ABSTRACT
One of the current assumptions in development thinking is that irrigation reduces poverty (Lipton et al. 2003; Smith 2004). It is even considered to have multiple functions in solving several problems at the same time: water shortages, poverty and food production (Hall 1999). According to this thinking it is only a matter of correct application and targeted assistance that becomes the issue. It is further argued that irrigation not only benefits land holders but also the landless (Lipton et al. 2003; Saleth et al. 2003). Hence, irrigation is viewed as a key problem solver for rural poverty. More recently the multiple uses of water in irrigation systems are identified and highlighted as indirect benefits of irrigation. Hussain (2007a) mentions irrigation water being used for domestic supply, fish farming, rural enterprises and industries as well as transportation. Recently, Bhattarai et al. (2007, 211) went even a step further. They reasoned that irrigation is a semi-public good and even compared the benefits of irrigation to ‘education and road infrastructure’. Usually, to highlight the benefits of irrigated agriculture it is compared to rain-fed agriculture (Hussain 2007a); however, Chambers (1988) pointed out that there is direct competition between irrigated and rain-fed agriculture and that marginal rain-fed agriculture is losing in the competition. Even though irrigation has this ‘positive’ image, the development funding
for agriculture has been decreasing substantially since the 1970s, for example, World Bank lending fell from US $2,200m. in 1978 to $750m. in 1993. One of the explanations given is that the expectations of financial return are unjustifiably high (Hall 1999). In addition, international experience has led to criticism of large-scale irrigation systems and the implications of resettlement schemes connected with large reservoirs and dams (Geary 2000). Hussain (2007a) mentions other negative effects such as health risk and land and water degradation. However, the recent trend of declining budgets for water projects seems to have reversed. For example, the World Bank increased its spending on water projects. While in 2002 the expenditure was $1,200m., in 2004 it increased to $3,200m. Even though the larger increase was for drinking water supply and sewage, the amount spent on irrigation projects in 2004 rose to
$800m. and in 2005 to $1,000m. The rising trend in spending suggests that ‘water is back on the agenda’ (Welschof 2005). On the other hand, Rijsberman (2003) calls large-scale irrigation systems
‘the sunset’ irrigation and focuses on new approaches that are ‘alive’. Hussain et al. (2001) highlight that the benefits of irrigation are not always equitable. This already suggests that the impact on poverty reduction of large-scale systems is questionable, or in other words not guaranteed. This would have further implications on the policies of Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) and the creation of Water User Associations (WUAs). Chambers (1988) argued that, while there are benefits, there are also disadvantages for the landless. Is the assumption that irrigation reduces poverty justified? Could irrigation
even create vulnerability? Is there an impact on vulnerability when the ‘sunset’ irrigation is transferred to the users? This paper utilizes a Sustainable Livelihood approach (DFID 1999; Carney
1999), with its six ‘capitals’, to analyze different irrigation technologies, their impact on local communities, and the influence of the current policy of IMT on the rural poor.
