Agriculture in developing Asia has progressed remarkably over the past three decades. Between 1970 and 2000, annual cereal production in Asia more than doubled to nearly 800 million tons. Most countries achieved self-sufficiency in the staple food grains.
The Green Revolution in Asia could not have happened without massive flows of water, irrigation water, to bring the best out of the new crop varieties and other inputs made available to farmers. Massive flows of investment capital also built new irrigation schemes and expanded existing ones, as well as funded other infrastructure and services to rural areas, including research and extension.
So why have we not yet fully succeeded in banishing rural poverty?
Irrigation, then, is an essential part of the package of technologies, institutions and policies that underpins increased agricultural output in Asia. In the context of the UN millennium goal of halving world poverty by the year 2015, are there ways of making the package more pro-poor for the future?
In 2001, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), in collaboration with national partners, launched a major study to answer why heavy investments in irrigation had done little to affect rural poverty. Funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the study explored the links between irrigation and poverty alleviation in six Asian countries.
The objective was to determine realistic options for increasing returns to poor farmers in the low-productivity irrigated areas, within the context of improving overall performance and sustainability of established irrigation schemes.
The study examined the effects of irrigation, particularly its interaction with other components of the package. The study intended to form a basis for lessons to offer policymakers, donor agencies and researchers.
The study provides a model for the design of future pro-poor projects.
The following information is provided in easy to scan, easy to read formats in the report:
The IWMI-ADB study is one of the most thorough of its kind. The study is based on:
The six countries included in the IWMI-ADB study were deliberately selected to encompass different policy, social and economic settings:
These countries together account for over 51 percent of the global net irrigated area and over 73 percent of the net irrigated area in Asia, with most of this area located in China, India and Pakistan. The six countries also present contrasting models of transferring irrigation management from public agencies to farmer groups or private hands.
Agricultural development and poverty-alleviation performance, however, have varied greatly in these countries over the past three decades. Southeast Asia and China have lifted a large proportion of their population out of poverty. South Asia continues to be home to the largest number of the world's poor, estimated at 44 percent of the world's poor.
The IWMI-ADB study attempts to fill the existing gap in knowledge for developing effective pro-poor interventions in irrigated agriculture. From its research activities, the study asserts the following key messages.
The general perception of a trade-off between inequity and productivity is false. High inequities in land and water are bad for both productivity and poverty. Irrigation will reduce poverty faster and more comprehensively if land and water are more equitably distributed.
Crop productivity is only one benefit of effective irrigation. Other direct and indirect benefits include employment, wages, prices, consumption, food security, incomes, benefits from multiple uses of water, etc.
It is often assumed that targeting of poverty and support to the poor in canal systems is difficult. The study findings suggest that targeting can be done. There is significant, identifiable variance in poverty levels across systems and locations within systems, particularly in South Asia.
The study findings challenge the notion that low service charges are good for the poor. Where inequities in land and water distribution are great, such as South Asia, low irrigation charges hurt the poor because funds are insufficient to cover operation and maintenance, which compromises the performance and reliability of irrigation systems.
It is possible to assure that irrigation investments and interventions are pro-poor. To make irrigation work pro-poor in fact, and not just in theory, the study offers the following suggestions.
The study goes even further to assist readers with applying the report's new knowledge. To operationalize the above suggestions, the study provides a menu of pro-poor intervention options and a detailed set of specific actions and guidelines.
Download the full report of the study.
Read the following sections:
Visit the IWMI page: