Keynote papers

Keynote paper 1. Capacity development engineering - a way forward for capacity building in irrigation and drainage?

There is a general consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies that a lack of capacity is constraining the development and improvement of irrigated agriculture as a means of reducing poverty, increasing food security and improving livelihoods among both rural and urban populations.

Capacity building is not something new; it has been a leading issue in development for many years and comes from the widely acknowledged shortcomings in development assistance over the past 50 years. However, what is new is the attention that capacity building is now receiving in the irrigation and drainage world where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in infrastructure investment projects.

The need for capacity development in irrigation and drainage became particularly obvious where irrigation management transfer programmes were implemented and when people realized that transferring responsibilities without transferring/raising the capacity was a major threat to the success of this institutional reform. Many developing countries now say they need more capacity, and aid agencies are keen to supply it or at least help to create it. However, it remains a concept of enormous generality and vagueness wrapped up in a host of concepts such as participation, empowerment, technical assistance and organizational development (Morgan, 1998). Moore (1995) states that: "Capacity building includes everything that was covered by the different definitions of institution building and more besides...Aid agencies would be wise to have no truck with the new jargon of ‘capacity building’ and to insist on using language and terms that have identifiable and precise meanings." Others (Browne, 2002) refer to the weary mantra of capacity building that is not leading anywhere. The calls for capacity building in irrigated agriculture suffer from these same vague generalities.

Many senior government officials talk about a lack of capacity constraining development and see solutions in terms of more infrastructure and training for farmers and local professionals rather than in reforming the broader institutional context in which they function. Unfortunately, donors have tended to reinforce this approach. They have shaped technical cooperation by concentrating on new works and providing technical assistance to fill the skills gap and to pass on know-how rather than focus on national priorities. Disappointingly, such approaches have failed to yield the expected benefits. So beyond the general idea that more capacity is required, there is a need for greater clarity of thinking about the practicalities of planning, designing and implementing capacity building.

This paper is designed to initiate a debate within the irrigation community on what capacity building means. Can it be defined in clear, practical terms or is it just a vague concept? Is it possible to develop a strategy and then plan, design and implement capacity building projects in much the same way as is done with more traditional infrastructure projects? Is it really just about training? If not, then what are the issues that need addressing? Finally, are there already good examples on how to build capacity from which lessons can be learned? This paper attempts to answer some of these questions and to set out the parameters for the debate.

Defining capacity building

Capacity and development

The established model for capacity building developed with the advent of the aid era following the Second World War. The Marshall Plan, introduced to support the rebuilding of Europe, was very successful but it generated an overly simplistic and optimistic view of what worked; transfer capital and know-how to other countries and swift economic development would follow (Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik, 2002). Subsequent experience showed that this view underestimated the importance of local knowledge and institutions in the process of economic development and was compounded by aid driven by politics rather than results. Aid was then criticized for undermining local capacity rather than building it, ignoring local wishes and favouring high profile activities.

In the past decade, there has been a change in emphasis towards seeing development as "locally owned" so that cooperation does not seek to do things for developing countries but with them. In support of this Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik (2002) point out that most countries evolved organically, building their own capacities, and so the assumption that developing countries should simply start from someone else’s blueprint files in the face of history. They suggest that countries should build on the wealth of local knowledge and expand these to achieve whatever goals and aspirations the country sets itself. They use Morgan’s description of capacity simply as the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives, and raise the issue of national capacity being more than the sum of the capacity of individuals, which points to the importance of people working in organizations and networking. This has become known as social capital and in its crudest terms it means the more people trust each other, the better off their society (The Economist, 2003). Economists now recognize this as an addition to natural resources, the rule of law and the market that they believe guide the hand of selfish human actions to serve the common good. Traditional rice-based systems required high social capital for the massive labour needed to build and maintain the terraces and to synchronize cropping patterns for effective water and pest management

This change in development has also had a profound influence on irrigated agriculture. In addition, there is a growing understanding that successful irrigation farming requires much more than investment in construction and training. Farmers are being encouraged to take on more responsibility for water management, and they are increasingly being exposed to private sector market forces. To cope with these and other pressures, farmers are beginning to demand better support services, advice, access to new technologies, finance, equitable and fair water management regulations, and legal redress when things go wrong. These are seen collectively as a lack of "capacity" and the need is to build or develop it so that the water sector can function properly and poor farmers can take on more responsibility for their own development.

A definition

Browne (2002) suggests that capacity building is both easy and hard to define. The easy part is the generic definition about skills and capabilities - the ability to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives - and is a significant step from earlier definitions that looked only at human resource development. However, the difficult part is answering the questions about which skills and whose capability, and this raises many more issues about the complex nature of development.

Alaerts (1999a) examined at several definitions applied to the water sector but avoided recommending one, as all have limitations and focus attention on different aspects of capacity building. Those that attempt to be all-inclusive tend to become rather turgid and incomprehensible. So, is there an acceptable definition for the irrigation community?

The definition formulated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1998) comes close. It is general, wide ranging and encompasses the approaches to development that are now well accepted in irrigation. It states that: "Capacity building is the sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels - locally, nationally, regionally and internationally so that they can better progress towards sustainable development". It continues by saying: "at the basic conceptual level, building capacity involves empowering people and organizations to solve their problems, rather than attempting to solve problems directly. When capacity building is successful, the result is more effective people and institutions better able to provide products and services on a sustainable basis."

Capacity building - a negative concept?

Concepts are not usually neutral and are influenced inevitably by the way they are introduced. Capacity building is often expressed in negative terms such as "a lack of capacity is a constraint to development" or "inadequate capacity is the bottleneck of sustainable development". This attitude seems to be linked inseparably with past top-down management attitudes. After spending money building infrastructure and setting objectives for local actors, state or international agencies have been disappointed by the lack of capacity to attain those objectives.

A more positive approach would be to say "the development of capacity is central in moving towards sustainable development". An alternative to the top-down approach would be for a public body/external agency to supports local stakeholders in defining a path for development and, hence, a capacity development programme that includes infrastructure development where required.

It is interesting to note that not all new concepts are introduced this way. For example, the concept of social capital was brought in as an important positive asset of community capacity in dealing with collective activities on which not enough attention had been paid.

A lack of capacity or a capacity gap?

"Lack of capacity" is a common phrase but it does tend to specify a situation in absolute terms rather than relative to a development issue or a stage in development. Development is a relative concept that is changing constantly. Therefore, it would be preferable to refer to a gap in capacity or inadequate capacity, thus stressing the difference between the existing situation and what is required/expected in order to meet development objectives. It also emphasizes those objectives of development as a fundamental aspect of capacity building.

As much a process as an end product

The "end products" of capacity building are trained individuals, established irrigation organizations, new water laws, etc. However, it is increasingly recognized that great care must be taken over their production if they are to be useful. The top-down approach of government and aid agencies deciding what needs to be done and how it should be done is now discredited. There is a realization that products need to be produced by working in response to local initiatives with local ownership and leadership and incorporating the ideas of participation and subsidiarity. Thus, the process of building capacity becomes an essential part of producing a useful end product. Eade (1997) makes this point by saying that capacity building is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why many people now use the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.

