Upload
maurits-w-ertsen
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.476
FROM CENTRAL CONTROL TO SERVICE DELIVERY? REFLECTIONSON IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE1y
MAURITS W. ERTSEN*
Water Resources/Water Management Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
the Netherlands
ABSTRACT
The demand upon irrigated agriculture to modernize to improve productivity is increasing. This paper defines some
of the key challenges the irrigation experts face in responding to this societal demand on irrigation, with a focus on
water delivery. Histories of management and design in irrigation engineering still influence current perceptions of
irrigation, although new ideas from research have influenced the ways irrigation management has developed in the
last 30 years. Currently, modernization of irrigation is understood as transforming irrigation management to enable
it to serve the demands of farmers. The position of irrigation experts changed from being the main person
responsible for an entire production system to being a service-oriented manager. Taking into account farmer
demand and responses to water deliveries is still a challenge for many agencies. The paper argues that, even though
farmer interventions are not always appropriate, farmer interventions are to be taken as standard in irrigation.
Engineers should ensure that systems deliver what is asked for, through selecting physical components within a
clearly defined operational strategy. Such a service-oriented approach demands irrigation experts with high
technical qualifications in hydraulics and hydrology. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: modernization; engineering knowledge; farmer intervention; service delivery
Received 17 November 2008; Accepted 17 November 2008
RESUME
La demande de modernisation de l’agriculture irriguee pour ameliorer la productivite augmente. Cet article
presente quelques-uns des principaux defis auxquels les experts en irrigation sont confrontes pour repondre a la
demande de la societe, en mettant l’accent sur la distribution de l’eau. L’histoire de l’ingenierie de l’irrigation a
encore une influence sur la conception et la gestion de l’irrigation, bien que, depuis trente ans, de nouvelles idees
issues de la recherche aient permis la mise au point des nouvelles pratiques de gestion. Desormais la modernisation
de l’irrigation est comprise comme la transformation de la gestion de l’irrigation pour lui permettre de repondre a la
demande des agriculteurs. L’expert n’est plus en position de principal responsable de l’ensemble du systeme mais
de gestionnaire axee sur le service. Prendre en compte la demande des agriculteurs et leurs reponses a la fourniture
*Correspondence to: Dr Maurits W. Ertsen, Water Resources/Water Management Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,Delft University of Technology. P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] controle centralise a la gestion d’un service? Reflexions sur la gestion de l’irrigation et l’expertise en irrigation.1This paper has been written as a combined response to three different demands made on the author. A first demand came from the editors of thejournal to prepare an overview on irrigation management, on the occasion of the 5thWorldWater Forum to be held in Istanbul in 2009. A seconddemand came from the current chairman of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Peter Lee, who asked during an ICIDmeeting in Sacramento, USA, in October 2007, what more ICID could do on modernization than the Food and Agricultural Organization hadproposed in its MASSCOTE approach (Renault et al., 2007). The third demand cannot be attributed to a single person, but comes from the re-merging attention on irrigation development, especially in Africa, within the international community (World Bank, 2007).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
S88 M. W. ERTSEN
d’eau est toujours un defi pour de nombreux organismes. L’article fait valoir que, meme si les interventions de
l’agriculteur ne sont pas toujours appropriees, ce sont elles qui doivent etre prises comme norme en irrigation. Les
ingenieurs doivent veiller a ce que les systemes delivrent ce qui est demande, en choisissant les composants
physiques dans une strategie operationnelle clairement definie. Cette approche axee sur le service demande des
experts hautement qualifies en hydraulique et en hydrologie. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots cles: modernisation; connaissance des ingenieurs; intervention des agriculteurs; gestionnaire du service
INTRODUCTION
It is clear that the challenge facing irrigation is immense (Schultz and De Wrachien, 2002). Pressure on water
resources in general is increasing, demands from other sectors for these resources are increasing, and the demand
upon irrigated agriculture to save water and improve productivity at the same time is also increasing. Furthermore,
it is generally perceived that irrigation performs less well than it could in terms of water productivity and efficient
water use. Many options for successful measures to improve these two are available, including improving irrigation
infrastructure, management procedures and the need for measures to be evaluated for cost-benefit. However, the
precise shapes, formats and types of measures will be context-dependent. ‘‘Irrigation projects differ by origin of
water, water conveyance facilities (canals or pressurized systems), method of water application on farms, strategy
of water allocation and control, reliability of water resources, value of crops and so forth’’ (Plusquellec, 2002).
Sometimes such differences can be found within the same irrigation system (see Figures 1 and 2). Discussing
practical measures to improve irrigation as such is therefore rather difficult without introducing many of the
specifics of the case under study. Therefore, rather than focusing on specificmeasures, this contribution aims to give
an overview of discussions on improving irrigation performance in order to define some of the key challenges
the irrigation experts face in responding to the demands society makes on irrigation.
The paper continues with setting a theoretical background of irrigation as a social practice aiming at
manipulating the hydrological cycle to produce food, with its associated social and technical aspects. Then the
paper will discuss histories of management and design in irrigation engineering, as these are still highly relevant in
understanding current perceptions of irrigation. In the following section, the paper discusses the perceptions and
Figure 1. Rehabilitated secondary canal in an Argentinean irrigation system.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
Figure 2. Non-rehabilitated secondary canal in the same Argentinean system.
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S89
ideas in irrigation management of the last 30 years, which have been shaped as both continuation of, and response
to, these histories. In the next section, farmer interventions in irrigation, which are usually perceived as negative and
to be avoided, are identified as highly important to take into account in reaching flexible water delivery. Although
not positive by definition, farmer interventions are a fact of life and have the potential to serve as a basis to develop
better services. In the final sections, demands upon the irrigation expert community from society are linked to the
knowledge and skills irrigation experts should develop. Through an overview of recent research, understanding
both social and technical issues are pointed out as highly relevant. It is in the combination of the two aspects,
however, that key issues are located for successful irrigation improvements. The paper is obviously restricted in
discussing every issue at length or in depth. Ample references are provided for the reader to make up for this
restriction. However, to put some flesh on the theoretical bones, the paper continues by discussing a case study as a
way of introducing the more theoretical concepts discussed later.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
S90 M. W. ERTSEN
SETTING THE SCENE: IRRIGATION IN ARGENTINA
The Rıo Dulce basin in Argentina covers about 100 000 km2. Within its catchment, the irrigation area known as the
Proyecto Rıo Dulce (PRD) is of upmost importance to the local economy. A total of 122 000 ha has water rights,
about 50 000 have been irrigated in the last two decades; about 100 000 ha have been irrigated in recent years.
Centuries ago, in 1577, the Spanish built their first irrigation ditch (acequia) in the area. In 1583 this reached a
length of 5 km. In 1873, 73 of such acequias existed. These canals were not the small ditches one would perhaps
expect: most were longer than 10 km, some extending even up to 50 km with a width of 6 m. Official records
indicate that about 8000 ha were irrigated by the acequias, but in practice this figure would have been higher
(Michaud, 1942). In 1878 the La Cuarteada canal was built to pass floodwater from the Rıo Dulce to the Rıo Salado
(Michaud, 1942; Achaval, 1988). However, instead of diverting excess water, the canal inundated the land around
it. Before long individual agriculturists began to build their acequias from La Cuarteada, thus changing a canal
basically built for flood control (drainage) into an irrigation canal. In 1886 an intake structure was constructed for
La Cuarteada (Michaud, 1942; Achaval, 1988). A new intake came into use in 1898 (HARZA, 1965). Masse (1906)
called this structure the largest intake in Argentina at that time.
In 1905 the existing irrigation infrastructure was extended further. From then on, the intake diverted water to a
main canal, at the end of which (La Darsena) Canal Norte, Canal Sud and Canal La Cuarteada branched off
(Michaud, 1942). This was the first public irrigation system in Santiago del Estero. It has become the basis for the
existing infrastructure on the left bank of the modern Proyecto Rıo Dulce. It irrigated about 38 500 ha; 14 500 ha
were irrigated from private acequias (HARZA, 1965). In 1913 a communal canal on the right bank was constructed,
the Canal San Martın, with a length of 64 km (Michaud, 1942). The canal systems on both banks received water
when flow and water level of the river were sufficiently high. Farmers had to make use of the start of the rainy
season in November or December to prepare their lands and sow their crops. During the rainy summer, one or two
irrigation turns were usually available, but water availability and thus the number of turns changed from year to
year. Most farms were relatively small: on the left bank, more than 1000 farms (of a total of nearly 2000) were
between 1 and 5 ha, with only 9 more than 100 ha (Michaud, 1942). Around 1923, many European farmers arrived
in Santiago, resulting in a sharp increase in the amount of irrigated land, with a clear decrease of available water per
hectare as a result. According to normal irrigation practice in the area these farmers received water at the end of an
irrigation turn. Soon they realized that irrigation water availability was not enough to sustain their needs; farmer
representatives approached the provincial government and later the national government to install works to increase
the amount of water (Prieto, 2006).
In 1947 the federal organization for water affairs Agua y Energıa Electrica (AyEE) began to build a permanent
diversion weir in the river, the Dique Los Quiroga (Michaud, 1942; Gastaminza, 1989). At first, the main canal fed
by Los Quiroga, La Matriz, only diverted water to the La Cuarteada system. The San Martın continued to derive
water directly from the river, as did the remaining private acequias. However, these canals downstream of Los
Quiroga had difficulty in getting water, in particular during periods of low flow. Through the intervention of the
national government, the San Martın system was connected to La Matriz through a siphon around 1954 (Prieto,
2006). Overall water availability was to be improved by a reservoir in north-west Santiago, the Embalse del Rıo
Hondo. The AyEE presented plans in 1957 and the reservoir was completed in 1968 (Gastaminza, 1989). In 1966
the Proyecto Rıo Dulce was formulated (Gastaminza, 1989). New canals were to be constructed, old canals
rehabilitated and the acequia system was to be replaced by a tertiary unit system. Activities could not be extended
to all the irrigated areas of the PRD. Two existing areas (parts of the former La Darsena system and the Canal San
Martin) and one new area (Colonia Simbolar) can be considered modernized, with the remaining (larger) area
virtually unchanged (Figures 1 and 2).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: IRRIGATION AS A SOCIAL PRACTICE
This example shows that large-scale irrigation development in this semi-arid area in Argentina needs to be
understood in terms of series of actions by smaller groups of stakeholders within a context of the changing position
of central state authority. It should not be a surprise that, given that in human society control of knowledge,
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S91
possessions and power is skewed, the outcome of this competition is socially stratified. In the PRD, as in many
irrigation systems, water is unevenly allocated (Ertsen and Van Nooijen, in press). Furthermore, to control flows of
water, resources need to be enrolled, like canals and division boxes. Social relationships are re(shaped) and changed
when agents struggle with and upon artefacts (Van der Zaag, 1992). Power is not something hidden, negative or
obscure; it is expressed daily in the capacity to achieve outcomes successfully through enrolment of resources
(Giddens, 1984). In other words, developing irrigation is a field of human action situated in social practice. Social
practices, defined as behavioural and institutional dimensions of the practical consciousness of reflexive people,
who draw on shared cultural beliefs and stocks of knowledge (Giddens, 1984), shape and are influenced by
technology; technology is not external to human action, but is linked to the everyday actions of people.
Irrigation systems are physical systems in and around which both physical and social processes take place related
to the distribution of water for agricultural production, which is the raison d’etre of irrigation infrastructure. Most
systems consist of different hydraulic parts, which together constitute a hierarchy of levels: from larger-scale to
smaller-scale catchment, dam (reservoir), feeder canals, distributaries, communal canals, farms, field canals, and
irrigated fields. These hydraulic levels constitute levels of social interaction as well: at each level different actors,
relations and perceptions can be distinguished. This extremely simplified description of irrigation has some
apparently functionalistic connotations. This obviously will not do at all for a detailed understanding of the
development and appropriation of irrigation systems; humans, not abstract forces, create irrigation works. It is
highly unlikely and theoretical nonsense that human actors will restrict their actions to their hydraulic level.
Nevertheless, the simplification serves its purpose, as it stresses the general notion that different actors in the
irrigation arena do participate in creating irrigation. Elaborating on this notion below serves as a basis to determine
aspects to be considered when developing approaches to improve performance of irrigation.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Manipulating water flows, thereby adapting the availability of water in both time and space, by constructing
irrigation systems, permits both the intensification of land use, for instance through double or multiple cropping,
and the spatial expansion of arable land (Carlstein, 1982). This intensified expansion provides a relatively secure
food source for a larger population as it enables the peasant population to produce a surplus to support the non-
peasant population. Food security enabled the development of urban kingdoms in a number of regions:
Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley, China, Mexico and (coastal) Peru. Many years later, European engineers
developing irrigation in colonies in Asia and Africa liked to see themselves on an equal footing with these ancient
kingdoms. Britain, France and the Netherlands took as examples the empires from antiquity, as they liked to see
themselves as successors of these empires. At the same time, irrigation was simply a very good instrument to
achieve economic development and food production; many colonial irrigation efforts were aimed at combining
profitable cash crops with food production. For the two most important colonial irrigation projects in Africa (in
terms of command area), the British Gezira Scheme (Sudan) and the French Office du Niger Scheme (Mali), the
potential to grow cotton for the European market was an important reason to start the systems, but the ability to
grow food crops was considered as well.
Several approaches (‘‘schools’’) of irrigation development and design have developed in the last 200 years
(Ertsen, 2007). Three important schools developed in the context of colonies: the Dutch in the former Netherlands
East Indies, the British in former British India and Africa, the French in north-western Africa. The colonial powers
perceived irrigation design from a perspective of control over farmers and the landscape (Ertsen, 2006, 2007). In
most colonies, farmers did not necessarily agree with colonial arrangements and were prepared to act. In Javanese
systems, farmers intervened in colonial water distribution arrangements, burned down sugar cane plantings, or dug
their own canals. These signs of disagreement show that ‘‘the simplified rules [of the colonial state] animating plans
for, say, a city, a village, or a collective farm [or irrigation] were inadequate as a set of instructions for creating a
functioning social order’’ (Scott, 1998). A common reaction of farmers was to ‘‘vote with their feet’’ (Scott, 1998):
not to show up or move to other regions.
Although circumstances for irrigation changed from colonial to post-colonial times, irrigation design and
management practices in the post-colonial period remained largely based on colonial approaches. Accounts of
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
S92 M. W. ERTSEN
persistency of colonial irrigation practices have been reported by several authors. Van Halsema (2002) and
Bolding et al. (1995) clearly show that irrigation design and water management concepts from the early
twentieth century still shape daily irrigation practice and discourse in Pakistan and India to a large extent.
Others label this phenomenon of persistency as the existence of different ‘‘schools’’ of irrigation development
(Horst, 1996; Dahmen, 1997). Irrigation engineers in the 1960s and 1970s developed irrigation schemes
applying the well-known design practices of their respective schools, which were treated as ‘‘the best possible
method’’ (Dahmen, 1997). ‘‘But at the same time many engineers had forgotten the ‘‘design criteria’’ – as we
now call them – which formed the basis for the planning and design. The whole process of design and operation
had come to be based on empirical rules, standards and regulations, which were perfectly geared to the local
social and economic circumstances – whatever these were at the time these rules had been established’’
(Dahmen, 1997). Dahmen argues that although circumstances for irrigation changed from colonial to post-
colonial times, irrigation design and management practices in the post-colonial period remained largely based
on colonial approaches.
After the independence of most colonies in the 1950s, there was a need to broaden the perspective of colonial
irrigation engineering to tropical regions in general. The post-Second World War development aid (or
cooperation) programmes have indeed brought with them a flow of technical activities for (mainly European
and American) engineers in Africa, Asia and Latin America (including former colonial areas). International
development organizations under the wing of the United Nations, like the Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO), the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, were also in need of engineering expertise to develop
their projects. Irrigation development was one of the key fields in international aid programmes, which aimed at
increasing global food production. Development aid was an excellent opportunity to maintain the irrigation
profession in countries like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and employ those engineers who had
worked in the colonial services before independence of the colonies. The early international irrigation efforts
focused on constructional aspects. Attention to management, however, soon became an issue. In many irrigation
systems which were not rehabilitated for financial reasons, performance could still be improved by
improvements in management. Furthermore, population growth and changing land use patterns put different
demands on irrigation. As a result, management of irrigation systems became an important issue in the
international irrigation setting.
MODERNIZATION
In the 1960s and 1970s, an emphasis on strong control of farming activities in irrigation remained, as in colonial
times. Control through land property arrangements, for example strict tenure principles, was an important measure,
particularly in African irrigation (Ertsen, 2008). In the post-colonial period, however, options to control farmers
were less than in colonial times. With options for strict control being less, post-colonial schemes had to focus on
building support structures for farmers. A certain translation of colonial coercion and force towards extension and
training filled the gap. Forced production schemes were translated into extension programmes to support the farmer
who ‘‘was considered ignorant, uneducated and in much need of ‘modernisation’’’ (Baker, 1989). Upgrading
farmers from subsistence level to farmers living on commercial agriculture was perceived as a huge task.
Government officials should initially be responsible for and performmany of the tasks, and farmers should be given
simple and straightforward tasks. With time, transfer of the tasks and responsibility to the farmer should be
attempted. Farmers were to become independent actors responding to market incentives rather than colonial force,
but the need for strict management did not disappear. After all, the desired market incentives were not really
developed in many rural societies. Although farmers did respond to prices of products, they did not always behave
like the desired ‘‘Homo economicus’’. Often, rather strong central management continued to be seen as essential by
irrigation agencies and policy institutions for many tasks, including maintenance, operation of machinery,
managing the irrigation system, organizing supplies, organizing farmers, regulating marketing, etc. (Ertsen, 2006,
2008).
The irrigation systems with which the desired modernization of the rural areas had to be achieved had to be
adapted as well. After the Second World War, attention to irrigation infrastructure has shifted from rehabilitation,
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S93
defined as resetting the original irrigation network, through upgrading, which included introducing some new
elements, to modernization:
The concept of irrigation modernization has evolved over the last two decades. Originally it was restricted to the
introduction of new physical structures and equipment. Now modernization is understood as a fundamental
transformation of the management of irrigation water resources aiming to improve the utilization of resources
and the service provided to the farmers (Playan and Mateos, 2006).
What is interesting to note is that the interventions and results of modernization efforts are defined at quite
different levels within the community of irrigation experts. The results can be fairly simple: ‘‘Modernization
entails increasing the original irrigation and drainage network’s capacity’’ (Schultz and De Wrachien, 2002).
The results can also be quite complex: ‘‘Broad goals of modernization are to achieve improved irrigation
efficiency [. . .], better crop yields [. . .], less canal damage from uncontrolled water levels, more efficient labor,
improved social harmony, and an improved environment as accomplished by fewer diversions or better quality
return flows’’ (Burt and Styles, 2004). Thus, modernization can be conceptualized as simply as bringing more
water and as complex as improving society. Goals of modernization are expressed in its perceived results, which
can be either very concrete, for example higher capacity and efficiency, or somewhat more elaborate as social
harmony.
Modernization has been associated with, and even translated quite often into, a need for an operational strategy of
delivering water at precisely the correct timewith the correct volume, almost comparable to theway the aeronautics
industry arranges its production. Discussions on the benefits of volumetric water delivery and payment in the light
of rational use of scarce resources are quite old (e.g. Stone, 1984 on British India) and relatively young (e.g. Postel,
1992; Plusquellec et al., 1994; Jones, 1995). Volumetric delivery of water has been presented as a modern solution
in situations of (perceived) water scarcity to stimulate more economical water use in several sectors and allow for
inter-sector water transfers (Brewer, 1960; Postel, 1992; Frederick, 1993); in general to stimulate more efficient use
of irrigation water by farmers and/or enable them to irrigate more flexibly (Duane, 1975; Merriam, 1992; Jones,
1995); and to increase revenue collection from users of irrigation water (Small and Carruthers, 1991; Jones, 1995).
