Impact of Bohol Irrigation System Project Phase 2 (BIS II) on Rice Farming

typical rainfed rice farm irrigated rice fields

Introduction
This project evaluates the impact of Bohol Irrigation Project (Phase 2) and draws implications for a greater and sustainable impact for the future. The irrigation system is a gravity irrigation system consisting of a reservoir dam (Bayongan dam), a main canal, secondary canals or laterals, turnouts, and farm ditches. Different from other ordinary systems in the country, all canals and laterals are lined, every turnout has a concrete structure, and most of the turnouts have a steel spindle gate in this system. Similar to the other systems, farm ditches are earth canals.

Objectives of the study

(1) To evaluate the impact of a Bohol irrigated system irrigation development project on rice farmers and; (2) To compare differences in water access as well as differences in project outcomes between different groups of farmers

Methodology
Project data was collected through a series of household-level and TSA-level surveys (the later collected only in irrigated area) The project covered four periods and one baseline period for irrigated rice farmers (note: period 2 was drought and period 4 was flood).

drought
09 20 0 ay 01 M ct r2 O 10 20 0 ay 01 M ct r2 O

flood
800 v2 09 No r20 Ap

Major Findings

800 v2 09 No r20 Ap

irrigation season

800 v2 09 No r20 Ap

Lateral (secondary) canal

Bayongan dam

Spindle gates along main canals

(1) Impact of the irrigation project The irrigation project transformed rice farming from traditional style to high input high return system, resulting to higher and more stable rice income of irrigated farmers than their counter factual rainfed farmers.
Yield of irrigated rice farmers is about twice as high as that of rainfed rice farmers (2.4 t/ha/season vs. 1.2 t/ha/season of dry paddy). Irrigated rice farmers use about 1.5 times more chemical fertilizer than rainfed farmers do and have started using hybrid varieties
yield 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

(2) Equitable water access and project outcomes among irrigated farmers Results from comparison in differences in water access as well as differences in project outcomes between different groups of farmers are as follows (This attempt
is an examination of ex-post equity which does not necessarily indicate wether changes are equal between groups): There is no statistical difference in water access as well as key outcomes (i.e. yield, income, asset value, etc) along the main canal. The main canal is properly design and constructed to the extent of irrigating a current service area of about 2,600 hectares and NIA has properly handled maintenance and management of the facilities. We find no strong evidence of differences in water access, and outcomes against small landholders, asset non-rich farmers, non-owner cultivators, and female-headed households. There are disadvantages in water access and yield in the rice farmers on from the downstream portion of the lateral (secondary) canals. Stricter water rotation by IA is crucial. Upstream parcels within a TSA achieve higher rice income per hectare by taking advantage of hydrological privilege, particularly in a drought season. Stricter water rotation by TSA is crucial. There is possible disadvantage against land reform beneficiaries due to their weak social position relative to their ex-landlords who sometimes try to acquire water as their vested interest. Further study can be made to investigate this matter.

yield
60

Kilogram of nitrogen per hectare

2 Period
Irrigated Rainfed Inside FS

3
SE SE

30 1

kgnha 40 50

Period
Irrigated Rainfed Inside FS

3
SE SE

Irrigated rice farmers achieved about 2.4 times higher rice income than that of the rainfed rice farmers. Risk against drought was reduced. Irrigated rice farmers income did not go down in the drought season (2009November - 2010April) as much as rainfed rice farmers suffered. However, in the project area, irrigated farmers suffered a negative shock of flood (2010November 2011April). Irrigated rice farmers achieved higher and more stable income (except in the flood season), which contributed to faster growth of household assets.
Household income per cap
hh_income_cap 8000 10000 12000 14000 total_asset_cap 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Conclusion
The Bohol Irrigation Project (Phase 2) substantially improved the livelihood of the beneficiary farmers by enabling them to earn higher and more stable income from rice production than the counterfactual rainfed farmers. To achieve equitable outcomes within the system, role of IAs and TSAs for equitable water rotation are crucially important.

Total asset per cap

6000

Period
Irrigated Rainfed Inside FS

3
SE SE

Period
Irrigated Rainfed Inside FS

3
SE SE

Rainfed rice farmers have non-agricultural sources of income and earn higher from these sources compared to irrigated rice farmers, which made the income gap among the two groups smaller.

IRRI Bohol Project Team: Kei Kajisa, Shigeki Yokoyama, Pie Moya, Ed Mendez, Lolit Garcia, Shiela Valencia, Vicky R odr i g u ez , E lm er S u az & N eal e P agu ir ig an