes the territory of capacity development and is a vehicle for discussing the issues, searching for gaps and developing a strategic plan. However, it leads on to other questions concerning what happens in practice, how the critical issues are identified, what actions are taken, and what impacts these actions have. There are no manuals on how this is done. However, there are a growing number of examples of capacity development projects in irrigation from which wider lessons can be drawn. Many of these projects are supported by aid donors that are beginning to reflect the shifts in development and in the way they provide technical cooperation.

Several case studies are reviewed here, albeit briefly, with a view to covering as much as possible of the territory described in the framework. Dark shading is used to define the principal territory covered while lighter shading shows the complementary areas of influence.However, there are many shortcomings because of a lack of published information. Moreover, some projects did not set out specifically to develop capacity building but grew in this direction once underway. In spite of these limitations, the examples provide many insights that could prove useful to others entering the strategy planning process.

DEVELOPING FARMER AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY – ZAMBIA

This case is about improving knowledge and skills and changing the attitudes of both local professionals and farmers (FAO, 2003).

Zambia has more than 100 000 ha of private smallholder irrigation. The Zambian government advisory and support services are poorly developed and so smallholders rely on their own resources. However, the government wanted to improve their productivity and to help more farmers to take up irrigation in order to solve the country’s growing food security problem. To help meet this objective, the government’s strategy was to strengthen its advisory and support services to farmers.

An externally-funded project with technical assistance was launched to introduce low-cost irrigation technologies as an entry point for training both local professionals and farmers. This was an unusual move at a time when many governments were running down services and transferring responsibility for irrigation to farmers’ organizations. However, Zambia does not have strong private organizations that can take on a support role and so it was decided to strengthen the existing government organization rather than to build something new.

Government staff had little contact with farmers and were more familiar with top-down approaches to training and providing advice. Therefore, participatory approaches and facilitation methods formed an important part of their training in addition to the more technical subjects. Training was done in a very structured way and implemented through a pyramid process of

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual

Planning Design Construction O&M Research Education & training

Appendix ICase studies


training trainers who then trained technicians who in turn trained the farmers. The methods used were based on the experience of using similar methods, but for differing circumstances, in Nepal, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. They have led to the production by FAO of guidelines on participatory training and extension in farm water management and a farmers’ training manual (FAO, 2003).

In four years, the government services have trained more than 10 000 “private” farmers. A significant number of women joined the programme and, indeed, in later training campaigns women outnumbered men in some districts.

The impact of the programme was measured by establishing what farmers had learned and by measuring the uptake of technologies. However, both methods produced inconclusive results, consumed a great deal of resources in data collection, and proved far more complex to analyse than first envisaged. For example, the lack of a baseline survey of farmers’ knowledge made it difficult to determine what they had learned from the training or what the true level of technology uptake was. This did not mean the attempt was without worth, but it did highlight the complexity of evaluation.

This case is a good example of how the provision of resources, technical assistance and training can strengthen a moribund government department, which in turn can have a significant impact on the private farming community. It also demonstrates that irrigation technology can provide a useful entry point for engaging farmers in a participatory way. Where private institutions are weak, the government still has a major responsibility for capacity development. The question of cost recovery from those who benefit has yet to be resolved and so the process may not continue once the external support has stopped.

CREATING IRRIGATION MARKETS – AFRICA

In separate initiatives, NGOs in Niger, Kenya and Zambia and Zimbabwe imported treadle pumps from Bangladesh in order to help smallholders to improve their livelihoods by providing access to water (World Bank, 2003). However, central to their successful introduction was the development of local, private capacity to manufacture, distribute, retail and maintain pumps at relatively low cost that would sustain their continued uptake in the medium and long term.

These are examples of a new approach to development known as the market creation approach. This approach is not so much concerned with creating markets for agricultural products, although this is essential, but with creating markets for new affordable irrigation products; in this case treadle pumps that encourage smallholders to take up irrigated agriculture. This produces a flow of benefits downstream as the purchasing power of smallholders increases but also benefits upstream from creating the chain to supply and support the new products.

Capacity development in this context is about setting up the new supply chains and training individuals and groups to play their part in it. However, the key element is an enabling environment, in this case a market for cash crops that could be grown by smallholders, that stimulates the whole chain.

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



FAO (2000) reviewed several case studies on the success of this market-driven approach to capacity development that emphasizes the private sector requirements of publicity and marketing in order to spread information about technologies, reliable agricultural inputs and the identification of crops and markets where smallholders have a comparative advantage for the sale of their produce.

Most experiences of capacity development involve government but this is a good example of the role that the private sector can play. External funding and technical assistance were needed, but the goal was to make the whole self-funding and profitable in the same way as any other private enterprise. Capacity development involved training and transfer of a very wide range of skills and new organizations, but key to the success was a vibrant market for high-value agricultural produce. This case spans all the levels in the framework and although it was principally about using treadle pumps there were also elements of planning, design and construction.

CHANGING LONG-ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS – PERU

Peru is a country with a large traditional government bureaucracy running most of the smallholder irrigation schemes. It is pursuing a policy of irrigation management transfer and has invited an international NGO, with external funding, to help develop and implement a programme to retrain large numbers of government-employed irrigation engineers for their new roles and farmers who were required to take on more of the responsibilities of water management (Kay 2001).

Training was the main vehicle used to introduce changes in people and organizations with the full support of the government. Planning was meticulous and well thought through using log-frame analysis that clearly set out the objectives of the training and what was to be achieved. Peru has well-entrenched attitudes to irrigation management. Therefore, the training was designed to produce major changes in attitude both among the engineers and technicians working within the Ministry of Agriculture as well as among the farmers.

Participation was at the heart of the training process, and training modules had three vital elements: knowledge, skills and attitudes. The same modules were used at three levels, to train the trainers, to train the professionals who in turn trained the farmer leaders of newly created WUAs. Identifying professional trainers who were willing to abandon their ideas and long experience of lecturing as a means of training and accept participatory methods was not an easy step and required people with confidence in themselves as trainers.

Training took place at all levels in the engineering hierarchy so that ideas were set in place at the highest levels to motivate and encourage change rather than just to accept what was happening.

A useful output was a handbook of detailed instructions to help trainers use participatory methods. For example, one section provided details about how participants might react to parts of the programme so that trainers could begin to recognize for themselves the signals from participants as to whether they were changing their attitudes genuinely.

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



This is a good example of how training professionals and farmers can improve irrigation knowledge and skills and also change personal attitudes towards their role in irrigation and, hence, change the institutional structure in which they work. It also shows how training and institutional change can be planned and implemented in the same structured way as other more “concrete” development projects. External support was a key element both in terms of finance and technical assistance from an international NGO.

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH INSTITUTE – PAKISTAN

Pakistan has a successful agricultural economy, about 80 percent of which is irrigated. However, irrigation has brought problems and 6 million ha are seriously affected by salt and some 2 million ha are reported abandoned because of severe waterlogging. Poor drainage is reported to cause a 25 percent reduction in main crop production (FAO, 2002).

Strategy planners in Pakistan identified the need for research to solve these problems and so were instrumental in establishing a new research institute for this purpose with funding from the United Nations (UN). However, research institutes often have a reputation for working in their own world, where personal and institutional reputations are developed through publications rather than solving the real problems of development. There are many varied and complex reasons for this, not least of which are: a lack of clear policy on the role of research; a lack of resources; and poorly trained and motivated staff.

Work began in 1988 with Netherlands technical cooperation with a strong focus on research into the technologies of drainage design and installation. At the same time, the salary structure was reviewed along with staff recruitment in order to bring in high-quality well-motivated people.

Technical cooperation improved research skills, management and report writing among local staff. However, almost by accident rather than by design, the expatriate staff were also good capacity builders as well as technical specialists. They were experienced professionals that had learned from many similar situations how to communicate with people and encourage them to take ownership of problems and solutions. They encouraged staff to think beyond the immediate technical issues and to put them into the context of drainage development and the real problems facing farmers. This was not in their job description nor was it the reason they were selected for the job. However, it contributed greatly to the success of the institute that now has a growing international reputation for its research work.

Current research work is looking at the problems of participative drainage. This represents a further step in building the capacity of staff to work directly with farmers and to appreciate the complex social and cultural influences on their drainage research. Because of the expertise that staff now have in this area, the institute has abandoned attempts to work with local NGOs because they had difficulty in adapting from their traditional village focus to the catchment thinking needed for participative drainage.

This is a good example of how the capacity of a research institute can be developed to provide useful and economically viable research that is sensitive to the cultural and social needs of rural

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



communities provided it is properly resourced and staff have incentives to work well. It is also an example of individuals within a country that have the capacity and strategic vision to see what is needed and to take action to provide it. Personal connections with aid donors and international organizations such as the ICID, which fosters relationships across the irrigation world, also played a crucial part in setting the right environment for action.

CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

Bhutan

This is an example of changes at the very highest levels in Bhutan to introduce a successful irrigation management transfer programme. It occurred slowly, over a period of ten years, which carried both the farmers and the government engineers along the pathway of change together (Kay, 2001). Bhutan is a relatively small country and so the numbers of people involved were considerably smaller than in most other countries. Smallholders operate relatively independently of government on a day-to-day basis but have relied heavily in the past on government funding of expertise and materials for main canal rehabilitation in the unstable mountainous terrain. Inappropriate and expensive designs led to farmer management problems, and so changes in approach needed to be made both by the irrigation engineering department and the farmers. The outcome of this was a successful and well-structured programme of irrigation management transfer over a ten-year period. It was initiated by government at the highest level through the development of a new national irrigation policy. It involved: a process of reviewing existing management practices; experimentation with new methods; consultation with stakeholders and agreement on the structure of the new policy; the production of good-quality training materials; and a gradual and well-guided introduction of the policy using participative training methods. An evaluation of the programme demonstrated the benefits of a slow but steady developmental process of change.

Egypt

Egypt has relied on irrigated agriculture for its survival and development for centuries. As a result, it has developed strong formal government based organizations to manage existing schemes and to plan new ones. However, since the construction of Aswan Dam, drainage has become a major issue as water tables have risen and land has become saline (APP, 2003; FAO, 2002).

The Netherlands Government, with its own problems of dealing with drainage, has a long history of supporting Egypt. In 1976, a panel comprising Netherlands and Egyptian drainage

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual


Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



specialists and managers was set up in order to examine ways of dealing with the drainage of large tracts of the Nile Valley, to develop and transfer drainage technology from the Netherlands to Egypt, and to administer Netherlands donor funding for a series of drainage projects. In the intervening 27 years, this panel has grown in importance from a convenient administrative arrangement for a wide range of drainage projects, both in the field and in drainage research, and has become the basis of a partnership with Egyptian steering that has now widened its scope by mutual agreement to include the wider issues of water management. An important aspect is that it is addressing issues at the highest levels in Egypt on policy formulation in the sector and most recently on institutional reform and capacity development. One of its key roles is to bridge the gap between applied research and policy-making and identify and set research priorities.

This partnership is regarded as a success by both countries and has led to significant technology developments and policy changes in Egypt. Several factors have influenced this, not least of which is the panel membership, which has evolved over the years and now comprises some of the most senior government officials from both countries including representatives from all the ministries that are stakeholders in the water sector. The panel is currently chaired by the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources. This ensures ownership of panel decisions at the highest levels in government. Other elements cited include: the commitment of members; the inclusion of several women members who head ministerial departments; and the respect, natural empathy and personal relationships that have also grown over the years between panel members that has led to trust. This enables frank discussions to take place at an intimate and informal level as well as officially, which is the essence of a good partnership.

It could also be argued that the “partnership” works because of the funding provided by the Netherlands Government. There seems no doubt that this is important because without it the panel and its secretariat could not function. However, the Egyptian ownership and driving force in the panel are probably more important factors, and proponents point out that the financial support is modest in comparison with other aid donors and they have yet to develop the kind of influential panel arrangements that have existed for over 27 years.

This is a good example of a mechanism that can help to establish an equal and influentialpartnership working at the highest levels in government in a situation that is always a difficultone, namely, where one partner is giving and one is receiving. It has also influenced the capacity of panel members as evidenced by their ability to change over time with the changing demands in irrigated agriculture. The Netherlands would also argue that it has had a significant impact on the way in which they now administer their aid programmes to the benefit of other countries.

The United Republic of Tanzania

Smallholders living in the tropical drylands of the United Republic of Tanzania have to cope with the realities of inadequate and unreliable rainfall. While policy-makers recognized this and few doubted the critical importance of rainfall, they did not recognize the importance of runoff for water supply. Indeed, until recently, the overriding perception was that runoff, rather than being a resource, was a hazard and led to soil erosion. Over many years, this perception has driven government policy and programmes to the detriment of irrigation farming (NRSP, 2003).

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual



Sustained, externally donor-funded research and communications work over 12 years by a university team into the benefits of harvesting rainwater for improving productivity and smallholder livelihoods has transformed thinking at the highest levels of government. Work began initially as a research project into the technologies of rainwater harvesting. However, gradually the importance of communicating ideas and involving all the various stakeholders was realized if significant changes were to be made in the way in which farmers worked.

Rainwater harvesting is now seen as a resource and this has been incorporated in the development plans of certain district councils and NGOs, especially following the statement by the Tanzanian Prime Minister that: “the Government will strengthen and promote the use of rainwater harvesting technology, in both urban and rural areas” (Hansard Records, 2 July 2001).

This is an interesting example of how sustained efforts from the grassroots level can change government policy so that capacity can develop at the lower levels. The young age profile of the team that carried out the work is also an important lesson. Young people are usually less influenced by inflexible organizations, can be more up-to-date and flexible in their thinking, willing to take risk, and they are ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution. This is an important element to build into any strategy – the future lies with the young.

Mali

The Office du Niger in Mali has been operating for more than 60 years and is an interesting example of how a long-established, large irrigation scheme (more than 55 000 ha) with a traditional top-down management structure can adapt to change. Prior to the 1980s, the infrastructure had deteriorated, the agency was heavily in debt, only half the area was cropped, and yields were low. In the past 20 years, there have been significant improvements as a direct result of changes in the “enabling environment”. These include: the transfer of on-farm water management to farmers; the management of other farm inputs and crop processing; the devaluation of the CFA Franc, which greatly improved the profitability of local rice over imports; and significant inward investment from France, Netherlands and the World Bank. Both the French approach of investing in technical solutions, such as laser levelling and downstream control, and the Netherlands approach of involving farmers and designing more rudimentary infrastructure at low cost have contributed to improvements in performance in terms of productivity and farmer livelihoods (Kuper, Bélières and Coulibaly, 2002).

Environment

Sector

Organization

Individual


53

Paul van Hofwegen Senior Water Management Advisor

World Water CouncilMarseille, France

The focus of the water and irrigation sector management capacity building activities is on the development of capable institutions for sustainable water resources and irrigation management. In Indonesia, this is a logical consequence of the decentralization and management transfer policies of the government. These activities involve:• Socializing the concepts and consequences of the decentralization and regional autonomy

policies, water sector reforms that entail basin-level management of water resources by newly-established or soon-to-be-established river basin organizations, and the transfer of management authority of irrigation systems to the WUAs.

• Redefinition of new roles, responsibilities and tasks of relevant government organizations in water resource management towards service oriented entities and establishment of new stakeholder-based coordination mechanisms.

• Strengthening of the organizations to enable the effective implementation of their new roles. This includes the introduction of and establishment of accountability mechanisms and tools for the decentralized government organizations and the empowerment (including transfer of management authority) of the WUAs.

The reform and decentralization of the Indonesian water sector requires capacity building of all new and reorganized agencies and institutions in order to enable them to take up their responsibilities and tasks in the new water resources and irrigation management paradigm. The development of the required capacity is partially tested out under several national and regional irrigation and water resources projects. The concept of proposed capacity building activities will build on these experiences and elaborate further in new areas.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR CAPACITY BUILDING

The objective of the capacity building activities is to establish an institutional capability to manage water resources and irrigation systems in a sustainable manner. This requires capable institutions for management, capable individuals within the various organizations, and an external environment that enables the institutions and individuals to perform according to expectations. Thus, the capacity building activities focus on: (i) individuals working within the organizations; (ii) the structure, processes and resources of the organizations themselves; and (iii) the enabling external management environment of the organizations (Figure 10).

Keynote paper 2Capacity building for water and

irrigation sector management with application in Indonesia


Organizations can only perform where:• an external environment is created

for the organization to deliver expected services;

• governments and society at large facilitate the creation of the necessary national and local policies, legislation and organizational frameworks;

• organizations in the Indonesian water resources sector are provided with a clear mission, clear responsibilities and external accountability procedures;

• these tasks and responsibilities are translated into a clear organizational structure, tasks and internal procedures;

• adequate resources and infrastructure are available;

• human resources within the organization have the required knowledge, skills and attitude;

• organizations provide the right internal (positive and negative) incentives to elicit the desired behaviour of individuals.

Under the sector reform programme, new policies and legislation have been formulated and are currently being issued. This includes the definition of mission, responsibilities and tasks of the organizations involved in water resources management. Once the regulation and procedures for planning, budgeting and accountability are clear, a detailed definition of responsibilities and tasks, structure and procedures of each of the organizations can be made. This will serve as the basis of the human, financial and infrastructural resource development plan for each organization. These plans are indispensable in the development of a capacity building support capacity. Long-term views have to be taken to accommodate the needs of the water resources managing agencies in order to arrive at sustainability. Key actions to accommodate the short-, medium- and long-term needs of the sector agencies are: competence and task-oriented training; the development of such local training capacity; and adaptation of formal and informal educational programmes in local institutes and universities. Proper procedures, incentives and continuous coaching are necessary in order to direct the individuals in the organizations to effective and efficient service delivery and, consequently, enhanced water sector performance (Figure 11).

ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS AND TOOLS

A main element of capacity building is the development, introduction and acceptance of accountability mechanisms and tools. In the context of water resource and irrigation and drainage management organizations, three domains of accountability can be identified (van Hofwegen, 1996):

INDIVIDUALS

INSTITUTIONS

ORGANIZATIONAL EXTERNAL

ENVIRONMENT

Behaviour

Performance of Service

Delivery

KnowledgeSkills

Attitude

Incentives(+/-)

MissionStructure

TasksProcedures

Infrastructure

PoliciesLegislation

Organizations

(demography, government system,economy, social and cultural system, physical and bio-enivronment, climate)

FIGURE 10Conceptual framework for capacity building for service provision

Keynote paper 2 – Capacity building for water and irrigation sector management 55

• operational accountability, which involves the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating, controlling and enforcing the implementation of the service agreement.

• strategic accountability, which relates to the mechanism that allows users to control the formulation of the services and its costs, for example, by the right to approve or reject working plans and budget proposals.

• constitutional accountability, which relates to the mechanism that allows users to influence the strategic decision-making process by, for example, establishment of assemblies, adoption of statutes and by-laws, and election of representatives in governing and coordinating bodies.

The application of these concepts for the water resources sector in Indonesia will be elaborated further based on generic management functions within the organizations and the interaction between different organizations in the sector. It includes the tools that can be developed and introduced in order to enhance the operational, strategic and constitutional accountability related to service delivery and its associated costs and price.

Generic management activities and accountability tools

Traditionally, water resource management and irrigation and drainage agencies have operated in an environment where the level of expenditure on infrastructure and management bears no relation to the water delivery service that they are expected to provide. Until now agencies have seldom defined clearly their level of service and the costs associated with it, mainly because of supply-oriented budgeting systems. Under the Water Sector Management Programme (WSMP), a service-oriented management approach is adopted that entails an output-driven approach. To achieve this, management needs to know what is an acceptable standard of service and, consequently, the management of resources must be consistent with management goals. A quality assurance system for all activities within the organizations and related out-contracted activities is an effective accountability tool.

A key element in planning is the ability to ascertain the financial and human resources and infrastructure needed to deliver the agreed service based on agreement, transparent processes and accountability, and all subject to a quality assurance system. Clear and unambiguous water rights including their conditionalities are elementary for water allocation, distribution and delivery, and they form an essential tool for operational and strategic accountability on service delivery. Figure 12 provides a generic framework for management functions and the associated accountability tools that will be used as the basis for the WSMP capacity building component. Basic principles applied are public consultation, agreement, transparency and accountability integrated in a quality assurance system.

Education Knowledge

Skills

Attitude

Incentivestructure

Coaching

Completency – taskoriented

Vocational, on the job, seminars, worshop,

short courses, exposure, coaching

Human resourcedevelopment

Defining structure,tasks and internal

accountabilitymechanisms

Defining mission,responsibilities and

external accountabilitymechanisms

Development ofpolicies, legislation,

organizations,regulations,procedures

Managementenvironment

Organization

Individual

BEHAVIOUR

SERVICEDELIVERY

PERFORMANCE

SECTOR PERFORMANCE

Training

Formal – informalBasic, vocational,

professionalexperience

FIGURE 11Capacity building activities


The cost of service provision is related directly to the level of service provided. The higher the level of service, the more management or infrastructure is needed, hence a higher cost is incurred. An asset management plan is a plan for the creation, acquisition, maintenance, operation, replacement, modernization and disposal of fixed assets in order to provide an agreed level of service in the most cost-effective and sustainable manner (Malano and van Hofwegen, 1999). Asset management plans are effective and transparent tools to determine the present and the future level of costs associated with the agreed level of service. In situations where customers pay the full or partial cost of service provision, the level of service must be balanced against their willingness to pay for the service through a process of consultation. The result of the consultation is then reflected in a service agreement between the organization and its customers.

A service agreement consists of two main parts: transactions and accountability mechanism to be applied on the transaction. In water resources management the transactions are a certain payment against the delivery of water at an agreed rate, time, place and of a certain quality. The accountability part describes the monitoring procedures to verify whether the transactions are met, the liabilities of both parties in the event that the obligations are not met, what party to address in case of conflict, and what procedure to use to review and update the agreement. (Malano and van Hofwegen, 1999). Various multitier service relations can be identified:farmer WUA federation of water users associations (WUAF) basin management authority; WUAF district and/or provincial public services; WUAF public and private enterprises and institutes; etc.

Asset management plans also provide information for budget-dependent service providers on the real need for budgeting and the consequences of not meeting budgetary requirements.

Cost allocation procedures must be introduced in agencies providing more than one type of service or services to different client or client groups. Cost accounting systems provide a transparent administration and accountability tool to allow service clients to gain insight into the composition of the cost of service they are paying for.

Full or partial cost recovery requires decisions on tariffs and charges. The basis of fixingtariffs, service charges and cross-subsidies must be available in the form of regulations for setting tariffs and charges, and should include the process and procedures involved, including approval by the governing boards. An independent body to prevent political gain at the cost of system sustainability must audit its application. Asset management plans are again an important tool in this process for predicting future expenditures on infrastructure.

Tariffs are often fixed, or the government sets ceilings. Where these are insufficientto cover the actual cost of service provision, subsidies are required to sustain the service provision at the agreed levels. For the WUAF and the International Association of Water Users (WUAI), these subsidies in the form of matching funds are foreseen in the District Irrigation Improvement Funds. The basin management authorities will, for the time being, depend to a larger extent on subsidies. However, in due course, they may also obtain income from charges on bulk water supply, hydrological service provision, and water quality management. Clear subsidy arrangements including rules for eligibility based on performance and urgency of the requested subsidies have to be available. Again, an asset management plan can be an effective tool for indicating the urgency and cost of the required interventions, and the risk and cost in the event of functional failure of the asset.


The service charges can be collected directly from clients and employed for the organization itself where the organization has financial autonomy. Clear terms and conditions for payment, including penalties for non-payment, must be made explicit. These in general can be part of the service agreement. Otherwise, charges are collected and reverted into general government revenues. In this case, clear guidelines must exist to guarantee that funds are reallocated to the managing organization in order to ensure the adequate provision of the agreed level of service.

Budget allocation is to be based on a set of integrated plans, which may include plans for development, asset management plans, human resources development plans, etc. Because strategic plans are dynamic in nature, financial planning usually results in multiyear rolling plans, which may forecast activities for a period ahead, generally 3–5 years. This process involves annual updating based on a review of the previous year’s performance and analysis of future needs on service development and associated infrastructural and management adjustments. In case of budget shortfall, asset management plans provide information on the priority of interventions.

Each of the management activities has its own set of accountability mechanisms and tools, as described above and in Table 1.

ACTORS IN CAPACITY BUILDING

The introduction of new working relationships and new tasks in the water sector requires major capacity building efforts at the national, provincial, river basin, district and WUA/WUAF/WUAI levels. Given the restrictions on human and financial resources, a multitier capacity building programme is to be developed and implemented. In this multitier approach, the following groups can be distinguished:

The ultimate target groups being those groups that have the tasks and responsibility to manage water resources.

SERVICE

INFRASTRUCTURE

AGREEMENT

TRANSPARENCY

ACCOUNTABILITY

QUALITY ASSURANCE

COST OF SERVICEPLANNING AND

BUDGETING

COLLECTION COST ALLOCATION

TARIFFS AND CHARGES

SUBSIDIES

Service level development

Procurement,tendering supervision

Assetmanagement

plan, work plans

Billing, collectionmechanisms,

penalties

Procedures on release of payment

Serviceagreement

Assetmanagement plan

Costaccounting

Tariff and chargesregulation

Subsidyarrangement

FIGURE 12Generic management activities and accountability tools


• Temporary (in project) assigned capacity builders who are assigned to train and coach the ultimate target groups in exercising their tasks and responsibilities.

• Temporary (in project) assigned capacity builders and building institutions that are responsible for the training and guidance of the capacity builders above.

• Ultimate postproject capacity builders who will remain available for the ultimate target group to provide on a demand basis continuous training, guidance and assistance after programme completion.

• An independent agency that monitors and certifies capacity builders, and flags distortions to provide timely correction as needed.

Ultimate target group

The groups and organizations directly responsible for water management are:

TABLE 1Accountability mechanisms and tools in water resources and irrigation management

Accountabilitylevel

Accountability mechanism Accountability tool

Operational Users and service provider agree on the monitoring of delivery of a specified service and consequences for non- fulfilment.

Service agreement which includes explicit:

Service specifications (including water use rights)

Conditions for service (payment, etc.)

Service delivery monitoring (specific indicators)

Liability arrangement

Settlement of conflict (arbitration or judicial system)

Strategic Users approve work plan, budget and associated fees and charges through their assembly or representation in governing bodies

Work plan

Activities

Resources (financial, human, equipment, etc.)

Budget

Mode of finance

Consequences for fees/charges

Asset management plan

Asset register

Asset O&M

Asset performance monitoring

Asset economics

Asset rehabilitation, replacement, modernization & rationalization

Management review

Investment profile

Analytic accounting system

Cost allocation per service type, element of infrastructure/asset

Cost planning per service type, element of infrastructure/asset

Quality assurance system related to

Activity development

Implementation of activities planned

Audit (internal/external)

Corrective and preventive action

Management review

Constitutional Users exercise their voice to influence the process of strategic decision-making

Governance system

User membership in assembly

Adoption of statutes and by-laws

Election of board and executive management

Election of representatives in federations and committees


• The WUA/WUAF/WUAI responsible for: (i) water acquisition; (ii) water allocation and distribution among their members; (iii) drainage in their area of jurisdiction; and (iv) maintenance of infrastructure under their jurisdiction.

• The river basin management unit generally responsible for: (i) the day-to-day planning and implementation of water allocation and delivery to the various users in the basin including the WUA-I, based upon an agreed water resources management plan with clear and explicit water rights; (ii) collection and primary processing of hydrological, meteorological and water quality data; (iii) licensing of abstractions and discharge of effluents; (iv) controlling the destructive power of water (floods, landslides, lahar flows, etc.); and (v) O&M of infrastructure under their jurisdiction.

• The district water resources management service responsible for: (i) guidance of and financial and technical assistance to WUAFs within their area of jurisdiction; (ii) guidance of and assistance to basin authorities within their area of jurisdiction; (iii) O&M of infrastructure under their jurisdiction; and (iv) development of new infrastructure in cooperation with users in their area of jurisdiction.

• Other district services responsible for coordination and planning of activities related to or affected by water and water resource management, such as the planning and coordination service, the environmental monitoring service, and the agriculture service.

• Coordinating bodies at district level, such as: (i) the irrigation commission for coordination and communication among irrigation schemes; (ii) the irrigation forum for consultation and communication among different uses in one irrigation scheme; and (iii) the district-level commission on water resources planning and management.

• Provincial water resources management service for: (i) guidance of and financial and technical assistance to WUAFs within their area of jurisdiction; (ii) guidance of and assistance to basin authorities within their area of jurisdiction; (iii) development and management of the hydrological, meteorological and water quality survey network and processing and dissemination of data for use of long-,medium- and short-term water resources planning and management; (iv) preparation of long- and medium-term river basin development and management plans in basins under their jurisdiction; (v) O&M of infrastructure under their jurisdiction; and (vi) development of new infrastructure in cooperation with users in their area of jurisdiction.

• Provincial-level and basin-level water resources councils responsible for coordination in water resources management (WRM), which includes: (i) establishment of WRM priorities; (ii) regulating WRM including water conservation, water allocation, water use and water hazard control; (iii) regulation of relevant development; and (iv) conflict resolution related to use and management of water resources.

• Central Water Resources Planning Unit (CWRU) responsible for: (i) preparation and development of the long-term national water resources policy and planning in cooperation with other agencies; (ii) development and dissemination of water quality and quantity standards for planning and management of water resources; and (iii) guidance of and assistance to provincial water resources planning units.

• National Hydrological Survey (NHS) is to be established to take care of the development, implementation and guidance of a national hydrological programme. The NHS could be responsible for: (i) planning, development and implementation of national hydrological surveys; (ii) development and dissemination of standards for collection, processing and reporting of hydrological, meteorological and water quality data; (iii) preparation of annual data reports; and (iv) ensuring public access to data for water resource planning and management purposes.

• National Water Council, with a secretariat responsible for coordination and development of the national water resources policy and associated legislation with standing working


groups to address national policy, national planning, water sector financing and hydrology / decision-support system data banks.

In-project capacity builders

The in-project capacity builders are those institutions that provide direct capacity building services to the ultimate target group on a temporary basis in the project context. Output of the support process should be an operational target group within developed accountability mechanism and tools. The in-project capacity builders are:• Community organizers (COs), the support group of district services that provide training,

coaching and technical assistance to the WUAF in management, communication, technical administrative and financial matters during the process of irrigation management transfer from the government to the WUAs.

• Provincial water resources planning and hydrology units, through the basin coach and consultants and universities, provide the day-to-day, on-the-job training and coaching to the basin authority.

• Research institutes and universities provide classical hydrology, water resources planning and operational management training to basin authority staff.

• Management training institutes provide training in service-oriented management and communication skills for the basin authority, district and provincial water resources and other relevant services.

• Central water resources planning and hydrology units provide, through the Provincial Water Resources Management Unit (PWRU), coaching and, assisted by consultants, day-to-day guidance, on the job training and coaching to the Provincial Hydrology Unit (PHU) and the PWRU.

• National and international education institutes provide education and training programmes in water resources management and hydrology, asset management, etc. National universities could be identified in order to develop centres of excellence dedicated to capacity building functions for water resources and irrigation management.

• rovincial task forces assisted by the national secretariat of the council and consultants who provide guidance for the establishment and operationalization of the provincial and river basin water resources management councils (DPSAs).

• The National task Force assisted by consultants who provide guidance to establishment and operationalization of the National Water Council.

In-project capacity-building builders

The in-project capacity-building builders (ToCBs) are responsible for the training and guidance of the capacity builders and the development of supporting materials to be used. These comprise:• Water users training programme responsible for training of trainers programmes.• NGO – university - consultant combinations provide training for the COs.• Management training institutes and NGOs provide all direct capacity builders with the

right attitude and with relevant communication and management skills.• National and international education institutes and consultants provide curriculum

development and staff training for education and training programmes in water resources management and hydrology.


Postproject capacity builders

For a sustainable situation in a development environment, a continuous demand for education, training and support will occur. This demand has to be satisfied by a structural – non-project linked – capability in the public and private sectors. These institutions will act on a “commercial” basis to secure their existence. By allowing a variety of institutions to offer education and training services, and by allowing the water resources and irrigation management agencies to select their own programmes and provider, the quality of these services will improve and the cost may fall. Such institutions may also be in-house department training institutes under the Human Resources Development Board with their regional offices, private and public universities and polytechnics, management training institutes, etc.

In addition to the training and education capacity, there is a need for a permanent coaching system for the different management entities, which will allow the introduction of new management, technological and financial systems within the water resource and irrigation management institutions. The establishment of a structural coaching system is encouraged.

TRAINING METHODOLOGIES

Training of the ultimate target groups and the direct capacity builders is to be oriented on their tasks and duties, which for an important part consist of managerial and social skills. The introduction and operation of accountability tools requires a good insight into their purpose and use. Therefore, competence-based training is essential for the development of effective accountability mechanisms and efficient management operations.

The limited availability of capacity in the field of water resources management on provincial and kabupaten (subprovincial) level requires an in-depth investment in graduate and postgraduate education in water resources management and hydrology at national or international training and education institutes. This programme needs to be accompanied by the strengthening of national private or public universities in the provision of water resources and hydrology courses in line with the requirements of the new paradigm.

Identical to the above, similar programmes have to be developed for irrigation management where the focus of service orientation and the required management, technical and financialsubjects are being included in the programme curricula.

TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE

The success of the WSMP programme depends to a large extent on the quality and motivation of the individual persons contributing to the programme. Much of the quality and motivation aspects can be accommodated in high quality training and education. In order to enhance the quality of education and training delivery and the motivation of providers of these services to deliver quality training, a quality assurance system needs to be introduced and strengthened.

A quality assurance system has already been introduced by the National Accreditation Board for higher education programmes where they audit and certify the providers. A similar system is required for non-degree training and education institutions. Such an accreditation board should be an independent NGO financed from accreditation fees.

Certification of the institutes, their courses and the trainees would be a prerequisite for participation in the programme. Standards and procedures need to be developed.


NATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING NETWORK

In order to develop a sustainable, human resources capacity building process for water resources and irrigation management, it is necessary to reorient higher education programmes towards multidisciplinary and integrated approaches and to strengthen the economic and social sciences in the sector. IWRM is understood to notably include water management aspects pertaining to aquatic ecology and biodiversity.

A national capacity building network under the National Council for Water Resources could be established in order to match demand and supply of capacity building, education and training services and to exchange information and experiences on the water resources sector reform programme. An operational network requires the establishment of a network secretariat to manage the business of the network and network nodes on provincial and kabupaten level at designated agencies.

In order to exchange the necessary information, the development of a Web-based database (where demand for and supply of capacity building services can be brought together) is encouraged. All types of providers of training and education services with their specific services and programmes, their duration and costs relevant for capacity building for water resources and irrigation management should be available. In this way, different organizations looking for training and education services can select from among the providers what they consider most appropriate. On the other hand, the capacity building education and training providers can search the database for demand for their services. The database must be publicly accessible through the Internet for suppliers and potential users of capacity building services.

The responsibility of educational programme development is and will remain with the educational institutions under supervision of the National Accreditation Board. These institutions, based on their own initiative and interest, will carry out the process of curriculum development through networking. A national water sector capacity building network with links to international networks will be established and developed in order to facilitate the process of reorientation and continuous curriculum development through the exchange of experience and knowledge among national institutions of higher education and the sector. This should result in updated needs assessments, modules in regular educational programmes, and short courses and training programmes for the water resources and irrigation management institutions.

The further development and intensification of the exchange of experience and knowledge among national and institutions of higher education and the sector is encouraged. This can be promoted through the establishment and development of a national water sector capacity building network with links to international networks to facilitate this process of reorientation and continuous curriculum development.

63

Ian W. Makin, Tushaar Shah, Doug Vermillion and Mehmood Ul HassanInternational Water Management Institute

Bangkok

Keynote paper 3Who will do what and how? Achieving effective capacity building in water resources

INTRODUCTION

More than half of world’s poor live in developing countries and, in the main, the poorest of these communities depend heavily on exploitation of local natural resources for their livelihoods. Management becomes important as a productive resource becomes scarce, and this is particularly true in the case of the water resource. Water policies of many emerging nations have long focused on developing the resource; and optimizing was directed at the effi ciency of water infrastructure. As water available for any given use has become increasingly scarce, optimization has focused on improving the productivity of water itself. Understanding the fundamental principles by which resources are managed and the relationships between people, governing institutions and the environment is central to the development of viable approaches to natural resources management within river basins. Rapidly-growing populations, expanding irrigation areas, and growing urban and industrial complexes are placing ever greater demands on water resources while increasing awareness about the environment calls for reduced water abstractions and higher-quality return fl ows.

At the same time, as rapid demographic changes place increased strains on the availability of, and access to, water resources, many government organizations are being encouraged to disengage from direct control and supervision of water and other resources, passing ever greater control and responsibility to the stakeholders in the resources, most frequently the local community of water users. The transfer of responsibility from formally-trained professional organizations to communities of users requires the development of new capabilities and capacities in these communities. What is perhaps less well recognized is that there need to be changes in attitudes and development of new capabilities in organizations relinquishing some authority and responsibilities. Furthermore, policy-makers and political leaders in these organizations in transition also need to develop new understandings and capabilities in order to support changing regulatory regimes. This paper summarizes some of the experiences of the IWMI in providing and supporting capacity building efforts in natural resources management, with a specifi c focus on water resources management for agriculture.

The paper draws on the experiences of a broad range of the IWMI research team and highlights what the authors believe are the highest-potential components of successful capacity building efforts. It does not seek to minimize the complexity of the challenges facing those involved in establishing effective water resources management in any environment, nor does it suggest a “magic recipe” that can be applied in any situation. It does attempt to identify:


the essential elements that are required in establishing the capacity for water resources management; the key stakeholders to be involved; and successful capacity development strategies to be employed. While the focus is on the IWMI’s experience in capacity building, the observations and conclusions in the paper are, in general, consistent with the efforts of other major organizations active in water and development, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, Global Water Partnership and World Water Council.

CHALLENGES IN IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE AND WATER RESOURCES

In recent years, river basins have emerged increasingly as the most logical unit of management for land, water and other natural resources, and as the basis for increased integration of planning and greater devolution of decision-making to local communities and stakeholders. Many developed countries such as Australia, France and the United States of America have evolved highly-advanced and resilient institutional regimes for integrated river basin management (IRBM) over a period of many decades of gradual change. However, many other countries now face with the challenge of developing effective institutions in relatively short periods as the available resources become constraints on development (Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel, 2002). Some of these countries are having to rediscover local institutions and devolved decision-making after a period of more-centralized resource management introduced as a consequence of government-led irrigation and other water resources development efforts. As these governments now seek to reduce the burden on the national exchequer of the provision of irrigation and natural resource management, the transfer of successful experiences from the more developed basins to these countries has emerged as a growth industry.

Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel (2002) have explored the issues involved in attempts to assist countries short-circuit the slow transformations that have characterized the development of effective management institutions in the developed basins, which they refer to as “institutional leapfrogging”, noting large differences in climate, hydrology, demographics, etc. as major constraints. Their idea was not to undermine the signifi cance of the lessons from success but to emphasize the need for sagacity and critical analysis in assessing what will work and what will not, given the differences in the context. This paper attempts to illustrate how the capacity to achieve the necessary level of sagacity can be developed by a combination of research, training, communication and local experience.

Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel (2002) note that the phrase “institutional change” is used to describe how communities, government and society change recurrent patterns of behaviour and interactions in coping with water scarcity and its socio-ecological effects. It requires understanding of laws and rule-making, roles, policies and institutional arrangements at different levels. The overarching premise is that the effectiveness of a pattern of institutional development is determined by at least four realities of a river basin that must be viewed in conjunction with one another, namely: the hydrogeological reality; the demographic reality; the socio-economic reality; and the organization of the water sector. By implication, institutional arrangements that have proved effective with one set of these realities may require major adaptation before they become appropriate to the needs of a river basin context defi ned by an alternative set of realities.

A major challenge that many countries are facing with regard to natural resources is that the acts, rules and regulations governing the management of these resources have been developed with individual sectors in mind. As a result, there are confl icting and contradictory provisions in various acts and rules. These result in a lack of consistency at policy level, leading to confusion and problems in integrating the demands of different sectors at the local level (Pant et al., 2003; Vermillion, 2003). Where policy is confused or contradictory, then the chances

Keynote paper 3 – Who will do what and how? 65

of achieving integrated management of the resources are minimal as each sector exploits the uncertainties. Where the message from policy-makers to the agencies is uncertain, and where “governance mechanisms” of new incentives and accountability arrangements are not included in institutional reforms, the capacity to make the necessary sweeping changes to the existing institutional frameworks in order to actually devolve decision-making to the most appropriate levels is absent (IWMI, 2003).

WHOSE CAPACITIES NEED BUILDING?

The constellation of stakeholders of irrigation and drainage systems and river basins is extensive. Farmers that obtain services from irrigation and drainage networks are vitally involved. Much of the work in recent years on irrigation management transfer (IMT) and WUAs has focused on the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks and the human resources necessary to enable these policy initiatives to progress (FAO, 1999; IIMI and DID, 1989).

Where farmers and water users are encouraged, cajoled or forced to take greater responsibility for the O&M of the irrigation and drainage systems they rely upon, there is a direct impact on the work environment of the agency that previously provided these services (Svendsen and Vermillion, 1994). Therefore, the staff of these agencies is also a stakeholder in the management of the resources and must develop new motivations and capacities to match the changing responsibilities and institutional realities.

Transformations in the formal arrangements for resource management, such as IMT and greater WUA authority, are generally the result of a policy decision at the political level. In many cases, these policy decisions are driven by the need to reduce the costs of provision of these services by government agencies (Vermillion, 1997). Introducing such policy initiatives is not without costs for the political leadership responsible; the farmer lobby is considerable and such changes can result in massive loss of popular support. Therefore, politicians and political parties are stakeholders in these transformations, and a failure to develop the necessary knowledge of the need for and implications of the changes will reduce severely the probability of implementing a successful and sustainable resource management framework. Management devolution generally involves important transformations in the roles and skill requirements of government agencies, including a shift from direct management of irrigation systems to regulation of the irrigation and water sectors, capacity building and provision of support services for WUAs (e.g. cost sharing, technical advice, management training, and dispute resolution).

Many countries seeking to make the sort of institutional reforms discussed here have utilized investment funds from public multilateral and bilateral developing fi nance organizations, which come together with funds for investments in irrigation rehabilitation or modernization. No matter whether donor or lending agencies, these fi nancing institutions are normally concerned with whether such investments achieve the development goals at which those investments were aimed. Increasingly, these are aimed at poverty alleviation rather than increased productivity of agricultural systems (Van Koppen, Parthasarathy and Safi liou, 2002). Many interventions aim to reduce the role of centralized agencies and to empower the users of the systems, increase the sharing costs between farmers and service providers, and improve the effectiveness of decision-making and service provision. As the ADB summarizes in its water policy document (ADB, 2001), communities “are the de facto resource managers and protectors of the environment.” The policy goes on to state that: “ADB will promote participation in the management of water resources at all levels and collaborate in fashioning partnerships between governments, private agencies, NGOs and communities”. Funding agencies want to be identifi ed with successful interventions and work with the recipient agencies to achieve development goals. Therefore, these agencies are also stakeholders in the resource systems that they work in, and they need


to ensure they have the appropriate knowledge and capacities to support the interventions they fund.

Almost without exception, in the countries that are introducing reforms to water resources management frameworks, there are organizations emerging (especially in civil society) that are raising concerns about the state of the environment and the impact of agricultural water management on river systems. These organizations may be international environmental activist groups or local NGOs. What is clear is, that as a country becomes wealthier and an expanding middle class emerges, concerns over the impact of human activity on the environment and the state of the world to be bequeathed to the coming generations also emerges. Although many of this middle class will live in urban areas, the direct links between rural and urban areas, often most visibly represented by rivers, make these groups increasingly vocal stakeholders in water resource management policies. While the majority of the international lobby groups have highly capable and dedicated professionals supporting their campaigns, appropriate knowledge of local conditions, cultures and capacities is essential if objectively-structured results are to be obtained.

It is clear that the stakeholders in water resources in any given location are manifold. In addition, as IWRM is adopted and applied more widely, so the constellation of stakeholders becomes more complex and extensive. The capabilities and knowledge that an individual needs will be determined by where in this group of interested parties the individual operates. The following section considers the types of knowledge and capabilities that these different stakeholders require in order to be effective stewards of water resources.

WHAT CAPACITIES ARE REQUIRED?

“If there is any conclusion that springs from a comparative study of river systems, it is that no two are the same” (Gilbert White cited in Jacobs, 1999). Each river basin must differ from another in a thousand respects. That does not mean that lessons of success in one are of no value to another. However, it does mean that uncritical “copycat” replication of successful institutional models – either by enthusiastic national governments or at the behest of enthusiastic donors – is a recipe for failure. The history of institutional reform in developing-country water sectors is dotted with failures of such copycat reforms (Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel, 2002). The central message from the paper by Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel (2002) is that attempts at uncritical transplantation of a water resources management framework from one, successful, location to another are almost certain to fail.

When considering capacity building in the irrigation, drainage and wider water resources sector, the key requirement is to establish the capability in the different stakeholder communities (including farmers, service providers and agencies, politicians, donors and the broader society) to make critical assessment of the needs of the local situation. The knowledge and capacity for analysis required by these different groups will vary considerably. However, communication between these different stakeholders and negotiating resolutions to confl icting objectives and aspirations is perhaps one of the most critical capacities for everyone involved in water resources management. Many of the initiatives in the irrigation and drainage sector that have focused on management transformations have been aimed, at least nominally, at “levelling the playing fi eld” between the service provider and the service users to enable effective communication about the constraints on both sides of the table. IMT should not mean abandonment of the irrigation sector by government, but creation of a “new partnership” between farmers, government and the private sector in the regulation, provision, fi nancing and utilization of irrigation services.


The primary motivation for empowering the service users through involving them in decision-making has often been to transfer a part of the O&M costs from the service provider to the user community. It is widely accepted that traditional, hierarchical, state-centred irrigation management institutions have proved to be a barrier to improving irrigation and drainage system management. In many countries, attempts at institutional reform in the sector have focused on enlisting the participation of farmers in irrigation management by devolving some responsibilities to water user groups. Different varieties of participatory management arrangements have been tried out in recent decades. However, despite some successes, it is now widely accepted that there is a growing need to also build higher-level institutional arrangements for management at the river basin or watershed level (Samad and Bandaragoda, 1999). The IWMI study on river basin institutions, led by Samad and Bandaragoda (1999) emphasized that institutional development should not focus exclusively on the development of new organizations or extensions to existing ones. The importance of the “rules of the game” (i.e. the interrelationships between organizations) is frequently ignored and replaced with a preoccupation with organizational development. Samad and Bandaragoda argue that this lapse has resulted in the limited success to date in attempts to establish comprehensive institutional mechanisms for water management. Although the failure to provide adequate rules for the changing institutional changes has been observed with respect to IMT and water user groups (Vermillion, 1997), the capacity to develop, apply and understand such rules is required at many levels, from user groups to agencies, consultants and policy-makers.

Access to personal computers, networks and the Internet is enabling access to volumes of information that ten years ago would have been unimaginable. The tools, techniques and technologies available to help in the management of irrigation, drainage and water resources are advancing rapidly. Developing advanced tools and the capability to apply them in the management of water resources will offer resource managers new opportunities to become more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the user communities they serve. After many years of being promoted as valuable technologies, remote sensing data and tools and geographical information systems (GISs) are now viable tools for use in the routine management of systems and basins. Development of information management systems and skills are important priorities for many government and civil society organizations. Furthermore, the opportunities to share information between agencies involved within the same geographical area of operation, through shared database systems accessible via the Internet, is opening new opportunities to improve knowledge-based decision-making. Adoption of these tools and techniques by line agencies will depend on the development of the appropriate skills within the technical cadres and the recognition of the value of these developments by the policy-makers and managers of these groups. The information tools are challenging conventional notions of how government and non-governmental agencies should work and relate to each other.

HOW CAN CAPACITY BUILDING BE ACHIEVED?

The discussion above has evidenced the fact that there is no single formula for building the necessary capacities to improve irrigation, drainage and water resources management. The capacities that have to be developed range from effective communication skills, through the application of advanced technical techniques, to the development of analytical skills for policy-makers and decision-makers. The target groups for these different skills range from, frequently, poorly-educated farmers and water users, through skilled service providers and technicians, technical service managers and researchers, to political leaders and policy-makers. Furthermore, returning to the arguments of Shah, Makin and Sakthivadivel (2002), the environments in which these different groups deploy their skills and capacities span an enormous range of conditions.


CAPACITY BUILDING AS PART OF THE IWMI’S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Since its inception in 1984, the IWMI has been active in capacity building. However, the importance given to these activities has varied from time to time depending on resource availability and demand. In general, demand outstrips available resources, whether for coorganizing workshops and conferences, participating in training events and seminars, hosting visiting researchers, or organizing study tours. However, the IWMI seeks to maintain a balance between the resources assigned to knowledge generation, a clear priority for a research organization, and efforts to promote the application of best practices and new knowledge.

The IWMI implements capacity building in the sector through a combination of: seminars and short courses as part of research projects; roundtables to increase awareness among top policy-makers of water issues and IWMI research fi ndings (e.g. in 2002, the IWMI sponsored ministerial policy dialogues in Ghana for African water sector ministerial delegations, and in Bangkok for Asian water sector ministerial delegations); publications of practical guidelines for adoption of innovations (FAO, 1999; Yoder, 1994); sabbaticals and fellowships for staff from collaborating universities and research institutes; and the institution of a PhD and postdoctoral fellowship programme aimed at training some 50–60 professionals in the next fi ve years. In addition, IWMI staff provide intellectual guidance, research supervision and facilities to graduate students to work at IWMI study sites on topics linked to the research agenda.

In 2003, 28 PhD fellowships were awarded, which included support to nine IWMI staff following PhD studies in various centres. Nine of the PhD scholarships were taken up by female candidates, and the IWMI continues to actively promote application by female candidates. IWMI staff are providing guidance and research facilities to a further 60 students studying at MSc level. Fifteen postdoctoral researchers are members of the IWMI research team, with a further fi ve associate experts sponsored by their governments. The IWMI organizes a number of workshops and training seminars as part of ongoing research projects, typically implementing about 20 events each quarter, reaching some 500–600 participants.

Box 1 summarizes a case of IWMI capacity building in West Africa, which built capacity among several young researchers to conduct interdisciplinary research and communicate research fi ndings to a wide community of interested parties.

Box 2 summarizes IWMI capacity building activities for developing policy and institutional reform frameworks for the irrigation sectors of Cambodia, Indonesia, and Gujarat (India).

Boxes 3 and 4 summarize more development-focused capacity building where IWMI researchers have provided training and capacity building to help water users take on greater roles in the O&M of the irrigation systems supplying their fi elds in two schemes in Central Asia.

Imbalances between female and male users in access to water and other services continues to be a problem in many areas despite gender balance being a priority on the agenda of irrigation policy-makers, intervention agencies, irrigation leaders and researchers (Van Koppen, 2002). The gap between positive intentions and concrete actions remains considerable often, as argued by Van Koppen (2002), the result of a lack of adequate conceptualization and methodological tools that can provide insights that policy-makers and changes agents need. The challenge of closing this gap prompted the IWMI to develop of the poverty performance indicator for irrigation to identify the gender issues rooted in a society’s agrarian structure.

Box 5 summarizes an action research study in Pakistan where the IWMI worked with the local community to raise awareness of the potential for improved resource management


by involving both male and female members of the community. The study helped the community form separate organizations for the men and women in the village as vehicles for the development of shared visions and to implement joint action.

BOX 1EXAMPLE OF CAPACITY BUILDING FOR RESEARCH IN WEST AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES

The project “Improving the rural-urban nutrient cycle through municipal waste recycling for urban and peri-urban agriculture” (funded by the International Development Research Centre), of the IWMI subregional offi ce for West Africa, was initiated in three Ghanaian cities in order to analyse economically- and socially-acceptable options for organic waste composting for urban and peri-urban agriculture and to create related awareness. Capacity building for research and policy support was crucial, especially as “urban and peri-urban agriculture” was not well known in the national research context despite the fact that it is a common phenomenon in all the cities concerned. Throughout the three-year period of the project (2001–03), human resources development was strengthened at different levels including partnerships with local and foreign universities.

In total, 15 university departments covering a wide range of disciplines at three local universities, with 38 different academic supervisors of a total of 102 BSc, MSc and PhD students, contributed with their theses to the project, including 10 students from other countries (e.g. Canada, Denmark, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands and Switzerland). The students were introduced to urban and peri-urban agriculture and their individual topic through joint seminars with their supervisors and IWMI staff. They then worked in three cities, forming teams especially with foreign students, exchanged methodologies, etc. Related university departments received Internet access and workstations for the students as well as a local resource person employed at each university.

Some of the MSc students visited related project sites in other West African cities, such as Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Cotonou (Benin), Lomé and Tsévié (Togo), and Ibadan (Nigeria). Others were supported to present their results at international conferences. In addition, 22 students from universities had internships on various activities within the project, thus exposing them to scientifi c research, different cultures, and enriching the various teams.

Linkages were established with the municipalities, farmer groups (their formation was supported) and a local NGO (CEDEP) for the implementation of a pilot cocomposting station, community-based compost initiatives, and special school programmes (with Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency). About 2 300 junior secondary schools pupils in the three cities were involved in project-related household surveys to record food consumption and waste generation habits for one week. The fi nal scientifi c report is currently in preparation.

Contact: IWMI Ghana, Dr Pay Drechsel, [email protected]

BOX 2

POLICY SUPPORT IN CAMBODIA, INDONESIA, AND GUJARAT (INDIA)

The IWMI has provided support to policy working groups in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Gujarat (India) for their development of policy statements, legislation and regulations for irrigation sector reform. In Cambodia, the IWMI assisted the government in formulating a policy for its participatory irrigation management and development (PIMD) programme and supporting decrees and subdecrees on PIMD, farmer water user communities, and irrigation management transfer. It also helped prepare a training manual and monitoring and evaluation system for the PIMD programme.

In collaboration with the World Bank and an interorganizational work group, the IWMI has assisted Indonesia in formulating the institutional framework for irrigation sector reform, which includes federating WUAs to scheme level and transferring management authority to them. This policy support has included development of ministerial regulations for restructuring the fi nancing of the irrigation sector and for reorienting the roles and functions of irrigation sector organizations. The IWMI is monitoring pilot adoption of a new demand-driven, cost-sharing mechanism for providing fi nancial and technical assistance to WUAs.

In Gujarat (India), the IWMI has collaborated with the Participatory Irrigation Management Task Force of the State of Gujarat to develop a legislative act on participatory irrigation management.