The move towards delivery systems based on volumetric distribution and control has consequences in many ways
for the way irrigation systems function: (1) definition of water rights, (2) institutional arrangements, (3) access to
water, (4) fee payment, (5) hydraulic behaviour of a system, (6) irrigation opportunities for producers, etc. These
many aspects are all linked to each other, making the general picture of, and the discussions on, volumetric delivery
quite complicated and confusing.
Theoretically volumetric, demand-based delivery allows for fine-tuning water requirements and water
availability: instead of a fixed turn per hectare every certain period, farmers can demand the water for their crops at
the time these crops need it. This farmers’ demand can take different forms: in typically downstream-controlled
systems, farmers can take the water they need themselves directly and the system will adjust to the new situation
automatically; in typically upstream-controlled systems, farmers usually have to request some authority for the
water a period in advance, which will be delivered to them at the time requested. Essential in volumetric delivery is
the concept of farmer-initiated irrigation: the decision regarding timing and quantity of water to be delivered is
positioned by the farmer, and not by a central distribution or scheme delivery authority. In daily practice, there are
no canal systems under downstream control down to the level of farm gates. If used, downstream control is adopted
for main canals; lower canals remain under upstream control. Whichever is the situation, in many schemes with a
central upstreamwater distribution system, volumetric delivery could be introduced or is already applied in practice
(see Vos, 2005). However, in many cases introducing some kind of demand-based delivery would require a shift in
the traditional task of any central authority: instead of sending water according to schedule, it has to make sure that
all the demands of the farmers in the irrigation scheme can be met as effectively as possible. Partly in response to
this potential increase in complexity of system management, others have argued that water delivery should be
simplified, as volumetric water control technologies would be too cumbersome, would not work, would be too
much to ask for management and would not lead to an equitable water distribution (for example Horst, 1996, 1998).
What the proponents of different solutions have in common is that they know what the solution to the problem in
irrigation is. The way the ‘‘delivery of water’’ service needs to be fulfilled is preset.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
S94 M. W. ERTSEN
FARMER INTERVENTIONS AS THE STANDARD
Such prescriptions of proper delivery suggest that in the twenty-first century it is still difficult for irrigation agencies
and experts to accept that farmers do other things in irrigation than the original engineering design or current
management assume. Farmers manipulating irrigation infrastructure is about the worst thing that can happen for
irrigation experts and agencies. That is not to say that farmer interventions are always appropriate or even welcome,
but what is usually ignored, unfortunately, is that farmers may have good reasons to intervene. Many studies of
irrigation systems and the ways farmers use them, show that irrigation systems in general are not used as designers
had intended in their design. De Veer et al. (1993) show that in the Fayoum (Egypt) the non-uniformity of flows in
the main system strongly affects water management in the tertiary units. At the same time, however, partly in
response to this non-uniformity Fayoum farmers modify the official rotation schedule. Not all of such actions are
problematic for the system involved, but there are certainly cases in which irrigation systems deteriorate, leading to
problems for groups of farmers, usually others than the farmers that manipulated the system in the first place. Many
engineering irrigation systems act as anonymous systems: users do not know how they function, or what the
consequences of manipulations will be.
Farmer interventions are to be expected in irrigation, as farmers respond to their environment as any other human
actor in social practice. Where system management has not been able or willing to deal with these interventions,
they have occurred nevertheless, with the result that the dichotomy between official rules and actual operation is
growing (Facon, 2008). An example of successful anticipation of farmers’ water needs in developing irrigation is
the Niger Pilot Private Irrigation Project, which has spread a variety of manual and small-scale mechanized
irrigation technologies. Manual pumping technology affordable for poor farmers allowed a doubling of the
cultivated area and earned a 68% economic rate of return (World Bank, 2007). In the context of this paper, extensive
discussion of farmer strategies and precise design procedures to deal with them is impossible. The paper focuses on
one aspect of the broad concept of farmer strategies, water delivery. If one looks at measures farmers takewhen they
adapt to irrigation water delivery, one could question whether either simplifying control or introducing just-in-time
control will serve as a standard water delivery strategy to farmers and their agricultural practices.
Many farmers worldwide have installed tubewells, recycle drainage water and/or have constructed their own
farm reservoirs (Plusquellec, 2002). Use of groundwater for irrigation gained momentum in the middle of the
twentieth century due to technological developments in drilling and pumping equipment. Currently about one-third
of the world’s irrigated land mass has groundwater as its source of irrigation. Total groundwater abstraction
worldwide is estimated to range between 600 and 700 billion m3 yr�1 (Zektser and Everett, 2004). Almost 300
billion m3 yr�1 of groundwater is used for agriculture in India, China, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan, nearly half
of the total world annual use. In India groundwater serves about 60% of the total irrigated area. In the Chinese
provinces of Beijing, Hebei, Henan and Shandong groundwater supplies 65, 70, 50 and 50% agricultural water
requirements respectively from 3.3 million tubewells. The Punjab, the main food-producing province of Pakistan,
meets 40% of its irrigation needs from groundwater abstraction (Shah et al., 2003). The Indus Basin Irrigation
System of Pakistan is one of the largest contiguous irrigation systems in the world, with its reservoirs, barrages and
main canals serving an area of 16 million ha with some 172 billion m3 yr�1 of river water (Aslam and Prathapar,
2006). Introduction of this large gravity irrigation system in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
without a drainage system resulted in rising groundwater tables, with associated waterlogging and salinity
problems over large areas. In order to cope with these problems, the Salinity Control and Reclamation Project
(SCARP) was started in 1960. Initially 10 000 tubewells were installed, which not only resulted in the lowering of
the water table, but also supplemented irrigation. Resulting benefits from the full irrigation motivated farmers to
install private tubewells. Nowadays, up to 80% of irrigation water needs are provided through tubewells. The
irrigation landscape of Pakistan shows this change: tubewells are everywhere (Figure 3). The existing irrigation
system, with its canal infrastructure and management based on cropping intensities of maximally 50% (one crop
during one of the two seasons), has been modified into a system able to support cropping intensities of 200%.
Sometimes, additional structures are placed to allow water to flow to the fields to be irrigated (Figure 4).
The point is not that groundwater irrigation should be the aim. From a point of view of conserving water
resources, groundwater irrigation may not even be the most favourable type of irrigation. What clearly is a point is
that farmers prefer groundwater among other reasons for the flexibility it allows in their irrigation strategy. As
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
Figure 3. Tubewells within existing irrigation infrastructure in Pakistan.
Figure 4. Additional irrigation outlet in Pakistan.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S95
S96 M. W. ERTSEN
groundwater is accessible for many farmers and does not always require collective action, less capital and
planning are required for a scheme development compared to large gravity irrigation schemes. ‘‘The develop-
ment of groundwater has given farmers a great level of control over their crop calendar. They do not have to wait for
the availability of canal water, and they can plant their crop at the time that seems best according to their own
situation’’ (Plusquellec, 2002). Groundwater irrigation is flexible for farmers. However, overexploitation of
groundwater is becoming a reality, with groundwater being depleted at undesirable rates in many irrigated areas
around the globe.
Irrigation systems can have a considerable impact on the hydrology at basin level. They can affect groundwater
recharge. In Japan ‘‘Sayama-ike’ [the main reservoir] [. . .] not only supplied irrigation water into those reservoirs
but also provided plenty of groundwater into the downstream region’’ (Kinda, 2003). Similar evidence exists for
irrigation in Indonesia. Return flows often appear as groundwater flows. ‘‘Water ‘savings’ at one place are likely to
reduce return flows to other users downstream in the basin’’ (Droogers and Kite, 1999; Kite and Droogers, 1999).
Case material from Portugal suggests that it was precisely those interventions to line canals to prevent water
infiltrating from the canal that had dramatic consequences for water availability for downstream uses through wells
and other groundwater sources (Van den Dries, 2002). However, groundwater outflows are usually viewed as
percolation and seepage losses from each irrigation system itself, instead as potential beneficial sources for
downstream water subsystems in the much wider context of the whole watershed. Within a catchment context,
however, water is not so easily lost. Even in rice systems, which are generally seen as highly inefficient, most
outflows are captured and used downstream (Facon, 2008). In one way or another, water will find its way, through
groundwater, emergency spills, etc. Whether these outflows are not desirable or reusable is not given beforehand.
Reusability of water is problematic. How can one avoid double counting of water when defining the productivity of
water? Also essential is the question of how not to avoid double counting of the productivity of water flows, which
are usually considered a loss, but actually support some kind of use elsewhere? Water in irrigation systems cannot
be regarded in isolation from the rest of the watershed, both in the physical sense of water flow, and in the socio-
economic sense of water as a resource (see Playan and Mateos, 2006 for interesting examples).
TOWARDS DELIVERING A SERVICE
With all these developments and new insights as sketched above, it is hardly surprising that the position of irrigation
managers and experts has changed. From being in colonial times the main responsible person for an entire
production system with highly articulated political goals, via being the technical expert with management skills, an
irrigation engineer nowadays has to negotiate with stakeholders on what has to be done. The transformational
process irrigation has gone through is very well described by the impact of irrigation management transfer (IMT).
The devolution of responsibilities of irrigation agencies to private organizations, including water user associations,
is a worldwide phenomenon (Franks et al., 2008). Under IMT, with all its ups and downs and associated difficulties,
farmers have been acknowledged as active and responsible stakeholders in irrigation management and
development. How they should be taken into account by irrigation management agencies, however, has been
subject of intense debate. Recently, within this context, the Food and Agricultural Organization has shifted the
debate on modernization somewhat, putting more emphasis on modernization as an attempt to improve the ability
of the system to respond to user demands.
The FAO defines the primary goal of the operation of an irrigation system as ‘‘[. . .] to convey and deliver
irrigation water to users according to an agreed level of service that is well adapted to their requirements for water
use and cropping systems’’ (Renault et al., 2007). Several issues in this definition deserve to be highlighted.
Operation of irrigation systems is still quite often perceived by agencies as managing agricultural production
completely, involving on-farm techniques, elaborate management structures for farmer guidance and associated
financial institutions. Production is regulated, which has been analysed above as a continuation of existing
irrigation traditions based on colonial approaches. What the FAO definition nicely stresses is that the main function
of irrigation systems is simply to deliver irrigation water to crops. As crops need a representative, water is delivered
to users, although many agencies seem rather willing to ignore this simple fact of life. Users often demand results
other than the system can provide, and start to interfere in the system to realize their own goals. Such user
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S97
interventions are normal, as users try to ensure that their requirements for water use and cropping systems are met.
Because of the different perceptions between managers and farmers, many current irrigation systems may indeed
not provide any agreed level of service, nor may they be well adapted to changing demands.
Adaptation to demands means that a certain flexibility in operation is needed and, indeed, the calls for flexible
systems in irrigation are manifold. ‘‘Planners and designers have to incorporate sufficient flexibility into the
networks to be able to cope with changes in the objectives of the systems’’ (Schultz and De Wrachien, 2002). As
requirements for use can indeed be flexible, especially longer term, many irrigation systems have problems coping
with different demands.
Most surface irrigation systems were designed to provide almost constant rates of flow for prolonged periods of
time and, therefore, have few control structures in the canal networks. As a consequence, there is little regulation of
water delivery to suit crop requirements. Moreover, in areas where there is a pressing need for diversification,
existing systems cannot meet the demand for flexibility (Schultz and De Wrachien, 2002).
These calls for flexibility, or as stated above, the ability of the system to respond to user demands, are clear. To
realize flexibility, there is also clearly a need to think about appropriate control structures within canal networks. It
is certainly not unlikely that some form of automated control, through modern information systems, will be useful
(Schultz and De Wrachien, 2002; Van Overloop, 2006).
Storage may also be sought to deliver a better service. Groundwater use emphasizes that farmers have secured
their water availability in a way that is more interesting for their purposes. Groundwater provides storage. In many
systems stored water is available for irrigation, but usually this storage is located upstream of the irrigation
infrastructure in reservoirs and is delivered just-in-time to irrigators. The interesting opportunities storage within
the irrigated system, as close as possible to the water use, can offer are being recognized more and more, although
usually for (the appropriate) reason of water saving in the main system. Construction of recirculation points or
buffer reservoirs in the main canal system, with ‘‘loose’’ water control may be very adequate in the main system,
‘‘as long as there exists a place to reregulate about two thirds of the way down a canal’’ (Burt and Styles, 2004).
Storage is not a miracle solution, as options may be limited for technical reasons or storage is not needed at all. One
should not fall into the trap of predefining the optimal solution again, as has so often been the case. But there are
clear indications that storage, or in general terms, making use of buffer capacities in the system, is beneficial to
farmers, as it allows them to build a closer link between their cropping and irrigation strategies. In contrast with the
approach to deliver water just in time, focusing on storage may imply that canal operation becomes delinked for
water use at farm level. This may ease operational requirements and at the same time open up options for changes in
water control in the main system.
RESEARCH ON IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
In response to the problems encountered in irrigation at the time, with its focus on technical issues and central
production control, research on irrigation water management was opened up by the key publications of Chambers
(1988) and Uphoff (1986). Since then, several approaches have developed. How human (or social) (inter)action
shapes irrigation infrastructure operation is a major field of study. An early contribution in this research field is Van
der Zaag (1992), who showed with research conducted in a Mexican 8700 ha scheme that scheme management and
infrastructure are related to each other. He also points out the important role of actors (in his case the canalero) and
knowledge in water management. One of the most recent contributors, Bolding (2004), discusses intervention
processes in smallholder-irrigated agriculture on several levels (system and basin) in a region in Zimbabwe. A
related field studies the possibility of improving organizational structures within irrigation (Oorthuizen, 2003;
Svendsen et al., 2003; Urban and Wester, 2003), both on lower levels (for example water user associations) and on
basin level (for example river commissions). These fields of research have become quite successful, both in terms of
quantity and recognition. It is hard to ignore calls for socio-technical (or interdisciplinary, holistic, integrated)
approaches to understanding irrigation.
Technical aspects, in terms of hydraulic behaviour of systems, however, are largely ignored in this socio-
technical field. Several authors do show, however, that technical (such as hydraulic flexibility, system response,
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
S98 M. W. ERTSEN
travel time) aspects are needed to understand social (mainly organizational) problems in irrigation. Plusquellec
et al. (1994) discuss a number of control structures in relation to management for several irrigation systems. They
attribute many failures and problems in irrigation to unrealistic designs that do not pay attention to operational
aspects (Plusquellec et al., 1994). Pradhan (1996) studies how management would be constrained by the
infrastructure. One of the main contributors in this particular field is Horst (1996, 1998), who discusses the need to
simplify irrigation infrastructure as many systems would require too complicated management arrangements. One
could question whether this relation is really that direct; Vos (2005), Van der Zaag (1992), Hunt and Hunt (1976)
and Hunt (1988) suggest that higher complexity (and larger scale) of infrastructure does not necessarily complicate
irrigation management or require central authority. Furthermore, within his basically qualitative analysis, Horst
focuses on division structures and leaves out canal behaviour altogether.
Another field of research in irrigation puts this hydraulic aspect in the centre, to study ways how the hydraulic
behaviour of the irrigation infrastructure can be improved (for example Clemmens and Schuurmans, 2004;
Montazar et al., 2005; De Vries and Anwar, 2006; Van Overloop, 2006). However, these detailed discussions on
mathematical solutions to understanding canal flow, modes of operational control and other subjects systematically
leave out references to social reality. Actors such as the operators of systems, let alone users with their strategies,
are absent. Despite the limited capabilities offered by this ‘‘pure’’ hydraulic work to understand daily practice in
irrigation, it cannot be stressed enough that hydraulics matter. Infrastructure shapes a certain reality of water flows
in space and time. Human actors do help infrastructure in shaping hydraulic reality, for example by setting gates or
damaging canals. Furthermore, actors give value to hydraulic reality; whether non-uniform behaviour is a problem
is not determined by hydraulics itself. Actions and interpretations of actors provoked by hydraulic patterns can be
located on the individual and/or collective level. Changing gate settings upstreammay take a certain time to change
downstream conditions (compare with Van der Zaag, 1992: 82–85). Typically, hydraulic infrastructure connects
actions of actors within different spatial and temporal settings.
DESIGN APPROACH AND ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE
Service-oriented management is a key challenge. It is clear from the above that technical knowledge alone will not
be sufficient. Developing relevant service-oriented measures requires supplementing technical knowledge with
inputs from fields as economics, law, organizational matters and sociology. The decades focusing on physical
infrastructure have been superseded by additional awareness of the importance of social and political issues (Franks
et al., 2008). In response to these challenges, the FAO has recently launched the MASSCOTE approach, which
stands for Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation Techniques (Renault et al., 2007; Facon et al., 2008).
The modernization definition from the FAO discussed above is the core of MASSCOTE. In the modernization
efforts to be supported by MASSCOTE, canal operation is the focus and entry point. An important gain of the
MASSCOTE approach is that a need for specific answers to specific questions is recognized. The approach is
basically a standardized process of asking relevant questions, mainly of a technical and managerial nature (see
Box). Questions on social issues, including farmer interventions, power relations and others, are not included. Or
are they? It is true that standard questions on power and other social issues (gender!) are not provided within
MASSCOTE. Nevertheless, these issues have to be considered. Take for example step 3: Mapping perturbations.
The step defines the need for managers to have reliable knowledge of the origins of perturbations. As discussed
above, origins of perturbations or non-steady flow are quite often related to farmer responses and may cause farmer
interventions. Thus, what could be seen as a technical feature is in fact closely linked to a social or even political
issue. MASSCOTE does bring with it the need to consider social issues, but channels these through questions that
start as technical and managerial.
As such, the MASSCOTE document is most comprehensive in terms of listing the relevant issues in irrigation
within a well-defined context of service delivery. It could be seen as the outline for an educational programme for
irrigation engineers. Many of the issues discussed in the approach are the subject of irrigation courses and
programmes. Obviously, the FAO is not the institution to provide educational programmes for engineers, and the
MASSCOTE approach does not claim to provide all the knowledge necessary for the preparation of modernization
plans (Facon et al., 2008). The approach stresses the need for training, both of young graduates and engineers with
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
A brief description of the steps in MASSCOTE (Renault et al., 2007; Facon et al., 2008)
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S99
S100 M. W. ERTSEN
working experience. The former are to be trained by the universities and polytechnic schools; the latter would be
better suited to programmes for training on the job, through a careful process of strategic planning as outlined by
Franks et al. (2008). Comparing situations, or benchmarking, is a potentially fruitful approach to be applied in
training on the job to develop the necessary broader picture to escape from any standard approach. However, one
should always be careful how to compare.
Comparing is something people do daily (Slatta, 2001). Through comparisons, one discovers similar drivers or
processes operating in different national contexts. Through comparison, one gains a clearer perspective on one’s
own situation (Levine, 1997). When comparative research includes too many cases, however, it runs the risk of
staying on a rather abstract level and overlooking important local variations. The comparison will then not be very
fruitful or interesting. Furthermore, it cannot be stressed enough that comparative studies do not seek identical,
repeated events (Slatta, 2001). It is not that obvious that ‘‘[t]he problems one encounters in irrigation projects are
typically so flagrant and obvious (to the properly trained eye) that it is unnecessary to strive for extreme accuracy
when one wants to diagnose an irrigation project’’ (Burt and Styles, 2004). The challenge is always to strive for
accuracy, and not predefine what problems are flagrant and obvious. There is always a reason why situations are
what they are. One does not have to accept that situation, but one does need to understand it first. After all, many of
the trained eyes have been educated themselves within specific engineering schools with potentially limited scopes.
Standard approaches still dominate many irrigation training programmes, as these are often still closely related to
specific irrigation schools.
Irrigation problems principally present themselves as unspecified problems. When a problem arises, it is not
directly clear how this can be most adequately formulated in engineering terms. The occurrence of canal damage,
for example, could be a problem related to the materials used, an economic question, a matter of political unrest or a
matter of the technical abilities of the manufacturer. Taking into account societal demands and conditions implies
that each design should be attuned to the situation under consideration: a designer cannot come up with a standard
solution any more (Ertsen, 2002). The technological standard as defined by engineering traditions has proven to be
insufficient to promote the delivery strategies and irrigation system performance currently strived for. The notion
that problems in practice are basically ill-defined does not imply that they could not adequately and fruitfully be
translated in a specific question. Although engineers should not dictate the terms of water delivery, they should
ensure that systems deliver what is asked for. A proper design is the result of a design process that selects the
configuration and physical components within a clearly defined operational strategy that is based on the idea of
providing a service (Plusquellec, not dated). This does not necessarily mean that ‘‘modern’’ or new technologies
need to be applied, but neither does it mean that modern technologies should not be applied (!).
For each specific irrigation case to be developed, improved or studied, the question what needs to be done has to
be answered. Starting with the general notions that irrigation systems become concrete through human action in
(continuous) use, design and construction, with canals and other objects setting the material and spatial reality,
within which social interaction shapes spatial patterns of water flows and related actions through time, in itself does
not yield practical measures. Which water flow patterns are shaped through interactions between farmers,
irrigators, managers and infrastructure is likely to be different for each irrigation system, although for example
head–tail inequalities seem to quite general. What these head–tail inequalities look like, however, is again specific
for different situations. In any case, non-uniform behaviour of systems is important to understand, as uniform flows
rarely occur in daily life (Facon et al., 2008). However, ‘‘[m]ost civil engineers are well trained in structural
engineering and construction techniques but not in the practical and theoretical aspects of unsteady flow hydraulics
that are the norm in most irrigation systems’’ (Plusquellec, 2002). Another important field of expertise related to the
resulting flow patterns in irrigation because of social action is how irrigation systems link to the hydrological cycle.
Recognition and above all quantification of the hydrological effects of irrigation systems in a region through
manipulation of both surface and groundwater flows is indispensable for modern irrigation experts, both in
developing irrigation systems and catchment-wide plans. Paradoxically, a modern service-based approach demands
irrigation experts with higher qualifications and skills in hydraulics and hydrology than the current standard
(Ertsen, 2002).
These qualifications need to be attained through training and education. In thinking about strategies to develop
suitable training and education methods, it is useful to distinguish between different target groups. Roughly
speaking, a main distinction is between students, or those who are being trained to become irrigation experts, and
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S101
professionals, those who already are experts. Although adapting university programmes is not straightforward as
such (see for example Joergensen and Busk Kofoed, 2007), it is relatively clear how the required needs for higher
standard education can be achieved. Including the relevant subject matter within the programme, preferably in
courses with ample opportunities for students to practise and experience the issues, is the main strategy to follow.
For professionals the options are less straightforward, as training and education need to be fitted within a
demanding job context. Training and education take time, which is not easily found within professional contexts.
Differences in educational structures need to be considered as well. In the Anglo-Saxon education system, it is quite
common to start working with a BSc degree, and to return to university after several years to gain anMSc degree. In
the continental system, until a few years ago, students were trained up to MSc level directly. As a result of the
Bologna Declaration of 1999, however, the BSc–MSc structure has gradually been introduced in several European
countries. This is likely to create similar conditions for professionals as in the Anglo-Saxon context, with
professionals returning to university for advanced studies.
Apart from offering full programmes at BSc, MSc or even at PhD level, universities can and do offer short up-to-
date informative courses in the fields of irrigation research, design and management they are involved in. Such
short-term courses may include training in the field of the latest technologies and applications, and are to be most
fruitful if they are based on assessment of the needs of the irrigation professionals. For professionals, it may not
always be possible to go to universities. Therefore, training on the job needs to be part of the solution. However, this
is easier said than done. Finding time and budgets to systematically develop in-house training is not self-evident, as
other tasks with direct daily and practical relevance take priority. Part of the strategy to overcome these well-known
and understandable obstacles is to involve networking between engineers through professional associations such as
the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and its regional components such as the Regional
Association on Irrigation and Drainage in West and Central Africa (ARID). International meetings already serve as
learning contexts for many members of ICID. Developing more explicitly the education and training opportunities
alongside or within ICID meetings is an interesting option. Such opportunities would need to be developed in close
cooperation between professional societies, universities, governments, including international organizations, and
the private sector. Although certainly not the only option, the MASSCOTE approach would be suitable as a
framework to develop such cooperation. In applying an approach like MASSCOTE, irrigation professionals would
not only be able to define the needs of the system under consideration, but also their own training needs. The result
could be alternate training and education in two different settings, academic and on the job learning contexts. As
Kolb (1984) has already shown, taking such immediate concrete experience as the basis for observation and
reflection in a different learning context is a very fruitful training and education strategy.
REFERENCES
Achaval JN. 1988. Historia de Santiago del Estero: siglos XVI–XIX. Ediciones Universidad Catolica de Santiago del Estero: Santiago del Estero,
Argentina.
AslamM, Prathapar SA. 2006. Strategies to Mitigate Secondary Salinization in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: a Selective Review. Research Report
97. International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Baker KM. 1989. Agricultural Change in Nigeria. John Murray: London.
Bolding A. 2004. In hot water. A study on sociotechnical intervention models and practices of water use in smallholder agriculture, Nyanyadzi
catchment, Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
Bolding A, Mollinga PP, Van Straaten K. 1995. Modules for modernisation: colonial irrigation in India and the technological dimension of
agrarian change. Journal of Development Studies 31(6): 805–844.
Brewer M. 1960. Water Pricing and Allocation with Particular Reference to California Irrigation Districts. University of California: Berkeley.
Burt CM, Styles SW. 2004. Conceptualizing irrigation project modernization through benchmarking and the rapid appraisal approach. Irrigation
and Drainage 53: 45–154.
Carlstein T. 1982. Time Resources, Society and Ecology. On the Capacity for Human Interaction in Space and Time, vol. 1: Pre-industrial
Societies. Allen and Unwin: London.
Chambers R. 1988. Managing Canal Irrigation: Practical Analysis from South Asia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Clemmens AJ, Schuurmans J. 2004. Simple optimal downstream feedback canal controllers: theory. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering 130(1): 26–34.
Dahmen ER. 1997. 40 years land and water development, a personal overview by an irrigation engineer. In Financial Aspects of Water
Management. Proceedings of the 3rd Netherlands National ICID Day, Van Hofwegen P, Schultz B (eds). A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam; 97–112.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
S102 M. W. ERTSEN
De Veer M, Wormgoor JA, Rizq RG, Wolters W. 1993. Water management in tertiary units in the Fayoum, Egypt. Irrigation and Drainage
Systems 1(7): 69–82.
De Vries T, Anwar AA. 2006. Irrigation scheduling with travel times. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 3(132): 220–227.
Droogers P, Kite G. 1999. Water productivity from integrated basin modeling. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 13: 275–290.
Duane P. 1975. A policy framework for irrigation water charges. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 218. Washington, DC.
Ertsen MW. 2002. The technical and the social in engineering education. In Design and the Social Sciences. Making Connections, Frascara J
(ed.). Taylor and Francis: London.
Ertsen MW. 2006. Colonial irrigation: myths of emptiness. Landscape Research 31(2): 147–168.
Ertsen MW. 2007. The development of irrigation design schools or how history structures human action. Irrigation and Drainage 56(2): 1–19.
Ertsen MW. 2008. Controlling the farmer. Irrigation encounters in Kano, Nigeria. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern
Africa 4(1): 209–236.
Ertsen MW, Van Nooijen R. (in press). The man swimming against the stream knows the strength of it. Hydraulics and social relations in an
Argentinean irrigation system. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth.
Facon T. 2008. The future of large rice-based irrigation systems in Southeast Asia. Mimeo.
Facon T, Renault D, Rao PS, Wahaj R. 2008. High-yielding capacity building in irrigation system management: targeting managers and
operators. Irrigation and Drainage 57: 288–299.
Franks T, Garces-Restrepo C, Putuhena F. 2008. Developing capacity for agricultural water management: current practice and future directions.
Irrigation and Drainage 57: 255–267.
Frederick K. . Balancing water demands with supplies. The role of management in a world of increasing scarcity. World Bank Technical Paper
Washington, DC 189.
Gastaminza E. 1989. El aprovechamiento del rıo Dulce: su pasado, presente y futuro. El Liberal, 25 January. Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press: Cambridge.
HARZA Engineering Company. 1965. Proyecto Rıo Dulce. Informe de Factibilidad. Proyecto Rıo Dulce. Supporting studies to the feasibility
report. Agua y Energıa Electrica: Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Horst L. 1996. Irrigation Water Division Technology in Indonesia. A Case of Ambivalent Development. Liquid Gold Paper 2, ILRI Special
Report.
Horst L. 1998. The Dilemmas of Water Division. Considerations and Criteria for Irrigation System Design. International Water Management
Institute, Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen.
Hunt R. 1988. Size and the structure of authority in canal irrigation systems. Anthropological Research 44(4): 335–355.
Hunt RC, Hunt E. 1976. Canal irrigation and local social organization. Current Anthropology 17(3).
Joergensen F, Busk Kofoed L. 2007. Integrating the development of continuous improvement and innovation capabilities into engineering
education. European Journal of Engineering Education 32(2): 181–191.
Jones W. 1995. The World Bank and Irrigation. World Bank: Washington.
Kolb DA. 1984. Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Kinda A. 2003. Sayama-ike and Japanese experience: traditional irrigation system and problems of modernization. History Seminar, 3rd World
Water Forum. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, International Water History Association, United Nations University,
Kyoto, Japan.
Kite G, Droogers P. 1999. Irrigation modeling in the context of basin water resources. Water Resources Development 15(1/2): 43–54.
Levine R. 1997. A Geography of Time: the Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist, or How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit
Differently. Basic Books: New York.
Masse JB. 1906. Rapport sur la creation de Colonies Cotonniers Nationales presente a Son Excellence le Ministre de l’Agriculture Docteur
Damian M. Torino. Ateliers de Publications du Bureau Meteorologique: Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Merriam J. 1992. The need on the farm for a flexible water supply schedule. In Advances in Planning, Design and Management of Irrigation
Systems as Related to Sustainable Land Use. Proceedings of an International Conference, Leuven, Belgium, Feyen J, Mwendera E, Badji M
(eds). Universiteit Leuven: The Netherlands.
Michaud C. 1942. Regadios en Santiago del Estero y en particular en la zona del Rıo Dulce. Santiago del Estero: Argentina.
Montazar A, Overloop PJ, Brouwer R. 2005. Centralized controller for the Narmada main canal. Irrigation and Drainage 54(1): 79–89.
Oorthuizen J. 2003. Water, works and wages: the everyday politics of irrigation management reform in the Philippines. PhD thesis, Wageningen
University.
Playan E, Mateos L. 2006. Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems to increase water productivity. Agricultural Water Management
80: 100–116.
Plusquellec H. 2002. Is the daunting challenge of irrigation achievable? Irrigation and Drainage 51: 185–198.
Plusquellec H. n.d. Re-engaging in agricultural water management. Seminar on Large-Scale Irrigation for Consulting Firms, irrigation agencies
and user organizations. Mimeo.
Plusquellec H, Burt C, Wolter W. 1994. Modern water control in irrigation. Concepts, issues, and applications. World Bank Technical Paper 246,
Irrigation and Drainage Series: Washington, DC.
Postel S. 1992. The Last Oasis. Facing Water Scarcity. Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series W.W.Norton: New York.
Pradhan TMS. 1996. Gated or ungated: water control in government-built irrigation systems, comparative research in Nepal. PhD thesis,
Wageningen University.
Prieto D. 2006. Modernization and the evolution of irrigation practices in the Rıo Dulce irrigation project. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE S103
Renault D, Facon T, Wahaj R. 2007. Modernizing irrigation management – the MASSCOTE approach. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63:
Rome.
Schultz B, De Wrachien A. 2002. Irrigation and drainage systems research and development in the 21st century. Irrigation and Drainage 51:
311–327.
Scott JC. 1998. Seeing like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Shah T, DebRoy A, Qureshi AS, Wang J. 2003. Sustaining Asia’s groundwater boom: an overview of issues and evidence. Natural Resources
Forum 27: 130–140.
Slatta RW. 2001. Comparing Cowboys and Frontiers. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.
Small L, Carruthers I. 1991. Farmer-financed Irrigation: the Economics of Reform. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Stone I. 1984. Canal Irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Svendsen M, Gonzalez F, Johnson S. 2003. Privatizing canal irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage 52(2): 95–108.
Uphoff N. 1986. Getting the Process Right: Improving Irrigation Water Management with Farmer Organization and Participation. Cornell
University Press: Ithaca.
Urban K,Wester Ph. 2003.Maintaining the flow: maintenance service provision in the Alto Rıo Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems 174(1/2): 47–67.
Van den Dries A. 2002. The art of irrigation. The development, stagnation and redesign of farmer-managed irrigation systems in Northern
Portugal. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
Van der Zaag P. 1992. Chicanery at the canal. Changing practice in irrigation management in Western. Mexico; PhD thesis, Wageningen
University.
Van Halsema GE. 2002. Trial and re-trial; the evolution of irrigation modernization in NWFP, Pakistan. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
Van Overloop PJ. 2006. Model predictive control on open water systems. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Vos J. 2005. Understanding water delivery performance in a large-scale irrigation system in Peru. Irrigation and Drainage 54(1): 67–78.
World Bank. 2007. Africa region: irrigation business plan, revised draft, October 2007. go.worldbank.org/6EFZTE15U0.
Zektser IS, Everett LG (eds). 2004. Groundwater Resources of the World and their Use, International Hydrological Programme. Series on
Groundwater No. 6. UNESCO: Paris.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird