Policy and program framework for irrigation development in the Philippines

Professorial Chair Lecture

UPLB Jubilee professorial Chair Lecture

Place

Operations Room, Administration Building, UPLB College, Laguna

Date

6-22-2001

Abstract

Our interest in irrigation development predates recorded history. We have always recognized the important role of irrigation development in sustaining agricultural development Our early irrigation systems are mostly small, gravity irrigation systems that were built, operated and maintained by farmer-irrigators These systems have built-in stability as crop cultural practices as well as soil and water conservation practices arc interwoven in their design, operation and management (O&M) Starting in 1908, the government took a more active role in irrigation development It centralized irrigation development under the Bureau of Public Works This set in motion a seemingly irreversible process of viewing irrigation development as a typical public works project whose orientation is mainly engineering in nature and focused on infrastructures From the 1960s through the mid- 1980s, there was a rapid expansion in the area under irrigation There was a shill in emphasis towards medium- and large-scale gravity irrigation systems serving rice monocultures Irrigation development was heavily subsidized and under government monopoly In the late 1980s, it became quite clear that not all is well in as far as irrigation development is concerned A host of interrelated technical, social, economic, institutional and hydrologic issues and constraints added costs on irrigation facilities and services Scarce public resources were allocated to irrigation activities and technologies that were not cost-effective, efficient or sustainable Moreover, gravity irrigation systems were rapidly deteriorating at a rate of about 70,0(X) ha taken out of the irrigation command area annually As gravity irrigation systems rapidly deteriorated and failed to distribute water efficiently and equitably, service fee collections fell much short of the needed operation and maintenance costs, raising serious doubts about their sustainability The policy of continuing to invest in the development and rehabilitation of medium- to large-scale gravity irrigation systems has increasingly been questioned Rehabilitation and new area generation from 1992 to 1996 covered more than 410,000 ha, averaging about 83,000 ha annually The massive efforts resulted in a total increase of only 61,000 ha of irrigated area during the dry season, or an average annual increase of 12,000 ha pa year Though nearly 40 percent of the total service area in 1996 had either been newly generated or rehabilitated, the 1996 dry season cropping intensity was only about 56 percent

Efforts to rationalize irrigation development started in the late 1980s and continue to date. The Department of Agriculture's (DA) shallow tubewell irrigation (STW) project which was launched in the early 1990s was a big step to promote cost-effective and sustainable irrigation technologies, increase participation of farmers in irrigation development and their control over facilities, privatize irrigation and gradually phase out irrigation subsidies. Present analysis confirmed the cost-effectiveness, by many folds, of STW and low lift pump ix (LLP) over alternative systems in terms of increasing effective cropped area and of empowering farmers. From 1990 onwards, STW and LLP irrigation became the engines of growth of irrigated agriculture, expanding at a rate of more than 10 percent annually. The command area of these modes of irrigation is estimated to be over half a million ha at present. Much of the available information show that the country is realizing less than half of the potential benefits from irrigation development. Moreover, there are alarming indications of decreasing efficiency in the planning and implementation of national irrigation systems (NIS) and communal irrigation systems (CIS) as attractive schemes get fewer and fewer and vital watersheds are increasingly subject to exploitation by an ever increasing population. On the average, irrigation service fee (ISE) collection for NIS and CIS only amount to about 58 percent of the assessed fees. This is despite the fact that the assessed fees are generally way below the amount required for their adequate repair, operation and maintenance (O&M). Thus, there is a need for frequent rehabilitation.

On the average. irrigation service fee (ISE) collection for NIS and CIS only amount to about 58 percent of the assessed fees. This is despite the fact that the assessed fees are generally way below the amount required for their adequate repair, operation and maintenance (O&M). Thus, there is a need for frequent rehabilitation. Fortunately, the Philippines is blessed with abundant shallow groundwater resources. The National Water Resources Board (NWRB) estimated that we have an aggregate of 5.1 million ha shallow well area. Yet only about 1.4 million ha is currently irrigated by all modes of irrigation. It is clear that the small, fanner-controlled (collectively referred to as minor) irrigation technologies arc the most appropriate technologies for the future. This is more so in the case of STWs and LLPs which require much lower investment cost, have very short gestation periods, yield higher unit area productivity levels, give farmers a greater degree of control over their irrigation water, and are amenable to crop diversification. The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) clearly recognized this fact when it called for a shift in focus to new minor irrigation facilities (STWs, LLPs and similar low-cost, farmer-controlled, privatized and sustainable irrigation systems). These cost-effective, efficient, farmer-controlled minor irrigation technologies offer the best growth opportunities for Philippine agriculture in the short and medium-terms. There are opportunities for optimizing the benefits from irrigation development through expanded and concerted irrigation research and development (R&D) efforts, which are almost non-existent at present, and through the development of appropriate policy and institutional environment conducive to sustainable irrigation development. There are also potentials for increasing the unit area productivity of irrigated agriculture by improving the performance of existing irrigation systems. Among others, this will require improved O&M; on-farm water management; farming systems intensification and diversification; effective and timely delivery of irrigated agricultural support services such as integrated irrigation water. soil and fertilizer, pests and seeds and seedling management; and farm mechanization. However, improving the performance of our present irrigation systems will require considerable rehabilitation efforts in order to rectify design shortcomings and arrest the decline in the command area and performance of NIS and CIS. A policy and program framework for accelerated and sustained irrigation development has been formulated after an in-depth analysis of the trends, issues and constraints as well as options in irrigation development. The program framework envisions that the country will soon have in lace a coherent.lice from together with a strategic vision for the transfo a highly productive, intensive and diversity, Page 11 / 123 CC term (5 — 10 years) scenario that can then sustained irrigation

development guided by the intent and spirit of the AFMA. Among others, an accelerated and sustained irrigation development would require the following:

