Irrigation is Development: Ethically a contradiction

Irrigation is Development: Ethically a Contradiction?

Introduction

Irrigation development is highly believed to be a vehicle of economic and infrastructure development to the rural areas in developing as well as developed countries. Irrigation has been favored over rain-fed agriculture due to gargantuan benefits it has managed to produce even in limiting circumstances. As by 1986, irrigated area covered only 18% of all cultivated land but contributes 33% of total harvest in the world (Yudelman, forthcoming cited in Repetto 1986:3)

The benefits if irrigated agriculture includes:

• Creation of employment – employ more people as skilled or unskilled laborers starting from construction, operation and maintenance.
• Increase productivity of the land. With irrigation it is possible to harvest three times within a year thus food security is ensured amidst escalating population increase over stagnant land size.
• Reduce desertification
  

Therefore Irrigated agriculture has been an important contributor to the expansion of national and world food supplies since the 1960s and is expected to play a major role in feeding the growing world population[1].

Having this background, irrigation development has been biased considered positively in many occasions. There has been little or no critical consideration of the ethical problems it has caused. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss some of the ethical problems caused by irrigation. Ethical views used in this paper are deontological, utilitarianism and virtue as presented by van de Belt (forthcoming).

In this paper ethical problems of irrigation are systematically presented and discussed from their background to their multifaceted manifestation. For each section, suggested solutions to the problems and the consequences of the solutions are presented.

Four ethical problems identified include:

• Non-interventionism of indigenous knowledge
• Asymmetric the golden rule between people and environment
• The paradox of handing over white elephants
• Distending susceptibility of vulnerable groups

Non-interventionism of indigenous knowledge

In developing countries, poor farmers are the one dependent on government funded irrigation schemes. These farmers mostly are illiterate and suffer from high inferiority complex (not used to group discussion, speaking/negotiate at public meetings or sometime not comfortable with the language used) but they possess various water managing skills and knowledge worthy utilizing. Unfortunately irrigation engineer / designer due to their solid technical background have in many cases overlooked this important point. Worse still in many bureaucratic organizations (i.e. irrigation agencies) performance measurement of engineers is not based on how the system is performing but the quantity of structures constructed or areas being cultivated (Korten, 1989:131)

Boelens (draft) observed that “many irrigation projects show a rather strict separation between the technical and economic aspects, on the one hand, and the socio-organizational and normative issues, on the other.”

With this background local knowledge has not been fully utilized. There have been disregarded and irrigation system been designed to the preference of engineers only. Then irrigation systems are like foreign object in the community.

This problem has resulted into:

• Irrigation systems are designed using theoretical principles and making them unsuitable to the local condition.
• Local people fail to comprehend the management principles of the systems for sustainability. Therefore the systems collapse quickly.
• Ownership of the system by the local people is not achieved.
  

Non involvement of local knowledge is against the principle of respect of autonomy. It is very unfair to impose a system on other people. What is supposed to be good for the other does not translate to be good to the other in reality.

The suggested solution includes interactive designing irrigation systems. Local people should be incorporated in the planning team at early stages rather than bring them in at the end of the project.

The gap is reduced between designers and local people the following results will be attained:

• The irrigation system will be fully owned by the local people.
• The capacity of the local people on irrigation system planning will be enhanced.
• The irrigation system designed will be sustainable
  

Asymmetric the golden rule between people and environment

The golden rule states that whatsoever things you would want other men do to you, do you even so to them. Appling the same principle between people and environment there is huge incongruity in many irrigation systems. It is a known fact that human beings depend on nature and vice versa. Human being and nature should live in unity but this is not the case in most irrigation systems.

Sustainable irrigation development is possible only when environmentally sound designs are employed. The Irrigation engineers / designers know this requirement. Unfortunately many irrigation systems have been / are being designed disregarding this fundamental requirement for system sustainability and more importantly for the betterment of the community living in vicinity to the irrigation system.

Due to disregarding of environmental sound design, operation and management, there have been enormous problems affecting innocent local people. Considering Kantian ethics disregarding environmental fails under the three principles of reciprocity, rationality and freedom (van den Belt, ? : 5 – 9). Even more utilism speaking the action does not bring the greatest good for greatest number and under virtue ethics view this action (irrigation disregarding environment) is not highly valued and cannot promoted to be followed.

Flow of water has been reduced in the downstream compromising downstream users’ activities which are dependent on. Communities in the upstream have been highly exposed to water borne, related and carried diseases, flooding, accidents like children / livestock drawing in the water. Land degradation has been propagated living the downstream with fertile silts but highly susceptible to flood destruction. (Repetto, 1986:6)

On the contrary rapid environmental degradation can be avoided in irrigation system. If the golden rule is well balanced between people and environment, it is possible for irrigation to be environmentally friendly and in return the environment sustainably supports people’s activities.

The paradox of handing over white elephants

Irrigation scheme as seen as white elephants in two ways: when they are unwanted property (imposed on them) but not possible to be disposed (of course they are) and when local users realize less or none from the great expectation they had. They may be unwanted because of many problems including huge cost requirement and underperforming.

Up to 1980s many large scale irrigation schemes have been established with large funding from international financial organizations (Repetto 1986:4-7). And designs and the operations requirement mostly did not consider limited finances of the local people and assumption of continued flow of finances from international organizations through the government departments. Repetto (1986:1) support this idea by saying that in third world public irrigation is heavily subsidized.

On the contrary due to limited availability of finances at national level, funding to irrigation system has been reduced and irrigation agencies have been under pressure to ensure that irrigation systems are self sustaining.

Aiming at self sustaining irrigation operation, most governments now are handing over the irrigation schemes fully to the local farmers or they jointly manage them – what is termed as cost-sharing.

The handing over of these irrigation systems, which were constructed not aiming at increasing productivity, to rural poor people who are interested in increasing productivity is a huge contradiction. The assumption is that local farmers will financially sustain the project. On contrary evidence shows that benefits from large scale irrigation is much lower that the operation and maintenance cost.

Therefore handing over non-productive irrigation systems to the farmers put them in another poverty trap. In this case local people have been used as means for national irrigation agencies to be applauded by the international agencies and thereafter continued support.

For smooth transfer of irrigation to the farmers, evidently under pressure from International donor agencies and operating within limited funding, the governments have do not declare their interest. Instead they disguise the whole process with new terminology of participatory irrigation management, decentralization, power to the people etcetera .

This action of the most governments in developing countries is against the principle of non-maleficence, principle of beneficence and the principle of justice. The local people are excited to take over the management of the system not fully aware of the negative implications on their livelihood economically and even social relation.

The following suggestions may help to overcome this problem:

• The governments in developing countries should not blindly copy and paste recommendations from international organizations. Each situation should be assessed differently and realistic solutions should be enacted.
• The objectives of the irrigation systems should be analyzed properly before handing them over to the local farmers. Welfare irrigation systems should still be managed by the governments but productive irrigation systems can be handed over to the farmers. The governments should fulfill is social obligations.
• The government and government agencies should be honest in executing their duties. All necessary information should be provided to the local people so that people should make informed decision is taking over the management of the irrigation systems.

Following the above suggested mitigation measures the following results may be achieved:

• Trust will be established between government and the local people.
• Handed over irrigation system will be managed sustainably. There will be few or no cases of local people abandoning irrigation schemes which they willingly accepted.
• The local farmers will not deteriorate further while involved in what ought to be a productive enterprise – irrigation.
• The government will continue to fulfill its social obligation and destitute poor will be fully supported.
• The government agencies will be responsible enough to request funding for properly design irrigation systems, thus which are productive and which can be easily handed over to the local people.
  

Distending susceptibility of vulnerable groups

In developing countries, constructions of irrigation systems have been done with different forms of remuneration. In some cases the systems are constructed under food for work, in other cases under cash for assets programs. However in most cases the local communities are requested to contribute their labor freely if at all the infrastructure is constructed in their area.

This requirement has led many local leaders forcing their subjects to participate in projects. Each household is forced to be represented on daily basis for the construction of the irrigation infrastructure. Each household in the community is not allowed to make free decision to participate or not. Failure to participate is followed with all sorts of punishment.

Labor is contributed disregarding the type, vulnerability, size and irrigation interesting of the household. The rich household end up hiring out labor to represent them or sometime they contribute money. They invest their personal labor to other productive activities which directly ensures increased wellbeing of their household. On the other hand the poor household (female headed household, child headed household, the aged and chronically ill household) are forced to use the labor which could otherwise be used on productive household activities.

Making matters worse the rich households benefit more from the irrigation system (Wegerich, forthcoming a; Wegerich forthcoming b, Wegerich, 2006). They manage to cultivate large area – but also better areas within irrigation scheme (upstream or near the main canal) and are able to use all necessary agricultural inputs. On the contrary the poor household barely benefits from the intervention apart from casual labor where they are poorly paid.

In all fairness this scenario should be avoided in irrigation projects. The gap between the poor and rich is increased. The vulnerable groups are deteriorated further and fully manipulated by the rich household. This is against the golden rule, the principle of beneficence the principle of justice and principle of nonmaleficence.

This predicament can be avoided by proper targeting. The destitute poor household should always be under government social obligation. When irrigation agencies request community to make contribution towards irrigation system construction they should also put guidelines to protect exploitation of poor households. The irrigation agencies should also monitor the contribution to ensure adherence to the guidelines.

The removal of this glitch reduces the gap between the poor and the rich. Exploitation of the poor household by the elite, powerful and rich stakeholders will be reduced. Vulnerability of the poor household will not deteriorate further.

Conclusion

The whole idea that irrigation is development is mercilessly raped when ethical issues are overlooked in the process of its design, implementation and operation.
As argued by Mollinga and Vincent (1996) “irrigation is a contradictory phenomenon with great socio-economic importance, with many negative impacts, but also with enormous potential for improving people’s livelihood. The question is not to be for it or against it, but how to use it constructively.”

All stakeholders involved in irrigation should have broad view on other implication of irrigation intervention. Ethical issues should be interwoven with technical, social, political principles.

References

Belt van den H (?) Introduction to Ethics: three varieties of moral reasoning, Wageningen University
Boelens R (draft) Lecture Notes ‘Design as an organization process, Wageningen University
Korten F.F. (1989) “From Bureaucratic to Strategic Organization” In: Korten F.F and Siy R Y ed., Transforming a Bureaucracy: The experience of the Philippine national irrigation administration, Quezon City: Aleneo de Manila University press, p.131
Mollinga P. P and Vincent L (1996) Irrigation, Development, Irrigation and Development
Repetto R (1986) Skimming the Water: Rent Seeking and the Performance of Public Irrigation System, Research report No. 4, World Research Institute, Washington
Wegerich K (2006) The hidden urban tail-enders – drinking water supply as a common pool resource problem in Khorezm, Uzbekistan, Wageningen University and Research Centre.
Wegerich K (forthcoming a) Poverty reduction: what has irrigation to do with it? Wageningen University and Research Centre
Wegerich K (forthcoming b) Opening the “black box” on the concept of equity: examples from the Amu Darya. Wageningen University and Research Centre[1]http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/CABI_Publications/CA_CABI_Series/Water_Productivity/Unprotected/0851996698ch10.pdf