17
FROM CENTRAL CONTROL TO SERVICE DELIVERY? REFLECTIONS ON IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AND EXPERTISE 1y 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 RE ´ SUME ´ La demande de modernisation de l’agriculture irrigue ´e pour ame ´liorer la productivite ´ augmente. Cet article pre ´sente quelques-uns des principaux de ´fis auxquels les experts en irrigation sont confronte ´s pour re ´pondre a ` la demande de la socie ´te ´, en mettant l’accent sur la distribution de l’eau. L’histoire de l’inge ´nierie de l’irrigation a encore une influence sur la conception et la gestion de l’irrigation, bien que, depuis trente ans, de nouvelles ide ´es issues de la recherche aient permis la mise au point des nouvelles pratiques de gestion. De ´sormais la modernisation de l’irrigation est comprise comme la transformation de la gestion de l’irrigation pour lui permettre de re ´pondre a ` la demande des agriculteurs. L’expert n’est plus en position de principal responsable de l’ensemble du syste `me mais de gestionnaire axe ´e sur le service. Prendre en compte la demande des agriculteurs et leurs re ´ponses a ` la fourniture IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE Irrig. and Drain. 58: S87–S103 (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.476 *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] y Du contro ˆle centralise ´a ` la gestion d’un service? Re ´flexions sur la gestion de l’irrigation et l’expertise en irrigation. 1 This paper has been written as a combined response to three different demands made on the author. A first demand came from the editors of the journal to prepare an overview on irrigation management, on the occasion of the 5th World Water Forum to be held in Istanbul in 2009. A second demand came from the current chairman of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Peter Lee, who asked during an ICID meeting in Sacramento, USA, in October 2007, what more ICID could do on modernization than the Food and Agricultural Organization had proposed 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.

From central control to service delivery? reflections on irrigation management and expertise

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