In each of these cases, the IWMI has drawn on its synthesis of best practices and assisted these countries to consider a wide range of policy and institutional options aimed at providing the locally-appropriate combination of policy direction, institutional arrangements, and governance mechanisms.

Contact: Dr Doug Vermillion, IWMI-Bangkok, [email protected]


BOX 3

SUPPORTING WUA ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AT ON-FARM LEVEL, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPPORTING POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, UZBEKISTAN

In Karalpakstan (Uzbekistan), the IWMI assisted in WUA development in 2002 by implementing a series of seminars with the participation of all farmers, WUA specialists, rayon (local administration) -level agriculture and water resources management units, Khakimiyat (district local government) and the Ministry of Agriculture. The seminars focused on creating awareness of the WUA roles, main goal and tasks. By the end of December of 2002, the fi eld staff of these new water management organizations had participated in seminars on WUA in Tashkent (conducted by the IWMI and Ministry of Agriculture), and in workshops on water resources management in Uzbekistan.

These events provided the opportunity to increase the level of knowledge of the fi eld staff, and enabled IWMI researchers to accumulate knowledge on WUA development in the area.

In addition to activities at the fi eld level, the IWMI and its collaborator, the Scientifi c Information Center of the Interstate Commission on Water Coordination, organized a series of policy-dialogue workshops to develop an institutional framework for IWRM in the Ferghana Valley, which included drafting a regulation on canal water management committees.

Contact: Iskandar Abdullaev, IWMI-CAC, [email protected]

BOX 4

TRAINING OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SOCIAL MOBILIZATION FOR WUA ESTABLISHMENT AND TRAINING

In the three Central Asian republics sharing the Ferghana Valley, the IWMI organized a week of training activities in 2002 for the national, provincial and district water management staff of the ministries of agriculture and water resources, NGOs, and farmer representatives. In total, 30 trainees were trained. The training included: basic concepts of reforms, WUAs, new roles for irrigation and drainage service providers and water users, WUA laws and regulations, effective communications, confl ict resolution, and “dos and don’ts” of social mobilization. Twenty-three trainees attended the training workshop, and the IWMI received appreciations through formal and informal communications from the Interstate Commission on Water Coordination of Central Asia, ministries of agriculture and water resources, as well as from the trainee participants.

In order to demonstrate that the capacity building is a continuous process, several on-the-job group discussions were later held with the trainees when they started working in the fi eld.

Contact: Mehmood Ul Hassan, IWMI-CAC, [email protected]

BOX 5

MOBILIZING FEMALE PARTICIPATION IN IRRIGATION AND SANITATION IN RURAL PAKISTAN

In order to explore the potential for increasing the involvement of women in the management of irrigation in one pilot area (Hakra 4R) in Pakistan, the IWMI recruited volunteer social organizers, identifi ed by the male and female members of the community. By involving community-based volunteers, the mobilizers were not viewed as outsiders (who are usually treated with some apprehension) and were better able to generate local demand for productive and sustainable social organization. The community identifi ed candidates through separate meetings for the males and females. The volunteers received no payments for their activities in this project.

After formation of the new organizations in the village, with exclusively male farmers as members, the volunteer social organizers worked with the community to promote the development of female organizations to highlight the problems of domestic water supplies and sanitation that affected their lives.

These pilot activities have shown: (i) social mobilization in rural communities in Pakistan requires considerable time, particularly where females are to be fully involved; and (ii) overcoming social and cultural constraints requires local knowledge and continued support during the formation process.

After the formation of the new organizations the community members were clear in their appreciation of their common interests and made wise decisions in selecting their leaders, bypassing earlier prejudices over the caste and status of the leaders. The male leaders recognized the importance of the village women in the development of the village and took a lead in establishing the women’s organization. The women also recognized the importance of their participation in decision-making and showed willingness to work with the men to develop the village water resources. How sustainable these interventions will be after withdrawal of the external support to the new groups is yet to be determined.

Contact: Abdul Hamid, IWMI-Pak, [email protected]


CONCLUSIONS

All IWMI research and development projects include components that contribute to capacity building, either the capacity of the research team and collaborating researchers, or the provision of new knowledge to key stakeholders that helps them perform their tasks more effectively. Capacity building events and activities are recognized as an essential mechanism for transferring research fi ndings from the sphere of academic learning into the day-to-day operation of irrigation and drainage systems.

The IWMI is an active participant in initiatives focused on capacity building. For example, the IWMI is a partner organization of the IPTRID programme, which is increasingly focusing on capacity building for more effi cient, more productive and more sustainable water use and management in agriculture. This new approach is an opportunity for partner organizations to combine their capacity building efforts in a common international programme, allowing for better coordination, more awareness and greater visibility. The IWMI is also a regional centre of the Global Water Partnership and the host for the Secretariat of the Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment. Each of these initiatives provides additional routes through which research is disseminated to professionals and other stakeholders that need access to new tools, techniques and knowledge as they take on new challenges in providing or obtaining improved irrigation and drainage services and as they take on new responsibilities for water resources management.

Capacity building will continue to be a core part of IWMI research and development activities. In the past few years, the IWMI has broadened the range of the capacity building programmes it implements. In addition, it has become an active partner in a range of initiatives to ensure that research fi ndings reach those who need them in easily-accessible formats as quickly as possible. These efforts range from support to graduate students, through fi eld-scale pilot activities to support to top-level regional and international policy fora. Effective capacity building in the water resources and the irrigation and drainage sectors requires the active participation of a wide range of stakeholders with vastly different perceptions of the issues at stake. Wise decisions over the future utilization of water resources will depend on these stakeholders having access to science-based information and the capability to evaluate the consequences of their decisions and actions.

73

References

ADB. 2001. Water for all. The water policy of the Asian Development Bank. ADB Manila.

Alaerts, G.J. 1999a. Definitions intermezzo: ten annotated definitions of capacity building. InG.J. Alaerts, F.J.A. Hartvelt & F.-M. Patorni, eds. Water sector capacity building: concepts and instruments. Proceedings of the second UNDP symposium on water sector capacity building, Delft.

Alaerts, G.J. 1999b. Capacity building as knowledge management: purpose, definitions and instruments. In G.J. Alaerts, F.J.A. Hartvelt & F.-M. Patorni, eds. Water sector capacity building: concepts and instruments. Proceedings of the second UNDP symposium on water sector capacity building, Delft.

APP. 2003. Precious water. Cairo, Advisory Panel Project on Water Management.

Biswas, A.K. 1996 Capacity building for water management: some personal thoughts. Wat. Res. Dev., 12(4): 399–405.

Bolger, J. 2000. Capacity development: why, what and how. Capacity development occasional papers Vol. 1 No. 1. CIDA policy branch.

Browne, S. 2002. Introduction: rethinking capacity development for today’s challenges. In S.Browne, ed. Developing capacity through technical cooperation – country experiences. Earthscan ISBN 1 85383 969 8.

Eade, D. 1997. Capacity building: an approach to people-centred development. Oxfam Publication ISBN 0 85598 366 3.

FAO. 1998. Modernization of irrigation system operations. In D. Renault & T. Facon, eds. Proc.5th ITIS network international meeting, Aurangabad. FAO–RAP Publication 1999/43 (alsoavailable at http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/oldocsw.jsp).

FAO. 1999. Transfer of irrigation management services: guidelines, by D.L. Vermillion & J.A. Sagardoy. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 58. Rome.

FAO. 2000. Treadle pumps for irrigation in Africa, by M.G. Kay & T. Brabben. Knowledge Synthesis Report No. 1 October. IPTRID/FAO. Rome. ISBN 92-5-104490-2.

FAO. 2002. New frontiers in capacity building in drainage, by H.P. Ritzema & W. Wolters, W. In: Capacity building for drainage in North Africa. Workshop proceeding Cairo, March 2001. IPTRID/FAO.

FAO. 2003. Workshop on irrigation advisory services. ICID/FAO Montreal July 2002.

Fukuda-Parr, S., Lopes, C. & Malik, K. 2002. Institutional innovations for capacity development. In S. Fukuda-Parr, C. Lopes & K. Malik, eds. Capacity for development – new solutions to old problems.

IIMI (International Irrigation Management Institute) & DID (Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Government of Malaysia). 1989. Training needs assessment in Malaysia. Colombo.

IPTRID/FAO. 1999. Poverty reduction and irrigated agriculture. Issues paper No 1. Rome

IWMI. 2003. Primary proposal for an international program on effective governance of water resources. Colombo.

Jacobs, J.W. 1999. Comparing river basin development experiences in the Mississippi and the Mekong. Wat. Int., 24(3).


Kay, M.G. 2001. Training for irrigation water management transfer: a case study review. Unpublished report prepared for IFAD.

Kuper, M., Bélières, J.F. & Coulibaly, Y. 2002. Perspectives of regional development of the Officedu Niger irrigation scheme in Mali. In S.J. Visser, ed. Modernisation of water management: technological and institutional improvements in irrigation and drainage, pp. 99–110. Proc. 7th Netherlands national ICID symposium, 4 April 2002. Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Malano, H.M. & van Hofwegen, P. 1999. Irrigation and drainage system management - a service approach. IHE Monograph 3. Rotterdam/Brookfield, the Netherlands, A.A. Balkema. ISBN90-5410-482-1/90-5410-483X.

Moore, M. 1995. Promoting good governance by supporting institutional development. IDS Bulletin Vol. 26 No. 2.

Morgan, P. 1998. Capacity and capacity development – some strategies. Note prepared for the Political and Social Policies Division, Policy Branch, CIDA. October.

NRSP. 2003. Sustained effort can pay well. In: Research highlights 2001–2002. Natural resources systems programme DFID. UK.

Pant, D., Thapa, S., Singh, A., Bhattarai, M. & Molden, D. 2003. Integrated management of water, forest and land resources in Nepal: opportunities for improved livelihood. IWMI Comprehensive Assessment Report

RNED-HA. 1992. Irrigation. Collection Guide pratique du Cemagref. Cemagref-DICOVA BP 22 Parc de Tourvoie 92 162 Antony Cedex France. 294 pp.

Samad, M. & Bandaragoda, T. 1999. Methodological guidelines, five country regional study on development of effective water management institutions. Colombo, IWMI.

Shah, T., Makin, I. & Sakthivadivel, R. 2002. Limits of leapfrogging: issues in transposing successful river basin management institutions in developing world. In C. Abernethy, ed. Intersectoralmanagement of river basins. Colombo, IWMI.

Svendsen, M. & Vermillion, D.L. 1994. Irrigation management transfer in the Columbia Basin: lessons and international implications. Colombo, IIMI.

The Economist. 2003. A question of trust. February.

UNDP. 1998. Water – capacity building for sustainable development. Published in collaboration with FAO, UNRP, UNESCO, WHO and WMO. New York, USA.

Van Hofwegen, P. 1996. Accountability mechanisms and farmer participation: three cases in Indonesia, Morocco and the Netherlands. Proc. 16th ICID Congress, Cairo, September 1996. Vol. I-B Q-46.3.

Van Koppen, B. 2002. A gender performance indicator for irrigation: concepts, tools and applications.IWMI Research Report 59. Colombo, IWMI.

Van Koppen, B., Parthasarathy, R. & Safiliou, C. 2002. Poverty dimensions of irrigation management transfer in large-scale canal irrigation in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, India.IWMI Research Report 61. Colombo, IWMI.

Vermillion, D.L. 1997. Impacts of irrigation management transfer: a review of evidence. IWMI Research Report 11. Colombo, IWMI.

Vermillion, D.L. 2003. The emerging governance paradigm for irrigation management and development. Int. J. Wat. Pol. Prac., 1(March): 37–47.

World Bank. 2003. Sourcebook on smallholder irrigation: the role of markets and modern low-cost technologies.

Yoder, R., ed. 1994. Designing irrigation structures for mountainous environments: a handbook of experience. Colombo, IIMI.

75

Annexes

77

STRENGTHENING CAPACITY FOR IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE RESEARCH IN TUNISIA

In Tunisia, about 22 percent of the population is associated with the agriculture sector and 40 percent depend directly or indirectly on this. The irrigated sector provides 30–35 percent of the mean value of the total agricultural production, 13–15 percent of the gross domestic product, and 20 percent of the agricultural export products. In the near future, 50 percent of the agricultural production should be provided by 7 percent of the effective agricultural area. However, the development of the irrigated sector has to face sustainability problems owing to overexploitation of the shallow groundwater, and risks of degradation of the soil properties and environment pollution problems when marginal waters are applied inadequately. The mobilization of additional water resources is technically increasingly difficult and expensive. Moreover, the new scenario of agricultural trade liberalization requires an increased competitiveness from the irrigation sector with a better and higher valorization of the allocated water resources. Therefore, water research must resolve efficiency, productivity and environment integrity imperatives, i.e. sustaining farmers and guaranteeing a satisfying quantity and quality of food while preserving natural resources.

The research programme “Water saving in irrigation” is in progress and some goals have been achieved regarding research management, capacity strengthening, and uptake of research findings. An increase in the research capabilities has occurred during the implementation of the research programme. Partnerships have been forged with national and foreign institutions. Training has been provided in order to build the capacities of the researchers, engineers and technicians involved in the programme. The linkage between research and extension is part of the research actions.

Akissa el Bahri

INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING OF USERS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PERUVIAN COASTAL VALLEYS

The paper examines the institutional strengthening of water user organizations, known as user boards, in Peru. Irrigation in Peru was traditionally top-down, but in recent years the government has been actively pursuing a policy of management transfer. The case study describes a programme of participative training for 64 user boards to encourage them take on the full responsibility for local water management including the collection of fees from farmers and to encourage private funding in irrigation. Evaluations showed significant increases in the number of boards setting up plans for water distribution and prioritizing maintenance as well as increases in the collection of funds from farmers.

Alvaro Ledesma

Annex 1Country papers and complementary

papers – abstracts


CAPACITY BUILDING FOR WATER USER ASSOCIATIONS IN ALBANIA

This case examined capacity development of WUAs in Albania and presents a detailed history of the development of water user groups as part of a major investment in irrigation following Albania’s transition from a command to a market economy. It describes the steps taken at farm level to introduce the concept of WUAs to farmers, who were more accustomed to being directed by others, and at a national level were changes were made to the legal structure in order to establish the rights and responsibilities of associations. It is still too early to evaluate the success of these significant changes and time is needed for people to change “after 46 years of repressive communism”. However, the author is optimistic about the eventual outcome.

Ylli Dedja

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR PARTICIPATORY IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT – LESSONS LEARNED FROM ANDHRA PRADESH

Governments and irrigation agencies across the world have been encouraging farmers to play a larger role in irrigation management. Such changes have stemmed from changes in government policy and fiscal crises, or they have formed a part of the overall reforms in the state. Although the process has been highly varied in modality and approach, the overall trend in decentralizing irrigation management in favour of local communities has been quite consistent. Transferring irrigation management to farmers calls for new skills not only among farmers but also among irrigation agencies, governments and civil society. While the need for capacity building is well recognized, very often, token funding for training and capacity building coupled with training being accorded a low priority makes it a wasteful if not redundant exercise. As the process of reforms progresses, new capacities among policy-makers, governments, civil society and WUAs are required in order to cope with increasing challenges. Only a sustained attempt at capacity building will enable policy-makers, agencies and farmers to cope with the increasing challenges and consequences of irrigation management transfer. This paper summarizes the author’s experience in launching a major capacity building exercise as a part of the irrigation reforms launched in Andhra Pradesh in 1997. Despite training needs assessment and an effective communication strategy for addressing knowledge gaps and imparting skills, further involvement of farmers can be achieved effectively through farmer networks that can play a significant role in the capacity building process. Farmer networks comprising activist farmers can be very important intermediaries between the state and the farmers, and could play a vital role in providing inputs and articulating views and opinions among farmers and the government.

J. Raymond Peter

GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN WATER MANAGEMENT – CHIPAPA IRRIGATION SCHEME, ZAMBIA

The case study gives a physical contextual setting of the Chipapa Irrigation Scheme in the country. The original objectives as conceived by the colonial government for setting up the scheme are reviewed and the assistance provided thus far by different stakeholders to the scheme is explained. The Empowerment of Women in Irrigation and Water Resources Management for Improved Household Food Security, Health and Nutrition (WIN) approach is described, which after its implementation resulted in gender mainstreaming and overall community empowerment. The study provides lessons learned using the WIN approach to development. In so doing, identified gaps will be taken as possible areas of future concentration at the Chipapa Irrigation Scheme.

Mwase Phiri

Annex 1 – Country papers and complementary papers – abstracts 79

THE ROLE OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN CAPACITY BUILDING – EIER–ETSHER IN WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

To support their socio-economic development, 14 countries of West and Central Africa created the Ecole Inter-Etats d’Ingénieurs de l’Equipement Rural (EIER) and the Ecole Inter-Etats des Techniciens Supèrieurs de l’Hydraulique et de l’Equipement Rural (ETSHER). According to its mission and activities, the EIER–ETSHER Group plays a leading role in capacity building generally in the agricultural engineering sector and particularly in the irrigation and drainage sector in West and Central Africa. To date, some 2 500 higher technicians, engineers and graduates from country members have succeeded in the different training and education courses. Some 4 500 trainees have followed various extension courses, including 280 in irrigation and drainage extension programmes. The EIER–ETSHER Group is an example of integrated interregional cooperation between French-speaking countries of West and Central Africa for capacity building support.

Laurent Compaore

OUTPUTS ON CAPACITY BUILDING FROM THE 9TH INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE WORKSHOP

The 9th International Drainage Workshop (IDW9) ”Drainage for a secure environment and food supply” was held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, from 10 to 13 September 2003, immediately prior to the ICID meeting in Montpellier.

The theme of the workshop was the role of drainage in IWRM. Four topics were discussed:• Innovative drainage technologies in agriculture;• Drainage: a tool for IWRM in agriculture;• Drainage institutions for participatory development;• Capacity building in drainage.

The workshop required active participation of those present and went beyond presentation of papers. The working method adopted is called “open space technology”.

The output of the workshop was action plans for all topics. This presentation focuses on the topic of capacity building.

Before the workshop started, the challenge for each topic was formulated, and a picture was chosen to represent the challenge. For capacity building it was: How can we provide effective capacity building?

IWRM

OrganizationKnowledge & Skills

Good Job

Performance


The picture shows a person. People are central to capacity building, even though capacity building goes beyond individuals. The working environment forms the basis on which the person stands, as how in reality, people depend on their working environment for their capacity development. The person in the picture is standing on two feet. At the start of capacity building there are also two pillars: the knowledge and skill of the person involved; and the organization in which the person is working. The achievement of the person in the picture, i.e. the weight lifted, comprises aspects of IWRM and good job performance. These are the main objectives of capacity building.

The workshop discussed the idea that drainage as such is no longer the main focus of our work. Drainage is to be seen within the context of IWRM. It needs our effort to be able to think and act based on this. For example, so far we have often considered agriculture alone when calculating drainage requirements. However, drainage could have other functions, there could be nature/environmental concerns with regard to drainage. We should be able to design and operate drainage systems for this.

With regard to capacity building, there has also been a change. We should stop thinking that we need fill people with information during training and that that is it. At present, there is an overload of information rather than a shortage. People should become problem solvers, and be able to deal with information in an efficient way. This they can learn, by doing it themselves. For that, we need to build capacity. This needs to go beyond formal training. It should also include on-the-job training, collaborative research, joint action, and partnerships. Furthermore, the content and structure of training should change in order to allow people to develop problem-solving skills.

Show the shift

In summary, we should be able to show the shift that needs to be made:• drainage to IWRM;• capacity building approach.

Shift the show

Moreover, we should shift the show. We should stop working based on what we think we should do. Our work should be demand/client oriented. Furthermore, we should stop pushing drainage. When working from the wider view of IWRM, we should be able to indicate the role of drainage, not the other way around.

• work based on demand/client;

• stop pushing drainage.

In brief, the conclusions were:

• Capacity building is more than training. It also includes education, research, organizational development, and awareness raising – among individuals as well as organizations, policy-makers, and bureaucrats.

• More work needs to be done to put drainage in the context of IWRM: Capacity building is required for this at different levels and through different actions.

• Partnerships are a good conduit for building capacity to solve water management issues.

• Longer-term commitments and partnerships are essential.

Annex 1 – Country papers and complementary papers – abstracts 81

Action plans

The workshop did not conclude with a “Declaration of Utrecht”. Action plans were prepared and presented at the end of the workshop. All the workshop participants were in a position to add their action items to the action plans of other working groups. With regard to capacity building, the action plans concentrated on:• textbooks, readers and other materials;• curriculum development;• training of trainers;• research on multifunctional aspects of land and water development;• ICID working group on drainage in IWRM;• drainage ambassadors (in the context of IWRM).

Partners in these action plans are: FAO, World Bank, ANGRAU, India, Malaysia, Alterra–ILRI, and the Wageningen University and Research Centre (the Netherlands).

All participants of the workshop on capacity building are invited to participate. More information on action plans and participation is available through the IDW9 follow up at www.ilri.nl.

Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Alterra–ILRI

IPTRID’S NEW CHALLENGE ON CAPACITY BUILDING

World irrigation has grown from 8 million ha in 1800 to 275 million ha today. Irrigated agriculture now meets more than 40 percent of the world’s food and fibre and produces 60 percent of the world’s cereals. World population is expected to grow by a further 30 percent in the next 25 years, mainly in the developing world where water is in short supply. More than 1 300 million people do not have access to enough food at household level and the problem is growing. Many of them live in dry and drought-prone areas. They rely mainly on agriculture for their livelihood, but most of them farm plots of less than 2 ha and live in conditions with unreliable and highly variable rainfall. Many also live in areas where excess water makes agriculture risky. Thus, it is clear that irrigation and drainage will continue to play a major role in food production and poverty alleviation. This situation is not without serious risks and difficulties.

Indeed, the question about irrigation is not “why” but “how”. Irrigation history is marked not only by successes, but also by failures and catastrophes. The question is how to avoid problems such as the decline of the Aral Sea (which has shrunk by three-quarters), the salinization of 1.5 million ha of land each year, the rapid depletion of groundwater in many dry regions, and the intrusion of saline water in coastal aquifers. It is also about how to avoid conflicts. It is about how to tackle the fact that agriculture in developing countries uses more than 80 percent of all the water withdrawn, while a great deal of this is misused and mismanaged as a result of weak institutions, lack of expertise, and poor water policies. There is a considerable risk that countries might pursue inadequate policies and practices. If nothing is done urgently about this, more environmental and human disasters could occur.

Why does such a situation exist and how can we avoid it? The reason for misuse and mismanagement of water in agriculture is that irrigation is not just a question of dams, canals, pipes and technologies. It is above all a question of human and institutional capacities. The human factor needs to be taken into account in investment plans much more than in the past. In future, the development of new irrigated areas, and the modernization of existing irrigation


schemes, will have to pay more attention to the people and organizations involved. Improving the efficiency and productivity of the use of water for agriculture, while avoiding further environmental catastrophes, is first of all a question of providing the right expertise to all stakeholders involved. It is also a question of improving institutions. Capacity development should be seen as an integrated concept that goes well beyond training, and embraces also the concepts of research and demonstration, technology transfer, participation, empowerment, technical assistance, and institutional development.

The need for investment in capacity development is great. In order to achieve sustainable water management and higher water productivity in agriculture, there is an urgent need to increase the investment in the technical and managerial capacity of people and institutions at all levels – from farmers to governments. New integrated capacity development programmes and projects are needed throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America in order to: enhance research and experimentation capacities; set up demonstration sites and training programmes; produce field guides and training material; develop monitoring and decision-support systems; strengthen water management and planning capacities; and raise awareness. Increased and more effective investment in capacity development is required, partly from country budgets and partly from donors. The amount needed is difficult to estimate, but it should probably be at least US$1 000 million/year. To achieve this, there is a need for strategic planning, project preparation, funding facilitation and assistance for project implementation. This is where the IPTRID comes in, as a partner of governments and funding institutions, to help bridge this gap.

The IPTRID was created in 1990 by the World Bank and the UNDP in collaboration with the ICID. Initially located at the World Bank in Washington, DC, it was transferred to FAO in Rome in 1998. Its initial mission was to enhance research and development in irrigation and drainage technology in developing countries. Between July 2002 and July 2003, the IPTRID Secretariat reformulated the strategy and programme in close consultation with the main donors and members of the IPTRID network. The new strategy was officially endorsed by Consultative Group and Management Committee of the IPTRID at their meetings on 18 September 2003 in Montpellier, France.

The new challenge for the IPTRID is to cooperate with governments and funding institutions in assessing capacity development needs and in formulating sustainable agricultural water management strategies within the framework of IWRM, and to facilitate funding and implementation of capacity development programmes and projects with a central focus on technology transfer and the uptake of research results. Thus, within the broad scope of capacity development, the IPTRID will act as a facilitator. Its niche is similar to that of an architect, designing innovative solutions and helping to implement them in close cooperation with governments and funding agencies. The IPTRID will meet this challenge by mobilizing expertise and resources through its wide network of knowledge institutions and resource centres.

Olivier Cogels, IPTRID’s Programme Manager

83

Hours Subject Speaker

0900–1030 Welcome and introduction Tom Franks, chairman

A framework for capacity building in irrigation and drainage

Melvyn KayFAO-ILRI

Capacity building for water and irrigation sector management with application in Indonesia

Paul van Hofwegen

World Water Council

Strengthening capacity for irrigation and drainage research in Tunisia

Akissa el BahriNRIAEWF

1030–1100 Tea and coffee

1100–1230 Institutional strengthening of the users organisations in the Peruvian coastal valleys

Alvaro LedesmaPSI, Peru

Capacity-building for water user associations in Albania

Ylli Dedja 2nd IDRP

Who will do what and how? Achieving effective capacity building in water resources

Ian Makin, International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

1230–1400 Lunch

1400–1530 Capacity building for participatory irrigation management – Lessons learnt from Andhra Pradesh

Raymond PeterINPIM

Gender mainstreaming in water management – Chipapa Irrigation Scheme, Zambia

Mwase Phiri, WIN Project, Zambia

The role of training and education in capacity building – EIER-ETSHER in West and Central Africa

Laurent Compaore EIER-ETSHER

1530–1600 Tea and coffee

1600–1730 Outputs on capacity building workshop from the 9th International Drainage Workshop (IDW9)

Catharien van ScheltingaILRI

IPTRID's new challenge on capacity building Olivier CogelsIPTRID

Plenary discussion

Conclusion Tom Franks, Chairman

Annex 2Workshop programme

85

Name Institute E-mail

Akissa Bahri INRGREF (NARIWF) [email protected]

Ali Fulazzarky Mohamed Director General of Water ResourcesMinistry of SRIIndonesia

[email protected]

Muhammad Amlish Pakistan [email protected]

Sanjay Belsare Irrigation Department Government of MaharashtraIndia

[email protected] +91-22-22831817

Chris Béné World Fish Center [email protected]

Jean-Marc Burri Spain [email protected]

Olivier Cogels FAO-International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID)Rome

[email protected]

Laurent Compaore Moussa

Ecole Inter-Etats d’Ingénieurs de l’Equipement Rural (EIER)- Ecole Inter-Etats des Techniciens Supèrieurs de l’Hydraulique et de l’Equipement Rural (ETSHER)Burkina Faso

[email protected]

Geoffrey Croke Psi-Delta [email protected]

Michele A. Cuccaro Comitato Nazionale Italiano (ITALICID)-ECOMAR Eng. CompanyItaly

[email protected]

A. Delacourt France [email protected]

Harry W. Denecke FAO-IPTRIDRome

[email protected]

Samia El Gundy MWREgypt

[email protected].

Annex 3List of participants


Name Institute E-mailSara Fernandez FAO-IPTRID

[email protected]

Tom Franks ICID [email protected]

Sonia Gaoury Cranfield University SilsoeUK

[email protected]

Xaier Goosens Laboratoire Energetique ET Phenomenes De Transfert (LEPT-ENSAM), University of BordeauxFrance

[email protected]

Vaidjoua Guineo Société Générale Etudes et de ConseilCHAD (SOGEC/Tchad)

[email protected]

Mohamed Hassen National Water Research CentreEgypt

[email protected]

Hu Heping Tsinghua UniversityBeijing, China

[email protected]

Frans Huibers Wageningen University Irrigationthe Netherlands

[email protected]

Kay Melvyn ConsultantUK

[email protected]

Bruce Lankford School of Development StudiesUniversity. of East AngliaUK

[email protected]

Alvaro Ledasma PSI (subsectorial irrigation project)Peru

[email protected]

Lee Peter Mott MacDonalUK

[email protected]

Ligetuari F. Hungary [email protected]

Ian Makin IWMI [email protected]

Yasunobu Matoba Agricultural Development Consultants Association, Japan

[email protected]

Abdon Monlaye Nigerian Association for promotion of private irrigation (ANPIP)Niger

[email protected]@intnet.neTel: (227) 73-38-07Fax: (22&) 73-62-93

Annex 3 – List of participants 87

Name Institute E-mailAndré Musy Swiss Federal Institute of

Technology (EPFL)Switzerland

[email protected]

Waseem Nazir Mot Mc Donalds,Pakistan [email protected] Neveu de Villemarceau

Consultant FAO [email protected]

Hasan Özlü DYWIDAG System Internationl (DSI)Turkey

[email protected]

Geoff Pearce HR WallingfordUK

[email protected]

Raymond Peter International Network on International Participatory Management (INPIM)

[email protected]

Mwase Phiri Ministry of Agriculture and CooperativesWIN Project

[email protected] or [email protected]

Hervi Plusquellec Consultant [email protected] Reinders South African Committee

on Irrigation and Drainage (SANCID)

[email protected]

Daniel Renault FAORome

[email protected]

Henk Ritzema Alterra-ILRIthe Netherlands

[email protected]

Adama Roullin Hervé Canal St. Julien [email protected] Association Malienne

Irrigation et Drainage (AMID)Mali

[email protected]

Robiyanto H. Susanto Sriwizaya University Indonesia

[email protected]

Terwisscha van Scheltinga Catharien

Alterra-ILRIthe Netherlands

[email protected]

Paul van Hofwegen World Water Council (WWC)France

[email protected]

Jean Verdier FAO-IPTRID [email protected]

Bénédicte Veyrac France ToulouseFrance

[email protected]

Linden Vincent Wageningen [email protected]


Name Institute E-mailZvonimir Vukelic Faculty of Civil Engineering,

Skopie, [email protected]

Robina Wahaj Consultant, FAO [email protected]

Graham Wilson Environment AgencyUK

[email protected]

Yoshimitsu Yukawa Member of Working group on Development and Management of Irrigation System. Represented Dr. M. Satoh (Japan), Consultant

[email protected]

D. Zavgorodnyaya Germany/Uzbekistan [email protected]/[email protected]

FAO TECHNICAL PAPERS

WATER REPORTS

1 Prevention of water pollution by agriculture and related

activities, 1993 (E S)

2 Irrigation water delivery models, 1994 (E)

3 Water harvesting for improved agricultural

production, 1994 (E)

4 Use of remote sensing techniques in irrigation and

drainage, 1995 (E)

5 Irrigation management transfer, 1995 (E)

6 Methodology for water policy review and reform,

1995 (E)

7 Irrigation in Africa in figures/L’irrigation en Afrique en

chiffres, 1995 (E/F)

8 Irrigation scheduling: from theory to practice,

1996 (E)

9 Irrigation in the Near East Region in figures,

1997 (E)

10 Quality control of wastewater for irrigated crop

production, 1997 (E)

11 Seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers – Guide lines for

study, monitoring and control, 1997 (E)

12 Modernization of irrigation schemes: past ex periences

and future options, 1997 (E)

13 Management of agricultural drainage water quality, 1997

(E)

14 Irrigation technology transfer in support of food security,

1997 (E)

15 Irrigation in the countries of the former Soviet Union in

figures, 1997 (E) (also published as RAP Publication

1997/22)

16 Télédétection et ressources en eau/Remote sensing and

water resources, 1997 (F/E)

17 Institutional and technical options in the de velopment and

management of small-scale irrigation, 1998 (E)

18 Irrigation in Asia in figures, 1999 (E)

19 Modern water control and management practices in

irrigation – Impact on performance, 1999 (E)

20 El riego en América Latina y el Caribe en cifras/Irrigation

in Latin America and the Caribbean in figures, 2000 (S/E)

21 Water quality management and control of water pollution,

2000 (E)

22 Deficit irrigation practices, 2002 (E)

23 Review of world water resources by country, 2003 (E)

24 Rethinking the approach to groundwater and food

security, 2003 (E)

25 Groundwater management: the search for practical

approaches, 2003 (E)

26 Capacity development in irrigation and drainage. Issues,

challenges and the way ahead, 2004 (E)

Availability: July 2004

Ar – Arabic Multil – Multilingual

C – Chinese * Out of print

E – English ** In preparation

F – French

P – Portuguese

S – Spanish

Documents

Capacity development in - WaterWiki.netwaterwiki.net/images/d/d4/CapacityDevelopmentIrrigation... · 2010-12-18 · Capacity development in irrigation and drainage Issues, challenges