I) Generation of an additional command area of about 100 thousand ha annually during year I and 2, with a 10 percent incremental increase annually from year 3 to 9. levelling off at 200 thousand ha per year thereafter. About 90 percent of the new area will come from STWs and LLPs. The rest will be from other modes of irrigation including Small Water Impounding Projects (SWIPs), Small Farm Reservoirs (SFRs). NIS, CIS and inundation schemes.

2) Rehabilitation of about 50 thousand ha of NIS and CIS annually for the next 10 years assuming that the present irrigation service areas are cut down to realistic level (by about 30%). This will maintain the present level of development of the NIS and CIS. Rehabilitation will be on a cost-sharing basis among stakeholders. After rehabilitation, a system must be self-sustaining (full 0 & M cost recovery from ISF).

3) Effective and efficient 0 & M of existing national, communal and small-scale irrigation facilities serving about I million ha (irrigation command area) at present.

4) Improved performance of irrigated agriculture. This will imply achieving a cropping intensity of 170 to 200 percent and unit area productivity of at least 7 Uha/year in terms of grain for STW and LLPs and a cropping intensity of at least 140 percent and unit area productivity of 5.5 t/ha/year for NIS and CIS.

5) Increasingly diversified, intensified and highly productive agriculture in areas served by small, farmer-controlled irrigation facilities.

6) Enhanced institutional capacity at all levels for the effective and timely delivery of essential irrigated agriculture support services and functions including policy planning. monitoring and evaluation, research and extension, training. credit and marketing facilities, and inputs supply and distribution

• Assuming timely and effective implementation of the proposed framework and that irrigation development will be focused on rice production, palay production is expected to increase (from a base level of about 11.0 million metric tons at present) by at least 4.5 percent per year. Much of the incremental increase in production will come from the development of new STW and LLP irrigation systems. The rice supply and demand scenario resulting from the projected increase in rice production given the present level of per capita rice consumption of about 95 kg per year, a population growth rate of 2.3 percent and a 65 percent milling recovery shows that rice self-sufficiency will be attained in year 5 of successful program implementation. When per capita rice consumption is assumed to increase from 95 to 110 kg per year, self-sufficiency in rice will be attained in year 7 of program implementation. A total of 30 percent of the budget for agriculture and fishery modernization has been earmarked for irrigation development. Hence, a budget of at least about P6 billion is to be allocated for irrigation development for the year 2001. This sizeable budgetary allocation is xi likely to be allocated in the coming years since the national government is committed to achieving the goals and intent of the AFMA.

The provision of a relatively large budget for irrigation development raises the issue of how to allocate to the various aspects of irrigation development such as O&M, rehabilitation and new systems development and to the various irrigation technologies so as to engender broad-based sustained agriculture growth and enhanced poverty alleviation. Given the numerous aspects and modes by which irrigation development may be carried out, it is but logical to allocate the financial resources optimally to maximize the benefits derived from these endeavors. An initial outlay of P6.0 billion pesos will be required. Of these, about P2.3 billion, P2.7 billion and P0.8 billion will be used for the development of new systems, for rehabilitation, and for the improvement in 0 & M of existing irrigation systems, respectively. The total program cost will level of about P8.9 billion from year 10 onwards. As stipulated by AFMA. the focus in new irrigation systems development is on small farmer irrigation systems such as STWs and LLPs. 'the development of these irrigation schemes is private sector-led. The rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems should be based on a cost-sharing arrangement among the Department of Agriculture (DA), Local Government Units (LGU) and the farmer-beneficiaries. The public sector should continue to contribute the lion's share in the cost of improving the 0 & M of NIS and CIS, in the delivery of essential irrigated agriculture support services and in the protection of critical watersheds and aquifers. About two-thirds of the initial budgetary outlay of P6.0 billion should come from the government. From year 8 onwards, the share of the public sector will be less than that of the private sector. The proposed program framework approach does not advocate totally displacing the share of gravity irrigation systems in favor of STWs and LLPs. With 58 percent collection rate for NIS and CIS, irrigation service fees are insufficient to cover the O&M costs of gravity irrigation systems. Without public financing to cover shortfalls in resources for O&M, losses in irrigated areas eventually set in from gravity system decay. In effect, these losses offset pan of hectare gained from promoting STWs.

Calculations indicate a cropping intensity of 70 percent during the wet season and 50 percent during the dry season in NIS with a total service area coverage of 800.000 ha. The estimated budgetary requirements were based on the assumption that the heritage (240.000 ha) that can not be effectively served by the NIS anyway, even in the wet season, will be excised from the existing irrigation service area. This will reduce the required rehabilitation costs of gravity irrigated command areas as well as the shortfalls in irrigation service fees which need to be covered from the public coffers.

Location

UPLB Main Library Special Collections Section

Call Number

Sp. Col.

Pages/Collation

123 [12] leaves

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS