!FAlRMllElRS iDlRGANllZllNG !

FAIRMlEIRS:
'll'lHllE !FAlRMllElR lllRIRllGA'll'iDIRS'
iDlRGANllZllNG l?IROGIRAM OF 'll'lHllE
NA'll'lliDNAJL llIRIRllGA'll'llON
AIDMllNllS'll'IRA'll'llON

W. ROBERT LAITOS

USAIDIMani/a and
TED I. EHERA
USAlDIMani/a, NIA

Effective local organizations lise local people's specific idiographic

knowledge oftheir ownsetting. Moststudents of development properly stress the
imponance of the appropriate struaure for these local organizations. Local
idiographic knowledge, however, is also important for development processes.
The "how" of developing local organizations can be just as important as the
"what."
Thispaper describes some of thepreliminary successes and problems of
the Fanners Irrigation's Organizing Program (FlOP) of the National Imgation
Administration (NIA).
Local organizations are a crucial
component of effective rural development. They
are the linking mechanism that enables large
central bureaucracies to work with local people.
The structure of a local organization may be
based on some combination of broad, general
principles and unique site-specific conditions.
Similarly, the processes used to develop and
sustain local organizations may also employ both
widely-applicable principles and local social
idiosyncracies. Indeed, local people can be a
valuable resource for development processes.
As Freeman (1989:15) points out,
local people possess extensive
idiographic knowledge, built through long
experience and encoded in tradition and
custom... Their knowledge is of unique,
site-specific circumstances and their
particular situation relative to those
circumstances. Whereas the bureaucratic

analyst must grasp general tendencies

across broad systems. the individual farmer
is intensely interested in the specific
outcomes of his or her particular situation.
This paper describes how local people can
be used not only to develop the structure of local
organizations (the 'what"),
but also to
implement the process (the "how") of building
and sustaining local organizations. It examines a
new, nation-wide program of the Philippines'
National Irrigation Administration (NIA) that
explicitly utilizes local farmers' knowledge and
skills to develop the 'what" and the "how" of
local organizations. NIA's Farmer Irrigators'
Organizing Program (FlOP) uses trained
farmers to organize their fellow-farmers into
formal, legal irrigation associations (lAs).
Rather than use external, professional
organizers or change agents, FlOP utilizes the
beneficiaries themselves, the local farmers, as

IFARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS:

31

the primary change agents. In essence, farmers

organize farmers.

assist fanners in developing and sustaining

viable lAs and then leave the irrigation system.

Hall's (1982) analytical framework is used

to examine flOP's structure, processes, and
environment. Despite the difficulties in
implementing FlOP described in thispaper, it is
important to realize that NIA considers FlOP a
success. The authorsbelieve that: (1) to develop
a proper organizational stucture requires an
explicit consideration of organizational
processes, and (2) even a carefully crafted
organizational structure and process can be
greatly affected by physical and institutional
environments.

lAs in both largenational irrigation systems

and smaller communal irrigation systems have
similar functions: to provide improved operation
and maintenance (O&M) services to the YA
members, to pay irrigation service fee (ISF) and
amortization payments, and to act as a link
between the NIA central bureaucracy and the
individual farmer.

Background and Historical Precedents

The ideas of using beneficiaries as change

agents is not new to the Philippines. In the
Catholic Church, lay leaders have taken over
some of the priests' tasks. In health, "hilots"
have acted as indigenous midwives and
''barefoot doctors." From 1976 to 1978, the
University of the Philippines' Institute of Social
Work and Community Development trained
indigenous farmer-leaders as para-professionals
in community work. Even before NIA began
large-scale organizational efforts in irrigation,
Farm Systems and Development Corporation
(FSDC) in 1979 recruited and trained "Taga
Pagbunsod", local village leaders who acted as
facilitators in establishing lAs.
Since the 19705, NIA has developed an
international reputation for its participatory
approach to irrigation development (Bagadion
1989; Kortcn 1982, 1989; Laitos and Mejia1989).
A key component of this approach is to employ
external change agents as organizers. Irrigation
Development Officers (IDOs) are typically
recent college graduateswhoare trainedbyNIA
as IA organizers and catalyst agents. Theyare to

In 1983, NIA experimented with a slightly

different approach to organizing farmers
(Gonzales et al. 1988). At the Bustos-Pandi
Extension Pump Irrigation System in Bulacan,
NIA recruited and trained several local farmers
as Farmer Irrigator Organizers (FIOs). These
were to take the place of IDGs in organizing the
IA.

Although these FIGs helped to organized a

strong IA that still functions, the Bustos-Pandi
experience might be unique and not easily
replicated. First, Bustos-Pandi was a pump
irrigation system while most NIA systems
capture water with river diversions and 'Use
gravity canals to distribute water. Second, the
irrigation superintendent (IS) at Bustos-Pandi
strongly supported and encouraged the FIOs.
NIA had no assurance that other IS's would
behave similarly. Finally, this area of Bulacan
was part of the "Hukbalahap" movement of the
1940s-50s, and farmers here were already
familiar with farmer organizers and local
organizing efforts. NIA did not know if other
areas in the Philippines would accept farmers as
organizers.
farmer lrrlgators' Organization Program

In 1988, NIA decided to expand FlOP

nationwide (Ehera and Laitos 1988). NIA
assumed that farm-level irrigation management
could be improved if the lAs engaged in O&M

32

were organized by farmers who know the

commmunity well, are familiar with the
irrigation system, and understand the local
O&M problems. Indeed, other indigenous
irrigation organizations (like the "zanjeras" of
Northern Luzon) organized by farmers have
demonstrated remarkable and sustained success
in managing their organizations for long-term
systems' O&M (Siy 1989).
AOl? also upheld the basic assumption of
NXA's participatory approach that farmers have
the capacity to undertake systems' O&M. flOP
was based on the belief that farmers could carry
out systems' O&M and IA organization tasks
very successfully. This belief was based on the
local people assuming substantial responsibility
for their own development. flOP, therefore,
enlarged farmers' participation under the overall
framework ofNIA's participatory approach.
FlOP also stressed the importance of
long-term sustainability of the irrigation systems
and the IA. NIA believed that by more fully
utilizing farmers in the organizing process, and
de-emphasizing the role of external change
agents, both the physical irrigation system and
the IA could be sustained more easily.
NIA also. decided that flOP should be
implemented in the larger national irrigation
systems. The smaller communal systems would
continue to use IOOs.
NIA outlined FlOP's broad objectives as
follows:
1. To develop and use indigenous
manpower, the farmers, in IA
formation;
2. To develop a cadre of water users which
could steer the organizational growth
ofIAs on a sustained basis;
3. To expand the benefits of NTA's farmer
participaton program;

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

4. To promote the Philippine government's "self-reliance" program.

The key features of FlOP were the
following:
1. Local farmers would be identified,
selected, trained and utilized as FIOs.
2. As an incentive, the FIOs would receive
an allowance of P50Q per month for
one year. They would not, however, be
considered NIA employees.
3. The FIOs would be supervised by a
watermaster, a field-level NIA employee who is in charge of O&M for one
division, approximately 500-750 ha.
NIA explicitly chose watermasters as
FlO supervisors so that O&M and
institutional tasks could be linked and
coordinated at the IA level.
4. NIA would recruit approximately one
FlO per 100 ha. The FIOs would act as
catalyst agents to help other farmers
organize an IA corresponding to the
watermasters division. In principle,
there was to be one IA per
watermaster's division. Again, NIA
chose to make FlOP lAs contiguous to
watermaster divisions so that O&M
and institutional activities would be
closely linked.
5. FIOs would not be allowed to become
IA officers. FIOs would only be
organizers and other farmers would
later be elected as officers of the IA.
6. The 100s in the irrigation system would
be maintained to provide advice on
institutional issues.
7. The farmers and their lAs would actively
participate in long-term systems'
O&M.

FARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

NlfA -believed the fol1owing benefits would

result from flOP:
1. Because the FlOs are members of the
farming and irrigation community,
HOP could significantly reduce time
for integraton and IA formation.
Additional1y, as the FIOs are familiar
with the interests and attitudes of the
local community leaders, there is a
greater opportunity to identify and
eventually elect dedicated leaders.
2. As the FlOs farm and irrigate in the
local area and are there fore familiar
with local O&M problems, solutions to
those problems could be easier to
develop and implement.
3. The long-term sustainability of the lAs
will be enhanced as FlOP will develop
organizingskills and capabilitiesamong
local farmers, not outside professionals.
FIOs will also provide continuing
advice to the lAs to ensure the lAs'
long-termsurvival.
4. By usingfarmers as organizers, NIA will
maximize meaningful farmers participation in irrigation development. The
benefits of NIA's participatory
approach will be expanded to a larger
audience.
5. flOP will promote and hasten farmers'
self-reliance, reducing the dependency
on MA.
6. flOP will provide employment
opportunities for qualifiedwater-users.
7. flOP will potentially reduce institutional development program costs
withoutsacrificing effectiveness.
NIA also recognized that the following
problems could hinder FlOP:
1. There may be a lack of qualified water
users to serve as FIOs.

..

33

2. Farmers may not be available for FlOP

activities.
3. Ethnic differences between farmers
could preclude effective organizing.
4. Using farmers as FlOs could contribute
to the country's under- or unemployment problem among recent college
graduates and youngprofessionals.
5. Organizational skills may no longer be
developed among MA employees.
With funding from USAID's Accelerated
Agricultural Production (AAP) Project,
approximately 250 FIOs were recruited and
trained in late 1988 in Regions 5 (Bicol), 6
(Western Visayas), and '10 (Northern
Mindanao). These three regions would act as
learning laboratories for the rest of the
Philippines. These FIOs officially began their
work in January 1989. By December 1990, NIA
had expanded FlOP to cover approximately
240,000 ha. in all regions of the Philippines.
Some 1,600 Filipino farmers had become FIOs
and 630 lAs had been organized.
FlOP Organizing Process

Before beginning the actual organizing

work, NIA developed a detailed FlOP
organizing process, based on past NIA
organizing efforts. The organizing process
culminated with a legal contract between NIA
and the new IA. After FlO recruitment and
training, the major steps in the FlOP organizing
process arc as follows:
1. Integration FIOs re-enter their
farming community and disseminate
information about flOP. They also
begin to identify future potential
leaders.
2. Social Investigation - FIOs hold further
meetings with fellow-farmers and
identify potential leaders. This

..
PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

34

temporary, preliminary set of leaders

would pave the way for IA formation.
3. Core Group and Turn-Out Service
Area Group (TSAG) Formation In each (turn-out service area; a
hydrological unit approximately 30-50
ha), FIOs and identified potential
leaders would ask farmers to facilitate
elections of TSA officers and form
working committees. Farmers and
FlOs would also facilitate discussions
between NIA and the TSAG on
needed physical improvements in the
irrigation system.
4. TSA Consolidation and Ad-Hoc
Working Committees - All elected
TSA chairman would meet to
consolidate all the TSAGs and create
ad-hoc working committees to facilitate
IA formation. TSAGs would also
discuss draft Articles of Confederation
and By-Laws for the new IA and begin
an active campaign for farmers to join
the IA.
5. Irrigation Association Leadership
Installation Conference '(IAUC)All TSA leaders would attend a
live-day conference to learn more
about NIA and lAs, and to r:elect IA
officers from the TSA leaders. IA
Articles of Confederation and By-Laws
would also be finalized during lAUe.
6. Security and Exchange Commission.
(SEC) Registration - The IA would
register with SEC, making the IA a
formal, legal body.
7. NTA-IA Contract Negotiation and
Signing NIA and the IA would
discuss and hopefully sign NIA
contracts which give the lAs financial
incentives to actively participate in
maintenance and irrigation service fee
collections.

Irrigation Association Structure

The goal of the FlOP organizing process is
to establish and sustain a strong, viable,
functional IA that contributes to improved
O&M, preferably under a NIA contract. The
lA, then, is a crucial mechanism through which
NIA hopes to improve irrigation system
performance. In this sense, the IA has a
utilitarian role.
The IA structure is based on the number of
TSAs
within
the
hydrologically-defined
watermaster's division. The IA leadership is
based on the corresponding number of TSAGs.
Each TSAG is organized with leaders elected
democratically by the
general TSAG
membership. The TSAG leadership also
organizes committees which correspond to the
basic tasks of water distribution, maintenance,
ISF collection, and membership and education.
All
TSAG
chairman
automatically
represent their TSA on the IA Board of
Directors
(BOD). The BOD elects from
themselves a set of IA officers: President, VicePresident (who IS also automatically the
chairman of the Service Committee), a
Treasurer
(Chairman
of the
Finance
Committee), Secretary (chairman of the
Membership and Education Committee) and
Auditor (chairman of the Audit and Inventory
Committee). These committees formulate plans
and programs and present them to the BOD for
approval. Whatever is approved by the BOD win
be implemented in all TSAGs through the
TSAG chairman.

The IA officers coordinate both the

decision-making process of the IA and
implement the lA's plans and programs.
Additionally, the IA officers are linked to the
external environment by discussing irrigation
concerns with BOD members, other farmers,
andNIA

..
FARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

35

After the XA has been registered with SEC,

the FJrQs (who have no formal role in the IA
structure) will automatically become a Board of
Advisors (BOA) to the IA. The BOA will
provide continuing advice and assistance to the
KA, but it has no real power. Rather, the BOA
attempts to utilize the talents and experience of
the FIOs long after their one-year contract with
NXA is completed. Counsel and advice to the IA
leadership, not authority, is the primary role of
the BOA.

When designing FlOP, NIA decided to usc

process documentation research on a few
selected FlOP sites. Process documentation is a
form of participant observation, with a strong
action research bias (1110 and Volante 1984;
Jopillo 1985; Laitos 1989; de los Reyes 1989;
Veneracion 1989). The Institute of Philippine
Culture (IPe) at Ateneo de Manila University
pioneered process documentation research in
the Philippines while working with NJA in the
late 1970s.

Training

Process
documentation
provides
a
systematic recording of NJA and farmers' fieldslevel activities. It stresses not the outcome of a
particular project, but the actual processes that
went on within the project. It may be likened to a
video camera, rather than a single-shot camera
that takes still photographs.

FlOP also provided for a number of NIA

and farmer trainings. Before the flOP
organizing process begins, FlOs and NIA
watermasters receive training on the program
and NIA activiites. During the organizing
process, the FIOs receive job-enrichment
training. During and after IA formation, IA
leaders receive basic leadership, financial
management, and irrigation system management
training.

MinorRepairs
An
important
component
of the
AAP-financed FlOP program was the inclusion
of minor repairs. These were small-scale, lowcost (P600/ha) physical improvements to the
system at the TSA-Ievel and below. TSAGs and
NIA field-level officials would jointly identify the
priority minor repairs. Minor repairs were
important to flOP because they provided an
entry point for the flOs in their organizing
work.

Three different research methods were

used to collect data for this paper: (1) process
documentation research; (2) the author's
personal observations during numerous field
trips; and (3) secondary data from NJA offices.

Under the AAl?-sponsoredllFJIOJP' program,

trained process documenters from Ateneo
de Nap in Bicol.(Region 5). Central Philippine
University in Iloilo (Region 6), and Xavier
University in Cagayan de Oro (Region 10).
These process documenters were posted in four
irrigation systems and lived at these sites for an
entire year, from August 1989 to July 1990. They
provided monthly reports of their observations
to NJA as an aid in implementing program.

we

Although flOP began in January 1989, the

process docurnenters did not begin their work
until August 1989, a lapse of seven months. The
researchers, therefore, were not able to actually
observe the first seven months of FlOP and had
to rely on farmers' and NIA officials' interviews
to re-construct the crucial early part of FlOP.
Process documentation has the same
advantages and disadvantages of all qualitative
participant observation. It can provide very rich,
detailed information about processes in a few
selected sites. Conversely, it may be hard to
generalize the results of this research to a wider

I'I IILJPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

36

population. The results in the four irrigation

systems in Regions 5, 6, and 10, therefore, may
not be representative of the results from other
regions in the Philippines, or even other
irrigation systems in Regions 5, 6, and 10.
Nevertheless, as the four systems are located in
the three major areas of the Philippine Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao - one can expeet
some degree of representation.
Over the last two years, the authors have
also conducted many field trips to flOP
irrigationsystems, primarily in Regions 5, 6, and
10, but to other regionsas well. As both authors
are directly involved in implementing flOP,
these trips have not emphasized research per se.
Nevertheless, useful data were collected in each
trip by meeting withfarmers and NIA officials.
Finally, official NlA records at central,
regional, and system offices were extensively
consulted. These secondary sources provided
valuable quantitative information about lAs,
FlOs, NIA personnel, and O&M issues.
Organizational Structure
Hall (1982) analyzes organizations by
dividing their characteristics into three broad
categories: structure, process, and environment.
Organizational structure, for instance, can be
examined by looking at size, complexity,
differentiation, formalization, and centralization.
FlOP's organizational structure is based on
the lAo The IA, in turn, is a confederation of
dillcrent TSAGs. HOf' explicitly accepts that
to the individual farmer, the TSAG maybe more
important and functional than the lA. NIA
clearlyrecognized that an IA corresponding to a
watermaster's division (500-750 ha) would be
too large for each farmer to voice directly his
individual concerns. Thus, TSA activities and
leaders take on greater importance and each
TSA has its own set of elected officers. For

instance, IA By-Laws and Articles of

Confederation are first discussed at the TSA,
not IA, level. Farmers mightnot directlyidentify
with their lA, but should feel a part of their
TSA,typieally about 30-50 ha.
As NIA watermasters' divisions usually
follow hydrological boundaries, the flOP
equation - one watermaster's division equals
one IA - is reallyan attempt to rationalizethe
IA structure along hydrological, rather than
political or geographical lines. Before flOP,
some lAs were based on political or
geographical boundaries (roads, barangays, etc.)
and were much smaller, typically about 250 ha.
FlOP has increased the lAs' size to 500-750 ha.
While NlA has gained better NIA-IA
coordination in O&M activities, it.has lessened
the farmers' sense of identification with the IA.
NIA has also encountered problems in
dealing with the old, pre-flOP lAs. flOP
policy states that already-existing lAs can
remain as they are, or they can choose to merge
with other older lAs, or with new flOP lAs.
Some NlA staff and lAs, however, have been
confusedby this policy and believe that old lAs
must merge with other lAs. This confusion has
resulted in some frustration for AIs wishing to
remain in their present size and shape.
Despite these problems, farmers have
generally reacted verypositively to the flOP lAs
and TSAs. Tarongoy and Tongcua (1989-90)
report specific farmer comments. One Region
10 TSA leader stated, "There is a big
difference....Our IA officers before were not so
active and we did not even know whom to
approach if there were problems." An assistant
TSA leader said, "The officers in our IA before
were the onlypersons whomwe could approach
if problemsarose, but now our TSA officers can
be approached if there are problems so that we
don't need to go to IA officers." Finally, a TSA
secretary stated that, "the IA is is better than

FARMERS ORGANIZING

FA~ERS

before if it will continue. Because before there

wasno cooperationbut as Xobserved in thisnew
][A especially in the TSA level, there is already
cooperationin canalcleaning. "

FlOP has also altered the way the lA's

BOD Is elected. BeforeFlOP, many lAs would
choose their BOD by calling for a general
assembly of all farmers, and electing the BOD
members at-large. In principle, this meant that
all BOD memberscould come from one area of
thelIA.
Under FlOP, each electedTSAG chairman
is automatically a member of the BOD. These
chairmenthen elect the IA officers from among
themselves. As the TSAGs are distributed
throughout the lA, from upstream to
downstream, this ensures that all hydrological
areas of the IA will be representedon the BOD.
][A
membership
became
another
contentious issue in FlOP. NYAA encourages
lon percent membership, others could only
generate 37percent membership. In those areas
where membership was low, poor irrigation
service was blamed for low IA membership.
Some farmers said that FlOP lAs were simply
another government organization that would
soon deteriorate ("ningas cogon"). Even FlOs
admitted that theyweresometimes embarrassed
and reluctant to urge fanners to join the IA due
to perceived government "unfulfilled promises"
(Davidet aI. 1991).

Some other factors which affected the

membership campaign included: (1) the number
of farms in the watermaster's division; (2) the
size of their farms; and (3) the effort exerted by
NIA personnel. Smaller divisions with smaller
land-holdings wheremostof the farmers actually
lived within the division generally meant that IA
membership was higher (David ct aI. 1991).

37

Organlzatlona] Processes
One of the defining elements of FlOP was
its very deliberate emphasis on processes. If
FlOP emphasized organizational structure
throughthe lA, it stressed processes through the
FIOP organizing process, including the roles
and functions of the various flOP actors,
meetings, and communication.
The FlOP organizing process described
earlier was a detailed time-bounded blueprint
developed by NIA after months of discussions.
One of the key findings of the process
documentation research was that the planned
FlOP activities were often quite different from
the actualactivities.
Variations in both the time required and
activities of the FlOP organizing process were
noted. While the organizing process was
originally planned to take one year, the data
indicated that none of the sampIe lAs
completed the processin a year.
While some activities took more time than
planned, some took less. Magallanes et al.
(1991) point out that some FlOP process
documentation research in Northern Mindanao
indicates that many TSAs elected their officers
too soon. Therefore, the fanners did not aJIow
the TSA ad-hoc committees the time to fully
function. They did not allow sufficient time for
the identified potential leaders to demonstrate
their long-term interestand commitment.
The functions and roles played by farmers
and NIA officials were another important
FlOP process. Virtually all sources reported
that flO selection was done too hurriedly, and
with too little knowledge of what the program
required. For instance, NIA water masters
initially recruited the FIOs in their respective
divisions, before the watermasters themselves

38

were fully familiar with FlOP. The selection of

lFlIOs has been given the lowest rating of all
JFJlOP activities in ROP evaluation workshops.
Too many of the lFlIOs either left the program or
performed only perfunctorily.
To remedy this situation, NIA has re-issued
lFlIO selection criteria, given NIA staff additional
time to identify and select potential FIOs, and
now requires that watermasters first receive
their AO supervisory training before FlO
recruitment begins.
The actual role of the Flf) was alwaysseen
as an organizer. Some HOs spoke of the hard
work and patience involved in this role. An flO
in Bicol said, "..being an FlO is not that easy as
what he thought" [Vifias et al. 1989). Other
FIOs described their role very well, as "...."it
means that your IA can stand alene; the officers
are responsible enough because they do not
need FlOs..." (Vinas et al. 1989). An IDO
correctly described the FIOs' role as "...you will
not direct but you will only whisper" (Vinas et
al.1989).
Sometimes, however, the flO would
become more of a leader, a task that should be
performed by the IA BOD and IA officers. As
FIOs cannot become formal TSAor IA leaders,
it is necessary to better define the difference
between an organizer and a leader.
Some farmers expected the FIOs to do the
work of the TSNIA leaders because the farmers
knew that the FIOs were receiving a monthly
allowance of P500 for one year (David et al.
1991). Still other farmers participated in O&M
activities, e.g., canal maintenance, only when an
JFIO organized the activity, not when a TSNIA
leader intervened. These farmers reasoned that
since the FIOs received an allowance, they were
more "official" than the TSNIA leaders
(Magallanes et al. 1991).

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

The role of the NIA watermaster was fairly

well-defined in flOP. He was to be the ADs'
supervisor, in his division and the more
educated watermaster performed this role very
well. They effectively combined O&M with
institutional concerns. Older, more traditional
watermasters, however, had more difficulty
adapting to their new roles.
Additionally, most watermasters had to
continue their O&M work during FlOP, even
though NIA officially designated them as fulltime FIO supervisors for one year. Assistant
watermasters or NIA ditchtenders were to take
over the O&M functions. Korten (1989),
however, cautions that organizational change is
often not due to "stroke of the pen" decisions
made by a central office directive. Indeed,
when watermasters were able to shed their
O&M activities for the year, problems would
sometimes result. In at least one case NIA
ditchtenders were not able to properly clean
canals because they said they were appointed
acting watermasters and had no time for canal
cleaning (Vinas et. al. 1989).
The IDOs' role was never properly defmed
in flOP. As NIA's original organizers and
catalyst agents, they were asked to be the
"institutional advisors" of flOP. Ultimately, the
IDO's took over many of the watermasters'
institutional
tasks, particularly where the
watermasters were not actively integrated into
FlOP. The IDOs would often guide and prod
the FlOs and IA leaders, in addition to helping
in the more complex administrative tasks of
SEC registration and NIA-IA contracting.
Although' most close observers of flOP
recognize that the IDOs played a far more vital
role in flOP than originally planned, their long
term future at NIA is currently uncertain.
Many of the key actors in FlOP did share a
common characteristic - dependency. For the
first five or' six months of FlOP, many FIOs

FARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

were dependent on watermasters and mos.

The watermasters also depended on the
institution-building skills
of the mos.
Conversely, the TSNIA leaders would depend
on the FIOs to call meetings and coordinate with

MA.

This dependency might be expected. As in

any new program, participants will initially feel
uncertain of their roles and newly acquired
skills. Nevertheless, continued
dependency
could harm flOP's ultimate goal - building
strong, viable lAs that contribute to improved
O&M.
By the end of 1990, this dependency was
much reduced, but still existing. NJA personnel
from the central and regional offices make a
conscious effort to urge each FlOP implementor
to strive for autonomy and independence. One
positive result of this de pendency syndrome was
to reform the watermasters and IOOs into a
supervising team. Although the watermaster will
continue as the nominal FlO supervisor, the
IOOs and watermasters will now share the
O&M and institutional duties ofFIOP.
Another important aspect of flOP
processes was periodic TSA and IA meetings.
lFlOP originally envisioned bi-weekly TSA
meetings and monthly BOD meetings. The large
number of meetings was designed not only to
exchange information, make decisions, and solve
problems, but also as a means to guarantee
maximum
participation.
The
meetings,
therefore, were planned not only as ends, but
also as a means.
Unfortunately, many of these meetings
never materialized, primarily due to poor
planning and attendance. FIOs and TSA leaders
would call for meetings and a few farmers would
attend, but more often than not, a quorum
would not be reached and the meeting would be
postponed.

39

Volante et al. (1990) and Vinas et al, (1990)

present some reasons for poor attendance: (1)
farmers believe that the lIAs will be another
short-lived government organization; (2) farmers
give priority to their main economic activities
and are often busy in their fields; and (3)
farmers reside far from the meeting place. David!
et al. (1991) report that poor attendance is due
to the same factors reducing ][A membership perceived poor irrigation service by MA.
Region 6 process documenters report that
farmers say they will attend meetings when they
see tangible improvements in their irrigation.
For instance, when NIA sent a backhoe to desilt
a canal near one TSA, attendance at TSA
meetings improved.
Both FlOs and David et al. (1991) further
report that when FIOs did more intensive
ground-working and water masters intensively
monitored FlOP activities, attendance at
meetings improved.
Region 10 had a different approach to
scheduling meetings. Magallanes et al. (1991)
and Tarongoy and Tongcua (1990) report that
TSA leaders will only meet when there is a
major problem or issue to be discussed. Rather
than follow a rigid meeting schedule, these
farmers decided that emerging issues of concern
would fIX the schedule of meetings, not the other
way around. Other Region 10 'fSAs would
simply hold informal meetings right after a canal
cleaning.
When meetings were held, however, the
communication process between scattered
farmers, and between farmers and NllA,
improved dramatically. flOP sought to shorten
the communication lines between NIA and
farmers. The FlOs and the TSNIA leaders
could act as a bridge or link between NIA and
farmers.

40

PI-I1LIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

David et aI. (1991) and Canoso et al. (1990)

provide vivid observations of NIA engineers
attending TSA and IA meetings to work with
farmers to solve O&M problems. The
communication process also helped to change
farmer behavior. David et al. (1991) report that
farmers in Region 6 complained to NIA about
an unmaintained farm ditch. NIA engineers
explained to the farmer that it was the ISA's
responsibility to maintain that area, a rule the
farmers did not know. The TSAS then began to
clean the farm ditch them selves.
Similarly, during a Region 6 BOD meeting
on April 26, 1990, the IS agreed to the farmers'
request to include a drainage ditch when he
began de-silting. When BOD meetings were
held to discuss specific, important issues, and
both NIA and BOD members attended, farmers
often benefited.
Organlzatlonal Environment
FlOP was influenced by both the
institutional and physical environment. In the
institutional environment both land-holding
patterns and government bureaucracy had an
impact on FlOP.
Initially, a major concern of flOP was how
the program would function in areas with large
landowners and many tenants. Unanswered
questions included whether a tenant could
become an IA member and whether an FlO,
who is just a "middle-class" farmer, could
effectively organize lands owned by powerful
landowners. Under these conditions, some
suggested that TOOs, as external government
employees, would be better organizers.
The question of who can become an IA
member was answered early in flOP when NIA
decided that the actual "tillers of the land"
would
become IA
members,
whether
landowners or not. Some areas, however, added

the caveat that tenants could become IA

members as long as the landowner had no
objections (Magallanes et al, 1991). In any case,
there were very few reports of IA membership
problems between tenants and landowners.
The second concern - FlOs' effectiveness
with large landowners - was also successfully
resolved. In Bicol, FlOs initially reported that
large landowners were not cooperative. When
NIA directly contacted the large landowners
and their overseers, however, the landowners
and overseers said that no one had ever
contacted them about organizing an IA. They
said they had no objections to forming an IA
in their area (Vinas et. al. 1989; Volante et. al.
1990).
In Region 6 there were reports that at night
large landowners with bodyguards would
re-direct the irrigation water to their farms.
(Even small, landless farmers, however, can and
have tampered with systems O&M.) JOOs,
however, reported that even the large
landowners of Negros Occidental did not
directly interfere with flOP. The JOOs in
Region 6 said that if there were any problems
with FIOs and large landowners the JOO,
watermaster, and FfO would approach the
landowners as an organizing team. Though the
FlO alone, therefore, may have problems with
large landowners, flOP provided enough
flexibility to overcome potential constraints.
A more intractable problem with flOP's
institutional environment was government
bureaucracy. Like any other development
project, FlOP required funding for salaries,
trainings, workshops, and minor repairs. The
efficient and timely now of funds, however, was
absent in FlOP.
Present bureaucratic arrangements in the
Philippines require that the donor (USAJO)
first eommit the money to the overall AAP

41

FARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

Project Then USAID deposits the funding in

the Philippines Bureau of Treasury, which
transfer the funds to the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM), and then to the
Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), and finally to NIA NJA's central
office then releasesthe funds to the field offices.
This process would take months and the entire
FlO program would have to halt while waiting
for funds fromManila.
In the 'relatively short two-year history of
flOP, the program suffered delayed salaries,
canceled trainings, and very late minor repairs.
FIOs and NIA personnel lost their credibility
when they assured farmers that allowances,
workshops, and irrigation system physical
improvements were forthcoming only to have
these activities delayed for months, sometimes
up to a year.
The funding levels in FlOP were more than
adequate to support all flOP activities. The
difficulty was moving the money through the
system. Though Max Weber described an ideal
type of bureaucracy producing efficiency and
reliability, flOP only experienced bureaucratic
obfuscation, frustration, and delays.
Bureaucratic
problems
of
other
organization levels further hindred flOP. SEC
registration procedures produced only
confusion among farmers and NIA staff. The
process documentation reports vividly describe
the difficulties that JA leaders and IDOs had in
registering a new IA with SEC. (SEC
registrationis necessary before an IA can sign a
NIA-IA
contract.)
SEC
registration
requirements were changed, papers were lost in
the mail with no accountability, and NJA
personnel made long frustrating trips across
provinces in an effort to follow rulesthat seemed
to change from office to office. The result was
that an activity that originally was scheduled to

take two weeks ended up taking a minimum of

sixmonths.
Bureaucratic problems also came up at the
IA level. For instance, in Bicola TSA chairman
complained to a local NJA official that another
farmer had partially destroyed a main farm
ditch. The NIA official advised the TSA leader
to make a written complaint to the 1A.The TSA
leader correctlypointed out that this wouldtake
too long; he needed JA assistance right away. In
this case, even the IA bureaucracy could not
provide efficient assistance.
The physical environment also playeda part
in FlOP. As in any other agricultural
development project, muchof FlOP can onlybe
implemented duringseasonal "windows," Minor
repairs, for instance, are only feasible during the
dry season. Even a brief delay in minor repairs
funds, therefore, can translate into an additional
six months delay if the wet season intervenes.
For instance, in Region 6 minor repairs planned
with farmers in 1989 were placed in the 1990
budget, originally planned for release in January
1990. The actual funding release, however, was
delayed until June 1990, after the wetseasonhad
begun.These minor repairs, therefore, had to be
delayed until December 1990-January 1991.
The 1990 drought in Region 6 also affected
FlOP. Due to the critical water situation,
farmerswere evenmore demanding of the newly
formed TSAGs and lAs. When FlOP activities
(trainings, minor repairs) were delayed by
bureaucratic factors, the drought contributed to
an even greater sense of frustration among the
farmers. This in turn led to previously discussed
problems with IA membership and aLLendance
at meetings.
IFHOP and! O&MI activities

As mentioned previously, poor O&M in the

irrigation systems discouraged the formation

42

and activities ofTSAs and lAs. Nevertheless, the

FlOP could boast of some significant
accomplishments in improving O&M.
In Region 5, Vinas et a1. (1990) report that
after a number of coordination meetings
between NIA and TSAGs, scarce water was
deliveredto the downstream portion of the IA in
January 1990. The downstream farmers were
pleasedwiththis performance and eventhe local
NIA personnelprovedto themselves that closely
monitored water could reach most farmers in
the area. This successful water distribution also
showed that NXA ditchtenders could and would
keep promises made to farmers at TSA
meetings.

lin Region 6, Castillon et a1. (1990) writethat

in May 1990, the lA president and BOD
prepared a water distribution plan for the entire
division. In June, that plan was relayed to the
farmers during the TSA meetings, where NIA
personnel also attended. Although the actual
implementation of the plan encountered some
problems, both farmers and NIA staff learned
important
lessons
in developing
a
comprehensive water distnbution plan,
disseminating that plan, and then implementing
it.
Similarly, in Region 10 the IA and NIA
developeda water delivery and distribution plan
and successfully implemented it in May-June
1990. The distribution plan provided reliable
and equitable - if not adequate - water to
aU portions of the lA. Earlier, NIA had
announced a water cut-off date to complete
their irrigation, and NIA agreed.
Certainly FlOP did not provide O&M
miracles to the farmers, and some water
distribution plans went awry. Despite
groundworking, adjustments, and water
scheduling, FlOs still encountered discontent,
quarrels,and misunderstandings.

PIIILlPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

In another Region 6 site, FIOs developed a

water distribution plan but once implemented,
the water could not reach all farmers. A
frustrated flO complained, ''Without water
flOP will fail!" (de la Cruz et aI. 1990). The
accompanying NIA ditchtender, however, said
that the plan was at least a partial success. He
felt that the water would not have even reached
where it did without the plan developed by the
FlOs and the NIA watermaster.
FIOP seemed to be particularly successful
in promoting maintenance and minor
construction activities. In Bicol, the FIOs and
TSA leaders were able to initiate a number of
"rabus" (free labor) activities. In one instance,
Vinas et a1. (1990) report that in four hours of
work, 15 farmers were able to construct a 200
meter canal.
In the Region 6 sites, NIA and the IA
extensively planneda canal de-silting activity for
June :990. Castillon et a1. (1990) report that 60
farmers representing 10 16 TSAs, 12 BOD
members, two FlOs, and one ditchtender
workedfor three days dcsilting a canal.Though
the farmers later complained that they needed
more guidance and assistance from NIA, it was
still an impressive accomplishment.
The IA documented in Region 10 adopted
a slightly different approach to maintenance.
There, some TSAsrecruited their ownmembers
for labor, while other TSAs paid a farmer to act
as a "canal tender" and clean the TSA's
assigned area. The canal tender's salary came
from the financial incentives that the IA and
TSAs received from their NIA-IA maintenance
contract. This kind of specialized stall for
maintenance is explicitly addressed by Freeman
(1989). Yet even where the farmers themselves
cleaned the canals, they attained 90 percent
attendance, though these farmers were paid a
small amount for their labor.

fARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

Lessens ~!lllI'llllecllli'lI'omm lFITOIP'

NXA considers FIOP a success. Since 1989,

it has successfully trained and deployed
thousands of FIOs and helped to build and
strengthen lIAs covering hundreds of thousands
of hectares. NIA has plans to extend the
programinto additional areas through the 199Os.
Yet FIOP was not without problems. It
failed to achieve all of its objectives and could
have been an even more successful program.
The key question is whether the program
implementors have learned from these
problems.

Below are listed some critical lessons

learnedfromFlOP.
1. The present bureaucracy is not designed
for development. It is designed for
regulation.
When a bureaucracyis involved in dcvelopment, the central office should
minimize its supervision and maximize
its support of field activities. The
present sets of bureaucracies still
maintain too much exclusive supervision
and decision-making, leaving field
implementors with much responsibility
but littleauthority.
An efficient bureaucracy designed for
development should provide general
guidance, monitor activities, obtain and
allocate resources, and establish
priorities. 1'0 the extent that the
bureaucracy reduces its support
functions, but retains its regulatory and
supervisory activities, development is
hurt.
2. For smooth program implementation,
ensure that tile essential components
particularly funding - are in place in
advance.

43

If a crucial element is lacking at a

critical time, the entire program can be
hurt. If the bureaucracy is not prepared
to supplythose essential components, it
isbetter to delayoverall implementation
rather thanbcgin the program and later
be forced to back off commitments to
farmers. flOP's inability to provide
timely funding releases meant that
important activities had to be delayed or
cancelled. NIA's credibility wasseverely
damaged and many farmers rationally
leftthe program.
3. Localorganizations musthave a specific
purpose tofunction effectively, and local
people need to.know and believe in that
purpose.
It is difficult to build and sustain a
successful local organization that has
meetings only for the sake of having
meetings, and forms committees simply
to maximize farmer participation.
Important as participation in meetings
and committees is, just as critical is
giving a practical meaning and purpose
to thosemeetings and committees.
4. Implementors should not be dogmatic
about aparticular organizingprocess.
One should keep in mind the final goal
of the process, but attempt alternative
organizing processes if severe problems
occur. Some general guiding principles
should be presented - e.g., avoid
dependency, encourage autonomy and
independence - but the organizing
process should be a guidebook, never a
strait-jacket,
5. Make sure that all participants in the
organizing process have clear roles and
that all implementors' talents are fully
used.
Both farmers and government officials
need their rolesclearly defined, not only

PlJILlPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

44

to ensure smooth implementation, but

also to avoid dependency between
participants.
6. Do not underestimate local fanners'
enthusiasm for panicipating in a
development program if the goals,
organizin& and processes are well
thought-out andimplemented
NIA took a significant risk in implementing
FlOP on such a massive scale in such a short
period of time. The spread and breadth of
FlOP's implementation is quite impressive. The
program has challenged some conventional
assumptions about rural development, while
confirming others. The program seeks to
maximize farmers' participationin both the local
organization's structure and processes. It has
taken farmers' participation and local
organization-building to a new level. The real
challenge for the future remains the continual
adaptation of FlOP to changing circumstances,
and NIA's willingness of accept those changes.

References
Bagadion, Benjamin U.
1989 The Evolution of the Policy Context: An Historical Overview. In
Transforming a Bureaucracy, The
Experience of the Philippine
National Irrigation Administration. Francis F. Korten and
Robert Y. Siy, eds. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University
Press.pp. 1-19.
Castillon, Jonan B' I DZ Q. Partiarca,Peter V.

Canoso, and FelyP. David

1989-199{) SSRI-Process Documentation
Resoo~hontheN~-AAPflOP

in Division III of theSuague River

lnigation System in theProvince of
Iloilo. Iloilo City: Social Science

Research Institute,
Philippines University.

Central

de la Cruz,Gena, MarimelT. Hortillosa,Peter

V. Canoso, and FelyP. David
1989-1990 SSRl-Process Documentation
on the N~-AAP FlOPin Division
VI of the Ialaur River lnigation
System in the Province of Iloilo.
Iloi/o City: Social Science
Research
Institute, Central
Philippine University.
David, FelyP., Peter V. Canoso, Jonon B.
Castillon, Gena S. de la Cruz,MarimelT.
Hortillosa, and DZ Q. Patriarca
1991
The Fanner Irrigators Organizing
Program (flOP) in National
Irrigation Systems: The IalauarSuague River Irrigation System
Experience. Iloilo City: Social
Science Research Institute,
Central Philippine University.
Ehera, Ted I. and W. Robert Laitos
1988
Project Paper: AAP-flOP For
.Nationall Imgation Systems of
Regions 5, 6, and 10. Quezon
City: NIA.
Freeman,DavidM.
1989
Local Organizations for Social
Development, Concepts and Cases
of Irrigation. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Gonzales, Leonardo S., MarcelinoS.Santos
and AlbertoS. Mendoza
1988
Operation and Management of a
Pump Imgation System, Fanner
Irrigator OrganizingProject (flOP)
Experience. Quezon City: NIA.
Hall,Richard H.
1982 Organizations: Structure and Process. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
Inc.

fARMERS ORGANIZING FARMERS

Illo,Jeanne Frances X. and Jesus R. Volante

1984
Organizing Fanners for Communal Irrigation Operation and
Maintenance in the Aslong and
Taisan Irrigation Systems. Naga
City: Research and Service
Center, Ateneo de Naga
University.
Jopillo,Sylvia Ma. G.
1985 Developing Communal Imgators'
Association, A Case Study of the
Siwaragan Project. Quezon City:
Institute of Philippine Culture,
Ateneo de Manila University.
Kortcn, Francis
1982
Building National Capacity to
Develop Water Users' Associations: Experience from the
Philippines. World Bank Staff
WorkingPaper No. 528.
1989

The Working Group as a Catalyst

for Organizational Change, In
Transforming a Bureaucracy, The
Experience oj the Philippine
National Irrigation
Administration. Francis F. Kortcn and
Robert Y. Siy, eds. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University
Press. pp. 61-80.

_ _ and Robert Y. Siy(eds.)

1989 Transforming a Bureaucracy, The
Experience of the Philippine
National Irrigation Administration. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
Laitos,W. Robert and AvelineM. Mejia
1989 Operationalizing Effective Farmer
Involvement
in
Irrigation
Rchabilitatio.iProjects: Principles

45

and Procedures from the

Philippines. Paper presented at
the Asian Regional Symposium
on the Modernization and
Rehabilitation of Irrigation and
Drainage Schemes, sponsored by
Hydraulics Research, Asian
and
Development
Bank,
NIACONSULT, held at the
Development Academy of the
Philippines, February 13-15, 1989.
Laitos,W. Robert
1989
Process Documentation and Action Research: Evaluation of the
NTA Experience.Paper presented
at the Second International
Seminar on Farmer's Participation in Irrigation Development,
sponsored by NIA-CONSULT
and the Ford Foundation, Manila,
November5-13,1989.
Magallanes, Josefino M., MaybelTarongoyand
Glenda Tongcua
1991
Process Documentation Research
on AAP-FIOP Program, Division
4, PulanguiRiver Irrigation System,
NIA-Region
X,
Valencia,
Bukidnon,
Misamis Oriental.
Cagayan de Oro City: Institute of
Market Analysis and Rural
Development,
College
of
Agriculture, Xavier University.
Pintor, Eleanor M. and CM. Wijayaratna
1990
Preliminary Findings oj Process
Documentation
Research: A
Synthesis. Paper presented at the
Accelerated Agricultural Production Project Planning Workshop,
November 19-21, 1990. Quezon
City: IIMI.

PHILIPPINE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

46

de los Reyes, Romana P.

1989
Development of Process Documentation Research. InA Decade

of
Process
Documentation
Research,
Reflections
and
Synthesis. Cynthia C. Veneracion,

of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de

Manila University.
1989

A Tradition of Collective Action:

Farmers and Irrigation in the
Philippines. In Transfonning a

Bureaucracy, The Experience of the

Philippine National Irrigation
Administration. Francis F. Konen
and Robert Y. Siy, eds .Quezon
City:
Ateneo
de
Manila
University Press. pp. 20-30.
Tarongoy, Maybc1 and Glenda Tongcua
1989-1990 Process Monitoring Research,
Division 4, Pulangui River
Irrigation
System, Valencia,
Bukidnon, Cagayan de Oro City:
Xavier University.
Veneracion, Cynthia C., ed.
1989
A Decade of Process Documentation Research, Reflections and
Synthesis. Quezon City: Institute

Nature and Uses of Process

Documentation Research. In

A Decade ofProcess Documentation

Research,
Reflections
and
Synthesis. Cynthia C. Veneracion;

ed. Quezon City: Institute of

Philippine Culture, Ateneo de
Manila University. pp. 21-44.
Siy,Robert
1989

ed. Quezon City: Institute of

Philippine Culture, Ateneo de
Manila University. Pp.87-104.
Vinas, Virginia Q., Dinah C. Ramoso, and Jesus

R. Volante
1989-1990 RSC-OIMI-NIA Documentation Research on FlOP in the
Cagayacay RiverIrrigation System in
Camarines Sur. Naga City:
Research and Service Center,
Atcneo de Naga University.
Volante, Jesus R., Virginia Q. Vinas, and Dinah
C.Ramoso

1990

Fanners Organizing Fanners, The

Fanner Irrigators Organizing
System Program (FlOP) in the
Cagayacay River Irrigation System
in Camarines Sur. Naga City:
Research and Service Center,
Ateneo de Naga University.