~"0

!LU

~~to provide

This being said, it is none the less quiteclear that the need for the soundtechnical preparation of projects, how-ever small or informal, remains. Forlarge formal schemes there is a consid-erable body of accumulated experienceto draw on, encapsulated in manymanuals and guidelines, although evenin this field of high input/high outputinvestments, the goals, value systems,techniques, and methodologies changeand develop with time, so that newguidelines replace the old.

The recognition of the informalsector in irrigation is recent, and therehas been no demand as yet for planningguidelines at this level, though therehas been an increased interest in simpleor appropriate technologies. Now,however, there is a need for anauthentic methodology in projectpreparations for informal as well as forformal development, though aimed atdifferent audiences - the formalguidelines for national governmentsand official investment agencies, andthe informal guidelines for local gov-ernment and non-governmental bodies(see Table I).

Guidelines for formal developmentexist already, for example those pub-lished by FAO (1983), the WorldBank, and other bodies. Guidelines ofa 'semi-formal' nature are now begin-

it is true that factors such as soiltype or water supply need to bestudied in either case, the precision ofthe study from a scientific point ofview can be less rigorous for theinformal approach. There are threereasons for this. The first is that localknowledge can play a greater role,since the beneficiaries usually alreadyknow their local conditions (physicalresources, infrastructure, or socio-economics) better than outside experts.Secondly a step-by-step approach isusually needed, with each step smallenough to be within the vision andnear-experience of the people who areindeed the ones who are taking the risk.And thirdly, as an extension of thesecond point, the step-by-step ormodular approach is more flexiblethan the fully planned large scheme,and if problems do appear the planscould be changed sooner, and if lossesdo occur they should be much smallerin magnitude.

The answer is not to discourage the small-scale approach, butpromoters with appropriate guidelines.

Planning small-scale irrigation schemesby Harry UnderhillThe promoters of small-scale irrigation schemes Guidelines neededneed appropriate guidelines: ones which willtake into account the differences between largeand small schemes, but at the same time help thesmall schemes to be rigorous and scientific intheir methods.

CRITICISM HAS sometimes beendirected at informal irrigation on thegrounds that it is ill-planned andtherefore economically unviable, givesdisappointing results, or is a downrightfailure. When discussing the role ofNGOs in promoting informal irrigationone senior government adviser toldme, 'Tell them to keep right out of it!They only get into trouble and then runto us to help them out!' And he gaveexamples of small schemes aiming toassist drought victims which werestarted by philanthropic bodies withlittle or no technical advice, so the soilshad become saline, or the water supplyhad failed, or the schemes were aban-doned by the people because theyproved unworkable, or the benefitswere too small.

What this planner did not appreciateis that it is not the small size of ascheme or the informal approach thatis the cause of such failures. The basicfactors influencing the success orfailure of a scheme (social andeconomic factors, technology level,water resources, land suitability, etc.)are the same for large or smallschemes; and large fonnal schemes canfail for exactly the same reasons as thesmall schemes this planner had known.What his experience was telling himwas, rather, that the promoters of smallschemes were less professional in theirplanning because, unlike most of theagencies which promote large formalschemes, they did not have a traditionof rigorous scientific approaches to thecomplex interaction of factors whichmust be understood when developingirrigation, whether on a large or smallscale. The answer to his criticism isnot, therefore, to discourage the small-scale approach, but to provide itspromoters with appropriate guidelinesfor development, and to train them touse these guidelines.

The conclusion that the basicfactors are essentially the same forsmall/informal and large/formalschemes, and that therefore similarstudies are needed in the planningstage, needs one qualification. While

WATERLINES VOL.12 NO.1 JULY 1993 9

The purpose of carrying out detailed investigations is to ensure that the finaldesign is the one best suited to the conditions and objectives.

The project cycleWhen considering guidelines for thepreparation of projects, the concept ofthe Project Cycle is useful. This tennis used to denote the sequence of stepsthat many years of experience of theplanning and execution of fonnal

development projects has found to bedesirable. Short cuts can, of course, betaken to suit the circumstances, butessentially the project cycle containsthe following steps:I. Reconnaissance2. Preliminary or pre-feasibility study3. Feasibility study plus appraisal4. Final design and implementation

Between each of these studies orevents, an intennediate decision-mak-ing step is needed. Based on theprevious step and taking into accountthe influences of external circum-stances, a decision is made as towhether to proceed further or not.

The third of these intennediate steps,between steps 3 and 4, is the mostcrucial and is generally called theproject 'appraisal'. It is at this pointthat the funding agency decideswhether or not to accept the proposalfor investment and allocate funds.

Based on a hundred years' experi-ence of modern large-scale irrigationdevelopment, both the meaning andcontent of each step in the project cycle

are well established. The project ele-ments cover the physical resources(climate, land, and water), the socialresources (labour and skills), and theeconomic resources (inputs, infrastruc-ture, access, markets). At each step theinformation previously gathered is re-viewed and carried a step further to amore detailed level. The purpose is toensure that major problems are fore-seen, that as little as possible is left tochance, and that the final design is theone best-suited to the conditions andobjectives.

Less formal guidelinesA useful analysis of the project cyclefor small-scale informal irrigation hasrecently been prepared by the Ministryof Agriculture and Livestock Develop-ment (MALD) in Kenya on the basisof several years' experience of thistype of work. * The project cycle ispresented in four stages as follows:1. Field visit to gather infonnation

Output: Field Visit reportTime taken: typically 5 to 10 days

2. Analyse existing data; collect newdata, preliminary designs, and costestimatesOutput: Preliminary reportTime taken: typically I to 4 weeks

3. Detailed investigations and designOutput: Final scheme document,including detailed designs andcostingsTime taken: typically 2 to 6 months

4. Implementation(*Another very useful check-list or'Guide for Rapid Appraisal' by RobertYoder and Ed Martin was publishedat about the same time. Althoughdeveloped in Nepal, this Guide hasalready been successfully used inAfrica.)

To help during Stage I the MALDdocument contains a useful check liston which the field visit report is based.The main headings in the check list are:o physical resources: rainfall, water

source, irrigable areas, soils topog-raphy, population, and farming sys-tems;

o objectives;o degree and nature of farmers' par-

ticipation;o constraints expected;o alternative development activities;

ando analysis of the existing scheme if

the project is for rehabilitation.These factors are basically the same

as for the formal approach to irrigationdevelopment already noted.

If Stage 1 shows that the irrigationpotential is attractive, then Stage 2, the

X

XXX

XXX

X

xXX

Type of guidelines

Formal Semi-formal InformalAgency/Organization

Official developmentagencies:

InternationalBilateral

Central governmentsLocal governmentbodiesNGOs:

InternationalLocal

Farmers' groups or ruralcommunityorganizations

Size or scale

Table 1.

Large

Medium

Small

ning to appear in print, for example the1986 MALD report, while guidelinesfor the' infomlal' approach are not yetavailable in any generally acceptedfonn. 'Semi-fonnal' refers to smallirrigation projects which are supportedby governments through their irriga-tion services but not controlled oroperated by them. Government assis-tance can be critical at the level ofworks which the farmers cannot do forthemselves (for example penn anenthead works, land levelling), in technicaladvice, and in providing a favourable'policy environment', for exampleprice control at a stable and attractivelevel, market systems, credit, andextension.

10 WATERLINES VOL. 12 NO.1 JULY 1993

pre-feasibility or preliminary study,will commence. This requires theanalysis of the data gained in Stage 1together with new data, preliminarydesigns, and cost estimates; it con-cludes with a 'preliminary report indi-cating restrictions, possibilities, andrecommendations to be used for theselection of schemes which will beinvestigated in more detail' in Stage 3.

Stage 3 is not covered in the MALDdocument, but (as with the formalapproach to project preparation) it willrefine the data for the scheme so thata final decision may be made aboutwhether to proceed to implementation.It is at this point in the semi-formalapproach that it is becoming commonfor an agreement or 'memorandum ofunderstanding' to be drawn up settingout the responsibilities of the con-cerned parties - for example the localfarmers' association, the local irriga-tion unit of the central government, andthe NGO supporting the enterprise.

Comparison of formal andinformal approachesIt is in the section on Stage 2 in theMALD manual that the differencebetween the formal and informal ap-proaches to project preparation becomeclear. In the formal approach, thedecisions are made by politicians andcivil servants, taking into account theproject reports available to them, butalso influenced by national and inter-national strategies and power struc-tures. These high-level and often ab-stract concepts are of little directinterest to the farmers, whose concernsare more concrete and more immediate- such as food for the family, cashfor clothes and school fees, or socialstatus in the community. This contrastbetween abstract and concrete is, more-over, reinforced by personal immedi-acy. To the national planners andpoliticians the success or failure of anirrigation project is likely to be at someremove from their personal lifestyles;although it may, conceivably, influ-ence their future careers, their immedi-ate circumstances of health, family,and property are unlikely to be af-fected. Even the lower-level techni-cians are likely to receive the samesalaries after as before the scheme. Incontrast it is the peasant farmers, witha more precarious economic base totheir existence and living nearer therealities of 'basic needs', who areasked to take the risks, usually withoutbeing an opportunity to evaluate theserisks beforehand.

In the formal approach, this may beno great obstacle, as the farmers'opinions were not considered to be ofprimary concern, and decision-makingcould proceed as fast as the decision-makers could smooth out possibleconflicts and reach agreement.

With the informal approach, how-ever, new questions arise: do thefarmers understand what is involvedwith acceptance of the proposal towhich they will contribute the majorpart? And are they able to operate itafter completion? The farmers may betaking a big step into the unknown.This may require not only time for theunknown to be weighed up and as-sessed, but also training in the practi-calities of what it will demand. In factsome NGOs have found that trainingin other, but related, fields, for examplebookkeeping for treasurers, is as essen-tial a core feature of any grassrootsirrigation development as field watermanagement or pump maintenancecourses for farmers.

The conclusion is that if it is thepeople who are to make the majorinvestment in the scheme and whohave the decision-making power, thenthe time spent between the study andreporting steps of project preparationmay be quite unpredictable and maybe much longer than expected at firstsight. In one actual case the farmerstwice failed to reach agreement on anirrigation scheme proposal; but theadvising agency allowed the processesof discussion, learning, and training tocontinue at its own speed until the thirdtime, when the farmers were con-vinced, and united to proceed with thescheme .•

ReferencesFAO, Guidelines for the Preparation of Irriga-

tion and Drainage Projects, Revised version,Investment Centre, Rome, ]983.

FAO, Preparing Agricultural Investment Pro-jects, Investment Centre Technical PaperNo.1, Rome, ]985.

KFFHC, 'Ugambe Valley Irrigation Scheme,Workshop Report Siaya Farmers' TrainingCentre, 24-6 March ]986'. Kenya FreedomFrom Hunger Council, Nairobi, ]986,

MALO, 'Scheme Identification and Eva]uation.Section 2: Field Visit and PreliminaryReport'. Irrigation and Drainage Branch,Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Devel-opment, Nairobi, 1986.

Yoder, Robert, and Martin, Ed, Identificationand Utilization of Farmer Resources inIrrigation Development: A Guide for RapidAppraisal. Irrigation Management Network,Paper 12c, Overseas Development Institute,London, 1985.

Harry Underhill was with FAO for many years,working in water development and irrigation.He is the author of Small-scale Irrigation inAfrica (Cranfield Press, UK, 1990).

The 0 tober i ue i d vot d toarticles on man dHti r ntubj cts that have b n ent in

by reader of Waterlines. Therwill also be a report from thm ling of th Water uppland Sanitation CollaborativeCoun il.

I

Subscribe now

Order Form1993 Annual rate: 4 issuesInstitutions£19.00/$37.00Individuals£14.00/$27.00(Rates include inland or acceleratedsurface postage; for airmail add £5.00/$10.00)

DI enclose a cheque/internationalmoney order (payable to ITPublications Ltd)oPlease charge my Access/ American

. Express/Barclaycard/Mastercard/Visa

Card number

Card expiry date

For payments via the NationalGirobank the IT Publications Ltdaccount number is 549 0456 (CB)

DPlease send me an index toWaterlines

CAPITALS PLEASE

Name

Institution (if applicable)

Address

Signature

Date

Please send order with payment to:IT Publications Ltd., 103-105Southampton Row, LondonWelB 41ll1, UK.

WATERLINES VOL. 12 NO.1 JULY 1993 11