External/internal balance

It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the internal nature of capacity development from external aid and technical cooperation. Any discussion about capacity development inevitably leads to how it will be financed and what specialist help is needed that is not available in-country. With its emphasis on external support, the Marshall Plan set the early agenda, but this agenda is now changing as both the approaches to aid and technical cooperation are being reshaped to fit more closely with the new processes of capacity development.

The current external/internal balance is weighted heavily towards internal actions but there is an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process. An outsider can often help to focus attention on the big issues, and the stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking. They can provide a useful role in helping to identify capacity constraints and support both government and the private sector to take action. The key is to establish just how much assistance is needed and can be provided to support the internal process without upsetting it and jeopardizing its sustainability.

Long-term partnerships are now seen as the essence of good collaboration between donors and recipients and not the more traditional North-South dialogue. Such relationships can influence the process positively as trust and effective work relationships develop over time. However, striking the right balance is the greatest challenge when one party is seen to be giving and one is receiving. However, some still view any external support as evidence of a lack of sustainability.

A framework

The UNDP definition is one step in the process of clarifying what capacity building means. However, it does little to describe the territory of capacity building in irrigation, how to assess the capacity gaps and what practical steps are needed to overcome them. Help with describing the territory comes from social science and the extensive conceptual thinking about capacity building that has been taking place over the past decade on development generally (Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik, 2002; Browne, 2002). This has produced a generic framework that has become widely accepted in development and is also gaining acceptance in the water sector. It is suggested that this is a useful framework for irrigated agriculture.

A generic framework

Bolger (2000) describes the generic framework in terms of different levels of capacity, namely: individuals, organizations and societies, but with an emphasis on the links between them. For example, the performance of a WUA is shaped as much by society (laws and regulations) as it is by individuals (skills, leadership and relationships).

Source: Bolger (2000).

Four levels of capacity emerge from this approach (Figure 7). Each represents a level that can be examined and analysed as well as a possible entry point for support from a donor or technical cooperation. Interpreting this framework in terms of irrigated agriculture, the four levels are:

• Individual level. This is the most "concrete" and familiar part of capacity development and includes the education and training of the various stakeholders, farmers, local professionals, engineers and other disciplines involved in irrigation.

• Organizational level. This refers to groups of people such as water user organizations, research groups, government extension agencies, private companies that share common objectives such as improved livelihoods at a farming level, improved water management or increased agricultural productivity at a national level. Institutions are the rules and agreements, formal and informal, and shared values that bind organizations. Thus, the capacity of an organization is embedded in the ability of its individuals to work together within established rules and values.

• Sector/network level. The sector level emphasizes the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management and reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover all aspects of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies and the environment in isolation. The addition of networking at this level is less important for irrigation as this can take place at all the levels.

• Enabling environment. This represents the broad national and international context within which irrigated agriculture can develop, and this has considerable influence over what happens at the lower levels. It is concerned with policy at the highest levels in government and the ability of people at the lower levels to influence it. It is also about the socio-economic conditions that enable or discourage irrigation development, and the legal framework that provides farmers with security of tenure for land and water and the power to seek legal redress when contracts are broken.

A framework for irrigated agriculture

The generic framework provides a useful starting-point for mapping the territory of capacity development in irrigated agriculture. However, it needs to be enriched with specific aspects of social science, the practical activities of a well-functioning irrigation sector, and the activities that develop capacity. There are many irrigation-related issues to consider. The question is what to include and what to leave out. Adding too many can lead to confusion and paralysis, whereas adding too few can lead to an oversimplification that does not bring out the main issues.

A compromise was proposed (Figure 8) by introducing a second dimension based on the familiar activities of planning, design, construction, and O&M. In addition to these, research, education and training, and networking were added as important areas of capacity development in their own right. Research here refers to the capacity to develop new knowledge in a specialist institute or university, and education and training refers to the capacity to disseminate knowledge in colleges, universities, etc. Networking refers to the various formal and informal networks that are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and innovation that can and should take place at all levels of capacity development. The historical development of agriculture in many countries has shown that the capacity of farmers’ unions and cooperatives to communicate with one another and with their members has been an important tool for boosting agricultural progress. Similarly, engineers and agriculturalists have benefited from the networking capabilities of their professional organizations.

FIGURE 8
A framework for capacity development engineering in irrigated agriculture

Guiding principles of subsidiarity (decision-making at the lowest possible administrative level) and participation were added to demonstrate the move away from the traditional top-down approach to development.

Each box in the framework represents an activity in the water sector that requires trained individuals working in organizations and within an enabling environment. If constraints are identified for a particular activity, then the need can be assessed, actions taken and impacts measured. However, as Bolger points out in relation to the generic framework, the levels (or boxes in this case) are not simple watertight compartments but are very much linked together is a variety of ways that depend on local circumstances. The simplicity of the framework should also not mask the complexity of the issues to be dealt with.

Developing a strategy

How useful is such a framework? In the same way that Bolger’s framework provides a generic "picture" of capacity development, it can be argued that this modified framework provides a similar "picture" for irrigated agriculture. It covers the territory in which capacity is needed; it can provide a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion at both local and national level, and be helpful in talks with donors in establishing clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and what needs to be done: Where are the capacity gaps? Is it individuals and if so which? Are the constraints mainly in O&M on farms or in support organizations provided by government or the private sector? Does the socio-economic environment discourage irrigation or is the education and training provision unable to provide the basic human resources on which irrigation can grow?

Thus, the framework can provide a starting-point for discussions that can begin to provide answers to these questions. The priority given to each box will vary considerably from one place to another depending on local issues such as the way irrigation is practised (e.g. privately-run small holder irrigation, publicly-owned large irrigation and drainage networks and commercial farming) and the need to solve local problems (e.g. salinity and water logging, inadequate education facilities, and irrigation management transfer).

Strategic planning

This is the beginning of a strategy development process for capacity development that includes:

• diagnosis: identification of the gaps;

• definition of the goals;

• means;

• monitoring of performance.

The CGIAR Secretariat defines strategic planning as: "a process by which an organization develops the most desirable vision of its future, taking into account the constraints the organization is likely to work within, and shows how the organization can realize that vision." To date most capacity development "strategies" have tended to be a "bolt-on" to infrastructure development. They are often limited in scope, poorly defined, and developed with minimal stakeholder consultation. Thus, applying strategic planning to capacity development as the primary issue has little precedence. However, this approach has served well in other sectors and so it is suggested that it is a viable approach for irrigation. It is now being advocated strongly by the IPTRID (1999), whose main thrust is to support strategic planning, design and implementation of capacity development programmes and projects in developing countries. It is unlikely that such a strategy can be divorced from infrastructure but it is a question of emphasis. If capacity development is the key issue, the question then becomes: what infrastructure is needed to support it?

The IPTRID proposes an initial needs assessment at regional, national and subnational levels in order to examine the present situation and to answer the question: where do we stand? The aim is to identify the priority technical issues in terms of water conservation, water productivity, land degradation, salinity, etc. and the existing institutional capacity and weaknesses at strategic and operational levels. Roundtable conferences and workshops are proposed to ensure full participation of all the stakeholders and ensure that their views are taken into account for the next step, which is to answer the question: where do we want to go? A strategy can then be developed to reach the desired goals - how do we get there?

Projects to implement the strategy are the next logical step, but there is a divergence of thinking. Is it possible to have capacity building projects designed to support what is essentially a process? Projects are usually end-product oriented. They have specific targets to be met in a given time frame with strict budgets and control on what and how money is spent. This would seem to be at odds with current thinking on capacity development, repeating here the point made by Eade (1997) that it is "not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome." Thus, can a project, with all its tools for project management and meeting deadlines and objectives, be applied to capacity development? If projects continue to be the way of supporting development, then some imaginative thinking will be needed in order to ensure a good marriage between them. This also has implications for aid funding, which is usually tied to projects. However, some donors are experimenting with alternative and more flexible aid packages that can take account of the flexible nature or processes as well as focusing on the end product.

An agenda for discussion

The framework provides a starting-point for planning a strategy for capacity development, but what are the basic issues that form the agenda for stakeholder discussion? This will vary from place to place for a wide variety of reasons, but some of the more common and important issues that are prevalent in many countries are raised here. The framework is used to provide a structure for highlighting these issues.

Individuals

There are many ways in which individuals can raise their capacity through education, training and community development, and participatory self-capacity development. It may be short-term, on-the-job training for farmers who need water management skills or to understand the workings of a WUA or more substantial long-term training for professionals, who undertake research, design irrigation works or provide advisory services.

Unfortunately, this is usually the only level at which capacity development is interpreted, often in complete isolation from the other levels. This should not cause too much surprise because training lends itself to specific and identifiable "concrete" actions that are more difficult at the higher levels. Some trainers would argue that everything eventually boils down to a training need even where it is an organizational deficiency. Training not only helps to improve practical skills and knowledge, it can also help change attitudes in the workplace.

Farmers usually enter the irrigation world through practice on the farm, whereas professionals usually come via specialized courses in colleges and universities where individuals have chosen a career in agriculture or engineering.

Training

Short-term training is usually geared to the acquisition of more immediate skills for well-defined tasks, such as managing canals, designing pumping stations and organizing WUAs. It may be on-the-job training or special courses on particular issues for a wide range of people from farmers to professionals. They may be conducted informally on-site or more formally at a training centre or college, in-country or abroad.

Increasingly short-term training is also seen as a means of changing attitudes as both farmers and engineers take on new roles in the process of irrigation management transfer, and there is a change in the objective of training from mere knowledge transfer towards increasing problem solving capacities. Competences are a complex interaction of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and some programmes are now using participatory training methods to engender a continuing process of participation in subsequent water management practices. This is particularly important where individuals form groups or organizations such as WUAs to undertake joint water management functions.

Short-term training in irrigation and drainage is not without its critics. There are many examples of training courses that are not effective in matching demand with supply in a timely manner. Typical issues raised include: inappropriate skills and knowledge being provided; poor training methods; overly theoretical curricula lacking practical application; and poor course timing so that skills learned are not used or needed. It is not uncommon for attendance at a training course to be seen as a reward for good service, or it is this or that person’s turn to go rather than an opportunity to acquire new and useful skills. Biswas (1996) provides a number of examples of irrelevant, inappropriate and expensive training that was either too general or not related to the job, and suggests that this should be a major cause for concern.

Typically, where donor aid is involved, short-term training is part of the investment package in order to provide the skills specifically for operating and maintaining a scheme. Although such training can be very effective for the project, it is often criticized for being narrowly focused and not giving adequate attention to organizational issues and the broader context in which irrigated agriculture functions.

Investing in people

Although few would doubt the value of educating and training individuals, the paradox is that few are willing to invest in people as enthusiastically as they invest in concrete. In spite of the rhetoric, the development of individuals is not receiving the type of support it needs and deserves (Biswas, 1996). The mobility and fragility of labour are perhaps the main reasons for this. Irrigation schemes do not move around but people can and do. They also become ill and some die.

There are also commonly-held views about professionals who received large sums of money to train abroad in irrigation only to return home and go into construction work or banking. Although there may be an element of truth in this, it is unfortunate that this often dominates the level of perception and debate when the education and training of professionals is being discussed. It is seen as a waste and a reason for not continuing to train others rather than as a contribution to national capacity. Critics seem to give little thought to the very systems of education and training from which they themselves have personally gained great benefit in career development, personal choice and mobility of employment.

Human resources planning

Human resources planning is worth mentioning in the context of training individuals, although it cannot be divorced from the other levels of capacity development. It refers to a methodology developed in the 1970s and 1980s to determine future training needs in the labour market. It enabled planners to determine the numbers of people and the skills needed to bridge the gap between labour supply and demand in an industry or sector. This is not an exact science because of the problems of forecasting the future and, therefore, what labour demands are likely to be.

All studies made in the 1970s and 1980s recognized the importance of predicting the numbers required (quantity), ensuring they were well trained (quality), and that people worked within a sound institutional environment (organizations). However, there was a tendency in many countries to remedy deficiencies in one aspect by substituting improvements in another. For example, overstaffing was common with under qualified people working within poorly-managed organizations. Substituting more untrained people to try and make up for a lack of quality is unlikely to work. Today the situation is completely reversed as a consequence of extensive irrigation management transfer. There are many WUAs or federations of WUAs that are critically lacking skilled staff in many aspects (governance, canal management, liaison with users, liaison with public bodies, etc.). There are also many irrigation agencies that are critically lacking skilled engineers able to understand and master, in their own context, the principles of modern water control and services.

Although human resources planning is not so popular at the moment, it does have the advantage of focusing attention on the issues of numbers, skills and education and training provision. It is unfortunate that the current literature on capacity development tends to ignore these basic issues. In the current surge of interest in the more complex institutional issues, there is a danger that these basics are being neglected. There appears to be a tacit assumption that the main skills of irrigation are being well provided when this is not the case.

Organizations

A wide range of organizations are important to the success of irrigated agriculture. At farm level, there are water user groups that share and manage common water interests technically, financially and legally. Other organizations, typically government run, are mandated to provide support services for farmers. In some countries, the private sector is also increasingly making an impact, for example through smallholders using low-cost affordable technologies and consultancy.

Support services

Farmers need organizations to provide advice and support. Traditionally, government has provided these in the form of extension services that link research with practical farming. However, there are some places were the private sector is beginning to play a role. This is particularly the case in private farming, where large farms require specialist services and smallholders need to acquire new skills to keep up with the dictates of the market.

On the whole, supporting organizations do not serve irrigators well. Government agencies are still the principal source of knowledge and skills. However, they tend to concentrate on crops, fertilizers and pesticides rather than on water, even in irrigated areas. They tend to be underfunded and staffed by inexperienced people who do not have the logistical support to reach the farmers. Where there have been successes, they have usually been underpinned by external aid, and thus there are question marks about their sustainability once the support ends.

Little has been documented and published about the role and function of irrigation advisory services and more specifically about how well they perform. There are few guidelines for others to follow (FAO, 2003). This situation has not been helped in recent years by the trend of transferring irrigation management responsibilities from government to farmers and the increasing amount of irrigation advice being organized outside the traditional government agencies by NGOs that do not normally have the resources to publicise their experiences. This lack of information can mean that it is difficult to determine what services are available in a country and how well they are working, and adds to the difficulty of planning a strategy for capacity development.

Organizational linkages

Government ministries involved in irrigation such as agriculture, environment, and water resources are often criticized for a lack of cooperation in what is essentially an interdisciplinary activity. Although they usually have common objectives, they tend to work independently. A typical division of responsibility is between the planning, design and operation of irrigation systems, usually the responsibility of a Ministry of Irrigation or Water Resources, and irrigated agriculture, usually the responsibility of a Ministry of Agriculture. The former is staffed by engineers, who have little knowledge of crops and farming, and the latter by agriculturalists, who have little knowledge of engineering and hydraulics. The sad fact is that most of those involved do not see the need for such knowledge nor for closer linkages with each other. As one senior irrigation consulting engineer put it: "My engineers do not know the difference between wheat and rice - but the really sad thing is they do not want to know." This emphasizes not just serious laws in organizational attitude but in the education system that continues to produce young engineers who still think that a career in irrigation is only about building dams and pumping stations. This same argument might also be made about engineers and social science.

Performance-driven organization

There are many examples of poor organizational performance in the irrigation sector. Some stem from a mismatch between what the organization was set up to do and what it actually does. The reasons for this are varied and complex. A government research institute may be carrying out research that interests its staff and encourages their career development through publication, but critics may point to drainage practices being promoted that do not fit well with local physical and socio-economic conditions and do not address the priorities of local people. Typically, there may be poor links between researchers and farmers. Extension services are weakened by a lack of well-trained local professionals and resources to do the job properly. The local professionals have little to offer farmers beyond formalized messages about water management and do not have the skills to cope with today’s farmers seeking a livelihood from a range of natural resources. There are many other similar examples.

Incentives play a crucial role in ensuring that individuals and organizations point in the right direction. Salary is important but individuals are motivated by other issues such as career prospects, security of tenure, and the value of working in a worthwhile job. However, there is little point in trying to improve the performance of a research institute by training its staff on the layout of field plot experiments when those same people have to do a second job in the evening in order to secure their livelihood.

Biswas (1996) suggests that good organizational performance starts at the top. First and foremost, it is essential to have a good cadre of capable senior managers in place. The institutions and policies, he argues, will then take care of themselves. Browne (2002) makes a similar point when he refers to the Indian Administrative Service as a highly-respected organization working relatively independently of political pressures. It has few problems recruiting capable professionals in spite of the modest pay levels.

Rewards and performance should be more intrinsically linked. In this regard, several international organizations (FAO, IPTRID, ICID and the World Bank) have pooled their efforts to develop new benchmarking methodologies for irrigation system management. The idea is to have a set of indicators and some worldwide records that allow irrigation managers to rank their own performance. Although there are some doubts about the effectiveness of worldwide comparisons, most people agree that, at national level and with comparative systems, the impact of performance benchmarking is one way of boosting the capacity of the management set-up.

Community organizations

The capacity of organizations that function at a community level is vital for individuals to take full advantage of irrigated agriculture. Some are formal but many are informal and not so visible to the observer.

WUAs are the most common formal type of organization. Although some associations have developed naturally among irrigators as a convenient means of managing common water sources, many have come into being as a result of the current trend of transferring the management of irrigation from state bureaucracies to farmers. There have been successes but there has also been much criticism of the way in which WUAs have been imposed on communities that are not ready for them and that need more time to fully understand and participate in the transfer process. Many farmers face huge difficulties in taking over technical, financial and legal responsibilities for water. The publicity that this has received has perhaps done more than anything else to spur the irrigation community to talk about capacity building.

Rural communities comprise many informal organizations that can have an important influence on their development. This is where social capital lies, and WUAs can fail because of a lack of community capacity or social capital. Community structures can be a very powerful vehicle for capacity development and should not be overlooked.

Empowerment of women

In many communities, women remain excluded from decision-making on water management and agriculture activities. Social development shows that investing in this untapped capital is often a very good option to effectively boost community development and be effective in dealing with food insecurity and poverty alleviation. The engagement of women in water and agricultural life is not only an issue of equity, it is also an issue of efficiency. It is now well documented that women can make a positive difference in the management of WUAs in terms of accounting as well as decision-making.

Private sector

Although government and farmer organizations dominate irrigation in some countries, the private sector, usually in the form of NGOs, is making an impact. An example is the introduction of affordable irrigation technologies for smallholders in Asia and Africa that are manufactured locally and bought by farmers on a commercial basis. This requires organizational structures, known as supply chains, that enable companies to manufacture equipment and sell to farmers through retail outlets or agents. Farmers expect spare parts to be available as well as technical support and credit arrangements in much the same way as any other small-scale enterprise would. The principal prerequisites for this are a strong market for the agricultural produce and profitability for all those in the chain. At present, markets in Asia tend to be distorted by subsidies as governments encourage the development of these new institutional structures. In Africa, they are in their infancy but are more reliant on market forces.

NGOs are well suited to support the creation of these new structures, as they are much better at connecting with people than are government departments. They are also more adaptable to what is essentially a process in which timing cannot be allowed to dictate the outcome.

The water sector level

The sector level is often included as part of the enabling environment. However, this additional level is needed in order to make the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management. It reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover the whole of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies or the environment in isolation.

Enabling environment level

This is the most influential level and yet the most difficult level to change. Some issues are well beyond the control of most countries. A typical example is the low international price of basic food crops, which means many farmers are unwilling to grow irrigated crops beyond their immediate family requirements because the production costs exceed the returns. This is fuelled by agriculture policies that favour developed countries and the dumping of surplus food on hungry countries.

However, there are also wider national/local issues to consider that include access to markets, credit and knowledge. Initiatives that set out specifically to make changes at this level are quite rare (Alaerts, 1999b). They take a long time, in excess of ten years, they are less predictable than contributions at the lower levels, and the expertise available to support them is not readily available either in-country or internationally. However, some initiatives do succeed in making significant changes, and this can be the result of initiatives taken at the lower levels that then come through to change policy. This is often by chance rather than design.

Education and research

Education and research are issues that concern all levels of the framework from individuals who teach and research, to how they are organized and the kind of environment in which they must function. For this reason, they are here discussed separately from the project-oriented aspects of irrigation development.

The capacity to educate and to undertake research to solve problems is something that all would subscribe to as vitally important to the future of irrigated agriculture. However, few people seem willing and able to take the next step and provide the resources needed.

Education

An educated population is an essential foundation for all aspects of development. Biswas (1996) stresses this point, suggesting that "a good education is the foundation of good organizational performance and it starts at the top."

The kind of education that professionals receive must equip them properly for their role. However, in many countries, colleges and universities are poorly resourced. Teachers are poorly paid and have little or no equipment to work with and continue to use outdated curricula that are no longer relevant to the world their students will inhabit. Without institutional changes within the education system, the next generation of professionals and technicians will continue to perpetuate and even reinforce existing outmoded power structures and practices. This also points to the need to develop the capacity of the educators and to provide the resources to produce the professionals and technicians for tomorrow.

Timing is a crucial issue as it takes many years to educate a professional agriculturalist or an engineer. Therefore, both the individuals and the organizations that employ them need to plan well ahead if the demands for such skills are to be met.

In the past 40 years, education and training abroad has been seen as one way of overcoming some of these inadequacies. Governments have sent many of their top professionals for postgraduate training, usually on scholarships provided by the host country or a donor agency. This has exposed young professionals to new ideas and new ways of working, and has served many countries well. However, it is now in rapid decline because of a lack of scholarship funding and the relatively high cost of a course in, say, Europe or the United States of America (US$30 000 for full support for one year) as opposed to the home or a third country (US$2 000-5 000). Unfortunately, in many instances, this trend towards educating at home or in a third country is not matched by the resources needed to do the job well. The impact in the developed world is also profound as many international training centres have closed or are in decline, with a loss of expertise that will be very difficult to replace.

The rapid changes now taking place in society and technology in the developed world will also affect developing countries. In the developed world, people now expect to pursue a number of career paths in their working lives. This has changed education from a "one-time event" to one of "lifelong learning". This will eventually influence working patterns and education in developing countries.

Research

The capacity to undertake research, like education, is something that all would subscribe to as vitally important to the future of irrigated agriculture. Every developing country has its research institutes. However, they tend to suffer from the same problems that afflict universities, such as inadequate resources, poorly-trained and poorly-motivated staff, and a lack of clear direction as to their contribution to local and national interests.

Funding agencies have not helped this situation. For example, the European Union (EU) usually provides only marginal funding for research and does not recognize overhead costs that national governments are expected to meet. The links between the EU’s research directorate and the development directorate are weak, and so there are few connections between research activities and development aid. The EU has made some attempts to rectify this (e.g. in Nigeria, Kenya and Jordan - author’s personal knowledge). However, although the idea was sound, the initiatives have generally failed because of a serious lack of understanding and cooperation between researchers and development agents, mistiming of inputs and poor funding. The funding aspect refers to the process of trying to select the most appropriate research team on the basis of competitive tendering, which usually means on the basis of price. The question often asked of aid administrators in this situation is: would you select your heart surgeon on the basis of price or on the ability to do the job?

There are many lessons here for the development of research organizations and their support so that they can make an effective contribution to national and international interests.

Networks

Networks can have a positive influence at all the levels of the framework by providing a means of communication for individuals and organizations. The rapid and huge developments in information management provide an enormous opportunity to disseminate and share information. However, at the same time, there is always the threat that a digital gap will benefit the better-off at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged.

The network function of capacity development is two-dimensional(Figure 9). The vertical dimension integrates the levels mentioned in the framework such as the network of people and institutions belonging to a specific project, ranging from farmers to external donors, via local governmental officers and/or training institutes. This line of capacity development was traditionally the one pursued using the top-down approach of projects. It remains active today although with a much more participatory approach and more balance in the decision-making among the different actors.

The horizontal dimension refers to the networks linking actors or organizations of the same nature and level. There is strong evidence that those responsible for development have previously neglected this networking aspect. Social science in agriculture has shown that the adoption of new techniques and the diffusion of progress is often more the result of discussion and comparison among peers than the result of knowledge brought in by other actors.

Linking or twinning a newly-created WUA with an existing one from the same country or from another one is a typical horizontal network. The president of the new WUA is more likely to understand and trust the president of the more experienced one than an external consultant. In the same way, the president is also more likely to adopt a management change suggested by a peer.

The support from aid agencies for this type of networking is growing although it is still on a very small scale. However, the impact usually extends beyond those immediately involved via other networks. There are many examples of this kind of cooperation in the Mediterranean region. This networking is also called professional cooperation. For example, FAO has developed many field programmes based on technical expertise from the "South", known as "South-South" cooperation.

Mixed networks connect actors with similar levels of decision-making but from different fields.

Examples of networks in capacity development

Cap-Net is an international network (horizontal) for capacity building in IWRM and was created in 2001. Its mission is to enhance human resources development for IWRM by means of establishing or strengthening regional capacity building networks.

In France, RNED-HA (1992) is a mixed network on water in agriculture that has been very active and instrumental in promoting various technical advances, such as surface irrigation modernization in the 1980s, and, more recently, best practices for irrigation. The critical advantage of this type of network lies in the fact that it brings together researchers, policy-makers, farmers, industrialists, etc. who each have a say in the decision-making with regard to the applied research programmes.

The Information Techniques for Irrigation System (FAO, 1998) is another example of a mixed network. It was created by the IWMI and the Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets (CEMAGREF) in the 1990s in order to bring together researchers, practitioners and institutional specialists with the goal of developing the capacity to use modern management tools and techniques in irrigation.

The ICID has long been an important international mixed network of national organizations, connecting practitioners, researchers and policy-makers from all over the world, developing and disseminating knowledge, and improving the capacity of its members.

The creation of a network for capacity developers in irrigated agriculture would not only enable people to share information and expertise, it could also become a place for synthesizing experience and lessons learned, identifying research areas, and encouraging the exchange of views. Several countries have already developed their own Web-based networks. FAO has set up a Web site specifically for participatory training in agricultural water management, and includes an e-mail listing to keep members in touch with the latest information (FAO 2003).

Networks can be an important tool for practitioners in developing countries. Where people are able to access information and communications technologies, it can reduce the need for expatriate expertise. As Browne (2002) puts it, it is a case of "scan globally and re-invent locally".

Diagnosis and monitoring

The long-term success of designing and implementing capacity building strategies relies to some extent on monitoring the process and the outcomes. However, equally important is having the capacity to do this. Process and inputs are always the easiest parts to monitor. Outcomes and results are usually more difficult to define and assess. However, pre and post-diagnosis should be central to capacity development engineering (CDE).

There are very few examples of monitoring and evaluating capacity development initiatives. They have tended to be very time consuming and expensive, and they can be wide ranging. Benefits can often accrue in unexpected ways that were not obvious at the beginning. They may also arise long after the project has finished. For example, on a project in Zambia (Appendix 1) the uptake of treadle pumps was not high immediately and on this basis it might be considered to have failed. However, the uptake of other cultural practices was very encouraging as farmers sought to use information in a way that had more immediate benefit for them. This example shows that beyond technical targets, which may or may not be achieved, empowering the actors to take charge of their own destiny can be even more important for capacity development. As mentioned earlier, "empowerment" is a key component of capacity development.

Baselines studies are also needed if sensible measurements of progress are to be made. However, measuring or assessing capacity is not so straightforward.

Lessons for strategy development

The issues that come from the framework and several case studies reviewed in the course of preparing this paper (see Appendix 1) provide some interesting and useful insights into capacity development. A list of practical experience and issues can be gleaned from them that might prove useful in the strategy development process.

Policy environment

The importance of a favourable policy environment and political will for development is crucial to successful irrigation development and to developing capacity.

Policies are determined largely by the quality and commitment of the leadership and senior management.

Within the policy, capacity development must be guided by clear strategies that address development needs and are nationally owned.

A period of review and experimentation with new approaches is essential before including them in any new policy.

Capacity development should be at the heart of development and be pursued on a permanent basis. It is not a temporary fix for correcting investment failures. The approach to capacity development needs to be improved both in terms of concepts and the methods and tools used. There is a need for CDE, with all the features that a corps of engineering implies: accruing knowledge from experience on capacity to diagnose, design, implement, and post evaluate.

Identification and assessment of capacity needs is one of the most difficult tasks. It is a question of who does it and how. It implies strategic planning capacity in a country, and this too may require developing.

Experts are needed with interdisciplinary skills, with experience of working at high levels in government or the private sector and who are able to facilitate and not dictate discussion and decision-making. Many countries do not possess such expertise and it may not always be readily available from other countries either.

Full participation of all the stakeholders in the public and private sectors, namely, farmers, engineers, agriculturalists, researchers, educators, politicians and civil servants is essential. Although it is time consuming, it is considered essential to the eventual ownership of any actions taken.

The lack of expertise and the extensive nature of consultation are unlikely to lead to a rapid conclusive or state-of the-art solution. However, it is essential that there be a locally-owned consensus and that it be acted upon.

Capacity development is a complex process but complexity must not paralyse it. A framework such as the one proposed in this paper can provide a useful basis for discussions among stakeholders and for pinpointing constraints and priorities.

The challenge is to find ways through the complexity and make useful contributions. As with irrigation engineering, it is important to appreciate the complex nature of irrigated agriculture, but at some point the engineer must be able to interpret this complexity in terms of the relatively simple task of constructing a good irrigation scheme.

The role of donors and technical cooperation

Although it is accepted that capacity development must come from within, there is also an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process.

Partnership is the essence of collaboration between donor and recipient and not the traditional North-South dialogue. This is always difficult to deal with where one is seen to be giving and one is receiving. Establishing true partnerships is a challenge facing both.

Identifying capacity constraints and helping both governments and the private sector to take action can be one of the most effective ways in which external agencies can help. An outside view can often help those inside to focus their attention on the big issues.

The stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking.

Long-term collaboration influences the process positively, among others as trust and effective work relationships develop over time.

Some donors may prefer not to become involved in lengthy processes and prefer a project approach. The implications of this in terms of budgets, timing and outputs can be in conflict with the process of capacity development. However, there may be specific actions at the lower levels of organizations, and individuals lend themselves more to the project approach - capacity development projects.

Donors need entry points into capacity development. Typically, the organization is the level at which donors wish to contribute technical assistance, budgetary and infrastructure support.

People selected to help develop capacity need much more than technical knowledge and skills. They should be capable of working in a participatory manner in the wider context of development and be able to convey such ideas to those being trained. This should be reflected in the selection process.

Organizations

Most countries suffer weaknesses at the organizational level. Most organizations supporting irrigated agriculture are government run but there is a growing input from the private sector. It is not a question of either one or the other but of the balance between them. The appropriate strengthening of both must be a priority in any strategy.

A good cadre of capable senior managers that can lead the processes of change is needed if organizations are to develop a good reputation and encourage the best people to join. Salaries are important but not the only criteria.

There are many advantages in working with existing organizations rather than inventing new ones. This may not always be attractive but new organizations can be a large drain on already limited management and administrative resources.

Individuals

Individuals are the heart of any organization and their education and training must reflect the needs of irrigated agriculture and the roles they will play.

The "people part of partnerships": partnerships develop between people. While working together, more and better results will be possible over time as mutual trust develops.

Human resources planning offers a tool for predicting the demand from human resources and a logical process for providing them through education and training. It focuses attention on the numbers of individuals needed, their skills, and the education and training infrastructure needed to provide them.

Any strategy must address the young people who are less influenced by rigid organizations, more flexible in their thinking, willing to take risks, and ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution.

Education and research

The capacity to educate future generations in the ways of irrigated agriculture and the capacity to undertake research to solve problems are fundamental to the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. It is essential that both be given a high priority in strategy development.

Education is essential to develop the future cadres of professionals who will become the managers and leaders of organizations and capacity builders. In order to achieve this, the development of capacity within colleges and universities and to some extent in schools will need to be considered.

Research to solve the problems of irrigation and drainage and to encourage the take-up of new ideas may require developing.

Research can be most successful, when linked to investment projects, where it can show its value directly.

Sustainability

Ensuring sustainability remains one of main challenges facing capacity development, particularly where it is supported by an external agency.

Sustainability is also a concept that requires careful thought, e.g. when considering whether a training facility should be sustained beyond its usefulness or be closed. Capacity development is not a fixed issue and any strategy must be flexible enough to meet changes in capacity needs.

Points for discussion

Recognizing that a lack of capacity is now perceived as the main constraint on developing and improving irrigated agriculture, this paper set out: (i) to initiate a debate within the irrigation community on what capacity building means for irrigated agriculture; (ii) to define it as clearly as possible; (iii) to map out the territory it covers and the main issues surrounding it; (iv) to see if it is possible to plan it strategically as is done with more traditional infrastructure projects; and (v) to look for good examples of capacity development from which useful lesson could be learned for the guidance of others.

Many see capacity building (or development) as a rather vague concept. The paper suggests ways of clarifying this concept in the context of irrigated agriculture. It suggests that the UNDP definition provides a good starting-point for understanding capacity development. It embodies the principles of development that are well accepted in the irrigation community.

A simple framework is also proposed that combines and defines the territory of capacity development and irrigated agriculture. It is based on a conceptual approach developed by social scientists and the practical activities of a well-functioning irrigation sector and forms a bridge between them that could provide a useful "picture" of capacity development that is acceptable to irrigation practitioners. It also includes research and education as fundamental activities to capacity development. It is suggested that this "picture" could be a useful tool for participatory discussion between stakeholders and donors for identifying and assessing capacity gaps.

A strategic planning approach is suggested as a means of defining needs and actions. However, careful thought needs to be given to a "project" approach for implementing plans as this may be incompatible with the process approach of capacity development.

A range of basic issues is raised, using the framework as a reference point, which could form an agenda for discussion among stakeholders at the strategy planning stage. In particular, education is stressed as the foundation, a weak one in many countries, on which capacity is built. Thus, it must be a priority on the agenda. The importance of these issues requires confirmation and there may be others that need to be added.

Case studies are used to cover as much as possible of the territory mapped out by the framework to show how capacity can be developed in practice. Although some practical guidance on strategic planning and action can be gleaned, there are serious shortcomings in the literature generally. Most published information tends to be general in nature and to dwell more on infrastructure rather than on capacity development. Those that provide more relevant information tend to discuss individual training issues rather than the larger picture outlined in the framework.

In order for the full nature of capacity development to be taken seriously, it is suggested that more guidance is needed on how it can be done. Much of the conceptual thinking is now complete. What is now needed are more-detailed and carefully-crafted case studies that fully describe the process used to develop capacity. Ways of collecting this information and communicating also need to be devised.

Appendix I - Case studies

The framework proposed in this paper describes the territory of capacity development and is a vehicle for discussing the issues, searching for gaps and developing a strategic plan. However, it leads on to other questions concerning what happens in practice, how the critical issues are identified, what actions are taken, and what impacts these actions have. There are no manuals on how this is done. However, there are a growing number of examples of capacity development projects in irrigation from which wider lessons can be drawn. Many of these projects are supported by aid donors that are beginning to reflect the shifts in development and in the way they provide technical cooperation.

Several case studies are reviewed here, albeit briefly, with a view to covering as much as possible of the territory described in the framework. Dark shading is used to define the principal territory covered while lighter shading shows the complementary areas of influence. However, there are many shortcomings because of a lack of published information. Moreover, some projects did not set out specifically to develop capacity building but grew in this direction once underway. In spite of these limitations, the examples provide many insights that could prove useful to others entering the strategy planning process.

Developing farmer and institutional capacity - Zambia

This case is about improving knowledge and skills and changing the attitudes of both local professionals and farmers (FAO, 2003).

Zambia has more than 100 000 ha of private smallholder irrigation. The Zambian government advisory and support services are poorly developed and so smallholders rely on their own resources. However, the government wanted to improve their productivity and to help more farmers to take up irrigation in order to solve the country’s growing food security problem. To help meet this objective, the government’s strategy was to strengthen its advisory and support services to farmers.

An externally-funded project with technical assistance was launched to introduce low-cost irrigation technologies as an entry point for training both local professionals and farmers. This was an unusual move at a time when many governments were running down services and transferring responsibility for irrigation to farmers’ organizations. However, Zambia does not have strong private organizations that can take on a support role and so it was decided to strengthen the existing government organization rather than to build something new.

Government staff had little contact with farmers and were more familiar with top-down approaches to training and providing advice. Therefore, participatory approaches and facilitation methods formed an important part of their training in addition to the more technical subjects. Training was done in a very structured way and implemented through a pyramid process of training trainers who then trained technicians who in turn trained the farmers. The methods used were based on the experience of using similar methods, but for differing circumstances, in Nepal, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. They have led to the production by FAO of guidelines on participatory training and extension in farm water management and a farmers’ training manual (FAO, 2003).

In four years, the government services have trained more than 10 000 "private" farmers. A significant number of women joined the programme and, indeed, in later training campaigns women outnumbered men in some districts.

The impact of the programme was measured by establishing what farmers had learned and by measuring the uptake of technologies. However, both methods produced inconclusive results, consumed a great deal of resources in data collection, and proved far more complex to analyse than first envisaged. For example, the lack of a baseline survey of farmers’ knowledge made it difficult to determine what they had learned from the training or what the true level of technology uptake was. This did not mean the attempt was without worth, but it did highlight the complexity of evaluation.

This case is a good example of how the provision of resources, technical assistance and training can strengthen a moribund government department, which in turn can have a significant impact on the private farming community. It also demonstrates that irrigation technology can provide a useful entry point for engaging farmers in a participatory way. Where private institutions are weak, the government still has a major responsibility for capacity development. The question of cost recovery from those who benefit has yet to be resolved and so the process may not continue once the external support has stopped.

Creating irrigation markets - Africa

In separate initiatives, NGOs in Niger, Kenya and Zambia and Zimbabwe imported treadle pumps from Bangladesh in order to help smallholders to improve their livelihoods by providing access to water (World Bank, 2003). However, central to their successful introduction was the development of local, private capacity to manufacture, distribute, retail and maintain pumps at relatively low cost that would sustain their continued uptake in the medium and long term.

These are examples of a new approach to development known as the market creation approach. This approach is not so much concerned with creating markets for agricultural products, although this is essential, but with creating markets for new affordable irrigation products; in this case treadle pumps that encourage smallholders to take up irrigated agriculture. This produces a flow of benefits downstream as the purchasing power of smallholders increases but also benefits upstream from creating the chain to supply and support the new products.

Capacity development in this context is about setting up the new supply chains and training individuals and groups to play their part in it. However, the key element is an enabling environment, in this case a market for cash crops that could be grown by smallholders, that stimulates the whole chain.

FAO (2000) reviewed several case studies on the success of this market-driven approach to capacity development that emphasizes the private sector requirements of publicity and marketing in order to spread information about technologies, reliable agricultural inputs and the identification of crops and markets where smallholders have a comparative advantage for the sale of their produce.

Most experiences of capacity development involve government but this is a good example of the role that the private sector can play. External funding and technical assistance were needed, but the goal was to make the whole self-funding and profitable in the same way as any other private enterprise. Capacity development involved training and transfer of a very wide range of skills and new organizations, but key to the success was a vibrant market for high-value agricultural produce. This case spans all the levels in the framework and although it was principally about using treadle pumps there were also elements of planning, design and construction.

Changing long-established institutions - Peru

Peru is a country with a large traditional government bureaucracy running most of the smallholder irrigation schemes. It is pursuing a policy of irrigation management transfer and has invited an international NGO, with external funding, to help develop and implement a programme to retrain large numbers of government-employed irrigation engineers for their new roles and farmers who were required to take on more of the responsibilities of water management (Kay 2001).

Training was the main vehicle used to introduce changes in people and organizations with the full support of the government. Planning was meticulous and well thought through using log-frame analysis that clearly set out the objectives of the training and what was to be achieved. Peru has well-entrenched attitudes to irrigation management. Therefore, the training was designed to produce major changes in attitude both among the engineers and technicians working within the Ministry of Agriculture as well as among the farmers.

Participation was at the heart of the training process, and training modules had three vital elements: knowledge, skills and attitudes. The same modules were used at three levels, to train the trainers, to train the professionals who in turn trained the farmer leaders of newly created WUAs. Identifying professional trainers who were willing to abandon their ideas and long experience of lecturing as a means of training and accept participatory methods was not an easy step and required people with confidence in themselves as trainers.

Training took place at all levels in the engineering hierarchy so that ideas were set in place at the highest levels to motivate and encourage change rather than just to accept what was happening.

A useful output was a handbook of detailed instructions to help trainers use participatory methods. For example, one section provided details about how participants might react to parts of the programme so that trainers could begin to recognize for themselves the signals from participants as to whether they were changing their attitudes genuinely.

This is a good example of how training professionals and farmers can improve irrigation knowledge and skills and also change personal attitudes towards their role in irrigation and, hence, change the institutional structure in which they work. It also shows how training and institutional change can be planned and implemented in the same structured way as other more "concrete" development projects. External support was a key element both in terms of finance and technical assistance from an international NGO.

Developing a research institute - Pakistan

Pakistan has a successful agricultural economy, about 80 percent of which is irrigated. However, irrigation has brought problems and 6 million ha are seriously affected by salt and some 2 million ha are reported abandoned because of severe waterlogging. Poor drainage is reported to cause a 25 percent reduction in main crop production (FAO, 2002).

Strategy planners in Pakistan identified the need for research to solve these problems and so were instrumental in establishing a new research institute for this purpose with funding from the United Nations (UN). However, research institutes often have a reputation for working in their own world, where personal and institutional reputations are developed through publications rather than solving the real problems of development. There are many varied and complex reasons for this, not least of which are: a lack of clear policy on the role of research; a lack of resources; and poorly trained and motivated staff.

Work began in 1988 with Netherlands technical cooperation with a strong focus on research into the technologies of drainage design and installation. At the same time, the salary structure was reviewed along with staff recruitment in order to bring in high-quality well-motivated people.

Technical cooperation improved research skills, management and report writing among local staff. However, almost by accident rather than by design, the expatriate staff were also good capacity builders as well as technical specialists. They were experienced professionals that had learned from many similar situations how to communicate with people and encourage them to take ownership of problems and solutions. They encouraged staff to think beyond the immediate technical issues and to put them into the context of drainage development and the real problems facing farmers. This was not in their job description nor was it the reason they were selected for the job. However, it contributed greatly to the success of the institute that now has a growing international reputation for its research work.

Current research work is looking at the problems of participative drainage. This represents a further step in building the capacity of staff to work directly with farmers and to appreciate the complex social and cultural influences on their drainage research. Because of the expertise that staff now have in this area, the institute has abandoned attempts to work with local NGOs because they had difficulty in adapting from their traditional village focus to the catchment thinking needed for participative drainage.

This is a good example of how the capacity of a research institute can be developed to provide useful and economically viable research that is sensitive to the cultural and social needs of rural communities provided it is properly resourced and staff have incentives to work well. It is also an example of individuals within a country that have the capacity and strategic vision to see what is needed and to take action to provide it. Personal connections with aid donors and international organizations such as the ICID, which fosters relationships across the irrigation world, also played a crucial part in setting the right environment for action.

Creating an enabling environment

Bhutan

This is an example of changes at the very highest levels in Bhutan to introduce a successful irrigation management transfer programme. It occurred slowly, over a period of ten years, which carried both the farmers and the government engineers along the pathway of change together (Kay, 2001). Bhutan is a relatively small country and so the numbers of people involved were considerably smaller than in most other countries. Smallholders operate relatively independently of government on a day-to-day basis but have relied heavily in the past on government funding of expertise and materials for main canal rehabilitation in the unstable mountainous terrain. Inappropriate and expensive designs led to farmer management problems, and so changes in approach needed to be made both by the irrigation engineering department and the farmers. The outcome of this was a successful and well-structured programme of irrigation management transfer over a ten-year period. It was initiated by government at the highest level through the development of a new national irrigation policy. It involved: a process of reviewing existing management practices; experimentation with new methods; consultation with stakeholders and agreement on the structure of the new policy; the production of good-quality training materials; and a gradual and well-guided introduction of the policy using participative training methods. An evaluation of the programme demonstrated the benefits of a slow but steady developmental process of change.

Egypt

Egypt has relied on irrigated agriculture for its survival and development for centuries. As a result, it has developed strong formal government based organizations to manage existing schemes and to plan new ones. However, since the construction of Aswan Dam, drainage has become a major issue as water tables have risen and land has become saline (APP, 2003; FAO, 2002).

The Netherlands Government, with its own problems of dealing with drainage, has a long history of supporting Egypt. In 1976, a panel comprising Netherlands and Egyptian drainage specialists and managers was set up in order to examine ways of dealing with the drainage of large tracts of the Nile Valley, to develop and transfer drainage technology from the Netherlands to Egypt, and to administer Netherlands donor funding for a series of drainage projects. In the intervening 27 years, this panel has grown in importance from a convenient administrative arrangement for a wide range of drainage projects, both in the field and in drainage research, and has become the basis of a partnership with Egyptian steering that has now widened its scope by mutual agreement to include the wider issues of water management. An important aspect is that it is addressing issues at the highest levels in Egypt on policy formulation in the sector and most recently on institutional reform and capacity development. One of its key roles is to bridge the gap between applied research and policy-making and identify and set research priorities.

This partnership is regarded as a success by both countries and has led to significant technology developments and policy changes in Egypt. Several factors have influenced this, not least of which is the panel membership, which has evolved over the years and now comprises some of the most senior government officials from both countries including representatives from all the ministries that are stakeholders in the water sector. The panel is currently chaired by the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources. This ensures ownership of panel decisions at the highest levels in government. Other elements cited include: the commitment of members; the inclusion of several women members who head ministerial departments; and the respect, natural empathy and personal relationships that have also grown over the years between panel members that has led to trust. This enables frank discussions to take place at an intimate and informal level as well as officially, which is the essence of a good partnership.

It could also be argued that the "partnership" works because of the funding provided by the Netherlands Government. There seems no doubt that this is important because without it the panel and its secretariat could not function. However, the Egyptian ownership and driving force in the panel are probably more important factors, and proponents point out that the financial support is modest in comparison with other aid donors and they have yet to develop the kind of influential panel arrangements that have existed for over 27 years.

This is a good example of a mechanism that can help to establish an equal and influential partnership working at the highest levels in government in a situation that is always a difficult one, namely, where one partner is giving and one is receiving. It has also influenced the capacity of panel members as evidenced by their ability to change over time with the changing demands in irrigated agriculture. The Netherlands would also argue that it has had a significant impact on the way in which they now administer their aid programmes to the benefit of other countries.

The United Republic of Tanzania

Smallholders living in the tropical drylands of the United Republic of Tanzania have to cope with the realities of inadequate and unreliable rainfall. While policy-makers recognized this and few doubted the critical importance of rainfall, they did not recognize the importance of runoff for water supply. Indeed, until recently, the overriding perception was that runoff, rather than being a resource, was a hazard and led to soil erosion. Over many years, this perception has driven government policy and programmes to the detriment of irrigation farming (NRSP, 2003).

Sustained, externally donor-funded research and communications work over 12 years by a university team into the benefits of harvesting rainwater for improving productivity and smallholder livelihoods has transformed thinking at the highest levels of government. Work began initially as a research project into the technologies of rainwater harvesting. However, gradually the importance of communicating ideas and involving all the various stakeholders was realized if significant changes were to be made in the way in which farmers worked.

Rainwater harvesting is now seen as a resource and this has been incorporated in the development plans of certain district councils and NGOs, especially following the statement by the Tanzanian Prime Minister that: "the Government will strengthen and promote the use of rainwater harvesting technology, in both urban and rural areas" (Hansard Records, 2 July 2001).

This is an interesting example of how sustained efforts from the grassroots level can change government policy so that capacity can develop at the lower levels. The young age profile of the team that carried out the work is also an important lesson. Young people are usually less influenced by inflexible organizations, can be more up-to-date and flexible in their thinking, willing to take risk, and they are ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution. This is an important element to build into any strategy - the future lies with the young.

Mali

The Office du Niger in Mali has been operating for more than 60 years and is an interesting example of how a long-established, large irrigation scheme (more than 55 000 ha) with a traditional top-down management structure can adapt to change. Prior to the 1980s, the infrastructure had deteriorated, the agency was heavily in debt, only half the area was cropped, and yields were low. In the past 20 years, there have been significant improvements as a direct result of changes in the "enabling environment". These include: the transfer of on-farm water management to farmers; the management of other farm inputs and crop processing; the devaluation of the CFA Franc, which greatly improved the profitability of local rice over imports; and significant inward investment from France, Netherlands and the World Bank. Both the French approach of investing in technical solutions, such as laser leveling and downstream control, and the Netherlands approach of involving farmers and designing more rudimentary infrastructure at low cost have contributed to improvements in performance in terms of productivity and farmer livelihoods (Kuper, Bélières and Coulibaly, 2002).